Monday, November 1, 2010

Let Me In: Review

Let Me In

Written and Directed by: Matt Reeves
Starring Kodi Smit-McPhee, Chloe Moretz, Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas

Let Me In is a very well made film based on an even better made foreign film that was truly only made because North Americans can’t read and eat popcorn at the same time.

Let Me In is the American re-make of the Swedish classic Let the Right One In. Although I (rightly) refer to it as a classic, Let the Right One In is only two years old, which makes the decision to do a re-make that much more surprising; however, while we can argue about the needfulness to do such a quick re-make just to avoid sub-titles, we can’t argue about whether or not this is a great film—it is.

Let’s start with the acting. Reliable character actors Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas give depth and pathos to their smaller roles, especially Jenkins; but it’s the kids that elevate this film and set it apart from traditional vampire schmaltz. Kodi Smit-McPhee (Owen), who was exceptionally strong in The Road is no less capable here and Chloe Moretz (Abby), the true star of Kick-Ass, shows that she’s an actress to watch with a strong, finessed performance. When a film isn’t counting on car crashes and gore, strong acting is a necessity. Speaking of which, this movie has great car crashes and gore … only slightly kidding

Let Me In is a very faithful re-make, following the original’s slow pace, exquisite shots and strong acting; nonetheless, Reeves does inject some new blood into this vampire flick, with one of the better single shot car crashes you’ve ever seen and a little more American gore. The gore, however, doesn’t overwhelm and, as in the original, it’s the strong universal story of alienation, loneliness and childhood fears and friendship that drives this film.

Let Me In is one of my favourite films of the year. Let the Right One In is one of my favourite films of all time. That doesn’t mean, however, that one shouldn’t see Let Me In. If you haven’t seen the original Swedish film, then by all means, please check it out, you won’t be disappointed. If you have seen the original, check it out anyway. The film plays respectful homage to Let the Right One In, but has enough of its own character to be called that rarest of things: a very good American re-make.

Let Her In.

Point of Interest: There is one scene, or to be more precise, one shot that is in the original film that the new film completely chickened-out on. I assumed that the American version would not include this shot, and sure enough, they didn’t. That’s too bad because it’s essential to the story and to the message of loving someone despite their considerable differences—they’re a vampire, etc. I thought that maybe they’d get around this puritanical problem by doing what is done in the book: when Owen (Oskar) is kissed by Abby (Eli) her history is passed through to Owen in flashback. This would have been one way they could have separated themselves a little from the original film and not have to have “the shot” that American audiences would have burst into tears over. Although, funny enough, they did have “the shot” in the Swedish film released in North America without censoring it, (I don't know how we survived!) so it’s too bad they capitulated here. What is “the shot?” I can’t tell you without ruining the story, especially if you haven’t seen the original or read the book. Speaking of the book—read it! Written by John Ajvide Lindqvist, it’s a great book with obviously more detail and entire story lines that aren’t in either film and has a much more layered and interesting look at Abby/Eli’s “father.”

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Machete: Review

Machete

Directed by Robert Rodriguez and Ethan Maniquis
Starring: Danny Trejo, Jessica Alba, Robert De Niro, Michelle Rodriguez and Steven “Fatso” Seagal


Wish I was Machete.

Stupendously ugly but liquid nitrogen cool, the man knows how to take out the trash--and get the girl(s) too.

Machete is a continuation of the grindhouse theme Rodriguez started with, well, Grindhouse, a double feature that he and Quentin Tarantino put together a few years ago. Easily the best part of Grindhouse was the previews shown before each flick, with the Machete trailer being one of the better ones.

If you don’t have an appreciation for grindhouse movies or even a love of “B” movies, then you almost certainly won’t like Machete. If, however, you like all types of movies, dig the exploitation, baby; attend Chris Alexander’s Film School Confidential! and aren’t put off by excessive gore, then you’re going to love Machete.

Starting at 10 and then flying along at 11, Machete not only glories in its excess it revels in political conspiracies and satire that actually touch on the truth … albeit, the truth on steroids. Machete is successful because it embraces stereotypes (hilariously) and its gore is funny rather than offensive; not only that, the music is so apropos, it gets laughs all on its own.

Rodriguez and Maniquis deftly capture the 70’s feel. You wouldn’t know you were watching an up-to-date film except for the fact that there are cell phones and computers. Keep in mind though, “Machete don’t text.”

The acting is well done, with the actors generally “getting” the genre they’re living in. Ironically, Lindsay Lohan is better as a revenging nun than as a strung out drug addict; sometimes it’s tough to play yourself. Jessica Alba is “this close” to being naked, Michelle Rodriguez is tough and beautiful as usual and truly seems to understand what kind of film she’s making. But it’s Danny Trejo who’s the star, and it’s great to see this character actor take on the leading role--he puts the movie on his shoulders and never lets us down.

The political story line, like everything else, is pumped to the extreme but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t hit on the very real themes of fear and bigotry. But the reason I like Machete so much is because it’s just having such a good time being Machete—to thine own self be true. Damn straight.

Point of Interest: I liked Grindhouse when it was released in theatres but (unlike most of the critics) I liked Planet Terror more than Death Proof. I found Death Proof too self-referential and it was two entirely different films smashed together to make one. But as I mentioned earlier it was the previews that were the best part of Grindhouse. How horribly disappointed I was then, when I purchased both Death Proof and Planet Terror only to discover that the previews that were in Grindhouse weren’t included on the two-disc DVDs (except Machete). Of course that was a few years ago, and just recently they released the Blue Ray DVDs with the trailers … weasels. The good news is that the Canadian contribution to the trailers (and I thought the best) was Hobo with a Shotgun, and it’s been made into a feature to be released in 2011—praise Jebus.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Salt: Review

Salt

Directed by: Phillip Noyce
Starring Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber and Chiwetal Ejiofor (really good actor, incomprehensible name)

Salt is a pretty decent action flick.

So does that mean it gets a good review? Should a movie get a good review just because of the genre it’s in? How many times have we heard, “Well, it’s good for a horror film,” or “it’s all right for a zany comedy?” In other words, should we cut some slack to a film just because it’s of a certain type? Sure, we should, we do it all the time. Nobody sees Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter and says, “That’s so unrealistic, a wizard can’t do that!” So we suspend our disbelief depending on the genre of film; but they still have to be well made. The first Lord of the Rings (mostly animated …. mostly) wasn’t well received because it wasn’t well done, or at least well done enough to appeal to everyone, not just nerds.

So Salt is pretty good … for an action flick. The acting is actually quite good. I think Angelina Jolie is an excellent actress. Now, don’t get all huffy—she is. Yes, she broke Jen’s heart and she used to carry around Billy Bob’s blood and she kissed her brother for far too long once, but despite all that, she’s a very talented actress. Watch Changeling or A Mighty Heart and tell me I’m wrong; and she’s good in this too, appropriately teary or determined as the need arises. Liev Schreiber is sardonic and immanently watchable, and Chiwetal Ejiofor brings clarity and purpose to his role as well as a bang-on Yankee accent.

The action scenes are pretty well done, especially when Jolie is jumping from moving cars and trucks to escape a highway pursuit. The plot has a pretty cool paranoid cold war conspiracy element to it, so why is this only a decent action flick instead of a great one?

Believability.

Yes, we cut slack to movies because of their genre, but they have to be believable within that genre. Even fantasy films have to follow the rules of the universe they are in, and the same goes for action films, and this is an action film, not a superhero/comic book movie. The movie is just too implausible, even for an action flick. What makes the Bourne movies so superior to Salt? Jason Bourne does the most incredible things but they seem much more realistic. As spectacular as the (Bourne) action and story is, it is also gritty, tough and within the laws of physics. With Salt, I’m not even talking about the stunning escapes on the highway, I’m talking about the superhuman strength inside a 98 pound spy, the (repeated) ability to just “knock out” people she doesn’t want to kill, the gecko-like ability to scale walls and elevator shafts; essentially, this film gives Jolie’s character the strength of Superman and the skills of Spiderman in a movie with no superheroes. Oh, and there are certain gigantic plot holes that are entirely unbelievable. I can’t divulge too many without giving away much of the film, but let’s just mention one where Jolie’s character manages to inflict a certain amount of damage on someone because the “cuffs” that have been placed on her have about two feet of slack chain to work with. Have you ever seen cuffs like that in any action film/cop movie in your life, or even the last time you were arrested? Nope, me neither.

So, I can’t recommend Salt at a first run theatre. But it does have strong, watchable actors, and some pretty cool stunts … so if it’s at the Bloor … on a matinee … and you’re in the mood for popcorn or Glosette raisins … oh, what the hell, you talked me into it.

Point of Interest: Just another enormous plot hole that must be mentioned because it’s so stupid it’s almost funny. Jolie’s character is told to marry an entomologist because “spider experts” apparently have easy access to the North Korean border.

Really.

The most notoriously closed off military country in the world allows people studying spiders to cross back and forth between North and South Korea. Hell, don’t send Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter to free the next captive American, just find your local German ex-pat bug expert to waltz across the border with a jar full of Black Widows and maybe a Praying Mantis on his shoulder—that’ll impress ‘em.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Do you Know The Story of The Boy Who Lived? An Appeal to Muggles

Have you someone in your life who hasn’t read the Harry Potter books? Have you encouraged them only to be greeted with rolling eyes and an “I’m an adult and I don’t read kids’ books” attitude? It saddens me that there are people we know all around us who are on the wrong path; we will have to reach out to them. If there is a muggle in your life, have him/her read this testament … and pray.

Dear Muggles, or Those Who Don’t Know:

I was once like you old friend. My parents and others used to urge me to read Harry Potter. I would treat their appraisals of the books with scorn. Indeed, I mocked their happiness and contentment with life. A small part of me was confused with their joy and perhaps wanted to share in it, but I was too proud to let The Boy Who Lived into my heart. I was wandering, alone in this world, a muggle without a cause; and then something miraculous happened: I saw the film Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. I was intrigued, but still I struggled against the strongest magic of all ... love. Then, finally, I read the books, and I came to realize what a friend I have in Harry.

Brother or sister, have you heard the story of The Boy Who Lived? Perhaps I could come by one afternoon and we could have tea and chat. I have some literature I would like you to read--seven books, actually. You may say, you've seen the movies and do not need to read the books. My friend, the movies are a trap for the weak and the attention challenged, and they are nothing but an echo of the true message. Many of your children have heard the message and believe. Your loved ones have embraced The Boy Who Lived, but we are concerned for you, you poor ignorant muggle. Many years from now as we journey to the next world we would be crushed to leave King's Cross Station without you. Join us, friend. Open the books, open your mind, open your heart, save your soul. "Love has a power beyond the reach of any magic," the apostle Albus taught us that, and that is the joy that awaits you.

OK, seriously dudes and lady dudes, you haven't read the books?! No excuses, read the books then you can pooh-pooh them with knowledge if you like, but you have to read them first. If you don’t know me personally then you should know that I am a confirmed snob, I have an honours degree in English, and I actually thought they were just for kids before I read them--but then I did, and they're great. I've re-read them many times, and with that, I'm more and more impressed with the many intriguing layers throughout the books and the imagination that was used to create that world. The parallels with the real world confront classism, racism, and corrupt governments, and most importantly of all, show that justice and love are worth fighting for; worth dying for. The books are remarkably funny, always compelling, and flat-out page turners. I already have to deal with some people I know not thinking the Beatles are all that great (oh, Elaine); don’t let me suffer through the knowledge that there are obstinate muggles out there meandering aimlessly through life--give the books a chance, and save yourself.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: Review

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Directed by: Edgar Wright
Starring Michael Cera and Mary Elizabeth Winstead

After decades of seeing Toronto play anything but itself it’s nice to see two movies in one year where the ol’ girl actually gets to show the CN Tower and not have to hide the km/hour signs. And with the lead actor and two supporting characters also being Canadian … well, I’m just shocked.

While Chloe perhaps shoots this city better than it’s ever been seen, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World goes even a little farther by actually mentioning the city as well. However, once we adjust to the fact that the setting is truly in Toronto (for Canadians it’s an unusual adjustment) then we can just sit back and let the movie take us for a ride.

Our director, Edgar Wright is no stranger to making inventive, high paced action/comedies being the director of both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. I think he’s topped himself with Scott Pilgrim.

The movie is fresh, modern and quick and unlike pretty much anything you’ve seen before. What’s great about the film is that although it’s definitely for a young audience its essential story line—boy fights for girl—is universal. Now, a boy fighting for a girl is something we’ve seen a thousand times before, but not like this.

The basic plot is thus: Scott (Cera) is a 23 year old slacker, “I’m in a band” dude who is trying to get over heartbreak by dating a high school girl, Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). Mercilessly teased by friends and band-mates over dating a 17 year old, Pilgrim continues his near platonic relationship until he meets Ramona Flowers (Winstead) and is instantly smitten. But dating Ramona isn’t so simple, Scott must fight (and I mean freakin’ fight) all of Ramona’s exes before he can capture the girl of his dreams (literally).

The fights are exceptionally well done and carried out in a comic-book/video game/over-the-top fashion. Naturally, they are also hilarious. Part of the humour comes from the fact that the fights are happening at all, part of it comes from a wee, skinny slacker being able to form a fist, let alone kick ass; but most of the humour comes from the ADD mode of everything-all-the-time.

While the style and look of the film is impressive, the movie wouldn’t be as good as it is without such an effective turn from a great ensemble cast. The leads Cera and Winstead are strong and well cast but the supporting actors truly shape the film. They roll with the various tones and situations, being droll, crazy, demented or heart-felt when the need arises, but they are always honest and that is essential for a movie like this. The audience would have drifted away after twenty minutes in this sensory over-load extravaganza, if the cast didn’t keep the emotions real, wry and true. My favourite of the supporting cast is Ellen Wong as Knives. Wong is cute, heart-breaking, funny and is literally a green belt in taekwondo, which, trust me, is important in this film.

However, it wouldn’t be right to review this movie without specifically looking at the performance of Michael Cera. I’ve heard complaints of Cera playing “the same character” in every movie. I actually don’t think this is true. Cera is considerably different in this movie than in others. His last movie, Youth in Revolt, is even more of a departure. In this film, Cera has perfect timing, is both awkward and strong and does a pretty damn good job with the fight scenes, which I don’t think many people would have predicted (me included). Also, if we’re going to criticize Cera for being “the same” then we better be prepared to say that for nearly every other actor out there. Only a few actors can completely disappear into their roles (Streep, Penn, Depp, Pearce) while most play different characters that may have a similar energy. This lack of variety does not mean they are not good actors. I think George Clooney is a great actor but he doesn’t shave his head and speak with a Kiwi accent just to have a different “feel.” Jimmy Stewart and Humphrey Bogart are two of my all time favourites, but one could accuse them of being “the same” in many roles. It’s not all about versatility; it’s more about honesty and whether the audience tunes into the character’s emotions. I think Cera has that, and it comes through in this film.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World keeps you entertained without getting stale or losing its heart; thanks to strong direction and a tight ensemble cast. Besides, how can you not like a film where the hero wears a CBC t-shirt.

Very good flick.


Point of Interest: The only confusing thing about this film is that it didn’t make very much money at the box office. It received (generally) great reviews with an 81% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it’s certainly geared to the traditional movie-going audience of teenagers, so why the weak box-office? I’ve heard some speculate that the Toronto setting might have affected sales. It’s one of the reasons nearly every movie gets “set” in America even if it’s not shot there, or based on a book that has a different setting all together (High Fidelity being moved to Chicago from London being a great example). Many studio execs feel that if a movie isn’t in America and about Americans then the U.S. audience won’t care. I don’t know if that’s true, but studios certainly act as if it is, Americanizing nearly every thing they touch (I’m just glad they left Wolverine Canadian!).

Thursday, September 16, 2010

The Other Guys: Review

The Other Guys

Directed by: Adam McKay
Starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg

Sometimes a movie tries to be too many different types of film and suffers for it. Sometimes a movie can have different styles, different messages and switch genres every five minutes and still pull off an entertaining, hilarious thrill-ride: The Other Guys gets it done.

The jokes are both subtle (sometimes) and outrageous (much more often) but are nearly always funny. Sure, there are some misses here and there, but that’s to be expected when there are just so damn many of them. More often that not, they find their mark.

Narrated by a man who once sang about killing cops and now plays one on TV (Ice-T) this is one of the better “buddy-cop” movies to come along, and it’s certainly one of the better “buddy-cop” parodies ever done. That’s what makes The Other Guys interesting; it’s much more than typical “parodies” like Date Movie and Scary Movie, it actually has decent acting, a real story, and more importantly, biting political satire. Still, it is a parody. Not just of buddy-cop films, but of action films altogether. The action sequences are so ridiculous they border on surreal, thus lambasting the typical over-the-top action seen in so many movies where the hero can fly his car through any old building and emerge without a scratch. Just when you think this is how they’re going to do it, cheesy violence with no consequences, they switch gears and suddenly the “heroes” at the start of the film meet a very real (though inexplicable) end.

This is where our main characters, Detective Allen Gamble (Ferrell) and Detective Terry Hoitz (Wahlberg) come in. Both have been delegated to back-up detectives, helping the real cops who are on the street fighting crime, by doing paper work. Gamble is very happy and safe pushing paper and crunching numbers, whereas Hoitz is itching to get back out on the street. The back story of how these two ended up where they are is hilarious and I won’t ruin it for you here, but then a case comes down that prods them away from their desks.

The gags are great. Gamble and Hoitz getting “tricked” into accepting bribes, the hobo orgies and desecration of Gamble’s Prius; the Prius itself contrasting with the super-cops’ mint condition SS Chevelle and the scorching hotness of Gamble’s wife (Eva Mendes) and their bizarre relationship. Perhaps the best gag of all though, is the political humour and surprising insight. You don’t expect the savvy lines about the bail out of the ultra rich being blended into a movie like this, but just in case you missed it (and there’s a good chance that we did) the end credits knock it over your head—but in a good way.

I joked that the end credits were the best part of Robin Hood in an earlier review (they were) but these end credits are even better. Filled with well researched facts (Sony insisted for fear of lawsuits) the end credits spell out the huge gap between what large financial corporations and executives get away with in relation to the rest of us. My favourite was the CEO salary compared to the average employee salary. Starting at about 10 to 1 in 1924 it slowly grew to about 20 to 1 in the 1950s … it is now currently 319 to 1. If that doesn’t piss you off, I don’t know what will. Some might feel it’s a little jarring that these Michael Moore-like credits come at the end of The Other Guys but there are hints of this message throughout, as well as the crime that they are investigating itself. It may have been a better film if this theme was explored a little more but we should be happy for any political message at all in what is otherwise a zany, buddy-cop flick.

Kudos should also go out to Ferrell and Wahlberg. We expect them to be funny, especially Ferrell, but they also make the viewer care about these guys. It’s not a big dramatic turn or anything; they just both have the ability to create empathy for characters that aren’t all that likeable.

Check out The Other Guys. It’s not perfect, there are a couple of lulls, but it’s inventive, different, takes unexpected turns, and has a slyly hidden political punch.

Point of Interest: As mentioned earlier the hero cops drive around in a mint condition ’69 SS Chevelle. I love this. It’s a shot at so many different films and TV shows where the tough cops always drive a cool muscle car. I happen to love old muscle cars so I’ve always noticed this little quirk. What’s great about The Other Guys is when this beautiful Chevelle gets destroyed they’re driving a different Chevelle the next day. And, naturally, once our leads earn their chops, they have a mint condition first generation Camaro … perfect.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The Karate Kid: Review

The Karate Kid

Directed by: Harold Zwart
Starring Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan

Should we moan so much over Hollywood’s complete lack of originality and their compulsive desire to only make movies that are based on TV shows, video games, and already successful, somewhat older movies?

Yes, we should.

But before we get smug about it (we Canadians do like to get smug) we should also remember that it is simply human nature to do remakes and that we’ve been doing it for as long as we've known. Nearly everything Shakespeare wrote was based on previous plays. The story of Jesus was told countless times in countless ways thousands of years before the year 1 A.D. Culturally, we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, and sometimes we improve things, and sometimes we don’t.

After that grandiose introduction we come to the mediocre The Karate Kid, which adds little to the original and takes too long to do it.

Still, this remake is not horrible. The stars of the film do a pretty decent job. It beautifully captures some of China’s landmarks (if not its people) and the fighting sequences are if anything, better than the original. However, at a running time of 2 hours and 20 minutes, this film meanders too long to find it’s mojo; but that’s not its worst problem, the worst thing about the film is the age of its star.

In the original film, Ralph Macchio (who was actually in his twenties) played a kid in his late teens. Jaden Smith plays a 12 year old kid and he looks like a young 12 year old. How does that affect the film? It lessens the danger, it lessens the stakes. I’m not saying a 12 year old can’t feel out of place and afraid, but young adults beating and bullying each other is simply more threatening and more real than kids who haven’t got their pubes yet duking it out. As much as his age hurts the fights and lessens the tension, it’s even more uncomfortable in the romantic subplot. Here, not only did they make the absurd mistake of having a 12 year old in a romantic storyline; they also cast an actress who seems decidedly older than Smith in both looks and demeanour. So, now we have a situation where a 12 year old kid manages to pick up a girl who looks three years older than him, and oh yeah, he doesn’t speak a word of her language. This is both, a) unbelievable, and b) creepy.

While Smith’s acting is decent and he does have his charm, there’s a major problem with his character—he’s not very likable. It’s not that the kid can’t act; he’s just portraying a character that’s pretty tough to root for. He’s known for the summer that he’s moving to China but has made zero effort to learn the language. He’s completely disrespectful to his mother (repeatedly) and does little but gripe and complain to the person who helps him the most (Chan). I’m supposed to be cheering for this kid who has been thrown into a foreign land, who’s being bullied and picked on and instead I’m hoping some Asian kid teaches him some manners.

But the film has one very strong saving grace: Jackie Chan. Not very well known for dramatic turns, especially in English language films, Jackie Chan delivers a performance that is every bit as good as Pat Morita’s in the original if not better. Pat Morita received an Oscar nod; Chan deserves one more. The film comes alive when Chan’s on the screen. It has more meaning, it has more depth, it has more comedy, and it becomes more realistic and engaging.

As mentioned earlier, the fighting sequences are quite well done, especially the one and only scene where Chan jumps into the fray, but here again, the star’s age lessens the impact of the fights. Smith just appears so young, small, and slight that he looks like he could Hong Kong Phooey on someone’s butt for 20 minutes and still wouldn’t be able to knock them down without a ladder and a baseball bat. That being said, the final kung fu move is a pleasure to watch.

If you decide to go see The Karate Kid at the Bloor, you’ll see some pretty cool fights and a nice performance from Jackie Chan … or you could rent the original and fall in love with Elisabeth Shue all over again.

Point of Interest: Jaden Smith’s parents (Will and Jada Pinkett Smith) are the producers of The Karate Kid. While despotism is nothing new to the entertainment industry, the kid’s parents did him a disservice by making this film when he was so young. If they had waited four or five more years they could have produced a film with a much bigger physical and emotional wallop.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Get Him to the Greek: Review

Get Him to the Greek

Directed by: Nicholas Stoller
Starring Jonah Hill, Russell Brand and the many named Sean Combs


Get Him to the Greek is a sequel to the romantic comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall. This is not a romantic comedy though, more of a “bromantic” road trip comedy with enough dark edges to make it interesting.

Russell Brand reprises his role of Aldous Snow, the out of control, addicted to everything rock star. The film opens with one of its best bits, a savage satire of the concerned celebrity “helping” Africa with Snow’s song and video, “African Child.” The politically incorrect and hopelessly self centred Snow doesn’t see the inevitable backlash coming, and after the critical and public pounding, sinks into debauchery after being sober for 7 years.

Now here’s where it gets a wee bit odd. Jonah Hill enters the picture playing a young music executive, Aaron Green for Pinnacle Records. The thing is, that’s not what he played in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I know his role wasn’t that big in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but to have a “continuation” of the story with the same actor in Brand playing the same role, and to have another actor who was also in that movie but now playing a completely different role, is a bizarre choice. I know people like to work with the same people, that’s understandable, but I’m sure they could have found another actor to play this role. That’s not to knock Johan Hill, the man’s a good actor and a good comedian (check out Cyrus when you get a chance, it’s his best role to date) but the casting is weird—not Harrison Ford suddenly playing Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back—but still.

It’s Aaron’s job to get Snow to an L.A. hall, The Greek Theatre, on time for an anniversary concert that will hopefully re-boot Snow’s career. That’s a simple and succinct summary of the plot, and it’s already right there in the title. But like all good road trips, the point of the film is what happens along the way.

Is the film clichéd? Yeah, sure it is. Can we figure out the ending from the first few minutes? Probably. But Get Him to the Greek succeeds where so many other road trip movies fail, by having the comedy come quickly and slyly. Indeed, there were a number of jokes nearly missed because they were subtle and politically oriented and almost thrown away. The editing and pacing of the film places the viewer right in Aaron’s shoes--desperately aware of the time slipping away but too caught up in the sleaze and the fun to stop it. Naturally, there are gross out gags, and some sophomoric humour, but mostly the film tackles the vacuousness of the music and entertainment industries.

The film’s not all yucks though. We get to see the emptiness of fame and the utter loneliness that comes with it. Why Snow is constantly consuming his “medicine” becomes more interesting than the clownish behaviour it produces. These more dramatic scenes are generally well done, even if somewhat predictable, but are smartly cut short before skidding into maudlin.

Get Him to the Greek is not a great film, but it’s good. And in it’s category of road trip/comedy/coming of age/redemption movies, it’s one of the better one’s you’ll find.

Point of Interest: Everyone should have a furry wall … for when it’s needed.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

House: Review

House
Directed by: Nobuhiko Obayashi
Starring a bunch of hot Asian girls


Combination H.R. Pufnstuf, Yellow Submarine and your worst/best acid trip; House will freak you out.

Too ridiculous to be frightening but too damn entertaining to dismiss, House seems to combine nearly every genre of film in a way that feels both amateurish and sharply brilliant. Some movies throw the kitchen sink at you; House goes in and gets the tub.

It has a plot. Let’s see … boy meets girl, boy loses girl, girl gets swallowed by a piano. Well, that’s not quite accurate but accuracy in a review of House would seem entirely inappropriate.

I saw it during a matinee and there were a decent amount of people there having a good time and some laughs but when I walked by tonight, there was a huge line-up for the evening show. I think that would be a great way to see House, with a packed, well … house; because more than anything else, House is funny.

Ironically, it has a very typical straight forward horror movie “plot.” A young woman doesn’t like her new step-mom so she goes off to visit her Aunt she hasn’t seen in years with six of her best friends. The house, the Aunt and a cat team up to destroy/possess/eat all the girls--the end. There, I’ve ruined it for you.

But I haven’t. The plot that you can see coming from a mile a way isn’t the point. It’s the journey that gets you there, man, it’s the journey. In fact, the film has great fun with its standard plot and stock characters; they’re even named for exactly what they are: Gorgeous is gorgeous, Kung Fu kicks ass, Prof is the smart one, Melody is the musician, and so on. The director’s having so much fun the actress’s even sneak coy little looks straight to the camera as if to say, “Wait till you see what’s next.” And that’s just it, you may have a good guess, my fellow film buff, as to what’s next, but you have no idea how they’re going to do it, say it, or present it, and especially, how many body parts will be lost.

The actresses relish their stereotypes ‘r us characters, but my favourite is Kung Fu; not just because she spends most of the movie running around in her underwear. I like her attitude. I believe most of us would like to think that we’d be brave enough to react to a witch/ghost/apparition by kicking it in the face.

Wildly entertaining, endlessly creative, funny and fun, House demands your attention.

May you be turned into a pile of bananas if you don't check it out.

Point of interest: Remarkably, this is the Toronto premiere for a cult classic that’s more than thirty years old. The Bloor saves us again. It makes me want to say the prayer I say every night, “Thank you baby Jesus for daisies, Ziggy comics, soft, fluffy bunnies, and the Bloor.” It’s also just been released on DVD by Criterion, but see it on the big screen with an audience if you get a chance.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Robin Hood: Review

Robin Hood
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett and some guy from Great Big Sea


The best part of Robin Hood is the end credits.

This is not a good sign.

What exactly is wrong with Robin Hood? It’s not like Ridley Scott is some hack—Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise and Black Hawk Down, to name just a few pieces of Scott’s considerable body of work. A fine collection of actors has been brought together as well; Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett, Max Von Sydow and William Hurt are a few names most producers would be ecstatic to have attached to their projects.

No, Robin Hood suffers from something else. It just seems to wonder through the story, trying to get a foot-hold somewhere and never quite succeeding; and worse, it’s a pale reflection of other, similar but better movies. Obviously, the first reminder/let-down is Gladiator, another Scott/Crowe flick about a brave, truthful warrior who must fight tyranny against all odds. Robin Hood is Gladiator’s poor, somewhat embarrassing cousin. Where Gladiator is clear, concessive and compelling, Robin Hood is disjointed, lumbering and muddled. Other movies are planted in one’s mind while watching Robin Hood as well. With Kate Blanchett involved in a film about a woman fighting for her standing in “old-timey” England, we naturally think of Elizabeth, especially when she dons her armour. And the scene where the French land in England is straight out of Saving Private Ryan, just sub in the arrows and shields.

Some have criticized Robin Hood for being historically inaccurate, which is kind of like saying Miracle on 34th St. isn't factually correct. It’s not that the history is inaccurate, which it is (Robin Hood’s dad wrote the Magna Carta! No Way! Totally Dude! What’s the Magna Carta?); it’s the process of bringing all the historical “tweaks” together that bogs the film down. We are an hour and twenty minutes into the film before Robin Hood does anything at all like Robin Hood. It’s not that I don’t like a good back story, Batman Begins does a good job with it; but Robin Hood seems to be trying to give every character and every historical event its own private back story, so we end up with plenty of back story and not enough story itself.

Despite the strong actors, the acting isn’t always bang-on either. Russell Crowe is believable, but has picked some weird hybrid accent of Irish/Scottish that is for the most part indecipherable. There are a few times in the film when actors speaking French have subtitles, but I longed for them more whenever Russell was speaking. Kate Blanchett is good, so is William Hurt, and Oscar Isaac is petulant enough for Prince/King John. And I have to mention Great Big Sea’s Alan Doyle as one of Robin Hood’s Merry Men. He is primarily the minstrel and he doesn’t speak all that much, but it’s a bigger role than any Canadian actor had in Chloe, so good for him.

So, should you see Robin Hood? Well, there is lots of action for a movie that still feels slow. The film looks pretty good. Kevin Costner is nowhere in sight. Mark Strong makes a pretty cool bad guy. The Bloor has the best popcorn in the city, and like I said, the end credits rock. So if you must--see it, but only at the Bloor; to support our beloved theatre … and for the popcorn.

Point of Interest: The film ends by suggesting that the legend is “just beginning.” So, now that they've got all the crap out of the way they'll make a good movie, just not this one. Funnily enough, you sort of do feel like you’d want to see the next movie. The next movie looks great, fun and exciting; man I wish I could see that movie. Ironically, we probably won’t see that film since Robin Hood didn’t do all that well with the critics and more importantly, with the North American snack bar audience.

Monday, July 12, 2010

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Review

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Directed by: Niels Arden Oplev
Starring Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist

As Kodos and Kang would say: “Holy Fleurking Schnit!”

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo freakin’ rips it and does so in an art-house, intelligent way.

It’s a wonderful juxtaposition when a film can take it’s time, but never feel slow; build character without grinding to a halt; maintain suspense without lowering itself to the lowest common denominator; and keep you engaged and guessing throughout.

Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) is a reporter (remember them?) who actually does investigate stories rather than just releasing press kits, but gets set up for a fall from one of his corporate targets. Noomi Rapace plays Lisbeth Salander, an ex-con working for a security firm who has been hired to check out Blomkvist. Salander is complex, has a dark past, is unpredictable … and has a dragon tattoo.

Despite his guilty conviction of libel, Blomkvist is hired to investigate a 40 year old murder. The man employing Blomkvist is industrialist Henrik Vagner, trying to solve the mystery of who killed his beloved niece. Vagner is convinced that the perpetrator is someone within his own family as he is sent a yearly birthday token from the killer simply to torture him. Of course, Vagner’s suspicions are all speculation as no one knows exactly what happened 40 years ago and it’s Blomkvist who’s been brought in, in one last attempt to decipher a case that has stumped investigators for decades.

Lisbeth Salander develops an interest in Blomkvist while investigating him on behalf of Vagner and keeps tabs on him after the assignment is done. Thus, she is dragged into the case as well when she cracks a code that was in the victim’s diary. Allowing herself to get drawn in, she teams up with Blomkvist to investigate the murder together. Since I loathe reviews that do nothing but rehash the plot and in the process give away nearly the entire movie, the plot summary is going to have to stop right here … oooh, intrigued?

You should be. This movie pulls together all the elements of the story without letting the ball ever hit the floor. The film makers and actors deserve high praise for creating a film that runs nearly two and a half hours but feels considerably shorter.

Perhaps most exciting of all is that a new cinematic character, Lisbeth Salander, has been unleashed upon the public. Tough as nails, smart as a whip, beautiful but not pretty, Salander is easy to root for even though you’re not quite sure what’s going on inside her mind. Congratulations to Noomi Rapace for so successfully realizing this intriguing figure; oh, and make sure you see this movie before the inevitably lousy American version hits the screens.

Point of Interest: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the first movie based on a series of books written by Stieg Larsson called the Millennium Trilogy. The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest are the last two. The story behind these books is as fascinating as the books themselves. Larsson was an investigative journalist/activist who probed extreme right and racist organizations and had to live the last several years of his life under death threats. The Millennium books were found and published after his passing and have become a world-wide phenomenon. I have yet to read the books myself (I’ll start after seeing the Played with Fire film) but based on this movie, I’m looking forward to diving in. I would love to hear any comments from people who have read the books to hear whether you think they did a good job with the adaptation.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

A Phrophet: Review

A Prophet
Directed by Jacques Audiard
Starring: Tahar Rahim and Neils Arestrup

Seeing a film as well made as this one, after seeing other great foreign films at the Bloor, makes one think: do Europeans simply make better films than the Americans do, or better films than the three English Canadian films that get made nearly every year? Well, the answer might simply be—yes. However, it may be that we really only see the best of the best of European cinema here in Canada. It’s not like they send over their versions of Gunless or Marmaduke, or even worse, The Hurt Locker (just slightly kidding). I mean they make hundreds of films a year, but we only see their best, right? But when I think of their top films: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, A Prophet, The Secret in their Eyes, The White Ribbon, Broken Embraces, Bliss, Revanche, and a number of other foreign films experienced at the Bloor this year and I put it up against Hollywood’s best: District 9, Avatar, Up in the Air, A Serious Man, The Shite Locker, I think, maybe they are better. Europeans just seem to make films for adults, while Hollywood (generally) makes films for focus groups.

Well fuck the focus groups, here comes A Prophet.

Mixing surreal metaphors with nearly documentary style realism produces a profound combination of artistry and brutality, whimsy and suffering, innocence and experience—Blake would be proud.

Tahar Rahim plays Malik El Djebena, a young thug who’s just old enough to get thrown in a real prison as opposed to the juvies he’s spent most of his childhood in. He’s caught in between several worlds: too old for juvie, too young for prison, he’s French, but he’s also an Arab, he’s a young man trying to be invisible, but he immediately gets targeted to become an executioner or become the condemned himself. Rahim captures the relative innocence and terror of the young prisoner, but where the actor truly shines is as the film progresses and we see him age, not with make-up, but in the subtle way he carries himself. It’s a gradual process that is superbly done.

The acting throughout the film is excellent and the prison scenes (nearly the entire film) are extremely realistic, with the director using many ex-cons as advisors and extras to give his film the honest grit required. But it’s the other worldly moments that flesh out the movie’s themes. In A Phrophet, we have a friendlier version of Hamlet’s ghost that reminds our protagonist of his horrible deed, but also keeps him company and supplies insights into connecting with God. Malik then has a prophetic, eerily beautiful dream of deer that are running through the night. They represent the freedom he longs for but they are also being hunted down. An appropriate, contradictory allegory that suits a film where the world gets turned upside down; where the weak and inconsequential become the sharpest and the strongest; where heavenly visions lead to brutal murder; and where love for your godchild is more compelling and important than your new status as a crime lord.

Point of interest: There are rumours that there may be a sequel to A Prophet, which is something we should all hope for. Excellent ground work has been laid providing us with fascinating characters and a story that just seems to be beginning.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Soundtrack for a Revolution: Review

Soundtrack for a Revolution
Directed by Bill Guttentag and Dan Sturman


Sigh.

What am I doing with my life?

I think I should do more.

This is a film that will inspire you, entertain you, educate you, and also make you realize that doing the dishes and the laundry in the same day isn’t accomplishing a lot. These people did something. They changed the world: fighting against the machine, the man, and against centuries old, entrenched bigotries that were literally the law. And they did it all with peace and patience … and song.

The documentary not only takes a fascinating look at the civil rights movement in the U.S. but also at the songs and music that were part of the movement. We hear the archival music that was played and sung at nearly every gathering and we also get new treatments of the songs by some modern artists.

At no point are we overwhelmed by the music. The music and the story inform each other; indeed, the oral tradition of song is one of the few things the slaves that were forced to America had. It’s fitting then, that on the cusp of finally gaining their true freedom, that it was old Negro spirituals that inspired their cause.

The film explores dangers that protestors (in the U.S. or Canada) can hardly imagine today. The threat of jail was light compared to the very real dangers of beatings, castrations and countless murders that were perpetrated against the civil rights marchers. And yet there were not bowed. They carried on, peacefully, until a country was finally shamed into acting. The film weaves archival footage with current interviews and of course, with the soaring, beautiful music.

One of the marchers says, “We were ordinary people who did extraordinary things.” They certainly did. This is why this documentary, like many well made documentaries, makes you think about your own life, and what you’ve done with it. Soundtrack, Shake Hands with the Devil, H2Oil, Crude and other documentaries call to your conscience and ask like a dying Sean Connery in The Untouchables, “What are you prepared to do?”

Point of Interest: The executive producer for Soundtrack for a Revolution is Danny Glover, a man familiar with social causes. Another film that Mr. Glover takes part in, is Unprecedented: the 2000 Presidential Election. If you haven’t had a chance to see it, you should check it out.

The Last Station: Review

The Last Station
Directed by Michael Hoffman
Starring: Helen Mirren, Christopher Plummer, Paul Giamatti, James McAvoy, and Kerry Condon

You may remember in my review of The Hurt Locker that I said there were several films I’d place above Hurt for the top films of 2009, well, this is one of them.

The Last Station is an excellent film. Remarkably, it was nominated for both best Actress (Mirren) and for best supporting Actor (Plummer), but somehow, was not amongst the TEN films nominated for best picture. How a film can have both its stars nominated for best acting considerations and not be in the best film race, especially an expanded best film race, is an unsolved mystery best left for Leonard Nimoy to contemplate. Naturally, the Oscars being a home of insanity, they did it twice this year: Crazy Heart pulled off the same feat. Unlike The Last Station though, Crazy Heart is a decent film with a great performance in it from Bridges. How in the world Maggie (last name unpronounceable) was nominated for her work is just yet another riddle poor Mr. Nimoy will have to work out. The Last Station is no Crazy Heart, it is far above merely decent.

This is one of the better acted films of the year. Giamatti, a consistently excellent actor, captures the insecurities and the desperation of Vladimir Chertkov. He’s a man who desires to raise the great author Tolstoy up to the level of deity; but ignores the man himself. James McAvoy is the writer Valentin Bulgakov. He is initially employed as a secretary to Tolstoy and he is also an ardent follower, but McAvoy is truthful and honest, and his character grows along with the film. Kerry Condon, playing Masha, brings humanity to the movement and to the movie with an earthy portrayal of Valentin’s love interest.

It is Plummer and Mirren though, that are the highlights of the film. Their relationship; so full of love and enmity, with a rich past that both haunts and supports them, is the crux of the film. When acting like this comes along, it is sometimes hard to describe, except to call it what it is--virtuosity.

The film is more that just the acting. The settings, the costumes, the cinematography all capture the era perfectly. The hypocrisy of the new religion of Tolstoy is no different that the hypocrisy of all religions. In the pursuit of perfection they forget that perfection is impossible, and that messiahs, especially the messiah of Tolstoy, are far from perfect themselves. Tolstoy seems to realize this, as he frequently says, Chertkov (his disciple) is a much better Tolstoyan than he is himself. This overly strict adherence to a way of life is wonderfully illustrated when Tolstoy kills a mosquito that is on the face of Valentin, only to be scolded by his pupil Chertkov for killing a living thing.

Thus, the followers of Tolstoy, while pursuing an ideal life of love, consistently push love to the side. McAvoy’s Valentin begins to see through the hypocrisy and his burgeoning love story is counterbalanced with the older and more layered love of Tolstoy and his Countess.

See the movie.


Point of Interest: Christopher Plummer is a god.

The Hurt Locker: Review/Diatribe

The Hurt Locker
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Ralph Fiennes (a little bit), Guy Pearce (a little bit less) and a bunch of Americans

That’s right; I’m taking a shot at The Hurt Locker, the critics’ darling, and the odds-on favourite to win a heap of Oscars. Why am I taking on The Hurt Locker? Because it’s the most over-rated film that was nominated this year.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I thought Hurt was a decent film. It’s well directed and well acted, and since we’re now nominating 10 (ten!) films for Best Picture, then, yeah, I might have thrown it in there amongst the clusterfuck that is this year’s best picture nominees. I’m not taking on The Hurt Locker because it’s a lousy film; I’m taking it on because it is being so highly rated by critics and sweeping most of the major awards—I think, undeservedly.

Friends, my friends, this film is seriously one-noted. Its opening is one of the best openings in film this year, and then it goes nowhere. The gist of the film, its essence is well played out, but it is then repeated for the rest of the film. I feel like this could have been a kick-ass short film, say 20 to 30 minutes long, or perhaps the best episode of 24 ever, running at 44 minutes. I don’t feel like the characters or the story went anywhere. This could well be the whole point of the film, that war and soldiers continue on this terrible journey without stop, as it has always been, not just for Iraq or Afghanistan, but for all wars. If that’s the director’s point, then it’s a good one, and since it’s a well crafted film, she gets her message across. However, the message is set on repeat, therefore creating an excellent short film versus a merely decent full length film.

So why is it so highly regarded? I believe it’s nothing but critics’ snobbery. And I believe the producer of Hurt Locker who sent out the derogatory email sniffing that members should vote for his film, rather than a $500 million dollar film (obviously Avatar) epitomises that attitude completely. That’s right; of course, expensive films can never be truly good. If it’s expensive then it must be some over-wrought Hollywood piece of crap, that might make lots of money with the “masses” but real film people know that small, indie films are always better no matter what.

Well, not always.

Let’s look at the Best Picture nominees. I would rank them thusly: District 9, Avatar, Up in the Air, An Education, Precious, Inglourious Basterds, Up, The Hurt Locker, A Serious Man, and The Blind Side. There’s more than a few movies I would have put on this list ahead of the last three here, but that’s a whole other argument. Suffice it to say, The Hurt Locker isn’t even in my top five of the nominated films and wouldn’t be in my top ten of films I would’ve nominated.

I also think that Hurt is getting a lot of recognition as an anti-Cameron statement. I don’t think a lot of people like Cameron all that much especially because he keeps proving them wrong. Remember all the disastrous press that was being written about Titanic before it was released? It was going to be the biggest flop ever! It’s way over budget and it’s going to bomb! The Titanic sinks! …except it didn’t, and it made more money than any other film (until some other film came along, directed by someone, I can’t remember who) and won an avalanche of Oscars, including best picture. The exact same scenario happened with Avatar. It’s going to cost $500 million! It’s going to be a disaster! James Cameron is an egomaniac who’s out of control! Avatar will be his Waterloo! …except it wasn’t.

James Cameron doesn’t play by the Hollywood rules, and what better way to “stick it” to Cameron than by giving all the recognition to The Hurt Locker, directed by his ex-wife. Why Hurt Locker? Up in the Air, was the odds-on favourite heading into the Globes, everyone thought Avatar wouldn’t get very much attention from the foreign press, but it did, so the anti-Cameron’s out there put their energy into The Hurt Locker. They couldn’t put it into Up in the Air; it’s directed by a (Canadian!) and it doesn’t have the perceived poetic justice of an indie movie made on a shoe-string budget directed by Cameron’s ex, which The Hurt Locker has. And let’s not forget, James Cameron is also Canadian, and the very American Academy doesn’t like having someone beat them at their own game … again.

Point of Interest: Watching two different interviews, one with the star of The Hurt Locker and one with the director, revealed a wondrous thing. Jeremy Renner, who plays SSG William James, said that The Hurt Locker was a good film because it doesn’t take any sides; it is neither an anti-war film nor a pro-war film. The Director, Kathryn Bigelow, clearly stated in her interview, that The Hurt Locker was definitely an anti-war film. Isn’t art great? It can mean many things to many different people. Even people this heavily involved in the making of the movie, see the film in very different ways. I see both points of view. It is anti-war because it shows the horror of war; however, I can see why Renner says it’s neither anti-war, nor pro-war, because it doesn’t really take sides. This could be seen as a good thing, it could also be seen as a complete cop-out by the creative team behind the film afraid to take any risks, or to take a stand.
Another Point of Interest: Much has been made (and rightfully so) that this film is significant because it’s potentially the first Oscar win for a female director. What’s been completely overlooked is that there isn’t a significant female character in the entire film. This is especially ironic since there are rarely women posted to combat roles, but there are plenty of women posted to bomb disposal crews. One of the more likely places you’ll see a female soldier in Iraq is in the bomb disposal area, and here we have a film directed by a woman, with a very seldom seen opportunity to show how women contribute to their respective armies. That opportunity was not taken.

The Men Who Stare at Goats: Review

The Men Who Stare at Goats
Directed by Grant Heslov
Starring: George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Obi-Wan, and Kevin Spacey

All right, this movie isn’t great. It’s not quite sure what it wants to be. Is it a dark comedy? Or just a comedy? Is it in any way serious? Well, sort of. Is this paragraph confusing and disjointed? Kind of.

In some ways, the movie works. Clooney is quite committed and funny, Jeff Bridges, equally so. Kevin Spacey is suitably evil as he often is, but Luke’s teacher is kind of left in the breeze, to be the butt of Jedi jokes and the apparent straight man in a film that’s not even sure if it’s a comedy.

The film is about the (seriously!) true story of a group of soldiers who are trained in psychic abilities to be used against the enemy (the army hopes) or to bring about world peace (the psychic soldiers hope). Naturally, the group is sabotaged by the jealous and the sceptical, and by too many failures to counter the successes. Ridiculous redemption awaits us in the end; however, the movie does touch on some serious themes (Iraq War, the brutality of “hired” security soldiers, the individual Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed, kidnapping, etc.) but never gives them their due. Now, you, the good-looking reader, might think I’m belittling this movie because of its psychic claims; far from it. It’s an absolute fact that this unit did exist, and remote viewing was used, often successfully, for years (although they claim now they don’t use it). It’s the film that belittles the reality and uses any “truth” for laughs. I heard the author of the book that it’s based on being interviewed on the radio, and at first he was pretty pissed about their treatment of his story—it wasn’t a comedy to him. However, in the end he was all right with it. He realized that a story this hard to believe must first be introduced through comedy; let the jester tell the truth, it’s easier to digest.

Point of interest: If you want to check out the “real” story behind the Hollywood treatment, go to coasttocoastam.com and search Jim Channon and check out what he has to say. What’s Coast to Coast AM? It is the most listened to “late night” radio show in the world and it specializes in stories that the mainstream media ignores. Sometimes it focuses on pretty ordinary things, the economy, the environment; and other times it goes into the more bizarre/interesting, like conspiracy theories, Sasquatch, UFOs, ghosts, and other topics that may be unbelievable, sometimes quite believable, but most of the time, fascinating. You can check it out on 640am and if it comes in, 610am, or on the Internet—and no, I’m not being paid by Coast to Coast to recommend them (cheap bastards!).

Good Hair: Review

Good Hair
Directed by Jeff Stilson
Produced, Narrated and Generally Made Funny by Chris Rock

I saw this movie right after Crude, and you feel like you see nearly as much toxic goo in this movie as in the former.

Chris Rock takes us through the lucrative hair industry, and how remarkably important it is within the African-American (and I assume Canadian) community. What makes Rock’s story even more interesting is the dilemma of his little girls’ desire to have “good hair” and how he knows he will have to face this battle soon enough.

Rock interviews celebrities, politicians and “normal” people alike, and they all have the same passion for hair that’s not nappy, not natural, and looks European, or at the least, Indian.

Rock even goes to India to see the religious ceremony that produces much of the hair used in extensions. It turns out that India is the world’s largest exporter of hair and indeed, hair is a multi-billion dollar industry in India.

What’s frustrating to Rock and to many in the African-American community is that the vast majority of hair products made for African-Americans are not owned by said community. Like so many industries, they are controlled by Asian powers.

What makes Good Hair an interesting, enjoyable, and funny film is that Rock tackles subjects like foreign ownership with biting humour and exasperation.

His main focus, however, is on the desire of the people of his community (mostly, but not all, women) to have hair that doesn’t look black. He seems amazed, and sometimes a little angry, that very few of these people want to grow their hair naturally. And that, from a very young age (there’s a 4 year old getting a perm) Africa-American girls want to have their hair straightened. To do this, they endure a great amount of pain, placing dangerously toxic chemicals on their heads to take out the curl.

The film is funny, but still asks some tough questions about the lengths we can go to achieve “ideal” beauty.

Point of interest: At one point, the film discusses hair extensions that are so intricately weaved into the woman’s hair that you can’t tell by looking at it that it’s not their own hair; however, you also can’t touch the hair or it’s ruined. The ultimate in vanity, “doesn’t this look good? —don’t fucking touch it.”

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Crude: Review

Jan. 12
Crude
Directed by Joe Berlinger

You know how I said that people should see a movie like Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans? Well they should, but that's more to see movies that are different from your everyday Hollywood shitefactory product. A movie like Crude is a movie everyone should see, but for different reasons.

For those who say art doesn't matter, see Crude. Documentaries are art just as much as traditional, "written" movies. They have to be well constructed, and compelling or the audience will be lost no matter how important the story. In many ways, though, putting together a great documentary sometimes means getting out of the way. When the story is so important and pulls us in, then just step back and let the facts flow.

If you follow the news at all, then you're probably aware that oil companies are one of the most evil influences on the planet. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Iraq, and it wasn't for "freedom" and it wasn't in retaliation for 9/11, and it wasn't to bring democracy to the Middle East; it was for oil. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the truth. Now, I'm going off on a tangent here, because Crude isn't about the Iraq War, it's about how oil companies are pathologically evil in yet another way.

In this particular instance it's Texaco/Chevron that has brought destruction down, and in this case, it's the indigenous people of Ecuador who are suffering. A group of Ecuadorians, together with some human rights lawyers from the States have taken Texaco/Chevron to court over the environmental damage done to their homeland in one of the most sensitive and ecologically important areas of the world, the Amazon. T/C have fought the lawsuit by not fighting it. First, they managed to delay the case for nine years by requesting that it not be tried in the U.S.; they wanted it moved to Ecuador, where they assumed it would be easier to buy off officials, or judges. However, a new president has been elected in Ecuador, and it hasn't been as easy as they hoped. When an independent environmental damage assessment (that T/C at first agreed to) concluded that T/C was at fault and should pay out $27 billion in damages, they then managed to keep delaying the trial. As of the viewing of the documentary, the case still has not gone to trial. T/C's strategy of course, is to delay the trial for decades until the people suing them finally run out of resources, stamina, conviction, or all of the above. It is a tactic used by corporations consistently, since they have the resources to outlast nearly anyone. A good (though horrible) example is Exxon, who was found guilty and ordered to pay millions to the people living in a tiny fishing village that was decimated by the spill of the Valdez. Exxon lost, it was nearly twenty years ago, and they still haven't paid a cent. They are arguing not whether they are guilty, but how much they should have to pay. I imagine they will keep arguing as long as the court will let them.

Crude allows the Texaco/Chevron team to have their say. It's fascinating to watch them argue that actually, there is no environmental damage at all, cancer rates have not gone up, disease is a result of untreated waste and that by golly, they'd do something about it if there was any mess at all--and then argue the complete opposite. They do this by saying there has been devastating environmental damage done to the people of Ecuador, they are suffering, their situation is horrible, but it's not T/C's fault! They sold off, or more accurately "merged" with an Ecuadorian oil company years ago, so those are the guys who are doing the bad stuff, not them. A frustrating, Orwellian strategy: there is no damage, if there is damage, it wasn't us. It's a losing case, the independent assessor ruled against them, and their only hope is to keep it from going to trial, which is what they've been doing for nearly 15 years.

The movie shows us the real impact upon the people living there. It also shows us how they are doing their best to get the world's attention, and in some ways they have succeeded. A large write-up in Vanity Fair, a CNN "hero" award for the local Ecuadorian who educated himself so that he could represent his people in this fight, despite his brother being murdered in an assassination that was meant for him. It also shows the involvement of other charity and environmental groups, as well as celebrities such as Trudie Styler and her more famous husband Sting.

Now some people get their back up when a "celebrity" gets involved in a cause. This has always confused me. Why shouldn't they get involved in causes they believe in? Why shouldn't they fight for something they think is just? I remember for years Michael Jordan was criticized by some for not getting more involved in the black community and speaking out for certain causes. So, that's the double standard for celebrities? If they do nothing and keep their views to themselves, then they are lucky, selfish babies who aren't giving back to the community; they're not using their celebrity for good when they have the abundant opportunity to do so. However, when celebrities do get involved, they are accused of doing it only for selfish reasons; and who are they anyway, some actor or singer telling me what to think. It's a lose/lose proposition for celebrities to use their fame for what they perceive to be the public good--in the case of the people of Ecuador vs. T/C, it's very much in the public good.

If we can't join the cause, then we can at least be aware, check out the website: crudethemovie.com. If you didn't see the movie, rent it when you get a chance. It's important for people to know the true cost of oil. The movie itself is exceptionally well done and has won well over a dozen awards.

Point of interest: At one point a lawyer says, this would never happen in the States. The argument being that a large corporation couldn't get away with such catastrophic environmental damage in the States (it's estimated that the damage done in Ecuador covers an area the size of Rhode Island). However, we in Canada are doing much better than that. The complete and utter devastation happening in the oil sands in Alberta right now is already visible from space and could cut a toxic wound the size of Florida within years. Several independent studies have shown that our indigenous people are being poisoned and killed by cancer at an absurdly high rate. The provincial and federal governments have responded to this disaster by literally appointing oil industry executives as watchdogs, ignoring or attacking every independent environmental study, and by trying to fire the doctor who raised the alarm bells over the unnaturally high rates of disease in the surrounding Native communities. I strongly urge everyone to read the book, Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (and Doesn't Seem to Care). If you can't bear to read a book, then try to see the movie H2Oil, perhaps the Bloor could play it soon. As Canadians, we need to know about this.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans: Review

Jan. 11
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
Directed by Werner Herzog
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Eva Mendes, and somebody impersonating Val Kilmer

All right, everyone should see a movie like this every once in a while. People who only see Avatar and the latest Martin Lawrence movie should see movies like this once in a while … by the way, Avatar totally rocked.

I’m not saying this in a snobby, film junkie, “I know better than the masses way,” I’m just saying it’s good to look at film in a different way. Shake things up; embrace the iguana that’s telling your tale.

And trust me, just because a film is independent or “different” doesn’t necessarily make it good. Many critics raved over the artistic brilliance of the original Bad Lieutenant. I found it tedious, boring, one-noted, and I got tired of Keitel’s “angst” in about ten minutes. And I don’t always like Herzog’s movies—I know, I know, he’s a genius, and I’ve really liked some of his films and as an actor, he was hilarious chasing down the Loch Ness monster; but that doesn’t always guarantee a home run. This Bad Lieutenant however is like a drug induced ride that you can enjoy even if you’re sober.

Nicolas cage gives his best performance in years playing the title role. You have to love Cage, or at least, love hating Cage. He’s like William Shatner, you may scream to the heavens that the guy can’t act, but can you imagine anyone else playing Kirk? Shatner can act, go ahead, hate him all you want, it’s kind of fun, actually. Cage is similar. Very easy to loathe at times, at times, freakin’ brilliant—Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation, and to a lesser extent, Moonstruck, Peggy Sue Got Married, and Raising Arizona. Well, add Bad Lieutenant to the list. Now I’m a fan of Harvey Keitel, but I found his character to be someone I just wanted to leave alone in a room so he could work out his problems by himself. Cage is no less troubled and dark, but is more connected and engaged. He seems to be participating in his trip rather than raging against it; that allows the audience in, too.

Herzog does all he can to drug us up as well with dancing souls and reptiles acting as Nicolas Cage’s fellow merry pranksters. However, he avoids the mistake of overloading us with drug-hazed scenes that would just become monotonous and tiresome, by interjecting some straight ahead scenes. No lizards, no soundtrack, and no multiple cuts, but a still scene here and there, like a splash of cold water to snap us out of it before we continue on our crack rock ride.

Check it out if you get a chance.

Oh, by the way, at one point Nicolas Cage taps a lizard and says, “This iguana, right here,” but it totally wasn’t an iguana, it was a bearded dragon! I bet some reptile nerd noticed that right away … ok, I was the only reptile nerd that noticed that at all.

Point of interest: When referring to the original Harvey Keitel film, you should always pronounce “Lieutenant” in the Canadian/British way, “Leftenant.” It’s worth it to see the look on your film snob friend’s face to call this “gritty” movie The Bad Leftenant. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, learn something about your country. For those who do, but like to point out that there’s no “f” in Lieutenant, yeah, well, it’s not pronounced “leeooohtenant”, either—both pronunciations are wrong, and we’re Canadian damn it, so it’s The Bad Leftenant around here, just for fun.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

The Christmas Miracle that Started it All



I started this blog because I won a free pass to the Bloor for a year, but how did I win such an amazing gift?

It all started with It’s a Wonderful Life.

Now, first of all, I love the Bloor. I have always loved the Bloor. When I walk into the lobby, endorphins are released and everything is all right … seriously. Indeed, when I lived in Vancouver (shudder) for two years, the Bloor was one of the dearest things I missed about good ol’ T.O. So, when my girlfriend and I moved back from soggy city to Toronto this December, I made sure we went to the annual Christmas party at the Bloor. Only the Bloor has a party for its members with carollers and delicious snacks and a screening of the greatest Christmas movie of all time, and all for free. Now, It’s a Wonderful Life is one of my favourite movies, not just my favourite Christmas movie. And like most people, I had only ever seen it on the small screen. So, when the Bloor started playing it a few years ago, it became an annual tradition to go see this classic on the big screen.

Cindy and I got there early enough to get good seats and enjoy the snacks … well, I enjoyed the snacks; Cindy ate only the healthy stuff while I completely gorged on the sweets. I have a sweet tooth. You know that “Coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs” bird? He’s a calm, sophisticated animated spokesperson compared to me when I’m in the vicinity of anything sweet—except for hard candy, seriously, who likes hard candy?

Anyway, after 14 small brownies and three egg-nogs, we took our seats and they started giving away some prizes for trivia questions. The questions were so easy (who plays George Bailey?) that people were yelling out the answers before the questions were finished; but then came the good part. It was announced that the grand prize would go out to the first ten people who came on to the stage and quoted their favourite line from any Christmas movie--the audience would decide the winner. I actually didn’t go up right away, sometimes actors can be surprisingly shy, and I just didn’t feel like going up, even though I immediately had my favourite quote in mind. Cindy, however, was nudging me with her elbow telling me to get the hell up there, so I went up to the stage just on time to be the tenth person. A couple of other people came up later and the M.C. was kind enough to let them compete, so we had an even dozen quoting their favourite lines.

Now, people had their standard quotes ready and delivered them in the normal “human being” way, not aware that at the end of the line there was an actor who has been making funny voices and impersonations for most of his life. Normally, this makes me a weirdo, but the “funny voices” were about to finally pay off. My favourite quote before it got to me was a woman who did a nice job with Annie’s quote from It’s a Wonderful Life: “Boys and girls and music, why do they need gin?” There was also a young girl, around 12, who quoted Scrooge with, “Bah-humbug.” She didn’t really sell it or anything, but the contrast of a young girl doing Scrooge was enough to grab the audience.

Then it was my turn. Now, this quote was always my favourite because it completely jolted me the first time I saw It’s a Wonderful Life. I had never seen Jimmy Stewart that angry before, and he nails this scene so succinctly that it firmly stood out in my mind. It’s after his Uncle Billy has lost the $8,000 and they’re searching for it in his house. Desperate and afraid, George Bailey says, “Do you know what this means? It means bankruptcy, scandal, prison, that’s what it means! Well, one of us is going to jail, and it’s not going to be me!” That was my quote, and fortunately for me, Jimmy Stewart is one of the voices I can do, so it went pretty well.

We had an “applaud-off” and it came down to me and the little Scrooge girl. I crushed her like a bug … ok, I didn’t, it was actually very close, but I was lucky enough to win; and a year’s pass to the Bloor (the greatest of all rep cinemas) was mine, and the pass was for two! How lucky is that? Also, how fortunately appropriate? I’m usually at the Bloor a couple of times a week anyway, and when I moved back to Toronto from Vancouver (shudder) we moved to the Annex. For 17 years I lived at Jarvis and Gerrard (where a man never gets lonely) but now we’re in my favourite neighbourhood, the Annex, and only about an 18 minute walk away from the Bloor. So, needless to say, this is the best prize I’ve ever won … until this weekend when I win Lotto Max, I’m totally due.

This little contest was the Christmas Miracle that gave me the pass. My friend Stephen Bogaert (is it all right if I mention your name, Stephen? oh well) suggested I start a blog reviewing the movies I see at the Bloor. So here it is, A Year in the Bloor, with movie reviews, opinions, and other thoughts that may come to me--like what a ninny Stephen Harper is.

I hope you enjoy.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

My Harry Potter and the HBP (the movie) Rant

My Friends:

Here is the long and winding road that is My Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (the movie) Rant. Honestly, if you are not familiar with the books, this will have little meaning for you. So, if you’re a muggle (and if you’ve seen the movies but haven’t read the books, you’re still a muggle) I will have to say “muffliato” and talk to the witches and wizards who know.

First of all, generally speaking, I like the Harry Potter movies. I’m not one of these fans who complains of every single thing that they leave out or change from the book. As someone who works in film and spends most of my waking time planning out movies I hope to make some day, I realize you can’t have 12 hour movies to tell the complete story, and that sometimes changes need to be made. Having said that, Harry Potter VI failed on a level that none of the other films did.

HPI and II were well made movies that captured the magic and wonder of a kid finding out he’s a wizard and everything that goes with such a discovery. They are not great films, but they are very good. Then we come to HPIII, the best of the films in my opinion. Alfonso Cuaron, who directed Y tu mama tambien and The Children of Men is one of the best directors on the planet and Harry Potter III reflects that. Tightly woven, wonderfully shot, and the CGI is amazing—especially the Dementors and Buckbeat. This film was the best reviewed and is still fascinating to me after several viewings.

HPIV isn’t quite as good but is my second favourite in the series (however, I cannot fathom Gambon’s bizarre take on Dumbledore in this film—shaking Harry and screaming at him, “Did you put your name in the Goblet!”—unforgivable!); nonetheless, the “re-birth” of Voldemort scene is amazing. Then we come to David Yate’s HPV, a slight step back in the series, starting with the CGI being considerably worse than in any other movie (shouldn’t special effects get better, not worse?). Look at how lousy the Dementors look in V compared to III, and look at the dragon in IV compared to Grawp in V, it’s just kind of … bad. Also, watch the final battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore, the CGI they use to erase the nose from Ralph Fiennes face is always obvious, it looks like a there’s a smear across his face for most of that scene, unlike in IV where it’s nearly seamless. But more important than the less than stellar CGI is that in this movie we see the beginnings of the big problem with V that gets much worse in VI. It seems to me that David Yates just doesn’t get Harry Potter and his world. I bring up that battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore because in the movie it ends with Voldemort having the upper hand, knocking over Dumbledore and then possessing Harry. The battle was fairly well shot and acted but Voldemort did not dominate Dumbledore in that fight! The title of that chapter is The Only One He (Voldemort) Ever Feared. Voldemort doesn’t bowl over Dumbledore; he barely escapes from him! He has to enter Harry to escape and he’s also hoping that Dumbledore will kill Harry in the attempt to kill him. The movie turns that around completely—that’s not an edit to save time; it’s changing the story and the way the characters relate to each other and with a story this carefully put together, it’s a wrong, frustrating and annoying decision.

Sorry for the unbelievably long intro, but now we can go on to HPVI and everything that’s wrong with it.

However, let’s start with what's right. These movies have the luxury of some of the best actors the UK has to offer. Indeed, the acting throughout the series has been quite good and the young actors have matured well as performers. I like all the leads, but I think Emma Watson as Hermione understands and portrays her character the best. Also, the fire FX in the scene where they retrieve the Horcrux is amazing, and the wintry Quiddich scene is the best Quiddich scene in all the series; however, like much of the film, they blow it by not showing Harry catching the snitch to end the game, which would have only added another two seconds to the film.

Now on to what's wrong—where to begin? How about at the beginning when they skip Dumbledore coming to the Dursley’s. They should have had that scene for a number of reasons. Firstly, it’s funny. Secondly, it allows Dumbledore to explain many things that are essential to the story, like the protection around Harry while he calls 4 Privet Dr. his home. Moreover, what they replaced this scene with—Harry picking up a waitress in the subway system—is a perfect example of David Yates not “getting” Harry Potter. Harry’s life is in danger; Voldemort is back and in the open and wanting to kill Harry. Harry’s only protected while at home (for the love of Pete he was attacked by Dementors the last time he wandered from home!) but in this movie he’s wandering around the subway system because he’s bored. This highlights one of the major problems with the film. Yates misses an opportunity to build tension and create drama and replaces it with adolescent hormones running amuck. The book certainly has that, but the movie is dominated by it. We needed more conflict between Harry and Draco and more Pensieve memories and the importance of hunting down Horcruxes and less people removing toothpaste/blood/butterbeer from each other’s mouths; more mystery and thrills, less love potions.

Horace Slughorn:
Jim Broadbent is one of my favourite actors, but this portrayal is utterly wrong, wrong, wrong. I’m sure it’s not the actor’s fault, but Slughorn is not a bumbling old fool. He’s cunning, he’s been on the run from the Death Eaters for a year, he’s the former head of Slytherin House and though he has his weaknesses, he’s smart and crafty—not old and daffy. And usually in the movies, they at least try to physically match the characters to what’s portrayed in the books, but not here. Slughorn is very fat, short, bald and has a huge walrus moustache. Jim Broadbent’s Slughorn is none of these. Ironically, Broadbent’s role in Moulin Rouge is closer to Slughorn than this portrayal here. Again, I do not blame the actor; I know he’s more than capable of playing a role like this, I just think the director blew it, totally.

THE ATTACK ON THE BURROW!!!
Wow. Rarely has a movie added something that was so wrong, and not just because it didn’t happen in the book—it’s goes against everything that’s in the book! The Burrow is strongly protected, especially when Harry’s there, the protections don’t fail until the ministry has fallen and Scrimgeour is dead. While the ministry is strong and Dumbledore is still alive, there’s no way in the world that two Death Eaters could attack and destroy the Burrow. However, it’s not just wrong because it ignores the protection around the Burrow. It’s also unbelievably wrong because it shows two Death Eaters (really one Death Eater and a werewolf) outwitting and overwhelming no fewer than NINE wizards and witches. Harry, Ginny, Ron, Fred, George, Arthur, Molly, Lupin and Tonks were all apparently helpless while a measly two Death Eaters destroyed their home. Even if you argue that five of those people were young wizards, you still have four members of the Order! Lupin, a D.A.D.A. teacher, Arthur, Tonks (who’s a freakin’ Auror!) and Molly, who is the very person who eventually kills the mighty Bellatrix … yeah, none of these wizards and witches could stop the Burrow from being destroyed. This is what Yates doesn’t understand. Obviously as fans, we’re willing to suspend our disbelief for a movie and book like this—but you still have to follow the rules within that universe. Maybe you can bend them a little but you can’t shatter them completely. This added attack also highlights one of the major problems with the film—it doesn’t take into consideration what happens in Book VII, which means there’s going to be a lot of tedious exposition in the two VII movies to help things make sense. If you destroy the Burrow, where does VII even start? Where’s the wedding? Are they just going to “magic” the house back together? What’s really frustrating about this is that unlike all the other movies, the final book was out when they made this film, so they have no excuses that they didn’t know something was going to be important. Speaking of which, since when can Death Eaters fly? Yates unfortunately established that in the fifth movie, in which members of the Order also flew, but he really shows it here, with Death Eaters flying all over the place. This ruins the big battle in the seventh book/movie where everyone is on brooms or Thestrals, except Voldemort. The fact that only Voldemort (and later, Snape) can fly makes that battle much more thrilling, now it won’t make sense. And since in the fifth movie Tonks and Lupin could fly, why didn’t they fly after the Death Eaters in this scene? Obviously, this scene is one huge can of worms Yates should never have opened.

Horcruxes and the Pensieve Memories:
I read an interview with Yates where he explained that he added the Burrow destruction because he needed something “exciting” in the middle of the movie. He also said that he ran this by JK and she said ok—I find this surprising but I don’t know how much control she has and maybe she has to pick her battles. However, let us get back to his original reasoning--he needed to juice up the middle of the film. Well, the film’s plodding is no one’s fault but his. Yates’ insistence on concentrating on lesser matters grinds the movie down. He needed an exciting scene? How about the Pensieve memory where we see Voldemort’s mother, grandfather, and uncle? A dead snake hanging from the door, creepy, threatening characters speaking in Parseltounge, the scene that introduces the ring that becomes a horcrux! Not only would this have been a cool, almost disturbing scene, it would have set up some needed info on what they have to do in Deathly Hallows. In addition, they missed another Pensieve memory that is fascinating, thrilling and exceptionally important, and it would have been a great excuse to bring in Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort. That scene, of course, is the scene where the half transformed Voldemort comes to Dumbledore to apply for the D.A.D.A. job. That would have been an exciting scene they could have put in the middle of the movie instead of the ridiculous Burrow attack and it would have helped set up the last movie much better. Also missing; Voldemort’s discovery of Hufflepuff’s cup and the murder he commits to get it—just more exposition they will have to add in the seventh movie … sigh.

Dobby and Kreacher, Nowhere to be Found:
Ok, here’s a problem they’ve had since the fourth movie. Dobby is in Books II, IV, V, VI, and VII; however, they have only shown him in the second movie. The sixth movie was their last chance to re-establish this very important character and that goes for Kreacher too. JK said in an interview that she had to insist on Kreacher being in the fifth movie, well Yates had the last chance to show Kreacher and especially Dobby again before their crucial roles in the last movie(s). So now, when the seventh movie is released and Dobby comes to save everyone, audiences who don’t know the books are going to say, “Who the hell is that?” Again, no excuse for Yates. The last book was out before they made this movie, he knew how incredibly important Dobby was, and he still didn’t put him in this film to re-establish a character that we haven’t seen in years—dumb decision.

Harry Not being Frozen at the Top of the Tower:
Again, Yates just doesn’t get these characters. There’s a reason JK had Harry frozen and invisible while witnessing the death of Dumbledore. Harry would have acted, that is his nature. It’s also considerably more dramatic to have Harry visible only to the viewer, frozen and agonizingly unable to help while his mentor, hero, and protector gets killed by the person he hates the most. Instead, we have Harry pacing underneath doing nothing. This is followed by one of the most bizarre decisions in movie history—THEY LEAVE THE BATTLE OF SNAPE AND THE DEATHEATERS FIGHTING THE ORDER AND DUMBLEDORE’S ARMY OUT!!! The freakin’ climax of the book is left out! He puts a battle in that makes no sense and leaves out one that would have been exciting, and which sets up much of what happens in VII—unbelievable.

There are many other smaller things that were annoying. Like Luna removing the cloak from Harry by magic when we know that spells don’t affect that cloak. Aragog being about 1/3 the size he was in the second movie. Harry and Ginny’s kiss being secretive and anti-climatic instead of the full-blown eruption in front of the entire Gryffindor common room. Dumbledore being surprised and shocked about the horcruxes instead of just confirming his suspicions; but these are small things compared to the major mistakes. I know there are other things but I think I’ve said enough … my apologies, but thanks for reading my remarkably long diatribe.

Oh, by the way, I did not go see the movie on the opening midnight screening (as I usually do) or even the next day. I was protesting the ridiculous decision of delaying the movie eight months until the summer simply to make more money. As if this series doesn’t make enough money for Warner Brothers, so I did my little protest by waiting till the second week. Will I go see the next two movies? You bet, and at the midnight screening too! The good thing about these movies is that it’s like visiting old friends, and I’ve really enjoyed nearly all of them, it’s only VI that has so many problems.