Change Your Image
thestrawspinner
Reviews
Remember Me (2010)
Perhaps i f Tyler had been black...
You'll have to forgive me if I seem a little perplexed as to why critics found this movie so hard to swallow. After going to see it myself, with no prior knowledge of its content, I came out quite impressed by the actors and genuinely moved (though not to tears) by the storyline. It was not necessarily something that would make my weekend brighter, obviously, but it was thought-provoking and discussion worthy (if only to argue about what was/was not incendiary about the plot). As a matter of fact, I do have to say, that the only thing that I really found unbelievable and insulting about this movie, was the critic's treatment of it. I mean, I do understand that people have different opinions and I truly try to respect that; but to criticize this movie as being too melodramatic, with too many issues that "tries to borrow profound meaning"; and is (my favorite) a "shameless contraption of ridiculously sad things befalling attractive people", is a little more than ridiculous itself. Seriously, would it have been better if Tyler had been a large black high school kid from the ghetto, who made bad grades and had no place to live and was adopted by a rich white family? No, wait a minute, that was "The Blind Side". It's been done already; with much success and an Academy Award for Sandra Bullock I might add. Hmmmm...wait. I know. I know. How about if Tyler were an overweight, illiterate black high school student who was abused by her mother, raped and impregnated by her father (twice), and had HIV. Oops. No. Wrong again. That was already done in "Precious", which received critical acclaim for it's unrelenting horrors and an Oscar for Monique to boot.
Look, don't let the critics fool you; black people and pain/suffering don't necessarily = an inspirational, feel good movie; and white people and pain/suffering don't necessarily = unbelievable melodrama unworthy of your time. Suffering is suffering, and there are many forms of it. This has nothing to do with attractiveness (or the lack thereof), money, or trivial concerns. It's about what we do with the moments of our lives each day, every day. See for yourselves. Whether you like it or not, you'll definitely have something to talk about in the end.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Substance...with flash
It was a joy, an absolute joy to see the main characters of Harry Potter depicted with some gravity. For four films (yes I did say all four)these young actors have had "the emotional range of a teaspoon" and largely through no fault of their own. Hollywood has a continual and annoying trend of equating fantasy with one dimensional, frequently paring their characters down to one and two word descriptions (i.e. hero, comic relief, girl power, wimp) that erodes them into nothing more than black/white,cardboard,stick people spiced up with a little humor. Not so with David Yates. Here, in this fifth installment, we are all of a sudden faced with people: Real people. They are full blown, colorful, effective. They remind you, on the eve of the last book of the series, how much you actually like Harry and how much you really want him to win this battle against Voldemort...somehow. This could not have been accomplished without Daniel Radcliffe's heartfelt performance. I don't care how much quidditch was added or whether Snape's memory was longer. Without substance this movie simply would have been a flash in the pan. It did not need more special effects, it did not need to be darker, it didn't even necessarily need the swamp. What it needed was the one thing all four movies have not been able to produce; acting that was befitting the characters and respectful of the work it came from. David Yates pulled that off in spades.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Cutting to the chase...
Dumbledore's death in book six may be open to debate, but there is no doubt that he was brutally murdered in movie 4. I'm not quite sure whom Mr.Gambon was portraying but it was not the serene and profoundly wise character Albus Dumbledore (and I would be lying if I didn't say I found that more than a little distracting). Couple this with the abbreviated portrayal of the World Cup and you have my two biggest complaints about this movie. Did I miss the Dursleys, Weasleys and Sirius? To be sure. Would I have preferred more details? Absolutely. But I felt this movie managed to hold its ground despite the changes made. And in all honesty (despite all the fuss) there were certain things that really should have been left out; Winky and S.P.E.W. being at the top of the list. It is hard to imagine, even with two separate movies and a total of four hours, how you could explain a race of people who enjoy servitude, don't want freedom, and become angry or fearful with anyone who tries to help them achieve it (even one of their own). I barely grasp this concept within the confines of the 734 page storyline. Suffice it to say that including Winky (a modern day throwback to Prissy from Gone with the Wind) could only be described as celluloid suicide in this day and age(think Jar Jar Binks of Star Wars fame). In this case Mr Newell made the right decision and should be congratulated for doing so. Some things REALLY are best left to the printed page.
As far as performances were concerned no one seemed to command as much attention as Daniel Radcliffe, who (despite rude comments to the contrary) seemed to embrace Harry Potter wholeheartedly in this installment. His acting (even before the graveyard scene) showed incredible growth and fearlessness paralleling that of his alter ego, and I have to admit that I was happily surprised. All in all I found this movie very enjoyable despite its shortcomings, omissions and alterations and I can only conclude that Harry Potter fans everywhere would do well to take a cue from Harry and just grow up.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Sigh!
Apparently, Peter Jackson (and Mel Gibson for that matter) have not gotten their point across to Hollywood. (After seeing POA I'm not sure they ever will). Why is it so difficult to understand that if a story is well known and has a strong fan base, people will be willing to spend not only their money, but their time to see it. Didn't POTC prove this (in another language no less)? Didn't LOTR prove this? Three times?
It must be said however, that Alfonso Cuarons' vision did indeed improve upon the telling of this story in some interesting ways (I really did like his take on the quidditch match, even if it was too short ). And, had the screenplay been more developed, unnecessary silliness dropped (like shrunken heads), and slower pacing used I believe his art house style would have been the icing on the cake. But, as you can't put icing on cake batter, this ended up being nothing more than an unresolved mess.There was simply too much poetic license.
For instance, (*SPOILERS AHEAD*) I didn't think the uniforms, or lack of them, would bother me as much as it did. It only occurred to me later on that when you forget about their uniforms you forget about their houses, and when you forget about their houses you forget what their houses stand for. This could very easily explain why Ron Weasley has become a caricature and not the well rounded, impulsive but brave character that he is on the printed page. I mean, nothing, but nothing made me as angry as hearing Hermione say Ron's lines in the shrieking shack ("If you kill Harry you'll have to kill us too"). Was it really necessary to rob this character of his one defining moment in the film? Was it really necessary to make Hermione braver than she was in the book? Clearly this is a problem with Hollywood and not with Rupert Grints' performance (as some would like to suggest). For some reason groups of three always result in one character on permanent comic relief detail (see Gimli,LOTR). I can only hope they fix this in future films because if you can't stay true to the characters or the book this is really just a waste of everyones money (and time).
And, speaking of characters, where in the world was Alicia Spinnet, Katie Bell, Angelina Johnson, Lee Jordan, Colin Creavy, Goyle and Oliver Wood? Changing the Hogwarts grounds wasn't nearly as distracting as removing these people from the story. It was as if the foundation laid down in the previous books (not just the films) was just tossed into the garbage can. I hardly recognized anyone.
With that said, I really do believe that Cuaron fleshed out the main characters very well, showing a nice camaraderie and genuine friendship. Dan Radcliffe met the new challenges of Harry head on and did a great job.Emma Watson is Hermione (I just wish she was the Hermione of the book and not Hermionevampireslayer90210). And Rupert Grint just needs better material to work with and more respect from the screenwriters. Even Neville is good (when not reduced to slapstick) and Malfoy would be a worthy adversary if just taken seriously. There were more problems but I think that more than enough people have said more than enough things about them. For me, this really isn't an either/or situation. Columbus' structure with Cuarons' visual embellishments could have easily put this movie over the top. As it stands, I think I'm more disappointed with what it could have been than what it wasn't . And I really hope that the next time fans of the book (who would like to see some semblance of what they read) are at least taken into consideration. All in all, seeing this movie was like being transported to Oz..... and finding that it too was simply black and white.