Pretty, ain't it?

A Single Man (2009) - dir. Tom Ford - 4 stars

Tom Ford has an eye for beauty. In his directing debut, almost every shot is carefully designed in terms of mise-en-scène. Wong Kar Wai influences are abundant in the camera movements, the fleeting moments that seem to rise out of reach so fast like a red balloon. He is also lucky to have fine performances from his leads, Colin Firth and Julianne Moore. It all points to a fantastic debut, but the film is a little too slow and beautiful for its own good.

The film traces a day in the life of George, a silent, rather awkward, gay college professor during the America of the Cuban crisis who is going through his own personal crisis: his partner's death. The film makes copious use of flashbacks and voiceovers to reveal the entire story. Throughout the day, the subdued colors of his regular routine brighten up when he interacts with others who make him feel desired and alive again. This type of mood coloring works perfectly as it gives visual cues of George's unsettled feelings and uncertain future. In general though, color is used very effectively throughout the film along with every aspect of the visuals. Ford makes sure that his film is pretty to watch indeed, which unfortunately does become distracting. At more than a few occasions, I felt that the scene was almost too put together, the colors too perfect. I still haven't decided whether or not it was because I knew this was a fashion designer's film. Thank God the prettiness isn't skin-deep though. Colin Firth and Julianne Moore give incredible performances as both are best at the types of characters they play in A Single Man. It feels as if George was written for Firth to play. I'm not surprised that he won the BAFTA for best actor.

Finally, the film is decidedly conservative when it comes to its homosexuality. Yes, it is about a gay man directed by a gay man, but the film doesn't try to use sexuality as a reason for George's suffering. He is just like any other man and he grieves as such. His reaction to the events in his life are not due to his sexuality. I really liked this subtle treatment of the subject matter as it could have derailed the film completely.

One last thing: I really resisted while writing this review to not go into the debate that's been raging through the blogosphere, but I can't resist! "A film by Tom Ford." This phrase has been causing a lot of debate in film critic circles. How much of this film is Tom Ford's? Can he really claim that this is "a film by Tom Ford" considering it's his debut feature? Should it have simply read "directed by Tom Ford?" Are we now living in an age of self-proclaimed auteurs? An auteur by theory is defined by critics based on their body of work. Truffaut and Godard were auteurs as was Fellini. What signature is there in A Single Man that one can identify to be Tom Ford's? We have never seen a film by him before, so how are we expected to look out for that certain signature? I believe the designation is indeed premature, but I guess we'll have to wait and see if Ford can prove us all wrong.

All things aside, it is very obvious that Ford really wanted to make this film. He wrote the script along with Christopher Isherwood, financed, produced and directed it. I feel that regardless of the auteur theory, the man deserves some acknowledgment. But I don't want to go as far as to say he's an auteur, as I don't want to infer that if you've got the money, you can be an auteur nowadays.

Heaven has become so cliché

The Lovely Bones (2009) - dir. Peter Jackson - 3 stars

Jackson's latest is definitely not an epic film, which has been his forte. By contrast, it is a decidedly small drama with an ensemble cast that's as good as it gets. On top of that, Jackson's signature is obvious in the editing, the attention to detail and the special effects. However, the film doesn't necessarily bring anything fresh.

I'm not sure what attracted Jackson to this material. If he got attached to the project so he could project his version of purgatory and heaven, I must say I wasn't impressed. I have seen many fields of corn and Sound-of-Music-esque mountain ranges depicted as heaven before many times. His rendition also sometimes takes away from the drama that's unfolding. The story is quite powerful and emotional, but the special effects take over, which distances the viewer slightly.

Getting past its shortcomings though, the film features a superb ensemble cast. Stanley Tucci deserves his Oscar nomination as one of the most realistic and dreadful villains I have seen. Susan Sarandon is a breath of comedy in this dark tale and much appreciated indeed. Rachel Weisz also performs admirably as the mother who needs to cope with her loss while trying to keep her marriage together.

Finally, I must give credit to Jackson as a master at building tension. He has several scenes in the film that are so well directed, shot and edited, that I was at the edge of my seat. I must reveal that none of these scenes included any heaven shots though.

Cameron sets new record as Avatar claims highest grossing film ever

Avatar (2009) - dir. James Cameron - 4 stars

This is a film that was hailed as the dawn of a new type of cinema before it was even released. It created enough hype and speculation to rival an Apple product release (watch out on January 27!). I paid good money to experience this creation as it was meant to be. Off I went to the Odeon Leicester Square, put on my 3D glasses and got ready to be sucked into Pandora. I must say that I was amazed at what I saw, and I do agree that this film will change how science-fiction films are made and seen. However, I draw the line there. Despite its three dimensional presentation and (virtual?) reality, the characters are sadly two dimensional stereotypes and the story a revised version of Pocahontas. I guess Cameron thought that with enough 3D and bigger, meaner dragons, he could cover these shortcomings.

But I must not be so harsh. After all, Cameron has been dreaming up this film ever since he was a kid, and it shows. The detail that has gone into making Pandora a real, breathing world is evident. This is a complete world filled with herbivores, carnivores, insects, plants, you name it. It is so painstakingly created that it is real for all we know. There are many minutes in the film where the main purpose is to indulge the viewer in their new surroundings. These scenes would have normally been considered unnecessary, but in Avatar I thoroughly enjoyed them following the main character touch everything and gasp and giggle in amazement.

Unfortunately, the characters and the story don't feel so real3D. All of the characters are basic stereotypes, from your evil corporate head to the good scientist. No one has any twist in their story and they all act as expected. Cameron probably assumed viewers would not require such character depth given that the story is a very common one. I'm actually most surprised and disappointed with the story overall. It is basically the story of Pocahontas or the genocide of the native Americans by the colonists. The only uniqueness of Avatar is that the ending is different from either. Everything else feels as if Cameron took the Pocahontas script and put it on Pandora instead of America with some explosions for good measure.

Overall, I feel like Avatar was really an experiment for the movie industry to see if the experience could be made worth it so as to draw the crowds into the movie theatres instead of pirating copies to watch at home. With its recent position as the highest grossing film ever made in history, I'm sure we'll see more films like Avatar grace our local screens and that Hollywood is a fan. My skepticism aside, Avatar is worth seeing because despite its shortcomings and its very long running time, it engrosses the viewer in a completely new world, which is why it deserves four stars. I do not doubt that this will be the medium in which we see science-fiction going forward, but traditional film making is not over yet. After all, 3D is just make-up.

Humanity at Stake: Are we really capable?

The Road (2009) - dir. John Hillcoat - 4 stars

What distinguishes Hillcoat's gripping tale from other post-apocalyptic films is his focus on the realistic issues that humanity would face in such a situation raising questions on the ideals of humanity and human nature. What part of humanity do we expect to last in a situation where the world is ending and everyone's out for their own survival? Would we join the cannibalistic herds or retain our sense of humanity no matter what price we pay? Hillcoat dissects these questions in several layers and reveals that we are as human as the choices we make. His revelation is even more noteworthy considering the film mostly relies on focused acting and beautiful yet solemn cinematography.

The characters in the film do not have names. They're simply cast as Man, Boy, and Woman, as names don't really matter in post-apocalyptic tales. Everyone is the same, just flesh and blood. In this particular tale, the Man and Boy try to fend for themselves in the resulting cold and ash. Their main purpose is to make it south to a warmer climate, but they have no idea what awaits them there or what they would do next once and if they arrive. With this purpose in mind, the Man and Boy scavenge for food and avoid the cannibals on their way south.

Yes, that's right. In Hillcoat's tale, the majority of the human population turns cannibalistic in the absence of food. These herds hunt together like animals but still seem to have a certain air of modernity and civilisation about them. They live in houses and still eat from plates. Moreover, they have access to whatever technology that's left behind. The Man and Boy, on the other hand, are dirty and live in the wild with nothing but a pistol with two bullets and a rusty shopping cart. They eat insects and whatever else they can find. They're physically portrayed as animals, but it's this conflicting depiction that grabs the viewer's attention. The co-existence of civilisation and cannibalism really challenges our current understanding of what it means to be civilised and raises the question: do we have to be civilised to be human?

To answer that, we need to examine how we define ourselves. Humans have traditionally defined themselves and civilisation for that matter in relation to their superiority over animals, which includes technology, and their success at resisting animal instincts. It's this relative definition that gives us a proud sense of who we are, but the danger lies herein. Relative definitions are not stable especially when the surrounding environment changes, and technology may be used for good or evil. What becomes acceptable may change if the relative point changes. It's really in these moments when people find who they really are. They may break under the pressure or they may still be proud and do whatever's humane and dignified. This central choice frames Hillcoat's film, which deserves to be seen.

Despite being a little slow at times, the film is blessed with great acting from Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee. The father-and-son pair garner instant sympathy and we take on their journey seriously. Thanks to Hillcoat's realistic approach and the non-existence of unnecessary visuals, their plight is made real, landing sci-fi material safely in drama space.

It is Complicated Indeed

It's Complicated (2009) - dir. Nancy Meyers - 2,5 stars

I am a little confused with Meyers' latest. It's blessed with great acting from the leads, but the overall feeling is fake and almost irritating. Meyers has been very successful writing about the suburban American family, specifically focusing on the middle-aged participants, each film presenting a different dimension of their lives from marrying off kids to dealing with divorce. With each film since Father of the Bride (1991), she has perfected her scripts, finally culminating with the wonderful Something's Gotta Give (2003), which is her best film if you ask me. Following that trend and hinging on her own experiences, It's Complicated deals with falling in love once again after divorce, maybe even with the ex-husband. Even though the theme is worthwhile to explore, the execution feels unreal with characters that seem to have popped out of a toothpaste commercial - disingenuous, unreal, and constantly smiling.

After a nostalgic night on the eve of their son's graduation, the divorced-for-a-decade Jane and Jake, played by Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin respectively, end up in the same bed. Jane is unsettled to be the "other woman" while Jake seems all too happy to be "back home." Their affair uncovers unsettled questions in their relationship, which is complicated by another suitor for Jane, who is played by Steve Martin. The trio do their best with the material given, which results in a few good laughs, but unfortunately their acting can't change the fate of the film.

For one, the children in the film are extremely annoying. They neither understand their mother's sexual revival nor act like how children act in real life. They are the picture-perfect children with no issues of their own and a constant smile; they're practically angels! I really wonder if that's how children are like these days? Secondly, everything in the film is so pristine, from the houses to the interior decor, that something quite doesn't feel right. Everything feels too Hollywood, which means the film can only happen in Meyers' happy place. These shortcomings might seem minor, but considering that they make up the framework in which the three leads are placed, they detract from the film much more than one would think.

Overall, the acting from Streep and Baldwin is enjoyable and funny at times, but one can't get himself to watch this film and not feel some contempt too. I may not have explained it too well, but it is hard to explain. I guess it is complicated.