Movie Critics and Insanity

By: Reach for the Sky

This is ridiculous. Granted, Clash of the Titans (2010) was not Oliver Twist, but it certainly wasn't 3 out of 10 material. The effects were stunning, the action was good, and the dialogue was, I'm fairly certain, intentionally funny. The Box Office agrees with me, and while I certainly don't think that is an indicator of quality, it does support the idea that the movie was at least somewhat enjoyable. I have to wonder what scale the critics are going by, as Lightning Thief, the worst movie I've seen this year, got a 50%, which I feel would be appropriate if I was using my "family-movie" scale*. This kind of discrepancy makes me wonder if critics are holding movies to different standards. I feel it is important to point out the "An Education", which is paying for advertising on Rotten Tomatoes, is also the current "Certified Fresh Pick". Now I'm not saying that Rotten Tomatoes is selling review scores, I'm just saying that Rotten Tomatoes is so obviously selling review scores possibly a little biased against movies that aren't intellectually stimulating**.

Other scores that seem incredibly uncalled for
Cop Out: 19%
The Book of Eli: 45%
Drag Me to Hell: 92%

Let me talk a little about that last one. Drag Me to Hell is hands down the worst movie I've ever seen. It's idea of "horror" is screaming "boo!" through a megaphone while wearing a cheap monster mask, then vomiting on you. There was one part of the movie that literally pulled the film equivalent of the "screamer" prank, lulling the audience and then suddenly throwing up a warped face while cranking the volume to insane volumes. It was disgusting, but in a sleazy, tasteless way***. It almost succeeded as a dark comedy, except I don't think the humor that emerged was even remotely intentional. Critics snorted it like crack, though, Rotten Tomatoes is completely objective, after all. I don't think I can go by what critics say any longer, and I strongly suggest to anyone reading this that they do the same.

*As it were I was using my "this cast makes me want to eat children" scale.

**One thing I think got CotT a bad score was how far it tore apart the original mythology surrounding Perseus, which in my opinion just made it more interesting and original.

***Yes, there is a "proper" way to draw revulsion from an audience, it's what made Saw, which was awarded 47% by the way, so successful.

Avatar vs. District 9

By: Reach for The Sky

Spoilers ahead

It seems as though I'm a bit late to the party here. Everyone seems to have formed their opinions about Avatar without my often under appreciated input, and the general consensus seems to be: "Greatest Movie Evar". But how great is it really? When you really break down the movie into its clockwork, it's individual components, can it stand up to the other big Sc-ifi blockbuster of 2009, District 9. Let's get the most blatant issue out of the way...

Special Effects

This isn't as obvious as it may seem. You might think that with almost eight times the budget of D9, Avatar would easily have them stomped. It really all depends, however, on what your looking for in effects. Personally, I like it when they don't completely tear the immersion away in a movie. I could never really get into Pandora like I was in to District 9. The exotic flora and fauna, the bizarre creatures, and the futuristic weapons looked cool, but they took me out of the setting and placed me firmly in the theater. When someone was vaporized in district 9, they went the extra mile in making sure it looked believable, and the end result was me, leaning forward in excitement, throughout the movie. I understand Avatar was supposed to be fantastic, but it didn't pull me in the way D9 did.

Plot

Not a lot to say here. I found the story of District 9 to be gripping and suspenseful. In Avatar, it felt like an excuse to cut to the action sequences and special effects showcases. It was incredibly predictable and almost childish at times. The dialogue was unremarkable. D9 simply took its writing seriously and Avatar did not. Although I have to admit, D9 practically cheated with its documentary-style storytelling. I would hold it against them if it hadn't been implemented perfectly.

Themes

I still can't figure out exactly what Avatar was trying to say. Corporations are bad? Imperialistic expansion is wrong? Religion is dying? Save the rain forest? Blue cat love? It's like they forgot to trim down the white board at a pitch meeting. It tries to cover a huge amount of topics, and ends up not really covering any of them. It doesn't really have a central message, which is odd for a movie that practically had it's characters look directly at the camera to deliver the writers' political tidbits (all 30 of them). D9 keeps it simple, stays focused on the Apartheid theme. It may just be a matter of staff size, more writers, the more design-by-committee shows through. D9 also gets points for keeping the themes from getting in the way of the absolutely awesome story.

Setting

I absolutely love Pandora. It's one of the biggest melting pots of creativity I've seen in a movie. District 9 had a good setting, but the shantytowns and urban sets can't compete with an awesome world generated almost entirely out of CGI. If Avatar had made the planet the focus of the movie instead of the bland characters and vague political messages, it could have been a lot better. Speaking of bland characters...

Casting

This is an absolute embarrassment on Avatar's part. It has been a long time since I have cared less about a group of protagonists. I have never been less affected by Michelle Rodriguez's death. I didn't even care when Sigourney Weaver died, which shouldn't even be possible. As of writing this, I can't even remember the main character's first name. District 9 did an incredible job with its casting, no mega-stars to break immersion, but no acting dunces to drag the movie down. Wikus is pretty much the most believable character I've ever seen. I haven't seen any of Sharlto Copley's movies before, but I can guarantee I won't miss another one.

Directing

Fine, fine, Avatar wins this one. D9 did a great job with its directing, but when James Cameron is involved, you can just go ahead and cancel that part of the Academy Awards. His directing really stands out in a movie where almost every other aspect is hilariously simple. Maybe that was his goal, to show he can turn a movie with terrible writing, bland acting, and immersion-breaking (although exciting) special effects into a massive success.

Giant Mechanical Suits

No contest here. Avatar's giant mechanical suits were lumbering, clumsy, and could be defeated with arrows and spears. D9's suit shot lighting, made people pop like water balloons, caught a missile, and also happened to be The One. Completely irrelevant to the quality of the movie, but important to point out none-the-less.

So there you have it. I'm not saying that District 9 is a better movie than Avatar*, but I feel like with a massive budget and an incredible director, it should have left D9 in the dust. All I can think about when I compare these two movies, is how sad it is that a movie like Avatar had this huge budget, and D9 is right there with it with a fraction of the cash behind it. If the writers, casters, and special effects artists of District 9 were given the resources available to the staff behind Avatar, They theoretically would have made something better than a Star Wars-Gone With the Wind crossover**.

*Just kidding, I totally am

** Star Winds? Don't bother, by the way, I've already submitted it for copyrights.