04 August 2007

Trailers

I've seen a bunch of trailers lately for films that look entertaining, both in the "great film" sort of way and in the "hilariously funny" sort of way. So here are a few:

Superbad (August 17th)

3:10 to Yuma (September 7th)

Cloverfield/1-18-08 (January 18th)

Transformers

Premise: Robots lose cube that can make planets, the bad ones figure out it's on earth and land here, the good ones follow in order to protect the human race. Bad robots disguise themselves as tanks, police cars, black hawk helicopters, stealth jets, while the good robots disguise themselves as 18-wheelers, piece of shit camaros, and trucks. Enter nerdy human descendent (Shia Labeouf) of old guy who had glasses with the cube's location imprinted on them. Enter girl (Megan Fox) who nerdy guy wishes to impress, so he buys a car which ends up being an autobot. Resulting battle between good and evil robots ensues.

Outcome: Pretty damn awesome. This is a Michael Bay film, so you really can't expect anything but dawn and dusk shots with lens flare, tons of explosions and really stupid one-liners.

If you ever watched "Tranformers" the cartoon on TV as a kid, the human actors are only props used to further the paperthin storyline. It's all about the robots. What makes it even better is the fact that Michael Bay and the rest of his team managed to get the original voice of Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen). They even replicated the sound of the robots transforming from the TV show, which was just more icing on the cake. I don't remember the cartoon too much, but the introduction of the rest of the Decepticons later in the movie brought a lot of it back. You can't forget names like Bonecrusher, Starscream and Barricade. Like I said, you don't go to Michael Bay movies for plot, you either go for the eyecandy or for the mindboggling effects. Transformers doesn't disappoint with the CGI. The only thing I disliked were the cheesy lines given to Optimus Prime. Was he always that philosophic and corny? Prime example: Ironhide asks Optimus why they're protecting the humans since they're a violent, destructive race, to which Optimus replies "Were we so different?", sparking a laughing fit from Maggie and I that lasted about 10 minutes.

Ultimately, it's pretty much a movie for 15 year old boys and fans of the cartoon (don't try to tell me they can be one and the same, seeing as the show ended back in 1987, and the reruns were off TV by the time I was halfway through elementary school). Even if you're not in either of those groups, you can still appreciate the action, and the utter kickass quality of the CGI. It's not a great film, and it's not going to win any noteworthy awards, but it's great summer fun. Definately worth seeing.

Sicko

Like a lot of people out there, I've gotten slightly tired of Michael Moore. I enjoyed Bowling for Columbine, and I found some of Fahrenheit 9/11 to be interesting, but let's face it, we all knew Bush was an idiot from the get-go. So I was somewhat hesitant to see Sicko, just because I wasn't sure I could stand hearing Moore's nasaly voice for two hours.
I'm glad I went to see it though. It's one of his best, simply because it is the most emotionally engaging of his films. As the film is all about health insurance and the struggle in the United States for affordable healthcare, he interviews men and women who have had problems with the healthcare system, mainly because of either their lack of insurance, or the insurance company's refusal to cover specific health problems. Hearing each of these people talk about how they had to choose one finger over another to sew back on after a saw accident, or how their daughter died because a hospital wouldn't provide transportation to the hospital associated with their insurance company is heartbreaking. It shocked me to hear how many people in the United States are without health insurance, and how insurance companies treat those who do. It's disgusting. It really showed me how much we take medicare for granted. And Moore travels up to Canada to basically balk at the fact that we have universal healthcare. I have to say I'm a little sick of him crossing the border and painting Canada as this beautific place with free hospitals and no gun violence. We have our problems too.
He also travels to Britain, France and Cuba in order to make Americans fully understand how completely backward and detrimental the US healthcare system is for their country. As per usual, he makes quippy jokes and grandstanding gestures (ie trying to get some Americans into the Guantanamo Base for treatment), and the music he chooses is fantastically appropriate. Unlike Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko actually made me like Michael Moore again. Sure, he's biased in pretty much everything he does, but who isn't? Most "documentaries" are biased, whether they're about the September 11th attacks (read: anti-Bush administration), the climate change debate (read: anti-Bush administration plus change-your-lightbulbs-and-buy-hybrids) or even the environment (read: don't kill living things, they're cool and so is David Attenborough). You're either going to agree with that bias, or leave thinking the director was a complete idiot and deserves every bit of criticism he gets. I don't think that applies here though. Everyone has to recieve medical treatment at some point, hell the only time I've been to the emerg to get treated was to get 3 stitches when I fell off my bike when I was 8, and the idea that you might not be able to get those stitches, or that shot, or that life-saving chemotherapy is a scary thing.
Regardless of how you feel about Michael Moore, no one can deny that his message is fairly valid: Healthcare should be available to everyone. One of the men he interviews, Tony Benn sums it up perfectly with "If we can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people."




Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

I realise I haven't posted any reviews in about a month and a half, and that's not due to not having seen any movies recently, I've just been ripping through books instead of films lately.

That said, here's some month-late musings on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix:
Given that I saw this at a midnight showing, I may be a little hazy on some of the details. I do know, however, that this is my favourite of the movies so far (the previous one being Prisoner of Azkaban). Regardless of what others say, I thought the fourth movie was weak, but I disliked the fourth book as well (thought Harry was too whiny for most of it), so I may have been biased from the get go. The fifth book, I think, showed a marked improvement by J.K. Rowling in both writing style and character developement, as the kids are forced to grow up quickly in the face of the coming threat of Voldemort. Personally, I think the movie reflects that.
Most people have already read the book, or seen the movie, so I won't go into too much detail with the plot. Harry, Ron and Hermione are in their fifth year at Hogwarts, and the movie begins with the trio, plus the other Weasleys, Sirius Black and various other characters in the Black household, otherwise known as the headquarters for the Order of the Phoenix. Harry finds out that the Order knows that Voldemort is trying to look for a weapon, but they won't tell him what it is. With that in the back of his mind, the trio return to school to find that a) everyone thinks Harry is nuts, and b) puberty sucks. As per usual, there's yet another Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, Professor Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), who turns out to be a conniving witch with a lust for power.

Her numerous changes to school policy result in Harry forming a group meant to teach real defensive spells, in order to protect themselves against Voldemort and his cronies. Meanwhile, Harry catches the eye of one of his fellow students, Cho, and they share an extremely awkward-to-watch kiss shown in most of the trailers. Blah blah blah, things happen, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Neville and Luna end up in the Ministry of Magic and a battle ensues. Honestly, I would go into more detail, but there's no point, is there?

The point is, the movie is great. Granted, they left out some of my favourite bits from the book (the swamp left in the corridor, the cleaning out of Grimmauld Place, and the Quidditch matches that lead to the "Weasley is our King" chants). I understand not being able to fit everything into a 2 and a half hour movie, but those were the little things I missed. This is more of a fault for the fourth movie, but where are Bill and Charlie? I mean, Bill turns out to be a relatively big character in the sixth and seventh books, so shouldn't they have looked ahead and tried to include him? I guess it means another two guys having to dye their hair red, but it's a small price to pay. I have to say, I'm impressed with how much the actors have improved. Daniel Radcliffe was actually convincing in most of his scenes and Rupert Grint is turning out to be quite good. I'm still not sold on Emma Watson... she seems to have the same expression for every emotion, which isn't too impressive.

Great movie though. Unlike the fourth one, which I still haven't purchased on DVD, I can't wait for this one to come out so I can snatch it up right away.