Urban Legends: Final Cut (2000)

The first Urban Legend film ended with the death of the serial killer shrouded in mystery clearly pointing at a sequel. Urban Legends: Final Cut completely ignores that scenario (except until the very end) and comes up with a new one that is a rehash of the original film, but arguably executed slightly better.

In this film, Amy Mayfield (Jennifer Morrison) is a film student at Alpine University trying to come up with a thesis project. Given that her father is a famous director, there are heavy expectations placed on her. She finally decides on a project featuring a serial killer whose modus operandi is based on urban legends, myths where young college students are killed in hideous and gruesome ways.

Needless to say, this idea takes on a life of its own as people around Amy start dying. As in the Scream films, there are a lot of red herrings as to the identity of the real killer. In this film, the ending was one of the more surprising ones for me (though not completely a shock).

The suspense level in the film is fairly high (thanks in part of the surreal visual effects) and perhaps the cleverest aspect of the movie is that it dismisses the events in the first one as an urban legend (also the multiple choice involving guns at the end is amusing). The acting is passable. Urban Legends: Final Cut is a decent time killer and worth the matinee fare on the big screen. I don't recommend renting it though, unless you're a fan of the self-referential slash/gore horror genre. 

Source   Eus.vn  Dalatit.com

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

There are few roles in which I like Johnny Depp, but every time he plays an off-beat character, I really enjoy his performance. The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl is one such occasion.

Here Depp stars as Jack Sparrow, the famous pirate captain of the Black Pearl who was abandoned on an island by his first mate Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). Through luck, Jack manages to survive and ends up on Port Royal in the Caribbean where he encounters an ongoing soap opera featuring Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightly) the governor's daughter; Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), the son of a former pirate but taken in by the governor, and Norrington (Jack Davenport), the commander in charge of the armed forces on the island who is set to marry the governor's daughter. Jack not only has to deal with the governor and the commander who consider him a thieving pirate, but also with Barbossa and his crew who have now acquired the infamous curse of the Black Pearl.

One of the best aspects of the film is Depp's walk, which people say I mimicked when I was in Thailand and handed a drink which I just took a sip from but made me feel really woozy (there are stories of people drugging foreigners to take their money but fortunately I was with friends). It completely dominates the film. There's also a clever, but predictable, way out of the situation that Jack ends up being thrust in (namely, how does one kill things that can't die). In general the movie is characterised by situations where at first Jack appears to be doing something stupid but in reality is doing something very smart. This leads to some comic relief.

The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was a surprisingly good movie, much better than I expected. I highly recommend checking it out on the big screen.

Source   Eus.vn  Dalatit.com

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

The second Harry Potter film is better than the first, not because it is true to the book's story, but because it is true to the book's atmosphere.

The first Harry Potter movie was very good, but it stayed so close to the book that it spread itself too thin trying to get at every single detail. This adaptation of Joanne Rowling's second book (which I think is the weakest among the entire series) does indeed have all the good parts but focuses primarily on the main storyline. The film skips a lot of the background details, which makes for effective pacing, while taking liberties with the story to fit the big screen.

Here Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliff) and his friends, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) once again encounter Voldemort (Christian Coulson) as a memory that has the power to become real. Voldemort opens the Chamber of Secrets freeing a fearsome Basilisk, an Alien-like snake that can kill with a glance. The snake's attacks threaten to close down Hogwarts School and Harry must stop them or be sent home to live with his foster parents (you can understand his motivation when you meet them at the introduction of every book/film).

The film is darker than the first, with scenes that are definitely creepy: Harry's encounter with a strange hand in Diagon Alley, Ron and Harry getting stuck in a willow tree that attacks them with its branches, Harry and Ron escaping from the giant spiders, and Harry's final battle with the Basilisk. There are also some Orwellian themes touched upon here, including Dobby the Elf's masochism and slavery, the ideal of some of the "Purebloods" to cleanse Hogwarts of the "Mudbloods".

The familiar high-profile cast do a fine job, with the newcomers, Kenneth Branagh as the pompous (and hilarious) new Dark Arts teacher Gilderoy Lockhart, and Jason Isaacs as an evil-oozing Lucius Malfoy, particularly standing out. While the child actors carry their roles well, some of them do tend to overact. The score does a great highlighting the suspense, which there exists a lot of.

The set design and accompanying cinematography and production deserves a paragraph of its own. The integration of computer generated images and the actors is very seamless. The Hogwarts school, the surrounding countryside, and the brief Quidditch match are all rendered with amazing reality.

If the first film was the setup, this one's definitely the payoff. Even though I know what happens next, I can't wait to see it.

Source   Eus.vn  Dalatit.com

Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World

Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World is essentially a rehash of the original. Man messes with nature. Things go wrong. People get eaten. The major difference is in the last part which is quite sophomoric and not at all fitting of Steven Spielberg.

It is four years after the horrific disaster that happened at Jurassic Park. Again, we meet the good doctor, John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), no longer at the head of his company but still pulling a few strings behind the back of his son, Peter (Arliss Howard). The original base camp of operations set up by Hammond on Isla Sorna, Site B, still exists and there are living colonies of dinosaurs there. Hammond, who has gone from capitalist to naturalist, wants to observe the creatures in their natural habitat and put to rest years of speculation about the lives of the great animals.

Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) is asked to come on board the team sent to scout the island where the dinosaurs live. He refuses until he learns that his girlfriend, paleontologist Dr. Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore) is already alone on the island. He then becomes part of a rescue mission including himself, photographer Nick Van Owen (Vince Vaughn), equipment specialist Eddie Carr (Richard Schiff), and his daughter Kelly Curtis (Vanessa Lee Chester) who stowed away in the back of the van.

Besides the animals who would like to have humans for din-din, Malcolm's team has to cope with Peter Hammond and Roland Tembo (Pete Postlethwaite). Tembo's goal is to kill a Tyrannosaurus Rex to prove man is the greatest hunter. Peter wants to capture the animals and bring them to the mainland to create "Jurassic Park, San Diego". Bad idea.

Spielberg and company, clearly realising they had a winning formula the last time around, don't deviate very much from it. By the time the Tyrannosaurus Rex gets to San Diego, I couldn't help but thinking I had just seen Jurassic Park again.

What is missing in this movie compared to the original is the intellectual aspect. There's no talk of chaos, no background about how the animals were bred and raised, no delving into evolution about how the animals could overcome their lysine deficiency, and no "this is Unix, I know this stuff!" Viewers are simply expected to have this knowledge, and this means more time for bone crunching effects. As a result, we have a movie that is darker and gorier than the original.

The movie is entertaining and has some interesting messages about cruelty to animals and leaving nature alone to do as it will. See it for the matinee price but don't spend the big bucks on this one. 

Source   Eus.vn  Dalatit.com

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to translate a book into a movie. The problem has to do with one's imagination: words in a book conjure up images that are highly personal and subjective, and any attempt by a third party to lend form to them ends up disappointing. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is no exception in this regard, but fortunately, the imagery presented is awesome and wondrous in its own right.

The film is made strictly by the book: Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), a young boy mistreated by his foster family, learns that he is special and comes of age... in the Hogwart's School of Magic (!) where he learns wizardry, plays Quidditch and fights an evil despotic wizard (who does not turn out to be his father).

While the movie stays fastidiously true to Joanne Rowling's book, perhaps one of the best adaptations ever, the adage that a picture is worth a thousand words doesn't hold true here. For the most part, from the initial victory of the baby Harry Potter upto the Quidditch match, a lot of the details are skipped. What we're presented with is a jump from one scene to another (sometimes too quickly) that illustrates with painstaking effort the magical realm that Rowling has constructed in her series. For example, while the opening sequence shows Professor Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris) turning out the lights in a street, Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) changing to her true form from being a cat, and Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) bringing Harry on his flying motorcycle, we're not really shown the celebration of Lord Voldemort's fall. This isn't criticism but just an observation; in fact, I think doing this is especially okay if one is familiar with the Harry Potter books, but it does impart a sense of urgency in the beginning portions of the film.

I marvelled at how technology enabled the film makers to make possible the wonders of Harry's world, including Diagon Alley and Gringotts Bank, the moving pictures, Hogwarts Castle, the Sorting Hat (Leslie Phillips), the ghosts in the Castle (including a cameo by John Cleese), Fluffy the three-headed dog, the ugly troll, and so on. I believe that it is technology that makes the Harry Potter film authentic, in the same way as in the X-Men or the How the Grinch Stole Christmas movies, by letting at least the imagination of a few people come to life as vibrantly as possible. Most of what I imagined and what was projected on the screen weren't really colinear, but it was still cool, incredibly so at times, to watch.

The movie, however, picked up with the first Quidditch match where Harry, on a broomstick, plays the position of a Seeker after the Golden Snitch, a particularly hard-to-catch ball, which is key to winning a game. The inspired depiction of the game meshed with my imagination extremely well, and from there on, the story of Harry's second encounter with the dark Lord Voldemort (Richard Bremmer) enfolded in a less fragmented and more cohesive manner. The final confrontation, and what Harry and his friends have to do get there, is a delight to watch.

For those paying attention, the main change from the book has to do with how Hagrid's dragon is disposed of and the resulting consequences. The ghosts also play a smaller role here though given the movie's running time, I'm not surprised parts like those were omitted.

The actors playing the young leads give decent performances, with Emma Watson as the know-it-all Hermione Granger standing out. The adult actors aren't given much time but they all present solid performances. The score by John Williams is simple but effective. The set design, cinematography, and visuals are impressive. Director Chris Columbus does a great job of bringing to the big screen the Enid Blyton-like atmosphere that Rowling's books exude.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a great movie to watch. I viewed it from the perspective of someone who is intimately familiar with the books, and I believe there is strong merit to watching it being completely unfamiliar with the story, a choice I do not have given that I've read the four books a few times. Definitely check it out on the big screen and make sure you goto the bathroom before. 

 

Source   Eus.vn  Dalatit.com

 

Spiderman 3

The Spiderman movies have definitely changed the story from the comic book. Watching the first of the film , I wasn't happy with the depiction of Peter Parker as more self-centred and vain, which is unusually in the context of the comic books. At this moment, Peter Park goes through so much crap that it's a wonder he doesn't commit suicide (it's kind of like Jack Bauer in 24).

Some factual points that were changed, which I'll agree was necessary to make a decent movie, are as follows: The Venom costume is an alien being acquired during the Secret Wars battle with the Beyonder (which was one of the best "cosmic" series Marvel has put out). Spiderman doesn't want to kill villains; even when he is beaten and pulverised, he holds back from taking the ultimate step (in fact, it is rare to show people dying in the comic books). Harry Osborn is more like the depiction of Normie Osborn (the son of Harry and Liz Allan) who is friends with the daughter of Spiderman (Spidergirl). Gwen Stacy is killed by the first Green Goblin (Norman Osborn). The people of New York have rarely been on the side of Spiderman. J. Jonah Jameson has always had a point in saying that it is people like Spiderman who create the villains. And so on.

It's difficult for me to reconcile what I know of Spiderman's history with a movie story that does its best and I admire that. A problem with the movies is that they can't intersect with the other characters from the Marvel Universe. It would be great to have movies like the Secret Wars or the Infinity Gauntlet, War, and Crusade series where a bunch of the Marvel superheroes get together and the stories make more sense (for example, explaining the origin of the Venom symbiote), but I guess that would be a logistic and budgetary nightmare.

Halfway through the movie, the story gets in line with what you'd expect from the book. The rejected symbiote bonds with a humiliated Eddie Brock to become Venom, one of the coolest villains to be introduced in the later years. The Sandman is a villain who is ambiguous. And Spiderman has a run of bad luck and is pummeled constantly but triumphs in the end against all odds.

I once wrote a review of the Batman series where I connected them to a lot of the comic books (I own a huge number of Spiderman comic books) and some other reviewer criticised my review. The perspective I offer is fairly unique: it is based on an experience I can't ignore or negative, and I think it helps place the movie in context of a long history of the books. So if you're interested in the saga of Spiderman beyond what you see in the three movies, I recommend buying some of the great story arcs of Spiderman just to see how complicated and mythological the creations are. 

 

Source   Eus.vn  Dalatit.com

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is better than its predecessor, and that's a rare occurrence when it comes to Hollywood films.

The story begins where the first film left off: Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) continues on his quest to Mordor to destroy the powerful ring in the same fires of Mount Doom from which it was created. Aiding him, directly and indirectly are, fellow Hobbits Samwise Gamjee (Sean Astin), Meriadoc Brandybuck (Dominic Monaghan) and Peregrin Took (Billy Boyd); Gandalf (now) the White (Ian McKellen); Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen); Legolas Greenleaf the elf (Orlando Bloom); Gimli the Dwarf (John Rhys-Davies); and Treebeard the Ent (voice of John Rhys-Davies). Against him are Saruman the White (Christopher Lee) and Sauron the Dark Lord, whose spirit is intertwined with the ring. And a creature whose intentions are ambiguous (quite literally) is Smeagol/Gollum (voiced by Andy Serkis).

The main goal of this episode is to showcase the unleashing of the Saruman's forces to conquer middle earth. The movie actually ends on a positive note, with our friends having the upper hand in the two epic battles--between Saruman's 10,000 strong army and the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Rohan at their Helm's Deep fortress; and between the Ents and Sarmuan's war machine in Isengard--as well as several minor ones.

The cinematography, along with the computer graphics, is awe-inspiring. Gollum is animated brilliantly, so much that I thought he was more convincing than any of the real actors. The CGI in general is state-of-the-art; the only time I could clearly discern the computer generated images was when they had the battle with the Wargs, There is a lot of humour in the film, which shows that nothing in life is worth taking too seriously. The soundtrack, which is reminiscent of old Westerns, is excellent.

It's hard to fault a film that is as well-made as this one. In my view, The Two Towers is best judged on its own merits. While it would help to be familiar with Tolkien's works (including The Hobbit, which really fills in a great deal of the background material), this tale can stand on its own if you use your imagination.

The reason Harry Potter, Star Wars, Star Trek, are such big successes is because of the mythology they create. The Lord of the Rings, which predates these works, is no exception and is one of the richest. The film itself can be described only in superlatives. Go see it. 

 

Source   Eus.vn  Dalatit.com

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is an old adage that has been the basis for many a story. It is the primary plot device behind John Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings classic. Written in 1954-55, with origins dating back to 1937, the first of the three movie installments, which have already been filmed, tries to stay true to the mystical world present in the book. The resulting effort is a definite success.

The star of the story, and the film, is not a person, but an object, a ring. The ring allows one to control a host of other rings handed down to the different peoples of Middle Earth: three rings belong to the immortal elves; seven to the dwarfs; and nine rings to mortal humans. The ring that rules all the others, forged using the fires of Mount Doom by the evil Wizard Sauron (Sala Baker), gives its holder so much power that it corrupts all those who seek to wear it, even the purest.

Of course, there are some peoples that are more pure than others. Humans generally seem incapable of wearing it without being corrupted by its influence (no surprise there). But there exists a diminutive people, the Hobbits, who do seem at least capable of carrying it without being polluted too much. It falls upon one Hobbit, Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), to take the ring to Mt. Doom, which is the only place where it can be destroyed.

Frodo is aided in his quest by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), the elf Legolas Greenleaf (Armando Bloom), the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), two humans Strider aka Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Boromir (Sean Bean), and three other Hobbits including Frodo's friend Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin). The story chronicles how Frodo, being a reluctant hero, travels through mysterious and dangerous lands of breathtaking beauty, and fights terrific monsters in the context of awesome towers and citadels, to achieve his goal.

Perhaps one of the most visionary aspects about Tolkien's work is how he set the stage for a Dungeons and Dragons style video-game. Director Peter Jackson imbibes to the film the same feel present the book, in terms of traversing a diverse variety of landscapes, while encountering a diverse variety of creatures, friend and foe alike. Watching the film, it's easy to become mesmerised by the fantasy that is unfolding purely based on the cinematography.

Like with Joanne Rowling's Harry Potter (or for that matter, Stephen King's It), this film does not live up what I imagined, but it does a great job of presenting what Jackson and his co-workers imagined. The special effects are spectacular and meticulously done, perhaps even better than those observed in Harry Potter. There are no cop-outs here and every place that it matters, the effort and the expense have been evidently put in. The soundtrack sometimes overwhelms the dialogue, of which there is a lot, interspersed between the action sequences. Do not miss seeing this on the big screen. This is how movies should be made.

Source   Eus.vn  Dalatit.com