Soundtrack for a Revolution
Directed by Bill Guttentag and Dan Sturman
Sigh.
What am I doing with my life?
I think I should do more.
This is a film that will inspire you, entertain you, educate you, and also make you realize that doing the dishes and the laundry in the same day isn’t accomplishing a lot. These people did something. They changed the world: fighting against the machine, the man, and against centuries old, entrenched bigotries that were literally the law. And they did it all with peace and patience … and song.
The documentary not only takes a fascinating look at the civil rights movement in the U.S. but also at the songs and music that were part of the movement. We hear the archival music that was played and sung at nearly every gathering and we also get new treatments of the songs by some modern artists.
At no point are we overwhelmed by the music. The music and the story inform each other; indeed, the oral tradition of song is one of the few things the slaves that were forced to America had. It’s fitting then, that on the cusp of finally gaining their true freedom, that it was old Negro spirituals that inspired their cause.
The film explores dangers that protestors (in the U.S. or Canada) can hardly imagine today. The threat of jail was light compared to the very real dangers of beatings, castrations and countless murders that were perpetrated against the civil rights marchers. And yet there were not bowed. They carried on, peacefully, until a country was finally shamed into acting. The film weaves archival footage with current interviews and of course, with the soaring, beautiful music.
One of the marchers says, “We were ordinary people who did extraordinary things.” They certainly did. This is why this documentary, like many well made documentaries, makes you think about your own life, and what you’ve done with it. Soundtrack, Shake Hands with the Devil, H2Oil, Crude and other documentaries call to your conscience and ask like a dying Sean Connery in The Untouchables, “What are you prepared to do?”
Point of Interest: The executive producer for Soundtrack for a Revolution is Danny Glover, a man familiar with social causes. Another film that Mr. Glover takes part in, is Unprecedented: the 2000 Presidential Election. If you haven’t had a chance to see it, you should check it out.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Last Station: Review
The Last Station
Directed by Michael Hoffman
Starring: Helen Mirren, Christopher Plummer, Paul Giamatti, James McAvoy, and Kerry Condon
You may remember in my review of The Hurt Locker that I said there were several films I’d place above Hurt for the top films of 2009, well, this is one of them.
The Last Station is an excellent film. Remarkably, it was nominated for both best Actress (Mirren) and for best supporting Actor (Plummer), but somehow, was not amongst the TEN films nominated for best picture. How a film can have both its stars nominated for best acting considerations and not be in the best film race, especially an expanded best film race, is an unsolved mystery best left for Leonard Nimoy to contemplate. Naturally, the Oscars being a home of insanity, they did it twice this year: Crazy Heart pulled off the same feat. Unlike The Last Station though, Crazy Heart is a decent film with a great performance in it from Bridges. How in the world Maggie (last name unpronounceable) was nominated for her work is just yet another riddle poor Mr. Nimoy will have to work out. The Last Station is no Crazy Heart, it is far above merely decent.
This is one of the better acted films of the year. Giamatti, a consistently excellent actor, captures the insecurities and the desperation of Vladimir Chertkov. He’s a man who desires to raise the great author Tolstoy up to the level of deity; but ignores the man himself. James McAvoy is the writer Valentin Bulgakov. He is initially employed as a secretary to Tolstoy and he is also an ardent follower, but McAvoy is truthful and honest, and his character grows along with the film. Kerry Condon, playing Masha, brings humanity to the movement and to the movie with an earthy portrayal of Valentin’s love interest.
It is Plummer and Mirren though, that are the highlights of the film. Their relationship; so full of love and enmity, with a rich past that both haunts and supports them, is the crux of the film. When acting like this comes along, it is sometimes hard to describe, except to call it what it is--virtuosity.
The film is more that just the acting. The settings, the costumes, the cinematography all capture the era perfectly. The hypocrisy of the new religion of Tolstoy is no different that the hypocrisy of all religions. In the pursuit of perfection they forget that perfection is impossible, and that messiahs, especially the messiah of Tolstoy, are far from perfect themselves. Tolstoy seems to realize this, as he frequently says, Chertkov (his disciple) is a much better Tolstoyan than he is himself. This overly strict adherence to a way of life is wonderfully illustrated when Tolstoy kills a mosquito that is on the face of Valentin, only to be scolded by his pupil Chertkov for killing a living thing.
Thus, the followers of Tolstoy, while pursuing an ideal life of love, consistently push love to the side. McAvoy’s Valentin begins to see through the hypocrisy and his burgeoning love story is counterbalanced with the older and more layered love of Tolstoy and his Countess.
See the movie.
Point of Interest: Christopher Plummer is a god.
Directed by Michael Hoffman
Starring: Helen Mirren, Christopher Plummer, Paul Giamatti, James McAvoy, and Kerry Condon
You may remember in my review of The Hurt Locker that I said there were several films I’d place above Hurt for the top films of 2009, well, this is one of them.
The Last Station is an excellent film. Remarkably, it was nominated for both best Actress (Mirren) and for best supporting Actor (Plummer), but somehow, was not amongst the TEN films nominated for best picture. How a film can have both its stars nominated for best acting considerations and not be in the best film race, especially an expanded best film race, is an unsolved mystery best left for Leonard Nimoy to contemplate. Naturally, the Oscars being a home of insanity, they did it twice this year: Crazy Heart pulled off the same feat. Unlike The Last Station though, Crazy Heart is a decent film with a great performance in it from Bridges. How in the world Maggie (last name unpronounceable) was nominated for her work is just yet another riddle poor Mr. Nimoy will have to work out. The Last Station is no Crazy Heart, it is far above merely decent.
This is one of the better acted films of the year. Giamatti, a consistently excellent actor, captures the insecurities and the desperation of Vladimir Chertkov. He’s a man who desires to raise the great author Tolstoy up to the level of deity; but ignores the man himself. James McAvoy is the writer Valentin Bulgakov. He is initially employed as a secretary to Tolstoy and he is also an ardent follower, but McAvoy is truthful and honest, and his character grows along with the film. Kerry Condon, playing Masha, brings humanity to the movement and to the movie with an earthy portrayal of Valentin’s love interest.
It is Plummer and Mirren though, that are the highlights of the film. Their relationship; so full of love and enmity, with a rich past that both haunts and supports them, is the crux of the film. When acting like this comes along, it is sometimes hard to describe, except to call it what it is--virtuosity.
The film is more that just the acting. The settings, the costumes, the cinematography all capture the era perfectly. The hypocrisy of the new religion of Tolstoy is no different that the hypocrisy of all religions. In the pursuit of perfection they forget that perfection is impossible, and that messiahs, especially the messiah of Tolstoy, are far from perfect themselves. Tolstoy seems to realize this, as he frequently says, Chertkov (his disciple) is a much better Tolstoyan than he is himself. This overly strict adherence to a way of life is wonderfully illustrated when Tolstoy kills a mosquito that is on the face of Valentin, only to be scolded by his pupil Chertkov for killing a living thing.
Thus, the followers of Tolstoy, while pursuing an ideal life of love, consistently push love to the side. McAvoy’s Valentin begins to see through the hypocrisy and his burgeoning love story is counterbalanced with the older and more layered love of Tolstoy and his Countess.
See the movie.
Point of Interest: Christopher Plummer is a god.
The Hurt Locker: Review/Diatribe
The Hurt Locker
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Ralph Fiennes (a little bit), Guy Pearce (a little bit less) and a bunch of Americans
That’s right; I’m taking a shot at The Hurt Locker, the critics’ darling, and the odds-on favourite to win a heap of Oscars. Why am I taking on The Hurt Locker? Because it’s the most over-rated film that was nominated this year.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I thought Hurt was a decent film. It’s well directed and well acted, and since we’re now nominating 10 (ten!) films for Best Picture, then, yeah, I might have thrown it in there amongst the clusterfuck that is this year’s best picture nominees. I’m not taking on The Hurt Locker because it’s a lousy film; I’m taking it on because it is being so highly rated by critics and sweeping most of the major awards—I think, undeservedly.
Friends, my friends, this film is seriously one-noted. Its opening is one of the best openings in film this year, and then it goes nowhere. The gist of the film, its essence is well played out, but it is then repeated for the rest of the film. I feel like this could have been a kick-ass short film, say 20 to 30 minutes long, or perhaps the best episode of 24 ever, running at 44 minutes. I don’t feel like the characters or the story went anywhere. This could well be the whole point of the film, that war and soldiers continue on this terrible journey without stop, as it has always been, not just for Iraq or Afghanistan, but for all wars. If that’s the director’s point, then it’s a good one, and since it’s a well crafted film, she gets her message across. However, the message is set on repeat, therefore creating an excellent short film versus a merely decent full length film.
So why is it so highly regarded? I believe it’s nothing but critics’ snobbery. And I believe the producer of Hurt Locker who sent out the derogatory email sniffing that members should vote for his film, rather than a $500 million dollar film (obviously Avatar) epitomises that attitude completely. That’s right; of course, expensive films can never be truly good. If it’s expensive then it must be some over-wrought Hollywood piece of crap, that might make lots of money with the “masses” but real film people know that small, indie films are always better no matter what.
Well, not always.
Let’s look at the Best Picture nominees. I would rank them thusly: District 9, Avatar, Up in the Air, An Education, Precious, Inglourious Basterds, Up, The Hurt Locker, A Serious Man, and The Blind Side. There’s more than a few movies I would have put on this list ahead of the last three here, but that’s a whole other argument. Suffice it to say, The Hurt Locker isn’t even in my top five of the nominated films and wouldn’t be in my top ten of films I would’ve nominated.
I also think that Hurt is getting a lot of recognition as an anti-Cameron statement. I don’t think a lot of people like Cameron all that much especially because he keeps proving them wrong. Remember all the disastrous press that was being written about Titanic before it was released? It was going to be the biggest flop ever! It’s way over budget and it’s going to bomb! The Titanic sinks! …except it didn’t, and it made more money than any other film (until some other film came along, directed by someone, I can’t remember who) and won an avalanche of Oscars, including best picture. The exact same scenario happened with Avatar. It’s going to cost $500 million! It’s going to be a disaster! James Cameron is an egomaniac who’s out of control! Avatar will be his Waterloo! …except it wasn’t.
James Cameron doesn’t play by the Hollywood rules, and what better way to “stick it” to Cameron than by giving all the recognition to The Hurt Locker, directed by his ex-wife. Why Hurt Locker? Up in the Air, was the odds-on favourite heading into the Globes, everyone thought Avatar wouldn’t get very much attention from the foreign press, but it did, so the anti-Cameron’s out there put their energy into The Hurt Locker. They couldn’t put it into Up in the Air; it’s directed by a (Canadian!) and it doesn’t have the perceived poetic justice of an indie movie made on a shoe-string budget directed by Cameron’s ex, which The Hurt Locker has. And let’s not forget, James Cameron is also Canadian, and the very American Academy doesn’t like having someone beat them at their own game … again.
Point of Interest: Watching two different interviews, one with the star of The Hurt Locker and one with the director, revealed a wondrous thing. Jeremy Renner, who plays SSG William James, said that The Hurt Locker was a good film because it doesn’t take any sides; it is neither an anti-war film nor a pro-war film. The Director, Kathryn Bigelow, clearly stated in her interview, that The Hurt Locker was definitely an anti-war film. Isn’t art great? It can mean many things to many different people. Even people this heavily involved in the making of the movie, see the film in very different ways. I see both points of view. It is anti-war because it shows the horror of war; however, I can see why Renner says it’s neither anti-war, nor pro-war, because it doesn’t really take sides. This could be seen as a good thing, it could also be seen as a complete cop-out by the creative team behind the film afraid to take any risks, or to take a stand.
Another Point of Interest: Much has been made (and rightfully so) that this film is significant because it’s potentially the first Oscar win for a female director. What’s been completely overlooked is that there isn’t a significant female character in the entire film. This is especially ironic since there are rarely women posted to combat roles, but there are plenty of women posted to bomb disposal crews. One of the more likely places you’ll see a female soldier in Iraq is in the bomb disposal area, and here we have a film directed by a woman, with a very seldom seen opportunity to show how women contribute to their respective armies. That opportunity was not taken.
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Ralph Fiennes (a little bit), Guy Pearce (a little bit less) and a bunch of Americans
That’s right; I’m taking a shot at The Hurt Locker, the critics’ darling, and the odds-on favourite to win a heap of Oscars. Why am I taking on The Hurt Locker? Because it’s the most over-rated film that was nominated this year.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I thought Hurt was a decent film. It’s well directed and well acted, and since we’re now nominating 10 (ten!) films for Best Picture, then, yeah, I might have thrown it in there amongst the clusterfuck that is this year’s best picture nominees. I’m not taking on The Hurt Locker because it’s a lousy film; I’m taking it on because it is being so highly rated by critics and sweeping most of the major awards—I think, undeservedly.
Friends, my friends, this film is seriously one-noted. Its opening is one of the best openings in film this year, and then it goes nowhere. The gist of the film, its essence is well played out, but it is then repeated for the rest of the film. I feel like this could have been a kick-ass short film, say 20 to 30 minutes long, or perhaps the best episode of 24 ever, running at 44 minutes. I don’t feel like the characters or the story went anywhere. This could well be the whole point of the film, that war and soldiers continue on this terrible journey without stop, as it has always been, not just for Iraq or Afghanistan, but for all wars. If that’s the director’s point, then it’s a good one, and since it’s a well crafted film, she gets her message across. However, the message is set on repeat, therefore creating an excellent short film versus a merely decent full length film.
So why is it so highly regarded? I believe it’s nothing but critics’ snobbery. And I believe the producer of Hurt Locker who sent out the derogatory email sniffing that members should vote for his film, rather than a $500 million dollar film (obviously Avatar) epitomises that attitude completely. That’s right; of course, expensive films can never be truly good. If it’s expensive then it must be some over-wrought Hollywood piece of crap, that might make lots of money with the “masses” but real film people know that small, indie films are always better no matter what.
Well, not always.
Let’s look at the Best Picture nominees. I would rank them thusly: District 9, Avatar, Up in the Air, An Education, Precious, Inglourious Basterds, Up, The Hurt Locker, A Serious Man, and The Blind Side. There’s more than a few movies I would have put on this list ahead of the last three here, but that’s a whole other argument. Suffice it to say, The Hurt Locker isn’t even in my top five of the nominated films and wouldn’t be in my top ten of films I would’ve nominated.
I also think that Hurt is getting a lot of recognition as an anti-Cameron statement. I don’t think a lot of people like Cameron all that much especially because he keeps proving them wrong. Remember all the disastrous press that was being written about Titanic before it was released? It was going to be the biggest flop ever! It’s way over budget and it’s going to bomb! The Titanic sinks! …except it didn’t, and it made more money than any other film (until some other film came along, directed by someone, I can’t remember who) and won an avalanche of Oscars, including best picture. The exact same scenario happened with Avatar. It’s going to cost $500 million! It’s going to be a disaster! James Cameron is an egomaniac who’s out of control! Avatar will be his Waterloo! …except it wasn’t.
James Cameron doesn’t play by the Hollywood rules, and what better way to “stick it” to Cameron than by giving all the recognition to The Hurt Locker, directed by his ex-wife. Why Hurt Locker? Up in the Air, was the odds-on favourite heading into the Globes, everyone thought Avatar wouldn’t get very much attention from the foreign press, but it did, so the anti-Cameron’s out there put their energy into The Hurt Locker. They couldn’t put it into Up in the Air; it’s directed by a (Canadian!) and it doesn’t have the perceived poetic justice of an indie movie made on a shoe-string budget directed by Cameron’s ex, which The Hurt Locker has. And let’s not forget, James Cameron is also Canadian, and the very American Academy doesn’t like having someone beat them at their own game … again.
Point of Interest: Watching two different interviews, one with the star of The Hurt Locker and one with the director, revealed a wondrous thing. Jeremy Renner, who plays SSG William James, said that The Hurt Locker was a good film because it doesn’t take any sides; it is neither an anti-war film nor a pro-war film. The Director, Kathryn Bigelow, clearly stated in her interview, that The Hurt Locker was definitely an anti-war film. Isn’t art great? It can mean many things to many different people. Even people this heavily involved in the making of the movie, see the film in very different ways. I see both points of view. It is anti-war because it shows the horror of war; however, I can see why Renner says it’s neither anti-war, nor pro-war, because it doesn’t really take sides. This could be seen as a good thing, it could also be seen as a complete cop-out by the creative team behind the film afraid to take any risks, or to take a stand.
Another Point of Interest: Much has been made (and rightfully so) that this film is significant because it’s potentially the first Oscar win for a female director. What’s been completely overlooked is that there isn’t a significant female character in the entire film. This is especially ironic since there are rarely women posted to combat roles, but there are plenty of women posted to bomb disposal crews. One of the more likely places you’ll see a female soldier in Iraq is in the bomb disposal area, and here we have a film directed by a woman, with a very seldom seen opportunity to show how women contribute to their respective armies. That opportunity was not taken.
The Men Who Stare at Goats: Review
The Men Who Stare at Goats
Directed by Grant Heslov
Starring: George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Obi-Wan, and Kevin Spacey
All right, this movie isn’t great. It’s not quite sure what it wants to be. Is it a dark comedy? Or just a comedy? Is it in any way serious? Well, sort of. Is this paragraph confusing and disjointed? Kind of.
In some ways, the movie works. Clooney is quite committed and funny, Jeff Bridges, equally so. Kevin Spacey is suitably evil as he often is, but Luke’s teacher is kind of left in the breeze, to be the butt of Jedi jokes and the apparent straight man in a film that’s not even sure if it’s a comedy.
The film is about the (seriously!) true story of a group of soldiers who are trained in psychic abilities to be used against the enemy (the army hopes) or to bring about world peace (the psychic soldiers hope). Naturally, the group is sabotaged by the jealous and the sceptical, and by too many failures to counter the successes. Ridiculous redemption awaits us in the end; however, the movie does touch on some serious themes (Iraq War, the brutality of “hired” security soldiers, the individual Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed, kidnapping, etc.) but never gives them their due. Now, you, the good-looking reader, might think I’m belittling this movie because of its psychic claims; far from it. It’s an absolute fact that this unit did exist, and remote viewing was used, often successfully, for years (although they claim now they don’t use it). It’s the film that belittles the reality and uses any “truth” for laughs. I heard the author of the book that it’s based on being interviewed on the radio, and at first he was pretty pissed about their treatment of his story—it wasn’t a comedy to him. However, in the end he was all right with it. He realized that a story this hard to believe must first be introduced through comedy; let the jester tell the truth, it’s easier to digest.
Point of interest: If you want to check out the “real” story behind the Hollywood treatment, go to coasttocoastam.com and search Jim Channon and check out what he has to say. What’s Coast to Coast AM? It is the most listened to “late night” radio show in the world and it specializes in stories that the mainstream media ignores. Sometimes it focuses on pretty ordinary things, the economy, the environment; and other times it goes into the more bizarre/interesting, like conspiracy theories, Sasquatch, UFOs, ghosts, and other topics that may be unbelievable, sometimes quite believable, but most of the time, fascinating. You can check it out on 640am and if it comes in, 610am, or on the Internet—and no, I’m not being paid by Coast to Coast to recommend them (cheap bastards!).
Directed by Grant Heslov
Starring: George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Obi-Wan, and Kevin Spacey
All right, this movie isn’t great. It’s not quite sure what it wants to be. Is it a dark comedy? Or just a comedy? Is it in any way serious? Well, sort of. Is this paragraph confusing and disjointed? Kind of.
In some ways, the movie works. Clooney is quite committed and funny, Jeff Bridges, equally so. Kevin Spacey is suitably evil as he often is, but Luke’s teacher is kind of left in the breeze, to be the butt of Jedi jokes and the apparent straight man in a film that’s not even sure if it’s a comedy.
The film is about the (seriously!) true story of a group of soldiers who are trained in psychic abilities to be used against the enemy (the army hopes) or to bring about world peace (the psychic soldiers hope). Naturally, the group is sabotaged by the jealous and the sceptical, and by too many failures to counter the successes. Ridiculous redemption awaits us in the end; however, the movie does touch on some serious themes (Iraq War, the brutality of “hired” security soldiers, the individual Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed, kidnapping, etc.) but never gives them their due. Now, you, the good-looking reader, might think I’m belittling this movie because of its psychic claims; far from it. It’s an absolute fact that this unit did exist, and remote viewing was used, often successfully, for years (although they claim now they don’t use it). It’s the film that belittles the reality and uses any “truth” for laughs. I heard the author of the book that it’s based on being interviewed on the radio, and at first he was pretty pissed about their treatment of his story—it wasn’t a comedy to him. However, in the end he was all right with it. He realized that a story this hard to believe must first be introduced through comedy; let the jester tell the truth, it’s easier to digest.
Point of interest: If you want to check out the “real” story behind the Hollywood treatment, go to coasttocoastam.com and search Jim Channon and check out what he has to say. What’s Coast to Coast AM? It is the most listened to “late night” radio show in the world and it specializes in stories that the mainstream media ignores. Sometimes it focuses on pretty ordinary things, the economy, the environment; and other times it goes into the more bizarre/interesting, like conspiracy theories, Sasquatch, UFOs, ghosts, and other topics that may be unbelievable, sometimes quite believable, but most of the time, fascinating. You can check it out on 640am and if it comes in, 610am, or on the Internet—and no, I’m not being paid by Coast to Coast to recommend them (cheap bastards!).
Good Hair: Review
Good Hair
Directed by Jeff Stilson
Produced, Narrated and Generally Made Funny by Chris Rock
I saw this movie right after Crude, and you feel like you see nearly as much toxic goo in this movie as in the former.
Chris Rock takes us through the lucrative hair industry, and how remarkably important it is within the African-American (and I assume Canadian) community. What makes Rock’s story even more interesting is the dilemma of his little girls’ desire to have “good hair” and how he knows he will have to face this battle soon enough.
Rock interviews celebrities, politicians and “normal” people alike, and they all have the same passion for hair that’s not nappy, not natural, and looks European, or at the least, Indian.
Rock even goes to India to see the religious ceremony that produces much of the hair used in extensions. It turns out that India is the world’s largest exporter of hair and indeed, hair is a multi-billion dollar industry in India.
What’s frustrating to Rock and to many in the African-American community is that the vast majority of hair products made for African-Americans are not owned by said community. Like so many industries, they are controlled by Asian powers.
What makes Good Hair an interesting, enjoyable, and funny film is that Rock tackles subjects like foreign ownership with biting humour and exasperation.
His main focus, however, is on the desire of the people of his community (mostly, but not all, women) to have hair that doesn’t look black. He seems amazed, and sometimes a little angry, that very few of these people want to grow their hair naturally. And that, from a very young age (there’s a 4 year old getting a perm) Africa-American girls want to have their hair straightened. To do this, they endure a great amount of pain, placing dangerously toxic chemicals on their heads to take out the curl.
The film is funny, but still asks some tough questions about the lengths we can go to achieve “ideal” beauty.
Point of interest: At one point, the film discusses hair extensions that are so intricately weaved into the woman’s hair that you can’t tell by looking at it that it’s not their own hair; however, you also can’t touch the hair or it’s ruined. The ultimate in vanity, “doesn’t this look good? —don’t fucking touch it.”
Directed by Jeff Stilson
Produced, Narrated and Generally Made Funny by Chris Rock
I saw this movie right after Crude, and you feel like you see nearly as much toxic goo in this movie as in the former.
Chris Rock takes us through the lucrative hair industry, and how remarkably important it is within the African-American (and I assume Canadian) community. What makes Rock’s story even more interesting is the dilemma of his little girls’ desire to have “good hair” and how he knows he will have to face this battle soon enough.
Rock interviews celebrities, politicians and “normal” people alike, and they all have the same passion for hair that’s not nappy, not natural, and looks European, or at the least, Indian.
Rock even goes to India to see the religious ceremony that produces much of the hair used in extensions. It turns out that India is the world’s largest exporter of hair and indeed, hair is a multi-billion dollar industry in India.
What’s frustrating to Rock and to many in the African-American community is that the vast majority of hair products made for African-Americans are not owned by said community. Like so many industries, they are controlled by Asian powers.
What makes Good Hair an interesting, enjoyable, and funny film is that Rock tackles subjects like foreign ownership with biting humour and exasperation.
His main focus, however, is on the desire of the people of his community (mostly, but not all, women) to have hair that doesn’t look black. He seems amazed, and sometimes a little angry, that very few of these people want to grow their hair naturally. And that, from a very young age (there’s a 4 year old getting a perm) Africa-American girls want to have their hair straightened. To do this, they endure a great amount of pain, placing dangerously toxic chemicals on their heads to take out the curl.
The film is funny, but still asks some tough questions about the lengths we can go to achieve “ideal” beauty.
Point of interest: At one point, the film discusses hair extensions that are so intricately weaved into the woman’s hair that you can’t tell by looking at it that it’s not their own hair; however, you also can’t touch the hair or it’s ruined. The ultimate in vanity, “doesn’t this look good? —don’t fucking touch it.”
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Crude: Review
Jan. 12
Crude
Directed by Joe Berlinger
You know how I said that people should see a movie like Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans? Well they should, but that's more to see movies that are different from your everyday Hollywood shitefactory product. A movie like Crude is a movie everyone should see, but for different reasons.
For those who say art doesn't matter, see Crude. Documentaries are art just as much as traditional, "written" movies. They have to be well constructed, and compelling or the audience will be lost no matter how important the story. In many ways, though, putting together a great documentary sometimes means getting out of the way. When the story is so important and pulls us in, then just step back and let the facts flow.
If you follow the news at all, then you're probably aware that oil companies are one of the most evil influences on the planet. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Iraq, and it wasn't for "freedom" and it wasn't in retaliation for 9/11, and it wasn't to bring democracy to the Middle East; it was for oil. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the truth. Now, I'm going off on a tangent here, because Crude isn't about the Iraq War, it's about how oil companies are pathologically evil in yet another way.
In this particular instance it's Texaco/Chevron that has brought destruction down, and in this case, it's the indigenous people of Ecuador who are suffering. A group of Ecuadorians, together with some human rights lawyers from the States have taken Texaco/Chevron to court over the environmental damage done to their homeland in one of the most sensitive and ecologically important areas of the world, the Amazon. T/C have fought the lawsuit by not fighting it. First, they managed to delay the case for nine years by requesting that it not be tried in the U.S.; they wanted it moved to Ecuador, where they assumed it would be easier to buy off officials, or judges. However, a new president has been elected in Ecuador, and it hasn't been as easy as they hoped. When an independent environmental damage assessment (that T/C at first agreed to) concluded that T/C was at fault and should pay out $27 billion in damages, they then managed to keep delaying the trial. As of the viewing of the documentary, the case still has not gone to trial. T/C's strategy of course, is to delay the trial for decades until the people suing them finally run out of resources, stamina, conviction, or all of the above. It is a tactic used by corporations consistently, since they have the resources to outlast nearly anyone. A good (though horrible) example is Exxon, who was found guilty and ordered to pay millions to the people living in a tiny fishing village that was decimated by the spill of the Valdez. Exxon lost, it was nearly twenty years ago, and they still haven't paid a cent. They are arguing not whether they are guilty, but how much they should have to pay. I imagine they will keep arguing as long as the court will let them.
Crude allows the Texaco/Chevron team to have their say. It's fascinating to watch them argue that actually, there is no environmental damage at all, cancer rates have not gone up, disease is a result of untreated waste and that by golly, they'd do something about it if there was any mess at all--and then argue the complete opposite. They do this by saying there has been devastating environmental damage done to the people of Ecuador, they are suffering, their situation is horrible, but it's not T/C's fault! They sold off, or more accurately "merged" with an Ecuadorian oil company years ago, so those are the guys who are doing the bad stuff, not them. A frustrating, Orwellian strategy: there is no damage, if there is damage, it wasn't us. It's a losing case, the independent assessor ruled against them, and their only hope is to keep it from going to trial, which is what they've been doing for nearly 15 years.
The movie shows us the real impact upon the people living there. It also shows us how they are doing their best to get the world's attention, and in some ways they have succeeded. A large write-up in Vanity Fair, a CNN "hero" award for the local Ecuadorian who educated himself so that he could represent his people in this fight, despite his brother being murdered in an assassination that was meant for him. It also shows the involvement of other charity and environmental groups, as well as celebrities such as Trudie Styler and her more famous husband Sting.
Now some people get their back up when a "celebrity" gets involved in a cause. This has always confused me. Why shouldn't they get involved in causes they believe in? Why shouldn't they fight for something they think is just? I remember for years Michael Jordan was criticized by some for not getting more involved in the black community and speaking out for certain causes. So, that's the double standard for celebrities? If they do nothing and keep their views to themselves, then they are lucky, selfish babies who aren't giving back to the community; they're not using their celebrity for good when they have the abundant opportunity to do so. However, when celebrities do get involved, they are accused of doing it only for selfish reasons; and who are they anyway, some actor or singer telling me what to think. It's a lose/lose proposition for celebrities to use their fame for what they perceive to be the public good--in the case of the people of Ecuador vs. T/C, it's very much in the public good.
If we can't join the cause, then we can at least be aware, check out the website: crudethemovie.com. If you didn't see the movie, rent it when you get a chance. It's important for people to know the true cost of oil. The movie itself is exceptionally well done and has won well over a dozen awards.
Point of interest: At one point a lawyer says, this would never happen in the States. The argument being that a large corporation couldn't get away with such catastrophic environmental damage in the States (it's estimated that the damage done in Ecuador covers an area the size of Rhode Island). However, we in Canada are doing much better than that. The complete and utter devastation happening in the oil sands in Alberta right now is already visible from space and could cut a toxic wound the size of Florida within years. Several independent studies have shown that our indigenous people are being poisoned and killed by cancer at an absurdly high rate. The provincial and federal governments have responded to this disaster by literally appointing oil industry executives as watchdogs, ignoring or attacking every independent environmental study, and by trying to fire the doctor who raised the alarm bells over the unnaturally high rates of disease in the surrounding Native communities. I strongly urge everyone to read the book, Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (and Doesn't Seem to Care). If you can't bear to read a book, then try to see the movie H2Oil, perhaps the Bloor could play it soon. As Canadians, we need to know about this.
Crude
Directed by Joe Berlinger
You know how I said that people should see a movie like Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans? Well they should, but that's more to see movies that are different from your everyday Hollywood shitefactory product. A movie like Crude is a movie everyone should see, but for different reasons.
For those who say art doesn't matter, see Crude. Documentaries are art just as much as traditional, "written" movies. They have to be well constructed, and compelling or the audience will be lost no matter how important the story. In many ways, though, putting together a great documentary sometimes means getting out of the way. When the story is so important and pulls us in, then just step back and let the facts flow.
If you follow the news at all, then you're probably aware that oil companies are one of the most evil influences on the planet. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Iraq, and it wasn't for "freedom" and it wasn't in retaliation for 9/11, and it wasn't to bring democracy to the Middle East; it was for oil. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the truth. Now, I'm going off on a tangent here, because Crude isn't about the Iraq War, it's about how oil companies are pathologically evil in yet another way.
In this particular instance it's Texaco/Chevron that has brought destruction down, and in this case, it's the indigenous people of Ecuador who are suffering. A group of Ecuadorians, together with some human rights lawyers from the States have taken Texaco/Chevron to court over the environmental damage done to their homeland in one of the most sensitive and ecologically important areas of the world, the Amazon. T/C have fought the lawsuit by not fighting it. First, they managed to delay the case for nine years by requesting that it not be tried in the U.S.; they wanted it moved to Ecuador, where they assumed it would be easier to buy off officials, or judges. However, a new president has been elected in Ecuador, and it hasn't been as easy as they hoped. When an independent environmental damage assessment (that T/C at first agreed to) concluded that T/C was at fault and should pay out $27 billion in damages, they then managed to keep delaying the trial. As of the viewing of the documentary, the case still has not gone to trial. T/C's strategy of course, is to delay the trial for decades until the people suing them finally run out of resources, stamina, conviction, or all of the above. It is a tactic used by corporations consistently, since they have the resources to outlast nearly anyone. A good (though horrible) example is Exxon, who was found guilty and ordered to pay millions to the people living in a tiny fishing village that was decimated by the spill of the Valdez. Exxon lost, it was nearly twenty years ago, and they still haven't paid a cent. They are arguing not whether they are guilty, but how much they should have to pay. I imagine they will keep arguing as long as the court will let them.
Crude allows the Texaco/Chevron team to have their say. It's fascinating to watch them argue that actually, there is no environmental damage at all, cancer rates have not gone up, disease is a result of untreated waste and that by golly, they'd do something about it if there was any mess at all--and then argue the complete opposite. They do this by saying there has been devastating environmental damage done to the people of Ecuador, they are suffering, their situation is horrible, but it's not T/C's fault! They sold off, or more accurately "merged" with an Ecuadorian oil company years ago, so those are the guys who are doing the bad stuff, not them. A frustrating, Orwellian strategy: there is no damage, if there is damage, it wasn't us. It's a losing case, the independent assessor ruled against them, and their only hope is to keep it from going to trial, which is what they've been doing for nearly 15 years.
The movie shows us the real impact upon the people living there. It also shows us how they are doing their best to get the world's attention, and in some ways they have succeeded. A large write-up in Vanity Fair, a CNN "hero" award for the local Ecuadorian who educated himself so that he could represent his people in this fight, despite his brother being murdered in an assassination that was meant for him. It also shows the involvement of other charity and environmental groups, as well as celebrities such as Trudie Styler and her more famous husband Sting.
Now some people get their back up when a "celebrity" gets involved in a cause. This has always confused me. Why shouldn't they get involved in causes they believe in? Why shouldn't they fight for something they think is just? I remember for years Michael Jordan was criticized by some for not getting more involved in the black community and speaking out for certain causes. So, that's the double standard for celebrities? If they do nothing and keep their views to themselves, then they are lucky, selfish babies who aren't giving back to the community; they're not using their celebrity for good when they have the abundant opportunity to do so. However, when celebrities do get involved, they are accused of doing it only for selfish reasons; and who are they anyway, some actor or singer telling me what to think. It's a lose/lose proposition for celebrities to use their fame for what they perceive to be the public good--in the case of the people of Ecuador vs. T/C, it's very much in the public good.
If we can't join the cause, then we can at least be aware, check out the website: crudethemovie.com. If you didn't see the movie, rent it when you get a chance. It's important for people to know the true cost of oil. The movie itself is exceptionally well done and has won well over a dozen awards.
Point of interest: At one point a lawyer says, this would never happen in the States. The argument being that a large corporation couldn't get away with such catastrophic environmental damage in the States (it's estimated that the damage done in Ecuador covers an area the size of Rhode Island). However, we in Canada are doing much better than that. The complete and utter devastation happening in the oil sands in Alberta right now is already visible from space and could cut a toxic wound the size of Florida within years. Several independent studies have shown that our indigenous people are being poisoned and killed by cancer at an absurdly high rate. The provincial and federal governments have responded to this disaster by literally appointing oil industry executives as watchdogs, ignoring or attacking every independent environmental study, and by trying to fire the doctor who raised the alarm bells over the unnaturally high rates of disease in the surrounding Native communities. I strongly urge everyone to read the book, Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (and Doesn't Seem to Care). If you can't bear to read a book, then try to see the movie H2Oil, perhaps the Bloor could play it soon. As Canadians, we need to know about this.
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans: Review
Jan. 11
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
Directed by Werner Herzog
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Eva Mendes, and somebody impersonating Val Kilmer
All right, everyone should see a movie like this every once in a while. People who only see Avatar and the latest Martin Lawrence movie should see movies like this once in a while … by the way, Avatar totally rocked.
I’m not saying this in a snobby, film junkie, “I know better than the masses way,” I’m just saying it’s good to look at film in a different way. Shake things up; embrace the iguana that’s telling your tale.
And trust me, just because a film is independent or “different” doesn’t necessarily make it good. Many critics raved over the artistic brilliance of the original Bad Lieutenant. I found it tedious, boring, one-noted, and I got tired of Keitel’s “angst” in about ten minutes. And I don’t always like Herzog’s movies—I know, I know, he’s a genius, and I’ve really liked some of his films and as an actor, he was hilarious chasing down the Loch Ness monster; but that doesn’t always guarantee a home run. This Bad Lieutenant however is like a drug induced ride that you can enjoy even if you’re sober.
Nicolas cage gives his best performance in years playing the title role. You have to love Cage, or at least, love hating Cage. He’s like William Shatner, you may scream to the heavens that the guy can’t act, but can you imagine anyone else playing Kirk? Shatner can act, go ahead, hate him all you want, it’s kind of fun, actually. Cage is similar. Very easy to loathe at times, at times, freakin’ brilliant—Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation, and to a lesser extent, Moonstruck, Peggy Sue Got Married, and Raising Arizona. Well, add Bad Lieutenant to the list. Now I’m a fan of Harvey Keitel, but I found his character to be someone I just wanted to leave alone in a room so he could work out his problems by himself. Cage is no less troubled and dark, but is more connected and engaged. He seems to be participating in his trip rather than raging against it; that allows the audience in, too.
Herzog does all he can to drug us up as well with dancing souls and reptiles acting as Nicolas Cage’s fellow merry pranksters. However, he avoids the mistake of overloading us with drug-hazed scenes that would just become monotonous and tiresome, by interjecting some straight ahead scenes. No lizards, no soundtrack, and no multiple cuts, but a still scene here and there, like a splash of cold water to snap us out of it before we continue on our crack rock ride.
Check it out if you get a chance.
Oh, by the way, at one point Nicolas Cage taps a lizard and says, “This iguana, right here,” but it totally wasn’t an iguana, it was a bearded dragon! I bet some reptile nerd noticed that right away … ok, I was the only reptile nerd that noticed that at all.
Point of interest: When referring to the original Harvey Keitel film, you should always pronounce “Lieutenant” in the Canadian/British way, “Leftenant.” It’s worth it to see the look on your film snob friend’s face to call this “gritty” movie The Bad Leftenant. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, learn something about your country. For those who do, but like to point out that there’s no “f” in Lieutenant, yeah, well, it’s not pronounced “leeooohtenant”, either—both pronunciations are wrong, and we’re Canadian damn it, so it’s The Bad Leftenant around here, just for fun.
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
Directed by Werner Herzog
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Eva Mendes, and somebody impersonating Val Kilmer
All right, everyone should see a movie like this every once in a while. People who only see Avatar and the latest Martin Lawrence movie should see movies like this once in a while … by the way, Avatar totally rocked.
I’m not saying this in a snobby, film junkie, “I know better than the masses way,” I’m just saying it’s good to look at film in a different way. Shake things up; embrace the iguana that’s telling your tale.
And trust me, just because a film is independent or “different” doesn’t necessarily make it good. Many critics raved over the artistic brilliance of the original Bad Lieutenant. I found it tedious, boring, one-noted, and I got tired of Keitel’s “angst” in about ten minutes. And I don’t always like Herzog’s movies—I know, I know, he’s a genius, and I’ve really liked some of his films and as an actor, he was hilarious chasing down the Loch Ness monster; but that doesn’t always guarantee a home run. This Bad Lieutenant however is like a drug induced ride that you can enjoy even if you’re sober.
Nicolas cage gives his best performance in years playing the title role. You have to love Cage, or at least, love hating Cage. He’s like William Shatner, you may scream to the heavens that the guy can’t act, but can you imagine anyone else playing Kirk? Shatner can act, go ahead, hate him all you want, it’s kind of fun, actually. Cage is similar. Very easy to loathe at times, at times, freakin’ brilliant—Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation, and to a lesser extent, Moonstruck, Peggy Sue Got Married, and Raising Arizona. Well, add Bad Lieutenant to the list. Now I’m a fan of Harvey Keitel, but I found his character to be someone I just wanted to leave alone in a room so he could work out his problems by himself. Cage is no less troubled and dark, but is more connected and engaged. He seems to be participating in his trip rather than raging against it; that allows the audience in, too.
Herzog does all he can to drug us up as well with dancing souls and reptiles acting as Nicolas Cage’s fellow merry pranksters. However, he avoids the mistake of overloading us with drug-hazed scenes that would just become monotonous and tiresome, by interjecting some straight ahead scenes. No lizards, no soundtrack, and no multiple cuts, but a still scene here and there, like a splash of cold water to snap us out of it before we continue on our crack rock ride.
Check it out if you get a chance.
Oh, by the way, at one point Nicolas Cage taps a lizard and says, “This iguana, right here,” but it totally wasn’t an iguana, it was a bearded dragon! I bet some reptile nerd noticed that right away … ok, I was the only reptile nerd that noticed that at all.
Point of interest: When referring to the original Harvey Keitel film, you should always pronounce “Lieutenant” in the Canadian/British way, “Leftenant.” It’s worth it to see the look on your film snob friend’s face to call this “gritty” movie The Bad Leftenant. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, learn something about your country. For those who do, but like to point out that there’s no “f” in Lieutenant, yeah, well, it’s not pronounced “leeooohtenant”, either—both pronunciations are wrong, and we’re Canadian damn it, so it’s The Bad Leftenant around here, just for fun.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Christmas Miracle that Started it All
I started this blog because I won a free pass to the Bloor for a year, but how did I win such an amazing gift?
It all started with It’s a Wonderful Life.
Now, first of all, I love the Bloor. I have always loved the Bloor. When I walk into the lobby, endorphins are released and everything is all right … seriously. Indeed, when I lived in Vancouver (shudder) for two years, the Bloor was one of the dearest things I missed about good ol’ T.O. So, when my girlfriend and I moved back from soggy city to Toronto this December, I made sure we went to the annual Christmas party at the Bloor. Only the Bloor has a party for its members with carollers and delicious snacks and a screening of the greatest Christmas movie of all time, and all for free. Now, It’s a Wonderful Life is one of my favourite movies, not just my favourite Christmas movie. And like most people, I had only ever seen it on the small screen. So, when the Bloor started playing it a few years ago, it became an annual tradition to go see this classic on the big screen.
Cindy and I got there early enough to get good seats and enjoy the snacks … well, I enjoyed the snacks; Cindy ate only the healthy stuff while I completely gorged on the sweets. I have a sweet tooth. You know that “Coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs” bird? He’s a calm, sophisticated animated spokesperson compared to me when I’m in the vicinity of anything sweet—except for hard candy, seriously, who likes hard candy?
Anyway, after 14 small brownies and three egg-nogs, we took our seats and they started giving away some prizes for trivia questions. The questions were so easy (who plays George Bailey?) that people were yelling out the answers before the questions were finished; but then came the good part. It was announced that the grand prize would go out to the first ten people who came on to the stage and quoted their favourite line from any Christmas movie--the audience would decide the winner. I actually didn’t go up right away, sometimes actors can be surprisingly shy, and I just didn’t feel like going up, even though I immediately had my favourite quote in mind. Cindy, however, was nudging me with her elbow telling me to get the hell up there, so I went up to the stage just on time to be the tenth person. A couple of other people came up later and the M.C. was kind enough to let them compete, so we had an even dozen quoting their favourite lines.
Now, people had their standard quotes ready and delivered them in the normal “human being” way, not aware that at the end of the line there was an actor who has been making funny voices and impersonations for most of his life. Normally, this makes me a weirdo, but the “funny voices” were about to finally pay off. My favourite quote before it got to me was a woman who did a nice job with Annie’s quote from It’s a Wonderful Life: “Boys and girls and music, why do they need gin?” There was also a young girl, around 12, who quoted Scrooge with, “Bah-humbug.” She didn’t really sell it or anything, but the contrast of a young girl doing Scrooge was enough to grab the audience.
Then it was my turn. Now, this quote was always my favourite because it completely jolted me the first time I saw It’s a Wonderful Life. I had never seen Jimmy Stewart that angry before, and he nails this scene so succinctly that it firmly stood out in my mind. It’s after his Uncle Billy has lost the $8,000 and they’re searching for it in his house. Desperate and afraid, George Bailey says, “Do you know what this means? It means bankruptcy, scandal, prison, that’s what it means! Well, one of us is going to jail, and it’s not going to be me!” That was my quote, and fortunately for me, Jimmy Stewart is one of the voices I can do, so it went pretty well.
We had an “applaud-off” and it came down to me and the little Scrooge girl. I crushed her like a bug … ok, I didn’t, it was actually very close, but I was lucky enough to win; and a year’s pass to the Bloor (the greatest of all rep cinemas) was mine, and the pass was for two! How lucky is that? Also, how fortunately appropriate? I’m usually at the Bloor a couple of times a week anyway, and when I moved back to Toronto from Vancouver (shudder) we moved to the Annex. For 17 years I lived at Jarvis and Gerrard (where a man never gets lonely) but now we’re in my favourite neighbourhood, the Annex, and only about an 18 minute walk away from the Bloor. So, needless to say, this is the best prize I’ve ever won … until this weekend when I win Lotto Max, I’m totally due.
This little contest was the Christmas Miracle that gave me the pass. My friend Stephen Bogaert (is it all right if I mention your name, Stephen? oh well) suggested I start a blog reviewing the movies I see at the Bloor. So here it is, A Year in the Bloor, with movie reviews, opinions, and other thoughts that may come to me--like what a ninny Stephen Harper is.
I hope you enjoy.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
My Harry Potter and the HBP (the movie) Rant
My Friends:
Here is the long and winding road that is My Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (the movie) Rant. Honestly, if you are not familiar with the books, this will have little meaning for you. So, if you’re a muggle (and if you’ve seen the movies but haven’t read the books, you’re still a muggle) I will have to say “muffliato” and talk to the witches and wizards who know.
First of all, generally speaking, I like the Harry Potter movies. I’m not one of these fans who complains of every single thing that they leave out or change from the book. As someone who works in film and spends most of my waking time planning out movies I hope to make some day, I realize you can’t have 12 hour movies to tell the complete story, and that sometimes changes need to be made. Having said that, Harry Potter VI failed on a level that none of the other films did.
HPI and II were well made movies that captured the magic and wonder of a kid finding out he’s a wizard and everything that goes with such a discovery. They are not great films, but they are very good. Then we come to HPIII, the best of the films in my opinion. Alfonso Cuaron, who directed Y tu mama tambien and The Children of Men is one of the best directors on the planet and Harry Potter III reflects that. Tightly woven, wonderfully shot, and the CGI is amazing—especially the Dementors and Buckbeat. This film was the best reviewed and is still fascinating to me after several viewings.
HPIV isn’t quite as good but is my second favourite in the series (however, I cannot fathom Gambon’s bizarre take on Dumbledore in this film—shaking Harry and screaming at him, “Did you put your name in the Goblet!”—unforgivable!); nonetheless, the “re-birth” of Voldemort scene is amazing. Then we come to David Yate’s HPV, a slight step back in the series, starting with the CGI being considerably worse than in any other movie (shouldn’t special effects get better, not worse?). Look at how lousy the Dementors look in V compared to III, and look at the dragon in IV compared to Grawp in V, it’s just kind of … bad. Also, watch the final battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore, the CGI they use to erase the nose from Ralph Fiennes face is always obvious, it looks like a there’s a smear across his face for most of that scene, unlike in IV where it’s nearly seamless. But more important than the less than stellar CGI is that in this movie we see the beginnings of the big problem with V that gets much worse in VI. It seems to me that David Yates just doesn’t get Harry Potter and his world. I bring up that battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore because in the movie it ends with Voldemort having the upper hand, knocking over Dumbledore and then possessing Harry. The battle was fairly well shot and acted but Voldemort did not dominate Dumbledore in that fight! The title of that chapter is The Only One He (Voldemort) Ever Feared. Voldemort doesn’t bowl over Dumbledore; he barely escapes from him! He has to enter Harry to escape and he’s also hoping that Dumbledore will kill Harry in the attempt to kill him. The movie turns that around completely—that’s not an edit to save time; it’s changing the story and the way the characters relate to each other and with a story this carefully put together, it’s a wrong, frustrating and annoying decision.
Sorry for the unbelievably long intro, but now we can go on to HPVI and everything that’s wrong with it.
However, let’s start with what's right. These movies have the luxury of some of the best actors the UK has to offer. Indeed, the acting throughout the series has been quite good and the young actors have matured well as performers. I like all the leads, but I think Emma Watson as Hermione understands and portrays her character the best. Also, the fire FX in the scene where they retrieve the Horcrux is amazing, and the wintry Quiddich scene is the best Quiddich scene in all the series; however, like much of the film, they blow it by not showing Harry catching the snitch to end the game, which would have only added another two seconds to the film.
Now on to what's wrong—where to begin? How about at the beginning when they skip Dumbledore coming to the Dursley’s. They should have had that scene for a number of reasons. Firstly, it’s funny. Secondly, it allows Dumbledore to explain many things that are essential to the story, like the protection around Harry while he calls 4 Privet Dr. his home. Moreover, what they replaced this scene with—Harry picking up a waitress in the subway system—is a perfect example of David Yates not “getting” Harry Potter. Harry’s life is in danger; Voldemort is back and in the open and wanting to kill Harry. Harry’s only protected while at home (for the love of Pete he was attacked by Dementors the last time he wandered from home!) but in this movie he’s wandering around the subway system because he’s bored. This highlights one of the major problems with the film. Yates misses an opportunity to build tension and create drama and replaces it with adolescent hormones running amuck. The book certainly has that, but the movie is dominated by it. We needed more conflict between Harry and Draco and more Pensieve memories and the importance of hunting down Horcruxes and less people removing toothpaste/blood/butterbeer from each other’s mouths; more mystery and thrills, less love potions.
Horace Slughorn:
Jim Broadbent is one of my favourite actors, but this portrayal is utterly wrong, wrong, wrong. I’m sure it’s not the actor’s fault, but Slughorn is not a bumbling old fool. He’s cunning, he’s been on the run from the Death Eaters for a year, he’s the former head of Slytherin House and though he has his weaknesses, he’s smart and crafty—not old and daffy. And usually in the movies, they at least try to physically match the characters to what’s portrayed in the books, but not here. Slughorn is very fat, short, bald and has a huge walrus moustache. Jim Broadbent’s Slughorn is none of these. Ironically, Broadbent’s role in Moulin Rouge is closer to Slughorn than this portrayal here. Again, I do not blame the actor; I know he’s more than capable of playing a role like this, I just think the director blew it, totally.
THE ATTACK ON THE BURROW!!!
Wow. Rarely has a movie added something that was so wrong, and not just because it didn’t happen in the book—it’s goes against everything that’s in the book! The Burrow is strongly protected, especially when Harry’s there, the protections don’t fail until the ministry has fallen and Scrimgeour is dead. While the ministry is strong and Dumbledore is still alive, there’s no way in the world that two Death Eaters could attack and destroy the Burrow. However, it’s not just wrong because it ignores the protection around the Burrow. It’s also unbelievably wrong because it shows two Death Eaters (really one Death Eater and a werewolf) outwitting and overwhelming no fewer than NINE wizards and witches. Harry, Ginny, Ron, Fred, George, Arthur, Molly, Lupin and Tonks were all apparently helpless while a measly two Death Eaters destroyed their home. Even if you argue that five of those people were young wizards, you still have four members of the Order! Lupin, a D.A.D.A. teacher, Arthur, Tonks (who’s a freakin’ Auror!) and Molly, who is the very person who eventually kills the mighty Bellatrix … yeah, none of these wizards and witches could stop the Burrow from being destroyed. This is what Yates doesn’t understand. Obviously as fans, we’re willing to suspend our disbelief for a movie and book like this—but you still have to follow the rules within that universe. Maybe you can bend them a little but you can’t shatter them completely. This added attack also highlights one of the major problems with the film—it doesn’t take into consideration what happens in Book VII, which means there’s going to be a lot of tedious exposition in the two VII movies to help things make sense. If you destroy the Burrow, where does VII even start? Where’s the wedding? Are they just going to “magic” the house back together? What’s really frustrating about this is that unlike all the other movies, the final book was out when they made this film, so they have no excuses that they didn’t know something was going to be important. Speaking of which, since when can Death Eaters fly? Yates unfortunately established that in the fifth movie, in which members of the Order also flew, but he really shows it here, with Death Eaters flying all over the place. This ruins the big battle in the seventh book/movie where everyone is on brooms or Thestrals, except Voldemort. The fact that only Voldemort (and later, Snape) can fly makes that battle much more thrilling, now it won’t make sense. And since in the fifth movie Tonks and Lupin could fly, why didn’t they fly after the Death Eaters in this scene? Obviously, this scene is one huge can of worms Yates should never have opened.
Horcruxes and the Pensieve Memories:
I read an interview with Yates where he explained that he added the Burrow destruction because he needed something “exciting” in the middle of the movie. He also said that he ran this by JK and she said ok—I find this surprising but I don’t know how much control she has and maybe she has to pick her battles. However, let us get back to his original reasoning--he needed to juice up the middle of the film. Well, the film’s plodding is no one’s fault but his. Yates’ insistence on concentrating on lesser matters grinds the movie down. He needed an exciting scene? How about the Pensieve memory where we see Voldemort’s mother, grandfather, and uncle? A dead snake hanging from the door, creepy, threatening characters speaking in Parseltounge, the scene that introduces the ring that becomes a horcrux! Not only would this have been a cool, almost disturbing scene, it would have set up some needed info on what they have to do in Deathly Hallows. In addition, they missed another Pensieve memory that is fascinating, thrilling and exceptionally important, and it would have been a great excuse to bring in Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort. That scene, of course, is the scene where the half transformed Voldemort comes to Dumbledore to apply for the D.A.D.A. job. That would have been an exciting scene they could have put in the middle of the movie instead of the ridiculous Burrow attack and it would have helped set up the last movie much better. Also missing; Voldemort’s discovery of Hufflepuff’s cup and the murder he commits to get it—just more exposition they will have to add in the seventh movie … sigh.
Dobby and Kreacher, Nowhere to be Found:
Ok, here’s a problem they’ve had since the fourth movie. Dobby is in Books II, IV, V, VI, and VII; however, they have only shown him in the second movie. The sixth movie was their last chance to re-establish this very important character and that goes for Kreacher too. JK said in an interview that she had to insist on Kreacher being in the fifth movie, well Yates had the last chance to show Kreacher and especially Dobby again before their crucial roles in the last movie(s). So now, when the seventh movie is released and Dobby comes to save everyone, audiences who don’t know the books are going to say, “Who the hell is that?” Again, no excuse for Yates. The last book was out before they made this movie, he knew how incredibly important Dobby was, and he still didn’t put him in this film to re-establish a character that we haven’t seen in years—dumb decision.
Harry Not being Frozen at the Top of the Tower:
Again, Yates just doesn’t get these characters. There’s a reason JK had Harry frozen and invisible while witnessing the death of Dumbledore. Harry would have acted, that is his nature. It’s also considerably more dramatic to have Harry visible only to the viewer, frozen and agonizingly unable to help while his mentor, hero, and protector gets killed by the person he hates the most. Instead, we have Harry pacing underneath doing nothing. This is followed by one of the most bizarre decisions in movie history—THEY LEAVE THE BATTLE OF SNAPE AND THE DEATHEATERS FIGHTING THE ORDER AND DUMBLEDORE’S ARMY OUT!!! The freakin’ climax of the book is left out! He puts a battle in that makes no sense and leaves out one that would have been exciting, and which sets up much of what happens in VII—unbelievable.
There are many other smaller things that were annoying. Like Luna removing the cloak from Harry by magic when we know that spells don’t affect that cloak. Aragog being about 1/3 the size he was in the second movie. Harry and Ginny’s kiss being secretive and anti-climatic instead of the full-blown eruption in front of the entire Gryffindor common room. Dumbledore being surprised and shocked about the horcruxes instead of just confirming his suspicions; but these are small things compared to the major mistakes. I know there are other things but I think I’ve said enough … my apologies, but thanks for reading my remarkably long diatribe.
Oh, by the way, I did not go see the movie on the opening midnight screening (as I usually do) or even the next day. I was protesting the ridiculous decision of delaying the movie eight months until the summer simply to make more money. As if this series doesn’t make enough money for Warner Brothers, so I did my little protest by waiting till the second week. Will I go see the next two movies? You bet, and at the midnight screening too! The good thing about these movies is that it’s like visiting old friends, and I’ve really enjoyed nearly all of them, it’s only VI that has so many problems.
Here is the long and winding road that is My Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (the movie) Rant. Honestly, if you are not familiar with the books, this will have little meaning for you. So, if you’re a muggle (and if you’ve seen the movies but haven’t read the books, you’re still a muggle) I will have to say “muffliato” and talk to the witches and wizards who know.
First of all, generally speaking, I like the Harry Potter movies. I’m not one of these fans who complains of every single thing that they leave out or change from the book. As someone who works in film and spends most of my waking time planning out movies I hope to make some day, I realize you can’t have 12 hour movies to tell the complete story, and that sometimes changes need to be made. Having said that, Harry Potter VI failed on a level that none of the other films did.
HPI and II were well made movies that captured the magic and wonder of a kid finding out he’s a wizard and everything that goes with such a discovery. They are not great films, but they are very good. Then we come to HPIII, the best of the films in my opinion. Alfonso Cuaron, who directed Y tu mama tambien and The Children of Men is one of the best directors on the planet and Harry Potter III reflects that. Tightly woven, wonderfully shot, and the CGI is amazing—especially the Dementors and Buckbeat. This film was the best reviewed and is still fascinating to me after several viewings.
HPIV isn’t quite as good but is my second favourite in the series (however, I cannot fathom Gambon’s bizarre take on Dumbledore in this film—shaking Harry and screaming at him, “Did you put your name in the Goblet!”—unforgivable!); nonetheless, the “re-birth” of Voldemort scene is amazing. Then we come to David Yate’s HPV, a slight step back in the series, starting with the CGI being considerably worse than in any other movie (shouldn’t special effects get better, not worse?). Look at how lousy the Dementors look in V compared to III, and look at the dragon in IV compared to Grawp in V, it’s just kind of … bad. Also, watch the final battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore, the CGI they use to erase the nose from Ralph Fiennes face is always obvious, it looks like a there’s a smear across his face for most of that scene, unlike in IV where it’s nearly seamless. But more important than the less than stellar CGI is that in this movie we see the beginnings of the big problem with V that gets much worse in VI. It seems to me that David Yates just doesn’t get Harry Potter and his world. I bring up that battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore because in the movie it ends with Voldemort having the upper hand, knocking over Dumbledore and then possessing Harry. The battle was fairly well shot and acted but Voldemort did not dominate Dumbledore in that fight! The title of that chapter is The Only One He (Voldemort) Ever Feared. Voldemort doesn’t bowl over Dumbledore; he barely escapes from him! He has to enter Harry to escape and he’s also hoping that Dumbledore will kill Harry in the attempt to kill him. The movie turns that around completely—that’s not an edit to save time; it’s changing the story and the way the characters relate to each other and with a story this carefully put together, it’s a wrong, frustrating and annoying decision.
Sorry for the unbelievably long intro, but now we can go on to HPVI and everything that’s wrong with it.
However, let’s start with what's right. These movies have the luxury of some of the best actors the UK has to offer. Indeed, the acting throughout the series has been quite good and the young actors have matured well as performers. I like all the leads, but I think Emma Watson as Hermione understands and portrays her character the best. Also, the fire FX in the scene where they retrieve the Horcrux is amazing, and the wintry Quiddich scene is the best Quiddich scene in all the series; however, like much of the film, they blow it by not showing Harry catching the snitch to end the game, which would have only added another two seconds to the film.
Now on to what's wrong—where to begin? How about at the beginning when they skip Dumbledore coming to the Dursley’s. They should have had that scene for a number of reasons. Firstly, it’s funny. Secondly, it allows Dumbledore to explain many things that are essential to the story, like the protection around Harry while he calls 4 Privet Dr. his home. Moreover, what they replaced this scene with—Harry picking up a waitress in the subway system—is a perfect example of David Yates not “getting” Harry Potter. Harry’s life is in danger; Voldemort is back and in the open and wanting to kill Harry. Harry’s only protected while at home (for the love of Pete he was attacked by Dementors the last time he wandered from home!) but in this movie he’s wandering around the subway system because he’s bored. This highlights one of the major problems with the film. Yates misses an opportunity to build tension and create drama and replaces it with adolescent hormones running amuck. The book certainly has that, but the movie is dominated by it. We needed more conflict between Harry and Draco and more Pensieve memories and the importance of hunting down Horcruxes and less people removing toothpaste/blood/butterbeer from each other’s mouths; more mystery and thrills, less love potions.
Horace Slughorn:
Jim Broadbent is one of my favourite actors, but this portrayal is utterly wrong, wrong, wrong. I’m sure it’s not the actor’s fault, but Slughorn is not a bumbling old fool. He’s cunning, he’s been on the run from the Death Eaters for a year, he’s the former head of Slytherin House and though he has his weaknesses, he’s smart and crafty—not old and daffy. And usually in the movies, they at least try to physically match the characters to what’s portrayed in the books, but not here. Slughorn is very fat, short, bald and has a huge walrus moustache. Jim Broadbent’s Slughorn is none of these. Ironically, Broadbent’s role in Moulin Rouge is closer to Slughorn than this portrayal here. Again, I do not blame the actor; I know he’s more than capable of playing a role like this, I just think the director blew it, totally.
THE ATTACK ON THE BURROW!!!
Wow. Rarely has a movie added something that was so wrong, and not just because it didn’t happen in the book—it’s goes against everything that’s in the book! The Burrow is strongly protected, especially when Harry’s there, the protections don’t fail until the ministry has fallen and Scrimgeour is dead. While the ministry is strong and Dumbledore is still alive, there’s no way in the world that two Death Eaters could attack and destroy the Burrow. However, it’s not just wrong because it ignores the protection around the Burrow. It’s also unbelievably wrong because it shows two Death Eaters (really one Death Eater and a werewolf) outwitting and overwhelming no fewer than NINE wizards and witches. Harry, Ginny, Ron, Fred, George, Arthur, Molly, Lupin and Tonks were all apparently helpless while a measly two Death Eaters destroyed their home. Even if you argue that five of those people were young wizards, you still have four members of the Order! Lupin, a D.A.D.A. teacher, Arthur, Tonks (who’s a freakin’ Auror!) and Molly, who is the very person who eventually kills the mighty Bellatrix … yeah, none of these wizards and witches could stop the Burrow from being destroyed. This is what Yates doesn’t understand. Obviously as fans, we’re willing to suspend our disbelief for a movie and book like this—but you still have to follow the rules within that universe. Maybe you can bend them a little but you can’t shatter them completely. This added attack also highlights one of the major problems with the film—it doesn’t take into consideration what happens in Book VII, which means there’s going to be a lot of tedious exposition in the two VII movies to help things make sense. If you destroy the Burrow, where does VII even start? Where’s the wedding? Are they just going to “magic” the house back together? What’s really frustrating about this is that unlike all the other movies, the final book was out when they made this film, so they have no excuses that they didn’t know something was going to be important. Speaking of which, since when can Death Eaters fly? Yates unfortunately established that in the fifth movie, in which members of the Order also flew, but he really shows it here, with Death Eaters flying all over the place. This ruins the big battle in the seventh book/movie where everyone is on brooms or Thestrals, except Voldemort. The fact that only Voldemort (and later, Snape) can fly makes that battle much more thrilling, now it won’t make sense. And since in the fifth movie Tonks and Lupin could fly, why didn’t they fly after the Death Eaters in this scene? Obviously, this scene is one huge can of worms Yates should never have opened.
Horcruxes and the Pensieve Memories:
I read an interview with Yates where he explained that he added the Burrow destruction because he needed something “exciting” in the middle of the movie. He also said that he ran this by JK and she said ok—I find this surprising but I don’t know how much control she has and maybe she has to pick her battles. However, let us get back to his original reasoning--he needed to juice up the middle of the film. Well, the film’s plodding is no one’s fault but his. Yates’ insistence on concentrating on lesser matters grinds the movie down. He needed an exciting scene? How about the Pensieve memory where we see Voldemort’s mother, grandfather, and uncle? A dead snake hanging from the door, creepy, threatening characters speaking in Parseltounge, the scene that introduces the ring that becomes a horcrux! Not only would this have been a cool, almost disturbing scene, it would have set up some needed info on what they have to do in Deathly Hallows. In addition, they missed another Pensieve memory that is fascinating, thrilling and exceptionally important, and it would have been a great excuse to bring in Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort. That scene, of course, is the scene where the half transformed Voldemort comes to Dumbledore to apply for the D.A.D.A. job. That would have been an exciting scene they could have put in the middle of the movie instead of the ridiculous Burrow attack and it would have helped set up the last movie much better. Also missing; Voldemort’s discovery of Hufflepuff’s cup and the murder he commits to get it—just more exposition they will have to add in the seventh movie … sigh.
Dobby and Kreacher, Nowhere to be Found:
Ok, here’s a problem they’ve had since the fourth movie. Dobby is in Books II, IV, V, VI, and VII; however, they have only shown him in the second movie. The sixth movie was their last chance to re-establish this very important character and that goes for Kreacher too. JK said in an interview that she had to insist on Kreacher being in the fifth movie, well Yates had the last chance to show Kreacher and especially Dobby again before their crucial roles in the last movie(s). So now, when the seventh movie is released and Dobby comes to save everyone, audiences who don’t know the books are going to say, “Who the hell is that?” Again, no excuse for Yates. The last book was out before they made this movie, he knew how incredibly important Dobby was, and he still didn’t put him in this film to re-establish a character that we haven’t seen in years—dumb decision.
Harry Not being Frozen at the Top of the Tower:
Again, Yates just doesn’t get these characters. There’s a reason JK had Harry frozen and invisible while witnessing the death of Dumbledore. Harry would have acted, that is his nature. It’s also considerably more dramatic to have Harry visible only to the viewer, frozen and agonizingly unable to help while his mentor, hero, and protector gets killed by the person he hates the most. Instead, we have Harry pacing underneath doing nothing. This is followed by one of the most bizarre decisions in movie history—THEY LEAVE THE BATTLE OF SNAPE AND THE DEATHEATERS FIGHTING THE ORDER AND DUMBLEDORE’S ARMY OUT!!! The freakin’ climax of the book is left out! He puts a battle in that makes no sense and leaves out one that would have been exciting, and which sets up much of what happens in VII—unbelievable.
There are many other smaller things that were annoying. Like Luna removing the cloak from Harry by magic when we know that spells don’t affect that cloak. Aragog being about 1/3 the size he was in the second movie. Harry and Ginny’s kiss being secretive and anti-climatic instead of the full-blown eruption in front of the entire Gryffindor common room. Dumbledore being surprised and shocked about the horcruxes instead of just confirming his suspicions; but these are small things compared to the major mistakes. I know there are other things but I think I’ve said enough … my apologies, but thanks for reading my remarkably long diatribe.
Oh, by the way, I did not go see the movie on the opening midnight screening (as I usually do) or even the next day. I was protesting the ridiculous decision of delaying the movie eight months until the summer simply to make more money. As if this series doesn’t make enough money for Warner Brothers, so I did my little protest by waiting till the second week. Will I go see the next two movies? You bet, and at the midnight screening too! The good thing about these movies is that it’s like visiting old friends, and I’ve really enjoyed nearly all of them, it’s only VI that has so many problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpeg)