Change Your Image
dante_feditech
Reviews
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
A middle, middle, and a middle - and a disappoint middle at that.
I enjoyed parts of this film, an I wanted to give it a higher grade, but I just couldn't make myself. I've never read the books and have never wanted to until now - and the *only* reason that I now want to read the last book is because this film just leaves you hanging, without satisfaction, closure, or ending. It reminds me of the first Lord Of The Rings. I could even hear, "I'll come with you Mr Frodo!" in the closing moments. "And you can have my sword!" "And my shield!" "And my bow!" And a quest of all things? I'm sure it'll be a very good and interesting quest. But from this series I kinda expected something a little less . . . mundane.
It's fairly obvious that Dombledore (If that's spelled wrong - I told you I hadn't read the books) was manipulating everything from behind the scenes. Which makes his death at the end a glorious and convoluted suicide. I *assume* the whole point was to give the death-eaters a massive and undeniable victory on a silver platter and thus prompt the wizarding world into action. And while that is brave and noble, in it's own way, it doesn't make me care about him, or Harry, or or anyone else in their little club of X-Man... Sorry, wizards. (I swear he was channelling Professor Xavier when he first met Tom Riddle.) Except Snape. Him I feel genuine pity for. Forced to be a spy, forced to kill a good friend, forced to become a pariah to everyone he's ever known, and living with people who would kill him in a second if they ever learnt the truth. Those are emotional scares he will never get rid of. I feel really sorry for him.
Oh wait, I'll amend that. Snape and the hogwarts security guards, who were presumably trying to honestly do their best - despite Dumbledore deliberately leaving two massive gaping holes in the grounds magical protection. Or possible more holes? How desperate was he to hand the death eaters a victory? (While protecting Harry.) How many security guards was he willing to lose to accomplish his goals? How many children? Okay, a war is coming, and people need to be galvanised, but if those same people find out what Dumbledore really did, it would kinda undermine everything he seemed to be doing in this film.
And about that Mr Potter... His growing maturity is one of the highlights of this film. The moment in the cavern when he forced that horrible gunk down Dumbledore's throat was genuinely creepy, and obviously deeply unpleasant for Harry as well, and yet he did it anyway, because sometimes adults are required to do deeply unpleasant things, even when they really don't want to.
But this is mostly just a tiny part of the film. The revelation that Vordormort has split his soul to enhance his own survival was, erm, interesting. It made sense, and sounded strategically sensible. But the idea that were supposed to be shocked that this required murder? Or that Mr V might have killed *Gasp!* SEVEN people! No! Seriously? He's killed more than two people? I didn't know that! I thought he stopped at just the two and his failure during the third attempt made him turn over a new leaf. (Okay, I'll stop now.) And the whole 'murder is a crime against nature' nonsense. I know Dumbledore probably only has a vague notion of what a television is, and has probably never watched a nature documentary - but I still expect him to have some vague knowledge of reality. Murder is a part of nature, a vital process of the food chain. Pretending that killing a human is fundamentally different from killing any other animal (outside of the law books and our collective opinion at least) is nothing more than egocentric psychological masturbation. Anything else reeks of creationism...
Other's have already complained bitterly about the very large amount of time wasted on the romantic subplots. So I'll leave that alone. And instead finish off by complaining about the lack of muggle backlash. If this was some kind of 24 affair, then that might be excused, but the story takes place over a period of several weeks at least. So when will they get involved exactly? I mean it's already Word of God (from Rowling herself) than a muggle with a shotgun will beat a wizard 9 times out of 10. Of course the wizards that need doing in aren't exactly part of the fat and lazy 90%, but then again muggles have *slightly* better weapons than shotguns if needed. So if a war is coming, why has not a single wizard even mentioned (even in passing) the thought that it might possible be a good idea to think about maybe involving the muggles at one point? Okay, last time I amend this list I promise. Snape, the security guards, and the poor bastards killed on the Millennium Bridge. I feel more sympathy for all of them than Dumbledore.
Most of these complaints are about the tone of the whole series, rather then the film in specific. But I'm sure sure that matters. The themes of this film are the themes of the series, so I believe the complaints still stand. As I've said this film has made me (somewhat) want to buy the last book. But the thing in, I've already brought four £7 cinema tickets so far, and paperbacks aren't that expensive. So given that I've paid over the odds I think JK owes me a free books, and might just download a pirate copy instead.
The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
Klaatu barada nikto / otkin adarab utaalk
I remember reading somewhere that "Klaatu barada nikto" meant "Harm them not, for they know not what they do." I'm not sure it's true, but I like that meaning, and find it appropriate - because this film takes the polar opposite view. In this film it is more a case of, "They know exactly what they're doing, but are sticking their fingers in their ears and humming rather than admitting it or trying to fix it - so kill them all." In this film humans aren't excused for being children, they're put on trial, as adults.
That we're destabilising global temperatures isn't the problem. That we're doing nothing about it isn't the problem. It's the fact that it was proved for about ten years and that the majority chose to not believe it in spite of all evidence until about two years ago.
And quite frankly, good. Idiots who deliberately chose to reality (such as ignore major problems on the horizon - like global warming) and encourage others to do so, are just a big a threat to our world as nuclear weapons were when the first film was made. That is a good idea, an IMPORTANT idea. It's just a pity the producers were too cowardly to follow through on it. So why couldn't they say this? It's a classic case of telling rather than showing. Giving humans cheap clean fusion (for example) might help fix the environment, but it won't fix the insane delusions that too many humans are dumb enough to believe. For example, the insane delusion that the world is 6000 years old. Or the insane delusion that some people still have that global warming isn't real. Nothing the aliens can do or say or give away can fix that. So why couldn't Klaatu say this?
Another horrid example (amongst many) of this 'tell don't show' is when Klaatu's ship approaches Earth. His ships is moving as 3 times 10 to the power of 7 meters per second you say? 1/10th the speed of light you say? That might damage New York you say? NO you IDIOT. That's won't slightly damage Manhattan, that will make Earth look like an apple after a horse has bitten it in half. So why couldn't the scientists say this?
And I'm afraid that question sums up my review of this film. Why couldn't they have done it properly?
Robotto hantâ Kyashân (1993)
Really really terrible
You'll like this film if you enjoy: *Really bad animation. *Really bad scripts. *Naziesque films about ubermensch heroes. *Films set in 'exotic' locations, like Europe. *Feudal societies at inappropriate points of technological development. *Films where the environmentalists are evil. *Films where woman are stupid and/or scantily clad, or absent. *The sound effects from the film Aliens. *Robotic swans. Which in honesty was kinda cool. But not worth the time to watch it.
I got this film for free at London Anime Allnighter 2008. One of those films the retails know they can never sell. And still I think I got the bad end of the deal.
Jumper (2008)
Nice idea, shame about everything else
You know, if I was being hunted by an bunch of insane psychotics who wanted to kill me, I'd be gosh darned tempted to SHOOT THEM WITH A GUN.
Sadly the hero, who otherwise can do anything and buy anything he wants, is too stupid to do this. And pick any substitute word for 'stupidity' you like. Chances are you'll be shouting it at the screen; probably along with some colourful metaphors.
It's not as if it's a 'hero' story. The guy's a complete jerk without a redeemable bone in his body from opening to credits. He changes in no way, learns nothing, and retains at all times an IQ smaller than his shoe size.
Which is pretty much the level of intelligence you'd need to reduce yourself to in order to enjoy this film.
Don't give them your money. Don't waste your time. Don't reward this kind of film making.
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008)
Terminator meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Gotta love a TV show that confuses those who fail to pay attention. Gotta hate one that descends to Buffyesque moralising. A hopeful 8.
Summer Glau makes sense as a protector. Arnie would have been nice, but the fact is that type of terminator couldn't guard John 24/7 without attracting attention. A jail-bait style terminator could get away with it though ; and have John's active cooperation. That kind of directive could easily explain a lot of her behaviour; as would the 70 days practice she's had before the Connors turn up. The character makes sense.
Or then again, Connor was about forty years old when he sent her back. Maybe he was simply a dirty old man by then.
The bad terminator again is quite serviceable; though it would be nice if they could tone down the comedy bungling. Then again it could just be bad timing all round. I think people are being a little too hard on him; and possibly forgetting that a terminator isn't intelligent, he's a machine programmed to pretend it's intelligent. Also it's very likely his #1 priority *isn't* to kill John, but to serve and protect Skynet. It would interesting to see this behaviour evolves, and whether the Conners and Cameron can learn to exploit it.
The Connors themselves though... I fear I detect the evil hand of Fox Standards and Practices. John and Sarah are hero characters, and so he can't play with guns or rifles (boo!) and she can't play with needles filled with cleaning fluid (hiss!). Whether it is the writers, the directors, or the morons at S&P to blame, I hope the situation improves, and that the first time John gets his hand on a firearm of his very own, it isn't turned into a moralising story about what happens when 'children' get their hands on handguns. In T2 they were both believable as soldiers. If the show is retelling T2, I hope they get past the whiny brat 'why is this happening to me' stage quickly.
As others have pointed out, they've used the standard T1/T2/T3 'chase, chase, death' plot. A bit dull, but serves as a nice reminder of what has gone before, and hope a spring board for newer ideas in the future.
War of the Worlds (2005)
A re-imagining of a re-imagining.
Wells wrote a good story about a technologically superior enemy colonising our planet and displacing the locals. The goal was to try and teach people who advocated the colonisation of Africa, what it was like to be on the receiving end.
Unfortunately the world has moved on since then. A modern tank (120mm sniper rifle + 60 ton metal heat sink) would be a good match for the original tripods. Gerald O'Neil showed us in the 1980s how then technology could easily be used to create space-colonies which in many ways are better than planets. More to the point, we don't colonise any more.
So how do you update WotW? Well the Iraq War from the PoV of Iraqis wouldn't have been far wrong. Nor would Mars Attacks; that at least addressed the issue of why the Martians would want to attack. Or you don't, and you tell the original story.
Spielberg has done none of these things though. He has taken a classical piece of literature and turned it into a cheap disaster/horror film. Worse than that, he has castrated it by giving it such a low age-rating. The true horror of what such an invasion would mean (and the horror of American soldiers are doing in other countries right now) is therefore safely locked away from anyone who might be shocked by it.
He's taken the 1950s film and warped it still further by revelling in evil and inhumanity of the invaders. Where as the whole point of the original story was that the invaders were doing nothing that the so called 'innocent' country had already done to countless others.