A Tribute to My Favorite Album of the Decade

Blackwater Park

Opeth (2001)

*****

*****

Looking at some lists of the "best music albums of the decade," I noticed some consensus top choices ("Kid A" and "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" to name a few). I won't deny that these albums are musically innovative, but honestly the only "top album" that really grabs me is Arcade Fire's "Funeral." In choosing my top album of the decade, I will break from the mold a bit and choose an album from an oft-neglected genre - heavy metal.

Opeth is typically classified as "progressive death metal," a term which already looks like a handful but doesn't even begin to describe the type of music that they make. Mikael Akerfeldt's songwriting transcends all of the guidelines and stereotypes of metal, and can be enjoyed by both heavy metal fans, who will see the music as novel, and non-metal fans, who will find the music surprisingly accessible.

The defining characteristic of the band's music is the ability to weave together all different types of expressions and styles so seamlessly. One moment, you may be hearing raging screams over percussive distortion guitar riffs. Then comes a solemn piece on the piano or acoustic guitar, and then a jazzy segment with clean vocals. Yet as eclectic as each piece of Opeth's music is, all of it feels so natural and makes so much sense, and this is what sets Blackwater Park apart from the decade's other musical innovations.

Blackwater Park, for Opeth, is a starting point for what would eventually be a decade of consistently great music characterized by their trademark sound and songwriting style, and perhaps more importantly, production of the highest quality. However, in my opinion Blackwater Park is still their magnum opus - as an album it is the most cohesive of all their works, and its influence on their music and on many other bands is undeniable.

As is the case with all of Opeth's albums, Blackwater Park is meant to be listened to all the way through as one "song." Accordingly, the album is not really divided into "songs" as much as "movements," in the style of long-form classical music. With an average track length of about 8 1/2 minutes, each song contains musical themes that carefully develop and evolve into or are shoved aside by new ones - though once in a while you may hear a brief reprise and think, "whoa, we heard this 7 minutes ago... how did we get all the way back here?!" with an expression of amazed surprise.

But the musical complexity of the album isn't the only thing that makes it so great. Over the course of 67 minutes, the band creates an immersive musical atmosphere that approaches the greatness of my all-time favorite album, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. There is not a single bad moment to be found in either work, and each one brings a new experience upon every re-listen.

Typically, I listen to music (a wide variety of genres, might I add) while doing something else, like using my computer, studying, or walking somewhere. But there are some albums that I find worthwhile to just sit down, relax, close my eyes, and absorb - and Blackwater Park is one of a select few.

At this point, I encourage you to do exactly this: pop in the album, get rid of distractions, and absorb and appreciate this masterpiece. (Well, at the very least pop in the album...) Below is an extremely detailed listening guide for the album, which may be useful to skim if you're deciding whether or not to invest your next hour listening to some Opeth, but is intended more as a supplementary read while or after listening to the album, to deepen your appreciation. Yes, the guide is incredibly lengthy, but it just only scratches the surface of all the substance in this masterpiece.

*****

Opeth's Blackwater Park

Jason's extremely detailed listening guide

Blackwater Park opens with the fading in of a barely audible, eerie and dissonant noise, before coming in with a bang (0:28). The beginning of "The Leper Affinity" contains the hardest, loudest, and fastest music of the entire album. The opening riffs are sure to please any metal fan, and for those not used to this type of music, rest assured that these brutal opening passages are actually leading to something beautiful. By the end of the album, you will not even notice how "metal" much of the album really is! Already the music is getting pretty technical. Did you notice the triplet-duplet polyrhythms between the guitars and vocals in the first riff (0:43) and the fact that the music changes from 3/4 to 6/8 meter at (0:56)? Hopefully you didn't before I pointed it out, because the subtlety that Opeth is able to incorporate into their musical complexity is impressive. The transition at (2:12) is great. From a melodic death metal tone that sets the tone of the track, we go into a segment with a more thrash-influenced style (think Metallica) that is perfect for headbanging. After some development, we get a recapitulation of the same riff at (3:14) with a more slurred articulation (again a subtle detail), which is the perfect setup for the slow, melodic segment at (4:05). The solo guitars here sound like they're really singing - crying even. (4:46) is the first part of the album that would make someone familiar with Opeth but not with the album go, "oh hey, this is an Opeth album." Acoustic guitars, clean singing - the balance and contrast this has with the heavier portions of the album is what makes the album shine. And here, the high production quality of the album, which is marked by an uncharacteristic amount of clarity for a metal album, is at its most obvious. The way that this somewhat jazzy/funky portion gradually builds back up to the original theme from (5:38) to (6:53) is masterful and has some great rhythms. The music eventually calms down into a pretty piano segment (8:52) that is just filled with longing. Thinking about this track as a whole, it follows a classical sonata form (A-B-A-coda), which is interesting in that A) it doesn't follow the verse-refrain format that is too popular in music today, and B) it develops a "B" section (the slow part) that is so different from the "A" section, yet each transition flows so naturally. This track alone is already a masterpiece, but we're only getting started, because the piano solo segues right into the second track.

"Bleak" is a beautiful track that stands out in an already great album, and its greatness need not be explained, though I will proceed anyway to note some details. The themes in the first three minutes of the song are based on the exotic-sounding Arabic and Hungarian scales, and right away the great consonance between the acoustic and electric guitars is amazing and is a testament to the album's production quality. The expressive quality of the growling vocals always intrigues me - it is completely devoid of the anger that runs rampant in death metal vocals, and Mikael Akerfeldt does an excellent job conveying the emotions found in the lyrics. The cadence at (2:39) is awesome - even though it's on an acoustic guitar, it's possible the most jarring moment in the album so far. At (3:08) is a super-technical lick that leads to the second main chunk of the song, which has an incredibly catchy clean vocal part. This is sung over a guitar riff whose notes could easily be the instrumental for a hard rock song, but here is played and produced with such a legato quality that for a rhythm guitar part, it is incredibly lyrical. The passages at (4:26) to (5:59) are pretty straight up - the bass part in particular is quite cool. For some reason Eric Clapton comes to mind. The band makes a smart decision at (5:16) to hold the pause for longer than a full four counts. We expect them to come back in, but they trick us and don't come in until a beat or two later. At (6:00) begins the development of a great multilayered atmosphere, though it is still easy for a listener to follow. Then, of course, at (7:21) comes back that cool part again from a while ago - though for some reason I feel like it has a more powerful quality to it this time around, especially once the vocals transition back into death metal growling. As the track is wrapping up, the drum part goes into double at (8:43), which is pretty sweet, before the track ends with what sounds kind of like an electric guitar dying.

"Harvest" is some nice easy listening after two long, complex tracks. It is done the entire way through with soft, clean vocals over an acoustic guitar backing. The two vocal parts sound pretty much perfect together, whether they are singing in octaves, in harmony, or in unison. Interestingly, the drummer sounds like he's using brushes here, which brings a nice contrast to the harder drumming found previously. Obviously it's a huge deviation from heavy metal standards. The music seems pretty straight up this time, but the key signatures are going all over the place! The song opens in E minor before going into C minor for the first main vocal part ("Stay with me awhile") and then into A minor for the next ("Into the orchard") before standing on B minor ("Wilted scenes for us"). The chord progressions don't really make any sense to me, but Opeth makes it work. At (3:13) is... wait for it... another key change! This time into D minor. The guitar solo here isn't too melodic, but is very emotional. Not much else to say... just relax and enjoy this one.

After a track that is simpler and closer to a regular song, we dive right back into all-out Opeth mode with "The Drapery Falls", whose opening lead guitar riff reminds me a little of King Crimson's epic track "In the Court of the Crimson King." The bass part under this riff is excellent too - it dances around the fretboard with a little bit of a groove to it and while the fits with the music around it, it also has a personality of its own. This intro is one of those moments where you can really "lose yourself to the music" as Eminem would put it, and it leads perfectly to the next section that starts at (1:46). This passage is noticeably bare compared to the musical multilayering of much of the album and is reminiscent of the "B" section of "The Leper Affinity," especially in the vocal effects and absence of a drum part. After some crazy acoustic guitar chords, in comes the drums and some passionate singing at (2:47). The first time around, this phrase dies back down into bareness, but the second time it segues into a long crescendo, eventually leading to an intense passage with the first death metal vocals (5:06) that we've heard in over ten minutes. This is some great songwriting here! If the album had a "plot curve," this could be the peak right here. At (5:35), the band puts aside melody and just grinds out some huge power chords, leading to an insane dissonant vamp at (5:50) in 5/16 time that after a while transcends even trying to make sense but somehow leads flawlessly right into the next section at (6:09). The rhythm becomes a little more clear now - it's 5/8 (or 10/16), with the beats grouped 3-3-2-2 (like the Mission Impossible theme), and a couple of measures of different lengths tossed in every now and then. Finally we go back to a straight 6/8 at (6:49), which is what we've been accustomed to for much of the album. Still, the intensity is not at all waning. The riff here is vamped for a while, but at (7:19) it goes into double time, but with the beats grouped 3-3-2-2-2 instead of a straight up 3-3-3-3 or 2-2-2-2-2-2. For some reason, this reminds me a little bit of Green Day. The big shocker comes at (7:47) when all of the instruments suddenly drop out. But don't let this brief acoustic guitar / vocal duet fool you, because it alternates rapidly with some really heavy stuff, complete with double bass drum pedaling action. Eventually, the original theme of the track makes its reprise at (8:41), which by now should be no surprise, as the band has largely been following an A-B-A sonata form for most of the tracks. As the double bass drum beats become more prominent, the music fades into nothingness, which is the ideal ending considering the track to follow.

"Dirge for November" is probably the track in the album that focuses most on using music to create a pure mood rather than a mood concealed within a melody. Unlike the other tracks, you can't really sing along to the tunes in this track, and if you tried to, you're missing the point. The beginning of the track is very obviously bare, and the tempo is very rubato, which is an art that is largely disappearing and often misinterpreted when actually performed. The suspension and resolution at (0:08) and the dissonance at (0:18) are simply astounding. This passage can be thought of as a kind of introduction to the rest of the track, starting at (0:45), which is more cohesive. The name of the game from this point on is "4," because that seems to be the number of times each riff is repeated. But it's clear here that Opeth is aiming for a slow, deliberate development of the mood - a constantly shifting atmosphere would be disorienting. The beginning of the instrumental passage is the closest we really come to a melody, and features the electric guitar playing with such a muted sound that it almost resembles the sound of a nylon-strung classical guitar. At (1:43) is the sudden entrance of the distorted guitars, which play a variation of the previous riff. By the time the vocals reenter at (3:27), the themes have become almost hypnotic. This trance-like death metal is sustained until (5:45), when the music dies down to a clean guitar riff that is not at all melodic but contains some beautiful chords and sweeping arpeggios. Out of all the great tracks on the album, this might be the least "memorable" for its lack of melody - but that doesn't diminish the track's greatness. Just kick back and absorb the music, the mood, the ambience.

After the fading out of the guitar in "Dirge for November" comes the fading in of a ominous repeated, dissonant, broken chord on the acoustic guitar in "The Funeral Portrait", which is followed by a thrashy section at (0:30) which makes you remember that, yes, this is an album that you can rock out to when the time is right. Not much commentary is needed here - most of the track is straight up and easy to enjoy. The short interlude at (3:53) seems to be kind of jazz fusion influenced, with the acoustic guitar and drums having a little back-and-forth conversation. The track then gradually becomes more atmospheric and less rhythmic, starting with (4:07), which still has hints of thrash with the tight rhythms on the bass drum, and eventually leading to (4:28), which has a foggy feel despite the near blues-iness of the guitar solo and the jazzy drum beats at (4:43). And of course, what long Opeth track would be complete without a recapitulation of the first theme (5:28)? The coda section starting at (6:33) is really interesting because its chord progressions seem to be heavily influenced by classical music theory. This is especially evident in the iv-iib-V7 chord progression at (6:37), which is hardly ever used in music nowadays. At (6:48)... three-part vocal harmony mixed in with counterpoint... Bach would be proud! The change into double time at (7:16) should by now not come as a surprise. We get a little bit of double lead guitar action as the track fades out to...

"Patterns in the Ivy", which at a mere 1:52 in duration is clearly meant as an interlude between two beastly tracks. Just relax and enjoy the beautiful contemporary harmonies of this acoustic guitar / piano duet.

Finally we arrive at the big ending - the title track of the album, "Blackwater Park", which might be the least technically complex track in the album - centering almost entirely on the D Hungarian scale - but it is still pure awesome. It starts with a march-like feel that at times (1:25 in particular) reminds me of the opening riffs of Metallica's classic "For Whom the Bell Tolls". The opening sections are definitely influenced by 80's and 90's metal (Pantera comes into mind), and even though a true metalhead will never get sick of the key of E, Opeth switches things up here by going into drop D tuning, which I tend to associate with lots of oomph and slower, steady beats. When the heavy guitars suddenly drop out in (2:41), we're left with a beautiful clean guitar riff that will be vamped over and over again while various other parts interact with it - very much in the progressive rock style - like the electric guitar part at (3:44) that has a vocal quality to it (though the vamped riff is replaced briefly by an acoustic guitar at this point). This is the last track of the album, and you can probably guess that this serene section is preparation for an epic ending. Indeed, the music fades back in at (5:10) and is even heavier than it was at the beginning of the track. The use of the kill switch at (6:37) and at various points later adds some rhythmic flavor and gives Opeth even more bonus points. The riff at (8:07) is a reprise of the clean guitar riff vamped in the previous section, and obviously has a completely different feel this time, played in octaves on a distorted guitar - so grand, orgasmic even. Once again, the riff is vamped, but this time there is more development going on, with the rhythms going into double time at (8:51). The passage starting at (9:14) marks a kind of final climax of the album before the brief, disorienting "pause" at (9:37) and denouement at (9:48). As the track and album wind down, layers of sustained electric guitar notes pile on top of each other starting at (10:56), much like the end of "Master of Puppets", until (11:19). Here you may be expecting the album to end with a grandiose, shredding away of the strings, which is understandable because a lot of bands like to rock out like this before they end their show. It will probably be surprising, then, to hear the album end with a single, staccato, power chord, followed by the gradual fading out of an acoustic guitar over the course of a minute. And so we are reminded of the famous ending lines of T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men" - "This is the way the world ends / This is the way the world ends / This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper."

*****

For the lyrics to Blackwater Park, click here.

More Mini-reviews

Here's another handful of mini-reviews of some of the movies to come out all throughout last year. I have a few more movies I'd like to see before I wrap up with a top five of 2009 list as well as a best of the decade list.

*****

The Hurt Locker

Dir. Kathryn Bigelow (2009)

*****

The Hurt Locker is one of the best war movies I've ever seen and is bound to be a top contender to win the Oscar. It's discouraging that no woman has ever won the Oscar for Best Director or has directed a Best Picture winner. I think this movie is definitely worthy of both prizes, so the Academy better not pass up this opportunity to make history and inspire other female moviemakers. The Hurt Locker is a different kind of war movie and will definitely be interesting for anyone who is interested in modern combat. As opposed to other war movies, which are saturated with disorienting gunfire and explosions, The Hurt Locker instead is a suspense-builder that is constructed with a great precision. The film follows a team of bomb defusers in Iraq. In particular, it focuses on William James (Jeremy Renner), who has such an obsession with defusing bombs that his squad views him as reckless. The combination of the tenseness of bomb defusing, the examination of a character's somewhat twisted psychology, and the details of modern warfare make The Hurt Locker a tough movie to not enjoy. While Fantastic Mr. Fox is as of now my "favorite" movie of the year, I would consider The Hurt Locker the "best" - and yes, there is a difference.

*****

My Rating: A

*****

A Serious Man

Dir. Joel & Ethan Coen (2009)

*****

Everyone seems to mention a "Coen brothers style," but in reality every single one of their movies is so different. After having made movies as strange as Raising Arizona, as uncomfortable as Fargo, and as thrilling as No Country For Old Men, it's hard to know what to expect next from these two geniuses. Their most recent work, A Serious Man, is very personal and also very odd. Right from the start you can tell what kind of movie this is going to be. The story is a modern day version of the book of Job, where everything goes badly for Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg). Everything that happens to him is strangely funny after you let the movie settle in. While viewing A Serious Man, though, I had a hard time being able to see where the movie was going. This is a film that is meant to be watched more than once. While I found it enjoyable on my first viewing, I do expect it to be better the second time.

*****

My Rating: B+

*****

Ponyo

Dir. Hayao Miyazaki (2009)

*****

It seems like the animation industry is heading towards going entirely 3-D, so I'm very thankful that we still have Hayao Miyazaki, who is well-loved for his magical style of hand-drawn 2-D animation. His works are all connected by an element of magic, and we have an idea what to expect from him nowadays. Much of his work is deep and mature - like the recent Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle. I must say though that I am more a fan of Miyazaki's classic My Neighbor Totoro, which is a much simpler cartoon that is filled from top to bottom with charm. Ponyo has the same simplicity and charm, and so it is unsurprising that I enjoyed it a ton. The story is about a fish named Ponyo who runs away from her family, becomes friends with a human boy, and eventually wants to become a human herself. This is a story that is filled with so much expression (not just in the characters, but also the style of drawing in general), and using 3-D animation à la Pixar or Dreamworks would just not work here. It is probably a lot to hope for, but I hope that Ponyo and Disney's recent The Princess and the Frog will mark the beginning of a 2-D animation renaissance.

*****

My Rating: A

*****

Adventureland

Dir. Greg Mottola (2009)

*****

Greg Mottola, who made Superbad, returns two years later with Adventureland - another coming of age story that replaces the sheer hilarity of Superbad with an extra dose of charm. This movie was kind of marketed as being similar to Superbad, which was a goofy move in my opinion, as the shortage of funniness in Adventureland was definitely much more of a disappointment as it should have been. Putting that issue aside, we're left with a hip "love" story, though in this film the line between "love" and "getting some" is blurry. Perhaps it's exactly this that makes the movie, and especially the ending, a little awkward for me. Both of the lead actors (Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart) play their roles to perfection, but I don't think the way the characters were written was exactly impeccable. Which stinks because the movie revolves around the contrast between the two characters' lifestyles. Oh well.

*****

My Rating: B-

*****

Precious

Dir. Lee Daniels (2009)

*****

Precious is one of the most powerful movies I've seen in a while - it's mostly devastating but has glimpses of inspiration. The acting across the board is perfect, though the film is largely carried by Gabourey Sidibe as Precious and Mo'Nique as her abusive mother Mary. Life is about as bad for Precious as it can get. She's been the victim of incest and is now pregnant with her second child; she's an outcast at school and at home. However, throughout all of this, Precious displays all of the characteristics that suggest that she can take control of her own future. The film is about turning these hopeful characteristics into actions. Sidibe is perfect in displaying Precious's complex emotional states and really brings the audience into the film. Meanwhile, though Mo'Nique's character seems to be an "antagonist," her character is also the result of a complex set of emotions. Both actresses are bound to get Oscar nominations, and the film is highly worthy of one too.

*****

My Rating: A

*****

Drag Me To Hell

Dir. Sam Raimi (2009)

*****

If you're a fan of the Evil Dead trilogy and miss the old Sam Raimi style before he went mainstream to make the Spiderman trilogy, then Drag Me To Hell will be a nice little treat - though don't see the movie expecting something as crazy as Army of Darkness. Drag Me To Hell has many of those over-the-top moments that ride the border between scary and funny, just like in those Evil Dead movies. However, the main downfall here is that Raimi's attempts to bring the plot together are weak. There is a level of mysticism in Drag Me To Hell that explains why protagonist Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is being chased by a crazy lady spirit in the first place. However, unlike in The Evil Dead, where the scenes that explain the mystical elements are themselves scary, in this film, those scenes are actually kind of boring and just seem like filler. A subplot involving Christine's career aspirations is kind of fluffy as well. Still, as long as you can get over Justin Long's acting (he should just stick to Mac commercials), Drag Me To Hell is overall a fun experience, and something I recommend for anyone who likes the Evil Dead movies or over-the-top horror in general.

*****

My Rating: B

*****

Coraline

Dir. Henry Selick (2009)

*****

Neil Gaiman's graphic novels are magical, and the expressionist style of 3-D animation that Henry Selick (maker of The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach) brings to the table is a great fit for Gaiman's Coraline. Overall, I don't think Gaiman's works are meant to be turned into movies, but if a movie must be made, this is probably how it should be done. The film adaptation of Coraline isn't bad, but it doesn't do too much to impress - and I think this kind of thing happens a lot in general when adapting graphic novels into movies. I haven't read the book, but it's often the case (as in Watchmen and Sin City) that a film adaptation tries to be an exact copy of the book, especially since the images are already given. This is unlike adapting a prose novel, where the film director is given a lot more freedom to create his or her own visualizations of the book. Coraline is satisfying in its expressionist visuals and silly style of horror, but I feel that both aspects could have been a lot, lot better. Perhaps a little more of the horror aspect would have been nice.

*****

My Rating: B+

Mini-reviews: Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Princess and the Frog, Up In the Air

It's Oscar season and there are a ton of great movies out now! I've got a lot to talk about but don't plan on writing too much, so here are some quick thoughts.

*****

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Dir. Wes Anderson (2009)

*****

Fantastic Mr. Fox was a riot. Hardcore fans of Wes Anderson or Roald Dahl may take issue with the movie, as it is not exactly made in the typical Anderson style, nor is it quite true to the original book. Fortunately for me, I am not too much of either. One thing that puzzles me is that Fantastic Mr. Fox for some reason seemed to be marketed as a kids' movie (it is not). But anyway, this is the best movie I've seen so far this year, for many reasons. The simplest is that it is straight out fun. The characters are awesome, and the fact that they are all animals makes it even more amusing. The unique style of humor that Wes Anderson adds to his movies fits this film perfectly. Fantastic Mr. Fox is done with stop-motion animation, but somehow the characters' expressions actually look genuine, which is even more impressive because they are animals! George Clooney delivers his lines as Mr. Fox with the slickness and slyness of a fox, and all of the other animals have their memorable moments - from the depression and jealousy of Mr. Fox's son Ash to the hilarious nervousness of the mole Kylie. This is a movie I can watch over and over and over again.

*****

My Rating: A

*****

The Princess and the Frog

It's a Disney movie (2009)

*****

For those of you who, like I, miss the classic-style 2-D Disney animation, this will be a bit of a treat. I never thought that 3-D animation was inherently any better or worse than the hand-drawn 2-D style, so it made me sad when the entire animation industry basically made only 3-D movies in recent years. Anyway, The Princess and the Frog brings a cute new twist to the well-known story, where instead of making the frog human, the kiss makes the human a frog. The voodoo themes of the cartoon seemed mature and I'm surprised that Disney created this movie in the first place, as I can see kids getting really scared from this stuff. I thought the villains were great - one has voodoo powers that result in some pretty crazy scenes throughout the movie; the other is driven more by greed and revenge than by pure evil, which is just about as human as we can expect from a Disney villain. A particular scene towards the end of the movie is one of the best I've ever seen in a cartoon. Unfortunately, The Princess and the Frog has two major downfalls. The first is a kind of identity crisis, where the movie was kind of in between a kids' movie and a grown-ups' movie. Disney usually does a good job making their movies appropriate for all ages, but in this movie, the scenes kind of alternated between ones for kids' and ones for grown-ups', which was kind of awkward. The other was the lack of any memorable songs whatsoever. The songs were made in a kind of New Orleans jazzy style that seemed appropriate considering the setting of the movie, but was probably ultimately a bad move.

*****

My Rating: B

*****

Up In the Air

Dir. Jason Reitman (2009)

*****

Yes, you have probably heard that this movie is about a guy who fires people for a living and flies a lot. So did I before watching this, but before going to see this, I couldn't imagine what the plot could possibly be like. Well, it turns out that just like in Jason Reitman's previous film Juno, the important thing is not necessarily the plot, but instead the premise of the film and the interactions between the characters. I won't get into too much description, since there's some pretty complex character development going on. Overall though, the movie has a great balance between some really interesting themes involving relationships and charming humor of the same type as in Juno. The director himself puts it perfectly. "In one sense, it’s a movie about a man who fires people for a living. In another sense, it’s a movie about a man who collects air miles excessively. In another sense, it’s about a man who meets a woman who’s so similar to him that even though they both believe in the idea of living solo, they begin to fall in love." In short, Up In the Air is a lot like Juno, but - in my opinion - better. Definitely a front-runner for Best Adapted Screenplay.

*****

My Rating: A-

*****

Movies I still would like to watch: The Hurt Locker, A Serious Man, Precious, An Education, (500) Days of Summer, Ponyo, Moon, Coraline

Review: Avatar

Avatar

Dir. James Cameron (2009)

*****

It's been almost a week since I went to see Avatar; I think by now I've got the movie mostly digested and my thoughts ready to share. Now where, oh where do I start in attempting to review this movie that is unlike anything we've seen on a cinema screen before?

First, I should say that if you have not yet had the experience of seeing a movie in 3-D, it is definitely something worth dishing out a few extra bucks to try out. 3-D cinema has come a long way over the past few years. It's no longer gimmicky but instead is now used to make some really great visuals. I'm not so sure 3-D is really "the future" of movies; I don't think it's appropriate for about 3/4 of the movies out there, but Avatar is certainly one of the films that benefits from this technology. Right at the opening shot, you can really see the way 3-D enhances the picture. The third dimension becomes more subtle as we transition from the world of the humans to the world of the Na'vi, but maybe this is all for the better. With all the action going on, we don't want our eyes to start getting sore.

Now, 3-D or not, the visuals and the special effects used to create them are obviously the centerpiece of Avatar. I do appreciate all of the work and money invested into the visual aspect of the movie, and it's clear that there was a lot of attention to detail in creating the jungle world of Pandora. The graphics look about as realistic as they can get given today's technology, but I specifically use the word "graphics" because the movie does still look and feel like a video game. I give credit to the makers of Avatar for using special effects with purpose and rarely inserting the effects gratuitously - this was a relief considering the billions of dollars Hollywood invests into pointless effects when the money could instead be used to feed entire nations. Sadly, not even the most convincing computer graphics in the world can redeem a film that is so inherently weak.

The majority of those who have seen Avatar will hate the rating I give this movie (at the bottom of the review, you can peek), and I'm still trying to figure out if people love this movie despite the plot or because of the plot. Anyway, I will stand by all the opinions about the weaknesses of this film but am always open for discussion. Avatar's plot fails for two reasons: the story is far from engaging, and the world James Cameron creates is uninteresting.

After the impressive graphics, the next thing that stood out to me was how boring the film was. The story had tons of potential but the writing was poor. Are we supposed to care about any of the characters? I didn't find the protagonist Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) interesting at all, and while it's clear that the humans are supposed to be the villains, the Na'vi aren't quite creatures that we can identify with - at least not for the first two hours of the movie. The blue humanoids seem alien and even hostile for much of the film. If none of the characters are interesting, then why should we care about what happens to them?

The first two hours of Avatar are essentially worthless in terms of plot, and perhaps the moment the humans finally issue their ultimatum to the Na'vi might have been a better starting point for the story. The fact that Jake in his human-Na'vi hybrid avatar form must choose between allying with his own human species or with the Na'vi that he's grown to love and respect suddenly makes things interesting. At this point, there would have been potential for a great story, but instead we get a lengthy battle scene. While the war is unique and visually exciting, it is a huge step back from what we're used to - for example, The Lord of the Rings. At the same time, it's pretty ridiculous and hard to believe. Shooting down planes using bows and arrows? That's new.

A mediocre story can be forgivable in fantasy epics, and many of the great films we love have plots that aren't exactly their strong points. But in these cases, the world and the lore created in the movie are far more important than the plot which can perhaps be simplistic (Star Wars), utterly convoluted (Lord of the Rings), or poorly written (Harry Potter). The problem with Avatar is that the world of the Na'vi is equally as boring as the film's plot. There is hardly anything about the world that James Cameron creates that makes me want to purchase Avatar action figures or read fan-fiction spin-offs. With George Lucas's Star Wars world, on the other hand, I will be one of the first to admit that even at this age, a Darth Vader action figure would still be cool.

Avatar is one of the most hyped movies of the year - and rightly so - because of its visuals. I will not hesitate to say that the visuals are impressive and enhance this particular picture, but to call them beautiful might be a little bit of a stretch. Will Avatar mark the dawn of a new era in the special effects business? Arguably. A new era in the moviemaking business? I hope not.

*****

My Rating: C+

Review: District 9

District 9

Dir. Neill Blomkamp (2009)

*****

It starts off as an engaging mockumentary and ends as a finely choreographed action flick, but regardless of how you look at it, District 9 brings a completely new perspective to science fiction and is a masterfully crafted movie that should be pleasing to anyone who can stomach filth and guts. The movie underwent an extensive viral marketing campaign and certainly lived up to its hype. Set in Johannesburg, South Africa in an alternate version of the present world, the film feels more like science reality than science fiction - well, at least for the first half.

This film isn't split into distinct segments, but I consider it to have three "acts." The first is in the style of a documentary, and explores the process of evicting aliens stranded on Earth from a sequestered slum in the center of Johannesburg to another sequestered slum outside the city after complaints by the city's human inhabitants. This segment is clearly the best, presenting a believable world in which not only do humans and aliens coexist, but also one in which it is the aliens being persecuted by the humans and not the other way around. And while the aliens are physically and intellectually superior to humans (what else would you expect?) it is ultimately because of politics, their lack of numbers, and - perhaps most importantly - economic constraints that force them to live in squalor.

Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is leading an effort to deliver eviction notices to District 9's alien inhabitants. However, this is no simple task considering the large presence of the Nigerian gang in the area, who give the aliens food in exchange for their technologically advanced weaponry, along with the fact that the aliens can rip people apart like dolls. Chaos can break out at any moment, but Wikus is committed to his task of not only displacing the aliens but also showing the camera everything he does, without concern over the danger he might be in. If you think about what you're seeing too much, you'd notice that the concept is pretty outrageous. But this mockumentary-style opening makes District 9 feel more real than many movies without aliens. And even though the second half of the movie is closer to a stereotypical sci-fi action movie, it still has the realistic feel because of the way the first half set things up.

I won't say how or when, but in the process of delivering eviction notices and making a documentary, things go very bad for Wikus (and at first unbeknownst to him, for the aliens too). At this point, the documentary style approach is almost completely abandoned, setting up the second and third "acts" of the film, which can make for a legitimate movie in itself.

While the first act sets up the premise of the movie, the second and third acts form the bulk of the plot; though we should keep in mind that District 9's strength is not primarily in its plot, but rather on its style and novelty. Not too much can be said without revealing plot details, but it is much like one of those fugitive-on-the-run flicks (Act 2) combined with extended battles (Act 3), with a heavy dose of extraterrestrial steroids (star-roids?). Still, this segment is light

years away from your average action movie, and though the developed relationship between Wikus and an alien going by the name of Christopher Johnson - not a typo - is borderline sappy, there is still a lot of substance in the plot and even the action.

Take, for example, the role of the Nigerian gang - who are hungry for money and especially power, and are not friendly with anyone. Like I said, this is not simply the humans versus aliens battle that one might have expected before seeing the film. And though Neil Blomkamp - who was originally booked to make a Halo movie before making District 9 instead - makes sure to showcase a full arsenal of future-tech alien weaponry, he doesn't overdo the gimmicks, instead wisely focusing on keeping the movie rolling and the audience unconfused.

District 9 owes its success mostly to the world of "science reality" it creates. One must now wonder how accurate this vision would be if the hypothetical scenario in the movie were to actually happen - if a ship filled with malnourished aliens did actually get stuck in the air above a city like Johannesburg. Would the aliens be forced to live within the walls of a place like District 9? Would humans have hatred for these creatures, even making derogatory terms to describe them ("prawn")? And though the film does eventually change from a truly unique mockumentary into a little bit more of a generic sci-fi action movie, this feeling of "science reality" still sets District 9 apart from anything I've seen.

And to think that this was all created from a budget of $30 million (G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra, which opened the week before, had a $175 million budget), makes it all the more impressive.

*****

My Rating: A

Review: Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds

Dir. Quentin Tarantino, 2009

*****

"Wait for the cream," says Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) to Shoshanna (Mélanie Laurent) as they are about to enjoy a strudel at a restaurant in Nazi-occupied Paris. Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds is a movie in which there is a lot of waiting - but the cream does make this strudel well worth the wait. And there's much more of this cream than the big dollop at the end. You can also find it layered within the movie's Tarantino-flavored dough.

Basterds is composed of five "chapters," each of which has its own plot curve. Scenes where characters engage in seemingly mundane dialogue are time-bombs waiting to explode, and we know it. Though the eventual explosions are satisfying, the real substance of the scenes is in the wait - and like I said, there is a lot of waiting.

The most suspenseful scenes stem from Waltz's brilliant performance in portraying "The Jew Hunter" Colonel Landa. Simple conversations over a glass of milk or a warm strudel are transformed into long moments of unspoken tension. The first chapter of the film, which features Colonel Landa, plays out like a ballet of words. Other scenes are an exposition of Landa's unfortunate combination of evilness and extreme intelligence.

On the other hand is Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and his squad of Basterds, who in stark contrast to Landa, give the movie the comedic and grotesque dimension that is basically required in anything with the Quentin Tarantino stamp. These guys may be dumb, but they're a group you certainly do not want to encounter. Unfortunately for the enemy, the Basterds massacre platoon after platoon, setting up some scenes that are funny despite their gruesomeness and excruciating despite their comedy.

Now the Basterds are excellent at killing, but they're not so skilled at much else, and sadly for them, there is much more to trying to assassinate Hitler than just the killing itself. The Basterds find themselves dug into hole after hole, which does not spell well for them when matched up against the smarts of Colonel Landa and many of the Germans. One of the movie's most memorable scenes occurs at a tavern in a basement. "You don't got to be Stonewall Jackson to know you don't want to fight in a basement," says Aldo, clearly indicating to us that a fight will inevitably break loose. But while they drink and play games with some Germans, we're hoping that a fight won't happen, and once again, we find ourselves witnessing the tensest bar game in movie history.

Shoshanna's quest for revenge over the murder of her Jewish family by Landa's men provides the thread that ties together the plot of this epic, multi-layered film. Her story and its development are the best part of the movie in one way and the worst in another. You wait for a long time, but the cream is exquisite. It is in itself a modern-day film noir and is beautiful as a whole, though some parts are definitely lacking in poetry.

One particularly unsatisfying scene involves Nazi war hero Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl) pursuing a disinterested Shoshanna in a café. The exchange doesn't amount to much, and we find ourselves having to actually wait through similar interactions, which start off unremarkable but crescendo throughout the film. Indeed, the relationship between the two characters is essential, despite its lack of complexity.

Without divulging details, I will say that the final chapter of the film is unlike anything I've seen from the past five years, and the movie's last line is perfect. Yet again, the strudel is good, but it's worth it to wait for the cream. As for the strudel, it is somewhat of a departure from Tarantino's other work. Most notably, it lacks much of the catchphrase-filled dialogue that has become a QT trademark - though the quirkiness can still be felt. Whether this marks a lasting change in style on Tarantino's part is yet to be seen. This is not his best work, but in Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino proved that yes, he can add a layer of sophistication in substance over his always present mastery of style.

*****

My Rating: A-