Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
r-a-johnston
Reviews
Avatar (2009)
Visually superb, shame about the storyline...
Fantastic effects, you couldn't leave the cinema without feeling that you had had value for your money.
If I rated the movie on effects alone then I would award 10/10 but surely a truly excellent film needs more? 15 years in its conception/execution? Couldn't a bit more money be spent on a script? Also we have a cast of very clichéd protagonists - although the device used to create and insert the Sully character was entirely satisfactory.
We start with a situation where the mainly greedy and rapacious mining company is in a position to take what it wants from the indigenous people. In amongst that scenario we learn that they would buy or trade for the resources rather than take them by force, but if push comes to shove then..... Subsequently, with the help of Sully, the tables are turned on the mining company and the indigenous folk are able to achieve a position of strength and expel them. Back to their 'dying planet' we hear in almost the final voice-over. You can't really blame them I suppose. However, what are we left with as a message from the film? The guys with the biggest gun, or biggest dragon, calls the tune? Is there nobody up for a compromise position? Could Sully not better explain about what the miners need - to save their dying planet? Could he not have explained better about how some parts of the forest were so sacred that mining there was not feasible without causing an all out conflict? After travelling 5 years (or whatever) through space could the miners not move a bit further around the planet to do their digging, at least exploit the less contentious sites first while building up a greater relationship and understanding of the native peoples. Ho hum.
May be my account is also a bit vapid, but the film as it stands is a cypher despite enormous possibilities given the obvious links with current environmental issues and ideological conflicts. It would have been timely to be a bit more adventurous, to attempt to say something, indeed, to say anything. While the miners are very venal and materialistic the aboriginal people are not without their own short comings. A male can take a woman after completing the initiation rites, not too keen on that. She has to agree though, uh huh. Didn't sound like a lot of democracy going on in general. The scenes with everyone swaying to the rhythm of the planet look OK, but I can't help wondering what happens to those Na'vi who would just rather not attend..... Is it OK for a Na'vi to choose to not sway? Perhaps do some alternative secular activity instead? I wonder. Consequently, we are presented with a coming together of two cultures with different value systems and goals. Neither is without flaws. How these cultures reach some common ground could have been explored in a much more provocative way. Lots of people are very unhappy about drilling for oil in Alaska, lots of other folk want to do it. I don't know how that situation will be resolved but I am sure we can't count on the polar bears to settle it for us. One way or another human beings will have to reach some form of accommodation. In the movie the role of the avatars in bringing about a sharing of perspective between Na'vi and humans could have been so much more fulfilling. How about a Na'vi coming back the other way?
I wouldn't want to eliminate the action sequences from the movie - these were stunning - but would it have hurt to have this part as a precursor to a more satisfactory conclusion than the 'I have a big gun, now I have a bigger gun' ending.
Ultimately, I find the ending deeply flawed. As I watched the humans shepherded back on their spaceships to be sent home I couldn't help thinking that their next step must be "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure".
How big a dragon would Sully need to cope with that?
Torchwood: Children of Earth: Day Five (2009)
Enjoyable but highly flawed
I saved up all these episodes and watched them one lazy day. It was an enjoyable interlude but the writing has become very slapdash. Torchwood intends to be an adult drama and needs to written that way. Naturally, in this sort of drama we need to suspend disbelief to make it work. However, for me there was too much asked of the viewer.
1. OK, Martha -and their direct line to UNIT - is on honeymoon, but she takes her mobile phone with her, and when this sort of thing is happening all around the world she would answer it.
2. Torchwood really has no contingency plans at all? Come one. No safe houses, no spare identities, no credit cards, no bank accounts? Just too far fetched. Ianto can't even acquire some clean clothes? Let's wander around looking conspicuous when everyone is looking for us.
3. I cannot really understand why Gwen's husband does not broadcast the tapes rather than just come in when she calls. Given they were busy calling Ianto's relatives to warn them about not sending the children to school, why not warn everyone? The selective warning surely made them as bad as the cabinet office? Also, why would they allow Jack to be taken into custody at this stage?
4. Having selected particular schools to ship the children off to the aliens it does not make sense to choose 'exactly' the correct number. You would give yourself a margin of error. Indeed, even if the target schools do not yield the required numbers then you choose additional schools - you don't send armed troops into housing estates. It would take too long to achieve, aside from all the other logistical problems. If this was simply a plot device for the fight on the welsh estate with the soldiers then it was a poor one. Those scenes felt so weak and under produced.
5. The cabinet office conversation about which children to send was convincing, but was unwilling to go the final stage. As morally objectionable as it would (and should) be, where was the conversation about sending dying children, children with mental disabilities, children with multiple criminal convictions? This would have been a more disturbing plot element given that such an approach is equally reprehensible but may seem easier to swallow than sending ordinary children and so should disturb our sense of propriety even more. (Of course, the required numbers mean more than just these categories of children, but even so..)
6. In addition to above point, why no talk of a carbon offsetting style of approach? With all the talk about buying up poorer countries' carbon production allowances then why would we not propose buying their children too? How is that for disturbing and topical?
7. (Very minor point.) Shooting Mr Dekker in the leg just seemed spiteful. Amongst a cast of highly objectionable people he was only a minor unpleasant character.
Other issues; a lot of different themes are brought into play, the danger of negotiating with de facto terrorists, trafficking in drugs, value placed on children versus child mortality rates. All good ideas to introduce, but never really developed properly. Often felt a bit like a sixth form debating class approach.
One idea that Davies seems to like (used in Dr Who also) is this notion of USA taking over the British government because we have transgressed some secret international agreement. It never feels believable to me. It was hard enough to take control of Iraq it's not going to be easy here. If his real meaning is that we connive with the Americans to do things which are questionable then he could be correct. However, let's at least take full responsibility for our contribution to those enterprises. We might be too easily persuaded by 'a bigger boy' but let's not pretend they have a gun to our head.
Overall: If you like "dr who' style shows then you will probably enjoy this, I did. However, it so easily could have been much better.
Gone Baby Gone (2007)
Hard novel to bring to film
I was very curious to see what the movie would dilute or drop from the story entirely; to be fair the novel is so complex it would be essential for much to go. Lehane's stories are generally convoluted, although very enjoyable, and I think this is one of his best. I found the conclusion extraordinarily moving in the book and was pleased to see the film kept faith with the original ending. In advance I had been betting it would sell out for a soft ending. Of course one difficulty this introduces is that the film does not have enough time to set up the contrasts in personalities, motivations etc. In the film I don't think the mother is sufficiently vacant and selfish to really make people want to see her be denied her child. Similarly, the different options that could be available for the girl are not contrasted far enough. The film cannot quite capture the huge sense of deprivation present in her life. Establishing these ideas explicitly is what should make Kenzie's difference of opinion with the other protagonists so striking. I think this deficiency is evidenced in other comments written here from people who I assume have not read the book.
I thought it was enjoyable movie that I could easily watch a second time. Affleck and Monaghan fit their roles in a pleasing way. Affleck is younger than the character I had in mind and Monaghan is more demure, but they worked for me. I found the main cop characters pleasantly convincing. On the other hand, I was disappointed with all the bad guys none of whom were very developed, but I guess there simply wasn't enough room/time for them. However, the single most displeasing aspect of the whole film was the use and characterisation of Bubba. A lost opportunity for a larger than life character; the actor was also physically far too small as well.
One aspect of the ending I find irritating is why the treatment of the Morgan Freeman's character is so harsh. Once Kenzie (Affleck) has decided the child is going back to the mother and made it clear that he won't be persuaded otherwise, then surely a return could be arranged that did not leave Freeman and the uncle in prison and the lives of both their wives destroyed? After all, none of the characters, Kenzie included, are above bending the law. On reflection, may be this is actually more acceptable in the movie where Freeman and the uncle are less sympathetic and seem more motivated by money and less by the child's interests.