Reel Thoughts

Under discussion:

Sleepers  (1996)

Sleepers is yet another movie recommended by and on loan from two friends who suggested that it was a great movie, and that I should see it.  I had heard of the movie, and it was on my "want to see" list.  In retrospect, I feel like I might have watched this movie before, but I can't be sure of it.  Truthfully, it's hard to tell if it was this movie or Mobsters or Mystic River that I'm thinking of, all of which contain similar, overlapping themes, made in different years though they were.  Whether this was my first or second time watching this movie, I don't think it will leave a lasting impression, even if that was the pedantic aim of the film to begin with.

This film boasts an impressive cast from young to old.  It's about four friends who grow up in New York neighborhood Hell's Kitchen in the 60s.  They play a prank with dire, criminal consequences and are sent to a juvenile home, where they are mercilessly tortured and sexually abused by the guards, including Sean Nokes (Kevin Bacon).  The four friends agree never to speak of these horrors again, until two of them, who have grown into deadly hitmen of their own accord, see Nokes in a restaurant and decide to take their revenge.  Afteward, the two remaining friends plot a surreal sort of coup in an effort that revenge be complete and the two friends get away with murder.  All hinges on the help of their childhood mentor, Father Bobby (Robert DeNiro) and a drunken wash-up of a defense attorney (Dustin Hoffman).  The four adult friends include Jason Patric, Brad PItt, and Billy Crudup, as well as Ron Eldard.  A woman who is close to them and plays a revolving door courtship among them helps out their cause (Minnie Driver).

This movie was fraught with plot holes.  The idea (and apparently it was based on a book) was a good one, but it lost itself between the childhood trauma and the adulthood revenge.  The movie began interestingly enough.  DeNiro was the best part of the movie, offering a voice of conscience even when he is asked to compromise his position as a priest during the ensuing trial.  The children playing the boys at a young age, including Brad Renfro in his prime, were excellent.  In fact, the whole ensemble was convincing in their performances.

Troublingly, this movie tried to walk a fine line of moral ambiguity and not effectively, for it demanded a heck of a lot of suspension of disbelief in order to make Michael's (Pitt) revenge master plan plausible as a plot device.  The plot itself was rendered through the narration of Patric's character and not always in a linear fashion.  It also toyed heavily (and apparently caused controversy) with the idea of a priest lying in order to achieve its end result.

The movie, as an experience for me, started off interesting and ended up anticlimactic.  It's in that fact alone that I can't find myself being altogether praiseworthy of this movie.  The performances, though, were stellar.  For that reason, I rate this movie a 6.5, somewhere between cute (because it wasn't) and shaky (because it was a bit more than shaky).  Sleepers does not pass the test.  I'm glad I gave this a chance, but that's all I'm willing to give it.  I can't see myself watching this again, even if this was the second go-round for me.  It just wasn't as good as I'd hoped.

Under discussion:

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix  (2007)

Truth be told, I don't know why I get so worked up over the movies.  I have been disappointed almost everytime.  Consider.

Sorcerer's Stone:  This one was actually true to the book.  Also, the movie contained the late great Richard Harris as Dumbledore.  I frankly think the franchise lost so much with the passing of Mr. Harris.  He was the perfect Dumbledore.  Michael Gambon does not have that twinkle, that slyness, that makes Dumbledore the character so fascinating, but Harris had it in spades.  In fact, while almost no movie images translate to my imagination while reading the books (and rereading them, I should say), I do have the faintest outline of a Richard Harris-like Dumbledore pictured.  He was perfect.  Alan Rickman is also the perfect Snape, but I digress.  This movie suffered from stunted pacing, no thanks to the limitations of director Chris Columbus, but was otherwise very good.  The kids were cute.  It was less dark.  The scenes, such as the chess scene, the Mirror of Erised, Quidditch...all were fun to watch.  This movie was magical, but due to time constraints, the magic of Harry discovering his true heritage was lost.  It all just felt like, "ok, now we're doing this, ok now we're doing this..."

Chamber of Secrets - This film I felt has been the truest to its source.  It was almost, pound for pound, an exact translation.  My only disappointment in this movie was the fake looking basilisk.  Everything else was great fun to watch.  So, I really wasn't disappointed in this film.  Kenneth Branagh was a perfect Lockhart, the dueling club was fun, everything had its place.  This is the best adaptation, but it is based on my least favorite book in the series.

Prisoner of Azkaban - Under Alfonso Cuaron's direction, this film was visually stunning and did have some of the emotional undercurrent which makes this entry in the series so poignant and a fan favorite.  Yet, there were some major plot points overlooked that may have used another 5 or 10 minutes of film.  All they had to do to make the picture complete was link the Marauder's Map to Moony (Lupin), Wormtail (Peter Pettigrew), Padfoot (Sirius), and Prongs (James Potter).  All they had to do was explain that, as friends, they had become unregistered animagi.  All they had to do was explain that Prongs, James Potter, changed into a stag.  All they had to do was explain that that was why Harry's Patronus is a stag and link that to the confusion of seeing himself versus seeing the ghost of his dead father during the dementor attack.  There weren't even added special effects to be had, and these are the most important details of this book, which is the backdrop for Harry to connect to his lost family.  It was disappointing.

Goblet of Fire - At 750 pages, the book to film was bound to suffer cuts and liberties.  Fortunately, none of them were that dire.  The Dursleys didn't make it in, and the World Cup didn't go on forever like it did in the book.  That was alright.  Apparently, house-elves are too expensive a visual effect for, from here on it, there is no mention made of them at all.  The trials during the Triwizard Championship were all masterfully filmed except the maze (it was cheaper to have the hedges attack the contestants than to have a sphinx tell a riddle or different magical creatures call for different defensive spells).  The most disappointing part of this movie was the hurried ending.  Yet again, a few more minutes could have been expended, for example, showing Harry in the hospital wing, the Weasleys coming to comfort him, Harry giving Fred and George his prize winnings.  Some more correspondence from Sirius might have been nice, because this book shows how Harry forms a close relationship and confidence with his godfather, though he's on the lam from the Ministry.  Still, I thought it was a decent adaptation.

Now we come to this film.  The longest book at 870 pages, the shortest film.  They did well with what they have, but this is my other favorite book, and so many liberties were taken.  Some of it felt rushed.  Ron was window-dressing.  Ginny had two lines (and she's gotta start talking soon, Harry starts reciprocating attractions in book 6).  Snape - so underdeveloped!  Snape has been reduced to a minor character in all films but the first one, but now is the time that they should have made him more prominent.  Connected him with the Order of the Phoenix.  Really emphasized his enmity for Sirius and James Potter.  He becomes so important in book 6 (and anyone who's read it knows it).  The last conversation between Dumbledore and Harry could have been a bit longer and a bit less one-sided.  In the book, Dumbledore has to connect the dots for Harry and also calm him down.  Harry's furious, hurt, terrified at his loss.  Dumbledore also has to explain the prophecy to him.  Harry apparently didn't need him in the movie, but this conversation between them forms the basis for everything they do together in book 6. 

The moral is, I understand cuts and liberties, but plot continuity is still key (especially when the source material is SO famous).  If cuts and liberties affect a plot point earlier that becomes important later, then the screenwriters have to dig themselves out of a hole that they could have just easily done better to set up earlier.  Case in point: Sirius between the 4th and 5th movies.

I know, I'm rambling on and on about this, but I guess I'm finding it hard to say I liked this entry in the series.  I liked parts of it.  I think, however, that it left me feeling a bit perplexed, knowing what I know about subsequent books.

This was an unusual review, but I'm still going to close it out with a rating and a test.  It passes the test on sheer reasoning of me owning the first four.  Plus, I will probably watch it again.  I think I have to rate this movie has a 6.5, somewhere between cute and shaky.  There are major flaws (see the fantasy group discussion), but it's a touch better than mediocre.  David Yates did a good job.  It's just hard for me to be truly neutral about the thing because I love the books so much.  Though, I think Half-Blood Prince will be a good entry.  I have high hopes for it.  It's shorter and much more movie-friendly.

Under discussion:

Ratatouille  (2007)

No, I won't do this whole review in French, though I am tempted.

To reiterate some of what I said in the Fantasy group (the fantasy in this movie being that rats talk and like to cook and can understand humans and help them cook), Pixar really can do no wrong in my eyes.  I'm not sure where I rank Ratatouille in relation to other Pixar films, but I enjoyed this movie nevertheless.  Despite the rats, I was still hungry.

Remy (voiced by Patton Oswalt) is a rat with a heightened palate.  And he wants to cook and eat good food, not garbage, much to the chagrin of his family, particularly his dad (Brian Dennehy).  A series of fortunate circumstances brings him to the restaurant bearing the name of Gusteau (voiced by Brad Garrett), a famous mass-market chef who happens to be deceased and a talking figment of Remy's imagination.  While exploring the restaurant of his idol (for Remy can read cookbooks and understand TV), he encounters Linguini (Lou Romano), a young man who wants to cook but lacks any morsel of talent.  The two discover each other, and realizing each has what the other one lacks (Remy has talent, Linguini looks like a human), they arrange a clever way to bring about each other's wishes.  Of course, it's more complicated than all of that, and various mishaps ensue, as only they can when a rat is cooking and a human allows the rat to cook for him.

Ratatouille gets high marks for originality, superb (as in masterful) animation, sophistication, and heart.  It's not the funniest Pixar, despite Disney's droll advertising to this effect.  There are laughs, but they come at the hand of some slapstick moments.  The dialogue is clever and witty, but there are not too many laugh-out-loud moments.

Brad Bird is the director of this film, and he also directed The Incredibles.  As I mentioned in the fantasy group, this film seemed more sophisticated than some of the other Pixars, having a more "grownup" sensibility.  Yet, that sophistication takes something away too.  Ratatouille probably won't be enjoyed by little kids so much - there are parts that are long and slow and filled with dialogue that only the older kids will understand.

But, if you are an older kid of any age, Ratatouille will charm you because of its simple messages of following one's dream despite any limitations or obstacles.  Also, the voice casting was particularly delectable, especially with Peter O'Toole voicing a very menacing food critic by the name of Anton Ego, a force to be reckoned with.

I rate Ratatouille a 9 for perfectly entertaining (though not quite a masterpiece).  I felt it lacked a certain balance which prevents me from calling it a masterpiece.  It's hard to describe, but I sometimes wonder at a sophisticated cartoon marketed to families.  It sends a mixed message.  At any rate, this movie passes the test.  I own all the Pixars and watch them all repeatedly, so this will be no exception I'm sure.  I'd close with a clever food or rodent pun, but I'm fresh out.  Rats. 

I guess not.