Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Though accusations and worries fly in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince as to whether or not Albus Dumbledore is "asking too much" of those around him, it seems the film isn't; rather, it seems to be doing just right.

Director David Yates [who joined the series with Film #5] continues his streak of adapting J.K. Rowling's wildly popular Harry Potter series with the sixth (and penultimate, taking Deathly Hallows as one entity, though it's being split in two for 2010-11) entry in the franchise. Here, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his maturing buds Ron and Hermione (Rupert Grint & Emma Watson) find themselves embroiled once more in the conflict between the wizarding world and its mortal enemy, Lord Voldemort (an unseen Ralph Fiennes, who appears elsewhere in the series). New potions master Horace Slughorn (an always-effervescent Jim Broadbent) takes up a post at Hogwarts as suspicions loom about shifty Professor Snape (Alan Rickman, effortlessly ominous). But Harry's main focus is taken up by Headmaster Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) and his quest to learn Voldemort's past in order to finally defeat him.

I won't bother with comparisons to the book - other online commentators have nobly taken up that gauntlet (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince_(film)#Differences_from_the_book for a fairly comprehensive overview) - mostly because the book was so long ago I can recall only the most significant plot details. Suffice it to say that Yates's adaptation seems to stand on its own as a creative work, indebted to the source material but not slavishly so. Instead, the globe-like burden of carrying the film rests on the Atlas-shoulders of the cast, particularly our three young'uns, who all do an able job of growing into the roles and comfortably becoming the characters. (Watch out for typecasting, kids.) Radcliffe is fine as the lead, oscillating comfortably between dramatic moodiness and comic levity. Grint is a sight as the goofy one of the bunch, looking lovelorn like nobody's business, and Watson might as well be a young Keira Knightley (props to my grandmother for spotting that one) for all the talent she's got. Perhaps the standout in the youth cast - already getting plenty of media attention - is Tom Felton, who as Draco Malfoy is charged with converting his character from a prototypical schoolyard bully into a real potential menace with more demons than Dementors hiding in his closet. He does more brooding in an hour than Christian Bale does on a good day, and he does it well, keeping a terrific air of mystery surrounding his character (for the novel's novices, that is). The adult cast isn't slouching, either; Broadbent is a fantastic pick for favoritism-prone Slughorn, Rickman is glorious as always, and Gambon continues to create his own weighty Dumbledore as distinct from the late Richard Harris's more aloof and endearing one. (It's a shame, though, that the filmmakers didn't choose Peter O'Toole as Harris's replacement.)

That said, the film is, simply put, a little long. At 2.5+ hours, the film can afford to take its time with the mythology surrounding a Horcrux or the backstories of characters like Voldemort or the mysterious "Half-Blood Prince" (whose potions book falls into Harry's hands), but the movie also gets bogged down in a lot of angsty teenage romance, humorously awkward but somewhat gregarious in its omnipresence. It's as if we want to grab the characters by the school-spirit scarves and give them a good shaking until they finally agree to snog [British for "kiss"] the lad or lass of their fancy. (Oh, yes, there's a great deal of snogging and preparing to snog.) Everyone does a fine job eliciting laughs with the awkward situations of teenage adulation - particularly Grint, whose sloppy grin only gets more uneven when he's duped into taking a potent love potion - but there is such a thing as "too much of a good thing."


But the film does fine work with the unspoken. Yates is a master of my favorite cinematic technique: visual language - that is, letting the film speak for itself without clumsy narration or heavyhanded dialogue addressing what's being depicted. Watch carefully as Yates directs Felton into the Room of Requirement and toward a mysterious cabinet; take note of how Yates uses cuts between Felton's expression and the apples and birds he puts into the cabinet, and be sure to pay attention when Yates cuts away from Hogwarts and into a shop in Diagon [or is it Knockturn? I myself can't keep all the mythology straight.] Alley. Without saying a word, the film masterfully tells us everything we need to know. I for one am glad Yates is staying on to finish out the franchise with a two-part adaptation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, since he's proven here that he can handle weighty source material while still churning out a film that's fun for newcomers.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is rated "PG for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality." Spells and their occasionally bloody after-effects, as well as a few creepy creatures and a looming sense of peril at every turn (including one spectacular jump moment near the film's climax), could be objectionable as far as "scary images [and] some violence" are concerned. The snogging in this film ("mild sensuality") isn't much to write home about, though it dominates a lot of the main characters' focus.

Trailer Park: Shutter Island (2009)

Finally, Martin Scorsese is coming back to the big screen. After 2006's The Departed (which still may or may not be my favorite movie of all time), Marty's bringing Dennis Lehane's novel to cinemas while carrying along some familiar faces - and that beloved Bawstuhn accent that's supplanted the Italian vernacular in Marty's catalog.

Of course I think this movie looks spectacular. Leo's finally becoming a real actor, Ben Kingsley is just so creepy as a doctor who I'm sure is hiding something, and the tension is high as a kite in this trailer.

Concerns? A) The trailer seems to be giving away a lot. B) It seems to be mismarketed as a horror movie, which I'm quite sure it isn't. Everything I've read about the film points to it being a mystery/thriller with a question about blurring the line between fact and fantasy, between reality and hallucination. Of course, how do you convey that in a trailer? How do you draw audiences in for a tight psychological thriller?

Simple: put Martin Scorsese's name on the trailer.

Shutter Island drops into theaters on October 2, 2009.

For more information about the film, take a peek at http://www.totalfilm.com/features/on-set-shutter-island, which focuses a lot on the look and feel that Scorsese is seeking for this film. Plus, some pretty pictures.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

I'm still not quite sure what to make of Ang Lee's critically lauded Brokeback Mountain. At the insistence of a few friends and the confidence in Heath Ledger's acting ability that I acquired like a booster shot thanks to the trailers for The Dark Knight (in which Ledger plays the best damn Joker, period), I finally gave the movie a try.

And the jury's still out on the movie for me.

In his essay "In Critical Condition," David Bordwell draws a distinction between "an excellent film" and a film that is "to your liking." (I direct you to the entire article, a fascinating look at how movies are reviewed and analyzed: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=2315. Thanks, Karl.) This is the distinction I've been trying to sort out with this, the story of a complex love that begins between two sheepherders (Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, as Ennis del Mar and Jack Twist) in the 60s. Most everyone in the critical circle saw it as an excellent film, yet I'm not sure if I can dislike an excellent film. I'm not even sure if I dislike Brokeback Mountain.

Let me air my laundry about this one and hope that I'll come to some conclusion about the movie by the end. First the good news. The movie is consistently paced, lending a pastoral fairytale atmosphere to the whole work. If this was Lee's goal, he succeeded; if not, then the film dodges "boring" by a few feet. Acting in here is for the most part sterling (see the bad news for the notable exception), with a powerhouse performance by Heath Ledger that made me want to melt in my seat. Why he didn't win the Oscar I'm not quite sure - Hoffman's Capote was so-so but falls flat when compared with Toby Jones's a year later in Infamous. The two wives, Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams, are suitably layered, but it's Ledger's performance that you'll take away for a while.

I've commended Lee for his ability to keep the flow of the film moving while maintaining a slow and deliberate pace. Yet I have to mention one scene in particular as a stand-out visual, the one I'll probably keep with me for a while. Ennis takes his wife (Williams) and daughters to a picnic/firework show, only to be met by foul-mouthed truckers who won't keep their language at a family-friendly level. When Ennis attacks the truckers, fireworks go off behind him while the camera rests at a Citizen Kane-like ground-up angle. The result is stunning.

Now the bad news. The crux of the film is obviously the relationship between Ennis and Jack. So it hurts the movie greatly that Jake Gyllenhaal is not a terrific actor and seems out of place against the vastly more genuine Ledger. Gyllenhaal seems like a child playacting in his father's cowboy uniform, and it seems that his only character development comes by growing a porn star mustache. Although I have to give him some applause for the "I wish I knew how to quit you" scene, Gyllenhaal is overall disappointing in here. (Randy Quaid, too, is lackluster, but his part is so small that he's barely noticeable.)

The other key flaw in the film is that it asks the viewer to be accepting of a relationship that betrays two marriages. I'm sorry, but I draw the line there. Had Ennis and Jack divorced their wives to be together (or at least not married until false pretense), I would have been more positive about their relationship. But the heartwrenching performance by Michelle Williams, especially when she realizes that her husband is in love with another man, makes it difficult for me to enjoy the film when I know that this relationship is making people so unhappy. Call me old-fashioned, but I disapprove of marital dishonesty and find it hurts my enjoyment of a work.

In the end, I think I have to concede that the film wasn't quite to my liking, mostly because of the flaws that - in my analysis - prevent Brokeback Mountain from being an excellent film. That said, I didn't want to stop watching at any point once I realized that the slow pace seemed intentional. I suppose I'd have to recommend it, if for nothing else than to see what all the hoopla is about.

Just don't expect an excellent film. Be content with a "pretty good, but could have been great" movie that will stick with you for a long time.

You'll wish you knew how to quit it.

Visual Language In Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

This isn't a review per se, and it definitely isn't written by me. But I thought this blog could open itself up to critical analysis, both from myself and from others.

http://www.cineobscure.com/visual-language-raiders-of-the-lost-ark/

This chap (or chapette, I suppose) has deconstructed one of the less remembered moments from the first Indiana Jones movie, and as someone who's taken classes that delve into film analysis, I think this article opens our eyes up to the unconscious ways that filmic vision guides our understanding of film.

Interested to know what you think...