‘Pop Goes the Culture’ Celebrates Its One-Year Anniversary!

Wow – it’s been ONE YEAR! I’m so excited to be celebrating this blogging milestone. First, I have to thank all of you, the readers – whether you subscribed, visited via Facebook or Twitter, or simply stumbled upon this little operation, you’ve contributed to Pop Goes the Culture! You’ve helped grow readership 421% since last year! You all rock and I hope you’ve enjoyed reading my reviews, news, Star Wars miscellaneous, etc. In honor of this auspicious occasion, I’ve listed out a few of the highlights from this year:

• My Avatar review was the first post, published December 30, 2009.

• I had the privilege of attending Star Wars Celebration V in August and posted pictures and news in a two-part series (Part 1)(Part 2).

• I was lucky enough to get an interview with Star Wars author extraordinaire, Dan Wallace, about his latest book, The Jedi Path – awesome book and awesome guy!

• I presented at Ignite Phoenix #6 and my video went pseudo-viral through the Star Wars interweb circles; it was even passed around the Lucasfilm offices!

• I started guest blogging for the East Valley Tribune‘s geek-blog, Nerdvana, and was given the opportunity to start attending press screenings, fueling my movie-review-writing habit.

That’s just a little snapshot of some of the 2010 highlights, both for me and Pop Goes the Culture. I hope you all have a safe and fun New Year and continue to visit whenever you need a Star Wars or movie review fix! 2011 will be amazing!

Special thanks to Jayson Peters, ScarletSp1der, Katie Van Domelen and Cullen Law for all their help and support – from initial encouragement, to opening doors, you all rock!

What have been some of your favorite posts of 2010? A favorite movie review? An article you particularly enjoyed? What would you like to see more/less of in 2011? Share your thoughts in the comments!

You Again: A Movie I Won’t Be Seeing Again

You Again is a comedy that will have a high female demographic appeal. With an all-star cast comprised of Kristen Bell, Jamie Lee Curtis, Sigourney Weaver, Odette Yustman, Kristin Chenoweth and Betty White, there are definitely some heavy-hitting comedy chops at play. But does You Again deliver? Here’s the breakdown:

Marni (Bell) had a horrible high school experience. Constantly teased and humiliated by the popular “JJ” (Yustman), Marni relied on the support of her older brother to make it through high school. Years later, Marni comes home for her brother’s wedding, only to realize he is marrying none other than JJ, now Joanna, her high school nemesis. To add to the drama, Joanna’s aunt, Ramona (Weaver), turns out to be Marni’s mother’s (Curtis) own high school enemy. Will old fueds be rekindled? Will these women be able to forgive and forget?

The Monkey: Kristen Bell is fun to watch in anything she’s in. Ever since seeing her in the amazing and appallingly short-lived TV show, Veronica Mars, I’ve been a Bell fan (not to mention her epic turn as a Star Wars fangirl in 2008’s Fanboys). Her comic timing and facial expressions are hilarious and she carries the movie well.

It was nice to see Victor Garber in a fun role, as Marni’s dad. I’ll never be able to see him as anything but the stone-cold Jack from TV’s Alias, but he does comedy well. Great to see some of my favorite TV stars represent!

The movie features some surprising cameos that definitely earn some laughs, including Betty White, Kristin Chenoweth, Cloris Leachman and Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson.

The Weasel: The premise of You Again is comic gold, yet somehow, the filmmakers were able to make it completely unfunny. It was atrociously paced, edited together without any thought to the overall movie. There was no clear rising action and the movie’s conclusion was completely unearned. What little plot there was didn’t get started till a third of the way into the movie, and even then, never fully took off. You Again had all the necessary plot points and cliché romantic comedy moments; it almost felt like a movie version of paint-by-numbers.

Curtis and Weaver were wasted. Their potential for a riotously funny screen duet was overlooked. Instead, they were forced to deliver canned dialogue with a punch line never in sight. I was hoping for something along the lines of Curtis’ 2003 Freaky Friday, but instead, got a movie that parades big stars across the screen for no apparent reason. These women can act, people, and they’re funny! But how did they manage to make You Again feel like a straight-to-DVD flick?

And don’t even get me started on Odette Yustman. Well, this is a movie review blog, so I guess I have to get started. How she ever made it past high school drama is beyond me. She plays a lame villainess, without the personality to make the audience feel anything, let alone that sweet love-hate thing that truly good movie villains elicit.  And during emotional scenes, her piercingly grating, high pitched whine of a voice distracts from anything she’s saying and induces ear bleeds. If I ever see her in a movie again, I’ll definitely be saying, “you again?!”

A movie with all the right ingredients for hilarity, yet manages, somehow, to create a bungled mess of unfunny. It’s too bad the filmmakers didn’t just let these actors loose on a movie set, relying on ad-libs and scenes of craft service table gossip – I bet it would have been funnier.

1 Death Star out of 5

What do you think? Do you wish Kristen Bell would get some better movie roles? Would you like to see Sigourney Weaver and Jamie Lee Curtis try again as a comedy duo? Share your thoughts in the comments!

The Last Exorcism: An Exercise in Cinematic Suicide

If three-way love-children were possible, The Last Exorcism could be considered the offspring of Paranormal Activity, The Exorcist and The Blair Witch Project, the product of a seemingly respectable horror gene pool. And with horror veteran Eli Roth producing, early projections for the movie are positive. Here’s the breakdown:

Cotton Marcus is a pastor extraordinaire – his theatrical style has made him popular with his congregation and his family. Acting as his father’s successor, Cotton not only performs rousing Sunday morning sermons, he performs the occasional exorcism as well. What Cotton’s family doesn’t know (and what Cotton decides to share with a documentary film crew) is that his faith is waning, and before retiring, he hopes to reveal the sham of the modern exorcism. With film crew in tow, Cotton heads to Louisiana, to the Sweetzer farm, where he meets Nell…and encounters more than he bargained for.

The Monkey: The Last Exorcism manages to inject originality, humor and suspense into a genre I thought for sure had been bled dry. Within the first ten minutes of the movie, I was completely compelled by the dark humor and imaginative premise. Cotton’s determination to expose exorcisms coupled with his jaded outlook on religion made for a winning combination of original elements rarely seen in horror films.

The best scenes of the movie involved Cotton’s deceptive exorcism “techniques” and his scathing criticisms of religion. Not only does this lead to unexpected comedy, it fleshes out the otherwise two-dimensional “priest” character ever-present in religious/horror films. His story of lost faith and disillusionment will resonate with modern audiences and make Cotton an instantly believable and likable character.

Similarly, I was impressed with how well director Daniel Stamm was able to depict the troubled Sweetzer family. With grieving widower Louis, troubled son Caleb and “possessed” daughter Nell, the Sweetzers could easily have fallen into horror victim stereotypes. But Stamm was able to rise above the conventions and create believable and even sympathetic characters. Especially in the case of Louis Sweetzer; the audience feels his conflicted emotions – the loss of his wife, the mysterious happenings with his daughter. It’s rare to see even one well-rounded character in a genre film, let alone several.

The documentary film style was well suited to the story, creating the necessary atmosphere for the movie. The suspense was certainly built well, gradually increasing as the plot moved from dark comedy to mystery, from mystery to…

The Weasel: …to what? To a half-way creepy faux-documentary? Sure, the suspense was expertly crafted, perfectly layered, building to a much-anticipated scary-as-hell conclusion. But The Last Exorcism never delivered. In fact, it not only never delivered (excuse the double negative), it flat-out refused to deliver. It very nearly looked the audience in the eye, hocked a gooey loogie and spit in the audience’s collective face, cackling as it dashed any hope of a satisfactory conclusion from the screen. It was this conscious and blatant act of cinematic suicide that puzzled, frustrated and eventually just pissed me off.

Here was a brilliant movie, seamlessly weaving dark comedy, the over-used documentary film style and a promisingly creepy premise into a never-before-seen and wildly successful 80 minutes – only to completely destroy everything it worked to create in the final minutes of the movie.

Some may argue this violent reaction was purposeful, proof-positive that The Last Exorcism was a success, a piece of art that inspired emotion. Fine. Argue away. But that doesn’t change the fact that I felt cheated, let-down and completely disappointed.

And while the movie did a great job of characterizing Cotton and the Sweetzers, its complete lack of attention to the documentary film crew (Iris and cameraman Daniel) verged on distracting; their random appearances were unexpected and the movie’s belated attempt to emotionally connect them with the audience was laughable.

The first 80 minutes of this movie easily deserved 4 Death Stars, but I can’t, in good conscience, rate it so high when the movie so clearly disregarded its brilliant set-up…

2 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Were you satisfied with the ending? Did I completely miss the point? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Dinner for Schmucks: The Movie Version of Fast Food

An English language remake of Francis Veber’s Le diner de cons (The Dinner Game), Dinner for Schmucks stars comedic heavyweights Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, and up-and-coming funnyman, Zach Galifianakis. Here’s the breakdown:

Tim (Rudd) is up for a big promotion at work. But first, he must impress his boss by attending a top secret dinner party. Dinner guests are expected to bring an “idiot” with them, and show them off – whoever brings the most outrageous idiot, wins. And in Tim’s case, winning means getting the promotion. Enter Barry (Carell), a bumbling fool who creates taxidermy mouse dioramas. The jokes write themselves.

The Monkey: Rudd, Carell and Galifianakis are comic masters. The subtle glances, the perfectly timed deliveries – these guys know how to get an audience to laugh.

The script features some truly clever gags and even manages to throw in some lines sure to be quoted around the water cooler. But what makes Dinner for Schmucks watchable are the performances. Rudd’s Tim is the perfect foil to Carell’s over-the-top Barry. It was refreshing to see Carell return to such ridiculous humor, the humor that made him famous to begin with (Anchorman, Bruce Almighty).

While the movie focuses on the laughs, it’s also able to work in some heart. Barry’s attempts to help Tim’s struggling love life are rooted in Barry’s own failed love – and Carell is able to dial back the guffaws and make the audience feel for his situation. Aside from the romantic themes, Dinner for Schmucks is also about friendship. Tim progresses from self-absorbed businessman, to a guy who can be friends with a taxidermist. While it may be simple, these types of good-hearted character arcs are harder to find in movies these days.

The Weasel: Dinner for Schmucks feels more like seeing these big name actors featured in an SNL skit. The set is cheap, the jokes are exaggerated and the plot is painfully predictable. And while SNL skits are fun, are audiences willing to pay current ticket prices for sketch comedy?

Without the talent of Carell, Rudd and Galifianakis, Dinner for Schmucks would be a straight-to-DVD release, I have no doubt. It makes me wonder what attracted these guys to the project. Just a chance to hang out, have some laughs? If so, they succeeded in having fun, but no amounts of fun can save a bland plot. The movie relies on “I’m saying something [mean or nice] about the person standing right behind me but I don’t know they’re there” trick way too many times and we’ve seen this story countless times before.

There’s nothing new here except some wonderfully creative mouse taxidermy dioramas and some solid acting performances. If that’s enough incentive to get your butt in a theatre seat, then Dinner for Schmucks is for you. Otherwise, wait for the DVD.

2.5 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Was Dinner for Schmucks as funny as you’d hoped? How does it compare to the source material? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Up in the Air: A Soaring Example of Effortless Drama

Writer/director Jason Reitman’s Up in the Air was a critic favorite going into this year’s award season. While the film has been no stranger to award nominations, actually landing a win has been a bit more problematic. With six Golden Globe nominations, Up in the Air walked away with only one statue – for Reitman’s screenplay. Garnering a total of six Oscar nominations, only time will tell if the Academy will follow suit and leave Up in the Air high and dry. Here’s the breakdown:

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) flies around the country firing people. He’s never home, instead finding comfort in his organized and systematic travel schedule. All that is thrown into question when Ryan’s company decides to implement new business practices, putting an end to his nomadic lifestyle. Before his wings are permanently clipped, Ryan must show a new recruit, Natalie (Anna Kendrick), the ropes, all while balancing a jet-setting relationship with Alex (Vera Farmiga), a similarly chronic traveler.

The Monkey: This movie was quiet. I don’t mean boring and I don’t mean I couldn’t hear it. In the midst of films like Avatar, Inglourious Basterds and The Hurt Locker, Up in the Air is a breath of fresh air. With a solid script, award-winning performances from all three lead actors and the deft touch of a skilled director, Up in the Air is a textbook example of a good film.

The film mixes humor and drama so seamlessly that critics were surprised when the Hollywood Foreign Press categorized the movie as a drama instead of a comedy. It’s this balance between light and dark that makes this film so human, so real, so relatable. The drama wasn’t forced, the humor wasn’t set-up. Everything was very natural, organic.

The ending of the film was left ambiguous, and rightly so. Where does the main character go from here? The fact that there were two distinct directions for Ryan Bingham to go (and that both would be equally justified by the previous events of the film) is evidence of successful storytelling.

The Weasel: At times, the movie was almost too quiet. Clooney’s performance was subtle and well-crafted; however, there were moments when the audience needed something more.

Halfway through the film the central action shifts from Ryan’s interaction with Natalie to Ryan’s interaction with his family. The transition was a bit abrupt and the absence of Natalie was definitely felt during the last third of the movie. Why did her character just drop off the screen?

It’s always a treat to see a movie that stays with you after the house lights come up and Up in the Air did not disappoint. By touching on issues of relationships, job security and life-changing decisions, Up in the Air is able to connect, on some level, with everyone.

4 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Is Up in the Air getting overlooked by award shows? Share your thoughts about Up in the Air in the comments!

The Lovely Bones: A Lovely, Original Vision

Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones was bombarded with controversy before the film was ever released.  Based on the novel by Alice Sebold, the story was considered, by many, to be unfilmable.  Dealing with a main character who dies, then narrates the world she left behind, many fans of the book felt the visual quality of film would simplify the deeply complex story.  Add to this a violent child rape and murder…you’ve got a bit o’ controversy.  While some felt the filmmakers made the right decision by keeping the rape and murder off screen, others felt it was a cheat, stepping around an issue that made the book so powerful.  Here’s the breakdown:

Susie Salmon is a normal 14-year-old girl.  She goes to school, has a family, has a crush.  Unfortunately, her life is cut short when a neighbor lures her into a trap, raping and brutally murdering her.  Caught in a world beyond, Susie must help her grieving family come to grips with her death…and eventually bring her killer to justice.

The Monkey: Visually, the film is beautiful.  The story’s 1970’s setting maintains its vibrant color while giving the audience a retro feel…this contrasts nicely with the other-worldly place Susie occupies for much of the film.  There are some truly stunning images: Susie’s main point of constancy, a wooden gazebo, appears in many settings, from a lake of wheat to a frozen tundra; the killer conducting an interview with the police, expertly shot through the windows and rooms of a doll house.  The most beautiful scene was not only visually shocking, but emotionally resonant as well; Susie’s ship-in-a-bottle builder father, in a fit of grief, shatters model after model, sending life-sized bottled ships crashing against beach rocks in Susie’s world.

The movie’s suspense was a nice surprise.  While the identity of Susie’s killer is never a secret, the filmmakers are able to pack an enormous amount of nail-biting moments into the film (particularly, Susie’s “capture” and a climactic scene involving a wooden floorboard).

Saoirse Ronan carried the film remarkably well, considering her character was dead and forced to deliver breathy, ethereal lines.  Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz worked very well as the grieving parents (love Rachel Weisz!).  The true star of the film, however, was Stanley Tucci as the creepy killer.  His performance was so understated, so incredibly subtle…I truly believed he was capable of such awful things.  If it weren’t for Christopher Waltz’s genuis performance in Inglourious Basterds, Tucci would have the Golden Globe and Oscar for best supporting actor.

And as far as the off-screen rape/murder: the stylized scene in which Susie realizes what has happened to her is more chilling and emotionally effective than actually seeing the crime on-screen.

The Weasel: The middle act of the film lost pace, confusing the tone and mood that had been previously established.  Susan Sarandon appears as the alcoholic, domestically challenged grandmother, trying to help her family deal with Susie’s death.  The scenes are meant to be humorous, but the humor feels forced, as if the filmmakers assumed the audience would need a break from the serious subject matter.  This middle act also featured a montage of Susie’s limbo: playing in fields with butterflies, snow-sledding, etc.  Perhaps this is what fans of the book felt was “unfilmable”…and they were right.  It seemed out of place and disrupted the rhythm of the movie.

A visually original and beautifully filmed movie, The Lovely Bones features award-winning performances, and succeeds in pleasing the eye while maintaining emotional weight.

Note: Keep an eye out for Peter Jackson’s Hitchcock-esque cameo!

3.5 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think?  Did you read the book?  Tell me what you thought about The Lovely Bones in the comments!

Daybreakers: A Vampire Flick with Fangs

Pop culture has been flooded with vampires recently (thanks in large part to the Twilight frenzy).  From the Underworld movies to True Blood on TV, vampires are everywhere…and everyone is trying to reinvent them.  Garlic is OK, but crosses are out…silver kills them, but sunlight makes them sparkle…and so it goes, with endless reinterpretations and combinations borrowing from thousands of years of storytelling.  Daybreakers attempts to carve its own space in the vampiric panoply.  Here’s the breakdown:

Ethan Hawke’s Edward (yes, another unfortunate Twilight comparison) is a vampire, living in a world where vampires vastly outnumber humans.  As a blood researcher, he is trying to find a human blood substitute; humans are becoming extinct, and vampires are beginning to starve.  Without human blood, the vampires slowly turn to feral creatures, complete with wings and pointy ears.  Edward’s boss (Sam Neill) runs a human blood-harvesting company and would rather see a way to increase production of human blood than find a permanent substitute.  Enter “Elvis” (Willem Dafoe), a human with a secret past…and a possible cure for vampirism.

The Monkey: In a world full of vampire rip-offs and hundreds of vampire interpretations, Daybreakers was surprisingly original.  Seeing Edward’s suit float in a mirror was a wonderful nod to the whole “vampires don’t have reflections” myth (one that is often absent in modern re-tellings).  Coffee with a percentage of blood in it.  Cars with “day-time driving mode.”  The premise itself was rather original…vampires are usually the underground, secret, minority characters.  In Daybreakers, vampires are the norm, the majority, and humans are the few, the minority.  And the conflict grew naturally out of the premise…what happens when the blood runs out?  Even the method with which our heroes find the cure was very original (and worked wonderfully on film).

The action was exactly what you expect from a R-rated vampire thriller…tons of blood and exploding vampires (which made for a cool night-time shoot-out scene).

Sam Neill, Willem Dafoe and Ethan Hawke carried the movie well in their respective roles: Neil as the villian, Hawke the tortured hero and Dafoe, the foul-mouthed one-liner (and he had some great one-liners!).

The Weasel: Daybreakers won’t change the genre.  The dialogue was painful, the monochromatic set-pieces became boring.  An intensely gory, violent scene towards the end of the movie was so over the top it elicited laughs from the audience.  A plot thread involving Neill’s daughter was so underdeveloped it was distracting.  The ending left it open for a sequel, but I don’t see the need to return to the story.

Daybreakers set out to be a fun, gory, action-packed vampire thriller.  It accomplished that and a bit more, infusing original concepts into a genre that is quickly becoming stale.

3 Death Stars out of 5

What did you think?  Tell me what you thought of Daybreakers in the comments!

Nine: 7, 8, Nine…and Got a Stomach Ache

Rob Marshall’s Nine is getting a lot of buzz…an astounding, all-star cast, five Golden Globe nominations (including Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy) and Marshall’s first movie-musical since the Academy Award-winning Chicago.  Here’s the breakdown:

Guido (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a famous Italian film director working on his latest movie…without a script.  Along the way he struggles to save his marriage with Lili (Marion Cotillard) while maintaining a relationship with his mistress (Penelope Cruz); he gets sage advice from his long-time costume designer (Judi Dench); he tries to please his leading actress (Nicole Kidman), answers questions from an American reporter (Kate Hudson) and struggles with psycho-sexual flashbacks to a prostitute (Fergie) and his mother (Sophia Loren). Whew.

The Monkey: The music is the best part.  All the performances are fun to watch and all the actresses sing their little hearts out.  Judi Dench is always a pleasure to watch, in any role she’s in.  It was nice to see Nicole Kidman singing again (Moulin Rouge is one of her best films).  Penelope Cruz played the simpering mistress with the necessary amount of pout and her song, “A Call from the Vatican” elicited laughs.  Kate Hudson shook her booty in a sequined dress and looked good doing it.  But the real star of Nine…Fergie.  You heard me…that bi-curious, ex-meth-head from the Black-Eyed Peas.  Her performance as Saraghina (a prostitute from Guido’s childhood) stole the show.  She has no speaking lines, only a smoldering stare and a killer song (“Be Italian”).  Not only was the singing far superior to the other performances, the number was choreographed with a striking visual style that the rest of the movie was lacking.  And from a story stand-point, her brief appearance shed more light on Guido’s character than any other part of the movie.

The Weasel: The plot.  There really wasn’t one.  A director has no script for his movie and cheats on his wife…hmm.  While Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance was convincing, it was almost too convincing…he was an unlikable adulterer who couldn’t get his act together.  Lacking a likable protagonist, the movie fell apart.  The song interludes felt more like a cabaret show than a coherent story.  Marion Cotillard has a stunning voice, but her two songs were buried in horrible staging and confusing choreography.  Many of the songs were forgettable (which is sad, because most of the actresses only had one song), and in a musical, forgetting the songs leads to forgetting the movie.

Watch it for the music, watch it for Fergie.  Better yet, watch Fergie’s performance on YouTube and buy the soundtrack.  I’m baffled that Nine has been nominated for so many Golden Globes…I guess we’ll see what the Academy has to say about it.

2 Death Stars out of 5

What did you think?  What was your favorite song?  Do you think Nine deserves all its award nominations?  Tell me what you liked and didn’t like about Nine in the comments!

Sherlock Holmes: It’s Elementary…But Fun!

Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes has been touted as the start to a new film franchise.  With an all-star cast (Robert Downey, Jr. as Sherlock Holmes, Jude Law as Dr. Watson, Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood, Rachel McAdams as Forgettable-Female-Lead), it has all the necessary ingredients for a series of sequels.  Here’s the breakdown:

The movie starts with Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson catching secret society member and master occultist Lord Blackwood (who has been responsible for a series of murders).  Blackwood’s subsequent execution seems to be the end of another case for Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson…that is until Lord Blackwood rises from the dead.

What follows is an action-packed jaunt through Victorian England as Holmes and Watson try to solve the Mystery of the Undead Dark Magic User.  Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) shows up as Holmes’ ex-lover from New Jersey (hence the obvious lack of British accent), and acts as a tie between the intrepid sleuth and the shadowy Professor Moriarty (presumably the big baddie for later installments).

The Monkey: Robert Downey, Jr. is always fun to watch, although I couldn’t help but notice his turn as Sherlock was basically Tony Stark circa 1890.  Jude Law was surprisingly good in a smaller role than he usually plays.  Mark Strong delivered his dark and ominous lines with sufficient malice and crooked-tooth evil.  The action was suitably suspenseful, the mystery suitably mysterious.  The best part of the movie, however, was Hans Zimmer’s score.  In a word, perfect!  The banjo theme set the tone for the whole movie, and, I think, the whole series.  Playful yet dark, seedy yet sophisticated.

The Weasel: Being the start to a series, I assumed the audience would be treated to a bit more back story.  How did Watson and Holmes meet?  What is their history?  The movie hints at Watson’s military career, but it’s never explored.  The movie felt more like a second or third installment, instead of an establishing movie.  Rachel McAdams was sorely underused.  They could have cut her character completely with hardly any damage done to the plot.  She deserved better (the introduction of Professor Moriarty hints that she will have a bigger part to play in later movies).

As a whole, Sherlock Holmes delivers: fun action scenes, humour (with an “ou”) and an amazing score.  I wish there would have been more of an “origins” vibe, but I’m excited nonetheless to see how the characters grow in subsequent films.

3 Death Stars out of 5

What did you think?  Tell me what you liked and didn’t like about Sherlock Holmes in the comments!

Avatar: 3 Dimensions Are Not Enough

James Cameron’s highly anticipated film, Avatar, hit theatres a few weeks ago.  The web has been abuzz with news about the supposed $500 million budget, possible sequels, the overt anti-war/pro-green message.  It’s the typical noise you’ll find around any huge blockbuster.  With all that hubbub put to the side, here is the breakdown:

The story follows wheelchair-bound Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) on his quest to Pandora, a moon where humans have discovered (and have started mining) precious minerals. Pandora is home to a sentient indigenous population, the Na’vi.  Jake is part of the Avatar Program; he remotely controls a genetically engineered human/Na’vi body in an effort to gain the trust of the natives, making the mining process easier.  Jake falls in love with a Na’vi female and he begins to appreciate the natural land and the natives’ way of life.  Slowly, Jake starts to question the morality of the humans’ presence on Pandora.

The Monkey: This film was beautiful.  You’ve never seen anything like Pandora.  From bioluminescent plants to floating mountains, watching Avatar is the definition of eye candy.  The CGI is the most photo-realistic of any movie to date and the digital 3D (which can often throw CGI into stark contrast with live action) only benefits from the crystal clear projection.  Leaving the theatre, several people could be heard saying, “I want to have an avatar,” or “I wish I could go to Pandora.”  This is a testament to the layered world created in the film, layers that can’t be fully explored, even in 3D.

While some critics complain the film is all spectacle and no substance, I disagree.  The plot is engaging, the characters believable.  The struggle between man and nature is a universal plot structure and helps ground the fantastical visuals of Avatar into reality.

The Weasel: The main bad-guy, Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) was strikingly two-dimensional.  He ruthlessly attacks the Na’vi, but the audience is never sure why.  With such rich visuals and believable characters, it was a disappointment to see the film’s chief villain so carelessly handled.  What was his motivation?  Why was he so anti-Na’vi?  These questions aren’t answered, or even asked.

Amazing visuals, solid plot…this is a film I’ll gladly see in theatres multiple times.

4.5 Death Stars out of 5

What did you think? Tell me what you liked and didn’t like about Avatar in the comments!