The Master of Disguise (2002)

This could very well be the stupidest movie I have ever seen. Mostly known for being one of the worst movies made this side of Battlefield Earth, The Master of Disguise lives up to all the negative hype. No film has ever made 70 minutes feel like an eternity quite like this one.

Like watching a messy train wreck in slow motion, The Master of Disguise grabs a hold of you and refuses to let go. Sensible people will find the willpower to turn this movie off after about three minutes, but I sat through the whole thing so I could comment on it here. Taking one for the team never hurt so much.

I love Dana Carvey’s work on Saturday Night Live. He was always one of the best, so I was left scratching my head in bewilderment as to how this awful movie could have ever come into existence. Then I saw who produced it. Blame need go no further than Happy Madison productions, the production company of former SNL star Adam Sandler and the source for many insipid “comedies” over the last several years.

I can only imagine how Sandler talked Carvey into creating this pitiful, humorless comedy. Carvey is a natural at impersonating people and creating bizarre characters for comedic effect, so Sandler must have encouraged him to come up with as many impersonations as possible for the course of the film. While each character might have had a twinge of humor had they been given their fair share of screen time, the jam-packed nature of the film causes many otherwise fine impersonations to get lost in a sea of changing faces and voices.

But don’t be fooled- I make it sound as if there were a glimmer of hope with which to save this movie. In reality, there is not. The only way to “save” this movie would be to eliminate the plot and all the characters and just make it some kind of oddball instructional video by Dana Carvey on how to do impersonations, or even a behind-the-scenes guide showing us how he prepares to do these characters. In other words, the only way to improve The Master of Disguise is to eliminate it altogether.

Let’s start with the plot. It’s bad enough that the plot has been done plenty of times, but The Master of Disguise pretends to think that it can offer something new to the “my parents were kidnapped, so now I’m going to rescue them” genre. Enter Carvey’s character, ridiculously named Pistachio Disguisey. He is a bumbling nitwit who happens to come from a family rich in history with the almost supernatural ability to instantly take on any disguise in perfect detail.

Pistachio is so stereotypically Italian that it’s not funny. The overdone accent, the overblown mannerisms, it’s all borderline offensive. Even worse is that Dana Carvey looks to be about 0% Italian. So far so good, er, bad. What I wasn’t sure of was how old his character was supposed to be. Carvey was in his late 40s when making the film, but is made up to look like a 20 year old kid.

His parents are kidnapped, leaving him helpless. Helpless, that is, until his grandfather appears with a magic pop-up book that will unveil the secrets of the Disguisey way to young Pistachio. Appalled yet?

Now add in the obligatory gorgeous sidekick, played by Jennifer Esposito. She is more or less picked randomly and only takes the job because she needs money to raise her kid. She humors Pistachio for a while but in the end, his boyish charm wins her over. Ick. Together they try to track down who kidnapped Pistachio’s parents.

The kidnapper is Brent Spiner (Data from the Star Trek movies), a longtime enemy of the Disguiseys. He is a master thief but uses the elder Disguisey to steal valuable artifacts by impersonating celebrities and people of importance. He also passes gas every time he attempts to laugh like a stereotypical diabolical villain. This is meant to be a funny character trait.

In the end, there’s a big showdown and blah… blah… blah. The only thing that matters is that this is a horrible movie that was somehow overlooked by the Razzie Awards. No film marketed as a family adventure-comedy should EVER include the main character learning “the art of the bitch-slap.”

I rest my case. The Master of Disguise is a stain on the résumés of every single actor, writer, and studio hand involved in bringing this festering turd to life. It boasts atrocious writing, a barrage of tired clichés, pathetic visual effects and it makes no sense at all. Stay away from this movie at all costs!

If I find out that you have read this review and still watched The Master of Disguise anyway, chances are I will have to hurt you. And no, I won’t feel sorry about it at all.

RATING: 0.25 out of 5

The Gods Must Be Crazy (1980)

One tagline for this film reads “An epic comedy of absurd proportions.” While the journey the film recounts may very well be epic, the comedy isn’t quite as absurd as advertised. Nevertheless, The Gods Must Be Crazy is an enjoyable and endearing film.

There’s three parts to the story: an African bushman named Xixo embarks on a quest to rid his village of a trinket believed to have been sent to them by the gods (in actuality a Coke bottle dropped out of an airplane). At the same time, a bumbling research scientist develops a crush on the local town’s new schoolteacher. Finally, a group of terrorist-led guerrillas are on the run after they botch a coup attempt.

All of these plot lines intersect in a variety of humorous ways. There is no vulgar comedy here. Instead, The Gods Must Be Crazy draws laughs from fish-out-of-water slapstick, awkward everyman bumbling, a few over the top sequences and some good old-fashioned dry, witty one-liners.

Most notable about this film is the portrayal of the lead character Xixo. The part is played by a real bushman who had virtually no exposure to the “civilized white world” before working on the film. The director found him in the bush and liked his expressions and genuine curiosity with all the trivialities that “civilized” people get hung up on. This genuineness shows right through on film and the character grows on you quite a bit.

His curiosity and lack of knowledge of “civilized” ways leads to much of the humor and also serves as an amusing poke at what we call society. Xixo doesn’t understand much about white people and their peculiar ways and thinks much of what goes on is unnecessary and silly. It sort of hearkens back to a simpler time and does a fantastic job of showing viewers just how absurd we really are sometimes.

A number of people believe this film to be racist because of its depiction of bushmen as uncultured savages, as well as the fact that it was made and funded by a South African film company (at the time, South Africa was still ruled by the racist and segregationist apartheid system of government). Granted, the click language used by the bushmen is dubbed over by a much more simplified series of clicking noises, but I rather enjoyed the culture clash and portrayal of “white society” as being filled with things that, while designed to ease our lives, only serve to complicate things. I would say this film is mostly harmless in terms of its racial implications.

There are parts that drag on a tad too long, but the overall story is too unique to pass up. I guarantee that you will never find another film that evokes comedy and culture quite in the same way as The Gods Must Be Crazy.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

What a silly, silly movie. Disaster flicks are notorious for being over the top and unbelievable, but The Day After Tomorrow aims for new lows (on a global scale no less!).

Take the absolute worst (and I mean apocalyptic) possible outcome to unchecked global warming, a process that would take a couple thousand years to play out, make it all happen in a matter of days, and you have The Day After Tomorrow.

Panned and criticized by nearly all respectable scientists and climatologists, the film oversteps its bounds and gets an overwhelming majority of its science wrong in the pursuit of flashy, computer generated destruction. As heavy-laden as this film is with CGI, you’d almost have to watch it on the big screen for it to look good. There’s something about CGI that doesn’t translate well over a normal TV screen.

I will admit that some of the destruction sequences are kind of cool looking, though watching it on a TV made the effects look a tad hokey. The problem is that The Day After Tomorrow doesn’t do enough to grab you and make you believe what you’re seeing could be real. This stems from the fact that the film wants you to believe that global warming can and will ultimately do this to our world. It is far too easy to stop yourself and say “that can’t possibly happen that way.”

Given all that we know about the natural sciences and weather phenomena, having the disaster sequences look cool isn’t enough. Gone are the days of sensational destruction via Mother Earth in films. Far too much of the general population has a good idea of how weather realistically behaves, even in the most extreme conditions. To try and pass off the overblown nature of these cataclysms under the guise of scientific plausibility is futile. Unless you check your brain at the door- a typical requirement of much of the fodder that passes for summer cinema- you’ll find yourself being pulled right out of the movie by the sheer absurdity of what you are being subjected to.

For example: Massive tornadoes ravage downtown Los Angeles. It’s a neat thought, but when was the last time you heard of a twister in LA? The atmospheric conditions are all wrong (but they explain it away by saying global warming totally altered atmospheric conditions everywhere). Furthermore, these massive twisters converge to create a single, gargantuan twister, in effect doubling its size, speed and destructive force. Cool notion, but it’s all wrong. Finally, this mega-twister completely guts a skyscraper, leaving just the concrete and steel skeleton. Cool visual, but it just wouldn’t happen.

Another example is the huge wave of water that bears down on the New York Public Library in tidal wave fashion. Yes, the New York Public Library faces a street (East 41st) that goes straight out to a water source, but this water source is minimal. Unless the surging water were high enough to completely plow through Long Island with very little resistance, the scene is impossible.

Aside from the environmental concerns, The Day After Tomorrow dishes out a few political jabs. The head-in-the-sand Vice President of the USA in the film looks very much like the actual Vice President at the time the film was released, Dick Cheney. The film also touches on the immigration debate. Virtually everything north of Texas is turned into a barren, frozen wilderness that is unsuitable for any living being. Thus, much of the American population ends up fleeing into Mexico, where the new temperate climate exists. It turns the tables on America by making them immigrants in a foreign land.

A similar impact is made on the rest of the world. The last shot in the film shows the whole earth where much of North America and nearly all of Europe has been frozen and rendered uninhabitable. This would force all the survivors to move into developing third-world countries. Now the citizens of many powerful states find themselves being taken in by those nations they were once reluctant to give much help to outside of food drops.

This can’t be a subliminal message, because it’s spelled out so clearly. The makers of this film are trying to send a message to all the wealthy powerful nations of the world, saying that our reluctance to stop global warming will be the end of our supremacy. The first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Aside from the overall message, the plot is pretty decent for a disaster flick. A climatologist warns everyone about the dangers of global warming but is brushed off. Suddenly his theory of world-wide devastation comes true but at an alarmingly expedient rate. His son gets caught in the brunt of the catastrophe and dad goes after him, risking his life. It leads to a predictable ending, but at least he’s a devoted father. That’s more than a lot of dads out there can say.

The strong family ties and commitment to survival is good and always ends up inspiring the viewer to some extent. I certainly wouldn’t want to face such conditions, but I’d like to think I could find a way to survive.

There is a secondary plot line involving romance between characters played by Jake Gyllenhaal and Emmy Rossum. They are longtime friends and he really likes her but she seems oblivious to his swooning. Before the super storm strikes, Gyllenhaal picks up some competition for the lovely Rossum’s affection at an academic Olympiad type competition. However, once the other guy sees how much Gyllenhaal cares for the girl, he tells him to go after her. How sappy and unrealistic is that?

My closing beef with this film is that, while it shows brief clips of destruction in other parts of the world, The Day After Tomorrow never follows up with the conditions the rest of the world. To me, this seems one-sided, as if America is the only country to blame, and that strikes me as lazy work. Yes, the main characters are Americans, so it’s important to show how America turned out, but there’s over 200 countries also being affected by this crazy weather and very little of it is addressed.

The disruption of climate patterns in one part of the world will set off a chain reaction of events across the globe, but The Day After Tomorrow doesn’t acknowledge this, it does not address this, and it does not portray this. This film has a target in mind and it hits it full force.

Had it not been so heavy-handed and preachy at times, The Day After Tomorrow could have been a smash hit 35 years ago. The only problems are that the computer effects didn’t exist back then and, at that time, everyone was worried about Global Cooling and the dawn of a new ice age.

RATING: 1.5 out of 5

The Care Bears Movie (1985)

While doing a little background research for this review on The Care Bears Movie, I had a little piece of nostalgia shattered upon discovering that the Care Bears were created solely for the purpose of making money. Originally appearing on greeting cards and then turned into a plush toy line, the creators of the Care Bears crafted a loose purpose and mission for their characters in order to fool consumers into buying their products.

But does this have any bearing on what I think of the movie? No. But I must say, this little bit of information proves, once again, just how disillusioning childhood can really be.

The Care Bears Movie is a harmless piece of fluff that promotes caring and understanding of other people. What’s not to like? It gives a good message to young viewers and it's easy for adults to sit through, breezing by in a quick 76 minutes. The animation is all pretty good, though I must admit that the songs can be quite cheesy. One negative about it is that it is cut into segments, as if pre-packaged for airing with commercial breaks, even though it was released in theaters.

The story is being told as a bedtime tale by the owners of an orphanage. It concerns the Care Bears from the magical world of Care-A-Lot, somewhere high up in the clouds. The Care Bears monitor the level of caring on Earth and step in from time to time to make sure people don’t forget about the importance of caring.

The Care Bears go down to Earth to help perk up a pair of orphans who feel that no one cares about them and they no longer see the point in trying to be happy. At the same time, a young loner, a magician’s apprentice no less, becomes enamored with a magic book that promises to give him powers that will make people like him. Fooled by the promise of acceptance, the young boy eventually loses his control of himself to the evil spirit in the book.

This all sets up a showdown between good and evil. The Care Bears have to band together to thwart the evil spirit, pulling together a tremendous display of courage and caring. The film also introduces us to the Care Bear Cousins, a variety of different animals with powers similar to their bear counterparts. There’s also a bit of a twist ending, but the twist isn’t that important and it’s fairly predictable.

While you may have a hard time keeping track of all the characters (as most of the Care Bears and Cousins are interchangeable), they all play a specific part in the success in their mission. This serves as a subtle message to kids that everyone plays a part and no one is unimportant. Maybe kids won’t even pick up on this message, but it’s there.

I’d only recommend this film to people who grew up watching the Care Bears. To those who have never watched the animated series, this film may seem trite and simple, but those who have seen the series will be taken down memory lane. Speaking of memory, I had forgotten what all happened in this film and had evidently combined this film and its sequel in my mind. I suppose this makes the film not as memorable, but I also hadn’t seen it in over 15 years.

Colorful, whimsical and cheesy, The Care Bears Movie does what it sets out to do. It entertains children while giving them a basic message about being nice to people. While nothing too spectacular on a cinematic level, it’s a piece of nostalgia for my generation. It may pull a few groans out of adult viewers who have grown cynical and sick of overly happy fluff in their years, young children will be glued to it like you wouldn’t believe.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006)

I liked the original film in the Ice Age series. It surprised me with its uproarious humor and its overall lack of smarminess. It dealt subtle jabs to both the folk running around spouting off doomsday warnings of global warming (though in Ice Age it was global cooling they were worried about) and those who didn’t believe anything was happening whatsoever. Sadly, Ice Age: The Meltdown never tries to dish it out to both sides of the issue and throws its hat in with the doomsday crowd.

Our odd trio of friends from the first film (Manny the mammoth, Sid the sloth and Diego the saber-tooth tiger) are still palling around together. After what’s got to be the shortest Ice Age in the history of the universe (what, maybe two years, three tops?) global warming threatens the valley they have come to know.

A subplot involves Manny worrying that he is the last of the mammoths. He discovers that this isn’t true when the trio comes across a female mammoth (voiced by Queen Latifah) who thinks she is a weasel or ferret, or whatever it is that adopted her. She is juvenile and ditzy and makes for an annoying addition to our merry band of travelers. This subplot resolves itself conveniently and predictably by the end of the last reel.

There’s plenty of stupid humor, mostly revolving around the size of the mammoths’ rear ends, and antics that just aren’t as funny this time around. The good news is that the group dynamic is still there, though it is disrupted quite a bit by the new characters, and much of the same bickering and humorous infighting still exists, but it isn’t enough and isn’t as fresh as in the first film. But our familiarity with history’s most demented herd is enough to keep you mildly entertained.

The message of global warming gets a bit heavy-handed by the end, but oddly enough, nature takes its course and things turn out okay in the end. This conveys some unique mixed messages in a film trumping the dangers of global warming, doesn’t it?

All in all, the film lacks focus, which leads to its own meltdown. Neither the A nor B plots are fleshed out enough to satisfy and the laughs just aren’t as heartfelt as they were in Ice Age. It all leads me to wonder if they even really needed to make a sequel

The easy answer is no. But in the age of box office driven franchises, 20th Century Fox decided to capitalize on a surprise hit by milking it for all its worth. And sure enough, Ice Age: The Meltdown made enough money to justify a third installment, due out in 2009.

When the best thing about your film is the short vignettes involving a character who doesn’t even speak (Scrat, the saber-tooth squirrel and his masochistic struggle to find and hang onto an acorn), you know you have a problem.

The novelty has worn off, the humor isn’t there and quality writing seems to be extinct. In short, The Meltdown is a letdown.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Broken Arrow (1996)

After a career-revitalizing role in Pulp Fiction, John Travolta was thrust back into the limelight of Hollywood. All of a sudden he was a leading man again, and everybody was knocking on his door. Whether he was trying to cling to the aura of cool that he embodied in Pulp Fiction, or whether he was trying to play himself once more against his former squeaky clean, charming roles of old and some recent ones, Travolta takes to the silver screen as a conniving Air Force pilot bent on stealing nuclear weapons.

While Travolta’s physique is less than perfect, his co-star’s acting chops are even more suspect. While Travolta’s career was on the up-swing, Broken Arrow catches Christian Slater close to where his stardom and career sputtered out. Nevertheless, Broken Arrow spits out a fairly black and white good guy vs. bad guy action flick with predictable results and a handful of slick stunts.

Travolta and Slater play a pair of pilots running stealth bomber exercises over the Utah deserts with real nukes. Travolta has masterminded a plan to steal the nukes and ransom millions from the US government. Slater catches on to the plan, but just a tad too late, as he is jettisoned from the aircraft before he can stop his former partner. He does, however, manage to muddle up the delivery of the nukes by parachuting them off-target.

Slater teams up with a park ranger and they set off to do what the US government seems incapable of doing, despite their resources: find and stop Travolta.

There are lots of fancy stunts, fights and explosions in this hour-fifty action flick. Broken Arrow was John Woo’s second Hollywood film, and first big-budget film in the States. The martial arts influence is certainly present. The popularity of Woo and his compatriots led to a plethora of films featuring white guy action heroes saving the day via wicked kung fu moves. Unfortunately, the acting isn’t as slick as the action.

Travolta attempts to slide his character all the way to the extreme as the villain. He sneers and jeers and seems to have a genuinely good time playing a borderline psychopath. The problem is that he takes it too far. Travolta just isn’t believable as the unstable mastermind villain, which makes sense. It’s very hard to have a believable villain be both a mastermind and borderline certifiable. The combination of the two results in a jumbled mess. It looks like fun, but it doesn’t comprehend well in the mind of the viewer.

Slater, on the other hand, doesn’t come across as being smart enough to play the hero. His steady, confident delivery, piled on top of a Western-inspired hero theme tune, comes off as a goofy, modern John Wayne impression. I’m not a huge fan of the Duke, but the Duke he ain’t. Between a few lucky guesses and a few lucky breaks, Slater’s hero character ambles along the path to victory and doesn’t work out all too well either.

The plot has more than its fair share of plot holes and flaws (where was Travolta going to hide after getting away?) but enough dazzle and flair to satisfy summer audiences who check their brains at the door. It has the potential to be a fun movie, as long as you try not to think too much about it.

Given a casting change and a few more re-writes, Broken Arrow could have been better than average for an action flick. Instead, we get a guilty pleasure performance by Travolta and a taste of what the future would hold for Slater.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

License to Wed (2007)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

This movie serves as little more than a vehicle to provide Robin Williams with an age-appropriate role that provides him with the opportunity to behave in his tried and true zany manner. The problem lies in the fact that Williams’ performance comes off as a half-desperate attempt to prove he’s still full of life.

No one in their right mind could suggest that Williams has lost his knack for humor, but his over-the-top delivery seems out of place with his character. He plays a minister, Reverend Frank, who puts a young couple through hell in the form of pre-marital counseling.

The setup is pretty ridiculous and highly unrealistic. A young couple, John Krasinski and Mandy Moore, fall in love and get engaged, but due to Moore’s lifelong dream of getting married in her childhood church, the lovebirds face either a 2-year engagement or a three-week rush job.

Being a comedy, they naturally choose the latter option. Reverend Frank gives them all sorts of homework assignments that challenge the young couple including: abstaining from any more sex until the wedding night; seminars to highlight their differences and the quirks that bug each other; taking care of a creepy pair of robotic babies who do all the unpleasant things that regular children do, but to a decidedly more disturbing (though intended to be humorous) degree; and even trying to navigate each other down a busy street while blindfolded. In other words, it’s all a bit too much.

But License to Wed doesn’t stop there. Reverend Frank goes as far as to bug the couples’ apartment and has his young altar boy assistant follow them around, snooping on them and aggravating them into fights over seemingly trivial things. This all made me ask the dreaded question that can mean instant death for a movie: why? Why would a minister want to torment a couple that wants to get married to the point of unraveling their relationship? Why would a minister be so underhanded about all of his actions? Why would an altar boy take such pleasure at disrupting peoples’ lives?

None of it makes any sense and drives home the reality that this film goes too far in trying to pry a few laughs out of its audience. The situations; the approach; it’s all too much. The movie goes above and beyond what is necessary and reasonable to function as a comedy. Part of this is the fault of the writers for trying to manipulate viewer sensibilities for laughs and not respecting the limits of what can be funny and believable at the same time.

The flip-side of the coin is that audiences are getting dumber and the industry’s standards for humor have been in a downward spiral for quite some time. We really shouldn’t be surprised that toilet humor is commonplace and a means to an end in movies today because appealing to lowest-common-denominator laughs has made an obscene amount of money. Thankfully, License to Wed doesn’t sink to such Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler lows too often.

My other big complaint is with the smarmy, predictable ending. Moore decides to break it off and spends what would have been the honeymoon on vacation with her parents. Naturally, Krasinski goes after her and confesses his undying love, patching things up all squeaky clean. This sort of crap insults me. After the film was over, I leaned over to my fiancée and told her not to get any ideas.

Nearly all men, myself included, will not follow their woman of choice to a foreign country just to track her down and prove their love to them. First of all, we certainly don’t have the cash required to make such an expensive trek. Second of all, if we know you’re coming back, we’ll just wait. I really wish Hollywood would stop perpetuating this silly, idealistic fantasy version of love. It’s not real, and the fact that it keeps showing up in movies makes it all the more harder on girls when they realize that REAL love is nothing like the movies.

While this review may seem mostly negative, don’t think that I hate this film. I am merely indifferent due to its numerous shortcomings. License to Wed does connect with people who have either been in serious relationships, engaged couples, and those who have gone through pre-marital counseling. So, certain demographics can relate to the movie, which helps. Some aspects will ring all too true with some viewers, but these same people will be able to spot the ridiculous approach I have gone on about at length above.

In the end, License to Wed is your typical forgettable summer comedy that isn’t worth the price of admission.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

How Green Was My Valley** (1941)

Most people have never even heard of this film. The main reason I have wanted to see it for so long is that this is the film that Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane (almost unanimously heralded as the greatest American film ever made) lost to for Best Picture at the Oscars.

In a way, this film rivals Citizen Kane in its boldness. While Kane was an all-out assault on the lives of corrupt media barons, How Green Was My Valley threw its focus at the opposite end of the spectrum: the working class. The film takes a very strong pro-union stance, vilifying the money-hungry mine owners in search of higher profits. Perhaps it was this statement that earned the film Best Picture. Of course it also helps that Citizen Kane was nearly unanimously despised when it was released. My, how times have changed.

It must be understood that this film hardly presents a fair portrayal of capitalist economics. Obviously, not all mines, factories, etc. were engaged in the shady practices on display here. It must also be noted that the film takes place in Wales at the dawn of the 20th century. Industrialization hasn’t been perfected yet, and is not a direct depiction of the quality of current (1940s) industrial workplaces, although the writers would like you to believe it does.

So there’s a fair share of political give and take going on behind the scenes and in between the lines, but if you separate yourself from the politics of the film, How Green Was My Valley succeeds at being a genuinely good film. Human emotion and family drama convey a strong sense of what it might have been like to be a struggling rural family.

Much of the focus is on young Huw Morgan, played by a pre-teen Roddy McDowall. His innocent perspective on the world can be heartwarming, but also serves as a vehicle to make the mine owners even nastier. Nothing gets people upset like seeing a child get hurt physically and emotionally.

Huw’s family works in the nearby coal mine, which over time degrades the quality of their picturesque town and their quality of life. The mine owners attempt to cut wages to make bigger profits and are met with resistance. A new minister supports those who favor unionizing the workers in order to preserve their way of life. The minister’s support causes a good deal of ruckus, as unions were thought to be evil and were preached as such from the pulpit by many a hard line minister.

Several tragic events occur, wrenching the lives of many characters and add a well rounded dramatic scope to the film. Though How Green Was My Valley is a solid film, it is also somewhat forgettable, as evidenced by the fact that very few people outside of film buffs and film historians even know it exists.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!

After the first 10 minutes, this was my favorite film in the Harry Potter franchise. After sitting through the rest of it, however, it’s now tied for last place.

A major credit to the filmmakers is the sense of realism on display in this film. We’ve finally begun to break away from the cartoonish settings and the caricatures that the muggle and wizarding worlds had become in the first four films. We finally see some genuine overlap between the two and their co-existence has begun to become believable. Granted, this has a lot to do with the fact that Potter author J.K. Rowling crafted this overlap in the book the film is based on. But, those first 10 minutes were just marvelous and not all credit is due to Rowling.

The opening is bleak- Harry sits in an abandoned playground that is showing its signs of age. The grass is all dried up because it’s the end of summer and it’s a hot one. The digital grading was also a nice touch- heightened yellow tones and a hint of graininess to the camera made the movie feel like high-grade indie stuff. It was just about perfect.

Finally, here was a Harry Potter I could believe in- a real boy stuck balancing a life in two worlds, neither of which is considerably friendly to him at the moment. For the first time I felt that both the Harry Potter character and universe could be real.

Then it all went awry.

One of the biggest issues plaguing this film is the pacing. The fourth installment, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, took a 600+ page book and turned it into a 2 hour and 40 minute movie. It gutted some of the extra stuff and kept more or less only the meat and potatoes. It worked very well.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix tries to take a book that’s nearly 300 pages longer than its predecessor and make the movie version 30 minutes shorter. It makes the action a little too frenetic. Instead of feeling like I was walking through the story, I got the sense that I was being pulled through at a needlessly faster pace. The first two Potter films were longer, so why can’t that be the case here? We’re dealing with an ultimately more interesting and engaging story than those early films, so why the rush? This could have been a three-hour film and no one would have noticed.

Here again, however, some blame is due to be directed at author J.K. Rowling. The story is a sprawling hodge-podge of subplots that never really goes anywhere nor adds up to a satisfying A-plot. Aside from being the target of new Headmistress Delores Umbridge, Harry faces no real central conflict. In place of a titular challenge (the Order of the Phoenix is only relevant for about half of the story) we are treated with an irrationally moody Harry Potter. He is bitter at his friends for something that was completely out of their hands to begin with, and he is mad at the world which doubts him and constantly ridicules his true account that Voldemort is back.

Umbridge hides the fact that she’s out to get Harry until the very end, so she fails as a central villain. Outside of awkward teenage romance and haunting nightmares (neither of which are original to begin with) this story has little going for it. Ultimately it feels like a formulaic, paint-by-numbers Harry Potter adventure. There’s Harry dealing with issues, his friends trying to help, and Harry surviving another attack by Voldemort in the end.

Despite several shortcomings, credit must be given for the stunningly gorgeous sets used for the Ministry of Magic, however. The dark green bricks and lavish architecture was a real treat for the eyes. Sadly, this visual splendor was undone by the horrendous CGI character Grawp, a two or three story tall giant. It’s been five years since the first Lord of the Rings film came out and yet the effects in Harry Potter 5 come nowhere close to matching its quality. A shame for sure.

It is also very much evident that John Williams has backed out of doing the music for the series. While the music is said to be based off the themes he wrote for the first three films, some of the musical choices are just too noticeably not on par with either Williams’ work or the music from HP4. None of the score grabs you and holds you. In fact, some of the music in the end credits is best described as noise- jarring high-pitched electric guitars that made my ears hurt.

As far as advancing the seven-part story of Harry’s youth, the Order of the Phoenix feels a lot like filler. The fact that it is rushed filler makes it taste even less satisfying. A few things happen that certainly shake up the tale (the death of Sirius Black is sad because it means the loss of Gary Oldman and his amazing acting abilities), but little is added to the mix that takes you by surprise. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix feels like a tease of a tale, designed to kill some time before the real action begins in the final two books. From an emotional and expositional standpoint, we’re still very much at the same place we left off at the end of Goblet of Fire, except now people believe Voldemort is back.

Maybe all this is a sign that Harry Potter mania is starting to fizzle out, or maybe this just wasn’t a very well thought out production. Either way, this latest Potter flick has lost much of its magic.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Spaceballs (1987)

Mel Brooks’ spoof on all things Sci-Fi is a cult classic. While it shows its age through several of the pop-culture jokes and references, the lampooning of the numerous clichés and coincidences inherent to the science-fiction genre are spot on.

The only hindrance to this film’s success is the fact that it is being pitched to a specific audience. Films like Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein were more widely humorous because clichés are very often shared throughout the Western and Mad Scientist genres. You have to really know your sci-fi to appreciate all the jokes in Spaceballs. Otherwise, stretches of this movie will seem boring to you. I am a big science-fiction nerd, so I got nearly all of the jokes.

The fact that sci-fi flicks try hard to stand out from one another presents a problem for Brooks & company. Trying to cover all the widely different styles of sci-fi and wrap all the jokes around a cohesive story is a daunting task. Brooks does a good job, but it certainly alienates the casual viewer.

Despite the odds stacked so high against it, Spaceballs has entered the cultural lexicon (at least for the older portion of my generation and the one prior to it) with phrases like “Ludicrous Speed;” “May the Schwartz be with you;” and being able to identify Yogurt as something other than a snack food.

The best part about Spaceballs is that Brooks really goes all out. He not only pegs the goofy plots and groan-worthy dialog, but he also triumphs in the visual areas as well. The sets, props, and even the music all work in favor of Mel’s comedic purposes. He also covers more than just Star Wars and Star Trek (more spoofing of the former than the latter though)- he hits major films like Planet of the Apes and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Certainly not for everyone, but I recommend it if you have a love for sci-fi and an appreciation for satire.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5