You are here: Home / Archives for Matt V

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

July 15, 2009 by

azkabanHarry Potter has a chance to simultaneously lighten up and get serious in ‘The Prisoner of Azkaban,’ widely considered (to my disagreement) the best installment of the franchise thus far. A new director and a fresh tone do liven things up a little bit as our lead hero enters his teenage years with rebellion and frustration intact.

The story sends the young magic trio back to school under the alarming news that Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), a savage murderer– also an accomplice in the death of Harry’s parents–has escaped from Azkaban prison. Dementors (wraith like spirits with soul-sucking power) are dispatched to seek the prisoner out, that is if Potter doesn’t find him first and have his revenge, or possibly fall victim to the dementors himself.azkaban 2

Right out of the gate, I think ‘Prisoner of Azkaban’ trumps its predecessors as far as all the technical aspects go. The action and special effects are first-rate. There are some great sequences to thrill to, especially a few CGI additons: a horse-bird hybrid called Buckbeak and a few menacing werewolves.  The plot is serviceable enough–I particularly enjoyed developments toward the film’s climax.  The story also introduces us to a new ‘Harry Potter,’ a blood-thirsty teenager not just sad about the loss of his parents and not so easily cornered by his tormenting aunt and uncle. This Harry fights back with disregard, and all three youngsters mature in that light.  Credit the lighter feel of the film to its new director, Alfonso Cuaron, who trims the running time by approximately twenty minutes, allows more humor to find its way into the material, and somehow manages to make this darker premise not so heavy.  I will say this is the most inventive film of the series, but I felt the plot contained less suspense than ‘The Chamber of Secrets’ and lost some of that ‘dreary and haunted’ vibe. And to Cauron’s credit, that’s because ‘Azkaban’ seems aimed at being more fun. I did enjoy it, but it wasn’t my favorite.

[Rating:3.5/5]

-MJV & the Movies.

Filed Under: Action, Family Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

July 15, 2009 by

chamberThe ‘Potter’ series gets a boost with “The Chamber of Secrets,” Chris Columbus’ second outing at Hogwarts. This time out Harry, Hermione and Ron must discover what’s causing the paralyzing of students at school, a beast or monster perhaps, buried within the mysterious  ‘chamber of secrets,’ and they must act fast as the victims are piling up, or the school will soon be closed.chamber 2

This is a much darker, meatier film than we got the first time around. The story takes interesting turns, and the suspense actually keeps the audience on edge, huge Potter fanatics or not.’The Sorcerer’s Stone’ really strayed from any straight-forward plot mechanics and simply took us into its world and introduced the characters and purpose of magic. ‘Chamber of Secrets’ allows its characters to go further and work within the confines of an interesting story that actually holds some striking interest. And while I griped that the special effects were a bit lacking the first time around, this film steps it up considerably. The Quidditch sequences are much more fluid, the flying car sequences are a treat, and watch out for the dark forest with giant man-eating arachnids– good stuff!chamber 3

I can complain about minor CGI characters or the film’s running time over and over, but it wouldn’t be worth my while. These movies are stuck at 2 1/2 hours roughly, and at least this one makes use of the time. With a production design like this, pitch perfect actors growing into their roles, and a solid story, ‘Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets’ is definitely a worthy installment and an improvement over ‘Part One.’

[Rating:4/5]

-MJV & the Movies

Filed Under: Action, Family, Mystery Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Bruno

July 13, 2009 by

bruno-b_2Yes, I endured ‘Bruno’, Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest character creation to hit cinemas. Admittedly, ‘Borat’ from 2006 had some brains to it, and while the movie had its handful of shocking moments, they didn’t completely overwhelm Cohen’s sometimes brilliant moments. The man is very talented, it’s just too bad he delves too far for laughs and will do anything to ignite controversy– the kind Sean Penn and George Clooney would kill for. ‘Bruno’ is a sad package. Cohen only goes for surface gags playing a homosexual fashion show host headed for America to become a major celebrity.

From the get-go, Cohen hits the audience over the head with heavy doses of unbelievable sexual imagery (usually covered with blurs) only meant to elicit an “Are you serious?!” response. Most audience members were covering their faces. That trend continues throughout most of this, and only sporadically do we get some of the genuine eye-opening moments the film is seemingly intended for. The film’s greatest strength comes in a scene showcasing the negligence of these psychotic parents with child-actors. During that moment, the laughs stopped and Cohen actually hit a good point. And he does a few other times, but most of the gags don’t make much sense. A few times he points out the hypocrisy of certain clueless celebrities (Paula Abdul among them). But overall, the movie is far too disturbing and outright offensive to most.  Cohen wants to paint a picture of America’s self-indulgence, intolerance, hypocrisy, and make every famous person look stupid. And he does create that, but by using and thriving off the very stereotypes he tries to lampoon. I’ll admit there are a few good jokes, and he hits a few good notes, but the shock factor is far too extreme, offensive and depraved. I left disturbed. Good thing ‘Bruno’, despite becoming the weekend’s number one movie, won’t have the popularity or staying power of ‘Borat’. I can’t believe this thing walked away with an ‘R’ rating, after apparently being edited down some — now that’s a scary thought.

[Rating:2/5]

Filed Under: Comedy Tagged With: ,

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

July 12, 2009 by

harrypotter1With the latest installment of easily the most financially viable film series of all time hitting theaters this week, I sought out the previous entries and decided to take a look back at them. I remember missing “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” in theaters. The books were sparked with early controversy for kid readers, were wildly popular, and I’ve never found my way into one to this day. In the holiday season of 2001, this was undoubtedly the most hyped movie in theaters, and was neck-and-neck with the other geek-fandom opus that was the first ‘Lord of the Rings’ installment. At the year’s end, even after ‘Rings’ walked away with 13 Oscar nominations and major critical praise, ‘Harry Potter 1’ wore the crown of the year’s biggest blockbuster, squeaking past the hobbits with only $3 million more. There’s no point in arguing that the ‘Rings’ trilogy is a better line of films, but Harry Potter has gone on to its sixth entry, with the final two productions in development.  Each flick has averaged around $260 million domestically and nearly $1 billion globally– again, that is per film!  What will Warner Bros. do without this dominating franchise? And better yet, will these films stand the test of time?

It is with this curiosity that I decided to go back to the most successful film of the series, the only one to pass $300 million domestically, the one that kick-started the whole phenomenon. Director Chris Columbus, frequent John Hughes collaborator, has seen his share of success in the industry, with the first two blockbuster ‘Home Alone’ films and ‘Mrs. Doubtfire’ to his credit — the man knows family films with mass appeal. Granted, his films never have a personal touch or much beyond the syrupy consumer pulp culminating most movies, but he does make enjoyable flicks nonetheless.

‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’ is no exception. This is a good, wholesome, enjoyable movie with magic in it, but without a magical touch. I often love origin stories, and so I tend to become engulfed in how things begin, and become less intrigued when a series plays out after all this discovery. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) discovers he’s a wizard of  famously murdered parents and finds his way to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry where dark conspiracies run amok. He meets two pals, Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ronald Weasley (Rupert Grint). The trio embarks on a Scooby-Doo investigation to unveil the secret of a dark wizard named Voldemort, whom Potter seems to have an interesting connection to, and his plot to steal the secret Sorcerer’s stone, which would grant him unearthly power.
HaPo

The plot serves and a very drawn out film at over 2 1/2 hours, but of course that’s due to the lengthy book from J.K. Rowling which I haven’t read.   I suppose that doesn’t build my credit in reviewing the film here. As such, the movie should stand on its own terms anyway. And it does.  Columbus’ film can be a bit hokey and a bit too long, but the characters are undoubtedly fascinating. The three young actors work wonders and really do add something magical to some slow pacing and shoddy special effects that don’t hold up quite as well today. I’m mostly focusing on the Quidditch game where the youngsters are flying around on broomsticks playing ‘fetch’ with a fancier title. These effects aren’t too bad, I don’t mean to point fingers at an eight-year-old film, but they are noticeable by today’s standards. The casting overcomes any of these obstacles in the way of the production and light direction.  Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson shine and add a sense of reality to their characters, an amazing feat for being so young.  The film also boasts notable supporting actors including the late Richard Harris as Professor Dumbledor, Alan Rickman in  scene-stealing over-the-top brilliance as the dark Professor Snape, and the always-intelligible Maggie Smith.
‘The Sorcerer’s Stone’ remains a solid introduction to a fascinating franchise. The film’s action sequences have energy, the characters have believability, the magic in it is fun for kids and adults, and in my book it’s not selling witchcraft and sorcery to kids any more than ‘The Wizard of Oz’ or ‘The Lord of the Rings’ series would be.  I think any of the early controversial ties go unjust. This is simply a fun mystery movie that is a little choppy, but sets the stage for these characters rather well.

[Rating:4/5]

-MJV & the Movies

Filed Under: Action, Family, Mystery Tagged With: , , , , ,

12 Rounds

July 6, 2009 by

12rounds

 


“12 Rounds” is the type of action movie we don’t see much in cinemas these days. A musclebound cop hero races around impressive action set pieces to rescue his girlfriend from a notorious criminal mastermind. Pro-wrestler and hip-hop artist John Cena fills the shoes of protagonist Danny Fisher, the cop having a really bad day.  This movie, from the producers of ‘The Marine’ (the atrocious Cena vehicle from 2006), is a blatant rip-off of ‘Die Hard with a Vengeance’ and ‘Speed’ blended together. The acting is mostly terrible, with Cena being the the worst presence of all. How this dodged the straight-to-DVD bin is beyond me. On a surface level this is an easily watchable action movie that’s not the worst you’ll ever see, but it really hinges on Cena’s shoulders and the man doesn’t have the charisma or delivery to carry the project. If he had a shred of the charm that made Schwarzenegger, Stallone or even Dwayne Johnson work so well in flicks like this one — it might have succeeded. As is, everything is pure formula and all of the performances are lame.

[Rating:2/5]

Filed Under: Action Tagged With: , , , , ,

Public Enemies

July 3, 2009 by

Michael Mann’s ‘Public Enemies’ arrives just in time this season to remind audiences looking for some smart adult action, they needn’t venture into movies about robots and aliens, or endure John Travolta’s embarrassing rants and whines on a subway train. Instead, they can sit back and watch Johnny Depp, one of the greatest actors around, single-handedly take this movie and breathe life into celluloid as 1930s American gangster and professional bank robberJohn Dillinger, on the run from and on the radar of the FBI.

Now, let’s get this out here right away, however: ‘Public Enemies’ is not a great movie. It’s far from Mann’s ‘Heat’, but it’s luminous when compared to 2006’s ‘Miami Vice’ adaptation.  In fact, I felt much the same way about this movie as I did with Ridley Scott’s ‘American Gangster.’ Now instead of Denzel Washington vs. Russell Crowe, we have Johnny Depp vs. Christian Bale — and the end results are pretty similar.  Both flicks are from master filmmakers, showcasing two stars in the lead performances, and each film is interesting and competently made — but neither sizzle.

‘Public Enemies’ most certainly has two things going for it. Johnny Depp is superb in the role. His Dillinger character is dark, mysterious, but also straight-laced. In fact, Dillinger as a character seems to have been written so mysterious that the audience never fully understands or feels that heroic connection with him. But Depp plays it up even when he’s not given dramatic scenes to shine in.  Michael Mann adds to Depp’s talent. The director cooks up shootouts with great intensity. And I suppose I can’t overlook Marion Cotillard. The Oscar-winning actress has an authentic romance with Depp’s character that never comes off contrived or tacked-on. The audience truly believes in their relationship, and it works.

The drawbacks really extend from the movie not involving the audience as it should. From Christian Bale’s straightforward and uninteresting performance as Agent Melvin Purvis, the man hunting Dillinger, to the confusing supporting characters that are never given the proper distinctive treatment, and finally the lack of excitement in the bank heists — I really wasn’t engrossed in the full spectrum of the picture. I greatly admired Depp’s work, some of the film’s intensity, and much of the ‘hunt’ of the storyline, but I didn’t feel quite as connected to Dillinger’s story and the men surrounding him as I wanted to be.  While those gripes didn’t make this a bad film, because this remains satisfactory work, this isn’t greatness. And from Michael Mann, that’s what I hope for.

[Rating:3/5]

Filed Under: Action, Drama Tagged With: , ,

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

July 3, 2009 by

iceage3

‘Ice Age’ has been good to Fox Studios and serviceable to audiences.  The first film was solid entertainment, the second installment a major bore, and the latest entry again decent. That’s the best compliment I can give it. As a distraction for kids, ‘Dawn of the Dinosaurs’ is better than ‘The Meltdown’ for a few reasons.

The storyline is stronger. Sid (John Leguizamo) stumbles upon three seemingly abandoned eggs beneath the ice surface and takes them to raise as his own. Out hatches three baby dinosaurs and they wreak havoc for Manny (Romano) and Ellie (Latifah) who are expecting their first youngin. When Mama T-Rex comes back for her three babies, Sid is whisked away to a jungle world beneath the ice and it’s up to Manny and team to bring him back with the help of newcomer ‘Buck,’ (the one character that doesn’t work) a swashbuckling, dinosaur-hunting weasel on a continual quest to bring down the greatest dino of them all.

The second pro: it seems as though more screen time was given to Scrat the squirrel and a new sub-plot involving a romance with Scratte, his female counterpart. Scrat’s scenes have always been the best in the series, and it’s proven even further with this sequel.i3

Final pro: Yes. This one’s in 3-D – and not a pointless 3-D. This is where 3-D sells an otherwise average movie. Pixar’s ‘Up’ didn’t need it. ‘Ice Age 3’ really puts it to use and blends the splendid animation with a surrounding landscape, and it all comes together very well. If you’re at all interested in seeing it with those goofy glasses on, more power to you — this is a strong selling point for the movie.  And, at the end of the day, I have to recommend this. It works far better than the last movie, and there’s worse animated fodder that has been released in the past. The movie is short, lively, superbly animated, in a strong 3-D format, sporadically humorous, and a solid choice for kids.  No, it’s not quite as good as ‘Up.’  It’s not Pixar. But what else is, really?

[Rating:3/5]

Filed Under: Animation, Comedy Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

July 3, 2009 by

transformers

Only a few sizable blockbusters have managed to break through the box office ice this summer. ‘Star Trek’, ‘Up,’ ‘The Hangover’ and even ‘Wolverine’ have managed to earn their keep amidst several flops: ‘Terminator Salvation,’ ‘Land of the Lost,’ ‘Year One,’ ‘The Taking of Pelham 123.’  Does Michael Bay’s latest margarita of explosions, babes and robots spice things up on the silver screen?  In terms of dollars: yes.  In terms of entertainment value: not like I’d hoped.

Sam (Shia LaBeouf) is off to college for five minutes when war explodes between autobots and decepticons once again.  While Sam may not want anything to do with the fight, the ‘Fallen’ (just know they’re bad bots)  have other plans for him and need to scan his brain for some important information that will lead them to a temple in Egypt that is key to the autobots’ destruction.  Sound crazy?  I haven’t even gotten into the teleporting yet.  But maybe I’ll just stop there while the plot makes little sense as opposed to absolutely zero sense if I were to go on any further.

This latest Bay quest to blow up the world certainly shows off its budget. The special effects are revved up high as these morphing bots battle each other in several eye-hurtling wrangles of metal-on-metal thrashing.  There’s lots of yelling and screaming amidst the computer generated imagery — and let’s be honest — this is ‘Transformers’ we’re talking about, so all the critical backlash can go dismissed when it comes to cursing Michael Bay for his brainless eye-popping antics. This series was never about strong storytelling from the first teaser trailer we discovered with the 2007 picture.  Instead, Bay has created a canvas for fireballs and tearing up the laws of physics. Sounds like ‘Armageddon,’ ‘Bad Boys 2’, ‘The Island,’ and even ‘Pearl Harbor.’ Span that destruction over 2 1/2 hours, and you have the idea for both ‘Transformers’ films as well.

tformers

The problem with ‘Revenge of the Fallen’ is that the script obviously has little ambition. This thing fell together as if plot devices and dialogue rained from the sky intoa  gutter-system and out a studio drainpipe. I really have no idea why these Decepticon bots want Sam Witwicky’s knowledge of hidden systems from millions of years ago buried beneath the Egyptian pyramids that have the power to suck up the sun. I guess it will destroy Earth, but it never comes together, and never really makes any sense. All the previous characters are back too, but anyone can tell it’s only out the sheer coincidence of the confused storyline to throw these characters together again. All this confusion, punctuated with bouts of humor from some rather irritating supporting characters, human and robotic (I’m looking at you ‘Twin Bots’), sends ‘Revenge of the Fallen’ into rushed studio oblivion where fan anticipation and big booms cover all.  Let me veer on a tangent for a minute:

Shia LaBeouf.

The young man really holds this odd opus together. When the self-absorbed director and multiple screenwriters throw lemons at the kid, he makes lemonade with it. He consistently carries us through this mess and the laughable romance with Megan Fox’s character. His delivery never misses a beat when it comes to the humor and focus at the center of this soulless endeavor.  Regardless of his stance as a debatable box-office star, he holds this $200 million production together.

At the end of the day, Transformers 2 will wear the crown of box office champ of 2009, no doubt. It’s expensive, visually great, louder than a wood-chipper, and has a storyline that gets it about halfway and then falls apart into a huge, confusing onslaught of action in the last forty-five minutes or so. The first film (which I would’ve award 4 stars of 5 for its huge scale, likable find in LaBeouf, consistent humor, and simpler dopey premise) got it right. This second installment is poorly conceived and confusing, and a lot of the humor falls flat. As much as I want to recommend the action, even the ‘explosion! explosion!’ finale isn’t engaging. No Peter Travers, it’s not the worst movie of the decade. I can think of far worse to sit through. Let’s all stop hating Michael Bay – we know what we’re getting with the man. Transformers 2 is a minor failure, but give the next installment a little more time to bake and a little less ingredients, and I’ll be first in line.

[Rating:2.5/5]

Filed Under: Action, Science Fiction Tagged With: , , , , , ,
« Previous Page