Change Your Image
pjdoughnut
Reviews
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Good but better for non devotees
Its odd that this instalment has been said to be the best thus far, as although I enjoyed it there was somehow a bit of lingering disappointment after it was all over.
I think most of the problems I have with the movie stem from being an avid fan of the books. However of all the books Order is the worst and the most difficult to adapt into a film, and yes lots had to be cut and with good reason in the main, yet I felt at a running time that was little over two hours from the longest book in the series, it could have afforded a little more time to explain things that are left open ended. I believe the overall spirit of the book has been well adapted but the smaller details have been overlooked altogether. The romance with Cho for instance simply seems to fizzle out and is never properly explained. Who sent the Dementors after Harry, that is never explained, or how the order manage to show up out the blue at the end of the movie. But most of all the prophecy was not given enough of a mention or an explanation. In cutting the book to the bone some of the best bits are lost.
Like Arthur Weasley being attacked by the snake. In the book this is a good bit full of tension and in the film it is skipped over so quickly that it barely registers. Kreacher too excellently realised is underused and the whole bit with the locket was cut which will cause problems when it comes to the last film.
What is in the film is excellently done there"s no denying it. It looks fantastic and the end battle is great. The acting too is improved more back to the standard of Azkaban.
I m not someone who wants a page to page adaptation of the book I know that is impossible and as it stands it works as a movie well, but it is one that will appeal more to non fans of the books and as a fan obviously I would prefer a movie that would speak more to the actual fans.
Star Trek (2009)
Loved every minute of it.
I have never been into Star Trek. I loved and still do love Star Wars. However I am a big JJ Abrams fan and I liked Zachary Quinto a lot too so for these reasons alone I was interested.
Within the first two minutes I was enthralled.... within the first ten I had my jaw on the floor and it stayed there for the most of the movie. It seems an odd contradiction for the Lost man- a series that moves so slow to come up with such a fast paced sci fi film. It felt as if all my gripes with Star Trek were instantly fixed. One of the reasons i d never been able to get into Star Trek was the characters- they seemed too distant - too remote somehow to root for. Another thing about Star Trek is the ridiculous techno babble and the fact that it seems sometimes so boring and very little to do with space adventuring at all... I always thought that the opening sequences of the Star Trek series were great- vast vistas of space and planets- it created a real sense of wonder and awe - and then the show would start and it would be 4 actors in a room talking a load of balls. With Abrahms Star Trek this is nt the case. The character s of Kirk and Spock are conflicted and both in their own way rebellious. The opening is breathtaking and the wow factor is maintained throughout the film. This could not be boring if it tried. Yet as good as the action is the core of the film is about the character s and their struggles which I think a lot of other blockbuster films such as Transformers miss. Also another thing I found offputting about Star Trek originally was the po faced ness of it all. Yet Abrahms Star Trek has many great comedic moments that help lighten the tone without going over the top. The tone of the film I loved - it was optimistic and bucked the trend of dark and gloomy blockbusters. Don't get me wrong I love those too- but Star Trek felt genuinely entertaining in a way that few recent blockbusters have managed to do. There were flaws - the story does fall apart on close inspection, and the bad guy Nero was way underused. But it s to Star Trek s credit that I really did nt notice or care too much, I was having so much fun with this movie. Even though I am no Star Trek fan I am glad that Abrahms managed to side step the usual reboot trap by setting it in an alternate timeline. This will mean hopefully old Trekkies will still like it. There seemed to be lots of lines that Trekkies
were supposed to recognise - not being a Star Trek fan i did nt of course but I m sure the Die Hard Trekkies would get a kick out of those.
Overall I loved this movie and I have to admit that I wish the Star Wars Prequels could have been this funny and entertaining.
Terminator Salvation (2009)
Very enjoyable as long as you don't expect T2.
As a massive Terminator fan I was really looking forward to this and I did end up really liking it, however it was nt for the reasons I expecting to.
I won t shy away from the fact that there were some things that I was disappointed with. Chiefly among those was Christian Bale as John Connor. I expected him to be awesome as usual, but i found him very disappointing for the most part being a shouty gravel voiced thug that seemed to have no relation to previous versions of John Connor. It seems as if McG was so desperate to get Bale on board it was more for the kudos he would bring to the part than a considered choice that he was the best man for the job. I really could not consider that this was the same John Connor as has previously been portrayed. One example is Connor s attitude towards the machines- which is just the same as everyone else- he thinks they are bad and should not be trusted without question. This is totally an about face on his own experience where he himself has formed relations with the Arnie terminator in T2 and T3. It just did nt feel right for the character. However one of my other concerns was how much he was sidelined doing the movie. In fact the biggest criticism I have of this movie was it had virtually no character development and the story while it got a little better towards the end, could have been better. The other big disappointment in a waywas that after all the talk of itbeing e reboot and it being a war film it seemed structure wise it was nt that different from the first two terminators. Despite the future setting I am still waiting for a proper full on battle scene between the terminators and the Humans. This was something i expected from this movie and never got. For all the talk of it being gritty and realistic there was only one sequence- the sequence with the Harvestor that resounded as such. I also think the certificate did t help, how can you make a war picture with a 12A certificate?
However as an action blockbuster I have to say it worked very well. The many action scenes managed to sway the attention away from the pretty patchy script. Structure wise as I said this was quite close to T2 there was a great chase sequence with a truck - although I appreciated the reversal from T2 - here we had a truck being chased by bikes rather than the other way round. I loved the newly evolved machines- the harvestor in particular was a stand out and definitely added something new to the action scenes. Of course I loved to the numerous references to the other Terminators- the best one of course being the famous Arnie cameo. This was without a doubt my favourite bit. I exected when I heard about it that it was going to look really bad but it was amazing. It was good because it was short with only a couple of shots of Arnie s face. The fact that this cameo was so brief was what made it so good, I m hoping for more with the next film.....
Although I mentioned how I was disappointed with Bale, I was pleasantly surprised by how good Worthington was, it seemed to me that this was his film more than Connors in a way and in actual fact I was glad about it. The other great surprise was of course Anton Yelchin as a Young Kyle Reese. Yelchin was great for the part he played in Star Trek but here he had much more to do and he succeeded admirably- you could believe he was a young Kyle Reese.
So overall this film was good. Yes there were plot holes but this was the same with the others as well. In fact plot holes abide in most blockbusters the trick is that the good ones distract you away from them . T2 and T1 do this admirably - Terminator Salvation manages to although not as successfully. It is not as good as their esteemed forebears but then again i don t believe it is trying to be. It is not trying to outdo the first two- it s aim in my mind was similar to Star Trek - to re energise a franchise that had become far too boring. This it achieved. I hope that for the sequel they improve on the flaws in this one, yet as it stands it is still one of the best summer movies around.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
Worst Comic Book Film Ever.
It is no wonder that the esteemed Mr Moore wanted no more to do with Hollywood after this.
I will preface this by saying that I saw the movie before reading the comic book so I had no reason to be comparing it. I watched it expecting very little and still with low expectations I was disappointed. The story was rubbish the effects middling the action forgettable. Surely the idea with a movie like this is that it is an ensemble piece with all the different characters having a part. Yet the only one to really feature was Connery's character, who was basically not Allan Quatermain but as always is simply Sean Connery. The end fight is possibly the weakest end/death sequence I ve ever seen and was neither exciting nore adrenaline pumping. Bad guy runs away, Tom Sawyer aims shoots, kills him. Rubbish. There are many other terrible things about the movie only thrown into sharper relief when I actually read the comic book. Having read it I saw no reason why this film could nt have been made closer to the comic - there is plenty of action in it. More than say Watchmen, which was much harder being a lot longer and more complex. I expect it was the desire to make it as commercial as possible that made them alter the characters to make them bland and clichéd- one of the points of the comic was the chance to re envisage classic characters in a new way. This is interesting and would have made for a great and still exciting movie. However I realise that at the time the comic book movie genre was still primarily a family audience pre sin city and Watchmen, so naturally the Hollywood cretins skimmed through the book, took the idea and completely messed it up to make more money. If made today there is every chance that it would have been more faithful but as this movie was such a disaster it will never happen now I m sure. In an interview Stephen Norrington said that he did nt want to make a faithful adaptation, he wanted to make a blockbuster, but even in this he failed for the movie boasted not a single stand out action sequence. It says a lot about a movie when the best bit was an unintentionally hilarious line from Dorian Grey - "I m complicated." Pity the film itself was nt.
It s also one thing to note that this is the film that sent Sean Connery into retirement and Stephen Norrington into obscurity. While I feel sorry for the loss of Sean( not even a cameo as Indy s Dad could lure him away from the golf course) I have to say Stephen Norrington deserved to loose whatever reputation he had after ballsing this film up so spectacularly.
Public Enemies (2009)
If your a Michael Mann Fan you ll love it.
I went into this movie with a clear expectation that I was going to love every minute of it. I am a big Michael Mann fan and also love Johnny Depp and Christian Bale ( although after Terminator Salvation I must admit Bale has sunk a little in my estimation) There was just a slightly lingering doubt due to the fact that his last movie, Miami Vice was well pants. Plus I did think that to make a Gangster movie that actually can stand toe to toe with the best IE Goodfellas Godfether etc is more and more difficult. Yet to my surprise Public Enemies within about 10 minutes had me convinced.
The opening scene was visceral and packed with energy, reminding me of what it was first likewatching the shoot out in Heat and it showed without a doubt that this was Michael Mann back at the top of his game. The sound the editing the look of the film, it is obvious that he has spent hours honing this film until it dazzles.
Story wise Public Enemies is what you expect, there are no real twists and despite the title it really is only about one public enemy, John Dilinger portrayed amazingly and subtly by Johnny Depp. This is not as you may expect a Heat style two hander, Purvis, the character played by Bale is really there to show how Dilinger was ultimately brought down and to act as a foil to Dilinger. Whereas Dilinger shows his humanity creep through almost from the off,holding onto a dying comrade as they make their getaway, Purvis seems cold and detached arresting Pretty Boy Floyd and reading him his rights whilst he is dying, stomach exposed bleeding everywhere.
The most amazing aspect of Public Enemies for me was simply the way it was shot. This was no stylised film noir style this was realistic and gritty as if someone with a digital camera had travelled back to 1933 and shot what they saw. This is what is the key to its success and the reason why I think it deserves a mention alomg with the greatest classics of the genre. This approach makes the film seem real and new. Even though the audience can see from a mile away where this film is going almost from the off it still managed to enthrall and draw me in. Indeed this is the point- the film itself reminds me of what Sergio Leone said about Once Upon A Time in The West- that it was meant to resemble the last dying breaths of a person. This is what Public Enemies is - one long dying breath for Dilinger. But as good as Bale and Depp are the real heart of the movie belongs to Marion Collitard as Billy Frechette. She has a great classical beauty and her romance with Depp is both beautiful and sad.
Critics may scoff at the use of hand held camera, the lack of characterisation but this is Michael Mann and it is all as part of his style and the way he works as a film maker. People who complain about the hand held thing may think to remember that it was Micheal Mann himself who pretty much pioneered this technique back in Heat and it made for the first really explosive and realistic shootout in recent memory - a similar scene in Public Enemies reminds us that Mann is still the daddy when it comes to this stuff despite many imitators.
What is most significant about Mann though is that what he leaves out is as important as what he puts in. Mann paints characters as enigmas leaving the audience to draw their own conclusions. The dialogue is minimal and I love this about Mann- every word counts. There is no clumsy expositional dialogue, nothing to inform us about the characters backstory. When Collitard is swept away by Depp from her job working in a cloak room and she tells him she knows nothing about him he sums up his character is three seconds flat- "I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars... and you" what more do you need to know?
Much of the character is expressed through imagery rather than dialogue . The ending sequence with Depp watching a Clark Gable movie gives you as many clues to his character and what made him tick as any book or documentary could . But hear"s the rub, you have to actually use your brain with this film. This is no sit down and turn your brain off movie, quite the opposite. Anyone willing to give it a go though is likely to find themselves rewarded.
The only reason it gets a nine is like Miami Vice before it, the middle section is just a tad too slow moving and my attention did start to wander a little, however once the tommy guns start blaring in the trademark shoot out I was sucked back in once again.
I think anyone who is a Michael Mann fan or wants to watch a film that does nt substitute plot and character for effects will enjoy this film. I found it a pleasant antidote to the rest of the summer s releases.