Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two

Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two

Directed By: David Yates

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman and Helena Bonham Carter

Ten years and eight feature length films later, the adventures of J.K. Rowling's boy wizard comes to a close. A generation of kids who grew up reading about black magic, goblins and hidden Horcruxes will now be closing a chapter on their childhood. Although I have not read the books myself, many of my friends credit the series with teaching them about loyalty, friendship and first loves -- essential life lessons that go above and beyond what is normally expected in your average fantasy series. 

However, as I mentioned in my November 2010 review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One: Peter Jackson managed to make all three of his The Lord of the Rings films a cohesive story. They followed one thread and worked well, both together and as individual, stand-alone films. I find that this has never been the case with the Harry Potter franchise. Granted, there are a lot of films that the screenwriters have to struggle to string together, yet for someone like me who has never read the books, it can be alienating. Nearly each Harry Potter film has had a new director and, as a result, has a different tone and atmosphere than its predecessor, which I also think is the root cause of some of its issues. I think it makes them feel like jagged vignettes that don't always quite fit together as a whole.

In this final instalment the film begins right where the last one left off -- Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has retrieved the Elder Wand from the corpse of Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). Meanwhile, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) team up to try to find the mysterious Horcruxes -- each one containing a small, yet vital, fragment of Voldemort's soul. In destroying each of the Horcruxes, Voldemort's power weakens and sets the story up for the much-anticipated duel between Harry and his snake-like nemesis. 

Director David Yates returns with his same cast and crew and, as a result, these final two films in the franchise come together nicely in terms of atmosphere, tone and visuals. The cinematography is beautiful -- all dark greys, browns and earthy greens, lending the finale a sort of aesthetic acknowledgment that it has come to a dark, emotional end. 

Yet, Deathly Hallows Part Two lacks a structural tightness to its story, although this has more to do with Rowling than it is the fault of the screenwriters. From what I gather of the book series, it's ultimately all leading up to this final duel between good and evil. However, it does seem to have taken an awfully long time to get to the point of it all. Did Rowling really need seven novels of misadventures at Hogwarts to effectively illustrate her life lessons on friendship, loyalty and good vs. evil? Probably not. As a result, the entire film series was a combination of false starts and anti-climaxes, resulting in sometimes plodding films (specifically the sixth film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, of which I remember next to nothing, despite having seen it more than once). 

Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort.

The strongest link in this film franchise has, and always will be, the acting -- all of which improves with each film. Emma Watson (as Hermione) and Rupert Grint (as Ron), in particular, have both matured into great young actors who brought a lot to their roles as young, blossoming wizards. Without them, Harry would have ultimately failed in many of his tasks. Their unflagging loyalty to their gifted friend remains one of the franchise's most powerful lessons in what it means to be a true friend. It makes it inevitable that both Hermione and Ron will both come to appreciate that dedication in one another and fast-track their relationship past the platonic stage -- and thankfully Watson and Grint have a charming, opposites-attract chemistry. 

However, if this final instalment belongs to anyone, it belongs to Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman. Both do a tremendous job with what they are given to work with (which isn't a lot, especially in the case of Rickman). 

As Lord Voldemort, Fiennes is fabulous -- teaching the audience the art of subtlety; giving a masterful performance of evil, even while buried beneath layers and layers of caked on make-up with only his eyes to convey his dark thoughts. It's a pity it took so long for his character to come anywhere near front and centre in the franchise. Fiennes is absolutely fascinating to watch and he turned Voldemort into a remarkably creepy villain. 

Alan Rickman as Severus Snape.

As the tragically misunderstood Severus Snape, Rickman is finally given his chance to shine. Why Rowling took so long to reveal the unrequited love Snape harboured and his desire to protect Harry is anyone's guess. Rowling very nearly deprived her audience of feeling any sense of understanding for the Hogwarts teacher, choosing instead to reveal everything all at once at the very end. As a result, the audience is forced to quickly catch up on an entire life's worth of pining and loss in Snape. Oh, what might have been -- for both the character of Snape and Rickman as an actor -- had Rowling delved deeper into her creation much earlier in the series, allowing her audience to relate and grieve with Snape, instead of making it all feel like an afterthought. Instead, the audience is left wondering about what more there could have been to the tragic (and disappointingly underused) character of Snape. 

Once all is said and done, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two will likely leave all those loyal Potterheads happy, thrilled and nostalgic for their childhood. If those devotees left the theatre satisfied than that's ultimately all that matters. Although it was a flawed series it still achieved what any good blockbuster should -- a loyal fanbase that welcomed its coming-of-age life lessons and its portrayal of good vs. evil. 

FINAL GRADE: B

Question: What was your favourite Harry Potter film?

Movie Review: The King's Speech

The King's Speech (2010)
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter and Guy Pearce
Directed By: Tom Hooper

It has, arguably, been a slow year for film. Although there have been a few great ones along the way, I've found it tough to come up with a top ten list for the end of the year. Considering the Oscars will, yet again, announce 10 Best Picture nominees, a handful of those films will get in simply to fill out that list.

The King's Speech has had buzz surrounding it since its debut at the Toronto International Film Festival in September. The premise is simple enough and, on paper, doesn't sound like it would make for epic historical cinema.

Set in the late-1930s, with the ominous (and, at the time, largely misunderstood) rise of Nazism in the background, Prince Albert (Colin Firth) struggles to overcome a speech impediment he's had since childhood. His debilitating stammer has led to countless public embarrassments; however, a long line of "doctors" have been unable to find a cure. After the death of his father, George V (Michael Gambon) and the surprise abdication by his older brother, Edward VIII (Guy Pearce), Albert becomes King George VI and is thrust into the public domain at a time when Great Britain is on the brink of war and in need of leadership now more than ever. With the help of his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), George finds a speech therapist from Australia named Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a man with a reputation for unorthodox treatment methods.

Who knew a film focused on the speech therapy of a now-deceased king could make for such compelling drama? Even I had my doubts, going into the film. I worried the film was all hype and wouldn't live up to all of its praise. I'm glad I was wrong.

With the advent of mass communication in the form of the radio, George is expected to rise to the challenge and lead his people, as a united force, against Nazism. This would be no easy task for anyone, experienced or not, let alone someone with a deathly fear of public speaking due to a seemingly incurable speech impediment. George's desire to no longer speak with a pronounced stammer becomes less about helping himself and more about having the clarity and strength to inspire his people into action. He's no longer simply trying to find his own voice, but that of his entire kingdom. When his daughter, Elizabeth, asks him what Hitler is saying in a rousing speech the Royal Family watches on a newsreel, George replies wistfully: "I don't know. But, he seems to be saying it rather well."

Firth is on a hot streak. With The King's Speech coming so soon after his heartbreaking and underrated performance in A Single Man (2009), he is one of the best actors working in the industry today. As George VI, his performance is subtly beautiful. A lesser actor would have chewed the scenery and over-embellished every emotion, yet Firth's polished and nuanced performance adds layers of emotion and character development with professional restraint. The man understands his character and how to properly portray a man on the brink. It is, without a doubt, the finest performance by a male actor this year. Firth makes George VI heroic and brave without simply playing off his disability. Firth works hard to earn the audience's sympathy to the point where, in the climactic speech at the conclusion of the film, you are on the edge of your seat as though watching an action thriller. The scene is so exciting because Firth made it so.

As Lionel, Rush is at his quirky best. He's such a fine actor that he does more than his share in a supporting performance. At times both hilarious and fiercely proud of his work in his field, Lionel provides friendship and emotional support to a king that experienced very little of either growing up. Like his character, Rush provides support for Firth as both Firth's acting equal and for his ability to allow (and help) Firth to shine. Rush's work in The King's Speech is the definition of a supporting performance.

The rest of the cast is just as stellar, with Bonham Carter, Pearce and Gambon all strong in their supporting roles. If nothing else, the film is a genuine performance piece with talent at every turn.

Director Tom Hooper (who last year helmed the wonderful and sadly underrated film, The Damned United) has done a wonderful job of making what could have been a dry concept and turning it into something fascinating. I especially admired the unique framing techniques. The camera had the tendency to be off centre, leaving ample head room above the actors as well as on one side. It gave the film an artistic, indie feel. Most costume dramas tend to focus on beautiful pastoral images to make up for the stuffy, routine indoor shots; however, Hooper and his camera crew gave it a fresh spin.

The King's Speech just might end up being the film to beat during the awards season.

FINAL GRADE: A

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One
Directed By: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes and Helena Bonham Carter

First things first: I've never read J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. Therefore, I go into each film without any expectations and I can leave the theatre never feeling disappointed. However, because I'm unfamiliar with the books, I found this latest film a little hard to follow, compared to the others.

Peter Jackson managed to make all three of his The Lord of the Rings films a cohesive story. They followed one thread and worked well, both together and as individual, stand-alone films. I find that this has never been the case with the Harry Potter franchise. Granted, there are a lot of films that the screenwriters have to struggle to string together, yet for someone like me who has never read the books, it can be alienating. Each Harry Potter film has had a new director and, as a result, has a different tone and atmosphere than its predecessor, which I also think is the root cause of some of its issues. I think it makes them feel like jagged vignettes that don't quite fit together as a whole.

All that being said, Deathly Hallows is the best film in the franchise since Alfonso Cuaron directed the third instalment, The Prisoner of Azkaban. For the first time since this series first started back in 2000, I felt like things were finally starting to get interesting. It just unfortunately took six films to reach this point. After a whole lot of anti-climaxes and false starts, things are being set up for a final duel between Harry and Voldemort. The plot of Deathly Hallows is essentially all the exposition stuff that needs to get out of the way before the final film this July. We have Harry preparing to face Voldemort. We have Hermione and Ron getting closer to revealing their feelings for one another. We have Voldemort getting his hands on the (apparently very important) wand that was in Dumbledore's possession (help me out here, Potter fans. I forget what the combination of the wand, cloak of invisibility and ...that other thing ...meant). Anyway, Voldemort now has that wand and, from what I gather, that's a very, very bad thing.

Visually, the film is fantastic. The kids are no longer at Hogwarts (thank god for small miracles ...it was about time the series broke away from its formulaic plotting). It was nice seeing the three leads away from school and their friends and teachers. As a result, their travels take them to some dark and visually stunning areas of England, where Dickensian villains in plaid pants and ponytails lurk in the shadows. It was a refreshing change.

The reason this film works so well, is the acting. By far, it's the strongest film in terms of acting for this franchise. We finally see (and hear!) more of Voldemort (played by the incomparable Ralph Fiennes). I mean, here's this fantastic villain and he barely registers any screen time. Only Rowling would relegate a great bad guy like this to the background for the sake of a bunch of children and their uninteresting Hogwarts teachers. Fiennes is perfect in an early scene where he's meeting with other evil minions (including Helena Bonham Carter's Belatrix and Jason Isaac's Lucius Malfoy). He's all slitherly, creepy perfection. Even Isaac's small role as Lucius is excellent. If nothing else, this series has never been short of brilliant veteran British actors. The same can be said for Alan Rickman, reduced to a small role in this film, but still, as always, reliably wonderful. Another wonderful casting choice was David O'Hara (he of crazy Stephen in Braveheart) as the man Harry inhabits to enter the Ministry of Magic. This might not make any sense, but once you see the scene, you will know what I mean. O'Hara perfectly captured the posture and mannerisms of Harry/Daniel Radcliffe to the point where I wish Harry would stay in his body for the duration of the film. It was a wonderful, entertaining role.

Most surprising, however, are two of the three leads. I've usually been pretty hard on Emma Watson in past films (she being the Queen of Runaway Eyebrow Acting). Watching Deathly Hallows, however, I wondered if she'd taken acting lessons. She seems to have matured as an actress, going for subtlety over exaggerated reactions. She's reigned in those eyebrows and blossomed into a solid young actress. Rupert Grint has finally been allowed to move on from his previous role of comedic sidekick. He's actually given dramatic scenes and he's more than up to the task. Out of the entire series, Ron is my favourite character (and it's not just because I'm a sucker for redheads). I always thought Grint seemed like he had a good performance in him, but was never given the chance to shine. He was more than up to the task in Deathly Hallows. My problem is with Daniel Radcliffe as Harry. I find his performance uneven and far too forced. He doesn't have the natural charm and charisma of Grint or the fiery subtlety of Watson. He's nowhere near as atrocious as the actress who plays Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright), but he's definitely the weakest link of the three leads.

Overall, it's an entertaining film and, as I said earlier, the strongest instalment since The Prisoner of Azkaban. In an uneven series (with formulaic plotting, unexplained plot scenarios and the most anti-climactic death scenes of main characters I've ever seen on film), Deathly Hallows promises the series will go out with a bang. Although it's essentially only half a film, the final cliffhanger scene even had me intrigued. Perfect? No. A solid set-up vehicle for the final film? Yes.

FINAL GRADE: B

Movie Review: Alice in Wonderland

DIRECTED BY: Tim Burton
STARRING: Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska Helena Bonham Carter and Crispin Glover

Despite it's huge haul at the box office, one of the most anticipated films of 2010 is also one of its biggest duds.

Tim Burton's disappointingly dull re-imagining of the famous Lewis Carroll story, Alice in Wonderland suffers from extreme bouts of boredom and poor script pacing.

Alice (Aussie newcomer Mia Wasikowska) is much older, but none the wiser, in Burton's Wonderland sequel. Now nineteen years old and expected to marry, Alice once again falls down that crazy rabbit hole and into a world fantasy and violence. She can't recall her first time spent in Wonderland as a child and brushes off her current adventures as nothing more than an outlandish dream. Along the way she reunites with old friends, specifically the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), who informs her that the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) leaves behind destruction and death wherever she goes. Alice is expected to slay a dragon (?!) and help the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) regain the throne she lost to the Red Queen after an epic battle.

Despite everything just mentioned, there actually isn't any discernible plot. Burton and his screenwriters have taken bits and pieces from both of Carroll's books and strung them together into little vignettes which amount to nothing of any significance. Alice still takes a drink from a bottle and grows in size. She still meets up with the Mad Hatter in the midst of a tea party. But why replay these scenes if this film is to be treated as a sequel? Despite the subplots of having to slay a dragon and aide the White Queen, Alice in Wonderland does very little during its two hour running time. The pace is so leisurely that it quickly becomes boring; something is never recovers from.

The much ballyhooed 3D amounts to nothing. Unlike James Cameron's Avatar, which made full use of its CGI and 3D technology, Alice in Wonderland pales in comparison. The 3D effects are so poorly utilized it's easy to forget you aren't just watching it in normal 2D.

Tim Burton's lavish sets (often inspired by his love for the German Expressionist films of the 1920's) are lacking due to the largely CGI-created visuals. The unique visual style Burton so often brings to his modern fables is missing here. Instead of dark, ominous corridors (Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street), structurally inept houses (Beetlejuice) and dark, threatening skies (Batman, Sleepy Hollow), we get a computer-animated world that bears no resemblance to the Burton films we know and love. One of the charms of Burton's films are his set designs and the fact that he rarely relies heavily on CGI. Too much green screen and so few actual props and sets makes for an unimaginative and an un-Burtonesque film.

Burton excels at bringing out the humanity in every quirk and weirdo in his films. Alice in Wonderland is full of these types of characters. What Wonderland lacked, more than anything, was that human touch that Burton so charmingly brought to life with his unique characters in Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood.

As Alice, Wasikowska is a bore. There is no reason to root for Alice or to even worry about her character's fate. She moves through each scene in a charming blue dress, with little to do or say. Granted, the script gave Wasikowska little to work with, however, she wasn't able to rise above the drudge and create a feisty heroine. Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter is given little to do. It's as though Burton decided to rely solely on giving Mad Hatter a strange costume and CGI-enlargened eyes; as though that would be enough to make everyone rave about Depp and the film. It would have been more effective had Burton and Depp conspired to make Mad Hatter a genuinely unhinged character; someone who wanted to help Alice while also making sure that his Wonderland maintained an air of lunacy. It seemed as though Depp was just going through the motions. Three excellent British actors (Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat, Michael Sheen as the White Rabbit and Alan Rickman as the Blue Caterpillar)are all wasted in small speaking roles that are given such a tiny amount of screen time that their roles are rendered pointless.

The two standouts are the always reliable Helena Bonham Carter as the ranting and raving Red Queen and the wonderfully oddball Crispin Glover as her eye-patched henchman, Stayne.

What once seemed like an ideal pairing (Burton and Carroll) has instead become a major disappointment. Instead of a dark, dangerous and terrifying Wonderland for adults and teens, we get, at best, a mediocre children's film. Burton has such a strong resume that it's doubtless that he will bounce back and recover with a better film. Here's hoping he goes back to his roots doing what he does best: making Tim Burton films.

GRADE: C