Year: 2009
Director: Brad Silberling
Screenplay: Chris Henchy, Dennis McNicholas
Starring: Will Farrell, Anna Friel, Danny McBride
Land of the lost is so bad I went home and tried to pour mouthwash in my ears to try and cleanse my brain and erase my mind of its existence. Here is a film so naff that it annoyed me that the filmmakers spent so much money in making the film look so cheap. I won't bad mouth the effects a such because they are meant to look hokey. However at one point a dinosaurs arm goes right through Danny McBride's head. There's cheap and then there's damn lazy.
In fact when thinking about the movie again (mouthwash didn't work) the entire enterprise screams of a definite lack of trying. It's almost as if some switched on a camera and waiting for something funny to fall out of Will Farrell's mouth. Said camera must have been on for a long time because he says hardly anything of note here.
For me the best comic improvisation stems from having a amusing moment enhanced by the actor placing something unexpected upon it. Be it a look, a small line or some other inflection, the joke was already in place, the actor (or even the director) has merely built upon it. Land of the lost doesn't have any truly comic moments of note, so when Danny McBride and Will Farrell start to improvise, it's painfully obvious, to add to this, what they come up with is unbelievably bland with nothing to back it up.
It's obvious that this film will mean a hell of a lot more to those who were fans of the show (not me personally) but similar films out there (See: Galaxy Quest) know how to balance the films tone so that it respects the cult status of what it's making light of (In GQ's case Star Trek) but doesn't lose those who "don't get it". Here we are given crude jokes within an flavourless family adventure. To make things worse the jokes aren't even written particularly well, everything seems to rely on Farrell making something up on the spot with none of the "stylish" crassness that made Anchorman and Talladega Nights so amusing to me.
Usually I feel I'm the only person who these pompous thoughts, but no. A quick glance around the cinema and hardly a titter (except for the family next to me). I won't lie to you and say I didn't laugh at all, but the fact it didn't even reach double figures and is a "comedy" certainly says something.
It's not like director Brad Silberling hasn't done right with me before. I thoroughly enjoyed what he did with Lemony Snickets: A Series of Unfortunate Events and I didn't mind Casper when I was younger. I think the problem I have here is source material. It seems like the idea of going "all out" with a parody these days is merely smattering the words shit and fuck into sentences. Although it is hard to fall in love with "homages" like this. Case in point I have no problem with the Brady Bunch movie but that may be because it doesn't feel like a lengthened SNL skit.
From an actors point of view, if you like Will Farrell you won't give a damn what I'm telling you but quite simply, he doesn't work in this film. In fact it seems that he has trouble figuring out on whether he's the straight man or not and his performance is uneven. Danny McBride is in a land of limbo; both with me and his state within the film, while Anna Friel is spunky but underused, however those hot pants...well played costume design.
I won't say anymore about Land of the lost because there's not much else to say about it. It's a dry, flat movie which believes that sporadic laughs are the way forward in comedy believes it can rely on only it's vague premise to succeed. Ces't la vie.
Monday, 3 August 2009
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Review: The Taking of Pelham 123
Year: 2009
Director: Tony Scott
Screenplay:Brian Helgelhand
Starring: Denziel Washington, John Travolta,
I didn't even know there was an original Pelham film until it was mentioned by a slightly older friend of mine when we saw the trailer for the remake during a recent film screening. Because of this I have not yet seen the original film and so will not make much mention of it. However I will say that Hollywood prays on this kind of ignorance, and so a big budget remake has been made.
Was it worth the money? Maybe to the odd teenager or so. Pelham has an above average imdb rating at this moment in time and it currently has a fresher % rating than some of the larger event movies of the summer. However Pelham is so uneven it becomes frustrating, The first half of the movie is entertaining, the second, bland and uninteresting. Denziel Washington is (as always) watchable, while Travolta makes Megan Fox look like an Oscar winner. The film is constantly at odds with itself and because of this it becomes merely passable.
Compered to some of the more scathing reviews of Pelham, I did manage to take some good out of it. For one I loved the dialogue, there's some quick witted one liners that made me crack a smile or two. In fact much of the dialogue distracted me from some of the more dubious elements of the screenplay but more on that later.
To add to this, Scott's direction during the first half of the film (when the film runs of a deadline) has a taut build up which reminds me of earlier Tony Scott movies, but it is in saying this which presents one of the films main problems. The film only works when it slows down. When Scott scraps the MTV crap that he has suddenly decided to hold dear since 2004 (although it did work with Man on Fire) the movie becomes....a movie. With so many people baying for Micheal Mann's blood for the digital work on Public Enemies (many stating that it's "not a movie") They should really take a closer look at the haphazard cutting that is going on in Tony Scott's movies since Domino, because some of this shit is horrid and the second half of this movie is no exception. Mann went for realism while Scott's gone of incomprehensible......I know which one I'd pick.
So when the film allows to hold a shot for a couple of seconds on the workman-like performances John Turturro and Denziel Washington, it doesn't bore. We've seen both in better films with better roles an average performance from these two is still a million times better than a good one from say Haydren Christensen (is there one?).
However, remember what I said about uneven? Well two ok displays by Washington and Turturro are almost cancelled out by a ball breaking, jaw-clenching, downright shocking performance by John Travolta. The question isn't is it bad rather, it's how bad is it? the answer: extraordinarily. Travolta's role is nothing more than overacted, Flem spitting rants which did nothing but take me out of the film. None of what he does fits his character (although the screenplay never gets the villain right in the first place) and his interaction with Washington is piss poor. Travolta performance is so bad it sucks the tension of when he and Washington actually meet. That's right friends the hip shaker from Grease is nothing more than a charisma vacuum in this film. Sorry John but Pulp Fiction was quite a while ago now.
This finally brings me to the screenplay, which has crackling dialogue but a plot which lapses in basic common sense far too often. The plot relies on stupid coincidences to push the story on, the aforementioned antagonist is completely wrong for the film (for a man planning something like this, why does he have no composure at all?) while Scott hyper-active direction tries to hide the fact that the films climax is lackluster.
All in all, this Pelham remake is nothing more than a vanilla film. A plain Jane, whose wearing too much lipstick to make up for the fact that no ones asked her to dance. Once again I am disappointed and strangely relieved that I own a lot of Scott's better work on DVD. They're trashy alright, but a damn sight more rewatchable than this one night rental.
Listen to the podcast here
Director: Tony Scott
Screenplay:Brian Helgelhand
Starring: Denziel Washington, John Travolta,
I didn't even know there was an original Pelham film until it was mentioned by a slightly older friend of mine when we saw the trailer for the remake during a recent film screening. Because of this I have not yet seen the original film and so will not make much mention of it. However I will say that Hollywood prays on this kind of ignorance, and so a big budget remake has been made.
Was it worth the money? Maybe to the odd teenager or so. Pelham has an above average imdb rating at this moment in time and it currently has a fresher % rating than some of the larger event movies of the summer. However Pelham is so uneven it becomes frustrating, The first half of the movie is entertaining, the second, bland and uninteresting. Denziel Washington is (as always) watchable, while Travolta makes Megan Fox look like an Oscar winner. The film is constantly at odds with itself and because of this it becomes merely passable.
Compered to some of the more scathing reviews of Pelham, I did manage to take some good out of it. For one I loved the dialogue, there's some quick witted one liners that made me crack a smile or two. In fact much of the dialogue distracted me from some of the more dubious elements of the screenplay but more on that later.
To add to this, Scott's direction during the first half of the film (when the film runs of a deadline) has a taut build up which reminds me of earlier Tony Scott movies, but it is in saying this which presents one of the films main problems. The film only works when it slows down. When Scott scraps the MTV crap that he has suddenly decided to hold dear since 2004 (although it did work with Man on Fire) the movie becomes....a movie. With so many people baying for Micheal Mann's blood for the digital work on Public Enemies (many stating that it's "not a movie") They should really take a closer look at the haphazard cutting that is going on in Tony Scott's movies since Domino, because some of this shit is horrid and the second half of this movie is no exception. Mann went for realism while Scott's gone of incomprehensible......I know which one I'd pick.
So when the film allows to hold a shot for a couple of seconds on the workman-like performances John Turturro and Denziel Washington, it doesn't bore. We've seen both in better films with better roles an average performance from these two is still a million times better than a good one from say Haydren Christensen (is there one?).
However, remember what I said about uneven? Well two ok displays by Washington and Turturro are almost cancelled out by a ball breaking, jaw-clenching, downright shocking performance by John Travolta. The question isn't is it bad rather, it's how bad is it? the answer: extraordinarily. Travolta's role is nothing more than overacted, Flem spitting rants which did nothing but take me out of the film. None of what he does fits his character (although the screenplay never gets the villain right in the first place) and his interaction with Washington is piss poor. Travolta performance is so bad it sucks the tension of when he and Washington actually meet. That's right friends the hip shaker from Grease is nothing more than a charisma vacuum in this film. Sorry John but Pulp Fiction was quite a while ago now.
This finally brings me to the screenplay, which has crackling dialogue but a plot which lapses in basic common sense far too often. The plot relies on stupid coincidences to push the story on, the aforementioned antagonist is completely wrong for the film (for a man planning something like this, why does he have no composure at all?) while Scott hyper-active direction tries to hide the fact that the films climax is lackluster.
All in all, this Pelham remake is nothing more than a vanilla film. A plain Jane, whose wearing too much lipstick to make up for the fact that no ones asked her to dance. Once again I am disappointed and strangely relieved that I own a lot of Scott's better work on DVD. They're trashy alright, but a damn sight more rewatchable than this one night rental.
Listen to the podcast here
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Review: Nick and Norah's Infinate Playlist
Year: 2008 (U.K release: 2009)
Director: Peter Sollett
Screenplay: Lorene Scafaria
Starring: Michael Cera, Kat Dennings
Much like this year's Observe and Report, I enjoyed Nick and Norah Infinite Playlist (or NNIP as it will now be called) as it struck a cord with me. It hit that deep rooted awkwardness that I repress within me deep down to the pit of my stomach. It's my kinda date movie: it doesn't preach, doesn't act too cool for school (despite the wannabe hip soundtrack), and like it's characters, the movie is just out for the ride.
One of my favorite reviewers James Berardinelli mentions that NNIP reminded him of the Richard Linklater's mid 90's hit Before Sunrise. I happened to check out Linklater's film a night before this one and I must disagree. Linklater's film is very much a slice of life piece while NNIP tries it's best to stick rigidly to a conventional three act structure. This is the film's weakness as it runs out of stream a little way under the second act. In fact I thought the film had finished early as both characters had appeared to wrap up all the outer conflict surrounding them quite swiftly. If NNIP had borrowed more of Linklater's freewheeling style then the films end would have been a lot stronger.
But like the aforementioned Before Sunrise, what NNIP has is two engrossing leads which pulled me though the films weaker moments. Nick and Norah are not only characters that are finding things out for themselves (unlike many of their idiot rom-com counterparts) but are entertaining to boot. Michael Cera and Kat Denning seem so naturally down to earth throughout it's hard not to like them. They remind me of John Hughes characters: introverted and yet accessible (let's leave Ferris out of this). Both are caught in that insecure little bubble that teens are nearly always in. Don't try and place them in the Juno crowd, they're not as self aware and sassy and because of that the two feel more like real teenagers (don't get me wrong however as I really liked Juno).
The interaction of the couple help push the unoriginal story forward and keep the engery up for as long as they can. The support also helps things with Aaron Yoo, Rafi Gavron and Jonathan B Wright playing a trio of gay guys who are amusing but do not irritate with overacted cliched campness. To add to this we are also given Ari Graynor who plays Norah's drunken friend Caroline. It's a role that made me laugh out loud often, mostly because I know drunks like that. It's a role played at just the right pitch with lines that sometimes sound too perfect to be scripted.
The last performance of note is that of Alexis Diziena, who plays Nick's superbitch ex-girlfriend. I skimmed a review which found a character like that far too exaggerated and wouldn't even look at a character like Nick. That reviewer was lucky enough not to go the same school and colleges that I went to because I saw girls who would be that kind of girl. Yes she's a a private school girl, but she clearly hasn't a car of her own and Nick seems the easily suggestible type whose IN A BAND. Material girls are still everywhere you look...believe me. Diziena plays the role adequately although in the last few months I've been spoilt with stronger mean girlfriend performances such as Kirsten Stewart in Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008).
While the film's pace is slightly off, director Peter Sollett manages to keep the tone light throughout. The same goes for the script which isn't as sharp as brighter teen comedies but still has some sparkling moments. I couldn't help but smile at some of the lines which could sound cheesy to some but reek of that youthful nativity I used to have, I blame the break ups.
I'm finding myself becoming even more intolerant to rom-coms, not only due to their lack of trying but their lack of sincerity. NNIP isn't going to be remembered as the romance of the decade but I'd rather the next generation set their eyes on little movies like this compared to the dubious sexual politics of Twilight or the horrid materialistic values of Sex in the city. It's not going to hit my top ten list but I can easily see myself watching this again with the girlfriend on a lazy Sunday, and that's not a bad thing.
Director: Peter Sollett
Screenplay: Lorene Scafaria
Starring: Michael Cera, Kat Dennings
Much like this year's Observe and Report, I enjoyed Nick and Norah Infinite Playlist (or NNIP as it will now be called) as it struck a cord with me. It hit that deep rooted awkwardness that I repress within me deep down to the pit of my stomach. It's my kinda date movie: it doesn't preach, doesn't act too cool for school (despite the wannabe hip soundtrack), and like it's characters, the movie is just out for the ride.
One of my favorite reviewers James Berardinelli mentions that NNIP reminded him of the Richard Linklater's mid 90's hit Before Sunrise. I happened to check out Linklater's film a night before this one and I must disagree. Linklater's film is very much a slice of life piece while NNIP tries it's best to stick rigidly to a conventional three act structure. This is the film's weakness as it runs out of stream a little way under the second act. In fact I thought the film had finished early as both characters had appeared to wrap up all the outer conflict surrounding them quite swiftly. If NNIP had borrowed more of Linklater's freewheeling style then the films end would have been a lot stronger.
But like the aforementioned Before Sunrise, what NNIP has is two engrossing leads which pulled me though the films weaker moments. Nick and Norah are not only characters that are finding things out for themselves (unlike many of their idiot rom-com counterparts) but are entertaining to boot. Michael Cera and Kat Denning seem so naturally down to earth throughout it's hard not to like them. They remind me of John Hughes characters: introverted and yet accessible (let's leave Ferris out of this). Both are caught in that insecure little bubble that teens are nearly always in. Don't try and place them in the Juno crowd, they're not as self aware and sassy and because of that the two feel more like real teenagers (don't get me wrong however as I really liked Juno).
The interaction of the couple help push the unoriginal story forward and keep the engery up for as long as they can. The support also helps things with Aaron Yoo, Rafi Gavron and Jonathan B Wright playing a trio of gay guys who are amusing but do not irritate with overacted cliched campness. To add to this we are also given Ari Graynor who plays Norah's drunken friend Caroline. It's a role that made me laugh out loud often, mostly because I know drunks like that. It's a role played at just the right pitch with lines that sometimes sound too perfect to be scripted.
The last performance of note is that of Alexis Diziena, who plays Nick's superbitch ex-girlfriend. I skimmed a review which found a character like that far too exaggerated and wouldn't even look at a character like Nick. That reviewer was lucky enough not to go the same school and colleges that I went to because I saw girls who would be that kind of girl. Yes she's a a private school girl, but she clearly hasn't a car of her own and Nick seems the easily suggestible type whose IN A BAND. Material girls are still everywhere you look...believe me. Diziena plays the role adequately although in the last few months I've been spoilt with stronger mean girlfriend performances such as Kirsten Stewart in Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008).
While the film's pace is slightly off, director Peter Sollett manages to keep the tone light throughout. The same goes for the script which isn't as sharp as brighter teen comedies but still has some sparkling moments. I couldn't help but smile at some of the lines which could sound cheesy to some but reek of that youthful nativity I used to have, I blame the break ups.
I'm finding myself becoming even more intolerant to rom-coms, not only due to their lack of trying but their lack of sincerity. NNIP isn't going to be remembered as the romance of the decade but I'd rather the next generation set their eyes on little movies like this compared to the dubious sexual politics of Twilight or the horrid materialistic values of Sex in the city. It's not going to hit my top ten list but I can easily see myself watching this again with the girlfriend on a lazy Sunday, and that's not a bad thing.
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Review: He's just not that into you.
Year: 2009
Director: Ken Kwapis
Screenplay: Abby Kohn & Marc Silverstein
Starring: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Connelly, Scarlett Johansson, Drew Barrymore, Ben Affleck, Bradley Cooper, Justin Long, Kevin Connolly, Kris Kristofferson
He's just not that into you is based on a non-fictional self-help book, however by the end of the film I swear the books title must have been the big book of fairy tales. I've seen Friends of mine have checked this film out and sworn the valid oath of truth upon it. Hell, my girlfriend didn't want me to watch it due to the fact that "it shows why women are all crazy".
Some the film brings up some interesting points of dating and relationships that could spark some fun debate (One character sums up some aspects of the young female thought process that ring very true. However, the film can't help but leave one foot lodged in a dream world. The worst thing is, it believes that the audience should believe it too. This is a film which states that women are conditioned to be nuts, but that's fine, because as long as they believe that life will fit into a neat little package...it will happen.
As a romantic comedy, it fails because it's not as funny as it should be. It fairs better as a romantic drama but loses it's way near the end as it believes that even unjustified moments of closure should be possible. It's irritating when a character believes in something strongly throughout a film, only to give up their belief because of some unnatural reason, or when a character gets a magical fairytale ending which just doesn't ring true but this film has them.
This is probably due to the huge amount of characters the film has to spend time with. Ensemble pieces are always tricky beasts and unfortunately director Ken Kwapis buckles under the pressure. So many characters, so many noticeable faces but so little focus, it's no surprise that the best narrative strands are the ones which have a little more time to breathe. With this said, even with so much going on, the screenplay is fully on point with a few aspects of the modern dating. The film touches on modern communication destroying the simple art of courting and even takes the slightest of glances at the idea of non married couples living happily together. Unfortunately any true insight is ignored in order to stay away from "troublesome" grey areas.
Surprisingly the stories that work well don't have the best performances in them. Ginnifer Goodwin is wonderfully sweet as the luckless wonder of love, while Justin Long is slowly building himself to be a reliable character actor as is Kevin Connolly (despite the role is just him being E) . Others aren't so lucky; Bradley Cooper is plain, Jennifer Anstion's only good film role is still The Good Girl, Scarlett Johanssonis woefully miscast, while Jennifer Connelly just needed more to do. Drew Barrymore, Luiz Guzman and Kris Kristofferson are also in this, but for no other reasons other than fill space*.
He's just not that into you is a weak entry into a very packed genre of movie. I can understand why my girlfriend didn't want me to see this as it did still show females as the bizarre enigma they are. It's a shame it did nothing to help me understand them anymore than usual. She should have stopped me from watching it however as it does have Scarlett Johansson looking stunning so I guess there a small piece of cash back.
*Note: Notice i didn't mention Ben Affleck in this? That's because it's Ben Affleck....take that how you will.
Director: Ken Kwapis
Screenplay: Abby Kohn & Marc Silverstein
Starring: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Connelly, Scarlett Johansson, Drew Barrymore, Ben Affleck, Bradley Cooper, Justin Long, Kevin Connolly, Kris Kristofferson
He's just not that into you is based on a non-fictional self-help book, however by the end of the film I swear the books title must have been the big book of fairy tales. I've seen Friends of mine have checked this film out and sworn the valid oath of truth upon it. Hell, my girlfriend didn't want me to watch it due to the fact that "it shows why women are all crazy".
Some the film brings up some interesting points of dating and relationships that could spark some fun debate (One character sums up some aspects of the young female thought process that ring very true. However, the film can't help but leave one foot lodged in a dream world. The worst thing is, it believes that the audience should believe it too. This is a film which states that women are conditioned to be nuts, but that's fine, because as long as they believe that life will fit into a neat little package...it will happen.
As a romantic comedy, it fails because it's not as funny as it should be. It fairs better as a romantic drama but loses it's way near the end as it believes that even unjustified moments of closure should be possible. It's irritating when a character believes in something strongly throughout a film, only to give up their belief because of some unnatural reason, or when a character gets a magical fairytale ending which just doesn't ring true but this film has them.
This is probably due to the huge amount of characters the film has to spend time with. Ensemble pieces are always tricky beasts and unfortunately director Ken Kwapis buckles under the pressure. So many characters, so many noticeable faces but so little focus, it's no surprise that the best narrative strands are the ones which have a little more time to breathe. With this said, even with so much going on, the screenplay is fully on point with a few aspects of the modern dating. The film touches on modern communication destroying the simple art of courting and even takes the slightest of glances at the idea of non married couples living happily together. Unfortunately any true insight is ignored in order to stay away from "troublesome" grey areas.
Surprisingly the stories that work well don't have the best performances in them. Ginnifer Goodwin is wonderfully sweet as the luckless wonder of love, while Justin Long is slowly building himself to be a reliable character actor as is Kevin Connolly (despite the role is just him being E) . Others aren't so lucky; Bradley Cooper is plain, Jennifer Anstion's only good film role is still The Good Girl, Scarlett Johanssonis woefully miscast, while Jennifer Connelly just needed more to do. Drew Barrymore, Luiz Guzman and Kris Kristofferson are also in this, but for no other reasons other than fill space*.
He's just not that into you is a weak entry into a very packed genre of movie. I can understand why my girlfriend didn't want me to see this as it did still show females as the bizarre enigma they are. It's a shame it did nothing to help me understand them anymore than usual. She should have stopped me from watching it however as it does have Scarlett Johansson looking stunning so I guess there a small piece of cash back.
*Note: Notice i didn't mention Ben Affleck in this? That's because it's Ben Affleck....take that how you will.
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Review: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Year: 2009
Director: David Yates
Screenplay: Steve Kloves
Starring: You should all know by now.
I've never been surprised that middle England loves Harry Potter. To me Rowling's Saga is full of so much pompous elitism that if you were to replace the word magic with money in the books and you'd have a public school love in that would have Enid Blyton dibbling with approval. I unfortunately have not enjoyed them. I've found Potter to be quite dull. OMG!1111!! BLASPHEMY I hear someone cry. Not really. I just don't share the same opinion as others, and before anyone comments about how my OPINION is wrong, at least I tried to get into these books (many times) unlike others who derided it without reading a page (and there's many who do that).
So it's nice to watch something like HP6 (I am not writing bloody half blood prince every time) and enjoying the affair for the most part. I've got issues with it but it's a solid family film with an actual plot (take THAT revenge of the fallen) and some well crafted moments.
I'll start with the good then shall I? One of my main problems I've had in the past is that Potter himself to be a very empty vessel. Hailed as this chosen child, the charmless weed seems to merely ride his luck though everything that happens to him. Daniel Radcliffe's wooden performances have never helped change my view of this and I've just never got on with why this puppet is so special. HP6 changes that by giving him a stronger dramatic arc i had to wait until the end of the film but it's finally there. I'm now more interested in where they will take the Harry in the final film and here's why:
The film's pivotal moment which has been changed from the book. I'm sure there's only like 5 people that don't know what happens but I will respect people by not mentioning the event. Knowing what happens in the book and seeing what happens here as strengthens the arc for me given me something to grab on to and that is guilt. It's given him that little bit of drive that a cynical bastard like me can work with.
But it's not only the improvement of the character I liked, it was also the improvement of the young performances. With the main cast growing up and moving on to other projects, their displays are not as stiff. There's still a lot of awkwardness but now it's are combined with some nice understated moments which work. Because these polished touches I'm not just waiting for the old guard actors to get on screen and show them how it's done. I watching because I'm invested in what happens. I can't say that for other adaptations (here's looking at you Twilight).
Like the other movies, HP6 is visually interesting and Yate directs some involving set pieces, including a stunning cornfield sequence which to me is one of the best moments in all this years summer blockbusters. Due to the huge amount of plot (and teen angst) the film struggles in terms of pacing but even the films drier moments are watchable.
Of course being the arsehole I am, I can't like everything and HP6 doesn't escape my inane criticism. The films romantic sub-plots are hit and miss, and at certain points the angst is so unbelievably vomit inducing that I was quite happy I was near the aisle. Harry potter will also never get rid of that elitist superiority complex that had turned me off many of the other entries (if you didn't/don't go to Private school then your not special), however, in a lackluster summer blockbuster season, HP6 could have been a hell a lot worse.
Note: Another quidditch game? You gotta be fucking kidding me.
Listen to the podcast review here
Director: David Yates
Screenplay: Steve Kloves
Starring: You should all know by now.
I've never been surprised that middle England loves Harry Potter. To me Rowling's Saga is full of so much pompous elitism that if you were to replace the word magic with money in the books and you'd have a public school love in that would have Enid Blyton dibbling with approval. I unfortunately have not enjoyed them. I've found Potter to be quite dull. OMG!1111!! BLASPHEMY I hear someone cry. Not really. I just don't share the same opinion as others, and before anyone comments about how my OPINION is wrong, at least I tried to get into these books (many times) unlike others who derided it without reading a page (and there's many who do that).
So it's nice to watch something like HP6 (I am not writing bloody half blood prince every time) and enjoying the affair for the most part. I've got issues with it but it's a solid family film with an actual plot (take THAT revenge of the fallen) and some well crafted moments.
I'll start with the good then shall I? One of my main problems I've had in the past is that Potter himself to be a very empty vessel. Hailed as this chosen child, the charmless weed seems to merely ride his luck though everything that happens to him. Daniel Radcliffe's wooden performances have never helped change my view of this and I've just never got on with why this puppet is so special. HP6 changes that by giving him a stronger dramatic arc i had to wait until the end of the film but it's finally there. I'm now more interested in where they will take the Harry in the final film and here's why:
The film's pivotal moment which has been changed from the book. I'm sure there's only like 5 people that don't know what happens but I will respect people by not mentioning the event. Knowing what happens in the book and seeing what happens here as strengthens the arc for me given me something to grab on to and that is guilt. It's given him that little bit of drive that a cynical bastard like me can work with.
But it's not only the improvement of the character I liked, it was also the improvement of the young performances. With the main cast growing up and moving on to other projects, their displays are not as stiff. There's still a lot of awkwardness but now it's are combined with some nice understated moments which work. Because these polished touches I'm not just waiting for the old guard actors to get on screen and show them how it's done. I watching because I'm invested in what happens. I can't say that for other adaptations (here's looking at you Twilight).
Like the other movies, HP6 is visually interesting and Yate directs some involving set pieces, including a stunning cornfield sequence which to me is one of the best moments in all this years summer blockbusters. Due to the huge amount of plot (and teen angst) the film struggles in terms of pacing but even the films drier moments are watchable.
Of course being the arsehole I am, I can't like everything and HP6 doesn't escape my inane criticism. The films romantic sub-plots are hit and miss, and at certain points the angst is so unbelievably vomit inducing that I was quite happy I was near the aisle. Harry potter will also never get rid of that elitist superiority complex that had turned me off many of the other entries (if you didn't/don't go to Private school then your not special), however, in a lackluster summer blockbuster season, HP6 could have been a hell a lot worse.
Note: Another quidditch game? You gotta be fucking kidding me.
Listen to the podcast review here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)