Reviews

HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS hits theaters this week-end and, as the devoted Potter-er that I am, I was determined to see it as soon as possible.

My opinion?

Well....

The child acting has matured-most particularly that of Daniel Radcliffe who, reprising his role as the title protagonist, appears more at ease in front of the camera the second time round. His timing periodically staggers slightly, but in general his portrayal of Harry has improved (the viewer should realize that due to his abusive past, Harry isn't SUPPOSED to be unduly expressive). Emma Watson is appropriately sprightly as pal Hermione; however, Rupert Grint-so memorable in the previous film-has lost some of his snarky wit and charisma inherent in the first movie. The fault partially falls upon the actor (one can only stand so many terrified expressions) but also onto the script, which seems to highlight Ron as a perpetual coward.

The adult cast can sport some of cinema's greats, including the late Richard Harris, Dame Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane….but, sadly, they were mostly underused. A special mention must be conferred upon Kenneth Branaugh's narcissistic Lockhart and to Jason Isaac's deliciously malicious Lucius Malfoy. Alan Rickman, who proved to be such a superb addition to the cast, was heinously underused as Snape and is especially missed, being one of the most fascinating characters of the series.

Aesthetically, the film succeeds splendidly. Especially the set designs were spectacular-from the castle, to the forest, to the chamber of secrets itself. But without a solid base, the movie cannot remain steady.

The pacing is where the film truly stumbles. The first movie was apt at slowing down its brisk pace at the suitable moments, at once giving the audience a chance to breath and, more importantly, adding a touch of human element where it was needed, an element sorely lacking the second movie.

The second movie tends to over-emphasize the action sequences and replace character development and plot progression with more unnecessary action (the car's aerobatics with the train).

The so-called `plot' in the movie simply plods from one action sequence to the next-most of which have little to do with the actual plot itself. I felt little continuity in the plot. The series of events only drag us through the movie's two-hour, forty-five minute time until we suddenly find ourselves at the rushed climax, which-lo and behold-seems to serve only as another excuse to stick in some more action.

Rather than leaving the theater happy, the movie left me with a sense of dissatisfaction and left me thinking, `What happened to the story?'

I'm looking forward to the upcoming movie, though. I'm definitely keen to see how another director will handle the books. Columbus' clumsy directing coupled with Steve Kloves' jerky, bungling script seriously detract from the film.

It's an entertaining little film. Your kids will love it. But if you're looking for something with plot and character development, look elsewhere. You might find greater enchantment in the books themselves.

This deliciously enticing bit of cinema from Down Under revolves around the activities of three people: A mistrustful blind man, a desperate, love-hungry woman, a misguided young man, and what happens when these three paths intersect.

Martin is a misanthropic blind man, whose unshakable mistrust of humanity compels him to compulsively take photographs of everything around him. So deeply-rooted is his paranoia that he believes his own mother rejected him because of his handicap, and so deceived him in her descriptions of the world. Martin took a picture--his first--of a garden his mother customarily described to him, as evidence that she had lied.

Martin's paranoia that anyone might be lying to him has shaped the rest of his life, growing up to become uncompromising and fiercely independent. He behaves callously in his only human interaction--with his rancorous housekeeper, Celia. Celia is obsessively, possessively in love with Martin. But their relationship is a prickly one, marked with cruelty and malice on both parts. Martin, aware of Celia's desire for him, uses the knowledge as a weapon--tormenting her by keeping her on, but rebuffing her attempts. In return, Celia spitefully rearranges the furniture so Martin will run into it and exploits his dependency on her to boost her own ego.

Years later, Martin is still a photographer, but now he wants someone he can trust to describe his first photo to him, thus giving him the 'proof' of a long-dead mother's love.

This someone happens to be Andy, a dishwasher at a local restaurant. But when Andy threatens to become too great an influence in Martin's life, Celia, feeling her territory has been violated, sets out to discredit Andy--using her sexuality to control both men.

"Proof" could all so easily have slipped into melodramatic theatrics, but the film skips nimbly along the line, managing to evade all potential traps. Most of the credit is due to the adroit, agile script and the outstanding performances from the cast.

Jocelyn Moorhouse, the film's director and writer, has the innate gift of comprehending, capturing, and conveying the human condition so aptly, so that the audience is deftly drawn into these characters' lives. The film doesn't rely on a contrived plot to induce interest; these ordinary characters are intrinsically fascinating simply because of who they are.

The acting is superb, making for a fabulous ensemble piece. Hugo Weaving renders a thoughtful performance as Martin, convincingly portraying a man who has closed himself off so effectively against the possibility that he might get hurt, that he has cut off the possibility of feeling. Genevieve Picot is likewise excellent, marvelously calculating, yet vulnerable as Celia. And Russel Crowe radiates an already unmistakable and irresistible charisma on-screen in this early role as Andy. His easy-going, honest, bloke-next-door charm is utterly appealing--a far cry from later roles in "L.A. Confidential" and "Gladiator", showing his incredible acting range.

This diabolically clever, enormously witty, and refreshingly original film can be hilariously funny at some times, genuinely heart-rending at others, and an all-round brilliant bit of cinema. Well-worth a look.

Nicole Kidman is Satine, the harlot with a heart of gold, the star of the nightclub of dreams, the Moulin Rouge. Christian (played by Ewan McGregor) is the idealistic English poet who falls in love with her. A typical boy meets girl, boy loses girl story.

This is the type of film that depends on visual splendor rather than on depth.

The costumes and sets are all flashy Hollywood glamour. The color and visual lushness are utterly dazzling and mesmerizing, but you're barely given time to `ooh' before the camera cuts away. The sweeping, speeding cinematography and quick cuts give the film a glib, circus-ring-meets-music-video sort of appeal.

However, the film fails to slow down its break-neck pace when in the proper places. So the love story is given unfortunate short shrift. The plot lurches between tragedy and comedy so abruptly that neither are believable. The tragedy is contrived and forced, while the comedy comes off as cartoonish.

The acting is harder to comment on. Nicole Kidman's acting is decent, her singing passable, and Ewan McGregor has seen better acting days. But there is little chemistry between these actors at all. The two leads are both talented, but this is NOT a movie about characterization and depth. So, sadly, these actors aren't given much to work with. With such little character depth, it makes it harder for the audience to feel any empathy.

And herein lies the movie's most frustrating aspect: its absolute inability to induce true emotion from the audience by allowing us to sympathize with these characters.

Christian is merely identified by his love for Satine, which is possessive, nearing on the obsessive. But as far as the audience can tell, there is no concrete basis for their relationship. Belt out a rendition of Elton John's `Your Song' and Christian's got the girl. It left me to question Satine's supposed conviction not to fall in love if she could be so easily ensnared.

This film had so much potential for rot-beneath-the glitter story, but instead it resorts to showy glitz and glamour to attract an audience.

Vibrant, visually opulent, but lacking in the essential elements of a cinematic excellence: solid plot or characterization. All frosting and little cake.

It's a bit like a bubble--it's very pretty on the outside, but there's not much substance underneath.

First off, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is among my most cherished books. So when I went to see the film when it hit theaters, I had high expectations.

And what did I find?

Unfortunately, despite a few high points, mostly disappointment.

Now, let's work from the good to the bad:

"Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings" benefited from its inspired direction. It was evident to me that Peter Jackson possessed a deep love for the books--and it shows in the final product. Clearly, he knew in which the direction he wanted the film to lead. And it seemed that he had come to enjoy the journey so much, he didn't want it to end.

And visually, the entire film is breath-taking. All technical aspects are in general first-rate and top-of-the-line. The battle sequences are carried out in high style, with fabulous special effects and excellent editing and choreography.

The movie can also sport a number of talented veteran actors. Among them, Ian McKellan, Ian Holm, and Christopher Lee. Unfortunately, this film (like the book) is less character-driven than narrative-driven. So these actors were given little opportunity to flex much acting muscle.

However, the script, surprisingly for me, was where the movie stumbled. Many times weak, at others downright laughable, the dialogue was generally bumpy, the screen-writing inconsistent and contrived. I do pity Hugo Weaving, having to utter the line "And you will be the Fellowship of the Ring!"

Although it has covered quite a lot of ground, it still admittedly has big shoes to fill.

My verdict: Visually stunning, but with little substantiality once you've finished "Ooh..aah..."