The OSCARS and Other Notes

It is that time of season again and although this year wasn't an especially great year for films, a couple of interesting and outstanding "out of the box films" caught my eye: "The Artist", The Tree of Life" and "Melancholia".

On the other side of the coin, I'm grateful that the Harry Potter series has ended as they became painful to watch. And the Sherlock Holmes film was also very bad.

Some performances I would have like to have been honored but weren't would include: Michael Fassbender in "Shame", Kirsten Dunst in "Melancholia", Charlize Theron in "Young Adult", Carey Mulligan  in "Shame" (cannot give enough credit for her singing "New York, New York" as though she was standing on the edge of a cliff ready to fall at any moment), Christoph Waltz in "Carnage", and Albert Brooks in "Drive". 

Given the selected honorees by the academy, here are my picks for some of the categories:

• Best Picture: "The Artist"

• Actor in a Leading Role: Jean Dujardin in "The Artist"

• Actor in a Supporting Role: Christopher Plummer in "The Beginners"

• Actress in a Leading Role: Michelle Williams in "My Week with Marilyn"

• Actress in a Supporting Role: Octavia Spencer in "The Help"

• Cinematography: "The Tree of Life" Emmanuel Lubezki

• Directing: Michel Hazanavicius for "The Artist"

• Film Editing: "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall

• Adapted Screenplay: "The Descendants" Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash

• Original Screenplay: "Margin Call" J.C. Chandor

To all of you: Thank you for coming to my site and reading my reviews. The number of views has grown tremendously over this past year. There are now over 550 reviewed films and it is fun for me to post and read your comments.

May this new year bring on better films with new ideas tested and old ones enhanced. I know I'll be there in the 5th or 6th row center ready to suspend belief into someone else's story.

May you

Be Well...

Michael

Underworld: Awakening (3D)

First Hit:  This dark film had very few interesting or believable moments.

The other action woman based film I saw this weekend was this one.

Kate Beckinsale plays Selene a hybrid vampire and lichen. She is not fully trusted in the vampire group who hide underground. The lichens are also underground because the humans declared war on both sets of non-humans.

Yes, this is a lot to suspend belief on, and if the filmmakers, writers and directors did a better job of setting it up it might have worked better. They didn’t and therefore I sat there watching a darkly shot film with unbelievable action performed by someone who didn’t own the movements as her own. In other words, she wasn't authentic.

Yes, Beckinsale is good looking, her eyes are sharp and wonderfully contrast against the background, but I didn’t buy the premise that she was her character.

Eve (played by India Eisley) is Selene’s daughter. She’s unaware that she had this daughter. Yes, hard to believe but the setup is that while Selene and her former lover Michael (a lichen) were housed in chambers Dr. Jacob Lane (played by Stephen Rea) crossed them and created Eve. She was developed to provide new antibodies for lichens so that they don’t succumb to silver.

In essence this film is about a mother protecting her daughter.

Beckinsale, although very attractive, just didn’t emote the strength to be the heroine of this film. Rea was fine as the lichen Dr. Lane. Eisley was probably the best of the lot in her role as sometimes innocent and other times big time powerful monster. Len Wiseman and John Hlavin wrote a very week script while the dark direction was unfortunately led by both Mans Marlind and Bjorn Stein.

Overall:  Pretty much a waste of 88 minutes and of course it is open-ended for a follow-up film.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

First Hit: Somewhat better than Part 1 but frankly, I’m glad this long winded tale is over.

Thrusting children who are the bringers of light and lightheartedness to our planet into an ever increasing darker set of circumstances as they get older is part of our life on this planet; or so it seems.

The Harry Potter series of films reflects this transition in a different way and I’m not sure if it is (or was) to our benefit or entertainment. The tales took the mystery of magic and attempted to make it a real life thing and being embodied in a select few children. 

The series of films only focused on the selected few therefore we rarely were able to see or sense the difference between this magical world and non-magically gifted children or adults. This was one of the problems I had with this series of films. Where as the Hobbit tales were all fantasy.

These films originally started in a world where regular people were part of the story but they ended up being only fantasy until the very last scene when the main character's children are in a real life railway station heading off to Hogwarts School.

This film took started where Part 1 left off. Whereas Part 1 of the final chapter was long winded, boring and attempted to set-up our characters for the final resolution; Part 2 was filled with CGI action. Harry (like Luke Skywalker) was connected to the dark force of Lord Voldemort and had to be willing to kill himself to save Hogwarts and all the special magical kids who attend. One has to be willing to lose oneself to find oneself and this is true in the Harry Potter world as well as our own.

Anyway this film was dark (both in concept and visually), long, and, in some ways, filled with senseless action.

Daniel Radcliffe (as Potter) was good to watch in the first couple of films, but became limited and shallow as the series went on. He lacked depth of character in Part 2. My guess is (and I could very well be wrong) he’s glad to be through with this film series because it showed. Rupert Grint (as Weasley) probably won’t have much of an acting career after this last installment, there is nothing engaging about him or the character he played. Emma Watson (as Granger) was and is the strongest actor of the main three characters and will continue to have success as an actor. Alan Rickman (as Snape) is always enjoyable to watch and here he makes his character intriguing. Ralph Fiennes (as Voldemort) is good as the story’s evil dark character and it wasn’t because of the lines but because of his skill at creating presence. Steve Kloves wrote the screenplay from J.K. Rowling’s novel and some of the dialogue felt stiff. David Yates directed this and there seemed to be the belief that the more crap you throw up on the screen the more of it will stick. One scene particularly felt out of place, was when Harry was coming down some stairs after an intense encounter with the vision pool and Ron and Hermione are sitting there. Why were they there, how did they get there, why would they be sitting there as if they were having a private “together” moment in the middle of the battle for their school? Then they get up and after a couple of stilted lines, the three of them get more engaged with the war against evil again.

Overall:  I waded through all of the films and only one or two were noteworthy and engaging. This one excelled only in the amount of CGI stuff thrown up on the screen.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

First Hit: All I can say is Part 2 will hopefully be really good because Part 1 is one long boring piece of nothing.

I really wonder what the mindset is of a director who can create a long piece of preamble in hopes that he hits a home run with the epilogue.

Jesus, sitting there during hour after hour of darkly filmed set-up for Part 2 was an immense time waster. Here is what I learned: Ron (played by Rupert Grint) can dislike Harry (played by Daniel Radcliffe) if even for only 20 minutes of the film's time.

Ron and Hermione (played by Emma Watson) have a thing for each other. Muggles are dying and why should I care. Hogwarts as a school is history. The Ministry of Magic dies. A sword is important. People can switch wands.

And finally Yoda, from Star Wars fame, arises again in a slightly different body but speaks sentences in the same oddly phrased way. It was obvious that the producers skimped on lighting, therefore everything is dark.

And lastly I’ve got to find it within me to care about these people even though Harry is the chosen one, he isn't very smart and people follow him blindly to their death. I was astonished by the milking of the public in this way for a 2.5 hour preamble which does very little.

My question is: Will Part 2 begin with a synopsis of Part 1 (should take about 5 minutes)? If it does, don't waste your time watching this film and if it doesn’t; I'm not sure you need to this film to move the story along. I just didn’t learn enough in Part 1 (save the aforementioned above) to make it worth my while to see Part 2.

Radcliffe is about the same as he’s been in all the other Potter films except the first one where his innocence was a welcomed joy. There is nothing extraordinary about him as an actor and he doesn’t really give much to the audience and it is difficult to care about him in this part. Grint has changed a bit and has grown slightly. He also has to share a different set of feelings for Harry in about 3 minutes of screen time when he gets mad at Harry. But overall, nothing much new here either. Watson appears to have some acting chops as there were multiple scenes in which she says nothing but the audience is given a sense of feelings and shifts in her character. The snub nose on Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort is a good look for evil and that was entertaining. The best acting in this film is by Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange. She is great, brings great energy to the screen and was the only acting highlight. Steve Kloves wrote a boring screenplay from J. K. Rowling’s novel. Direction by David Yates is heavy handed, emotionlessness and overly dark.

Overall: If you must see this, rent it and eat dinner while watching so you get something done during the time. You won't miss much while you are chewing your food.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

First Hit: The story isn’t terribly new nor is the dialogue particularly interesting but it has its charm.

The name of the film brings up fantasies of the enormously beautiful and powerful 1940’s film "Fantasia" by Walt Disney.

I didn’t sleep for days after watching "Fantasia" because of “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” segment where Mickey gets in trouble with the magic broom. Those brooms popping out of nowhere and multiplying as Mickey tried to stop them with his hatchet is unforgettable.

Alas, here we are with Nicolas Cage as Balthazar Blake a man who is a direct apprentice of Merlin. He is here to find the next in line to Merlin’s throne and the person who will keep the evil wizards, who are stuck in a Russian doll, from coming back to life and destroying the world.

Balthazar finds Dave (played by Jay Baruchel) who fits the bill when the special ring left by Merlin fits him. Being skeptical, Dave finds Balthazar a bit eccentric but soon learns that he’s on to something big.

The film takes us through Dave’s disbelief, acceptance, promotion, and finally conquering the evil forces within himself and the ones trying to destroy the world. Much of the film is overdone, the dialogue trite, but there are nice and fun segments including a tip of the hat to Mickey’s magic broom sequence.

Cage is very dramatic adding fun and life to the character and the film. Baruchel is good enough to make his character work and geeky enough to be believable. Teresa Palmer as Becky Barnes is OK but I couldn’t buy her caring about Baruchel’s character. Alfred Molina as head evil apprentice, Maxim Horvath, full of life and fun to watch. His scenes are entertaining to say the least. Director Jon Turteltaub spent too much time giving Producer Jerry Bruckheimer big effects. I think there was a better film somewhere than what was produced.

Overall: This film is entertaining, has some nice, if not overdone, special effects, and keeps one minimally satisfied throughout its 109 minutes.