Change Your Image
steverino171
Reviews
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
I-Max 3-D Potter Disappoints on All Levels
Television director David Yates makes his first foray into cinema with the latest Harry Potter entry and does so with decidedly mediocre results. Although he does show some stylistic restraint at appropriate times, his handling of narrative elements leaves something to be desired. Also, his movie is literally just too dark, which seems to be an unfortunate trend of recent comic book films (Spiderman, Superman, and of course Batman) that pose as serious-minded and penetrating ventures into the human psyche but are actually just as shallow as their predecessors. The darkness of the new HP adds little to the story and is too literal-minded. But more to the point, it is entirely inappropriate for the IMAX DMR 3-D format.
The whole point of IMAX is spectacle. Harry Potter certainly has its share of spectacle, but since Yates directed this film for general theatre distribution, he doesn't take advantage of the IMAX format very well, and he completely wastes the 3-D technology. As mentioned above, this movie's visual darkness makes a giant-screen format futile. What difference does a giant screen make if you can't see anything? What good are giant shadows? Of course I exaggerate, and indeed some well-lit scenes come off very well on IMAX, but when the vast majority of the footage on screen is cast in shadow because of the director's hackneyed attempt at giving the movie a more dramatic look, you just have to scratch your head and wonder why they bothered to use the big screen technology at all.
As for the 3-D technology, in HP it is pointless. For 3-D to be effective a movie needs to be brightly lit with long takes. Choppy editing and dimly lit scenarios don't offer much to the viewer to enjoy. How can you enjoy the depth of the format if most of what you see on screen is darkness? How can you enjoy the eye-popping effects if you're constantly adjusting your eyes to a new shot.
It seems reformatting Harry Potter for IMAX DMR 3-D was an afterthought, and Yates changed little to accommodate the technology. One could hardly blame him, though. Yate's stylistic choices are nothing if not consistent. That he refrained from comprising his vision for an exhibition format only a fraction of the viewers would enjoy is probably commendable. The blame should go to whoever decided to make only the climax in 3-D rather than the entire movie. It's distracting to the viewers and the director. It added so little to the experience and was poorly handled. The 3-D technology they have can be quite effective. But IMAX has to showcase that technology in films that can take advantage of that. Otherwise audiences are just going to be disappointed and they'll leave the theatre not knowing what they're missing.
Ratatouille (2007)
This First Quality Film of the Summer
Brad Bird's "Ratatouille" is a rich, textured film that explores several important themes while sustaining a strong moral core. The lead character, Remy, a rat with ironically refined tastes in matters culinary, embodies the film's adamantly pro-democratic theme of "anyone can cook" while overcoming anxieties about himself and his relationship with the humans of the restaurant that despise him (because he is a rat) or distrust him. Bird handles these matters with care and deliberateness, thus providing a powerful primer for the film's target audience on American democracy and the egalitarian can-do notion at its core.
"Ratatouille's" ideas about democracy revolve around Remy's relationship with humans. As it were humans are a necessity for Remy. He needs them to do what he does best: cook fine cuisine. He needs them to provide the ingredients. He needs them to handle the chores of cooking. He needs them to appreciate the food he creates. Thus, he forms a reluctant partnership with a young kitchen worker named Linguini who can provide a link to the world of fine cuisine and do his culinary buddings. Since their relationship must be kept secret (for obvious reasons), they become close friends, depending on each other for their dreams.
Nevertheless, Remy's relationship with humans is not always so positive. In one particularly revealing scene, Remy's father tries to scare the prodigal rat into returning to the nestwhere he belongs. He brings Remy to a rat extermination shop where several rat corpses are displayed in the front window as advertisement. The scene frightens Remy into seeing that humans are indeed a threat to him and his kind. However, Remy soon sees through his father's intimidating tactics and recognizes that fear is a tool that imprisons us and keeps us from growing (an apt thematic turn considering the current culture of fear our news and broadcast media conveys). Remy refuses to succumb to his father's mistrust of humans and bravely confronts them in order to bring his dream of cooking wonderful foods (of giving something to the world rather than taking) to full fruition. He is an intrepid little rat with the courage to pursue his selfless dream.
What a beautiful message this is. What a wonderful lesson for a child to learn. Unfortunately, "Ratatouille's" box office draw will undoubtedly pale in comparison to Michael Bay's "The Transformers" and its ilk. This is unfortunate. Of course, "The Transformers" serves a purpose too. It initiates its young male audience into the world of consumerism, materialism, chauvinism, and violence. It reminds us that there are terrible threats to our world and they must be conquered through violent action. It also teaches us that young men can and should find contentment in consumption. These are all important parts of American culture as well. So, I guess it's up to you as to which kind of ideals you want your child (and yourself) exposed to. That's the beauty of a democracy I suppose.
Knocked Up (2007)
Funny Bits, But No Classic
The most interesting lesson learned from Judd Apatow's "Knocked Up" is one about the statistics of a tomatometer. The film has scored 91% ripe tomatoes on Rotten Tomatoes, usually an indication that a movie is truly excellent. Films like "The Godfather" or "Casablanca" score 90% or more ripe tomatoes. However, the assumption that a high score guarantees a moving, enlightening cinematic experience is unfounded. What the 90% rating means is that most critics thought the movie was worth seeing, not necessarily that it was a superior film. This seems to be the case for "Knocked Up"a decidedly mediocre yet watchable movie with the good fortune of being wedged between releases of "Spiderman 3" and "The Transformers" and its ilk so that it can cash in on whatever genre elements that separate it from those tiresome actioners. In short, despite its high ratings, critics thought the film was decent (probably because they're tired of watching action movies based on children's' cartoons) but not excellent.
"Knocked Up" is exactly this. This highly formulaic frat-boy romantic comedy has some well drawn moments, but ultimately it's an all quite forgettable tale of boy meets girl, loses girl, grows up, gets girl back. Although, one thing that is not entirely forgettable is the tenuous credibility of the film's premise, which involves a coupling of the most unlikely pair of people, a peculiar glossing over of character motivations (why no abortion?), and an affirmation of traditional family structures and value of conformity worthy of a TV sitcom.
Also, with the exception of a few truly inspired moments, the comedy of "Knocked Up" relies on crude, sophomoric potty humor that has found broad acceptance thanks to films and TV shows such as "American Pie" and "South Park." Although it should be noted that gross-out comedies were just as prominent in the 1980s ("Porky's," "Caddyshack"), which makes their popularity now a bit confounding considering how stale the jokes have become by now. Granted the gags of "Knocked Up" are mostly verbal not graphic and a predicated on the embarrassment of social awkwardness rather than grossness for its own sake. In Apatow's film the characters refer to their antics with frankness, as when they describe how they've managed to pass on pink eye to nearly everyone in the household via flatulence. Fortunately, Apatow spares us an explicit depiction. Unfortunately, either way (verbal or graphic) the gag isn't funny. Certainly some audience members will get a chuckle out of their repartee because they can identify with the characters, situation, and/or the obsession with bodily functions from their own childhood. But the humor in farting on someone's pillow is for 10 year olds. And a movie about a couple dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is for adults. So, although it's not very upsetting that some guys in the audience might see this joke on the screen and reminisce about a more carefree time in their lives, it is disturbing that professional filmmakers, screenwriters, and actors see fit to include such banality in their movies rather than demanding higher standards of wit and insight from each other and themselves. It's troubling to consider how much money these people spent (and how much they've made) making this movie when you they felt the need to include fart jokes in it. I for one could do better. I guess a lot of other people could too.
But perhaps most confounding of all is the few moments of wit and satire that make the film worth seeing: why didn't the makers insist on being clever throughout the movie. For example, in an interview with her boss Katherine Heigl's character is promoted to on-camera interviewer to the consternation of one of her female colleague. Her pointed off-hand mumblings ("Yeah, I was so surprised too.") are precious, as are her boss's gentle but persistent suggestions about "tightening up." Scenes like these, which are too few and far between in a two hour plus comedy, make this a decent, watchable movie. But, don't be fooled by all those shiny red tomatoes. It's no "Casablanca."
The Departed (2006)
Humor and Playful Touch Save Scorcese's Latest from Tedium
As an English teacher, whenever I had students write short stories in class the boys would always end them the exact same way: total mayhem where everyone gets killed. There is something juvenile about killing off all of your characters to tie up a film. Scorcese is known for that; in fact, you could say it's his signature. From Taxi Driver to Goodfellas, his film's resolve themselves in explosions of violence. Just like my fifteen year old students' stories. But my students worked under time constraints (50 minutes), they were writing in a foreign language, and they're fifteen. For a professional filmmaker such a hackneyed means of tying up a story demonstrates an unfortunate dearth of creativity. Nevertheless, The Departed's script, some fine performances, and some restrained direction from Scorcese distinguishes the auteur's latest cops and gangsters film from the myriad others he's directed.
Scorcese certainly lacks subtlety. And he holds steadfast to familiar themes: organized crime, pervasive corruption, anti-social hypermachismo, and of course, purgation through violence. The Departed certainly has all that. It revolves around an undercover cop who's infiltrated organized crime in Boston, and a mole for organized crime entrenched in the state police department. While the police probe their own department to find the mole, the Irish gangsters try to smoke out the rat among them. The dialogue is a Mametian pitter-patter of obscenities and insults spewed forth like high school poseurs trying to impress upperclassmen. It's all tough talk. Until all the tension and wrath culminate in a fiasco of gunfire and instantaneous death (I've never seen so many clean shots to the head before).
Still, the dialoguebut not the story, with its gut-wrenching yet trite endingis the film's saving grace. The Departed's all-star cast fire off snappy one-liners like rounds from their Kalashnikov's. "Who am I? I'm the guy who does his job. You must be the other one" barks Mark Walburgh to an impudent but incompetent video technician. When Vera Farmiga tries to give a flirtatious Matt Damon her business card so they can meet for lunch, Damon's smart-ass reply is "No thanks. I'll find you. I'm a detective. Just kidding. I need the card." In spite of all of the mayhem and macho posturing, the film has a breezy sense of humor that eases the tension. And to his credit, Scorcese handles it well. Unlike his previous two efforts, The Departed never gets too heavy-handed or brooding. Also, certain much-needed playfulness in the performances keeps the movie flowing smoothly. Thankfully, Scorcese doesn't indulge in any forehead grasping moodiness that might've halted the show dead in its tracks. He gamely keeps the tension and humor brisk throughout.
And the performances of the all-star cast are nuanced and subtle. In a nice touch while Farminga keeps the pahk the cah on hahvahd yahd accent under leash for most scenes, she lets it loose when she gets emotional. And still more credit goes to screenwriter William Monohan for drawing distinctly similar yet discrete characters.
The film could just use a more interesting, perhaps less bloody ending. If he had that, it could've been one of Scorcese's more distinguishable films. Instead, it's just a furiously entertaining one.
Executive Decision (1996)
Paint-by-the-Numbers Thriller, But Baird Knows How to Stay in the Lines
Executive Decision is a purely paint-by-the-numbers techno-thriller. The script and direction are entirely pre-determined by genre convention. And, like the paint-by-the-numbers paintings it emulates, the end result is a rather plain and unenlightening picture. But director Stuart Baird and his screenwriters deserve credit for knowing how to paint within the lines. They deliver a taut thriller far better than its reputation.
Every element of the script diligently adheres to genre conventionor subgenre convention as the case may be. ED's story pilfers its premise straight from Die Hard's infinitely serviceable storyline about a man (in this case men) trapped in a confined space with a gang of ruthless terrorists and their hostages. Still, in many ways ED outstrips its predecessor. Die Hard's script tended to be loose and unwieldy with a few too many tenuously connected story elements (e.g. the nosy reporter bit went on too long). ED, on the other hand, is as tight as any thriller out there. With the exception of the first two scenes, which do little but introduce Steven Segal's and Kurt Russell's characters, there is barely a line of dialogue that does not move the story forward. Some dialogue even lends us a bit of a character development as a bonusbut who needs characterization anyway. And the screenwriters deftly elevate tension by mounting complication on complication, maximizing the premise's potential for suspense. The plot structure of ED is essentially a model of how to construct a screenplay for a techno-thriller.
Not unlike the script, Baird's direction is pedestrian, but it is also unobtrusive. Even in the mid 90's, when this film was made, Michael Bay-style movie making (quickcuts, shaky hand-held cameras) was in vogue. But none of that baffling visual mish-mash in ED. The action is clear and coherent, complete with a now quaint fetishizing of military technology funded by the Reagan/Bush administration. Make no mistake, this film's right-wing jingoism seeps from its marrow; but, its racism (or perhaps religionism) is not nearly as egregious as some critics assume. Instead of the hodgepodge of Euro-terrorists in Die Hard, ED capitalizes on nascent fears of Islamic fundamentalism in the 1990's. It does not portray Middle Easterners (well, Muslims) in a flattering light, but neither does the nightly news. How can you blame the movie makers for working off real-world events.
Regardless, Baird and the scriptwriters refrain from making haphazard attempts at stretching the genre past its natural limits. Indeed all of the characters, not just the Islamic terrorists, are cardboard cutouts in service of the plot. Still, too often recent directors have taken such a heavy-handed approach to movies that should fit snugly in the action-adventure or comic book hero genres. Superman Returns (2006) and Batman Begins (2005) are notable examples. Both movies are far too seriousSuperman with its hackneyed religious motif and Batman with its brooding, moody too-decent-to-be-an-anti-hero hero. But, ED plays it straight. There are no tortured heroes, only a guy in a difficult situation who must overcome personal anxieties to prove themselves worthy to the team. Banal? Yes. But never strained.
Spoiler!
The movie does have one surprisean entirely welcome one in that. You have to admire any script that kills off one of its lead characters (played by an international superstar no less) in the first act. That's all the surprise a movie like this needs. Beyond that, it should stick to the genre and be an efficient thrill machine, not unlike the efficient machines the film fetishizes. ED is exactly that kind of machine.