Over the past few weeks I've been talking with Skeptical Inquirer Magazine about writing reviews for skeptics on their website. I'm elated to say the kinks have been worked out and it's official; I'm their voice in the dark (theater). This is a fantastic opportunity for me to write for people like me and I couldn't be more excited that it is with SI. It's more than a little embarassing how much I've been dancing around my house, the store, in bed, at the DMV, and in my car.
This is a huge opportunity for me, no only because this jumps me from strictly online reviews to potentially print but it also puts my foot in the door to write about things that really matter to me in the future. I am by far the most average person at the magazine, which is mostly written by phd's, professors, and well respected scientists, etc. It essentially spring boards me into a new league of both writers and skeptics. It is an amazing jump in status, credibility and opportunity. I'm psyched.
I hope you read some of my reviews or even subscribe to the magazine.
http://www.csicop.org/publications
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Monday, November 9, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
A Christmas Carol - More Like a Christmas Crisis
Animated and in 3D, Charles Dickens’ beloved holiday story, A Christmas Carol, spills onto screens again. A garish demonstration of the capabilities of the new 3D technology, the story only pops out when it possesses an opportunity to show off the technology.
Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is a miserly old man who holds tight each penny in his pocket. After his business partner, Marley (Gary Oldman) dies, Scrooge loses all perspective, turning even surlier than he was before. Devoid of all Christmas spirit, Scrooge tries to drain the spirit out of everyone around him. The spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come (All voiced and drawn to look like Jim Carrey) warn him about the consequences of inhospitality and holding on to his money too tightly.
Robert Zemeckis should hold his head in shame for such a disgusting display of technology driven plot. He both “wrote” and “directed” this version of “A Christmas Carol.” A responsible director-writer would make Marley, the Spirits and Scrooge feel like they within hands reach by re-arranging the 3D to places in the plot that are enhanced by the extra dimension. Instead, he created a masturbatory mess.
The plot is carved back to the bare minimum and stripped of all opportunity to connect with the audience emotionally. In fact, Zemeckis relies heavily on that fact that A Christmas Carol is so ubiquitous that he commits the sin of Cliff’s Notes. Taken on its face, having no prior knowledge of A Christmas Carol, a viewer would see it as shallow and infuriating. The plot is replaced with scenes meant to show off the remarkable 3D technology. 3D Scenes drone on twice as long as the plot they are supposed to enhance. The floor drops away, fingers are pointed at the audience, and characters are dangled from different angles. In fact, no opportunity to sacrifice the plot for the technology was missed.
Even still, the 3D is so good, it might have been fun to watch this tech demo if the voice acting was varied, interesting and sincere. It wasn’t. Jim Carrey plays Scrooge in all five stages of his life, as well as the Ghost of Christmas Past, Present and Future and he does it terribly. Scrooge lacks any depth, has no resonance, all changes seen seem forced and shallow. The Ghost of Christmas Past can only be appreciated by a herpetologist or a speech pathologist and I am neither of those. The Ghost of Christmas Present’s insipid laughter made me consider leaving the theater, but that would mean abandoning my mother-in-law in her seat, and even I’m not that mean. The only saving grace in Carrey’s performance is that the Ghost of Christmas Future barely talks.
Radio Disney brought teams of children to see A Christmas Carol at the press screening I attended. There were scenes that frightened the tiny so badly that they began to cry, scream and cuddle up in the arms of their mothers. There were times during A Christmas Carol I considered jumping into my mother-in-law’s lap and cry like a baby.
This may go down as a rumble worthy topic at family holiday parties because my hubby’s-mummy liked A Christmas Carol. I suggest instead of wasting money seeing such a despicable waste of a classic story, spend the same money seeing the play at a local theater.
Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is a miserly old man who holds tight each penny in his pocket. After his business partner, Marley (Gary Oldman) dies, Scrooge loses all perspective, turning even surlier than he was before. Devoid of all Christmas spirit, Scrooge tries to drain the spirit out of everyone around him. The spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come (All voiced and drawn to look like Jim Carrey) warn him about the consequences of inhospitality and holding on to his money too tightly.
Robert Zemeckis should hold his head in shame for such a disgusting display of technology driven plot. He both “wrote” and “directed” this version of “A Christmas Carol.” A responsible director-writer would make Marley, the Spirits and Scrooge feel like they within hands reach by re-arranging the 3D to places in the plot that are enhanced by the extra dimension. Instead, he created a masturbatory mess.
The plot is carved back to the bare minimum and stripped of all opportunity to connect with the audience emotionally. In fact, Zemeckis relies heavily on that fact that A Christmas Carol is so ubiquitous that he commits the sin of Cliff’s Notes. Taken on its face, having no prior knowledge of A Christmas Carol, a viewer would see it as shallow and infuriating. The plot is replaced with scenes meant to show off the remarkable 3D technology. 3D Scenes drone on twice as long as the plot they are supposed to enhance. The floor drops away, fingers are pointed at the audience, and characters are dangled from different angles. In fact, no opportunity to sacrifice the plot for the technology was missed.
Even still, the 3D is so good, it might have been fun to watch this tech demo if the voice acting was varied, interesting and sincere. It wasn’t. Jim Carrey plays Scrooge in all five stages of his life, as well as the Ghost of Christmas Past, Present and Future and he does it terribly. Scrooge lacks any depth, has no resonance, all changes seen seem forced and shallow. The Ghost of Christmas Past can only be appreciated by a herpetologist or a speech pathologist and I am neither of those. The Ghost of Christmas Present’s insipid laughter made me consider leaving the theater, but that would mean abandoning my mother-in-law in her seat, and even I’m not that mean. The only saving grace in Carrey’s performance is that the Ghost of Christmas Future barely talks.
Radio Disney brought teams of children to see A Christmas Carol at the press screening I attended. There were scenes that frightened the tiny so badly that they began to cry, scream and cuddle up in the arms of their mothers. There were times during A Christmas Carol I considered jumping into my mother-in-law’s lap and cry like a baby.
This may go down as a rumble worthy topic at family holiday parties because my hubby’s-mummy liked A Christmas Carol. I suggest instead of wasting money seeing such a despicable waste of a classic story, spend the same money seeing the play at a local theater.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Love Happens - Unfortunately
Even motivational speakers can be stricken with bouts of insecurity and Burke is no different. Love Happens’ flat main characters are almost saved by complex and well portrayed secondary characters who steal the scenes whenever they are on screen.
After the death of his wife, Burke (Aaron Eckhart) shares his grief with other people who have lost their loved ones by creating a self help program called A-Okay! While traveling to Seattle for a conference, he meets the beautiful and interesting florist Eloise (Jennifer Aniston) and is instantly struck by her. It isn’t until she sees his interaction with the conference goers that she becomes interested in return. One of the conference goers, Walter (John Carroll Lynch), is drowning in the depths of his grief. Neither Walter nor Burke will admit the extent of the help that they need.
The writing in Love Happens left me feeling jerked about without regard for brain injury that might occur. One minute Burke and Eloise are engaged in a tedious banter of blossoming romance that could make even the most determined insomniac nod off and make the rest of us grind our teeth. Just a second later, there is a poignant interaction between Walter and Burk that reduces the audience to tears. Then, out of nowhere, comes a scene with Burke’s agent, Lane Fucking Marshall (Dan Fogler), that made me want to poke myself in the eye with a coffee stirrer.
In fact, if Love Happens had been exclusively about the emotional struggle that Burke suffered after his wife’s death and the relief he finds from his clients, it might have been a powerful and moving story with lasting impact. Writers Brandon Camp and Mike Thompson couldn’t leave well enough alone and slapped in an unnatural, ineffective, emotionless, pseudo-love-story that turned me off to everything else.
It wasn’t just a failure of writing; Aaron Eckhart and Jennifer Aniston lack the chemistry necessary to make the struggle between the two believable or even palatable. Individually they don’t reach an emotional tentacle out to the audience whenever a secondary character isn’t on screen.
By far the best performance in Love Happens is John Carroll Lynch as the devastated father who lost his son and everything else. He reached into my chest and stole my breath and at times I thought my heart actually tore in two. His story felt so real it was almost tangible and his tears made my shirt wet.
Those moments of deep emotion and undeniably monotonous scenes are sandwiched between endless, unabashed, unashamed brand placement. Eloise obviously works in a florist shop, not because it’s relevant to the story, but because it is a great way to get a huge floral network’s brand in front of the right audience at least ten times during the movie. Burke stays at a nice hotel, not because it’s the best hotel in town, but because we can see their brand all over every wall, in every conference room and in every hallway, even though it adds nothing to the story.
I’d rather watch a ten minute short movie about Burke, Walter and their struggle through grief than a two hour movie that is 90% filler, flowers, marketing and cuddles. On the plus side, your vocabulary will come out bigger than when it went in, if you ignore my warnings and go to this movie anyways.
After the death of his wife, Burke (Aaron Eckhart) shares his grief with other people who have lost their loved ones by creating a self help program called A-Okay! While traveling to Seattle for a conference, he meets the beautiful and interesting florist Eloise (Jennifer Aniston) and is instantly struck by her. It isn’t until she sees his interaction with the conference goers that she becomes interested in return. One of the conference goers, Walter (John Carroll Lynch), is drowning in the depths of his grief. Neither Walter nor Burke will admit the extent of the help that they need.
The writing in Love Happens left me feeling jerked about without regard for brain injury that might occur. One minute Burke and Eloise are engaged in a tedious banter of blossoming romance that could make even the most determined insomniac nod off and make the rest of us grind our teeth. Just a second later, there is a poignant interaction between Walter and Burk that reduces the audience to tears. Then, out of nowhere, comes a scene with Burke’s agent, Lane Fucking Marshall (Dan Fogler), that made me want to poke myself in the eye with a coffee stirrer.
In fact, if Love Happens had been exclusively about the emotional struggle that Burke suffered after his wife’s death and the relief he finds from his clients, it might have been a powerful and moving story with lasting impact. Writers Brandon Camp and Mike Thompson couldn’t leave well enough alone and slapped in an unnatural, ineffective, emotionless, pseudo-love-story that turned me off to everything else.
It wasn’t just a failure of writing; Aaron Eckhart and Jennifer Aniston lack the chemistry necessary to make the struggle between the two believable or even palatable. Individually they don’t reach an emotional tentacle out to the audience whenever a secondary character isn’t on screen.
By far the best performance in Love Happens is John Carroll Lynch as the devastated father who lost his son and everything else. He reached into my chest and stole my breath and at times I thought my heart actually tore in two. His story felt so real it was almost tangible and his tears made my shirt wet.
Those moments of deep emotion and undeniably monotonous scenes are sandwiched between endless, unabashed, unashamed brand placement. Eloise obviously works in a florist shop, not because it’s relevant to the story, but because it is a great way to get a huge floral network’s brand in front of the right audience at least ten times during the movie. Burke stays at a nice hotel, not because it’s the best hotel in town, but because we can see their brand all over every wall, in every conference room and in every hallway, even though it adds nothing to the story.
I’d rather watch a ten minute short movie about Burke, Walter and their struggle through grief than a two hour movie that is 90% filler, flowers, marketing and cuddles. On the plus side, your vocabulary will come out bigger than when it went in, if you ignore my warnings and go to this movie anyways.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Inglourious Basterds Review: Bloody Good
The Inglourious Basterds are sent into occupied France to “kill Nazis”, and killing is what they do; along with everyone else in the movie. Quirky dialogue, multi-dimensional characters, and special attention to the aesthetics wraps the audience in a unique movie-going experience.
Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) assembles a team of Jewish-American soldiers called the Inglourious Basterds, to be dropped into France to commit guerilla attacks on Nazis. In nearby France, perfectly mannered, linguistic master Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Watlz) has been tasked with seeking out and exterminating all of the Jews left in France. It is in this roll that Shosana Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) meets Colonel Landa. It is the crush German war hero Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl) has on Shosana that throws all the characters together in a horrific series of events that only war can justify.
The first ten minutes of Inglourious Basterds will rile even the most stoic. It’s calm dialogue and sparkling appearance drives the overall tension to an almost unmanageable level. By the end of the first scene, I was confused about the morality of the situation, angry at almost all involved, and had given myself sore arms from clenching my fists. Tarantino pulled his line and I was hooked.
There is no shortage of dark in Inglourious Basterds. People get their faces blown off, Wild West techniques of enemy torture are used, and historic sore spots are poked with pointy emotion sticks. Even though scenes erupt into violence with notice and foreshadowing, a gasp could be heard from across the audience. Writer-director Quentin Tarantino doesn’t shy away from exaggerated, unflinching expositions of violence.
Col. Hans Landa, played by Christoph Waltz, is repugnant, ruthless and vicious. His dialogue is frighteningly elegant, and is nearly always disturbingly calm. Yet, every time he is on screen, there is yet another reason to admire him. This adoration left me feeling dirty and a bit disgusted with myself. There is nothing more disturbing than finding something commendable in a character you want so badly to condemn.
Landa, Raine, The Inglourious Basterds, Shosana and Zoller are woven into each other’s lives one string at a time. It isn’t until about halfway through the movie that the audience really understand the scope of their relationship and its consequences. It isn’t until the end of the movie that the true nature of all of the characters is confirmed.
Inglourious Basterds’ cinematography makes it almost possible to smell the blood and perfume. It’s easy to feel like you are actually in the presence of evil or beauty when the camera refuses to look away from the violence or glamour. There is a ruthless use of angles, lighting and shadow to create a world almost impossible to escape.
The graphic depictions of violence might be difficult for many thinner skinned people to handle without complaint. Still, the depth of character, quirky interactions and stunning visuals might win over many people who would otherwise be put off by the violence.
Inglourious Basterds’ unmistakable visual style, off-kilter dialogue, unfolding story line and violence is a feast and an embrace of our savage nature.
Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) assembles a team of Jewish-American soldiers called the Inglourious Basterds, to be dropped into France to commit guerilla attacks on Nazis. In nearby France, perfectly mannered, linguistic master Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Watlz) has been tasked with seeking out and exterminating all of the Jews left in France. It is in this roll that Shosana Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) meets Colonel Landa. It is the crush German war hero Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl) has on Shosana that throws all the characters together in a horrific series of events that only war can justify.
The first ten minutes of Inglourious Basterds will rile even the most stoic. It’s calm dialogue and sparkling appearance drives the overall tension to an almost unmanageable level. By the end of the first scene, I was confused about the morality of the situation, angry at almost all involved, and had given myself sore arms from clenching my fists. Tarantino pulled his line and I was hooked.
There is no shortage of dark in Inglourious Basterds. People get their faces blown off, Wild West techniques of enemy torture are used, and historic sore spots are poked with pointy emotion sticks. Even though scenes erupt into violence with notice and foreshadowing, a gasp could be heard from across the audience. Writer-director Quentin Tarantino doesn’t shy away from exaggerated, unflinching expositions of violence.
Col. Hans Landa, played by Christoph Waltz, is repugnant, ruthless and vicious. His dialogue is frighteningly elegant, and is nearly always disturbingly calm. Yet, every time he is on screen, there is yet another reason to admire him. This adoration left me feeling dirty and a bit disgusted with myself. There is nothing more disturbing than finding something commendable in a character you want so badly to condemn.
Landa, Raine, The Inglourious Basterds, Shosana and Zoller are woven into each other’s lives one string at a time. It isn’t until about halfway through the movie that the audience really understand the scope of their relationship and its consequences. It isn’t until the end of the movie that the true nature of all of the characters is confirmed.
Inglourious Basterds’ cinematography makes it almost possible to smell the blood and perfume. It’s easy to feel like you are actually in the presence of evil or beauty when the camera refuses to look away from the violence or glamour. There is a ruthless use of angles, lighting and shadow to create a world almost impossible to escape.
The graphic depictions of violence might be difficult for many thinner skinned people to handle without complaint. Still, the depth of character, quirky interactions and stunning visuals might win over many people who would otherwise be put off by the violence.
Inglourious Basterds’ unmistakable visual style, off-kilter dialogue, unfolding story line and violence is a feast and an embrace of our savage nature.
Monday, August 17, 2009
One, Two and a Few Sentence Movie Reviews
It has been a crazy couple of weeks and writing has not come easily so I just threw together these short reviews of GI Joe, Julie and Julia, Away we Go, and Aliens in the Attic.
Aliens in the Attic
After an hour of dimwitted dialogue, the alien planet the antagonists hail from becomes a viable option to escape the mind-numbing effects of this movie.
Away We Go
A surprisingly mature look at love, relationships, successes and changes in life with poignant acting that leaves the audience completely satisfied.
Julie and Julia
A sort of sweet movie, that is sort of entertaining with a sort of interesting cast about sort of interesting people.
GI Joe – Rise of the Cobra
When some super weapon is stolen from a battalion of American army soldiers by a woman in 3 inch wedges attached to a low cut, skin tight, patent leather one piece jumper, the GI Joes are assigned to get it back. Nearly every character has a flashback, some have multiple flashbacks. Yeah, that’s pretty much it – that’s the whole thing. GI Joe? More like GI Joke.
Aliens in the Attic
After an hour of dimwitted dialogue, the alien planet the antagonists hail from becomes a viable option to escape the mind-numbing effects of this movie.
Away We Go
A surprisingly mature look at love, relationships, successes and changes in life with poignant acting that leaves the audience completely satisfied.
Julie and Julia
A sort of sweet movie, that is sort of entertaining with a sort of interesting cast about sort of interesting people.
GI Joe – Rise of the Cobra
When some super weapon is stolen from a battalion of American army soldiers by a woman in 3 inch wedges attached to a low cut, skin tight, patent leather one piece jumper, the GI Joes are assigned to get it back. Nearly every character has a flashback, some have multiple flashbacks. Yeah, that’s pretty much it – that’s the whole thing. GI Joe? More like GI Joke.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thirst (Bakjwi) Review - Seat Squirming Sensational
When the Catholic Church in Korea tries to cure a disease, the treatment has unexpected consequences: vampires – of a sort. Unconventional, uncomfortable, shocking, hysterical, and fantastically entertaining, Thirst (Bakjwi) made me squirm with stomach-turning delight.
Unsatisfied with his life, Father Sang-hyeon (Kang-ho Song) agrees to volunteer for a life-threatening medical experiment. The experiment goes as planned but the treatments have a serious side effect for Father Sang-hyeon; it turns him into a vampire with thirsts for more than just blood. The Father does his best to feed his hunger ethically, but eventually, he abandons ethics and begins to make more and more morally ambiguous decisions, the worst of which surrounds his childhood crush, the beautiful, Cinderella-esque, Tae-ju (Ok-vin Kim). Tae-joo has lived with her drunken, slightly masochistic mother-in-law Lady Ra (Hae-sook Kim) and her sniveling, snotty, sickly son Kang-woo (Ha-kyun Shin) since she was a girl.
Thirst does start off slowly and dares the audience to believe that this will be a run of the mill, mystical Catholic-Church-creates-vampires movie. Slowly, the director, actors and writers walk the audience down a seemingly safe path of overplayed mediocrity. It isn’t until I walk directly into their trap that I realized I’d been duped. Not only is Thirst the most original vampire movie I’ve ever seen, it manages to do so while still covering necessary vampire themes and disarms the audience by making their seat feel like it shifted underneath them.
Director and writer Chan-wook Park and writer Seo-Gyeong Jeong never miss an opportunity make the audience squirm in their seats. There are graphic, yet ill at ease sex scenes that barely register as sexual at all. The relationship between several of the characters left me wondering if the lot of them had been dropped on their head as babies. By far, the most discomfort I felt was when I was laughing at things that in real life are not supposed to be funny.
Chan-wook Park and Seo-Gyeong Jeong turn scene after scene from tragic to tickling. Anyone who isn’t a sociopath will laugh, feel guilty about laughing, the laugh some more. Most specifically, any scene with blood was at the same time horrifying and hysterical. Where the vampire is in relation to the blood-letter takes the edge off the fact that the vampire is sucking vital blood from the person’s body.
As soon as the laughter has ceased though, serious topics slip in. Questions of killing, domestic violence, sexual abuse, faith, or a lack thereof, and unexpected changes in the personality of characters seep in through the skin like a salamander breathes. Due to the unconventional story-telling, it’s nearly impossible for an audience member to defend themselves from the revolting myriad of incoming emotions.
My usually stoaic husband wiggled as much as I did, often covering his mouth because he was utterly floored by some of the kill scenes in Thirst and he wasn’t alone. Most of the audience was clinging to their partner, shifting in their seat, giggling, breathing heavy and holding their hands up to their eyes with their fingers spread. “Eeew” and “ha-ha” could be heard at the same time by viewers unable to control their reactions.
There is a strange attention to how Thirst looks by the director. He doesn’t shy away from strange camera angles, movements or settings. Innocent props become sinister. There is a simple change of scenery late in the movie that changes the entire mood and symbolizes a change in the direction of the characters.
During some parts in the beginning, the acting by Kang-ho Song and Ok-vin Kim leave much to be desired. I don’t know if the director wanted them to be horrible on purpose to take the audience off their guard, but it really just came across as ridiculous, kludgy and strange. If you hang in there, I promise, the movie picks up and will shake the senses of even the most reserved.
I have never had so much fun being revolted. Every time I think of the movie, I shift in my seat and think ICK with a smile on my face right before I get the chill up my spine. This subtitled Korean gem, Thirst, will satisfy those who love a good story and those who love good horror. Spine crawling, seat jerking and satisfying, Thirst is a must see! If your local small run theater is not showing this, call them and demand they do!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Harry Potter and the Half Assed Film
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is the sixth movie in Harry Potter film series. Too dependent on previous films or expecting the audience to have read the books, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince fails to develop into a complete movie.
Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is whisked away by his professor and fellow wizard Dumbledore (Michael Gambon )to meet with Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) to encourage him to return to his professorship at Hogwarts School. Harry and Dumbledore continue to attempt to find a way to defeat Lord Voldemort and prevent him from returning to the living world. Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) dance around their feelings for each other and engage in typical teenage romance melodrama. Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) sneaks around, waving his wand at bookcases in dark storage rooms, spiraling down an emotional whirlpool.
As an added bonus for the audience, the director and writers have left bonus loose ends for the audience to enjoy. The extraneous footage includes destroying mystical stuff, a girl who has a crush on Harry, some broom related sporting events, potions, and curses. The cinematic loose ends fray long enough to braid and be sold as rope to climbers heading off for K2.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince reminds me of leftover casserole. Leftover casserole is made by taking the remnants of a week’s worth of food, layering it in a casserole dish and hoping it tastes good enough that your family won’t run out on you. If you sprinkle it with parmesan cheese, it can look delicious, but it almost always tastes like week old, reheated donkey-butt stew. Director David Yates and writer Steve Kloves take a bit of left over the Sorcerer’s Stone, covers it in Order of the Phoenix, slathers on Chamber of Secrets, dumps in Goblet of Fire and sprinkles Prisoner of Azkaban, bakes it with parmesan on top (the special effects) and thinks we will eat it.
It shows a total lack of cinematic integrity to assign the audience required reading or mandatory viewing in order to understand anything that is taking place on screen. It is perfectly rational to expect a first time Harry Potter viewer won’t get every mention but they shouldn’t be completely lost. It is not too much to ask for a bit of recap, artfully worked into the story so new viewers can understand what is going on. It irritates me to no end that David Yates, and the production staff think we should pay full price for a half a movie. In one of the more “intense” scenes in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Dumbledore says, “Once again I must ask too much of you, Harry” but I think it’s the writer and director who have asked too much of the audience by hiding the casserole behind a smoke screen - literally.
Smoke comes out of the water, goes into the water, is outdoors, is indoors, and seems to follow Harry and his compadres, regardless of their travels. Harry would be the alpha caveman of any cave based solely on his ability to attract fire to himself. Based solely on the beauty of the smoke, Harry Potter is a stunning movie.
All of the effects in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince shimmer almost brightly enough to make one blind to the disparities in the plot. Well lit sets are set against green-screen created backgrounds that seem to flow naturally into each other. While some of the scenes don’t work as well as others, they all work well enough to suspend disbelief and make wizardry riveting.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince has no beginning, nor an end; it is only a middle. With nothing to tell the audience what has happened up until now and an unraveling carpet for an ending, it fails to offer the audience a reason to sit through the film. It should be renamed to Harry Potter and a Half.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)