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?

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.

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)

Movie Review: Hannah Montana: The Movie

Hannah Montana has, in my opinion, bad press she doesn’t deserve. Oh, the Jonas Brothers deserve it, but at least you know when teenagers love Hannah, they aren’t actually thinking about being in potential relationships with the star in question. Female fans screaming over the Jonas Brothers give me the creeps. For all her limited vocal range, I can appreciate Hannah for what she represents: a teen idol.

The HM franchise has so far made it through several seasons on the Disney channel, and quite a few accompanying soundtracks. They’ve taken a bold step here by moving on to the silver screen, and unfortunately, there’s very little of the movie Hannah that I can link to the TV Hannah. The biggest and most glaring flaw from TV to film is that they weren’t kidding about it being Hannah Montana: The Movie. It’s all about her! (and no one else.)

Having reviewed some of the TV seasons that came out on DVD, the thing I enjoyed most about this Disney cash cow was its set-in-school, double-life recipe. In the TV series, Hannah performs for a few minutes tops, before she’s whisked away backstage to be Miley again. She goes to school, gets jealous over somebody, or falls in love, or falls out with her best friend, but at the end of the day there’s a good balance between all the characters. And there’s usually another story between her dad Robby Ray Stewart (Billy Ray Cyrus), and elder brother Jackson (played by Jason Earles, whom I have just recently discovered is actually 32 years old!) running parallel to the main plot for the episode. Everyone has a fair share of screen time, including whoever is guest starring.

Hannah Montana: The Movie throws this all away. Like I said, it’s all about Hannah, and how she’s tired of lying about her different identities and wants to tell everyone the truth. She visits her grandmother in the countryside, and suddenly has a new love interest in the form of a farmboy. Everyone else takes a back seat, including Lilly and Jackson, who appear in only a couple of scenes providing shameless slapstick “relief”. Miley doesn’t get to attend school, or take jabs at her classmates (essentially what made the TV versions funny, perhaps even a teeny weeny bit smart). The point is, everything we’re familiar with the franchise – the stage glamour, the deadpan sarcasm, the cheeky comebacks – has been replaced with Clark Kent barns, haystacks, and other cowboy-ish stuff. Heck, she event paints a freaking chicken coop!

This 180-degree change in direction is ill-advised and dangerously boring, and the dialogue is a walking corpse. Despite this though, IF your kid drags you to this movie, you can seek solace in some beautiful scenery.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Pineapple Express

I’ve been meaning to write a review for this, but haven’t, because to be honest I don’t feel a review would be the right way to go about describing something as fun as this. Like actually sitting down and thinking about it would kill some part of the enjoyment I had from watching the movie. Like Seth Rogen said in an interview, “It’s just insane that critics would even try to review this movie. It’s not meant to have any more thought put into it than the time it takes to watch it. The notion of someone sitting down and writing a paragraph about Pineapple Express is just insane to me. Just let it exist!”

I can’t agree more. Pineapple Express is one of the best stoner-comedies I have seen. It is THE best stoner-action-comedy I’ve seen. It’s so fun it makes me want to capitalise and bold and underline every adjective I use to describe it.

A drug dealer Saul Silver (James Franco) and his client Dale Denton (Seth Rogen) go on the run after witnessing a murder. Well.. Saul didn’t witness the murder, Dale did, but Dale went to Saul and so they’re both in trouble now. And they can’t call the police because “the police were the murderers!” Don’t you just love corruption?

Of course the movie isn’t as simple as that, since there’s the complication of the police working for a drug lord, a drug lord by the name of Ted who provides Sual’s middleman, Red, the weed. Don’t follow? I’ll make it simple: if Dale hadn’t witnessed the murder, run to Saul, then Dale and Ted would have been smoking pot together, united in their love for the illegal. The wedge that puts Saul and Dale on the other side isn’t the murder, but their morality. There, I just made the movie sound deep. It really isn’t, but in the good way. What it is is pure, outrageous, ridiculous, silly fun. You’ll giggle till your sides ache. I still cannot believe the movie’s last scene was totally improvised. I think I’d better stop before I go into full fanatic mode.

Now, I heard a lot of good stuff about this, and had high expectations. It met them. You have to know that I was first introduced to the film through the Pineapple Express Oscar Skit, which in my opinion, was even better than a trailer. It had Seth Rogen, whom I enjoy watching, and James Franco is hard to resist, even when he’s completely stoned. Especially when he’s completely stoned. Pineapple Express doesn’t require long paragraphs written about it – the word “awesome” is enough. Its also extremely re-watchable, and makes me want to own the DVD.

Movie Review: Night At The Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian

The sequel to the rowdy and chaotic Night At The Museum is good fun… if you haven’t seen the first movie. Starring Ben Stiller, who reprises his role as… well, he doesn’t exactly reprise his role at the start of the movie as a night guard, but he becomes one again later on anyway.

You see, between the first film and the sequel, Larry has made it as a big-shot product inventor. He only becomes a night guard of the museum again after the exhibits convince him that he isn’t happy being a rich guy, that he subconsciously misses them, etc. Oh, and what a perfect time to return too, because the museum’s getting rid of a number of wax figurines, upgrading its exhibits with animated holograms and such. It’s actually something to be sad about, because almost everyone is going to be stored underground at the Smithsonian Institution. Permanently. I figure this is the closest the wax figurines can come to dying.

So Larry goes off on a rescue mission – only to find out that Slappy (you know, the monkey) has, in his playfulness, stolen the magic Egyptian plague, and taken it along with him to the Smithsonian Institution. Before you know it, the largest museum in the world has come to life, from Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams) to evil (read: goofy) Pharaoh Kahmunrah. There are cute Albert Einsteins, a brief Darth Vader appearance, and old exhibits like the aforementioned monkey and Theodore Roosevelt too.

In fact, there are so many characters featured that it’s hard to grow attached to any one of them. This is supposed to be fun, but we’ve got to care about the characters too, yes? In the passing blur of famous people, the only exception here is Amelia Earhart, who becomes Larry’s obligatory love interest. Unfortunately for the Octavius (Steve Coogan) and Jedediah (Owen Wilson) fans, they don’t do much here except repeat what they did in the first movie (they also don’t get enough screen time!).

Saturated with lazier writing and repeated jokes, Night At The Museum 2 is regretfully lackluster. You won’t remain stoned faced, but you’ll be close to it, depending on your level of tolerance for slapstick.

(First published at InCinemas)