Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Much like part 1, it's hard for me to want to give this movie anything other than an "I" for incomplete. Taken on it's own that is. As one would suspect of a movie that splits a tightly wound book into two separate- but hardly distinct- movies, this one is lacking in a way that is very much a mirror image of Part 1. Where part 1 left audiences hanging and without much in the way of resolution, Part 2- again, taken on its own- lacks pretext and build-up. I had hoped- not having had the opportunity to re-view Part 1 prior to seeing its conclusion- that the beginning of Part 2 would have given us at least 10 minutes of a recap of how Harry and Co. got to where they were at the moment that Part 2 opens. No such luck. Just dove right in. And I spent a good deal of the beginning of the movie just trying to piece together everything that happened in Part 1.
All that said, let's face it, I'm splitting hairs. While I would have liked Part 1 and 2 to be released concurrently or at least within three months of each other, it really shouldn't have been that big a deal that they weren't. A minor irritation really. (I imagine I'm in the minority of folks who: a.) failed to rewatch Part 1/reread Book 7 and b.) saw the thing in August.) Putting aside my need to pick at the Hollywood system (the ONLY reason these were released so far apart. Maximize dollars. Period. I don't want to hear about how the filmmakers wanted to release it in 3D and that's part of the reason for the delay. That, in and of itself, is merely a means to grab cash. Sure, the story was incredibly long and to do it right it may have needed two movies, but this far apart? All about buzz-building and money-making.). So again, as I started to say, all that aside, I suppose all you really are looking for in the finale of Potter finales is satisfaction... and a feeling that justice was paid to what really were a remarkable series of books. And in that sense, Harry Potter 7B does the trick and then some. Considering how the films played out, I can't think of a better way to have wrapped things up. I really wish I would have had the time to rewatch all the films in the series. I imagine it would confirm that the three main leads in the series: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint, have really grown and matured as actors. I can't think of another series where child- now young adult stars- have brought so much depth and nuance to their characters. And, keep in mind, these characters were hardly theirs in the first place. But they took ownership of them in a way that few young actors could have. I suppose it would have been really, really easy to phone it in after the success of the early movies, sit back and watch the green backs pile up. Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint refused to take it easy. The amount of care and craftsmanship they took to creating their roles is never more evident than here in Deathly Hallows, Part 2. It's really refreshing to see.
Look, by now, virtually everyone on Earth- including those who have never seen a second of the films or read a page of the books, knows how the story unfurls and wraps up. The acting was top notch, the story-telling was par for the course (a compliment here), the film looked great (in 2D! I'm not much for 3D- it's a money-making gimmick that rarely, if ever, adds anything to the finished product). It really seemed as though everyone on board was giving it their all to send this thing out with the closing it deserved. And that, in a word, is fantastic. But in the end, as I've said, the only thing that really matters is whether the filmmakers succeeded in giving Harry and company their fitting send-off. Was the last chapter a satisfying way to bring the series to a close? For my part, I'd say absolutely, it was. The final 2 movies captured all the complexities of the story as a whole as well as the spirit and imagination of the books. Can't ask for more than that.
Grade: A (for Part 2 alone, A+ when taken together with Part 1 and treated as a single film. Damn you Hollywood money-making machine!!!)
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Movie List 2011: 31.) Larry Crowne
Larry Crowne
A little lunch-hour blogging... because it's been too long and if I put this off much longer I won't remember why I hated the movie. Well, that's probably not true. In fact, my hating it is about the only thing worth remembering about the movie. Anyway, it has been a while since I saw this crapfest of a flick. I think I saw it on July 24th. I didn't really feel much like writing about it then and less so now, but I did see it on the pass and I owe it to the three people out there who occasionally stumble on this blog to give them something to laugh at me about. (Oh, if they end up seeing Larry Crowne, they'll want to punch him and his movie in the throat too, they'll just laugh at my effort to write about it.)
So anyway, away we go.
Here's an equation for you: Tom Hanks+Julia Roberts+ x = awesomenations.
What does x stand for?
Trick question, actually. It can stand for a lot of things. x= good writing. x= 1990-2007. x=competent directing. x=blind, deaf, and dumb audiences. x almost certainly doesn't equal the cast and crew of Larry Crowne. Actually, I'm kind of wondering if we're not witnessing the decline of these two formerly super-bright stars. I know this much: I had little desire to rush out and see Larry Crowne. The fact that Hanks and Roberts were in it probably did help get me there so willingly, but it wasn't as though I had to see the movie because they were in it.... together no less. Thinking about it further though, there aren't a lot of typical Hanks and/or Roberts movies I would be excited to see. Certainly none starring Roberts. Hanks as at least shown an appetite for slight, almost undetectable risks. Roberts? Can't think of a movie that was much of a stretch for her. Maybe, Charlie Wilson's War or Erin Brockovich (maybe Closer as well but I haven't seen it and I'm skeptical that it strays from her norm too much. I am interested in seeing it though) but really if Erin Brockovich and Joanne Herring are the far-reaches of your career, it's hard to think of you as a risk-taker. And don't get me wrong, if you like Roberts' typical roles, that's ok. She plays them well. But the same thing, type, or whatever else, time after time... well, it's boring to me. Or I should say the type of role that Roberts takes time after time is boring to me. It has it's place here and there, and every now and again she does find a real winner, but really I feel like I've seen her bit before. Same goes- to a large degree for Hanks. He does generally have quite a few more appealing credits to his name but that is only partially his fault. Many writers and pundits have demonstrated (or attempted to demonstrate) that there really is a lack of comparable quality roles for men and women in the Hollywood system. Especially as the actors start getting older. That said, some actresses have constantly sought out more complex roles, but I, again, wouldn't put Roberts in that category. She takes what she likes- no fault there, but don't expect me to get excited... even though there is some part of me- the part that is clinging to my 1990s-early 2000s childhood/young adulthood that insists that they both are still major players and people for whom I should be excited. The sad reality, I suppose, is that for whatever reason (their lack of really quality roles, my ever-so-slightly more refined movie taste, or my growing up or whatever) I just don't seem to care as much about them. Somehow it seems wrong... but then there's Larry Crowne.
Let's cut right to the point. Larry Crowne sucked. I can't remember a movie I was closer to walking out on. This might even go down as Transformers 2/ GI Joe bad. But even there I wasn't as tempted to walk out, partially because of my morbid curiosity about what crazy/awful shit those movies would whip out to further brutalize my childhood. For this, I suppose, there was the factor that I didn't want to stick around to see exactly how far the mighty have fallen. But that's probably a little dramatic. In the end, it was just a mess of an uninspired movie. And for that reason, there's a lot more figurative blood on Tom Hanks' hands than Julia Roberts. It was Hanks, after all, who co-wrote, produced, and directed it.
For the sake of brevity, let's leave out the producing and directing angles. After all, Hanks has shown some degree of talent there... recently even. But the writing? The feel? The plot? Just awful. Uninspired (as I mentioned), formulaic, contrived, sloppy, unbelievable, and perhaps worst of all utterly unengaging. This was, for all intents and purposes, a stock rom-com hoping to cater to a specific (and rather narrow) audience of baby boomers who like rom-coms. Not particularly visionary. But I suppose not all movies need to be "visionary", but audiences should expect a movie not to be completely uninspired. Hanks stole the basic plot outline from any number of romantic comedies. Mr./Ms./Mrs. Right for whatever reason seems/is wrong for the other Mr./Ms./Mrs. Right (no bad people among the leads... too complicated... or it turns into a horror/thriller movie). Some hemming, hawing, complications go on that draw the two nearer to each. Finally there is an ultimate spark/realization/resolution that the two were right for each other after all. Cue teary/happy moment of confrontation/clarity. The two get together. And they live happily ever after (lest we have a repeat of... SPOILER ALERT... Roman Holiday). Oh, and spoiler alert (if you HAVEN'T seen the Larry Crowne trailer that is) for Larry Crowne as well, because I just completely spilled the plot there too. Yeah, you've seen this before. Only undoubtedly, you've seen it done better with fewer one-note, caricature, stock characters (anyone you can describe as "The ______" or "The ______ guy/girl" In this case we have The Stoner, The Shithead husband, The Confidently Quirky Hip Girl (rapidly become an archetype), The Latina, and the Evil Genius Asian (or the gimmick- played by George Takei... who is angling to become the male version of Betty White it would seem). Maybe they aren't all readily noticeable types but if you should see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. We've seen these folks before. Add into the mix some real forced and inconsistent quirk (I've said it before I love me some quirk. Love it. But it can't be quirk for quirk's sake, it has to feel natural, organic to the movie... Tom Hanks' Larry Crowne mispronouncing "spectacular" as "spectacalar" often in the beginning of the movie- attempt at a defining catchphrase???-only to see it dropped halfway through the film- failed attempt- and a a scooter or moped gang full of eclectic personalities including hipsters and tough guys are just two examples of out-of-left-field overkill), horrible pacing and story -and character- development, and the casting of Cedric the Entertainer in the movie (I don't want to crap on him unfairly. But in "safe" movies he comes off as nothing but an over-acting clown. I've heard he has some edge to him, some quality stuff... like Bob Sagat maybe... but in this type of movie he almost always seems to suck. Let's put it this way, if the same crew decided to shoot a PG-13 Cedric the Entertainer family biopic and they decided to cast the man himself in the lead, I don't think even he would want to go see it) and you have one limp mess of a boring/irritating movie. Not exactly something you'd want to pay for even if the cost of admission was a few hours of your life.
So, I guess this begs the question: is Tom Hanks really a completely talentless writer? Was this just a swing and a miss? Or does this indicate- as I kind of...sort of...am starting to think- that he's maybe starting to decline as a Hollywood force (and he's bringing Julia Roberts with him... though truthfully she's been heading down this path too)? Maybe all this is too harsh. Too much of a jump. A kneejerk reaction. I don't know. It's hard to say. His next movies and writing efforts (ugh) will let us know for sure. What I do know is the movie was crap and a definite stain on the resumes of everyone involved (with the possible exception of Wilmer Valderrama for whom this would-unfortunately- rank as a career highlight).
Grade: F
A little lunch-hour blogging... because it's been too long and if I put this off much longer I won't remember why I hated the movie. Well, that's probably not true. In fact, my hating it is about the only thing worth remembering about the movie. Anyway, it has been a while since I saw this crapfest of a flick. I think I saw it on July 24th. I didn't really feel much like writing about it then and less so now, but I did see it on the pass and I owe it to the three people out there who occasionally stumble on this blog to give them something to laugh at me about. (Oh, if they end up seeing Larry Crowne, they'll want to punch him and his movie in the throat too, they'll just laugh at my effort to write about it.)
So anyway, away we go.
Here's an equation for you: Tom Hanks+Julia Roberts+ x = awesomenations.
What does x stand for?
Trick question, actually. It can stand for a lot of things. x= good writing. x= 1990-2007. x=competent directing. x=blind, deaf, and dumb audiences. x almost certainly doesn't equal the cast and crew of Larry Crowne. Actually, I'm kind of wondering if we're not witnessing the decline of these two formerly super-bright stars. I know this much: I had little desire to rush out and see Larry Crowne. The fact that Hanks and Roberts were in it probably did help get me there so willingly, but it wasn't as though I had to see the movie because they were in it.... together no less. Thinking about it further though, there aren't a lot of typical Hanks and/or Roberts movies I would be excited to see. Certainly none starring Roberts. Hanks as at least shown an appetite for slight, almost undetectable risks. Roberts? Can't think of a movie that was much of a stretch for her. Maybe, Charlie Wilson's War or Erin Brockovich (maybe Closer as well but I haven't seen it and I'm skeptical that it strays from her norm too much. I am interested in seeing it though) but really if Erin Brockovich and Joanne Herring are the far-reaches of your career, it's hard to think of you as a risk-taker. And don't get me wrong, if you like Roberts' typical roles, that's ok. She plays them well. But the same thing, type, or whatever else, time after time... well, it's boring to me. Or I should say the type of role that Roberts takes time after time is boring to me. It has it's place here and there, and every now and again she does find a real winner, but really I feel like I've seen her bit before. Same goes- to a large degree for Hanks. He does generally have quite a few more appealing credits to his name but that is only partially his fault. Many writers and pundits have demonstrated (or attempted to demonstrate) that there really is a lack of comparable quality roles for men and women in the Hollywood system. Especially as the actors start getting older. That said, some actresses have constantly sought out more complex roles, but I, again, wouldn't put Roberts in that category. She takes what she likes- no fault there, but don't expect me to get excited... even though there is some part of me- the part that is clinging to my 1990s-early 2000s childhood/young adulthood that insists that they both are still major players and people for whom I should be excited. The sad reality, I suppose, is that for whatever reason (their lack of really quality roles, my ever-so-slightly more refined movie taste, or my growing up or whatever) I just don't seem to care as much about them. Somehow it seems wrong... but then there's Larry Crowne.
Let's cut right to the point. Larry Crowne sucked. I can't remember a movie I was closer to walking out on. This might even go down as Transformers 2/ GI Joe bad. But even there I wasn't as tempted to walk out, partially because of my morbid curiosity about what crazy/awful shit those movies would whip out to further brutalize my childhood. For this, I suppose, there was the factor that I didn't want to stick around to see exactly how far the mighty have fallen. But that's probably a little dramatic. In the end, it was just a mess of an uninspired movie. And for that reason, there's a lot more figurative blood on Tom Hanks' hands than Julia Roberts. It was Hanks, after all, who co-wrote, produced, and directed it.
For the sake of brevity, let's leave out the producing and directing angles. After all, Hanks has shown some degree of talent there... recently even. But the writing? The feel? The plot? Just awful. Uninspired (as I mentioned), formulaic, contrived, sloppy, unbelievable, and perhaps worst of all utterly unengaging. This was, for all intents and purposes, a stock rom-com hoping to cater to a specific (and rather narrow) audience of baby boomers who like rom-coms. Not particularly visionary. But I suppose not all movies need to be "visionary", but audiences should expect a movie not to be completely uninspired. Hanks stole the basic plot outline from any number of romantic comedies. Mr./Ms./Mrs. Right for whatever reason seems/is wrong for the other Mr./Ms./Mrs. Right (no bad people among the leads... too complicated... or it turns into a horror/thriller movie). Some hemming, hawing, complications go on that draw the two nearer to each. Finally there is an ultimate spark/realization/resolution that the two were right for each other after all. Cue teary/happy moment of confrontation/clarity. The two get together. And they live happily ever after (lest we have a repeat of... SPOILER ALERT... Roman Holiday). Oh, and spoiler alert (if you HAVEN'T seen the Larry Crowne trailer that is) for Larry Crowne as well, because I just completely spilled the plot there too. Yeah, you've seen this before. Only undoubtedly, you've seen it done better with fewer one-note, caricature, stock characters (anyone you can describe as "The ______" or "The ______ guy/girl" In this case we have The Stoner, The Shithead husband, The Confidently Quirky Hip Girl (rapidly become an archetype), The Latina, and the Evil Genius Asian (or the gimmick- played by George Takei... who is angling to become the male version of Betty White it would seem). Maybe they aren't all readily noticeable types but if you should see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. We've seen these folks before. Add into the mix some real forced and inconsistent quirk (I've said it before I love me some quirk. Love it. But it can't be quirk for quirk's sake, it has to feel natural, organic to the movie... Tom Hanks' Larry Crowne mispronouncing "spectacular" as "spectacalar" often in the beginning of the movie- attempt at a defining catchphrase???-only to see it dropped halfway through the film- failed attempt- and a a scooter or moped gang full of eclectic personalities including hipsters and tough guys are just two examples of out-of-left-field overkill), horrible pacing and story -and character- development, and the casting of Cedric the Entertainer in the movie (I don't want to crap on him unfairly. But in "safe" movies he comes off as nothing but an over-acting clown. I've heard he has some edge to him, some quality stuff... like Bob Sagat maybe... but in this type of movie he almost always seems to suck. Let's put it this way, if the same crew decided to shoot a PG-13 Cedric the Entertainer family biopic and they decided to cast the man himself in the lead, I don't think even he would want to go see it) and you have one limp mess of a boring/irritating movie. Not exactly something you'd want to pay for even if the cost of admission was a few hours of your life.
So, I guess this begs the question: is Tom Hanks really a completely talentless writer? Was this just a swing and a miss? Or does this indicate- as I kind of...sort of...am starting to think- that he's maybe starting to decline as a Hollywood force (and he's bringing Julia Roberts with him... though truthfully she's been heading down this path too)? Maybe all this is too harsh. Too much of a jump. A kneejerk reaction. I don't know. It's hard to say. His next movies and writing efforts (ugh) will let us know for sure. What I do know is the movie was crap and a definite stain on the resumes of everyone involved (with the possible exception of Wilmer Valderrama for whom this would-unfortunately- rank as a career highlight).
Grade: F
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)