Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Thankfully, after the angst-ridden Order of the Phoenix, the Harry Potter series gets a lot less hormonal and a little more interesting. Where Phoenix was almost pure stall tactic, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince features a significant amount of setup for the seventh and final installment of the wizarding saga. While it may run short on stand-alone plot, Prince has enough pop, sizzle and intrigue to make up for it.

While Harry Potter is in his sixth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Lord Voldemort is gaining power and influence throughout the magical world. Harry keeps himself busy with a lot of things: captaining the Grffyndor Quidditch team, crushing on his best friend’s sister, mastering Potions class thanks to the margin notes of a former student calling himself the ‘Half-Blood Prince,’ and not to mention secret meetings with Headmaster Dumbledore regarding Voldemort’s past. You know, just another year in the life of Harry Potter.

Meanwhile, saucy Slytherin student Draco Malfoy has a secret assignment from Lord Voldemort. Despite his best efforts, Harry figures out that he’s up to something. Naturally, everyone dismisses Harry’s suspicions of Malfoy because the two have been rivals for five years running now. Harry finds himself torn between exposing his fellow student and helping Dumbledore uncover a terrible secret about Lord Voldemort’s past that could be the key to his undoing.

While this sounds like an awful lot to inject into one film, it’s actually not. Half-Blood Prince is two and a half hours long. Learning about Voldemort’s past is stretched out throughout the film but the titular Half-Blood Prince component is largely glossed over and the big reveal is anti-climactic. The book featured more build-up for the Prince and the film fails to deliver that. Everything else is wedged somewhere in between these pieces.

My initial take on this film was that it was every bit as much a piece of filler as Order of the Phoenix. Additional viewings have brought me back from that assertion. While all the romance, class work and suspicion of Malfoy are mostly superfluous, Voldemort’s history is important to take in. It may seem like a big waste of time but it’s laying the groundwork for the next chapter. In terms of setting up back story and mythology, Prince is very much like Prisoner of Azkaban. Cogs are set in place and pieces are put in motion. It’s subtle at first but easy to recognize later on.

Half-Blood Prince is not, however, Prisoner of Azkaban’s equal. Where the third installment had a footloose quality to dispensing the necessary information, Prince holds your hand similar to Dumbledore assisting Harry through the apparation process. The information given to us is more important than before and its nature is much darker so the filmmakers take care to make sure we download and process it properly. I was a little dissatisfied with this approach but it was also one of the shortcomings of the book, so we’ll leave it there.

As important as uncovering Voldemort’s secret is, there is a surprising lack of urgency presented in the film. Perhaps it only comes off that way because I have read the book and know what’s coming, but I was hoping for Harry to be a little more frantic in his approach- you know, the way he persistently goes after Malfoy. That whole plot line was a little uninteresting because in the book it was unclear what Malfoy was up to. In the movie, there is no subtlety and Malfoy’s methods are revealed early on (though the ends he is working for remains a secret until the final reel).

I like the brooding tone of this film. It works because Harry is now 16 years old and author J.K. Rowling wrote Harry very age-appropriate for what he is tasked with. I wasn’t as crazy about the first two Potter books or films because I’m not big into childrens stories. I understand that the target audience was for kids but I can’t help but prefer a dash of darkness, having cut my popular fiction teeth on Stephen King. The filmmakers go a little overboard on the digital grading but they get the mood right nine times out of ten here.

I like Prince for bucking a few trends for Potter stories. First, Voldemort only appears in flashbacks. Just like Prisoner Azkaban, Harry isn’t predictably thrown into some kind of confrontation with the Dark Lord in the end only to miraculously escape. It’s nice to be outside of Voldemort for a change. Second, I actually enjoyed the further reduction of Hogwarts classroom instruction. All the spells were cute in the beginning but alliterative charms and cleverly coined incantations sound goofy coming out of the mouths of teenagers.

One thing I didn’t like about the film was the ending. A key scene from the book is cut out that provided both a moderate amount of resolution and a terrific launching point into the seventh and final chapter of the Harry Potter series. Instead, the filmmakers deliver an awkward fade-to-black moment that works on a ‘okay, things are really uncertain now’ level but there is no driving force leaving us to believe that we are about to embark on the final leg of the journey.

In the end, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is par for the course. You would think that it would be easier to judge this film, having digested five films before it. The story is sufficient enough to not be disappointing but the effects are a little off too much of the time. Perhaps I will be better able to put my finger on this film once I see how all the groundwork laid out here plays out in the two-part finale, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Until then, this one is right up the middle.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Wizard of Oz* (1939)

Having only started rating films eight years ago, I’ve seen far more movies than I have rated here on my site. There are plenty of big name films that I have seen but have not re-watched in order to rate over the last few years. I grew up watching and loving The Wizard of Oz. For a long time, I have known that this film deserves my highest rating. It was just a matter of sitting down to take it in again.

Dorothy Gale resides in Kansas where she feels ignored by her family and persecuted by an old woman who hates her dog, Toto. Dorothy sings of a world ‘over the rainbow,’ where everything is paradise and longs to see it. When a tornado ravages the countryside, Dorothy is whisked away to the Land of Oz. Intrigued as she is by her new surroundings, Dorothy seeks to go home to Kansas.

Through the guidance of Glinda, the Good Witch of the North and the Munchkins, Dorothy learns that she must travel to the Emerald City and seek the help of the powerful Wizard of Oz. Along the way to the Emerald City, Dorothy meets a variety of colorful and helpful characters while also drawing the ire of the Wicked Witch of the West. Many hazards lie in Dorothy’s path but she takes them on with the help of her new friends, all of whom discover the very qualities they believe themselves to lack.

Everything about The Wizard of Oz is fantastic. The sets, the costumes, the music, the themes- it’s all there. I’ve never read L. Frank Baum’s classic story that this film is based on but it is clearly the root of its success. It’s hard to believe that this film was a box-office flop on its initial release. Over the years (and thousands of TV airings) America fell in love with this captivating and charming fantasy tale.

Before watching this film to rate it recently, my last viewing of The Wizard of Oz involved playing it to Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon album. While not as mind-blowing as the process is hyped up to be, it only serves to reinforce how amazing this film is. Without the dialogue to listen to, you can focus on the little details like the intricacy of the costumes or the fact that someone had to be walking around on a catwalk high above the set to make the Cowardly Lion’s tail swish around. If you ever have the chance to synchronize The Wizard of Oz and Dark Side of the Moon, do it. It’s a fun little experiment.

Sure, you could probably find a few cynics who will find minor details to pick at with this film but the legacy of The Wizard of Oz is so enormous that any minor flaws are easy to forget. That’s just part of the magic of this film. I can’t think of any other movie capable of eliciting the ‘warm fuzzies’ quite like this one. Not everyone may like The Wizard of Oz but there is no denying that it is one of the all-time greats.

This was an easy review and a tough review to write. Everything about this film oozes greatness, making it impossible to put into words. If you’ve seen the film, you know exactly what I’m talking about. I’m thrilled to declare The Wizard of Oz, only the sixth film in eight years, worthy of my highest possible rating.

RATING: 4.75 out of 5

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

There have been countless renditions of Bram Stoker’s brilliant novel in film, stage and television. There have been easily just as many movies made about other vampires but there’s no denying that Dracula is the granddaddy of the genre. This makes it a challenge to adapt the story to the big screen. Not only will any new version of Dracula be compared to what has come before, but it will also be scrutinized for its treatment of a literary classic. You would assume that putting such a project into the hands of a respected filmmaker like Francis Ford Coppola would be a good thing. As it turns out, Bram Stoker’s Dracula goes to show you just what happens when you assume…

In the 15th Century, Vlad Dracula (Gary Oldman) leads his Hungarian army against the Turks. During the battle, his wife is told that he has died and she commits suicide. Incensed that the Holy Roman Empire considers her damned for eternity for taking her own life, he renounces God and swears to use the powers of darkness to rise from the dead. Over four hundred years later, an unassuming British law clerk named Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) finds himself assisting what he thinks to be an old, Hungarian Count close a purchase in the heart of London so he can move from his castle in Transylvania.

As it turns out, the Count is actually Dracula, now a vampire and hungry for blood. The Transylvania natives were getting wise to his antics and his food supply was running thin. While making the move to London, Dracula discovers that Harker’s fiancée Mina (Winona Ryder) is the reincarnation of his wife. Strange things begin to happen in London and, when one of Mina’s friends develops a peculiar illness, a doctor calls upon an old friend for help. Dr. Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) recognizes the strange events and illnesses as the signs of a vampire in their midst. Rallying Harker and his friends, Van Helsing devises a plan to hunt down and destroy the monster before it can ruin any more lives.

I’ll admit that two paragraphs does a poor job of laying out the plot of this film but two paragraphs is all I really give to descriptions most of the time. There is more to it and the plot is far more convoluted than I make it seem. In fact, Coppola’s film makes the intricately-weaved story even more complex than Bram Stoker probably ever intended it to be. The introduction of Dracula’s past and the whole element of him being a tortured soul are completely made up for this film. In the book, Mina is not a reincarnation of Dracula’s wife. In fact, there is no back story to Dracula in the novel. He is merely a former ruler who has been transformed into a bloodthirsty monster.

This version of Dracula was ahead of his time. Back in the early 90s it was still okay for bad guys to just be bad guys. As the decade wore on and into the 2000s it became almost mandatory that villains have a reason for what they do. It’s no longer good enough for someone to simply be pure evil. Now they must have some kind of relationship issue, chemical imbalance or childhood trauma that haunts them to this day. This has ruined many a good villain over the last 15 years. Sometimes rationalizing a villain’s behavior makes sense but it’s okay for an audience to not sympathize with the bad guy once in a while.

The reason Dracula turns into a monster of the night may work for some but I found it pretty silly. Your wife kills herself over false information so you renounce God and vow to destroy your fellow human beings? Pardon me for asking, but isn’t that just a tad extreme? Mourning I can understand but embracing black magic counts as going off the deep end in my book. Dracula is far more menacing in the book, where he kills purely out of bloodlust and a desire to lord over people. It’s his nature to kill, not the effect of some sappy star-crossed lovers thing.

Dracula’s background aside, I find myself disagreeing with the majority of critics on this one. It seems that a lot of people liked this film. Sure, it may have more story to it than the Bela Lugosi original but Coppola and company try to cram too much of the Dracula story into the film. Having read the novel, I think that major revisions will be necessary for any film version. Only a mini-series would give all of the characters and plots enough time to develop. There are revisions, but Coppola is still trying to stuff about eight and a half pounds of crap into a five-pound bag. The drama could be heightened by slowing some of the action down, adding more brooding menace than quick scare tactics.

Vampire lore has almost always carried sexual undertones but I found this film to be over-sexualized. There’s nothing wrong with Dracula having an exotic charm to him- in fact, I would have been angry had they not made him appealing to the ladies. However, Dracula’s brides minions baring their breasts for Harker and seducing him into hedonistic trysts. Plus, at one point Dracula turns into something more resembling a werewolf than a bat-like creature and rapes a woman. Maybe I’m old school, but I prefer subtle sexuality in a film.

The acting in this film is also hit or miss. Basically all of the actors who naturally have accents are great but those who lack accents (Reeves & Ryder specifically) sound terrible when trying to affect the required British tones. Add to this the fact that I still have yet to see proof that Keanu Reeves can really act and you’ve got a mess. Gary Oldman is phenomenal as Dracula, stealing scene after scene (and why shouldn’t he?). Hopkins works as Van Helsing, though he didn’t play the role quite as I was expecting. The rest of the cast makes the film feel lopsided, with plenty of under- and over-acting.

Any production of Dracula is bound to make a fair amount of money. The Count’s story has been told dozens of times already and any new take on the classic is bound to draw some attention. I’m sure that the addition of a little more sex helped raise audience appeal in the early 90s as well, but I found myself very disappointed with this adaptation. Maybe a second viewing would change my opinion but I doubt it would help too much. I’m that opposed to viewing Dracula as a tragic lover.

RATING: 2 out of 5

Batman: The Movie (1966)

Before Christian Bale, George Clooney, Val Kilmer and Michael Keaton, there was Adam West. Though he was not the first actor to play Batman (there were two serials in the 40s), those of us who grew up watching the original Batman TV series (or reruns of it) know that West is a superhero icon. While modern comic book fanboys and members of Generation Z will think this film counterpart to the 60s TV series is stupid and absurd when compared to the current Batman films, the rest of us can smile and know that it is they who just don’t get it.

The United Underworld, a collaborative effort of Gotham City’s most detestable villains plot to eliminate Batman and Robin forever and take over the world. As frightening as the Joker, the Penguin, the Riddler and Catwoman may be, the Caped Crusader and his Boy Wonder are up for the task. The villains use a dehydrator weapon to turn the members of the UN Security Council into dust. Batman and Robin must track down their nemeses secret hideout and recover the council members.

Yes, it’s all pretty wild and fantastical, but that’s what Batman was for a long time. This film was made after the completion of the first season of the show. It was designed to add interest in the show in America and to help sell the series in overseas markets. I don’t know if it accomplished that task but it’s a priceless piece of nostalgia for anyone who enjoyed the show.

The production values aren’t that much higher from the TV series, which would normally be a problem. Fortunately, this is one of those guilty pleasures that always make me smile, so I look past the obvious faults. There are some set pieces that more elaborate than the series and there’s more high-flying action and stunt work (Bat-cycle rocket sled, anyone?), so it’s clear that this is more than just a TV episode plot slapped onto the big screen. The filmmakers took their larger budget and used it well.

It’s fun to watch the villains struggle to work together. They all have their quirks and cramming four large egos into one secret hideout is no easy task. On the TV show, Batman typically only faced one villain an episode, so tackling his four biggest threats at once is a real treat for the audience. Each villain gets their appropriate amount of screen time and they get to use their specific skills quite nicely. As much fun as Adam West and Burt Ward are as Batman and Robin, it’s really the villains who make this movie worth seeing.

Batman: The Movie has all the hallmarks of the TV show- campy dialogue, exaggerated acting by the villains, every tool Batman and Robin use having a ‘Bat-‘ prefix, and, of course, titles such as ‘ZONK!’ and ‘POW!’ taking over the screen during a fight. It would be far too easy and horribly cynical to dismiss this movie when comparing it to a lot of the recent superhero flicks. You have to keep in mind that this was based off of an existing TV series that both embraced and lampooned the sensibilities and conventions of 1960s entertainment.

One final reason to enjoy Batman: The Movie is that it is the only official release connected to the TV series. Despite its popularity, the three seasons of the Batman TV show are still unavailable on DVD. Until these episodes are released for purchase, this film is a vital link to our childhood and also a key piece in the Batman legacy.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Adventure of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

Maybe Disney and company realized their mistake in producing another multi-feature package film with Melody Time. Maybe the studio had made enough money through the 1940s to stick to longer tales. Maybe they decided it was time to get back to more serious literary adaptations. Whatever the reason for making The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, this film marks the start of Disney’s rise back to the top.

Similar to Fun and Fancy Free, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad is a collection of two longer animated tales. Ironically, the tale of Mr. Toad (based on Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows) actually comes first. For those of you who are not familiar with the tale, a trio of anthropomorphic animals attempts to save their friend (Mr. Toad) from himself. Ratty, Moley and Angus MacBadger do their best to prevent their trend-happy friend from losing his home while also avoiding incidental personal injury at the hands of the over-exuberant Mr. Toad.

The second half of the film features a Bing Crosby-narrated account of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. Washington Irving’s haunting ghost tale focuses on a superstitious town where jealously may or may not have turned deadly. The new schoolmaster catches the eye of a lovely young woman, drawing the ire of a testosterone-fueled local bully at the same time. The bully warns of a local legend called The Headless Horseman, who stalks the town at night, in an attempt to scare his competition out of town.

Once again, by focusing on longer stories, Disney’s animators are able to labor over the details. There’s a richness in the background animation here that was absent in many of the earlier package films. Having a longer subject gives the animator a chance to invest more of his or her time into the product, which ultimately gives the audience a higher quality visual experience to embrace.

Another interesting observation I made is that, with this film, the animation style that would prevail during the 1950s for Disney films is finally consistent through both shorts. Many of the shorts throughout the 40s package films had varying animation styles. Some were more experimental than others while others attempted to cling to the lavish beauty of Snow White and Pinocchio. Here we finally catch a glimpse of what’s to come- scaling back some of the background details, a flatter look to the foreground, and crisper colors for the objects we’re supposed to be focusing on. Some of this was used before like in ‘Peter and the Wolf’ and ‘The Legend of Johnny Appleseed’ but it seems like Disney had finally decided to keep this style as the norm.

The stories themselves are timeless classics and you won’t get any complaints out of me for that. Both tales are treated with respect but also make room for creative license. I think the only thing that feels off is the pairing. The Wind in the Willows is a little lighter and more madcap, whereas The Legend of Sleepy Hollow has a more Gothic feel. Disney does his best to lighten it up but there’s no getting around the horror that is The Headless Horseman.

If anything, this final package film (and the 11th overall production by Disney and his team) feels a little bi-polar. Disney broke them up for individual re-release in the 1950s, which accounts for most people remembering these shorts separately. Whether you care for it or not, this film is a symbolic victory for Disney. He and his animators are planting their feet down in preparation of leaping back to prominence.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Killer Shrews (1959)

In my quest to watch bad films to help fill out the lower half of my rating scale I had a tough decision to make. Anyone familiar with the TV show Mystery Science Theater 3000 knows that the cast watches lousy movies and makes fun of those films while watching. Could I watch the MST3K version of the films while still giving it an accurate and impartial assessment? Hopefully you don’t think this damages my aspirations for credibility, because my answer was yes.

Thorne Sherman and his first mate are supply runners to various island residents in, what is presumably, the Caribbean. One day their run takes them to an island inhabited by a reclusive scientist, his daughter and assistants, all shut up in a secure compound. Through small talk while unloading the supplies, the scientist reveals that he is carrying out experiments for ‘the betterment of mankind.’ He is working on a procedure to create half-sized humans in an effort to reduce world hunger. Through his experiments though, the scientist also created a breed of over-sized, venomous shrews, which inhabit the island.

Before Thorne and his mate can leave the island behind, a hurricane approaches, making the waters unsafe for travel. Forced to stay the night, they must endure an attack by a pack of the mutated shrews. The presence of the newcomers causes tensions to rise amongst the scientist's helpers. During a scuffle, the shrews are able to breach the compound. Thorne and the science team are forced to find a way to work together to escape certain death.

The fact that Mystery Science Theater 3000 included this on their show should tell you that this is a terrible film. There is no sugar-coating it- this film is bad. How bad, you ask? Let me put it this way- this movie is so pathetic that it’s only worth seeing if you watch the MST3K treatment. Many viewers will still feel as though they wasted their time, however, so consider yourself warned.

If you find yourself watching the original version of The Killer Shrews, be prepared for countless pregnant pauses, lots of staring, poorly delivered dialogue, and, of course, killer shrews. The antagonists of the film are easily among the least scary monsters ever to fumble across the screen. The killer shrews are nothing more than dogs draped in furry sheets with masks on their heads.

The story itself is absurd, especially the romance that develops, literally overnight, between Thorne and the scientist’s daughter. No explanation is given about why the scientist experimented on making shrews larger when he was really trying to make humans smaller. Sure, having large, venomous shrews running around creates the drama necessary for the film to even exist but why shrews?

The Killer Shrews may have the potential to be an amusing, tongue-in-cheek B-movie made for fun and with no real expectation of being taken seriously (a la Snakes on a Plane). The trouble lies in the fact that no one but Z-list actors would even want to approach such a film and no one with half a brain cell would pay full theater ticket price to see it. This film seems destined to remain a terrible example of cinema that is only made watchable by people making fun of it.

RATING: 0.25 out of 5

Rocky IV (1985)

Rocky Balboa has led quite a life. First he’s a working schlep plucked out of nowhere fighting for nothing but pride. Then he gets a shot at fighting for a title and the respect that comes with it. Then, while at the top of his game he stumbles and fights for honor and self-respect. Nothing is bigger than that, right? Wrong! Rocky’s latest outing sees him carrying his country on his shoulders and fighting for political and patriotic glory.

The Soviet Union has produced a boxing giant named Ivan Drago and they are shopping around the USA for opponents to crush. He trains using the latest high-tech tools, making him an almost inhuman challenger to the US’s boxing elite. Dying to prove he’s still got what it takes, Apollo Creed lets his ego get the best of him and challenges Drago to an exhibition match in Vegas. Rocky helps him train but the match turns ugly and Drago’s brutal assault kills Creed.

Shaken to the core but hungry to avenge his friend’s death, Rocky agrees to take on Drago in Russia on Christmas Day. Adrian disapproves and Rocky is forced to relinquish his title in order to fight. While Drago trains with the latest technology and anabolic steroids, Rocky goes all-natural, training in the Siberian wilderness with his brother-in-law and Creed’s former trainer. Naturally, Rocky rises to the moment and comes from behind in an ugly match to defeat Drago and even wins over the hostile Russian crowd.

Rocky IV is a very difficult movie to place. With Rocky III, Stallone sold out the heart of Balboa and turned the series into a money-making machine. With no innocence left for the franchise, Stallone (who writes and directs his third consecutive Rocky flick) goes for broke and crams this film with every element possible to elicit his desired response from audiences. The result is a film that manipulates you into being satisfied with an inferior product by appealing to our most rudimentary heartstrings.

I grew up during the final stages of the Cold War but wasn’t old enough to grasp the importance of world events until long after the fall of the USSR. In this way, I missed out on much of the animosity that brewed between the nations since World War II. But I did grow up on mid to late 80s and early 90s movies that contained enough of that Cold War ‘spirit’ to get the picture. This ‘spirit’ is exactly what Stallone plays to with this film but it only works for members of the early half of Generation Y and older.

Tapping into the über-patriotism of the era is cheap but it was probably the only thing Stallone could do to make a fourth Rocky flick interesting. Apollo Creed’s cocky swagger helped fuel support for Rocky in the first two films and Clubber Lang’s egomaniacal behavior in III upped the ante. Had Rocky merely taken on yet another self-loving boxer, Rocky IV would have felt redundant. Making Drago Russian raises the stakes to the next level, even though it results in a lower-quality film.

Let’s be honest- Rocky IV is really Rocky III on anabolic steroids. The formula is still the same- a boxer presents himself as a threat; that boxer causes the death of someone Rocky loves; Rocky challenges him; Adrian objects; Rocky has a few training montages; Adrian comes around; and, finally, Rocky surmounts the odds and wins the fight. The only difference is that Ivan Drago isn’t even remotely respectable, allowing Stallone to simplify the formula even further.

I don’t know who ever told Sylvester Stallone that he was a capable writer but they certainly lied. The script is full of groan-worthy lines and the acting is shaky at best. Dolph Lundgren does a good job of standing around and looking menacing, which is all Drago is there to do. There is literally no character development to be had for Drago (and virtually none for anyone else for that matter). He is the archetypal villain and Rocky the archetypal hero.

But Rocky IV is more than just hero vs. villain. It’s David vs. Goliath, US vs. Russia, nature vs. science, and the American spirit vs. the cold Soviet machine all rolled into one. Despite being shamelessly calculated, Rocky IV’s banal formula is also what makes it so darn fun to watch. While parts of the film are no doubt recognized as cliché-ridden fluff by audiences, the simplicity of this jingoistic underdog tale bypasses our bullcrap detectors and actually finds a way to be endearing.

This is a weak film but it is also highly enjoyable. What little craftsmanship is on display (though the boxing scenes are some of the series’ best) hardly matters because every fiber of our being wants to watch Rocky rise to the top and crush his vile opponent. It’s one of the guiltiest of all guilty pleasures, which is fine by me.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

Fantastic Four (2005)

With a resurgence in comic book movies in the 2000s, it was inevitable that one of Marvel Comic’s most popular superhero teams would make their way to the big screen. The Fantastic Four are a colorful and fun bunch of crime fighters but telling their story was always going to be a difficult task. Each member requires substantial visual effects and telling their origin story is no easy task.

Reed Richards is a brilliant but bankrupt physicist on the verge of a breakthrough. He believes he can prove the spark for evolution lies within rare bursts of cosmic energy. To gather the data he needs, he convinces his former classmate and millionaire Victor von Doom to allow him the use of his private space station. Richards and Doom assemble a team including gruff astronaut Ben Grimm, Doom’s beautiful assistant and genetics researcher Susan Storm (who is also Richard’s ex-girlfriend) and Susan’s brother, Johnny, a hotshot astronaut who lives like a rock star.

The experiment goes horribly wrong and the team is exposed to the dangerous cosmic radiation. Back on Earth, Richards, Grimm and the Storm’s discover that they have all developed bizarre mutations, giving them a variety of superpowers. Each of them struggles with their new abilities and, after saving many lives during an accident on the Brooklyn Bridge, they form a team dubbed The Fantastic Four by the media. Meanwhile, Von Doom’s reputation is ruined and his corporation slides into bankruptcy. He too is developing powers and decides to use them to punish Richards and his friends for ruining his life.

One of the best things about the Fantastic Four is that they have always been on the lighter side of the superhero spectrum. Unfortunately for the filmmakers, happy-go-lucky super teams were no longer in vogue after the immense popularity of the dark, gritty Batman Begins, released just a month earlier. With the successful rebirth of Batman, comic book movie fans wanted more of the same- troubled, morally ambiguous heroes dealing with inner darkness. They wanted believable looking effects, stunts and fights. This is simply not possible for the Fantastic Four.

I think this led some critics and plenty of movie-goers to leave theaters feeling disappointed. Frankly, they never should have expected anything but a loud, colorful, mostly brainless popcorn flick. That is the essence of the Fantastic Four. Their powers and attitudes lead to sight gags and cheesy one-liners. That’s what made them so popular as a comic book series; they were able to save the day without being too serious.

Batman Begins did the right thing and gave its origin story enough time to develop at over two hours long. Fantastic Four has a run time of just over an hour and 40 minutes. This forces the filmmakers to rush just about everything in order to introduce the major players, set up the accident, develop their new powers and throw them into conflict with Doom. This lightning-quick pace hurts your ability to suspend disbelief because the pace of everything borders on absurd.

On top of the pace, the powers each member of the Four and Dr. Doom possess require plenty of special effects. Johnny Storm (aka The Human Torch) and Ben Grimm (The Thing) get the best of the lot with superb digital effects and makeup work. Richards (Mr. Incredible), who can stretch his body in unnatural ways, has the least realistic looking effects because his power is virtually impossible to make look real. The effects during some of the action sequences look a tad stagey at times but are usually adequate enough.

If there is one thing we can learn from this film is that standalone superhero stories are easier to pull off than team stories. With Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and Iron Man, filmmakers can devote more time to develop their main character. With Fantastic Four, we have four good guys and a villain to develop in a much shorter amount of time. While fans of the comics know each character is interesting in their own right, all we’re able to get out of the film is a quick glimpse and a caricature of an otherwise cool team of superheroes.

I still think that critics and moviegoers were too hard on this film. I think that the Fantastic Four are at the top of the second-tier of comic book superheroes but they are still second-tier. Any film version of their origins was bound to be a little over the top and goofy. It would be a stretch to say that the filmmakers did the best with what they had, because the film could have been a little bit longer to provide proper character development. Then again, it could have been a lot worse (and by worse I mean the unreleased 1994 version of the film made solely to secure copyright to the property).

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Gandhi** (1982)

This is going to be a very short review for a very long film. While recent biopics have focused on the most interesting parts of their subjects’ lives, Gandhi is devoted to painting a broad picture of the life and work of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. While there is no lack of drama and power, director Richard Attenborough’s approach results in a slow pace that will be a turn-off for many viewers. But if you are determined enough to tackle this lengthy, weighty film, you will find yourself awestruck.

The film opens with Gandhi’s assassination and funeral. We then flash back to 1893, where Gandhi experiences segregation and injustice for being ‘colored’ while working as a lawyer in South Africa. This motivates the young man to lead a non-violent movement for the rights of Indian people in the country. After several brutal incidents with the authorities, Gandhi’s movement gains international attention and his people are awarded their rights.

Several years later, Gandhi returns to his homeland, where he is welcomed as a national hero. He is successfully recruited into being one of the leaders for India’s struggle for independence from the British Empire. Much of the film covers this, the bulk of his life’s work, as he uses civil disobedience to highlight Britain’s oppression of the Indian people. Many of Gandhi’s struggles, triumphs and disappointments play out as India moves towards independence and faces conflict after attaining that goal.

Gandhi is an epic film. The scope, the locations, the subject matter- everything about this film is epic. It may not feature any dazzling camerawork or mind-blowing special effects but you will have a hard time topping the human drama on display here. Independence, freedom, justice and dignity are all goals and themes that resonate with us all. Seeing one man lead such a large-scale struggle for all of these things is astounding. Add to this the fact that everything in this film is based on real events and you cannot help but be overwhelmed by the audacity and fortitude of Gandhi.

Ben Kingsley’s performance is crucial to this film’s success. Many biopics falter in casting and hire actors and actresses who bear little to no resemblance to the real person being featured. Kingsley, hands down, looks just like Gandhi in this film. It certainly helps that Kingsley’s ancestry hails from the same region of India as Gandhi but it’s more than just that. Kingsley goes all out for the part, losing a dramatic amount of weight and perfectly affecting Gandhi’s voice and mannerisms. Beyond Kingsley, not much really matters in this film regarding the cast. It’s a film called Gandhi and they got Gandhi so right it’s chilling.

Richard Attenborough has stated that he never meant to become a director; he just wanted to direct this film. Considering it took Attenborough nearly 20 years to make his dream project a reality, the attention to detail in this film makes all the more sense. Sure, this results in a three-hour-plus historical drama that may bore those in the current ADHD Generation to tears at times, but cinephiles, history buffs and anyone who cares about humanity in general will consider Gandhi a triumph. It truly is an experience that words fall short of describing, so I won’t even try elaborating further.

RATING: 4 out of 5

A Beautiful Mind** (2001)

Filled with paranoia, suspicion and fear, Ron Howard’s Oscar-winning film is a challenging watch. The audience is set behind the veil of the main character’s mental illness, leading viewers on a parallel search for truth. This makes for very delicate filmmaking, made even more so due to the film being based on a true story, but Howard and company are up to the task.

John Nash (Russell Crowe) begins his graduate studies at Princeton and meets a colorful array of people. His roommate is wild, his friends are entertaining and women intimidate him to no end. Nash sets out to come up with a truly original idea for his thesis, leading to his groundbreaking work in mathematical economics. After making waves with his work, Nash takes a teaching position at MIT, where he falls in love with one of his students (Jennifer Connelly). Nash is also recruited to a top-secret CIA project, where he is assigned to look for Soviet codes being printed in major media publications.

Nash grows paranoid that he is being watched and followed by the Soviets, concerning his wife. His world is shattered when he is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and must work to figure out what in his life (past and present) is really real. Nash is given medication that puts a strain on his married life but when he stops taking the medication in a stubborn attempt to fight his illness on his own, he only makes matter worse. The film goes on to detail Nash’s struggle throughout his brilliant but troubled life.

I must confess that I knew the film’s twist reveal before I ever saw it. That being said, major kudos go out to both screenwriter Akiva Goldsman and director Ron Howard for the execution of the film after the twist reveal about halfway through. Despite knowing what Nash is imagining, there were times where I second-guessed what I thought was real and what was illusion. I don’t know that I’ve ever had that happen to me coming into a film that was ‘spoiled’ for me.

Russell Crowe is solid as John Nash and really nails the paranoia and mannerisms of someone suffering from this kind of mental illness. Jennifer Connelly definitely deserved the Oscar she won for her role as Nash’s wife Alicia. Her performance is as emotionally draining to watch as I’m sure it was to portray during filming. You feel bad for Nash and his struggles but you feel even worse for Alicia as her husband’s illness tears both her life and their marriage apart.

Ed Harris is perfect as CIA operative William Parcher. His cold, forceful and unforgiving manner creates a powerful antagonist. Paul Bettany is both hilarious and slightly creepy as Nash’s off-kilter roommate Charles Herman. Between these four characters, A Beautiful Mind has a foundation of rock-solid acting for the roles that matter most. The rest of the supporting cast performs adequately and everyone gets the job done (no small feat for a Hollywood film anymore).

One hang-up that could hurt audience appreciation is the pace of the second half of the film. The first half features Nash developing his whiz-bang theory and climaxes with his diagnosis. The second half drags on at times through Nash’s attempt to cope with his illness. The action rises and falls but the pace really lags, making the film feel much longer than its two-hour and 15 minute run time suggests.

Between the pacing and perhaps also being spoiled before seeing the film, A Beautiful Mind misses out on my lowest ‘great’ rating for a film. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth seeing though. If you like biopics and human drama, you’re bound to like this film. I’ll have to see the other nominees from 2001 before I can comment on its merits as a Best Picture winner.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5