Movies That Engage

I realized after rereading my "Desolation of Smaug" review and comparing it to others I've written there are two issues I have with the review:

1. Writing rust.  It's been years since I actually wrote a review and I was having some trouble finding an entry point.
2. I didn't engage with the movie.

I enjoyed watching "Desolation of Smaug," but I didn't immerse myself in the world.

At the core of most movies is suspension of disbelief.  This is especially important for movies that are set in a time frame/reality that is dissimilar from the one you live in.  If you don't achieve this in a movie, it leaves the viewer as just that: someone who is an outsider looking in.  The goal of most movies should  be to grab the viewer's attention and keep them surrounded in the story they have created as if they were experiencing it for themselves.  

In a heavily CG movie, writing, acting and pacing are key to this, though novelty also can be a valuable hook.

Part of the issue with "Desolation of Smaug" is that there really wasn't anything new with the movie.  There were no stunning CG moments that grabbed you and the cinematography could have been from any of the Middle Earth movies.  I mentioned a complaint about Jackson's use of long range shots in the review and that is also part of what kept me as a viewer of the movie and not a participant. 

There are two examples in the last five years that clearly come to mind of movies that got it right: James Cameron's "Avatar" and Guillermo del Toro's "Pacific Rim."

I'm not going to get into the "Avatar" debate right now (it is on my list of movies to review,) however for the purposes of this post, I will say that I enjoyed the movie for all its faults and my suspension of disbelief was total.  

"Avatar" was, in my eyes, a great movie from a cinematic standpoint. Cameron paced the movie well and the CG was such that it felt like you were immersed in the world.  I can clearly remember glancing to my wife during Jake's first flying sequence: she looked right at me and there was an amazing connection between us as we clearly were immersed in the world together.  It's rare that a movie can do that for one person, to have two people, granted like-minded people, share that connection is nearly unheard of, especially given my wife does not engage with movies as I do.

"Pacific Rim," was another example of how to pace a heavy CG movie correctly, but also how to do CG correctly.  "Pacific Rim" had all the makings of a movie that could have gone very wrong: a lot of CG, just about every character was an archetype, and a story that was very "take it or leave it," in its premise. Yet, for me the movie worked and for very specific reasons:

• The computer generated effects didn't feel CG to me. The effects were so painstakingly rendered that at no point did I think to question them. 
• Another aspect was the way the CG scenes were shot. It is one thing to create beautiful art via the computer. However if the lighting of the scenes and the camera angles are inadequate CG feels forced, which was the case with "Smaug."  The lighting and camera usage in "Pacific Rim" were very natural in an artificial environment which kept me engaged in the fantasy which was being created.
• There was a great balance of practical effects with the CG.  Many people might not be aware, but the inside of the Jaegers in the movie are an actual set.  Del Toro had a huge platform created with hydraulics for moving the head of the Jaeger and the entire suit connection including the armatures which were powered by the leg movement of the actors were real.  All too often in visual media based presentations the actors are acting with empty props.  I can't tell you how many times I've watched a scene where an actor has a coffee cup with a lid and I get annoyed because it's clear the cup is empty by the movements the actor's arms arm making. That Del Toro went the extra mile to create the machinery of the Jaeger paid off because you could tell the actors were physically working to move the rig and it made the scene that much more real.

It's not just movies with effects that need suspension of disbelief and the need to maintain it.  Comedies rely heavily on this as do action films and dramas, but each comes with different needs. 

For a comedy to work, you need to either buy into the story or be so taken by the characters that you need to engage with them.  A good example of this working is "Dodgeball: An Underdog Story."  The title tells you what you are in for: an underdog movie that takes place in the framework of a game you might have played as a child.  What makes the movie work are the characters. Just about every member of the Average Joe's Gym team has character development, and they are likeable people.  The humor in the movie is a great balance of visual, spoken and physical comedy and the usage of multiple types of comedy helps the movie, but without engaging characters you would have another one of the cookie cutter National Lampoon "Blah Movie" titles that are released every year.

For an action film to truly work, it's all about the pacing, the action and the characters.  A cookie cutter action film like "Cobra," leaves little to enjoy.  Sure, you can satisfy a craving to see some ass kicked, but really, there is not much there.  "300" came closer to a really good action film, but Zak Snyder's cinematic tricks (action pacing that stopped for a slowed motion close up) , rock video soundtrack (do we really need to have bombastic music only playing during the action?) detracted from the movie, but where it really fell down was the characters.  I hated Leonidas.  I knew he was going to die and could have cared less.  To get to that next level, you need characters that you care about.  One of the best examples in recent times has to be "Taken."  You can identify with Liam Neeson's character, the pacing of the movie is almost perfectly balanced and when he is in action mode, you believe he has these abilities and it's not an "actor" playing a role.

Drama is, in many ways, the hardest to have suspension of disbelief.  If the story and characters don't work, the movie fails and fails hard.  Yes there may be some action, but in order to maintain the viewer's attention, it all falls on the actors and writers with the director having an input in his camera usage choices.  To contrast, I'm going to use two Oliver Stone movies: "Platoon" and "Savages."  "Platoon" is an example of how to do things right.  You have characters that you care about and the story is both engaging and acted in such a manner that you are drawn into plot.  The cinematography on this film is beautiful and adds an extra dimension in engaging the viewer so they feel as if they are part of the plot.  I'm not sure where Oliver Stone went wrong after "Platoon," but by the time he got to "Savages," he'd clearly lost his way.  "Savages" is one of two movies I've actually turned off without finishing it in the last ten years.  If I had paid money for the movie, instead of DVR'ing it during a free preview weekend I'd have been really pissed. I never cared for any of the characters in "Savages," which made it hard to watch.  Stone's cinematography skills have regressed into almost a third party observer mode and by the time the movie devolved into the torture porn route it was headed but I hoped it wouldn't go, I was done. 

To sum things up, I can still enjoy a movie if I don't completely engage with a film.  I was entertained by  "Desolation of Smaug," and didn't engage.  Clearly, if I leave a theater and am talking a lot about the movie, both the good and bad, I've engaged on some level.  I left the theater after seeing "Desolation of Smaug," had a perfunctory discussion with my family as we walked to car and, by the time we left the parking lot I was already trying to figure out what to make for dinner instead of continuing the discussion about the film in the five minute drive home.