In the past 22 hours, I have seen Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince twice.The first was in the furor of a midnight showing and the second mere hours ago.
The film brings together the crew from Order of the Phoenix(who will also complete both parts of Deathly Hallows).
The film starts by showing the affect of Voldemort's return on the muggle world, and Harry's experiences in it. While his hitting on a waitress is comical, I felt really awkward at it. Harry is very much disappointed when his date is interrupted by Dumbledore's appearance to take him on a quest.
This is where we are introduced to Professor Slughorn played to perfection by Jim Broadbent. many reviewers have said that WB could earn a supporting actor nomination for Broadbent in this role, and I couldn't agree more. He is delightful and poignant at the same time. (As a side note, I think that the boy who played teenage Tom Riddle should be nominated. He was so creepy, and played the part to absolute perfection).
The trio of Dan Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have never been better. The larger role for Bonnie Wright as Ginny is a welcome addition as well. The cast isn't lying when they say this is the funniest film yet, it most definitely is. Even though there are a few gags that have been overplayed in trailers, the film has many more laughs to be enjoyed.
Nicholas Hooper follows his brilliant score for Phoenixwith an equally-great score here. The music compliments all of the drama, laughs, and romance perfectly. Director David Yates knows how to work a camera, with amazing angles throughout. From the flight of Death Eaters through London, to a chase in a cornfield.
Michael Gambon and Radcliffe are amazing as Dumbledore and Harry. So much of this story hinges on their relationship, and the duo do not disappoint. Dumbledore's final scenes are as heart-wrenching as the book, and all thanks to Gambon.
There were some qualms. The color palate is incredibly blue throughout, which eventually turns to almost blue-and-white near the end, and is entirely distracting. The reprise of screenwriting from Steve Kloves is an unwelcome addition. The Potter fandom is very outspoken about it's dislike of Kloves's work, and this film only furthers their feelings. Matter-of-fact statements and observations of the obvious plague the film, as do jump cuts that make no sense and much that is not explained. As one who knows this book by heart, I was jarred with the plot of the film.
And the relationships. Many early screenings last year complained about the abundance of relationships, so the filmmakers rectified this. Well, now there is too little. Relationships pop out of thin air and end just as suddenly. Harry's newest relationship is never even confirmed, just by a "He's OK with it" statement by Hermione at the film's end. And the couple of Lupin and Tonks, who do not get together until the end of the book, are apparently together throughout, as Tonks refers to him as "sweetheart" out of the blue.
Overall, this is a great film. Most definitely the best of the Potter films. Like The Lord of the Rings before it, the Potter franchise improves leaps and bounds with each film. At this rate, the last two installments will be incredible. And with the expansion of Best Picture to 10 nominees, this film, while not winning the prize, has a definite shot at a nomination.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is, by far, my favorite film in the series thus far. Ironically, it is my least favorite book.
The direction of the film is extraordinary. David Yates uses pages from the Daily Prophet to further the plot, and it is a breath of fresh air. And ingenious way to add little tidbits that aren’t worthy of their own scenes, but need to be included. The color scheme really fits, and he manages to get the best performances out of our trio to date. I can’t wait to see what he does with Half-Blood Prince.
Dan, Rupert, and Emma really step it up in this film. Emma no longer acts through her eyebrows, and Dan has learned the art of subtlety. While all of Ron’s great comedic bits are cut, he really manages to portray Ron’s hurt due to Harry’s pushing him away.
The newcomers are amazing. Evanna Lynch is the flesh and blood equivalent of Jo Rowling’s words. I don’t think it is possibly to find a better Luna Lovegood. Her kinship with Harry is very well played out, and I adore Lynch after this film. She’s a real kind.
Imelda Staunton is fantastically evil as Umbridge. Perfectly evil. Her “hem-hem”’s are absolutely spot on. You hate her right from the get go, and the scene where the Weasley twins finally give her what she deserves
I won’t lie: this is NOT a movie for Potter purists. The film moves fast and is missing much of what I considered to be the duller points of the book. However, the end is extremely truncated, and it really takes away from the power of it. I was so looking forward to Dan blowing up in Dumbledore’s office, breaking things and truly using all of his acting chops. All but three lines of the prophecy are missing, and everyone hears it.
However, there is far more good. The scenes with Dumbledore’s Army are brilliant. The montage is exactly what that storyline called for and it is used superbly. Harry’s anguish at being labeled a liar is very well played out. You feel sorry for him, not irritated (Jo Rowling came quite close to making me impatient with Harry’s stubbornness in the book). And the fight at the end and the very serious death are handled well (well, I personally had always envisioned the death differently, but the filmmakers did a nice job nonetheless).
The score is brilliant. While John Williams’s scores will always hold a special place, Nicholas Hooper has surpassed my expectations. Especially with his “Possession” them, which put me this close to crying when its scene takes place.
The special effects, also, are top notch, especially the thestrals. They may look like dragons, which isn’t how they are described, but they are beautifully done nonetheless.
The screenplay, finally, was bearable. Michael Goldberg did a fantastic job of keeping what needed to be kept, and getting rid of what needed to go. He kept in the most memorable lines from the book (many work for word) and as a fan, I really appreciated that. I really hope he is coming back for the sixth installment.
But really, the thing that made this film successful in my eyes was this: it made me like the book more than I had originally! I now want to rush and reread the book because the film made me remember that it wasn’t all narrative and irritating subplots. It is a rich story full of emotion and internal turmoil, and this film captured it beautifully. Had I not been there with my sister…I would have cried several times. I fully intend to see this film many more times before it leaves theaters. However, its release signifies a very hard and real fact: all of this will be over in ten days.
The direction of the film is extraordinary. David Yates uses pages from the Daily Prophet to further the plot, and it is a breath of fresh air. And ingenious way to add little tidbits that aren’t worthy of their own scenes, but need to be included. The color scheme really fits, and he manages to get the best performances out of our trio to date. I can’t wait to see what he does with Half-Blood Prince.
Dan, Rupert, and Emma really step it up in this film. Emma no longer acts through her eyebrows, and Dan has learned the art of subtlety. While all of Ron’s great comedic bits are cut, he really manages to portray Ron’s hurt due to Harry’s pushing him away.
The newcomers are amazing. Evanna Lynch is the flesh and blood equivalent of Jo Rowling’s words. I don’t think it is possibly to find a better Luna Lovegood. Her kinship with Harry is very well played out, and I adore Lynch after this film. She’s a real kind.
Imelda Staunton is fantastically evil as Umbridge. Perfectly evil. Her “hem-hem”’s are absolutely spot on. You hate her right from the get go, and the scene where the Weasley twins finally give her what she deserves
I won’t lie: this is NOT a movie for Potter purists. The film moves fast and is missing much of what I considered to be the duller points of the book. However, the end is extremely truncated, and it really takes away from the power of it. I was so looking forward to Dan blowing up in Dumbledore’s office, breaking things and truly using all of his acting chops. All but three lines of the prophecy are missing, and everyone hears it.
However, there is far more good. The scenes with Dumbledore’s Army are brilliant. The montage is exactly what that storyline called for and it is used superbly. Harry’s anguish at being labeled a liar is very well played out. You feel sorry for him, not irritated (Jo Rowling came quite close to making me impatient with Harry’s stubbornness in the book). And the fight at the end and the very serious death are handled well (well, I personally had always envisioned the death differently, but the filmmakers did a nice job nonetheless).
The score is brilliant. While John Williams’s scores will always hold a special place, Nicholas Hooper has surpassed my expectations. Especially with his “Possession” them, which put me this close to crying when its scene takes place.
The special effects, also, are top notch, especially the thestrals. They may look like dragons, which isn’t how they are described, but they are beautifully done nonetheless.
The screenplay, finally, was bearable. Michael Goldberg did a fantastic job of keeping what needed to be kept, and getting rid of what needed to go. He kept in the most memorable lines from the book (many work for word) and as a fan, I really appreciated that. I really hope he is coming back for the sixth installment.
But really, the thing that made this film successful in my eyes was this: it made me like the book more than I had originally! I now want to rush and reread the book because the film made me remember that it wasn’t all narrative and irritating subplots. It is a rich story full of emotion and internal turmoil, and this film captured it beautifully. Had I not been there with my sister…I would have cried several times. I fully intend to see this film many more times before it leaves theaters. However, its release signifies a very hard and real fact: all of this will be over in ten days.
Shrek the Third
It's a summer of thirds! And by far the best of the three's is Shrek the Third, staring Mike Myers and Cameron Diaz.
The story is pretty good. Shrek is named king of far Far Away.However, there is another heir to the throne, Arthur, played by Justin Timberlake. The main plot is Shrek, Donkey, and Puss going to find "Artie."
However, Charming is still miffed that he is not married to Fiona and king of the land. He gathers all the fairy tale villains to take over the kingdom and seize their "Happily Ever After"
The film is, as to be expected, visually stunning. It has a running time of a mere hour and a half however, it drags like there is no tomorrow. The film also relies on many of the gimmick of the first two for some easy laughs.
Timberlake is rather good as Artie, the youngster next in line for the throne.After the initial shock of "OMG that's totally JT!" you forget that it is him and get right back into the story.
However, the lively cameo by the great Eric Idle certainly lifts the film.
Overall, a good film to take the kids too. However, prepare for a drawn out time with very few inside jokes for the grown-ups.
The story is pretty good. Shrek is named king of far Far Away.However, there is another heir to the throne, Arthur, played by Justin Timberlake. The main plot is Shrek, Donkey, and Puss going to find "Artie."
However, Charming is still miffed that he is not married to Fiona and king of the land. He gathers all the fairy tale villains to take over the kingdom and seize their "Happily Ever After"
The film is, as to be expected, visually stunning. It has a running time of a mere hour and a half however, it drags like there is no tomorrow. The film also relies on many of the gimmick of the first two for some easy laughs.
Timberlake is rather good as Artie, the youngster next in line for the throne.After the initial shock of "OMG that's totally JT!" you forget that it is him and get right back into the story.
However, the lively cameo by the great Eric Idle certainly lifts the film.
Overall, a good film to take the kids too. However, prepare for a drawn out time with very few inside jokes for the grown-ups.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Well, I was among several to witness an 8 PM showing of the third, and hopefully final, PotC film...
Honestly, I was not impressed. The nearly 3 hour running time drags on, and you feel every minute of it.
There is, really, no plot. At least, no resemblance of a cohesive plot that I could find. I sat there for three hours wondering what in the world was happening. The film relies heavily on old gimmicks, and lack any originality in that department.
The introduction of the pirate lords is a bit silly, as it is only a plot device to secure captainship for someone and to release someone from captivity.
The acting is all swell, but I wasn't really buying any of it. I mean, it wasn't bad, but it couldn't save the movie.
The effects were amazing, and the film shows signs of life during the fight scenes. However, the final battle goes on...and on...and on...and i was wondering if we were still fighting...
The ending is really, to be honest, lame. I can't buy that all of the characters would be ok with it...
The score was much better than DMC. It felt right, blended with the film, and wasn't a distraction like in the second film.
Overall, it wasn't too bad. I wouldn't see it again, but it was alright. Both it and its immediate predecessor, however, do not hold a candel to the original.
Oh, and don't forget to stay after the credits. I did, and apparently I missed something important.
Honestly, I was not impressed. The nearly 3 hour running time drags on, and you feel every minute of it.
There is, really, no plot. At least, no resemblance of a cohesive plot that I could find. I sat there for three hours wondering what in the world was happening. The film relies heavily on old gimmicks, and lack any originality in that department.
The introduction of the pirate lords is a bit silly, as it is only a plot device to secure captainship for someone and to release someone from captivity.
The acting is all swell, but I wasn't really buying any of it. I mean, it wasn't bad, but it couldn't save the movie.
The effects were amazing, and the film shows signs of life during the fight scenes. However, the final battle goes on...and on...and on...and i was wondering if we were still fighting...
The ending is really, to be honest, lame. I can't buy that all of the characters would be ok with it...
The score was much better than DMC. It felt right, blended with the film, and wasn't a distraction like in the second film.
Overall, it wasn't too bad. I wouldn't see it again, but it was alright. Both it and its immediate predecessor, however, do not hold a candel to the original.
Oh, and don't forget to stay after the credits. I did, and apparently I missed something important.
Spider-Man 3
Spider-Man 3....I wanted it to be good. I know going in how the AICN people felt about it...but i went anyway.
I didn't realize that my ticket price translated into a dollar per minute of Venom...
Let's start off with the positive: Pete= hot emo, Venom is deliciously evil, fight scenes= awesome, James Franco...
Everything else: absolutely horrible!
Seriously, emo/evil/whatever he was Spidey was just pathetic. Seriously, Peter Parker has to be the weakest, wimpiest hero ever.
And the PP/MJ thing...I am so over it. It slows down the movie and is so pathetic.
Sandman, I felt, was the absolute wrong choice of villian. You feel bad for his circumstances, but what happens to him is so lame, and such a cop out.
As is the appearance of the symbiote from a meteor...duex ex machina anyone?
James Franco is amazing in this film, despite his lame amnesia...he is so deep and menacing, he's almost as delicious as Venom, and really is the only villain fleshed out.
Bryce Dallas Howard is amazing as Gwen Stacy...even if she is only around for like, 15 minutes. So much could have been done with her.
Venom...what can I say about Venom...I'm not gonna lie, I only went for Venom...and I only got like, 20 minutes. I wanted so much more, and got nothing. So much could have been done...
Which is really the theme of the film: so much could have been with the characters. I would have preferred if the film contained only Sandman and introduced Gwen. Then, have the film end as Venom is born, and have his deliciously, sarcastically, evil self be the focus of film 4.
It feels as if they knew that this would be the last film, and wanted to get everything people loved from the comics into it...thus leaving the viewer feel lost.
This is the first time I think I've recommended not seeing a movie. Honestly, see another movie and see the last 30 minutes of Spidey...it'll be a much better use of your money.
I didn't realize that my ticket price translated into a dollar per minute of Venom...
Let's start off with the positive: Pete= hot emo, Venom is deliciously evil, fight scenes= awesome, James Franco...
Everything else: absolutely horrible!
Seriously, emo/evil/whatever he was Spidey was just pathetic. Seriously, Peter Parker has to be the weakest, wimpiest hero ever.
And the PP/MJ thing...I am so over it. It slows down the movie and is so pathetic.
Sandman, I felt, was the absolute wrong choice of villian. You feel bad for his circumstances, but what happens to him is so lame, and such a cop out.
As is the appearance of the symbiote from a meteor...duex ex machina anyone?
James Franco is amazing in this film, despite his lame amnesia...he is so deep and menacing, he's almost as delicious as Venom, and really is the only villain fleshed out.
Bryce Dallas Howard is amazing as Gwen Stacy...even if she is only around for like, 15 minutes. So much could have been done with her.
Venom...what can I say about Venom...I'm not gonna lie, I only went for Venom...and I only got like, 20 minutes. I wanted so much more, and got nothing. So much could have been done...
Which is really the theme of the film: so much could have been with the characters. I would have preferred if the film contained only Sandman and introduced Gwen. Then, have the film end as Venom is born, and have his deliciously, sarcastically, evil self be the focus of film 4.
It feels as if they knew that this would be the last film, and wanted to get everything people loved from the comics into it...thus leaving the viewer feel lost.
This is the first time I think I've recommended not seeing a movie. Honestly, see another movie and see the last 30 minutes of Spidey...it'll be a much better use of your money.
Little Miss Sunshine
I just watched Little Miss Sunshine on DVD, as to not feel like a horrible movie fan and have gone into the Oscar seeing 0 Best Picture Nominees (FYI, The Departed comes out on DVD Feb. 13!).
This was such a cute movie. Fox Searchlight has never let me down, and it kept up its streek. 10 year old Abigail Breslin is sush a treat. She just breaks your heart! Dakota Fanning, movie over! Seriously, I cannot get over how amazing she is in this film.
and Steve Carell? Who know he could pull of serious! He is absolutely marvelous as the suicidal uncle. And where has this Paul Dano been? He is amazing as Dwayne, who is silent until the final 30-ish minutes of the film. Alan Arkin is fabulous as well. Having last seen him in Noel( a film apparently only I saw) this was a real treat. his interactions with Breslin are just amazing.
I don't want to go into plot, because you MUST see this film. It's the dark horse for Best Picture, and with a PGA award, it is a definite contender. Everything is fantastic in this film: direction, cinematography, acting, score-- it's all there. So please, spend some time with Little Miss Sunshine...you won't regret it!
This was such a cute movie. Fox Searchlight has never let me down, and it kept up its streek. 10 year old Abigail Breslin is sush a treat. She just breaks your heart! Dakota Fanning, movie over! Seriously, I cannot get over how amazing she is in this film.
and Steve Carell? Who know he could pull of serious! He is absolutely marvelous as the suicidal uncle. And where has this Paul Dano been? He is amazing as Dwayne, who is silent until the final 30-ish minutes of the film. Alan Arkin is fabulous as well. Having last seen him in Noel( a film apparently only I saw) this was a real treat. his interactions with Breslin are just amazing.
I don't want to go into plot, because you MUST see this film. It's the dark horse for Best Picture, and with a PGA award, it is a definite contender. Everything is fantastic in this film: direction, cinematography, acting, score-- it's all there. So please, spend some time with Little Miss Sunshine...you won't regret it!
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
This afternoon I saw what can only be described as the most horrible, offensive, and hilarious movie ever: Borat. Sacha Baron Cohen wrote and stared in the film about Kazakhi journalist Borat Sagdiyev, who is sent to America to lean about our culture. This one is not for the kiddies.
I know that comic actors are rarely acknowledged by the academy but, I beg them, please take notice of Cohen. He is absolutely brilliant as Borat. First off, almost the entire film is improvised, a daunting challenge. Second, he never break character, not once! And finally, he rings a certain niavity to Borat that makes you understand his horrible behavior, yet still laugh uncontrolably.
There are some...eh hem...scenes of nudity in the film. They are completely disgusting, yet totaly hilarious. This mix is what makes Borat great. You find yourself disgusted by your laughter, but you keep laughing anyways.
Many critics are saying middle America won't get Borat. I must say, in Lafayette, IN, the showing before mine and my showing were backed. And laughing.
Overall, a hilarious film. For those not easiy offended, I definately recomend Borat. High Fiv
I know that comic actors are rarely acknowledged by the academy but, I beg them, please take notice of Cohen. He is absolutely brilliant as Borat. First off, almost the entire film is improvised, a daunting challenge. Second, he never break character, not once! And finally, he rings a certain niavity to Borat that makes you understand his horrible behavior, yet still laugh uncontrolably.
There are some...eh hem...scenes of nudity in the film. They are completely disgusting, yet totaly hilarious. This mix is what makes Borat great. You find yourself disgusted by your laughter, but you keep laughing anyways.
Many critics are saying middle America won't get Borat. I must say, in Lafayette, IN, the showing before mine and my showing were backed. And laughing.
Overall, a hilarious film. For those not easiy offended, I definately recomend Borat. High Fiv
Marie Antoinette
Tonight I saw Sophia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, staring Kirsten Dunsts and Jason Schwartzman. Overall, it was a good film. Well acted and visually stunning.
One need not know about Antoinette to appriciate the film. The film focuses not on the events surrounding her life, but her life itsself. Her untimate demise is not in the film, although it stops quite close to it. The film starts when a 14 year old Marie is shipped off to France to secure an alliance and is betrothed to the prince. They go 7 years without consumating their marraige, wich leads to much worry and many rumors. Eventually they have a daughter and son. The story focuses on how isolated Marie was, the inattention of her husband, and how she delt with it.
Dunst is very good in the role. The viewer can really sympathize with Antoinette and feel her lonliness. Schwartzman is good as Louis as well, although he isn't given as much to work with.
While Coppola is a very capable director, she's not too fond of words. As with her previous film, Lost in Translation, there is not much dialogue.
The costumes and sets are astounding. Filming at actual locations really strengthens the film and creates a more authentic feel. The costumes are marvelous, looking like they have come straight out of the times.
Some people may argue against the use of a semi-modern soundtrack, but I didn't mind. It helped push the emotion of the film, which is more important than keeping the setting.
While the movie did seem to drag, there was much more good than bad. There are several scenes that allude to sex, so you might want to leave the kiddies at home. Overall, I recomend it for those wanting to learn about Antoinette, not about the French Revolution.
One need not know about Antoinette to appriciate the film. The film focuses not on the events surrounding her life, but her life itsself. Her untimate demise is not in the film, although it stops quite close to it. The film starts when a 14 year old Marie is shipped off to France to secure an alliance and is betrothed to the prince. They go 7 years without consumating their marraige, wich leads to much worry and many rumors. Eventually they have a daughter and son. The story focuses on how isolated Marie was, the inattention of her husband, and how she delt with it.
Dunst is very good in the role. The viewer can really sympathize with Antoinette and feel her lonliness. Schwartzman is good as Louis as well, although he isn't given as much to work with.
While Coppola is a very capable director, she's not too fond of words. As with her previous film, Lost in Translation, there is not much dialogue.
The costumes and sets are astounding. Filming at actual locations really strengthens the film and creates a more authentic feel. The costumes are marvelous, looking like they have come straight out of the times.
Some people may argue against the use of a semi-modern soundtrack, but I didn't mind. It helped push the emotion of the film, which is more important than keeping the setting.
While the movie did seem to drag, there was much more good than bad. There are several scenes that allude to sex, so you might want to leave the kiddies at home. Overall, I recomend it for those wanting to learn about Antoinette, not about the French Revolution.
The Last Kiss
My sister and I went t see The Last Kiss starring Zach Braff. It's about 5 friends approaching 30 and their crises.
I must start out by saying-this is NOT Garden State. Very far from Garden State.
Braff is great at playing the finny/sensitive/emotional guy. He is the John Cusak of my generation. However, it's so hard to watch him play a guy who makes so many mistakes and do some horrible things.
The film is very light at the begining, but near the halfway mark takes a dramatic turn. It's nice to see Braff show off some raw, dramatic chops. There are several subplots, all offer something to the story, but the main one is Braff's. His girlfriend has surprisingly become pregnant. Braff's character has a mid-life crisis of sorts, feeling his life is too planned out. He meets a college girl, Kim,(Rachel Bilson) and has to decide whether or not to succum to temptation.
The directing was sub par. While there were several great shots, the framing seemed off a lot of the time.
The film is rated R for some graphic sex scenes and language. If you're looking for lighter fare, I don't recomend it. But if you're looking for an old school "Where is my life going?" film, this may be for you.
I must start out by saying-this is NOT Garden State. Very far from Garden State.
Braff is great at playing the finny/sensitive/emotional guy. He is the John Cusak of my generation. However, it's so hard to watch him play a guy who makes so many mistakes and do some horrible things.
The film is very light at the begining, but near the halfway mark takes a dramatic turn. It's nice to see Braff show off some raw, dramatic chops. There are several subplots, all offer something to the story, but the main one is Braff's. His girlfriend has surprisingly become pregnant. Braff's character has a mid-life crisis of sorts, feeling his life is too planned out. He meets a college girl, Kim,(Rachel Bilson) and has to decide whether or not to succum to temptation.
The directing was sub par. While there were several great shots, the framing seemed off a lot of the time.
The film is rated R for some graphic sex scenes and language. If you're looking for lighter fare, I don't recomend it. But if you're looking for an old school "Where is my life going?" film, this may be for you.
Lady In the Water
I saw Lady in the Water this afternoon with my mom, sister, and her friend. The story is a fantasy, fairy tale-like story, so to enjoy it one must completely let go of logic and accept the film as a fairy tale. I liked it a lot.
Paul Giamati plays Clevland, a super at an apartment complex. He meets Story(Bryce Dallas Howard) who is a Narf from the Blue World. He must complete a story told by a Korean tennat to get Story back home.
The acting is really superb Giamati has just the right mix of humor, vulnerability, and determination. Howard, as she was in The Village, is brilliant. M. Night Shyamalan (write/director/producer) gives himself the second biggest rold in the film. While many may see it as an arrogant move, I understand why he did it. The role is essential to the story, and as the writer, he would understand it better than anyone else.
The score complements the story well. As usual, we have Shyamalan's unique camera angles, and the cinematography is wonderful. While I wouldn't take small children to see it, it is a great movie that I wouldn't mind seeing again.
Paul Giamati plays Clevland, a super at an apartment complex. He meets Story(Bryce Dallas Howard) who is a Narf from the Blue World. He must complete a story told by a Korean tennat to get Story back home.
The acting is really superb Giamati has just the right mix of humor, vulnerability, and determination. Howard, as she was in The Village, is brilliant. M. Night Shyamalan (write/director/producer) gives himself the second biggest rold in the film. While many may see it as an arrogant move, I understand why he did it. The role is essential to the story, and as the writer, he would understand it better than anyone else.
The score complements the story well. As usual, we have Shyamalan's unique camera angles, and the cinematography is wonderful. While I wouldn't take small children to see it, it is a great movie that I wouldn't mind seeing again.
V for Vendetta
This afternoon I viewed V for Vendetta, the futuristic thriller based on Alan Moore's 1985 graphic novel and adapted by the Wachowski brothers, creators of The Matrix trilogy. It stars Natalie Portman as Evey, a woman working for the government run TV station and Hugo Weaving as V, the masked vigilante who's goal is to cary out the failed plan of Guy Fawkes.
If you don't know the story of Fawkes, I'm not going to type it for you, but they do address it at the begining of the film. Suffice it to say, he planned to blow up Parlament. Since his time, much has changed. American has become run by Britain again due to unrest, their "war", and a civil war inside the country. Britain itsself has been overrun by a dictatorship and the newly created post if "high chancellor". The government controls all forms of information; tv, radio, newspapers. It also has a "black list" where books, music, movies, and art are banned. It in this environment that V plans to change the government. He uses the very network the government runs to tell the people about the government's wrongs, and his plan to blow up Parlament. It is a heartless plan until he meets Evey, and falls in love with her. her association with V makes her a target as well, but in the end, she sees why V does what he does, and helps him achieve his goals.
Portman is, as always, brilliant. She plays Evey perfectly, vulnerable, yet strong, fearful, yet angry. The scenes in which she are tortured are to be marveled at, for her acting is pure. Weaving is also amazing as V. Although we never see his face, his voice and body language let the audience know exactly what he is feeling and thinking.
The writing is well done. However, be prepared to think. Near the film's begining, V launches into a 3 minutes tirade of alliterations and words that I only know thanks to my Honors English SAT-prep vocabulary. The pacing is very similar to that of The Matrix films, with chuncks of action, followed by large chunks of exposition. The editing is well done, peticuarly in the scene when Chief Inspector Finch realizes what is about to happen. I sat up in my seat amazed by the scene.
Yes, the film does have its politics. I disagree with some (including MSNBC's Joe Scarborough) that the film is "brainwashing". I don't believe I came out of the film wanting to become a terrorist. And in the context of the film, what V is doing is not terrorism, merely what people are supposed to do to change their government. As V says, "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people." If anything, I came out of the film with a new perspective. It made me thing, and it is always a good think when art inspires conversation. I mean, I'm a republican(although, not a crazy fanatical one) and I really enjoyed the movie and what it had to say. It is not everyday such a movie comes along, that makes people think and question their beliefes, and it is mopst welcome in my opinion.
Overall, a good film. It is gory, so don't take the kids. And if you don't like all the political mumbo jumbo, you can still enjoy a perfectly good action film.
If you don't know the story of Fawkes, I'm not going to type it for you, but they do address it at the begining of the film. Suffice it to say, he planned to blow up Parlament. Since his time, much has changed. American has become run by Britain again due to unrest, their "war", and a civil war inside the country. Britain itsself has been overrun by a dictatorship and the newly created post if "high chancellor". The government controls all forms of information; tv, radio, newspapers. It also has a "black list" where books, music, movies, and art are banned. It in this environment that V plans to change the government. He uses the very network the government runs to tell the people about the government's wrongs, and his plan to blow up Parlament. It is a heartless plan until he meets Evey, and falls in love with her. her association with V makes her a target as well, but in the end, she sees why V does what he does, and helps him achieve his goals.
Portman is, as always, brilliant. She plays Evey perfectly, vulnerable, yet strong, fearful, yet angry. The scenes in which she are tortured are to be marveled at, for her acting is pure. Weaving is also amazing as V. Although we never see his face, his voice and body language let the audience know exactly what he is feeling and thinking.
The writing is well done. However, be prepared to think. Near the film's begining, V launches into a 3 minutes tirade of alliterations and words that I only know thanks to my Honors English SAT-prep vocabulary. The pacing is very similar to that of The Matrix films, with chuncks of action, followed by large chunks of exposition. The editing is well done, peticuarly in the scene when Chief Inspector Finch realizes what is about to happen. I sat up in my seat amazed by the scene.
Yes, the film does have its politics. I disagree with some (including MSNBC's Joe Scarborough) that the film is "brainwashing". I don't believe I came out of the film wanting to become a terrorist. And in the context of the film, what V is doing is not terrorism, merely what people are supposed to do to change their government. As V says, "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people." If anything, I came out of the film with a new perspective. It made me thing, and it is always a good think when art inspires conversation. I mean, I'm a republican(although, not a crazy fanatical one) and I really enjoyed the movie and what it had to say. It is not everyday such a movie comes along, that makes people think and question their beliefes, and it is mopst welcome in my opinion.
Overall, a good film. It is gory, so don't take the kids. And if you don't like all the political mumbo jumbo, you can still enjoy a perfectly good action film.
Good Night and Good Luck
Good Night, and Good Luck is about one of America's darkest times, the raids of Joseph McCarthy and the man who almost single-handedly brought him down, Edward R. Murrow. Directed and written by George Clooney, and staring him and David Strathairn as the journalist himself, it is a compelling piece of how one voice can cause and eruption of change.
Strathairn easily deserves his Oscar nomination as the newsman unafraid of controversy. He plays his part with witt and intelligence, and it is appriciated. Clooney plays Fred Friendly, Murrow's producer, who stands by his man the whole way. His preformance, I feel, has been underappriciated and is award worthy in itsself
There is a rather tedious and unnnecesary subplot involving Robert Downey Jr. and Particia Clarkson as a couple who are married and hiding it despite CBS News's rules. I found it boring and misleading, as while they are wispering at the begining of the film, one can assume that they themselves are communists.
Clooney is not a half-bad director. Prefering stationary, over-the-sholder shots, he relies heavily on the facial expressions of his actors, more so than camera trickery of unnecesary movement. Filming completely in black and white, lighting is used to the greatest effect to set the scenes and moods. One appriciates the black and white approach, and applauds Clooney for defying convention.
He is also not a half-bad writer. Writting with Grant Heslov, their script is full of dark humor, witt, and elegance. They use actual clips of the "junior senetor from Wisconsin" and one appriciates the length Clooney went to to make a movie for his father, a newman himself.
Good Night, and Good Luck is a great look at American journalism at its finest. I feel that this film should be shown in every US History class, as Murrow himself may not be credited in the text. I leave you with his famous words...good night, and good luck.
Strathairn easily deserves his Oscar nomination as the newsman unafraid of controversy. He plays his part with witt and intelligence, and it is appriciated. Clooney plays Fred Friendly, Murrow's producer, who stands by his man the whole way. His preformance, I feel, has been underappriciated and is award worthy in itsself
There is a rather tedious and unnnecesary subplot involving Robert Downey Jr. and Particia Clarkson as a couple who are married and hiding it despite CBS News's rules. I found it boring and misleading, as while they are wispering at the begining of the film, one can assume that they themselves are communists.
Clooney is not a half-bad director. Prefering stationary, over-the-sholder shots, he relies heavily on the facial expressions of his actors, more so than camera trickery of unnecesary movement. Filming completely in black and white, lighting is used to the greatest effect to set the scenes and moods. One appriciates the black and white approach, and applauds Clooney for defying convention.
He is also not a half-bad writer. Writting with Grant Heslov, their script is full of dark humor, witt, and elegance. They use actual clips of the "junior senetor from Wisconsin" and one appriciates the length Clooney went to to make a movie for his father, a newman himself.
Good Night, and Good Luck is a great look at American journalism at its finest. I feel that this film should be shown in every US History class, as Murrow himself may not be credited in the text. I leave you with his famous words...good night, and good luck.
Rumor Has It
Tonight my sister and friend Jill saw Rumor Has It staring Jennifer Aniston and Kevin Kostner. The story is basically a sequel to The Graduate. Sarah(Aniston) learns, upon returning home for her sister's wedding, that her family was the inspiration for the movie The Graduate. As she seeks answers she meets the man responsible, Beau Borroughs(Costner) However, she falls into the same peril her mother and grandmother did, and the results are devistating.
Aniston does well carrying her first movie. SHe is ever the charmer she was on friends. Costner is very good as Beau, he plays it with the charm and finess that one would hope. Sherly McLaine, as Sarah's Grandmother, is hilarious. She is really the standout of the film.
However, the movie seemed to take forever, and the writing was, as is the curse of it's genre, predictable. However, it was an enjoyable, fun movie. I recomend it as a date movie, or one to see with your sister/mother.
Aniston does well carrying her first movie. SHe is ever the charmer she was on friends. Costner is very good as Beau, he plays it with the charm and finess that one would hope. Sherly McLaine, as Sarah's Grandmother, is hilarious. She is really the standout of the film.
However, the movie seemed to take forever, and the writing was, as is the curse of it's genre, predictable. However, it was an enjoyable, fun movie. I recomend it as a date movie, or one to see with your sister/mother.
The Producers
Today I saw Mel Brooks' The Producers starring Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane. It's the adaptaion of the musical of the movie starring Zero Mostel(?) and the great Gene Wilder.
The movie was funny. Being adapted by Brooks himself, there are lines word for word form the original. The songs are extremely hilarious and very catchy. He himself even makes a cameo...but you must stick around after the credits to see it!
Nathan Lane is Max Bialostock, a down on his luck producer lowered to smoozing old ladies for money for his "plays". However, his life changes when Leo Bloom(Broderick) walks in to do his books. Leo says a producer can make more money with a flop than a he can with a hit. Max concocts a plan to find the worst play ever written and create the biggest flop in history. They choose the play Springtime for Hitler writen by Franz, a bird-loving neo nazi, played woderfully y Will Ferrel. They enlist the gayest director in New York, and hire a Sweedish secretary/receptionist names Ulla, played by Uma Thurman, who eventually falls in love with the OCD-bordering Leo.
Nathan Lane is the real star of this movie. He makes Max a complex, conniving character. I can see how he won the Tony and got a Globe nomination over Broderick. He seems so invested in Max, and plays him hilariously. Broderick, however, is a different story. While he is funny as Leo, and matched Wilder sometimes beat for beat, he doesn't seem as invested in the role as Lane is in his. I wanted Matthew to be soooo good in the film, but it didn't happen. Thurman and Ferrel are wonderful as the supporting cast, bringing life into the picture as it is starting to loose it. Ferrel is the funniest neo nazi this side of Germany, and Uma as Ulla is brilliant.
Susan Stroman who choreographed and directed both the Broadway and movie versions of The Producers is a first time director, and you can tell. There is choppy editing, and the shots seem...stale for some reason.
You must stay through the credits, for there is a lovely and hilarious bit at the end.
Overal, a good movie. Even those who aren't huge musical fans might actually like this one. I adore it, and just wish I had seen the Lane/Broderick magic on the Great White Way.
The movie was funny. Being adapted by Brooks himself, there are lines word for word form the original. The songs are extremely hilarious and very catchy. He himself even makes a cameo...but you must stick around after the credits to see it!
Nathan Lane is Max Bialostock, a down on his luck producer lowered to smoozing old ladies for money for his "plays". However, his life changes when Leo Bloom(Broderick) walks in to do his books. Leo says a producer can make more money with a flop than a he can with a hit. Max concocts a plan to find the worst play ever written and create the biggest flop in history. They choose the play Springtime for Hitler writen by Franz, a bird-loving neo nazi, played woderfully y Will Ferrel. They enlist the gayest director in New York, and hire a Sweedish secretary/receptionist names Ulla, played by Uma Thurman, who eventually falls in love with the OCD-bordering Leo.
Nathan Lane is the real star of this movie. He makes Max a complex, conniving character. I can see how he won the Tony and got a Globe nomination over Broderick. He seems so invested in Max, and plays him hilariously. Broderick, however, is a different story. While he is funny as Leo, and matched Wilder sometimes beat for beat, he doesn't seem as invested in the role as Lane is in his. I wanted Matthew to be soooo good in the film, but it didn't happen. Thurman and Ferrel are wonderful as the supporting cast, bringing life into the picture as it is starting to loose it. Ferrel is the funniest neo nazi this side of Germany, and Uma as Ulla is brilliant.
Susan Stroman who choreographed and directed both the Broadway and movie versions of The Producers is a first time director, and you can tell. There is choppy editing, and the shots seem...stale for some reason.
You must stay through the credits, for there is a lovely and hilarious bit at the end.
Overal, a good movie. Even those who aren't huge musical fans might actually like this one. I adore it, and just wish I had seen the Lane/Broderick magic on the Great White Way.
King Kong
Now for my full review of Peter Jackson's KING KONG.
The story is pretty close to the original. However, the major change Jackson and his crew made I really enjoyed. They made Ann and Kong pretty much friends. Ann sees something in Kong, something good, and she manages to evoke that. Kong then becomes not her captor, but her protector. Becasue of this change, you feel more involved with Kong, and feel more sympathy towards him.
The casting, however, if a bit iffy. Naomi Watts was amazing as Ann Darrow, the out of work Vaudville actress who Carl Denham(Jack Black) casts in his picture. The way that she interacted with a somewhat nonexistant creature is amazing, and I think nomination worthy. Black as Denham, however, I had problems with. He is much more self-obsessed and careless with others than the Carl of '33. And for a while you can't get over how it's Jack Black. But where this casting hurts is in the movie moment lines. You just can't believe it for some reason. Adrien Brody as screenwriter(first mate in '33) Jack Driscol is good for the little material he is given. I thought the chemestry between he and Watts was good, but for smoe reason it just disappeared with no fulfilling resolution at the end.
However, the biggest acting achievement of all is from Andy Serkis. He not only plays Lumpy, the Venture's cook, but did motion capture and on set work as Kong. You can tell in the intimate scenes with watts that she is working off of something, and that something is Serkis. Absolutely briliant.
Contrary to several reviews, I felt the writting in the film was good. Just the right mix of humor and exposition, I felt. It was never boring or dull, and Black is given his "Jack Black" moments. Plus, there were lines straight out of the original that a nerd like me loves to recognise. The score was amazing. It is subtle, but not enough to go unnoticed. And it definately takes its roots from Max Steiner's original score. I thought it was briliant.
The effect, as is to be expected, were phenominal. Kong looked realistic from start to finish, and the dinosaurs and various other island creatures were terrifying and real-looking. The t-rex fight went on a little too long, but was enrapturing from start to finish.
Now, I have to agree with Golden Globe voters in nominationg Peter Jackson for Best Director, but no the film. I felt that the film itsself is not necesarily Best Bicture material, but Jackson's work is, as always, brilliant. However, he did let his 3 hour+ running time get the best of him. I did like the three-act structure, but I felt that the movie wqas a little too long by about 30 minutes. Just trimming little things like a wide shot here and 2-3 minutes of the final show down would have helped tremendously. And what's the true testimate, I cried...a lot in the last half hour.
Overall, a good film. No where near LOTR quality, but still a beauty to behold. In a year where the box office has been flooded with adaptaions, remakes, and comic-book adaptations, Kong stands out as one of the years finest achievements in film.
The story is pretty close to the original. However, the major change Jackson and his crew made I really enjoyed. They made Ann and Kong pretty much friends. Ann sees something in Kong, something good, and she manages to evoke that. Kong then becomes not her captor, but her protector. Becasue of this change, you feel more involved with Kong, and feel more sympathy towards him.
The casting, however, if a bit iffy. Naomi Watts was amazing as Ann Darrow, the out of work Vaudville actress who Carl Denham(Jack Black) casts in his picture. The way that she interacted with a somewhat nonexistant creature is amazing, and I think nomination worthy. Black as Denham, however, I had problems with. He is much more self-obsessed and careless with others than the Carl of '33. And for a while you can't get over how it's Jack Black. But where this casting hurts is in the movie moment lines. You just can't believe it for some reason. Adrien Brody as screenwriter(first mate in '33) Jack Driscol is good for the little material he is given. I thought the chemestry between he and Watts was good, but for smoe reason it just disappeared with no fulfilling resolution at the end.
However, the biggest acting achievement of all is from Andy Serkis. He not only plays Lumpy, the Venture's cook, but did motion capture and on set work as Kong. You can tell in the intimate scenes with watts that she is working off of something, and that something is Serkis. Absolutely briliant.
Contrary to several reviews, I felt the writting in the film was good. Just the right mix of humor and exposition, I felt. It was never boring or dull, and Black is given his "Jack Black" moments. Plus, there were lines straight out of the original that a nerd like me loves to recognise. The score was amazing. It is subtle, but not enough to go unnoticed. And it definately takes its roots from Max Steiner's original score. I thought it was briliant.
The effect, as is to be expected, were phenominal. Kong looked realistic from start to finish, and the dinosaurs and various other island creatures were terrifying and real-looking. The t-rex fight went on a little too long, but was enrapturing from start to finish.
Now, I have to agree with Golden Globe voters in nominationg Peter Jackson for Best Director, but no the film. I felt that the film itsself is not necesarily Best Bicture material, but Jackson's work is, as always, brilliant. However, he did let his 3 hour+ running time get the best of him. I did like the three-act structure, but I felt that the movie wqas a little too long by about 30 minutes. Just trimming little things like a wide shot here and 2-3 minutes of the final show down would have helped tremendously. And what's the true testimate, I cried...a lot in the last half hour.
Overall, a good film. No where near LOTR quality, but still a beauty to behold. In a year where the box office has been flooded with adaptaions, remakes, and comic-book adaptations, Kong stands out as one of the years finest achievements in film.
Pride and Prejudice
Hello all. Two movies in two days, not a record, but still awesome. Tonight I saw Pride and Prejudice staring Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew MacFadyen as Mr. Darcy, two people who couldn't loathe each other more, yet could not be more right for each other.
The movie is based off of the beloved novel by Jane Austen, which I am half-way through. The story is, as excpected, wonderful. I enjoyed every tortuous minute of people falling in love, then out of love and so forth. Knightley is wonderful as Lizzie, I can't think of another actres more suited to play her. MacFadyen in brilliant as the silent, brooding Darcy who is actually a sweetheart at his core. The supporting cast is great as well. Donald Sutherland is absolutely amazing as Lizzie's father. Just the right mix of humor and dicipline. And Brenda Blethyn is hysterical as Lizzie's over the top mother who's only aim in life is to get her five daughters married.
For what I have read, the adaptation is exemplary. I mean, scenes were word for word at times. I found it wonderful to see a film so richly taken from it's source material. As well, the relationship between Elizabeth and Darcy could not have been played out better. From their initial disdain for one another, to the incredible tension between them when they share their first dance. You are angry at them, and rooting for them at the same time. The climax of the relationship could not be better or more satisfying.
The directing is very good. The dancing scenes are directed with a continual shot from room to room which accentuates the movement of the people within the scenes, which I found very nice. Close ups are also used to great effect to show the characters emotions to their fullest. The score is also brilliant. Mostly piano, it is both exciting and calming.
Overall, an excelent film. One cannot help but leave the theater feeling fulfilled and giddy. A must see.
The movie is based off of the beloved novel by Jane Austen, which I am half-way through. The story is, as excpected, wonderful. I enjoyed every tortuous minute of people falling in love, then out of love and so forth. Knightley is wonderful as Lizzie, I can't think of another actres more suited to play her. MacFadyen in brilliant as the silent, brooding Darcy who is actually a sweetheart at his core. The supporting cast is great as well. Donald Sutherland is absolutely amazing as Lizzie's father. Just the right mix of humor and dicipline. And Brenda Blethyn is hysterical as Lizzie's over the top mother who's only aim in life is to get her five daughters married.
For what I have read, the adaptation is exemplary. I mean, scenes were word for word at times. I found it wonderful to see a film so richly taken from it's source material. As well, the relationship between Elizabeth and Darcy could not have been played out better. From their initial disdain for one another, to the incredible tension between them when they share their first dance. You are angry at them, and rooting for them at the same time. The climax of the relationship could not be better or more satisfying.
The directing is very good. The dancing scenes are directed with a continual shot from room to room which accentuates the movement of the people within the scenes, which I found very nice. Close ups are also used to great effect to show the characters emotions to their fullest. The score is also brilliant. Mostly piano, it is both exciting and calming.
Overall, an excelent film. One cannot help but leave the theater feeling fulfilled and giddy. A must see.
Rent
Today my sister and I saw Rent, the story of 8 friends struggling to make ends meet in 1989 New York. 4 have AIDS, 2 can't pay the rent, and various other problems arise.
I really enjoyed this film. I have not seen the stage version, but wish I had. All but two of the actors originated these roles on Broadway and it seems like an old, much loved, hat. Rosario Dawson, however, is great as Mimi, and one wonders where she has hidden this voice of hers. Mimi dated Benny, landlord of Mark and Roger, who starts dating Mimi. Mark was dumped by Maureen for Joann. And Collins, Mark and Roger's former roomate, is mugged and taken in by Angel, a drag queen. While Roger, Mimi, Collins, and Angel are all HIV-positive, only Angel suffers it's full effects.
The songs are catchy and I had to restrain myself from just singing along. Chris Colombus does a brilliant job recreating 1989 New York and the attitude of those living there.
While the first half of the movie is lighthearted and fun, it takes a hugely abrupt shift durring the second half, bring your tissues folks. However, the ending is sweet and life-affirming.
The only real grief I have with the film is the story of Roger and Mimi. It seems like there are huge gaps in their story. Maybe it was just me, but they would argue over things I never saw, and it seemed like they had known each other for far longer than I knew they knew each other.
Overall, a good film. While seeing it again is not on the top of my movie-going priorities, it was still and enjoyable movie experience.
I really enjoyed this film. I have not seen the stage version, but wish I had. All but two of the actors originated these roles on Broadway and it seems like an old, much loved, hat. Rosario Dawson, however, is great as Mimi, and one wonders where she has hidden this voice of hers. Mimi dated Benny, landlord of Mark and Roger, who starts dating Mimi. Mark was dumped by Maureen for Joann. And Collins, Mark and Roger's former roomate, is mugged and taken in by Angel, a drag queen. While Roger, Mimi, Collins, and Angel are all HIV-positive, only Angel suffers it's full effects.
The songs are catchy and I had to restrain myself from just singing along. Chris Colombus does a brilliant job recreating 1989 New York and the attitude of those living there.
While the first half of the movie is lighthearted and fun, it takes a hugely abrupt shift durring the second half, bring your tissues folks. However, the ending is sweet and life-affirming.
The only real grief I have with the film is the story of Roger and Mimi. It seems like there are huge gaps in their story. Maybe it was just me, but they would argue over things I never saw, and it seemed like they had known each other for far longer than I knew they knew each other.
Overall, a good film. While seeing it again is not on the top of my movie-going priorities, it was still and enjoyable movie experience.
Rent
Today my sister and I saw Rent, the story of 8 friends struggling to make ends meet in 1989 New York. 4 have AIDS, 2 can't pay the rent, and various other problems arise.
I really enjoyed this film. I have not seen the stage version, but wish I had. All but two of the actors originated these roles on Broadway and it seems like an old, much loved, hat. Rosario Dawson, however, is great as Mimi, and one wonders where she has hidden this voice of hers. Mimi dated Benny, landlord of Mark and Roger, who starts dating Mimi. Mark was dumped by Maureen for Joann. And Collins, Mark and Roger's former roomate, is mugged and taken in by Angel, a drag queen. While Roger, Mimi, Collins, and Angel are all HIV-positive, only Angel suffers it's full effects.
The songs are catch and I had to restrain myself from just singing along. Chris Colombus does a brilliant job recreating 1989 New York and the attitude of those living there.
While the first half of the movie is lighthearted and fun, it takes a hugely abrupt shift durring the second half, bring your tissues folks. However, the ending is sweet and life-affirming.
The only real grief I have with the film is the story of Roger and Mimi. It seems like there are huge gaps in their story. Maybe it was just me, but they would argue over things I never saw, and it seemed like they had known each other for far longer than I knew they knew each other.
Overall, a good film. While seeing it again is not on the top of my movie-going priorities, it was still and enjoyable movie experience.
I really enjoyed this film. I have not seen the stage version, but wish I had. All but two of the actors originated these roles on Broadway and it seems like an old, much loved, hat. Rosario Dawson, however, is great as Mimi, and one wonders where she has hidden this voice of hers. Mimi dated Benny, landlord of Mark and Roger, who starts dating Mimi. Mark was dumped by Maureen for Joann. And Collins, Mark and Roger's former roomate, is mugged and taken in by Angel, a drag queen. While Roger, Mimi, Collins, and Angel are all HIV-positive, only Angel suffers it's full effects.
The songs are catch and I had to restrain myself from just singing along. Chris Colombus does a brilliant job recreating 1989 New York and the attitude of those living there.
While the first half of the movie is lighthearted and fun, it takes a hugely abrupt shift durring the second half, bring your tissues folks. However, the ending is sweet and life-affirming.
The only real grief I have with the film is the story of Roger and Mimi. It seems like there are huge gaps in their story. Maybe it was just me, but they would argue over things I never saw, and it seemed like they had known each other for far longer than I knew they knew each other.
Overall, a good film. While seeing it again is not on the top of my movie-going priorities, it was still and enjoyable movie experience.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Tonight I saw Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and I have to say, despite its flaws, it is the best of the Potter films. The movie starts out pretty much the same as the book, with the murder of Frank Bryce (who is never named in the film). Then the plot differes, as we see Harry at the Burrow and just straight into an extremely abridged World Cup.
The World Cup is pretty amazing. The scale of the event is huge. Although we seen none of the actual event, and the events with the Death Eaters differ in, what I consider, major ways, it is still frightening.
The movie is also extremely funny, with the Weasley twins stealing the show many a time. I personally don't remember the book being as funny as the movie. Also, the romance is subtle, yet noticable. Although Hermione's post-Yule Ball breakdown as a little over the top I thought.
The tasks themselves are incredible, however I took issue with the first task. The Horntail somehow breaks its chain and we get an arial tour of Hogwarts which I felt was A. a waste of time and B. a huge variance from the book.
The main action, however, happens in the extremely short graveyard scene. The pivitol moment of the entire series, and I felt it was seriously trimmed, in a bad way.
The acting in this film, as with each previous one, is an improvement. Daniel Radcliffe has owned the part of Harry more and more with each film, and I feel he truely shines in this one. Rupert Grint is hilarious, as always, as Ron. I seen a great future ahead of him. And Emma Watson is great as Hermione, but I felt her preformance less natural than that in Prisoner of Azkaban.
The main problem, as stated earlier, is the pacing. The begining is waaaaaaaay out of whack and just when it seems to get better, the pacing takes you for another loop. I personally found it very anoying.
Overall, a great film. There are some frightening scenes, so be cautious when bringing younger fans. A great movie for fans and the non-fan alike.
The World Cup is pretty amazing. The scale of the event is huge. Although we seen none of the actual event, and the events with the Death Eaters differ in, what I consider, major ways, it is still frightening.
The movie is also extremely funny, with the Weasley twins stealing the show many a time. I personally don't remember the book being as funny as the movie. Also, the romance is subtle, yet noticable. Although Hermione's post-Yule Ball breakdown as a little over the top I thought.
The tasks themselves are incredible, however I took issue with the first task. The Horntail somehow breaks its chain and we get an arial tour of Hogwarts which I felt was A. a waste of time and B. a huge variance from the book.
The main action, however, happens in the extremely short graveyard scene. The pivitol moment of the entire series, and I felt it was seriously trimmed, in a bad way.
The acting in this film, as with each previous one, is an improvement. Daniel Radcliffe has owned the part of Harry more and more with each film, and I feel he truely shines in this one. Rupert Grint is hilarious, as always, as Ron. I seen a great future ahead of him. And Emma Watson is great as Hermione, but I felt her preformance less natural than that in Prisoner of Azkaban.
The main problem, as stated earlier, is the pacing. The begining is waaaaaaaay out of whack and just when it seems to get better, the pacing takes you for another loop. I personally found it very anoying.
Overall, a great film. There are some frightening scenes, so be cautious when bringing younger fans. A great movie for fans and the non-fan alike.
Elizabethtown
Tonight my sister and I saw Elizabethtown staring Orlando Bloom and Kirsten Dunst. It is the story of Drew(Bloom) a promising employee at a shoe company who's design blunder cost the comapny 972 million dollors (which is so big, it can be rounded to $1 billion, lol) As he has lost his job, and his girlfriend, he concocts a brlliant suicide plan, but is stopped when his sister calls to tell him his dad has died. So he heads to Elizabethtown, Kentucky. On the flight he meets Clair(Dunst) a perky, quirky flight attendent. As Drew is in his hotel room, he calls Claire and they spend the entire night talking on the phone. She postpones a trip to Hawaii and her and Drew start to develope the cutest romance. Claire opens his eyes to the life happening all around him. All he has to do is join in.
I thought this movie was excelent. Bloom, in his first real-person role is splendid. From the first frame to the last you cannot take your eyes off of him, and not only because of his gorgeous looks. He does a magnificent job playing Drew. Subtle at times, and outrageous as others. Dunst is adorable as Claire. She has a quip for everything, all of them memorable. Susan Surrandon plays a smaller role, as Drew's mother, who is a complete wreck after the death of her husband. Although her scene at her husband's funeral is a bit too long, it is heartfelt, which makes it tollerable. And Alec Baldwin is a riot as Drew's boss, Phill.
As is writer/director Cameron Crowe's staple, the film is filled with awesome music, and a brilliant score composed by his wife, Nancy Willson. Although, at times, the music overpowered the film or shifted too abruptly. The dialog was excelent, I haven't laughed so much in any film I've seen this year. Not at the obvious jokes, but at the character quirks and situations Crowe puts his characters in.
There was a pacing problem with the film, however. Although, there was no one peticular scene that dragged. The movie as a whole just seemed too slow,yet too fast. And the ending screwed with my emotions too much, lol.
Overall, an excelent film. It is this years Garden State, although you felt much more alive and happy after view this film. If you're having a rough day, week, month, even year, this is a great pick-me-up. I most definately plan on seeing it again.
I thought this movie was excelent. Bloom, in his first real-person role is splendid. From the first frame to the last you cannot take your eyes off of him, and not only because of his gorgeous looks. He does a magnificent job playing Drew. Subtle at times, and outrageous as others. Dunst is adorable as Claire. She has a quip for everything, all of them memorable. Susan Surrandon plays a smaller role, as Drew's mother, who is a complete wreck after the death of her husband. Although her scene at her husband's funeral is a bit too long, it is heartfelt, which makes it tollerable. And Alec Baldwin is a riot as Drew's boss, Phill.
As is writer/director Cameron Crowe's staple, the film is filled with awesome music, and a brilliant score composed by his wife, Nancy Willson. Although, at times, the music overpowered the film or shifted too abruptly. The dialog was excelent, I haven't laughed so much in any film I've seen this year. Not at the obvious jokes, but at the character quirks and situations Crowe puts his characters in.
There was a pacing problem with the film, however. Although, there was no one peticular scene that dragged. The movie as a whole just seemed too slow,yet too fast. And the ending screwed with my emotions too much, lol.
Overall, an excelent film. It is this years Garden State, although you felt much more alive and happy after view this film. If you're having a rough day, week, month, even year, this is a great pick-me-up. I most definately plan on seeing it again.
Oliver Twist
Today, being a half day, I decided to go see Roman Polanski's Oliver Twist. Twist is one of those stories that everyone knows the basics of, even if they haven't read the book or seen an adaptation of it. Simply put, it's the story of Oliver, an orphan. He runs away from the workhouse he is sent to and goes to London. Upon his arrival he meets the Artful Dodger and his companions who work for the creepy, yet pittiful, Fagin, played by Ben Kingsly. When Dodger is caught stealing a hankerchief, Oliver is framed. However, the old man who was the victim takes pity on Oliver and cares for him. However, when Fagin and his friend Bill Sykes find out about this, they are determined to get Oliver back, so he doesn't squeel to the police. Oliver then tries all he can to get back to the kind man who cared for him, and escape the clutches of Fagin, Sykes, and their gang.
I must say that this is one of my all-time favorite books. While I was not a fan of A Tale of Two Cities when I read it last year, I am a fan of this book. As is typical Dickens, there is a lot of description and detail, which is wonderfully portrayed in the costumes and sets of the film. There is nothing to deter you from thinking you are in 19th century London. As is typical Polanski, this is not a bright tale. He uses dark, rich colors and allows the weather to help him set the scene. The only sunshine in the tale is when Oliver escapes the clutches of Fagin and is at the home of Mr. Brownlow, the man who takes him in. Always one to include real life in his work, there is a scene where, after walking his shoes off, litteraly, Oliver is given shoes much too large for his feet, and Polanski was after WWII. While I have not seen many of Polanski's films, I do adore him.
The acting is superb. Kingly is brilliant as Fagin. He uses just the right mix of sincerity, malice, and crazy to create the classic character. By the end of the film, he has succsessfully made you pity the wretched creature Fagin is. Newcomer Barney Clark is so adorable as the mistreated Oliver. From the momen you meet him until the last fram, you are entranced by the innocence of Oliver, continually rooting for him to escape his unfortunate circumstances. Leanne Rowe is the Nancy I always imagined, kind, yet hindered by her circumstances.
The score is wonderful. Being an Oboe player, I appriciated the use of my instrument in the score, lol. Mostly string-based, it matched both the time and feelof the picture.
Overall, a wonderful movie. I do caution that parents take heed of the PG-13 rating, as there are some scenes I certainly would not want my 7 year old sister to see.
I must say that this is one of my all-time favorite books. While I was not a fan of A Tale of Two Cities when I read it last year, I am a fan of this book. As is typical Dickens, there is a lot of description and detail, which is wonderfully portrayed in the costumes and sets of the film. There is nothing to deter you from thinking you are in 19th century London. As is typical Polanski, this is not a bright tale. He uses dark, rich colors and allows the weather to help him set the scene. The only sunshine in the tale is when Oliver escapes the clutches of Fagin and is at the home of Mr. Brownlow, the man who takes him in. Always one to include real life in his work, there is a scene where, after walking his shoes off, litteraly, Oliver is given shoes much too large for his feet, and Polanski was after WWII. While I have not seen many of Polanski's films, I do adore him.
The acting is superb. Kingly is brilliant as Fagin. He uses just the right mix of sincerity, malice, and crazy to create the classic character. By the end of the film, he has succsessfully made you pity the wretched creature Fagin is. Newcomer Barney Clark is so adorable as the mistreated Oliver. From the momen you meet him until the last fram, you are entranced by the innocence of Oliver, continually rooting for him to escape his unfortunate circumstances. Leanne Rowe is the Nancy I always imagined, kind, yet hindered by her circumstances.
The score is wonderful. Being an Oboe player, I appriciated the use of my instrument in the score, lol. Mostly string-based, it matched both the time and feelof the picture.
Overall, a wonderful movie. I do caution that parents take heed of the PG-13 rating, as there are some scenes I certainly would not want my 7 year old sister to see.
Welcome!
So, everyone seems to be stealing my filmmaking dreams, so I'll get back on the wagon. Mostly because I don't want xanga to eat all of my hard work, I'm going to import all of my film reviews here! Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
