Why Watch "Everest"? Because It's There!

Everest

Every few years disaster strikes on Mount Everest and multiple debates about climbing the tallest mountain in the world begin. The most basic question that is always at the heart of Everest is, “Why?” The film, Everest, directly posits this question as well, and the characters, in unison, shout George Mallory’s famous line: “Because it’s there!” The characters give serious answers afterward, but that line gets to the root of most reasons why people climb and also why the film exists. Everest is there, and such an imposing example of nature will always fascinate climbers and viewers alike.

There is no shortage of disaster stories from Everest’s deadly history, but the 1996 climbing season was possibly the most documented making it the obvious choice for source material. Jon Krakauer’s Into Thin Air is the most famous account of the climb, but Everest went with a more broad scope in an attempt to present more viewpoints of the event. This makes Everest more accessible, but the lack of focus also leads to some characters receiving short shrift. That said, enough character building is done to make the human drama a very effective counterbalance to the visual spectacle of the film.

The draw of Everest is definitely the spectacle, though. Any film about Everest needs to be about the beauty of the deadly mountain and the general experience of climbing it. In that regard, Everest is extremely successful. The shots of the mountain are stunning, but, more importantly, the actors seem to be truly struggling as they make their way higher and higher. The film shows how brutal the climb truly is, even when climbers are paying to be shepherded up the mountain. The climbers are basically dying the last few thousand feet since humans aren’t meant to survive at such altitudes. Director Baltasar Kormákur said in an interview that he’s “fine” with putting actors through “a little bit of pain” and it definitely shows.

It’s important for the film to hammer home the difficulty of the climb to make the major question of the film more pertinent. Why put yourself through this? Why risk your life? This question is doubly relevant when you add in the weather conditions that led to the 1996 disaster. Is it worth losing your life for the glory of reaching the top? Everest does not presume to answer this question, but the characters obviously think that it is very much worth it. It’s important that the film ultimately leaves the answer up to the viewer since it is a real world question that is still relevant, especially since Everest’s deadliest day occurred this past April. The bigger question then becomes about commercial climbing. In other words, should less-experienced climbers be allowed to pay professional guides to get them to the top? Multiple times in the film, money is mentioned, and the guides clearly want to get people to the top so they can stay in business. Would the disaster of 1996 have happened if the guides didn’t feel that pressure to get more people to the top, especially with a journalist in two who was going to write about it? The film’s screenwriters (William Nicholson and Simon Beaufoy) wisely stop short of blatantly demonizing the practice of guided climbing, leaving it ultimately up to the viewer.

The question of Everest then becomes, “Why recreate these terrible events?” That is difficult to answer. Much like any film based on real, tragic events, there is a tricky line that is toed between reverence and exploitation. “Everest” does not come across as exploitative, but there are moments near the end (which did actually happen) that felt too personal to be recreated, much less witnessed by millions of viewers. (This is a slight SPOILER so skip to the next paragraph if you don’t know the true story and don’t want any part of the film spoiled.) Near the end of the film, one of the main characters, Rob Hall (Jason Clarke), has a conversation with his pregnant wife via a walkie-talkie/satellite phone hook-up as he is dying. It felt too personal to read about it in Into Thin Air, and it felt even more personal watching it recreated. The film seems aware of this, however, as there are multiple reaction shots of characters listening in on the interaction. Everyone is crying, and most people watching the film will be crying as well. This moment is so important because this is where the film might lose the audience. It feels a bit too manipulative, but it actually did happen this way. It’s hard to fault a movie for being melodramatic when it’s based on a real moment. The scene proved to be a double-edged sword for me. It made the film much more emotional and powerful than I expected it to be, but it also convinced me that I never wanted to watch it again.

Any emotion created in a scene is also the product of the actors involved. Clarke is great throughout, but he is truly heartbreaking at the end of the film. Keira Knightley, as Hall’s wife, gives an effective performance as well, especially considering that her scenes were just her talking on the phone. The rest of the cast of Everest is equally impressive: Jake Gyllenhaal, Robin Wright, Josh Brolin, John Hawkes, Michael Kelly, Sam Worthington, and Emily Watson. Brolin is given the meatiest role as Beck Weathers, a man whose experiences could have been a movie on its own. The rest have their moments, but the only weak point of the film is that some of the cast is underutilized, specifically Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal portrays Scott Fischer, who was known as kind of a rock star mountain climber. This reputation leads to a slightly strange performance as Fischer seems to be constantly drunk and/or angry, but it’s never explained completely. It seems that once Gyllenhaal was cast, the screenwriters wanted to beef up the role, but couldn’t devote enough time to create a fully fleshed out character. That said, Gyllenhaal brings enough charisma to the role to justify his appearance; you’re just left wanting more.

If anything, the main issue with Everest is that you’re left wanting more. It’s a true story with so many characters it’s impossible to feel like the full story has been told in two hours. Thankfully, there are multiple books and articles that delve deeply into the individual experiences. So Everest is more of a snapshot of Everest and all the human drama that comes with it. It is a very effective film that makes you appreciate (and question) the struggle people go through to achieve their dreams. As a short glimpse into the world of commercial climbing and the tragedy it can bring, Everest works on every important level. It won’t (and can’t) answer the question of why people climb Everest, but it does present a fascinating example of people who took up the challenge and paid the ultimate price.

Everest receives a:

"Clash of the Titans"

Clash of the Titans - Directed by Louis Leterrier, starring Sam Worthington, Gemma Arterton, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, and Mads Mikkelsen - Rated PG-13

Only the Kurgan could take on a beast like the Kraken.

I don’t have a nostalgic feeling towards the original Clash of the Titans (1981). I re-watched it recently and just couldn’t get past the cheesy stop-motion animation. Some people may a have a special place in their heart for the campy film about Perseus and the Greek gods, but not me. I was very excited to see a big budget remake of this film and I suppose I’m glad they did it.

Clash of the Titans is about demigod Perseus (Sam Worthington) and his quest to stop the dreaded Kraken (a mindless and extremely powerful monster) from destroying the city of Argos and its princess, Andromeda. His quest takes him from peril to peril, with the gods interfering and helping out along the way.

That’s really all you need to know. Clash is basically a Greek mythology action movie and it certainly delivers on the action. The best moments of the film are when Perseus and his crew and battling giant scorpions, Medusa, and other assorted monsters. The action is pretty easy to follow for the most part, but I thought the 3D hindered it at times. 3D is great for the slow motion moments, but when a fast sword fight is going on, it’s hard to stay focused. Generally, a ton of slow motion is a negative aspect of a film. With Clash of the Titans however, I wish there was much more.

The 3D is what really bothered me, I guess. I’m not a true believer in the format just yet. Yes, Avatar looked great and I was definitely impressed with the use of 3D in that film. But Avatar was shot in 3D. This film, like Alice in Wonderland (another film I had a lukewarm 3D reaction to), was converted to 3D and it shows. For the most part, I think 3D is a gimmick and I hope it passes soon. I don’t think you’ll be missing much if you see this in a regular 2D presentation.

So the action is great and the last half hour is very entertaining, but there’s really not much here. I don’t expect a great character driven drama when I go to see a movie like Clash, but there should at least be a little bit of character development. Perseus is a pretty bland character. He has determination, but aside from that, he’s just there, screaming and killing everything he sees. I was actually more interested in the soldiers traveling with him, especially Draco (Mads Mikkelsen, Casino Royale). But that may be because I find Mikkelsen to be a much better actor than Worthington.

Don’t get me wrong, Worthington has screen presence, but there’s not much beneath the surface. If he’s wise, he’ll stick with action films. The rest of the cast, however, does some decent work. Liam Neeson is a great choice for Zeus. I think he may be the only actor out there that can yell, “Release the Kraken!” and be taken seriously. Ralph Fiennes makes a good Hades, as well. His raspy delivery enhances every scene he is in. The one bit of casting that made no sense to me, however, is that of Danny Huston as Poseidon. Huston is not exactly an A-list star, but he’s a fine actor and all he gets to do in this film is stand next to Zeus. I think he has one line of dialogue. All I can assume is that he gave a performance that ended up being cut due to time.

Acting isn’t terribly important in a film like this, though. The computer effects are what matter the most. Think about it, what is more important: Worthington being a convincing Perseus or a realistic Kraken? I can get past a bland performance, but I would have a problem with a crappy Kraken. Thankfully, Clash features some decent effects. They aren’t groundbreaking and some of them come close to being cartoonish, but they work.

I mentioned that I’m not a fan of the original film, but there is at least one reference to the original film that made me laugh. Bubo, the mechanical owl from the 1981 film does make an appearance in the film. The owl doesn’t factor into the film much (thankfully), but it’s still a funny little nod to the original.

Speaking of funny, this film makes quite a few attempts at comic relief. The previews lead you to believe you’re going to see a brutal epic along the lines of 300. This film is not nearly as serious as that blockbuster. The soldiers with Perseus try to lighten the mood throughout and I was fine with it. Some people may find it a bit too goofy here and there, however.

Clash of the Titans is not a great action epic, nor is it a campy look into the world of Greek mythology. It is a pretty standard action film with some impressive moments. I suggest checking it out if you want to get your action fill before the big summer movies start rolling out.

"Avatar"

Avatar - Written and directed by James Cameron, starring Sam Worthington, Stephen Lang, and Zoe Saldana - Rated PG 13


For the flat out awesome experience, this film gets a Vader.

Wow...just wow. Avatar, the long awaited, majorly hyped new film from writer-director James Cameron is simply amazing. When watched in IMAX 3D it turns plain movie watching into a unique and breathtaking experience. There were times when I found myself with a grin on my face or with my mouth hanging open during this film. It completely encompasses you into the story in such a literal way that it will leave you wanting to go back in the theater and experience it all over again. Now, I've got my excited gushing out of the way, so let's get into the specifics.

Avatar takes place on the lush planet Pandora in 2154. Earth has run out of natural fuel resources, so a corporation sets up a military/scientific base on Pandora to try and come up with a way to get the precious Unobtanium under the planet's surface. To get the valuable substance, however, they have to deal with the Na'vi, the large, blue-skinned natives who are none too happy to see the "aliens" on their planet. Enter Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic Marine, who is given the opportunity to take the place of his recently deceased twin brother in the avatar program the scientists have come up with. The scientists, led by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), want a diplomatic solution for the Unobtanium retrieval. To do this, they have spliced Na'vi and human DNA to create Na'vi vessels to be remotely controlled by the scientists. This way, they may be accepted into the Na'vi culture and could possibly convince them to simply move away from the main source of Unobtanium.

As you can imagine, things haven't been going so well for the corporation and they've decided to solve their problem with military action. Jake is asked by Col. Miles Quaritch (played to hardcore Marine perfection by Stephen Lang) to play along with the scientists' diplomatic mission, all the while reporting back to him for military reconnaissance. That's as far into the plot I want to go, but if you've seen the previews, you know that things eventually get violent. But you can experience that for yourself.

What helps you experience Avatar is the character of Jake Sully. He's a newcomer to Pandora and he's never remotely controlled an avatar. So he's our newbie guide and it's a perfect way to set the film up. We get to experience the beautiful world of Pandora with the same amazed grin as Jake when he first enters the jungle. The strange plant life and assorted beasts that populate the planet confuse and amuse Jake and we, the audience, are likewise amused.

Just showing off a pretty new planet to the audience isn't enough to make a great film, though. (I would argue, however, that the special effects alone make this film worth watching.) Cameron throws Jake into the Na'vi culture completely and we're treated to a rich and compelling society. The best comparison I can think of is Dances with Wolves, especially since the Na'vi, with their connection to the living planet, so closely resemble Native Americans (which is most likely why Wes Studi plays the chief/leader of the people).

A soldier entering a foreign society only to become emotionally invested in it is not all that original, but when you stop and consider what you are seeing on screen, it seems completely new and fresh. That's because you are watching ten foot tall blue creatures the whole time, not a single one of them practically made. This is all done through motion capture technology and it is stunning. I didn't consider the Na'vi to be silly CG creatures created only to show off new movie technology. I saw them as complete characters in the film and it didn't take very long for me to side with them in the struggle. Sure, you're supposed to side with them, but I usually have an aversion to films that treat the majority of the human race as greedy, hateful creatures. When it comes to fictional alien races or the human race's needs, I'm usually all for taking out the aliens for the greater good (or comfort) of humanity. But this time the aliens seem to be much more in touch with humanity, if that makes sense. Does all of this sound a bit heavy handed and even downright cheesy? I can see that argument, but I would only agree with that if the movie was terrible. As far as I'm concerned, Avatar bought itself a free pass for a sappy political message or two once I was treated to a few flybys and jungle treks in glorious 3D.

If you think nature looks amazing in 3D, just wait until stuff starts getting blown up. Cameron has long been known as a master of the action film (after Aliens, Terminator & T2, and True Lies) and he does not disappoint here. Aerial battles, ground battles, and good old fashioned one on one showdowns are all impressive and never overbearing.

Usually, I might find myself waiting for each action scene, but in this film I was always interested and fully invested, even when there weren't arrows or bombs flying through the air. Part of that is character development and story, but part of that is acting as well. I've already mentioned Lang's hardnosed turn, but that's simple stuff; his character is a human. It's the motion capture performances that sell the film. I'm not saying Worthington deserves an Oscar or anything, but he is perfect when it comes to making an awestruck face. And while the face itself may be computer generated, his performance is not. His voiceover segments of the film (done through periodic video logs) help keep the film together as well. There's a sincerity in his voice that I found completely convincing.

This all sounds great, I know. It sounds nearly perfect, but Avatar is not without its faults. First off, the Na'vi look amazing and nearly look photo-realistic, but when a Na'vi is interacting directly next to a human, it looks kind of goofy. The contrast between the species may be the cause of it, but regardless I found myself chuckling a few times when I wasn't supposed to. These moments are few and far between, though. Secondly: Michelle Rodriguez. Ugh, I have had it with her tough girl characters (Resident Evil, The Fast and the Furious, S.W.A.T.) that always have plenty of witty remarks to solidify their toughness. She has to be the least versatile actress in the business. Thankfully, she only has a couple of moments in the film, but I cringe every time I see her on screen. But that's not a knock against the film itself; it's more of a personal preference type of thing. I just wish Cameron could've held off from inserting yet another tough as nails female character into his film. Zoe Saldana's Na'vi character Neytiri filled the female warrior slot fine on her own. These are very minor issues, though, and they don't keep Avatar from being a great film.

There are many more ideas and aspects of the film that could be discussed but I think I've made my point. Avatar is an experience like nothing in recent film memory and everyone should see it. Whether or not James Cameron has made his masterpiece is something only time will tell, but one thing's for sure: he's created one hell of a ride. I, for one, can't wait to go again.