HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2.

This is it, folks. The final film for my favorite series' (books and films). It would have been so sad if it turned out to be terrible, especially since a lot of people were waiting on Part 2 to form their opinion on the film as a whole (with Part 1). So how did it do? The film picks up right where Part 1 left off. Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has gotten the Elder Wand--the most powerful wand in existence--while Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) are still trying to figure out how to find and destroy Voldemort's remaining Horcruxes (items that include bits of Volde's soul that they have to destroy before they can kill him). The search takes them from Gringotts bank to Hogwarts where they will face off for the final battle... but not without other final confrontations, like with Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) and Severus Snape (Alan Rickman). At this point, it's a question of who is good, who is evil, who will live, and who will die, (and who ends up together)... all of which, of course, you know if you've read the books.

It's really hard to talk about the film without doing a book-to-film comparison. So to avoid falling into a trap of writing a review that won't satisfy book readers only or movie watchers only, I'm going to split this review (much like the last book) into 2 parts. The first part will get the book comparisons out of that way, and then we'll move on to the straight movie stuff (the more technical aspects, I suppose). So if you don't care to read my thoughts on how it was as an adaptation, you can skip this first part. Otherwise, keep reading!

AS AN ADAPTATION

Part 1 took the majority of the book in its time frame, leaving Part 2 with maybe the last third of the story. The only major sequences left include Shell Cottage, Gringotts, Hogsmeade, Return to Hogwarts, The Diadem Hunt/Room of Requirement, The First Battle, The Prince's Tale, The Forbidden Forest, King's Cross, The Final Battle, The Short Ending, and The Epilogue. I know that actually sounds like a lot, but a bunch of those aren't incredibly long even in the book. And like any other adaptation, there are changes, but I personally don't feel any of them are for the worse (except maybe one). So let's look at the scenes (I'll lump some of the lesser ones together when I talk about them).

1) Shell Cottage/Gringotts. The whole sequence is done very closely to the book. Shell Cottage is a short build to the upcoming action sequence, giving us background on Wand Lore and a bit on Bellatrix's vault. Of course, this builds up to the heist scene which is only really different in that the Death Eater (Travers, I believe) isn't there, but is replaced by another goblin that works at the bank. The other main difference is that the duplicating treasure in the vault doesn't burn them, but it does still duplicate. It's a thrilling sequence that ends in an epic dragon ride.

2) Hogsmeade/Return to Hogwarts. The Hogsmeade bit in the book isn't all that huge--it's just the Trio setting off alarms upon return and getting taken in to safety by Aberforth. They get some more background on Dumbledore before Neville shows up and takes them back to the castle. This essentially stays the same. There were a few minor things cut, but nothing major. Most of Dumbledore's background had been removed from both films anyway. I did like, though, that they at least attempted to give some explanation for Harry's mirror shard that he had in Part 1, just still not how he ended up getting the shard in the first place. Still, at least they gave some sort of explanation and didn't just leave it completely open.

The Return to Hogwarts was mainly getting the Trio back and re-introducing practically every student and teacher that has ever been in the series (and was still alive). They didn't bring everyone back here, and obviously there wasn't the big "Percy redemption" scene since all the Percy stuff has been cut from the films. There was a scene added that was interesting with Harry confronting Snape in front of students (the scene is kinda in the book, just a bit different. It's clever, though.

3) The Diadem Hunt/Room of Requirement. This is pretty much exactly how I remember it in the book, with the exception of I believe Blaise Zabini in the place of Crabbe (since the actor was pulled out of the film after being caught with drugs). We really haven't seen school ghosts in these films for a while (I believe since the fourth film with Moaning Myrtle), so seeing one here (and the effects slightly different) was a fun sight. Not to mention the Room of Requirement scene was just as suspenseful as when I read it for the first time. Also during the Diadem Hunt is a scene with Ron and Hermione going into the Chamber of Secrets to get a Basilisk fang, something that was only mentioned in the book (since we just followed Harry). Purists might have issues with it, but I thought it was fantastic seeing that set again when the kids are all grown up (and of course the great kiss that follows).

4) The First Battle/The Prince's Tale. There's not much to discuss on the First Battle, since it's mainly just running around the school fighting Death Eaters, but it is done very nicely and quite epically. You still don't get to see a lot of the funnier moments from the books, though (like Mandrakes and throwing crystal balls). However, what everybody wants to hear about is The Prince's Tale. It's one of the best moments in the entire series in the books, and I do think it translates very well to the screen. There are, of course, a couple moments that were left out (the complete "Snape's Worst Memory" scene)--but you still fully understand what's happening. I think this scene did just like in the book: It makes you flip emotions on two characters you've been following the whole series. So yes, I believe it continues to be one of the best sequences of the films, as well.

5) The Forbidden Forest/King's Cross. The Walk to the forest was a devastating read the first time I read it. Yes, I cried. There's a good moment between Harry and Ron/Hermione, but the rest of it is slightly rushed, losing a bit of the emotion of that final walk. Though you still get the same emotions from the Resurrection Stone scene, which was done very well... all leading up to the "confrontation" with Voldemort, also done well. For King's Cross, the only real difference was that Harry wasn't totally naked when it starts out. Otherwise, it's almost totally the same as the book (including the final line by Dumbledore).

6) The Final Battle. This is where things change up from the book quite a bit. After Harry reveals himself in the book, he hops under the Invisibility Cloak with Neville, they're caught on fire, and Neville jumps out and kills Nagini. The fight moves into the Great Hall, where Harry and Voldemort chat (mostly Harry taunting Voldemort and Harry explaining why Voldemort can no longer hurt them--the power of love and sacrifice, just like Harry's mother did with him). And Mrs. Weasley fights Bellatrix. Only a couple of these are in the actual film. The battle rages on, Mrs. Weasley does do her epic line and battle, and Harry and Voldemort continue on, even flying and merging throughout the sky at one point. Ron, Hermione, and Neville all attempt to attack Nagini. All of this culminates in yet another Priori Incantatem-esque sequence ending with Neville killing Nagini and Voldemort being destroyed almost simultaneously.

These changes are both good and bad. I do love how they juxtaposed attempting to kill Nagini with Harry and Voldemort's fight. That was a brilliant concept that was pulled off very well. However, what was lacking was the explanation of how Voldemort couldn't harm them, as well as Harry's taunting and calling him Tom, showing he was no longer afraid. Granted, the book's version of how Voldemort dies always felt a bit anticlimactic to me, and the film at least attempts to remedy that, which I applaud.

7) The Short Ending/The Epilogue. After this, the book just kind of... ends. And then we get the much-discussed (in both book and film) epilogue. The film is similar to the book, where they just kind of go off, say a few lines, and it ends. The epilogue is just as cheesy as in the book, and almost word-for-word (but without the sidenote that Neville is a professor at Hogwarts). And the epic swell of the original Hedwig's Theme to end it all is very emotional and fantastically done. But speaking of Neville, there's a bit of a fan-service bit that's hugely different from the book. Most fans really wanted Neville and Luna to end up together in the books, but JK Rowling admitted that Luna was a bit too weird for him. Instead, we get a great moment where Neville declares his love for Luna, followed by an awkwardly cute after-battle moment where they sit next to each other. It's so cute and fun and damn what purists say--I liked it!

AS A FILM

First and foremost, this is definitely a Part 2. The first film is 2/3s of the book, and this film is the last third. Because of this, many might feel--like with Part 1--that it's incomplete (the first film has no ending, this film has no beginning). But I think the main issue is that people are looking at this as 2 separate movies (or possibly comparing it to something like Kill Bill). However, these films should be seen as one long film, possibly with an intermission. If you do it like that, then--to me--you lose those problems. There's a definitely beginning, middle, and end. And depending on how you like the Deathly Hallows story to begin with, this can still make or break it for you.

That being said, though, I will review this as the one part it is, as if it were a standalone--even though it goes against how I feel. The biggest issue I've read is that many feel it to be a rushed film. I can understand that at times (and it definitely feels the swiftest of all the movies), but as a whole, I think the pacing works just fine. There's not a whole lot of deep story or introspection in this part of the book as there was in the first half (that's what all that slow build-up was for in the Part 1, where people complained it didn't move fast enough... now people are saying it's going too fast! But I digress).

Anyway, because of the fast-paced nature of this film, the long, beautiful shots of scenery are gone from the cinematography, but it's still a very nice looking film. The best shots come in during the final battle sequences, which is at least half the film. It has a very epic feel to everything, with something different going on everywhere you look on screen (and all of it looks amazing). And the music score fits in just as well, giving it its grand scale.

Acting-wise, everybody is pretty top notch, but there are two standouts that definitely need to be mentioned and/or focused on. First is Maggie Smith as McGonagall. The woman finally gets her due after all these films of being slighted. The woman is a total badass in this film, with a mix of seriousness, dramatics, and humor. And Maggie Smith looks like she's having a blast doing it. The second, and most important, is Alan Rickman as Severus Snape. He hasn't been given much to do since the first film, though he's played the character to absolute perfection. And he's been harboring a secret told to him by JK Rowling herself about the character allowing him to do such. Now he's finally able to relish this tidbit of information and act it out brilliantly. The pain and emotion he shows is palpable and heartbreaking. And The Prince's Tale sequence (and/or the flashback sequence that reveals the truth, to all you non-readers) is--as I stated earlier--one of the best moments in not only this film, but in the entire series.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the film has some changes, but it's still a pretty damn good adaptation of the last third of the book. Some people will say both films should have been shortened and merged together, but then there would have been complaints anyway from fans for cutting too much out. Then there would have been complaints from non-readers for things feeling rushed in order to keep in all the important things. In cutting it into 2 parts and keeping very close to the source material, some thought Part 1 was too slow and Part 2 was too fast. It's an incredibly difficult book to adapt as a film, but I personally feel they made the right choice. I loved both films separately, and I know as soon as Part 2 hits Blu-Ray, I'll be watching both back-to-back... which is how I think the film(s) need to be seen.


Royale With Cheese

(P.S. Was that rating really that much of a surprise?)

(P.P.S. Because I know people are interested, this movie made me almost cry at about 4-5 different points throughout the film. Yeah... it was close.)

60/60 Review #23: Schindler's List.

This is my third Spielberg film I've reviewed for this 60/60 List. The first one, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, didn't sit super positively with me. Next was Saving Private Ryan, a film that I did enjoy it quite a lot. Now we're up to what is probably considered Spielberg's best film. But did I perceive it as such?

Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) is a member of the Nazi party who also acts as a war profiteer. He starts hiring Jews to work in his factory, getting a lot of help from a man named Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley). But when another Nazi named Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) shows up and begins committing cold-blooded murders on the Jewish population of the ghetto, Schindler starts to become more and more sympathetic toward the Jews. And when he gets word that they're going to be sent to their doom at Auschwitz, he puts together a list of names that he can save by bringing them to another factory in his hometown.

The acting is of course fantastic. This is probably one of Liam Neeson's finest performances. Ben Kingsley was the most likable in the movie. Ralph Fiennes as the crazy Nazi was the most fascinating. He's completely psychotic, sniping Jews from his balcony just because he feels like it or gets upset. But at the same time, he works along with Schindler, letting him keep his "workers" and even (somewhat) helping to have Schindler's workers safe from Auschwitz. He's still a total evil bastard, though. And the way everyone is acted is superb. That being said, however...

I honestly don't know how I feel about this film. Obviously I can tell you it was masterfully made. Mostly in black and white, there are only a few segments in color. The film is bookended in color, and there are a couple parts in the middle--some candles and the girl in the red dress, specifically. So the cinematography is great, the acting is top notch, etc. So why can't I figure out how to talk about this movie?

There really is no "plot," per se. There's a story, but up until the last hour of the film (in a 3+ hour film), the story is more like a random set of events that sometimes include overarching characters. You see a lot of things happening to characters whose names we might not even learn. The film is more interested in giving us a window into the lives of these particular Jews in this place rather than giving us any kind of heavy plot. It's just... these are Jews; these are Nazis; this is World War II; watch what happens between them. Then in the last half or so of the movie, we start to get things happening in the sense that the story starts to become more focused and there's a clear idea of what's going to happen and/or where the film is headed. It's no longer just Nazis killing Jews and Schindler making money.

I'm just going to wrap this up, because this is one of the toughest reviews I've had to figure out and write for this project thus far. I really enjoyed the ending that showed us the real survivors. Like I said, the movie is masterfully made and has great acting and fine characters (I know they were real people, but still). I just guess I was partially bored despite all that. It's one of those "It's not my cup of tea, but I still enjoyed it" kind of things that puts me in an awkward place. So here's where I'm at: It's a great film, but I didn't love it. However, I certainly didn't hate it, and I more than merely "liked it." For the sake of this review, I'm starting with a score at the top due to the film's quality, but I'm going to drop it down a notch because I didn't love it. I guess.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

CLASH OF THE TITANS.

I haven't seen the original since I was in high school, but I remember its cheesiness (and the mechanical owl). But I was still incredibly excited for this remake. I love Greek mythology, and this movie looked totally epic. It tells the story of demigod Perseus (Sam Worthington) who, after his family is destroyed by Hades (Ralph Fiennes), is taken to the blasphemous town of Argus, where they hate on the gods and want to overturn their rule. Well, Zeus (Liam Neeson) doesn't like that, so he's easily talked into a little plan by his brother, Hades. In 10 days time, Hades will summon the Titan-killing beast, the Kraken, and destroy Argus and every person inside unless they decide to sacrifice the beautiful Princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos). But Perseus, being a demigod, is foretold to have the power to defeat the Kraken, despite him only wanting to destroy Hades in vengeance. So Perseus must go on a journey, along with a band of other soldiers, as well as the immortal and all-knowing Io (Gemma Arterton), to discover how to defeat the Kraken and then return before it's too late.

The movie starts off kinda shaky. Up until Perseus gets to Argus, and even arguably up until they leave on their journey, the movie suffers from plot-point jumping. For what feels at least 15 minutes (or more) of the movie, it's simply going from one brief scene to the next, setting up plot points necessary for the film or characters. It just feels a bit jumpy and disjointed at that point. However, once he gets to Argus, the film slows down a bit, and then once he begins his journey, it really finds its stride.

The best thing about the movie, of course, are the visuals. The visuals are frakkin' fantastic. Some of the best I've ever seen in a movie not titled Avatar. It isn't all CGI, either. There is actually a fair balance of CGI and animatronics in the film... and even some old-school guys-in-costumes (really reminded me of Guillermo del Toro at times). But what is CGI is seamless. From the giant scorpions to the Pegasus to the Kraken itself, everything looks stunning. The only CGI shortcoming, I think, is Medusa, who reminded me of a better-done version of the Scorpion King from The Mummy Returns. But regardless of it being better done, it still looked fake, especially in comparison to the other effects in the film.

As it is a remake, I'm sure people are wondering how it compares to the original. Well, like I said before, I don't remember a whole bunch from the original, but I do remember snippets. There is a funny homage to the original with the metallic owl that was a good laugh. The original didn't have Hades as the bad guy, I don't believe, and I think Perseus fell in love with Andromeda in the original (which isn't the case here). Instead, Io replaces Athena as Perseus' helper, and you can say there is a bit of a connection there. Also (doing a bit of research here on the original), the Calibos character is a bit different, if that matters to you.

The only real major issue I had, besides the choppy beginning, is the fact that I really didn't know or care for any of the secondary characters. Besides Perseus, Andromeda, Io, Zeus, and Hades... I couldn't even tell you their names. I mean, you like them because of their personalities (the funny one, the stoic one, the newbie), but that's about as far as it goes. There are even a pair of characters that seem incredibly promising, but the film basically dismisses them as plot contrivances.

Otherwise, the film was a ton of fun. The action was awesome, but what else would you expect from Louis Leterrier, the man who brought us Unleashed? So to wrap this up, go for the action, the visuals (including creatures and cinematography), and the Greek myth fun. There's even a fair bit of humor in it, too. The film isn't perfect, but it's still a load of fun.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Maybe I'm just getting too nit-picky, but the supposedly gods-hating general dude telling Perseus to accept help from the gods and pray to them for help... it seemed a bit out of character. But then again, maybe he didn't care if Perseus did it, since Perseus was there to help them survive. I'll go with that.)

THE READER.

I went into this movie with low expectations already. So when I say that it was bad, I really rather mean it. Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet) is a mysterious woman who ends up having an affair with a teenager named Michael Berg (David Kross) during one summer. She has him read to her constantly when they’re not having sex. A few years later, Michael is in law school and goes to witness a court case for his seminar. The court case, however, is to convict a group of ex-Nazi guards at Auschwitz for some of the murders that occurred there. Unfortunately for Michael, Hanna turns out to be one of the main people on trial. The movie also stars Ralph Fiennes as an older Michael.

The movie nearly made me fall asleep. I was yawning half the time, checking my watch the other half. I felt absolutely nothing for any of the characters. That’s not to say the acting was bad (except for the beginning, which was just stiff… no innuendo intended). Winslet actually did a bang-up job in her role. But I actually liked the professor of the law school seminar better. At least he was intriguing.

Otherwise, the whole thing was a mess. The whole movie was like one long string of montages. The first hour of the movie itself was nothing but just big one sex montage. Hopefully they give the Oscar to Kate Winslet’s breasts instead, because they had more screen time than any other part of her. And while normally I might not mind this… it just got to be too much. The first half of the movie was like high-budget, high-quality, softcore Cinemax porn. It didn’t give any time for character development (or even time to get to know the characters to begin with), which led to me not caring whatsoever about the characters. At the start of the relationship, right before their first sexual encounter, I started wondering if somebody based the script on some cheap erotica fiction from the internet… it was that random and coincidental. “Oh… you’re a dirty, dirty boy. Take off your clothes, and I’ll draw you a bath.” “Kay.” *bow chicka bow wow*

There was no focus on any scene for more than a minute. There was even one moment where they show him go home for about 20 seconds, and his family is all disgruntled with him, alluding to him having run away from home or something. But there was no way of knowing that before this point because the last 45 minutes had been a giant reading/sex montage.

The second half of the movie wasn’t much better about the massive montage sequences. That only died down a couple times toward the end, but that’s about it. I can seriously only remember maybe one major scene in the entire movie that lasted more than 2 minutes and stood on its own.

And of course there's the whole bit where the movie attempts to make us feel sorry for a character that we don't even like... and backfires quite a bit. The movie attempts to say that because she's naive, she's more innocent. I actually think that because she was so blase about the whole thing... that just makes her even worse. Which doesn't help when it comes back to the film trying to make the audience side with her... which just doesn't work.

I’m not sure what else to say about this film. I knew it had gotten a lot of so-so reviews, but I didn’t expect to dislike it as much as I did. All that said, there were a couple things I did like, the main of which I can’t say for spoiler reasons. And I suppose I can understand why it was Oscar-nominated. Although the holocaust topic probably helps, we all know the formula is Time Period Piece + Kate Winslet’s Boobs = Oscar Nomination. After all, it worked for Titanic.

The Zed Word

(P.S. The most entertaining parts to me was the old man behind me saying random stuff like "Where was she when I was 15?" and "I'd like Kate Winslet to give me a bath.").

Altered Opinions: In Bruges.

This past summer, I bought and watched In Bruges on a whim after hearing so many good things and even thinking it looked good from the previews. What I saw, like many others, gave me mixed emotions. I went in expecting a straight-up comedy, and what I got was a very dark drama with some comedy thrown in, all of which discussing the meaning of life, the afterlife, and other moralistic themes. And then, of course, the ending… the whole movie caught me off guard. But I thought it was worth a second chance, so I waited for a second viewing before giving it a review it deserved. But unfortunately, I never got around to a second viewing until now.

Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) have just left a hit-gone-bad and are hiding out in Bruges until they get word from their boss, Harry (Ralph Fiennes). While they’re there, Ray flirts with Chloe (Clemence Poesy) and hangs out with a midget/dwarf actor named Jimmy (Jordan Prentice). But between Ray’s newfound depression and dislike for the fairy tale city of Bruges and Ken’s newest assignment, things aren’t going exactly as either of them ever thought they would.

This second time through, going in with the right frame of mind, I was able to appreciate the movie much more than before. From the beautiful cinematography that captures the splendor of Bruges to the haunting musical score always dancing in the background, every aspect of the film works together masterfully. And you know from the opening moments of the movie with its deep, resonating, melancholy theme that you aren’t in for a lighthearted romp.

The acting is high caliber all around, from the usually ‘hit-or-miss’ Colin Farrell to the Harry Potter alums, Brendan Gleeson, Clemence Poesy, and Ralph Fiennes. Farrell works the emotions of the film: he has all the jokes, making you laugh when he’s saying something politically incorrect or ranting on or when he’s making you cry with him on all his troubles. Brendan Gleeson is the big brother: wiser and watchful, and always trying to make sure Ray is getting the best out of his life. Clemence Poesy has probably the shallowest of the characters (in depth, that is), but that doesn’t stop her from making you like her even when she’s doing something not-so-likeable. But then Ralph Fiennes shows us his range once again by giving us the foul-mouthed, slightly dim but very dangerous Harry Waters (irony in the name there considering what most people these days will know him for).

But amidst all the drama and heaviness, there is a fair bit of comedy, though it is rather dark and usually insulting. But that didn’t stop me from laughing. But I just think it was a sign of great writing when the movie can go from joking about a karate-knowing lollipop man to a sad, touching moment in the span of seconds. And the way it can just keep bringing jokes back (“A bottle?! AH!” or any of the karate jokes), but never overusing it and knowing when to stop (unlike some movies) is good.

In the end, even the second time through, I was bouncing back and forth over how to score this movie. But I like when movies play with themes and have good character development, and this movie was really good on both, especially in the very last moments/words of the film. And even if the film leaves it open, it’s still in the closing words that it really got me. So with that, I’ll finally leave you with a rating.

Royale With Cheese