Newski goes to the Movies

Shutter Island

2010-02-25T16:33:00.000-08:00

I came real close to liking Shutter Island. I appreciated its beautiful visuals, it's attention to detail, it's superb performances, and everything else you can expect from a filmmaker like Martin Scorsese. In the end, however, I felt cheated. This is another one of those movies that is less of a movie and more of an overly long episode of "The Twilight Zone." In other words, it's a complete story set up just for one twist. But, in the set up of this we have a very great character study of Ted Daniels, played by Leonardo DiCaprio. We have a story of a man dealing with his own demons, and coming to grips with his past. The problem is, the twist is supposed to be a twist, rather than a plot point. Martin Scorsese missed the chance of life time by keeping the truth of DiCaprio's past until the third act.

Ted Daniels is a Federal Marshall investigating a decidedly "progressive" mental institution, full of all the criminals (or as the Administrators correct him, the patients) no other facility can handle. One particularly dangerous patient has gone missing. The Hospital staff is almost unwilling to help him, and he soon realizes that they do not wish for him to uncover the truth- That there are shocking, horrific experiments being performed on these patients. However, in true M. Night Shylamalan fashion, this all just a set up for a huge plot twist that is apparent to anyone with an IQ over 40 who has seen the trailer. It's not long before a moody and involving psychological thriller becomes "The Village" right before our very eyes.

There is a lot to love in this film, despite being Scorcese's weakest attempt. I expected a series of disjointed images and an extremely nonlinear motif made up to confuse the audience. Instead the story played out, slowly introducing more and more elements into the story ton prepare us for the big reveal. Wait, why prepare us for the big reveal? Aren't we more interested, at this point, about the story they set up so far? Around the corner is a story that is just as interesting. Unfortunately, its simply one act of the film. When that happens, our original story is left in the dust. So we are left with two halves, both good, but yearning to be something more.

In 2001, I was "A Beautiful Mind", about Mathematician John Nash, who suffers from various illnesses that force him to see these elaborate visions. This is disguised, quite well, for the first portion of the movie. We learn about his delusions before he does. Anyone who knew anything about the person before seeing the movie knew from the beginning, and that did nothing but enrich the film. It's a sad day when Martin Scorsese should be taking notes from the director of "The Grinch."

** out of ****

Black Dynamite

2010-02-21T22:14:00.001-08:00

Here is a late review, for a movie that received a justifiably limited release, playing in mostly black communities ignoring the fact that Black Audiences today have long since forgotten about the Blaxploitation Genre. Truth is, most people have. Sure, we all know it. Hell, Quentin Tarantino won't let us forget that. Sure, just about anyone can watch Black Dynamite, and laugh at sophmoric humor regarding decapitations and penis reduction, but to really appreciate it, you are going to need knowledge of the seventies exploitation film well outside of "Shaft" or "Coffy".

Black Dynamite is the most badass of the badass. He's a shameless womanizer, but in this sort of film that does not keep him from being the purely righteous, heroic figure. Neither does the trail of bodies he leaves in his wake. He's on a mission to find out who killed his brother, which interestingly enough coincides with his other mission, which is to get the drugs off the streets. Him and a rag tag group of Black Militants soon find out there is something bigger (in a shocking moment of Batman like proportions) at hand.

I, for one, am impressed out how exciting and stylish the intentionally badly shot action beats were. This is wall to wall excitement, even if most fights consist of pose offs and show offs. Only liners are almost 180 per minute, proving that star Michael Jai White has the ability to transcend the boundries of space and time. I'm reminded of films like "Slaughter" or even some of the old New World films.

Characters come in and out randomly, others monolog to the camera. The dialog is delivered half heartedly. It's a risk, making a movie that is intentionally bad. Often times, you'll end up with bad special effects, bad acting, and not a trace of believability. We can't just look at the Lost Skeleton of Cadavra and laugh at the intentionally visible strings. For the joke to work, you need to make it look like an accident. Black Dynamite plays it off fairly well, though the half hearted speeches from the supporting cast do get to be irritating. By the last half hour, the film jumps the shark, and exits the "Blaxploitation" genre by going to places the genre never goes. Sure, it's funny. The movie is absolutely hysterical. But I liked watching Black Dynamite following in the footsteps of Shaft or Slaughter.

The reason Black Dynamite works is because Michael Jai White plays the character earnestly. He can say the most ridiculous lines, and we believe that's just how Black Dynamite talks. He's surrounded by over actors (who do their job well) and the aforementioned sacks who don't even bother. Perhaps if we just kept the first two, the movie could have been just a bit better.

*** out of ****

The Wolfman

2010-02-12T20:46:00.000-08:00

The Wolfman is a film that does everything right, but still comes up short. Benecio Del Toro is perfectly cast as Lawrence Talbot, who becomes the titular Wolfman in this remake of the Lon Chaney classic. His Father, played by Anthony Hopkins, knows what he is early on in the film. This is Hopkins at his most chilling since "Silence of the Lambs". Despite his well delivered dialog, his character seems to lack the human element that would allow audiences to connect. Meanwhile, Hugo Weaving is on the trail of the beast, from a Gothic town called Blackmoor all the way to a brooding turn of the century London. This is a vision of London that would make Jack the Ripper squeemish. Then again, the Wolfman is so brutal and merciless he makes Jack the Ripper look like the gentleman he allegedly appeared to be.

The camera angles in the fog mislead you, giving a false sense of space. This creates unease, and sets up wonderful scares. I must confess, however, I am still waiting for those. Very often a loud noise preceeds a terrifying vision. Haven't we seen that before? Other times, the mysterious growling is nothing more than the faithful dog. Universal may not have invented the horror film, but they certainly gave it the prominence it has now. So why do they resort to, in a remake of one of the greatest horror films ever made, doing the same old tricks? Even in films like "Gremlins" they try a new spin. Or in more effective chillers like "Drag Me to Hell", they actually do them so well the manage to provoke an actual jump. Hitchcock said the thrill isn't in the bang, but the anticipation of the bang. Again, I have to confess, I can't recall a moment where the anticipation was more than "So, are we going to see Rick Baker's wonderful make up again?"

I do not mean to be too harsh to a film that I thoroughly enjoyed. What it lacked in suspense it made up for in mood. What it lacked in terror it made up for in action. This film plays to director Joe Johnston's strengths, which is both a blessing and a curse. He crafts characters wonderfully, and has an award-worthy sense of style and adventure. This is the perfect man to helm much bigger, grander projects than this. Or even just another dumb and lovable Mummy film.

As it is, this movie stands alone. It's a carefully made tribute to the classic Universal Monster flick, while also pushing the combined franchises into new directions. Blood and gore are constant in this movie, but not gratuitous. People died by the boatload, cities are devestated, yet you find yourself hoping that Emily Blunt's Gwen Conliffe reaches Talbot before the show stealing Hugo Weaving. You want Inspector Abbeline (Weaving) to redeem himself before the time runs out. He is perhaps the most multidimensional character in this film. He's skeptical about the Wolfman, but upon learning the truth appears to be the slightest bit sympathetic. Of course, there isn't time for that, he's got a Werewolf to kill before it kills again.

This is a very near miss. It's action packed, furious fun, with just enough black humor to satisfy. It's full of great visuals and a wonderful cast. Too bad it just isn't that scary. It's definitely an enjoyable film, and gets my recommendation. Unfortunately I'll have forgotten about it tomorrow.

**1/2 out of ****

Sherlock Holmes

2009-12-30T10:59:00.000-08:00

Before Sherlock Holmes, I was treated to a preview of the latest Kevin Smith opus "Cop Out". A spoof of buddy cop films, that will no doubt end up instead of a film to mock the formula, show why we shouldn't follow the formula so closely. Almost immediately after, I see Holmes and Watson, together, stopping some sort of demonic ritual. Complete with a deduction that might as well be a one liner, I thought to myself "How about, instead of making spoofs, we go back to actual buddy cop films?"

That's what Holmes is. It's a buddy cop film. It's the story of a unconventional, aloof, brilliant man, and the straightlaced smart-yet-still-average partner. Like Mel Gibson and Danny Glover, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law have excellent chemistry.

Downey and Rachel McAdams, who plays love interest Irene Adler, not so much. Perhaps a better actress or a more well defined character might be a bit more interesting. She is a perky Femme Fatale who too easily becomes a sad, lovestruck tragic figure. Imagine that character, but played without any sort of real range of emotion. Luckily, her scenes are limited.

Holmes and Watson have just solved their last case together, and Watson is anxious to be free of Holmes and live an average to normal life. Holmes, anti social, arrogant, and overall unlikable to many spends much of the movie trying to find ways to bring his friend back. Meanwhile, Watson keeps finding himself excuses to join Holmes as a former Villain, Lord Blackwood, seems to have risen from the grave.

After a first act that sort of lingers on for way too long, our heroes fight and think their way through a series of brawls, secret passages, deductions, and deathtraps that could have only come out of republic serials. As much as an ode to the classic adventure film as "Indiana Jones" (but without the quality, unfortunately), it's a fun little film. With enough of that Classic Sherlock Holmes style to, if not please, satisfy the purists.

*** out of ****

The Princess and the Frog

2009-12-19T11:20:00.001-08:00

Tiana seems to be the exact opposite of a Disney Princess. She was not born into royalty, she does not dream of some prince to make everything perfect for her, and she doesn't spend hours singing about how there must be something more. Instead, she works dilligently so that one day, she may open her very own restaurant. She has almost no social life, so it seems, as her only interest in Mardi Gras is serving Gumbo.

Meanwhile, we have the visiting prince. He's foolish, lazy, and has spent his last dollar. He has been cut off from his family fortune. Needing money, he makes a deal with a witch doctor known as the Shadow Man. Apparently, he didn't understand the subtext to such bold statements as 'I see green in your future" and the various hop puns.

It's only a matter of time before Tiana comes into contact with Prince Naveen, who convinces her to give him on kiss, so that he may turn human. But there is a catch- Tiana is no Princess. Only a Princess can change him back, after all. Seems that frog-kissing by non royalty has unexpected side effects. This is the extent of what you have seen in the previews for the last year and a half.

Tiana and Naveen search for a kinder, gentler Voodoo practicioner in hopes for a way to change them back. What else should be expected then them falling in love. Still, it's not the what, but the how. In a different movie, there would be one moment where the hearts and minds change. This film manages to show it gradually, between comical interludes by the necessary talking animal companions (a poetic cajun firefly, and an Alligator who wants to play Jazz).

This movie, while it suffers from being not a return to the classic Disney film but a return to formula, works. It's light, positive, and very well put together. Though I find I'm more interested in seeing the characters interact, and any time the story progresses I feel they were not done with the previous moment. Some bad jokes meant to appease the immature male audience take away from more tender moments.

I doubt this film is the beginning of a new Disney Renaissance. It's a very flawed, imperfect film. Perhaps it needed just a few more (or less) rewrites to reach the level of some of the classics I remember watching as a kid.

Well, at least we got a good little film out of it regardless.

*** out of ****

Avatar

2009-12-19T11:04:00.000-08:00

Sam Worthington provides a monotonous narration at the beginning, where he essentially tells you everything you are seeing on screen. He also talks with a certain awareness of what is to come, and maybe this narration is actually part of his final video log. It didn't feel like that to me. Then again, you can move any sequence of the movie to any point and it would still be the same. There is actually one case where a monolog is cut within a thought, a scene stuck in the middle, then continues on as our hero is chased onward by a giant bird-like creature.

This is a "Woo" moment for Worthington, as he only has two settings in this movie- apathetic and woo. No matter how much emotion is in the words, he seems to be reading the script from a teleprompter. Sam Worthington is a much better actor than this movie leads you to believe. Sigourney Weaver manages to steal scene after scene, hopefully earning her an Academy Award Nomination. Zoe Saldana, who recently got the in with the nerd crowd (the same target audience in this film) by playing Uhura in Star Trek, also proves she is more than a pretty face by giving a performance that transcends the many layers of animation.

Worthington's Jake Sully is a disabled officer of the U.S. Marines who is put into this "special project" on a distant planet. He is to put himself into the physical body of a Navi, a member of the native race, and try to win their trust. Though he is working with a group of scientists with good intentions, his loyalties remain to the Marines, who want him to force the Navi out of their homes so the Marines can plunder a rare mineral. That mineral is called "Unobtainium." The mineral doesn't matter, which is why they gave it the only possible name more honest and to the point as "McGuffinium". Perhaps the could have called it "Plotdeviciton".

When he gets in, we have ritual after ritual, while he wanders through a mystical glow in the dark forest. There were times when I wondered if I was actually watching a cartoon. Cameron's CG landscapes are convincing by day, cheesey by night. Not once, however, did the Navi seem even one third as real as District 9's "Prawns".

They say this movie is all about it's graphics. While I will say that they fail to deliver, they are great to look at nonetheless. James Cameron would have you believe that the only way to see this movie is in IMAX, in 3D. Save yourself the up charge and appreciate the beauty without distorting it.

After a while, Jake has a change of heart. Or so he says. Truth is, there is nothing in his character that shows he ever had any allegience to the Marines at all, which robs us of a decent, albeit cliched, character arch. The Marines are vague bad guys. So void of personality, with a lack of a clearly defined motive this might as well be about zombies. We have the Corporate interests telling the Marines to get the Unobtainium. The Marines, however, are simpletons who only want to kill. And if the fact that that's essentially all they do isn't enough, they pretty much say it flat out. Because apparently America can't understand things any other way.

Why does the Colonel hate the Navi so much? If you give him a real motive, it doesn't diffuse your satire. It actually helps bring it to a whole new level. I had the same problem with District 9, but at least you saw the slums, you saw the crime, you can actually imagine how somebody can think of them as subhuman at some stretch. Not even General Custer would treat the Native American's with such disdain.

The evil, cliched Colonel, when given scientific evidence that the ecosystem is actually an intelligence, says "It looks like a bunch of trees to me." That dialog should set the tone of something like "Ferngully: The Last Rain Forest". Not a 300 million dollar action epic. Not a film that has been called an Oscar contender even in pre-production.

The movie isn't without it's high points. There were some sequences that were so fantastic they gave me that sense of awe and wonder that I look for in any great epic. But they were too far, too few. It's a real shame when you can't get into a movie until the Third act.

** out of ****

Fantastic Mr. Fox

2009-11-19T12:21:00.000-08:00

George Clooney leads an all star cast of voice actors who are genuinely portraying the characters on the screen. That's a relief. "Kung Fu Panda" and "Shrek 3" had me worrying that, from now on, the characters would be based around the actors they found instead of vice versa. Clooney is good in the role, despite being constantly outshined by co-star Meryl Streep.

Together they are Mr. and Mrs. Fox, who are (as you can guess) foxes. Mr. Fox is a former chicken thief who, at the request of his wife, found a different line of work. He is an unsuccessful columnist who wants nothing more than to move out of his hole in the ground, and into a nice tree. A nice tree in a bad neighborhood, it seems, as he finds himself next door to Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. Three farmers so mean the local children sing songs about them.

The Farmers are uninterested in their new neighbors until Mr. Fox is unable to keep his desire to steal chickens in check. His actions alone cause his family, and all his neighbors to move deep underground. Mrs. Fox reminds us that the story will end when everyone dies, unless Mr. Fox can change his ways.

The rugged, often flat (it is a Wes Anderson film, after all), look of the film just adds to the growing absurdity of a film that starts with talking foxes and ends with an assault-by-pinecone war against the three farmers. At what point was it made clear that the animals could talk to the farmers? Most of the film, you get the impression that the farmers see the animals as just primal beasts. Irrelevant, really. The film never quite jumps the shark. If it does, it's such a gradual take off I didn't even notice.

The film is funny, as it is also very touching. There aren't many jokes or punchlines, just classic situation-based comedy mixed with witty dialog. This is a film where, you can honestly see all the elements working together to form something better than the sum of it's parts. Perhaps the greatest thrill of the film, however, is the fact that I am now convinced that, despite advancements in cell and computer animation, Stop Motion is hear to stay.

*** out of ****

The Men Who Stare at Goats

2009-11-06T11:22:00.000-08:00

The Men Who Stare at Goats is based on a true story. How true? That's debatable, though you can certainly tell that more of it is false than true. But then again, before the title we are informed that more of this is true than you realize. Somehow I felt that, in my crowded theater, about 70% of the people may have been trying to determine fact from fiction. If you do this, you might be missing the point entirely. This isn't a docudrama, but a hilarious, feel good farce.

Ewan MacGregor is a reporter who has something to prove to himself, and to all then people around him. He wants to show that he can be just as much of a man as everyone else. For this reason, he hops the first plane to Iraq to be a War Correspondent. It's there he meets Lyn, played by George Clooney, a former army "psychic soldier". And thus, a road comedy is born.

A road comedy through War Torn Iraq, of course. Inept security details, hostage situations, general combat, and general incompetence are given the highlight as MacGregor's Bob Wilton and Clooney's Lyn Cassady. While locked in a windowless room, Cassady reveals to Wilton the true reason he is in Iraq- He is on a secret mission from Bill Django.

Bill Jango is a man we learn about through a series of flashbacks. Interested in pioneering combat alternatives, he begins training psychic soldiers (but, of course, they have to dance first). Django did a great deal of research into the subject-by using LSD, living in communes, and becoming part of the new age movement. Played by Jeff Bridges, we know have a glimpes of what would have happened if "The Dude" joined the Army.

At this point your probably wondering what part of this story is true. Please try your best to stay away from such a counterproductive train of thought. This movie is about soldiers who were trained to be psychic soldiers, people who were referred to as "Jedi Warriors." So clearly, we are not supposed to care about the true or false aspect of it. Early on in the film, Jeff Bridges recites his Oath as a Jedi Warrior. It's played up for laughs. When the Oath is revisited, it's nothing short of triumphant.

*** out of ****

Ponyo

2009-09-19T11:29:00.000-07:00

Ponyo is a magical goldfish who befriends a five year old boy named Sosuke. Sosuke is a bright young boy who seems to be more capable than anyone in his age bracket. Sosuke's mother, Lisa, tries her best, but is often times very absent. Even early on in the film, when you see Sosuke walking himself to school while his mother runs off to work, you never get the feeling that she doesn't care. Still, you wonder why she thinks the strange little fish he found-the one with the human face-is not out of the ordinary.

That little fish is, of course, Ponyo. Ponyo develops a crush/friendship with the young boy, and decides she must become human to stay with him. This, of course, causes a tear in the fabric of reality. Ponyo's father, Fujimoto, tries in vain to steal Ponyo back to the Ocean, before her life on land leads to cataclysms that are less from the mind of Hayao Miyazaki and more from the mind of Roland Emmerich.

The films does everything it can to be "precious" and effect even the most cynical people. I doubt anyone will leave the theater without a smile, and I have no doubt that most people will find something to like about Ponyo. I compare it to E.T. Like Elliot, Sosuke's father is gone (though in this film, he's merely out to sea). He has the same sort of hard working, but still caring mother. And it is a film about the child getting over real world problems while bonding with a strange creature.

Imagine, though, if E.T. simply picked up the phone and called home. Sure, we'd still have some of our favorite moments. We'd still have a cute little story. But the movie wouldn't be the same. It would be a loaded conflict without a real resolution. Ponyo gives us a cute little story with high stakes. And, to Ponyo's credit, they don't give us the horrible details. Think of Hurricane Katrina, if all the footage was people rowing happily. We understand that there is a real problem, but we are spared the grimness. For reality, that doesn't work. For the movie, it works out best. But that doesn't mean we can't have a genuine resolution. We don't need a large action scene, or millions of lives shown to be hanging from a thread. We just need something more than "It's all over, we can go home."

Fujimoto also makes statements about his hatred for humanity. These aren't followed up on. The Pollution in the ocean is brought up several points early on, but it turns out only because it's a Miyazaki film and he always throws in the enviromentalism. Fujimoto is fearful about meeting Ponyo's mother again, and Ponyo describes her as having a temper, but we never see that in the slightest.

As I made it clear, I'm not looking for action. I'm not looking for violence. No, that would ruin what is a genuinely likable, cute story. I just wanted them to live up to the build up that they gave us. A much harder choice, or perhaps a puzzle. Who knows? In a fantasy film, they sky is the limit.

*** out of ****

District 9

2009-09-19T11:26:00.000-07:00

For the first twenty minutes of the film, we are watching the greatest mockumentary conceived. More intelligent than "Forgotten Silver" and funnier than "This Is Spinal Tap." The Mockumentary footage serves to set up our hero, a well meaning but misguided man named Wilkus Van De Merwe. It serves as Backstory, a huge flying saucer had shown up over Johannesburg twenty years ago, stranding large amounts of aliens here on Earth. The Aliens end up living in slums. Have become the targets of prejudice. Where there is poverty, there is crime. It sets up the organizations that hopes to contain them. The conflicts that have arisen because of them, and several insights on the causes of certain sociological problems in the world today. Particularly, ones close to the heart of people in South Africa

The sequence starts out with a very even handed, detached perspective, but leans more towards the side of the Aliens as victims as it goes on. These creatures, of course, aren't innocent. They kill people. It's made very clear that they really don't have a problem killing some unlucky sap who wanders on their property, or if they simply have something they want. We are not shown what is a misunderstanding, what situations they may or may not have been merely defending themselves. It's irrelevant.

Now that we have the set up, we enter a more traditional narrative with bits of the mockumentary mixed in. This is the road not traveled. The film was more interesting before it became an action film. Instead of taking the "Twilight Zone" route to show De Merwe's change of heart (which is something I will not reveal, as it is set up like a plot twist when it is in fact the plot itself), how about merely have him learn through constant exposure to the creatures?

Instead of having violent shoot outs, how about continue with this amazing mockumentary? You've already show off superior direction, superior acting, superior writing, do we really need to add more violence to a film that justifies it's R rating within twenty minutes?

I know I am being unfair. These twists were unwanted by me, but I still enjoyed them. I still think they pulled everything off the best way possible. I should be thinking about the movie on screen, but I keep thinking back to the movie it was originally, the movie I thought would end up being a classic. A movie that deals with moral complexities. De Merwe could have easily been a bad guy, based soley on ignorance alone.

Instead, we get bad guys who are heartless for no reason. Prejudice without purpose. That does not address the real issues at hand. Perhaps that's the film's greatest weakness (as opposed to my perceived weaknesses). It's not optimistic to think that people wouldn't be this evil. In fact, I'm sure a fraction of the people would. But everyone in some sort of uniform is a bloodthirsty killer? Now that is doubtful. Villains who are ignorant, well meaning, but horribly misguided people are far more interesting. It would make not only for a more complex story, but it would be a better conflict for De Merwe, who was once just like them.

The film is beautiful. It takes us to a very real world (in fact, the slums in this film are actual South African Slums. Only one, where the interiors are frequently used, was built for the production). Sharto Copley is a name we've never heard before, and I hope that changes. His performance was probably the best I've seen all year. With some of the better effects of the year. Compare to Transformers, which cost several times District 9's budget.

Visually astonishing, with a great performances, and a thoughtful story that doesn't go far enough dealing with it's moral complexities. A classic? Unfortunately not. But it's still one of the best films of the year.

***1/2 out of ****

(Edit- This review still contains my exact feelings for the movie. However, the film has managed to grow on me quite a bit despite it's flaws. You can now consider this a four star review)

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

2009-08-19T12:15:00.000-07:00

When you make a fantasy film, you have to make up for what you lack in originality with creativity. Harry Potter is the same story of the "chosen one" we've heard time and time again. He must fight a villain who is so pure evil, sometimes you wonder "Why? What does he gain?"

The first film was a wonderful children's fantasy, despite all that, because it was clearly an inventive story. A bit of youthful innocence, fantasies that most young kids could relate to, and a series of events that really filled us with a sense of awe and wonder. The second film managed to build on that, with a better story, a much more expansive world, and even setting up for the darker times that wait in Harry's adulthood. Unfortunately, the film lost that sense of awe and wonder for much of the third film, and lost it completely in the fifth. Luckily for us, part four showed us a terrifying side of the world without losing the magic that won people's hearts in the first place.

That's where Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince succeeds. It manages to take us to new worlds once again. Once again, Hogwarts is that magical place where you can be late for school because the stair case moved you to the wrong floor. This was not a bright and happy fairy tale, but we've long sinced moved beyond that. But at least we still have magic. Despite that, I must wonder why, in a world where just about anything can happen, all battles are resolved by somebody pointing a wand and shouting something.

That's probably where Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince fails. The world is as beautiful as ever. The story is by the numbers fantasy. Michael Gambon's Dumbledore has Harry Potter investigating a new teacher, who allegedly gave Tom Riddle (who is, in fact, Lord Voldermort) insight into secret, evil magic. Despite that, neither Riddle nor the new professor, Horace Slughorn is the titular Half Blood Prince.

In fact, the Half Blood Prince is merely an unrelated subplot. Harry is learning new spells from a book that once belonged to the Half Blood Prince. They ask about the writer's identity, but never investigate it. Though one would think this would make for a more interesting story. After all, it did work in the second film.

There is a point where Harry Potter is told he must get rid of the book, after a violent confrontation with his rival Draco Malfoy. Why? What did the book have to do with anything? That's a tremendous leap of logic, the type this film has a bit too many of. Perhaps what I'm looking for is within the books the film was based off of. Truth be told, this does not make me wish to learn more by reading the books. On the contrary, i feel the writers of the films have cheated me out of a much better story.

This is a movie, not a book. It's based on the book, but one should not judge it as a copy of the book. Further more, it should work on it's own as a movie. So, why bother with the Half Blood Prince subplot at all? Either make it go somewhere, or just make it go away.

*** out of ****

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-07-19T11:38:00.000-07:00

I'm pretty sure I've seen worse movies during my twenty four years on this planet. And yes, I know I've seen dumber. What makes Transformers so unbearable is the fact that it's bad, it's dumb, and it is really long. Boring, too.

I don't recall exactly what I gave the first film, but I believe it was one and a half to two stars. A bad movie with some redeeming values. Terrible, yes, not just because of it's poorly written script and childish sense of humor, but because very time they give you something to latch on to, and like, they kill that shred of hope almost immediately. Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen starts out that way, but we soon learn that it's everything the first one is, but worse. We have one great battle sequence, Optimus Prime fighting several enemies until his alleged death. This sequence is ruined, because often times we don't see the fight, but Shia LaBeauf's Sam Witwicky running from the fight.

As far as the idiotic sense of humor, we get to see gods humping each other. Twice. And if that's not enough, a tiny Decepticon (or, for the less nerdy, Bad-Guy-Bot) humps Megan Fox's leg. Is this what you really want? Is this what passes as humor to the brain dead fanboy audience? Did you at one point think "Hey, Michael Bay, knock it off, we are smarter than this" ? No, probably not. After all, you came to see Giant Robots.

The movie is called "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." I'll give you a more accurate title. "Sam Witwicky." The Transformers themselves are one dimensional. You have the wise cracking twins, created by a man who thinks robots talking black slang is funny, despite the fact that nothing they say if funny, or relevant, and is in fact very irritating. You have Bumblebee, who starts out as the most human but becomes "Just a robot" by the end. And then, we have Optimus, who sits it out for most of the film. Just like in the first film, the Transformers themselves are treated by the characters and by the filmmakers as giant robots, despite being super powered and super intelligent beings that have evolved beyond our wildest dreams.

At any rate, the story makes for some great B-Grade camp. Giant robots from other space need to harvest our sun for energy, using a device they hid here during ancient times. This movie, however, is played straight. All the laughs are supposed to come from action movie lines that are so terrible they'd make Joel Schumacker cringe. Yes, Arnold's Mr. Freeze was a lot more on the mark than any of the Autobots (or, for the not so nerdy, Good-Guy-bots).

So, what makes this movie so terrible,so unwatchable? Well, it's just plain bad. The characters lack any personality. Sam Witwicky goes to the point of monologing about how he's an average kid.Yeah, with a giant robot car, a super sexy girlfriend, a big butt house, parents who buy him a car for his High School graduation. No, you aren't average. Even without your Extra Terrestrial aquantainces you are far from normal.

His Girlfriend is mere eye candy. Typical action movie girl. Strong and independent, except when she needs to be saved. She serves no purpose, other than eye candy for the teenage male audience. She lacked personality in the first film, and now they've stolen what little she had. She spends most of her time complaining about how Sam won't say 'I love you.' For Christ's sake, you are being chased by giant robots. You have more important things to worry about.

Sam's new college roommate is a conspiracy theorist who believes the Transformers are real. Because, you know, they were able to cover up a giant robot battle in Los Angeles. They were able to cover up a giant robot Battle in Shanghai (one of the high points of the film but low points in Action movie shtick). Clearly, the government can cover this up. His friends talk in geek speak and act like they come right out of the punchline to a really bad joke. Then, of course, since this is college, we have to have that really elaborate college party that doesn't actually happen.

Is that nitpicking? No, it's me distracting myself. From what, you ask? The real problem with this movie. The real problem is the movie is absolutely, undeniably idiotic. We have a decepticon with a human body, that still has a human tongue when it transforms. We have Gold Toothed ebonics speaking robots that can't read. We have endless scenes of shooting into the desert, driving, and dialog that serves no purpose other than to remind us that yes, there is talking in this film. Every ten minutes, they recap the plot (which is just as well, I'm sure people fell asleep during this collasal turd of a movie). And, of course, Shia LaBeauf dies and goes to Robot heaven. Just let that least one sink in for a little bit.

After seeing Robot Heaven, I started thinking that maybe the dogs humping eachother so idiot teens can giggle like morons might have been the intellectual high point of the film.

0 out of ****

Star Trek

2009-05-19T12:09:00.000-07:00

JJ Abrams' Star Trek is a reboot of the long running Movie/TV Series. When you do a reboot, you have to look at it with fresh eyes. Forget the original, make sure it satisfies on every level regardless of the established rules. This was not going to be Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek (actually, that died years ago anyway). It was JJ Abrams' Star Trek. Of course, that doesn't mean it lacks the feel of the what we know.

Actually, it fits into the canon as much as Enterprise, the Animated Series or other shows where it fits in if you decide to make a wedge. There is a scene where the crew of the Enterprise discusses alternate timelines and tangent universes to give us plenty of ways to fit this in with the rest. But I'm going to digress. That's fan talk right now, and I am being an impartial reviewer.

So, an Alien from the future has a deadly weapon that can create black holes inside of planets. He goes back in time to destroy the planet Vulcan because he blames Spock for the destruction of his homeworld. It's up to a qualified but sort of rag-tag gang of fresh faced officers to save the universe. So, in other words, it's what you think when you hear the word "Sci Fi".

It's a movie full of amazing adventures, great feats of heroism and bravery, beautiful new worlds and exotic locations (and exotic women), and it even manages to appeal to our best nature. In short, it's pretty much everything you want out of a summer action film.

Still, the story falls short. The villain is actually a very weak character. Unstable mentally, unnecessarily (and hilariously) violent, and is nothing more than somebody who seems to have been greatly misinformed. Perhaps if he had waited to read the newspaper the next day, he would have realized he was mistaken, and the movie would have never happened.

At times, I wondered what the writers were trying to say. A sci fi movie without some sort of statement about society? A grand epic, but nothing more than a vehicle for effects? The movie had enough action, sex, and humor to satisfy everyone else. Can we have just one thing to take home with us?

*** out of ****

Drag Me To Hell

2009-05-19T12:04:00.000-07:00

Sam Raimi is no master of terror. Or at least, I never thought of him as such. I'm going to admit that I'm a fan of his, but the movies that made him famous (Evil Dead, and Evil Dead 2) were stylish, high energy films that lacked the grueling terror they promised us in the taglines. Sam Raimi is, however, a master of spectacle. So, if you want the great spectacle that he gave us in the Spider-Man series, in the Evil Dead Series, or any of his films, you will be entertained. And if you want to grueling terror he promised us so many years ago, you are in for a treat.

If you want an original story, or even an old tale with a few new twists and turns, look elsewhere. Sam Raimi cannot defeat his old archnemesis: Convention. The plot is, well, taken from any number of ghost stories. A good person does something he or she shouldn't, and has a strange gypsy put a curse on them. Remember the book "Thinner" ? This is essentially the same movie, but watchable and likable. A young girl is given a choice: Give an old woman an extension on a loan (who lived on a fixed income when she became sick, so it's not her fault) and do the right thing, or she could deny the loan and impress her boss. What does she do? Well, she makes the choice most likely to piss off the strange old Gypsy woman.

A few action beats later, the young lady (or, if you must know her name, Christine) is seeing her entire life falling apart. Hilarious nosebleeds and hallucinations mixed in with some genuinely frightening scenes make this movie a pretty unrelenting spectacle. It's actually very scary. What is worst of all, you care about this woman. You want are with her every step of the way. She is given several different options to try to life the curse, and she ends up doing shocking, unspeakable things, yet you are with her every step of the way.

Unfortunately, this is where the movie ends. The story wraps up with a cop out ending. You see, they couldn't think of an exciting way to end the movie. They decided that horror movies usually end with on last big scare, and why should this one be any different? Hell, who cares about all the build up anyway? Who cares about the struggle? The credits rolled down the screen, and my I clenched my fist in rage. How dare they get us so involved in a story just to end in the typical horror movie fashion? I cannot explain just why this ending made a great film so terrible without a large spoiler, but you know what? It's in the previews, it's in the commercials, and it's on the goddamn posters.

So what was the point of all that? Several plot points are not followed up on (the precredit sequence is strangely unimportant to the rest of the movie, despite it featuring a spiritualist vowing to destroy the same soul eating creature that's after Christine), and the old Gypsy makes several statements that ended up being nothing but words to creep out the audience, when they were things that should have come up in the third act. Why do we even bother with a movie that doesn't even keeping it's plot points together? Why should we watch a movie that is all build up, but no release? The movie could have still been a great film, had it ended just ten seconds earlier. Now don't get me wrong, I'd still have some of the same complaints. But I would have still recommended this film.

Why can't we have a movie as visually dynamic as this, as terrifying as this, and as funny as this, and have it be at least somewhat original?

** 1/2 out of ****