A Bigger Splash (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 122 minutes
Director: Luca Guadagnino
Writer: Alain Page (story), David Kajganich (screenplay)
Cast: Tilda Swinton, Ralph Fiennes, Matthias Schoenaerts, Dakota Johnson

A Bigger Splash is now showing in Australian cinemas and is distributed by Studiocanal.

Lucas Guadagnino's The Bigger Splash is a slow-burning, sexually charged film about heightened emotions that is a stunning achievement in cinematography and editing.

After singing sensation, Marianne (Tilda Swinton) undergoes throat surgery, she takes a much needed therapeutic vacation to the Italian island of Pantelleria with her boyfriend, Paul (Matthias Schoenaerts). Their time of much needed and glorious solitude is disrupted when Marianne's past love and record producer, Harry (Ralph Fiennes) arrives with his daughter, Penelope (Dakota Johnson). What was supposed to be an idyllic and uneventful summer of rehabilitation for Marianne and Paul turns into a time of temptation, hostility and jealousy.

Based on the Jacques Deray's 1969 film La piscine, A Bigger Splash lives up to it's name as it's impact is greater felt than in the original. Guadagnino's film is a psychological, sexual thriller which slowly simmers it's way to the inevitable showdown between all the characters. It's incredibly slow pace and techniques of building tension using symbolism and unique cinematography is particularly Hitchcock-esque and one would believe that if Hitchcock himself were to make a modern day film set in such a setting, it would greatly resemble A Bigger Splash.

Those who are strong in their belief of film as art will revel in the film's finer qualities and enjoy the slow burn nature it possesses, while those who prefer a heightened sense of tension by way of a fast moving thriller will not understand the appeal of A Bigger Splash. However, both parties will agree that the film is approximately 20 minutes longer than it should be with the final few scenes feeling unwarranted and misplaced. Yes, the film is a slow burn....until it reaches it's explosive conflict and suddenly everything speeds up. It is obvious that there is a point to including these final scenes, but they do feel out of place with the majority of the film.

A Bigger Splash has an unique way of looking at human qualities such as jealousy, addiction and temptation. The choice made for Tilda Swinton's Marianne to technically have no voice is a particularly interesting one. By taking away something like the gift of speech, it paves the way for other modes of communication to be heightened. This symbolises how while the characters may not always be saying how they are feeling, their emotions are showing loud and clear in other ways. The cinematography helps one to see these feelings where it is needed using particularly interesting means of doing so such as focusing in on certain images and using camera angles to give the viewer the same view as the characters in the film.

One cannot deny how aesthetically pleasing A Bigger Splash is. The location shots for the film are absolutely exquisite, but also create an atmosphere where one feels the dangerous and tempestuous air in paradise. It is easy to imagine what forbidden things could take place on an island such as Pantelleria, as it is comparable to the Garden of Eden with the temptation of the forbidden fruit. Adding to the beauty of the film is the wonderful costume design by Guilia Piersanti, particularly that of Swinton's wardrobe.

Tilda Swinton gives a stunning performance as glam-rock star, Marianne. She is particularly superb given her lack of dialogue due to her character's loss of voice and when she does attempt to speak, the frustration of her situation (or situations once you include the fact that her old flame is crashing her love nest) is evident. Matthias Schoenaerts does well by bringing to light the sheer awkwardness of the situation and trying to handle his addiction recovery by not giving into temptation when it is all around him. Dakota Johnson is fine, yet her character is an object of temptation for the men of the film and perhaps her sexuality is a little too obvious. She more often than not wears see-through clothes, when her sexuality would be just as obvious with a bit more covered up.

Ralph Fiennes is surely the star of the film with his life of the party character. The highlight of the film (as was it's premiere at the Venice Film Festival) is Fiennes' dancing to The Rolling Stones. Besides his dancing, he gives an inspired performance with a great deal of character. Harry may seem incredibly likable and fun to be around, but he is actually quite a destructive human being both to himself and others. He draws people in with his charm and then shows his true colours and remarkably he knows this and is unapologetic.

The slow burn nature of A Bigger Splash will divide audiences, but it's visual elegance is hypnotic for even non-believers.

7/10

Hail, Caesar! (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 106 minutes
Directors/Writers: Joel and Ethan Coen
Cast: Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, Ralph Fiennes, Scarlett Johansson, Alden Ehrenreich, Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Frances McDormand, Alison Pill

Hail, Caesar! opens in Australian cinemas on February 25 and now showing in the United States. Distributed by Universal Pictures.

Joel and Ethan Coen have penned the ultimate love letter to old Hollywood with Hail, Caesar! The film is a masterpiece in the eyes of those who are fascinated with the golden age of Hollywood, but with it's entertaining screenplay and stunning visual production can be enjoyed on a much larger scale by all audiences.

It would seem that Hollywood studio fixer, Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) really has his work cut out for him today. His daily job consists of keeping the contract players of Capitol Pictures in line and making sure that the public continues to see them in the best light possible, especially with tabloid reporters, Thora Thacker and her sister, Thessaly (both portrayed by Tilda Swinton) prowling the studio. When one of their biggest stars, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is abducted during the filming of a production of epic proportions, Mannix must try and conceal the true nature of his disappearance as well as bide by his kidnappers demands. All this while making sure Capitol Pictures is still running smoothly around this scandal and that the stars, including starlet DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson) and cowboy turned drama star, Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) are causing as little trouble as possible.

Hail, Caesar! is absolutely immersed in references to the golden age of Hollywood. To truly understand the extent of how much the film is cleverly inspired by the Southern California film industry of the 1950's, one must already possess a certain amount of knowledge and fascination regarding this era. However, it is not a prerequisite to find incredible enjoyment in the film by any means. Hail, Caesar! is a great deal of fun with it's hilarious screenplay featuring colourful characters in the most entertaining of scenarios. The Coen brothers screenplay is unique to their films because although there is the main storyline of Baird Whitlock's abduction, it is not the strong, solid heart of the film and this is fine because that's not what it's supposed to be. Hail, Caesar! is a portrait of Hollywood history in a time now long gone and doesn't focus on just one aspect, but instead focuses on the industry and it's inner workings as a whole.

The nostalgic film with it's glorious production and costume design (by Jess Gonchor and Mary Zophres) is a mixture of old Hollywood fact and fiction. However, even the fictionalized aspects of Hail, Caesar! are based on and reference true to life elements of 1950's Hollywood. How much of old Hollywood that is acutely incorporated into the film visually and as part of it's screenplay is astounding and this would not have been able to so if Hail, Caesar! was only focused primarily on the Baird Whitlock abduction.

Capitol Pictures is a product of the Coen brothers' imagination, but it is evidently based on the legendary Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) which is considered by many to have been the greatest of the old Hollywood studios. The fictional studio visually resembles MGM, particularly the side gates, but perhaps the biggest resemblance is the fact that MGM did indeed have a fixer by the name of Eddie Mannix who worked for the studio covering up many a celebrity scandal. However, the similarities between the real life Mannix and Josh Brolin's Mannix end there. While the Mannix of Hail, Caesar! is affable, likable and a man looking for a way to spend time with his family, the real life Mannix had to cover up more sinister events and earned an unsavoury reputation. He was personally linked to the death of Superman actor, George Reeves as his wife, Toni was having an affair with Reeves. Brolin's Mannix makes for a more appropriate hero in Hail, Caesar! with his strong conscience, as he wants to do the right thing and worries that his job prevents him from doing what is honest.

The Coen brothers once again give George Clooney the opportunity to show his comedic ability and as Baird Whitlock he provides many a laugh. Clooney's Whitlock has the movie idol appeal while on set, but comes across as a less than intelligent being away from the camera which produces much hilarity. He comes in contact with a group not unlike the Hollywood 10, who were a group of screenwriters and producers in the 1950's that were Communist sympathizers (and who were also featured in the recent film, Trumbo).

Although Clooney is marketed as the member of the cast generating the most laughs, Alden Ehrenreich undoubtedly has the best comedic moments of the film. Ehrenreich plays Hobie Doyle, a young star of westerns who is given the news that the studio has decided to change his image and make him into a dramatic actor. He is also given instructions by Capitol to take actress, Carlotta Valdez (who, although her name is the same as the ill-fated women in Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, is a character much like Carmen Miranda) to his movie premiere as his date, although he has never met her before. Hobie is a product of the studio system, where studios determined who they wanted their stars to be, how they were marketed and, in this case, who they dated. This was a system that would not always ensure success for their stars, as is shown in Hail, Caesar! with Hobie and his difficulty to transition into a serious actor with no warning. Ehrenreich is absolutely wonderful as Hobie as he generates a great deal of sympathy as a result of his terror not wanting to disappoint. With his natural comedic ability, he is so likable and relatable and manages to outshine many of his more well known co-stars.

Old Hollywood enthusiasts will jump on the obvious resemblance of Scarlett Johnasson's DeeAnna Moran to musical water baby, Esther Williams. Her mermaid sequence pays tribute to the Busby Berkeley musicals with their aerial shots and is truly exquisite with it's beautiful colours and costumes. Yet, when DeeAnna opens her mouth her resemblance to Williams ends there. DeeAnna is at the centre of a public relations nightmare and her case is the type of predicament which Hollywood fixers were hired to work on. DeeAnna's problem and the solution given by Mannix is actually very similar to what resulted from a flirtation between Loretta Young and a married Clark Gable in 1935 while they were filming The Call of The Wild  together.

Channing Tatum as Burt Gurney channels Gene Kelly during his song and dance routine, which is incredibly funny and entertaining. Tilda Swinton portrays both Thora and Thessaly Thackery, a particularly Coen-esque creation where twin columnist sisters are both competing to get the big scoop. The rivalry of Thora and Thessaly is much like the rivalry between Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons, two old Hollywood gossip columnists who competed with each other over the big scoops from the studios. Swinton's characters display attributes which the two women both had, especially the ability to manipulate and blackmail in order to obtain the information they needed. It was important that the studio executives keep these two on their side and fed them newsworthy information, because being on their bad side could mean disaster for the studio and their stars.

Hail, Caesar! is genius in the way it incorporates so much of old Hollywood. It is an incredibly fun piece of cinema that pays tribute to the past in the most entertaining and enjoyable of ways.

9/10

Spectre (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 148 minutes
Director: Sam Mendes
Writers: Ian Fleming (characters), John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade (story and screenplay), Jez Butterworth (screenplay)
Cast: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Ralph Fiennes, Lea Seydoux, Ben Whishaw, Monica Bellucci, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista, Andrew Scott, Rory Kinnear, Jesper Christensen

Spectre is now showing everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Sony Pictures.

With 24 films now making up the 007 catalogue, James Bond fans have been spoilt over the years with the variation of quality films to be featured within the realm. However, the variation of films has meant that many fans prefer a particular type of Bond film over another and Spectre is the type of Bond film that will appeal to some of his faithful more than others. As a stand alone film it is particularly well made, but unlike many of the past Bond film does require a pinch of knowledge of the past films with an unexpected link between films.

After James Bond (Daniel Craig) receives a message from beyond the grave following his last mission, he starts to believe that there may be a connection to a higher organisation, despite reservations from M (Ralph Fiennes) who is preoccupied and fighting the agency's own war in London. His suspicions turn out to be justified when he tracks down the underground organisation, but he never suspected the head of their organisation would be a direct link to his past and someone who still very much holds a grudge against him. To stop his long lost enemy, he must track him down before his followers find him and protect Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux) who he swore to protect.

Spectre is a Bond film that will delight some and infuriate others. In the past four Bond films where Daniel Craig has played the special agent, we have seen a James Bond that is more humanized than he has been in the past when portrayed by such favourites as Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Rather than be the mysterious, enigmatic Bond with a past that isn't discussed, Craig's Bond has been the one that has opened a chapter on finding out who really is the man behind the mystery. In Casino Royale, audiences were treated to an understanding of why he never could quite settle or calm down with women as the one true love of his life in Vesper Lynd was cruelly taken from him. In Spectre, the subject of his upbringing and his family is approached as never before. Therefore, Craig's Bond becomes more relatable and more human...which won't sit well with fans of the past James Bond. Missing from Spectre is also the abundance of fun gadgets and gizmos which Bond films had become known for. In Sam Mendes' film, there is the obvious inclusion of Q's (Ben Whishaw) improved Aston Martin and a watch which is really a secret weapon.

So it is these members of the fandom who appreciate the older Bond who will feel that Spectre has not paid a proper tribute to their beloved spy hero. Yet, there are also fans who have found that in the past decade, this Bond played by Craig has been the one they greater admire. Something that fans of the last four films will appreciate more than others is the way that Spectre answers questions regarding Bond's past and links up with Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. With it's well-written screenplay, the film offers it's audience a sense of intrigue as to what really did happen in Bond's past as it is a personal journey for Bond. Although even this inclusion of learning more about Bond's family may be problematic to some, as these revelations almost appear out of nowhere when his family and past have only had miniscule mentions over the past fifty years of Bond. Yet, it is refreshing knowing more about 007.

However, Spectre is undeniably a very well made film. The opening scene, which takes place on the Day of the Dead in Mexico City, is incredibly impressive with a great air of intrigue and danger, exquisite travelling camera shots and wonderful costumes and music. One thing that no Bond fan will be disappointed with is the quality and quantity of action sequences. The special effects used in the highly intense scenes which involve combat or explosions are incredible and wonderfully designed. The production, set and art design is brilliant and costume design by Jany Temime perfect. "Writing's On The Wall", as sung by Sam Smith, is another great Bond theme song which fits the feeling of the film as the opening credits play.

Daniel Craig gives another solid performance as James Bond. It is perhaps not his most emotional of performances as the man and considering the subject of his family and childhood, should have gave a bit more. However, this would again be out of character for James Bond if he had become too emotional. Ralph Fiennes as the new M is very good and gives the character the strength and presence it deserves. Ben Whishaw is always quirky and intriguing as Q and Lea Seydoux gives an incredibly strong performance in her turn as a Bong girl. However, Christoph Waltz as a Bond villain does not hit the mark quite as powerfully as what he should. There is no denying that Waltz is very charismatic on screen, but the role does not seem so far removed from his previous villainous roles and does not come across as overly intimidating.

Spectre is a Bond film that will have it's admirers and critics depending on what type of Bond fan one is. A stunning film, but hard to judge it as a stand alone film when it has obvious links to previous Bond films.

7.5/10

The Invisible Woman (2013)

Year: 2013
Running Time: 111 minutes
Director: Ralph Fiennes
Writers: Claire Tomalin (book), Abi Morgan (screenplay)
Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Felicity Jones, Kristin Scott Thomas, Joanna Scanlan, Tom Hollander, Tom Burke, Amanda Hale, Perdita Weeks

The Invisible Woman is a beautiful piece of period cinema. It tells a widely unknown story about a well known public figure who had another side to him, which makes the story as well as it's stunning visuals intriguing. While it is visually pleasing and wonderfully acted, The Invisible Woman is also incredibly slow moving in order to build emotional tension. This pace can also work in the opposite way as it slows down the film dramatically and allows the story to lose momentum while it is trying to build your senses.

The Invisible Woman tells the story of Charles Dickens' young mistress, Ellen Ternan. Ellen, otherwise known as Nelly (Felicity Jones) first met Dickens (Ralph Fiennes) when her and her family travel north to appear in one of his plays. Ternan was an admirer of his work beforehand and is in awe of her literary hero, while Dickens is quite besotted with the youngest daughter of Frances Ternan (Kristin Scott Thomas). As he is feeling a great distance being drawn between himself and his wife, Catherine (Joanna Scanlan), Dickens peruses Ternan who at first resists his charms in an attempt to protect her reputation, but cannot deny that she feels the same way about the charismatic writer.

The story The Invisible Woman presents us what you want to see when you go to a biographical film and that is a story which we have not heard before. The existence of the relationship between Dickens and Ternan was not a widely known one at the time, although talk did exist in the rumour mill. It wasn't until both parties were gone that their relationship became more well known. It is always a good thing to see an unknown aspect of a public figure in a film as it presents something new and intriguing. The screenplay is quite well written and the language used is perfect for the time period.

It is the pace of the film that is the real talking point. The Invisible Woman is really very slow and the use of flashbacks at different points throughout the film makes it even slower. The pace is used as a technique to build emotional tension, so you are able to feel the rise in feelings between Dickens and Ternan and really be absorbed in the beauty of the film both visually and mentally. However, it doesn't do much for the building of tension in the actual story. There is a very calming atmosphere to many of the scenes and while this is a beautiful and subtle aspect of the film, it doesn't do anything for the suspense of the film. However, the film is not supposed to be a highly suspenseful film, it is a film which is largely character driven and wants you to be swept up in the characters emotions in the same way they are and the pace must be used as a tool for this. This may not be to the delight of everyone though, as many people want a film to be driven by the suspense in the story rather than emotional tension.

The Invisible Woman is what every period film should be. It is extremely atmospheric and visually stunning. You live and breathe England in the 1850's while you are watching Dickens and Ternan. The architecture is exquisite and the set design of interiors of the houses are wonderfully fitting for the time period. The outside locations are so peaceful and calming and are beautiful in every way. The costume design is also wonderful, particularly that of the Ternan girls dresses.

Ralph Fiennes and Felicity Jones are both wonderful in this film. Fiennes completely embodies the great writer and is so captivating when he is on screen. He is able to uncannily give the impression of his character having many layers to his personality without having to exhibit these layers. Fiennes is also one of the wonderful actors who has the ability to direct himself perfectly. Felicity Jones is gorgeous as Ellen Ternan. It is wonderful to see Jones in a role like this and it feels as though this is her first really grown up role. She plays Ternan with a perfect amount of innocence and naivety, while also showing that she is also strong and of high morals. The chemistry between Fiennes and Jones on screen is very good. It may not be electrifying, but there are some very beautiful moments between the two which show how much romantic tension there is between the two of them.

Joanna Scanlan, who plays Catherine Dickens is also very good. Her character is quite interesting as she is the opposite to Ternan in every way, but also has some very endearing qualities. The scene when she comes to visit Ternan is brilliant as she doesn't assume the role of the scorned wife, but of a woman who is really not quite sure what to do in her situation and doesn't want to cause a scene. It is also interesting watching her and Fiennes in their scenes together, as there emotional and physical distance is not glaring obvious, but subtle. You do feel a great sympathy for her and Scanlan does well to evoke this.

The Invisible Woman is a beauty of a film and a wonderful period piece. Yet it's pace makes it not a film for everyone as it gives too much to one goal and not enough to the other.

7/10

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

 

Year: 2014
Running Time: 100 minutes
Director: Wes Anderson
Writers: Stefan Zweig (based on the writings by), Hugo Guinness (story), Wes Anderson (story and screenplay)
Cast: Ralph Fiennes, F. Murray Abraham, Jude Law, Tony Revolori, Adrien Brody, Tilda Swinton, Jeff Goldblum, William H. Macy, Saoirse Ronan, Mathieu Amalric, Lea Seydoux, Harvey Keitel

The Grand Budapest Hotel will be released in Australia on the 10th April and is distributed by 20th Century Fox. Now showing in the United States and United Kingdom.

Wes Anderson's latest piece of cinema, The Grand Budapest Hotel is absolutely nothing short of grand itself. There is so much to marvel at during a viewing of this quirky but brilliant film. So much that you feel as though you need to watch it again just in case you missed something the first time around, and this is no bad thing. The whole film is a beautiful piece of art thanks to it's amazing visuals, extraordinary cinematography, interesting characters and wonderful screenplay.

While a young writer (Jude Law) is staying at the tired and rundown Grand Budapest Hotel, he meets the hotel's owner, Mr Mustafa (F. Murray Abraham) and enquires how he came to own the hotel. Mustafa tells the young writer of how he was a lobby boy (played by Tony Revolori) at the hotel between the wars and developed a close friendship with the concierge, M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes). The intriguing tale of how these two became so close is one of theft, murder and adventure.

This is absolutely Wes Anderson's most visually beautiful film to date. There is not enough that can be said about the incredible production design employed in The Grand Budapest Hotel. Each shot is a unique piece of artwork carefully designed to create both awe and intrigue in the viewer.  From the very first scene in the cemetery, you are completely enthralled by how interesting the location is and the interest stirred in this opening continues throughout the film. The models of the hotel itself and of the structures among the mountains are just exquisite and somewhat playful at the same time. What does strike you watching the film is how neat and clean cut it is. Everything in the background of each shot is perfectly symmetrical from the pigeonholes at the hotel's front desk, to the prison beds to the formation of the soldiers on the train. While many of the shots employed are not uncommon in Anderson's body of work, this is the best use of his signature techniques thus far.

Before The Grand Budapest Hotel was released, there were several instructions sent out to the cinemas who would be showing this film. These instructions included using widescreen in panoramic shots and shortening the screen in others, a great technique as it draws the audience into the picture more. The musical score is also extraordinarily intriguing, particularly in the parts of high tension when the music would have you believe you are watching a horror or thriller film from the 1930's. The Grand Budapest Hotel is also extremely atmospheric and nostalgic of it's time and place in an unique fashion. You can smell the scent of the hotel in both it's glory days and it's harsh times, as well as feel the cold and harshness of the conditions in the European state of unrest.

The screenplay, based on the writings of  Stefan Zweig, is also very good. Through the film you know where it is heading, but you don't know how it is getting there and the way it gets there is not as interesting as the visuals, but still extremely entertaining. People familiar with other Wes Anderson films such as The Royal Tenenbaums and The Darjeeling Limited will know that Anderson's brand of humour is not the stereotypical Hollywood humour, and that this unconventional, quirky sense of humour may strike some members of the audience as weird and dull. However, the ones who do appreciate this quirkiness will be pleased. There are not many moments where you feel like rolling on the floor laughing, but are many amusing pieces of dialogue and comedic timing by the performers.

The Grand Budapest Hotel has an impressive stellar cast, many who have worked with Anderson before and again perform well under his guidance. Ralph Fiennes is wonderful as M. Gustave. He has a tremendous amount of character and although some of his practises are questionable to say the least, he is very likable. His entertaining dialogue is delivered exquisitely with perfect timing and emotion where called for.

An unrecognisable Tilda Swinton's role is somewhat brief, but her time on screen as Gustave's much older lover is definitely memorable.It is a pleasure to see F. Murray Abraham on screen, as his charisma gives off an air of respect and importance, although in the most subtle way. Adrien Brody and William H. Macy are the villains of the story and are really a lot of fun, particularly Macy.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is an absolute cinematic treat. There is real fun to be had with this film and if you love Wes Anderson's unique film making style, this is nothing short of a masterpiece.

8.5/10

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Year: 2011

Director: David Yates

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton

In My Own Words

                Well, here we are. At the end of the Harry Potter film series. It really is the end of an era. I feel the way I did at the end of the Lord Of The Rings series, but perhaps a bit sadder to say goodbye than I was then. With Lord Of The Rings it was a film series of three years, Harry Potter it feels like when you were at school. You meet all these news friends on your first day of high school and on the last day of school it’s like you are saying goodbye forever. Although with leaving school you tend to see everybody again. No more Harry though! It really is a sad feeling for die hard supporters such as myself.

                I would be lying if I said I had always liked the Harry Potter books and movies. I have liked them for a long time now, but not since the first book or movie was released. I remember being in high school (that subject seems to be coming up a bit in this post) when the first book came out and quite a few of my school friends were reading. I was a tad confused as to why as I thought that Harry Potter was for children. A few years went by and when Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban was released, I thought “I may want to see this film” (this was before I was a film reviewer). So I went out and hired the first two movies. I was hooked. This series was so much fun to watch and not to mention completely addictive. So I have been a die hard fan since 2004.

                I guess what a lot of people like about Harry Potter is not just that it has these three misfits who you almost fell like you get to grow up with or it  meddles with the idea of a magical, fun world running parallel with reality, but it is always a great form of discussion. Before the final book was released, theories about how it was going to end were flying around all over the place. Even know, people think there may be something more which J. K. Rowling isn’t telling us. The films and the books will always draw people together in conversation and be and interesting conversation starter.

                I miss the movies already and I have only been out of the cinema for an hour! It is a sad feeling that it is now all over. I really hope the best for Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. They are each wonderful actors in their own right and I really hope we are going to see lots more of them in the future. I recently saw Rupert Grint in Wild Target on DVD which I really enjoyed him in, and I am looking forward to seeing Daniel Radcliffe in The Woman In Black and Emma Watson in My Week With Marilyn.

                These are my own words and here is my Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 review. Enjoy.

Review

                 “It All Ends” shouts the posters for Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2. And so it does. After 10 years and 8 Harry Potter films, the final movie event in J. K. Rowling’s phenomenon finally hits cinemas. It is a bittersweet experience for fans which these films and their almost annual releases have become a part of their lives for a decade. The final film doesn’t disappoint for these die hard fans. It is a fitting farewell to the characters which they love and stays true to the book, with some slight adjustments to aid the excitement on the big screen. However, those who haven’t seen any Harry Potter films before and are thinking about seeing this film, shouldn’t unless you watch at the very least Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 1.

                The final Harry Potter film picks up right where it left off in Part 1. Lord Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) power is at its strongest and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his ever trusted friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) know they have to find all the horcruxes in order to kill him once and for all. The showdown takes place at Hogwarts, which is now under the rule of assumed Voldemort follower Severus Snape (Alan Rickman). One thing is for certain in the final war between Harry and Voldemort, only one will survive.

                The great things about the final instalment of the Harry Potter series is that it delivers everything it promises to be. There is suspense from the beginning to the end of the film and it does stay true to the book. In some ways, the final scene at Hogwarts is anti-climatic and may be a bit too subtle for some people. However, it is plain to see why director, David Yates chose to make it like this. It isn’t cliché or a scene where people wave their fists in the air in response to the ending of the battle, and it is a feeling of surrealism and calm now that it is finally all over, and a feeling of wondering where to go from there.

                The directing and cinematography is actually the best in this film than any of the other films. There are some great techniques used in filming some scenes in particular, such as at the very beginning when the three friends are standing outside Olivander’s door and are almost silhouettes. The sound affects for the battle scenes are very impressive, as are the visuals and special effects in these scenes.

                The only real downfall of the film is that it is not quite as emotional in certain scenes as it should be. This is not to say that there is no emotion in this film at all, as there definitely is and there are tears to be shed. Yet, some scenes such as when somebody is thought to be dead, there is only a reaction from one person and barely any tears from others who should be showing some type of emotion.

                As for the acting, job well done by all. Radcliffe gives his best performance as Potter in this film. He isn’t over the top and he is a complete natural now, as you would hope he would be as if he didn’t know his character inside and out by now, he never will. Only criticism is that his chemistry with Bonnie Wright, who plays his love interest, Ginny Weasley is almost non-existent.

                Again, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are very good. Neither is over the top and give their characters all they can. It is almost a moment of triumph when these two finally kiss on screen as everybody has been waiting for this for years. You can see that these two are very close as friends in real life, as they just work on screen together and are very sweet.

                Perhaps the best performance in the film is that of Alan Rickman. He is fantastic in this film. He has the most complex character in the series and in this final film, his character is completely broken down and all the raw emotion of this character comes to the screen. Ralph Fiennes is also brilliant as Voldemort. He is as evil as they come and shows no hint of having any good in his soul at all. Helena Bonham Carter is not on screen too much as Bellatrix Lestrange, but she makes an impact when she is. A great moment and a credit to her acting is when Hermione has taken the polyjuice potion to make her Bellatrix and Bonham Carter charges everything about her performance. You completely forget that you are watching Bonham Carter pretend to be Watson and believe that it really is Hermione trying to be Bellatrix.

                It is definitely a sad time to see the Harry Potter series finish up, but Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is a fitting conclusion to the phenomenon. Again, non-fans of the books or movies or people who haven’t had anything to do with either, shouldn’t waste their time as they will have no idea what is going on, but fans will love it. Don’t cry because it’s over, smile because it happened.

7.5/10

            

Harry Potter and The Deathy Hallows: Part 1

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Year: 2010
Director: David Yates
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter

In My Own Words
I am an unashamed Harry Potter fan, not afraid to say it. I won't say I was always a Harry Potter fan, but I became so with the release of "Harry Potter and The Prisoner Of Azkaban" in cinemas back in 2004. After deciding that I wouldn't mind seeing the film, I went and watched the first 2 movies and was hooked. Since then, I've read every one of the Harry Potter books, seen all the films the day or day after it came out and stood in lines at bookstores on the day the books were released. What do I love the most about Harry Potter? It's a story about growing up and life as a high school student with a difference. Even though it is a fantasy story, people can identify with Harry, Ron and Hermione. They are outcasts in a world of outcasts and struggle with growing up issues, but then they are great fun to watch and by now you know them as well as you would your best friends.

How do I feel about the last chapter of the Harry Potter saga? It didn't feel like it at all. Personally I don't think it was a great idea to split the last book up into two movies, but I can see why they did it. I know I first thought that they split the last book into two to keep the franchise going and keep the money rolling in, but now I see that it would have been a 4 hour movie if they made the last book into one film. I still don't know if it worked though. Of course I have an advantage over the people who haven't read the books, but I don't think it ended in the right place. Yet I don't know if there would've been the right place to finish part one. Hurry up part two! In saying this, I would really be interested in hearing from people who haven't read the books to see whether they think that the ending was sufficient. It is hard for me to say knowing what is coming next.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
So, the last chapter of the Harry Potter saga. But wait....there is still more! Whatever the reason for making "Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows" into two movies, it definately doesn't feel like it ends in the right place. Not intense enough to be a cliff hanger, just needed to end maybe 15 minutes earlier. However, it is definately not the worst of the Harry Potter movies and nowhere near the worst movies of the year if you look at it as a stand alone film. A word of warning though, if you are going to the film to see it as a stand alone film as you haven't seen the first six movies, then you won't have a clue what is going on. After the death of Hogwarts head master,Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) at the end of the last Harry Potter film, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) set off to begin their end battle with Harry's life-long enemy, Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). They take hiding in the woods of England to destroy Voldemort's horcruxes (a term which only those who have been following Harry's journey will know) before Voldemort finds them and destroy's them first.

The second last installment of the Harry Potter series is very close to being, if it isn't, the darkest of the films. There are not many smiles to be had by any of the characters and this is the way it was always going to be in this movie. The movie stays true to the book which it is based on and some things work better on screen than they do in words. There are segments in the book which are extremely tense and the intensity of Harry's situation is transferred to the audience very well. The audience feels the danger and fears for their safety. It does tend to drag on a bit at one point in time, but in these scenes it still manages to show how the journey is taking it's toll on the three friends and again, it is still true to the book in doing so. The cinematography and visuals have definately progressed with the films over time and several scenes are really quite beautiful. The musical score is also perfect for the film and again brings more emotion into the film. The ending is somwhat questionable though, as it is not a cliff hanger by any means. This film didn't need a cliff hanger at the end of it to increase interest and encourage people to go and watch the final film though so it can be forgiven.

"Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows" is the Harry Potter film which shows the true acting ability of Radcliffe, Grint and Watson. They have all matured in their acting so much in the past few years and this film is very well acted. The three of them just bounce of one another in their acting and create such a strong relationship not just between themselves, but also between themselves and the audience. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson all give strong performances and you can really tell that their acting is not as forced as what it felt back in their earlier days. There shouldn't be a doubt in anyone's mind now that these three will all have careers after Harry Potter, and good careers at that. Helena Bonham Carter is also great to watch as the evil and clearly insane Bellatrix Lestrange.

Whether or not "Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 1" was a great film or not or whether it had a cliff hanger ending or not, won't take Harry Potter fans away from enjoying this film or looking forward to the finale. Not the worst Harry Potter film, not the best Harry Potter film. It is no longer a children's tale and it is very dark. Nevertheless, it is still Harry Potter and it definately shows how the film saga has become better production wise over the years. Let's hear it Harry Potter fans....bring on July 2011.
7/10

Clash Of The Titans

Clash Of The Titans
Year: 2010
Director: Louis Leterrier
Cast: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arterton

In My Own Words
Curiousity usually gets the better of me with movies. If a film is based on a book, I will read the book before I see it. If the film is a remake, I will see the original before I see it. However, this was not the case with “Clash Of The Titans”. I have not seen the original “Clash Of The Titans”, and this time I was actually really pleased that I hadn’t. It felt like one of the only times I have been able to judge a remade film as a stand alone film. I have heard that fans of the original film have not liked the remake, and that there is numerous differences between the two. So my thoughts on the film may also be different to those of the original film’s fans, as I was watching it in a different way to them. I will watch the original “Clash Of The Titans” in the future. It will be interesting to see whether I like the idea of seeing the original after a movie, more than seeing it before, although I guess that will always depend on the movie I am watching.

My opinion of the film, definitely not the best blockbuster action movie I have seen, far from it. Yet the story kept me entertained for most of it. I have never known much about Greek mythology. I had a crash course during my Media, Ideology and Culture class a year and a half ago in college, but that was only the basics. So I learnt a lot more during this film and I would love to find out more it in the future. Oh, by the way, remember how in my review for “The Rebound” I mentioned how at the cinemas, it is like you are seeing double when seeing what is now showing? This is another type of film I can add to the equation. “Clash Of The Titans” and the upcoming “Prince Of Persia” look incredibly similar in the trailers. Particularly since Gemma Arterton is in both films.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“Clash Of The Titans” is a film that could have been so much more. The subject matter is one that so much could have been achieved with, yet it falls remarkably short. For those who are not interested in Greek mythology and special effects don’t strike a chord, this film will be an utter bore. The story and special effects are what save the film. Perseus (Sam Worthington) is found at birth by a fisherman and his wife, who raise him as their own. When the human race rebels against the Gods, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) kills his family in his attack on the people. Perseus vows revenge against the Gods and sets fort with the soldiers of Argos to battle the Gods. It is during this time that Perseus is approached by Io (Gemma Arterton) and told that he is in fact the son of Zeus (Liam Neeson), making him half man, half God.

What makes “Clash Of The Titans” a forgettable film is purely a case of bad directing. The film is not suspenseful or gripping at all in the way that an action film should be. It just feels weak and at no time do you feel completely engrossed in the film. Although Sam Worthington is usually in his element in an action film, as has been proved in “Terminator Salvation” and “Avatar”, this role does not do him any justice. His dialogue feels over-acted and at times almost inappropriate and silly. The camera angles and styles used during several of the crucial scenes do not work well and all and do no justice for the actors or the story. The camera use does not compliment Worthington’s performance at all, and does the same thing for Gemma Arterton’s performance. This also comes down to a bad choice of dialogue in the screenplay. Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson do well as the two deities, but their roles are quite miniscule compared to Worthington’s. One can also argue that there is perhaps too many characters in the film, and not enough room for character development of each of them. Perseus is well constructed, but there is really no room for any more character development for others.

On the other hand, the special effects and the visuals are quite stunning. They are well crafted and bring the world of Greek mythology to life. Such visuals as the Pegasus and Medusa are gorgeous. They also seem completely realistic, which is always a huge advantage when undertaking a mythical project. The interpretation of the ancient, mythical world is well done. It is very interesting and a great lesson for those who are not familiar with Greek mythology. The film does differ from it’s original, which some people will appreciate, while others will not be impressed by.

It is a shame that “Clash Of The Titans” does not measure up to what it could have been. It is nothing more than a mediocre action film with a good subject matter. With a better direction style and a stronger screenplay, it could have been one of the great action/adventure films of 2010, but instead is a film that will not be remembered in years to come, except as maybe a helpful resource when studying Greek mythology and its characters.
5/10