Film Essentials: "Metropolis" (1926)

During a recent screening of Metropolis I kept wondering what a remake would look like if one were made in 2009. I kept coming to the same conclusion: it probably wouldn’t look all that much different. Metropolis is a dark, brooding film which achieved that moodiness through production design and cinematography. Fritz Lang’s film nails the vision of a bleak future dominated by a superior few. Cynics might say that in the years since Metropolis was released, Hollywood has churned out remakes, in one way or another. There’s been THX-1138, Blade Runner, and even the brightly colored Logan’s Run that have portrayed wild visions of a dystopian future. Yet none of these have come close to capturing the downright creepy society that Lang delivered in Metropolis. The cavernous sets literally tower over the cast and are the most effective element of the film. Some of the great set pieces included the Tower of Babel, the catacombs, Rotwang’s lab, and the Workers’ City with the heart machine. Of course Lang’s extraordinary use of production design should come as no surprise given that he is a descendent of German cinema. While the Russians were preoccupied with capturing realism and editing, the German style was much more focused on visual aesthetics with little emphasis on storytelling. I found not only the sets and lighting to be visually entrancing in Metropolis, but also the characters. Lang used actors who were well versed in delivering wicked sneers, bulging eyes, and shocked expressions. In a sense, Lang’s actors were used as part of the production design; many of them contribute to Metropolis’ eeriness. Characters such as Joh Frederson, the Thin Man, the machine woman and Rotwang populate Lang’s urban nightmare, and all seem like folks whom you’d never want to run into in a dark alley. There’s really no need to ever consider a true modern remake of Metropolis; Lang’s iconic film can never be matched.

"Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince" Review

Magic Returns to the Series

At last, here is Harry Potter #6, arriving like Al Franken, seven months late. I must admit that going into the advanced screening there was a been-there, done-that vibe. Like any long-running film series with more sequels than fingers on a hand, the Harry Potter movie franchise has unwittingly descended into a formulaic vehicle, which both fans and Warner Bros. has seemed to accept. The James Bond series performs the same dance but to a different tune; observe: Rock-em sock-em prologue, sizzling title sequence, banter with Moneyponey, Bond gets mission from M, femme fatale introduced, diabolical villain scheming, car chases, explosions, Bond saves world. Rinse and repeat twenty times and you have a franchise. Harry Potter is no different, case-in-point: Harry endures the Dursleys/summer tribulations; new threat to Harry emerges, Harry & friends ponder threat on Hogwarts Express, Dumbledore introduces a creepy new teacher, Quidditch played in hurricane-ripe conditions, Snape sneering, Harry & entourage attempting to eliminate evil threat, Snape scheming, Harry jumping to wrong conclusions, Snape sulking, Harry tries to save the day Rambo-style, i.e. alone.

Although I may sound cynical, I have read every book in the series, and most importantly have enjoyed them all. In the novels, J.K. Rowling crafted a spellbinding saga of magical adventure and wonderment. Yet, for all of the spectacular wizard duels and fantastical locales, what kept the books grounded were characters and stories that readers cared about. As the novels grew thicker with each new installment, Rowling’s writing became richer, her characters deeper, and Harry’s wondrous wizard world took its place alongside J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” and George Lucas’ “Star Wars” as the three most organic and detailed fantasy universes ever created. Rowling was able to make places like Hogwarts and Diagon Alley seem as real as our own. Although each of the novels was framed during a school year, they always seemed amazingly fresh. They never possessed the cookie-cutter vibe that the films recently have taken on. Rowling’s endless imagination wouldn’t allow them to.

I was mesmerized by what Chris Columbus and Alfonso Cuarón achieved in the first three film adaptations. Although Columbus (“Mrs. Doubtfire”, “Step Mom”) is often unfairly dismissed by critics as more of a film manager than a director, make no mistake he is an auteur (try not to chuckle). He often directs projects featuring young protagonists that have divorced or absent parents, and delivers compelling drama without lapsing into campiness. Columbus was seen by many as perfect for the Harry Potter franchise, because they assumed he wouldn’t divert from the adapted screenplay. There was tremendous pressure on screenwriter Steve Kloves and Columbus to remain as faithful to the book as possible, and they responded by delivering near flawless film translations of the first two books. With Columbus at the helm, Harry was always the focal point of the films. In particular, Columbus allotted generous screen time to highlighting Harry’s desire for parents as well as building Harry’s relationship with Dumbledore.

Emboldened by the public’s positive reaction to the first two films, Kloves took more liberties in the script for Prisoner of Azkaban. After Columbus bowed out, Alfonso Cuarón was pegged by producers to direct. Cuarón, known for his brilliant but risqué Mexican dramas featuring adolescents and mature themes, surprised many by delivering the finest Harry Potter film. Cuarón added a real-world grittiness that had been lacking in the series, while embracing a more sinister tone that’s reflected in the washed-out cinematography, the masterful production design, and John Williams’ moody score. Prisoner of Azkaban represents the peak of the film series, one that the current films are still trying to get back to.

After the ho-hum qualities of the last two “Potter” flicks following Azkaban I was just hoping that Half-Blood Prince would put an end to the series’ negative momentum. I am pleased to say that it has. Pic is a major improvement over the past two and approaches Prisoner of Azkaban-quality before plummeting back down to mediocrity the last twenty-five minutes or so of the movie. I’ll get to that in a minute but there is much more good than bad in Half-Blood Prince, so first the positives.

Half-Blood Prince opens with the ominous destruction of key London landmarks and the trashing of Diagon Alley by Death Eaters. Audience then gets to catch-up with Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) on a summer break excursion. Steve Kloves, back adapting the material after a one-film hiatus, seems re-energized from the get-go with a charming café scene and Harry’s surprise rendezvous with Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) on a train platform. Dumbledore whisks Harry off to help him recruit an old potions teacher back to Hogwarts, Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), who keeps a hall-of-fame of famous students he’s taught. After a successful pitch and a pitstop at the Weasley compound, Harry and the gang arrive back for another term at Hogwarts. Harry’s usual nemesis Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) is acting as suspicious as ever and Professor Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) has been promoted to Defense-Against the Dark Arts teacher. This year even Ron (Rupert Grint) gets in on the Quidditch fun, but overall there is a lack of …um…“action”.

The films relatively slow pacing hearkens back to the Columbus days, when screen time was actually devoted to classroom scenes. It’s odd that in Half-Blood Prince we never see Snape finally teaching the subject he has supposedly lusted after for years. In fact, Slughorn is the only professor ever shown teaching, which is a tad odd considering the story takes place in a school. For all the lounging around and socializing in the dining hall students seem to do, you’d think it was an American public school, but I digress.

The film feels all of 2 hours 33 minutes, but luckily the screen is populated with bubbly and engaging personalities. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson are in top form and have developed a rapport that only comes from years of being together in front of the camera. Jim Broadbent is outstanding as the slippery Horace Slughorn, who drools like a pit-bull at the thought of becoming a “friend” to the famous Harry Potter. Only in a “Potter” movie could so many twitches and furrowed eye brows be considered insightful acting, but it all adds to Broadbent’s characterization. It’s funny how the “Potter” films have become essentially a work-release program for aged British thespians, but nevertheless they all hit the mark. Ageless Maggie Smith charms as McGonagall and Rickman’s Snape steals every scene he’s in. Even when Snape is positioned in the background, it’s impossible to ignore his wickedly amusing reactions.

Michael Gambon is reliable as always as Dumbledore, but Kloves doesn’t push his relationship with Harry past that of old professor and dutiful student. Part of the problem is Kloves’ decision to cut several of the Tom Riddle memory flashbacks that helped Harry and Dumbledore form a closer bond in the book. Rowling also used each of the books to steadily build-up the two’s relationship, so that Dumbledore became Harry’s most trusting adult confidante. Columbus again deserves credit for advancing their relationship through the two films he directed. Too bad none of his successors seemed interested in pushing forward what he had set in motion.

Overall, director David Yates seems more comfortable with the material here than he did in Order of the Phoenix, however, again his greatest faults are revealed when lensing action sequences. What could have been a rip-roaring finale was stifled by a poorly conceived alternative to the novel’s curtain closing moments (loyal readers will know I’m talking about after seeing the film). It’s difficult to say if Steve Kloves' screenplay is to blame, but ultimately Yates must be faulted for the severe lack of tension and excitement in the film’s last 30 minutes (not including Harry and Dumbledore’s near-deadly journey into a cave). The final 100 pages of the novel were the highlight of the book, but sadly all of that has been lost in the translation to the screen. The finale will undoubtedly anger and disappoint legions of fans of J.K. Rowling's series.

On a positive note, Yates keenly inserts humor throughout the film (the best gag has Ron overdosed on a love potion), in an attempt to balance the ending that many in the theater knows will crescendo with the death of a major character. There are lots of new elements in Hogwarts, which keeps things fresh. It helps that Broadbent’s Slughorn is the most amusingly quirky and funny to watch teacher since Kenneth Branagh’s portrayal of celebrity-obsessed Gilderoy Lockhart. Production values as always remain top-notch. Nicholas Hooper's score is at times adequate, but more often than not leaves you yearning for the days John Williams was at the helm. Hooper has openly admitted that he writes music on a scene-by-scene basis. Conversely, Williams uses leitmotifs, meaning he writes music based on characters, themes, objects, or locations in the film. Williams’ style, by its very nature is more conducive to thematic development. Williams gave us dozens of memorable cues including Hedwig’s Theme; while Hooper’s scores seem to be background music that he’s hoping will go unnoticed. Thankfully, producers have been in talks with John Williams to return for the two-part series finale (Williams has said he would love to come back), but ultimately his schedule will dictate whether he rescues millions of fans from soundtrack purgatory.

In the end, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will enchant those with an open mind. Even non-Potter aficionados should be able to enjoy this entry due to its consistently laid-back structure, as well as the film’s focus on fluid characterizations more so than any rigid plot (although some terms will soar over their heads). The whimper of an ending dampers what is actually a fine entry in the film series. This one is much more similar in tone and pacing to films 1-3, which most will be happy to hear.

"Terminator Salvation" Review

Could you imagine what a Star Wars movie would be like without any involvement from George Lucas? Cynics might blissfully recall that its already been made i.e. The Empire Strikes Back. Even then, Lucas received story and producing credit, was on-set everyday, and all creative decisions were ultimately his to make. Think about it. If someone on-set needed to quickly know whom Chewbacca’s first cousin once removed is, only George Lucas would have the answer. Few film franchises are as dependent on one creative mind, but to quote Yoda: “There is another…” What George Lucas is to the Star Wars saga, James Cameron was to the Terminator series. Terminator: Salvation only reaffirms what we all knew after 2003’s disastrous Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Thankfully, Salvation is a major improvement over the last installment, however it doesn’t come close to approaching the perfect balance of the first two entries. The Terminator and T2 blew audiences away with rough-and-tumble action draped with a plethora of philosophical mindbenders that would keep Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche pondering for years. Jim Cameron’s vision for the first two films was so whiz bang that he was smart to quit while he was ahead. Perhaps he knew that the Terminator storyline was finished after Judgment Day and any more would be gratuitous. Conversely, Warner Brothers didn’t see it that way and have left the door open for two Salvation sequels.

Enough pandering, lets get down to specifics. Terminator: Salvation takes place in the post-apocalyptic future, in the midst of the war between machines and humans. John Connor (Bale) is a crucial member of the human resistance. If you recall, Connor is the Christ-like human figure and supposedly the only hope for defeating the machines. For the first time in the Terminator series, we see that Connor has a wife, with a child on the way. Other familiar faces include a teenaged Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) and a brief appearance from Arnold himself (thanks to the magic of CGI). The most fascinating character of the bunch, however, is new. Marcus Wright (Worthington) is introduced to the audience as a convicted murderer in federal prison, but instead of serving out a life sentence decides to donate his body to science. The film opens with Wright making this pivotal decision in the present day, and then jumps to the future where we pick up Connor’s storyline. When Wright suddenly appears in the future, not having aged a day, and with no memory of what’s happened to him during the previous twenty years, the film kicks into gear. Wright sets off on a mission to find out the truth, and in the process stumbles across Connor and Reese, whose fates are coincidentally tied to together.

Even though Bale gets top billing, he doesn’t do much except for grunt and groan. The character most people want to see is Reese and what he was like in his youth, but the screenplay curiously brushes him aside. Ultimately, Reese is woefully underused as a plot device to connect Connor and Wright. The film seems to divvy up screen time among the three protagonists and the result is that none of the characters are fleshed out. Salvation is like the first 1/3 of a screenplay. The basic premise exists, but nothing gets going and there is certainly not much of a payoff for the audience.

McG (yes, that is the director’s credited name) actually has good intentions. He has deep respect for the material, as evidenced by numerous homages to Cameron’s films (“I’ll be back!” is back again) and the fact that the Terminator mythology appears to sync well with past films. McG’s only fault is that he fails to push the series forward from what we’ve seen already in the epic war against machines.

Remember the now infamous on-set Christian Bale rant leaked last fall? The media was told by insider sources that it occurred while shooting the most emotionally intense scene in the film. Considering all the Terminator crewmembers who came out to defend Bale’s explosive outburst, you’d think they were making a drama on par with Schindler’s List. After seeing Salvation I can honestly say I have no idea which scene they were shooting when Bale went wild, since there really isn’t any scene that warrants the raw energy Bale let loose on-set.

Overall, Salvation is a movie that seems to be missing something…like half the script. The action sequences suffice. Christian Bale and Sam Worthington seem relatively interested in making the film work. What dooms Salvation is a severe lack of the aforementioned perfect balance. The enthusiasm for the material is there, but the story isn’t. Maybe its time to mimic what James Cameron tried to do to the series after T2: Judgement Day: terminate it.