Movie Rant: 20 years from now, will Jaws still be considered a classic?

Steven Spielberg with "Bruce."

Last month, during the Easter long weekend, my two young cousins told me that they'd recently watched Jaws for the first time.

"Yeah?! And?" I asked. "What did you think?"

The elder cousin said, "It was kind of cheesy and not even scary" while the younger one shrugged and said "the shark looked so stupid and fake."

I'm not gonna lie: I was a little crestfallen. I'd never heard someone say that before about Jaws or "Bruce", the famously malfunctioning shark robot.

"Well, it was fake," was my lame response. "You have to remember the time in which it was made."

I asked them what their friends thought of it and they responded with, "they also thought it was boring and fake."

Now, maybe it was a bit naive on my part to assume that they would gush and swoon over what many consider to be one of director Steven Spielberg's greatest film achievements. They are only 15 and 10 years old, after all. But, still. These girls are pretty patient with "older" films (i.e. movies that were made before the rise of Kristen Stewart or Channing Tatum) -- they even expressed their recent love for Titanic even though it's, and I quote, "pretty old." So, the fact that they were so quick to dismiss Jaws surprised me a little. Even when I was a kid in the '90's, it was still considered a really cool movie.

I mean, the 1975 underwater horror classic is the reason we have blockbuster movies today. Without Jaws there would never would have been an Indiana Jones, an Avengers, a Lord of the Rings or even a Star Wars (although George Lucas may take issue with that). For that reason alone, it deserves its place in film history books. What makes it so great is the fact that we so rarely get a glimpse of the shark -- it goes back to the whole notion of how what we don't see is often scarier that what is shown to us.

In this increasingly digital age, though, what does this say about the future of certain film classics if the next generation of film fans brush off older flicks because of what they consider to be clunky technology? We assume that once a film is a classic and revered in film circles around the world, it will always be so. And, for many, that will remain the case. But what about the old-school thrillers or movies that rely heavily on computer technology? I just feel that, more and more, an emphasis on technology and special effects is at the top of moviemakers' lists -- so where does that leave Jaws?

Roy Scheider battles the Great White.

There are certain classics that I don't worry about -- their fates are sealed and they are destined to age gracefully. I'm thinking of The Godfather, a towering cinematic achievement that doesn't have to worry about technology and gadgets that will (unintentionally) prematurely age and outdate it. I would even argue that Star Wars is relatively safe what with Lucas' incessant tinkering, nit-picking and re-releases. Ditto anything directed by James Cameron, the George Lucas of a new generation.

I know comments like the ones my cousins made are inevitable and probably not all that uncommon (I'm just in denial, clearly). I'm also probably being crazy and reading too much into it -- but, once I started thinking about it, the more I realized that Jaws' of the film world may struggle to survive and retain their relevance and cultural significance down the road.

Of course there will always be film buffs to defend it and discuss it, but I'm talking about the average moviegoer. Will it be remembered ...or ignored?

But I guess this is how people felt when black and white receded into the background and colour became the "next big thing." While today's generation of kids likely wouldn't be caught dead watching a black and white film, there are still plenty out there who appreciate them.

But, in the age of torture-porn like the Saw franchise and Rob Zombie horror adaptations, Jaws apparently just doesn't cut it anymore. There has to be blood splattered to engage an audience or there has to be massive explosions to provide thrills. Somehow, I feel like it will be different this time around -- it won't be quite like the disappearance of black and white films.

As for me, I still think "Bruce" looks pretty damn realistic.

Movie Review: Titanic 3D

Kate Winslet and Leo DiCaprio

This isn't really a review.

It would be hard to critique this film, 15 years after its initial 1997 release. As a 14-year-old, Titanic pretty much consumed my life -- for that entire year. It had everything I could have wanted: likeable characters, action, tragedy, a historical setting and a doomed romance. I was totally on the Jack and Rose bandwagon, 100 percent. Who didn't swoon over Titanic that year? (If you say you didn't, you're lying to me).

Therefore, I don't think the teenager in me would ever let me give my head a shake and review it seriously because -- although aspects of it haven't aged all that well -- it's just so damn epic.

How did it work so well and why does it still gain a new loyal fanbase? Because, as this blog post on Jezebel points out: James Cameron is a 15-year-old girl. He understands his target audience and knows how to put on a great spectacle.

But, while re-watching it recently, I realized that it isn't just for 15-year-olds. It's a full-blown cinematic spectacle that manages to make you forget you've been sitting in the same chair for three hours and 15 minutes. No easy task.

Watching it in theatres last weekend totally made my Sunday afternoon. While the 3D added nothing to the overall film (I often forgot I had those glasses on), Titanic was meant to be seen on the giant silver screen. The minute those opening credits started up, I was swept away and melted into a puddle of goopy nostalgia.

Why I love Titanic

• Even if you've seen it a dozen times, it still manages to lull you into a false sense of security before disaster strikes -- the scene where it first hits the iceberg is one of my favourites.
• It introduced me to Kate Winslet, one of my favourite actresses.
• The sets and costumes were all kinds of perfect.
• The soundtrack, while overly saccharine, still makes me weepy.
• Billy Zane: So bad, he's good. He gives one of the most ridiculously over-the-top performances which, I've come to realize, is strangely appropriate considering he's playing an over-the-top stock villain character. You are meant to hate him, and embrace that hate.
• Bill Paxton: Any movie that has Bill "express elevator to hell" Paxton earns extra brownie points in my fangirl book. Even if he does wear that awkward earring. 
• Fabrizio's "Italian" accent. 
• The second half of the film is still incredible in its impact and the spectacle of the sinking -- and damned if it doesn't make me teary-eyed every single time I watch it!

A part of my youth died when Avatar recently trounced Titanic as the biggest movie of all time at the box office. But, Titanic was there first and has, arguably, more staying power. 

So, did Titanic need to be 3D? No. Did it feel like a bit of a cash-grab to re-release it? Sure, but it had the 100th anniversary of the sinking to back the decision up.

But I won't begrudge even the uber-rich James Cameron for wanting to bring it back to the big screen because, if only for awhile, he reminded me of what it was like to be 14-years-old again and totally in love with a movie.

Movie Review: Avatar

AVATAR
Directed By: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana and Sigourney Weaver

I eventually caved and decided to give Cameron's much-hyped film a chance. My reluctance to see this film was due in large part to overhype and the fact that it was supposed to be the greatest CGI film ever (which is not exactly something that gets me all fired up about movies). I prefer my sci-fi and action with a great script and characters, thank you very much. FIlms along the lines of Alien, Aliens, Minority Report, T2: Judgement Day or even last years Star Trek update. Regardless, I gave in to the hype and went to see it (in 3D, naturally).

The script borrows from numerous other sources, especially Dances with Wolves and Fern Gully. Its themes of colonization, the destruction of Mother Earth and governmental power have all been done before. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington, much better here than he was in 2009's worst film, Terminator: Salvation) is a former Marine (?) who is now bound to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. He is set to replace his deceased brother on a government mission to befriend and, ultimately, betray the Na'vi on the planet of Pandora. Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) wants complete access to a valuable type of rock which is important for something (don't ask me to remember, but it's the equivalent of America wanting Iraqi oil). Jake is given an Na'vi body which he controls with his mind while sleeping. He and Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) slowly learn about the Na'vi way of life as they become integrated into the social network of these nature-loving blue aliens. And, because it wouldn't be a James Cameron film without a love story threatened to fail due to catastrophic events, Jake falls in love with Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) who is chosen by her people to teach Jake the ways of life on Pandora.

James Cameron deserves credit only where it's due and that belongs to his direction. Arguably, there isn't another director working today so dedicated to his own personal craft. Avatar was a labour of love for ten years and Cameron's dedication to the film is undeniable. Without question this would be a challenging film to helm, with a three hour running time full of CGI and motion capture censors, elaborate sets and some relentless action scenes.

The script, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired. Cameron has clearly borrowed from so many other sources that it hardly seems like it would have been a challenge to write the script in the first place. The dialogue is typical Cameron mumbo-jumbo and lame one-liners, however, some of the cast manage to make it work, mainly the always reliable Sigourney Weaver. It's no small wonder that Cameron wasn't nominated for Best Original Screenplay this year.

The cast is decent. Sigourney Weaver is definitely the standout in terms of performance and talent. I cared about Dr. Grace Augustine more than most of the other characters. Sci-fi is where she's at her best and she suits the film perfectly. Sam Worthington, as Jake Sully, is alright but I couldn't help thinking that, in the hands of a better actor, Jake could have been so much more. However, it's undeniable that Worthington had chemistry with Zoe Saldana as Neytiri. Saldana, who impressed everyone in her role as Uhura in Star Trek, is only mediocre here, prone to overacting on more than one occasion. Maybe she thought she had to try harder to emote in order to be recognized under that CGI mask? Cameron recently commented that motion capture acting will "empower" future actors. How so? Who knows what he means. I don't see what's so empowering about having your face hidden and all those subtle, emotional nuances of your performance wiped clean away with a CGI brush.

As for the CGI and other various special effects, I might be a bit of a curmudgeon but I don't get what all the fuss is about. Yes, some of the visuals are spectacular (I like how the spirit of Pandora is viewed only as little white jellyfish things that land on you), however, it's nothing I haven't already seen in other films with a strong emphasis on CGI. For example, The Lord of the Rings' Gollum is just as great, if not better, than Neytiri. Plus, Andy Serkis is a much more talented actor. When we first get to see Jake in his Avatar form he looked pretty lame and was nothing exceptional. It's only when he was in Pandora and surrounded by other CGI effects that it looked good. This isn't the future of CGI. It's very much the just the present state of CGI.

Despite the overhype and the mediocre script and performances, the film itself was still had some enjoyable moments. While the running time makes the story drag in the middle, it's pure adrenaline and entertainment, which is what a blockbuster film should be. Watching the film in 3D definitely added to the experience and, if nothing else, Cameron's love for his project is evident in every frame. Just take it for what it is: a blockbuster.

GRADE: C