Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Director David Yates’ third Potter film has the unique task of converting one half of the final volume in the series to the screen. I was anxious to see if this process would result with a whole movie with it’s own arc and development. I found that it did and while all the questions weren’t answered, many were. The story follows Harry, Ron and Hermione as they try to find and destroy the horcruxes that make up the fragments of Voldemort’s soul. In the meantime, Voldemort is busy controlling the Ministry of Magic and attempting to find a powerful wand that can once and for all finish off “The Boy Who Lived.” A handful of conflicts are resolved before the credits role so Deathly Hallows Part 1 is a successful stand-alone film.

While the cast is an abundant grouping of actors doing their best to make an impact on this mammoth film, the three leads steal the show. Rupert Grint transforms the deadpan Ron Weasley he spent six films creating into a layered character full of flaws and quirky habits more like an actual living person. Emma Watson’s Hermione Granger battles all sorts of emotional turmoil in a well-acted journey through a battle with remorse, high expectations and even physical torture. The much-improved sidekicks would lead the way if it weren’t for the chosen one himself, Harry Potter, well at least the actor who plays him, Daniel Radcliffe. With the toughest and most complex character in a multi-billion dollar film franchise, it’s unbelievable to consider the high level performance Radcliffe consistently gives with very little experience acting in anything except the scar and glasses role. Though Deathly Hallows Part 1 showcases his ability to play everything from comedy and action to horror with a hint of romance.

The film is lengthy at over two and a half hours, but the pacing fluctuates between edge of your seat hectic and comfortably slow. It doesn’t weaken the film however. With the full array of genres on display, the tempo fits and allows for the actors, music, and special effects to impress. As David Yates has done in his prior two Potter films, there are a good number of beautifully shot scenes that hold up against any Academy Award winner. In this case, paired with fine acting and some pretty darn good writing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 crosses the boundary putting it in the same territory as award winning sci-fi and fantasy epics like Lord of the Rings. Overall, the film does the book justice and makes the fans proud. I loved it in the most biased way possible. (9.4 out of 10)

Due Date

Robert Downey Jr’s involvement in a movie automatically leads me to anticipate it these days. But Due Date has reminded me that he can’t turn a stinker into something worth seeing. Downey Jr. plays an expectant father who, through a series of misunderstandings, is put on the no fly list and must find his way across the country before his wife’s scheduled delivery. Of course, as would only happen in a movie, the only way he can make his trek is with the weirdo who caused him to get kicked off the plane in the first place. That weirdo is played by Zach Galifianakis.

Due Date’s first of many issues lies with Galifianakis’ character’s complete lack of positive character traits. He is so annoying and frustrating that it’s hard to follow the compassion of Downey Jr’s character. Then throw in the disgusting habits and dangerous moments that make the audience cringe instead of laugh and I think the movie would be more successful as a psychological thriller rather than a comedy. Downey Jr. gives a good performance to an extent, but since the audience isn’t given a thorough view into his life, it’s not as strong as it could be. About the only thing that’s told is that he has “anger issues.” Smaller roles by Danny McBride, Jamie Foxx and Juliette Lewis don’t really make anything funnier but add to the embarrassment and overall dilemma the story faces.

With awkward/odd couple films the resolution needs to show some kind of relief or understanding, and Due Date tries but is ultimately unsuccessful. The slow moving film spends too much time trying to make ridiculous situations unbearable and little time building camaraderie. I’m not buying it that these two complete opposites can get high while driving following a near fatal car crash and suddenly become best friends. The over the top antics worked for director Todd Phillips in The Hangover but not this time. (4.0 out of 10)

Unstoppable

I am so sick of movies about runaway trains in rural Pennsylvania. What an overdone plotline. I am clearly kidding. Unstoppable, which is based on true events is the latest of many films featuring director Tony Scott and Denzel Washington. This one adds the talents of Chris Pine and Rosario Dawson in the story of an unmanned train that is accidently set to power. Carrying an abundance of hazardous chemicals, it must be stopped before it reaches a sharp turn in a highly populated area and will derail. Pine and Washington, who are driving another train, devise a plan to stop the runaway even in the face of serious personal risk.

For a story that features great periods of sitting around and waiting for disaster, it is highly dramatic. Every turn could contain a head-on collision, gruesome death or heated dialogue. While it’s mostly the last of the three don’t be fooled, the viewer’s stomach is in knots constantly. Washington and Pine give strong performances toggling the line between average joe and hero. This leaves the majority of the frantic running around to Dawson, who plays the yardmaster leading the charge to stop the train and playing mediator between the different parties involved. In terms of overall film quality, Unstoppable is a well-made feature from the acting to editing.

Even in the wake of the unrelenting drama, there are many moments where the viewer asks if there are easier solutions than those being presented on the screen. The lack of productive ideas from most of the characters exposes such an ignorance of their profession that it takes away some level of believability in the overall scheme. But when compared to the general realism of the film, the lack of expert train talk is a miniscule problem. There is excitement from end to end. (8.0 out of 10)

Hereafter

Clint Eastwood’s look into the controversial topic of mediums and life after death presents a subtle medley of strong characterization and human emotion. The plot follows three individuals from different parts of the world. Matt Damon plays George, a psychic medium attempting to escape his ability. Across the world, tsunami survivor Marie investigates a vision she has at her moment of near death. And the third storyline follows Marcus, a young boy coping with the loneliness of losing a loved one.

Due to the obvious connections between stories, it is apparent that the three protagonists will become intertwined at some point. However, at times the stylization defuses the emotional connection made with the characters. For example, experiencing Marcus’ numbing sadness loses its grip when the viewer doesn’t see him for the next 20 minutes. Individually, the pieces are sturdy enough to stand on their own as short features. Thanks in large part to the powerful performances of the three leads; the tales play at the audience’s sympathy to great success. Damon emerges as the most likeable of the characters even with the other two facing more sudden and tragic events. The simple pleasures in his life, like his interest in Mark Twain are so genuine that the viewer constantly feels a connection to George and a fondness to his calm demeanor.

Part of Hereafter’s overall intricacy lies in how very subtle everything develops. There is no quick resolve. Among the more noticeable themes present, the frequent instance of flowers, usually at flower stands, is a sign of life among the death. Sometimes this theme is foreboding and diminutive, but other times it appears as a vision for hope. The film’s resolution proves the latter. Hereafter is an accomplishment of patient storytelling. Eastwood never goes over the top with his filming techniques preferring a more classic Hollywood approach. Plus something must be said of the incredible tinting that gives a softness to the entire movie. This is an unmatched quality of Eastwood’s films that connects the events on the screen to the real physical world with a sincerity to truth. (9.4 out of 10)

Megamind

I tend to prefer the quirky cross-generational humor of Dreamworks animation to the depressing and preachy Pixar breed. Megamind, the latest Dreamworks film, continues the trend of creating comedy marketed towards children but fun for all demographics. Will Ferrell stars as the voice of Megamind, an alien super villain in a constant struggle to defeat his archenemy, Metro Man, voiced by Brad Pitt.

The film has a similar premise to this past summer’s Despicable Me in that it addresses individuals who aren’t particularly evil but live as villains. It is an interesting angle, however it has become somewhat cliché. In Megamind, the title character finds himself emotionally attached to his frequent “kidnapee”, Tona Fey’s Roxanne Ritchi and I dare say they have more chemistry than their real life counterparts would. Fey and Ferrell both provide strong voice performances contributing great personality to their characters. The main disappointment comes from Jonah Hill’s contribution. Playing an individual that goes through great transformation, the viewer is unable to separate any type of character from the sound of what is clearly Hill reading from a script.

The pace runs a bit slow for a feature with such quality characters and concepts. Surprisingly though, the slowness seemed to help certain aspects of the film, allowing it to present characterization in the same vein as serious films more likely presented in live action. Either way, I can’t help but think more could happen in the overall story arch.

Comparing Megamind to other genre bending animated features, it ranks somewhere with the lower quality Shrek films. To translate, that’s still pretty good. Due to the evolution of the characters, a sequel would prove difficult, but like I said before, I can’t help thinking that there are still tons of possibilities for these characters. Overall, just a fun film that adds another quality title to the Dreamworks catalog. (7.8 out of 10)

Red

As one of the least anticipated comic book films this year, DC’s Red proves to be a political thriller without a hint of the scale that that the Batman and Spider-Man films have made synonymous with the genre. DC Comics’ openness to bringing all or any of their stories to the big screen has resulted in a strange catalog of good films and forgettable mistakes. Red leans more towards the positive side. It was miles better than June’s Jonah Hex; let’s just say that.

Red stars Bruce Willis as a retired CIA agent who finds himself the target of a political conspiracy because of an event in his past. He teams up with former friends/agents (and his love interest) to try and figure out the puzzle and fight the pursuers head on. The other former agents, played by Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren, make up a quality ensemble cast with Willis. Freeman however, gives a rare forgettable performance as Malkovich and Mirren steal the show with laughs and brutal action sequences. Mary-Louise Parker rounds out the group providing surprising chemistry with Willis. I could have gone without her bickering throughout the film’s first half though.

The unwavering Willis proves he can still bring it as an action star, and when matched up against the very likeable Karl Urban, the film carries a strong sense of the blurred lines between good and evil. The story’s conspiracy doesn’t end as full circle as other films in the genre, but it made sense. With so much polish on the strong character development, there’s a bit of a sacrifice with the progression of the plot. Ultimately, everything is understandable, but there are a handful of “what just happened” moments. With a cast as fun to watch as this one, I hope to see them together again in future projects, maybe in a different color next time…. Get it? Because the movie’s called Red. (7.6 out of 10)