Prometheus

I have something of a soft spot for science fiction and fantasy films. I'm always intrigued by them even if all evidence points to the result being less than stellar. Ridley Scott's Alien is one of the most fundamentally sound science fiction and horror films in existence so naturally it provides lots of intrigue into the happenings of Prometheus knowing that its part of the same franchise. Unlike the Star Wars prequels however, don't expect this to be a game of connect the dots. It successfully stands on its own and creates intrigue with original material.

The title Prometheus of course ties in the Greek titan who was punished for bringing fire to man. In the film, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and the crew of the ship Prometheus travel to a distant moon to discover the origins of mankind, but like the titan of myth they are punished for their well meaning attempt as they discover that the conditions are less than friendly.

The focus on the origin of man rides the line very well between religion and science, even bringing up the two in dialogue and successfully including all audience members by explaining why both sides of the debate should find interest in the endeavor. It reminds me of Brian De Palma's 2000 film Mission to Mars which also attempted to tackle the origin of life on Earth question but did so in a very frustratingly simple way. Prometheus walks on comparable turf with its topic but achieves a higher level of intellect and originality.

Similar to the original Alien film, unanswered questions enhance the mystery however in Prometheus some of the unanswered questions create confusion and frustration. An android named David is probably the most interesting character but his motives are never clear throughout the film. He is played by Michael Fassbender in a soulless manner that is more reminiscent of the replicants in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (supposedly this was Fassbender's intention). It was clear in both Alien and Aliens whether the androids were villainous or helpful but David's actions seem to contradict each other at times and I walked out of the theatre feeling like I never really grasped his nature.

Other behaviors and reactions by characters come off as awkward and illogical, which unfortunately taints the value of the mystery and mythology that the filmmakers are trying to create. It is refreshing that Prometheus requires us to actually digest its material, a far cry from typical summer flicks (especially ones that claim to be the fifth installment of a long franchise), and it leaves us with promise of a sequel that will hopefully present the same thrilling lore with an improved structure.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II

For the second time this summer we have a movie with "Part II" in the title. Just goes to show how prevalent franchises have become. However, this time the "Part II" is driven by narrative necessity and not bankability (although it will undoubtedly cash in a fortune). This is by far David Yates' best achievement in the "Potter" series as it maintains a delicate balance between poignant drama and riveting action flick.

Overall though, I have come to the realization that the Potter filmmakers, including "Deathly Hallows: Part II," seem to suffer from a fear of dialogue. Since "Prisoner of Azkaban," this series has omitted enough compelling conversation to fill the Great Hall in Hogwarts. Scenes that carry on for entire chapters have been whittled down to a matter of seconds...the skeleton of the stories has been left in tact but there's very little meat. The most crucial omissions came in "Half-Blood Prince," where we should have been given more knowledge of Voldemort's past than the just the minimum to further the story. I'm not talking 10 or even 5 minutes per conversation here but merely lines that dispersed throughout each film would add tremendous value. Key bits of knowledge that rooted the books so powerfully in my imagination are ignored.

In most cases, spoken exposition should be minimized or heavily disguised in films. However in this instance, you're working from not just a successful book, but the biggest cultural phenomenon of this generation. Wouldn't you think audiences would be willing to offer a little more wiggle room in the amount of expository conversation?

Let's look at this from a relative viewpoint. After 10 years and 8 movies the build to this climax should be unmatched. No other film franchise has endured this many episodes with a single underlying arc like this. The battle between Harry and Voldemort is something that we could foresee from the start. It was destined to happen and we just waited as the pieces fell into place. Nine and a half years later it's here, but it doesn't have the poetic grandeur you would expect from something nearly a decade in the making.

To put it in perspective, the first Harry Potter film was released before the first Lord of the Rings, even if only by a month. At the time I saw it in theatres, my family had yet to purchase a DVD player (we bought one a month later). Also, gas was averaging $1.46/gallon; the dollar was trading stronger than the euro; social networking websites were virtually unknown as friendster and myspace hadn't been launched and facebook was still two years away from being thought of; the New England Patriots would soon pull off their first Super Bowl; and Pluto was still a planet!

Will you be moved to the point of tears or even sobbing? It's likely if you're a fan of the saga. The emotions run high but that's attributable to J.K. Rowling's material more than it is the filmmaking. Like the highly acclaimed "Prisoner of Azkaban," this movie benefits greatly from its source. Unfortunately though, not even the source material is fully utilized. Rowling makes many Christian allusions in her book that are blatantly altered or omitted, such as one line that likened to Harry to a lamb and had no business being changed (I'll leave it at that to avoid spoilers). No matter what your faith may be, these references are of literary value and add tremendous depth to the material.

"Deathly Hallows: Part II" is a solid achievement, probably the best in the franchise but this is a franchise that has only been good and failed to achieve greatness. I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with the film series, which is not a position anyone wants their movie to be in. It means that despite my effort and strong desire to love your movie, you didn't quite reach your potential. Much has been accomplished in these nine and a half years, but much has been unfulfilled as well.

P.S. I greatly appreciated the 3D and thought that the depth it created enhanced many of the scenes
P.S.S. I don't think this movie will attain a Best Picture nomination as some predict. I do think it will get nods in Art Direction, Visual Effects, and Makeup (possibly sound too, but those categories can be tough to predict as theatres vary in their sound quality)

Cars 2

Pixar has created a remarkable shift in animation over the course of the last decade. Previous expectations in the medium included simpler writing that relied more on its characters to make an impression and visual artistry to tell most of the story for us. Pitches were made via storyboards rather than treatments. The power lied within the idea and the idea flourished at the hands of the animators (and in the case of the Disney Renaissance era, the music). However, Pixar has built its success in the writing process with strong character-driven works of literature. "Toy Story" became the first animated feature to be nominated for an Original Screenplay Oscar in 1995 and, with "Toy Story 3," 6 of Pixar's last 7 films have had their screenplays nominated for an Oscar. Take a guess at which of their offspring kept it from being a perfect 7 straight?

"Cars" was more along the lines of a film Pixar might have done in the late 90's while they were still testing the waters of feature length CGI animation. Its story had moral value but it just didn't have the literary clout that "Finding Nemo" and "The Incredibles" had established before it. The dialogue wasn't as mature and the emotions weren't as potent. "Cars 2" follows along similar lines and overwhelms us by adapting many elements of our world into the world of the cars. In a casino, the cars are seen rolling a pair of fuzzy dice and in London that big famous clock tower is now called Big Bentley. These bits may be clever and amusing, but it's relatively shallow entertainment. DreamWorks Animation has proven their capability for wit in many films, but only a few of those have stood the test of time.

Amongst Pixar's films, the plot here ranks right behind "The Incredibles" as we get to enjoy an intricately laid out spy thriller but the character development stands dead last. The "Cars" franchise seems to suffer from relatively stock characters. They don't root themselves in our imaginations the way Woody, Buzz, Marlin, Dori, Carl Frederickson, Russell and even Doug the Dog do. Mater takes center stage and he's just as funny as you expect him to be but there is not as much depth to his existence. He is a simple-minded character but so was WALL-E and that didn't stop him from being a complex creation.

The Cars universe takes a few more liberties than Pixar's other formations. Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Monster's Inc, Finding Nemo, and Ratatouille explore an aspect of the world but still do it in respect to reality. Real life cars exist for the people and without people why do these cars operate? More specifically, why do they have a need for windows or side mirrors if there are no people in them? Our image and perception of this world is projected into a setting where that image is less fitting. Film critic Richard Roeper poses another question: why are there buildings in this movie? Do the cars live in buildings?

It boils down to the fact that we like cars because they can go faster and do whatever other cool stuff our imagination concocts. This movie delivers on that idea and we get some splendid action scenes, including a very exhilarating opening sequence that is sure to impress. But it's all short-lived. "Cars 2" is fun to watch but there's little to digest afterwards.

The Hangover Part II

The best thing about The Hangover Part II is that it provides us with an appreciation for just how extraordinarily clever and well structured the original was. Think about the premise of the 2009 film (group of guys go to Vegas, drink, wake up the next morning and can't remember anything that happened) and how simple and unimaginative it would sound to you if someone was explaining it without any of the trailers for visual support. Even the title doesn't suggest anything special. Your expectations would have likely landed on the same level of achievement where Part II sits. It is an example of the trap of mediocrity that Part I could have easily fallen into but instead miraculously excelled beyond our wildest imaginations.

The obvious issue is that we're watching the same story unfold with main points of interest running parallel to the first movie. There's the set up where our characters can't remember anything from the night before and they are missing 16-year-old Teddy, who they were suppose to be spending time with simply roasting marshmallows. Immediately they think of the roof, but it doesn't turn out to be that easy (surprise!). They embark on their journey and from there you don't even have to predict what happens because a prediction requires some degree of uncertainty. You can just take the original, which you've watched 10 times already, subtract the tiger, the baby and the cop car, then add a monkey and one interesting car chase sequence and you've got your movie.

I'm not even ashamed to give away certain plot points, like Stu finding himself unwillingly being unfaithful to his fiance with a stripper or Alan revealing that he was the one to accidently drug everyone, because the exact same events already happened the previous time! Speaking of the character Alan, don't expect him to be the comedic hinge this time around. In Part I, his naivety could be relied on for some of the best laughs you can get from a movie because we knew that he didn't know any better (as Stu aptly put: "Don't the beard fool you, he is a child!"), but on this go around he comes off as a jerk most of the time and it taints any of the humor. Chow is another phenomenally entertaining character who is simply stretched thin. Ken Jeong may be brilliant as the character but the script doesn't match up to his delivery.

What's more is the filmmakers even used Bryan Callen, who played Eddie in the first film ("They shot Eddie!"), as an entirely different, and much less memorable, character named Samir. Doesn't that violate some sort of physical law? Just because the setting is in Bangkok doesn't mean it's another universe where people can appear as someone different.

Anything fresh about The Hangover Part II is far and few between. It violates our suspension of disbelief by asking us to believe these characters went through this event twice. It fails to not only do much of anything new, but it fails miserably at the exact same tricks that worked so well before. For instance, in the latter half of the movie, Stu proceeds to serenade us again with a summary of their plight but his lyrics have followed suit with the rest of the writing. The tagline recited by several characters states that "Bangkok has them now..." and for all I'm concerned it can keep them.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

I am willing to put up with this once. If this series is going to continue, the inevitable truth is that Cpt. Jack needs to be phased out. He is a character that will hold a place in cinematic history (thanks to Johnny Depp's brilliant interpretation) not just as the most famous pirate on film, but as one of the best comedic characters of all time. However, there is still a limit to my tolerance of his antics. He can only get away with managing to single-handedly tie up a group of British soldiers so many times. Without a fresher set of characters to carry us through, this series will become exhausting. Some will say that it already has, but I was willing to endure this 4th installment with its enjoyable use of mythology and a few new set pieces.

Rob Marshall takes the reins from Gore Verbinski and brings a slightly fresher take. Had he done "Curse of the Black Pearl" I'm not certain that his style would have made that film as appealing as what it was, but now that the franchise has been firmly established this became more of an exercise in plug-and-play than artistic creation. Marshall's work ranges from the 2002 Best Picture recipient, "Chicago," to the flop that was "Nine" in 2009. Fortunately for Marshall he doesn't have to worry about a flop here, at least financially.

I did miss the usually gorgeous cinematography of Dion Beebe, who has worked with Marshall on his past films. Darius Wolski's work is appreciated as it has been in all the previous 'Pirates'...but I feel that Marshall's potential as a director is restrained a bit without Beebe (who worked on "Green Lantern" last year instead).

Marshall did, however, bring along Penelope Cruz, one of his actresses from "Nine" (and one of that film's Oscar nominations), who really adds some energy to the show (and Jack's libido) as Angelica. Much like her Oscar-winning role in "Vicky Christina Barcelona," she is a very intimidating figure but yet manages to swing it in a humorous manner. Needless to say, I'd put my money on Angelica to take out Elizabeth Swann in a brawl.

I appreciated the use of mermaids as very deadly creatures, for it aligns more accurately with myth, whereas most film portrayals go down a docile path. Instead of collecting human gadgets as Ariel did (I secretly wish there had been some sort of partial reference to Ariel in the course of the movie), these creatures collect the humans themselves by shooting seaweed reminiscent of Spider-Man's web and then dragging their victims underwater.  One of our side stories features a bond between a mermaid captured by Blackbeard's crew and Philip, a missionary also being held captive by Blackbeard. Philip brings with him lots of talk about Christianity, which is something interestingly new in the previously religious-free 'Pirates' universe, but on the whole his character serves the story well.

At times, "On Stranger Tides" seems to be lackluster, as if it exists just because it can (and to make insane profits). Even Geoffrey Rush's Barbosa has far less presence as a character, whereas previously he was a highlight. There's a good amount of work to be done if Disney is going to manage to create a new trilogy here. 'Pearl' gave us a lot to build from for future films, but 'Tides' doesn't exactly provide a foundation for the future nor does it leave us thirsty for much more. Expect a 5th movie, but unless major restructuring begins to occur, pray to avoid a 6th.

Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go is a very thoughtful piece of work that makes you acutely aware of your existence. It's very easy, especially in youth, to forget that existence on this planet is terminable. It's the only way to truly live for we would drive ourselves crazy if we constantly concerned ourselves with death. It therefore creates a great deal of friction to be thinking about the impending doom of these characters, who are cloned only to have their organs harvested in early adulthood.

The whole time, I couldn't help but wonder why on earth the characters would not just run away? Once they knew their allotted purpose in life and once they left the preparatory school they grew up in, what kept them from running off into the world and establishing an alternate identification? It's rather clear that they, as clones, have the same feelings that "originals" have and the same need to find a place in the world so why would they conform to a system that suppresses everything.

They take pride in successfully donating, often measuring how well they have done after their first or second or even third donation (one thing that confused me is that it was never addressed which organs were being donated because in reality that would determine how many donations you survived). They worry about "completing," or dying, but don't seem to fight for living. It's not until the end when Kathy (Carey Mulligan) expresses that "we all complete" that I finally connected with the mentality that allowed these characters to accept their fate so willingly. It's true that we must all accept our inevitable death but personally I couldn't do that unless I knew I gave every shot I had at life.

A key objective for the characters becomes the desire to attain a deferral. The very goal of obtaining a "deferral," which would allow them to put off their organ donations until later in life, proves their want for more than what has been allotted to them. It's frustrating how there seems to be no hint of resistance.While this story probably comes off beautifully on the pages of a book, when you see the characters on screen it's more difficult to not scream for them to do something to fight back! It pains me to say that even Michael Bay's The Island took a similar premise and had its characters fight for survival (no, that doesn't make it a better film).

Never Let Me Go will have you contemplating your mortality in a very thoughtful manner. It's a very interesting coming of age story that for me is simply restrained by an inability to fully buy into the lack of a natural drive for survival. Then again, I suppose one can argue that the characters are clones and therefore don't behave entirely natural, but that's just making up explanations.

Black Swan

"Black Swan" is to Swan Lake what "Shakespeare in Love" is to Romeo and Juliet. In both, we have a character striving to succeed at their art and in the process lives a life that parallels their work. Shakespeare's work became a result of his life (according to the film) but Nina's life results from her work. We are essentially watching an adaptation of Swan Lake with characters that happen to be performing Swan Lake. The story is taken to more depth and explores the idea of obsession, not simply career obsession but an obsession of breaking free from confinement. That is the journey that our heroine embarks on.

Nina is restrained professionally, emotionally, sexually and even physically in many ways. She lives with her mother and sleeps in a room saturated in pink and suffocated by stuffed animals. Her mother (an excellent Barbara Hershey) cares for her as if she is still a teenager. Nina seems to exemplify innocence in every aspect. She is soft spoken and often submissive. Although she says that she is not a virgin, it's reasonable to believe that perhaps she is not entirely truthful on the subject.

Natalie Portman is ideal for this sort of over-the-top performance. Nina is a well of emotions ready to erupt and Portman manages to come off as dramatic but yet subdued. However, Aronofsky is the true star here. His visual style utilizes tight camera work on Portman, disabling our ability to know what's going on around her. It's often dizzying and claustrophobic. We feel lost and absorbed into this world much like our main character. She is career-driven, gradually getting lost in her ambitions, and we are engulfed in that obsession with her.

Additionally, we get a fascinating glance at the world of ballet and the daily grind that the performers must endure. It's not made out to be something beautiful for Aronofsky doesn't allow us that luxury. It's more of a grueling career and a way to make a living. Any young girls hoping to become ballerinas will likely reconsider if shown "Black Swan."

This is a remarkably intelligent film. Some might be distracted by the elements of horror and sensuality, writing them off as cheap instruments, but they are merely the surface of a film that provides ample beauty in the form of a dark and uncertain world. Like a good ballet, "Black Swan" will leave you replaying the scenes over and over again. Everything builds at an accelerating rate to a finale that will have you on the edge of your seat. The film's final line can be used to describe itself as well: perfection.