steverino171

Television director David Yates makes his first foray into cinema with the latest Harry Potter entry and does so with decidedly mediocre results. Although he does show some stylistic restraint at appropriate times, his handling of narrative elements leaves something to be desired. Also, his movie is literally just too dark, which seems to be an unfortunate trend of recent comic book films (Spiderman, Superman, and of course Batman) that pose as serious-minded and penetrating ventures into the human psyche but are actually just as shallow as their predecessors. The darkness of the new HP adds little to the story and is too literal-minded. But more to the point, it is entirely inappropriate for the IMAX DMR 3-D format.

The whole point of IMAX is spectacle. Harry Potter certainly has its share of spectacle, but since Yates directed this film for general theatre distribution, he doesn't take advantage of the IMAX format very well, and he completely wastes the 3-D technology. As mentioned above, this movie's visual darkness makes a giant-screen format futile. What difference does a giant screen make if you can't see anything? What good are giant shadows? Of course I exaggerate, and indeed some well-lit scenes come off very well on IMAX, but when the vast majority of the footage on screen is cast in shadow because of the director's hackneyed attempt at giving the movie a more dramatic look, you just have to scratch your head and wonder why they bothered to use the big screen technology at all.

As for the 3-D technology, in HP it is pointless. For 3-D to be effective a movie needs to be brightly lit with long takes. Choppy editing and dimly lit scenarios don't offer much to the viewer to enjoy. How can you enjoy the depth of the format if most of what you see on screen is darkness? How can you enjoy the eye-popping effects if you're constantly adjusting your eyes to a new shot.

It seems reformatting Harry Potter for IMAX DMR 3-D was an afterthought, and Yates changed little to accommodate the technology. One could hardly blame him, though. Yate's stylistic choices are nothing if not consistent. That he refrained from comprising his vision for an exhibition format only a fraction of the viewers would enjoy is probably commendable. The blame should go to whoever decided to make only the climax in 3-D rather than the entire movie. It's distracting to the viewers and the director. It added so little to the experience and was poorly handled. The 3-D technology they have can be quite effective. But IMAX has to showcase that technology in films that can take advantage of that. Otherwise audiences are just going to be disappointed and they'll leave the theatre not knowing what they're missing.

Brad Bird's "Ratatouille" is a rich, textured film that explores several important themes while sustaining a strong moral core. The lead character, Remy, a rat with ironically refined tastes in matters culinary, embodies the film's adamantly pro-democratic theme of "anyone can cook" while overcoming anxieties about himself and his relationship with the humans of the restaurant that despise him (because he is a rat) or distrust him. Bird handles these matters with care and deliberateness, thus providing a powerful primer for the film's target audience on American democracy and the egalitarian can-do notion at its core.

"Ratatouille's" ideas about democracy revolve around Remy's relationship with humans. As it were humans are a necessity for Remy. He needs them to do what he does best: cook fine cuisine. He needs them to provide the ingredients. He needs them to handle the chores of cooking. He needs them to appreciate the food he creates. Thus, he forms a reluctant partnership with a young kitchen worker named Linguini who can provide a link to the world of fine cuisine and do his culinary buddings. Since their relationship must be kept secret (for obvious reasons), they become close friends, depending on each other for their dreams.

Nevertheless, Remy's relationship with humans is not always so positive. In one particularly revealing scene, Remy's father tries to scare the prodigal rat into returning to the nest—where he belongs. He brings Remy to a rat extermination shop where several rat corpses are displayed in the front window as advertisement. The scene frightens Remy into seeing that humans are indeed a threat to him and his kind. However, Remy soon sees through his father's intimidating tactics and recognizes that fear is a tool that imprisons us and keeps us from growing (an apt thematic turn considering the current culture of fear our news and broadcast media conveys). Remy refuses to succumb to his father's mistrust of humans and bravely confronts them in order to bring his dream of cooking wonderful foods (of giving something to the world rather than taking) to full fruition. He is an intrepid little rat with the courage to pursue his selfless dream.

What a beautiful message this is. What a wonderful lesson for a child to learn. Unfortunately, "Ratatouille's" box office draw will undoubtedly pale in comparison to Michael Bay's "The Transformers" and its ilk. This is unfortunate. Of course, "The Transformers" serves a purpose too. It initiates its young male audience into the world of consumerism, materialism, chauvinism, and violence. It reminds us that there are terrible threats to our world and they must be conquered through violent action. It also teaches us that young men can and should find contentment in consumption. These are all important parts of American culture as well. So, I guess it's up to you as to which kind of ideals you want your child (and yourself) exposed to. That's the beauty of a democracy I suppose.

The most interesting lesson learned from Judd Apatow's "Knocked Up" is one about the statistics of a tomatometer. The film has scored 91% ripe tomatoes on Rotten Tomatoes, usually an indication that a movie is truly excellent. Films like "The Godfather" or "Casablanca" score 90% or more ripe tomatoes. However, the assumption that a high score guarantees a moving, enlightening cinematic experience is unfounded. What the 90% rating means is that most critics thought the movie was worth seeing, not necessarily that it was a superior film. This seems to be the case for "Knocked Up"—a decidedly mediocre yet watchable movie with the good fortune of being wedged between releases of "Spiderman 3" and "The Transformers" and its ilk so that it can cash in on whatever genre elements that separate it from those tiresome actioners. In short, despite its high ratings, critics thought the film was decent (probably because they're tired of watching action movies based on children's' cartoons) but not excellent.

"Knocked Up" is exactly this. This highly formulaic frat-boy romantic comedy has some well drawn moments, but ultimately it's an all quite forgettable tale of boy meets girl, loses girl, grows up, gets girl back. Although, one thing that is not entirely forgettable is the tenuous credibility of the film's premise, which involves a coupling of the most unlikely pair of people, a peculiar glossing over of character motivations (why no abortion?), and an affirmation of traditional family structures and value of conformity worthy of a TV sitcom.

Also, with the exception of a few truly inspired moments, the comedy of "Knocked Up" relies on crude, sophomoric potty humor that has found broad acceptance thanks to films and TV shows such as "American Pie" and "South Park." Although it should be noted that gross-out comedies were just as prominent in the 1980s ("Porky's," "Caddyshack"), which makes their popularity now a bit confounding considering how stale the jokes have become by now. Granted the gags of "Knocked Up" are mostly verbal not graphic and a predicated on the embarrassment of social awkwardness rather than grossness for its own sake. In Apatow's film the characters refer to their antics with frankness, as when they describe how they've managed to pass on pink eye to nearly everyone in the household via flatulence. Fortunately, Apatow spares us an explicit depiction. Unfortunately, either way (verbal or graphic) the gag isn't funny. Certainly some audience members will get a chuckle out of their repartee because they can identify with the characters, situation, and/or the obsession with bodily functions from their own childhood. But the humor in farting on someone's pillow is for 10 year olds. And a movie about a couple dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is for adults. So, although it's not very upsetting that some guys in the audience might see this joke on the screen and reminisce about a more carefree time in their lives, it is disturbing that professional filmmakers, screenwriters, and actors see fit to include such banality in their movies rather than demanding higher standards of wit and insight from each other and themselves. It's troubling to consider how much money these people spent (and how much they've made) making this movie when you they felt the need to include fart jokes in it. I for one could do better. I guess a lot of other people could too.

But perhaps most confounding of all is the few moments of wit and satire that make the film worth seeing: why didn't the makers insist on being clever throughout the movie. For example, in an interview with her boss Katherine Heigl's character is promoted to on-camera interviewer to the consternation of one of her female colleague. Her pointed off-hand mumblings ("Yeah, I was so surprised too.") are precious, as are her boss's gentle but persistent suggestions about "tightening up." Scenes like these, which are too few and far between in a two hour plus comedy, make this a decent, watchable movie. But, don't be fooled by all those shiny red tomatoes. It's no "Casablanca."