The franchise that will always fight on

The three wizard heroes are at it again.

The kids of Hogwarts are definitely growing up. In doing so, they have no choice but to evolve, just as we all do. The series is trying hard to evolve right along with them, and it’s doing a bang-up job of it.

“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” picks up right where the last film left off. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) hasn’t even had time to enjoy his summer off yet. But I guess when you’re a teenager and you’ve got an evil wizard with the power and forces ready to destroy the world after you, there’s not a whole of relaxation just because there’s no homework.

Once Harry gets to school everyone’s back. You have to admire a franchise that can stick with the same actors, even those with only minor roles, for almost a decade. The school is still a magical place, but Harry and his friends are used to it, and so are we. We don’t really notice thing like animated paintings and floating candles anymore. They’re still there. But the kids are more focused on their own lives, and the audience will be more interested in that, too.

There’s still Quidditch, magic spells, creatures and a headmaster who whisks Harry off to face unspeakable threats. Throughout all of this, the kids have a new challenge: the opposite sex. Harry, Ron and Hermione are all hit face-first the challenges of dating. They start seeing everything as something that has to do with the chance to be with their objects of affection. Harry may rather have another face-off with the Hitler of wizards than deal with first-time love not going the way he wants, but that’s life. That’s real. It’s a wonderful nod to natural human progression that in the previous films, other than a look or two, romance wasn’t really part of the picture in the kids’ minds. Now, all of a sudden, it’s everywhere they look. They can’t get away, not even in the face of school, sports or dangers. Sounds a lot like when we were all that age.

Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) has more to do in “The Half-Blood Prince” than he’s had in five previous movies. He has to come of age in a different way, one as equally terrifying and confusing as dating. He has tasks set upon him that perhaps he’s not ready to do. His job is the culmination of years of others’ expectations, including his family’s, to what he has to become. Yet he never made those decisions for himself. Still, he doesn’t want to be a failure, and before the end of the movie, it’ll be crunch time to do the deed.

Other great parts of the movie include a breathtaking yet frightening finale that would give any horror film director a run for his money. Jim Broadbent gives an discerningly amusing presence as the Hogwart’s obligatory new professor and the only member of Slytherin in six movies who isn’t a total jerk.

The other treat is Helena Bonham Carter. She plays the villainess Bellatrix Lestrange as the movie’s only truly campy presence. She seemingly has no reason for being the way she is. She’s just gleeful to be evil, sort of like a cartoon character. In this manner she can’t commit evil without huge arm gestures or cackling to let everyone know she’s evil. Still, her placement isn’t bad. It isn’t stupid. She blends in well with this world and helps keep the fiction side of it firmly in place. One can’t help but look forward to seeing more of her bad side in the next installment. Maybe there’ll be some comeuppance to go with it.

After showing himself in the last two movies, the big kahuna, Lord Voldemort, is inconspicuously absent this time around. Even those that loved seeing him onscreen won’t mind him playing hookie in “The Half-Blood Prince.” There’s so much else going on that show he’s still the big threat. His followers are attacking everything they see fit to, and they’re doing it in both worlds. Evil wizards under Voldemort’s command aren’t above destroying an occupied Muggle bridge or torching a fellow wizards house. And wait till they make their ay inside the school. The bad guys want these kids to know how’s around.

This brings up the point of the final book. Director David Yates is continuing his streak from this and the last winning “Harry Potter” movies by filming the series’ final adaptation, which will be released as two movies so as not to leave anything out. My use of the word “final” may seem to contradict the headline of this review, but it really doesn’t. Even after the final frame is spun through the camera, the characters’ mythologies will remain. All of them, not just Harry’s. These are characters that people of all ages love to observe, imagine and analyze. They started out so simply and became more, sort of like growing up.

We have a cameo!

Bruno pays a visit to the boys in Anniston

“Bruno” got a burst of applause from the audience on its opening weekend. It wasn’t because of any of the jokes, but rather during one of the rare, three-second intervals between them. The people here started clapping when a particular scene changed and the words “Fort McClellan, Alabama” appeared on the screen.

Our very own section of Alabama plays a prominent role in the film’s second half. The character Bruno visits actual religious experts in Birmingham who promise to cure his homosexuality. One of them recommends spending time with other straight men doing manly things, so next stop: Army base.

“Bruno” did some actual filming at Fort McClellan, which delighted the audience members that knew it. These people must have felt like they were in on the joke. It was their chance to laugh at something that belonged to them.

No one applauded throughout the rest of the movie. They were too busy laughing. There wasn’t one full minute of silence within the seats. This is what “Bruno” promises and delivers in spades. It’s simply hilarious from start to finish.

“Bruno” follows the same formula as actor/writer Sacha Baron Cohen’s earlier film, “Borat.” He plays an outrageous character who interviews people, usually with outrageous questions or making sure they’re visibly taken aback by him, and weaves this into his character’s story. The character is a gay Austrian fashion insider who goes to the U.S. to become famous.

The movie is outrageous done well. It presents pervasive shocking, obscene and unapologetic words and acts. The thing is, even those who are offended by seeing these things won’t be offended by him. For example, while he enhances every gay stereotype by 1,000, he doesn’t offend them. He never says this is what other gay people are like. He’s saying this is the way this fictional whack-job is like.

To show flaws in others, Cohen prefers to let them do it themselves. Still, he wants a laugh more than a message. He takes his obscene interviews to the breaking point. What he does is push the people he’s talking to their limit and then push some more to see what will happen. It’s hard to imagine anyone not seeing immediately that the whole thing is a joke, but they don’t, or they get mad about it.

People have a hard time laughing at themselves. That’s what movies like this want to happen. Audience members may imagine themselves being interviewed by Bruno, and either shudder or crack up at what they might say. I would love to see some outtakes where interviewees figured out this guy wasn’t on the up-and-up, and split their sides over it.

Some of Bruno’s subjects are obviously more in on the joke than others. It’s hard to believe Paula Abdul would sit on a Mexican bending over because the interviewer insisted it was a chair. It was obviously arranged beforehand. On the other hand, Bruno’s failed seduction of Ron Paul reveals the former presidential candidate had no idea his host was a comedian in disguise.

Neither did most of the everyday folks he crossed paths with. He milks that anonymity for all the laughs he can muster, which it turns out is a lot. Apparently, it’s easy for a crazily-dressed, flamboyant Austrian to get people to open up.

Some of his findings are downright scary. In one scene he pretends to be producing a photo shoot for babies. He asks desperate stage mothers how far they’re willing to go to get their diapered children in front of a camera. One mother even agreed to make her baby lose 10 pounds in a week and subject him to liposuction if he didn’t. It must have been all Cohen could do to stay in character and not simply stare in shock. Keep in mind that these people know they were being filmed, only perhaps not for a movie. Their pretense of reality makes them all the more frightening.

“Bruno” is also helmed by “Borat’s” director, Larry Charles, who must have gotten his appetite for candidness wet with that movie and has expertly crafted both real and fictional documentaries since.

Upon leaving the theater, I heard some people say Cohen’s mockumentary days are over because he won’t get away with filming his outrageous characters incognito anymore. He’s too easily recognized now. I disagree. People are flawed, and they’ll sell their ideas without always thinking about what they’re saying beforehand. That’s what Cohen’s characters bank on. While I hope he doesn’t rely on the same trick for every onscreen outing, it’s possible he could go back to it. If recognition is a problem, perhaps a better disguise is in order. He’s in the right business for that.

By Jonathan Grass
Home Staff Writer
jdgrass@crimson.ua.edu

Now you can see "Knowing" right

Summit Entertainment released two of its science fiction films on DVD and Blu-Ray this week. Of these, the one to patronize your nearest video sale or rental store for is “Knowing.”

To wet your science fiction appetite, “Knowing” is the story of some people who know things. What they know is that the world is ending, and soon. They even know the date.

The movie sets it up fifty years ago with a young girl experiencing clairvoyance. She obsessively scribbles out a series of numbers to bury in her class’ time capsule. When it’s unearthed in the present time, the girl’s writing is recovered by the son of a college professor played by Nicolas Cage. Ol’ teach eventually figures out that the numbers have accurately predicted the time and place of every major disaster since it’s been buried, and there are a few more left on the list.

He figures out the last date indicates something global. To make a panicked situation worse, his son starts seeing strange, silent men who go by the creed, “pursue first, explain never.”

Cage’s character tracks down the note’s author’s last remaining relatives, who turn out to be seeing the same visitors. They must protect their children from the men while knowing they can’t protect them from an event when they don’t even know what it is.

End of the world movies are nothing new. But somehow, this one is. Many such films, even ones that take themselves too seriously, revert to dealing with apocalypses with car chases, shootouts, and a one man show against the world disaster. This character just wants to understand it. He can predict it, all right, but a fat lot of good that will do, and he knows it. If he can figure out a way to help his son survive as long as he can, he’ll be lucky.

There are a few chase scenes here, but are about reaction rather than action. People rush to their cars and take off for the very reasons anyone would. It’s not to save the world, just someone they know in it. These car chases are short, to the point and end exactly how someone in the real world would expect from a panicked driver not pretending to be an action hero.

Director Alex Proyas relies on genuine fear and thought provocation. He also raises the issue of whether everything does happen randomly or for a purpose. I won’t get into that issue here, but I will say this isn’t an idea new to Proyas’ science fiction. “Dark City” was a fascinating example of this idea blended with perceived reality.

Those of you who will see “Knowing” for the first time at home are lucky. You’ll have a great viewing opportunity that I wish I’d had during its spring theatrical run. You’ll get to end the movie the way it should be.

When I saw the screen go black, I was dumbfounded. “There’s no way they could have ended that better,” I thought. It worked perfectly.

Then a few extra seconds pass and rather than seeing white letters roll up over a black screen, the movie ended a second time, sort of an epilogue. But the satisfaction I felt only a moment ago when the screen went black was immediately gone.

The first ending leaves us with shock, fear for the people we’ve seen yet understanding that this is the way things have to be. It fits in perfectly with the flow of the rest of the film. The second ending feels tacked-on and unnecessary. It’s almost a distraction, which may be the intent. It feels like the studio forced the director to shoot an additional scene to give people a happy ending, sort of a “just in case” thing. Perhaps they thought we couldn’t handle a challenge. I don’t know if this was in the original script, but I doubt it.

When you view “Knowing” on a disc, and I strongly urge you to go ahead and stop the film after the first ending. You’ll be satisfied. Then later you can watch the whole thing again with the epilogue. In case you’re wondering how you’ll know the right time to hit the stop button, believe me, you’ll know. It just feels like the end.

By Jonathan Grass
Home Staff Writer
jdgrass@crimson.ua.edu

Idiots say the darndest things

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine," an effects-less movie.

A recent visit with a friend reminded me of the importance of having a sense of awareness.

My friend is an idiot. That’s not meant to be snide, insulting or cute. It’s just a fact. This person is genuinely not smart.

This is by his choice. He would rather stay ignorant and convince himself he’s brilliant rather than opening his mind and learning something. Striving for self improvement, which is something we all must do, is out of the question. The thought of admitting there’s something he doesn’t know makes him shudder, as it seems like the surest sign of weakness.

He sees himself as a Renaissance man and somewhat of an expert on a variety of topics, including business, politics, medicine, nutrition and entertainment. He won’t shy away from telling you his concrete facts, most of which he makes up on the spot or gathered through the grapevine. One of his biggest downfalls is making statements about subjects he knows nothing about to people who do.

Most of his statements are absolutely hilarious.

He gave me some real whoppers this weekend. Since this is a movie blog, I’ll only relay his latest cinema gems.

One regards the fascinating 1997 science fiction film, “Dark City.” We were at a DVD store when I grabbed it, as it was one I’d been after for awhile. When my friend saw I’d made a selection, he couldn’t let me get away with purchasing something without his expert opinion.

“You shouldn’t get that. It had way too much cussing,” he said after seeing the dark, scary and mysterious cover.

My friend is no prude. He has absolutely no problem using or hearing bad language. He just saw it as a chance to impress me with knowledge that he hoped I didn’t have.

His method of making up a criticism that he only hoped would fit the context came back to him instantly. He happened to be talking about one of the few movies that, despite its R rating, contains no profanity whatsoever. In fact, film critic Roger Ebert even notes on his commentary track for the DVD that there are no four-letter words. The film's setting has a reason for this. The closest thing is when a character says, “Shoot!”

When I asked my friend if he had ever actually seen the movie, of course the answer was no. He just didn’t realize that my purchase of it might mean that I had, so I would believe and take his critique at face value and be impressed at his observation.

He hopes for this a lot.

While his comment on “Dark City” was simply ignorance, his next one was downright baffling. The topic of “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” came up. (digression: I still say it was a fun flick with deeper character interactions than I expected. It also had the second best opening credit sequence of the year behind “Watchmen.”)

My friend had a review for this movie that he missed, too. “There weren’t any special effect in it,” he said.

It’s hard to comment on a statement like this. It’s just too dumbfounding. Those who have seen it know that the movie couldn’t go two minutes without a superpower display, fight scene, explosion or vehicle stunt. The trees were probably computer-generated. Heck, in one sequence the hero flies through the air onto a moving helicopter, grounds it then blows it up.

Those that haven’t seen it would probably guess that a comic book-based summer action flick that follows three other films in a huge action series would probably contain a few effects. But that kind of thinking doesn’t matter to him. Logic doesn’t play in this mind.

These are not isolated incidents. He frequently says things that he doesn’t know and that make no sense. He doesn’t think about that. He just hopes people will immediately believe anything he says simply because he says it. Why wouldn’t they?

By Jonathan Grass

Home Staff Writer

jdgrass@crimson.ua.edu

Robots: 2, audience: 0

Movie theaters across the country have reported that during its mid-week opening, “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” accomplished exactly what it meant to: standing-room only crowds. Theaters have also reported that many audience fragments, sometimes even half, walked out before the 150-minute runtime had concluded. That’s ok, they paid at the door.

This accomplished point one on the studios’ and filmmakers’ agendas when they set out to make a sequel to their 2007 summer blockbuster. Point two was that Director Michael Bay would make the movie the way he wanted: loud, long and dumb.

That’s not always a bad thing. Big, flashy movies strictly there as cheap entertainment can be some of the most fun experiences one can get into on a hot summer day and can even leave us with fond memories of a good time at the theater with friends. Of course, the movie’s stupidity or campiness must be fun. We’re not talking about great art here, just something to can smile and laugh about. Bay’s robotic romp decided even that would be too highbrow for an audience. As a result, the movie perturbs you for sitting through it, or it makes you too dumb to feel anything.

Bay wanted this movie to cater to the lowest common denominator, and boy oh boy, did he succeed.

“Transformers” is a mess. That’s not to be cute or snide, it is genuinely messy. Almost nothing in there fit together or made sense. The plot is so convoluted yet nonexistent at the same time. There’s a basic story in there about the evil robots destroying the world, seemingly just because that’s what evil robots are supposed to do. Things get way too confusing between who’s doing what and why. Plot points are introduced and destroyed simultaneously. It’s like the writers wanted to keep pushing the plot into further factors and the director kept telling them, “Who cares? More noise!” You can almost hear them arguing about it.

Speaking of writers, it was disappointing to see this sequel’s addition of the talented Ehren Kruger to the screenwriting roster didn’t help things. He’s shown real skill with holding an audience’s attention with scripts like “The Ring” and “Arlington Road.”

All of the original characters are back: Sam, Mikaela, Maj. Lennox and even Agent Simmons. The same Autobots and Decepticons return, but now there’s a whole lot more of them, which would be fantastic since a problem with the first “Transformers” was the lack of a deeper look at the actual Transformers. But we don’t look at the characters of any of the new guys either. There are dozens more, and they’re only role is to impress us by showing us how cool they look when fighting. Sometimes they transform just to walk a few feet before changing back. All humans and robots are also morons who talk like rich white kids pretending to be street rappers.

When most filmmakers take on an established project like this, it’s because they have a genuine love for the material. Bay seems to not care about it so much. His main priority was to film big action and sexy young girls then try to work the Transformers and some form of continuity in around that. It doesn’t work.

Bay also has no sense of timing for sexual content, which is terrible when he banks so much of the film’s laugh factor on it. First there are the women, but girls would be a more accurate word. Every woman who shows up onscreen who isn’t Sam’s mother is an indiscriminate, scantily-clad, party girl who thinks of 25 as middle-age. Even Decepticons are now transforming into these coeds. The heroine strips outdoors unnecessarily, and at least she stops there. Since Bay couldn’t include more than this among the human actors, he looked for any excuse to throw in some humping, whether it be with two dogs or a miniature robot and a hot babe’s leg. The problem is that there were no buildups to these shots; they just happen. In the name of lewdness, editing had to take one for the team.

Scenes like these are too messy to be funny. Let’s face it, when two people are thrown through the air by a massive explosion just a few feet away and their only physical results are to end up laying (perfectly fine, no scratches) with her face in his crotch, even the most juvenile dudes will be saying, “OK, already!”.

Overall, “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” has more robots, more fights, more fire, more effects and more sex, yet none of the appeal one might associate with these things in a summer popcorn flick. It’s true that people want more bang for the buck, but they don’t want just the bang, not even the people that are the actual age bay assumes we all are. Somewhere around “Transformer’s” 4,000th boom, the child in the seat next to me was nodding off. I envied him.

Top 5 movies to see this summer that have smaller budgets than "Transformers"

Don’t worry. These are all major studio releases that will be around here for you, Talladega!

1. The Time Traveler’s Wife (release date: Aug. 14): What better way to examine how diseases can affect family life than to make one up? As long as you’re doing that, why not make the disease involuntary time travel?

2. The Boat That Rocked (release date: Aug. 28): British comedies that still play it straight are almost always more entertaining than any star-studded slapstick marathon we can put out in any given year. Don’t let the “Based on a true story” cliché scare you off. The film clearly focuses on the ridiculousness of situations without pushing the facts on you. If nothing else, who can resist the images of Bill Nighy and Nick Frost rocking it out in 60’s garb?

3. Public Enemies (release date: July 1): Easily the biggest summer blockbuster on the list. Michael Mann, one of the masters of crime pictures, finally takes on a criminal period piece. It’s too early to tell if he’ll pull it off, but it will definitely be worth the ticket price to find out.

4. 9 (release date: Sept. 9): This doesn’t look like the typical animated movie that’s supposed to be as enjoyable for adults as much as kids. It’s actually a mature, other-worldly science-fiction story that happens to be drawn rather than acted. It’s American McGee meets Oddworld. Darkness has nothing to do with it, fantasy does.

5. Inglourious Basterds (release date: Aug. 21): I’ve enjoyed some of Quinton Tarantino’s films more than others, but there’s one thing obvious in all of them. This guy loves movies, and that’s the reason he’s making them. He’s a film buff who makes everything he shoots a homage to the films that helped shape him into adulthood. If he’s turned his attentions to making a highly stylized Jews vs. Nazis bloodbath, you’ll be able to feel the love that went into it. Not to mention, it just sounds darn entertaining.

'Til immigration do us part

“The Proposal” attempts to answer whether or not two good-looking Hollywood characters can start out not liking each other and yet end up together by the end. It turns out they can.

So this idea has been used in one or two movies before. Does that make it a tired theme? Actually, it does. But like it or not, it’s a theme that’s here to stay. On the other hand, it can still be enjoyable when a story looks at fresh ways of bringing two characters ideals together. “The Proposal” chooses not to do this, sticking with the good ol’ reliable bicker-yet-show-attraction-until-moment-of-emotional-breakthrough” routine. It hasn’t failed to get a script approved yet.

Sandra Bullock plays Margaret Tate, a big-shot New York book editor who, in accordance with mandatory movie character stereotype law, is feared by her entire staff, who run in a panic and try to look busy when she approaches and breathe sighs of relief when she is around. She seems emotionless and is only concerned with the next business deal. Granted, I’ve never worked for a New York publisher, but I have had female bosses and I’ve never encountered this problem. Of course, in the movies, women bosses seem to have to be this unpleasant. Perhaps normalcy isn’t considered real enough.

Her tortured assistant Andrew (Ryan Reynolds) wants to be taken seriously in his job yet continues to bow to her every whim like the rest of the department lap dogs, even going as far as to always order the same coffee as her should she need a backup. This attitude opens the door for his boss to use him as a fake fiancé when she becomes faced with deportation to Canada and needs to get married in order to stay in the U.S. and keep her job.

It seems to me that anyone who works for her would line up to offer to help her pack Instead, Andrew goes along with it. To help fool the immigration officer, he even takes her to his family’s Alaska home for the weekend. The rest of the scheme involves fooling his own family into believing they’re a couple and even making it official through an impromptu wedding.

Aside from being a garden-variety comedy, “The Proposal” has a few other glitches to overcome, and they’re all about characters. It would be great to see how Andrew’s parents (Craig T. Nelson and Mary Steenburgen) affect his life. Dad is only there for a few shots to show there’s family tension and mom is around to dote to play the anchor between them. We don’t get into them, and later all conflict are seemingly resolved with a few simple words. I also don’t get how Andrew’s whole personality can change from manservant to gutsy the second he sees his chance.

The real disappointing factor in this love story is the love. There’s a moment when Paxton spots his old flame through a window and proceeds outside to deliver some news. We never hear what’s being said between them, yet that moment that he sees her shows more chemistry between these two characters than he and Tate ever graze. Exceptionally, the ex didn’t even need to be in that one shot to show this.

When Margaret eventually (and she must) breaks down and talks about her past difficulties that led her to be such an ice-queen now, we don’t care, and it doesn’t matter because Bullock is so unconvincing doing it. She may as well be reciting last night’s hockey scores for all the emotional investment she’s putting into spilling her guts.

The cast does have two notable shining stars. The first is the legendary Betty White as Andrew’s grandmother. You can’t get enough of her. She too follows the romantic comedy stereotype that every woman over 80 must be odd and spunky, but boy can Betty play it. The other is Oscar Nunez, who fans will recognize from TV’s “The Office.” He’s the town’s jack-of-all-trades. One of those trades is a minister, another is a stripper. And he always pops up in a new job when you’ve just settled on his last one.

So the movie doesn’t hit with romance or characters. Get ready for a shocker, I say see it anyway. It’s funny. Romantic or not, Reynolds’ and Bullocks rapport is spot-on. You’ll smile, probably even chuckle a few times. Wait until Grandma and Margaret turn an Indian chant into hip-hop. I hope my positive recommendation surprised you. Like I said, the movie doesn’t have any, so I thought you could use it. You’re welcome.