Bothing coming of age stories based on popular young adult novels, with a similar three-person dynamic at its helm, and two first acts of relative lightheartedness with a rather solemn third act. Who wins this round?
Directing: Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflowervs Josh Boone, The Fault in Our Stars
I like that the author of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Mr Chbosky, got to adapt his own source material to the silver screen. Something like that is never a guarantee of success, but there's a certain comfort in the idea of an author having control over how he wants the fruits of his or her labours to translate to the cinematic form. Now from a directing perspective it's not perfect. Not everything in the novel translates to the silver screen, some of the humour in the novel is lost through the transition, some of the characters are diminished into caricatures, and there's not as naturalistic a feel as the original novel had. Nevertheless, these reservations are nitpicks as even upon re-watches, the film holds up as a very watchable, immersive and in many ways quite refreshing high school dramedy. The Fault in Our Stars, on the other hand, I have not read the original source material it was based upon, and based on the film I'm not overly keen on doing so. Josh Boone's direction is not exactly the biggest culprit in my lack of enjoyment of the film, but it certainly doesn't help the both drab and overblown nature of the material he's working with that his directorial touches are at best, workmanlike, and at worst sanctimonious in the wrong sort of way. Scenes like the Anne Frank House sequence would never have worked for me, no matter what, but a good young adult director like James Ponsoldt (whose The Spectacular Now features a much better similar storyline and a better Shailene Woodley performance) might've found a way around it. Winner: Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower Our Lead: Logan Lerman as Charlie Kelmeckis vs Shailene Woodley as Hazel Grace Lancaster
Woodley's performance is actually one of the best things about The Fault in Our Stars. She has a few iffy moments in the beginning and at the end when she's dealing with the more extreme emotional depths of the character, and it's not for lack of talent that I feel she flounders in these moments, but rather the script which demands way too much of her character at these points that she overacts quite a bit. Most of the time however, she's perfectly fine and engaging as our spunky and charismatic heroine Hazel fighting against terminal thyroid cancer. I particularly liked her final speech to Gus (Ansel Elgort) about their time spent together, and her conversations with her mother (Laura Dern), as she effectively conveys both the loving and joyous side of the young girl with the young woman haunted by her experiences and ailments, and the ailment of the love of her life.
Having said that, she's got nothing against Lerman's near-flawless performance as Charlie. I'm no fan of Lerman in general, finding him to waste roles with potential in the likes of 3:10 to Yuma and Fury, and finding him a bit bland and awkward as an onscreen presence otherwise. These weaknesses may have actually played into the strength of his performance here. Lerman disappears into the quite, timid wallflower pretty well, and doesn't overplay the introversion of his character by making Charlie initially seem just like a nice kid who needs someone to help him open up. The gradual transition he undergoes into a more confident and happy young man is dealt with very subtly and realistically by the script and Lerman, as he never entirely loses that edge of awkwardness and shyness, but rather just begins to grow out of his shell through his friends while still being kind and somewhat naive. The most remarkable aspect of his work here, however, are his suggestions of his past trauma. The way the film reveals this aspect of his past isn't perfect and a bit over-the-top, but Lerman never is and makes his character's slow descent into a breakdown extremely harrowing and heartbreaking, and his subsequent slow recovery so affecting. It's a great performance I'd love to have put in my 2012 Best Actor ranking were it not already so competitive. Winner: Logan Lerman as Charlie Kelmeckis The 'Manic Pixie ___':
Emma Watson as Sam vs Ansel Elgort as Augustus "Gus" Waters
Out of the central trio, Emma Watson's performance as Sam, the beautiful and kooky high school senior who becomes a very important part of Charlie's life and emits equal parts joy and sorrow from him, was one I didn't take to much first time round. I just didn't find her overly convincing in a role I felt sure should've gone to Imogen Poots, as she felt a bit miscast initially as the 'bad' girl turned good who likes to go wild and have a good time and 'good music'. Her performance has however, grown on me through re-watches. I still think she's a bit awkward in certain scenes, especially in terms of portraying Sam's somewhat more obnoxious and selfish character traits, or in any scene where Sam really lets loose. I do think she's great however, whenever the character and performance tones down a bit, especially in the scenes where she's alone with Charlie and reveals her innermost fears and neuroses. Watson as an actress I've always felt is weak when she 'tries' too hard, and makes too much of an 'effort' to express what her character is feeling. When she opts for a more naturalistic and charismatic performance like in many scenes here, she's actually really, really talented.
Anyway, even if I hadn't re-watched Watson recently, I'd still give the edge to her as Elgort is pretty bad as the young man supposed to infuse energy and fervour into the life of Hazel in The Fault in Our Stars. Elgort is probably the biggest black hole of charm in this sort of role that someone like a young Emile Hirsch, Anton Yelchin, heck even the limited Michael Cera would've made more of an impression with the character of Augustus. Now I'll grant the writing behind the character is terrible to start with, lines like 'I love it when you talk medical to me' could not be made to sound anything more than dumb even by Laurence Olivier, but at least Olivier would try to make it sound interesting. Elgort makes no attempt, and I'd say this is more a lazy and somewhat obnoxious performance more than anything. I don't know if Elgort has more up his sleeves in terms of talent, his future casting in Edgar Wright's Baby Driver would suggest perhaps so, but based on this performance whenever I see him onscreen, I immediately feel like shouting into the void, and that oblivion is inevitable, and that we're all doomed.
Winner: Emma Watson as Sam The 'Pucky Comic Relief': Ezra Miller as Patrick vs Nat Woolf as Isaac
One of the more sensitively handled parts of The Perks of Being a Wallflower were the homosexuality themes. It would've been very easy to hit us over the head with them, but as they were presented it felt naturally integrated into the plot. Ezra Miller is an actor I've only seen in his mixed bag of a performance in We Need to Talk About Kevin, and his cameos as The Flash in Batman vs Superman and Suicide Squad. I'm not entirely sure about whether he'll be a good Flash/Barry Allen or not, the trailer for Justice League didn't give away all that much, but it seems like he'll be doing his usual slightly comedic, fast-talking routine. Will it work in the DC Universe? That remains to be seen, but it certainly works very well in Perks as Patrick, who's actually a very tricky character to play and write. Patrick kind of has to be both the comedic relief of the film, but also a part of some of its darkest themes. Miller handles these two sides of his character very well. He's very sweet and charming as the extroverted side of Patrick, I particularly enjoy every one of his reactions to people calling him 'Nothing', his declarations that he is 'Below Average!!', and of course his chemistry with Watson and Lerman. In particular, the scene where he tries to approach Charlie only to be gently turned down is probably my favourite scene in the film. The serious moments of the film involving the bullying and his relationship with Brad (Johnny Simmons) are also well done, not nearly as remarkable but I thought he did a convincing enough job with those scenes.
Woolf, on the other hand, is not very good as Isaac, the comedic relief in a film seriously in need of some laughs. He's not nearly as bad as Elgort, and there are a few okay moments in his performance, like his funeral eulogy. Mostly however, he's quite forgettable and a bit obnoxious, which I also somewhat fault the writing behind the character, as it almost makes too much out of the character's blindness to provide ground for humour. Woolf would prove to be much better, though still somewhat overshadowed, as a more straightforward teen lead in Paper Towns, so he's not a bad actor, I'd just say this was a bad role and that he merely could not overcome it. Winner: Ezra Miller as Patrick The Ensemble:
(deleted scene, I couldn't find any proper ones)
Here's finally an area where both films can be somewhat competitive. The Fault in Our Stars has two pretty decent supporting turns in the form of Laura Dern's Mrs Lancaster, and Willem Dafoe's cynical asshole author Peter van Houten. Neither gets a particularly good role to work with, van Houten in partiuclar is just a bag of drunken angry author cliches thrown into a bag. Dern is a very nice and comofrting presence and Dafoe is quite entertaining if one-note, playing his role almost satirically, and though the film doesn't build up his character's arc particularly well he's kind of affecting in his final scene showing a sobered changed man. Everyone else in the cast is kind of forgettable.
As for The Perks of Being a Wallflower, no one really stands out from the ensemble, nor should they, but everyone is perfectly fine. I particularly liked the casting of two Scott Pilgrim vs the World alumni in the form of Johnny Sims and Mae Whitman, and they made the paper-thin characters of jock and talkative punk girl more memorable than they'd have otherwise been. You also have Paul Rudd who's cast perfectly if very briefly as a rather swell English teacher who offers Charlie some solid quotable advice, in particular 'we accept the love we think we deserve'. Nina Dobrev as Charlie's sister is perhaps the best of the lot as in limited time she makes quite a nice dynamic with her onscreen brother, and I wish they'd left more of her original scenes in the film as her deleted subplot is actually pretty well done.
In this regard, I guess I'd have to give the edge to The Fault in Our Stars since overall Dafoe and Dern do make a bigger impression than the Perks supporting players.
Winner: The Fault in Our Stars
(note: in terms of cinematography, lighting, production design etc it's neither film's preoccupation, rightfully so I guess, and they're both fine enough). Screenplay:
The screenplay to The Perks of Being a Wallflower is perhaps its strongest assets, since the novel is so good, and bar a few little missteps here and there it pretty much works perfectly for the film. I particularly like how Charlie's narration translated to the silver screen, and also how the zinger lines never feel like just zinger lines, but are built up to well by the storyline and other character's dialogues. One aspect of the script and novel that I've always loved is that the friendship between Charlie and his new squad isn't overly swift and forced, it's developed slowly from an initial awkwardness like all first encounters generally are, and into a very beautiful friendship that works its way into a lovely final scene, even if it does take significant suspension of belief to believe that such music-obsessed teens would take so long to find out who wrote and sang Heroes. The Fault in Our Stars on the other hand has a terrible screenplay. I've mentioned Gus' dumb seductive one-liners and his discussions about love, have I mentioned his unlit cigar metaphor? No? Less said about that the better. Most characters are very one-note and caricatured, and the story when you get down to it is kind of just Love Story but with both sides having illness, and it has none of the emotional heft of that original film. I never felt properly emotionally invested at any point of Gus and Hazel's relationship, whereas I remained fully immersed in the plot of The Perks of Being a Wallflower throughout due to the realistic and memorable dialogue, even though the plot itself is also quite routine.
Winner: The Perks of Being a Wallflower Editing:
Perhaps the feeling's due more to me not caring for the film at all than actual editing, but most scenes in The Fault in Our Stars overstay their welcome. I hate to say it, but the ending drags on too long, a more succint emotional impact would have been made if it had been trimmed down a bit. Scenes that should develop character and dynamics like the egging scene just feel extraneous not only to the plot but the run-time. The Perks of Being a Wallflower has a few stretches that are oddly edited, Charlie's breakdown would have benefited from a little less flair and more focus on Lerman's performance. Overall, however, it's solidly edited, and I actually love the way the school prom scene and Charlie's defence of Patrick against school bullies, are handled.
Winner: The Perks of Being a Wallflower Soundtrack:
No contest. The Fault in Our Stars has a few nice songs by good singers and artists like Ed Sheeran, Birdy, but The Perks of Being a Wallflower has good ol' 'Come on Eileen' (I love how the song matches when Charlie tentatively moves towards the dancefloor) and 'Heroes' which are PERFECTLY implemented into the tone of the film (although again, doubtful such musically informed teens would take so long to find out about David Bowie).
Winner: The Perks of Being a Wallflower Winner: The Perks of Being a Wallflower 7, The Fault in Our Stars 1
Spoof movies can be funny. Really, really funny - and it's a shame the plethora of Scary Movie, Date Movies, Epic Movie, etc has kind of tainted the genre beyond repair. You've got great films like Shaun of the Dead which parodies the horror genre, the good ol' Gene Wilder/Mel Brooks Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, the sci-fi parody brilliance of Spaceballs, and I even have a soft spot for Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
The first great spoof movie I ever saw was Monty Python's Life of Brian. For some reason that's still the only Monty Python film I've ever seen, and I really need to check out Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Anyway, Life of Brian shows modern parodies exactly how it's done, and in turn retroactively exposes many of the flaws of modern-day spoof films. Where nowadays there's a sort of a cruel edge to most of the parodies of genres that come across as decidedly unpleasant and 'gross-out', Monty Python are certainly daring, are certainly not hesitant at all in using their point of parody, the Bible, to its fullest, but behind all the terrifically funny and rude jokes there's a certain heart, a very affectionate edge for the material they're telling that makes it most appealing.
In terms of my favourite scenes of the film, I think Michael Palin quite easily takes the cake. Any scene with the ridiculous Pontius Pilate (showcasing his talent for utilizing a speech impediment for both endearing and hilarious effect that he'd later display again in A Fish Called Wanda), or his amiable centurion sending people off to hang in the most pleasant manner, are downright brilliant comedic performances. Even if they are rather one-note in nature, it works completely for the film - the utter hilarity of each of Palin's funny moments is amplified by for example, the extras in the scene above who were genuinely forcing themselves not to laugh.
Beyond Palin of course there's a whole lot of other gems of scenes to speak of. The whole concept of the film itself, firstly, is quite inspired in telling of Brian (Graham Chapman), born next to Jesus Christ's manger and is subsequently overshadowed/mistaken all his life for the Messiah. The film acts as a sort of reverse Ben-Hur as where in the 1959 epic, the presence of Christ helped revitalize our hero on his journey and at the end helped wash all his hate away for a happy ending, in Life of Brian Jesus causes nothing but trouble for poor Brian. It's a scattershot film, that's for sure, but I love it just for that. One skit after another, and it's enjoyable enough for the most part, with several scenes of complete hilarity. Not every joke hits the mark, but when they do it's quite something.
Airplane! (1980) is a very different sort of spoof film, and is also a film I thoroughly loved when I first watched it. Though I certainly wouldn't consider it to be one of the greatest films of all-time, I'd certainly consider it one of the most enjoyable.
The plot, though there really isn't one, is simple. Plane. Food poisoning on the plane. Turbulence, emergency landing, ending. And a romance at its centre between a flight attendant Elaine Dickinson (Julie Hagerty) and passenger/ex-fighter pilot/cab driver/most boring anecdote deliverer ever Ted Striker (Robert Hays) which resolves itself at the end. It's all intentionally very simplistic, like Life of Brian and therein lies its brilliance.
Like Life of Brian, the humour of a lot of Airplane! though not all of it, is derived from deadpan, serious actors delivering some rather deadpan, intensely comedic turns. Most prominent of course is Leslie Nielsen. I haven't seen any of the Naked Gun films, I really should, but there's a reason Nielsen made a whole late career out of roles like Dr. Rumack, the intelligent but also very dumb doctor on board the Beoing 707.
The deadpan way in which the film is directed means that it can get away from with quite a lot of forms of ridiculousness, as it can touch upon some rather touchy places for humour in a way that doesn't come across as offensive because it's played both seriously and humorously. The casting of renowned dramatic actors like Peter Graves and Lloyd Bridges to deliver the lines is pretty great choice as well (Bridges' 'Looks like I picked the wrong day...' series of lines are some of my favourites). As well as the iconic cameo by none other than Kareem Abdul Jabbar which is played with to marvelous comedic effect in the film.
And of course there's the broader sort of humour. I like how Robert Hays' straight man gets to play a role in some of these in the scenes where he bores people literally to death with his soppy romantic stories, and I also find the scenes in which the passengers engage in ever more ridiculous activities like speaking jive, or spitting out eggs. Meanwhile, back in ground control we have Stephen Stucker's Air Traffic Controller Johnny Henshaw-Jacobs, who I understand is a point of contention for people who either do or don't buy his sort of campy humour, I do personally and love every moment of his ridiculously over-the-top performance.
A lot of the Airplane! wordplay jokes are I'll have to admit, pretty ingenius, for example Ted Striker's 'drinking problem' of an altogether different sort. My personal all-time favourite gag, which probably isn't even that witty, is the scene where the reporters in ground control say, 'let's get some pictures' and proceed to literally...get pictures off the wall. It's these sort of jokes that make Airplane! such a great experience to watch even though, in all honesty, it's a very muddled and messy film, which is sort of it and Life of Brian's appeal.
To preface this - I'm sure and actually hope I'll be proven wrong on most of these fronts. I like being surprised when watching a film, any film, any Star Wars film included. Now going into 'The Force Awakens' I was definitely surprised by how closely they stuck to the 'A New Hope' format, and yet was also pleasantly intrigued/delighted by little subversions they did with characters like Kylo Ren and Finn. So without further ado, here go a couple of things I'm basing purely on the limited promotional material I've seen thus far, I feel may come across out scenes come another December of Star War fervour...
Firstly, the trailers for reference throughout the article -
1. This will be a different beast to Godzilla (no pun intended)
Director Gareth Edwards' last film was the blockbuster reboot of the Godzilla franchise, and it's a tricky one to decipher in terms of the overall response to it, critically - in fact, I myself don't quite know how I feel about it overall. It was visually stunning in terms of the buildup to the monster's threats with amazing cinematography, and maintained a good enough pace and tension throughout, but I never quite got the grandeur and sense of power that the likes of the original Godzilla had. Plus, there wasn't nearly enough of the titular beast, its third act didn't exactly deliver on the promises of the trailers, and though it was probably impossible to get Bryan Cranston to play a bigger role because of what I presume were clashes with the filming of Breaking Bad and his high price tag (remember, the cast was pretty stacked overall), I was majorly pissed when his character's death came halfway through as I really thought the film was onto something with the grief-striken Joe Brody at its helm. Now why do I think Rogue One will be a different case? Well firstly, this time round the film's script is being penned by the assured hands of veteran Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy. Since it's a Star Wars Anthology film where it acts as essentially a direct prequel to A New Hope, there's both a certain restraint on Edward's vision that might allow it to flourish even more, insofar as there's a specific area for Edwards to work within as opposed to the Godzilla film where he had to create a new universe all by himself. I expect the human element to be much stronger this time round since he has a great many talented actors to work with - they better not kill off Forest Whitaker 20 minutes in with an anti-climactic death. Moreover, whereas with Godzilla Edwards seemed to prefer focusing on the buildup to the monsters than the monsters themselves, from what we've seen of the trailers so far he seems much more comfortable in exploring the Star Wars universe. I think Edwards is a very talented director, I've thought so ever since I saw Monsters, so I'm very hopeful to say the least.
2. It will be a strong contender for Best Cinematography Oscar
Even if it ends up being a disappointment, from what I've gathered from images and trailers thus far it all looks rather...perfect. That latest trailer showcased so many wonderful establishing shots, from that Imperial ship enveloping itself out of the darkness to the shot of Baze Malbus (Jiang Wen) firing a headshot at an AT-AT. There'll certainly be strong competition - out of the films I've seen already this year, The Neon Demon, Green Room, and Captain America: Civil War have some particularly great camerawork - but I'm fairly certain it'll all be a feast for mine eyes. 3. Felicity Jones will prove the naysayers wrong
I really don't think the Star Wars universe or Disney are trying to make 'feminist statements' in their casting of female leads, nor is it something completely out of the ordinary, think about all the Alien films, Having said that, I've seen a lot of hate towards the casting choice of Oscar-winner Felicity Jones being directed not so much at her being a woman, but that she doesn't seem 'right' for the role of an impetuous rebel with the key to finding the Death Star plans. Now seeing as we know very little about Jyn Erso at this point, that's a stupid statement to make. Moreover, people criticizing her physicality, voice (Jones does have a very distinct clipped RP accent), and ability to carry a film on her shoulders don't even know what sort of rebel she'll be. She could easily be the sort who resorts to wits and smarts and not brawn to battle the Empire; I'm actually even more intrigued by a character who uses those qualities than your standard 'strong female character' done to the death. Plus, anyone who doesn't think Jones is a good actress should check out The Theory of Everything where the more I think about it, she's even more essential to the film's power than Eddie Redmayne, or Like Crazy where she infuses so much emotional power into what is essentially a very standard romance of fickle people. 4. Bodhi Rook and Galen Erso will have bigger roles than one might expect
The latest trailer had one quick shot of Riz Ahmed's Bodhi Rook, a former Imperial pilot who's done a heel-face turn and is working for rebellion, and what we've seen of Mad Mikkelsen's Galen Erso thus far have been one or two publicity images. Now this could end up becoming a case of Max Von Sydow or Gwendoline Christie - fairly well-known actors playing throwaway roles (thus far). I doubt it, though. Ahmed and Mikkelsen have gradually gained more prominence in the Hollywood scene in recent years, particularly Ahmed coming off his solid performance in Nightcrawler and big-budget products like Jason Bourne. I'm certain their characters will have slightly bigger roles than we've been led to believe thus far, since the concept of an ex-Imperial pilot does have a lot of potential to work with, and if rumours are anything to go by the relationship between Galen and Jyn Erso will form some part of the film's emotional core. 5. I was dubious about Donnie Yen, but after these trailers...
...I'm pretty stoked, to be honest. I was kind of questioning the very nature of having a blind Asian martial artist in the Star Wars universe; it struck me as being a bit too, trope-y, a bit too stereotypical. Well after seeing Yen's Chirrut Îmwe kick some serious Imperial ass in the trailers, consider me sold thus far. The fact that Chirrut is a man who's not Force-sensitive in the usual way, but still at one with the force, is extremely interesting. I like how the franchise is stepping away from the whole midi-chlorian mumbo jumbo and treating it more like a way of life and religion that some are attuned to, some are not, but all can believe in it against the odds.
6. The Rebels will have a very 'Guardians of the Galaxy meets Edge of Tomorrow' sort of feel
All the way back to Seven Samurai and The Dirty Dozen, till Sucide Squad most recently, we audiences love our ragtag group of heroes. It helps us identify with their flawed natures, but also makes the payoff when watching them do good deeds, awesome deeds, all the better. The archetypes of character's I've discussed thus far seem to indicate that Rogue One is also going in this direction; Ahmed described the film's tone as being rather 'rough and ready' and the team being a 'pack of misfits'. This would seem to stand in stark contrast to The Force Awakens where bar the new entries of stormtrooper on the run Finn and the mysterious Rey, the Resistance was mostly composed of rather assuredly good and graceful, and not at all motley, sorts like Oscar Isaac's Poe Dameron. I'm intrigued to see how Rogue One will make a certain contrast.
I feel like a character like Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) could be a more cynical, jaded version of Poe's sort of character. Luna's an actor I haven't seen anything of besides small roles in Milk, The Terminal and Elysium. How will he acquit himself as essentially the secondary lead of the story (unless they pull a Bryan Cranston/Steven Segal in Executive Decision on him)? It remains to be seen, but again based on what I've seen so far he seems to be taking a deadpan approach with steadfast conviction, which bodes well.
K-2SO (played with mo-cap by the egregiously underrated Alan Tudyk), is very clearly a subversion of C-3PO down to his declaration of the odds for the Rebel's mission, and also as a sort of subversion of Tudyk's career playing robots thus far. The last android he played was Sunny in I, Robot where he gave a rather compelling depiction of a sensitive, curious and kind-hearted android wrongly accused of murder. This K-2SO seems perfectly capable of murder ('the captain says you are a friend - I will not kill you') and I can't wait to see which side he'll turn up on.
Baze Malbus (Jiang Wen) has already gained quite a bit of publicity for of course, those awesome shots of him in the recent trailer, his wonderful head of hair, the unique casting of a Chinese actor who's known for his dramatic work more than action work, his dynamic with Donnie Yen's Chirrut, and of course the fact that his character is a freelance assasin. That sort of character, in both the prequels and the original trilogy, was more commonly a minor antagonist character in the form of Zam Wessell and Bobba Fett who for some reason most people love, I really don't see why. Anyway, back to the point. As for all the other characters, I can't wait to learn more about Baze Malbus. I love the presentation of him thus far, and it'll be fascinating to see how his earthly bravado contrasted with Chirrut's spiritual contentment with 'all is as the force wills it', may cause friction and resolution. I've only seen Jiang Wen in Let the Bullets Fly where he was a very entertaining straight man - let's see what the film will make of him this time round.
Ah, and Forest Whitaker. I'll admit when I first heard about the casting news I got bad whiplash back to the magnificent science-fiction extravaganza that was Battlefield Earth, which is what one might call the spiritual successor to the likes of Jupiter Ascending. Then I remembered that by all accounts Whitaker regrets doing that film, he clearly didn't invest any effort in that performance (with good reason), he was the least of that film's problems (those camera angles though), and unlike co-star John Travolta to an extent he's managed to salvage his career into a pretty excellent one, winning an Oscar for Best Actor 2006 for his fantastic portrayal of Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland and getting steady work in substantial roles through a wide range of large-scale and indie film projects and television work over the years. I really like Whitaker a great deal as an actor, and especially like him when he seems particularly motivated in a role.
I still can't pinpoint exactly what sort of role Saw Gerrera will have as a Clone Wars veteran even though he's already an established character from the Star Wars: The Clone Wars series. The way he's delivering his lines reminds me a bit of his Jody in The Crying Game when he's doing his 'Scorpion and the Frog' scene, minus dodgy accent in a performance I'm a big defender of his performance of. My guess is that he'll be sort of a wild card, a veteran suffering from PTSD from years of conflict and who needs to be cajoled back into action by Jyn Erso, with whom he presumably shares some previous connection.
7. Ben Mendelsohn's Orson Krennic will be MVP
How very daring, one might say, to presume this. And I'd certainly have to agree since I've had nothing to base this one apart from some brief character descriptions released and a few shots of Krennic glaring in the trailers, donned in some fantastic Imperial garbs. Also, the last time Mendelsohn featured in a huge Hollywood blockbuster of this sort of standard, it was The Dark Knight Rises where he played corrupt executive #1 in a decidedly uninspired fashion. Well, I haven't written that much about Mendelsohn in general beforehand (though if I'd re-watched Mississippi Grind earlier I would have for my Lead Actor lineup last year), but Mendelsohn's one of my favourite character actors working nowadays. I'm going through some of his work in his younger years in Australia, and I must say that even from his early 20's he was quite the dynamic onscreen presence. In terms of more recent work, he was a chilling, unrepentant gangster in the 2010 crime thriller Animal Kingdom, a wonderfully comforting motorbike mechanic in The Place Beyond the Pines, a compelling portrait of a British criminal in Starred Up, nicely sleazy sorts in Killing Me Softly and Exodus: Gods and Kings.
His lead performance in Mississippi Grind was probably one of the most underrated performances of last year as the down-on-his luck gambler Gerry, equal parts heartbreaking and charismatic. I look forward to seeing him do a complete 180 degree turn as the obsessive Director of Advanced Weapons Research for the Imperial Military who stakes his reputation with the Death Star. I'd originally thought they'd probably be going with the Grand Moff Tarkin route for Krennic, but then I remembered Domhnall Gleeson did essentially that with his entertaining Admiral Hux in The Force Awakens. It worked, but I doubt they'll do the same thing twice, which makes me very interested to see how the screenwriters and Edwards have taken on this Imperial authority figure with a different sort of approach. 8. The soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat will be worthy of John Williams' standard
John Williams is one of my favourite film composers of all-time, his themes to Jurassic Park and Jaws are essentially the standard by which all blockbusters should strive towards nowadays. I'm not too fussed he's not working on Rogue One though, I'm sure he's a very busy man (he couldn't even find time to work with Speilberg on a very typical Speilberg-Williams sort of film Bridge of Spies last year!!), he'll need time to work on Episode VIII, and his replacement is a very talented chappie. The last time Desplat worked on a film with Felicity Jones in a leading role, it was The Theory of Everything. This could not be a more different film, and I'm all ears. He won the Oscar for The Grand Budapest Hotel a few years back, has done sterling work previous to that, and I love what he's done with the Imperial March based on the trailers thus far. I think it's brilliant to use such an imposing and iconic score and give it a sort of inspirational, emotional quality. 9. The plot will kick off with a slow burn as opposed to a big BANG
Let me elaborate on what I mean here. This could be the first ever Star Wars film not to have an opening crawl. I'm not sure whether that's been confirmed anywhere, but I'm pretty certain of this. In addition to that, I think it'll make for a marked contrast with The Force Awakens in particular, to open proceedings in a particularly understated fashion. Of course, I could be completely wrong and they could open with a magnificent action set-piece, one of the many we've seen in the trailers (I'd bet on the glimpses of the setting in the second trailer where we see Blaze Malbus crying 'they destroyed our home'). I personally think however, they'll open on a quieter note. Whether it'll be Galen Erso being brought in to be briefed on her mission, watching Krennic overseeing the construction of the Death Star, Forest Whitaker and Felicity Jones, or something else entirely, my guess is that in classic Gareth Edwards style we'll begin with a mysterious note that gradually crescends into the epic grandeur we all expect from Star Wars.
10. Darth Vader will only appear in the third act
Again, I could be completely wrong and wouldn't mind being so. After all, who doesn't want a bit more Vader in their lives? Based on the relatively low-key nature of the news of James Earl Jones recording his lines, and the mystery they've surrounded his inclusion into Rogue One, plus the fact that Vader is so powerful a figure that he provides a problem for screenwriters to write their way around him sometimes, makes me feel like he won't have that much screentime, and will only play a direct role in the third act as a 'final boss' of sorts. I wouldn't worry too much even in the unlikely event I'm right. People tend to forget Vader only has 12 minutes of screentime in A New Hope, and with that the film made him one of the most iconic villains of all-time.
11. Who'll be knocked off, who won't?
Again, I reiterate, this is purely for fun. I won't be jinxing my watching of the film because I know these preidctions are grounded in nothing but presumption, but just to see how much of this tally I get right come December time -
Jyn Erso - I really, really don't know. My heart says yes, she'll live, my head thinks no.
Don't hedge any bets on these, though, please. I'm sure they'll be completely wrong, and Weasel from Deadpool would definitely not put the odds in my favour.
12. No romance
Nothing wrong with a bit of lovey dovey here and there in the Star Wars universe, we all love a bit of Han and Leia (*sob*). Of course there's always that tragic love triangle between Anakin and Padmé and sand (*sob), Anyway, the gritty and cynical vibes I'm getting from Rogue One mean that I'm thinking there won't be any of that sort of stuff going round on either side. I think Cassian Andor and Jyn Erso
13. Jar Jar Binks won't be back, unfortunately
I don't hate the character as much as many seem to, but I certainly don't like him at all, and one good things the prequels did was bringing down his screentime with every film. Having said that, I doubt anyone is willing to bring him back just for a payoff demise, since I'm sure Jar Jar has fans, and it'd all be a bit pointless. Although I could be a complete killjoy, and in actual fact they're bringing him into the third act with some sort of new backstory or secret that'll make him a crucial component to the Rebel's plans, and result in redemption for himself and his role in the prequel trilogy for a heroic sacrifice. I don't know if that's a great idea or an awful idea.
14. The film's ending ties into A New Hope...and whether it's dark or light, remains to be seen
There's one of two ways (though again, there may be more) they could intertwine this film with A New Hope. Obvious choice is to end on a 'cliffhanger' of sorts with Vader chasing the Tantive IV, or I've heard rumours about the remaining rebel members going to Alderaan to celebrate only to be blown up soon afterwards by Grand Moff Tarkin. Now that'd be a dark ending...
They vied for the Oscar two years in a row and I'd argue, should have switched the years they won in, in my humble opinion.
Firth
5. Kingsman: The Secret Service
Simple and straightforward performance, but I really enjoyed Firth here as the Obi Wan sorta mentor figure into the spy world for our protagonist Eggsy (the excellent Taron Egerton). I really think no one else could've pulled this role off like he does, and he brings all the needed charisma, swagger, and most importantly that fine balance between refinement and badassery the role requires. I particularly love any scene where he comments on the nature of spy movies. A re-watch could bump this up.
4. The King's Speech
A performance I perhaps give a bit of leway to because I do like the film quite a bit. Firth gives a somewhat one-note performance that I kind of blame on the direction, as King George VI vs the stutter. I'd say the film almost focuses too much on this underdog, downtrodden arc of the King in the initial stages, which makes Firth's performance not the most interesting at the outset. Once speech therapist Lionel Logue, played excellently by Geoffrey Rush, comes onto the scene however, his performance greatly improves as he shares some excellent comedic chemistry with Rush, makes his tics and mannerisms work towards quite a compelling characterization, and ends up making the conclusion of the film very moving.
3. The Railway Man
A flaw of the film is too many flashbacks, one because Jeremy Irvine as young Eric Lomax, a British officer suffering atrocities by the Japanese in WWII, for all his best efforts, can't quite make the very standard POW camp scenes come to life all that much. In fact, I think the film would've worked much better with even more focus on the 'present day' scenes. There's some sterling work from Nicole Kidman and Stellan Skarsgård as literally supportive performances, but it's Firth as an older Lomax who is the highlight. He conveys the post-war trauma of the man brilliantly and though he doesn't have that much screentime to dwell on it, conveys the arc of a man who's brought into hate and up from that into forgiveness, quite well. The build-up by the film might not quite work, but his scene where he confronts his wartime tormenter (played well by Hiroyuki Sanada) is the best acting of Firth's career.
2. Conspiracy
Firth gives a very atypical performance as, of all things, a Nazi lawyer, though cleverly implementing a bit of the old Firth mannerisms and tics into his portrayal of Dr Wilhem Stuckart. As a man outraged by plans for the 'Final Solution' not because of the sheer evil and immortality of it all, but merely because of the adminstrative and legal problems that would follow it. His performance quite expertly tricks the audience into thinking he might be the 'sympathetic' character in all this, before completely turning this on its head by showing that no, he's not a good person, he just thinks the sterilization of Jews is preferrable to mass murder because it's more convenient. The blunt manner in which the evil planning of the 'Final Solution' is undergone may not have worked if not for the excellent performances of Firth, Stanley Tucci, and Kenneth Branagh on board.
1. A Single Man
Firth probably should have won the Oscar in 2009, though I don't hate Crazy Heart Bridges was clearly doing a very Oscar baity play for the Oscar in it. I certainly don't mind the win that much, and also Jeremy Renner and George Clooney gave pretty decent performances (I haven't seen Morgan Freeman yet). However, Firth gives a career-best turn as a grief-stricken homosexual college professor who over the course of a single day, reflects on his past, ruminates on his present, interacts with friends and new friends, and prepares to kill himself at the end of the day. The film I like just fine as a display of Tom Ford's style, but some of it, particularly the supporting acting bar Julianne Moore, leaves something to be desired. Firth, though, despite these hinderances gives a truly heartbreaking and powerful performance as a repressed (though not in the typical way) man who gradually finds a modicum of meaning in life. I particularly love his scenes with Julianne Moore, any scene where he feigns an exterior of warmth to combat the grieving interior, his breakdown scene at new of his lover's death, and his final few moments of his life.
(I should note I was perhaps too harsh on him in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in an earlier review. He's no Ian Richardson, but I would say upon reflection he fits the role of Bill Haydon just fine)
Bridges (I'll be seeing Hell or High Water soon, and I need to see Thunderbolt and Lightfoot)
5. The Last Picture Show
A great film to be sure, and though Bridges is not quite the best part of it, he's certainly crucial to the film's overall success. Duane Jackson is one of the least sympathetic characters in the story, a popular high school kid who's as aimless as they come, and a bit of a dickhead, so to speak. Young Jeff Bridges had a particularly entertainig, charismatic drive to all of his performances that make the cruelty of Duane acceptable and not as unappealing as it could've been. I like this performance quite a bit, and though it's not as emotionally driven as Cloris Leachman's heartbreaking performance or impactful as Ellen Burstyn and Ben Johnson, it's a good performance that definitely previsioned things to come.
4. The Fisher King
Actually my favourite Terry Gilliam film, I know that's a controversial statement to make, but I personally don't care all that much for Brazil and think that Gilliam's visual style gets a bit tiring after awhile without the proper human element in it. I don't love The Fisher King either, but I like it quite a bit, and Bridges' performance as a radio shock jockey who has a life crisis after his on-air comments inadvertently cause a mass shooting is a very strong one. He provides a perfect balancing act to the late Robin Williams' more extroverted portrayal of a bonkers homeless man Parry, who finds a connection with Bridges' Jack Lucas. His insenstive and closed-in performance gradually seguing in a warm and endearing one is quite affecting, and makes the journey of the two's trip to find the Holy Grail funny and affecting.
3. The Fabulous Baker Boys
A great example of the superstar presence of Bridges. I really like every moment of this performance by Bridges as one half of the titular nightclub musical act. As Jack Baker, a showman on the lull, Bridges doesn't overplay it but rather shows the rather depressing state of a man just going through the motions in life in a rather subtle manner. This makes the addition of Michelle Pfeiffer's scintillating turn as Susie Diamond work even better as we watch Bridges' performance gradually grow with some of life that shows traces of past glory. I love how his chemistry with Preiffer gradually adds to his onscreen anti-chemistry with his onscreen and offscreen brother Beau Bridges, and builds up to a pretty hard-to-watch third act where Jack bascially feels like all this happiness can't last. He makes the ending of the film all the more heartwarming as he makes Jack Baker's character transition both realistic and quite compelling, and adds another great example of what makes Bridges such a compelling onscreen presence (on a separate note, had this film been made about 10 years later, I could also imagine Kevin Spacey doing this sort of performance).
2. True Grit
Firstly, Bridges has to work with the Coen Brothers again, very, very soon. He's just someone who seems to be perfectly in tune with the director's tendencies and likes, and makes the remake of True Grit feel less a remake, more an upgrade, a revision on pretty much all levels. I absolutely love True Grit (2011), it's one of my favourite films of all-time. The rousing score by Carter Burwell, the excellent ensemble ranging from a hilarious and lovable Matt Damon, to an unrecognizable Barry Pepper to an unrecognizable Domhnall Gleeson (oh hey, they should also get Brendan in at some point), some beautiful cinematography by Roger Deakins which gives an all new and classical vibe to the old West, a sterling child performance by Hailee Steinfield, a terrific screenplay that tells a simple straightforward revenge story with such style, and of course Mr Bridges. Jeff's performance as Rooster Cogburn is sort of like John Wayne's own turn as the one-eyed fat man, in that he takes a very daring approach to the role. He slurs his words even more than usual, he has some very weird facial tics in his performance, the whole get-up and presentation of the American Civil War veteran turned drunkard US Marshall is quite something to behold. I love every daring choice Bridges makes in the role. He makes Rooster Cogburn unforgettable from his hilarious initial comedic scenes, intimidating in his confrontation scene, and boy will you cheer for him as he makes his all or nothing showdown and weep at his exit. LOVE this performance - and since Eisenberg was never going to win the Oscar, I would've much rather it gone to Bridges instead in 2011.
1. The Big Lebowski
More than a decade before True Grit, Bridges played an even more iconic Coen Brothers character in the form of Jeffrey Lebowski, more commonly known as 'The Dude', who's really annoyed about having his rug pissed on by a Chinaman, it really tied the room together but besides that, he's a pretty chilled guy. The Big Lebowski is a film that's grown on me more and more and it's now officially one of my favourite Coen Brothers films. The same goes for Bridges' performance. Bridges performance here could be seen as the spiritual predecessor to Joaquin Phoenix's work as Doc Sportello in Inherent Vice in that both act as somewhat unconventional 'detectives' to a strange kidnapping/mystery plot. The difference is that Sportello was always high on weed, Bridge's Dude just seems to be generally spaced no matter what. Bridges could not be more at ease as The Dude, whether he's bowling, trying to negotiate with his millionaire namesake (David Huddleston), shooting the breeze with his mates Walter (a hilarious John Goodman) and Donnie (an amiable Steve Buscemi), or just trying to make sense of everything around him, he's hilarious. I particularly love the scenes where he gets some very unusual bathroom treatment or a most aggressive police interrogation because Bridge's reactions to these circumstances are always funny. As well as being hilarious, The Dude also has to be a straight man to a cast of rather, to put it mildly, weird people, and Bridges nails this as well. It's a great comedic leading performance that's iconic for a reason, and though I've heard arguments that it's Bridges playing his real-life self, I would not want The Dude any other way.
Both sci-fi films that were nominated for Best Picture in 2009, and both incorporating social commentary about migration, settlements, colonization etc with high-concept aliens and technology.
Who wins?
Direction
James Cameron for Avatar vs Neill Blomkamp for District 9
I'm generally a James Cameron apologist, but in this instance he doesn't even come close. Cameron's always been a heavy-handed director; it doesn't hurt films of his like Aliens or The Abyss because those films largely stayed away from making 'issues' of any sorts, instead focusing on just being entertaining thrill rides and spectacles, which they most certainly are. Then Titanic which certainly suffers from a lot of 'rich evil, poor good' and one-note characterizations (and Billy Zane), is all too simplistic on those levels but still packed enough emotional power through the grandeur of Cameron's direction to make it work. Then came Avatar, the lovechild of many years' toil and effort by Cameron. Well, I hand it over to him for effort, and I know many love the film and I won't try to discredit that, but personally I consider Avatar to be an exemplification of Cameron's greatest weaknesses as a director largely, though I'll get onto an even bigger issue in a bit. Cameron's direction isn't terrible, he handles the action scenes well, and there are a few awe-inpsiring moments within the battle scenes where he brings a bit of a human element in. Most of the time, however, he seems lost in trying to impress rather than immerse the viewer in the world of Pandora, leaving many sequences which attempt to inspire, however aesthetically impressive, surprisingly hollow. There was definitely passion in the making of the film but in my opinion, very little of it comes through.
As for Blomkamp, I'll be the first to admit that he too is running the risk of becoming an extremely heavyhanded director who relies on the same old tricks in an increasingly tired fashion. Elysium and Chappie were examples of him Tim Burton-ing his style and themes into a far too overblown fashion, resulting in the final product's impact being particularly muted. In particular, Chappie suffers from having an incosistent set of tones to its comedic and dramatic sides, both being extremely lacklustre and feeling like retreads of similar films; Elysium takes a fascinating concept and ruins it with some extremely questionable direction of performances and again, tone. The tone Blomkamp strikes with District, however, is pitch perfect. The story about a spaceship full of aliens landing above Johannesburg in South Africa, and after several failed attempts at integrating them with human society the South African government putting them into 'District 9', a squalid little shanty-town, could've easily come across as overwrought as Dances with the Wolves in space, I mean Avatar, suffers from, but instead it comes across as very natural and intriguing. There is the minor issue about the documentary framing narrative being dropped less than halfway through, but by that point the world we're in has been so well established, and the plot set in such engaging motion, that one doesn't really care. The insightful look into societal conventions soon transitions into a compelling action-cum-body horror movie, and it manages both the horrific and disturbing moments of human oppression of the 'prawns' and our hero Wikus Van De Merwe's (Sharlto Copley) struggles against the system. There's a reason Blomkamp's been chosen to diret the future Halo adaptaton as he makes each action sequence as invigorating to experience as a video game. It's always fascinating to watch and exciting, but Blomkamp never forgets that he's telling a very humane sci-fi story underneath the spectacle, and balances both the epic scope and intimate aspects with aplomb.
Winner: Neil Blomkamp, District 9 Lead Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) vs Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley)
I absolutely love one performance, and find one extremely boring. I don't even know if it's fair to do a comparison because of this but I'll give it a shot. Worthington's performance is perhaps the textbook definition of bland, bland, bland. His character, Jake Sully, is a paraplegic veteran who's given a new lease of life so to speak through a military programme which places him on the planet Pandora in a new body which he acts through as an 'avatar'. The performance is already somewhat limited on the outset, because a lot of it is mo-cap in the sequences where Sully regains mobility. Worthington does nothing to alleviate this limitation and the paper-thin script by basically just going through the motions in his performance. He's never more than serviceable in the action sequences and whenever the script asks for something more from him, he can't quite deliver. It's not an entirely terrible performance as he has a few good emotional moments here and there, particularly in his reactions to one character's death scene, but otherwise it remains fairly all-too-standard work that can't engage us as the heroic lead in the same way Leonardo DiCaprio, Ed Harris and Sigourney Weaver thrived with James Cameron's direction.
As for Copley, what more can be said that if you're going to hate on Copley for his recent string of hammy with a capital H villainous roles (which is not unwarranted), let's take a look at his debut acting role which is as a very simple, average man who works for the government as a MNU agent tasked with evicting 'prawns' from their households to concentration camps. Copley somehow makes a rather inconspicuous, meek man who deals more in paperwork than anything else so charming. He's looking for a promotion with his every action and is technically quite a toadying government bureaucrat of sorts, but we instantly like him as this fellow we happen to be following through a documentary, even if the actions he's doing are technically reprehensible.
Even when confronting crime lords and ordering alien eggs to be burnt, these shady dealings are leant some degree of relatability because Copley doesn't play Wikus as some sort of hero, Wikus is just a man. Which makes his subsequent, very unique character arc so affecting when Wikus begins being infected by some alien chemicals he'd come into contact with on his job. He's marvellous in the physical portrayal of this illness that's consuming him, and makes the great SFX and makeup work resonate even more through his gradual evolution into an alien-esque creature extremely harrowing. Wikus is soon captured by the government, which leads to one of his best scenes in the film as he's used for government experiments, showing a man absolutely terrified by his situation and powerless yet so powerful at the same time. His heartbreaking reaction to having to kill a prawn is amazing.
Soon the film turns into a prisoner on the run film as Copley escapes and seeks refuge with an alien he'd come into contact with before, 'Christopher Johnson'. Copley's portrayal of the 'hero' is so much more compelling than Worthington as he both shows the drive and determination to find a cure for himself as being intertwined with an inherent selfishness. He's convincing in both teaming up with aliens and working with them to find a way to escape to the mothership, but also in showing how he's not above some less than honourable means to gain his own ends. Which leads to the explosive finale of the film where Wikus finally chooses to do the right thing for others and not just himself. Copley is a brilliant rousing presence in his final few action scenes, but always remaining a very human figure to identify with who's out of his depth, making his final fate all the more tragic. In fact, my favourite scene of his contributes to this directly, his final scene where he espouses his love for his wife. It feels so remarkably genuine and helps make the conclusion to District 9 more affecting than expected.
Winner: Sharlto Copley, District 9 Ensemble
Again, no contest. No one really stands out that much from the District 9 ensemble. Even Jason Cope, who has the second most substantial role as Christopher Johnson and the speaking prawns, mostly gives a mo-cap performance, but he does it very well within these limitations. David James as the sadistic Colonel Koobus Venter is an adequate villain, nothing more but he's not required to be. Collectively the whole cast feels like a realistic set of entities which is perfect for a film striving for realism within the sci-fi setting. As for Avatar however, the collection of characters, human or alien, all are caricatures. Dances With Wolves is not a flawless film but at least its human characters felt very human, in Avatar everyone's a walking stereotype, from the nerdy scientist friend to the other nerdy scientist friend, to the gung-ho military sort played by Stephen Lang who's decent but also has very little to work with. The government bureaucrat here has nothing of the complexity of Wikus, and Sigourney Weaver is seriously underused in a role that shows just how far Cameron's dropped off since Aliens. Winner: District 9 Screenplay Though I have issues with Avatar's direction, that's nothing compared to its script. James Cameron has never really been known as a screenwriting virtuoso, but the strengths of his other films helped to balance out the flaws in his screenplays. Here, as aforementioned, the characters from top to bottom are all incredibly shallow without purpose, and I particularly cringe at some of the lines they give Michelle Rodigruez that make her a completely distracting, near-parody version of her usual screen image. The story of Avatar is relatively simple yet still somehow feels dragging and convoluted, and that some of the dialogue feels like rip-offs of Independence Day is not a good thing at all. District 9 on the other hand, has a brilliant script. As I've mentioned, it implements its moral and social message with the plot perfectly, and manages to make every scene have the perfect balance between that style of Blomkamp sci-fi and an underlying humanity. Its plot is structured tautly and meticulously, and there was never a moment I thought was underwritten or overwritten. Winner: District 9 Special Effects
Controversial, controversial. The special effects in Avatar are most certainly something to behold. Each scene is pretty incredibly rendered from a purely objective perspective, and it's impressive work in creating the world of Pandora and the Na'avi, even if the script and direction cause it to ultimately feel quite lifeless. District 9 however, should not be sniffed at in the effects it uses for the prawns, the violent sequences, and that mechanized battle suit in the third act. Plus the gradual transformation of Wikus into a prawn is subtle but extremely great work. With a relatively limited budget of 30 million USD, that they managed to utilize it for effects as great as this is just...wow. Winner: District 9 Cinematography
The effects in Avatar are something to behold. The cinematography? Not so much. Never bad, so to speak, but nothing too impressive, the landscape scenes are done in a very conventional way, as are the battle scenes. District 9 strikes a perfect balance between realism-inducing shaky cam to convey the grittier moments, and a more vivid and visually grand scope to film the more stylized sequences, which fits perfectly in with the mix between the documentary style of filming and the action sequences. Winner: District 9 Editing Avatar is a long, near three hours long film and unlike say, The Hateful Eight, feels like a three hours long film. It drags on and on and there's certainly a sense throughout that a lot that the pacing is off, as even sequences with merit like Sigourney Weaver's death scene feel way too drawn out. District 9 on the other hand, is a film that moves pretty swiftly from one point to the other, but always feels perfectly placed, and never shortchanges any aspect of the film. It also shows up a lot of the flaws of something like Elysium where poor editing makes it hard to distinguish where the climax begins, how it's built up to, etc. Winner: District 9 Sound
The sound effects in Avatar are perfectly fine, but the sound effects, particularly in the very gory scenes and hard-hitting moments, of District 9 are on an entirely different level. Winner: District 9 Set Design
I'll admit I don't really know how to judge Avatar for this, but the design of the spaceship, while perfectly adequate, is nothing compared to the set design of say, Aliens. District 9 on the other hand, realizes its Johanessburg slums brilliantly, and conveys such an overwhelming vibe of decadence and griminess in each scene that's very impressive. Plus the design of the mechanical designs and laboratories are great, even though the overuse of similar imagery in Blomkamp's subsequent films may have resulted in a diminishment of the impact. Winner: District 9 Soundtrack
Don't interpret this as me throwing Avatar a bone or anything. I like the soundtrack to District 9 a great deal, but Avatar's score seems to be something out of a much greater film. It's the late great James Horner, so that's to be expected, but he gives certain scenes of the film a much more impact than they probably deserve because of his sterling work in this regard. Winner: Avatar Final Result: District 9 (9); Avatar (1)
