Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 1

The first installment of the two-part conclusion to the Harry Potter series finds the bespectacled wizard (Daniel Radcliffe) walking away from his last year at Hogwarts to find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes, putting an end to Voldemort’s bid for immortality. But with Harry‘s beloved Dumbledore dead and Voldemort’s unscrupulous Death Eaters on the loose, the world is more dangerous than ever.

Brian
Rating: 4 out of 10

To call this particular episode the weakest in the series is a drastic understatement. Why is that so?  Is it well directed?  Yes.  Is it well acted? Yes.  Does it have the same high budget polish as the films preceding it?  Definitely.

So, why am I rating this a lowly 4?  Well, I haven’t read the book but this episode is so fucking boring that I’m lead to believe that the only reason this was split into two parts was to line the wallets of the producers.  It starts interesting enough.  After the death of Dumbledore, Voldemort has his group of evil do’ers take over the Ministry of Magic and hunt down Harry Potter.  All of the great characters from the previous films show up to protect Harry and form a rebellion to stop Voldemort and his followers.  Then, about 45 minutes to an hour in, the movie comes to a grinding halt and should have been retitled “Harry Potter and the roasting of marshmallows” because they go camping — yes, camping — for about an hour of the film. What happens during this hour or so of camping?  Almost NOTHING!!  Ron is mad at Harry, Hermione has sexual tension with both of them, Harry reteams with Ron, and blah de blah blah.  When I say nothing happens, I’m not kidding.  Nothing happens!!  What does one do as a viewer for that hour while the three heroes go camping, aside from looking at our watch?  I sat there and tried to think of smart ass titles for the film. “Harry Potter and the tent pitchers” “Harry Potter and the satanic sleeping bag”  “Harry Potter and the struggle to interest the audience.”  You get the idea.  There’s a point where we literally sit and watch Harry think while there’s no dialogue.  Zzzzzzz.  And why did they do this?  Harry Potter’s last book isn’t even the longest one, according to Google.  That honor goes to Harry Potter and Order of the Phoenix and they managed to turn that into a very good single film.  So, what are we left with?  A 2 ½ hour film with a couple bright moment marred by a middle section that will induce a coma.  It’s a shame too because I can see a great hour in this flick that could have been paired with the second to create one great film.  According to several Potter fans I know, the producers decided to follow the book almost word for word to create an “ultimate ending” to the franchise.  There is a world of difference between a great book and a great movie.  One is meant to be finished in one sitting and the other is not.

Fish Tank

The life of hot-tempered teen outcast Mia (Katie Jarvis) takes an unexpected turn when her mother, Joanne (Kierston Wareing), brings home a handsome and mysterious boyfriend named Connor (Michael Fassbender), who pledges to bring sweeping positive changes to the household. British writer-director Andrea Arnold’s sophomore feature won Best British Film at the 2010 BAFTAs.

Brian
Rating: 8 out of 10 

Fish Tank has a wonderful correlation that runs through the entire film.  The main character, 15-year-old Mia, is troubled because her small world is changing.  She no longer has a good relationship with her mother or sister, she has no girlfriends, and anytime she leaves her home is constantly in conflict with others. 

At one point, she bumps into a rundown trailer park where she sees an old horse on its last legs.  She becomes protective of the horse and demands the owner’s take better care of the animal.  As the story progresses, the horse gets sicker and sicker and Mia’s life gets more and more complicated and confusing.  I realized that the horse was a symbol of her lost innocence.  What better way to capture the end of childhood than a sick horse ready to be put down?  All girls dream unrealistic dreams when they are young.  They want to be a princess, marry a prince, and ride away in the sunset on their pony.  So, what does a young girl do during a time when everything they knew isn’t as it seemed and the world grows darker and colder by the minute?  They hold onto a hope for something better and Mia is no different.  Her passion is for dance and the way it takes her away to a better place in her mind.  There are several wonderful scenes where she dances alone in an apartment building to her music and you can feel what it means to her.  The emotional connection I felt was largely due to the wonderful performance by Katie Jarvis in the lead.  Her scenes are never forced or overacted.  They play out eloquently and in service to the story. 

Is everything perfect here?  No.  While I really enjoyed Mia’s story, there was a sense that there could have been more character interaction.  Mia’s mother and sister are largely wasted as after thoughts when they could have been central in how Mia faces the challenges she does (I won’t spoil them here).  “Fish Tank” is wonderful at presenting confusion but does very little in resolving it.  Some viewers would call that a strength but I consider it a weakness.  Some filmmakers like to leave a lot open ended to let the viewer imagine what could or should have happened to the characters.  But, it’s not about what I think should happen to Mia.  That’s the storyteller’s job and they let me down a little near the end.  But, for those that like cerebral coming of age stories, Fish Tank is a must see.

Source Code

Jake Gyllenhaal portrays a soldier recruited for a time-bending government investigation that places him in another man’s mind and body, reliving the same traumatic event repeatedly in an effort to identify the perpetrators of a terrorist bombing. Vera Farmiga plays a communications specialist who provides the vital link to the soldier’s primary reality as he searches for critical clues within a recurring nightmare.

Lauren
Rating: 7 out of 10

Source Code is Groundhog Day meets Inception meets Avatar … kind of.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays a disoriented soldier who gets to take over the body of a man who is on a train outside of Chicago that is about to blow up. He has eight minutes until the bomb explodes and everyone on board dies. Eight minutes. Over and over again until he can figure out where the bomb is and who planted it. He’s not supposed to be trying to save the people, only learn about the bomber to stop a future attack. This isn’t, as they say, time travel.

There’s a lot of to figure out in the movie – like where is Jake once he’s off the train and in his own body, who are the people who are instructing him in his mission, who’s the bomber, etc., etc.

Source Code is well made and acted and pulled me in from the start. There’s a question I have about Jake and the end, but I don’t want to ruin it for you. So let me know when you’ve seen it and we discuss the ending.

Scream 4

Perennial survivor Sidney Prescott, now a successful self-help author, returns to her home town of Woodsboro in the fourth act of director Wes Craven’s Scream franchise. Sidney’s homecoming, however, coincides with a slew of unsettling new murders.

Matt
Rating: 6 out of 10

The original “Scream” was full of smart dialogue, suspense, fun characters, a great killer, and it was a blast. While this latest sequel doesn’t have the same pop, it’s a lot of fun.

My wife and I saw it on opening night, and while a lot of the script had some super corny lines, and the material doesn’t seem crisp — it’s hard to after four iterations and a huge gap between the last one — we both enjoyed ourselves. It’s not as suspensful as the original, but I’d say it’s the best sequel in the franchise.

If you go see “Scream 4,” don’t expect to see “Raging Bull.” But you can expect to see a fun movie that kept the ending interesting while spoofing itself along the way. It’s a funny, campy slasher flick. The 6 out of 10 rating means it’s above average as a movie. But the fun factor was more like an 8 out of 10.

Monsters

Six years after aliens invaded Earth, a security force maintains tenuous control in the Infected Zone straddling the U.S.-Mexican border. Andrew (Scoot McNairy), a photographer, is documenting this war-torn area when he’s interrupted by an unexpected rescue mission. Samantha (Whitney Able), daughter of a media mogul who just happens to be his boss, needs an escort home, and Andrew reluctantly takes on the job.

Matt
Rating: 7 out of 10

Perhaps it’s a bit unfair, but I’m grading “Monsters” on a curve. This film was made by two people on a budget of $15,000, and it’s truly incredible how they pulled it off.

The story is solid, and the acting is quite good. The characters are developed in an interesting world where aliens that are very destructive have taken over a large chunk of Mexico. A man is tasked with getting a woman to safety, and along the way the adventure and horror unfold.

With a digital camera and plenty of computer savvy, director Gareth Edwards created a realistic movie that was very well shot and made. It’s got the feel of a gritty world. You don’t doubt it for a second. That’s what makes this film click. It’s not all CGI and scary sounds. But the CGI in the film, which Edwards also did, was excellent. Again, I’m grading this on a curve, but it’s a solid little monster movie.

For more on how “Monsters” was made, click here.

Top 5 Movies Shawn Was Right About

Matt

I tease my cousin Shawn about his taste in movies a little more than I probably should.

Shawn loves classic, critically-acclaimed cinema as much as I do, but he also loves shoot-em-ups, science-fiction, and action movies I would never even consider watching. He loves the, and I quote, “‘splosions,” and “pew pew.” He said he enjoyed “The A-Team” more than “Black Swan,” and said “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” was good.

He can be sentimental, too, for movies like “Shrek Forever After.” He loves TV, which I don’t. But he does a superb job on our sister blog, TV-Tastic.

I ran him through the ringer for his review of “The A-Team” and I figured since I beat him up all the time, I should do a Top 5 list of movies Shawn was right about.

5. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home: In this case, I thought this installment of the Star Trek film franchise was silly and far too wide a sidestep from the franchise. Shawn, a giant Trekker of the most massive scale, explained to me that I shouldn’t over think it. This is the Star Trek comedy. I hadn’t watched it in a long time and went back for a second viewing. Shawn was right. This is a lighthearted, fun Star Trek adventure that is very accessible and I enjoyed far more the second go around.

4. X-Men: Before going to see this  in the theater with Shawn, I really thought it wasn’t going to work. With a massive cast and so many characters to develop in the huge X-Men Universe, I didn’t think they could pull it off. I really wasn’t amped about seeing it, but Shawn really wanted to go. And he was right. It was a blast. The Wolverine performance by Hugh Jackman remains among the best ever in comic book films. I was wrong, yet again.

3. Mr. Brooks: This was a movie I totally would have overlooked. Kevin Costner has passed his peak, and I don’t really seek out his films anymore. But Shawn reviewed this film for us, and based on his recommendation, I checked it out. Very solid little psycho-drama, mystery movie with a really good performance by Costner. Good choice, Shawn.

2. The Other Guys: This was another one of those movies I would have passed over. I like Will Ferrell, and all, but another buddy police comedy? Like that hasn’t been done? Well, this happens to be one of the best ones. We laughed often and hard in the theater when we went to see it. We had a blast, and I’m glad he got me to go.

1. The Matrix: Man oh man oh man, was I wrong about this one. Because Keanu Reeves was in this, I instantly wrote it off as a crap-fest of epic proportions and literally scoffed at Shawn when he glowed about it to me over coffee. When I finally got around to seeing this on video — God, was I late to the party — I was hooked on “The Matrix.” This is one of the best action/sci-fi films of all time. While the sequels may have left a bad taste in our collective mouths, the original remains a modern classic.

Shawn 5, Matt 0.

My Soul To Keep

Some 15 years after the presumed death of a vicious serial killer, children whose birthdays match his supposed “deathday” start to disappear. But whether the killer — or his tortured soul — is responsible remains to be seen. One boy (Max Thieriot) knows for sure, but his own connection to the horrific crimes is far too terrible to imagine. Denzel Whitaker (The Great Debaters) co-stars in this horror tale from writer-director Wes Craven.

Kyle
2 out of 10

It actually took me a few minutes to remember the name of this film. That’s how much I cared for it. I think even a teenager would find this film not scary and terrible. I recently had a discussion with Victor, a fellow TMB contributor, about my pickiness in the horror genre. A horror film has to be done very well for me to actually enjoy it and want to watch again. Appropriate amounts of gore, a good psychological element and story are what I need to enjoy a good horror flick. Plain gore just doesn’t cut it.

None of these characteristics I just listed are present in this film. To start, the story was terrible, the subplots were unnecessary, and there were plot holes right from the very beginning. A killer from the past comes back after sixteen years to seek revenge in a small town. Revenge on whom you might ask? Eight kids that were all born on the day he died. Why? Why were they all born on the day he died? Who knows? There are many more plot holes that I need not mention. The whole revenge-by-a-supernatural-form has been done by Wes in “A Nightmare on Elm Street” but at least in that film he provided enough back story to keep us informed and not confused with questions.

I hated the characters and the dialogue, the kids were just flat-out corny and brainless, and the detective was just all around hateful. The end lacked a resolution and, again, it was super corny. Do yourself a favor and don’t see this garbage. What the hell were you thinking, Wes?

Please Give

Life gets knotty when successful Manhattan couple Alex (Oliver Platt) and Kate (Catherine Keener) develop a relationship with the granddaughters of Andra (Ann Morgan Guilbert), the cantankerous elderly woman who owns the apartment next to theirs — and who must die so they can expand their home. The all-star cast includes Amanda Peet, Rebecca Hall and Lois Smith in this indie feature from writer-director Nicole Holofcener (Friends with Money).

Matt
Rating: 5 out of 10

“Please Give” feels like an off-Broadway play. It’s simple, with people and families, dialogue and atmosphere that feel real. It has interesting characters, humorous moments that add levity, but ultimately lacks drive.

We’re given a handful of interesting characters — a couple that buys furniture from the families of dead people to sell them in a high-end story. They have a bratty teenager who wants designer jeans and has low-self image because of acne. There’s a cranky old bitty who lives next door with her two grandchildren; one an unlikable lush who has an affair with the husband, the other a doe-eyed church mouse looking for love. The family bought the bitty’s apartment in advance and are just waiting for the woman to die so they can expand theirs.

This film has a great cast with realistic performances. The story works, and the characters revolved around it pretty smoothly. They try to develop them all, but because they do, the story is spread thin. It just never feels like it’s going anywhere. The lack of focus didn’t decrease the pleasure I had watching it, because I liked it. There was just something missing.

Showgirls: Misunderstood Masterpiece

A notorious bomb when first released, Showgirls eventually carved out a special niche in pop culture and now stands as a camp classic. Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) moves to Las Vegas with dreams of becoming a showgirl, but ends up working as a stripper. As she fights her way toward her goal, Nomi encounters sexism and dehumanizing conditions while sparring with a fellow dancer (Gina Gershon). Paul Verhoeven directs.

Brian
Rating: 10 out of 10

It’s unfortunate that there’s a large section of the movie going public that has failed to appreciate what I believe is one of the best films of the 1990’s.  Showgirls has been synonymous for years with how NOT to do a big budget NC-17 movie. But, if you look deeper, you’ll find a story that deals with a lot of heavy issues and does so with grace, beauty, and fierce determination.

It all starts with Elizabeth Berkley as Nomi Campbell in a performance that should have been the launching pad to an Oscar-winning career.  She brings so much more to the role than merely taking her clothes off for the camera, as many reviews have stated.  In fact, much has been made of the “flopping fish” sex scene in the pool. Personally, I think the scene took a great deal of bravery by Berkley to expose her flesh and soul on the screen in a daring, out-of-the box love scene. It was the culmination of her past and present colliding in a flurry of passion in the film’s defining moment. I get teary-eyed just thinking about it.

Her character goes through a metamorphosis starting with a young and naive girl who just wants to earn a living to a blossomed and seasoned woman who has learned that the world is full of people that want to exploit you. I’ve noticed upon multiple viewings that the film most closely resembles the classic “Wizard Of Oz,” but obviously wrapped in an explicit adult package. Nomi, of course being the Dorothy character, is swept away to a world that she thinks is Oz (in this case, Las Vegas) and will solve all her problems. But, much like Dorothy, she learns that what you hope for and what life and reality deal you are not one in the same. By the end of her long journey, we all earn, as Nomi surely does, that there’s no place like home. And………

APRIL FOOL’S DAY!!!!!!

Showgirls is on of the most rancid piles of pig shit ever created! I hope you enjoyed our joke and thanks for reading!

Top 5 Technologies that Changed Movies Forever

Brian

What will Superman change in now that phonebooths are all gone?

5. The Cell Phone: This isn’t really a technology that was directly made for the cinema but it changed the way movies were written. No longer are characters tied to desks, telephone booths, or home phones. All conversations can take place anywhere at anytime and are untraceable. Stop and think about how many movies in the last 10-15 years could not have been made without a cell phone. Almost every modern crime, action, and horror film completely relies on them. Also, cell phones have to be accounted for somewhere in the story. A character will almost always show that they can’t retrieve signal on their cell phone, lose it, or damage it in order for the plot to progress where they are helpless and alone or the audience’s first question is, “Why don’t they just call for help on their cell phone?”

4. Panaglide: I’m sure some of you are saying, “What the hell is Panaglide?” Well, Panaglide was a steadicam that attached by harness to a cinematographer to allow them to have isolation between the movement of the camera and the movement of the operator. This allowed them to get shots that were previously considered impossible. In the past, sets had to be created to allow for fluid movement of the camera and space for dolly tracking and cranes so that it wasn’t done handheld with the “shaky cam” effect. Panaglide solved that problem by creating smooth motion with one operator in cramped spaces. A great example of Panaglide is the opening sequence of the horror classic “Halloween”. The technology allowed the Director of Photography (Dean Cundey) to smoothly move from outside the house, inside and through it, have a murder scene, and then exit the house in one continuous shot in cramped space on location without dolly track on a very limited budget. Remember that great shot in Goodfellas where we are introduced to all the mob characters in one shot? Panaglide. Remember that great shot in Boogie Nights at the pool party that kept going for almost three minutes and underwater? Panaglide. It changed how films were made forever.

3. Surround Sound: I remember like it was yesterday the first movie I heard in full Dolby Digital surround sound. It was the terrific film Star Trek: First Contact. I was sitting in the theater and the moment the opening credits started I got goosebumps. The theater was completely alive with sound coming from all directions with crystal clear clarity. Unlike the days of stereo, when a spaceship flew by it felt like it went right over your head and through the theater. It immersed you in the experience of the story in a more complete way. Surround sound also changed the way directors and sound engineers created their movies. Effects and sounds had to be thought of in a 360 degree environment where the audience was just as invested with their ears as their eyes.

2. CGI: Love it or hate it, CGI changed movies forever. A lot of movies in the past were considered unfilmable. The ideas of large creatures, otherworldly locations, or sheer volume of fictional characters on screen at one time required such a huge financial commitment from film financers that many scripts were thrown away. CGI changed all that. For example, Steven Spielberg has said that without CGI, he would have never made Jurassic Park. After George Lucas saw what the technology could do, he decided it was time to start making new Star Wars films. And, James Cameron sat on his Avatar film for years because he knew that he needed CGI in order to achieve his vision. The technology had an even greater effect on the world of animation. The majority of films today are made through the process of computer animation. Pixar, Dreamworks, and Sony are just 3 of the many studios that are computer generated only. It has resulted in billions of dollars of revenue and been a driving force for creative flexibility.

1. Home Video: There is no single technology other than film itself that has changed cinema more than the ability for us to have movie playback in our home. It has gone through several advancements over the years: Beta to VHS to laserdisc to DVD to blu-ray and streaming. But, no matter the method of playback, the technology created new businesses through the home video rental market, movie collectors to buy and own their favorite films, and opened up a second way to get revenue for studios besides box office numbers. But, the most important thing it gave us by far is for us as film lovers to see movies we never got to see before. In the past, films would get re-released in theaters for short periods of time so that we could see films that we missed during their initial theatrical run. But, you would never know which films would come back and for how long. Today, we are so lucky to be able to see almost any film we want through services like Blockbuster, Netflix, Cable on-demand, or streaming boxes like Apple TV. It’s a great age to live in if you’re a film buff and it’s the most important technology added to movies ever!