Harry Potter. The name alone induces screams across the world, and may make movie theater managers such as myself fall on the ground when the prints arrive in the building. Just because I did get to watch it early does not mean I didn't do my share of waiting around the theater. More than 7 hours after I got off work, I was still at the theater and ready to watch what I had been waiting for ever since the wonderful 'Order of the Phoenix' two glorious years ago. Not only was 'Half Blood Prince' my favorite book in the series, it was also one of my favorite books of all time. My expectations could not have been higher, possibly the highest for any movie I'd ever had.
So is it absolutely crazy that my expectations were still surpassed?
Whether it be the shockingly wonderful script from Steve Kloves, the perfect acting across the board, dazzling effects, or the absolutely excellent direction and cinematography, 'Half Blood Prince' is EASILY the best film in the series, and is a great cinematic achievement that becomes the first Harry Potter film, in my opinion, that stands alone as a fantastic film, one that could even be Oscar worthy.
It appears as if the book series finally being finished has done wonders for the films, as this is the first film produced since the end of the series. Steve Kloves' for films 1-4 were average at best, as he often struggled to write compelling dialog for the younger characters. Not only has he vastly improved, but for the first time in the entire series, I was more interested in the younger characters than the absolute gems of characters played by the adults. 'Half Blood Prince' probably has the least amount of action in the series, but it is by no means boring. Kloves' script assures us that this ride is just as mental as it is physical. There are some minor problems, such as the backstory of the title character, the Half Blood Prince, not really being explained at all, but these flaws are outweighed by Kloves' seamlessly weaving plot points from both 'Half Blood Prince' and 'Deathly Hallows'. Some characters, such as Rufus Scrimgeour, Bill Weasley, and Mad Eye Moody are sorely missed, while others, such as Ginny Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange, benefit from much more to do than they had in the book. To put it simple, Kloves' adaptation this time around is his best yet.
To me, the lines a writer writes are only as good as the actors that say them, and this flick boasts what could be called the best ensemble cast of the year. The bright points for me were Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, and Bonnie Wright, who both really got the chance to flesh out their characters in this one. Wright nails the passionate, hot tempered Ginny very well in brief opportunities, while Rickman is once again perfect as the icy Severus Snape, though to reveal why he's perfect would be robbing the viewer of a wonderful show. Felton packs a world of emotion and nails the character once again. The main newcomers to the cast were all excellent. Jim Broadbent is perfectly cast as Horace Slughorn, while Hero Fiennes Tiffin and Frank Dillane are positively chilling in their cameos as the younger incarnations of Lord Voldemort. Dillane in particular is nothing short of brilliant in his two scenes. Helena Bonham Carter's over the top performance as Bellatrix Lestrange is something that would only work in a Harry Potter film, as she is hilariously psychotic and sadistic in her role. The biggest surprise of all is Michael Gambon, who plays Dumbledore to perfection this time.
The faces of the Harry Potter franchise are the three actors that now appear to have grown up with their characters long enough to actually be them. Emma Watson is at her best for once as Hermione, while Rupert Grint brings everything back to the table after basically taking a movie off. Daniel Radcliffe tops what was his best performance in 'Order of the Phoenix' in this one, but for different reasons. Radcliffe is showing real all around talent as an actor, as he exudes the sarcastic confidence that he's always been missing that is integral to Harry's character. It should be noted that Radcliffe is definitely the best at comedy of the trio.
While I viewed it to be perfect, this might be because I've read the book and plugged in what few leaks there were. All the non-readers I saw it with said that they didn't have that many problems keeping up, and that this one really gelled with the previous installment. I credit that, and the movie's overwhelming excellence to David Yates, who really just gets this franchise. He has recreated the magic I felt when first reading the book again and again, with classic moments meant for readers that non-readers will still find entertaining enough.
This movie definitely strays the furthest from the book, but I really didn't care. I didn't miss any of the things that were cut, nor did I object to any changes in the movie. In a word, it was perfect. Bruno Delbonnel does a marvelous job with the cinematography, which is amongst the most beautiful camera work I've ever seen, especially with the colors and lighting. The art direction is equally brilliant.
'Half Blood Prince' is an exciting thriller, that is as charming and sweet as it is mysterious. It is as suspenseful as it is angsty, and that's saying something. Hormones and chaos are abound at Hogwarts, and Yates manages to handle it with perfect grace, as his film does not, for the first time ever, feel choppy or rushed. The film flows wonderfully, and builds to a climax that will keep your emotions running high for at least 20 minutes. I really could not have been more pleased with this movie.
Monday, 10 August 2009
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
HE SUMMER blockbuster season goes out with a bang in the action-packed adrenaline ride G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.
Director Stephen Sommers, whose previous films include The Mummy, The Mummy Returns and Van Helsing, piles on the pyrotechnics in a full-on assault of action and visual effects.
G.I. Joe is an American line of military action figures marketed in the UK as Action Man and Action Force. The toys were also adapted into comics and cartoons, with Sommers saying he drew mainly on the comic books for the film's story.
Paramount Pictures and toymakers Hasbro are hoping for another big-screen franchise after previously collaborating to turn Transformers into a monster hit at the box office.
For those unfamiliar with the G.I. Joe brand, imagine putting Top Gun, The A-Team, Thunderbirds, the earlier Bond movies and the X-Men into a blender with a hefty dose of steroids, and this is what might result.
You get super-weapons, secret lairs, dastardly villains, gadgets galore and an abundance of explosive action sequences as Sommers empties his toy box and throws it all on screen with brisk and breathless editing.
But it's not just about boys and their toys – there are also girls with guns and gizmos too. It's a thrill ride of escapist popcorn fun – lads, their dads and those who are still kids at heart will love it. Girls will coo over the square-jawed hunkiness of Channing Tatum and wish they had the killer curves of Sienna Miller and Rachel Nichols, who strut about in skintight leather and end up rolling on the floor in a vicious catfight.
It begins with a prologue establishing the heritage of unscrupulous arms dealer McCullen (Christopher Eccleston), who has invented nanomites – swarms of microscopic machines capable of destroying anything in their path.
Special forces operatives Duke (Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) are hired by McCullen to deliver warheads bristling with his new technology. The convoy is attacked by the Baroness (Miller) and her cohorts who aim to steal the payload for a terror group led by Destro and the Cobra Commander.
Into the fray steps G.I. Joe, the US Government's top-secret military defence division, who include Dennis Quaid as leader General Hawk, Rachel Nichols as Scarlett, Ray Park as gimp-masked silent swordsman Snake Eyes and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Mr Eko from Lost) as Heavy Duty.
Duke and Ripcord are recruited into the team and, with the help of advanced skills and technology, the good guys leap into action to stop the terrorists. The battle for the warheads takes us to the Sahara, the polar ice-caps and also to Paris, where there is a long, stunt-packed chase sequence and an onslaught of destruction. Without spoiling it all, let's just say Paris is changed forever.
Amid all the carnage, flashbacks help to lift the story beyond superficial spectacle, fleshing out the back-stories of some characters in assorted subplots of romance, revenge and rivalry.
The key performers deliver, including all-American stud-u-like Tatum; Miller as a gun-toting, raven-haired vixen; Wayans and his flippant wit; and Nichols as the action babe for the good guys.
In contrast, the more heavyweight performers such as Eccleston, Quaid and Gordon-Levitt seem constrained by the limits of the material, in particular Eccleston (with dubious Scottish accent) who is lost in the mix and lacks a potent presence.
Although the film is less cheesy than The Mummy and far better than the monster mish-mash that was Van Helsing, this is pure pulp adventure.
The dialogue is either hammy or inconsequential while attempts at humour are mostly forgettable. The initial set-up for the story whizzes past too quickly to take it all in and the action is relentless – some will find it excessive even for an action movie.
But the world is in peril and we're whisked along for the roller-coaster ride. The sheer absurdity of it all is smothered in computer-generated effects and delivered at a pace that doesn't allow you to question it too much. Which would spoil the fun completely.
For a film based on a toy, a cartoon and a comic, it delivers the goods with shameless entertainment.
Director Stephen Sommers, whose previous films include The Mummy, The Mummy Returns and Van Helsing, piles on the pyrotechnics in a full-on assault of action and visual effects.
G.I. Joe is an American line of military action figures marketed in the UK as Action Man and Action Force. The toys were also adapted into comics and cartoons, with Sommers saying he drew mainly on the comic books for the film's story.
Paramount Pictures and toymakers Hasbro are hoping for another big-screen franchise after previously collaborating to turn Transformers into a monster hit at the box office.
For those unfamiliar with the G.I. Joe brand, imagine putting Top Gun, The A-Team, Thunderbirds, the earlier Bond movies and the X-Men into a blender with a hefty dose of steroids, and this is what might result.
You get super-weapons, secret lairs, dastardly villains, gadgets galore and an abundance of explosive action sequences as Sommers empties his toy box and throws it all on screen with brisk and breathless editing.
But it's not just about boys and their toys – there are also girls with guns and gizmos too. It's a thrill ride of escapist popcorn fun – lads, their dads and those who are still kids at heart will love it. Girls will coo over the square-jawed hunkiness of Channing Tatum and wish they had the killer curves of Sienna Miller and Rachel Nichols, who strut about in skintight leather and end up rolling on the floor in a vicious catfight.
It begins with a prologue establishing the heritage of unscrupulous arms dealer McCullen (Christopher Eccleston), who has invented nanomites – swarms of microscopic machines capable of destroying anything in their path.
Special forces operatives Duke (Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) are hired by McCullen to deliver warheads bristling with his new technology. The convoy is attacked by the Baroness (Miller) and her cohorts who aim to steal the payload for a terror group led by Destro and the Cobra Commander.
Into the fray steps G.I. Joe, the US Government's top-secret military defence division, who include Dennis Quaid as leader General Hawk, Rachel Nichols as Scarlett, Ray Park as gimp-masked silent swordsman Snake Eyes and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Mr Eko from Lost) as Heavy Duty.
Duke and Ripcord are recruited into the team and, with the help of advanced skills and technology, the good guys leap into action to stop the terrorists. The battle for the warheads takes us to the Sahara, the polar ice-caps and also to Paris, where there is a long, stunt-packed chase sequence and an onslaught of destruction. Without spoiling it all, let's just say Paris is changed forever.
Amid all the carnage, flashbacks help to lift the story beyond superficial spectacle, fleshing out the back-stories of some characters in assorted subplots of romance, revenge and rivalry.
The key performers deliver, including all-American stud-u-like Tatum; Miller as a gun-toting, raven-haired vixen; Wayans and his flippant wit; and Nichols as the action babe for the good guys.
In contrast, the more heavyweight performers such as Eccleston, Quaid and Gordon-Levitt seem constrained by the limits of the material, in particular Eccleston (with dubious Scottish accent) who is lost in the mix and lacks a potent presence.
Although the film is less cheesy than The Mummy and far better than the monster mish-mash that was Van Helsing, this is pure pulp adventure.
The dialogue is either hammy or inconsequential while attempts at humour are mostly forgettable. The initial set-up for the story whizzes past too quickly to take it all in and the action is relentless – some will find it excessive even for an action movie.
But the world is in peril and we're whisked along for the roller-coaster ride. The sheer absurdity of it all is smothered in computer-generated effects and delivered at a pace that doesn't allow you to question it too much. Which would spoil the fun completely.
For a film based on a toy, a cartoon and a comic, it delivers the goods with shameless entertainment.
Friday, 7 August 2009
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Fast and Furious 4
The story focuses drug sellers this time and Paul Walker teams up with Vin Diesel to bring them down. It started great. The plot was as good as such an action movie can have but car scenes were not as good as the first one. There were not so many cars as well. The first movie was great but after that, they started to make the movies just for money. This one was better than the last two though. I must say there was too little surprise and a very predictable end. I couldn't catch the spirit. It is an OK movie as itself but it is definitely not better than the first one. Vin Diesel also looked a bit emotionless. Some dialogs were longer than they should be. The first movie is still casting a great shadow on the new ones I am afraid.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Terminator Salvation
If Cameron were dead he would be spinning in his grave
Phenomenal special effects. CGI second to none. Good score. Great sound.
If these are the reasons for you giving up your 10 bucks, then this is the movie for you.
If, however, you enjoy those small luxuries, like a plot; solid performances; character to care about; and a point to it all, you may want to redirect your $10 to something else....anything else.
Don't get me wrong...I am a major fan of the Terminator films. I know them inside and out. I genuinely love these movies (3 was tolerable), but this one is a travesty.
The actors, (particularly Christian Bale) seem to be much more interested in appearing super-cool (very "Matix-esque") and striking a pose for the camera, than actually getting down and delivering convincing performances as people caught up in this future war. (No Oscar Schindler/Liam Neeson performances here.) The result is very card-board-cut-out characters that the audience can not connect with on any appreciable emotional level, which is a shame, considering how well Christian Bale can perform in other films.
Also, the editing pace is way too frenetic at times. I's the new generation of film makers that believe if you can not keep the audience involved in the story or characters, throw a lot of images and sound at such an intense rate, essentially bombard them, that the audience will be convinced they got their dollar's worth.
The film suffers on another level. There was so much anticipation for it's release, and figuring a good cast and the stamp of approval from Cameron's group that this should have turned out fairly decent. This could have been good Science-Fiction. Instead, we get a loud,obnoxious, mindless made-for-MTV video for the masses!
Phenomenal special effects. CGI second to none. Good score. Great sound.
If these are the reasons for you giving up your 10 bucks, then this is the movie for you.
If, however, you enjoy those small luxuries, like a plot; solid performances; character to care about; and a point to it all, you may want to redirect your $10 to something else....anything else.
Don't get me wrong...I am a major fan of the Terminator films. I know them inside and out. I genuinely love these movies (3 was tolerable), but this one is a travesty.
The actors, (particularly Christian Bale) seem to be much more interested in appearing super-cool (very "Matix-esque") and striking a pose for the camera, than actually getting down and delivering convincing performances as people caught up in this future war. (No Oscar Schindler/Liam Neeson performances here.) The result is very card-board-cut-out characters that the audience can not connect with on any appreciable emotional level, which is a shame, considering how well Christian Bale can perform in other films.
Also, the editing pace is way too frenetic at times. I's the new generation of film makers that believe if you can not keep the audience involved in the story or characters, throw a lot of images and sound at such an intense rate, essentially bombard them, that the audience will be convinced they got their dollar's worth.
The film suffers on another level. There was so much anticipation for it's release, and figuring a good cast and the stamp of approval from Cameron's group that this should have turned out fairly decent. This could have been good Science-Fiction. Instead, we get a loud,obnoxious, mindless made-for-MTV video for the masses!
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009)
Up 88% in popularity this week.
A bachelor is haunted by the ghosts of his past girlfriends at his younger brother's wedding .
Some opinions : Going into this movie I wasn't quite sure what I was expecting. The trailer looked like a mediocre version of Scrooge and personally I am not a fan of Jennifer Garner. The plot was predictable and the end was of course cheesy, but with these types of movies, you don't watch them for the plot's predictability or cheese factor. You know in the end, the guy will get the girl, so it's not really a shock. You're more there to watch a) McConaughey being shirtless and b) the journey it takes for the characters to get there which in this movie is quite a little funny one. But I must admit despite Garner's performance and the plot's unoriginality, after coming out of the theatre, I was very impressed overall with the movie.Although McConaughey and Garner's chemistry was lacking and did not seem very convincing, the supporting cast really made the movie a success. I think it's safe to say that Emma Stone (who plays the ghost of girlfriend's past) is going to have a bright future in the movie industry. She was hilariously witty and kept the movie light and fun. She was a major comic relief to the horrible scenes of Garner and McConaughey. Michael Douglas (who plays Uncle Wayne) also drops in for some comic relief and does again quite a good job. I didn't understand the "Dutch" nickname thing, but it wasn't overall important. Lacy Chabert (who plays Sandra) is a complete nut case bridezilla and although you have to sometimes be like "what the heck?" you have to laugh at her insanity. Bridesmaids and ushers were nothing really special and just were there as place holders, but I got a laugh out of the one usher who reminded me of an older McLovin' just by appearance.
A bachelor is haunted by the ghosts of his past girlfriends at his younger brother's wedding .
Some opinions : Going into this movie I wasn't quite sure what I was expecting. The trailer looked like a mediocre version of Scrooge and personally I am not a fan of Jennifer Garner. The plot was predictable and the end was of course cheesy, but with these types of movies, you don't watch them for the plot's predictability or cheese factor. You know in the end, the guy will get the girl, so it's not really a shock. You're more there to watch a) McConaughey being shirtless and b) the journey it takes for the characters to get there which in this movie is quite a little funny one. But I must admit despite Garner's performance and the plot's unoriginality, after coming out of the theatre, I was very impressed overall with the movie.Although McConaughey and Garner's chemistry was lacking and did not seem very convincing, the supporting cast really made the movie a success. I think it's safe to say that Emma Stone (who plays the ghost of girlfriend's past) is going to have a bright future in the movie industry. She was hilariously witty and kept the movie light and fun. She was a major comic relief to the horrible scenes of Garner and McConaughey. Michael Douglas (who plays Uncle Wayne) also drops in for some comic relief and does again quite a good job. I didn't understand the "Dutch" nickname thing, but it wasn't overall important. Lacy Chabert (who plays Sandra) is a complete nut case bridezilla and although you have to sometimes be like "what the heck?" you have to laugh at her insanity. Bridesmaids and ushers were nothing really special and just were there as place holders, but I got a laugh out of the one usher who reminded me of an older McLovin' just by appearance.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
X-Men Origins : Wolverine
Don't miss this one : Wolverine lives a mutant life, seeks revenge against Victor Creed (who will later become Sabertooth) for the death of his girlfriend, and ultimately ends up going through the mutant Weapon X program :)
This film was slated to be a blockbuster film, and it really is. This is the type of movie that is made to eat popcorn to and watch the flashy graphics. With that in mind, the movie delivers, perhaps not as well as the ultra flashy Iron Man, but well enough. Outside of the popcorn munching action and special effects, the film drops off of the cliff faster than Wile E. Coyote.Many viewers, myself included, will complain about how most of the characters were severely altered, but that only makes the film a poor adaptation, not a poor film. This film is unsatisfactory for other reasons. The makers focused more on making it appealing to the eye than they did to the mind. The characters that have been long awaited and promoted are reduced to 4-scene cameos. The main characters of Wolverine, Victor Creed (never called Sabertooth in the film) and Colonel Stryker are well developed. I was pleasantly surprised by Liev Schriber's performance. The rest of the characters are tossed to the wayside to make way for the all important eye-candy. Wolverine's character is fully developed after 30-minutes, as is Sabertooth, though Victor does pull off some surprises late in the film.
This film was slated to be a blockbuster film, and it really is. This is the type of movie that is made to eat popcorn to and watch the flashy graphics. With that in mind, the movie delivers, perhaps not as well as the ultra flashy Iron Man, but well enough. Outside of the popcorn munching action and special effects, the film drops off of the cliff faster than Wile E. Coyote.Many viewers, myself included, will complain about how most of the characters were severely altered, but that only makes the film a poor adaptation, not a poor film. This film is unsatisfactory for other reasons. The makers focused more on making it appealing to the eye than they did to the mind. The characters that have been long awaited and promoted are reduced to 4-scene cameos. The main characters of Wolverine, Victor Creed (never called Sabertooth in the film) and Colonel Stryker are well developed. I was pleasantly surprised by Liev Schriber's performance. The rest of the characters are tossed to the wayside to make way for the all important eye-candy. Wolverine's character is fully developed after 30-minutes, as is Sabertooth, though Victor does pull off some surprises late in the film.
Download Free Movies
Here is a list with one of the newest movies that you MUST watch :
a new area of Star Trek has started so you must get see this one , Thrilling adventure with great characters, maintains the spirit of the original series while appealing to a mass audience. A landmark blockbuster for sure :)
Some opinions : I'm a fan of "Star Trek", but not obsessive, having read only one "Star Trek" novel, owning no merchandise and only TOS in its entirety on DVD. I abhor "Voyager" but like every other Trek series, including "Enterprise" although nearly all of that show's especially good episodes are in the fourth season. My favorite remains TOS for its unforgettable characters, performances and stories, as well as the sense of camaraderie aboard the Enterprise.I hope I've established my feelings on Trek (after all there are Trekkers who think "The Motion Picture" is the best Trek film, and a lot of people seem to like "Nemesis") and what I truly value in it. As long as it wasn't overwhelmingly dumb I didn't require any sort of truly thoughtful sci-fi in this film, nor did I expect it. What I desired, what I can say with a deep, deep sigh of relief, I got, is a film brimming with confidence, energy, a sense of adventure, a suitably emotional story for the film's main characters, and, thank heavens, superb characterization.
a new area of Star Trek has started so you must get see this one , Thrilling adventure with great characters, maintains the spirit of the original series while appealing to a mass audience. A landmark blockbuster for sure :)
Some opinions : I'm a fan of "Star Trek", but not obsessive, having read only one "Star Trek" novel, owning no merchandise and only TOS in its entirety on DVD. I abhor "Voyager" but like every other Trek series, including "Enterprise" although nearly all of that show's especially good episodes are in the fourth season. My favorite remains TOS for its unforgettable characters, performances and stories, as well as the sense of camaraderie aboard the Enterprise.I hope I've established my feelings on Trek (after all there are Trekkers who think "The Motion Picture" is the best Trek film, and a lot of people seem to like "Nemesis") and what I truly value in it. As long as it wasn't overwhelmingly dumb I didn't require any sort of truly thoughtful sci-fi in this film, nor did I expect it. What I desired, what I can say with a deep, deep sigh of relief, I got, is a film brimming with confidence, energy, a sense of adventure, a suitably emotional story for the film's main characters, and, thank heavens, superb characterization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)