See, I told you that it wouldn't be two weeks before another post on The Canon Review. Rather, it's only been a couple of days, so perhaps that's a step in the right direction. Anyway, today's review is of the 2001 film Blow Dry. Directed by Paddy Breathnach and written by Simon Beaufoy (who also wrote the screenplay for The Full Monty and Slumdog Millionaire, among others), Blow Dry stars Alan Rickman, Natasha Richardson, Josh Hartnett, Rachel Griffiths, Rachael Leigh Cook, and Bill Nighy. In Blow Dry, the British Hair Styling Championships are coming to the small town of Keithley, which inspires a salon artist named Shelley (Richardson) to try to get her old team back together and compete. However, Shelley's ex-husband Phil Allen (Rickman) and their son Brian (Hartnett) aren't exactly on the best of terms with Shelley, seeing as she left them for Phil's show model Sandra (Griffiths) some 10 years ago. But Shelley wants to make things right between everyone, as she has recently been told that she is dying of cancer, and wants her dysfunctional family to come together as a unit and figures that the competition will help in that pursuit. Meanwhile, hundreds of stylists have come to Keithley in pursuit of this year's title, including two-time defending champion and Phil's old rival, Raymond Robertson. Raymond has employed his American daughter, Christina, as a model this year, but things grow complicated once she strikes up a relationship with Brian. A few notes about this film, and there may be SPOILERS, but I'll try to keep them to a minimum.
- This film actually reminded me of a couple of other films, actually. A comparison that I saw a lot about this film was to the 2000 film Best in Show, which was similar in that both films dealt with offbeat people in a competition. Blow Dry also shared some similarities with the 1992 Strictly Ballroom, although it wasn't quite as over the top and glamorous as Ballroom was. After watching Blow Dry, I kind of want to watch those other two movies again, which may not necessarily be a good thing for this movie.
- As Phil Allen, Rickman does a nice job in portraying him as a bitter man who once tasted greatness and now carves out a simple living cutting hair in a simple barber's shop. In fact, he does such a good job that it became hard to imagine Phil as once being a flashy hair-stylist. But once the final scene rolls around, Rickman is also able to portray his character in an over-the-top yet humble manner, a multi-layered portrayal which really sticks out compared to all the other hairdressers.
- The best acting performance in this movie would have to be Natasha Richardson's portrayal of Shelley. Richardson was able to play a part that's been played hundreds of times before, the terminally ill woman wanting to tie together all the loose ends, and plays the part better than most. She's able to be both vulnerable yet strong, positive yet cynical, and plays Shelley with a levity that is often missing from roles such as these. Even though the script doesn't exactly do Richardson a lot of favors, she's able to take what she's given and deliver a great performance anyhow.
- Josh Hartnett and Rachael Leigh Cook are also in the movie, as a pair of young adults who knew each other as kids and are now reconnecting after years as young adults. Cook plays Christina, the daughter of hairstylist Raymond Robertson, who is not above cheating to reclaim his crown as Britian's best hairstylist, while Hartnett plays the son of Phil and Shelley. Hartnett attempts to speak with a British accent throughout the film, but it comes and goes a lot of the time, while Cook plays an American who happens to have a British hairstylist for a father. Either way, neither Hartnett or Cook are particularly outstanding in their roles, and their storyline just seems like filler most of the time.
- This movie also has a lot of supporting characters, some of which are stronger than others. Bill Nighy as Raymond Robertson is very effective in his role as the over-the-top villian of the film who will stoop to any level to win. Meanwhile, Warren Clarke provides quite a few laughs as the mayor of Keithley and the MC of the hair competition. There's also a subplot involving a model (played by Heidi Klum) and two stylist brothers that provide a couple of laughs, but really just seemed tacked on to the script, probably as an excuse to cast Heidi Klum.
Overall, Blow Dry is supposed to be a comedy about an underdog team of hairstylists coming together to win the big game, so to speak. But there's too much drama in this film for it to be a comedy, and it's too muddled of a film to be considered a straight drama. Blow Dry is a good film, but ultimately it's also a film that's not particularly memorable and outside of Richardson's performance, the acting is hit-or-miss. I'd recommend seeing it, especially if you are a fan of Alan Rickman or Natasha Richardson, but it's not exactly an essential film that everyone must see. Overall, I'd give Blow Dry a 6.1 out of 10, as it's good in a lot of spots, but not great. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or Blow Dry in general, then share them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review, then share those with me either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Showing posts with label Alan Rickman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan Rickman. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Friday, August 20, 2010
Canon Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Since I reviewed the book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone last week. I decided to watch the movie and see how it matched up to the book. The film version was directed by Chris Columbus (Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, Nine Months) and stars Daniel Ratcliffe as Harry Potter. The movie also stars Emma Watson, Rupert Grant, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, and Alan Rickman, among others. The movie was released in 2001, and set a then record for the highest grossing opening weekend in movie history. The film made 974.7 million dollars at the box office worldwide, which is currently the seventh highest grossing film of all-time. A few thoughts about this movie, and I must warn you that there are spoilers ahead:
- Unlike some movies based on books, the movie's script follows the original source material rather closely. Sure, there are some scenes that are taken out of the book, and the manner in which Hagrid gives up his dragon is changed, but other than that, the script nearly follows the book to a tee. In fact, it kind of impaired my enjoyment of the film because I had just read the book, and therefore I knew what was coming.
- The special effects in the movie are really well-done. Particularly the scenes with the three headed dog and the little dragon of Hagrid's. Heck, they look so life-like that they almost look real. The giant troll looked kind of silly, though, especially when Harry jumped on his back. But overall, the special effects were well done and did not subtract at all from the movie.
- As I said before, one of the strengths of the movie was that it followed the book so thoroughly. However, I must say I was disappointed by the exclusion of Snape's defense mechanism in guarding the Sorcerer's Stone. That was one of my favorite parts of the book, and also the scene would have only taken a minute or so to do. But instead they went right from the chessboard to the final confrontation. Oh well.
- One odd thing about this film is that for a fantasy film, the movie almost seems too practical. Compared to the Lord of the Rings movies, with its gorgeous scenery and larger-than-life characters and effects, Harry Potter looks kind of run-of-the-mill, to be honest. Yes, some of the special effects are nicely well done, but most of the settings in the movie look like settings that you've probably seen in other movies before. I don't know, I guess overall I had imagined a far grander film than what I ended up watching.
- Last week, my sister Maggie warned me not to watch this film because the actors were just kids then and therefore the movie wasn't all that good. Well, after watching the film I'd say she wasn't wrong. Of the three main characters, I thought that Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley turned in the most convincing performance. Daniel Ratcliffe played Harry Potter, and even though I don't want to be too critical, it seemed as if he turned in a lackadaisical performance. Emma Watson as Hermoine Granger was all right I guess, but I felt the movie made her too much of a know-it-all. Actually, the movie made Hermoine out to be somewhat unlikeable, whereas the book portrayed her as a misunderstood overachiever, the movie kind of made her out to be a stuck up know-it-all. The adult actors all played their parts rather well, particularly Robbie Coltrane as the gentle giant Hagrid and Rickman as Professor Snape, although I felt he wasn't in the movie enough.
- One problem I had with the movie is that, while the events took place almost identically as described as the book, it seemed as if something was missing in the retelling. For one, in the book Harry was kind of freaked out in the beginning about being a wizard and discovering this new world and all that, but in the movie, he seemed to accept everything rather quickly, and just acted as if all of these new things were just normal everyday stuff. Also, in the book Harry and the gang were always scared about passing classes and gaining acceptance, but you hardly see any of that in the movie, other than Hermoine worrying about Harry and Ron getting her killed "or worse, expelled".
- The movie also cuts out a lot of scenes featuring Harry's family the Dursleys, who are much more important in the book but only get a couple of minutes in the movie. Also, Draco Malfoy's character in the book was a rich stuck-up bully who tormented Harry and Ron all year. In the movie, he's more of a troublemaker who serves little purpose but to advance the story.
Overall, while the movie is very faithful to the original material, it comes off as a flat retelling of the tale instead of adding to it, if that makes any sense. It lacks a lot of the emotion and suspense of the book and the movie kind of drags in the middle. To me, the film is simply a by-the-numbers retelling of the book I found it okay, but something was lost in the translation from the book to the film. I'll give it a 5 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post, or ideas for future reviews, than share those thoughts and ideas either by leaving a comment on the blog or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- Unlike some movies based on books, the movie's script follows the original source material rather closely. Sure, there are some scenes that are taken out of the book, and the manner in which Hagrid gives up his dragon is changed, but other than that, the script nearly follows the book to a tee. In fact, it kind of impaired my enjoyment of the film because I had just read the book, and therefore I knew what was coming.
- The special effects in the movie are really well-done. Particularly the scenes with the three headed dog and the little dragon of Hagrid's. Heck, they look so life-like that they almost look real. The giant troll looked kind of silly, though, especially when Harry jumped on his back. But overall, the special effects were well done and did not subtract at all from the movie.
- As I said before, one of the strengths of the movie was that it followed the book so thoroughly. However, I must say I was disappointed by the exclusion of Snape's defense mechanism in guarding the Sorcerer's Stone. That was one of my favorite parts of the book, and also the scene would have only taken a minute or so to do. But instead they went right from the chessboard to the final confrontation. Oh well.
- One odd thing about this film is that for a fantasy film, the movie almost seems too practical. Compared to the Lord of the Rings movies, with its gorgeous scenery and larger-than-life characters and effects, Harry Potter looks kind of run-of-the-mill, to be honest. Yes, some of the special effects are nicely well done, but most of the settings in the movie look like settings that you've probably seen in other movies before. I don't know, I guess overall I had imagined a far grander film than what I ended up watching.
- Last week, my sister Maggie warned me not to watch this film because the actors were just kids then and therefore the movie wasn't all that good. Well, after watching the film I'd say she wasn't wrong. Of the three main characters, I thought that Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley turned in the most convincing performance. Daniel Ratcliffe played Harry Potter, and even though I don't want to be too critical, it seemed as if he turned in a lackadaisical performance. Emma Watson as Hermoine Granger was all right I guess, but I felt the movie made her too much of a know-it-all. Actually, the movie made Hermoine out to be somewhat unlikeable, whereas the book portrayed her as a misunderstood overachiever, the movie kind of made her out to be a stuck up know-it-all. The adult actors all played their parts rather well, particularly Robbie Coltrane as the gentle giant Hagrid and Rickman as Professor Snape, although I felt he wasn't in the movie enough.
- One problem I had with the movie is that, while the events took place almost identically as described as the book, it seemed as if something was missing in the retelling. For one, in the book Harry was kind of freaked out in the beginning about being a wizard and discovering this new world and all that, but in the movie, he seemed to accept everything rather quickly, and just acted as if all of these new things were just normal everyday stuff. Also, in the book Harry and the gang were always scared about passing classes and gaining acceptance, but you hardly see any of that in the movie, other than Hermoine worrying about Harry and Ron getting her killed "or worse, expelled".
- The movie also cuts out a lot of scenes featuring Harry's family the Dursleys, who are much more important in the book but only get a couple of minutes in the movie. Also, Draco Malfoy's character in the book was a rich stuck-up bully who tormented Harry and Ron all year. In the movie, he's more of a troublemaker who serves little purpose but to advance the story.
Overall, while the movie is very faithful to the original material, it comes off as a flat retelling of the tale instead of adding to it, if that makes any sense. It lacks a lot of the emotion and suspense of the book and the movie kind of drags in the middle. To me, the film is simply a by-the-numbers retelling of the book I found it okay, but something was lost in the translation from the book to the film. I'll give it a 5 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post, or ideas for future reviews, than share those thoughts and ideas either by leaving a comment on the blog or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)