Gateway Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Fifth Harry Potter film flawed but not complete failure

After 18 months, one Tri-wizard tournament and the return of "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named," the cast of the Harry Potter films is back for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. While this fifth installment is the darkest yet, the film is a welcome bright spot after the disappointing Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

However, everyone does not share this view. The film has been getting mixed reactions from critics and fans alike. Some rip the film to shreds because it is not faithful to the book, when it actually does a better job than the last two movies. Meanwhile, the other side sometimes calls it the best Potter film yet, which for various reasons it clearly isn't.

The story of Order of the Phoenix is about finding a balance between good and evil. This review is an attempt to see past the absolutes and look at the film objectively.

The film's harsh critics have a fair point about the book's faithfulness. It is natural for many to feel short-changed with so many great scenes and explanations left out from the book.

In particular, the scene where Harry confronts Dumbledore at the end of the book is a glaring omission. Similarly, there not much time spent on the actual Order of the Phoenix itself, a strange decision given the film's title.

However, these harsh critics should remember that at 807 pages, Order of the Phoenix is the longest book in the franchise, while its film version is the shortest at just over two hours.

The film's plot is more straightforward than the book and moves along at a brisk pace. Some might find this inexcusable, but where cuts had to be made director David Yates succeeded in making sure viewers who haven't read the book didn't miss anything important.

In addition to the omitted scenes, the film has other glaring flaws.

Because of poor planning and amateurish editing the film is rushed during important parts and stalls unnecessarily in others. Considering this is the same problem that doomed Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix was lucky to avoid letting this destroy the entire film.

Wooden acting, particularly from female leads Emma Watson as Harry's best friend Hermoine Granger and Katie Leung as Harry's love interest, Cho Chang, also sometimes mars the film.

But this is the exception rather than the rule. The film's all-star cast shines particularly in the case of Imelda Staunton's near-perfect portrayal of despotic Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher Delores Umbridge and in the improved acting talent of Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe.

These performances support the visually impressive action sequences and special effects, which ultimately make Order of the Phoenix successful. With dementor attacks, large-scale practical jokes, a run-in with the Death Eaters and a world-class wizarding duel, the film succeeds in finding a balance between action and storytelling.

To focus on purely the film's negatives is to overlook a film that has greatly matured over the six years since Sorcerer's Stone debuted in theatres. And similarly, to only look at the film through rose-colored glasses ignores that growing up often includes bumps and bruises. Maturation, growing pains included, is something Hogwarts students have to experience when taking their Ordinary Wizarding Level (O.W.L.'s, more commonly known as "owls") examinations. And in a way, this film was also a test.

In the subject of Harry Potter, David Yates's adaptation isn't "outstanding," nor does it "exceed expectations," but it is certainly "acceptable." And while there may not be a lot for fans and critics to agree on, at the very least they should be glad it wasn't a "troll."

Grade: B-

Originally published on July 24, 2007
© Copyright 2007 Gateway

1408 Review

1408 a successfully suspenseful Stephen King story

Anytime someone adapts a Stephen King book, it is about as hit and miss as the author himself is sometimes. On the one hand you have novels like Carrie, Pet Semetary and Salem's Lot which have been turned into some truly frightening films and The Green Mile was a King adaptation that nearly won several Academy Awards in 1999. On the other hand you have horrible made for TV movies like The Stand, Desperation, and re-makes of The Shining and Salem's Lot that fell short. So when I heard that King's short story, "1408" from his Everything's Eventual collection I was cautiously optimistic because of the talent that John Cusack brings any time he's on film and Mikael Hafstrom (Derailed) being attached as director.

All of my expectations were met and then exceeded as we are introduced to Mike Enslin (Cusack) doing research for one of his many books about haunted places to visit. As we soon find out, Enslin is rather cynical about his job, his faith being shattered due to the loss of his daughter because of a disease that is never revealed in the film. Hafstrom doesn't waste time moving the plot along as Enslin gets a postcard from the Dolphin Hotel in New York with the simple message of: "Don't go in 1408" which peaks his interest seeing as how the number 1408 ads up to unlucky 13. Spooky!

And a trip to New York is certainly an unlucky turn of events for Enslin because that, as Enslin's publisher reminds him, is where he used to live with his wife (Mary McCormack) and daughter (Jasmine Jessica Anthony). But we soon get the hint that Enslin marriage failed after the death of his child and he wants to avoid her at all costs. But Enslin reassures his publisher and himself that it will be a quick job, in and out in one night. No harm done.

Those plans go a bit awry when Enslin checks into the hotel, stopped at every turn by the hotel's manager Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson) from entering room 1408. Olin runs down the laundry list of suicides and deaths that have occurred in 1408, stating that no one in 1408 has ever lasted more than an hour. This does nothing but get the cynical Enslin more eager to check the room out which, by virtue of a legal loophole, he is able to force his way in by threatening a lawsuit.

Olin reluctantly sends Enslin off to room 1408 which he immediately and thoroughly analyzes through his tape recorder, robbing of it of any special quality. But as Enslin is wallowing in his cynicism, odd things begin happening in his room. While he writes these initial instances off logically, the strange factor keeps increasing until he wants out of the room. Unfortunately for Enslin, the room has different plans.

1408 is essentially a one-man show for Cusack who has spent the last couple of years in comedies. Luckily for the audience, Cusack gets to work out all that latent aggression and abuse that he has been holding on to since Being John Malkovich. Running the gamut of emotions Cusack works out the entire path of denial to acceptance in an hour, all the while causing the audience to sympathize with a character who is otherwise a huge jerk.

But Cusack is not alone in 1408, with an unusually subdued performance from Jackson and a pleasing performance from McCormack as the confused and spurned wife, the supporting cast helps bolster Cusack's portrayl of Enslin. The only downside to 1408 is that while Cusack succeeds in being believable, some of the things happening in the room are incredibly far out for a haunted hotel room story. However, Hafstrom does succeed in creating a very tangible sense of dread in the film while it's no The Shining, 1408 is definitely a successful and suspenseful Stephen King adaptation.

Grade: B

Spiderman 3 Review

Spiderman 3 is darker, murkier installment in series

Spiderman is one of those superheroes that people can really relate to; that’s what makes him so popular. As the alter ego of Peter Parker, a college student trying to make his way in New York City as a freelance photographer, finding a balance between paying the rent, falling in love, weeding out moral dilemmas and saving the Big Apple is all in a day’s work for the web-slinging crusader. But as a film, Spiderman 3 is probably the most unbalanced and unrelatable.

After the events of the second film, Peter is riding high. Spiderman is loved by everyone, he’s in line for a staff job at the Daily Bugle, and most importantly, he’s finally dating his long-time crush Mary Jane and looking to propose. But as is often the case, things begin to take a turn for the worst.

Still bitter about his father’s death, Peter’s old friend Harry Osborn is plotting his revenge; Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church), the man who killed Peter’s Uncle, has broken out of prison; he’s being scooped by a new photographer named Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) who has his eyes on the staff job Peter wants; and despite his best attempts, Mary Jane wants attention that Spiderman just can’t give her.

While these scenarios are all par for the course by now, the problem with Spiderman 3 is that director Sam Raimi tries to cram each of them into a 2-1/2 hour movie. What makes this so annoying is for the, at most, 30 minutes that Raimi spends on the two actual villains of the movie, the rest of the time is spent on Peter whining about being rejected by Mary Jane and screwed over by Harry. And rather than working through the problem like an adult, Peter becomes the emo version of John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. These sequences and overall poor dialogue make the movie so cheesy it should cause coronary.

With the time not spent on character development for the newly introduced villains, unlike in the previous movies, it instead gets spent on Kirsten Dunst and James Franco dancing while making omelets and Tobey Maguire visibly forcing himself to cry. This goes on so long that the villains almost seem like an afterthought and by the end of the movie, when we finally get to see the awesome tag-team battle sequence between Spiderman and Harry as the New Green Goblin and Marko as The Sandman and Brock as Venom, we really don’t care what happens to any of them.

When I look back at Spiderman 3, instead of seeing the introduction of one of the coolest arch villains in comic book history, a serious and darker adaptation of the comic (think Batman Begins), and revenge for the sickeningly cotton-candy-sweet ending of Spiderman 2 I can only see unresolved plot holes, cheesy dialogue, undeveloped characters and a hero who has only succeeded in pissing me off. Although, probably not as pissed off as some of the fans of the comics will be with how the movie ends.

And given how the movie ended, I’m not sure what Raimi could do for Spiderman 4; I can only hope that he doesn’t make one right away. Because when I can’t find myself relating to what is supposed to be one of the most relatable superheroes of all time, something is amiss. I think, for a movie with a lesson about making tough choices, the ultimate lesson for Raimi et al should be that when choosing between making a good movie and a popular movie, sometimes a compromise is the best solution.

Grade: C+

Gateway Review: Grindhouse

Grindhouse double feature provides action-packed, grade "A" experience

What do a crazed stuntman, an amputee go-go dancer, a Hollywood stunt woman and a swarm of bio-engineered zombies have in common? They're all part of Grindhouse, the best movie of 2007 so far and quite possibly the greatest movie experience I've ever had.

Friday marked the opening of the epic double-feature tribute to the low-budget exploitation films that influenced directors Robert Rodriguez (Sin City, Once Upon a Time in Mexico) and Quentin Tarantino (Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction) to make movies themselves. And boy what a tribute it is.

If you're a fan of gore-filled sci-fi/horror films like Dawn of the Dead, Omega Man or Re-Animator, than you will have a blast with the first of the two films, Rodriguez's Planet Terror. You've heard the storyline before. A toxic chemical has been released into a small town and as people become infected, they terrorize the townspeople who band together to fight off the zombie hoard. And, of course, vixens like Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan), who uses a machine gun for a prosthetic leg, and Dr. Dakota Black (Marley Shelton), who carries a hypodermic needle gun, are just par for the course.

While the film can be dull at times, most of the time it's so completely ridiculous that you can't help but enjoy it. In pure grindhouse fashion, Planet Terror is complete at its most incomplete. With skipping frames, damaged footage and horrible dialogue, Rodriguez gives the audience what it wants.

But the show is not over; after a series of hilarious fake movie trailers from directors like Rob Zombie, Eli Roth and Edgar Wright, it's Tarantino's turn to shine with his homage to road-rage movies like Duel and Vanishing Point.

Compared to Planet Terror, Tarantino is on another level with Death Proof. It stars Kurt Russell in a brilliant performance as Stuntman Mike, a guy who likes to use his "death proof" stunt car to terrorize unsuspecting victims.

But the tables are turned on Stuntman Mike when he encounters four women, including real-life stuntwoman Zoe Bell, who hunt down Stuntman Mike in one of the most gut-wrenching car chase sequences I've ever seen. This film should be a fan favorite regardless, but a fair amount of experience with 70s horror films will make the experience that much sweeter.

As a pair of movies, Planet Terror and Death Proof are both so good at being bad that they are ultimately good. But that doesn't mean that there aren't unintentional flaws. Both films could stand to have 15 to 20 minutes shaved off. In fact, if Grindhouse was trimmed down, I'd venture to say it might be one of the best-made movies in recent memory.

While both may be "B" movies in the truest sense of the word, the Grindhouse experience is definitely grade "A."

Planet Terror: B-; Deathproof: B+; Grindhouse: A

Originally published on April 13, 2006
© Copyright 2007 Gateway

Gateway Review: 2007 Oscar Predictions

And the Oscar goes to... Gateway predictions for the 2007 Academy Awards

Well, it's that time of year again where everyone sits down to watch the stars on the red carpet, make last-minute changes to their ballots and wait in anticipation as the presenters open up the sealed envelope and say those magic words: "And the Oscar goes to ...."

Sunday is the 79th Annual Academy Awards. The theme this year is diversity, with an openly gay host and three African-Americans up for prestigious acting awards.

This is also the first year yours truly has actually watched a majority of the films up for the big awards. Because of this I'm pretty excited about this year's ceremony and seeing how my predictions will do. And that's why I'm here, to help handicap this year's winners.

Am I going to be correct with all my choices? No. But I'm sure you'll keep reading anyway. I mean, you've read this far, right? OK then. Let's get started.

Best Original Song: Dreamgirls is nominated three times in this category, and normally that would mean that the votes would be split. However, the other two nominees are songs from Cars and An Inconvenient Truth, so I don't think there will be any problems. I couldn't tell you what song will win, but I'm sure one of them will.

Best Makeup and Art Direction: There is only one film that can compete in either of these categories and that is Pan's Labryinth. The world that Guillermo Del Toro creates in this film is nothing short of fantastic. And, quite frankly, putting films like The Good Shepherd and Click in the same category is insulting.

Best Costume Design: This award always seems to go to a period piece, and of the nominees, that would be Milena Canonero's work in Marie Antoinette. Other films nominated here are Dreamgirls, The Devil Wears Prada, Curse of the Golden Flower and The Queen. The only one I can see challenging Antoinette here would be Curse of the Golden Flower, but not a lot of people even know what the movie is about.

Best Achievement in Visual Effects: The nominees are Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Poseidon and Superman Returns. My gut tells me that Dead Man's Chest will win this thing because of its creature designs for the Kraken and the octopus-like Davey Jones, which were fantastic by the way.

Best Supporting Actor and Actress: This one is pretty simple, Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson will walk away with the golden statues for their performances in Dreamgirls. The wins will provide Hudson with a firm foothold in Hollywood and also give Eddie Murphy a second chance at redeeming his acting career.

Best Actress and Actor: Helen Mirren, for The Queen, and Forest Whitaker, for The Last King of Scotland, have won every single possible award this year. Not surprisingly, the Oscar will be a well-deserved, feather in each of their caps. Both performances were stellar and outpace their respective competition by a wide, wide margin.

Best Director: This year is reminiscent of two years ago when Clint Eastwood won the Best Director Oscar for Million Dollar Baby, besting Martin Scorsese for his work with The Aviator.

Now it's looking like a Scorsese and Eastwood showdown again. Half of the Academy wants to reward Eastwood for his amazing work on both Flags of Our Fathers and Letters for Iwo Jima, and the other half of the Academy wants Scorsese to finally have his Oscar after being snubbed countless times.

Everything points toward this being Scorsese's year. I'm crossing my fingers that he will finally walk away with a little statuette to call his own.

Best Picture: Basically, this category comes down to how much you believe in statistics and tradition. It is almost unheard of that the Best Picture winner isn't directed by the winner of the Best Director award. Now, common sense says that with the most diverse list of nominees in history, the most international film, Babel, is the favorite.

The Departed has Hollywood buzzing like Crash did last year, and if Scorsese does win the Oscar, I think his film could shock a lot of people and, deservedly, win the Oscar as well. If you want a safe pick, go with the likely winner in Babel, but I'm going to take a risk and pick The Departed as my choice for Best Picture of 2006.

Originally published on February 23, 2007
© Copyright 2007 Gateway

The Fountain: Cotton candy for the mind

Dozens of words could be used to describe the latest film from director and co-writerDarren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream), but sadly "good" isn’t one of them.

The Fountain, which stars Hugh Jackman and Aronofsky’s fiancé Rachel Weisz, centers around Izzi (Weisz), who has a brain tumor, and her husband, Tomas (Jackman), a doctor who will stop at nothing to save her from dying.

While this may sound like your typical chick flick, it isn’t. The Fountain is made up of three narratives. One takes place in a book Weisz’s character is writing on her deathbed, where she is the Queen of Spain, looking to find the Fountain of Youth with the help of a conquistador version of Jackman; the second features the couple’s battle with the crippling disease; and the futuristic narrative, where a monk-like Jackman and a big tree travel through a golden-colored nebula in a giant bubble.

As the film jumps between these narratives, Tomas becomes more insecure about the possibility of losing his wife while Izzi comes to terms with her own mortality.

As the film’s title implies, through this crisis, and the three timelines, they are on a quest to find eternal life.

The message of The Fountain will mean different things to different people, but probably for the wrong reasons. By the time you think you figure out what Aronofsky, is trying to say; it makes no sense again.

All is not lost, though. One of the film’s big victories is the eye-popping visuals. The conquistador narrative is short, but features some awesome artistic aspects while the "dream" narrative is truly stunning.

The second positive with The Fountain is the acting of Jackman and Weisz, who each put in fantastic performances despite a weak script and a limited amount of character development. But performances and stunning visuals are not enough to make The Fountain the magnum opus that it wants to be. Instead, it ends up being more like cotton candy; it tastes sweet but ultimately, the bulk of it is just a bunch of empty air.

At a run-time of 96 minutes, The Fountain is never dull, but is almost always confusing. People going to this film expecting, as the film’s marketing would have you believe, a classic love story that spans the centuries, are going to be sorely disappointed. However, if you want to pay $8 to essentially experience the film equivalent of an acid trip (I'm assuming ), then The Fountain is certainly worth a try.

Grade: C-

Originally published on November 28, 2006
© Copyright 2006 Gateway

Gateway Review: Best/Worst Scary Movies Ever

Top 5 Horror Movies

5. Haute Tension (2003) - Directed by Alexandre Aja
Haute Tension is a French horror film that I heard about through word of mouth in 2004. According to my favorite horror movie Web sites and blogs, it was supposed to be a one of the best horror movies to come out years, so obviously I went to check it out. The film not only lived up to the hype, but also surpassed my wildest expectations as the first film since I first saw Jurassic Park in 1993 to scare the living hell out of me. Haute Tension is a gritty, bloody and suspenseful slasher film that grabs you by the pit of your stomach from the first 20 minutes and never lets go.

4. The Blair Witch Project (1999) - Directed by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez
The Blair Witch Project is a film that people are either going to love or hate; I'm obviously in the "love it" group. What can I say? I'm a sucker for the minimalist approach they used and it probably helps having a personal experience of being lost in the woods to make this movie's scares really hit home. Personal experiences aside, I still think the last 20 minutes of the movie are some of the most disturbing and frightening I've ever seen.

3. The Ring/Ringu (2002/1998) - Directed by Gore Verbinski/Hideo Nakata
Both versions of this movie, the Japanese original and the American remake, are equally frightening. However, my vote would have to go to the American remake. More of an unsettling, atmospheric film, The Ring is just so cool to watch because it breaks a lot of horror movie rules. The movie also contains some magnificent performances from Naomi Watts and Brian Cox, which makes it better than any horror movie remake has the right to be.

2. Halloween (1978) - Directed by John Carpenter
I've watched Carpenter's classic every Halloween for five years and it still captivates me. There are just so many creative elements to this film, especially the use of first-person POV shots where you actually see through the eyes of the killer. The effect had been used in Black Christmas previously, but was perfected by Carpenter. The movie's score, low-budget style and ability to break down the idea of the cozy and safe "suburbia" lifestyle just make this movie so entertaining to watch.

1. The Exorcist (1973) - Directed by William Friedkin
The Exorcist isn't just one of my favorite horror movies, it's one of my favorite movies, period. I think the music is perfect, the acting is phenomenal, the build up is properly paced and some scenes just chill you to the marrow. One scene that still freaks me out is the "spider walk" scene; my blood turns to ice every time I see it, even though I know it's coming. And the film isn't just technically sound, it's very premise of possession is just personally one of the most psychologically terrifying things I've ever seen on film.

Worst 5 Horror Movies:

5. Ju-On/The Grudge (2003/2004) - Directed by Takashi Shimizu
I saw Ju-On on the recommendation of several Asian horror Web sites that said it was one of the best horror films to come out of Japan since The Ring. Unlike Haute Tension, I watched the movie and just couldn't understand the hype. I could handle the croaking voice and even the idea that the main character was being terrorized by a "curse," but hiding under the bed as protection was too much to stomach. What's sad is that the American version was worse than the Japanese one, and that in itself is more terrifying than either movie tries to be.

4. Suspiria (1977) - Directed by Dario Argento
I saw Suspiria at the Dundee Theatre after hearing repeatedly that it was one of the best horror movies of the '70s. I went in to see the movie expecting to see something suspenseful, terrifying and bloody; what I got instead was a big steaming pile of s*&#. Suspiria is beautifully shot, but that's about it. The movie gets lost in a pointless story and cheap attempts to be "scary," rendering the film a total joke. I suggest avoiding this one at all costs.

3. Poltergeist III (1988) - Directed by Gary Sherman
I'm a fan of Poltergeist; it's actually one of my favorite horror movies. However, Poltergeist III is just atrocious. It has horrible acting, a horrible script and a weak bad guy. Honestly, any movie that's biggest scares involve a malfunctioning elevator and a "bottomless" puddle of water in a parking garage is really reaching for a plot. Hell, I've seen the movie more than I'd readily admit to in public and I'm still not sure what the plot of the movie was.

2. An American Haunting (2006) - Directed by Courtney Solomon
With An American Haunting you have two veterans of horror movie classics in Sissy Spacek and Donald Sutherland, as well as up-and-coming young star in Rachel Hurd-Wood. A veteran cast like that in a movie about spirits haunting a small farm house in the 1800s sounds like it should be pretty good, right? Unfortunately, the movie is less about possession and poltergeists and more of a morality play about child abuse. An American Haunting is more of an after-school special than it is a horror movie. Too bad I actually paid to see it in theatres.

1. Godsend (2004) - Directed by Nick Hamm
I thought the idea behind Godsend was a good one. A child is killed, cloned, and then brought back to life, but something's not right with him. It's definitely a plot that could be worked into a decent suspense or horror movie. Something apparently got lost in translation because everything, and I mean everything, about this movie fails. Godsend tries to be like The Omen, but ends up being a 102-minute argument about the dangers cloning. This movie is just painfully bad, even for a horror movie.

Originally published on October 31, 2006
© Copyright 2006 Gateway