White House Down -
This movie suffered from coming out at the same time with Olympus has Fallen, a movie with a very similar premise but generally a much worse film. However White House Down is every the insanity and tension of an 80's action film with the politics of left wing America today. The closest comparison is Die Hard, battling a force greater then you in an enclosed space with a loved one in the balance. The difference being, the rather lofty task of being as charismatic as young Bruce Willis is split between President 'No I swear it's not Obama' Jamie Fox and the every man, ex-service man Channing Tatum.
If you are an action movie fan, rent it and give them some money cause this is Roland Emerich's most enjoyable film since Independence Day.
Beautiful Creatures -
Time for the YA romance adaptations... and there were a LOT in 2013. I still haven't managed to catch up on them all yet. However Beautiful Creatures was the stand out for me. It's, not without it's problems. The climax in particular is, rushed and awkward. The idea that men area able to chose their path while women are chosen for light or dark by... something... the moon, I think? Irritated me, however the movie does it so they can deal with the concept. It's always difficult to criticise the 'we are using misogynistic ideas for tension... but we keep pointing to them and saying they are misogynistic, that makes it ok right?' Still, this is a beautiful film. I hadn't considered how seenic that area of America was before. On top of that it gets bonus points for having the couple TALK about their problems and agree to work it out together.
The Host -
So... here's the Stephanie Meyer drinking game. Take a shot every time:
- A female character tries to Martyr herself
- A male love interest is physically or emotionally abusive (or becomes the love interest after doing so)
- A far more interesting plot/character/idea is brought up briefly only to be glossed over
- Finish your drink after 15 minutes of characters doing NOTHING
That all said... I was actually hoping for something more terrible than what the Host was, being a connoisseur of bad movies. The Host's biggest crime is being dull, being very safe with a concept that is crying out for a better writer. That said, I think there is a dramatic improvement between the Twilight Saga and the Host... so hey, at least she's learning.
Dhoom 3 -
How have I lived my life for so long without seeing a Bollywood film?
The sheer campish brilliance of a film that will mix genres depending on scene, have actors give their all in every moment with the occasional musical interlude. Dhoom 3 is the first fully Bollywood film that was made and marketed with a clear goal of an American audience. The villain is amazing while the hero's fill the typical buddy cop roles of straight guy and funny guy. If you are looking for a well made, utterly shameless movie in its enjoyment.
More quick bits will come later, in the mean time get yourself to a TV and put in a copy of White House Down or Dhoom 3.
Ok, I should explain where I am coming from with this film.
I did not want to see this, I'd heard good things but personally can't stand a lot of movies that focus on the issues of AIDS, homophobia and drug dealing. I always feel uncomfortable when these issues are explored. I don't have a great frame of reference, I have a few friends who are in the LGBT community and have experienced homophobia but never when I've been around. I am too young to have lived through the massive AIDS scare and even though I know it still exists, it just doesn't affect my life. On top of that, when I heard drug dealing I pretty much shut down, I hate the way the movies moralize and are rarely anything more than a PSA.
However, my boyfriends family had tickets to the moonlight cinema so, I decided to give it a go.
I have never been so glad I gave a movie a chance. Everything that I usually hate about these kinds of movies is skimmed over for a well built character drama and a battle against a failed system.
Honestly, it reminds me most of Erin Brockovich as a film. Which I did like although
I feel it was quiet flawed, you were also always aware you were watching a movie.
Dallas Buyers Club's strength is how real it feels, everyone is believable as a person not just a character. Matthew McConaughey has been having a fantastic time in films of late, the last few years he seems to have been able to break away from his type cast as 'past boyfriend you probably broke up with for very good reasons, but you'll get back together with by the end of the movie'. And I am glad because he was fantastic in this, I've also heard amazing things about him in Mud (2012), and his brief role in Wolf of Wall Street. Both of which I haven't seen yet.
Jared Leto was also amazing as his transgender business partner, McConaughey was able to stand out more because his character had an arc, it was his story. The weakest role was probably Jennifer Garner, she was the one most obviously acting.
I'd heartily recommend seeing this, I can't say how accurate a true story it is, after all every film based on a true story has to be changed to some degree.
The acting is excellent, the cinematography great and the script tight.
The idea for Her is one that is so easily messed up, a man falls in love with his operating system. To many it sounds silly, a comedy or an exploration of madness perhaps; but a legitimate romance?
Her deals lightly with that idea, Theodore Twombly (played by Joaquin Phoenix) does experience confusion, insecurity and judgement for being in a relationship with the A.I. Samantha (Scarlett Johansson). However that is not the focus, the movie is not about people's perception of A.I's as much as it is an exploration of love; as well as a coming of age story. Not for Theodore, but for Samantha.
I should clarify something for those who aren't familiar with the technology this films relies on. An A.I (Artificial Intelligence) such as Samantha is implied to be one that has reached the singularity. The Singularity is the point as which intelligence can augment itself. That is to say, an A.I can increase it's own intelligence. Her's interpretation of this is that an A.I past the point of singularity can experience emotions (a similar idea is being played out in Transcendence to a very different effect). It is so complete a being that the only distinction between it and a human is that it evolves and changes so much faster than us.
In the world of the movie, Samantha is completely capable of love. She does not pretend, and although her knowledge is already greater than a humans and is exponentially expanding it is without experience. Which is what Theodore is able to provide. Samantha is continuously growing throughout the movie and I simply can't say where that journey takes her.
The movie subtly makes assertions throughout the movie that love, that is the love between humans, already has an artificial element to it. Theodore's job, which I won't spoil, is all about how a little bit of artificial helps make the 'real' love so much more powerful.
This film is unyieldingly uncomfortable to watch, even before the concept of true A.I's are introduced. It will make you squirm in your chair but never look away from the screen, and that's part of it's power. It isn't interested in romanticising human to human or human to A.I, or even A.I. to A.I. Every relationship has fights, has uncomfortable silences, has pain and then has those beautiful moments when things just go right.
This film is about growth, about change, and most of all about love.
Go an see it, because even if you don't come to the same conclusion of the movie. This film, may become reality. It is estimated that we will be seeing true A.I. within 50 years. It raises ideas and concepts worth discussing and thinking about.
On top of that, you will simply be seeing one of the best films of 2013/2014. As well as some of the finest acting from Johansson who brings across her performance solely through voice.
For those interested in the Singularity - this is an easy video that explains it and was my introduction to the concept.
I have returned! I am sure the 5 friends I force to read this are thrilled.
Having finally finished University I feel it is time to really commit to keeping this blog going, as well as getting under way with my novel writing; you will be hearing more about that early next year. And as such, we are introducing the Quick Bits! This is a quick update on the media I have been consuming, what I am looking forward to and what I've had to spit back up. So let's get started!
Trading in Danger by Elizabeth Moon -
I really loved this book, I found it a quick enjoyable read that was very welcoming as an introduction to Space Opera. I hesitate to call it a great book, with the exception of the main character all the characters are very one note and there is a lot of unnecessary detail and events that while I enjoyed, I can see other people having problems with it.
The Other Boylen Girl by Phillipa Gregory -
Inspired by the video podcast book club, Vaginal Fantasy with Felicia day (and 3 other lovely ladies) I've been dipping my tow into the waters of the highly criticised romance genre. Unfortunately I started with this book. I did not like it, I did not finish it, I didn't even get halfway. I don't like leaving a book without giving it a fair go but honestly this book reveled in all the tropes that have so far turned me off romance books.
Thor: The Dark World - Thor 2
Eeeehhhh... While I did enjoy this movie, especially the performance by Tom Hiddleston it was just really cold compared to the first one. It lost the whimsy and characters of the first movie and felt the most formulaic of all the marvel movies to come out of late. I am planning a full review so more details later but I think I can chock this one up to the change in Directors from Kenneth Branagh and Josh Whedon to James Gunn and Alan Taylor.
Catching Fire - Hunger Games 2
Yes, yes... all of the yes. This movie tackled the difficult task of holding the audiences interest between first and third movies. The aesthetic still felt consistent, the actors played their part well although one of my friend felt that Jennifer Lawrence 's facial movements were over the top for emotions. If you enjoyed the first one, you will like the second one and it will get you pumped for the third. A larger evaluation of consequence in YA inspired work will be coming soon.
Superman VS Batman - (still in production)
To say I am mixed on this movie is an understatement. I hate that the next movie DC is making does not star ANY of the other superhero's and instead is just rehashing the only two characters they seem comfortable in showing. However they have suggested that this movie will also cameo Wonder Woman as a lead in to her own movie, FINALLY!!!!!! On top of that the 4 possible laddies they have released for the role are all strong looking woman who I feel would fit the part well. However, apparently they have asked Frank Miller as a consultant... and I do not want him consulting anywhere near the character of Wonder Woman... it has also been said they have gotten Scott Snyder to consult and I am loving his work with the Batman comics at the moment.
I am terra-cited for this film.
More quick bits will come later as well as a few full on reviews.
I would normally warn whether or not there are spoilers in the revue when it comes to a blockbuster new release such as this but I truly can't. The fact is there is nothing to spoil, not a single surprise or unexpected moment; save for the teaser at the end of the credits which I will not explain but suffice to say there is much sequel baiting in it.
Now don't let all that distract you, this is a good movie. I enjoyed the hell out of it! The action scenes were clear and exciting, the dialogue tight and characters engaging. The actors all took their parts on exceptionally well and what normally is a granted in comic book movies; that there is something to be angry about from a feminist point of view does not hold true here. I will talk in detail about each of the good qualities in the movie without revealing too much detail of what happens, but first Ill explain my lack of enthusiasm at the start of this review.
Marvel's movies will most likely never have any great spoilers, they are incredibly safe and formulaic. Again this is not to deter you; movie formulas exist because they are popular and engaging, and Marvel pulls it's formula off without falling into cliches or being stuck in tropes. I find it difficult to write about the Marvel formula as it is hard to pin down, but I think it can be summarized as getting all the basics right and overlaying that with characterized humor. All in all, Marvel movies are very safe.
Now back to the Avengers. First of all it is not necessary to see previous movies to understand this, if you must see any than I would recommend Iron Man and Thor; it assumes you know the back story of Iron Man and the conflict between Thor and Loki comes off a bit underdeveloped if you haven't seen it before.
Looking to each of the elements of the movies success, firstly the action. The third act is well paced and they really give each character time to show off their skill set. Black Widow less so but they had already given her a lot of time during the movie for solo fight scenes and martial arts isn't as fast paced as the others so it makes sense. However, the final fight is still incredibly formulaic, the hero's emerge kicking ass. Things get difficult, the last reluctant member shows up. They kick more ass until eventually the numbers appear overwhelming and it leads to slow motion panning shots of each of the hero's as they look over the devastation with a realization of 'if we are going to go down, we are going to go down fighting'. And finally the self sacrificial moment that results in a scare... Now before you complain of spoilers I would ask who here really thought Marvel would kill off one of the main six? Hmmmm? Nobody. That's what I thought.
The dialogue and the characterization, now here is where Marvel is really excelling. They are nailing down the most recognizable, merchandisable and easy to understand aspects of the personalities. The genius play boy, the honorable solider, the troubled assassin and her mentoring figure, the inexperience but good-hearted king, and the tormented reason vs emotion. They don't leave it just at this and expand all of these basics to their next logical conclusion, and understand how these would play off each other. Not just to how to arrogance of Tony Stark would conflict with the moral sense of Captain Rogers but how someone who clearly believes in personal freedoms and liberties and enjoying them, such as stark would want to help someone who has to repress his emotions such as Bruce Banner. They then capture the humor that rests in these conflicting personalities and bring it through, not as one-liners but believable (to an extent) dialogue.
How does this movie portray women? It doesn't, it portrays characters, some of whom happen to be women. I knew this movie was on the right track when it introduces Black Widow captured and tied to a chair, she is threatened with torture and death... she is not threatened with rape and this really does make a huge difference if shows that those who have her captured realize that she is an enemy, a danger to them and takes that seriously. It wasn't till later that I realized just how well it portrayed women, aside from one line in this scene 'this is not how I wanted the night to end. BW: I know how you wanted this to end', aside from this one line which suggests a sexual trap she was using there is not a single line of dialogue that needs to be changed if this was a male character again with Agent Hill. They have written the female characters well but how have they actually portrayed them in the shots. A common complaint against comic books and the movies based off of them is that women are forced into awkward poses to try and show off as much as they can in a sexual way. There was a poster for The Avengers which received a fan make over.
I love this work and it really does show what is often a key problem, woman are shown as sexy AT THE COST of their skills, bad-assary and character. Now that said I have no problem with a bit of fan service as long as it does not take place of character development. Black Widow's tight skin clothing makes sense for her role as an assassin. She doesn't have it unzipped for show as it would be impractical and unprofessional. There is one scene where she is talking to Loki and the shot does unquestionably bring her rear end into the shot, but it's not forced it doesn't maker her seem weak as she is holding a strong pose. Marvel is also very aware that their market is growing with these movies, young men are no longer the sole (or majority) audience, and they have adjusted their fan service and it has certainly come across in movies such as Captain America or Thor. Women and gay men like a bit of a show as well, and on that note... Thor... just, just DAMN!
I heartily recommend this movie, I don't mean to bash it as I call it safe because it is still incredibly well done and engaging.
In 2002 the Disney corporation released a re-imagining of the novel Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson, the difference being that they set the story through space with steam-punk technology. When this came out Disney was is a bit of a downwards spiral, they had direct to video sequels coming out frequently and 3D animation of Pixar was on the rise, which is why I am so surprised that an original concept came out of Disney at this time. Steampunk is on the rise in popularity these days so even if it's a concept you haven't heard of you probably will have seen an example of it somewhere. Panic at the Disco's 'Mona Lisa Smile' video clip for instance features sets, costumes and props from some of the biggest names in steampunk, or you may have seen *shudder* Justin Beibers 'Santa Claus is coming to town'. Alternatively slight steampunk visuals were used in movies such as Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus or Robert DeNiro's skyship in Stardust.
I never saw Treasure Planet when it came out in cinemas, and didn't see it on video till very recently, and I was genuinely surprised at not only the risk the movie would have been for the comany but how well they did it. Certain aspect aren't as strong as other Disney movies, while the background music is good it's not to the level of other Disney Movies; however since this is not a musical it dosen't hurt. The main problem is the mixing of the 2D and 3D animation. Often the computer generated back drops, while designed beautifully just dosen't fit properly, this can be difficult for immersion. You're pulled out of it by this, although I doubt this is a problem for a younger audience the movie is targeted towards however. Finally a point that I had never considered was raised by Doug Walker (The Nostalgia Critic) in his brief review of the Treasure Planet. That being, that he simply wasn't able to get into the setting. I've been a fan of steampunk for the last 5 years or so and it's something I took to very easily so I hadn't really considered that other people would have difficulty in understanding this mix of Victorian and futuristic. For those who are confused a quick definition of steampunk as I understand it.
The word means the mixing of steam engine Victorian setting and punk rock of the 80's, it's developed a bit from that but essentially its a genre of alternate history. It takes the idea that steam engines became the main source of power rather than electricity so everything still has a very grundgy look to it, with copper and brass being the main construction tools and cogs and wheels being used so often it's pretty much to the point of decoration. The clothing is all reminiscent of the Victorian era, through corsets, top hats, blouses and bonnets.
While the genre is growing in popularity from conventions and costuming into movies, books and as mentioned video clips it still isn't common place and it a bit of a geek sub-culture.
So those are my problems with the film, what is it I like. First off the designs are pretty spectacular, I really would have liked to see more of them but they give a real sense of wonder to the movie. The 2D animation is top notch as always for Disney cinema releases. The real strength in this movie comes from something that Disney is not known for, and thats character and relationships. This movie feels like your watching real people and not fairy tales and thats incredibly rare for Disney. When Disney changes the original source material it's to make it more child friendly, to make it safer. In Treasure Planet they have the father of the hero Jim Hawkins leave when he is a child. Not die nobly, not pass away off screen but leave. This integral change made the story more focused on the relationships which are done perfectly. Jim is played off as an intelligent but rebellious misunderstood boy, and if I read that I would have rolled my eyes. There are few character descriptions more overused than that apart from wise, mystical mentor figure doomed to die. However they handle it well, you can see the Jim's acting out does come from an actual place of pain and he does allow people to change. He's not a rebel just to try and appear cool. Giving the character father issues does also play into the relationship he has with Captain Silver, you see how much they go to care for each other. You believe their interactions and the ending is more satisfying because of this and reminds me of the same kind bitter-sweet closure you get at the end of Aladdin and the King of Thieves.
Fighting against nostalgia, as this is one of the few Disney movies I didn't see as a child, I find it sitting in my top Disney movies of all time. Not a hundred percent sure where it exactly fits in a list but perhaps that's something I could look at for future posts. But regardless of that this is a movie that is really worth a watch. 8.5/10
I was first shown the 3rd in the Evil Dead series during a drama class, and I would be lying if I didn't say that I hated it, however my opinion was deeply shaded by the fact that I wasn't enjoying drama at the time and that the HSC was in the process of putting my brain though a blender. A couple of years later I caught Army of Darkness on television and was laughing my head off within a few minutes, seeing the first two movies isn't at all vital to enjoying the third.
The star of this series, Bruce Campbell enjoys a status in a similar fashion to Chuck Norris. Granted he doesn't have a third fist under his beard or have Jesus following him on twitter but he is recognised as the coolest hero of B-movies. The main character Ash, who chopped off his hand with a chain saw after it became infected with evil and since replaced it with the chain saw, has been sent back in time... Don't ask why... it's not important. Mistaken as a solider of Henry the Red he is taken to the castle in chains. He is sentenced to be executed by being thrown into a pit with unspeakable Eldritch horrors... just roll with it. After defeating the evils with his chain saw and double barrel Remington shot gun he frees Henry the Red's men and forces the people of the castle to find a way to send him home. This is also the scene where we get some of the best quotes from this movie, including 'all right you primitive screw heads, this. is. my. BOOM STICK'.
Embeth Davidtz plays the love interest Shelia, yes, that's really her name. I know this because I looked it up... thank you IMDB, and found out she is in fact cast as Mary Parker in the upcoming Spiderman reboot as well as having serious roles in movies such as Schindler's List. Where as Bruce Campbell appears to be able to survive simply off making cameos. The wise man tells Ash that he can return him home if he journeys to fetch the Necronomicon, a book the people also need to vanquish the evil in the land. After a brief montage of getting ready, in which we see an almost fetishistic love from director Sam Raimi of sudden zooms in, Ash leaves on his quest. Chased by a unseen evil he hides in a windmill and we enter one of the tripiest scenes... I don't really want to spoil what happens here as I don't think I could do it justice but the end result is an evil Ash appears. Ask buries his evil counterpart and continues on to the cemetery, he grabs the Necronomicon but fails to say the correct magic words and raises the army of darkness. Shelia is captured and thus Ash must rally the castle to fight against the forces of evil led by the again risen evil Ash.
This movie is great fun... it's pure retro silliness with a few really good lines. The special effects are bad even for the time but that adds to the enjoyment of it all. This is a fun movie to see but again one of those that is even better in a group, it has a decent re-watch value as well. Especially considering the first time you see it you'll spend a lot of time hitting your head and going 'WHAT?'.
Well, I thought that I've been reviewing so many things I love and praise as good it's time for me to take a quick walk down some of the doggier streets of the entertainment city, keeping my hand closely around my bag and my eyes to the ground. And I decided to start this walk with a movie that is unquestionably, undeniably bad, but also just so enjoyable!
Released in 2003 and proclaimed by the director/producer/writer/actor Tommy Wiseau to be 'the next street car named desire', The Room has reached a level of notoriety as a cult classic to rival that of something like the Evil Dead series. People go and see it with props and catch phrases ready just as they do for Rocky Horror Picture Show. But what is it that makes it so bad, why is this movie so monumentally made of fail and yet enjoyable. Let us take it in three parts, the writing, the cinematography and finally the acting.
The writing needs to be taken in 2 parts, the story and the dialogue. The story can be summarised as girl cheats on boy with his best friend. By no means a revolutionary concept, but it is in the finner more unique details that makes the story really stand out, important contemporary issues that carry important weight such as breast cancer, gang violence and drugs are picked up and then dropped faster than this script would have been by any studio in their right mind. A perfect example of this would be the main girl, Lisa's, mother. One of their incredibly brief conversations goes as such.
Mother: Everything always goes wrong at once, no-one wants to help me, and I'm dying.
Lisa: Your not dying mum.
Mother: I got the results of the test, I definitely have breast cancer.
Lisa: Don't worry mum every things going to be fine, they're curing lots of people every day.
And that's it. It is never mentioned again. But back to the plot, or what we are meant to assume is the plot. It starts with Johhny (Tommy Wiseau) and Lisa (Juliette Danielle) being a happy and prosperous couple. Well at least Johhny is prosperous at his job at the bank doing... something unspecified as compared to Lisa's job which apparently makes far less and in very competitive and has something to do with computers. Then, for no reason Lisa announces that she is unhappy and after her mother tries to draw in her 'rebelious attitud' which just causes her to run into the confused arms of Mark. And I mean confused, no matter how many times they have sex he always seems completely dumbfounded by what is happening. Character development takes a back seat too... well I'm not really sure what it is that Tommy Wiseau has replaced it with. He certainly writes in opportunity for character development, there is an incident where Mark is confronted by another friend about his affair with Lisa and then goes off and shaves his beard. I had originally thought that this was meant to represent him getting his life in order and he was going to start being a good friend but then he just sleeps with Lisa and goes back to being a bit of a confused dick. So, there is no character development at all.
Does the writing improve with the dialogue, short answer no, long answer... noooooooooo. Well, to be fair the dialogue is only bad, not as horrible as the characters or plot. The only reason some lines are so memorable is in their delivery, this brings us right into the acting. It is spectacularly strange to watch, like seeing a children's play but you don't have the excuse of politeness to stop yourself from laughing. The worst of the worst is our star, Tommy Wiseau, who you could spend the entire movie attempting to guess just what accent he has. Hi acting is bland to periods where he tries to emote and just painfully inflicts on the wrong words. But we can thank him for the Internet meme of...
'YOUR TEARING ME PART LISA'
That isn't to say that the other actors are much better. Juliette Danielle's main acting talent seems to lie in her ability to pout, and pout, and pout... and... pout. She is also able to make every one of the sex scenes she is in awkward as she struggles to remove clothing in fluid movements. The other special actor to mention is Phillip Haldiman as Denny. This character... confuses most, and understandably so. He is said to be the 'ward' of Johnny, as Johnny wanted to adopt him and is now paying for his apartment in the same building. Ummm... and the first scene we have with Denny is him wanting to go up to the bed room with the 2 main characters and then follows them up saying 'I just like to watch you guys'. I believe the actor was going for charmingly innocent, but he just comes across as perverted and creepy.
The cinematography of this is, special. Most of the shots are well done if a little boring and pretty standard. Its the endless shots of San Fransisco that causes with stock music over it that gets painful, especially if you set a drinking game to it. The editing is often confusing and I am positive they got the order of certain shots wrong at one point.
All these things considered, you really do need to see this. Three weeks after it came out and was canned as a drama and praised as an accidental comedy Tommy Wiseauamusing but just comes of as tired. This is really Tommy Wiseau's magnus opum.
I've been doing so many comics of late that I really felt I need a change, this is a movie that really slipped under the radar for a lot of people and I really don't think it should have. And while I would not put it on the level of comedy parodies such as Hot Fuzz it really was genuinely funny and really enjoyable. Lesbian Vampire Killers. And in answer to your first question this is about killers of lesbian vampire rather than lesbian killers of vampires.
When the second Twilight movie came out my friends and I enjoyed a movie marathon night called 'Real Vampires don't sparkle', in this aside from some of the classics we looked for new vampire movies and couldn't go past the title. This is a really upbeat movie that I'm not going to lie has a large amount of it's humour based in dick jokes. Normally this is the kind of humour that I really don't like and yet I've seen this so many times and still are not sick of it.
Focusing on our two main hero's, Fletch and Jimmy; played by James Corden and Mathew Horne, who have come to Cragwich on holiday hiking as Fletch has lost his job and Jimmy just got dumped, and neither have the money to do anything fun... I know the feeling. Little did they know that the town of Cragwich has an ancient curse over it, a curse that brings the infestation of really really hot chicks. And as night falls they, and some other hot chicks... from Sweden, have to fight for their lives against the Army of Darkness.... Groovy.
It's in the writing that the talent of this comedy duo really comes through, whilst I can't really call it 'witty' as the humour is all based solely around the idea of dicks and lesbians, two concepts that are somewhat dancing opposites there is something delightfully British about them. I know this may sound strange that I like the comedy simply because it's British, as though they have a free pass on making low brow dick jokes because of their high class accents but quiet frankly anyone who enjoyed watching the Python boys dressed as girls will probably enjoy at least some of the humour of Lesbian Vampire Killers. And if you haven't then what is wrong with you?
My copy autographed by Paul Mcgann, playing the Vicar.
It's strange to think that I've finally seen the last Harry Potter, and while there are fans there will be people making money off them with spin offs a re-releases. This marks the end of the real era of Harry Potter. My generation grew up reading the books and then a movie experience that was unlike any other. There has never been a movie experience quiet like this, when you think about it the money, the time, the cast, how many years of people's lives went into making this, it is one of the largest entertainment projects ever created, allowing the characters to visibly grow at the same time as the audience. In that respect it's reminiscent of an old family sitcom where the babies grow up into the socially awkward teenagers we are meant to relate to, just... with magic and death. For that reason alone Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt 2 should be seen, and even if it wasn't it's still a movie worth seeing.
If you haven't read the books or seen the previous movies no. Although well made, the movie is for fans and requires a certain level of knowledge. That said fans of the movie need to see this for closure. And no matter what I say that will happen, but you should see this in theaters, the cinematography is beautiful, the battles have a real sense of grandeur to them. Granted it is not on the level of the battles in Return of the King, but you do still enjoy and get sucked into the chaos of it all.
The restraints that rested on this movie meant that it was never going to be the best thing I'd seen all year, it was based on a book that felt a little rushed by the end and was basically a 20 minute set up into 2 hours of battle. Not to mention the most maddening epilogue that has ever existed. That said it holds up well. The actors have all evolved into their parts and I think the fact that the movies had been such a part of their lives that emotions come off as rather real. Especially in the supporting cast, Nevil, Luna, McGonagall and Snape were the real high points for me. The scene where the teachers prepare for battle is one of the best in my opinion, it really brings tension and a great feeling of dread for the upcoming battle. I even think the way they handled Snape's character was more emotional and far more sympathetic than it was in the books.
That said there were a few things that I didn't like, due to time constraints they couldn't really pay enough attention to the other students, especially those who don't make it. Perhaps they were trying to make it somewhat less dark for the small children but I would have liked the people who didn't make it to have more of an epic death. In fact no one actually dies on screen from the good guys. That I didn't like at all, characters, especially fan favorites should be given a glorious end but that's only something that really bothers me in retrospect. Finally the epilogue, to be fair to this movie, it handled it as well as it could given the source material. There is no a single person I have talked to who liked or could even stand the epilogue from the book, and the only reason people groan in the movie version is because they can't help but remember the book version. It is a little too sweet but would have been acceptable had people not been able to dissociate themselves from the original.
4/5 - Go see it in theaters Harry Potter fans, it needs to be experienced first hand.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.