Crunch On This!: Recent Comments

Comment on Avatar

2010-01-04T19:28:41Z

I wouldn't call it hate, I'd call it disappointment. Yes, the movie is spectacular looking, but even the 94% of Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics only give it a 7.6 out of 10.

The fact is "Avatar" needs to be seen in 3-D on a big screen to get the full enjoyment out of it. In that environment, it is truly amazing. However, once it makes it to DVD on your comparably small TV, its cringe-worthy dialogue and paper-thin plot are going to make it another "Phantom Menace." The Navi are 2009's Jar-Jar Binks.

I've recommended "Avatar" to my friends as a good theater-going experience, but not as a good movie. And, FYI, I am one of those Cameron worshippers. But this is the first movie of his that I'm not willing to pay full-price to see again.

Comment on Avatar

2009-12-27T06:31:19Z

I have no idea why so many critics are hating this movie. I will say this, if you look at the top critics on rottentomatoes.com, it is at 94%. I think a lot of folks think they need to pan it because they think it makes them look smart. They are clueless as to what actually constitutes a good film. But you know what, regardless, you and I enjoyed it, as did millions of others, so that's enough for me. Have a great holiday!

Danny

Comment on Avatar

2009-12-22T08:56:47Z

Danny, great review as usual, but I have a question: what's with all the hate this movie is getting?

Some of my friends, a good chunk of critics, and even a large number of people across the internet are panning this movie off as a "CGI fest", without investigating it in the slightest.

Furthermore, despite positive reviews and positive word of mouth, they still seem to hate it, making jokes of "blue cat people" and whatnot.

But some of these people are certified movie goers, who usually make justified remarks about movies.

Do you have an answer? I just don't get it: James Cameron + big budget + lots of time in development should = excellency, am I right? People used to worship Cameron, if I remember correctly.

Anyways yeah, another good review, I agree spot on (having just come from a screening).

Comment on Invictus

2009-12-09T16:08:56Z

Thank you for the email. I have added note to my review. Cheers!

Comment on Invictus

2009-12-09T10:34:51Z

Hi Danny

Great write up. Am looking forward to seeing the movie.
Just one correction; rugby is a VERY well known sport outside of the USA. In fact (and you can check this up) after the Soccer World Cup and the Olympics, the Rugby World Cup is the 3rd biggest Global sporting event.

Comment on Invictus

2009-12-08T23:43:04Z

A Rugby game doesn't end when the time runs out, it ends on the last dead ball, or penalty by the losing team. The slow motion emphasized the point that if South Africa did not win the scrum or stop momentum of the scrum, then play would've resumed and the game would not have been over. The All Blacks are the most dominant team on the planet year after year. Allowing them to win control of the ball at that point would've been the same as turning over the ball to Joe Montana with 2 minutes left to go in the game and a 2 point lead.

Comment on Inglourious Basterds

2009-09-01T20:56:28Z

One thing that I think is missing in the reviews of Tarantino's movies is the degree to which he pays attention to narratives. For him, stories are as important as the actions, and these stories are most often told as pure narrations, not as cinema.

Reservoir Dogs is all about a robbery that you don't get to see. Instead you get narratives of the robbery, told as stories from different points of view. The stories, and the characters' reactions to these stories, establish their relationships to one another. This dramatically broke the cardinal rule of 1960s-1980s cinema: you are supposed to show, not tell.

Tarantino's characters tell you one part of the story, while another orthogonal part is being shown. But the narrative part obeys all the laws of hearsay knowledge--- it is unreliable, perspective dependent, and dependent on the imagination of the listener. That makes the story so much more fluid, as imagined stories become almost real through repetition, while others are shown to be false.

Pulp fiction extended the reach of this new style filmmaking. Within that film, the characters' narratives tell you who they are, while the action congeals with the stories that they tell into a plot. If the story were told in the 1970s style, by pure visuals, each of the narratives would have to be shown, and each narrative, which by itself only works as a spoken story, would be weakened by the definite form which an image would provide.

In the Kill Bill stories, another aspect of narrative is explored: the relationship between the individual in focus and all the nameless henchmen that are killed. The grisly death of a thousand nameless Roman soldiers is of no consequence, because the narrative does not include the details of their experience.

In Inglourious Basterds, these ideas are supplemented by a new one. For Nazis, it seems, the villany is so great that they can be brutalized even after they have been humanized. A soldier who won an iron cross for bravery can be pummelled with a baseball bat, even though he really is brave. The nature of what he is fighting for is so evil, that exposing no human quality won't help. The same goes for the new father in the basement scene--- he can be killed without remorse. The only time a German soldier elicits enough sympathy for a hesitation, it's a tragedy for the character.

And these rules only apply in the cinema dream world. In real life, a nazi does not appear much different than any other person, and killing him is just as unbearable. But in the movie world, there is no difference, because the nazi soldier has taken sides in a narrative that has more importance than any individual life.

This distinction is at the essence of the religious view that the narratives that are established after the fact give meaning to the lives that lived through the history, and define their purpose and moral order.

Comment on Inglourious Basterds

2009-08-25T06:59:20Z

A truly fantastic movie from Tarantino once again. Two comments about your review: First, as to Pitt's acting, I think you may be forgetting Legends of the Fall. Second, speaking to the Bear Jew scene...the first exposure I ever had to a Tarantino movie was when I walked into my barracks while my roommate and friends were in the middle of the adrenaline shot scene in Pulp Fiction. As soon as I said hello to everyone I was greeted with a bevy of shushes. The bear jew was just a different version of that and is something that really is a Tarantino signature. As for the scene itself, I actually liked the length and I kept waiting for the commandant to crack. I think it may just be his masterpiece.

Comment on Inglourious Basterds

2009-08-25T05:33:19Z

Not at all original; ripped off aesthetic, amateur lighting at times, muffled/unnecessary dialogue, and redundant pans. Pain in the ass of a movie to watch.

Comment on District 9

2009-08-25T02:49:39Z

You must have seen a different version of DISTRICT 9 than I did, because the one I saw made no sense whatsoever.

I know, it's a take on the evils of Apartheid. Apartheid = bad. I get that.

But we're expected to believe that intelligent aliens possessed of *interstellar and other technologies* would be herded into ghettoes, left to rot and the rest of the world would ignore this? Ridiculous!

We're expected to believe the U.N/Americans/Russians/Chinese wouldn't have at least a huge presence on board that alien ship? Nonsense.

We're expected to believe that known foreign warlords would be allowed to operate openly in that ghetto, possibly acquiring dangerous technologies all the while? Preposterous.

We're expected to believe that, at the end, they shoot down the shuttle with ease, yet appear to forget they've done it as they don't attempt to do so again when it starts to limp up to the main vessel -- in spite of all the TV cameras reporting this is happening. What? No one in command is paying attention? Good Grief.

We're expected to believe this company (where's the real army?!) stores alien weapons of possibly enormous destructive capabilities in a DOWNTOWN building? With no more security than a few rent-a-cops? Say what?!?!

We're expected to believe that the city has had this enormous vessel hanging over it for TWENTY YEARS yet no one has had the brains to think that, just maybe, at some point the batteries will run down in the thing and it'll faww down, go BOOM? I know I'd move my business out from under. Yet these people don't think this might be a good idea? This redefines stupidity.

I could go on, but this should suffice to show how unbelievable it is that the same man who gave us the beautifully crafted LORD OF THE RINGS adaptations is guilty of this piece of crap.