Movies to See (0r Not)

This is for a fan of my reviews. In it I'll tell you what I think of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," "Public Enemies," and "The Proposal."

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

S

P

A

C

E


I'll start with "The Proposal" since it is the simplest of the 3 films. If you are looking for a simple, pleasant, funny romantic comedy, this will do the trick. No great meaning is connected to this one. No original themes or techniques, just a cute premise of the obnoxious boss needing t0 stay legal and the assistant willing (for whatever reason) to be the ticket to the green card. I think what I liked best about the connection between the couple was that once the "arrangement" was made, the assistant (the male this time) was able to be more of an equal and stand up to the exceedingly domineering boss. The boss was, of course, a complete bitch to start. It is an old formula. First you hate, even when it is Sandra Bullock, and then you begin to like. The family in Alaska is also fun mainly because of Betty White. No matter how old she gets she stays funny. I would say this movie is a rental or a cheap theater showing unless you just feel the need for a gentle romantic comedy.

"Public Enemies" is not gentle. It is a rather blunt look at the end of the career of John Dillinger. Dillinger's criminal life is not romanticized. He does not live well. He uses women as shields after robbing banks and he doesn't much care about who dies as long as it is not him or one of his close friends in crime. The only potential romanticized part is Dillinger's relationship with Billie Frechette. Their relationship is portrayed as a true romance. Or, at least, as much as a romance as Dillinger was capable was having. She, in fact, faces police torture for him and ends up in prison. I have no idea if this is a true reflection of the feelings between them. Johnny Depp is brilliant, as usual, as Dillinger. There is no deep psychological exploration of the killer. There are a few lines that Depp delivers on his past, but mostly Depp plays him as a bank robber who does what he does because he is good at it. No other reason is provided and, I doubt, that any other reason is closer to the truth. I enjoyed watching Christian Bale's Melvin Purvis in part, because Bale finally put aside the growling voice he seemed addicted to since he began playing Batman. Again, no background on Purvis is offered except the idea that he was the type of FBI agent Hoover wanted to feature in the FBI even though he needed rougher, more experienced men to "get his man." Billy Crudup is excellent as J. Edgar Hoover. He plays both the determined bureaucrat seeking power and the sense of creepiness that goes with Hoover. If ever a man represented both the light and dark of those pursuing criminals, it was J. Edgar Hoover. The most intriguing small character was Giovanni Ribisi's Alvin Karpis. He only appears in 2 scenes, but Ribisi's talent still grabs your attention to what is clearly a gangster with much higher than average intelligence, but whose clothing and demeanor indicated that he hadn't made a great success of his criminal life. I was very interested in him and would like to see Ribisi reprising the role in another film.

This is a movie about men. The women featured in the film are only their for the comfort of the men. They play no other role. Given that it is about gangsters and cops, that didn't bother me. It was the 1930's after all. In fact, the only part of the movie that bothered me was a rather ridiculous scene toward the end where Dillinger casually walks into the FBI office where those hunting him work. It is a time a day when very few "G-Men" are in attendance and no one seems to mind his presence or recognize him at all. Those who are there are listening to a Cubs game. He asks for the score. It turns out the the screenwriters weren't baseball fans as the Cubs were playing the Yankees on this July day. It was just one more mistake in a bad scene.

Ultimately, I think this film biggest effect on how it lead me to get the book to read. The book covers the entire original "War on Crime" with many more gangsters besides Dillinger. The author had access to newly opened FBI files that offer interesting tidbits. I'm only on Chapter 3 because I'm mostly reading "Nixonland." That political criminal and his cohorts has more of my attention right now. (If you want to understand why Republicans are obsessed with trying to exploit all possible white resentment, read "Nixonland.") I am interested to see if the movie's implication that Frank Nitti and the Chicago mob was key to nailing Dillinger is true.

This isn't a fun movie, but Hollywood really doesn't do good gangster movies any more, but this is one. It is a movie worth the price of a matinee.

Finally there is "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" another "worth full price and I'll buy the DVD" addition to the series.

First I have to say that I love the books and I love the movies. There are some who only like one or the other. Me, I enjoy the different ways each manage to touch your imagination. J.K. Rowling's books after the first two are really much too involved to be fully captured in a film. Instead, the producers have chosen to focus on a particular part of each story. For example, in "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" it was all about the Tri-Wizard Tournament and other subplots from the book are dropped. The same is done in this film. The film's main plot is aimed at leading up to Dumbledore's death. Horcruxes, Harry's building feelings for Ginny, the continuing missed romantic opportunities between Hermione and Ron, and the rising power of Voldemort in the wizard world are there, but not in the detail of the book. Even Harry's exploration of Voldemort's memories and the potion book owned by "the Half-Blood Prince" are truncated. These are choices that must be made in film. Even with all that is lost, the movie is 2 and 1/2 hours long and it isn't a slow 2 and 1/2 hours.

This film does what it must to set up what will be 2 films to cover "The Deathly Hallows" and in my second viewing of the film I noticed a few subtle hints of what is to come that those who know the last book are better able to pick up. I'll leave those to viewer/reader to find.

The two alterations that intrigued me involved Harry and Ginny and the greatest double agent in history-- Severus Snape. The scene when Harry and Ginny share a chaste kiss in the "Room of Requirement" (a great idea I'd like on my campus) alters what happens in the book and may alter what will happen in the final film. In the book, the potion book is hidden by Harry alone next to a tiara that is a horcrux. Finding it comes from Harry remembering where he hid the potions book. But here, Ginny hides the book and has Harry keep his eyes closed "so he won't be tempted." This means that she will be needed to find the tiara and could then become part what is a very exciting scene in "Deathly Hallows." I am hoping this means Ginny will be featured more in the final two films that she is in the book.

Then there is Snape. The film alters the death of Dumbledore in key ways. Gone is the paralyzing spell by Dumbledore on Harry under the Invisibility Cloak. Instead Harry is made to pledge to Dumbledore to stay hidden and just as he is about to break the pledge and act, he is stopped by Snape. Snape asks and receives Harry's silence before he enters the tower and performs the difficult act of killing Dumbledore. Listen carefully to Alan Rickman's voice as he casts the killing spell. The emotion in his voice reflecting what he is doing is there. Why the changes? I'm not sure. Either way it plays, it leaves Harry feeling exceedingly guilty over Dumbledore's death and his hatred for Snape will not be alleviated until he knows the full truth. I do think Harry's guilt makes more sense in the way the movie does it. Harry's guilt over being paralyzed under a spell is a bit too much. Feeling guilt from failing to act as the scene played out in the movie makes more sense. He hesitates. For some reason he stays still after Snape (his enemy) leaves and only watches as Dumbledore dies.

I have heard/read complaints that Dumbledore's death lacked the emotional depth it should have had. Some have argued it comes from the changes to the scene. Others say it is because the funeral is skipped. For me, I think it was because I knew it was coming and because a film cannot spend the pages dwelling on the death like a book can. I do think they missed out on using Fawkes to express the feelings of the death of Dumbledore. I would have had his cry of grief throughout the scene with Dumbledore's body. The emotional point for me was the lighting of the wands. I loved that. I teared up both times. I also like how the light obliterated the Death Mark. Well done.

Finally, I found it interesting how much humor returned to this Potter film. Humor has lessened in the films as the story has gotten darker. This is understandable, but it was also missed. Given the darkness that is to follow, I'm rather glad they returned to more humor. Ron's obsessive girlfriend, Lavender Brown, Jim Broadbent's marvelous Slughorn and Daniel Radcliffe drunk on "liquid luck" are great fun. Given the true terror of a hexed Katie Bell and the grasping inferi along with Dumbledore's death, the humor was greatly appreciated by this viewer.

I must conclude by saying that I know of no other 6 film series which has done as well. Nor has a series adapted books so well without losing their way. The 6th film heads us toward the final challenges and confrontations to come. For this fan, it led me to watch the first 5 films again. It is always wonderful to get caught up in that universe. It was also fun to watch the actors as young children again. By the time "Deathly Hallows, Part 1" is released in November 2010 the three lead actors will all be in their early 20s. When Part 2 is released in July 2011 we will have watched these actors for ten years. Their careers are unlikely to ever match this run, but they can be assured that they gave back in full measure for the chance offered to them as children. God bless who ever was the genius casting director who found them.