Film Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2

By guest reviewer Jod Burke

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is the final curtain call for a movie franchise the likes of which we have never seen before and perhaps will never see again. Eight films from seven books (the final book was turned into two movies) that took the world by storm. Harry Potter isn’t just a set of children's books, nor is it just a bunch of movies cashing in on the success of the books, Harry Potter is in fact a bonafide worldwide phenomenon. From Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone arriving on our screens all the way back in 2001 to the Deathly Hallows Part 2, this was a story told over 10 years and so engrossing that it quickly became obvious that this adventure wasn’t just for children.

Deathly Hallows Part 2 was ten years in the making and the film that I was most looking forward to in 2011, being a huge HP fan. Eager anticipation for the final chapter left me chomping at the bit. It is perhaps all these factors combined that led to me being ultimately disappointed as I walked out of the cinema at the end.

David Yates is once again at the helm for his 4th outing with Harry Potter, having previously directed Order of the Phoenix, Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows Part 1, and does a fine job of bringing the HP world to life. In the final installment, we pick up exactly where Part 1 left off with Harry, Ron and Hermione searching for the final three Horcruxes (the magical items responsible for the Dark Lord’s immortality) in order to destroy them and finally defeat Voldemort. He Who Should Not Be Named finds out about our protagonist's plan and brings his death eater army together to storm Hogwarts in a battle that will ultimately change their lives forever.

So it’s all set up for the final amazing installment. The icing on the cake, the cheese on your vegemite, the line of coke on Ben Cousins’ coffee table. This is going to be epic right? Right? Well in some ways it was but I'm going to get straight to the point here ladies and gents. Somewhere along the line Steve Kloves, who wrote the screenplay for Deathly Hallows Part 2, dropped the ball. Perhaps it’s not all his fault as no doubt David Yates has to take some of the blame here but my biggest gripe with the film is that some of the absolute key moments in the book, written by JK Rowling, were not conveyed well enough on screen and in some cases completely overlooked. It left me incredibly disappointed with the final installment of a very much loved franchise.

Let me jump back to the books. My favourite character throughout the entire series was always Severus Snape and from start to finish I agonized, like I'm sure many other fans did, as to which side Snape was really on. Was he good? Was he bad? Then, when I finally read Deathly Hallows, I was completely blown away with his fate and his role in the whole series. So much so, I remember I had to stop reading and just think about it for several minutes to take it all in. Without throwing spoilers into this review, I'll tell you now that Snape’s fate was not conveyed as well as it should have been or as well as it deserved to be on film. It was such a key moment in the book and so important to the overall story of the entire series, yet in the film it just all felt very confusing and somewhat rushed.

So too were the fates of other key characters such as Professor Remus, Tonks and Fred Weasley. Again, avoiding spoilers, these three characters, Remus and Fred in particular, were quite a large part of the HP universe and to have their storylines played out behind closed doors only to be quickly filled in later was disappointing to say the least.

Perhaps I'm nitpicking but I'm a huge HP fan and several of the key scenes in the book that I was so looking forward to in the film were either shortened, glossed over or just plain confusing. The final battle between Harry and Voldemort also lacked punch. This is a fight 10 years in the making, all over fairly quickly without the fanfare it deserved. In the end, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 probably suffered from simply having too many characters. Being able to serve each character and bring each character's story arc to a satisfying end is certainly not a job I would want. It is however a job Kloves and Yates took on and in my opinion, fell short.

It is of course not all bad, the visuals and sound are as strong as ever. The score by Alexandre Desplat was once again a highlight. The HP theme is now up there with the likes of Indy, Star Wars and Superman as being instantly recognizable. Performances are again strong, Radcliffe, Watson and Grint are in good form, Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom shines as he becomes a somewhat reluctant leader of Gryfindor in the absence of the chosen one. One of HP’s strengths though has always been it’s casting, from the first movie to the last, it’s casting has been near perfect with the likes of Alan Rickman (Snape), Julie Walters (Molly Weasley), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) and Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix LeStrange). The list goes on and on. It is of course the incredible talent of Ralph Fiennes that steals the show as the utterly frightening Lord VoldemortFiennes is still able to convey Voldemort as vulnerable and scared as much as he is ruthless and cocky. Apparently, he even scared little children playing extras on the set, such was his performance as the Dark Lord.

All in all, I find it hard to give HP7:2 a rating out of five. It certainly was by no means horrible. It was extremely entertaining and as usual some of the set pieces were exciting and visually stunning. They didn’t however take away from the story, which was pleasing. The Gringotts break in and the Room of Requirement fire were standouts. The pacing of the film was better than Part 1, never letting your mind wander. The characters we have come to know and love are all present, it’s well acted and the music is soaring, setting the mood in what is a much darker film than any of the ones we have seen before.

But in this humble reviewers opinion, the most important part of the final book was always the showdown at Hogwarts, the final setting for a story ten years in the making. The final battle felt confusing, rushed, and lacking any real suspense. Too much is going on in the book to perhaps put it all up on screen but so many key moments were overlooked. It just left a sour taste in my mouth. Maybe a second viewing is in order. God knows I've seen the first seven numerous times.

To think there will be no more Harry Potter adventures in the future leaves a large hole in the very fabric of cinema. Here’s hoping JK Rowling isn’t quite done yet.

3 & 1/2 STARS

Film Review: Captain America: The First Avenger

Captain America: The First Avenger is the latest blockbuster offering from Marvel Studios and introduces the final member of The Avengers crime-fighting organisation. Directed by Joe Johnson (Honey, I Shrunk The Kids, The Rocketeer, Jumanji) and set against the backdrop of WWII, Captain America is by far the most artistically stylised Marvel superhero film to date, offering the closest thing to the bold, pulpy look of the original Marvel comic books.

With the release of Captain America, having already introduced the other Avenger team-members - Iron Man, The Hulk and Thor, Marvel has now begun advertising The Avengers, which recently finished filming and is due out in mid 2012. Impressively, The Avengers will see all original actors returning to reprise their respective superhero and sidekick roles, except for Edward Norton, who is to be replaced by Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk.

At the height of World War II, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is a young man desperate to fight for his country. It’s not that he wants to kill the enemy, he just doesn’t like bullies. Only problem is, he has a physique that makes Tiny Tim look ripped and a million previous health issues. After failing to enlist in several different cities, his determined spirit and lofty ideals come to the attention of Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), who recruits him to a top secret program. Using his experimental serum, Dr. Erskine scientifically enhances Rogers into a superhuman soldier before the good Doctor is murdered by an assassin from the Nazi splinter group, HYDRA. With his new abilities, Rogers (a.k.a Captain America) leads the fight to bring down HYDRA and its evil leader, Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), before the Nazi tyrant can unleash an unstoppable supernatural power and take over the world.

More than any other Marvel adventure to date, Captain America includes the most crossover material from the other Marvel superheroes and their co-existant worlds. Immediately distinct is the blue power cube sought by HYDRA, being the very same power source used and lost by the Ice Giants in Thor. Multi-verse characters such as Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) from S.H.I.E.L.D. and Howard Stark, founder of Stark Industries, also feature with effect. Importantly, the writers have been quite adept at seamlessly weaving in these cross-over items, while also keeping them important to the plot.

It has to be said that Marvel and Johnson have managed to create a real comic book feel to this movie that none of the other Marvel films have yet been able to quite capture. The well crafted, slightly sepia-toned WWII backdrop and the styling of HYDRA definitely helps to add a surreal feeling of ‘another time and place’ to the action. The storyline is quite straightforward, but it really needs to be to deliver the large amount of origin information while also providing a palatable action adventure that doesn’t overwhelm audiences with too many new characters and subplots. However, the unintended result of this simplicity is that the story feels somewhat old hat - almost too familiar when compared to many other WWII adventures. This leaves Captain America acutely lacklustre in places.

Something that was very unexpected, for me anyway, was the calibre and style of acting in The First Avenger. For the most part, performances were incredibly restrained and understated, which made for a more intense feel but was somewhat odd for a superhero-styled war film. Chris Evans as Captain America was solid and portrayed the morally confident but personally shy character well. Other mentions have to go to Hugo Weaving as the menacing Schmidt, Tommy Lee Jones as the dry Colonel Phillips and Hayley Atwell as the stoic Peggy Carter. However, the most memorable performance (for me at least) was Stanley Tucci as the unfortunately short-lived Dr. Erskine.

Captain America succeeded in providing a detailed character origin film, together with an explosion-filled adventure war story, while still remaining in the confines of the Marvel style. However, to a somewhat lessor degree than Wolverine or Thor, it still suffered a little from ‘origin-itis’ – this being the cinematic ailment where the entire first half of the film is taken up with solely introducing the character and his superpower, leaving only half of the runtime to cram in an interesting action storyline. The result is the feeling of a rushed second half action sequence, where the story is forced to hurtle at breakneck speed toward the final showdown.

All in all, Captain America was an entertaining war story with its fair share of explosive action and a strong thematic style. While not incredibly innovate, the production team's decision to stay true to the graphic novel style will definately be appreciated by the Marvel purists. Hopefully, with all of the origin stories now divulged in detail, fans can look forward to The Avengers following a more traditional, start-to-finish action narrative.

Oh, and hang around for the end of the credits for a sneak peak at The Avengers.

3 STARS

Film Review: Bridesmaids

Bridesmaids is the first female-centric comedy to emerge in recent years and proves once again that great writing is the absolute key to a great film. Penned and acted by Kristen Wiig, formerly of SNL fame, directed by Paul Feig and guided by comedic genius Judd Apatow, Bridesmaids finds the perfect balance between character depth, great casting, fresh gags and a touch of awkward truth.

Annie (Kristen Wiig) is a hapless 30-something woman with a dead-end job, dead-end quasi-boyfriend (Jon Hamm) and a generally dead-end life. The only person who understands her is Lillian (Maya Rudolph), her best friend. After announcing her engagement, Lillian asks the self-doubting Annie to be her Maid of Honour, which only serves to bring Annie’s hopeless love life and organisational ineptitude into sharp focus. Add to this Lillian’s other ‘best friend’, Helen (Rose Byrne), whose financial success, managerial skill, backhanded compliments and patronising smile combine to make Annie’s life a pure living hell. Bent on being the best Maid of Honour she can be, Annie soldiers on through disaster after disaster, while also trying to muddle through her own inherent personal dilemas.

The first thing that jumps out at you about Bridesmaids is there are no A-List stars involved. The main cast is primarily made up of rising comedy names, SNL regulars, stand-up comedians and unknowns. So why does this film work so well? Pure and simple – the characters.

The raw comedy prowess of Wiig, developed over years at SNL, together with the tried-and-true structural comedy knowledge of Apatow (The 40 Year Old Virgin, Superbad, Knocked Up) combine to create a well crafted, hilarious, character driven story where every decision comes directly from within the character and not from the needs of the plot. This is something lacking from many of today’s comedies and is the sole reason many of them feel so thin and weak. Where Bridesmaids differs is evident in the airplane, dress-shopping and bridal shower speech scenes where the comedy situations come directly from character flaws, decisions and actions, not because the story needs pepping up with a gross-out comedy set piece.

While all of the ensemble actors put in solid performances, one of the standouts has to be newcomer Melissa McCarthy, playing the blunt and no-nonsense Megan. The chubby yet feisty bridesmaid is not afraid to suggest a Fight Club for a hen’s night or brazenly proposition a suspected Air Marshall during a flight, providing some of the best comedy relief moments of the film. Rose Byrne as the control freak ‘other best friend’ and Chris O’Dowd as the soft, goofy cop were also top notch.

What stands Bridesmaids apart from your average chick flick, and vastly helped its financial success I’m sure, is that it definitely appeals to men as well as women. I would venture to say that this comes from the fact that most of the female characters (apart from perhaps Helen) are in some small way almost tom-boyish in nature. With more aggressive and hopelessly pathetic personalities rather than girly and bitchy, men are given a better chance to understand the characters and stay engaged. The odd poop gag helps too. The only overall negative about the film was that it felt a little long at over 2 hours and could have possibly been tightened up a bit.

Bridesmaids was definitely a surprise for me and absolutely deserves its high critical praise. Equally entertaining for both sexes, this intelligent comedy is a hilariously satirical gem with heartfelt characters and a quality cast. A must see.

4 STARS

Film Review: Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon

Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon is the third and final episode in the Transformers trilogy, once again directed by action-mayhem masochist, Michael Bay. In this installment, Bay has managed to do something that many thought was impossible - that is, to elevate the amount of deafening, explosive carnage to a level that makes the D-Day landings at Normandy look and sound like a 4 year-old's tea party. In a nutshell, this film is pure noise.

The adventure kicks off with a long lost Cybertronian spacecraft (The Ark) crash landing on the lunar surface in the 1950's, resulting in an intriguing counter-factual explanation for the race to put man on the moon. What Armstrong and Aldrin find is a deactivated Sentinel Prime, the original leader of the Autobots. Jumping to the present, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is given information about the Apollo cover story and the Autobots learn of The Ark, where they quickly set out to locate Sentinel Prime and bring him to Earth. However, once re-activated, Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy) doesn't turn out to be the moral leader he once was and the situation quickly devolves into another fight for the survival of humanity.

In typical Michael Bay style, the visual effects in this film are simply epic. Ear-piercing explosions literally rain down on the audience for the vast majority of the the 2 and a half hour runtime. Now I, for one, relish the spectacle of entire skyscrapers being consumed by gigantic squid-like Decepticons - however, I've since come to learn that many others, most of whom value and cherish their eardrums, do not share my excitement. And so, the inexorable question that naturally arises from this dichotomy of opinion is; do the striking visuals and constant action make up for the films other shortcomings?

In terms of story, the first 15 minutes are quite engaging where, in X-Men: First Class style, fictional conspiracy is mixed liberally with fact. The inclusion of the space race as a cover for the discovery of the The Ark was somewhat clever. However, from there the story just declines into loose filler for the parts when something isn't on fire. For example, the coincidences that lead to Sam learning about The Ark are so unnecessary, i.e. - Sam's new girlfriend (Carly) works for a millionaire (Dylan) who, to win favour with Carly, sets up a job interview for Sam with Bruce, another millionaire who owns a technology company. Jerry, a senior guy who works for Bruce at the tech company, flips out and gets the top secret info to Sam about the Apollo missions and The Ark... and off we go. It just feels so painfully contrived and drawn out. Why can't Jerry get the info to Sam without all the crap in between? In any case, the plot in action films is normally pretty flimsy so what were we expecting, right?

Next cab off the rank is the acting. In the first Transformers, Shia LaBeouf as Sam was somewhat endearing. In the second film, his jabbering outbursts began to get annoying. In this film, I just want to smack him on the back of the head. Hard. With a cement mixer. Whiny, pathetic characters can only garner pity for about 30% of one film before audiences tire and of it and start yelling at the screen. Three films in and this guy still moans like a little bitch at everything; "A rich guy is macking on my uber hot supermodel girlfriend... I hate living in this trendy uptown loft paid for in full by my uber hot supermodel girlfriend... getting a job is so hard... my parents embarrass me... this Presidential medal for valour is giving me a neck strain." Boo-fucking-hoo. At least when the explosions began to get serious and my eardrums perforated, I didn't need to listen to all his whining anymore.

Exceptional performances are delivered by John Malkovich as Bruce Bezos, Frances McDormand as the Secretary of Defense and John Turturo returning as the wacky Agent Seymour Simmons. However, it has to be said that the stunning-but-woeful Rosie Huntington-Whitley should stick to modelling lingerie and the casting manager should be shot after designating 'Dr. McDreamy' Patrick Dempsey as perfect for the bad guy, Dylon Gould. Annoyingly, the only actor in this film with real acting clout, John Malkovich, was given such a tiny role that he is afforded no chance to really shine. This, on top of the fact that his part had absolutely no bearing on the storyline and had he been removed altogether, it wouldn't have made a single lick of difference to the plot. What they should have done is switched Malkovich with Dempsey, making McDreamy the slightly eccentric nobody and inserting 'Teddy KGB' as the bad guy. Now that would have made more sense.

And finally, we come to the transformers themselves. Once again, as in the second film, a glut of new transformers on both sides pop up out of nowhere. We have no idea who they are and have very little time to learn anything about them. So when the fighting starts, we can't follow who's who and don't know whether to cheer or be sad when the 'red-guy' gets his head ripped off. The complete lack of Megatron and his downgrading to some kind of 'Phantom of the Opera' type retard was also supremely disappointing.

Overall, and like the other Transformer films before it, simply put, Dark of the Moon is what it is - a chaotic action film about giant robots with feelings slugging it out in the ultimate battle of good versus evil. If you want a complex love story, a plot that makes perfect sense, deep characters and Oscar winning performances, you've just wasted $13 my friend. However, if you want crisp graphics, robots being blown to bits, Victoria Secret lingerie model eye candy and explosions that rattle your wisdom teeth, then hold on tight and start that savings plan for a cochlear implant.

Additional Note: Can I just say how jaded I am that in the entire 3 Transformers films, the word 'Energon' was not used once. If I recall, in virtually every episode of transformers I watched as a kid, the Decepticons were after energon, found a way to steal it and started filling cubes of it right as the Autobots turned up to thwart them. Yet, in the films - nada energon. Biggest disappointment of all.

2 & 1/2 STARS