HP Review: Part III

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
(2004, Alfonso Cuaron)








New Faces

In this film we meet all of James Potters' chums: Remus Lupin, Sirius Black, and Peter Pettigrew. Proving that the casting director knows what she is doing, the three parts were skillfully filled by David Thewlis, Gary Oldman, and Timothy Spall respectively.

Thewlis does well with the shabby look and proves that he has bounce in his step and warmth for the perfect combination to play Professor Lupin.

Oldman does well in his own role as Sirius, in turn playing crazed animosity, jocularity, and embracing comfort. What a shame that only his voice appears in the fourth film, along with a poor imitation of his head in the midst of fire embers. And to show Oldman's versitility, compare haggard Sirius Black to clean-cut Jim Gordon from "Batman Begins" or "The Dark Knight." These two characters look almost nothing alike. Props to Oldman; he deftly portrays both.

And with his shifty, rat-like features, Timothy Spall is the perfect choice to play Wormtail. He also has the perfect squeaky whine to embrace the role.


Also joining the cast is Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore. Yes, we all miss Richard Harris, but I concede that Gambon does well with the role (at least in this film).


Acting

Just as Grint shined in "Chamber of Secrets," Watson takes over this film, showing audiences that Hermione Granger is no lightweight. This film shows that Hermione can both throw powerful punches and solve tricky puzzles (e.g. Lupin is a werewolf, or how to save Sirius). Therefore it is absolutely ridiculous that one of Watson's lines is "Is that really what my hair looks like from the back?"

This undermines the rest of the film, which clearly illustrates that Hermione is a strong woman. How infuriating that the scripwriters, or whoever thought that line was a good idea, felt they needed to shallow up her character. Even more infuriating that Watson plays Hermione as a full-out over-emotional girly girl in the next film (but more on that rant later...). Though Watson largely shines in this film, I cannot help but notice this one warning sign of her caricaturized damsel-in-distress routine, prominent in the fourth film.

Tracking Radcliffe's progress, he really does seem to be improving. One does have to question his "I'm king of the world!" moment as he rides Buckbeak for the first time. But the only lapse into unbelievable acting is the scene in which he hears that Sirius betrayed his parents: "I'm going to find him. And when I do [pant pant] I'm going to kill him."

And Grint is still top notch as Ron.


Glaring Omissions

The Marauder's Map is perhaps the coolest gadget that Harry Potter owns and this is the film in which it makes its debut. We learn that Fred and George nicked it from Filtche's office in their first year. We learn that the map was made by Misters Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs. And we even get some clues as to who these four men might be.

However, it is a HUGE mistake on the editor's part to omit explaining who made the map and what the nicknames' significance are. True, fans of the series will already know this piece of information. However, not all members of the audience will be familiar with the book and not all of these people will put together the not-so-obvious connection. Audiences might wonder how Lupin will know if Harry does not return to his dormitory right away or that the map never lies.

How hard would it have been for them to include one three-minute scene with Professor Lupin explaining the map's makers to Harry? I suggest that one perfect option would be to add this little scene right near the end of the film, when Lupin is packing up his office. Here he returns the map to Harry. He could have easily also told Harry that he and his three best buds put it together. What a shame that this cool piece of info was overlooked.


Overall Rating: A (Perhaps the best of the first five films)

HP Review: Part II

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
(2002; Chris Columbus)







New Faces

I think we can all agree that Dobby the House Elf translated very well to the big screen. He's cute, but in a very peculiar way. Props to Toby Jones for providing the perfect inflections for the voice and props to the art department for everything else. Dobby's glaring absence from any subsequent Potter film has been quite the disappointment.

Good news: Toby Jones will be returning for both installments of Deathy Hallows (scheduled for 2010 and 2011). Well duh, how in the world were they going to pull that one off without Dobby? Yes, they have creatively rearranged story bits to avoid the trouble of including him (e.g. in the fifth movie, where Neville discovers the Room of Requirement in lieu of Dobby). And it will be interesting to see how the sixth movie manages to omit him. Thankfully the filmmakers are not stupid enough to attempt the seventh installment without him.


Kenneth Branagh is another artful addition to the cast as Professor Gilderoy Lockhart. Branagh provides the perfect balance of carisma, egotism, and bafoonery. He also plays clueless extremely well when a memory spell backfires. Best line: [in the Chamber of Secrets] "It's an odd sort of place, this, isn't it? Do you live here?"


Acting

The most notable change in the core three (Radcliffe, Grint, Watson) is that Ronald Weasley has developed an endearing voice crack whenever he utters "Bloody Hell!" It is also fun to see Grint recieve more attention in this film, since he is the strongest actor of the core three. He flies a car, burps up slugs, and helps Harry rescue Ginny from a basilisk. And Grint manages to do all this with clumsy, endearing flaire.

Otherwise, it appears the cast is settling into their respective roles for the long run. Overall the cast has improved since "Sorcerer's Stone." But as proof that Radcliffe's acting chops still need work, he has the lamest line in the whole series thus far: [to Ron, while falling out of a flying car] "You're hand's all sweaty!"


Overall Rating: A-

Harry Potter Review: Part I

Five days away from the official release of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is the perfect time to reflect on the success of the first five installments. As a tribute to the new film, I will post reviews of films 1-5 over the next five days. Feel free to share your thoughts, if I've left anything out or misjudged/judged too harshly.





Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
(2001; Chris Columbus, director)






The Core Three:

I can imagine it would be hard to pick actors for a 7+ year stint based solely upon their merits as a child actor. I can also imagine the tremendous pressure to find actors who would fit the imaginations of millions of little kids who already have a well-ingrained idea of what the characters look like.

Two out of three is not bad, I suppose. Judging solely by this debut film, it seemed as if they had picked the perfect Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). Grint had the perfect facial expressions and appeared very comfortable on screen. Best scene: while learning how to ride a broom, Ron is hit in the face with a broom handle and Harry chuckles. It may not sound like much, but the genuine spirit of the scene is believable.

In turn, Watson engendered the perfect amount of snottiness and know-it-all-ness that characterized Hermione. Watson's best line: "I'm going to bed before either of you can come up with another clever idea to get us all killed - or worse, expelled. " The two provided the perfect entourage for one Mr. Harry Potter.

In comparison, Danial Radcliffe's debut was rather lackluster. True, Radcliffe looks like quite the cute Harry Potter. However, this first performance was rather two-dimensional. There was little variety in his expression and his emotions came off as fake. I know, there must have been tremendous pressure weighing on this eleven-year-old's head. But based on this performance alone, Radcliffe disappoints.


Faculty Choices: A+

I, for one, miss Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore. He had the calm demeanor and twinkle in the eye characteristic of this beloved headmaster. He was also charismatic and comical in press interviews. Harris is one reason to prefer the first two films to subsequent ones.

Alan Rickman as Severus Snape is the perfect casting choice. Not only does Rickman have the perfect voice to dole out scathing remarks, but he has great acting acumen to add to the faculty. The only flaw: you cannot completely loath Snape, because he's Alan Rickman.

Maggie Smith is also a great fit for Minerva McGonagall. She deftly handles both a piercing reproach and a (slightly rigid) offer of comfort.

Finally, Robbie Coltrane is quite good as the huggable Rubeus Hagrid.


As an Adaptation

The film receives an A for following the original storyline. There are no major changes to the plot and no glaring omissions. Yes, some scenes and characters that are omitted for time and simplicity. However, the omission of Peeves does not hinder audiences' enjoyment and the story arch crafted for the film does well with fitting all the important scenes into a cohesive two and a half hours.

Also, A+ for bringing Hogwarts to life. Granted, there was no way the set design team could have crafted the castle to satisfy every fan's imagination. Even with that handicap, they manage to craft an impressive display.

Furthermore, props to the special effects team for its portrayal of Quidditch. At the mention of Quidditch, I also have to sneak in a plug for Sean Biggerstaff. I am a huge fan of his portrayal of Quidditch captain, Oliver Wood.


Overall film rating: A-

July, A.K.A. Blockbuster Month

Note: (**) To the right of a title denotes that I have seen the film


Box Office Newbies:

1. Public Enemies (Jul. 1)
Notable Names: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale
Rated: R
Synopsis: FBI agent Melvin Purvis (Bale) sets his sights on American gangster John Dillinger (Depp) and others in an attempt to curb a rampant Chicago crime spree during the 1930s (IMDB).
Thoughts: Fun fact -- this film was shot in Madison, WI. Otherwise, my opinion is undecided.


2. Brüno (Jul. 10)
Notable Names: Sacha Baron Cohen
Rated: R
Synopsis: Flamboyant Austrian fashion reporter Bruno (Cohen) travels the world in search of the latest style trends (IMDB).
Thoughts: Perhaps it is time for me to finally see "Borat." That's right, I have not yet seen that gem. However, the synopsis of this film interests me - maybe not to the point of spending top dollar on a theater ticket, but enough to see it at some point.

3. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Jul. 15)
Notable Names: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton,
Rated: PG
Synopsis: Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts for his sixth year and learns more about they mysterious past of Tom Riddle, aka Lord Voldemort.
Thoughts: I have yet to even see the movie, but already I have my complaints. To be fair, I am not an impartial judge (am I ever?), since this is my favorite book in the series.

4. (500) Days of Summer (Jul. 17) - limited release
Notable Names: Zooey Deschanel, Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Rated: PG-13
Synopsis: Greeting-card writer Tom (Gordon-Leavitt), falls for his new colleague, Summer (Deschanel), on her first day of work. What comes next is a look at the subsequent year-and-a-half period the two lovers spend together (IMDB).
Thoughts: Yet another promising film that has two great actors leading the cast and which I probably will miss, since it is only a limited release. Yet another reason why I miss Appleton.

5. Funny People (Jul. 31)
Notable Names: Adam Sandler, Seth Rogan, Leslie Mann
Rated: R
Synopsis: When seasoned comedian George Simmons (Sandler) learns of his terminal, inoperable health condition, his desire to form a genuine friendship inspires him to take a relatively green performer (Rogen) under his wing as his opening act (IMDB).
Thoughts: From the people who brought us "40 Year Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up." Woo hoo. Ironically enough, this does not sound all that funny to me.


Your Home Theater:

This looks like a rather ho-hum month for movie rentals. Oddly enough, the only movies that look worthy of highlighting all come out on the 21st.

1. 17 Again (Jul. 21)
Notable Names: Zac Effron, Leslie Mann, Matthew Perry, Thomas Lennon
Rated: PG-13
Synopsis: About a guy whose life didn't quite turn out how he wanted it to and wishes he could go back to high school and change it. He wakes up one day and is seventeen again and gets the chance to rewrite his life (IMDB).
Thoughts: How weird that this title is rated PG-13. It looks like it would be one for the teeny-boppers and tweens who fawn over Effron. It also looks like it could be fun, but I wasn't about to spend $7+ to see it.

2. Coraline (Jul. 21)
Notable Names: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher
Rated: PG
Synopsis: An adventurous girl finds another world that is a strangely idealized version of her frustrating home, but it has sinister secrets (IMDB).
Thoughts: Everything animated nowadays is in 3D.



3. The Great Buck Howard (Jul. 21)
Notable Names: Colin Hanks, B.J. Hendricks, Tom Arnold, Emily Blunt, Tom Hanks, John Malkovich
Rated: PG
Synopsis: A young man, much to the chagrin of his father, becomes the new assistant to an illusionist in decline (IMDB).
Thoughts: This was one I actually would have seen in theaters, but its limited release prevented me from doing so. Well finally.


4. Watchmen (Jul. 21)
Notable Names: ? (no one I recognized)
Rated: R
Synopsis: When an ex-superhero is murdered, a vigilante named Rorschach begins an investigation into the murder, which begins to lead to a much more terrifying conclusion.
Thoughts: Still most definitely not one I will see without a hefty bribe. And it's not because there is supposedly a blue dildo in the film.

June's Coming Soon

(Just a few highlights of the June releases)

Note: (**) next to a title denotes that I have actually seen the film.

Box Office Newbies:

1. Away We Go (Jun. 5)
Notable names: John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph, Allison Janney
Rated: R
Synopsis: An expecting couple embark on a road trip to find somewhere to settle their family.
Thoughts: This flick shows promise for avoiding cliche formulae for your typical romantic comedy. Hopefully Krasinski can step outside of his typical role as the romantic comedy leading man. Also note, this one is a limited release; who knows when general audiences might actually get to view it.

2. The Hangover (Jun. 5) **
Notable names: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis
Rated: R
Synopsis: Four buddies hit up Vegas for a bachelor party. The groom goes missing the next morning and the remaining three scramble to find him, bearing no recollection of the previous night's events.
Thoughts: Hilarious and well worth the money. I am a huge Ed Helms fan, though Galifianakis claims a close second. Between the two, it is hard to say which brings more hilarity to the ensemble.

3. Year One (Jun. 19)

Notable names: Jack Black, Michael Cera
Rated: PG-13
Synopsis: When a couple of lazy hunter-gatherers (Black and Cera) are banished from their primitive village, they set off on an epic journey through their ancient world (IMDB).
Thoughts: This production has been likened to "History of the Wold, Part I." This comparison bodes well for the movie, as does the comedic talents of its cast.

4. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Jun. 26)

Notable names: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox
Rated: PG-13
Synopsis: The Transformers return for a second "epic battle" (IMDB).
Thoughts: They needed an excuse for another speacial-effects blow-out and the first film did well, so why not follow it up with a sequel? Not one I need to see anytime soon.

5. My Sister's Keeper (Jun. 26) **

Notable names: Cameron Diaz, Abigail Breslin, Alec Baldwin
Rated: PG-13
Synopsis: A young girl, genetically engineered to provide blood and plasma for her sick sister, sues her parents for the rights to make decisions about her own body.
Thoughts: Worth seeing and overall a good, touching movie. However, definitely lacks the luster of the original book. Piccoult fans might/should be disappointed by some of the artistic choises made for the film.

Rentals:

1. He's Just Not That Into You (Jun. 2) **

Notable names: Ginnifer Goodwin, Scarlett Johansson, Bradley Cooper, Justin Long, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Connelly, Drew Barrymore
Rated: PG-13
Synopsis: Several storylines woven together about different individuals' searches for love and comfort in relationships
Thoughts: This film was actually much more enjoyable and much less grossly predictable than I thought it would be. I especially appreciated that not all of the love stories end picture-perfect. Most of all, Justin Long's role in this film is HOT.

2. Revolutionary Road (Jun. 2)

Notable names: Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio
Rated: R
Synopsis: A young couple living in a Connecticut suburb during the mid-1950s struggle to come to terms with their personal problems while trying to raise their two children. Based on a novel by Richard Yates (IMDB).
Thoughts: It looked like a heavyweight for this past award season, yet it only took home a few. I am interested in seeing it at some point, though its apparent heaviness is something of a deterrent.

3. Fired Up (Jun. 9) **

Notable names: Nicholas D'Agosto, Eric Christian Olsen
Rated: PG-13
Synopsis: Two high school players decide to attend cheer camp in hopes of scoring.
Thoughts: A fun brainless comedy aimed mainly at the high school/college age demographic.

4. Confessions of a Shopoholic (Jun. 23) **

Notable names: Isla Fisher, Hugh Dancy, Joan Cusack, John Goodman, John Lithgow
Rated: PG
Synopsis: A 20-something shopaholic lands a job at a finance magazine after discovering that she might need some income for her maxed credit cards.
Thoughts: Perfect fit for all those formulaic, cliche romantic comedies that I have been griping about. Sure, it is cute and worth a view if you can handle possibly gagging from excessive sap during at least one scene.

5. Inkheart (Jun. 23) **

Notable names: Brendan Fraser
Rated: PG
Synopsis: A young girl discovers her father has an amazing talent to bring characters out of their books and must try to stop a freed villain from destroying them all, with the help of her father, her aunt, and a storybook's hero (IMDB).
Thoughts: From a very reliable source, I hear two things: the book series is amazing and this film is crappy and revisionist. Having not yet read the book, I can assure you that even without comparison to the book, the film is nothing special, but often over-the-top.

6. Pink Panther 2 (Jun. 23) **

Notable names: Steve Martin, Jean Reno, Emily Mortimer, Andy Garcia, Alfred Molina, John Cleese, Lily Tomlin
Rated: PG
Synopsis: Bumbling inspector Clouseau returns to crack another case of the inexplicably missing Pink Panther diamond.
Thoughts: Worth seeing for some mindless frivolity. For more thoughts, refer to my full review, posted on Feb. 28.

"You're moving with some ITT... Intent To Touch."

Movie Review: "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian"
(Lawrentian, published May 29, 2009)

That "Battle of the Smithsonian" is a sequel should have clued me in that I did not need to spend $6 to see it in a theater. Sequels are tricky. For a second film, you expect some new tricks mixed with the old gags. If you make a sequel, you need to be rather creative in making it at least as good as the first without relying on the same formula.

The original "Night at the Museum" indulges the little kid inside all of us who wonders what it would be like to stay inside the museum after closing time. Placing the sequel in the Smithsonian sounds like a pretty natural trump card. Instead of one museum there are many, connected by underground storage archives. This is plenty of space for new exhibits that can come to life and battle each other.

Ben Stiller reprises his role as night guard Larry Daley. Other familiar faces include Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan and Robin Williams. The film also hosts newbies Hank Azaria, Bill Hader, the Jonas brothers and Amy Adams.

Though impressive that studio execs can convince this many celebrities to join the sequel, the cast can only do so much with a script lacking any ingenuity. This movie is heavy on pretty faces, but it relies on a far-too-fluffy script.

The most annoying thing about the movie is the forced and unnecessary love thread between Stiller and Adams, who plays Amelia Earhart. Studio execs must have really wanted Adams, so they found a famous person she looked like and wrote her a part. Sure, every sequel needs some new tension, but a love interest is the best they could come up with?

This plot thread merely distracts audiences so that they do not notice that the plot otherwise lacks substance. The film relies on special effects, pretty faces and the boy-meets-girl fluff that dominates films that lack the creativity to center upon anything else. That they felt they needed a love interest in this sequel is just another clue that they lacked the creativity to come up with something more ingenious.

Almost as annoying as Adams' performance is the apparent lack of fact checking for the film's museum exhibits. I am not a cultural snob, yet I noticed a couple of misplaced artworks, namely Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks" and Grant Wood's "American Gothic."

Both of these pieces currently reside in the Art Institute of Chicago. They must have transmigrated from Chicago to Washington for the film. Obviously both are included merely because they are widely recognized and make for an easy joke. And this is what the movie is all about: making easy, obvious jokes and relying on recognizable faces to fill in the gaps.

"Battle of the Smithsonian" makes a fun romp for the kiddies. If you are babysitting this summer, consider taking the kids to this flick. But however fun it is for the young ones, its impressiveness does not translate to older crowds. And yes, almost all of this film's funny lines are in the previews. Pixar's "Up" comes out today - why not go see that instead? I will see you there.

Pictures to Ponder

(Lawrentian, published May 22, 2009)


Approaching finals and the dreaded 10th week, I know that what you need is yet another venue to exercise those brain cells. This column is dedicated to those films that make you think.

First, there are foreign films and silent films - aka, those movies that require you to pay attention the whole time. Paying attention to subtitles or captions is not so easy when also trying to crochet or otherwise multitask. If you have a sufficiently long attention span and can stand reading subtitles, some choice flicks are "Run Lola Run," "Pan's Labyrinth" and Mel Brooks' "Silent Movie."

Second, there are films that provoke thought on controversial or "touchy" subjects. What better film than "Crash" to inspect the shortcomings and ignorance of human nature? The film is definitely not an upper, but it certainly provokes much thought on personal biases and social interactions. Difficult themes, such as racism in "Crash," have the power to haunt audiences, causing thought long after the credits roll.

Third, and on a lighter note, there are those films that have so many editing goofs that you can watch them for sport. In one shot, the actress's hair is pulled back; in the next, it hangs around her shoulders; in a third, it is again pulled back - all within one scene.

Beginners may try this game with "Jurassic Park," which has a notoriously high number of inconsistencies and editing mistakes. By critically dissecting films, you too will soon be able to recognize flubs in continuity, anachronisms and any other goofs such as those listed by professional movie-watchers on the Internet Movie Database.

Alternatively, you may want to consult IMDB beforehand for a list of a favorite film's goofs. With the list at hand, you can then enjoy spotting each in turn as you review the flick.

A fourth genre: Film adaptations of popular books. This coming summer and fall there are going to be quite a few of these, starting with adaptations of Jodi Picoult's "My Sister's Keeper" and J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." Others include "The Time Traveler's Wife" by Audrey Niffenegger and "Where the Wild Things Are" by Maurice Sendak.

Quite obviously, none of these films will satisfy all fan expectations from the books. The most entertaining part of these films might be studiously comparing the botched - ahem, creatively licensed - production to the original.

Fifth, there are those films that purport - seriously or otherwise - some existential life theory via metaphor. Thinking about the meaning of life and why we are all here sounds rather taxing, does it not? For a film that comically entertains such topics I heartily recommend "I Heart Huckabees." You can learn a little bit about existential thought, maybe even transcend time and/or space, and pick up a few good one-liners in the process.

Yes, each of these types of film prompts reflection from its audience. And at this point in the term, we Lawrentians might begrudge taking on such heavy thinking during our scarce free time. But perhaps these flicks are a good way to keep your intellectual acumen well-exercised in the coming summer months. I am sure you much prefer doing this to sunbathing or partaking in other outdoor recreation.

"I'm more comfortable with being disappointed."

Movie Review: "Last Chance Harvey"
(Lawrentian, published May 15, 2009)


We are heading into the summer months, which for some reason are synonymous with heavy trafficking of action-packed blockbusters in the theaters. I, for one, have had enough high intensity for a few weeks. Enter "Last Chance Harvey," a subtle, low-key comedy.
The obvious reason to see this movie is that it boasts two fantastically gifted leading actors, Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson.

Audiences recognize Hoffman from past films such as "Tootsie," "Rain Man," and more recently, "I Heart Huckabees."

Thompson delivers similarly outstanding performances in "Angels in America" and "Love Actually." Finally, to see both actors in one go, I highly recommend "Stranger Than Fiction."

In "Last Chance Harvey," both Hoffman and Thompson deliver performances that live up to their impressive bills. Hoffman plays the title character, Harvey, who is in London for his daughter's wedding. While visiting, Hoffman meets Kate, played by Thompson, who works as a human-interest surveyor at the local airport.

Audiences immediately recognize that both characters are rather lonely. We see Thompson maneuver through a disastrous blind date. We also see Hoffman play phone tag with several people, learning that he is quite out of the loop on plans for his daughter's wedding. Both characters are endearingly lonely and awkward, though I have yet to decide whether it is comforting or alarming to know that one does not necessarily grow out of these traits with age.

With this disheartening setup, audiences cheer when Hoffman and Thompson finally unite. The chemistry between Hoffman and Thompson quite obviously makes this movie. Both characters thoroughly have each other's number and can effectively push each other's buttons. The result is a satisfying interplay between the two that is worth the depressing build-up.

The balance of humor and seriousness works well for the film. In comparison to numerous other comedies, this film derives its laughs from finding humor in everyday situations. It avoids unrealistic or over-the-top situations meant to force a laugh. Instead, it focuses on the humor implicit in human interaction. This yields a subtler - and often more enjoyable - comedy.

Hoffman and Thompson are perfect fits for delivering this type of humor. They exude charm and their styles and energy compliment each other well. Furthermore, the end is simple and satisfying, neither picture-perfect nor jarring. In short, this film provides a perfectly calm reprieve from the tumultuous action flicks that currently dominate big-screens. Grab a friend, pour yourself a glass of wine and enjoy this more subtle comedy.

" ... Fingernails of a bag-lady."

Movie Review: "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"
(Lawrentian, published May 8)


After the disappointing final chapter of the "X-Men" trilogy, I was dubious as to whether or not milking the same cash cow was such a great idea. Without a compelling storyline, all those fight scenes and blowing things up can get a little redundant. However, this flick was certainly better than "The Last Stand" and it definitely was worth all $6.50 to see it on the big screen.

In addition to the special effects essential to any action film, the "X-Men" series easily impresses audiences by showcasing new mutants' talents. What keeps those potentially redundant fight scenes interesting is that this series has a multitude of characters and powers to choose from. Audiences delight in witnessing how new powers match up and play off of one another.

"Origins" does well to host several new characters in addition to some familiar faces. Returning characters include Logan/Wolverine, Victor/Sabretooth, and William Striker. True, audiences thrill in finally discovering why Logan has an adamantium skeleton, why he cannot remember much of his past, and why Striker knows him.

However, demonstrations of Logan's powers alone cannot carry the film, because fans are already familiar with them. We have seen him rapidly heal multiple gashes and even pop a bullet out of his head. Of course, these feats need to be part of the film, but new mutants and new powers can actually surprise viewers.

Audiences especially delight in the long-anticipated inclusion of Gambit and Wade Wilson, who had been excluded from the original trilogy. Gambit provides an impressive show of his skill with a deck of cards and ability to manipulate kinetic energy.

Ryan Reynolds plays the jokester, sword-wielding Wade Wilson. I know, at first glance, holding a sword pales in comparison to Wolverine, who has built-in weapons coming out of his forearms.

And, to avoid ruining one of the great scenes of the film - even if it does appear within the first 20 minutes - I will say only that once unleashed, Reynolds wields one of the coolest powers of the film.

Disappointingly, though, this is the only scene in which we are entreated to Wade wielding his swords and making wise-cracks. The formulation is hilarious! Why did the "X-Men" producers not utilize it more instead of the repetitive fight scenes between Wolverine and Victor/Sabretooth?

We get it, when those two face off, it results in a cat fight between two really durable kitties. I know that Wolverine is the title character, but the film could have benefited from showcasing other intriguing characters more.

Though there are things to gripe about, I want to stress that this film should be seen on the big screen. Sure, the film includes perhaps a few too many twists within twists. And yes, "X-Men" fans may be disappointed if their favorite character does not receive enough time in the limelight. However, all of the fight scenes are impressive and often surprisingly display how mutants' powers compete with one another.

Already there is talk of sequels. The comic book franchise never produces just one movie per superhero, even though many of these films would do better to leave well enough alone. The original blew audiences out of the water, so producers made another. "X2" met with resounding success, so they finished out the trilogy with a flop.

If producers want to continue milking the "X-Men" franchise, I support continuing with plans for "X-Men Origins: Magneto," which has a tentative release date in 2011. However, I sincerely hope that there will be no "Wolverine" sequel. "Origins" explains Wolverine's entire history. There is no need to wedge a sequel between the end of this film and the beginning of the original trilogy.

"I've never loved anything as much as he loves music."

Movie Review: "The Soloist"
(Lawrentian, published May 1)


As a drama, "The Soloist" strays from the usual repertoire with which I typically satisfy my movie-going habits. I am typically in the mood for a comedy: pure frivolous fun that provides an escape from life's complications. In contrast, dramas are typically heavier, more provocative and require audiences to think. Who wants that? Not to sound too existential, but "The Soloist" proved to be quite contemplative.

Steve Lopez, played by Robert Downey Jr., is a newspaper columnist immersed in finding his next lead. He has a one-track mind and periodically narrates his experiences as if dictating possible starts to articles. This internal dialogue mirrors the corporate world that he represents: Individuals are solely concerned with selling themselves and their ideas to normal society.

In searching for a new story, Lopez meets garrulous street musician Nathaniel Ayers, played by Jamie Foxx. Whereas Lopez represents the ethic of "business as usual" and other norms, Ayers is an aberration: an obviously gifted musician, previously enrolled in Julliard, and now on the streets. He is a deviation from the paradigm that gifted people are successful. Much of the film's intensity is derived from the interplay between ideas of what is normal and deviations thereof.

Downey and Foxx are unrivaled in their impressively complex performances. I was most impressed by the scene in which Ayers reunites with the cello. As he plays, the music consumes him. It provides peace for him - a sense of centering, of knowing that this is where he is supposed to be and this is what he is supposed to be doing. All at once, Foxx conveys a sense of peace and happiness, but also a sense of sadness and longing. He conveys this breadth of emotion simply via movements and facial expressions.

Downey, along with the audience, responds to this performance with awe. It is impressive that this homeless street musician can whip off a Beethoven sonata on a walkway, near heavy traffic, after not having touched a cello for a few years. But besides this initial awe, Downey alludes to other emotions, namely profound emptiness and feelings akin to jealousy of this musician who is so thoroughly content. As Lopez later comments, "I've never loved anything as much as he loves music."

Another impressive aspect of the film is its strategic use of images. The film strategically contextualizes the story by using images of city life and business as transitions between scenes - an office overflowing with files and stacks of paperwork, expanses of highway and parking lots packed with cars, neighborhoods filled with houses of the same size and color and all having a swimming pool in the rear.

These images collectively represent the façade of what is normal. Everything has its place and everyone has his or her role to play. Everything is business as usual. This is the world in which Lopez operates and in which he subsequently discovers emptiness without passion such as he finds in Nathaniel.

Perhaps this is not the lighthearted romp that you might look for on a whim to relax. However, if you can stand contemplating while watching a movie, this one is worth screening. If you do choose to watch, I promise a beautiful sampling of cello is in your future.

May-be, May-be Not

I really dropped the ball this last month on keeping you updated on new releases. However, I am back and ready to give you the scoop on the coming attractions of theatre and DVD this May.

Coming soon to a theater near you...

1. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (May 1): This romantic comedy looks to be your run of the mill Mathew McConaughey flick. Yet again he plays a successful ladies man who learns a lesson about women and settles down with "the one," played by Jennifer Garner - also not a huge stretch for Garner. It looks predictable and furthermore watching the preview yields the whole plot without even paying to see the film. Perhaps this one would be a fun one for a girls night, but I might wait until it's playing at the cheap seats.

2. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (May 1): Yes, Hugh Jackman reprises his role as the short-tempered, unlikely hero. As I have noted in a previous post, this film looks like it will be sufficiently testosterone-filled and packed with special effects. Lets hope it has something of an intriguing plot and good acting to back it up. Movie review to follow shortly, perhaps.

3. Star Trek (May 8): It is the current fad in movie-making to restart superhero series. "Batman Begins" started the trend and effectively surpassed any of the previous Batman films. Now both "X-Men" and "Star Trek" are coming out with films depicting the beginning of their respective heros. I myself was never a Trekkie, though I do hear a lot of positive buzz about this film. But how does William Shatner feel about all of this?

4. Angels and Demons (May 15): There is absolutely no need for me to see this film. The previews alone feature images creepy enough for me to shy away. However, Tom Hanks is a very talented actor and does return in this film. He is joined by Ewan McGregor, who has also done some talented work ("Big Fish," "Moulin Rouge"... "Star Wars"). I forfeit any right to judge this film because I refuse to see it, but I hope that it meets the expectations of "Davinci Code" fans.

5. Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (May 22): It is no secret that I am a adament Ben Stiller fan. Whenever I have chance, I always like to plug "Heavyweights" as one of Stiller's more brilliant roles. True, "Night at the Museum" was not his best work, but it is a fun family film. This sequel promises an impressively long list of big names joining Stiller: Amy Adams, Robin Williams, Owen Wilson, Hank Azaria, Bill Hader, Dick Van Dyke, Steve Coogan, Eugene Levy, and more. Props to the casting team for getting so many of the original people to return for the sequel in addition to so many new faces.

6. Up (May 29): Hooray for Pixar! I have likely already made this same exclamation. However, this new flick looks like a lot of fun. First, the premise makes me giggle: a grumpy 78-year old man ties a ton of balloons to his house and lifts it straight into the sky, only to notice that he has a terrified young boyscout stowed away on his porch. Also, Pixar has a knack for drawing up cute characters. Already I am a fan of the elderly gentleman and the boyscout (which oddly enough, sounds like its own film title...).

Bring it home on DVD

1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (May 5): Even recapping the premise of this movie sounds cliche by now. Benjamin Button, played by Brad Pitt, ages backwards, born as an old man and growing progressively younger. Opposite Pitt, playing the love interest, is Kate Blanchett. Now that the film has reached DVD I sadly might have to actually see it so I have something on which to base my criticism. Or perhaps I will discover that I truely enjoy it, despite its surpluss of obnoxious advertising.

2. Last Chance Harvey (May 5): I have already waxed rhapsodic enough about Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson. Short recap: Hoffman meets Thompson while stopping at a coffee shop on his way to his daughter's wedding. It looks like a fun, sophisticated romantic comedy -- I'll let you know.


3. Paul Blart: Mall Cop (May 19): This one might be fun. Kevin James has played some funny, endearing roles in the past, including Albert Brennamen in "Hitch." As you might have already deduced, James plays Paul Blart, a mall cop. Seriously dedicated to his job, it takes it upon himself to protect the mall against a gang of youngsters. This should be worth some good clean laughs.

4. Valkyrie (May 19): Oh, Tom Cruise. He has played some excellent roles; past hits include "Risky Business," "Top Gun," "Rain Man," "A Few Good Men," and "Mission Impossible." These are popular movies in which Cruise delivered memorable performances. Unfortunately, now Cruise is more known for his defense of Scientology and jumping on Oprah's couch, professing his love for Katie Holmes. This new film is set in Nazi Germany and revolves around a plot to assassinate Hitler.

5. New in Town (May 26): This is Renee Zellweger's new romantic comedy. She plays a business executive who moves to a small town to help her company. Consequentially she meets some new man and develops an interest outside her business. Perhaps this could be a cute romantic comedy, but if I want to see Zellweger in her prime, I will stick to "Bridget Jones's Diary."

"No one wins a giant-ass panda"

Movie Review: "Adventureland"
(Lawrentian, published Apr. 24)


"Adventureland" is akin to every college senior's nightmare: to graduate with a liberal arts education, specializing in medieval Russian literature or obscure languages, and be overly qualified for flipping burgers or running rides at a carnival. As a graduating senior fumbling to envision life after June 14, this plotline seems vaguely familiar.

The premise: After graduation, James is in desperate need of a summer job to garner funds for graduate school. Returning home, he discovers the only job available is working game booths at the local carnival. And, of course, some of the central conflict revolves around a mysterious love interest, Em.

Unlike most comedies, "Adventureland" is attuned to the college demographic. It features college-aged characters actually played by college-aged actors. Perhaps you had not yet realized, but this is a novelty. Usually we have 20-somethings portraying angsty teenagers in bubblegum romances that are aimed at preteens.

In comparison, this movie actually addresses what college kids think about: sex, money, the future, relationships, spirituality, etc. Even the jokes reflect the different demographic. True, there are those apparently quintessential lowbrow jokes, such as guys getting punched in the groin. However, the movie also includes inspired gems that reference Platonic forms. Some humor actually appeals to higher-educated young adults. What a concept.

Jesse Eisenberg leads the cast as James. This casting works well, given that Eisenberg looks like the everyman of college students. Unlike other over-stylized young male stars such as Zac Efron, Eisenberg actually looks like a typical college student. And besides being too-good-to-be-true charming, he acts like a typical college male. This too is something of a novelty in film.

Playing opposite Eisenberg is Kristen Stewart, who is most recognizable for her cheesy portrayal of Bella Swan, swoony love interest of a vampire in "Twilight." In "Adventureland," Stewart again plays the love interest, but the new role is a vast improvement -- it actually shows that she has talent. Her character relies on subtle, nonverbal signals, which she handles deftly, and it also requires periodically appearing rattled and vulnerable -- another trait for which she evidently has great talent. Hopefully Stewart can spend more time on insightful projects such as this and less time on teen melodramas.

Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig join the cast as married co-owners of the amusement park. We have seen Hader in past roles such as slacker cop Officer Slater in "Superbad" and in Saturday Night Live sketches. As Bobby, Hader is more subdued than in past performances, though he and Wiig do provide much of the comic relief. The two have an amusingly quirky relationship and provide several memorable scenes, including one involving stuffed bananas, googlie eyes and eye patches. Need I say more?

Audiences will also recognize Ryan Reynolds, who has performed in his fair share of comedies, including "Van Wilder," "Waiting," and "Just Friends." Initially this role looks to be yet another in which he plays the suave, cool guy -- not much of a stretch from past roles. The sleaziness of this role, however, does put a slightly different spin on an otherwise old character.

I hesitate to label "Adventureland" as a romantic comedy. It does have elements of boy-meets-girl and young adults fumbling through self-discovery. However, it also has subtle intellectual jokes and a completely satisfying ending that manages to avoid clichés. If it is part of the romantic comedy genre, it at least avoids the cloying, stereotypical formulae that leave me rolling my eyes.

Film Adaptations

Some times more than others I become aware of just how many books are used as money-making fodder for the film industry. This year alone the Academy Awards hosted several film adaptations: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Reader," and "Slumdog Millionaire," to name a few. After hearing rumors about upcoming adaptations of a few of my favorite books, I investigated what else was due later this year.

1. My Sister's Keeper (Jun. 26, 2009)

Author: Jodi Picoult

Jodi Picoult is one of my favorite authors, even if this particular novel is not my favorite of hers. This is not much to the disadvantage of the book, since all of her novels are well-written and encompass a controversial topic in one form or another. In this novel, the younger daughter of a family is engineered to be a genetic match for her older sister, who has leukemia. The parents had engineered their younger daughter as a donor for the elder. Picoult treats such touchy subjects with finesse, which yields complex and captivating reads.

However, the complexity of any Picoult novel has no hope of being adequately portrayed via film. Literary works allow for the audience to comprehend characters' internal moral conflict. This subtlety is lost in film. Furthermore, the story feels cheapened when big name stars portray these characters who are supposed to be thoroughly normal and identifiable. Sure, it can be fun to see Cameron Diaz in romantic comedies and Abigail Breslin is such a sweetheart in "Little Miss Sunshine." Even Alec Baldwin can be funny, though I think his role in "30 Rock" is overrated. But I am highly skeptical that these actors can lend the depth that these characters need. HIGHLY skeptical.

Furthermore, I will probably have to see the movie so I can be rightly indignant that it fails to meet my high expectations. Already I am disappointed by the preview. From the look of it, yes, I am going to be highly disappointed especially with Diaz's performance.

(Trailer)

2. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Jul. 17, 2009)
Author: J.K. Rowling

True, everyone already knows that this adaptation is coming soon. It is the most likely of these six adaptations to receive the most hype in the coming months. It is also most likely my favorite chapter in the Harry Potter series (to be highly specific, chapter 2 of this book, "Spinner's End," is my favorite chapter of the series). Translation: I really hope Warner Bros doesn't screw this one up.

It bodes well for the film that it has the same director as the fifth installment. I was rather impressed and satisfied by the darkness of the fifth film, which was highly refressing from the cheesiness of most of the fourth. Hopefully this film continues in the same vein, since the sixth book does have rather dark passages and some disturbing images. The darkness of the story builds even throughout the seventh book; hopefully the movies will continue to follow suit.

I particularly look forward to seeing more of Alan Rickman (Severus Snape) and Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), who I think were underrepresented in the fifth movie. It would be rather impressive if they had equally few scenes in this adaptation.

(Trailer)

3. The Time Traveler's Wife (Aug. 14, 2009)

Author: Audrey Neffeneger

If this is not my absolute favorite book, it is at least one of my top 5. Does this mean that I will be unduely critical toward the film adaptation? Perhaps. It feels like such a moral dilemma: to see the movie or not?

I highly recommend reading this book before seeing the film. As with Jodi Piccoult, there is no way that a film can capture the complexity of the characters in this novel. That being said, I do think there are ways that this film could be done very well and there are ways in which it could be done very poorly.

All around I am simply not impressed with casting choices. I do not know enough about Eric Bana to judge whether or not he will do well portraying Henry. That, I think, will be the most important performance of the film. However, Rachel McAdams is not Clare Abshire. She doesn't even have red hair! Furthermore, she is too movie-star pretty whereas I pictured Clare as more unconventionally beautiful.

The rest of the cast is filled in with other actors and actresses that are each too goodlooking for their respective roles. At first blush this is dissapointing and I largely hope that I will be pleasantly surprised by their performances. I'm sure I will at least keep a close eye on the progress of this production and keep you posted.

(Trailor not yet available)

4. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (Sept. 18, 2009)

Author: Judi Barrett

Illustrator: Ron Barrett

If done well, this children's book could translate into a really cute, funny family film. I might need to see the film on a full stomach, though - those meatballs and giant olives always did look appetizing.

Like any other animated flick, this adaptation will host several well-known voices: Anna Faris, Bill Hader, and Mr. T, to name just a few. Faris is perhaps best known for exaggerated roles. Example: she plays a ridiculously self-involved pop sensation in "Just Friends." It will be interesting to see how she does in a film aimed at a younger demographic. This is true of Hader, too -- I know him best for college-age comedies such as "Superbad" and "Adventureland." He is a funny guy; hopefully that can translate into animated film.

(Trailer)

5. Where the Wild Things Are (Oct. 16, 2009)
Author: Maurice Sendak

This is another childhood favorite. Perhaps I should re-read this book before screening the film... All I remember of the story is that a young boy goes to bed without supper and dreams of monsters. I also remember being vaguely creeped out by some of the pictures...

Again, one of the benefits of adapting a children's book is that it is extremely easy to include everything in the original story. The downside is that this means the film has less, if any, excuse to exclude things.

(Trailer)

6. The Lovely Bones (Dec. 11, 2009)

Author: Alice Sebold

This is going to be a tough project to finagle. First, the premise deals with uncomfortable issues: the main character is brutally raped and murdered within the first chapter and Sebold spares few details. That alone will have to be dealt with carefully. If this project does not recieve an R rating, it requires at least a PG-13.

Another challenge for the filmmakers will be to portray Sebold's vision of Heaven. I really hope that filmmakers avoid being campy, using clouds and shimmery auras around the dead. There is quite a bit of interplay between the heroine in Heaven and those individuals she left behind. I will avoid explicit details, in case you want to read the book for yourself (as you should), but there is a sex scene that might be a little tricky to work out the details. I suppose a possible solution would be to eliminate this scene altogether in the film, though I hope this is not the route they take, since the scene is rather pivotal for the resolution.

One final thought: yay Peter Jackson for agreeing to direct this project. Though I have not seen any of "The Lord of the Rings" (please contain your shocked gasps), I hear that he is a talented artist. This should bode well for the vision of the film.

(Trailer not yet available)

-------

In way of a conclusion, I do want to note that obviously any of these adaptations will fail to meet at least some expectations garnered from reading the books. However, you probably will see me in the theaters of each production, whether grumbling about poor performances or smiling in pleasant surprise.