A Few Words on "The Proposal"

1.5 stars out of 5/ D+

"The Proposal," a romantic comedy starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds, may be the laziest film of the year. The plot revolves around a rich book editor (Bullock) who brides her assistant (Reynolds) to marry her, so she will not be deported to Canada, her native country. What could have been a delectable comedy treat ends up being a predictable, unfunny mess. In fact, the script is so formulaic it could be mistaken for a math equation. Uptight business woman. Check. Cute Dog. Check. Batty Grandma. Check. Unexpected couple. Check. Crazy Male Dancer. Check. The bad part is that nothing in that equation is funny. Ryan Reynolds tries to make something of the material, but instead just ends up making a bunch of confused facial expressions. And Sandra Bullock is not funny at all. Honestly, she may be the least funny person in Hollywood at the moment. Meanwhile, Betty White (the aforementioned batty Grandma) brings some charm to the film, but mostly comes off as over the top and annoying. In conclusion, "The Proposal" is one of the most unoriginal comedies of the year. By the end of the movie, I wanted to be deported to Canada, just to escape the film's consistent mediocrity.

Ranking the Harry Potter Films

Now that there are six of them, ranking the Potter films has become all the rage. So, I've decided to take a crack at it. From Best to Worst.



1. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban." This film beautifully directed by the enormously gifted Alfonso Cuaron (see "Children of Men") is by far the most human and visually engaging of all the Potter films. Instead of settling for the sap of the earlier films, Cuaron and his team put the focus on the characters. The relationship between Professor Lupin (David Thewlis) and Harry is very well rendered. It's a shame that David Thewlis has been given so little to do in later films, as he is easily the best of Harry's on screen mentors. On a different note, the time turner sequence is my all-time favorite sequence in any Potter film.



2. "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." I'll keep this short since I will be writing my review later this week. I think that this is the film that best captured the characters from the books. David Yates is really growing on me as a director.



3. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." David Yates's Potter debut is good, but not great. Imelda Staunton - who plays control freak Dolores Umbridge - really raises this film up a notch. Her rise to power is scary, and pink. I feel like the pace lags a bit in this film mainly due to how many scenes were crammed in. Yates unfortunately gives the film very little room to breathe. Thankfully, the young actors show vast improvement in this version, particularly Dan Radcliffe's Harry. The acting in this film defenitely makes up for the lackluster finale. I would have preferred a psychological duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore, not a second-rate fireworks show. Overall, this film works due to Yates splendid work with the actors. The political undertones are also a nice touch.



4. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." Director Chris Colombus manages to capture the magic of introducing Jo Rowling's deeply imaginative world. The beautiful thing about "Sorcerer's Stone" - both the book and the film - is that it is seen through the eyes of a child. We feel the same childish delight that Harry feels as we see Diagon Alley, Platform 9 and 3/4, and Hogwarts for the first time. Unfortunately, the film is almost a bit too cheery at times. Colombus's love for sap is evident here, but rarely enters gag-inducing territory. The computer effects in this film are also noticably bad. And don't get me started on the scene where Harry, Ron and Hermione all scream at the same time like they popped out of one of Colombus's previous films "Home Alone."



5. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." This film - directed by Mike Newell ("Four Weddings and a Funeral") is the worst adaptation for the books. Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) is all wrong. What's with the screaming and man-handling Harry? Ick. Also, the characters go nowhere in this film. Harry is as blank as ever. Hermione is useless except for a few quick facts before the tasks. Ron is the only one that develops, but after awhile, he just returns to comic relief. That being said, the film's action set-pieces are the most memorable of all the films. The dragon scene is breathtaking, as is the underwater task. The third task, the maze, is changed, and for the better in my opinion. I love the creepy atmosphere of the maze attacking the contestants. Voldemort's return to power is also pretty neat, but in the end, this movie feels pretty limp in terms of character development - which is obviously one of Rowling's strengths as a writer. Kudos to Miranda Richardson for her all to brief appearance as gossip journalist Rita Skeeter.



6. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets." Coincidentally, this is also my least favorite of the books. And since Chris Colombus and screenwriter Steve Kloves slavisly adhere to the book, I didn't like the movie too much either. If you are going to adapt this book, the only feasible way would be to make it like a puplpy horror flick, but instead Colombus films it in his light, sentimental tones that annoy me so. While that angle works for the first film's sense of wonder and discovery, it feels stale in this one. Also, I don't think Ron does anything but eat and act scared of spiders in this movie. Literally, that's it. And don't get me started on the final scene - which is by far the stupidest and most gag-inducing scene in Potter film history. "There's no Hogwarts without you Hagrid!" Who writes this stuff? Apparently, Steve Kloves did not. It was all Colombus's doing. Ugh! I hate that scene. Everything does not need to be tied up in a pretty little sentimental bow, Colombus. Okay? RANT OVER. All my qualms aside, I do think Kenneth Branagh is absolutely smashing as the phony celeb wizard Gilderoy Lockhart. Dobby's pretty awesome too, and I like the basilik scene.



In conclusion, I think the Potter films have many strengths, but obviously some work much better than others. Expect my review of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" later this week.



Feel free to leave comments. You don't have to be a registered member of Blogger. Just use Anonymous or "Name/Url" in which the Url is optional. I am eager to see how others would rank the Potter series.

Character Actor Profile: Tom Wilkinson

Have you ever seen someone in a movie, swear that you have seen them before, but cannot quite put your finger on the actor's name? You're not alone. So, to bring these underappreciated actors and actresses to forefront, I've decided to start a series highlighting some of my favorites. In this series, I will pick out three different films starring my character actor of choice and review his or her performance.



My first pick: Tom Wilkinson



Mr. Wilkinson has a very extensive filmography (see: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0929489/). From horror films ("The Exorcism of Emily Rose") to light English comedies ("The Importance of Being Earnest") to comic book adaptations ("Batman Begins"), he seems to sneak himself into several films a year - almost like a mouse infiltrating a neighborhood of different houses, except Mr. Wilkinson is far from unwanted.

In Tony Gilroy's "Duplicity," Wilkinson plays Howard Tully, a corporate executive for a major pharmaceutical company. It does not take long for one to notice how much fun Wilkinson is having with the role. He embodies Tully with a sense of crafty calmness, an almost perfect contrast to Paul Giamatti's Richard Garsik (Tully's corporate enemy) who is an sleazy, dim-witted neurotic. Wilkinson gives you the feeling that Tully is in complete control - without an ounce of worry. This characterization is a joy to watch and - more importantly - makes perfect sense once the film has made its final reveal.



In 2007's "Michael Clayton" - also directed by Tony Gilroy - Wilkinson plays Arthur Edens, a lawyer at a well-established law firm. But, like most Tom Wilkinson roles, that would be just a bit too normal. So, of course, Wilkinson's character is suffering from a psychological breakdown after investigating a case involving a chemical company. Wilkinson nails the obsession of the character. His performance feels BIG, but never devolves into histrionics. The film's opening - a monologue by Wilkinson as the camera is racing through the law firm - is almost chilling in its intensity and brings the audience into the film immediately. And the intensity hardly ever lets up - especially when Wilkinson is on screen.

Perhaps Wilkinson's most critically acclaimed performance isin Todd Field's "In the Bedroom." In the film, Wilkinson plays Matt Fowler, a man stricken with grief after the death of his son Frank. Wilkinson - along with Sissy Spacek who plays his wife - beautifully convey the grieving process. The interactions between Wilkinson and Spacek are scarily realistic. Instead of going completely over-the-top, Wilkinson - with help from the great screenplay - depicts Matt's grief through simpler, quieter moments where the character is clearly just trying to get his son's death off his mind. This performance is one of Wilkinson's few leading roles, and it is easily one of his best.

So, what do you think? Are you with me in praising Wilkinson for his versatility, or do you think he is massively overrated? Are there any other character actors that you feel don't get enough praise? Feel free to answer these questions in the comments.

Also, you do not need a Blogger account to leave a comment. You can either use "Anonymous" or "Name/Url" in which the URL is optional.