The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
December 11; Loews Boston Common #2
* * * ¾ (out of 4)

This is probably the huge movie that I was the most skeptical about this fall. I remember reading a number of the Narnia books as a kid. Also, the last play I did in high school, I played Peter in the stage version of this story, and it was a less than spectacular experience. If this film was going to be done right, it really needed to be done correctly. Nothing in the trailers had hooked me immediately, so I was a little nervous going in.

What caught me pretty much immediately was that they did not forget a proper introduction. So much focus has always been on Narnia that I feel like many people forget why these kids are even in this strange house: this is World War II. There are a few great character moments before the mansion is even introduced, especially for Peter. When they’re getting on the train to head to the countryside, he catches a glimpse of soldiers heading off to the front, and you can tell he feels a certain desire or responsibility to join them, one that he can’t express. You see it again during the final battle for Narnia.

The moment that made this movie for me was Lucy’s entrance into Narnia. All of the children are cute, certainly, but somewhat average-looking. There’s nothing immediately unique of defining about them. The moment she steps beyond the fur coats and into the winter forest that simply shouldn’t exist, Georgie Henley’s face lights up in a way that only a child’s can. It was the perfect visual realization of imagination. And that set the visual precedent for the rest of the film. Almost everything worked how I had envisioned it as a child, a credit to both the production team and to C.S. Lewis himself. This is a beautiful film, though clearly New Zealand.

What I liked most is that while they were clearly making a kid’s movie, but they included enough material for those of us who read the book ten or fifteen years ago. My girlfriend told me she had been waiting for this movie since she read the book many years ago, and I got the impression that many people in the theater felt the same way. They hit a great balance of pleasing the fans and drawing in new ones.

None of the performances were particularly fantastic outside of Tilde Swinton, but they didn’t need to be. This is about the story. Everyone in the film played their part in the story, and didn’t overstep. The whole thing was put together very well. This is the closest thing to a Christmas movie this year, and it beats the usual Christmas fare. Take the kids in your life, and then give them the books so they can prepare for the definite sequels. They’ll thank you for it.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
AMC Fenway 13
* * * 1/4 (out of 4)

I loved Prisoner of Azkaban. I thought they hit the perfect mood and feel for the book, and also for the age that the three main characters were hitting – that kind of confusing, immediately pre-puberty period where you’re really not sure what to do with yourself. It was just dark enough to facilitate a great transition from being a kid’s book or movie.

The fourth installment picks up the tone about where the third left off. I should also mention that this is the first film based on a Harry Potter book that I have not read. Because of this, I have no idea what’s been changed or cut or added, which is either good or bad, depending on how much you might love the books. That lack of knowledge of the book contributes, I suspect, to my one major gripe in this film.

In the previous films, Harry, Hermoine and Ron were relatively inseparable. Yes, Harry had his own side plots and adventures, but they always seemed like subplots compared to the overall plot that involved all three of them. The other two always made sacrifices to ensure Harry – the star – did what he had to do, but they were major players. I feel like Goblet of Fire is the first time Hermoine and Ron are relegated to sidekick or best friend duty. I understand there was always going to be a point where Harry began dominating the films… I guess I just wasn’t ready for it yet. I enjoy watching the other two so much more than Harry.

Fortunately, Daniel Radcliffe picks up some slack in this one. He does step into his role as the sole star of the film (as a title character ought to do), which is fantastic for him, but character-wise, everyone else suffers for it. I was somewhat shocked to see and hear people behind me crying at the death of one of the supporting characters, because besides being a piece of the Tri-Wizard Tournament that is at the center of the film… he didn’t do anything. At no point did he say or do anything interesting or important. I think this might be one of the places that a character was cut down significantly from the books. The same with the Quidditch World Cup. I’ve enjoyed the quidditch scenes from the previous films, and they teased a HUGE match at the beginning of Goblet, and then never followed through.

The tone was great; they really picked up where Alfonso Cuarón left off. The appearance of Voldemort, which has been getting built for four years, basically lived up to expectations, and I’m looking forward to Ralph Fiennes in freaky makeup in the future. I am, however, very worried about the marginalization of the fantastic supporting cast that the films have built over the last four years – I know it’s Harry Potter’s story, but I have my doubts that it is a burden he can shoulder by himself on film.

Netflix Roundup #1

So I signed up for Netflix a few months back, mostly hoping that having unlimited access to a collection like that would make me cut back on buying DVDs. Combined with having an income drop, it has done that. Here's a quick rapid-fire set of reviews of what I have seen since I started Netflix. Note: These are based on Netflix's 5-star rating system, rather than my usual 4-star. Also, for the sake of space, if you want to jump to Amazon, click the title.

Finding Neverland: * * *

Oh, the amount that I wanted to love this movie. I am a huge Johnny Depp fan, and after all the buzz this got, for his performance and for the film as a whole, I really wanted it to be spectacular. It just wasn't... I can't even identify a precise problem. Good story, though not incredible; amazing cast, though not quite performing to the level advertised; great directing. I just didn't click with it like other people did, I guess.

The Piano: * * *

Meh... there was just nothing great here. This was the first film I had to watch for a class, and I fell asleep once watching it. Anna Paquin was doing things here that no 10 year old should be made to do, and for that, she earned her Oscar. Harvey Keitel was good, though he seemed out of his element. Holly Hunter, Sam Neill... all good, just... the story didn't appeal at all, nor was I (a 20 year old male) the target audience. If you like period pieces, the book or anyone involved here, check it out. Otherwise, it's a pass.

Crimson Rivers 2: Angels of the Apocalypse: * * * *

Doesn't really hold a candle to the original, but how can you compete with Jean Reno and Vincent Cassel in a Mathieu Kassovitz film? That's tough to top. But the sequel, which brings Reno back in as the veteran cop who investigates the stranger cases that come up, is still a lot of fun, with a nice new conspiracy theory for the backdrop. Reno wasn't trying too hard, and his new sidekick can't touch Cassel, but the story is still fun, if far-fetched, and it's adequately shot. It's a French popcorn movie, which we don't see too many of over here. Good times.

Lovely & Amazing: * *

Also for my film class, and maybe one of the least favorite I had to watch. None of the three main characters have a redeeming, human quality in them. They are miserable people, and miserable in their lives. There's nothing to like about them. And that overrules any message or theme in the movie.

Vision Quest: * *

Bah. Boring. I don't have much to say beyond that. It's possible that overanalysis turned me against this film. I just had no interest. Nice work by Matthew Modine, and to a lesser extent by Linda Fiorentino. Not much here, though.

National Treasure: * * *

This is trying very hard to capitalize on the success on The Da Vinci Code, and it does all right with that. The plot isn't as specific or intriguing as that book, and there are a few pretty decent plot holes, but it's a fun adventure, no doubt. And I don't despise Nick Cage, so that's an accomplishment. It's a popcorn movie and nothing else.

Paycheck: * *

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I even finished this. I believe I did it while writing a paper, and didn't pay much attention. I wasn't overly impressed. Pretty standard fare from Affleck and Thurman, and John Woo's not stretching anything here. Interesting idea that dies in the execution.

Sahara: * *

Unimpressed. I've no doubt that McConaughey has it in him to be a movie star, and also that the Drik Pitt books could produce some fun, this just wasn't the best place to start. Not a whole lot of chemistry with the supporting cast, and a pretty forgettable plot. I'd see a second outing, but I kind of doubt that this will warrant a sequel.

What's Eating Gilbert Grape?: * * * * *

Amazing. I don't know how I missed this one. Incredible performances all around, and well-deserved praise. This is a great, great story, with incredible dynamic between everyone involved. This has probably become one of my favorite movies.

Lost in La Mancha: * * * *

This is a documentary about the massive failure of Terry Gilliam's Don Quixote film which was slated to star Johnny Depp. It's incredible to watch how far something can fall - just about everything that could go wrong did. It's a sadly comic story, but it's fascinating to watch, especially when compared with the history of other productions. Don Quixote may very well be the film equivalent of MacBeth. A lot of fun to watch, even though it's a shame the film may never happen.

Shallow Hal: * * *

Nothing spectacular - kind of middle of the road lowbrow, and probably one of the lesser Farrelly films. Jack Black is clearly having a good time, and there are some fun moments, but it just doesn't compare to There's Something About Mary or Fever Pitch.

National Lampoon's Van Wilder: * * *

Definitely fun, but ultimately empty. The only reason this film exists is for Ryan Reynolds, and maybe Kal Penn. They're both fun, and significantly hilarious, but they could have been that in something a little better, I think. The fact that there's a rumor that Kal Penn is starring in a sequel saddens me. This was OK and kind of fun once... twice, it might be downright painful.

An Evening With Kevin Smith: * * * *

Yes, this is about three hours of the View Askew leader rambling about various things, but that in itself is pretty interesting. The crowds at the colleges he tours worship the man, and this is the type of forum where geek questions get answered in a fantastic fashion. Smith seems to have no illusions about his place in the film community, and he is quick to self-deprecation. At times, Jason Mewes joins him onstage, which always makes for a good time. This can only be described as a "geek-out," and if you enjoyed any of Smith's movies prior to Jersey Girl, this is worth a look.

The Flight of the Phoenix: * * * *

The trailers for this did nothing for me, and I got it at Jay's insistence that it was fun. He was right. This has a great ensemble cast, with Dennis Quaid leading, and Hugh Laurie and Giovanni Ribisi standing out. Everyone fills their role properly, and the script is pretty tight as well. Some fun action scenes, and when that plane gets off the ground, it must have been one of those moments when everyone in a theater started cheering. Or at least it should have been.

Europa Europa: * *

There are moments in this film that STILL need to be explained to me. This has a very specific goal in mind, and while it accomplishes that goal - showing how a Jewish boy survived the Holocaust by essentially becoming a chameleon - it's a little too stylized for my liking. Just didn't appeal to me.

American Splendor: * *

I hesitate to write much of anything about this one, because I think I only made it about 20 minutes in. I've never been a fan of Paul Giamatti, and nothing I've seen has changed my mind. This one never hooked me, and I gave up trying to force it.

Bottle Rocket: * * * *

This makes it no wonder why the Wes Anderson/Owen Wilson writing team took off as it did. This is a great, fun, quirky caper story - at times it might be a little too quirky, its only downfall. Luke Wilson masters the deadpan, and Owen's neurotic mastermind was all kinds of fun to watch.

Control Room: * * * *

A very interesting perspective, considering the relative media isolation we have in the US. Sure, we can get Fox News vs. CNN, but the biases still exist. The look inside al-Jazeera paint an interesting picture of how international media was treated by the US military during the Iraqi invasion - remember, we were the aggressors, something that tends to be forgotten in the "protectors of human freedom" propaganda that gets thrown around a lot. al-Jazeera seems to ask a lot of questions that US media outlets won't, which makes them a worthwhile subject.

The Crying Game: * *

Another classic that didn't quite sit well with me. I like the story well enough. I just feel like there were sections that got a lot more focus than necessary. The end was also a nice twist. I think it was also very unsettling to see people I recognize (like Forest Whitaker and Jim Broadbent) taking on a role that completely destroys any and all preconceptions, which I applaud them for. It's worth a look for the more liberal-minded, but some things just didn't quite agree with me.

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism: * * *

I have often said of Fox News that if Rupert Murdoch discovered that monkeys having sex with dolphins would be a big ratings-getter, Fox News would change formats overnight. What people tend to miss with this documentary is that the filmmakers are using the same tactics they claim to dislike in order to indict Fox News. It is no dout an interesting watch, especially looking at some of the characters Fox puts on the air - Bill O'Reilly is always a personal favorite. It is just important to bear in mind that as much as Fox News is conservative propoganda, Outfoxed is liberal mudslinging.

The Exorcist: * * *

I'm being unfair, because at this point I am comparing this to The Exorcism of Emily Rose because I just wrote a paper on the two, and I LOVE Emily Rose. That being said, I never realized how dated this film really was, and yet there's still some pretty impressive moments in it. It becomes even more impressive, though maybe not in a good way, when you add in some of the trivia listed for the film over at IMDb.

That's it for now... a Harry Potter review may be forthcoming, but I have finals and projects upcoming... quickly, I'd say Goblet of Fire is my second-favorite Potter, because I enjoyed the hell out of Prisoner of Azkaban. The style was nailed in that one, along with the fun they were having with character relationships.