ed_metal_head

James Cameron has been quoted as saying that Avatar will "change the way we watch movies forever". He's right. Avatar is easily the greatest visual feast that has ever graced the screen. This was my first 3D film and I must admit that I thought 3D was no more than a cheap gimmick that movie studios were pushing to get butts into seats. I was wrong. 3D, in this form, is here to stay. It may not be perfect yet, but the first talkies and colour movies weren't either. What's especially impressive is *how* the 3D is used. Most 3D films throw a couple objects at the screen hoping to woo the crowd. Sure, there's some of that in Avatar, but for the most part Cameron uses the 3D to immerse us in his world. There's some impressive stuff outside that too. Picture a room full of people. Why would anyone use 3D for that? Incredibly it works. The depth perception here isn't used for cheap effects but to demonstrate the distance between the person at the front of the room and the person at the back. Subtitles in 3D? Surprisingly, more legible than 2D subtitles.

Unfortunately, the movie falls short of perfection. Weeks ago South Park called the film "Dances with Smurfs". A more apt comparison for the plot cannot be found. The movie borrows liberally from Dances with Wolves. Even the diary plot device plays out the same way as it did in Dances with Wolves. It's also disappointing that the trailer manages to reveal the entire plot. I had hoped for a few surprises, but unless you count the theological aspects none were really forthcoming.

At this time it should be mentioned that those looking for a James Cameron balls-to-the-wall style action movie will be sorely disappointed. Sure, it ends with a spectacular battle, but there's precious little conflict before. For the most part, the first two hours are all about introducing us to the world of Pandora and its people, flora and fauna. Personally, I was quite happy that some action was eschewed to develop the world, but those with little patience are forewarned.

With Avatar, James Cameron has crafted another fine film. It could never have lived up to the massive hype, but it does come close. The technological breakthroughs made for this film will serve cinema well in the coming years. Avatar represents an evolution of cinema. It's just not the revolution it was made up to be.

Spider-Man 2 is a rare thing, a sequel that improves on the original in almost every way. Sequels tend to jump straight into the action; the characters after all, have already been developed in the original movie. Spider-Man 2 smartly eschews this rule, allowing for almost as much character development as in the first film. The result is a truly beautiful motion picture.

Spider-Man 2 begins some time after the first movie. Spider-Man's real life persona, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is a wreck. Fired from his job, falling behind in school, unable to pay his rent and out of touch with his friends Peter struggles with the duality of being Spider-Man.

Meanwhile, the brilliant Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina) is working feverishly to complete his latest project: a fusion reaction meant to provide a perpetual energy source. He conducts his project under the Oscorp Corporation, now led by Peter's best friend Harry Osborne (James Franco), who unbeknownst to Harry himself, is the son of deceased Spider-Man villain The Green Goblin. To complete the fusion, Octavius fits a set of artificially intelligent mechanical tentacles into his spine; these tentacles are prevented from controlling Octavius because of a tiny chip he has implanted into his neck. The fusion of course, goes awry, turning the respectable Octavius into the evil "Doc Ock".

This sequence sets up the remainder of the movie, as Spider-Man must stop the villain from terrorizing the city, while he battles his own demons.

This is where director Sam Raimi succeeds. The battles are fast-paced and shot from neat angles, with bright colours abound. An over-reliance on CGI for certain scenes can give the movie a 'cartoonish' feel, but more times than not it works well. Those scenes that further Peter's plight and his relationships with others takes up a significant amount of the movie's running time, but they never feel too long or verbose.

Tobey Maguire is of course, the perfect Peter Parker. With his forlorn look and oft crackling voice, he evokes a genuine sense of pity for Peter. While I still feel that Kirsten Dunst is miscast as Mary Jane, she performs her role quite creditably. Alfred Molina is certainly quite enjoyable as the villain. Molina's Doc Ock presents a more interesting and dangerous villain than the Goblin. Making real progress since the first film is James Franco. Now freed of a peripheral role he steps nicely into the spotlight for the sequel. Further credit must be given to J.K. Simmons who plays J. Jonah Jameson. Simmons steals every scene he is in, not only because of his accurate portrayal of Jameson, but also because of his loud, unapologetic delivery of dialogue.

Spider-Man 2 successfully pulls off what the Hulk tried, but was unable to do: to create a superhero film whose characters are just as exciting as the action.

Gifted character actor, Justin Theroux, makes his directorial debut with the indie romantic comedy "Dedication". The film tells the story of a neurotic children's book author Henry Roth (Billy Crudrup) who is forced to work with a female illustrator (Mandy Moore) instead of his usual collaborator (Tom Wilkinson).

The highpoint of the film is undoubtedly the acting. Billy Crudrup ("Almost Famous") is fantastic as Henry, displaying all the quirks one would expect from such a character. His performance seemed like a mix of John C. McGinley on "Scrubs" and Timothy Olyphant from "The Girl Next Door". Mandy Moore is also very good, and manages to create a real character instead of a generic love-interest. This is easily her best acting performance to date. Tom Wilkinson shines as Henry's collaborator and only friend, though it must be noted that his performance is somewhat similar to his Oscar nominated performance in "Michael Clayton". Dianne Wiest, Martin Freeman and Bob Balaban are also delightful in smaller supporting roles.

The screenplay, on the other hand, is unfortunately the film's low point. The character's dialogue itself is fine (actually, it is very good). The problem of the script is the rather generic plot which too closely follows the boy-meet-girl blueprint for romantic comedies. The film's ending is something that would be expected more of a Hollywood studio romantic comedy rather than a quirky indie.

First time director Justin Theroux shows real promise here. While it is true that some of the transitions and editing between scenes are a bit too arty and self-conscious, other things, such as camera placement and shot composition are handled with all the skills of an experienced professional.

Annoyances aside, this is an easy film to recommend. Moore and Crudrup are infinitely watchable and Thereoux is good enough to deserve more directorial jobs. In the end, the collective talent in front of and behind the camera elevates the middling plot into a very enjoyable film.