When Ron Howard’s “The Da Vinci Code” hit theatres in May of 2006, I called it a “wildly entertaining story full of twists and intellectual intrigue guaranteed to make devout followers of Christ gasp when presented with such nonsense.” Sure, it had its issues regarding chemistry and a demented, self-mutilating Paul Bettany, but at least it provided two-plus hours of harmless summer entertainment that kept me breezily entranced.
With “Angels and Demons,” however, I got the feeling that Howard was riding high on the heels of “Frost/Nixon” and made a conscious decision to mail in an effort void of all vigor and narrative cohesion. I struggle to think of one aspect that genuinely moved me, because it felt more like a third-rate, ecclesiastical scavenger hunt than a popcorn flick deserving of so much undivided attention.
The film flat-out stinks worse than the time Chris Matthews tried to bust a move on “Ellen” and I’d hate to think that, at age 53, Tom Hanks has resigned himself to this type of cookie-cutter production. The film moved along at such a humdrum tempo that I had to propel myself to keep watching because, in the end, the story tacked on one crooked clergyman too many and could’ve used about 20-30 minutes worth of cuts to make things less convoluted.
Oy vey!
- * ½ out of 4
Sacha Baron Cohen takes “Bruno” to places that I never thought I’d see in a mainstream comedy. Actually, he takes the contemptible mockumentary to places that I never really wanted to see in a mainstream comedy but, then again, it’s that utter disregard for taste and societal acceptance that makes him one of the funniest comedic artists on the planet. The humor in this shameless saga of a gay Austrian fashionista provides a few of the craziest laugh-out-loud moments I’ve seen from any medium all year and will likely end up as the most divisive movie of 2009 not called Lars Von Trier’s “Antichrist.”
Does he go too far? Probably, but did anyone expect him not too? Whether it’s Bruno or Borat, the whole point of Cohen’s shtick is to make both the participants and the audience feel as ill at ease as possible while highlighting the idiocy of people from all walks of life. I can’t really say any more than that because, if seeing is believing, this is one shocker that needs to be seen before the censors decide to kill the first amendment indefinitely.
- *** ½ out of 4
Rather than rail on director David Yates for taking a few audacious liberties with J.K. Rowling’s beloved source material, I’ll just say that “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” is, to me, the most humanistic (If that’s even possible) film yet to be made about the world of Hogwarts.
For the first time, the three main characters are allowed to be compassionate, full-fledged teenagers who are just as concerned about romance as they are wizardry and somehow that little bit of muggle savvy provides the missing piece of the Potter puzzle. The capricious element is balanced beautifully against the newfound backdrop of teen angst and the only thing that keeps it from being the finest of the series is the gross overuse of Nicholas Hooper’s dreary musical arrangements.
Luckily, Jim Broadbent was available to liven things up, because his Oscar-worthy portrayal of Professor Horace Slughorn radiates with the kind of manic irreverence that keeps the story from becoming too much like an episode of “Degrassi: The Next Generation.”
He’s the idyllic antidote to Severus Snape’s über-deathly disposition and I can’t say enough about the luminosity of his work here. One can only hope that the next guest they bring in can match his level of pub-induced gusto, because the secondary players are often the most interesting to watch.
As for the story itself, Yates picks up the action directly where “Order of the Phoenix” left off as Harry is reeling after the murder of Sirius Black by Bellatrix Lestrange (My personal favorite) as well as beginning to ease into his role as the so-called “chosen one.”
He’s absolved himself of the whole Cho Chang debacle and now has his sights set on Ron’s younger sister Ginny, who is just as eager to move forward with the relationship. His gravest challenge remains figuring out how to defeat the Dark Lord once and for all with Ron and Hermione prepared to help him every step of the way.
Daniel Radcliffe makes strides in his sixth stint as the title character, but his performance doesn’t demand your attention the way some of the unsung people do.
Personally, I’m more entertained watching Helena Bonham Carter unleash the zaniness as the aforementioned Lestrange and Evanna Lynch exude the most endearing presence of all as Luna Lovegood. These are the people I come to see because, with the laundry list of talent these movies tend to boast, it’s easy for the three leads to get pushed aside when the showier roles take center stage.
In theory, this installment had the potential to be the best yet, but ultimately suffered from a botched final act that packed the emotional punch of a National Enquirer cover story. All the darkness that had been building up through the years never quite manifested itself the way I hoped it would so, if Yates wants to redeem himself, he needs to make The Deathly Hallows as close to the book as possible. I’ve read the final installment and, if Yates does it the right way, we could be looking at something that’ll force the Academy to finally take notice.
- *** out of 4
No comments:
Post a Comment