Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Directed by: David Yates
Writers: Steve Kloves (screenplay); J.K. Rowling (novel)
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Michael Gambon (Professor Albus Dumbledore); Dave Legeno (Fenrir Greyback), Elarica Gallagher (Waitress), Jim Broadbent (Professor Horace Slughorn), Geraldine Somerville (Lily Potter), Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley), Julie Walters (Molly Weasley), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger); Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), Helen McCrory (Narcissa Malfoy), Timothy Spall (Wormtail), Alan Rickman (Professor Severus Snape)

The first rule of a film, good, bad or otherwise: It must tell a story, or try to tell a story, at least. And, the film should have a climax (not necessarily an orgasm, but a climax nonetheless), before the end credits roll.
Things get little complicated while talking about the Harry Potter series, perhaps the most successful movie franchisee in the recent years. The sixth film in the series is out, and it’s already a blockbuster. Not very surprising. Looking closely, however, you don’t know what to do with the film. As it ends (spoiler: Dumbledore’s dead!!. That’s not really a spoiler for those who have read the book, and if you haven’t, you may not really understand and appreciate the movie.), nothing is really over. We have two more films to go till the Harry Potter saga comes to an end. That would be 2010 or something like that.
But, every movie must have a story. So, where’s the story in the latest Harry Potter? We are coming to that.
The mainstream press has lot of nice things to say about ‘Half-Blood Prince.’ That’s actually a news after how ‘The Goblet of Fire’ was penned by everyone, and how ‘The Order of the Phoenix’ received only left-handed complements. Director David Yates has come a long way (This is his third outing with the boy wizard, and is currently busy with the two-part ‘The Deathly Hallows'.)
But, is the story of the struggle between good and evil, and a quintessential children’s tale turning into a Hollywood teen romance, taking a leaf from last year’s super successful ‘Twilight’? Now, that a question worth all the gold at the Gringotts Wizarding Bank.
The first three books of J K Rowling’s seven-book saga had fairly independent storyline, in the lines of 'Famous Five' and 'Hardy Boys.' What was common were the characters and the school where they study. After the fourth book, where Harry’s nemesis, Voldermort, comes to life, the saga becomes a series, with all the stories linked together.

This is a blessing and a curse at the same time. On the plus side, you can play around in each movie, without worrying about everything leading to a cohesive end. On the flip side, you tend to lose focus, since the story isn’t ending in near future, how much climatic plot should the movie build up?
That’s why probably ‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’ remains the best film in the series, it had a neat beginning, middle and an end.
Rowling's books got bigger and bigger, fatter and fatter, with each passing year. There are so many things which a two-hour movie cannot include. The screen writer has to choose. Now, this is a problem, what to choose and how much. For example, in ‘The Goblet of Fire,’ the subplot of Hermione fighting for the rights of the house elves was totally ignored in the film. That’s okay. But are we leaving out only the excess fat or we are leaving out flesh and bone as well? That’s a question.
There are two major plot line in 'Half-Blood Prince': Voldermort’s past, and the Horcruxes, and the potion textbook of the mysterious half-blood prince. There are other subplots, including the task the Dark Lord has assigned to Draco Malfoy and the love stories between Ron-Hermione, Harry-Ginny...
The film is 153 minutes long, yet, what we see are the teen-age love stories. We also see a young Voldermort, played by Ralf Fiennes’ real life nephew Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, we meet the inferies, Harry learns a real bloody curse for his enemies, the Millennium bridge in London comes crashing down, and so on. But, what the film mostly deals with is the teenage hormones, which is not a bad thing, but at what expense: At the expense of an elaborate plotline. There is a major fight scene at the end of the novel, after Dumbledore dies. That track is missing in the film. That’s okay. But why then we had to witness all those scenes of Draco Malfoy mending the vanishing cabinet? And, no Bill in the film to be bitten by Fenrir Greyback, the werewolf. The point is, Billy is not marrying in the next film, then? We don’t know. Then how will 'Dealthly Hallows' begin?
For the fans, the film looks exquisite, the Hogwarts more detailed than ever, the magic more enchanting... And, for the others, I don’t think they would be interested, and they are a minority. The Half-Blood Prince elsewhere
The wikipedia entry
The Salon review
The Roger Ebert review

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Directed by: Michael Bay
Writers: Ehren Kruger (written by) & Roberto Orci (written by)
Starrting: Shia LaBeouf (Sam Witwicky), Megan Fox (Mikaela Banes), Josh Duhamel (Major Lennox), Tyrese Gibson (USAF Master Sergeant Epps) John Turturro (Agent Simmons), Ramon Rodriguez (Leo Spitz)

Michael Bay has the last laugh. As soon as the summer blockbuster ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen’ was released, every critic worth his or her salt, lambasted the film, calling it a fruitless exercise in CGI.
However, if you get people to buy tickets to see this ‘fruitless exercise’ on the big screen, I think, it was worth the exercise.
I saw the film at a local theatre on the second week of its release. What I enjoyed most was the reactions from the audience. Most of them were young boys who would cheer every time Optimus Prime beats up a Decepticon. Apparently, most of them were seeing the film for the second time, and they knew where to cheer, where to hoot: the appearance of Megan Fox in a hot pant, for example.
As the film progressed, and a tiny autobot/decepticon started to hump Ms Fox’s legs, my enthusiastic friend, who was accompanying me, said, "This is how a five-rated film goes to hell." What the hell! If you can please the crowd and make them buy the tickets twice over, who cares about some stupid rating. I am sure Mr Bay does not give a damn about the critics.
Now. The bigger question. Are the critics who have lambasted the film is off the mark? Not really. Actually, there is nothing in the film, except some CGI robot action set-pieces. And, can you make a movie more than two hour long only on a few action sequences? Apparently, you can. That what Mr Bay does.
Compared to this, the first Transformers film can be called a masterpiece. Roger Ebert gave it a three star rating. There was a good mix of storytelling and action, and fantastic CGI-enhanced robots as well. In the first film, the robots, Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, had a life of their own. You really cared for Optimus Prime when, in the climatic scene, he dies, only to be resurrected.
Optimus Prime, leaders of the autobots, dies in this film too, that too much before the climax. But you don't have time to worry about him; there are too many things happening in Sam’s life, or there’s nothing at all, except for a lengthy sequence of fight that leads to climax, Kaboom!!! Optium Prime is resurrected. Frankly, who cares?
This is the bane of a sequel. Apparently, a sequel demands a amplified version of what was interesting in the first movie. But, can you ‘amplify’ a dish already cooked to perfection. No, you can’t. This is where most sequels fail. The latest victim is ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.’
The first film was built on a myth, whatever silly it may be. This time, they try to carry it forward, but fails miserably, since there is nothing more to add. So, there’s some mumbo-jumbo about a bad Prime and some good Primes, some millennia ago; the action moves to Egypt and the ‘epic battle’ starts.
So much for a summer blockbuster!!

A death in family

The day Michael Jackson died, I was rudely awakened by a phone call, at four in the morning. The voice on the other side was sobbing. I shouted hello, hello, seven times in a row. A thin voice replied: "He’s dead."

Who’s dead? I shouted back.

"Michael." I could not comprehend for a minute. I don't have any friend called Michael whose death I should mourn. Then the voice called again, "I’m Mohammed." And, I understood. I jumped out of the bed. What? I shouted. Michael Jackson is dead?
When I reached Mohammed’s place half-an-hour later, his eyes were blood-red. He has been crying ever since his father called from home to tell him the news. Around me, the room was filled things MJ: His CDs, each one of them, that too more than one copy, five Michael Jackson biographies, Magazines and newspapers where MJ has been featured, t-shirts with the logo of MJ’s invincible tour.

On the TV, MJ was singing ‘They Don’t Really Care About Us’, and in the middle of all this, Mohammed was sitting on a plastic chair, soaked in grief.
He’s an African student, in the city to complete his graduation. And, he’s a Michael Jackson fan, as fanatic as they come. His musician father introduced him to MJ when he was five. Since then, MJ has been his constant companion. He has savoured every moment of MJ’s public life — he has adored MJ like an elder brother since he remembers.
As I sat there, watching one MJ video after another, I could understand his grief. But, how do I console him? I can’t say, it’s okay. It’s not okay. How do you console someone when there’s a death in the family?

— Dibyajyoti Sarma