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

Hello friends! Sorry for my prolonged absence. I intended to write this long reflection about growing up and going off to law school, but much to my dismay, life beat me to it. Nevertheless, since I'm obviously going to be posting a lot less frequently nowadays, I'll try and write a proper reflection piece to officially put my blog on hiatus. In the meantime; last night, I got to see my first theatrical film in over a month. It is with baited anticipation, I give you: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.

Picking up off the shores where Harry, Ron, and Hermione mourn the loss of Dobby the house elf, the trio work their way back to Hogwarts in an effort to find the last of the Horcruxes; artifacts which upon destruction, weaken the power of the sinister Lord Voldemort. While reuniting with his fellow classmates; now ready for battle against the Dark Wizards, Harry discovers more insight into his own prophecy, and the ties that bind him towards it.

Part 2 is a fitting conclusion to a series that, for the better part of my adolescence, has dominated my pop culture psyche. The pace is brisk and appropriate, and the performances are adequate. It is perhaps the most action packed out of the entire series. Many viewers may get some vibes of the battle scenes from Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, or at least I did. My biggest complement I can give to the last two films of the series is how the production team finally managed to wise up and treat the stories with the maturity and grittiness they deserve. The final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort is exceptionally well-done, you get a tangible sense of relief after the tension of the fight, knowing that justice for the wizards has finally been served.

Now, here's the tricky part. In spite of my complements of the film as a strong series-ender; as a standalone film, well, it's not anything extraordinary. Unlike Part 1, which totally took me by surprise with it's appropriately executed twists and pathos (I consider it The Empire Strikes Back of the series, not the maudlin travesty that was Half-Blood Prince). Part 2 is entirely based off of continuity and minimal exposition; with the plot simply going from Point A to Point B. And as interesting as the expositional scenes were, too frequently did they interupt the kinetic and exciting frenzy of the action. A little frustrating for me, since the book was so much more fluid and epic with it's treatment of the plot.

(SPOILER ALERT)

Lastly, Part 2 suffers from one nearly-fatal blow: The epilogue. The story advances to 19 years after the events of the main plot, as we see the pre-adolescent progeny of Harry Potter and pals board Platform 9 3/4 on their way to Hogwarts. However, the production team has made the peculiar descision to have the original actors (who are in their early 20s) portray middle-aged versions of their roles, with embarrasingly negligible make-up work that failed to give the illusion that they've matured. Sorry make-up artists, but the actors still looked 20! Pairing them up with other actors who were probably no more or less than 8 or 9 years younger than them in real life just looked awkward and unrealistic. After such excellent attention to detail in the rest of the film, how could they drop the ball on something so noticeable?

What irks me even more is the fact that the Harry Potter series is a moneymaking juggernaut. There's no excuse, especially in this economy, why the rich, fat-cat producers couldn't settle for an Academy Award-winning make-up artist, or CGI maestro. Hell, they could've even cast some age-appropriate, well-established Anglo actors like Daniel-Day Lewis (as Harry), Simon Pegg (as Ron), Nicole Kidman (as Hermione), et al. to do cameos, paid them each £600,000 and called it quits. It would've been a much more refreshing and realistic choice, but in the end, it is what it is, and unfortunately left a bad tase in my mouth.

In the end though, while an unsurprisingly flawed film adaptation. Part 2 is a solid ending to a rollercoaster-ride of a notable fantasy series.

7/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Fair Game (2010)

Being a relatively carefree freshman in high school, the Valerie Plame exposure scandal was something that understandably flew under my radar. Years later, I first became interested in the circumstances surrounding her illegal outing as a CIA agent after reading Scott McClellan stellar exposé What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, which dealt in detail the discovery of "Plamegate" from the perspective of President Bush's White House Press Secretary. Fair Game is a film based on a book by the same name by Plame, which re-tells the events leading up to and culminating in the scandal that cost Plame her job, privacy, and dignity. It's an incredible story for sure, and the film does adequate justice in outlining an interesting milestone in government corruption.

For those of you not immediately familiar with the story, Valerie Plame is (technically, was) a CIA operative who was frequently called upon for covert operations, in part, due to her background in international relations. After uncovering contradictory data relating to "yellowcake" and the lack of existing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to which her husband, former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson, writes an incriminating New York Times op-ed piece. The Bush Administration gets wind of this story, and under the supervision of advisors Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, expose Plame as a CIA operative, in an effort to discredit her husband's story. Seeking retribution, Wilson takes the battle to the mainstream media, but conflicts with his wife's interests, whose moral sense of duty restrains her from vocalizing her inner torment.

Fair Game is an interesting political drama, that as a drama in the most intrinsic sense, brings a very palpable mood to the story, thanks to the tight script and excellent performances by Naomi Watts and Sean Penn. Penn is actually a standout as Wilson, given Penn's own political leanings, he's practically born to play this role, as he channels his trademark rage against the Bush Administration in the form of his character. The beginning first act, consisting of Plame's investigation and day-in-day-out life as a spy is very expository; interesting, but not as gripping as the film's later acts when the scandal occurs and comes to a head. Director Doug Liman does inject some moments of melodrama towards the end, but they're not maudlin, and remind us that these real-life characters are human, and do have moments of weakness and fear that we may otherwise not realize. Otherwise, this is solid political storytelling, all around.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Thor (2011)

I'm going to be honest, I'm getting tired of comic book/superhero films. While the vast majority that I've seen have been very good, I haven't felt truly riveted by any since Spider-Man or The Dark Knight. The problem is, most of the comic book films of the past decade struck me as too similar to one another. The battle of good-versus-evil has become an exercise in predictability. So why do I keep seeing them? I'd rather wait and see the coveted Avengers film once it actually gets made (and becomes too expensive for any studio to handle!). Nonetheless, I keep seeing them out of pure hedonism, in hopes that the action will draw me in more than the story. Such is the case with Thor.

In a separate dimension called Asgard, Thor is the son of the god, Odin. He banishes Thor from Asgard after what he sees as an act of abuse of power. Thor defends his acts as a reason of protecting Asgard from a race of creatures called the Frost Giants. Nonetheless, the now-mortal Thor finds himself in a small desert town in New Mexico. Discovered by a pretty young astrophysicist named Jane, along with her advisor and assistant, cultures clash as Thor learns about the new world around him. Meanwhile the government begins to get suspicious, when they get wind of Thor's ostentatious arrival. Thor not only has to deal with legions of suits to get back his power, but his turncoat brother, Loki, back in Asgard, as well.

As predictable as the story was for me, Thor nevertheless proceeded to keep me entertained, thanks to the action and stellar cast. I didn't know much about Chris Hemsworth before going into this, but he brings the right amount of physicality with some surprising touches of humor. Natalie Portman, one of my favorite actresses, is great to watch, as usual. The rest of the cast does fine, with enough distinctly written characterizations to justify their roles. Even though the action is your typical CGI-explosions-and-mashups fare, there's a lot of vividness to the choreography. Even the locales where some of it occurs, like Asgard, in spite of the obvious artificiality, are beautiful to look at. These two elements combined together, make for a nice change from the usual city-in-ruins deal that we see in superhero/comic book films. Even if you may be a little sick of the superhero-film glut like I am, Thor may surprise you. What may have been more surprising to me at the end was when I realized it was directed by none other than Mr. Shakespeare himself, Kenneth Branagh!

7/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Midnight in Paris (2011)

I'm still reeling from having seen Midnight in Paris, not because it blew me away as a masterpiece, but because of how much I appreciated it's relative originality. While I'm not a huge Woody Allen fan, I'll admit, he's the most entertaining and artistically-gifted misanthrope in Hollywood. He'd probably balk at that comment, 'cause Allen is as notoriously anti-Hollywood as any director can get. He shuns the Academy Awards, his films survive more than one week only in New York and L.A., and Europe is the one place where he has mainstream popularity (I can attest from personal experience, Allen is to Spain what Jerry Lewis is to France). But enough about the man, let's see what he has to offer us...

Midnight in Paris is about Gil, a socially-awkward screenwriter who's working on a novel in order to break the mundane routine of his career. While on vacation with his materialistic fiancee and equally snooty future in-laws, he is lured into a 1920s Ford Roadster that appears on the stroke of midnight on a deserted street. Gil is swept into a smoky bar where Cole Porter is playing piano, and he finds himself mingling with the likes of Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hemmingway, Stein, et al. of the important artistic and literary figures of his ideal golden age. In spite of discovering an escape from being born in the wrong decade, things get complicated when Gil begins to fall for a young flapper, who seems to be the muse of his byegone idols.

Witty and fun, Midnight in Paris really spoke to me, based on the themes of nostalgia and what it feels like to wish that you belonged in a different time, where things were simpler and you felt you shared the same desires and ambitions as those in the time. I, personally am a fan of the 20s, so seeing these figures brought to life by some terrific actors is really a treat! Owen Wilson also does a good job of channeling Woody Allen's insecurities and idiosyncracies, since you can really tell the role is a mirroring of Allen, but Wilson makes it his own, charisma and all. The Paris locations were shot beautifully, and the audience is treated to wonderful images of Versailles, the Seine docks, and even some great period set designs that had me yearning to see the excellent Bullets Over Broadway again. Not entirely groundbreaking as a romantic comedy, but definitely one of Allen's recent best.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: 127 Hours (2010)

With 127 Hours, ladies and gentleman, I've officially seen all the Best Picture Nominees of 2010, and have seen all the Best Picture nominees for the...sixth year in a row. Sad? Or impressive? You be the judge (not that I really care all that much, haha). But in regards to the film, as simplistic (or repulsive) of a story from what you may already know, it packs an incredible dramatic punch. I never thought a film about a guy trapped in a canyon would be as thrilling as director Danny Boyle had made it out to be. While fascinating as it is, I doubt anyone who is faint of heart will find interest in it (especially the climax!). The more "disturbing" aspects of the film shouldn't really deter anyone, since it really is a one-of-a-kind work.

Based on a true story, young adventurer Aron Ralston is trekking the canyons of Utah, when a boulder sends him crashing down a deep trench, trapping his arm in the process. With no people in sight, one-half thermos of water, one camcorder, and one plier/knife. Aron realizes the gravity of his predicament. As he documents his state of mind on camera and begins to hallucinate under the stresses of pain and dehydration, the audience is treated to flashbacks of his life and vivid dream sequences that illustrate his frame of mind during the ordeal. Until eventually, he is forced to resort to drastic measures to survive, and escape...

This kind of film has "visceral" written all over it. I especially give Danny Boyle huge props for making such apt use of editing, sound, cinematography and music to express the myriad of thoughts going through Ralston's mind during the suffering. James Franco, as Ralston is excellent. I never really gave him much credit as an actor before, but the whole film is pretty much all about him, and he does an amazing job of conveying the inexplicable torture and despair that his character experiences. I wouldn't say that this is the kind of film anyone would really watch over and over again, but I admire the stellar work that has been done on this production. In the hands of someone else, it could easily have come off as too manufactured. The audience practically feels the same sense of desperation and ultimately relief after what Ralston goes through. Overall, Boyle has taken great pains to craft a story that stays with you, long after the credits roll.

9/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Inside Job (2010)

Inside Job is the 2010 Academy Award winner for Best Documentary, and takes a relatively objective apporach to analyzing the origin and consequences of the current global recession. Narrated by Matt Damon, the director uses pointed visual guides and graphs to explain the concepts of deregulation, systemic risk, etc. Augmented by interviews from economic insiders/pundits Paul Volcker and Eliot Spitzer, among other outsiders, Inside Job is and outstanding piece of work for bringing the drama of the recession to the limelight, and sparing no blame for the Wall-Streeters and corporate honchos alike, who allowed the excessive spending to spiral out of control into the mess our country is currently in, today.

Granted there's a lot of different people to blame for the recession, and more than just one factor, alone. Inside Job presents these factors as a slick outline, while sticking to the basic core factors of the housing bubble, credit bubble, and executive corruption. For some people who are not well-economically versed, a few things may go over their heads, I certainly had to work hard in order to keep my focus on the facts. Luckily, it's a topic that has strong relevance in today's political climate, and people should find that as incentive to watch (as long as they don't find the topic too depressing to stomach anymore). It is miles more comprehensive than Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, which I felt leeched more off of victims unemployment misery, making it a treatise of remorse, rather than diagnosis. Complex? Yes. Engaging? Definitely. Inside Job should satisfy anyone seeking answers to the cause of the crisis.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: The Hangover Part II (2011)

Most of the time by watching the trailer, I can sense what kind of a sequel a sequel is going to be from a mile away. After seeing the trailer for The Hangover Part II, I was very afraid. "This is the exact same movie!", was the thought swimming through my head, as I stared slack-jawed at my screen. The only way I knew this film could be good was if it still managed to be almost as funny, but even more outrageous than the first. So now that I've seen it, I can oddly enough say that Hangover II is this decade's Home Alone 2 - An obvious re-hash that managed to surprise me by how funny and ridiculous it still managed to be.

Somewhere between the first and the second movie, Stu fell out with his hooker Vegas-bride and is now engaged to a gourgeous Thai beauty named Lauren. Two nights before the wedding, Alan embarrasses Stu before his fiancee's rigid father, then Stu, and his "three-best-friends-that-anyone-can-have" take Lauren's teenage, med-student prodigy brother, Teddy down to the beach for a bonfire, complete with beer and marshmallows. They wake up the next morning in a dingy Bangkok hotel, without a clue how they got there. Doug and Teddy are both missing, and in their place is a mischievous monkey. All hell breaks loose as the three take to the streets as culture-shock and insanity ensue.

You don't need to have seen the first one to enjoy the second, and contrary to the general consensus, most people who I know loved the first one will enjoy this one. I guess I happen to fall into the camp of the latter, since I loved the first one so much. The more-of-the-same gags were fun, in a revisionist sense; like Stu's tattoo and Mr. Chow's full-frontal nudity, but they're either mildly predictable, or mostly spoiled in the trailer. Yet, where the film excelled was by taking some of the gags (especially those for shock value) above and beyond the pale. In some instances, Hangover II does manage to out-gross it's predecessor with the shock-gags. Even if the plot was predictable itself, because everything was playing out almost exactly the same as before, the air of mystery was still present, as I still wondered "How the heck are they really going to get out of this one?". I guess I'll still hold the first Hangover, near-and-dear to me, because of it's freshness, and for the fact that said quality actually allowed the humor to be more effective. But make no mistake, it's re-hashed sequel is still enjoyable, and took me by surprise with it's humor quite a few times.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon