Movie Review: Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince

(This review contains spoilers not only for this film but for the remaining of the series, and anyway I’d prefer it to be read after you’ve seen the movie.)

I paid eight bucks for this for the first time in more than a year of free screenings, and I’ll stand by my previous Order Of The Phoenix-based opinion that David Yates is as useful to the franchise as a wet matchstick. It was not a waste of money per se, since the Harry Potter movies are something I would throw money at just to see it in crazy cinema scale and dim lighting, but other than that I think I’d take a minute to mourn for the last two movies led also by this uninspired, boring turd of a director. It seems that Yates hasn’t realised that in a cinema, cameras have the ability to capture more than the 4 by 3 of a TV screen. Given a Confundus Charm I would have led Alfonso Cuarón (director of Prisoner of Azkaban, my favourite of the movies) into directing the rest of the series, and even then he would’ve done a better job in his confused state.

A lot of people are commenting on how Yate’s movie was a faithful adaptation, about how you can’t ask for more, really – and I understand that it would be a foolish thing to ask to have the entire book made into a movie verbatim. But consider this: were the romances SO important to the plot? The way I see it, Harry Potter is three-quarters action and adventure, and only one-quarter romance comedy. Heck, most of the story’s comic relief came in the form of Ron’s insensitive remarks and the Weasley twins. What Yates did was to eliminate the natural, seasoned humour of the twins, and turn Ron into some romantic cheeseball – a role I felt Rupert Grint wasn’t as comfortable with. Also a few-second glimpse of the twin’s joke shop does not compensate the fact that they didn’t crack a single joke throughout the 2.5 hour movie. The twins are so well-loved that removing their humour just doesn’t feel right. And while I’m at it, what the hell happened to Neville? I’m sure readers would know by now that he plays a significant role in the ending, yet here he is in this movie, reduced to being a waiter at Slughorn’s party.

But my greatest gripe with the film is its lack of focus on all things important, and its unnecessary, drawn out scenes with everything else secondary in the books. Yates just HAD to focus on the romantic sub-plot, didn’t he? This wouldn’t be particularly bad had the actors been good at sexual tension and all that, but one gets the feeling that Ginny was cast without much thought in the first movie, and it’s only now that Bonnie Wright has massive shoes to fill because J. K. Rowling decided she would be the Chosen One’s girlfriend. So because recasting is awkward and disruptive, they stuck with Wright and gave her a kissing scene with Harry. Now, this one kiss is important and crucial, almost like the Everest of Romantic Sub Plots, so its existence is inevitable, but what’s with the excessive touching between Harry and Ginny? What’s the point of drawing attention to the film series’ weakness – the young casts’ inability to act properly? Sure the actors have come far and improved, but it is still silly to tango with scenes calling for a certain standard of acting, particularly scenes that aren’t that important. It’s like refusing a short cut… and then looking silly for it.

Next up – the severe lack of focus on Dumbledore’s death. HELLO KNOCK KNOCK IT’S HIS FUCKING DEATH. What, you can give Lavender Brown 20 seconds to draw a heart in her condensed breath, but can’t let Dumbledore have a longer death scene, with some emotional build up and crowd-reaction scenes? The last time I felt this unsatisfied by a character’s death was Sirius’s one, which was really Rowling’s fault. Oh, I know, it must be because wrinkled old men aren’t entitled to extra seconds. I’m no cinematographer or director, but one shot of Dumbledore falling off the tower, and the next a close-up of his dead face? I’m seeing a movie I made in my imagination when I first read the book, and am certain that a wide shot would have had a greater impact. Dumbledore’s frail body, such a tiny speck in the surrounding area. Also I was not completely happy with Gambon’s utterance of his final words (“Don’t. Don’t.” Something like that.). I know I’m digressing but I imagined much more fear when he was saying this to Snape. Because, you know, it was all an act to make Snape seem like a heartless traitor. And for the first time, I did not agree with Rickman’s delivery of Snape’s “Aveda Kedavra”. It was without the ferocity that Snape usually unleashes on Harry, and despite the fact that killing Dumbledore was all part of the plan, you’d think that Snape-Rickman would try to be more convincing at wanting to murder Dumbledore. The only good thing that came out with the whole tower scene was surprisingly Tom Felton, because I was actually quite touched by his delivery of Draco’s, “I have no choice. I have to kill you… because if I don’t… he’ll kill me.” line. Not word for word of course, but it was a moment of great acting and I could never take Draco seriously with his OTT sneering.

Ok, I got carried away, sorry. This is an abrupt end to my rant because I feel like I’ve more or less mentioned everything I wanted to say, and said it in a long, long breath. I’d still recommend for people to watch it, but I wouldn’t blame them should they walk out unimpressed. That said I’m looking forward to and will pay to see the last two films of the last book in cinemas, despite them being directed by a dud.

P.S. Did anyone notice the Chinese New Year lanterns in one of the posters and in a scene? What’s up with those, anyone know?

4 YA fiction books better than Twilight

I know that if you’re a fan of the series, the last thing I should do is to belittle your shitty taste in literature. (If you’re not a fan, fucking good for you!) But since you’re a fan, I don’t exactly respect your tastes anyway, so belittling would be a natural reaction.

There’s a reason why Twilight and its red-and-black-themed brethren aren’t recommended reading by schools. Well, look up. Do you see an angel descending from the heavens, scowling in distaste yet aiming right for you? That’s me, bitch. I’ve come to save your sorry little soul from the evil clutches of Bad Authors. Here’s a list of books you should be reading for your own redemption.

Unwind by Neal Shusterman

From the jacket: In a society where unwanted teens are salvaged for their body parts, three runaways fight the system that would “unwind” them.

Connor’s parents want to be rid of him because he’s a troublemaker. Risa has no parents and is being unwound to cut orphanage costs. Lev’s unwinding has been planned since his birth, as part of his family’s strict religion. Brought together by chance, and kept together by desperation, these three unlikely companions make a harrowing cross-country journey, knowing their lives hang in the balance. If they can survive until their eighteenth birthday, they can’t be harmed — but when every piece of them, from their hands to their hearts, are wanted by a world gone mad, eighteen seems far, far away.

Why it’s better than Twilight: Whereas Twilight was all “Kissmekissmekissmemememe Edwaaard!”, Neal Shusterman knows what it means to balance sexual tension with action and circumstance. I personally don’t qualify Twilight as being particularly good at the subject of sexual tension, because Bella and Edward are described making out every tenth page or so. If you’re into cheesy romance, fine. If you like a book that demands you to read between the lines, a book that doesn’t spoon feed you the details, read Unwind… and feel the love/lust amid all the danger. Because of the danger. I’m serious.

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins (Hunger Games Trilogy, Book 1)

From the jacket: Katniss is a 16-year-old girl living with her mother and younger sister in the poorest district of Panem, the remains of what used be the United States. Long ago the districts waged war on the Capitol and were defeated. As part of the surrender terms, each district agreed to send one boy and one girl to appear in an annual televised event called, “The Hunger Games.” The terrain, rules, and level of audience participation may change but one thing is constant: kill or be killed. When Kat’s sister is chosen by lottery, Kat steps up to go in her place.

Why it’s better than Twilight: I shudder to even compare these two books. Between Twilight and The Hunger Games is a vast plain so huge, the distance would make the circumference of the Sun look tiny. The Hunger Games is fear, death, pain, brutality, survival and teaser romance, basically The Condemned and Battle Royale put together and injected with steroids. Oh, and they’re also accomplishing the same results with kids below the age of 18. Twilight is death, and… sucking. See the difference?

Writer’s note: They’re making this into a movie.

Everlost by Neal Shusterman (yeah, again!) (Skinjacker Trilogy, Book 1)

From the jacket: Nick and Allie don’t survive the car accident…but their souls don’t exactly get where they’re supposed to get either. Instead, they’re caught halfway between life and death, in a sort of limbo known as Everlost: a shadow of the living world, filled with all the things and places that no longer exist. It’s a magical yet dangerous place where bands of lost children run wild and anyone who stands in the same place too long sinks to the center of the Earth.

When they find Mary, the self-proclaimed queen of lost kids, Nick feels like he he’s found a home. But Allie isn’t satisfied spending eternity between worlds. Against all warnings, Allie begins learning the “Criminal Art” of haunting and ventures into dangerous territory, where a monster called the McGill threatens all the souls of Everlost.

Why it’s better than Twilight: It’s a book with much more imagination and creativity put into it than what Meyer bothered to do for Twilight. Shusterman’s take on the afterlife is wild and original, where souls of the dead can’t die yet are still exposed to many different kinds of dangers… things worse than death. Things that don’t end because souls can’t die again, so they end up getting trapped for eternity. Now tell me what’s so great about a vampire that sparkles in the sun, can’t get fried, and can only be killed by a beheading? Oh wait, not just a beheading, right? The stump needs to be burnt or something? Point is, there is not much danger involved. And characters are flat if you don’t care enough for them except to use them in sexual fantasies. Meyer seriously underestimated the power and importance of fragility and sacrifice here. Being invincible is cool… up to a certain point only. I’d like to think of it as the nail in the coffin of her writing career.

Writer’s note: They’re also making this into a movie.

The Amulet of Samarkand by Jonathan Stroud (The Bartimaeus Trilogy, Book 1)

From the jacket: Nathaniel is eleven years old and a magician’s apprentice, learning the traditional arts of magic. All is well until he has a life-changing encounter with Simon Lovelace, a magician of unrivaled ruthlessness and ambition. When Lovelace brutally humiliates Nathaniel in public, Nathaniel decides to speed up his education, teaching himself spells way beyond his years. With revenge on his mind, he masters one of the toughest spells of all and summons Bartimaeus, a five-thousand-year-old djinni, to assist him. But summoning Bartimaeus and controlling him are two different things entirely, and when Nathaniel sends the djinni out to steal Lovelace’s greatest treasure, he finds himself caught up in a whirlwind of magical espionage, murder, and rebellion.

Why it’s better than Twilight: I’m sure this won’t be the first time you’ll hear someone complain about how mechanical Stephenie Meyer’s narration is. It’s grammatically correct, but lifeless and without voice (also another reason why the Harry Potter books are better). Stroud breathes sarcastic, mischievous personality into Bartimaeus the djinni, and the three books of the trilogy have been written with footnotes – the djinni’s own commentary on every page it narrates. Notice I say “it narrates”, because the book isn’t entirely all from the djinni’s POV. This is my only gripe with the book, because he is a much more colourful character than Nathaniel, although Nathaniel has his own darker traits. Still, this book has my recommendation, and Stroud’s view of magic is a different world from the Potter universe, and I can appreciate its originality.

Writer’s note: Also being made into a movie. It’s like Hollywood decided to let someone else better do the storytelling.

Hiatus.

I’m going on a break. No more reviews until I can watch movies again without being reminded of my job. Or ex-job. Which, did I mention, I left with utmost glee? I won’t start bitching about it, and I never thought I’d live to see the day that has me saying “OMFG Halp!” from an overload of movies, but yeah, there can be too much of a good thing.

I may occasionally return to upload super short rants about movies, but without the free screenings anymore you can expect reviews to slow to a trickle. I will also be busy with school, so that’s that.

Go read the archives or something. But just so you know, I appreciate you reading the stuff I write.

Movie Review: Forrest Gump

You know, this might be the first movie I’ve seen that has no trouble saying “run away” when things get out of hand. This is what Forrest Gump does for a large portion of the movie, yet in what may be the most ironic turn of events, he accomplishes great things running away. What I love about Gump is that the film doesn’t ever equate saving your own hide as being cowardly.

As for it being one of IMDB.com’s Top #250 films, I’m convinced it deserves the spot. The hype? Not so much. That’s to say Forrest Gump is a movie that could do without critics ranting about how great it is. It’s not a movie that needs to be punished because everyone else had high expectations after hearing the hype. Forrest Gump isn’t as wonderful as everyone makes it out to be – it isn’t great enough to wow those with raised expectations.

Why Tom Hanks wasn’t the first choice for Gump remains a mystery to me, because it is his simplistic yet intricate delivery that brings the movie to an impossible emotional level. Not that he does it directly to your face, pleading with you to sympathise with him, but rather ever so lightly, tickling but never forcibly tugging on your heartstrings. Having given Hanks a personal award for “only actor to carry off a role opposite a volleyball”, I therefore had certain expectations of the acting, and this one passed with flying colours. It’s Hank’s who’s the gem, the movie his tool.

8 Movies for Father’s Day

Father’s Day is around the corner, and… well, there are many different kinds of dads out there. To assume that every one of them enjoy sitting down to stuff like The Pursuit Of Happyness is downright bias, because “dad” doesn’t define age groups. Any guy between puberty and death has potential to be a father, and that’s a huge spectrum to take into account.

Below is a list of eight movies to choose from that we hope would cover this large demographic, and they’ve been chosen based on three things: 1. they’re actually decent, 2. they all have the highest censorship rating of M18, meaning you won’t have that big a problem watching it with the dad, and 3. they cover a good range of genres.

The Pursuit Of Happyness (PG)
Biography, Drama
An obligatory entry, this. A bit too honeyed up for this writer, and never quite meets its potential. Sorry folks, Will Smith and Jaden Smith may make a sweet father-son pair, but they don’t make nearly as interesting a movie. Recommended only if you’ve seen everything else on this list.

Finding Nemo (G)
Animation, Adventure, Comedy, Family
Because like anything that has to do with Disney, this one features a lead character with a dead/missing/non-existing mom. Sorry man, it’s Father’s Day we’re celebrating. Other than that: what rock have you been living under not to have heard the hype about this six years ago?

Outlander (M18 for Violence and Some Gore, but they’re just exaggerating)
Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
Fathering a kid may change a guy’s perspective and all that, but heeeeey, it’s a monster movie! That isn’t Godzilla! Outlander has a good story going on, and despite its low budget, isn’t a complete basket case visually. The CGI is decent, and the monster looks terrifying enough. It even glows in the dark! Oh, and it kills a bunch of people. Highly recommended for those with a taste for action and good old monster hunting, especially so when free-to-air TV has more or less broadcasted every other monster flick there is to broadcast. PG monster movies are silly, so why not rent an M18 one for the kick?

War Of The Worlds (PG)
Action, Adventure, Sci-fi, Thriller
Now, if you have a dad who’s fond of classics, we don’t actually recommend this. If you have a dad who loves Sci-Fi and alien invasion-type films, then hell yes! This one’s pretty badass and haunting, and frankly it’s surprising to see it under the PG tag. It can leave you a little psychologically scarred if you’re below the age of fourteen, so don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Fido (NC16 for Some Gory Scenes)
Comedy, Drama, Horror, Romance
Got a dad who likes the unconventional? Fido’s about taming zombies, and there are not a lot of movies that feature tamed zombies doing household chores. It’s a breath of fresh air, and it’s funny too. Lots of fake blood and effects, but seeing how half of it doesn’t look painfully real, there’s nothing to fear.

Ip Man (PG for Fighting Scenes. Thanks for stating the obvious.)
Action, Biography, Drama, History
It’s a kung-fu movie. Actually it’s Wing Chun, but that isn’t the point. The point is, there’s fighting! Dudes love fighting, right? Useful if you’ve run out of Jackie Chan movies.

King Kong (PG for Some Intense Sequences)
Adventure, Romance
It’s Peter Jackson’s version we’re talking here. Which means you can treat your dad to an updated version of Kong where he isn’t a toy climbing up a five inch skyscraper model.

[Rec] (NC16 for Some Gore and Coarse Language)
Drama, Horror, Thriller
Our wild card: he may love you or hate you for this. It’s scary, and then it’s good. Word of warning: it’s in Spanish. Sure, get the U.S English remake Quarrantine if you must, but it just isn’t as crazy as the original. You may want to empty your bladder and grab a few pillows first, though.

Movie Review: Space Buddies

This… is a cheesy, simple, brainless, cute movie for kids, and I should really end the review here. There are heaps of better family/kids-orientated movies, and this one hangs around somewhere near the bottom of the barrel.

A bunch of dogs are accidentally launched into space, but they’ve dumbed the thing down to include dogs that talk, and immature villains that want the space mission to screw up out of spite. There are lessons to be learnt about friendship, loyalty, kindness and teamwork etc., though despite this the movie is a shallow and fairytale-ish representation of such values. I tend to feel a little insulted by the movie if this is what they think kids might enjoy, because the level of quality for both animation and content simply isn’t there… an inevitable flaw I’d like to attribute to the budget, or a lack thereof. The villain also has an extremely silly Chinese sidekick (slave?), which may lead to potential racist behaviour in young children, or something. “Harmless” kid movie? I don’t think so!

Watch a cartoon instead.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3

It’s nice to see you back in macho roles, John Travolta! For the first fifteen minutes of the film I had trouble associating your face with the gun-wielding thug about to hijack a subway carriage – now whenever I think “John Travolta” I remember you as either a cute American White Shepherd, or someone dressed in drag! If an emoticon didn’t look so inappropriate here I would have put one right now after this paragraph.

I admit though, when I saw the trailer for The Taking Of Pelham 123, I felt a bit disappointed… no, not disappointed, unwilling to fork out the money to see it. Since it was a free screening, I figured I had nothing to lose except two hours of my life, which was okay considering I was getting paid to do it. I had extremely low expectations for this – you can blame that on the mundane trailer – and thought that this would be a typical Hollywood action thriller. Come on, it did look like one… you all had guns and silly car crashes, and they’re nothing new to the industry, right?

I’m glad I went. Now I’m vaguely aware that this is a remake, but I don’t care for this detail because I’ve never seen the original nor am I a person to oppose remakes just because they’re remakes. Neither am I familiar with Tony Scott films. There is a lot I don’t know about the movie, and I think this was what made it enjoyable. The film was a smarter-than-average Hollywood action thriller, and reminded me of movies like Collateral and Phone Booth, which I must say I enjoyed. But what made Pelham 123 better weren’t the villian-hero mind games as much as the subtly mocking and exaggerated quirky script, great chemistry between the leads, and the fact that it didn’t seem to take itself seriously. It seemed to be mocking New York’s inadequate authorities! On the chopping block were the police force, the hostage negotiation people, and… the Mayor! Maybe it was the mood I was in, because I found many, many scenes that were ridiculously funny that not too many people in the audience caught or laughed at. Maybe they didn’t know what to make of the film. It isn’t a comedy, yet had great comedic timing, it’s a thriller with a bit of suspense, and has enough action without going to Michael Bay extremes.

Pelham 123 is a taut film although it began on a low note with some stylish editing I didn’t care for. Whether it was on purpose so viewers would underestimate it I guess we’ll never know. I can’t say how much I enjoyed watching Travolta acting the hell out of his role, and how Denzel Washington sealed the deal as the not-very-clean hero. It was a bit like watching the Joker and Batman, without the superhero comic background and the feeling like someone was beating your head in with a moral education book.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Unstable Fables: Tortoise Vs Hare

This is the second of two Unstable Fables movies I’ve seen, and as per the first (3 Pigs & A Baby), Tortoise Vs Hare is an “alternate” ending to the bedtime story we’re familiar with. The phrase “slow and steady” has now become the town’s motto, and Walter Tortoise (Danny Glover), who won the race, has become a household celebrity. Murray Hare, voiced by Jay Leno, is jealous of the winner’s limelight, and when an opportunity to race comes again, he convinces his daughter to race as a team, against the tortoise and his son, and some other teams that we won’t be seeing much. The kids are not happy, because Murray’s daughter loves dancing, and Walter’s son is a Science nerd. They hate races! Things happen during the extremely long and dangerous “wilderness” race, and the two teams have to join forces to solve their problems and prove some other moral . 

For a cheap production aimed at kids, the filmmakers have given the script and animation some decent thought and effort. Sure, it’s an easy story that conveniently resolves its own problems, but that’s a characteristic passed on from the original story… which was also relatively simple and convenient, if you think about it. Remember, things happen to illustrate a point at the end of the day. The entire process could’ve been funnier, but I get that they want to be serious about what they’re preaching about at the same time. It’s sincere and heartfelt, if sincere and heartfelt are allowed to be shallow.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Home

Home might be one of few movies you can watch on YouTube without the risk of landing yourself a fine/jail term. It’s a non-profit movie released worldwide on the UN-appointed World Environment Day (5 June every year) so audiences can soak in its urgent environmental message free-of-charge. It is also perhaps due to its non-profit nature that Home lacks severely in effort and expertise, documentary-wise. As interesting as a screen saver with an uninspired script and preachy, emotionless narration (by Glenn Close, who voices Mona Simpson, no less!), Home comes across self-righteous, chastising the human race for being a thorn in Mother Nature’s side. The latter may be the case, but let’s just say no one really responds well to a talking-down – a lecture that could so easily be turned into something informative and interesting in the hands of someone like David Attenborough.

Where appropriate, the movie also slides by on vague details, bordering on being incomplete, or just outright inaccurate. It paints carbon dioxide like a villain, and global warming like a crisis, when really, global warming is a natural occurrence that humans are speeding up due to their excessive usage of Earth’s depleting resources. 

Consider the following sentences, “The system that controls our climate has been severely disrupted. The elements on which it relies have been disrupted.” That’s two ‘disrupted’s used consecutively! That’s not the only flaw with the horridly uninspired script – figures and theories fly off the voiceover so often, it’s completely fine to listen to the commentary without watching the film (which did I mention, was very screen saver-like). The video doesn’t tell the story – the voiceover does. I guess this is no surprise coming from a writer and a director who have no other writing and directing experience respectively – it simply isn’t sincere for something we’re supposed to take seriously. Sure, the visuals are good even when majority of them have been filmed from helicopters (Home has one of the most bird-eye-view shots in any movie), but the way it’s been put together feels like someone just stuck a pin in a balloon.

Despite its good intentions, Home also has a tendency to point fingers. Yes, we humans have contributed to global warming with our careless attitude and intensive industrialisation/deforestation. Yes, we’ve wiped out hundreds of plant species in exchange for single-species plantations. WE GET IT, NOW MOVE ON. And for God’s sake don’t start every sentence with “We humans have…” WE KNOW we’re the problem, and that’s why you’re making this film to slap at our ignorance, okay?

Another major gripe I had with the “documentary” were the unrelatable figures used to quantify some point or another. Thirteen hundred acres of land means nothing to an average person; why not put it across visually, say, “equivalent to six football fields”, etc? Why not turn an impersonal digit, another meaningless number, to something visually relatable? 

All of the movie’s flaws may fly over the heads of an average moviegoer, but it’s entirely unconvincing and uninvolving to those who’re frequent viewers of nature/wildlife documentaries (me). Environmental propaganda may be well-meaning, but Home makes it a priority to be ineffective in provoking a reaction.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: The Promotion

“Terrifically smart and funny.” is a quote from Jeff Craig about The Promotion, who writes for a publication ‘Sixty Second Preview’. This praise can be found on the DVD cover, along with his four star rating, just below the movie title. It’s a lie. But before I go on to rant about what an ultimately boring movie The Promotion is, I decided to do a Google search on Sixty Second Preview – just to see if Jeff Craig and I had opposite tastes in movies.

What I found – and it was something I didn’t expect to find – was a site debating the credibility of Jeff Craig and Sixty Second Preview. The page contained an article that mentioned Craig’s apparent love for bad movies. And then it got to a quote from Roger Ebert, who questioned Craig’s authenticity. “Has anyone ever actually seen Jeff Craig of ‘Sixty Second Previews’ at a movie? For that matter, does anyone know what ‘Sixty Second Previews’ is?”

Suspicious, suspicious. Is Jeff Craig a made up critic that distributors quote after they’ve run out of critics to choose from (pointing to the fact that the movie sucks so bad it couldn’t warrant a single decent review)?

Turns out ‘Sixty Second Preivew’ is a program one minute in length produced by a radio station and hosted by Jeff Craig. Now we know the nature of the medium, but get this: “…since the program comes on CD a month at a time, he apparently hasn’t actually seen most of the movies – thus “previews”, not “reviews”. Still, his gushing about an upcoming movies he hasn’t yet seen ends up being used as blurbs in movie ads.”

You can check out the rest of the site here.

I know I’ve taken five paragraphs up NOT talking about the movie, but here you go: don’t believe poster blurbs.

Now on to the movie: it is, unfortunately, far from being “terrifically smart and funny”. There are about three witty lines, and two instances when I actually did snort/smirk a little. The movie is about two assistant managers of a mart competing for a promotion, and are co-helmed by Seann William Scott and John C. Reilly as the two assisting managers, Doug and Richard. There’s nothing glaringly wrong with their acting, though expressions tend to fall a little to the wooden side. It’s not their fault that that happens. The movie severely suffers from being a monotonous drawl without a discernible climax, like a wind that blows non-stop without any hint of a storm.

The two are desperate to land that promotion for not entirely selfish reasons, so it’s not like you’re given the choice to root for one of them (and hate the other in the process). Their reasons for wanting the promotion are similar, their jabs at one another aren’t full out dramatic or threatening, and the script and direction feels like a flaccid soon-to-be-dead thing. The Promotion isn’t a bad movie, it just needed a new director and writer (who, incidentally, are the same person: Steve Conrad). Remember The Pursuit of Happyness, and the way it was so full of potential but never fulfilled any of them? Same thing.

(First published at InCinemas)