January 14, 2010

Top 10 Movies of 2009

A record breaking box office. Countless blockbusters. Mediocre movies. 2009 was not a strong year for film. Although, I think I’m being unfair considering it had to follow 2008, one of the best years of movies in my lifetime. But there were certainly some gems to be sure, and here they are….My top 10 movies of 2009.

10) The Hurt Locker

-A little repetitive, but the tension is directed so well by Kathryn Bigelow, I’ll forgive it. But the real star of the movie is Jeremy Renner as the lead William James. His character was really interesting, especially towards the end. In fact, this movie was just okay, but it’s the last third that really elevates it. A great ending. The Hurt Locker: A good movie, but a little overhyped.

9) Taken

-Liam Neeson. You know the movie. Guy’s daughter gets kidnapped. Guy was former government bad ass. Guy goes after kidnappers. Kidnappers are in big trouble. Even though the heroes in these types of films are guys you don’t want to mess with, they still have their difficult moments and some grind it out fights. What makes Taken so strange is that Liam Neeson just wrecks everyone. He’s never really challenged. It’s like the equivalent of the Yankees playing the Nationals…just devastating.

8 – Up in the Air

-Great beginning. Great ending. Okay middle. Unfortunately, this one goes through some major lulls in the middle, but the performances really carry it. And it’s not just George Clooney. Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick and even some solid cameos from Jason Bateman and Danny McBride are all on the same playing field as Clooney. But make no mistake, this is his opus. Despite a slight twist at the end, it’s a very predictable movie, which hinders it from being higher on the list, but a nice little film to be sure.

7) Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

-Certainly the surprise of the year. Not only did this one have a great story, but it was hysterical. And it wasn’t just funny for kids; it’s a legitimately funny film. I love the animation in this. Staring at the giant food was mesmerizing. Let’s not forget about the fantastic voice acting. Go see this one. It will put a smile on your face.

6) District 9

-A well crafted piece of sci-fi entertainment. I went in to this with so much negativity thinking it was going to be nothing but a gimmick. But what I got instead was a gripping story and two characters that drew me in emotionally ten times over. And this is how you do special effects; not drawing attention to them every two seconds, in the background as an afterthought. Despite the third act dragging and being plagued with too many character twists, there is no denying this film’s greatness. Also, Sharlto Copley as Wikus, the main character: one of the best performances of the year.

5) Inglorious Bastards

-Every time I’m about to see a Quentin Tarantino movie, I think I’m going to hate it, but in the end, I love every minute. The trailer for this movie was obnoxious. Brad Pitt seemed annoying, and it just looked really unappealing. Although Tarantino’s big important scenes go on way too long, he always keeps you glued to the screen. The climax is extremely satisfying and in perfect parallel to how it begins. And I couldn’t have been more wrong about Brad Pitt’s character. He was great. Christoph Waltz is a brilliant villain who will probably get nominated for an Oscar. This movie has so many great moments that only Tarantino can deliver.

4) The Fantastic Mr. Fox

-This is a near perfect comedy. For me, this is one of George Clooney’s best performances ever, and it’s a voice over. The story is ‘meh,’ but the characters are not. The relationships and conflicts are hilarious and sad at the same time, which is what Wes Anderson does best. The stop motion is fun to watch, but the voice talents are even better to listen to. Jason Schwartzman rules.

3) Watchmen

-Talk about being alone on an island. I’m pretty sure I’m the only one to have Watchmen on a top ten list, let alone number three. Yes, the movie has its supporters, but many hate it. I don’t get it. Oh wait, yes I do. It didn’t live up to its unrealistic hype, therefore it sucked in the minds of many. If this wasn’t based on the greatest graphic novel ever written and was just some random movie that came out, people would have loved it. Aside from Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II and Matthew Goode as Ozymandias, the acting was out of the park. Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach…brilliant. Every moment spent with Rorschach is memorable. It’s a cool film to look at. Dr. Manhattan was an extremely tragic figure. The Comedian was downright scary. Is this as good as the novel? No. Is it a great film? Yes it is.

2) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

-I love this movie. It’s the best Harry Potter movie by far, and it’s probably got my favorite scene from any movie this year – The Cave. Wow. What an incredible sequence. Michael Gambon delivered big time. Damn. The acting is superb all around. Yeah, they should have cut down the CW romance a bit and fit in more Voldemort back story, but I’ll let it slide. (Spoilers Next) Also, I’m sick of hearing the complaints that they left out the funeral from the book. I thought the choice to just have everyone raise their wands towards the sky was so much more powerful. It works for the movie, the funeral works for the book. Get over it. I don’t know what it is about this movie, it just draws me in more every time. I think a lot of it is Daniel Radcliffe’s performance as Harry Potter. He really went above and beyond, which only gets me that much more excited for the two part finale.

1) Star Trek

-Honestly, it wasn’t even close. This movie kicks ass. Whenever you bring in time travel to a movie or television show, there is potential for disaster, but Star Trek nails it! J.J. Abrams is a genius. He rebooted a franchise and still kept it in the continuity of the original series at the same time. That is outstanding. There are only two words to describe Zachary Quinto’s performance as Spock: Bad Ass. But let’s not forget about Chris Pine as Kirk, the lovable jackass you still root for. This has sword fights. Planets imploding. People teleporting. Phaser battles. But what it also has is perfect character development beginning to end. Once again, the special effects are great, but they are background material. We are focused on the characters, not the explosions around them. I really don’t have any complaints about this movie. I guess the music could have been a little better, but it’s fine. Star Trek is why I go to the movies. An amazing achievement that only gets better with each viewing. Star Trek 2 can’t come fast enough.

January 9, 2010

Video Stores: Just Die Already

I walked by a Hollywood Video Store the other day and it was such a depressing site. The place looked like an abandoned warehouse. There are empty shelves everywhere. All the movies are out of place and in disarray. There’s nobody in there. And they still have a huge picture of Batman Forever hanging on the wall behind the counter. I mean, really…Batman Forever? And it’s not just this video store. Blockbusters and Hollywood Videos all over the country are closed, or look like they are on life support. Come on, video stores. It’s time. Just die already.

I can’t remember the last time I rented a movie from a video store. I think my blockbuster card is buried in the depths of my wallet with an expired Dunkin Donuts gift card and a coupon for fruit roll-ups. But just like every other American, I use Netflix. It’s sad. I remember years ago getting excited about video release dates, and heading to the video store to pick up the copy, or reserving it the week before and counting down the days to rent it. I remember walking into Blockbuster and seeing the card board stand ups for big upcoming releases. These are cherished memories, which is why it’s sad to see video stores like this. Just put them out of their misery. Let them die with dignity.

I love how Blockbuster basically copied Netflix, but also gave you the option of coming in whenever you wanted to pick out a new movie, yet people still use Netflix. It’s like humans are still paranoid they will get charged with late fees, even though to my understanding the Blockbuster mail system works the same way as Netflix. But I could be mistaken.

So what was the downfall of video stores? Was it rental prices that soared too high? Was it the strict and tedious late fee rules? Is the selection just not good enough? It can’t be the “Don’t forget to rewind” thing because VHS is dead. Well, maybe it was all these factors.

I’ll never forget getting a movie wrapped in those Blockbuster rental cases, but enough is enough. I don’t want to see big empty shelves anymore. Just end it. Please Video Stores. Admit defeat and leave this world.

December 26, 2009

Movie Review – Avatar

Plot: It is years into the future. The Military travels to the planet Pandora in the hopes of digging up hordes of rock that is extremely valuable to Earth, but they are met with resistance by the planet’s inhabitance, the Navi. Jake Sully (a paralyzed soldier) is put in the body of a Navi (an Avatar) in the hopes that he will find a weakness, but Jake ends up growing attached to their culture.

Avatar is a very good movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it and think you should go see it, but it’s not an “Oh My God, I can’t believe what I just saw! Holy crap, I’m going to be talking about this for the next twenty years” type movie. Although I’m sure most people will have that sentiment. I’ll say this about Avatar: For the first third, I was pretty damn close to thinking that way. The special effects are the best I’ve ever seen…for maybe about a half hour. Unfortunately, my big gripe with Avatar is with the second half. It was a “been there, done that,” and I wanted more based on how the first act began. But let’s dive into this near three hour budget breaking bonanza, shall we?

When we first see the humans put into their Navi-Avatars (those blue guys in the trailer), my jaw dropped. I’ve never been a special effects guy. I’ve always felt special effects should be in the background and maybe enhance a movie’s story here and there, but when I do see remarkable special effects, everything else takes a back seat. It’s rare, but Avatar gets that distinction. The effects especially had me tingling when you see the Navi interacting with their environment. Holy crap. This is astounding. The facial expressions were downright scary in how realistic they looked. I felt like I was more CG than these things. The lighting and how the trees and forest react to the Navi is mesmerizing. The animation in the creatures was all amazing. Yadda, yadda, yadda. This is all pretty early on in the movie, but here’s the problem: This is three hours long. The special effects don’t develop or give you any more variety after the first 30 to 45 minutes.

To be honest, it got pretty boring. The effects get so repetitive that even though they were unbelievably impressive (and I can’t stress that enough) I got sick of them. It was either close-up after close-up after close-up of the Navi, or it was particles of trees moving around their bodies. Show me something else with these awesome effects, or don’t make a three hour movie! Enough already, I get it.

Then we have the big huge action scene at the end, it was no more special than what I’ve seen in recent movies like Helms Deep in the Two Towers, or the lava planet in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Yeah, I compared Avatar to a Star Wars prequel. Go cry about it.

But enough about the special effects, because there is actually other stuff to discuss. Now the story is mediocre. It serves its purpose, but mediocre. I really liked three of the characters quite a bit. This movie would have been a lot worse if Sigourney Weaver was not in it. She is great as the doctor in charge of the Avatar program. She is capable of carrying a scene entirely on her own. The other great performance was Zoe Saldana as Neytiri, the Navi we get to know the most. Her tone and voice flow beautifully with the intention of the scene. Remember, she was also Uhura in Star Trek this past summer, so big things are ahead for this actress I’m sure.

Then there’s Sam Worthington as the protagonist, Jake Sully. A very likable guy, solid performance. You sympathize and enjoy following his character. There are big things ahead for Sam Worthington as well. Unfortunately, everyone else in this movie is excruciatingly cliché and predictable.

The biggest problem is the antagonist, the generic strong armed military man, Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang). He’s so cliché, that he makes other movie clichés seem original again. I mean really, this was pathetic. And I’m sorry, I know it’s a movie about special effects, and if it was just a secondary character, I’d let it slide, but this is the antagonist. It’s too important. This hurt the movie significantly, especially in the final action scene. As there’s such an underdeveloped whatever bad guy, I just didn’t feel a whole lot of emotion at the end like I wanted to. The main protagonists were all good characters, but I needed to see more from the bad guy.

All in all, Avatar is a solid movie. I like the main characters and the special effects were revolutionary, but the movie is so long, that the effects get stale during the course of the film. It’s so repetitive and predictable in the second half that I can’t be completely and utterly impressed with it. When comparing it to something like Star Trek, it’s just not as good because Star Trek gives you so much variety with its effects. You get planets imploding into themselves, people teleporting in mid-air, epic space battles and that movie had much better characters and a much better story (although I know a lot of people hated the story in Star Trek).

James Cameron is a great director, but this is not his best work. I’ll take Aliens, Terminator 2 and The Abyss any day. Those movies had not only ground breaking effects, but moments and scenes of great tension with memorable villains. While Avatar has some great moments, there are no great scenes. It sounds like I dislike this movie, but I don’t. I enjoyed it a great deal. It’s a very good movie, just not a great one.

Rating: 7.5 out of 10.

December 6, 2009

Movie Review – The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Plot: After stealing from three wealthy farms, Mr. Fox and his family become fugitives as the farmers declare war and won’t rest until Mr. Fox is found.

In the late 90’s and early part of this decade, Wes Anderson was one of my favorite filmmakers. Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums are two of my favorite movies. But after Tenenbaums, he released the very mediocre Life Aquatic and then The Darjeeling Limited three years later, his worst film yet. But he’s back in a big way with his latest effort, The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Although it’s animated, you can tell it’s a Wes Anderson movie. The man has a very distinct style that is his own, often very quirky and off-beat. Normally this style of filmmaking frustrates me to no end such as films like I Heart Huckabees or Burn After Reading. They are just being weird for the sake of being weird but ultimately say nothing. I accept Wes Anderson’s style because his weirdness actually enhances who the characters are, and the man writes damn good characters. Fantastic Mr. Fox has these in bunches, which Anderson’s previous two movies did not.

This is a funny movie. It’s not laugh-out-loud, but that’s okay. The story is ‘meh,’ but the characters are off the charts hysterical. The way they interact with each other and the environment around them is so much fun to watch. This is credit to the writing, but the voice talents really give the characters their mojo. George Clooney as Mr. Fox takes some getting used to, but the voice grows on you as the film goes on. Jason Schwartzman is fantastic as Mr. Fox’s egotistical and underachieving son, Ash. Bill Murray – great as always. But the man who steals the show is Wally Wolodarsky as Kylie the possum. He’s portrayed as a little crazy and unstable (the great visuals attest to this), but his voice is so sensible and subdued. I loved it.

The best part is the relationship between the father and son, Mr. Fox and Ash. Both characters are exactly the same, yet one is successful and the other fails. Mr. Fox is so damn reckless as he literally digs himself into deeper and deeper holes, yet most of the time he comes out the winner. His son Ash is exactly the same, only he fails miserably at everything he does. What also makes this relationship fascinating is that Mr. Fox sees his son as different and an oddball, yet he can’t see that he’s the same way and instead bonds with his nephew, Kristofferson (Eric Anderson), who not only has all the talent in the world, but is very zen and has his head on straight. Mr. Fox thinks Kristofferson is just like him, but they are two very different people. Watching all these characters clash is what makes a Wes Anderson movie great.

The one big problem I had is that the story is too impulsive. What I mean is that it just decides to ramp up whenever it wants to with no build up or explanation. At the beginning of the movie, Mr. Fox decides he’s done stealing from farms, but resorts back to his old ways after years of retirement, just like that. I understand that the character himself is impulsive, but I didn’t buy this quick turn. It just happens.

There is also some of that “weird for the sake of being weird” element that adds nothing. There’s one scene in particular that brought me a great deal of frustration. The characters just start dancing. I know why they are dancing, but it felt way out of place, especially because everyone was acting so subdued throughout the movie to this point.

If you are a Wes Anderson fan like me, you are going to love this. The characters have all their quirks about them, especially in how they dress, which is what I expect in an Anderson flick. They face serious problems like death and family with a seemingly “whatever” attitude, but you still get the sense they care a great deal. Even if you don’t know or like Anderson, you will enjoy this one a lot. If anything, the stop motion animation is fun to watch. You don’t see that anymore.

Rating: 8.0 out of 10.

November 1, 2009

Movie Review – District 9

Plot: It’s been almost thirty years since an alien race crashed landed on Earth. Their ship is damaged making it impossible for them to return home. They live in terrible conditions in a place called District 9 in South Africa. When the government tries to relocate them to a new facility, something goes terribly wrong with one of the government officials.

District 9 is a damn good movie, but I think people need to calm down. It’s not one of the greatest movies ever made. It’s getting a little more praise than it deserves. Make no mistake though; it is something that should be seen. I have to admit that when I saw the trailer, I thought it was just some gimmick like The Blair Witch Project, one of my least favorite movies of all time. “Oh, so it’s an alien movie, but shot like a documentary. Yeah, we’ll see how this one turns out.” Sure, I was a regular Sammy Skeptic, but I thoroughly enjoyed this.

There are only two great characters, but it’s enough. The government official, Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley), is very likable at the beginning. The movie does a great job of getting the audience on his side. This is good because bad stuff starts to happen to this guy, but he also has some questionable actions. Copley gives an outstanding performance here, probably the best acting I’ve seen so far this year.

Unfortunately, the human antagonists are pretty ‘meh.’ This hurt the movie a little bit. I would have liked to have known more about the bad guys. The other great character is Christopher Johnson (one of the aliens). He’s one of the few aliens you get to know. You really feel for this guy and that’s credit to the great direction.

Neil Blomkamp is the director. This is his first movie, and boy does he have a bright future. Some of the tension he creates had me sweating bullets. Easily the best scene for me is when there is a huge standoff in a government building. There are a lot of realizations about what’s been happening to some of the aliens that come to a head here and the character interaction was gut-wrenching. It’s one of my favorite scenes so far this year. The beginning was also great, as we watch the back and forth between the humans and aliens as they argue about being relocated was fascinating. It was a very strong first half.

The special effects also need to be mentioned. A lot has been said already about how good they look, and they do look really good. The amazing part is the budget was about $30-35 million, yet they look so much better than some of the big budget movies like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. There are so many special effects these days that look like a Saturday morning cartoon, but these actually look real, dammit. But the special effects are nothing if it’s a sub-par story, and District 9 is very strong in that area.

Unfortunately, there were some elements that bothered me. The last third of the movie drags on forever. This really knocked it down a few pegs. The climax keeps going and going and going. There are too many character twists. Enough already, just get to the ending. I think it was wrapped up nicely and I like the ending a lot, it just takes forever to get there. It gets so long that it starts to feel like a ‘meh’ sci-fi action flick. This hurt some of the tension in the end, but you still get the emotional impact you crave.

So all in all, an impressive movie, but it’s not the greatest thing I’ve ever seen. I think people are overrating to it because of the way it was made. Yes, it was very original, and we’ve never seen anything like it done before, but I’m not going to give it 500 points just for that. The Blair Witch Project was original and different too, but that movie had crappy characters and an even worse plot. District 9 has a great story, and pretty good characters. Definitely a must see, but let’s calm down.

Rating: 8.0 out of 10.

August 11, 2009

Movie Review – Funny People

Plot: Popular and succussful comedian George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is dying. He goes back to his roots and performs stand-up again. He befriends a struggling comedian named Ira (Seth Rogen) to help write jokes. Ira gets more than he bargained for though as he has to deal with George’s dysfunctional life and relationships.

When I go see a movie called Funny People with Adam Sandler, I expect to laugh. Despite a few chuckles early on, this movie really irritated me. It’s boring. The characters are all jerks. It can’t decide if it wants to be a comedy or a family drama. Oh yeah, did I mention it was boring. And it was almost two and a half hours long, come on! Now this was made by writer/director Judd Apatow, who everyone is just in love with right now. The only movie I’ve seen from him was The 40 Year Old Virgin, which I liked quite a bit. I thought this was going to be a nice little story about comedians. Boy, was I wrong.

The absolute worst part are the little obnoxious inside jokes. I really hate this crap. The same thing happened in Ocean’s 12. Oh, look at us, we’re having so much fun and laughing at each other’s jokes that only we can understand. I didn’t pay seven bucks so I could watch you entertain yourselves. Entertain me, please! Let me explain what I mean. So there are all these jokes about how Seth Rogen’s character Ira (a struggling comedian) loses too much weight because his only charm as a comedian was looking fat and funny. Oh, haha. Get it? Just like Seth Rogen in real life. I couldn’t help but feel this was put in because Apatow and Rogen probably joke about it a lot and find it hilarious. Well good for them. I don’t think it’s funny, and I don’t need it shoved down my throat throughout the movie.

Apatow also casts his own kids in the movie, which is fine, but got problematic with one scene in particular. Everyone is watching a tape of one of the daughters performing a song from Cats in a school play. I don’t know if the performance was real or done specifically for the movie, but it felt like I was watching Judd Apatow’s home movies. Come on! I want to watch a movie here, not your home videos. This is ridiculous. Not only that, but Leslie Mann, who is Apatow’s real wife and who also plays the mother in the film, can’t stop talking about how great the performance is, just as a real mother would. The problem is she is not just talking to a few relatives at Thanksgiving or something, she is telling thousands of moviegoers. It’s a bit annoying, and adds to the fact that the moviegoer is unfulfilled, as it takes you out of the film.

But let’s take a look at the real issue: The movie can’t decide on its genre. It tries to be both comedy and drama. This works great sometimes, such as movies like The Royal Tenenbaums. The problem here is that it’s a half ass comedy and a half ass drama, so what do you get – a half-ass movie.

Now, the first half was okay. I got some laughs, and it was mildly entertaining. I especially like the interplay between Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman trying to make it as actors and comedians. They were great together, but this completely disappears in the second half. What we get instead is an awkward, unfunny, poorly written family drama. It’s dreadful to watch and it drags on forever.

Adam Sandler’s character, George Simmons, is trying to selfishly break up this family. The sad part is that you don’t like or want to root for any of these characters. Maybe that’s what they were going for, but I’m sorry, it’s just uncomfortable to watch, and not in a good way. If the tension was eased with some jokes, than okay, but there are none worth laughing at. It goes from a mediocre story about comedians to a boring and awkward family drama. And this is the entire second half of the movie. It’s just a completely uneven film.

Now I want to talk about Adam Sandler. Sandler is trying to make an effort to be a more serious actor. He’s shown talent in movies like Punch Drunk Love. The difference between Punch Drunk Love and Funny People though is that Punch Drunk Love is actually funny, so it makes Sandler’s performance stronger because he is in a better film. He’s perfectly fine in Funny People, but the character just isn’t there. The guy is supposed to be this wildly popular comedian, but he’s flat out boring and uninteresting. I don’t get it.

I think Sandler’s best stuff was Happy Gilmore and The Wedding Singer. Maybe the stuffy critics will disagree with me, but that’s how I feel. Those movies were gut-bustingly hilarious, whereas Sandler now does these half comedies/half dramas like Spanglish, and to a lesser extent, Click. These movies blow bags, as does Funny People. I know he’s trying to grow up, but I guess part of me is selfish and wants him to go make Happy Gilmore 2. I prefer him fighting Bob Barker and talking to invisible penguins rather than playing some jackass comedian who’s on death’s door, but that’s me.

So if you are expecting a few good laughs at the movies, don’t see Funny People. You’ll be bored to tears. Maybe I wanted something different, but this one just annoyed me with its pretentious inside jokes and lackluster characters. If Judd Apatow is having a good time and laughing it up with his family and buddies, than good for him, but as a moviegoer, it turns me off. It feels like this: “Hey, look how much fun we are having in our little world and you’re only invited until the credits come on.”

I think comedies are suffering right now. We either get an atrocious Will Ferrell piece of garbage or these half-ass dramedies. I miss the days of Dumb and Dumber, Wayne’s World and Kingpin. Clever writing, downright hysterical and never took themselves too seriously. The Seth Rogens and Will Ferrells just don’t compare to the talents in those movies.

Although, I feel I might be alone on this. So be it.

Rating: 4.0 out of 10.

July 17, 2009

Movie Review – Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Plot: Harry Potter returns for his sixth year at Hogwarts. Meanwhile, Voldemort and his followers grow in numbers, causing mayhem in both the wizarding world and muggle world. Harry and Dumbledore attempt to unlock Voldemort’s dark past in order to learn how to defeat him.

To be able to produce six movies of quality in the same series in less than ten years is pretty damn impressive. I like some better than others, but there has never been a bad Harry Potter movie. Although, some of them have hovered around the line of greatness, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince gets pretty close to finally breaking it. This is my favorite of the series so far. The movie has its share of problems, but the good outweighs the bad by a lot.

Now I don’t consider myself a die hard Potter head, but I’m a pretty big fan. There are a lot of diehards who always complain about how much is taken out of the books. This annoys me a great deal because I think they do a remarkable job of adapting these 700 page epics into a solid two and a half hour movie. This one was no different. People need to realize that what works in a book may not work on film. The filmmakers certainly took their share of liberties with the ending to Half-Blood Prince, and I loved it.

The climax is beautiful. Its subtlety really works for the movie, where the book’s ending was more glorified and had a larger cast of characters. That worked for the book, but this works for the movie. The fact that they cut out a lot of characters and events in the film’s climax makes the tension between the characters that much stronger. This is all credit to the director, David Yates, who also directed the previous installment. The ending was strong in that one as well, and he delivers once again here. I’m thrilled he’s attached to the final film.

There were some minor disappointments of scenes they cut from the book that I want to mention. For example, there is no Defense against the Dark Arts classes with Professor Snape as he tries to teach Harry and company how to use magical spells by thinking them. This was a nice part in the book and I think it would have made the ongoing Harry/Snape conflict even stronger.

The movie’s biggest weakness though is that its main plot suffers from too much time spent on teenage romance. Not that they didn’t do a good job with the adolescent shenanigans, because they do, but it should have been cut down to focus more on the main story, which is Dumbledore and Harry exploring Voldemort’s past through memories. When Yates does focus on this story, he does a great job. We do learn about one of Voldemort’s dark secrets, but it’s not enough. They really needed to incorporate one or two more memories from the book to clearly show what Harry needs to do in order to rectify Voldemort’s wrong doings. It will seem a bit confusing to the outsiders who only watch the movies. Also, there are scenes from the book that further develop Voldemort’s character, which were unfortunately cut.

So what’s the best part about this movie? The acting is phenomenal. The acting has always been good in the Potter flicks, but everyone really steps it up here. Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter has always been strong, but this is his best yet. Newcomer Jim Broadbent as potions Professor Horace Slughorn was brilliant. He’s crucial as his character essentially drives the film’s main plot. Whether he’s being jovial or remorseful, Broadbent really nails all sides of the character. More screen time with Alan Rickman as Professor Snape is always a good idea, which we get here.

The man who really steals the show though is Michael Gambon as Professor Dumbledore. His run as Dumbledore through out the series has been inconsistent and uneven, but he makes up for it here. One scene I’ll remember for a while is when he is forced to drink a potion. It’s a very intense performance.

Fans and non-fans will like this one quite a bit. I do have to warn you though, if you are a casual Potter fan, make sure you have seen all the previous movies and pay attention to this one. Like I said, I have been very impressed with this series. I love that the same actors have remained throughout all six movies and will return for the last one. I have very high hopes for the final, which is split in two parts. Unfortunately, if the finale fails the entire series will fail, but I am confident David Yates and company will deliver a knockout.

Rating: 8 out of 10.

July 9, 2009

Movie Review – Public Enemies

Plot: In this 1930’s crime drama, Melvin Purvis leads the investigation to capture the notorious bank robbers lead by John Dillinger.

When I first heard about this one, I was pretty excited. After seeing all the trailers though, I lowered my expectations quite a bit. I was right to do so. There is a lot to like here, but for the most part I found it underwhelming. There are some fantastic individual scenes, but the movie as a whole can’t live up to the greatness of its actors. The acting is very good, but the direction is weak, especially in the pacing.

Although there are moments of great tension such as scenes at a stop light and an interrogation, the pacing was a big problem overall. At times it moved incredibly slow and it was a yawn fest, but would suddenly pick up to full intensity in a matter of seconds. Sometimes this works in movies, but here it catches you so off guard, it becomes frustrating. This is very apparent in one of the prison scenes. It was very slow and the tension just wasn’t there, but suddenly it heats up. It would have been stronger if I was on the edge of my seat right before it happened. The movie also seems to have the same formula throughout the near two and a half hours. Bank job. Hiding out. Shoot out. Bank job. Hiding out. Shoot out. It gets pretty tiresome.

I have to say though, the shoot-outs were the best scenes. Why did I like them so much? The sound. Yeah, I know. Machine gun sound effects have only been used a billion times, but for some reason they stood out to me here. They were so crisp and loud, but in a good way. Also, watching the sparks come out of the guns looked real good. They always had a perfect camera angle on it. So if you really like shoot-outs, I would definitely see Public Enemies.

The acting was solid, but unfortunately I didn’t feel like you got to know these characters very well. Johnny Depp does a good job as Dillenger, but there wasn’t much to it. There are maybe three scenes where you get a good sense of who this guy is, but mostly it’s just a lot of close up shots of Johnny Depp looking intense. It was disappointing, because in the rare moments director Michael Mann decides to let you in on who Dillenger is, the dialogue is strong and the performance is great. I needed more.

Now Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis is all intense close up shots, but Bale does those so damn well, that I didn’t mind it as much. And there are moments, especially when he’s back at headquarters, where you get a good feel for who this guy is. There is one scene between Dillenger and Purvis where they exchange some pretty intense dialogue. I thought the best performance of the movie though was Marion Cotillard as Dillenger’s girlfriend, Billie Frechette. By far the best scene in the movie is her conflict with a cop towards the end. It was some powerful stuff.

I thought the climax was handled pretty poorly, but the very last scene was perfect. So although there are moments of greatness, it was just an okay movie that had some damn good shoot-outs. If these characters had more time to talk and interact with one another, the stakes would have been higher, making those shoot-outs mean more.

We have Johnny Depp and Christian Bale, let them act, dammit. It was just too jumbled a film to say it was good. It’s okay.

Rating: 6.0 out of 10.

July 3, 2009

Oscars Cloned

So a little over a week ago, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Oscars) decided to double its Best Picture nominees to a whopping ten instead of five. I just wanted to add my two cents on this. I completely understand why they are doing this. It will certainly increase viewers because it will actually include movies that people have seen. But this whole thing annoys me a great deal, so let’s get into it.

First of all, how about the Academy just gets it right with five choices. We need ten now? Come on! So a lot of speculation on why the Academy is doing this in the first place is because they got blasted for ignoring Wall-E and The Dark Knight last year. The Dark Knight absolutely should have been nominated for Best Picture. It was loved by all moviegoers and critically acclaimed, appearing on several 2008 top ten lists, including Richard Roeper, former co-host of At the Movies. It also got nominated at the PGAs, DGAs, and WGAs. So what the hell happened? Everyone knows it’s an instant classic, yet the Academy didn’t have the balls to nominate it because the main character dresses like a bat. If a movie about a pink elephant that plays poker on the weekends happens to be one of the best movies of the year, then it should be nominated, no matter what the context. They should be able to get it right with five picks.

So what do I think some of the factors of a Best Picture should be? Well, I really think financial success should be taken into account somewhat when considering what the best movies of the year are. I’m not saying Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen should be a Best Pic nominee or anything like that, but if a financially successful movie is critically acclaimed and universally loved by all, then it deserves some consideration. I think a movie that is talked about months after its release and gets people to go multiple times is a movie that truly impacts people. Isn’t that what a Best Picture should be? But now they can nominate The Dark Knights of the world because they are expanding to ten, but this leads me to my next complaint.

It’s irritating, because now the Academy has found a cheap loophole and will never have to give movies like The Dark Knight a Best Picture Oscar. By increasing the total nominees to ten, the Academy can say, “We are now recognizing the movies that people actually see, so leave us alone.” The problem is that this is actually a set back for movies like this because now there will never be hope of them actually winning. They will just get tossed aside in the extra slots, but the Academy can say, “Hey, we nominated them.” That’s bull! I’d rather see The Dark Knights of the world get in on one of the five slots rather than one of the ten.

So what movies will suffer from this fate in 2009? Well, it’s too early to tell, but I know of one that could fall into this: Star Trek. Everyone loved it, it’s a fantastic movie, and will certainly go down as one of the years best. But it’s going to get nominated in one of the fake slots with no hope of actually winning. Why do I call it a fake slot, you ask? How come none of the other categories are expanding to ten? This means when the Best Director nominees are released, we’ll be able to decipher what movies actually have a chance of winning the big prize.

I hope I’m completely wrong about all this, believe me. Like I said, it makes sense for the Academy to do this. It’s a smart move, but I’d rather see them get it right with five. Now it will never happen.

Movie Shenanigans