Of Mars & Men

So over the weekend I went to see 2 completely different movies: John Carter & Safe House.
The first, John Carter (henceforth known as JC) has been getting all sorts of mixed press. Apparently the movie has been on the cards for 100 years, with this year being a century since the first story by Edgar Rice Burroughs was published.
So in other words, it's the platinum jubilee of the character JC - he's been 'alive' for 40 years longer than the Queen has been on the throne. Fortunately Taylor Kitsch is much more pleasing on the eye than Her Majesty & he doesn't wave like someone's actually forcing him to, with a puppeteer's stick attached at the elbow.
Another fortunate thing about the movie is that Willem Dafoe's animated alien creature is far less scary-looking than he is in real life.
All in all the movie is 1 big great adventure & lots of fun. I keep seeing bad reviews for it where people say: "but it's not Avatar." Of course in my opinion, going to a movie entitled John Carter & looking for skinny blue people & Sigourney Weaver is a little daft.
Go watch John Carter & expect adventurous fun & the elements of classic Victorian sci-fi.

As for Safe House, it was filmed in Cape Town, of all places. So there are plenty of Souff Efrikan elements that'll keep you chuckling through the movie.
Basically, it's Denzel Washington in yet another one of his stereotypical roles, so expect to see him as you've never always seen him before! Ryan Reynolds on the other hand, manages to prove that he can act - after his annoying performance in Green Lantern.
Plot-wise it's predictable, right down to identity of the bad guy - the writers & directors have clearly taken a lot of cues from the Borne movies, including the gritty hand-held camera style.
On the whole, it was fun to watch, but I think that's because I kept chuckling at the local elements and how quickly & competently the police responded to crime scenes. Take out those amusing elements & I think I would've fallen asleep in the cinema, or resorted to throwing popcorn at my fellow movie-goers.
Also, watching Ryan Reynolds praat die taal is damn hilarious! But save Safe House for your dvd rental night & go watch John Carter on the big screen :-)

Spiderman Spiderman, does whatever a Batman can

So the first Spiderman movie was damn cool. It launched a whole new era for superhero movies. Spawning loads of copycats; some succeeding and some failing dismally, reminding us of those bygone days of cheesy comic book adaptations that no one took seriously at all - think George Clooney & Chris O'Donnel's bad chemistry and Uma Thurman's appalling attempt at Poison Ivy.
Of course, we all waited with bated breath for the second Spiderman movie, which turned out pretty dismal. Of the third attempt very little can be said, suffice to say that I think a goat herder in outer Mongolia could produce a more interesting movie.

I used to enjoy Spiderman cartoons as a kid, but the novelty wore off for me eventually. I think it was Mary Jane who was responsible for my diminishing interest. I found her pretty annoying in the long run & I had hoped that they would redeem her in the movies.
They didn't.
In fact, they seem to have exasperated the annoyance factor by playing up the fickle "I'm a blond idiot who can't decide on something & stick to it" trait.
So in all, the first Spidey movie received much acclaim, setting up audiences for what they hoped would be a sound set of sequels. But alas, the movies fell short of the fans' dreams. Way short.

Introducing: the relaunched Batman movie franchise.
Well-directed movies showcasing the gritty, dark reality side of Batman's alter-ego Bruce Wayne & the fact that being a superhero isn't about spandex, hot chicks & over-the-top villains. (Yes, I know the Spidey movies tried that too, but they just didn't get the formula right)
In short: the Batman movies worked because they were believable, well cast & weren't directed like one very long music video.

And so, now that DC Comics have kicked some serious ass with their relaunched franchise, Marvel are attempting to redeem themselves again by "relaunching" the Spiderman movie franchise.
Personally I think they're trying to torture us even further with Mary Jane, but that's just my opinion...
They've "fired" main star Toby Maguire & Sam Raimi, the director, so I guess we'll see who they chose to torture us with next.
Oh yeah, and following the major success of Avatar, Spiderman 4 will apparently be in 3D. So now you'll get to see Mary Jane whine in 3 dimensions.
Great.
Fortunately we can breathe easy for a while - the release is set for July 2012.
Unfortunately, we'll probably have to watch Zac Efron or one of the Jonas brothers squirt webs out of their wrists...

Go see Avatar now!

If you haven't seen Avatar yet, get off your butt & see it now! And if you've already seen it, go & see it again. And if you've already seen it twice, go & see it in 3d!
It is 162 minutes of stunningly beautiful escapism that will go down in history as a landmark in the evolution of cinema and computer animation.
So far the film has grossed a total of $1.424 billion, and for good reason.
Almost every frame is a work of art and there are so many scenes that simply take your breath away.
Plot-wise, the film is nothing special. We have scene this story hundreds of times:
In the midst of a clash of different civilisations, an individual crosses over and finds himself protecting the very people he was sent to destroy.
Normally I would be groaning about how predictable the plot is and that the journey to the conclusion was a boring one, peppered with painfully obvious steps and methods.
As a viewer, I enjoy being surprised, and if a movie can take me through a good plot, develop some good characters and surprise me, then I am thrilled at the end of it.
While you do know what is coming in Avatar, there's still some guesswork involved because the world is so alien and unlike anything you would consider normal.
It's the world and the environment that truly makes this movie spectacular, because James Cameron has displayed its nuances & characteristics to us, immersing our senses in it by paying such acute attention to detail.
The motion capture is incredible, but the biggest difference between Avatar & other feature films that have utilised the same tech is that the facial muscle movements are spot on. The small details are so good that you never find yourself thinking: "the mouths just don't move properly when characters talk" or "small gestures are a bit stiff".
You can read more about how the flawless motion capture was achieved on Avatar's Wikipedia page, as well as some other interesting details about the making of the movie.
Despite the fact that I kept thinking of the struggle between the settlers and the native Indians in North America during the American Indian Wars (1622-1918), I can forget the Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves similarities because Avatar is a true movie fan's movie: it takes the audience on an exciting journey to a place they have never been before.
And that, is what movies should do.