Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

3/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is a fitting end to a rather bland film series. I'm sure the books are much more interesting (even the Wikipedia articles are far more interesting), but the movie versions just don't do it for me. They feel like simplified, truncated versions of something that might actually be good. They're made for people who have read the book; everyone else is cheated of truly experiencing the magic of the series. Nothing about these movies is thought out in a cinematic fashion, nothing is added or changed to make it fit better in movie form. It's a simple translation to a different format and that's exactly what it feels like.

That being said, the movie is fairly entertaining and enjoyable to watch. It's not a bad movie by any means. It's predictable with an appropriate amount of action to spice up the boring dialogue and plot, but being so predictable makes the whole thing advance at a laborious pace. You know what's going to happen next and you're just waiting for it to happen. Special effects were pretty crappy, acting was acceptable, and cinematography was stale. It's nice to see a finale to the series, but I think they probably should've just stuck with the written word. Obviously the fans will watch this movie no matter what I say, but nothing has changed with this movie to turn a newcomer into a fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201607/

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

3/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is an all right movie, just like its predecessor. It is exceedingly and unnecessarily confusing for people who haven't read the books, even if you have struggled to keep up with the movies. (I have not even done that, as I just now realized that I have never seen the third, fourth, or fifth movie.) Unlike its predecessor, however, there is finally some content and plot progression. Even though the plot is mind-numbing, it piqued my interest enough for me to read up on characters' backstories on Wikipedia for a good 1-2 hours after the movie. Perhaps one reason I found the plot to be so lackluster is that I've seen it all before--only better--in a little fantasy series entitled The Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter seems to have borrowed so extensively from that franchise, in fact, that it also picked up the same plodding pace and heavy atmosphere.

The movie has more than its fair share of flaws. The mood seemed to jump from terrifying horror to child-like comedy at the drop of a hat. It felt as if a bunch of different people gave their input for each scene and the director didn't bother trying to unite it all into a coherent whole. The visual appearance of the film also suffered from poor directing choices. The action sequences were nothing more than poor special effects experiments. And during those CGI fiascoes, it was usually impossible to tell what was going on thanks to unnecessarily rapid cutting and equally unnecessarily close shots. And, for better or worse, this film is so much more "mature" (i.e., bleak and dismal) compared to the early Harry Potter films. All in all, I was appropriately planted to my seat while watching the movie, but mostly because it made me want to find out about all the good stuff that didn't make it into the movie. As for the film itself, I can only recommend it to people who are already die-hard Harry Potter fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084/

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

3/5

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is an all right movie. It's very confusing if you haven't read the books, or if haven't seen the other three or four or five or six or however many movies there were that preceded this one, or if you saw them but you don't remember them. I fall in all three of those categories, and it was very confusing for me. I'm not certain of the plot except that there are some wizards and some bad guys and they are fighting each other. Some people think that Harry is the "Chosen One" but others do not--I don't really know what that means though. Voldemort makes an appearance as the child Tom Riddle. Helena Bonham Carter is evil and can fly around as a cloud of smoke, along with some other people who are dressed equally goth. There's a vanishing closet that's really just a portal to another vanishing closet. That's all I can remember about the plot.

I think this movie was really just there for the ending (where something terrible happens, but I can't reveal what or I would "spoil" the movie). Every other part of the movie is essentially just buying time until what I assume will be a final battle between Voldemort and Harry in the last movie (which will be in two parts to milk as much money out of you as they can). It's just kind of simple, mindless nothing. Some of that nothing is boring, some of it is exciting, some of it is scary, and some of it is funny; it's all equally worthless though. I'm fairly certain you could have skipped this movie and gone on to the next one if you wanted. But the movie is an entertaining one. You probably will not be disappointed if you just want to waste 2.5 hours watching something fun.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417741/

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

3/5

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is as weird and darkly comic as all his other movies. The plot follows the young Alice (Wasikowska) after being proposed to in front of a huge party by a wealthy lord named Hamish. She is a young independent soul who doesn't like corsets or stockings and certainly doesn't want to wed someone just because he is rich and she is getting older. But that is the option she is presented with, and the hundreds of guests in attendance seem to be pushing her towards the safe choice. She asks for some time to think it over. And with that time, she manages to fall down a rabbit hole and into "Underland," which she mistakenly calls Wonderland.

The movie is blandly quirky and innocently morbid, but somehow also reassuring and uplifting by the end. There were some funny moments (almost entirely involving Helena Bonham Carter) and some boring moments (almost entirely involved Johnny Depp). The oddness of the story didn't work for me. I found it neither charming nor endearing; it was just a charade to distract the audience from the simpleness of the story. And the visuals, while Burton-esque to a T, were filmed and/or animated poorly. Quite frankly, nobody understands 3D as well as James Cameron does right now. (That scene where Alice is falling down the rabbit hole made me almost vomit from nausea.) At first I thought Tim Burton just made bizarre movies for the sake of being bizarre, but now I'm starting to think that he doesn't really know how to make a movie that isn't bizarre. That, or he doesn't see the point in it. Still, this is a pretty entertaining movie. Watch it if you're a Burton or Depp fanboy, but don't expect anything grand.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)

4/5

Tom Tykwer's Perfume: The Story of a Murderer follows the 18th century story of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, a man with uncanny and unsurpassed olfactory capabilities, on his quest to concoct the perfect perfume. He can identify any smell and track it across miles of countryside. At the age of 17, in a horrifying and heartbreaking moment, he first experiences the ephemeral nature of smell; then and there he makes a commitment to uncover the secrets of capturing smell. Even human smells, regardless of the cost. The movie climaxes in a spellbinding, unforgettable, unexpected finale that may turn many viewers off, but will also entrance and excite just as many viewers. On display here is bold, unique filmmaking. And it is, without a doubt, worth watching.

While Tykwer utilizes a narrator, he never uses it to cheat. He lets scenes play out through restrained acting and subtle pacing; he creates moods with lighting and compositions; he forces us to care for the characters--not by telling us to, but by exposing us to their human side. Technically, the movie works on nearly every level. Yes, the cinematography and editing were crisp and pristine. Yes, the script and performances were right on key. But the movie is more than the sum of its parts. You feel like you can smell what he smells--and feel what he feels--just by watching the screen. That is movie magic.

The movie is not without a few flaws. At 2.5 hours, it's a bit too long, with some unnecessary scenes included and some ambiguous motifs repeteated. Much of the movie is simply uncomfortable to sit through, and the mood of the piece is more reminiscent of David Fincher (Fight Club, Zodiac) than Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run, The International). Still, as I said before, this movie is worth watching. You will not see another movie quite like this one for a long, long time.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0396171/

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

4/5

Sweeney Todd is yet another uniquely comic tale of the macabre from Tim Burton. And this time it's a musical! The plot follows Sweeney Todd in Victorian England as he seeks revenge on Judge Turpin for viciously sentencing him to prison and stealing his wife and daughter. The first thirty minutes were inexorably boring backstory that revealed nothing that wasn't in the two minute trailer. So why make it thirty minutes in the movie? (And I was less than underwhelmed by the ugly, "bad CGI" intro credits.) But I can forgive all that because the ending was absolutely amazing. It spiraled out of control while simultaneously tightening both the characters and story. It was Dickensian in the most perfect way possible.

The songs were a mixed bag for me. I was in awe at the beauty of "Epiphany" and the orchestral pieces, I loved the hilarious "By the Sea" and "A Little Priest," but the rest merely disappointed me. I found most of the singing acceptable but not exceptional, save for the young Ed Sanders's remarkable voice. (His acting could use some work though.) What Gretel brought to my attention is the fact that the singing is really well integrated with the speaking. It's a truly seamless and fluid transition. The acting and character development of the leads (Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter) were terrific, but I found most of the secondary characters to be rather flat and uninspired. Thanks to superb make-up, costuming, and set design, the trademark Burton look is brilliant--especially in comparison to the Broadway musical. All in all, a thrilling and exciting movie that I wouldn't mind seeing again. Highly recommended for Burton fans.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0408236/

Love Actually (2003)

3/5

The flaw in this feel-good romantic comedy is that it focuses too much on its moral. It's about love's ubiquity, so all the subtleties and nuances and quirks in the relationships are brought to the forefront and shoved in your face. It is no longer subtle, nuanced, and quirky. Moments that would have been powerful had they been left understated were made blunt and therefore ineffectual. To speak of specifics, the movie starts in voice-over talking about how we can see that "love actually is all around" (where the movie gets its title from) if we look at all the people in an airport. There is one scene at the end of the movie that takes place in an airport, and could have been a stunning finale. Instead of opting to end on that note, however, the director decided to bring practically every character we've met in this interlocking tale (5 or 6 couples) into an airport one month later for no reason other than to beat into our brains his message. Not to mention the overpowering and ever-present music, which made a lot of the scenes candy-coated and Hallmark.

Luckily, there were some genuinely funny moments. There were some unexpected twists and turns that I liked (on the emotive and plot fronts). There was one scene that was actually incredible, where a woman goes upstairs after she discovers her husband's infidelity and starts crying, then comes back down and pretends everything is alright. (It felt a lot like the montage in Magnolia where all the characters sing along to Aimee Mann's Wise Up.) Another positive: Keira Knightley somehow surpassed what I thought were the boundaries of hotness. By a lot.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314331/