Blu Ray Review - "The Next Three Days"

in ,

What begins as an average weekday morning for John Brennan (Russell Crowe) suddenly changes dramatically when police officers burst into his house and arrest his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks). Accused of murdering her boss, Lara's trial and subsequent appeals go quickly against her and it becomes apparent that she will spend the next 25 years in jail. This is too much for John, a community college professor, to handle and as his desperation sinks in, he begins to plot a jail break. He speaks with Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson), a prison break expert of sorts who puts John on the "right" track. During his visits to see Lara at the county jail, John begins formulating his plan with extreme caution until his hand is forced by the news that his wife will be moved to a larger facility in only three days time.

"The Next Three Days" is half a great movie. The twists and turns that take place throughout the final act are exciting and tense and the fact that most of the action is done through the use of good old fashioned stunts rather than CGI is a plus in my book. The ideas that John comes up, both to execute his plan and to avoid being caught afterward, are often fresh and unique which is always a tricky task to pull off in a prison break film. And I really enjoyed the fact that the question of whether or not Lara is guilty doesn't get settled until late into the film. That last aspect creates a very different atmosphere from the traditional prison break narrative because it asks the audience to trust that the hero, John, is correct in believing that his wife is innocent when all the evidence says otherwise.

The other half of "The Next Three Days", however, would have trouble getting ratings on a Sunday night during the summer. The "keep the audience guessing" motto is taken far too seriously in the early going as the movie jumps from scene to scene, creating a horribly choppy experience that begs for editing. There is no flow to the first two acts and I actually had to rewind twice to properly put together what had just happened. "Days" plays out like a film that was cut down to fit a 100 minute runtime yet it stretches on and on for well over two hours. It is also surprisingly boring in places. I think writer/director Paul Haggis tried to make this film an homage to the slow-but-intense thrillers of the 60s and 70s but instead it just plays out like a bit of a knockoff, at least through the first two acts. Beyond the choppy story telling, the real culprit for this dullness is the absolute lack of compelling characters. Both of the Brennans, their child, John's parents, the cops, the lady that John becomes friends with, etc. are robotic, dreadfully boring people that I didn't care about one bit. In truth, there are no characters in "The Next Three Days", only character types, robotic roles in the story that never really touch on humanism. Only Liam Neeson's career criminal has any sort of depth and he's in the movie for five minutes.

Basically, Haggis puts the final dynamic act and some genuinely well-thought-out concepts up against a poorly edited story and characters that are fundamentally disconnected from the audience and hopes you won't notice the holes. Immediately after seeing "Three Days" I was fairly positive about the finished product because I really did enjoy the final 30 minutes. But the more I thought about it and the further out from my viewing that I got, the more the holes bothered me. It's a frustrating movie, really, because I can't stand when good concepts are wasted on films that don't warrant them. If you come across "The Next Three Days" on HBO and can skip directly to the final 30 minutes, it's worth a viewing, but otherwise I can't say that I'd ever want to see this film again.

Grade: C+

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II"

in ,

As I sat down for my midnight showing of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II”, I was struck by the realization that never again would I bear witness to a new entry into the “Potter” canon. 1050 minutes of film, 4100 pages of reading, a dozen or so beloved character deaths, approximately 100 trillion worldwide blog posts, and at least 30, “I’m not crying, I just have allergies that happen to only pop up when I watch these films or read these books” moments from this guy led to the final chapter of an incredible saga that amazingly felt much shorter than I would have liked. I could easily have taken on another three or four films and a dozen more books if JK Rowling had desired to extend the series. Harry Potter has been a part of my life for 10 years now with six of those years counting toward a type of total, all-encompassing devotion that is usually reserved for religious zealots and Trekkies. To know when the lights go down that, as the promotional posters read, “It All Ends” in just two short hours is an odd sensation; a mix of excitement for the story to be brought to life and of sadness that I won’t be sitting in this same seat a year from now, ready for the next chapter. After it’s all said and done, I’m left with the task of summing up a worldwide phenomenon in a thousand words or less and knowing that I could never do it justice. With that in mind, I ask for the forgiveness of non-Potter fans for the foolish blathering that is about to take place and from fellow Potterites for what will surely be an unfitting send off for the series that we have loved so much. Accio review.

“Deathly Hallows 2” literally opens right where “Part 1” left off with Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) staying at the home of Bill and Fleur Weasley. Their time is spent plotting their next step on the road to finding and destroying all of Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) Horcruxes, thereby making him mortal once more. (For the uninitiated, a Horcrux is an item that contains a piece of ones’ soul which would allow a person to return to life after death.) What starts as a simple break-in to the heavily secured Gringotts Bank turns into a haphazard and death-defying escape on the back of dragon, followed by the discovery that Voldemort knows of their plot. After racing to Hogwarts, the school they once called home and the location of a Horcrux, Harry and his friends find themselves confronted by the great villain himself, resulting in an all-out war that ultimately risks the balance of good and evil in the wizarding world.

For my money there is but one knock against “DH2”: because it is a “part two”, the opening sequences are tough to get a grasp of. There is absolutely no lead up in this film; there’s not even a set of opening credits. The Warner Brothers logo comes on screen and five seconds later we see the gravestone of Dobby the house elf and then jump directly into Harry planning the break-in at Gringotts. You don’t get the set-up that is so expertly crafted both in Rowling’s novels and in the other film adaptations. It takes a few minutes to feel comfortable in “DH2”, even for a hardened fan of the series who knows exactly what has happened and what is yet to come. This discomfort isn’t a matter of bad execution or poor storytelling; it’s just the inherent nature of essentially taking a long film and cutting it in two.

This is, however, an extremely minor and inconsequential issue that will be forgotten in the years ahead. In my mind, I know I will combine “Deathly Hallows” into one movie, just like the book, and will likely always watch part two immediately after part one, just like I do with the extended cuts of the “Lord of the Rings” films. Nearly everything else about this film is perfect. This is what I hoped for when I read “Deathly Hallows”, an action packed, emotionally charged epic that brings to life the very best of the heroes and the very worst of the villains. With Harry gone, Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis) assumes the position of leader, Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith) steps up to display her true powers, and Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch) proves to be far wiser than anyone would have imagined. Likewise, the desperation and frustration of Voldemort makes him even more terrifying than before, the years of self-conflict have worn the face of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), and the deep deceptions of Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) run just under the surface of his skin, dying to burst forth. The two sides push and prod each other to their highest levels of magical skill. Never in the “Potter” universe has that been more apparent than in the full-scale battle that overtakes the grounds of Hogwarts. To be sure, this is a mesmerizing and fantastic action sequence that combines FX and stunts with flair.

By this point, all of these young actors, Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, and their supporters, have become real actors capable of carrying their individual moments and completely selling the drama and tension of the situations they continually find themselves in. The veteran actors around them, who make up what I have championed in the past as the greatest cast ever assembled, all display the true brilliance of the characters they were provided, working seamlessly to become their parts rather than mere actors playing a role. Just as has been the case throughout the eight films in this series, you don’t watch Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, Ralph Fiennes, or the rest up on that screen, but rather Severus Snape, Sirius Black, Minerva McGonagall, and their cohorts. Never, however, has this been more apparent, more genuine, than in “DH2.”

These magnificent characters and esteemed actors are supplemented and highlighted by the geniuses behind the camera. David Yates and Steve Kloves prove once and for all that producer David Heyman was correct in giving the director-writer team the final three chapters of this epic. Kloves wrote a killer screenplay, one that implements every major facet of a huge book in beautiful fashion while adding a comedic undertone through witty banter and solid physical comedy. The combination creates a certain playfulness that has been building throughout the last few “Potter” films but matures spectacularly here. Yates, meanwhile, routinely puts his actors in the right place to succeed. He never asks too much, nor does he cut too early. There is real power in this story, in these relationships, and I think of all the “Potter” directors, Yates did the best when it comes to fleshing those factors out. There are a few differences between the book and the film but they are mostly cosmetic, save for the one involving Snape which, without giving anything away, actually adds to the already spectacular character that he is. This is Snape’s shining moment, the final opportunity for redemption, and Rickman sells the scene with heartbreaking intensity. Of all the great actors in this series, it is perhaps Rickman who most deserves award consideration.

As a general rule, we need our pop culture icons to end well. We want “Return of King”, the third season of “Arrested Development”, and Michael Jordan’s final championship winning shot with the Bulls. Our favorite things should always end on a high. Too often, though, we are treated to “Matrix Revolutions”, the ninth season of “Scrubs”, and Michael Jordan returning with the Washington Wizards. Words cannot express my joy at being able to say that “Deathly Hallows Part II” belongs in the first category, a fitting, compelling, and emotionally ripe end to an era. But to recommend this film isn’t enough. If you haven’t before, I implore you to read these books and see these movies. Take the opportunity now that it’s all over because there are millions of us who would give anything to start fresh and do the whole thing over again.

Grade: A+

My nerdiness obviously knows no bounds,
Brian

Harry Potter Retrospective Part VII - "The Deathly Hallows Part I"

in ,

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Deathly Hallows Part I"

I can't even begin to describe to you, dear readers, how happy I was with Warner Brothers' decision to cut the final "Potter" book into two parts. Some who didn't read the books complained that it was just a gimmick designed to bring the studio an extra $800 million (I'm sure that factor didn't hurt). But fans of Rowling's tremendous series were thrilled because, not only did it mean an extension of the Potter experience, it meant more of the book could make it to the film. Personally, I would have been happy to have "Order of the Phoenix" and "Half-Blood Prince" cut into two films each as well if it meant properly conveying more of the book's story. I stood in line for approximately four hours outside a local theater, braving the cold and annoying teenagers in order to be one of the first to see the "DH Part 1" and I was oh so glad I did.

My experience with the "Deathly Hallows" book was a new one. It was the first book that I read "live", so to speak. Volumes 1-6 were already available (in paperback form, no less) when I started reading them after the "Goblet of Fire" film opened. "Hallows" was my first opportunity to revel in the nerdery of a midnight book release and reading along with everyone else in the world. It is also the only book that I didn't plow through in a matter of days. This isn't because of lesser content but because I wanted to extend my "Potter" experience, to savor every page. I didn't let myself read more than a chapter or two at a time and I was almost sad when I realized I had only a couple hundred pages left before there would be no more new "Potter" stories. I genuinely wished I had gotten on board with the series from the very beginning. Curse my refusal to fall in line with the crowd!

I do think that "Hallows" has some flaws, whereas "Prince", "Phoenix", and "Azkaban" are almost perfect. The length of time that Harry, Ron, and Hermione spend alone in a tent, Apparating from place to place is overwhelming. It's not that I find it boring, I just think it's a bit redundant and it leads to a rushed feeling when the trio goes from doing very little for 400 pages and then suddenly break into a bank, free a dragon, and head to Hogwarts within 50 pages. Likewise, the scene in which Harry ostensibly dies and ends up speaking with Dumbledore in a sort-of Purgatory is a little unsatisfying for me. I'm honestly not sure what I expected from that moment but I didn't love it upon first reading. But these flaws are minimal in the grand scheme of things and I truly love the way in which Rowling wrapped up her series.

With all that in mind, in my opinion there's no question that, at least from an adaptation standpoint, "DH1" is the best of the films thus far. Having the same director-writer team for the first time since films one and two absolutely makes for a cohesive storytelling experience. Yates and Kloves are, quite simply, in a serious groove throughout "DH1." It feels comfortable and I think that lends itself to brilliant moviemaking. Chopping the book in half did exactly what all fans of the series had hoped in that it allowed for SO MUCH MORE of Rowling's content to make it to the screen. "DH1" is almost an abridged version of the book rather than an adaptation of it.

Better than in any of the previous installments, this film fully and wonderfully brings the scenes from the book and reimagines them onto the screen. One of the best scenes in the entire series is the shadow theater that is used to illustrate the story of the Deathly Hallows as Hermione reads it. Inspired. Elements as large as the opening chase sequence between the Order of the Phoenix and the Death Eaters and Harry and Ron's fight against the Horcrux down to the details of the Lovegood residence and the Weasley wedding are all exquisitely put together, near perfect illustrations of the words from Rowling's page. Likewise, the tones of "Hallows" (a theme I've harped on endlessly in this series) are so gloriously brought forth to the film. Ron's jealousy and general grumpiness, the haughty attitude of Minister of Magic Scrimgeour (Bill Nighy), and the pain that Harry feels while visiting the graves of his parents are all brought forth with precision. In addition, the loneliness and hopelessness our heroes feel while on the run, such a huge part of the book (to the point of redundancy as noted before), becomes a hallmark of the film; you genuinely feel lost, just like the characters on screen.

One of the best aspects of the film, though, is in its ability to elicit emotion and connection from the viewer just like the book did. The world in which Harry now lives is full of darkness, death, and evil but it is also overflowing with love and sacrifice. Hermione erasing from her parents' minds the memories of their own child, Xenophilius Lovegood's (Rhys Ifans) conflict over having to turn Harry over in order to save his daughter, the sacrifices of Hedwig and Moody, and even the look of fear and regret on Draco's face when Harry is brought to the Malfoy estate all force the audience to relate to what's happening on screen. And the final scenes, in which Dobby reappears at the time of greatest need and sacrifices himself in the process are heartbreaking and BEAUTIFULLY put together. In my "Chamber" review I called Dobby the Jar Jar Binks of these films. I never felt that way while reading the books but his on screen persona was so annoying that the existence of house elves is almost completely cut out of the films between "Chamber" and "DH1." To bring that character back five films later and put him into a moment that has the power to absolutely BREAK the viewer is a masterstroke of great writing and directing.

In short, I love this "DH1", both as a film and as an adaptation, above all the rest. I fervently hope that part two of "Deathly Hallows" is the best of the series; it should be, given the source material, and I think the rapid fan base deserves an outstanding ending. But even if it isn't, the decision to break the book up into two parts is fully and completely justified by the incredible entry that is "DH1."

Rank in the "Potter" canon: 1st of 7

Harry Potter Retrospective Part V - "The Order of the Phoenix"

in ,

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

SPOILERS AHEAD

"The Order of the Phoenix"

"Phoenix" is the first "Potter" film that I watched after having read the books. When I got out of "Goblet of Fire" the year before, I drove directly to the nearest Barnes and Noble and picked up the first book. Within a few short weeks I had rolled through all six. In the spring of 2007, I reread through "Half Blood Prince" in preparation for the release of "Deathly Hallows" and that coincided with the open of "Phoenix." It was a radically different experience seeing the vision of the book put to the screen and as such, I have an odd love/hate relationship with this film.

As such, I should apologize up front for the roller coaster-like tone I'm sure this Retrospective post is bound to take. "Order of the Phoenix" is my favorite book in this series. It speaks to me, and to many other male readers, in ways that perhaps the other books do not. The tones and the subject matter are those that men and boys can relate to. The first half is all about growing up, feeling isolated, and balancing the need for acceptance with the "lone wolf" spirit of wanderlust. The second half is all about the very traditionally manly act of doing something; of seeing a wrong, becoming fed up with it, and deciding to act. And no "Phoenix" discussion is complete without touching on the death of Sirius Black, to this day one of the most heartbreaking events of my life (that sounds a lot sadder than it should). Other characters had died in the Potter universe but none as important or emotionally relevant as Black. The pages leading up to and following his death are gut-wrenching. I read this book a few months ago, at least my third time through, and I dripped tears over about 50 pages. I'm not even ashamed to admit that. There is REAL pain within this plot point and I truly loved that character. More importantly, Rowling respects that character (and many others) enough to give him the time he deserves, even in killing him off. I love this book. And for the first (and thus far, only) time during my experience with these films, I have always had real trouble enjoying the film as a film and not holding against it the many times it deviates from the page.

From a purely film standpoint, there is nothing wrong with "Phoenix." In fact, I think it's quite good and perhaps equal to "Azkaban" which was the standard for the series at the time of this opening. New director David Yates fell in line with the tone and atmosphere that Cuaron and Newell had created before him and continued down that path. I love the way that "Phoenix" is shot; the coloring is beautiful, both muted and bright at the same time. (I wish I had the film school knowledge to better express what I mean here but alas, my degree is in kinesiology.) The camera is also used quite well to show the separation that Harry feels from his friends and the connection he has with Sirius: darkness here, light there; wide shot here, close up there. Likewise, the personification of Voldemort again evolves as he becomes genuinely creepy and menacing. The shots of him inside the train station dressed all in black are terrifying and brilliant. And as I've touched on numerous times now, Heyman again got the best talent money could to fill the new role, this time Helena Bonham Carter who is a perfect Bellatrix Lestrange. It all makes for a very good film...

Except that it totally misfires on almost every level from an adaptation standpoint. "Phoenix" is the longest book and yet it is the shortest film. There's very little filler in the book in my perspective so you have to ask, what gives with the shortened runtime? The first answer is that this is the only film in the series that wasn't written by Steve Kloves. The decision to move on without him stands as the worst one that Heyman and company made during the course of this ten year journey. Maybe the only decision that was worse was the choice to replace him with Michael Goldenberg, who is also responsible for the craptastic script that hamstrung "Green Lantern" right out of the gate. As I said before, this is a good film so I can't really say that Goldenberg can't write but he clearly can't adapt. The groove that Kloves had developed to this point, the knowledge that he'd gained in regards to what to keep and what to cut, is obviously and painfully lacking in "Phoenix." Major plot points are missed, tones are overlooked, the bonds of several relationships are missed completely, and the entire film feels choppy and rushed. I'm getting a little mad just thinking about it.

All that said, three factors still allow me to watch and enjoy "Phoenix" without getting too caught up in the feeling of, "how dare you butcher this story!!!" First, for the first time, Radcliffe is really asked to carry a lot of the movie and he does so very well. That may or may not happen with a better script to work with. Second, the final battle sequence which pitches the students against a group of Death Eaters in the Department of Mysteries is a quality fight scene; maybe the best in the series. Third, Imelda Staunton is masterful in the role of Dolores Umbridge and Umbridge is a tremendously difficult character to play correctly. Of all the wicked, evil characters that live in Rowling's world, Umbridge is without question the most hate able. You root against her throughout the course of "Phoenix", both on screen and in the book, with more vigor than you ever root against Voldemort. You want Voldemort to be defeated but you want Umbridge to be killed in Tarantino-esque fashion and that makes her a compelling and vital character. What makes her so difficult to play is the fact that Umbridge is vile and fully evil but she thinks she's good. That's such a tough balance to find and Staunton more than stands up to the task. 2007 was a down year for award caliber films but I personally felt like her performance was worthy of an Oscar nomination. All of this makes "Phoenix" very hard to judge properly and calls into question the "don't judge a movie based on the book" philosophy I live by. I love it for what it is and hate it for what it's not so while that drops it in the "Potter" rank, it's still a solid film overall.

Rank in the "Potter" canon: 5th of 7

Harry Potter Retrospective Part IV - "The Goblet of Fire"

in ,

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

Goblet of Fire brought my Potter experience back to the beginning: it opened just before Thanksgiving, 2005 and I was back home to see it with my family over the break. I was right on the cusp of becoming a full-on Potterite and needed just the final push to send me head-first over the edge. It did that and then some.

By the time Goblet of Fire rolled around, I think David Heyman and screenwriter Steve Kloves had found their groove, no matter who was in the director's chair. They knew what literary content needed to be preserved and what had to be chopped, even if it meant reworking characters and settings to get the point across in less than three hours. Things like the combination of Ludo Bagman and Barty Crouch into one on-screen character may not have been popular but it was a necessary choice. Likewise, the continued exclusion of all things related to house elves required some creative plot changes, but I personally didn't feel the film lost much in its translation. Mike Newell, the third director in three films, did an excellent job of picking up where Cuaron left off in Azkaban, keeping the dark themes and setting the stage for what was to come. Kloves also added in a fair amount of humor and a number of one-liners and I think this is a great addition to the Potter universe. Rowling is an exceptional writer with a tremendous understanding of her characters, but her books are almost devoid of jokes. Goblet of Fire (the film version) delivers some genuinely funny moments and I think it is better for that.

Goblet of Fire struggles in two areas. First of all, the book is slightly (and I do mean slightly) tedious. I love the themes of this book so much but at times the narrative feels stretched, something I am still amazed Rowling was able to avoid for the most part through the course of this series. “Goblet of Fire” is 300 pages longer than "Azkaban" and it is the only book in the series that I feel has unneeded filler. I think this put Heyman, Kloves, and Newell in a difficult position in that they have to stay as true to the book as possible but there's not quite as much to work with despite the added length. Second, Emma Watson regressed between Azkaban and Goblet of Fire. I wrote in my last entry that Watson made huge strides in the third film and was no longer the weak link. Well, she re-assumed that role in the fourth film. She re-finds her stride in Order of the Phoenix, I think, but for whatever reason, this film highlights her inconsistencies as an actress and some of those moments stick out a bit too much.

Despite those issues, Goblet of Fire excels in several places. The special effects are tremendous. The Hungarian Horntail that Harry is forced to battle against in the tournament is one of the very best movie dragons I've ever seen. Goblet of Fire displayed just how much the franchise benefited from the time Cuaron spent on set in the previous film. In addition, Heyman somehow, once again, added to his already incredible cast by bringing on Brendan Gleeson and the ever-impressive Ralph Fiennes. Seriously, best cast ever. Gleeson perfectly personifies the Mad Eye Moody copycat and that's a vital part of the story's tone. And Fiennes provides an incredible payoff for the three and a half film/book build up to the reveal of the fully reborn Voldemort. In any sci-fi, fantasy, comic book, or otherwise epic film or series, the villain is unquestionably the MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTER. It is SHOCKING how many directors, writers, and producers forget this. A hero will only go as far as his nemesis will push him and if you really want to excel, you have to create a villain that will carry the hero to the very brink of his ability and then some. Rowling understood that and made Voldemort that type of villain and Fiennes took up that mantle and carried through brilliantly

The final act of Goblet of Fire is both the best and the most excruciating of the series to this point. Everything, and I mean everything, in word and on screen, builds to this moment when Voldemort is restored, and the wizarding world is thrown back into flux. When Harry and Cedric are transported to the graveyard where Voldemort waits, I knew from the second their feet touched the ground that something horrible was about to happen. (Remember, I hadn't read the books at this point.) That entire scene, the killing of Cedric, the ritual rebirth of Voldemort, the battle between good and evil, and finally, Harry's return to Hogwarts with Cedric's body is exquisite and it perfectly, PERFECTLY, matches the tone of the book. When Harry and Cedric hit the ground and the crowd realizes what has happened, it's a true gut punch and takes the series into new territory. This death and the casualness with which it is carried out marks the end of innocence and the loss of youth in this world. To top it all off, the wails of despair that Amos Diggory (Jeff Rawle) lets out as he sees his fallen son...truly sobering. It's a scene that I both look forward to and dread every time I watch Goblet of Fire because it is remarkable acting but it also breaks my heart and brings a tear to my eye every single time. When I walked out of Goblet of Fire, I was dying to know what would happen next. I picked up the first book the next day and within a week, a genuine love for the Potter world had begun.

Rank in the "Potter" canon: 4th of 7

Harry Potter Retrospective Part III - "The Prisoner of Azkaban"

in ,

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Prisoner of Azkaban"

"Azkaban" marks the first time that I actually sought out a "Potter" film on my own without the influence of a family gathering. I spent that summer in Searcy, Arkansas which is amazingly even more of a boring place than it sounds. There were two theaters in Searcy. The first was a classic, one-screen, "Majestic"-like theater that sat right off of Main and unfortunately smelled as if it hadn't been cleaned since 1950. The other was an almost equally run down eight screen theater with rickety seats, bad projectors, and an owner that everyone called Slick who was a known drug dealer. But, Slick was smart enough to realize that there's NOTHING TO DO on a weeknight in Searcy, Arkansas so he started "Two Dollar Tuesdays" which is exactly what it sounds like: two bucks got you into any movie in his theater. And so it came to pass that my "Potter" fascination was born in this pot-funded cesspool of a theater.

"Azkaban" is a departure from the rest of the "Potter" films and books because its villain isn't He Who Must Not Be Named. "Stone" and "Chamber" feature watered-down versions of Voldemort and books four through seven display the great villain at full power but "Azkaban" barely touches on his presence. In some ways, this seems an odd choice for Rowling but I've always felt that it was a stroke of genius for several reasons. First, it provides a break in the narrative that keeps it from becoming repetitive. This was especially significant in the films. Second, "Azkaban" allows for the other characters and plot lines to really develop. We are introduced to a number of new and exciting characters and we get a much deeper look at Harry's family. This is important because throughout the entire series to this point, both on screen and in print, the audience learns as Harry learns and discovering what his family was before their deaths further deepens the connection between reader/viewer and character. Third and most importantly, "Azkaban" provides a near perfect base for transitioning the audience over to the new, darker world that Harry and his friends find themselves in. In my opinion, if Rowling, coming off the child-like nature of "Stone" and "Chamber", had delved directly into the grave subject matter of "Goblet of Fire" without taking a break from Voldemort in "Azkaban", she would have experienced some critical backlash. "Azkaban" allowed this series to preview the deep stuff that lay in the road ahead without jumping in head first.

I don't think any of the other films inspire such a great divide in terms of fan reception. You can find people who will argue this is the best of the series and you can find others who are infuriated by the mere mention of the film's name. The detractors almost exclusively point to the fact that the screenplay excludes numerous details from the book, particularly concerning the relationship between James Potter, Sirius Black, and Remus Lupin which is definitely true. Personally, however, I think the narrative of the film is almost perfect. You can't put 500+ pages into a movie; cuts have to be made. What David Heyman and new director Alfonso Cuaron did was create a film that works both as a companion piece to the books and a one-off for those who weren't reading the series. If you had read all of Rowling's works, you could fill in the blanks the film left for you to find with your knowledge gained from the page. On the flip side, if like me, you hadn't gotten sucked into the literature as of yet, you could enjoy the film without ever knowing that you're missing out on any information. That balance set a spectacular tone for future film installments because, as the books get longer and longer, more and more has to be left out of the screenplay and you have to choose a story that makes sense to both parts of the audience. I think "Azkaban" did that wonderfully.

From a purely film standpoint, "Azkaban" is a work of art. Other than Guillermo Del Toro, I don't think Heyman could have selected a better director to display the dark and dangerous world that this third film opened up. It is shot spectacularly, often with dark settings and even darker color contrasts, an edge that illustrates the maturing themes perfectly. When Harry and his friends arrive at Hogwarts, a group of students is singing "Something Wicked This Way Comes", a delightfully twisted little background note that caught my attention right off. Everything Cuaron did in this film was designed to make it clear that this was no longer a series for children. And just like the maturity of the film, the cast grew significantly in "Azkaban" compared to where they were in "Chamber." Radcliffe became an actor in this film whereas he had just been a character before. Grint turned into a bona fide comedian which screenwriter Steve Kloves recognized and utilized, feeding all funny lines to Ron. Watson, meanwhile, improved tremendously on her skill set and was no longer the weak link.

Possibly even more impressively, Heyman again went out and got the best British actors that money could buy to fill up the empty spaces in the adult cast. With Richard Harris having passed away, Michael Gambon was brought in to fill the role of Dumbledore and while that transition was a bit rocky, I've always felt that while Harris was the superior actor, Gambon brought much more life to the character, which was needed. David Thewlis, who to this point almost always played wholly unlikeable characters, completely embodied the spirit of Remus Lupin and made him even more lovable than he'd been in the book. I openly rooted for that character in "Azkaban." And then there's Gary Oldman, the best actor of his generation, and a great chameleon who so wrapped himself into the character of Sirius Black that you almost can't tell where Oldman ends and Black begins. Black is my favorite character from both the books and the films and I'll be quite honest when I say that without Oldman's portrayal, I'm not sure where the character would rank. In a cast filled with incredible actors, Oldman shined brightest and took this series to a higher level. Absolutely brilliant.

You can disagree with me as to where this film ranks with the other "Potter" films but there is no denying that "Azkaban" is the most important one in the series. Regardless of its departures from the book, "Azkaban" is the film that opened this series up to a whole new audience. It became acceptable among teenagers, college kids, and full grown adults alike to admit their interest in the franchise and made people, including me, recognize the maturity of the subject matter. I still didn't read the books but "Azkaban" made me truly appreciate the fantastic nature of these stories and left me legitimately wanting more for the first time.

Rank in the "Potter" canon: 3rd of 7

Harry Potter Retrospective Part II - "The Chamber of Secrets"

in ,

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Chamber of Secrets"

I went into "Chamber of Secrets" very similarly to the way I went into "Sorcerer's Stone." Again back from college for Thanksgiving break, my family bounded off for the theater and I tagged along, this time a bit more happily, however. In the year between these Thanksgiving viewings, I hadn't though much about the world of Potter. It had been nice for two and a half hours but "Sorcerer's Stone" hadn't sent me running to the bookstore to catch up on the series. But I was much more interested this time than I had been the first time around and maybe that's the point of the first two films after all, at least in terms of those who hadn't read the books: just keep them interested until this thing really takes off.

In my mind, "Chamber", both as a movie and a book, suffers from Sequelitis. It's always tough to follow up on a smash hit like "Stone" was, to build upon what worked without becoming redundant. Rowling spent too much time in this book rehashing what had already been said in "Stone", though I can't really blame her because you don't know your audience in book two of a long series. The majority of your readers will have read your previous installment but a larger number of people than you might think will pick up your second book without realizing it's a sequel and you want to hook those new readers as well and convince them to go catch up on book one. By the time the third book rolls around, especially if the series is a hit like these are, almost all of your readers will start with book one and move through the order. All that to say, I think the second book in a series is the toughest to write, save for the final volume.

By that reasoning, "Chamber" is by its very nature weaker in source material than "Stone" or any of the films that would follow. The film also loses a bit of the atmosphere from the book. It's not that the sets, costumes, landscapes, etc. are any worse; they're all incredible, just like I'd expect after watching "Stone." But "Chamber" as a book is about the opening up of the wizarding world and setting the stage for many of the things that take place in future volumes. The diary (which we later discover to be a horcrux) is a much more powerful piece of magic than anything introduced in "Stone." The ability to leave a piece of one's existence (again, we later discover this to be a piece of the soul) behind after death is a significant, heavy concept and one that far outweighs the wonderful charm of a cloak of invisibility, transfiguration, or even the sorcerer's stone itself. The depth and gravity that Rowling touches on in the book is somewhat lost in the film which at times borders on becoming boring.

I also think that, from a film standpoint, this is the only film that lacks a compelling villain. That may seem weird considering that the villain is essentially the same person in seven of the eight films ("Azkaban" has almost nothing to do with Voldemort) but this version of He Who Must Not Be Named is tame and dull compared to the rest of his incarnations. Tom Riddle just doesn't inspire fear as much as he seems like a snobby private school kid who needs a good thrashing. I don't think his powers translate over to Columbus' screen vision. I will say, however, that I think the reason for this is that "Chamber" is still a kid's movie and for Riddle to be as menacing as he needs to be, you'd have to stretch the boundaries of what you can put in a film aimed at eight year olds. There's also the matter of Dobby who was in Jar Jar Binks territory in this film and whose reception resulted in the complete banishment for all house elves in "Potter" movies until the seventh volume.

There are a number of improvements in "Chamber", however. The key child actors all upped their performances from the previous film and as a first time viewer, that was vital to me. I have always been willing to forgive kids for struggling in these roles; after all, they're kids. But I would say that the third, fourth, fifth, and so on installments in this franchise would have been a tough sell to me if Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, and the rest didn't show some growth in "Chamber." I was happy to note that the painful moments that pop up more than I'd like to admit in "Stone" get cut down upon significantly this time around. Likewise, Kenneth Branagh brought even more British professionalism to the screen; his casting as Gilderoy Lockhart was inevitably brilliant. In addition, the creatures and the special effects in "Chamber" are much better than what we were treated to in the previous film. The basilisk is a thousand times more menacing than Tom Riddle could ever dream of; Fawkes the phoenix is an excellent mix of animatronics and CGI; and the giant spiders...I watched "Chamber" a couple of days ago and as someone who suffers from a bit of arachnophobia, that scene still gives me the shivers. So creepy and so well done. "Chamber" also contains what was for me the first scene that really drew an emotional investment from me: Hagrid's return from Azkaban to the Great Hall is a touching moment and it has been known to water my eyes when I'm not being careful.

All in all, "Chamber" is the weakest of the franchise in my book. That said, when I saw it for the first time, it did nothing but stoke the flame of interest in the series within me. I still wasn't ready to commit to the books but I was legitimately disappointed when I found out that the third film wouldn't open until summer of 2004 rather than the fall of 2003. In that, the film did its job for me and countless others who needed a reason beyond the books to get excited for the upcoming films.

Rank in the "Potter" Canon: 7th of 7

Harry Potter Retrospective Part I - "The Sorcerer's Stone"

in ,

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Philosopher's Stone"/"The Sorcerer's Stone"

I'm not sure how many people out there are in the same boat as me, but I went into the first Potter film without having read a single page of the books. My brother, sister, and mom had read them but I had resisted. For one thing, I wasn't much interested in reading a children's book even if it did involve the sort of nerdy fantasy that I enjoyed. For another, this series was far too popular for me. I've always enjoyed rebelling against what everyone loves and Pottermania was too much for me to get on board with. My introduction to Harry Potter came on Thanksgiving Day 2001 when my family, for the first time ever, decided to see a movie on a Holiday and this was their choice.

Strangely, I think my appreciation for "Stone" has grown over the years when it seems like the type of film that would get worse and worse with each viewing. Each time I watch it, I am reminded of how smart producer David Heyman was when he put the first part of this franchise together. First off, he got the right director. Now, Chris Columbus has been depressingly retched since his time with Harry Potter ended but when he started, he was the perfect man for the job. He had a track record of making fun family films that appealed to children and adults alike and even more importantly, he understood how to work with kids. That point can't be underestimated enough especially when you consider that the vast majority of his young cast was completely and totally inexperienced as actors. You can tell while watching "Stone" that the kids had fun working on this film and that youthful energy often covers over the rougher acting moments.

Second, Heyman and Columbus together knocked it out of the park when it came to casting Harry, Ron, Hermione, and the rest of the young characters. To cast a group of child actors is exceedingly risky when you've got one film to think about; it's almost impossible when you're looking at seven or eight. You have to hope and pray that as they get older, they continue to improve as actors, they stay out of serious trouble, and they look appealing ten years later. Save for a few blips, the people behind Harry Potter did about as good as you could ever hope. Daniel Radcliffe has embraced the spirit of Harry Potter brilliantly, Rupert Grint has turned himself into the most likely cast member to have a legitimate career after Harry, and Emma Watson, the absolute worst actor in the group in "Stone", has practiced and refined her craft to the point that she rarely has an off-key moment. On top of that, they all seem to handle the incredible pressure that comes with these roles with relative ease and that can never be underestimated. They all have horrible moments in "Stone" of course, but in my book you always see the potential they had.

I'm not sure how many people out there are in the same boat as me, but I went into the first Potter film without having read a single page of the books. My brother, sister, and mom had read them, but I had resisted. For one thing, I wasn't much interested in reading a children's book in my late teen years. For another, this series was far too popular for me. I have a contrarian streak within me, even more so when I was younger, and Pottermania was too much for me to get on board with. My introduction to Harry Potter came on Thanksgiving Day, 2001 when my family, for the first time ever, decided to see a movie on a holiday and this was their choice.

Strangely, I think my appreciation for Stone has grown over the years when it seems like the type of film that would get worse and worse with each viewing. Each time I watch it, I am reminded of how smart producer David Heyman was when he put the first part of this franchise together. First off, he got the right director. Now, Chris Columbus has been depressingly wretched since his time with Harry Potter ended but when he started, he was the perfect man for the job. He had a track record of making fun family films that appealed to children and adults alike and even more importantly, he understood how to work with kids. That point can't be underestimated, especially when you consider that the vast majority of his young cast were completely and totally inexperienced as actors. You can tell while watching Stone that the kids had fun working on this film and that youthful energy often covers over the rougher acting moments.

Second, Heyman and Columbus together knocked it out of the park when it came to casting Harry, Ron, Hermione, and the rest of the young characters. To cast a group of child actors is exceedingly risky when you've got one film to think about; it's almost impossible when you're looking at seven or eight. You have to hope and pray that as they get older, they continue to improve as actors, they stay out of serious trouble, and they’re still appealing on-screen presences ten years later. Save for a few blips, the people behind Harry Potter did about as good as you could ever hope. Daniel Radcliffe has embraced the spirit of Harry Potter brilliantly, Rupert Grint has turned himself into the supporting star, and Emma Watson, the worst actor in the group in Stone, has refined her craft to the point that she rarely has an off-key moment. On top of that, they all seem to handle the incredible pressure that comes with these roles with relative ease and that can never be underestimated. They all have horrible moments in Stone, of course, but in my book, you can always see the potential.

Third, to fill the adult roles, Heyman assembled one of the best ensemble casts in recent memory. Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, and on down the list, the Stone cast list reads like a Who's Who of great British actors and it only grows in the following films. Though their roles are fairly limited early on, these great talents do a remarkable job of balancing the inexperience of the kids and drawing attention to themselves in just the right moments.

Fourth and most importantly, Heyman was smart enough to let the world that J.K. Rowling laid out in the book be the focus of Stone. There are some changes here and there, sure, but excluding cosmetic issues, Heyman and Columbus brought the pages of that book to life and let the audience bask in the experience. I obviously didn't understand that the first time I saw this film but even as a first time Potter-er, I was easily wrapped up in the delicately designed universe that Stone introduced me to. The landscapes, the decor, the meticulously detailed wardrobe and set pieces all join together to create a deliciously inviting atmosphere that is difficult to turn away from. Beyond that, though, this glorious presentation takes all the pressure off of Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, et al. It's clear that Stone isn't about the actors and it's not even really about the characters; it's about the world in which these characters live. It is a perfect introduction to Rowling's vision whether you're a fan of the books or not.

It's obvious that this is not the best of the series. The story is (purposefully and rightly so) much less dynamic and serious as the other films, its actors are rough in some places (Watson and Tom Felton in particular), and the special effects sometimes lag behind. But I always view Stone with perhaps more fondness than I do any of its sequels because it opened me up to a magnificent world I might have missed out on otherwise.

Rank in the "Potter" Film Canon: 6th of 7

Part II - The Chamber of Secrets
Part III - The Prisoner of Azkaban
Part IV - The Goblet of Fire
Part V - The Order of the Phoenix
Part VI - The Half Blood Prince
Part VII - The Deathly Hallows Part I

Blu Ray Review: "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader"

in ,

With the Great War still holding on to England, Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) Pevensie have been forced to live with relatives who scarcely notice them. Their situation is made all of the worse by the presence of their whiny, bratty cousin Eustace (Will Poulter) who does nothing but mock them. During one of their many fights, the trio is suddenly sucked into a portrait and find themselves reunited with King Caspian (Ben Barnes) on his ship, the Dawn Treader. The Pevensies (and by default, Eustace) join Caspian's quest to discover the truth behind a mysterious green mist and the dark island from which it comes. The world is a different Narnia than the one they left behind, however, and they encounter many hardships on the road to completing their quest.

Based on C.S. Lewis' beloved series of books, the "Narnia" franchise has been on a roller coaster since the first book, "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" was adapted in 2005. "Lion" was well received critically and made an insane amount of money, drawing upon the rabid fan base that had supported the story for years and creating new fans as it went. The second film, "Prince Caspian", was less well received and while it still made a ton of money, it wasn't near the success that the first was. I personally quite enjoyed the first film and DESPISED the second. Seriously, my hatred for "Prince Caspian" cannot be overstated. For this installment, the series jumped ship to a different production company (Fox) and changed directors (Michael Apted). As a fan of the books, I find it sad to say that I expect "Dawn Treader" represents the end of these films in their present form.

First of all, "Dawn Treader" is, in my mind, the weakest source material of all of Lewis' novels. Everything else he wrote for this series is inspired; this one always felt to me like he was spinning his wheels. Second, I think the people behind this film attempted to water down the spiritual implications and allegories that run rampant through the series. In doing so, they created a film that may be too far from the Biblically-based narrative of the book for Christians and yet too close to the realm of spirituality non-Christians. Fence sitting is never a great option. Third, let's just be honest, these kids can't act. When your film franchise depends entirely on the growth and maturity of children, you're risking a great deal in terms of longevity and quality. Sometimes you get it right ("Harry Potter") and sometimes you don't ("Narnia"). Poulter is by a long shot the best actor of the three kids but his character is also one of the most obnoxious in the history of literature and film. Keynes and Henley aren't necessarily painful to watch but they just have no idea what to do with the material they're given. Throughout this film they are routinely flat and one note and personally, I could never get past that.

The effects of "Dawn Treader" are outstanding and you can clearly see that this was where most of the film's $155 million dollar budget went. There's also a lot of adventure and swordplay here so it doesn't get boring like "Caspian" did. But these qualities just don't overshadow the film's deficiencies. It's not really a bad film and I'd watch it ten more times before I endured "Caspian" again but there are not enough strengths to recommend it, either. That's a real shame to me because Lewis' series is worthy of being put to the screen and could make for some great films. But it's hard to imagine Fox, Disney, or anyone else continuing to throw $150+ million into a series that struggles to break even domestically.

Grade: C+

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

in ,

In the first paragraph of my theatrical reviews, I usually try to find a personal connection to the movie I’m writing about. In this case, however, I’ve decided that since there’s no way a human could connect to “Transformers 3” that I’m going to give a couple of brief disclaimers. One, I really enjoyed the first “Transformers.” I find it to be fun, if cheesy, summer blockbuster fun. Second, I don’t hate “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” Every year there’s a film that it becomes sport to dog pile on and in my opinion, 2009’s Dog Pile Film was “Revenge of the Fallen.” Third, this review will have more to do with Michael Bay than anything else. Fourth, I am going to make a sports analogy in the concluding paragraph. Apologies in advance. Finally, the screenwriter for this film is a dude named Ehren Kruger. I say that now because for the rest of this piece, I will write as if Bay wrote the script himself because I have to believe Kruger is nothing more than a Bay puppet. No other conclusion can be drawn from this movie. So without further ado, we move on to the plot summary for “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.”

At the open, “Dark” tells us that an Autobot ship crashed on the moon in the late 50s/early 60s and that this was the real cause for the Space Race between the USA and the USSR. This sets the stage for the present day when Optimus Prime, unknowingly through the manipulation of the Decepticons, finds out about this ship and makes a trip to the Moon to bring back the near-deceased body of its pilot, Sentinel Prime, and the cargo, called the Space Bridge, that could create a terrible weapon. Meanwhile, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is floundering in the real world and unable to find a job, though he has found a new supermodel girlfriend, Carly (played by real life supermodel Rosie Huntington-Whiteley). Everything gets crazy when Sentinel turns on the Autobots and forms an alliance with the Decepticons, then forces the US government to essentially deport Optimus and his pals on a high tech spaceship that is (of course) shot down by those backstabbing Decepticons, who then begin the process of taking of the earth and using the Space Bridge to bring their home planet directly into the earth’s atmosphere. With little hope and seemingly no help from their former allies, a small force of guerrilla troops and Sam sneak into the remains of Chicago, now the Decepticons home base, to force a dramatic battle for the salvation of the planet.

Here’s the thing about “Dark of the Moon”: it’s really two, if not three, different movies jumbled together into one massive compilation. You’ve got a Michael Bay action movie mixed with Michael Bay’s version of a quirky (?) romantic comedy, mixed with an alternative reality element that plays out like “Oliver Stone Does His Best Michael Bay Impression.” In all honesty, I should probably give this film three different grades for the different parts that come together to make a semi-whole movie. The alternative history segments are by far the smallest portion of the film and are, perhaps, the best parts. There’s a serious “JFK” feel to this plotline and I bought what I was being sold. The final 60 to 75 minutes is almost entirely a CGI/FX smorgasbord that is chock full of the dramatic moments, larger-than-life explosions, and awesome fight scenes that make up most of the trailers. This segment is exactly what you’d expect from Bay and he doesn’t disappoint, at least from a visual standpoint. The first hour, however, which mostly revolves around the tumultuous relationship between Sam and Carly, is literally one of the absolute worst hours in the history of modern cinema. I don’t think I’ve EVER walked out on a film in a theater; I can hardly bring myself to turn off a DVD as I always want to know the end. At about the 35 minute mark of “Dark of the Moon”, I was just about ready to throw my streak out the window. This awkward and frustrating combination, in my mind, illustrates Bay’s entire career.

I thought long and hard about what to write concerning Bay. I don’t want to be overly critical of the guy because I’ve always said that the first goal of the movie industry is to entertain and if you’re into action movies in any way, you can’t say you’re not entertained by what Bay does. At the same time, however, you can’t really say Bay is a good director despite his long string of mega-hit films and the billions of dollars he’s raked in over the last decade and a half. Likewise, he seems to understand audiences and marketing in a way that many filmmakers do not; he grants a lot of interviews, puts together killer trailers, and seems like the most likely director to pop up in a Saturday Night Live Digital Short. But on the other hand, when it comes down to making a quality film, I just don’t think the dude gets it. Whether or not a person “gets it” is a difficult concept to convey but that’s the best way I can put it. Somehow he’s tapped into the portion of the worldwide audience, and even the part of the human brain, that wants to see some crap blow up but has no idea how to reach the intellectual side of everything. I don’t even think that he’s ignoring that side of things or that he doesn’t care about it; I just think he can’t see past buildings exploding and muscled up guys shooting guns. He wants to, and the convoluted plot twists here puts that desire on display but he can’t get there. He is a confusing, paradoxical man and his movies are almost all the same way.

No attention whatsoever is paid to dialogue (absolutely atrocious) or character development (all of these actors will be pigeon-holed by this franchise) and yet the storyline for “Dark of the Moon” is far too complex for its own good. I don’t know how it’s possible to be both overly complex and oppressively simple but Bay manages to pull that off quite spectacularly. All of these twists and turns do nothing but set up a number of bad clichés while further pushing Bay’s film further and further away from his comfort zone, which is what you get in the last hour. Plot wise, “Dark” felt to me like Bay had a big notepad full of ideas and on the front, he wrote “Transformers 3” then slapped it down on the table and told his puppet that every idea had to make it into the finished script regardless of whether or not it fits together. The motives of the Decepticons seem to change by the minute and none of it really makes sense. For example, at one time it is stated that the Decepticons want to use us as slaves to rebuild their world. Fine. Then in the very next scene, the evil robots are roaming through the streets shooting humans with laser beams that turn their targets into piles of burning ash. These two concepts don’t go hand-in-hand, Michael! If they want slaves they’ll imprison us, not eviscerate us. Come on, man.

For me the absolute worst part of the film (and a perfect illustration for how the storyline was forged haphazardly from a shoebox full of cliché action movie ideas) comes just before the final battle when Sam prepared to head off into the desolate Chicago landscape to track down the love of his life and rescue her. Moved by his determination, his Army pal Epps (Tyrese Gibson), says something to the effect of, “You’ll need this” and hands him a Glock. A Glock! The man is about to head off into a wasteland filled with falling buildings and burning cars, not to mention a fleet of alien robotic giants who are armed with lasers that can instantly reduce you to bones and ashes. But don’t worry, dude! Epps just gave you a single, solitary, low caliber pistol that holds between 10 and 15 rounds of ammo! You’ll be fine. It’s the stupidest thing that could possibly happen at this point and yet, right after this happens, the film totally takes off and becomes a wonderland of FX gooey goodness.

I could go on and on about the shortcomings and successes of this film but I’ve already rambled far longer than any of you will read. In short, Michael Bay is Mike D’antoni, head coach of the New York Knicks. D’antoni has a genius mind for offensive basketball and has created a system that guarantees exciting, high scoring games. But he has no idea how to manage a roster, can’t motivate his players, and his teams never do well in the playoffs. That’s Michael Bay. He has a great mind for entertaining, full octane action and he puts that on display time and time again. And yet he has no understanding of knowledge, he constantly wastes his cast (incredible actors abound in this movie and none of them, repeat, NONE OF THEM, are used correctly), and his finished product is always a disjointed mess that garners more hate than love but always makes a ton of cash. I guess I should just learn to appreciate Bay for the action sequence genius that he is but I just wish that one time he’d put some thought into the other components of film and stop wasting my time.

First Half Grade: F
Second Half Grade: B
Cumulative Grade: C

Aren’t we at a point where Autobots should be considered a real word by Microsoft?
Brian

Top 10 Most Anticipated Films of 2011 Part II

in ,
Every year in January, I write a column pinpointing the 10 films I'm most looking forward to in the next 12 months. This year I changed it up and split the column into January through June and July through December. This was done in part because after the abortion that was the 2010 movie calendar, I was overly excited about pretty much everything that was to open this year and in part because in January, no one really knows for sure what Award Season will bring. I'm certain there will be a "King's Speech" somewhere along the line, an indie-type film I hadn't really heard of comes along late and sets the world on fire so this list is far from the authority. But still, I know much more about what to expect from the latter months now, at the end of June, than I did at the beginning of January. So without further adieu, and bearing in mind my propensity for getting worked up over sci-fi, superheroes, and general nerdery, I give you my top 10 most anticipated films for the rest of the year.

Honorable Mention:
Captain America: The First Avenger (July 22) - Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones
Despite the fact that it doesn't quite crack the Top Ten, I'll definitely be in line at midnight for the "Captain" and I'm digging the visuals in the trailer. Not sure I trust Evans, though.

Another Earth (July 22) - Brit Marling, William Mapother
High concept sci-fi mixed with a tragic love story. I've been back and forth on what my level of interest is here but I saw a trailer earlier this week and my interest is supremely piqued. Doesn't make the list because it'll probably be limited which means I won't see it until February. Blerg.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (December 23) - Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer
Could be the biggest hit of the season though it's always hard to tell with an R rated film. The book is excellent; an incredible read and a smashing success that just about every human read. That said, however, the book was disturbingly heavy for me. After finishing, I wanted to begin the sequel immediately but my mind needed a break. That break has now lasted six months and approximately ten books. Can't imagine that the film will be any less engrossing and disturbing.

10. Apollo 18 (September 2)
A fauxumentary (don't like calling these films mockumentaries as they're not funny and therefore not mocking) in the vein of "Blair Witch Project" that focuses on the Apollo 18 mission to the moon that didn't happen but for the sake of this movie did happen and the crew was attacked by aliens. I'm really enjoying this run of low budget, high concept sci-fi films that we're getting these days as a result of the success of films like "District 9." Totally in for this.

9. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (December 16) - Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner

Look, I know I probably shouldn't be excited about a fourth "Mission Impossible" film but the trailer has reignited the odd affection I have for this franchise (except the second one which deserves to have all copies rounded up and burned "Fahrenheit 451" style). They're ridiculous, of course, but they're fun and relatively intelligent while being ridiculous and I can get into that. And I'm very interested to see if director Brad Bird ("The Incredibles", "Up") can bring it in a live action film like he can in an animated one.

8. Contagion (September 9) - Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Marion Cotillard, Jude Law
This is the part of the column where I get excited about a drama no one knows much about and by the time it actually opens, I don't care anymore. I just can't change my ways. "Contagion" is about (duh) the outbreak of a terrible disease and the team of doctors that are brought in to fight it. Aside from the Damon connection (who ALWAYS gets me to the theater no matter what), this film has a dynamic director (Steven Soderbergh) and a killer cast (John Hawkes, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Bryan Cranston in addition to those listed above) and I'm really intrigued.

7. Crazy, Stupid, Love. (July 29) - Steve Carrell, Ryan Gosling, Julianne Moore, Emma Stone
After his wife leaves him, a middle age man (Carrell) seeks the counsel of a womanizing dating expert (Gosling) who has problems of his own. This has a great cast and seems to bring a healthy amount of dark humor to a tough narrative. I also really like that Carrell apparently insisted upon bringing in Gosling despite his relative lack of experience in the comedic realm. Could be an awesome combo.

6. Cowboys and Aliens (July 29) - Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde
It's an action movie that features...um...cowboys and aliens. Do you need another reason to enjoy this movie? Yes? How about a director (Jon Favreau) who is on the cusp of earning my unending trust? I'm sure this will be insanely over the top but I'm really, really excited about it.

5. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (December 16) - Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law, Jared Harris
I know nothing of the plot and I don't want that to change. I looovvvvvveeee the first "Holmes" film. The chemistry between RDJ and director Guy Ritchie is exquisite and the mix of action, caper, and action movie fun is absolutely brilliant in my mind. ("Biggest Celebrity Crush of my Life" Rachel McAdams doesn't hurt, either.) I'm a little worried that this was rushed considering a sequel wasn't definite until after the original became a smash hit and I'm slightly disappointed that the villain, Moriarty, isn't being played by a bigger name (Jared Harris) but that won't keep me away.

4. We Bought a Zoo (December 23) - Matt Damon, Scarlette Johansson, Elle Fanning
The first film (excluding the Pearl Jam doc that's also due later this year) from Cameron Crowe in six years, "Zoo" focuses on a family that purchases and reopens a shoddy zoo. I've already spoke of my love for Damon so let me now say that Crowe is an immediate draw for me. Aside from "Vanilla Sky" (horrible and overambitious) I like every single thing the guy has ever done. If there was no such thing as "The Shawshank Redemption" or "Star Wars," there's a chance that "Almost Famous" would be my favorite film of all time. I also may be the only person besides Cameron himself who actually likes "Elizabethtown." In a year that (so far) finds itself lacking in Academy Award level films, this screams "Awards!" and I'm extremely excited about it.

3. The Muppets (November 23) - Jason Segal, Amy Adams
Even without the AWESOME fake-trailer marketing campaign "Muppets" has undergone, I would be chomping at the bit to see this. If you don't like muppets you're not human. Period.

2. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (November 18) - Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Mark Strong

During the Cold War, an aging spy (Oldman) is called out of retirement to track down a Soviet mole within MI6. I'm not familiar with the book nor the British TV series this is based off of but if the plotline and the awesome surrounding cast wasn't enough to get me interested, Oldman in a starring role is a surefire way to get me to the theater. Throughout this column I have resisted the urge to refer to RDJ and Matt Damon as my favorite actor because, while both of them are incredible and I value their contributions to film, when he's on his game and in a worthy role, NO ONE is better than Oldman. Absolutely cannot wait for this one.
1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (July 15) - Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson
Never really any doubt as to where this one would rank on the anticipation scale. I've already bought tickets for a midnight screening and my little group of nerds and I are currently working our way through the ultimate Blu Ray editions of each film. No fictional universe aside from "Star Wars" has ever sucked me in the way the Potter world has, not even Tolkein's. I love these books and these films more than I love some family members. The only question is whether or not I'll be able to control my emotions or if I'll end up weeping like a small child by the end. 
That about does it. I'm looking forward to the surprises that will no doubt pop up along the way but these are the ones that have my attention right now. Feel free to share your own choices!

DVD Review - "Cedar Rapids"

in ,

Tim Lippe (Ed Helms) is an equally loveable and naive insurance salesman from the tiny town of Brown Valley, Wisconsin. After the death of his company's top salesman, Tim is sent to his first insurance convention in the thriving metropolis of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. At this convention he is to deliver a speech which will earn his company the coveted Two Diamond Award and thereby secure his own job and the jobs of his coworkers. Cedar Rapids, however, turns out to be a much more distracting place than Tim could have ever imagined and soon he is engaging in all manner of shenanigans with Dean Ziegler (John C. Reilly), the notorious black sheep of the Midwestern insurance game. Can Tim get his act together in time to save his company or will the temptations of life on the road get the better of him?

At its very core, "Cedar Rapids" is basically a coming of age film that focuses on the middle years of life rather than the formative teen years. It's quite quirky as well and as such, the comedy is less laugh-out-loud funny and more snicker to oneself. That's not necessarily a bad thing by any means, it just caught me off guard.  I expected this film to run closer to "The 40 Year Old Virgin" than anything else; instead, it's much more like "Up in the Air" done as a comedy. Helms does a good job of creating a relatively realistic vision of Tim Lippe. He's slightly overdone at times but for the most part, you can believe that a 35 year old who'd never left Brown Valley, Wisconsin would act the way he does when exposed to the great, wide world. Helms is always charming in his very dorky, unassuming way and this is no exception. His surrounding cast, particularly Reilly (always great in my book) and a much-more-appealing-than-ever-before Anne Heche, play off of his charm to create an entertaining crew of characters that I enjoyed watching.

What keeps "Cedar Rapids" from being a high quality indie comedy is its lack of heart. I've railed on and on in the past about heart and emotion in film so I won't go too far here. But the truth is, there's not a whole lot to connect the audience to the characters in this film. It's a fun story and I enjoyed the quirks but "Rapids" could have been, and probably should have been, more heartfelt. At the same time, it doesn't have the comedic teeth of other recent R rated comedies. As a result, this film doesn't really have a true identity and struggles to keep its own pace throughout the whole runtime. In short, it is flawed but worth a viewing.

Grade: B

DVD Review - "The Company Men"

in ,

As the recession deepens, GTX, primarily a recreational company, finds itself on the precipice of falling apart. To keep themselves afloat (read: keep the CEO rich), they begin laying off employees. First, we see Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck), a sales executive, get the axe. Then Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper), a man who worked his way up from the factory floor. And finally, Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones), who was once the second most important person in the company. "Company Men" displays each man's struggle to put their lives back together in a job pool filled with overqualified competitors.

"Company Men" obviously tells a highly relevant story. The problem is in the way the story is told. It's not that it's poorly made or even boring as I thought it might end up being. But there's no power or emotional connection within the movie; it simply is. "Up in the Air" illustrated how heartbreaking and real a film about job less can be. I didn't expect "Company Men" to be up to that standard (because "Up in the Air" is an incredible film in my book) but I did expect it to make an attempt to suck me into the narrative. Even a cheesy or cliche emotional pull would have been nice in some ways because at least then the struggle of the characters would have mattered to me on some level. All of the performances are solid, especially that of Jones, but their characters are all weak or underdeveloped. I just didn't root for Walker or Woodward the way that I honestly thought I would. "Company Men" is also a bit too long and drags in places. There's a valid, worthwhile movie in here somewhere but unfortunately it just can't quite come to the surface as presently constructed.

Grade: B-

"Super 8"

in ,

There are very few names in Hollywood that garner my attention like Steven Spielberg. It doesn’t matter that his last film (“Indiana Jones and the Murder of My Childhood”) was stunningly bad or that he’s attached his seal of approval to lackluster blockbusters (“Transformers”). In my mind, he will forever be the guy who brought me “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Jurassic Park”, and “Saving Private Ryan” among a whole host of other excellent films. I imagine I will always buy stock in what he’s selling. Over the last couple of years, J.J. Abrams has been rapidly working his way toward Spielbergian territory. The work he did in the early seasons of “Lost,” his devotion to attention in “Star Trek” and a number of other high quality projects have led me to trust Abrams almost unconditionally. I love the guy and maybe more importantly, I love what he represents: at his core, Abrams is a nerd who likes nerdy things; he just happens to have millions of dollars at his disposal to bring his nerdy ideas to life. With those thoughts in mind, you can probably guess my level of interest in “Super 8”, a movie produced by Spielberg and directed by Abrams.

In the summer of 1979, a group of young teenagers gather at the edge of their small Ohio town to create a horror film. Shooting with a handheld 8mm camera at a nearby train depot to add some “production value” to their film, the kids suddenly find themselves in the middle of a harrowing accident when a truck derails a heavily loaded train. They consider themselves lucky but then strange things begin happening. Pets run away; the government floods the area with super secretive soldiers; power outages become routine; and then people start disappearing. All of this comes to a head when two members of the group, Joe (Joel Courtney) and Charles (Riley Griffiths), review the footage shot on that fateful night and catch glimpse of an alien predator that was locked away inside the train. With their neighborhood a war zone and one of their number missing, our young heroes must find a way to save their town, and a few lives in the process.

“Super 8” is like a great recipe that comes together to create an incredible sci-fi entrée. Take one cup of “Stand By Me” and mix it with a cup of “E.T.” if E.T. wanted to rip your throat out and eat your dog. Stir in a tablespoon of “The Goonies” and season with a dash of “Cloverfield.” Top it off with just a hint of “District 9” and then, if you’re really brave, add a touch of early Shyamalan. As a friend of mine said, even if you didn’t know who made “Super 8”, you would guess that it is the love child of Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams. That assessment is spot on as this film draws liberally from the great sci-fi and coming of age films of that past. In no way, however, do I mean that as a negative. Abrams displays great respect and undying affection for these films, making “Super 8” a terrific homage to his influences rather than a rip-off.

Everything about “Super 8” is a throwback, in its own way a slap in the face to the Michael Bays of the world. It is simple but refined, all about the little things, rather than the spectacle and yet the train derailment will undoubtedly end up being one of the very best FX sequences of the year. Camera angles are used to simultaneously hide the alien and hammer home the terror that our characters are going through with an excellent mix of wide shots and close ups. The use of light and natural sounds add organic atmosphere to the film in a Coen-esque way. Prop placement, too, adds ambiance in a subtle, smart way; it isn’t overdone but there’s more than enough to keep nerds like me happy. Abrams’ vision is wide and “Super 8” takes on a number of different (but cooperative) storylines but he, and therefore his film, never loses sight of the end goal. He captures the respective essences of the formative teen years and the duality of suspense and thrill that you get in the best alien/monster films. “Super 8” never suffers from an identity crisis and the blending of its two branches is nearly seamless.

All of that work would be wasted, however, without a great cast which fortunately (and perhaps surprisingly), “Super 8” has. There are no real names associated with this cast but as I imagine Abrams planned, that only heightens the realistic feel of the film. I am always nervous about a film that puts child actors in important roles (Jake Lloyd, anybody?). This particular group assuaged those fears almost immediately. As Joe, son of the town deputy and the glue that holds the group together, Joel Courtney is delightfully honest and compelling. He seems like a real kid, not an adult playing a kid and not a kid playing adult. Elle Fanning, forever connected to Joe through tragic circumstances, commands attention in every scene and displays her true potential. Riley Griffiths, the obligatory tubby kid with a foul mouth, is somehow refreshingly unique despite taking up perhaps the most cliché role in the film. These kids have excellent chemistry with one another in a way that truly reminded me of “Stand By Me.” In addition, the adults surrounding them really compliment the kids. Ron Eldard is one of those actors who never get big roles but whom I always gravitate to when he appears on screen. (I call this group the Barry Pepper All Stars.) Kyle Chandler is perhaps the most recognizable face and in a way, he’s just playing his character from the “Friday Night Lights” TV show, only he’s got a gun and a badge instead of a whistle and a ball. During the few scenes that he’s asked to carry, particularly one in which he exquisitely displays the pressure he is under both at work and at home, and another in which he offers simple and genuine forgiveness to Eldard’s character provide sincere weight and depth to the film’s more dramatic moments. These are understated, excellent performances across the board.

The final 20 minutes of “Super 8” and the reveal of the alien are a bit off; the last act doesn’t quite measure up to the expectations laid out in the first two. But for me that’s a small issue when put up against the serious awesomeness puts on the table to that point. “Super 8” is gloriously entertaining and as honest as sci-fi can be. It is nostalgic brilliance that I absolutely LOVED and I for the first time in a while, I can’t wait to get back into the theater and see it again.

Grade: A

Spielbergian will be a word by 2025,
Brian

DVD Review: - "Catfish"

in ,

In 2007, New York photographer Nev Schulman began receiving paintings of his pictures done by a young girl named Abby who lived in Minnesota. Nev begins an odd friendship with Abby, her mother Angela, and eventually Abby's sister, Megan, communicating by email, Facebook, and phone. Angela claims Abby's paintings have made her a local celebrity and the partnership Nev and Abby have seems to be potentially profitable for both of them. Before long, Nev is in a long distance relationship with Megan and fully integrated into the life of this little family. Some strange events, however, lead him to believe that this family isn't all they claim to be and he begins to dig into the stories they've told him, all while his roommate and filmmaker Rel Schulman rolls tape.

***WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD***

When Nev and Rel get to Minnesota, they find Angela to be a lonely woman who lives vicariously through many fake identities on Facebook. She has a daughter named Abby but Abby shows no indication of any interest in painting. She also has a husband, two stepsons with severe handicaps, and a step daughter named Megan who is somehow estranged from the family. Unable to handle the mediocre circumstances of her real life, Angela created an entirely new world with multiple cell phones, stolen pictures, and a host of Facebook profiles. It is one of the saddest existences that you can imagine in our modern age.

I don't really know how to classify "Catfish" or how to evaluate it. I guess I could include it in the Documentary Project but I don't believe it to be a true documentary. How much of this film is real and how much is fallacy is truthfully known only to the filmmakers but there's no question in my mind that some, if not most, of "Catfish" is play for the camera. From a film standpoint, it's more than a decent effort. The camerawork is good and the narrative is undeniably compelling and entertaining. But documentaries are held to a different standard than other films; they must also provide the truth (or at least some version of the truth) of a real life story. And where "Catfish" ceases to be truth is unclear.

Here's what I believe. I believe that at some point before the cameras started rolling, Angela took a liking to Nev and his photos and sent him a painting or two, posing as Abby. I believe Nev was intrigued by this family and began a correspondence with them. And I believe within a matter of days he guessed what was happening and decided he was sitting on a goldmine. Perhaps he and Rel discovered the full truth before the camera was turned on or perhaps they really did uncover new facts as they went along, but regardless, this guy knew what was happening long before they set out to make a "documentary." There are far too many holes in their story to believe that two seemingly intelligent and technologically savvy New Yorkers did absolutely no research, no background checks on Angela's story, despite the fact that Nev was entering into a relationship with Megan. It doesn't hold up, at least not in this day and age; maybe at the beginning of the internet era but not in 2007, not in the Google age, and certainly not for these guys.

And in my opinion, the way that they exposed this poor woman, the sly way in which they simultaneously humiliated and flattered her, makes Nev and Rel utterly repulsive human beings. "Catfish" is exploitation of the highest order. I think the worst part is a scene in which, after confirming their suspicions about the family, Nev, Rel, and their pal Henry put on a show for the camera (or perhaps their own consciences) talking about how they felt the need to confront Angela about her lies "for her own good" but to do so in a way that wouldn't humiliate her. The slick, shrewd manner in which they play these lines off positively oozes with a demented tone of getting away with something, of pulling a fast one on a parent or teacher. It's a twisted, even sadistic game Nev and Rel play in "Catfish" and it was enough to make my stomach turn. I must give them credit for making their film so engrossing as to keep me (and I would guess many others) around despite the nausea their actions created, but at the end of the day, these guys would be ashamed of themselves if they weren't arrogant, soulless jackholes.

Grade If Authentic: B+
Grade As Is: F

"Green Lantern"

in ,
If you go to the theater as often as I do, you develop a sixth sense called Trailer Interpretation. For me, trailer watching is more than just good or bad, see it or skip it; each three minute preview is an opportunity to determine what type of expectations I should have for a given film. I look for faces I recognize beyond the third or fourth billed actor, names in the credits who I trust or distrust, jokes that come from more than one person, and whether action sequences fall more into the gritty, realistic camp or the CGI, over-the-top camp. I’ve turned Trailer Interpretation into a personal art form, allowing it to become a voice in the back of my head that only talks during the ten minutes leading up to a new movie. As Jiminy Cricket is to Pinocchio, so this voice is to me and the voice is rarely wrong. Sometimes, however, I refuse to listen to the voice. I make excuses based on an actor I like or mythology that interests me or even just the fact that I like a certain genre of film (in this case, the comic book/superhero genre) and I ignore the warnings that the voice so desperately whispers in my ear. And that, dear readers, is why I occasionally find myself in a theater at midnight, watching a pile of rubbish like “Green Lantern” and expecting something good when I should have known better.

“Green Lantern” tells the story of Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), a hotshot test pilot with a scarred psyche and a history of screwing up anything good that comes his way. After ruining a new jet and infuriating his boss/childhood pal/former girlfriend Carol (Blake Lively), Hal is suddenly enveloped by a green light and whisked a hundred miles away to an alien crash site. There he meets Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), a mighty warrior and member of the intergalactic peace keeping core known as the Green Lanterns, who happens to be on the verge of death after an encounter with a serious enemy known as Parallax (Clancy Brown). Abin Sur gives Hal his magical ring just before he dies. Shortly afterward, he finds himself on the distant planet of Oa, the home of the Lanterns, where he learns that the ring can essentially form anything that he can imagine. He is trained briefly by Sinestro (Mark Strong) before deciding that he doesn’t have what it takes to be a Lantern. Meanwhile back on earth, biology professor Hector (Peter Sarsgaard) has discovered Abin Sur’s body and has been possessed by the essence of Parallax, forcing Hal to reconsider his rejection of the Lantern Core and fight to save his home planet.


There is a great deal more to the plot of this film but it is so convoluted and jumbled together that I honestly didn’t even know what to include in my summary and what to keep out. “Green Lantern” tries to cover way too much ground in one film and yet at the same time, it fails to really go anywhere. It’s like the on screen personification of buying a big, expensive off road vehicle and then getting it stuck in the first mud pit you come across; sure, your ride looks nice and all but you’re still stuck in the mud spinning your wheels. It’s quite a mess, really. “Lantern” is written like an over-extended TV pilot which makes a lot of sense considering the lead screenwriters (Greg Berlanti and Michael Green) have spent their careers writing for low rent TV shows. The settings jump from place to place with great abruptness, there are plot holes roughly the size of 18 wheelers, and a miserable flashback that is supposed to illustrates Hal’s haunted past but really does nothing more than make the audience groan. “Lantern” is RIPE with clichés and its predictability is only bested by the cringe-worthy dialogue. Gems like, “The superhero always gets the girl!” and, “The mask thing is pretty cool” litter the landscape of this film. Berlanti and Green should never be allowed near a film again. Director Martin Campbell (“Casino Royale”) does nothing to help the situation, continually allowing the movie to drift aimlessly through its thoroughly uninspiring narrative. I had hoped Campbell would bring some grit to the film and keep it from becoming overly kitschy but that hope turned out to be ill advised. This movie doesn’t even have the decency to be campy; it treads so heavily as to become cheesy, one step up (or down) from a Saturday morning cartoon.

From an acting standpoint, “Lantern” is a wreck. It’s all about Reynolds, obviously, but he struggles to hold on to the spotlight. I’m a huge fan of Reynolds and last year’s “Buried” proves that his range of talent stretches far beyond comedic roles. But in what should have been his finest hour, Reynolds comes across as unappealing and lacking in charisma, a combination I didn’t think was possible going in. His counterparts, meanwhile, are given next to nothing to work with and all of them end up with performances that they’ll wish they could leave off their resumes. These are all fine actors but if you’d never heard of any of them and I showed you this film, first you’d say they were all community theater actors, and then you’d punch me in the face for making you watch “Green Lantern.” The poor use of this cast and the apparent lack of motivation falls squarely on the shoulders of Campbell. Even Sarsgaard, one of the most professional actors of his generation, seems completely out of sync and wholly un-invested. His “villain” may be the worst aspect of this entire film. As any superhero movie fan will tell you, a compelling villain is just as important, if not more important, than a compelling protagonist.

All of that brings us to the CGI and the special effects which are, in all truthfulness, horrid. HORRID. “Lantern” looks like a video game and in no way do I intend that to be a compliment. It appeared to me that many of the effects were done simply to show off the technology that Campbell had at his disposal with no thought given as to whether or not it should be done. CGI should be used as an aid to the movie making process, a supplement when a filmmaker’s imagination dreams up something that can’t be done in real life. It should NOT be used in place of stunts, costumes, and camerawork. Even the suit is needlessly computer generated and it looks bloody awful on top of that. “Lantern” reminded me all too much of “Phantom Menace” which threw out all of the incredible work George Lucas had done in the first three “Star Wars” films in favor of lifeless CGI. And that’s exactly what “Lantern” is: lifeless. There is so much to work with, so much that could have been, but instead the end product belongs in the pantheon of bad superhero films along with “Daredevil,” “HULK,” and “Spiderman 3.”

Grade: D

SAAARRRRRRRSSSSSSGAAAARRRRRRRRRD,
Brian