Tuesday, July 12, 2011

New DVD Tuesday

Rango (2011) - Johnny Depp, Ned Beatty, Isla Fisher
A gecko (Depp) who dreams of big adventure suddenly finds himself in an Old West-like town where water is at a premium. Sensing an opportunity to change his stripes, he creates a persona named Rango who talks a much tougher game than he actually possesses and before long, he's looked to as the town's savior. "Rango" didn't make near as much money, I think, as its backers had expected and I think that's because it has no target audience. I found it to be too immature for adults and too intense for kids. Not a fan, though I wanted to be.

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) - Matthew McConaughey, Ryan Phillipe, Marisa Tomei
Based on a book by Michael Connelly, "Lincoln" centers around a brash and slimy defense attorney (McConaughey) whose defend-at-all-costs is put to the test when he takes the case of a rich hot shot (Phillipe) becomes entangled with his own life. There are VERY few McConaughey movies that I can even stand to sit through but this one got decent reviews and actually had a rather long run in theaters. I might have to give it a shot.

Insidious (2010) - Rose Byrne, Patrick Wilson, Ty Simpkins
Another "family in the grips of demons" horror flick that features a husband (Wilson) and wife (Byrne) trying to save their comatose son from an evil spirit. I don't watch horror films so I'm out either way but the divide in critical reception for this film has been really interesting. Some critics who I really trust absolutely TRASHED it but others who are normally harsh on flicks of this nature fell in love with it. I've even seen a critic or two calling "Insidious" the best film of the year so far. Again, I'm not interested and the trailer was enough to thoroughly creep me out but the differences in opinion is pretty dramatic.

Arthur (2011) - Russell Brand, Helen Mirren, Jennifer Garner
Yet another 80s remake, this version of "Arthur" finds the title character (Brand) as a Billy Madison-like man child whose issues are much more related to immaturity than they are to alcoholism, which I believe was the premise of the Dudley Moore version. I don't get Russell Brand. He was fun in "Get Him to the Greek" but then again, I'm not sure he was acting so much as just being himself in front of a camera. I've tried to like him and my understanding is that he's a truly, genuinely nice and cool dude off the screen but I don't get it.

New to Blu
Brazil (1985) - Robert De Niro, Jonathan Pryce, Ian Holm
Naked (1993) - David Thewlis, Katrin Cartlidge, Lesley Sharp

Also New
Damages: Season 3 (2010) - Glenn Close, Rose Byrne
Entourage: Season 7 (2010) - Adrien Grenier, Jeremy Piven, Kevin Connolly
Miral (2010) - Frida Pinto, Willem Dafoe
E.R.: Season 15 (2009)
Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives (2010)

Monday, July 11, 2011

Movie News Today

Again, my apologies to News fans. There just hasn't been a whole lot worth linking to lately. We'll get back into the swing of things this week. I'm also taking a day off from the Potter retrospective because it's been a while since I've seen "Order of the Phoenix" and I'm watching it with some other nerds tomorrow.

Here's the first teaser poster for "The Dark Knight Rises." Soooooo excited.

In "worth reporting but not worthy of its own item" casting news, Michael Chiklis ("The Shield") will play the villain in a new Jason Statham movie called "Parker", Chris Hemsworth will play a racer car driver in "Rush", and Walton Goggins (also of "The Shield" and one of my favorite "no one knows who this guy is but he's awesome" actors) has joined Spielberg's Abe Lincoln biopic. Awesome all around.

Spike Lee has been confirmed as the director for a remake of the cult classic "Oldboy."

Peter Jackson has posted a new video diary from the set of "The Hobbit" on the film's Facebook page. You can find a link from Empire here.

The great Alan Rickman has written a brief farewell from the set of "Harry Potter" that will be in Empire's next issue. Gotta say, this gave me some goosebumps.

The Independent asks what will replace Harry Potter? Very, VERY big shoes to fill for a lot of would-be franchises out there.

Marshall and the Movies' F.I.L.M. of the week is one of my favorite documentaries, "King of Kong." Check out his thoughts.

1. "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" $47.1 million ($261.08 million total)
2. "Horrible Bosses" $28.3
3. "Zookeeper" $20.07
4. "Cars 2" $15.21 ($148.83)
5. "Bad Teacher" $8.91 ($78.67)
6. "Larry Crowne" $5.93 ($26.19)
7. "Super 8" $4.84 ($118.07)
8. "Monte Carlo" $3.8 ($16.13)
9. "Mr. Popper's Penguins" $3.15 ($58.05)
10. "Green Lantern" $3.15 ($109.73)

Harry Potter Retrospective Part IV - "The Goblet of Fire"

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Goblet of Fire"

"Fire" brought my "Potter" experience back to the beginning: it opened just before Thanksgiving, 2005 and I was back home to see it with my family over the break. I was right on the cusp of becoming a full-on Potterite and needed just the final push to send me head first over the edge. "Fire" did that and then some.

By the time "Fire" rolled around, I think David Heyman and screenwriter Steve Kloves had found their groove, no matter who was in the director's chair. They knew what literary content needed to be preserved and what had to be chopped, even if it meant reworking characters and settings to get the point across in less than three hours. Things like the combination of Ludo Bagman and Barty Crouch into one on screen character may not have been popular but it was a necessary choice. Likewise, the continued exclusion of all things related to house elves required some creative plot changes but I personally didn't feel the film lost much in its translation. Mike Newell, the third director in three films, did an excellent job of picking up where Cuaron left off in "Azkaban", keeping the dark themes and setting the stage for what was to come. Kloves also added in a fair amount of humor and a number of one liners and I think this is a great addition to the "Potter" universe. Rowling is an exceptional writer with a tremendous understanding of her characters; but her books are almost devoid of humor. "Fire" (the film version) delivers some genuinely funny moments and I think it is better for that.

"Fire" struggles in two areas. First of all, the book is slightly (and I do mean slightly) tedious. With the exception of "Chamber", I think this is probably my least favorite of Rowling's works. "Fire" is 300 pages longer than "Azkaban" and it is the only book in the series that I feel has unneeded filler. I think this put Heyman, Kloves, and Newell in a difficult position in that they have to stay as true to the book as possible but there's not quite as much to work with despite the added length. Second, Emma Watson regressed TREMENDOUSLY between "Azkaban" and "Fire. I wrote in my last entry that Watson made huge strides in the third film and was no longer the weak link. Well, she re-assumed that role in the fourth film. She overacts throughout the entire movie and the result is a Hermione that comes off as downright shrill. I have no idea what to make of this because Watson got better from one to two and from two to three, then continued to improve in movies five through seven but "Fire" is a major downgrade. It's a shame, too, because Kloves wrote a script that would have given her more time in the spotlight but she honestly couldn't handle it.

Despite those issues, "Fire" excels in several places. The special effects are tremendous. Being the total nerd that I am, I know a thing about dragons and the Hungarian Horntail that Harry is forced to battle against in the tournament is one of the very best movie dragons I've ever seen. "Fire" displayed just how much the franchise benefited from the time Cuaron spent on set in the previous film. In addition, Heyman somehow, once again, added to his already incredible cast by bringing on Brendan Gleeson and the ever impressive Ralph Fiennes. Seriously, best cast ever. Gleeson perfectly personifies the Mad Eye Moody copycat and that's a vital part of the story's tone. And Fiennes provides an incredible payoff for the three and a half film/book build up to the reveal of the fully reborn Voldemort. In any sci-fi, fantasy, comic book, or otherwise epic film or series, the villain is unquestionably the MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTER. It is SHOCKING how many directors, writers, and producers forget this. A hero will only go as far as his nemesis will push him and if you really want to excel, you have to create a villain that will carry the hero to the very brink of his ability and then some. Rowling understood that and made Voldemort that type of villain and Fiennes took up that mantle and carried through brilliantly.

The final act of "Fire" is both the best and the most excruciating of the series to this point. Everything, and I mean everything, in word and on screen, builds to this moment when Voldemort is restored and the wizarding world is thrown back into flux. When Harry and Cedric are transported to the graveyard where Voldemort waits, you knew from the second their feet touched the ground that something horrible was about to happen. (Remember, I hadn't read the books at this point.) That entire scene, the killing of Cedric, the ritual rebirth of Voldemort, the battle between good and evil, and finally, Harry's return to Hogwarts with Cedric's body is exquisite and it perfectly, PERFECTLY, matches the tone of the book. When Harry and Cedric hit the ground and the crowd realizes what has happened, it's a true gut punch and takes the series into new territory. This death and the casualness with which it is carried out marks the end of innocence and the loss of youth in this world. To top it all off, the wails of despair that Amos Diggory (Jeff Rawle) lets out as he sees his fallen son...truly sobering. It's a scene that I both look forward to and dread every time I watch "Fire" because it is remarkable acting but it also breaks my heart and brings a tear to my eye every single time. When I walked out of "Fire", I was dying to know what would happen next. I picked up the first book the next day and within a week, a genuine love for the "Potter" world had begun.

Rank in the "Potter" canon: 4th of 7

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Harry Potter Retrospective Part III - "The Prisoner of Azkaban"

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Prisoner of Azkaban"

"Azkaban" marks the first time that I actually sought out a "Potter" film on my own without the influence of a family gathering. I spent that summer in Searcy, Arkansas which is amazingly even more of a boring place than it sounds. There were two theaters in Searcy. The first was a classic, one-screen, "Majestic"-like theater that sat right off of Main and unfortunately smelled as if it hadn't been cleaned since 1950. The other was an almost equally run down eight screen theater with rickety seats, bad projectors, and an owner that everyone called Slick who was a known drug dealer. But, Slick was smart enough to realize that there's NOTHING TO DO on a weeknight in Searcy, Arkansas so he started "Two Dollar Tuesdays" which is exactly what it sounds like: two bucks got you into any movie in his theater. And so it came to pass that my "Potter" fascination was born in this pot-funded cesspool of a theater.

"Azkaban" is a departure from the rest of the "Potter" films and books because its villain isn't He Who Must Not Be Named. "Stone" and "Chamber" feature watered-down versions of Voldemort and books four through seven display the great villain at full power but "Azkaban" barely touches on his presence. In some ways, this seems an odd choice for Rowling but I've always felt that it was a stroke of genius for several reasons. First, it provides a break in the narrative that keeps it from becoming repetitive. This was especially significant in the films. Second, "Azkaban" allows for the other characters and plot lines to really develop. We are introduced to a number of new and exciting characters and we get a much deeper look at Harry's family. This is important because throughout the entire series to this point, both on screen and in print, the audience learns as Harry learns and discovering what his family was before their deaths further deepens the connection between reader/viewer and character. Third and most importantly, "Azkaban" provides a near perfect base for transitioning the audience over to the new, darker world that Harry and his friends find themselves in. In my opinion, if Rowling, coming off the child-like nature of "Stone" and "Chamber", had delved directly into the grave subject matter of "Goblet of Fire" without taking a break from Voldemort in "Azkaban", she would have experienced some critical backlash. "Azkaban" allowed this series to preview the deep stuff that lay in the road ahead without jumping in head first.

I don't think any of the other films inspire such a great divide in terms of fan reception. You can find people who will argue this is the best of the series and you can find others who are infuriated by the mere mention of the film's name. The detractors almost exclusively point to the fact that the screenplay excludes numerous details from the book, particularly concerning the relationship between James Potter, Sirius Black, and Remus Lupin which is definitely true. Personally, however, I think the narrative of the film is almost perfect. You can't put 500+ pages into a movie; cuts have to be made. What David Heyman and new director Alfonso Cuaron did was create a film that works both as a companion piece to the books and a one-off for those who weren't reading the series. If you had read all of Rowling's works, you could fill in the blanks the film left for you to find with your knowledge gained from the page. On the flip side, if like me, you hadn't gotten sucked into the literature as of yet, you could enjoy the film without ever knowing that you're missing out on any information. That balance set a spectacular tone for future film installments because, as the books get longer and longer, more and more has to be left out of the screenplay and you have to choose a story that makes sense to both parts of the audience. I think "Azkaban" did that wonderfully.

From a purely film standpoint, "Azkaban" is a work of art. Other than Guillermo Del Toro, I don't think Heyman could have selected a better director to display the dark and dangerous world that this third film opened up. It is shot spectacularly, often with dark settings and even darker color contrasts, an edge that illustrates the maturing themes perfectly. When Harry and his friends arrive at Hogwarts, a group of students is singing "Something Wicked This Way Comes", a delightfully twisted little background note that caught my attention right off. Everything Cuaron did in this film was designed to make it clear that this was no longer a series for children. And just like the maturity of the film, the cast grew significantly in "Azkaban" compared to where they were in "Chamber." Radcliffe became an actor in this film whereas he had just been a character before. Grint turned into a bona fide comedian which screenwriter Steve Kloves recognized and utilized, feeding all funny lines to Ron. Watson, meanwhile, improved tremendously on her skill set and was no longer the weak link.

Possibly even more impressively, Heyman again went out and got the best British actors that money could buy to fill up the empty spaces in the adult cast. With Richard Harris having passed away, Michael Gambon was brought in to fill the role of Dumbledore and while that transition was a bit rocky, I've always felt that while Harris was the superior actor, Gambon brought much more life to the character, which was needed. David Thewlis, who to this point almost always played wholly unlikeable characters, completely embodied the spirit of Remus Lupin and made him even more lovable than he'd been in the book. I openly rooted for that character in "Azkaban." And then there's Gary Oldman, the best actor of his generation, and a great chameleon who so wrapped himself into the character of Sirius Black that you almost can't tell where Oldman ends and Black begins. Black is my favorite character from both the books and the films and I'll be quite honest when I say that without Oldman's portrayal, I'm not sure where the character would rank. In a cast filled with incredible actors, Oldman shined brightest and took this series to a higher level. Absolutely brilliant.

You can disagree with me as to where this film ranks with the other "Potter" films but there is no denying that "Azkaban" is the most important one in the series. Regardless of its departures from the book, "Azkaban" is the film that opened this series up to a whole new audience. It became acceptable among teenagers, college kids, and full grown adults alike to admit their interest in the franchise and made people, including me, recognize the maturity of the subject matter. I still didn't read the books but "Azkaban" made me truly appreciate the fantastic nature of these stories and left me legitimately wanting more for the first time.

Rank in the "Potter" canon: 3rd of 7

Friday, July 8, 2011

Harry Potter Retrospective Part II - "The Chamber of Secrets"

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Chamber of Secrets"

I went into "Chamber of Secrets" very similarly to the way I went into "Sorcerer's Stone." Again back from college for Thanksgiving break, my family bounded off for the theater and I tagged along, this time a bit more happily, however. In the year between these Thanksgiving viewings, I hadn't though much about the world of Potter. It had been nice for two and a half hours but "Sorcerer's Stone" hadn't sent me running to the bookstore to catch up on the series. But I was much more interested this time than I had been the first time around and maybe that's the point of the first two films after all, at least in terms of those who hadn't read the books: just keep them interested until this thing really takes off.

In my mind, "Chamber", both as a movie and a book, suffers from Sequelitis. It's always tough to follow up on a smash hit like "Stone" was, to build upon what worked without becoming redundant. Rowling spent too much time in this book rehashing what had already been said in "Stone", though I can't really blame her because you don't know your audience in book two of a long series. The majority of your readers will have read your previous installment but a larger number of people than you might think will pick up your second book without realizing it's a sequel and you want to hook those new readers as well and convince them to go catch up on book one. By the time the third book rolls around, especially if the series is a hit like these are, almost all of your readers will start with book one and move through the order. All that to say, I think the second book in a series is the toughest to write, save for the final volume.

By that reasoning, "Chamber" is by its very nature weaker in source material than "Stone" or any of the films that would follow. The film also loses a bit of the atmosphere from the book. It's not that the sets, costumes, landscapes, etc. are any worse; they're all incredible, just like I'd expect after watching "Stone." But "Chamber" as a book is about the opening up of the wizarding world and setting the stage for many of the things that take place in future volumes. The diary (which we later discover to be a horcrux) is a much more powerful piece of magic than anything introduced in "Stone." The ability to leave a piece of one's existence (again, we later discover this to be a piece of the soul) behind after death is a significant, heavy concept and one that far outweighs the wonderful charm of a cloak of invisibility, transfiguration, or even the sorcerer's stone itself. The depth and gravity that Rowling touches on in the book is somewhat lost in the film which at times borders on becoming boring.

I also think that, from a film standpoint, this is the only film that lacks a compelling villain. That may seem weird considering that the villain is essentially the same person in seven of the eight films ("Azkaban" has almost nothing to do with Voldemort) but this version of He Who Must Not Be Named is tame and dull compared to the rest of his incarnations. Tom Riddle just doesn't inspire fear as much as he seems like a snobby private school kid who needs a good thrashing. I don't think his powers translate over to Columbus' screen vision. I will say, however, that I think the reason for this is that "Chamber" is still a kid's movie and for Riddle to be as menacing as he needs to be, you'd have to stretch the boundaries of what you can put in a film aimed at eight year olds. There's also the matter of Dobby who was in Jar Jar Binks territory in this film and whose reception resulted in the complete banishment for all house elves in "Potter" movies until the seventh volume.

There are a number of improvements in "Chamber", however. The key child actors all upped their performances from the previous film and as a first time viewer, that was vital to me. I have always been willing to forgive kids for struggling in these roles; after all, they're kids. But I would say that the third, fourth, fifth, and so on installments in this franchise would have been a tough sell to me if Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, and the rest didn't show some growth in "Chamber." I was happy to note that the painful moments that pop up more than I'd like to admit in "Stone" get cut down upon significantly this time around. Likewise, Kenneth Branagh brought even more British professionalism to the screen; his casting as Gilderoy Lockhart was inevitably brilliant. In addition, the creatures and the special effects in "Chamber" are much better than what we were treated to in the previous film. The basilisk is a thousand times more menacing than Tom Riddle could ever dream of; Fawkes the phoenix is an excellent mix of animatronics and CGI; and the giant spiders...I watched "Chamber" a couple of days ago and as someone who suffers from a bit of arachnophobia, that scene still gives me the shivers. So creepy and so well done. "Chamber" also contains what was for me the first scene that really drew an emotional investment from me: Hagrid's return from Azkaban to the Great Hall is a touching moment and it has been known to water my eyes when I'm not being careful.

All in all, "Chamber" is the weakest of the franchise in my book. That said, when I saw it for the first time, it did nothing but stoke the flame of interest in the series within me. I still wasn't ready to commit to the books but I was legitimately disappointed when I found out that the third film wouldn't open until summer of 2004 rather than the fall of 2003. In that, the film did its job for me and countless others who needed a reason beyond the books to get excited for the upcoming films.

Rank in the "Potter" Canon: 7th of 7

New Movie Friday

"Zookeeper" - Kevin James, Rosario Dawson, Leslie Bibb
A lovable-loser (James) gets relationship advise from the animals he cares for at a park zoo. Then he takes the animals to TGI Fridays. Seriously, y'all. I've seen a lot of bad trailers for movies I'd never want to experience but this one might just be the worst of all. Every time the trailer has crossed my path I've experienced real, physical pain. If you're above the age of 8 and you want to see this film, I'm not sure we can be friends any longer.

"Horrible Bosses" - Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, Charlie Day
Tired of the constant harassment they each receive, three buddies get together and decide to off their bosses. The idea of this film has grown on me each time I've seen the trailer. I love Bateman and Sudeikis but the real stroke of genius is in the casting of Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston, and Colin Farrell as the aforementioned bosses. This has the potential to be really, really funny.

"The Ward" - Amber Heard, Mamie Gummer, Danielle Panabaker
From the mind of John Carpenter comes a horror flick about a girl (Heard) who sees a ghostly apparition in her psychiatric hospital and, of course, no one believes her. It's been ten years since Carpenter directed a film but 25 since he made one that mattered. I'm not a horror fan so I'm biased but I can't imagine his name holds much value at this point. No thanks.

"Ironclad" - Paul Giamatti, Jason Flemyng, Brian Cox
A group of Knights Templar fight against King John (Giamatti) during the 13th century. I've said before that while I find Giamatti to be an excellent, professional actor, his films are never aimed at my demographic. This just seems like a weird casting choice in my book especially when you consider that it's being described as a glorified B-movie. Add in the fact that I immediately turn away anyone says the term "Knights Templar" and I'm probably out unless it pops up on Netflix Instant.

"Beats, Rhymes, and Life: The Travels of a Tribe Called Quest" - Q-Tip, Pfife Dawg (limited)
Director Michael Rapaport (yes, that Michael Rapaport) takes an inside look at one of the most influential rap groups of all time, A Tribe Called Quest. I'm sure I won't have an opportunity to see it until it hits Netflix but this is getting really excellent reviews. Definitely interested.

"Project Nim" (limited)
A documentarian look at a 1970s project that raised chimpanzees as human children in an effort to teach them to communicate. This is done by the guy behind "Man on Wire" which I swear I'm going to get to eventually and has gotten great reviews. Interested.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Harry Potter Retrospective Part I - "The Sorcerer's Stone"

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Philosopher's Stone"/"The Sorcerer's Stone"

I'm not sure how many people out there are in the same boat as me, but I went into the first Potter film without having read a single page of the books. My brother, sister, and mom had read them but I had resisted. For one thing, I wasn't much interested in reading a children's book even if it did involve the sort of nerdy fantasy that I enjoyed. For another, this series was far too popular for me. I've always enjoyed rebelling against what everyone loves and Pottermania was too much for me to get on board with. My introduction to Harry Potter came on Thanksgiving Day 2001 when my family, for the first time ever, decided to see a movie on a Holiday and this was their choice.

Strangely, I think my appreciation for "Stone" has grown over the years when it seems like the type of film that would get worse and worse with each viewing. Each time I watch it, I am reminded of how smart producer David Heyman was when he put the first part of this franchise together. First off, he got the right director. Now, Chris Columbus has been depressingly retched since his time with Harry Potter ended but when he started, he was the perfect man for the job. He had a track record of making fun family films that appealed to children and adults alike and even more importantly, he understood how to work with kids. That point can't be underestimated enough especially when you consider that the vast majority of his young cast was completely and totally inexperienced as actors. You can tell while watching "Stone" that the kids had fun working on this film and that youthful energy often covers over the rougher acting moments.

Second, Heyman and Columbus together knocked it out of the park when it came to casting Harry, Ron, Hermione, and the rest of the young characters. To cast a group of child actors is exceedingly risky when you've got one film to think about; it's almost impossible when you're looking at seven or eight. You have to hope and pray that as they get older, they continue to improve as actors, they stay out of serious trouble, and they look appealing ten years later. Save for a few blips, the people behind Harry Potter did about as good as you could ever hope. Daniel Radcliffe has embraced the spirit of Harry Potter brilliantly, Rupert Grint has turned himself into the most likely cast member to have a legitimate career after Harry, and Emma Watson, the absolute worst actor in the group in "Stone", has practiced and refined her craft to the point that she rarely has an off-key moment. On top of that, they all seem to handle the incredible pressure that comes with these roles with relative ease and that can never be underestimated. They all have horrible moments in "Stone" of course, but in my book you always see the potential they had.


Third, to fill the adult roles, Heyman assembled one of the best ensemble casts in recent memory. Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, and on down the list, the names in "Stone" reads like a Who's Who of great British actors and it only grows in the following films. Though their roles are fairly limited early on, these great talents do a remarkable job of balancing the inexperience of the kids and drawing attention to themselves in just the right moments.

Fourth and most importantly, Heyman was smart enough to let the world that J.K. Rowling laid out in the book be the focus of "Stone." There are some changes here and there, sure, but excluding cosmetic issues, Heyman and Columbus brought the pages of that book to life and let the audience bask in that experience. I obviously didn't understand that the first time I saw this film but even as a first time Potterer, I was easily wrapped up in the delicately designed universe that "Stone" introduced me to. The landscapes, the decor, the meticulously detailed wardrobe and set pieces all join together to create a deliciously inviting atmosphere that is difficult to turn away from. Beyond that, though, this glorious presentation takes all the pressure off of Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, et al. It's clear that "Stone" isn't about the actors and it's not even really about the characters; it's about the world in which these characters live. It is a perfect introduction to Rowling's vision whether you're a fan of the books or not.

It's obvious that this is not the best of the "Potter" film series. The story is (purposefully and rightly so) much less dynamic and serious as the other films, its actors are downright rough in some places (Watson and Tom Felton in particular), and the special effects sometimes lag behind. But I always view "Stone" with perhaps more fondness than I do any of its sequels because it opened me up to a magnificent world I might have missed out on otherwise.

Rank in the "Potter" Film Canon: 6th of 7

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Movie News Today

Sorry to all you News lovers out there for the lack of content lately. Holiday weekends are almost completely devoid of important news.

Johnny Depp has officially signed on for "Pirates 5." Yay.

James Spader will join the cast of "The Office" next season but it looks like he'll be replacing Kathy Bates as the head of Dunder Mifflin/Sabre not the Michael Scott role. Interesting...

You can put Marshall and the Movies on the list of people who aren't big fans of "Tree of Life." I keep passing these reviews on because I'm not sure when I'm ever going to get to see it myself.

Ruth over at Flix Chatter picks some of the worst movie villains of all time and starts off with Jason Patric's character in "The Losers" who is definitely one of the absolute beatings I can remember from a villainous standpoint. Nice work!

Cinema Slants quite eloquently discusses the differences between Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich. Very good read.

Blu Ray Review: "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader"

With the Great War still holding on to England, Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) Pevensie have been forced to live with relatives who scarcely notice them. Their situation is made all of the worse by the presence of their whiny, bratty cousin Eustace (Will Poulter) who does nothing but mock them. During one of their many fights, the trio is suddenly sucked into a portrait and find themselves reunited with King Caspian (Ben Barnes) on his ship, the Dawn Treader. The Pevensies (and by default, Eustace) join Caspian's quest to discover the truth behind a mysterious green mist and the dark island from which it comes. The world is a different Narnia than the one they left behind, however, and they encounter many hardships on the road to completing their quest.

Based on C.S. Lewis' beloved series of books, the "Narnia" franchise has been on a roller coaster since the first book, "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" was adapted in 2005. "Lion" was well received critically and made an insane amount of money, drawing upon the rabid fan base that had supported the story for years and creating new fans as it went. The second film, "Prince Caspian", was less well received and while it still made a ton of money, it wasn't near the success that the first was. I personally quite enjoyed the first film and DESPISED the second. Seriously, my hatred for "Prince Caspian" cannot be overstated. For this installment, the series jumped ship to a different production company (Fox) and changed directors (Michael Apted). As a fan of the books, I find it sad to say that I expect "Dawn Treader" represents the end of these films in their present form.

First of all, "Dawn Treader" is, in my mind, the weakest source material of all of Lewis' novels. Everything else he wrote for this series is inspired; this one always felt to me like he was spinning his wheels. Second, I think the people behind this film attempted to water down the spiritual implications and allegories that run rampant through the series. In doing so, they created a film that may be too far from the Biblically-based narrative of the book for Christians and yet too close to the realm of spirituality non-Christians. Fence sitting is never a great option. Third, let's just be honest, these kids can't act. When your film franchise depends entirely on the growth and maturity of children, you're risking a great deal in terms of longevity and quality. Sometimes you get it right ("Harry Potter") and sometimes you don't ("Narnia"). Poulter is by a long shot the best actor of the three kids but his character is also one of the most obnoxious in the history of literature and film. Keynes and Henley aren't necessarily painful to watch but they just have no idea what to do with the material they're given. Throughout this film they are routinely flat and one note and personally, I could never get past that.

The effects of "Dawn Treader" are outstanding and you can clearly see that this was where most of the film's $155 million dollar budget went. There's also a lot of adventure and swordplay here so it doesn't get boring like "Caspian" did. But these qualities just don't overshadow the film's deficiencies. It's not really a bad film and I'd watch it ten more times before I endured "Caspian" again but there are not enough strengths to recommend it, either. That's a real shame to me because Lewis' series is worthy of being put to the screen and could make for some great films. But it's hard to imagine Fox, Disney, or anyone else continuing to throw $150+ million into a series that struggles to break even domestically.

Grade: C+

Monday, July 4, 2011

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

In the first paragraph of my theatrical reviews, I usually try to find a personal connection to the movie I’m writing about. In this case, however, I’ve decided that since there’s no way a human could connect to “Transformers 3” that I’m going to give a couple of brief disclaimers. One, I really enjoyed the first “Transformers.” I find it to be fun, if cheesy, summer blockbuster fun. Second, I don’t hate “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” Every year there’s a film that it becomes sport to dog pile on and in my opinion, 2009’s Dog Pile Film was “Revenge of the Fallen.” Third, this review will have more to do with Michael Bay than anything else. Fourth, I am going to make a sports analogy in the concluding paragraph. Apologies in advance. Finally, the screenwriter for this film is a dude named Ehren Kruger. I say that now because for the rest of this piece, I will write as if Bay wrote the script himself because I have to believe Kruger is nothing more than a Bay puppet. No other conclusion can be drawn from this movie. So without further ado, we move on to the plot summary for “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.”

At the open, “Dark” tells us that an Autobot ship crashed on the moon in the late 50s/early 60s and that this was the real cause for the Space Race between the USA and the USSR. This sets the stage for the present day when Optimus Prime, unknowingly through the manipulation of the Decepticons, finds out about this ship and makes a trip to the Moon to bring back the near-deceased body of its pilot, Sentinel Prime, and the cargo, called the Space Bridge, that could create a terrible weapon. Meanwhile, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is floundering in the real world and unable to find a job, though he has found a new supermodel girlfriend, Carly (played by real life supermodel Rosie Huntington-Whiteley). Everything gets crazy when Sentinel turns on the Autobots and forms an alliance with the Decepticons, then forces the US government to essentially deport Optimus and his pals on a high tech spaceship that is (of course) shot down by those backstabbing Decepticons, who then begin the process of taking of the earth and using the Space Bridge to bring their home planet directly into the earth’s atmosphere. With little hope and seemingly no help from their former allies, a small force of guerrilla troops and Sam sneak into the remains of Chicago, now the Decepticons home base, to force a dramatic battle for the salvation of the planet.

Here’s the thing about “Dark of the Moon”: it’s really two, if not three, different movies jumbled together into one massive compilation. You’ve got a Michael Bay action movie mixed with Michael Bay’s version of a quirky (?) romantic comedy, mixed with an alternative reality element that plays out like “Oliver Stone Does His Best Michael Bay Impression.” In all honesty, I should probably give this film three different grades for the different parts that come together to make a semi-whole movie. The alternative history segments are by far the smallest portion of the film and are, perhaps, the best parts. There’s a serious “JFK” feel to this plotline and I bought what I was being sold. The final 60 to 75 minutes is almost entirely a CGI/FX smorgasbord that is chock full of the dramatic moments, larger-than-life explosions, and awesome fight scenes that make up most of the trailers. This segment is exactly what you’d expect from Bay and he doesn’t disappoint, at least from a visual standpoint. The first hour, however, which mostly revolves around the tumultuous relationship between Sam and Carly, is literally one of the absolute worst hours in the history of modern cinema. I don’t think I’ve EVER walked out on a film in a theater; I can hardly bring myself to turn off a DVD as I always want to know the end. At about the 35 minute mark of “Dark of the Moon”, I was just about ready to throw my streak out the window. This awkward and frustrating combination, in my mind, illustrates Bay’s entire career.

I thought long and hard about what to write concerning Bay. I don’t want to be overly critical of the guy because I’ve always said that the first goal of the movie industry is to entertain and if you’re into action movies in any way, you can’t say you’re not entertained by what Bay does. At the same time, however, you can’t really say Bay is a good director despite his long string of mega-hit films and the billions of dollars he’s raked in over the last decade and a half. Likewise, he seems to understand audiences and marketing in a way that many filmmakers do not; he grants a lot of interviews, puts together killer trailers, and seems like the most likely director to pop up in a Saturday Night Live Digital Short. But on the other hand, when it comes down to making a quality film, I just don’t think the dude gets it. Whether or not a person “gets it” is a difficult concept to convey but that’s the best way I can put it. Somehow he’s tapped into the portion of the worldwide audience, and even the part of the human brain, that wants to see some crap blow up but has no idea how to reach the intellectual side of everything. I don’t even think that he’s ignoring that side of things or that he doesn’t care about it; I just think he can’t see past buildings exploding and muscled up guys shooting guns. He wants to, and the convoluted plot twists here puts that desire on display but he can’t get there. He is a confusing, paradoxical man and his movies are almost all the same way.

No attention whatsoever is paid to dialogue (absolutely atrocious) or character development (all of these actors will be pigeon-holed by this franchise) and yet the storyline for “Dark of the Moon” is far too complex for its own good. I don’t know how it’s possible to be both overly complex and oppressively simple but Bay manages to pull that off quite spectacularly. All of these twists and turns do nothing but set up a number of bad clichés while further pushing Bay’s film further and further away from his comfort zone, which is what you get in the last hour. Plot wise, “Dark” felt to me like Bay had a big notepad full of ideas and on the front, he wrote “Transformers 3” then slapped it down on the table and told his puppet that every idea had to make it into the finished script regardless of whether or not it fits together. The motives of the Decepticons seem to change by the minute and none of it really makes sense. For example, at one time it is stated that the Decepticons want to use us as slaves to rebuild their world. Fine. Then in the very next scene, the evil robots are roaming through the streets shooting humans with laser beams that turn their targets into piles of burning ash. These two concepts don’t go hand-in-hand, Michael! If they want slaves they’ll imprison us, not eviscerate us. Come on, man.

For me the absolute worst part of the film (and a perfect illustration for how the storyline was forged haphazardly from a shoebox full of cliché action movie ideas) comes just before the final battle when Sam prepared to head off into the desolate Chicago landscape to track down the love of his life and rescue her. Moved by his determination, his Army pal Epps (Tyrese Gibson), says something to the effect of, “You’ll need this” and hands him a Glock. A Glock! The man is about to head off into a wasteland filled with falling buildings and burning cars, not to mention a fleet of alien robotic giants who are armed with lasers that can instantly reduce you to bones and ashes. But don’t worry, dude! Epps just gave you a single, solitary, low caliber pistol that holds between 10 and 15 rounds of ammo! You’ll be fine. It’s the stupidest thing that could possibly happen at this point and yet, right after this happens, the film totally takes off and becomes a wonderland of FX gooey goodness.

I could go on and on about the shortcomings and successes of this film but I’ve already rambled far longer than any of you will read. In short, Michael Bay is Mike D’antoni, head coach of the New York Knicks. D’antoni has a genius mind for offensive basketball and has created a system that guarantees exciting, high scoring games. But he has no idea how to manage a roster, can’t motivate his players, and his teams never do well in the playoffs. That’s Michael Bay. He has a great mind for entertaining, full octane action and he puts that on display time and time again. And yet he has no understanding of knowledge, he constantly wastes his cast (incredible actors abound in this movie and none of them, repeat, NONE OF THEM, are used correctly), and his finished product is always a disjointed mess that garners more hate than love but always makes a ton of cash. I guess I should just learn to appreciate Bay for the action sequence genius that he is but I just wish that one time he’d put some thought into the other components of film and stop wasting my time.

First Half Grade: F
Second Half Grade: B
Cumulative Grade: C

Aren’t we at a point where Autobots should be considered a real word by Microsoft?
Brian