Doomsday's Andrei Tarkovsky Love Fest

Avatar: The Way of Water

I had a couple weeks off at the end of December and I used the hiatus to catch up on current movies now that we're in the thick of awards season. Before my break started I asked a coworker if he planned on watching Avatar 2 to which he replied 'Avatar 2 is homework.' He explained to me that he had no real interest in watching the new Avatar movie but he felt like he was obligated to do so. He wanted to be part of the conversation, he wanted to be able to discuss the sequel to the biggest blockbuster of all time with any film fans who might be talking about it. He knew exactly what it was going to be about and he knew right where to set his expectations. I was of the same mindset. Even though I'm as big a James Cameron fan as anyone and his movies were cornerstones of my cinematic upbringing, I've always been in the middle with Avatar. I don't dislike it but I don't think it's some timeless classic either. I saw it in the theater, I was entertained and after that I was good. When the sequel was announced followed by sequels followed by endless sequels, and when it was postponed a year then two years then five years then another several, that all felt like hubris more than anything. How hard could it be to write one of these movies? I suppose I just got tired of hearing about it until a release date finally dropped. When the 3 hour 15 minute runtime came out that hubris line jumped out again. Needless to say, Avatar 2 was a homework assignment for me, something I could have gone without seeing but felt forced to do more than anything.

Now I know that's all a bunch of Debbie Downer negativity, I understand. I preface with all of that because I did sit down and watch it and it was everything I expected it to be. It was also highly entertaining and was, as expected, a visual feast to take in. The action scenes were exciting and well staged. The visual effects blending so seamlessly with the plate photography was really something to admire throughout the length of the movie, so much so it almost made me forget the shortcomings that I knew were going to be there. It's funny because I went in skeptical, I came away entertained and enjoying it more than I thought I would but also realized that I was in that familiar fog where you push the shortcomings aside due to all the bells and whistles attacking your senses. I almost forgot about the bad, sometimes very bad acting, the silly one note characters and the mind-numbingly stupid decision making from said characters that pushes the movie along. There were times where the pacing felt quick and flowed well, there were other entire sequences that could have easily been cut. Was it really that important to bring Steven Lang back? You couldn't have just made new souped-up Marine Avatars with the same effect? Because now that we've opened the door to Stephen Lang essentially being immortal no matter how many times you kill him it doesn't feel exciting, on the contrary it feels quite dull. There are a lot of fun, entertaining things about Avatar no question. As hard as it tries though, those elements that make it fun don't entirely gloss over the things that don't work. The worst part of all though is that the weaknesses of the movie could have easily been resolved had more focus been placed there. Maybe in the next one, if it's pushing 3 hours again just cut 400 visual effects shots which I'm sure could be easily done and use those hundreds of thousands of dollars in saved production costs to hire a couple more writers to glance at the script again. Cut everything with Spider. Kill him in the opening scene. It will work wonders for the movie, I promise.

Avatar 3 is slated to come out in December 2024. I don't really care, I'm not anxious about it, I don't know what it's about or who's in it nor am I really interested. There are a number of other movies being released between now and then that I would much rather see. But am I going to watch Avatar 3? Of course, I'm sure I'll be entertained every moment I'm in the theater. Because that's what Avatar is, it's popcorn entertainment that, to a certain degree and in a specific capacity, is pushing the envelope when it comes to a particular style of filmmaking. I would be lying if I came away saying I didn't have a good time because as stated above I had a better time than I thought I would. Still, although I had fun I can't ignore that once again there were some narrative shortcomings that would have helped it break into that higher tier had they been resolved in the front end. As a fun, entertaining movie it really works but when it comes to the Avatar detractors of which there are many it probably won't do much to help change their minds.

Praying to Eywa to smite you and the other heathens

This was my most anticipated movie of 2022, and now my enthusiasm for this franchise is almost entirely gone. Like you said, seeing the sequels feels more like a perfunctory obligation at this point instead of something exciting.

I should be as excited for Avatar 3 as I am for Dune: Part Two, and it's not even close. The Avatar franchise is probably the least interesting thing Cameron has done aside from True Lies and maybe (maybe) The Abyss, and realizing that he's going to throw the remainder of his career behind more of these just sucks.

Another year, another AFI Top 10 list. Why AFI? I dunno, they're high profile enough and I find plowing through their somewhat predictable list is good prep for awards season.  It also encourages me to watch movies I probably would have been slow at getting around to (American Fiction, Spider-Man).  This year I've already seen three on the list and will aim to take one of the others down every week or so.  Anyone who cares to join me is welcome to.

AMERICAN FICTION
BARBIE
THE HOLDOVERS
KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON
MAESTRO
MAY DECEMBER
OPPENHEIMER
PAST LIVES
POOR THINGS
SPIDER-MAN: ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE

I laughed out loud.

May December

When I jumped onto Netflix to turn this on I had no idea what it was about.  You could have given me a million years to guess and I would have never, ever come close.  It's been a very long time since I've thought of Mary Kay Letourneau and I never thought I would see a Natalie Portman/Julianne Moore movie that's more or less based on her story.  It's not a straightforward biopic which would have been quite uncomfortable to say the least.  Natalie Portman is Elizabeth, a TV actress who is shadowing Moore's Gracie for a few days to prepare for a role in an independent movie. Gracie is a woman in her fifties living with her mid-thirties husband Joe (Charles Melton) and their children who are about to graduate from high school.  Gracie and Joe had an affair when Joe was in the seventh grade and Gracie subsequently got divorced and went to prison.  After her release Gracie and Joe got married, had children and started their happily ever after.  After Elizabeth arrives and starts cracking open events that have seemingly long since passed and been put behind everyone, questions start to arise as older, more mature minds start seeing how lives have been affected and if it's too late to change anything.

There's a lot that lands and a lot that doesn't.  I think the thing that really keeps this movie afloat is the acting.  Having two enormously talented actresses portray people who are living in a bubble of perpetual scandal and discomfort could have easily gone off the rails.  Another filmmaker might have inserted some predictable drama and conflict in order to present a more predictable conclusion.  There's a level of restraint that does make this movie feel unique.  Charles Melton's performance as Joe is also very understated in a way that makes his bottled up tension and despondent demeanor feel genuine and is a good contrast to Gracie's naiveté and passive aggressiveness.  They serve as a collection of characters that don't really work together which makes the tension all the more palpable.  While the movie has the advantage of these provocative characters though it never feels like it goes anywhere or gets off the ground.  It slowly builds as we learn about Gracie's and Joe's relationship through a series of interviews and naturally we expect it to come to a head that never really happens.  I understand the subdued and restrained nature of the film but it's almost too subdued and restrained as the characters are basically in the same place where we started at the beginning of the film.  The biggest arc might have been with Joe but even he is more or less resigned to his position despite the thoughts and feelings that Elizabeth's presence have prompted.  And although this isn't normally a criticism that I level at movies, I have to ask what the decision making was behind the music.  It's very out of place, very overly dramatic, I couldn't help but guess that its campiness was deliberate but is this movie really that kind of a comedy?  Because this music would lend itself to something that would almost be in a parody crime movie.  It comes in like a sledgehammer trying to evoke some forced kind of emotion and it doesn't work at all.  And I've seen this movie marketed as a 'dark comedy' but I must have a different understanding of what a dark comedy is.  May December is an interesting movie to say the least and it has some going for it but at the end of the day it doesn't feel like a ride that really delivered.  It could have taken some interesting turns given its incredibly dodgy subject matter and while I wouldn't necessarily say it 'played it safe' (because how can you really play it safe making a movie about a convicted sex offender and her husband) it's not a story that really took me into interesting places.  I'm pretty sure that was by design but if anything it just leaves me scratching my head even more.

B so says Doomsday

Maestro

I don't really like using the term 'Oscar bait' when it comes to the slew of movies that usually come out around awards season. Although they often feel like they're following a particular formula I don't really like to write them off and denigrate all films that seem to fit into that mold. Sure the structure seems familiar, usually a biopic featuring a named star in an often wildly flamboyant performance in a script that's been done before in other biopics also featuring named stars in wildly flamboyant performances, but I always scratch my head when I see people who write them off. I think Bradley Cooper's Maestro is going to be the movie that will have that term slung at it this awards season as it seems to check those boxes. While a short descriptive would be 'a movie about Leonard Bernstein' that would also be an unfair synopsis.

Maestro doesn't quite center on American composer/conductor Leonard Bernstein. Instead we're thrust into the relationship with his wife Felicia (Carey Mulligan) as his career and celebrity skyrocket and his affairs become more apparent. Personally I'm only vaguely familiar with Bernstein, I certainly wouldn't call myself an expert on the guy's background or works but I'm familiar with his status. The story of his career very much takes the backseat here and while Bernstein's music provides the soundtrack there are actually very few scenes of him conducting music. I understand that the music per se isn't meant to be given the limelight but if I were to know nothing of Leonard Bernstein, which I'm sure many audience members south of forty probably aren't, then I think maybe adding a little more would have at least helped emphasize the scope of his celebrity. Bernstein's and Felicia's story though does offer a lot to digest. Mulligan is sure to get an Oscar nomination for her performance as a loyal, supportive wife who internally struggles with the prospect of being married to a man who can't help but give in to sharing his life with his passion and peers. Bernstein likewise leans heavily on her without even realizing it and as they separate towards the end his life begins to unravel. In a way Maestro made me think that this might have been the movie that Napoleon tried to be and failed. Both movies feature scenes of the main character being reminded by their wives that 'they need them.' The difference is that Maestro does a pretty good job of showcasing the highs and lows, separations and reunitings with Leonard and Felicia while Napoleon is a big mess.

It's also hard not to compare this to last year's composer-centric film Tar. While Maestro focuses on an actual person it isn't afforded the same creative liberties that a movie like Tar is given considering Lydia Tar is a fictional character. Still, it's difficult not to compare the two and Tar offered a more clear, dramatic version of a character who reaches the highest heights before hitting rock bottom. Maestro tries to scratch the surface of this and offers a scene where Bernstein is doing lines of cocaine. I guess that's how you know he's spiraling out of control. The purpose of this was to clearly add emphasis to Leonard's and Felicia's relationship but it almost feels like there's too much emphasis on certain things. When it does succeed though it does hit home especially in the third act. There's also something to be said for Cooper's slow, patient directing. There are many long takes with slow and slight camera moves, if any, and while that can sometimes feel pretentious they add to the effect here, especially during the one main performance in the second act. While it's not a movie that will run the awards table nor is it one that we'll be talking about down the road and while I don't think this is going to launch Bradley Cooper's name into the upper echelon of film directors, Maestro is a serviceable movie that might be considered 'Oscar bait' by some but I think brings enough to the table to make it stand on its own.

B+ so says Doomsday