Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

Title: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)
Director: Chris Columbus
Genre: Adventure, Fantasy
Lead Actor(s): Daniel Radcliffe
Rating: PG
152 minutes

I think just about everyone can agree that the first two books and the first two movies are the weakest of the series. For the two of you who do not know the plot, a boy named Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) finds out he is a wizard and is shipped to a school called Hogwarts to work on his magic. While there he stumbles upon an attempt to raise the evil Lord Voldemort (Richard Bremmer) from his half-death. Harry with the help of his friends, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), must stop him from rising.

I don’t think we can really blame Daniel Radcliffe too much for the disaster of this movie. It was a huge phenomenon and he didn’t know quite yet where to take the character. It’s rare that a movie of this length rests on the shoulders of a 10-year-old. Origin stories also tend to lag in character development because you have to get all of the tracks laid.

The best part about this film is Richard Harris who was the best Dumbledore there could have been. His death was such a shame.

Really the problem is Columbus takes a lot of the magic out of Hogwarts. This story lends itself to exaggeration. Instead the movie is so static that it loses any magic it could have held.

**** 4/10

Miss Congeniality

Title: Miss Congeniality (2000)
Director: Donald Petrie
Genre: Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Sandra Bullock
Rating: PG-13
109 minutes

The best things this movie has going for it are Michael Caine as a pageant coach and William Shatner as a pageant host. The basic plot is that tomboy FBI agent, Gracie Hart (Sandra Bullock), is forced to go undercover at the Miss United States Pageant to stop a copy cat killer.

All though this is not the most original comedy, Sandra Bullock does have some charm as the fish-out-of-water agent. Part of her charm is her awful clumsiness and thus makes what could have been a flat, bubble-head role into one with a bit of charisma. Her one-liners have good timing and delivery, although some are very unoriginal. It’s nice that Bullock keeps her temperament and behavior characteristics consistent throughout her transformation from Gracie Hart to Gracie Lou Freebush, her pageant name.

The best moments come from Shatner and Caine. Caine takes a role so different from the ones we are used to, that part of the appeal comes from the strangeness of it. Any movie that has Michael Caine saying “Don’t I look pretty?” is going to have some mildly funny moments. Shatner pokes fun at himself without being particularly obvious. His song at the end is particularly entertaining due to Shatner’s sheer persistence.

This is not the most original comedy, but due to some funny moments from the cast and entertaining performances by Caine and Shatner, the movie is spared from becoming a Valentine’s Day or its follow-up, Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous.

**** 4/10

Wall Street

Title: Wall Street (1987)
Director: Oliver Stone
Genre: Crime, Drama
Lead Actor(s): Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas
Rating: R
126 minutes

I had never felt a huge need to see this movie, but with the sequel coming out soon and me on the fence about seeing it, I decided it was time. Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is an up-and-comer in a job involving the stock market. I never know officially what his job is. I guess he’s a stock broker. Anyway, the pressure is on him to hook a whale. That whale is Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas). Bud gets sucked into the luxurious and exciting world of Gekko and as such gets involved in insider trading. The movie then turns into Bud trying to decide from the powerful, capitalist Gekko and his hard-working dad, Carl (Martin Sheen).

I think the only interesting and compelling performance in the movie is Michael Douglas’s. His Gekko is probably one of the best characters on the eighties. He is vicious and greedy and charming and charismatic. He is all the things that moves a good villain to great. Douglas plays the character with vigor and enjoyment. He was a fantastic choice that kept Gekko from becoming a complete sleezeball.

Now the rest of the cast is mostly trash. I will say I liked Martin Sheen as Bud’s dad and John C. McGinley as one of Bud’s co-workers. Charlie Sheen, however, has the emotional range of a chalkboard. He fakes inner conflict in an extremely obvious way. He is not invested in the character like he should have been. His performance, which could have been dynamic and good, comes across as wooden and uninterested.

Daryl Hannah is supposed to be Darien Taylor, Bud and Gekko’s love interest. Her acting is really just inappropriate. She seems to find levity in scenes which are supposed to be serious and intense. Her chemistry with Sheen in practically non-existent. This woman who is supposed to thrive in these rich and powerful circles and be desirable to titans of industry comes across as a blonde bimbo.

I also think that there were some problems with some of the cinematography. Specifically, there were several tight shots that made thing unnecessarily choppy and seem disorganized. There was also the opposite problem, oddly long shots that served no purpose but muddied the view and distracted from the story.

I don’t think there is any point in buying the movie. Overall it is not good enough due to the weakness of the protagonist and the love interest for the two characters. Douglas’s performance is though a must-see. I would tentatively argue it is the best of his career. Since the only returning character with much screen time appears to be Douglas and the movie has some actors I like, I will most likely see the sequel. I am weary of the casting of Shia LaBeouf, but I will give it a chance. It is a shame though that this amazing performance by Douglas is stuck in such a mediocre film.

**** 4/10

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

Title: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)
Director: Shawn Levy
Genre: Family, Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Ben Stiller
Rating: PG
105 minutes

I really liked the first one. The characters were fun and lively and the plot was pretty interesting. Sadly the sequel does not live up to the first. Some of the inhabitants of the Museum of Natural History are shipped to the Smithsonian, excluding the Ankmenrah tablet. Dexter, the monkey, steals the tablet and thus brings the Smithsonian, the largest museum in the world, to life. Ankmenrah’s older brother, Pharoah Kahmunrah, is jealous and steals the tablet, effectively holding the museum hostage.

Ben Stiller is just as good as the original. Larry strongly cares for the exhibits and that is evident in the movie. He handles rather poor material as well as can be expected. Stiller shows a proper amount of reverence and respect for the new entities he encounters, while still realizing the oddity of the situation.

The only two additions that I particularly like are Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart and the bobbing Einstein heads. The bobbing Einstein heads I actually find mildly funny. Amy Adams is wonderful as Earhart. She has the spunky personality that I would imagine the real Earhart would have as well as a brashness. I have seen a few movies with an Earhart character, and I firmly believe that Adams is one of the best ones I have seen.

As I mentioned the writing from the first to the second went horrendously downhill. The first one was smart, well-timed, and rather funny. The second drags horribly, the majority of the jokes are stale, and it panders more than the first one. I would suggest buying the first and watching this one once. The performance of Amy Adams is definitely worth watching, but unfortunately the movie does not constantly follow her. It could have been a good follow-up to a good movie, but it wasn’t.

**** 4/10

Rock-A-Doodle

Title: Rock-A-Doodle (1991)
Director: Don Bluth, Gary Goldman, Dan Kuenster
Genre: Animation, Family
Lead Actor(s): Glen Campbell, Tony Scott Ganger
Rating: G
77 minutes

This is another old movie I used to watch all the time when I was six. It is apparently a retelling of Chaucer’s Chanticleer. I have never read it, so I don’t know how valid that assertion is. On a farm owned by Edmond’s (Tony Scott Ganger) parents, there is a rooster named Chaunticleer (Glen Campbell) who is thought to make the sun rise with his crowing. He is attacked by some minions of the Grand Duke of Owls (Christopher Plummer). The sun still rises and the farm animals kick Chaunticleer out. A dark cloud brings on a huge storm now that he is gone. During a big rainstorm, Edmond is transformed into a tiny kitten by the Grand Duke of Owls who then tries to eat him. After defeating the GDO with a flashlight, Edmond teams up with a dog, Patou (Phil Harris), a magpie, Snipes (Eddie Deezen), and a mouse, Peepers (Sandy Duncan). They all set off to find Chanticleer, who is living as an Elvis impersonator, to defeat GDO and bring sunshine back to the farm.

The movie is just as crazy as it sounds. Christopher Plummer has an uncanny knack for playing villains, cartoon or not. GDO’s characterization takes all the clichés of villains and adds in owls, including one voiced by Charles Nelson Reilly. Few people but Plummer could pull such a corny role off. Vincent Price comes to mind as another. I personally love owls so I found it particularly funny that all the bad guys were owls.

Glen Campbell is pretty funny as a rooster impersonating Elvis. He has a wonderfully crazy Elvis wig, the bedazzled jumpsuit, even the screaming girl groupies and pink Cadillac. Campbell has a good voice for the character and even when not on stage still has Elvis’s twang and much of his personality.

Unfortunately I found Edmond very annoying. He is squeaky, whiney, and says Chanticleer way too often. I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if the three farm animals had gone in search of the rooster without the cat-boy. That being said, the last big battle between GDO and his crazy fleet of evil owls and the mismatched heroes is ridiculous and annoying. Of course, the battle all comes down to Chanticleer crowing, but the way they get there feels very forced.

Considering how short the movie is, it isn’t a bad choice for parents who promise their child one movie. It also isn’t completely unbearable to watch. There are some fun performances, but one of the leads is really annoying and it all culminates in an unsatisfying climax.

**** 4/10

Surrogates

Title: Surrogates (2009)
Director: Jonathan Mostow
Genre: Sci-Fi
Lead Actor(s): Bruce Willis
Rating: PG-13
89 minutes

This was another comic book translation, but I haven’t read the source and actually know very little about it. The premise is that in the future almost everyone in the world will have a thing called a surrogate. This is basically a robot that can look however you want and goes out and lives your life for you. Since surrogates are robots they can’t be killed and any damage done to them while the user is plugged in is not felt by the user. That is what is supposed to happen. The story begins with the destruction of two surrogates, but the police find their users dead as well. Bruce Willis also wears a funny toupee.

Willis plays the lead character, Tom Greer. He is one of the less enthusiastic users of surrogates, but he is in law enforcement and furnished one so it makes sense. His surrogate looks exactly like him except for aforementioned ridiculous toupee. Really, google it. Its hilarious. The make-up artist does and astounding job at making Bruce Willis (now 55) look like he did when he made Die Hard (he was 33). His surrogate acting was weird, but all the surrogate acting was weird they would have loose and human-like movements when dancing, but walking they held their arms like Barbies. I liked his acting when first reacting to the outside world, but for the most part it was heavy-handed and awkward, especially when interacting with his wife’s surrogate.

The movie had an interesting premise but should have had a better lead and more thorough script. The movie was short and it felt that way. I think the awkwardness of the surrogates, who are supposed to be essentially immortal humans, was more the fault of the director than all the actors. The poor choice of hairpiece for Willis also made it horribly hard to take seriously. It seemed more like a joke the director was having with the audience about how silly the whole movie was. I think the premise was very interesting and I don’t know how well the movie captured the book, but the idea deserved better.

**** 4/10

Robin Hood

So I was completely right to assume that I would be unable to post while in New York. The internet in our hotel was $14.10 every 24-hour period and although there was a Starbucks just below our, I was crazy busy and generally rather tired at the end of the day.

Title: Robin Hood (2010)
Director: Ridley Scott
Genre: Action
Lead Actor(s): Russell Crowe
Rating: PG-13
140 minutes

After seeing this movie, I have come to the decision that I am not a fan of Russell Crowe. Even in the movies I like, it isn’t due to Crowe. I did like Gladiator, but it was mostly because of Joaquin Phoenix’s performance. This movie tells the story of Robin Hood before he became Robin Hood. The first scene is of Robin is during The Crusades and he is just a lowly archer named Robin Longstride. In this movie he is not a nobleman wronged and forced into outlawry. Instead he leaves a battle and runs to the woods with three of his friends. They come along a slaughter of knights, including Robin of Loxley, who were bringing King Richard’s helmet back to England. They quartet don the deceased knights’ garb and Robin Longstride assumes the identity of Robin of Loxley. He goes to Nottingham and basically assumes Loxley’s life after meeting with the deceased’s father.

I think Robin was completely miscast. This is supposed to be the very beginning of Robin Hood’s life and yet, Russell Crowe looks like he would be an elder in a medieval town. He also does not have the vitality a young Robin should have. I think this may have been a director wanting to use an actor no matter how appropriate the role. I can think of several actors who would have been more appropriate than Crowe, especially for such a young Robin. Hell, Kevin Costner had more energy than Crowe does. Crowe also lacks the swagger that is so central to Robin. I think that he completely misses the personality of Robin.

I also had a problem with the characterization of Robin. In my opinion, a large aspect of Robin’s drive is his removal from the nobility. That is lost here. Instead Robin is a commoner who would have stayed in the woods and away from everyone if it weren’t for an accidental blood oath to the dying Loxley. Will Scarlett, Little John, and Allan A’Dayle follow Robin faithfully, but I don’t see much of a reason for them to. He never shows a lot of leadership over them and they don’t seem to have any reason to follow him over say Little John.

Luckily there was some good acting and fun interpretations. I loved Cate Blanchett as Maid Marion. If Robin had been appropriately age cast, she would have been too old for the actor. Due to the choice of Crowe, Blanchett is completely fitting. She is a badass. There is really little other way to describe her. She stands up to the perverted, though not very threatening, Sheriff when all strong and able men were gone to The Crusades. I do find her acceptance of Robin Longstride as a replacement for her husband, Robin of Loxley, a bit rushed and improbable.

I also very much enjoyed Little John. Kevin Durand brings the right amount of humor, brawn, and idiocy to the character. He is probably one of the most enjoyable aspects of the movie. His facial expressions and actions are remarkably appropriate and intelligent. Durand understands his character much more than some of the others. I also liked the performance of Mark Addy as Friar Tuck. His adoration of his bees is very sweet as is his sacrifice of them to help save the town from attacking French. He also displays his reluctance but acceptance of his profession with skill and believability.

The thing I had the biggest problem with would probably be the script. The original script focused on the Sheriff of Nottingham and had him as an anti-hero with Robin being the villain. I think that story would have been vastly more interesting than the one we were served with. The treatment of the characters and the legend seems almost rude. There is also a ridiculously large amount of villains. There’s the Sheriff, Prince John, Godfrey, and the King of France. It made for a convoluted and awkward plot.

Personally I will stick with the Disney Robin Hood, Robin Hood: Men in Tights, or Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (Purely for the superb performance of Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham). I think the original idea would have been far more interesting and unique. There is also the tragic casting choice of Crowe. The film might have been salvageable had an appropriate actor been cast. Instead wonderful performances from some supporting characters are overshadowed by the horrible script and lead actor.

****4/10

Batman Forever

Title: Batman Forever (1995)
Director: Joel Schumacher
Genre: Comic Book, Action
Lead Actor(s): Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones
Rating: PG-13
121 minutes

Those who know me know I love Batman. If I dressed up or went to conventions, I would probably be considered a fangirl. I completely geek out on Batman. That being said, I only like 4 of the 7 movies I consider in the Batman cinema universe. This is not one of them. I love Batman but detest Robin so this movie really had little hope for my approval. In this movie Batman meets his ward but is unable to save the rest of the Flying Graysons from Two-Face. Bruce Wayne takes Dick under his wing. Meanwhile a suspicious death at Wayne Industries causes Batman to look at Bruce’s employees and finds Edward Nigma (E. Nigma) who is beginning his career as The Riddler. The Riddler and Two-Face team up to steal information from the residents of Gotham through their TVs.

Val Kilmer is an awful Batman. And not in the I thought he would be bad and I am too stubborn to change my mind. He is just god awful. He is not even very good as Bruce Wayne. He is robotic and stiff. There is also little to no change in his performance from Bruce Wayne to Batman. It is important that they are portrayed as two distinctly different characters. Kilmer also often seems bored in the movie. He is playing one of the coolest characters of fiction and he seems like he would rather be anywhere but there. I can’t say that Chris O’Donnell as Robin is any better. For some bizarre reason Schumacher decides a way to edge up the movie was to have Robin have one of those stupid stud earrings and ride a motorcycle. I also am not entirely sure I can impartially judge O’Donnell due to my complete loathing of the character.

The villains are also completely off. Casting Jim Carrey as The Riddler was the wrong decision. I don’t feel I can completely blame Carrey. The producers and director must have wanted his crazy style for The Riddler, but I don’t feel that is appropriate for the character. The Riddler is supposed to get enjoyment from puzzles and making people solve them. This does not equal crazy. I also hate the costuming choice of that atrocious catsuit. Two-Face was also rather inappropriate. I think the problems with Two-Face are equal parts creative team and Tommy Lee Jones. I often like Jones as an actor. I don’t know if all the people working on the movie didn’t understand Two-Face or what, but in a similar fashion as Kilmer’s failure as Wayne v Batman, only the crazy half of Two-Face is on-screen. There are supposed to be two distinct and contrasting sides to Two-Face. His original persona was a respected lawyer. Lawyers have at least some sense of gravity to them, but none of that was seen on-screen. I did, however, like his layer. I am not sure it is very cinematic, but it is very graphic.

The only actor/character combination I liked was Nicole Kidman as Chase Meridian. It does help that she didn’t have an established character that was interpreted completely wrong and she is doing a job very similar to what I would like to do. The seriousness that Kidman usually has works quite well in this role. She isn’t as annoying as the constant shrieking, shoeless wonder, Vicki Vale and she is far more practical than Catwoman. It is also nice that she is such an intelligent character given that most of the intelligence of the other characters is sacrificed for absurdity.

As hinted at so subtlely above, I think it was a huge mistake to hand the reins of the franchise to Joel Schumacher. I mean he put nipples on the batsuit. There do not need to be nipples on the batsuit. He put The Riddler in a skin-tight green jumpsuit covered in black question marks. He put an earring in Robin’s ear. He took Two-Face and gave him one crazy personality. The only good thing is the casting of Nicole Kidman and to a lesser extent Drew Barrymore as Two-Face’s “good” girlfriend.

This is not even my least favorite Batman movie. The movie is very Schumacher. There is a great deal of subtlety in the Batman universe and characters and that is not his strong point. There are times when that can work, such as, The Phantom of the Opera, but not Batman. Despite the horridness of this movie, he was allowed to direct another one. Thank goodness we have someone who understands and respects Batman directing now and he has said that Robin is in a cradle somewhere in his bat-world. Sorry this was so long.

**** 4/10

Repo Men

Title: Repo Men (2010)
Director: Miguel Sapochnik
Genre: Action, Sci-Fi
Lead Actor(s): Jude Law, Forest Whitaker
Rating: R
111 minutes

I saw this over spring break when there wasn’t really anything good out. I probably would not have seen it otherwise. The premise is pretty interesting. In a near future, manufactured organs have eliminated the need for donor lists and messy transplants. They cost an arm and a leg, but can save your life. Of course, several people buy them and take out preposterous loans. When they fall more than 90 days behind the company sends repo men to get the organs back, effectively killing those that fall behind. As the plot of the movie progresses, Jude Law’s character, Remy, is pressured by his wife to get out of repossessions and into sales. Something goes wrong on his last job which requires one of the company’s hearts. He, of course, falls behind. He then begins to run from those he used to work with. Along the way he meets a girl Beth whom has something like 12 of the manufactured organs. They are instantly attracted to each other and go on the run together.

Jude Law is uncomfortable in such a brutish role. This observation is probably bolstered by the fact that the last movie I saw him in was Sherlock Holmes. Jude Law though just isn’t an action star and he should really stop trying. He can be the ladies’ man and he can be the suave man and the intelligent man, but he is not good as the high school drop out brute who seems to enjoy tasering people to reclaim organs for a corrupt company. I was always distinctly aware that I was watching Jude Law and that it was bad.

Forest Whitaker was more believable, but it still wasn’t a very good fit. I like him in the more intelligent characters, as well. His character, Jake, was a good character. He went from palling around with his friend to becoming worried about Remy’s inactivity to hunting him as his benefactor requested. I still think that Whitaker did the best job he could, but there must have been a smarter choice.

The character who was spot on and the one I most enjoyed watching was easily Lief Shreiber’s Frank. He is the head honcho of the store that the other characters work at. He is an asshole. From his first appearance, I was dying to see him get punched. You’ll have to see it to learn if he actually does. Schreiber plays an asshole so well and apparently easily. He was funny and had all the qualities needed for a good used car salesman. If it weren’t for his character, I don’t think this movie would have a good thing about it.

The script and directing are clumsy and corny. I think I rolled my eyes about three times at some of the ridiculous and clichéd lines that we were subject to. The director tried too hard to make the movie interesting. Instead it came off overdone and ridiculous. It is one of those movies that might become a cult classic. It is so bad that some may find it funny and enjoyable. It didn’t quite cross into that area for me, but I can definitely think of some of my friends who will buy it just to make fun of it. Unless you are like them and love bad movies, I wouldn’t see it.

**** 4/10 (without Liev Shreiber it would have been a 2 or 3)