I_Ailurophile

Not every film needs to be a revelation that fully demands our attention and inspires great thought and praise. Sometimes it's enough for a title to simply be good, and suitably enjoyable and worthwhile. 'The bridge at Remagen,' I think, is one such title. Loosely based on real events of World War II, and boasting a production history that itself is rather fascinating, there is a lot to love here as it tells the story of German and American forces converging on the titular infrastructure in the waning days of the war. The immense hard work behind the scenes to secure equipment and excellent, eye-catching filming locations - let alone facilitate filming in the first place under very challenging circumstances - are to be roundly commended. The stunts and practical effects that fill the screen at select junctures are nothing less than tremendous, as fine and harrowing as one could hope of such fare, and there are definitely times when Stanley Cortez's cinematography or William Cartwright's editing are particularly sharp. This is to say nothing of superb consideration for lighting, production design, costume design, props, and all the little nuts and bolts of film-making, including not least a sober, heavily dramatic score from composer extraordinaire Elmer Bernstein. Together with some thoughtful narrative writing and some especially fantastic scene writing and direction, there are moments when this is downright brilliant, capturing the imagination in the way that only cinema can.

The trouble is that the feature does not uniformly meet this high level of quality. It's not that it's ever bad, understand, but just as there are aspects here that engross us, there are aspects that are dull, uninteresting, or less carefully considered. For whatever value we may cite in the screenplay, for example, I don't think the characters count among it; except for in select scenes, no figures are going to leap out at us beyond the division of Axis and Allied forces. The sound design is a tad uneven, meaning that sometimes actors speaking with a more or less German accent are more intelligible in their speech than the those portraying Americans. And while the plot is compelling at large, its details get muddled and essentially break down to "good guys versus bad guys" without anything richer or more nuanced to set the movie apart. In fairness to the scribes, though, this may also be an issue with the direction of filmmaker John Guillermin. At its best 'The bridge at Remagen' is truly outstanding - yet there are also times when a scene fails to land with all the effect and impact that is intended, or which is portended in the writing. Emphasizing the point, sometimes a scene as it is shot fails to live up to the chords in Bernstein's music. As many trees of the story get lost in its forest, I can't help but wonder if Guillermin is also responsible for that deficiency, and in turn, for the whole feeling longer than it is. The best way to put it, perhaps, is that I find the direction technically precise, but narratively imprecise.

Ultimately this is very good, and certainly worth checking out if one has the opportunity. I'm glad to give it my hearty recommendation, and I will recall it fondly with recognition of where it succeeds broadly, and also with flying colors. The flip side, however, is that I will probably recall it vaguely, without being able to speak to many if any specifics - the trouble with marvelously executing the orchestration of every scene but somewhat fumbling the storytelling. By all means, I'm glad for those who get even more out of this than I do, and all told it's better than I thought it would be from the outset. Maybe just keep your expectations a little in check, and save this flick for a quiet day, and maybe that's the best way to get the most out of 'The bridge at Remagen.'

If there is one thing we can rely on from westerns it is terrific craftsmanship. The filming locations are beautiful, and the production design is a sight for sore eyes. The costume design, hair, and makeup are rendered with utmost care and detail. Stunts and practical effects are outstanding, and we can commonly trust in excellent cinematography to bring all these sights to bear, and fine music to complement the proceedings. Rest assured that we get all this in 'The outlaw Josey Wales,' one of those classic westerns that one learns of by name, and likely from promotional imagery, well before watching. Then, too, like other classic westerns, there are moments herein where outdated or even regressive values are on display - although, granted, it's all part and parcel of portraying the ugliness and ambiguity of the archetypal Old West - but even at that the scene writing is marvelously strong and flavorful in laying out a tableau of a particular time and place. And given the plot of a violent wanted outlaw traversing the countryside, sometimes by his mere presence exposing the corruption and wickedness of people along the way (if only for we viewers), there is a considerable variety that we get to lay eyes on, including not just traitors, duplicitous statesmen, and hardened killers, but carpetbaggers, snake oil salesmen, and more.

This is all well and good. Yet I find I have a hard time speaking of the picture in more glowing terms despite its renown and seeming high regard. The fact is that the plot often tends to feel rather loose, more of a patchwork quilt than a blanket; even as there is a distinct linear progression, the plot development is kind of insouciant. I can't help but feel the same about Clint Eastwood's direction, and even Ferris Webster's editing. Matching the violence and dark undercurrents, the cast tend to chew scenery in their performances - which for one thing is actually fitting in this instance, and which for another is actually to the benefit of the whole since the proceedings carry little vitality of their own accord, not even with the violence we see. On paper, and in its more superficial qualities, we get everything in 'The outlaw Josey Wales' that we get in most any western. In practice, the vibrancy and impact are inconsistent. The lion's share of the strength herein comes from individual scenes; the next greatest share, from the piecemeal growth or otherwise shift in the company that Wales keeps, illustrating that despite his reputation and his crudeness, for all the ugliness of the world around him, the outlaw may actually be one of its very best people.

In fairness, the latter critiques don't apply uniformly. The plot somewhat gels more over time, for example, and some of the acting is more nuanced as we generally anticipate. And despite my lack of enthusiasm, I did enjoy 'The outlaw Josey Wales'; I think this is a good movie. It's just not the sort of movie that especially requires or particularly inspires active engagement, and that makes it less than a must-see. Provided the nature of the material is no obstacle I'm glad to give this a light recommendation to anyone who appreciates westerns, and it's just that there are other works that I would definitely prioritize. Take that as you will.

I'm a rather cynical, skeptical person by nature. Broad appreciation of the 2009 film was paired with subsequent wry observation and commentary that has taken on a life of its own in the years since. Learning that James Cameron intended several more sequels raised an eyebrow. Sights unseen, learning that this first sequel of 2022 was nominated for major awards inspired utmost disbelief. All the best technical ingenuity and innovation in the world - what Cameron is known for, such as with 'Terminator 2,' and 'Titanic' - doesn't count for much if the writing and direction don't hold up. I recall enjoying the predecessor but saw it once in theaters and not since; could 'The way of water' really be as strong and deserving as it's made out to be?

Such reservations go first and foremost for the computer-generated imagery that constitutes the overwhelming majority of the sights to greet us, all but a relative sliver. I'm someone who will always, always prefer practical effects and tangible creations to post-production fiddling, for with rare exception digital wizardry ages rapidly, and looks worse the more we see of it; only when employed with the greatest of care and hard work will such visuals hold up, no matter how outdated they may be. Gratifyingly, in this case, they mostly do. This feature is nothing if not a wonderland for the eyes, and with even more diverse landscapes than what we saw before, the world of Pandora is unspeakably beautiful. Forests, skies, islands, and the ocean both above and below water are all mesmerizing - and to my pleasure, this splendor extends to fauna and flora, to the production design and art direction including structures, crafts, and props, and even to some character designs, like Kiri, or the distinctions between races of Na'vi. Pandora and its inhabitants are as beautiful as they are fierce, not to mention wonderfully imaginative, and by this measure alone the action-adventure is a terrific success. It's still true that I'd quite prefer a wider away of physical goods, yet with visions this magnificent, I can easily abide.

Thankfully, the excellence of 'The way of water' doesn't end there. Tremendous thought and care went into the sound effects, realized with luscious audio design, and extending even to the Na'vi language, and the languages of endemic wildlife. Russell Carpenter's cinematography is as smart and dynamic as it is sharp and vivid. I adore Simon Franglen's original score, a panoply of rich, varied themes that very ably complement the proceedings at all turns. Cloaked as they may be behind motion-capture technology and digital falsehood, I'd be remiss not to also commend the cast for fantastic performances. In this case I don't even mean established foremost stars, like Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Stephen Lang, or Kate Winslet (generally all very good, mind you), but more to fresher faces portraying the younger Na'vi, such as Britain Dalton (Lo'ak), Trinity Bliss (Tuk), Bailey Bass (Reya), Filip Geljo (Aonung), and in a better, meatier role than she had last time, Sigourney Weaver. Pair all these high quality facets with the most lovingly penned instances of scene writing, and real world-building, and at its best the picture absolutely inspires awe and wonder - and elsewhere, as intended, thrills, disgust, and other more raw emotions. At its best, this picture really did earn its high praise.

I did say "at its best," however. For as good as 'The way of water' mostly is, part of me still questions if it was necessary in the first place, and it bears definite flaws and shortcomings. Some dialogue is very good; some is achingly awful, and both apply to instances of voiceover narration. Some character writing and direction elicits tired sighs, primarily where antagonist figures are involved, and frankly I find myself doubting all the writing surrounding the character Spider. In some sequences intended to inspire awe the doing is blunt and gawky; some scene writing is downright messy. I also think that even over the course of more than three hours, the narrative tries to do too much. Action-adventure, earnest exploration of the world of Pandora, and direct commentary on our reality by way of this fictional one are all worth delving into; solid and cohesive as the plot is, it nevertheless overextends itself in some measure. Above all, speaking of that direct commentary: this movie is so dubiously heavy-handed in its administration that terms like "thinly-veiled metaphor" do not apply because the veil has been utterly dropped. Cameron may as well be standing nose to nose to us and screaming about the cold, ruthless, horrific brutality of game hunting; the cold, ruthless, horrific brutality of modern military "tactics"; the ugly, arrogant, mindless jingoism of Americans (depicted here through the lens of all humans, or Sky People), and of the military; the boundless spirituality and wisdom of indigenous peoples all over the world, and their mindful relationship with the natural world, accentuated in the Na'vi as they are once again one for one stand-ins for the native peoples of any continent; the importance of family; and so on. If any given viewer doesn't loathe modern civilization with all its destructive, harmful waste before sitting to watch, one certainly should after. Yes, all such sentiments are most welcome at large, but a little tact would have gone a long way in this cinematic blockbuster.

And it still must be said that for as fabulous as the CGI is, 'The way of water' is nonetheless again an illustration of the limits of post-production effects. The world of Pandora and all within is marvelous beyond what words can concisely describe, but the more that CGI is required to achieve in some moments, the less sure-footed it is. Some of the flashier underwater effects, for example, namely bioluminescence, ride the line between grand and gauche. Moreover, part of the weakness of CGI like this is that when you rely on it for truly every last tidbit, it must necessarily be flawless, or the slightest inclusion that is Lesser Than will stick out - and if only for a fraction of a second, some slight inclusions stick out. Some shots of Na'vi characters are very simply weaker than others, and where these active elements are but one of many facets of a scene they may not come off so well; part of this is just owing to the lesser designs of some characters, but there's also an unfortunate truth that the very best of CGI, and motion-capture technology, just can't do everything all the time, no matter what some filmmakers or studios want us to believe. Emphasizing all the above points, both good and bad, is the action. Far, far more than not, the action sequences are brilliant. They are fast-paced but not frenetic, a fine credit to the editing team, and exquisitely orchestrated, with fluidity and violent impact that's darn near poetic in their own way; see, for example, the epic battle in the last act, and the climax among a smaller subset of characters. There are also times, though, when little odds and ends in the action are altogether over the top. And as one last criticism that must be noted, when a title such as this tries so hard to do so much, there will inevitably be some minutiae that get lost along the way, be it aspects of the story that could have been explored more, or characters and character traits that could have been capitalized upon to greater effect (e.g., Neytiri, and her startling mindset at a key juncture in the last act).

Still, for all the doubts I had from well before I ever saw this, and for all the scrutiny and harsh verbiage that one may see fit to lay on the shoulders of such a colossal release, the fact remains that this 'Avatar' film is actually, genuinely, outstanding. For all the doubts I had as I began to watch, and for all the criticism I've remarked upon, overall I could hardly be happier with how good it is. The final impression I'm left with, even with caveats, is of a cinematic experience that transports us and takes us on an incredible journey. If this is not an indication of how successful 'The way of water' is, then nothing is. I'm a cynic and a skeptic, but I'm glad that in this case, I was mostly proven wrong. It won't appeal to all comers, by any means, nor meet with equal favor among all, but take it from someone whose expectations were middling and who steps away fulfilled: 'Avatar: The way of water' is well worth the proverbial price of admission, and I'm pleased to give it my high and hearty recommendation!