DVD/Blue-ray This Week: "A Christmas Carol," "The Kids Are All Right" & "The Last Airbender"

DVD REVIEW:

"A CHRISTMAS CAROL" (2009) ☆☆☆

I neglected to write about this one when it was released last year, sighting - as it always is with me -  that is was just utter laziness. It was a sad thing, since I had something to say about Robert Zemeckis' latest of digital animated wizardry and caricature wonderment of Motion Capture that is "A Christmas Carol," and what is actually one of only a few notable adaptations of Charles Dicken's little holiday tale of bigotry and humbleness, longing and loss, companionship and loneliness, and forgiveness and atonement. And the movie is in itself a dazzling feat of 3D and striking/beautiful animation. I'll stand by this technology. I think it's great, and I think it's innovative, and I don't agree that Zemeckis shouldn't continue to make movies like this, or anyone else. Here's my statement: You have a world that has never been able to be seen before (and I mean that literally) of intricate colors and design, of deep and depthless shadow and aurae light, and of laboriously detailed, fallible human representation, that may only be achieved with photo-real digital animation. I ask you if you might have seen a movie like "A Christmas Carol," or Zemeckis' other efforts, "The Polar Express" and "Beowulf," that was as strikingly real as a live-action film? Can you see the falling snow so patterned, so stark against the deep blue night skies in any other movie? The candle light as golden, or the mist of translucent? (Or the pores as big and open on Scrooge's nose? Just look at the picture above!)

Maybe you have, but I'm enchanted by it. 

My other side of the statement: The other aspect that is the treasured aesthetic of MoCap, Performance Capture, it recreates an actor's facial design to perfection, down to every wrinkle and mole, to look as photo-realistic as possible. It even shapes it imperfectly, to tweak and age it. And to record a real facial and bodily performance and mirror in onto a digital character is a milestone step. It's real acting, by real actors. In terms of set construction you don't have to worry about spending too much and building whole structures strenuously to look as close to the real thing, or intricately knitted costumes and finely detailed props. Instead you can recreate a world digitally, to the exact design and detail, just like 1800's London. And MoCap is a dream for a director. You can put the camera wherever you want and have it do whatever you want. It can swivel, cut, turn, fly, soar, hang, sweep, run a mile a minute and stop on a dime. It's ingenious.

Of course, I acknowledge that the flaws are big ones. The technology is getting better, but the caricatures, and those dreaded lazily eyes, still look stern. (How can we sympathize with a character that looks dead?) And the boundary of the recording stage is only so far, and with sensors on the actors, and a hundred sensory cameras along the stage to record them, the actors can only do so much, can only run so far along the space to where the filmmakers "cheat" stunts to seem like actors are flying, falling, riding, dancing, swinging, hanging, ext. Forget that it's silly, it's limiting. And that dreaded t-pose. Those aren't really big problems, it just sucks for the actors. 

But for the filmmakers, it's a godsend. Imagine what you could do, what you could create. And you can have your actors soaring and jumping and doing all sorts of lame feats if you can showcase it grandly in the computer. I say MoCap for always!

Now, even as great as the technology is, as much as I can argue in it's defense, I'll say the work it is helping to adapt is not so much suited to the screen as or ready as it should be. With that, "A Christmas Carol" has a few things against it. 

As a story, which is adapted scene for scene, line for line, and tone for tone, you have a story that wasn't really cinematic to begin with. The novel was written over a hundred years ago, before film was around. Scrooge may have jumped from time and space, but he didn't really soar, or fly all over London. And a carriage didn't chance him, or shrink him, and he didn't hang over his own coffin, as outrageous as that all sounds. As it may have been interpreted, Zemeckis took the liberty. And other than Dickens story, his themes, and his dialogue that still rings true today, we could have used more story, more backstory, more scenes. As a short novel, written to represent the morality of the times, it can't really work as an immersive, cinematic feature film. 

The tone of the movie is also true to the source. Zemeckis created a dark portrait of a destitute and dreary London, as it was in the year of Dickens, as much as Disney would let him. And he didn't let the frightening level of the story go, either. The ghosts were terriblely grotesque and chilling at times, and with Zemeckis own trademark flair, a little comical. 

Even then, that isn't my main beef with the movie. No. What I think "A Chritmas Carol" needed more of, a level that wasn't represented too well, and may have been limited due to the tone the movie was going for, was the emotion. I wasn't ready to watch the next "It's a Wonderful Life," but for a story of Christmas redemption, couldn't we, at the least, have smiled a bit more? Couldn't we have really connected with a character going the way of an unforgiven, dead miser into the completely changed man, in the ultimate character arc, of a giving, cheerful old bugger who as Dickens wrote "was as good a friend, as good a man, as the good old city ever knew?" Couldn't Scrooge have been more a scandalous bigot and demeaning penny-pincher so we could have praised him for his kindness and silly cheer at the end? Couldn't we have felt for poor Bob Cratchit? Couldn't we have shed a tear for Tiny Tim? Where was the Christmas Carol heart? But I tell you, if it was there, audiences would have come in bigger numbers. Emotion sells, as much as blood and sex do.

You may have noticed this has been a flaw I've felt and have addressed to several movies, "Scott Pilgrim" being one recently, but I'm serious. What was "A Christmas Carol" meant to be? A chilling ghost story, and an accurate look on hard-times, with Scrooge and the Ghosts meant to be a guide along the journey? No. If anything, Dickens tale is "It's a Wonderful Life" as much as "It's a Wonderful Life" was "A Christmas Carol." I won't lie, had this movie made me cry, I would have liked it more. And I guarantee had it made audiences cry, stand up and cheer for Scrooge, then the movie would have been a box office hit.

(SPOILER ALERT!) Something that was manufactured, in a literal storybook ending, Zemeckis had Bob Cratchit himself addressing the audience at the closing, in what I felt was cheap and false. 

Robert Zemeckis and the Motion Capture technology seem to be going by the wayside, at least fully animated ones. The movies aren't making enough, even with 3D sales. His company, Image Movers, which made the film, will shut down next year. And even with his adaptation of "Yellow Submarine" and "Mars Need Moms," and Steven Spielberg's own "Adventures of TinTin," I doubt the technology will continue the way it has with those efforts. "Avatar" may have proved what you could do better with MoCap and 3D, but that was only half animated. 

But I know the anecdote: Robert, if you could make "Yellow Submarnie" better, and emotional, and if Spielberg can do anything with it, then I think we may yet have a go for more MoCap movies. Continue the effort, continue to improve, because I want to see more. No one does it better than you, Bob. 

MoCap Forever!

DVD REVIEW:
"THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT" ☆☆☆

The kids are indeed alright in this pretty good indie family dramedy about a seasoned lesbian couple - Nic (Annette Bening) the stern breadwinner and Jules (Julianne Moore) the keen self-starter - who have two teens from a sperm donor, and once the kids get old enough to be curious they seek the guy out, who is easy-going restaurant owner Paul (Mark Ruffalo). They invite him into their lifes, and of course, complications arise and the family slightly unravels, some.  

"The Kids Are All Right," as good as it is, is typical family drama stuff, or love mishmashes from those good old contemporary romcom's, though this movie is better than those will ever be. It's predictable, but it's fresh (gay marriage and sperm donors take the place of a modern nuclear family), and is well written, directed and acted, and I say the cast saves the show. 

Though those kids didn't have too much to do. Joni (played by "Alice in Wonderland's" Mia Wasikowska, and is better here then she was in that) - the assertive A-student, 18-year-old soon going off to college - has a bit more going on then her fairly straight-lined younger athletic brother Laser (played by Josh Hutcherson), who just has a doofus punk of a friend to deal with. But if you could call getting drunk at a party and smooching one of your good buddies severe family trauma, then...

(SPOILER ALERT!) And poor Paul, left out to dry. Wasn't really his fault, and I think we could have seen him redeemed a little as the end, though it's the only unpredictable part. 

"The Kids Are All Right" is good, and I wouldn't doubt the positive vibe it's getting from Oscar buzz, but I have to say everythings pretty straight forward here. Maybe a nod for Bening, Moore or Ruffalo, but I don't see the potential. 

Anyway, good movie. It's funny and heart-churning, though not as much as it could have been. I say just ease on the praise. 

DVD REVIEW:
"THE LAST AIRBENDER" ☆

I caught this opening day, and I could have viewed it again, just to refresh on it. But once was enough for me, and I'm sure most of you, too.

Now, I could go the way of most reviewers and bash on "The Last Airbender" until there's nothing left to like but the pretty awesome CG effects of water, earth, fire and air bending. I could lament on the missed opportunity, the adaptation for Paramount to try again for another fantasy franchise and catch up to the likes of "Twilight," "Harry Potter, "The Chronicles of Narnia," and "The Lord of the Rings," and be hailed as the masterful representation of a good kid's animated TV show. I could expel on M. Night Shyamalan, like almost every critic with a misguided vendetta to crunch and couch-potato blogger who sits safely in front of the computer screen and finds venting about shitty movies is the cure for jealously that they aren't making those big movies, aren't big Hollywood directors, and aren't Shia LaBeouf. I could go into mind-bending detail on Shyamalan's lack of craft, as thin as it was even for movies like "The Sixth Sense," and how it has continuously gotten worse and worse with each new thriller/fantasy that wasn't too thrilling or fantastical. And whose concepts have been written as sillier and sillier, with character's that are quiet and bland, and dialogue that's flat and untrue. With directing that is just plain poor, as bad as anything as you would see from a student short film (and I've seen, and made, plenty enough of those). His actors have no steam, no juice, and zero direction. His camera is in one place and never in the right place. His coverage is minimal. His action is slow and tepid. His stamina is unwanning. His ability to continue to make studio movies is perplexing and unjust.

So, what the hell? What happened to the M. Night Shyamalan of decently good thrillers? I'll try and answer that. 

Now, I could also write in this review what exactly did really suck about "The Last Airbender," but I'm afraid it's near everything, minus the crew talent and production value. You could admire the effects, the sets, the costumes, the photography, the music, and all those respected departments did bang-up work. But can you ignore the severely suffering story that moves along like a turtle caught in molasses and exercises in painfully awful dialogue? M. Night Shyalaman has a weakness for bad moviemaking, and "The Last Airbender" suffers from this the most. For a big-budget/studio tentpole and CG-heavy fantasy blockbuster movie, "Airbender" shouldn't have been as bad as it was. I agree with that, though I don't that most audiences, and critics, too - and those jealous bloggers with supposedly some steam to vent - want to rip M. Night's twist-sensitive proneness out of him for screwing up their precious animated fantasy/action series, and who most do actually hail as masterful (I just say it was good). It's common that most movies fail in box office, but rarely that they fail on craft. But those movies, even bigger and more expensive then "Airbender," always fall harder, with not enough money in the bank to continue as a series or establish anyone involved to make movies on that same level again. "The Last Airbender," as hard as it indeed hit, as lacking and poor as it was, still made enough to trek on for another two more films. Probably. We all know Shyamalan has made several misfires since "The Village," going from one studio, failing again, then going on to the next one, until soon maybe there will be no one left to finance his next screenplay. But he is still here, hasn't been thrown out of the Hollywood trenches yet. No producer or studio exec may be willingly to pay, or even read, his next script, but he still has the "Avatar" series, and his current "Night Chronicles" for 20th Century. I say if those continue to go down the dirt hill, with less audiences going to see them, then he has worked with and lost connection to every major film studio. There is a chance - and it should have happened sooner and is a miracle it hasn't already - M. Night Shyamalan may never make another movie in Hollywood again. And I snarl my mean studio exec voice when I say that.

Probably.

But, for the present, we still have him. And I think all we could, and should, say is that we continue to ask that Shyamalan up his game, continue to improve and better his shortcomings, rather than chew on the battered meat Hollywood and critics have already beaten on. Because M. Night is a good filmmaker, or once was, as hard is it is to believe. He once made intriguing supernatural extrusions. He could scare us, make us shiver, make us cry (yes, he could), even make us think, which no movie today really does anyway (I know, all you Chris Nolan feet-kissers, I got it.). He was the answer to smart thrillers. The guy to take the voyeur of Alfred Hitchcock and continue his horror. The director to pry the box office mantle and make crowd pleasing money-rakers as was once called the next Steven Spielberg. The man to be of his own voice and aesthetic, and he was. 

So now what has become of him? Sadly, I don't think even he knows. His current work just fails so horrendously on every level, on directing aesthetic, on writing, acting, camera, and the overall pacing, which is always slow and effortlessly monotonous. And it just gets far worse with each picture. Can M. Night save himself from what he thinks is good moviemaking, what he pushes as masterful? And most of you bloggers will agree with me that he indeed does, and how often he represents himself as the next filmmaking genius, even as good as his idols Hitchcock and Spielberg. For those of you who think that he just sucks in every possible way (bloggers!), know that this is his flaw, and what has made all his movies so terrible and not that he shouldn't be making movies but go back to being a doctor or the cashier behind the counter at 7-Eleven, as wrong as that is. What's really his problem is he can't accept his gifts, and can't accept it may not be genius. He can't accept to quit, or give up on it. He constantly indulges in it, in his own genius and fantasy, often to where his own producers don't even get it, and soon enough audiences, too. Can he for once step back and see the crud he is making? It's not about you, Night, it's not about your name above the title. It's about the movie. Can you defer yourself as just the writer, as just the director, as just the producer, or story-holder, as you did with "Devil?" Can you make different fair, not similarly plotted thriller/fantasies, like you did with "The Last Airbender?" 

But we all know even that's not good enough. Can you, M. Night Shyamalan, stop making just plain bad movies? 

With that said, as always, I look forward to your next picture. Yes, I do. I always have. Even after "Lady in the Water" and "The Happening" I hoped and preyed "The Last Airbender" would be a different stretch and that somehow Shyamalan would make a blockbuster better then he did his smaller horrors, even when it's so obvious now that the scale, huge production value and heavy visual effects probably got the best of him.

I'll hold out on you, Night, that your movies will continue to get better, rather than get worse. You were once a talent, once a contender, and were with the Oscars, and maybe will be again. See the light, Night. Step back. Take a new approach. You still have the power, the means. Hollywood, or critics, or even those relentless bloggers, haven't sicked the dogs on you yet. Not yet.

There is still a chance for a good M. Night Shyamalan movie.