District 9 is a star-free, rather original looking science fiction movie being released (ominously) in August, 2009. While watching Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince yesterday, I visited the washroom. Here’s what I saw on the door:
I haven’t gotten around to calling the number listed at the bottom of the sign, but I’ll do so and report back on what I hear.
What’s ingenious is the poster’s location. It’s the rare bit of unused real estate at the cinema. The only downside is that if you’re like me, and going to the bathroom during a film, you’re unlikely to stop and read the poster.
Yesterday I saw the sixth film in the Harry Potter franchise, Harry Potter and the The Half-Blood Prince. It’s the first of the movies that I’d call “quite good”. We’re watching the cast mature on-screen, and the audience is getting older too. As a result, movies seem to be getting more interesting.
The young leads are much better actors than they were eight years ago. They’ve earned some confidence and chemistry onscreen that makes them much more watchable. Given the series’ success, the producers took a huge casting gamble. Any three actors would be a gamble, it just happened that these turned out without:
Looking hideous
Engaging in a crippling public scandal (drug addiction, sex change operation and so forth)
Quitting acting for a quieter life
As a producer, the only casting decision I’d regret is Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley. She’s pretty plain, in both performance and appearance. In light of the international cadre of Hogwarts honeys giving him the doe eyes, one finds oneself asking what Harry sees in Ginny. The producers might be forgiven, as they probably cast her in 1999 or 2000. According to Wikipedia, only three or four books had been published, so they may not have had much insight into Ginny’s importance to the later films.
The addition of the superb Jim Broadbent is also a treat. I was recently remarking on how difficult it is to convincingly act drunk, and he does an exquisite job in one scene.
Which reminds me of the underlying drugs-and-alcohol motif of this movie. Everybody seems to be constantly high on this potion or drunk on that brew–it’s like Dazed and Confused with wands and robes. Harry Pothead, indeed.
The Half-Blood Prince manages to avoid a lot of the irksome ruts of the earlier movies. They were often a combination of Choose Your Own Adventure and a Cast of Wand-Wielding Thousands, neither of which made for natural pacing or easy watching for those who haven’t read the books. The film’s opening moments really grab you in a very unexpected way. Plus, this movie is less married to the standard year-at-Hogwarts structure–the action goes off the reservation in a satisfying way. For a change, the special effects feel streamlined and underplayed. I even found the Quidditch scene to be happily brief and kind percussive.
I even enjoyed the teen romance. It’s refreshing, in light of how chaste the previous movies were. After all, these are a bunch of teenagers living away from home.
The movie isn’t without its flaws. No director has worked out how to really sell the wand-to-wand combat scenes, which always come off as goofy Latin shouting matches. Plus, at 153 minutes, it’s pretty long and drags here and there.
Director David Yates is apparently signed on for the remaining two films, and the franchise feels like it’s in sound hands. I was listening to the Slate Spoiler Special podcast (I tried finding a home page for that badboy, but no joy) for his film, and guest Dan Kois aptly refers to the next film as “Harry, Hermione and Ron Go Camping Forever”, so Yates will have those hands full.
Ranking The Latest Movie
I have a poor memory of the Harry Potter movies, but I feel like this is the best of them. I thought I’d hit up a couple of review aggregation sites, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, to see how they thought this movie stood up. In both cases, the films are rated out of 100.
Movie
MC
RT
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)
64
78
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
63
82
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
81
89
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
81
88
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
71
77
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
78
84
Like I said, I can’t remember them well enough to assign more than a vague order. I’d say the first movie was definitely the worst, but after that I’m a bit lost.
Speaking of teen romance, I saw the trailer for the second Twilight movie. I don’t know about the movie, but the trailer is an incomprehensible hack job. I’ve seen the first movie, and I was still kind of lost. And, surprise, surprise, there’s a werewolf.
The Hangover - 6/10 - A goofball comedy that’s part “Dude, Where’s Your Car?” and part “Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle”. It’s reasonably funny, and Zach Galifianakis feels kind of original, but that’s all it really is. Don’t miss Galifianakis’s utterly weird web videos Between Two Ferns.
Year One - 4/10 - I expected a little more from Harold Ramis, but this is a banal movie trading on a bunch of Old Testament stories. Jack Black and Michael Cera are watchable, but they essentially shuffle from one unoriginal set piece to another. Watching the movie, I felt like I’d seen all the schtick before.
Easy Virtue - 5.5/10 - A glowing example, I think, of a poorly-directed film. There’s the nut of a lovely period film here, but the script (co-written by director Stephan Elliot) really needed some more help and a different director at the helm. Jessica Biel is incredibly easy on the eyes, but she’s only an average actor, and wasn’t quite right for the lead role. Neither was Ben Barnes who played opposite her. Kristin Scott Thomas and Colin Firth were, of course, superb, but the movie was poorly paced, laughably predictable and ultimately disappointing.
Public Enemies - 7/10 - I was recently listening to a Slate Cultural Gabfest in which they discussed this movie. Slate film critic Dana Stevens pointed out that the various component parts of the film were enjoyable, but it was lacking the ‘mortar of goodness’ that would make it a better film. I’d definitely agree–I found it enjoyable but a little soulless. I really don’t care for Michael Mann’s murky, naturalistic visual and audio aesthetic. I find it distracting, particularly in a period piece.
I’ve been rather remiss in posting little reviews of movies I’ve seen over the past few months. Here’s part one of recent movies I’ve seen, and I’ll post part two tomorrow.
Terminator: Salvation - 6/10 - Worse than the first two movies, but better than the third. It’s essentially a war movie, with Christian Bale playing his usual grim law-bringer role. The special effects are impressive, and there’s always something to look at. However, it lacks a lot of the depth of the first two films. The themes are much simpler, and there’s little of the time travel fun that made the earlier movies so enjoyable. Also, this movie included two female characters, both of whom had thankless roles as plot or expositional devices.
Up - 9/10 - Pixar keeps hitting it out of the park. They’re a factory churning out great animated films. I didn’t enjoy “Up” quite as much as “Ratatouille”, which was exquisite, but it’s still a superb film. Among other things, this film takes on a very unlikely topic of “how do we cope with life after the death of a loved one?”.
Away We Go - 6/10 - I wrote a review of this film that sums up my thoughts. Sam Mendes is a terrific director, but I was distracted by my disdain for the protagonists and their utter loser-dom.
Transformers 2 - 2.5/10 - It was everything I expected it to be: 57% killer robots, 32% huge explosions and 11% lingering shots of Megan Fox. This film may feature the most incomprehensible plot (a term I use charitably) I’ve ever seen. The only redeemable feature is Shia LaBeouf, who I believe to be destined for a long, Tom Hanksian career. On top of all the usual complaints, I was struck by how difficult it is to tell the killer robots apart. I was a casual fan of the TV show as a kid, but after Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, they all looked the same.
Early on in “Away We Go”, Maya Rudolph’s character asks her boyfriend, “are we fuck-ups?” Because Dave Eggers co-wrote the script, the answer is surely a resounding “yes”. In an earlier post mentioning Eggers’ first novel, I said “Eggers is a great stylist, but must all of his books feature such aimless losers?” In truth, I’ve only read two of his books, but that’s kind of how I felt about “Away We Go”.
The movie’s plot is frustratingly thin. Verona (Maya Rudoplh) and Bert (John Krasinski) are expecting a baby, and so travel the country looking for a new home to raise a family. The film’s inciting incident–Bert’s parents announce they’re moving to Belgium–reveals the protagonists as selfish slackers. It’s as though we’re watching Juno and Paulie, fifteen years later. This isn’t really a legitimate critique of the film, but I found the lead characters’ charmless entitlement really frustrating. So much so that it distracted from my enjoyment of the film.
Which is too bad, because the movie is comprised of a bunch of great scenes. The script, though overly concerned with meta-discussions of language, feels truthful, and the supporting cast–Jeff Daniels, Catherine O’Hara, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Paul Schneider, among others–are all excellent in their one-off scenes. But the movie never seems to coalesce into a fully-realized work of art. Like Eggers’s books, it meanders.
Sam Mendes directs, so the film is a visual treat. In “American Beauty” and “Revolutionary Road”, the British director seemed a little obsessed with the American suburb. In this movie, Mendes heads out on the highway, looking for adventure. The result is splendid road trip fare, from Phoenix to Montreal.
And even though they express themselves with a measure of diffidence, it’s clear that they are acutely, at times painfully, aware of their special status as uniquely sensitive, caring, smart and cool beings on a planet full of cretins and failures.
Last Sunday night, as we were packing to come down to Kentucky, I was channel-surfing. I discovered that the movie “Elizabethtown” had just started, so we stopped packing and watched it. I’d seen it before, but I’m a fan of writer-director Cameron Crowe’s work, and, besides, who likes packing?
If you haven’t seen it, the film tells the story of Drew Baylor, played by Orland Bloom. When his father dies suddenly, he must return to his ancestral home of Elizabethtown, Kentucky. He meets and falls in love with a flight attendant, played by Kirsten Dunst, unsullen and doing her best work.
Elizabethtown, as it happens, is only about 40 km from where we were staying.
Taking the movie and the town’s proximity as a bit of a sign, we made a short road trip there. It’s pretty unremarkable, and as far as I could tell the town has resisted the urge to exploit any connection with the movie. We did have a nice dinner at the Back Home Restaurant, which is everything the name promises. I had potato-wrapped cod, and homemade coconut cream pie for dessert.
On our way to Elizabethtown, I was scanning the local radio stations (the radio mix here was much better than in Texas) and happened upon U2’s “Pride (In the Name of Love)”. That song is featured on the “Elizabethtown” soundtrack when, in the midst of his own road trip, Drew visits the scene of Martin Luther King’s assasination.
We decided to spend our last night in Kentucky in Louisville. We used Hotwire to pick a hotel. As you may know, Hotwire shows you pricing and details for hotels that match your search without disclosing the actual name of the hotel. You book (often at a robust discount) and then get notified of where you’re staying.
We got a very favourable rate at a downtown historic hotel. It’s turns out to be the Brown Hotel, where Drew stays and where much of the second act of “Elizabethtown” takes place.
Is Cameron Crowe trying to tell us something? I don’t think so, but the coincidences were too numerous not to remark upon.
However, I find his skewering unsuspecting private citizens–even if they’re ignorant or bigoted–rather cruel. Plus, there’s plenty of evidence that he and his producers actively mislead his subjects before filming them. When they sign the disclaimer, they’re agreeing to a deceptive and unfair bargain.
I was interested, then, to read this Georgia Straight piece about the 2009 DOXA Documentary Film Festival, and a panel on the ethics of film making. It focuses on a documentary called Carmen Meets Borat, which discusses the impact Cohen’s antics had on a poor Romanian 17-year-old. From the film’s creator, Dutch director Mercedes Stalenhoef:
“These people were not informed of what they were participating in,” Stalenhoef observes in a call from Poland, where she is attending a film festival. “He [Cohen] told them, ‘It’s a documentary,’ and that’s what they thought. And then it was a comedy, and they were called nasty things. I think if you make a film, you should inform people so they can decide for themselves if they want to participate, and how much money they want for it.…They [the villagers] got not so much money [from Cohen’s crew]—like, three euros.”
And here’s a clip from the documentary:
I’m not sure where the new Cohen film Brüno will fall on the public-private paradigm. Attention-seeking fashion designers certainly deserve satire, but judging by the trailer, it looks like there are plenty of innocent victims as well.
I have a small bladder, and often get a drink at the movies. So I’m often presented with the thorny problem of when to go to the bathroom during a film. I think I’m pretty good at picking the best moment, when I’m unlikely to miss any major plot points. Of course, the better the movie, the more difficult it is to choose the right time.
Yesterday James sent me a link to RunPee.com (via Gizmodo). The site is down at the moment–too much attention?–but it apparently promises a very special kind of movie review. RunPee will tell you, as you might have guessed, when you should run to the bathroom and pee. Yet another problem solved by the internet.
As the days grow longer, the movie budgets grow bigger. Here are the latest movies I’ve seen, to add to the big list:
State of Play - 8/10 - Another byzantine screenplay by Tony Gilroy, who also wrote Duplicity (and, it turns out, The Devil’s Advocate). Russell Crowe plays yet another shaggy, heroic loner, this time with Rachel McAdams as his wing-man. All poor Helen Mirren does is spout British curses as the weary publisher worried about bankruptcy, but she’s as watchable as the rest of the cast. Journalists have gotten a lot of bad press lately, so I didn’t even mind this overly rosy depiction of their work.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine - 3/10 - Hugh Jackman works out! That’s really the best takeaway from this maudlin, plodding movie on Wolverine’s creation myth. Why are so many superhero movies so utterly without fun? I guess a lot of comic books are the same way: way too serious for their own good. From the score to the cinematography, everything in this film trades on a silly, tired stereotype.
Star Trek - 8/10 - I reviewed it here, so I’ll just say that it’s a rip-roaring space opera in the style of Star Wars and Serenity (this video highlights how much the plot owes to George Lucas and Joseph Conrad). It’s the first good, fun blockbuster of the summer, and rarely has a dull moment or an off-key scene.
Angels & Demons - 5/10 - As mediocre and muddy as The Da Vinci Code, with an equally implausible plot. By ‘implausible’ I don’t mean that it couldn’t happen. I mean that there isn’t much rational causality between plot points, and the thing has more holes than the IIS in a meteor storm. The plot, for example, has a ticking time bomb plot. Yet the bomb itself is this obscure, bizarre device which depends on a draining battery for its timer. I felt particularly sorry for Ayelet Zurer. She’s the Euro-arm-candy replacement for Audrey Tatou. She’s lovely, but utterly pointless.
I’m not a Trekkie, nor a Trekker. I’m not even a Star Trek enthusiast. I’ve seen most of the movies and some of the original series. I inconsistently watched “Star Trek: The Next Generation” through my adolescence, but then theatre school proved more than enough distraction. That said, whether dystopian or utopian, I’m always willing to give a science-fiction movie a try (for example, I look forward to Moon–autoplaying trailer ahead).
I was optimistic, this weekend, when I went to the new Star Trek movie. It’s creatively called “Star Trek”. I was encouraged by the director J. J. Abrams’s pedigree, and the raucous energy of the trailer. I wasn’t disappointed.
It’s an entertaning, rompin’ space opera. The first ten minutes are–as they must be in any good action movie–superb, full of the riotous energy that was so often missing from previous, more staid Star Trek movie. Abrams has assembled an excellent yet, by big budget movie standards, unknown cast. They look just enough like the original Star Trek actors to be convincing, yet they’re different enough for us not to be constantly reminded of the elder actors’ portrayals. The movie generally does a great job of recognizing its place in the Star Trek canon without getting bogged down in silly cameos or stunts to win the sympathy of hardcore fans (much to their dismay).
With a swashbuckling style (there’s actually a bit of swordplay in one scene) and unfamiliar cast, this “Star Trek” reminded me a lot of the first (by which I mean the 1977 movie) “Star Wars”. As it happens, several of the creative leaders on the “Star Trek” movie cite “Star Wars” as a major influence, including writer Roberto Orci. I was listening to the always-enjoyable Slate Spoiler Special podcast about “Star Trek”, and reviewer Dan Kois compared the film to Joss Whedon’s “Serenity”. I agree, I guess, though I thought “Serenity” itself owed a lot to “Star Wars”.
After seeing the dismal, rote “Wolverine”, “Star Trek” was the blockbuster breath of fresh air I was hoping it would be. You’d have to be a serious Debbie Downer not to enjoy it.
Derek points out that, like the Daniel Craig Bond movies, this film has redeemed the prequel.
UPDATE: I happened upon this video, which highlights the similarities between Star Wars and the new Star Trek movie. I blame Joseph Conrad:
As the days grow longer, the movie budgets grow bigger. Here are the latest movies I’ve seen, to add to 
I’m not a Trekkie, nor a Trekker. I’m not even a Star Trek enthusiast. I’ve seen most of the movies and some of the original series. I inconsistently watched “Star Trek: The Next Generation” through my adolescence, but then theatre school proved more than enough distraction. That said, whether dystopian or utopian, I’m always willing to give a science-fiction movie a try (for example, I look forward to 