HIRIPODA WASSA

This is the tale of three school friends on the verge of doing their Advanced Level Examinations. Sithum comes from a lower middle class family; his father is a Postman and mother a housewife. His story is about a budding relationship he initiates with Pooja. Ramith is from a middle class family and his father is the owner of an automobile repair garage. His story is about a crush he has for his teacher; Ms. Arosha and the bizarre dilemma he faces in order to please her. Prageeth lives in the lap of luxury because his father is a successful businessman. His story is about the events that follow after the sudden death of his mother. Each friend has their share of problems and aspirations and this film focuses on their lives for a brief moment.

HIRIPODA WASSA is written and directed by Udayakantha Warnasooriya. The film features a cast of young and fairly unknown actors such as Pubudu Chathuranga (Sithum), Jayantha Athapaththu (Ramith), Roshan Ranawaka (Prageeth), Chathurika Pieris (Pooja), Harshani Perera (Ms. Arosha) and Anarkali Akarsha (Veena).

What is the plot of the film…you ask? Well this film is unique because it has NO plot. It's just about the infantile antics of three so-called young adults. The storyline as far as Sithum and Pooja are concerned is the good ol' "rich boy/girl falls in love with poor boy/girl, but rich boy's/girl's parents try to break them up." In their case it's Pooja's brother who takes it upon himself to break this relationship up, probably because he's jealous his sister is getting more 'shlong' than he does. Ramith's storyline is probably similar to something we've all been guilty of; having a crush on a sexy teacher. But that’s as far as it went because I certainly don't recall trying to dispose of a dead body with my sexy teacher, which is what Ramith ends up doing. Unfortunately Prageeth's storyline is not better or interesting, either. He's just dating the most annoying girl in Sri Lanka (haven't we all been there!), oh and he just suspects his father of killing his mother…no biggy!

I thought I'd be accustomed to immature dialogue in Sri Lankan films by now, but no this film receives the dubious honor of having the 'most immature dialogue' I have ever heard. Warnasooriya's script is ridiculously puerile. It is obvious that in any country Kids and/or Teen Movies are written and made by adults. But these adults have the ability to relate to their subjects, prime examples are the Teen Movies by the American filmmaker John Hughes (THE BREAKFAST CLUB & SIXTEEN CANDLES). But it is painfully apparent that a clueless adult has written this script without an inkling of applicability to his targeted audience. The episodes of childish dialogue in the script are just too many to even quote in this review.

Once in awhile a movie comes along where nothing works except for the cinematography. This is NOT one of those films. There is nothing original about the photography but the clear and refined picture quality is appreciated.

The acting is just a train wreck of exaggerated overacting and performances riddled with stiff, unnatural (reading directly from the script) delivery. Many of the actors simply recite their dialogue. Of course some leniency is given to the actors because for many of them this is there film debuts. But that’s no excuse for the horrid acting this film displays. The only two exceptions are Chathurika Pieris and Pubudu Chathuranga who show a hint of natural acting ability. But it is Roshan Ranawaka and Anarkali Akarsha who provide the worst performances in the entire film. They are both in desperate need of professional acting training, unfortunately in this critic's opinion; not even 4 years at the Actors Studio in New York could help this talent less duo.

Although Udayakantha Warnasooriya is a capable director, he is clearly out of his element with the 'Teen' subject matter. The first act of the film is divided equally among the storylines of the three male characters but once the second act begins each story just moves along a tangent. After Sithum's story ends, Ramith's story begins and once that story closes Prageeth's story starts. There is no intersection of the three stories and the narrative seems to flow in a sort of straight tunnel vision, oblivious to the coinciding sub plots. This type of storytelling is similar to mistakes made by a first time director and not an experienced one. It is obvious that this is a commercial film and the main goal is to make a profit at the box office, but a director should have some scruples as to how much product placement he will allow in his film. This film is like a two hour advertisement for Rexona products. It is astonishing that a writer/director would make a film that has hardly any character growth or development. The film simply presents the daily existence of the characters and even the conflicts faced are forgettable. It is noticeable that this is a formulaic commercial film targeting the youth, with the use of clichéd plotlines, young new actors and original songs composed by Bathiya and Santhush but I feel that this film insults the youth of today as opposed to entertaining them.

Rating: 1 COCONUT

S. V. Fernando

DORAKADA MARAWA

The suspect motor car accident involving a newly married couple, lead relatives and friends to speculate whether it was the result of suicide, homicide or a genuine accident? This is the end result of Priyantha's and Subashini's tumultuous relationship filled with disputes over social class, wealth and emotional incompatibilities.

DORAKADA MARAWA (Death at the Door Step) is written and directed by Vasantha Obeysekera. Sanath Gunathilake (Priyantha) and Sangeetha Weeraratne (Subashini) play the lead roles and the supporting cast includes Veena Jayakody,

G.W. Surendra and Sathischandra Edirisinghe.

This is a simple plot examining Priyantha's and Subashini's rocky relationship and the subsequent events that lead to their untimely death. The plot not only focuses on the point of view of the couple but also presents the views of friends and relatives. The narrative explores the trials and tribulations of these doomed lovers in an intimate approach. The screenplay is the work of a skilled writer; Obeysekera captures the emotional depth of his lead characters with great maturity. The dialogue is concise, to-the-point and does not waste time on melodramatic nonsense.

The cinematography is certainly nothing to brag about; the mixture of ordinary camera angles, overly lethargic camera movements, poor lighting and the simple lack of use of these vital cinematic instruments are evident. Of course the subject matter isn't really conducive to dynamic cinematography either, but this is a FILM and not a stage play so I feel the camera is grossly misused.

The acting is top notch. Sanath Gunathilake and Sangeetha Weeraratne prove their acting talents and prowess with masterful ease. Their performances are both moving and heartbreaking. It is a good example of actors playing to their personal strengths and not trying to over reach. The supporting cast purely compliments the two leads by their respective performances.

The best part of the film is that it's directed expertly. Obeysekera makes up for his lack of technical artistry by displaying his story telling abilities. The use of flashbacks is seamlessly interlaced with scenes from the present. The overlapping of a different audio track with a different visual is extremely creative. For example, when the ill fated couple is seen on screen for the first time (at their friend's wedding) the natural audio track is replaced by the audio track of the mourners weeping at the couple's future funeral. This is an ingenious method to give the audience a sense of foreshadowing. Another display of the director's inventiveness is the scene where friends and family are shown looking directly at the camera while the audio track of them gossiping is heard. Obeysekera exercises his creative muscles subtly and with artistic quality, this is indeed a director's movie.

Rating: 3 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

THE HAPPENING

The first stage is loss of speech, the second stage is physical disorientation and the final stage is bloody suicide. This is the result of a mysterious phenomenon that initially affects larger cities in the East Coast and creeps its way into smaller towns. A little group led by high school science teacher Elliot Moore tries to outrun this inexplicable event.

THE HAPPENING is the latest cinematic offering by writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Actor Mark Wahlberg plays the protagonist (Elliot Moore), his wife (Alma) is played by Zooey Deschanel and John Leguizamo with many others makes up the supporting cast.

Film/cinema is a little over a hundred years old so needless to say everything that can be done has already been done. This medium of art has come full circle because audiences of today cannot be fooled by gimmicks. This is why it is critical for present day filmmakers to get back to basics and formulate that indestructible plot. Unfortunately M. Night feels that posing questions and creating an eerie atmosphere will suffice the lack of a conclusive storyline. From the theatrical trailer itself, I began to ponder as to what this happening may be.
(Spoiler Alert! Do not read any further if you have not seen the movie) Is it a terrorist attack, some kind of biological weapon, is it an airborne virus, is it aliens or is it the work of a bunch of pissed off elves and pixies? NO!!! It's just Mother 'freaking' Nature, that’s who. As I'm seated in the theatre watching the movie, I think to myself "Please let there be a good reason for all this." but to my horror the writer/director of THE SIXTH SENSE could only muster a ridiculously ordinary and obvious explanation for all the mayhem. The film is similar to Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS because the story revolves around a family on the run from a global killer. In fact, the interaction between Elliot Moore and the psychotic old lady (Mrs. Jones) is reminiscent of the interaction between Tom Cruise's and Tim Robbins' respective characters. Although in the real world Mother Nature is the cause of much destruction, it is certainly unconvincing to use it in a mystery/thriller movie.

The script is concise and to the point. It does not give anything away, but then again there isn't anything to give away. This is the first M. Night movie that contained absolutely no surprise twists.
Tak Fujimoto's cinematography fails to leave a visual mark. THE HAPPENING is a mixture of generic shots featuring forgettable locales. Compared to his previous collaborations with M. Night, namely THE SIXTH SENSE and SIGNS, Fujimoto could not create a unique mood through the camera lens on this endeavor.

All the actors contributed lackluster performances to an already uninspiring story. Mark Wahlberg proves that he is not leading man material, Deschanel gives an indifferent portrayal as the wife, Leguizamo is underused and his character's young daughter is probably the most undistinguished of all M. Night's child characters.

I have been a devoted fan of M. Night Shyamalan movies. I would go so far as to consider him a modern day Hitchcock. In fact I have enjoyed each and every film he has made since THE SIXTH SENSE and yes that includes his last film LADY IN THE WATER. But I have to admit his new movie is the first major flop on the resume.

The film is simply build-up after build-up of unexplained suicides and at the end all I got was a pathetic resolution. It's like getting a massage, only without the happy ending. M. Night needs to stop trying to replicate the feeling he gave audiences in his previous films and just stick to a solid story. Perhaps switching genres may get his creative juices flowing, or just direct a screenplay written by somebody else. Whatever it may be, M. Night Shyamalan's filmmaking is in desperate need of a reboot. I too suffered from loss of speech during the suicide scenes, I later felt physical disorientation when I realized that there was no reason to the madness and ultimately I contemplated suicide after recalling the money I spent for the cinema ticket.

Rating: 1 COCONUT

S. V. Fernando

TEASER

THE INCREDIBLE HULK

When Dr. Bruce Banner is forced out of hiding, the dormant monster within him awakens. Banner escapes the initial encounter with the relentless General Ross and his soldiers in Brazil and journeys to the U.S. in the hopes of finding a cure for himself. But his efforts are constantly thwarted by Ross and his right hand man Blonsky. Ironically the very thing that Banner is trying to free himself from is the only thing that can be utilized to defeat a more deadly foe.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK is directed by Louis Leterrier (THE TRANSPORTER 1 & 2), written by Zak Penn (FANTASTIC FOUR & X-MEN: THE LAST STAND) and boasts the acting talents of Edward Norton, Tim Roth, William Hurt and Liv Tyler.

Let me begin by stating for the record, that I am one of the few who consider Ang Lee's HULK (2003) to be a comic-to-movie masterpiece. It is to me the CITIZEN KANE of comic book movies. I could write a thesis in appreciation for HULK, which is why I was skeptical going in to watch its reboot. But I had a feeling that its successor could not be too bad because of the fact that Edward Norton contributed to the screenplay with the use of a nom de plume. When a talented actor does that, it's an indication that he has a vested interest in the story and the final product. The movie begins with an opening-credits-montage presenting a recap of the events that result in the genetic accident. This is a clever technique to refresh our memories and not waste time with repetition of the origin story.

Although this film is a reboot, it is a smart move by the filmmakers to continue from where its predecessor (HULK 2003) left off, namely in South America. This seamless transition from the old film to the new isn't apparent in only the continuity of location; it is also evident in the continuity of the main character. Where as Eric Bana's ‘Bruce Banner’ tried to comprehend the beast within by psychological and spiritual methods, Edward Norton's ‘Bruce Banner’ seems to have come to terms with his affliction and is now merely determined to find a cure through science. This shows continuity in character growth because Banner is done with his emotional curiosity/discovery for the transformation and is now focused on controlling and/or eradicating it. The OLD Bruce Banner was similar to Freud; 'WHY do I like this rage and at the same time hate it?' but the NEW Bruce Banner is like Einstein; 'HOW do I get rid of the rage?' Indeed the plot of the reboot is simpler and more accessible to even the hoards of young boys who came out of theatres in 2003 and collectively said "What the f@#k???"

THE INCREDIBLE HULK's storyline is appealing to every age group because it’s basically THE FUGITIVE meets SWAMP THING (Literally!). Die hard comic book fans will appreciate the obscure tit bits of connectivity to the Marvel Universe. Such as ‘The Super Soldier Serum’ injected into Blonsky which is the exact serum that gave Captain America his powers and when Dr. Samuel Sterns' skull begins to expand (towards the end of the movie), is a foreshadowing of the super villain he is fated to become (The Leader). Non-comic book readers will value the unyielding actions scenes which are strategically placed so as to maintain the brisk pace of the movie. The choice to make ‘Abomination’ the villain is inventive because he is clearly more lethal than the Hulk, which makes him a superior opponent. Watching Hulk getting beaten to pulp kept me on the edge of my seat until the very end. The story gives a little something for everyone.

The cinematography is vivid because of the distinctly different locations photographed. From the Brazilian favelas, to the Guatemalan rainforest, from a Virginia University campus, to the streets of New York City and finally to the plush scenery of British Columbia. The only debatable aspect of the cinematography is the CGI Hulk. I feel that the new version also fell short in visually creating the Hulk in a more realistic manner. But if I had to choose between the over grown baby or the steroid freak, I'll take the Schwarzenegger version any day.

Edward Norton is perfectly cast as the conflicted Bruce Banner. He displays the physical and emotional vulnerability of his character with accuracy. William Hurt (General Thaddeus Ross) as always is exceptional in every role he undertakes. Tim Roth (Emil Blonsky) is an interesting casting option for a blockbuster movie, but it works. He brings a sinister tone to his character which makes his change into Abomination more believable. The casting of Tim Blake Nelson (Dr. Samuel Sterns) is ingenious provided that he reprises the role in any future sequel and also returns as the villain ‘The Leader.’ The only disappointment in acting is Liv Tyler (Betty Ross), although a capable actress she has been given a two-dimensional character and his purely the love interest/ beauty to the beast.

I regard Ang Lee's HULK as an art house film but clearly Louis Leterrier's THE INCREDIBLE HULK is an all out, balls-to-the-wall action flick. The movie contained an absorbing plot, moments of sheer awe and scenes that make you hold your breath. As much as I love the old one, the new one has all the elements of a good comic book movie. Leterrier's past experience in directing action such as THE TRANSPORTER films and UNLEASHED starring Jet Li has come in handy. He knows when to hold a scene and when to cut. This is the second film that has been released under the ‘Marvel Studios’ banner, the first being IRON MAN. This is why I feel it appropriate to conclude with a comparison of these two films although a few comparisons to Ang Lee's version were made.
Although the FX of IRON MAN was flawless and the story was fun, I never felt that the Stark/Iron Man character was faced with any real conflict or danger, internal or external. The story was basically black and white and fairly superficial. This is not the case where the Banner/Hulk character is concerned. Conflict is what drives this movie and it is the reason that makes me care about the character. If I love or hate a movie character, I automatically develop an interest in his, her journey and ultimately this is what makes THE INCREDIBLE HULK more enjoyable on a personal level.

Rating: 5 COCONUTS

S.V. Fernando

TEASER

ANJALIKA

When a young man (Thivanka) returns home to Sri Lanka, after many years in England he becomes enamored by a village girl named Anjalika. This puts Thivanka in a complicated predicament because Anjalika happens to be the daughter of a plantation caretaker employed by Thivanka's father. To make matters worse Thivanka's childhood friend Kavya harbors hopes of taking their relationship to a more intimate level. The inevitable clash of social classes results in the kidnapping and subsequent death of Anjalika. Thivanka still reeling from his grief decides to accompany a friend to Malaysia in order to clear his mind. While in Malaysia, Thivanka runs into a girl who looks identical to his deceased Anjalika. This revelation will lead Thivanka to the answers he desperately seeks.

ANJALIKA is the movie directorial debut of Channa Perera who is better known as a popular television actor. Perera has co-written the script with Mahesh Rathsara Maddumaarachchi. Perera also plays the male lead (Thivanka) and the title character of Anjalika is played by Pooja Umashankar, an Indian actress in her Sri Lankan film debut.
Anarkali Akarsha (Kavya), Rex Kodippili, Narada Bakmeewewa and Sanath Gunathilake (Thivanka's father) comprise the supporting cast.

If I had a rupee for every time I saw the storyline of "rich boy/girl falls in love with poor boy/girl, but rich boy's/girl's parents try to break them up" I'd be filthy rich. This plotline is probably the most overused in Sri Lankan Film/Television history and Channa Perera displays his lack of originality by regurgitating it. It is ridiculous that in this day and age, an educated and wealthy character such as Thivanka would fall head over heels in love with an immature, uneducated and socially opposite character like Anjalika. Perera breathes new life to the 'Cinderella Syndrome' where a new generation of female cinema-goers will dream and await the arrival of their future Prince Charmings. Numerous scenes of blatant immaturity on the part of the male and female leads prove that although we live in the 21st Century, Sri Lankan film plots are still stuck in the 1980's. I felt that Thivanka is merely infatuated by the outer appearance of Anjalika and doesn't take the time (not shown in any scene, either) to get to know the real girl.
The most significant plot twist in the entire film is unbelievably coincidental. By the end of the film I felt that if Thivanka's friend did not force him to come to Malaysia he (Thivanka) would never have found Anjalika, he would never have known the truth and he would never have married her. The plot seems to have been pieced together by using snippets of plot points from old Sri Lankan teledramas and Bollywood films.
'Childish' and 'Juvenile' are the only words that come to mind when describing the script. The dialogue between Thivanka and Anjalika insults the intelligence of even thirteen year olds. It is alarming that this story and script is the result of two screenwriters' efforts.

The cinematography is what makes this film tolerable. The crisp clear images are refreshing to the eyes, especially the shots where the scenic beauty of Sri Lanka is captured. But showcasing the flora and fauna of Sri Lanka has become a common ploy by many filmmakers to misdirect the audience from the miserable storyline. When will they realize that hypnotic shots of scenery are no substitute for a class plot?
Three out of the four veteran actors give a worthwhile performance to their respective roles, namely Sanath Gunathilake, Luxman Mendis and Maureen Charuni but Rex Kodippili is proof that a wealth of experience cannot replace natural acting ability.
His brand of "Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto" type acting is hilariously evident. TV Presenter turned actor Narada Bakmeewewa gives a forgettable performance as Thivanka's best friend, Pooja Umashankar is clearly out of her element as Anjalika and Channa Perera's acting is acceptable as Thivanka. But the award for the 'Worst Performance of the Film' goes to Miss Anarkali Akarsha, her babyish portrayal of Kavya is mind boggling. How and Why in the name of sanity does this "Alleged Actress" get hired? Her dialogue delivery is awkward and her mannerisms are retarded. Her performance alone makes the film appear silly.

The only person who can be held accountable for the travesty that is ANJALIKA is the co-writer/director Channa Perera. His first mistake was writing a generic story and screenplay, his second mistake was taking the production to Malaysia and shooting mundane exterior locations such as sidewalks, concrete parks and the center divides of public roads. Why not photograph more of Malaysia's natural scenery or even the world famous Petronas Twin Towers (not from a distance, though)? His third mistake was hiring Anarkali Akarsha and forth was casting himself as the lead actor and using it as a device to pose and strut-his-stuff like a model on the catwalk…on the catwalk…yeah on the catwalk!
The fifth mistake was the absurdly rushed climax of the film, the story moves from conspiracy, to incest, to confession and to happily ever after within a few minutes. This displays the director's lack of storytelling ability.
On the television interview show "Hard Talk" (MAX TV), Channa Perera was asked why he hired a South Indian actress for the title role of Anjalika? He answered "because I couldn't find a Sri Lankan actress suitable enough to play the role." And this brings us to his biggest error, why would you hire a foreign actress who cannot speak a word of Sinhala to play a Sinhalese village girl and then hire a Sri Lankan actress (Nadeesha Hemamali) to voice/dub the dialogue of the first actress? Basically Channa Perera hired one actress for her visual appeal and the other for her vocal appeal. I find this deed insulting to every struggling and unemployed young actress in Sri Lanka. The hiring of foreign actors or actresses simply disheartens local thespians not to mention weakens Sri Lankan Cinema in general. The 'role of Anjalika' should have been given to the 'voice of Anjalika' Nadeesha Hemamali, this would have alleviated a considerable expenditure in the budget and also would have improved the film entirely.

Rating: 1 COCONUT

S. V. Fernando

PURAHANDHA KALUWARA

A young army soldier is killed as a result of a bomb explosion in the ongoing war between the Sri Lankan government and the L.T.T.E. The remains are placed in a sealed coffin and delivered to the soldier's distraught father and sisters in their rural village. Upon completion of the funeral proceedings the father (who happens to be blind) is notified by the local village official (Gramma Niladari) that he is entitled a monetary compensation by the government. But the grieving father refuses to complete the required paperwork. He believes that his son is still alive and will return shortly, which makes accepting the money unethical. His indifferent attitude is cause for concern by the two daughters, each in need for money. But the shocking reason to his behavior is revealed at the end.

PURAHANDHA KALUWARA (Death on a Full Moon Day) is written and directed by Presanna Vithanage and features the acting prowess of Joe Abeywickrama (as the blind old man), Linton Semage (as the old man's intended son-in-law), and Mahendra Perera (as the local village official).

Although the main plot is gripping and makes us wonder why the old father is behaving his way, regrettably it is the only question posed in the film. The lack of sufficient plot points made the story progression drawn out and tedious. The film stretches the blind (no pun intended) hope of the old man as he clutches to the delusion of his son's existence and impending arrival.
The screenplay compliments the story with succinct and authentic village dialogue. But additional scenes would only have improved the end product. Flashback scenes showing how essential and irreplaceable the son/brother was would have helped to visualize the great loss felt by the family. This missing link to the son/brother was clearly apparent. Displaying the father's thoughts and fears would have also enhanced the development of the story.

The cinematography is exceptional. The quality and talent of the director of photography M. D. Mahindapala is unmistakable by his use of long shots and deep focus.
The background and foreground are seamlessly captured, to present the scenic beauty of the quant village isolated from civilization.

It is truly a pleasure to watch master thespians at work. Joe Abeywickrama,
Linton Semage and Mahendra Perera are flawless in their performances. Good actors make you feel like you're watching a documentary as opposed to a narrative film.

Presanna Vithanage's technical direction is outstanding, but his method of storytelling is debatable. The film's running time is a mere sixty eight (68) minutes, which proves that the addition of sub plots or parallel storylines would have augmented the pace and duration of the film. The simple lack of conflicts made it slow going. The director could have explored the troubles faced by the two sister and their significant others.
More emphasis could have been placed on how crucial the money is for the lives of the family members. And surprisingly the controversial ending was not utilized to its optimal dramatic affect. But regardless of these shortcomings, I definitely recommend this film because it's a work of a capable filmmaker.

Rating: 3 COCONUTS

S. V. Fernando

PRINCE CASPIAN

Following the path of fantasy PRINCE CASPIAN is the second chapter in the series of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA written by C.S Lewis. The series is known for it’s magical stories interjected with Christian ideals. Director Andrew Adamson (who also directed THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE) explores the four children who are called back to NARNIA a year after their first adventure. They find that time in NARNIA has unraveled a more savage and treacherous adventure for them to deal with.

Considering I was skeptical about how much I would enjoy a children’s fantasy film, the first NARNIA movie left me quite entertained. I was actually looking forward to second as there was promise of a darker and more engaging storyline. I was disappointed.

The dialogue sounded out of place. Screenwriters need to be aware that some dialogue only fits the written word, not the spoken word. The screenplay felt like I was reading a book, as it was clear not much ‘adapting’ had been done. The actors were not natural in their skin.

I’m sure the plot was drawn close to the book, but there certainly seemed way too many scenes that did not allow character development. The villains’ evil presence seemed mismatched when they are head to head with the immaturity of the leading four heroes. Having battle scenes where the leads keep shouting “NARNIA” does not convey a BRAVEHEART moment. Despite the variety of sub-characters none were explored or developed. There needed more interactions that allowed depth. Even the darker moments of failure were simply brushed along. The romantic implications were not dealt with to play up emotion. It says alot when i was looking forward to the appearance of valiant mouse to keep me entertained.

The cinematography was one of the more successful elements of the movie. The locations were well suited to the story and the filming in it’s wide angles. It did have a grand view throughout.

I did not expect bad acting in a Hollywood blockbuster such as this, but that was one of the major downfalls. The young actors were in over their head, they could not keep any charisma on their on-screen counter parts. Their actions and emotions lacked any heart what so ever. Even during the moments of peril I was not conveyed the fear or frustration they felt. The only stand out performances were from a few indie actors (Peter Dinklage, Warwick Davis) and a still cute and adorable Lucy played by Gerogie Henley.

The director who is clearly satisfied with this success with of the first NARNIA film, felt he could do the same with this one. Rather than learn lessons from the more successful HARRY POTTER series, he did not leave room for the characters to mature with age. Despite being physical bigger there was no character growth. I was surprised at how many times i glanced at my watch hoping the end was near. The movie was quite boring and far too long.

Walt Disney has jumped on the ‘fantasy’ bandwagon as it is in fashion right now. Disney is trying to gain the same popularity of Warner Brothers HARRY POTTER series, and New Line Cinema’s LORD OF THE RINGS. But unlike the latter THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA will need some ‘real’ magic to keep the interest of an on going fantasy series.

RATING: 2 COCONUTS

Pieries

TEASER

SPEED RACER

After much hype the highly anticipated Watchowski brothers live action anime blockbuster is here. A popular children’s cartoon from the late 60s, the story follows the trails of a young racing enthusiast destined for greatness. He is called to aid a secret agency to help bring down the evil conglomerates that corrupt the racing world.

When dealing with any adaptations to film, no matter what the medium (books, comics, tv shows, cartoons, video games) I do not believe one has to be a fan of the source to enjoy the film. This is something that the Watchowskis needed to remember, as the movie seemed to be made for either the kids of today or the kids of original series.

The story was truly kept simple. There seems to be no interesting plot much like original series. The story only allowed a world of racing, but never gave us a glimpse into the lives of the characters outside the speed realm, very 1 dimensional. The characters were kept even more simpler…only to deal with the racing aspect with no opportunity for growth. The villains of the evil companies seemed to have their own rivalries that takes importance along the way.

The script was poor as they screenwriters seemed unsure what style to keep. At times it was retro at times it was modern day, quite in consistent. There was never any mixed emotions that were conveyed through any of the conversations. Although topics of death and parental problems were mentioned, they weren’t ‘acted’ out. The straightforward conversations left me quite detached.

Considering how simple the material was, the acting was actually good amongst a few. Emile Hirsch has a bright future as he was a pleasure to watch. Fresh from the success of the more adult INTO THE WILD, it’s clear this young man will be careful in selecting his role. Another actor who held his screen presence was TV’s LOST star Mathew Fox. He was without a doubt the most interesting character in the movie, that was left under developed. Spritle’s interactions were the most annoying of all. I honestly found Chim-Chim more entertaining than the boy! The Asian superstar Rain needed more elocution classes before his first English appearance. He was clearly cast in the movie to gain Asian favor in the worldwide box office.

The cinematography was quite spectacular. One thing the Watchowski’s did achieve is creating an alternative world of color and brightness. The race sequences although overwhelming at times, was visually entertaining. The interaction of the cars, gadgets and the tracks were quite stunt filled and exciting.

I could not believe the people created some of my favourite movies (THE MATRIX TRILOGY, V FOR VENDETTA) had anything to do with this. Although their past work also had a lot of special effects, it was not substitute for good writing and story. This was not the case in SPEED RACER as the effects not the characters, seemed to be the heart of the film. There were so many redundant flashbacks I forgot what time frame I was in! This is due to a lack of confidence on the part of the directors. It is an attempt to ‘spoon-feed’ the thoughts of the characters rather than allow growth.

If the Watchowski's wanted to make a live action video game/cartoon, with a simple script with matching characters then they have achieved their goal. I for one need more than just visual entertainment in a film.

RATING: 2 COCONUTS

Pieries

Teaser