Next Day Dailies

DRIVE

Drive is many things at once. Existing in a neo-noir LA, populated by a host of interesting characters, set to a retro-sounding but modern electro soundtrack, and centered on a stunt car driver, there’s a lot to take in. Unfortunately there’s almost nothing to take away.

Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive is a colossal achievement in style. Every single frame is composed like a moving page of a high end fashion magazine. Every costume is sleek and fresh. All the musical beats are perfectly choreographed. Essentially, it’s a glorified music video. A music video that takes itself VERY seriously.

Ryan Gosling - arguably the most sought after young actor working today- plays the “Driver.” Reserved and serious, he also doubles as a wheelman in heists and can evade the cops like no other. The opening scene is a fantastic getaway that sets up a lot of promises. The rest of the film unravels as Gosling’s character gets involved with one particular gang of middle-aged thugs and falls for the girl down the hall. Completely stoic, unless provoked to sudden spurts of violence, Gosling’s performance is a good companion piece to Haley Joel Osment’s in A.I. But only one of the characters is flesh and blood.

Refn keeps the story focused on the visuals and pacing, giving us threadbare characters and minimal plot details. This would be fine, even great, if the determined style over substance were part of the exercise or were integral to the story. A surprising amount of character interactions are played out in lengthy stares set to good lounge music. But, what’s actually happening? Not a whole lot. Whatever appeal the style has, if it’s not building to anything it ends up being hollow. A recent example of a style over substance exercise that really worked was Joe Wright’s Hanna. Fueled by The Chemical Brothers, that film also had a music video approach, but the story supported that choice. As a contemporary fairytale about a young person discovering the vastness and wonder of the world, the style was the substance; it’s visual poetry. More often than not, the pristine and creative images in Drive lack significance. There are even character traits and motifs that are slick and interesting on the surface, but don’t amount to much or pose interesting questions. For example, for all the savage violence in Drive (something Refn is a big fan of, but has never treated so flippantly), Gosling’s character never uses a gun- just hammers, knives, his boot, etc. It allows for a lot of hardboiled violence, but it don’t mean squat to the character or story.

On the plus side, nobody loses any credibility for adding this film to their resume. Bryan Cranston, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks, Christina Hendricks, Ron Perlman, and Gosling all get to remain completely viable in our minds. They do as much as they can and they’re fun to watch. The only person at fault for the films shortcomings is Refn, and not necessarily as a visual director, but as a storyteller. He understands the cinematic language, makes movies for movie lovers, and definitely has his own voice, but Drive feels lazy. After the sensational Pusher (1996) and Bronson (2008), I’m a fan for life and know how he can meld aesthetics and ideas.

It’s easy to get caught up in the ‘50s meets ‘80s visual world of the movie and feel like it’s something great and unique. And if you do, I won’t hold it against you. It’s a cool ass movie. But that’s just the façade. Just because your house of cards is lacquered in gold doesn’t mean it’s going to hold up.

5/10

BELLFLOWER

By Chris Gonzalez


Bellflower is the cinematic discovery of my generation. It is a profoundly contemporary allegory that works on more levels than I can even put together, and that’s after two viewings. It is also a truly inspiring production for any young filmmaker, in the increasingly brutal arena of independent film financing and distribution.

This is a film from fresh talent that has latched onto my brain and won’t let go- dammit! It’s a movie you should know next to nothing about. If you have the will to see this without reading why you should, then hopefully you’ll come back to read this after you’ve seen it and we can talk. No big deal. But if you want to know why Bellflower is a revelation, then continue reading, but know I’m forced to get into some specifics. Ok, here goes.

In 1994, critics Siskel and Ebert compared Quentin Tarantino and Pulp Fiction to explosive new talent of the past, like with Spike Lee, Woody Allen, and Orson Welles. Tarantino, as we know, went on to make other great films. Personally, I can’t wait to see what the Coatwolf crew behind Bellflower does next, because with this feature debut, director/actor/writer Evan Glodell stands with the likes of P.T. Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, and David Fincher. That’s not to imply that Glodell is mimicking a former style or approach, but in that here are the beginnings of truly unique vision that is disarmingly contemporary, personal, relevant, poetic, and dangerously charged.

Bellflower is a state of mind. It’s the story of two aimless, sensitive, and audacious 20-something year old man-children that blow up propane tanks with sawed off shotguns and build flamethrowers in their ample spare time. They dream of imagined worlds populated by comic-book demons and heroes. It’s also an old-fashioned love story of boy-meets-girl. Woodrow, played by Glodell, and Milly have an adorable and disgusting ‘meet cute’ with an insect-eating contest. Woodrow wants to woo Milly and have a genuine relationship rather than the quick and easy fix of a hook up, which is the standard of modern courtship. When he gets her number outside of a bar, they are separated on the screen and juxtaposed by two randoms in the embrace of a drunken make out. The way that Milly and Woodrow flirt and connect, usually through the effervescent Milly forcing her personality on the shy Woodrow, is as convincing and involving as any great modern romance. It invests the viewer very quickly.

Woodrow’s brother in arms is Aiden, a bold and womanizing bro, who gets away with his cynicism and ego by virtue of his good looks and quick wit. Friends since childhood, they are a family unit of two, loyal and reliant on each other in the extreme. Their relationship is at once a completely convincing and hilarious document of true friendship, and a terrifying reflection of modern masculinity. There’s been a good amount of writing on how ‘manhood is in a state of crisis,’ and that is reflected in current media. Audiences love the man who can’t grow up. Gone are the Clark Gables and Jimmy Stewarts, here are the John C. Reillys and Seth Rogens. Woodrow and Aiden muse about how to they can assert themselves in a world on the brink of apocalypse, with the imagined Lord Humungous as their alter ego, and their tricked out, fire-breathing car, Medusa, as their inferno wagon. The film is filled with striking visuals. They also engage in naïve and childish conversation, binge drinking, and other acts that are endearing one second and disturbing at the drop of a dime. For example: we go along with Aiden’s drinking and doucheness, and even enjoy it. Then, in a mostly non-threatening manner he verbally molests a girl at a party. It’s a disgusting moment that changes our view of the character, making us reevaluate how we felt about his previous actions. The film’s demeanor is volatile, incorrigible and seeking an outlet for pent up, youthful aggression. They drink whiskey while driving, beer for breakfast, and blow shit up for the sake of being badass and the momentary thrill that it provides. But their acts are a product of the warped world they live in- our world- fueled by media infiltration and one that discourages sensitivity and encourages substance abuse, irony and the thrill of stupidity.

The notion of the apocalypse is ageless, and it’s a great cinematic theme that has been creatively mined for decades. In 2011, maybe more than ever, we’re asked to acknowledge it. However real and true a lot of the statistics are, we know that global warming is a threat, weapons of mass destruction are around, and we know there’s overpopulation. The threat of an apocalypse is central to how the characters and story move forward. The film isn’t trying to preach a solution about how we can save the world, just existing in a world needing saving.

All of this is constantly blended with a sensitivity to the characters that is exaggerated but still true. The mixture of extreme childishness and recklessness are constantly working in tandem towards its larger statement. There is no middle ground to the films point of view, even though it’s up for an infinite amount of interpretations. For example, we see Woodrow and Minny giggle as they read a steamy and pornographic paperback, to later see them engage in these sexual acts with all the violent fury that the seemingly innocent paperback held. These tonal notes are not an easy thing to dissect in writing, and I’m worried I’m not making a lick of sense. But the things I’m trying to write about are areas in which the film struck a very personal cord with me- being a 23-year old guy. This past Fourth of July me and two friends spent the day in sleeveless shirts with the American flag, drinking whiskey and beer, smoking cigarettes, and shooting light bulbs in our apartment with a BB gun. It was stupid and reckless and fun as fuck. I know that kind of makes me sound like an asshole, and I wouldn’t begrudge anyone of that, but I know I’m not alone in this feeling of enjoyment. Even if you haven’t done anything of this nature, most of us have witnessed visceral reactions to violent video games like “Call of Duty” or “Halo.” Whatever it means, it’s not as important as the sensation itself. Other friends of mine share it, and devil-may-care joy has been the topic of many narratives before this. In Bellflower, this theme is given a context that feels brand new through the realistic dialogue, hand crafted music, and gritty aesthetic that is slick and vintage. As if we’re constantly nostalgic for something we were never a part of, vintage is the standard of cool for our generation. Beyond the film theory, the script and acting make you care about the four principal characters very quickly, so that when things take a tire-screeching turn for the worst, you’re fully invested.

What transpires in the second half is a fever dream ‘mind fuck’ of violence, betrayal, melodrama and lunacy that completely works and makes the movie operate on new levels, with an assured intensity that is unpredictable and confounds your expectations to sustain vitality and defy classification. Like Kevin Smith did with Clerks, Tarantino did with Pulp Fiction, or Scorsese with Taxi Driver, Bellflower feels like a new piece of evolved cinema. Bearing flaws and all, it’s a game changer. While putting up a mirror to our generation it simultaneously glorifies our energy, potential and sociability but haunts and disturbs as we see unsure individuals in a chaotic world that act out in reckless and immature ways. It’s an adrenaline shot to the heart, and will wrap itself around your thoughts like any film that has ever had that effect. This is a seminal moment in modern art.

THE STATE OF THE MOVIE INDUSTRY AND YOUR STAKE IN IT


Whether you’ve read or talked about it, Hollywood is in a bit of a crisis right now. You’ve experienced it. If you look at the highest grossing movies of the year so far, you see evidence of a trend that is gaining momentum. Of the top 10, only 1 is not a sequel or reboot or franchise starter. As the film industry grows, studios look for clearer ways to make massive amounts of profit, and that is through releasing films that are more properties than stand alone movies. They have potential to generate multiple streams of revenue, and a rehashed idea with international appeal is a safer and easier bet than something unknown and original. You also have studios throwing egregious amounts of money into a film, hoping that every one will be a massive tent pole and gross $500 million worldwide. It’s a cynical business model because it asks for more formula than ever before, and less from the audience’s intellect.

Independent films don’t do breakout business, because they are movies that need to be nurtured and slowly spread through moviegoers so they have time to catch momentum. Nearly all of the major studios have abandoned their independent film distribution arms, and the excessively expensive cost of movie tickets as of late is keeping a lot of young people away from the multiplex. Attendance at theaters is decreasing, but prices have increased, so you still see many movies that make a boatload of cash. Theaters also have Netflix and other online streaming to battle, including illegal downloading. All of this presents a lot of problems with no easy answers. The industry is freighted to take risks. Guys, we have a release date set for the second Spiderman movie, from the second set of Spiderman films. And that is a year before the public decides if it wants another.

Bellflower was made for $17,000, of which half went into creating its strongest symbol, Medusa: a fire-spitting custom built ’72 Buick Skylark. They also built their cameras (!). It gained traction at both Sundance Film Festival and South By Southwest, and independent film studio Oscilloscope (Exit Through the Gift Shop) picked it up for distribution. This is the best-case scenario for an independent film, and this production should provide incredible inspiration for any aspiring filmmaker. But its notoriety also requires a very critical component: word of mouth and getting asses in the seats. If you care about films at all, this should be the moment where you feel called to action instead of apathetic. If you are frustrated with the multiplex offerings, look at smaller theater chains, go to them, and spread the word. There are several fantastic options out right now that you may have never heard of because they don’t have the marketing budget to be a branded assault. They’re there waiting for you, and deserve your patronage. Bellflower is the one you’ve been waiting for. Trailer and link to release schedule in the post below.



BELLFLOWER trailer.  Click HERE for a list of the release calendar.

WINNIE THE POOH

By Chris Gonzalez            

           For most people over the age of five, Winnie the Pooh is a title to quickly ignore.  Not that there’s any menace in the apathy.  The apathy is pure.  I’m willing to bet that most people who would read this review don’t even have concrete thoughts on the brand.  “It’s just not for me.  It’s for babies,” is the sort of response I’d expect.  That’s understandable… I mean, it’s Winnie the Pooh- one of the most innocuous things out there.  But surprisingly, more adults were laughing with the flick than kids.

            This recent entry in the franchise is definitely a more thoughtful tale from the Hundred Acre Wood.  Never annoying and always pleasing, the characters are endearing and the animation is simple and beautiful.  The film is so hell-bent on simplicity that the story’s arc is Pooh finding honey.  And that’s exactly what it should be- about the simple pleasures that everyone is always striving for.  Winnie the Pooh has to be one of the more hedonistic characters ever conceived.  His stomach becomes a pet-like character of its own.

            There is wit in the script and the design of the picture.  There’s a lot of wordplay going on that asks you to keep up at a jogging pace.  My favorite interaction is a miscommunication between Piglet and the gang, with the neurotic pig telling them that he can’t knot a not.  It’s an extended gag that works really well.

            The filmmakers know what a unique band of characters they have here.  All the animal characters have neurosis that you can relate to through characters in your own lives.  Eeyore is easy: the hopelessly depressed, Tigger: the ADD life of the party, Rabbit: crotchety senior that demands respect only by virtue of age, Piglet: everything-a-phobic, Kanga and Roo: pure maternal love and youthful enthusiasm, Owl: always pontificating, never wise, and Pooh: the glutton.  None of the proceedings get too heady, but those are essentially the personas we’re watching.

            A good amount of the film, just over an hour, uses its literary source material for visual gags.  Book pages flip by the screen, the characters interact with the letters on the page, and narrator John Cleese is omnipresent.  Winnie the Pooh is constantly breaking the fourth wall, demanding to be regarded as nothing more than a trifle.  Add in hipster siren Zooey Deschanel performing vocals for a few songs penned by the writers of the music for Broadway hits Avenue Q and The Book of Mormon. 

            The simple and intelligent pleasures that this movie delivers are important at every age, and if you take the time to eventually see it, you’ll undoubtedly feel a little warmer.  It’s the movie equivalent of a Snuggie. 

8/10

           

                 

COWBOYS & ALIENS

By Chris Gonzalez

          I can’t really understand a critical consensus that would give Captain America generally favorable reviews and slap Cowboys and Aliens with middling to negative rankings.  Neither is fantastic, but only the latter is ambitious, wild, and an altogether good production.

          Beginning with very simple credits of white letters on establishing desert shots, director Jon Favreau is playing this like a straight western.   We are introduced to a disoriented Daniel Craig who saunters into a typical sleepy western town and we meet our players.  There’s a quirky doctor, the serious barkeep, and the violently irresponsible son of a cattle rancher, among others.  Then, instead of Comanche’s or outlaws, comes an invading force of alien ships.  From here on out it’s the western genre infused with a sci-fi mystery, fully delivering on the promise of its title.  

            Cowboys and Aliens is a blast and may be the year’s purest example of a brainless summer Saturday matinee.  The action is constant and there are revelations and plot turns that will either cause you to sigh or giggle.  Whichever response you have will beg the question: what movie were you expecting to see?  Besides Transformers 3, this film is the biggest show off of the summer.  The action is loud, big, technically proficient, and completely entertaining.   Unlike the majority of the films this summer, the trailers and ads didn’t reveal a whole lot.  There are many sights that were saved for the film- and I really like that.  It’s also more aggressive and appropriately violent than I was expecting.  The aliens aren’t given the most original design, but there’s menace. 

            The main flaws boil down to three big missteps.  One, you never really care about the characters.  They’re given entertaining stories and motivations, but it’s soulless.  That’s not to say you won’t be invested in the film.  While the characters may be paper thin, the cast of professionals is dedicated and convincing enough to root for while they mow down the gnarly creatures…on horseback with shotguns. 

            Another mistake is that Favreau doesn’t know when to cut his movie loose.  Producer Steven Spielberg made Favreau watch John Ford westerns to understand the use of location, western mythology, and pacing.  This isn’t a bad idea, but the actor-turned director may have lassoed this idea too tightly.  By trying so hard to be a true western, he falls into every cliché in the book.  By introducing aliens into your western, you’re supposed to light the rulebook on fire a little bit, and blow out the flames before it’s all ash.  Favreau doesn’t even pick up a match. 

            Lastly, this is one of those action movies where a lot of things are left unexplained, and even if they are given reason- it’s weak.    Questions like: so why are the aliens here?  How does that weapon work?  Does it even matter?  To me, it didn’t.  But you may be one of those infuriating people who desires strict logic in simple, cartoonish pleasures. 

            Those are my three big grievances in an otherwise kick-ass genre mash up.  The cast features Daniel Craig at his most masculine, Olivia Wilde again looking more goddess than mortal (she also has acting chops with weak dialogue), and a handful of great actors like Sam Rockwell and Paul Dano.  Then there’s Harrison Ford.  If the image of Harrison Ford on a horse, shooting an alien in the face, seems like something you’d want to see- you know this is for you.  If not, then ‘get off his plane.’  At this point in his career I don’t think he can ever play a fictional character again.  After 1997’s Air Force One, he was ignored with a string of movies nobody cared about, and has currently experienced some sort of pop-culture resurgence.  He’s down to play up and mock his persona.  Now, he is just ‘Harrison Ford.’  No amount of effort on his part can change that.  That lack of believability fits something as wacky as Cowboys and Aliens.  There’s good casting all around. 

          The very solid work from the remaining pedigree of the crew ensures that this is a fun, well-made movie.  You have Matthew Libatique (Black Swan, Iron Man) behind the lens, composer Harry Gregson-Williams (Shrek, Man on Fire) doing some of his better work, and six writers, five of which are from the J.J. Abrahms and Iron Man camp.  That may be one too many cooks in the kitchen, but they know to pen a good adventure.  On top of that you have producers Speilberg, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer.  This is a massive Hollywood production, and I’m happy to report that it works.  The majority of critics are in a need of a hug.

7/10, or and a twelve-year olds 10/10


       

A BETTER LIFE

By Chris Gonzalez

         It’s an interesting fact that more Hispanics go to the movies more than any other ethic group.  It’s interesting because they’re also the most underrepresented group in film today.  They don’t go see Hispanic-focused films, but prefer the big Hollywood pictures that appeal to broad audiences.  There are countless reasons why this may be the case, but that’s neither here nor there.  It’s unfortunate and I’m not even saying that because I’m Hispanic.   

        A Better Life is a great step in the right direction.  It’s a traditional character, acting, story driven film about an illegal Mexican immigrant trying his best to make a living for his teenage son in modern East Los Angeles. 

         The story of fatherly love and struggles with the law is pretty typical stuff.  In the worst hands, this would be a TV Movie of the Week.  But with a great attention to detail, fantastic acting, and a realistic approach to its emotional arc, A Better Life is the first straight forward film of the year that should be considered for Oscar nominations.  This isn’t a genre exercise, a sequel, nor a risk taking experimental film.  This is surprisingly refreshing and only upon viewing it was I reminded how novel it is to see a movie without hype and expectations.  Avoid the trailer, it reveals every plot development. 

         Director Chris Weitz is an unexpected and inspired choice for the project.  The young filmmaker directed American Pie, About a Boy, The Golden Compass, and Twlight: New Moon.  He brings the same attention to character and involving emotion that he displayed in the excellent About a Boy to this humble movie.  As a bonus, four-time Oscar nominated composer Alexandre Desplat (whose music you heard in the final Harry Potter and The King’s Speech) delivers his typical blend of soothe and sophistication, infused with Mexican guitar stylings.  

         Demián Bichir of Weeds fame plays Carlos Galindo, the illegal gardener who keeps his head down and priorities in line.  Bichir delivers the strongest performance I’ve seen all year.  Never overacting, he continuously breathes fear, desperation, ambition, warmth, and grit into his performance.  I was moved to tears, and I wasn’t alone.  The rest of the cast avoids trappings of this sort of film.  The Mexican gang members are expectedly grotesque, but there’s also a fragility to them that makes them more than your stand-in thugs. 

         If you’re tired of this summer’s sequels, spin-offs, reboots, or precious indie fare, A Better Life is your remedy: an emotionally involving, old school father and a son story, that provides a view into a world many don’t see past their car windows.   

8.5/10

                   

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER

By Chris Gonzalez

          The most interesting aspect of Captain America: The First Avenger is its origin.  First published in March, 1941, the hero was actually used as a WWII promotional tool.  That’s almost hard to believe given the pop culture resurrection of all things superheroes.  Sixty years later, Captain America makes his most legitimate big-screen foray, and it harkens back the time of his creation.  Set in a retro sci-fi WWII, Captain America looks as polished as new Army boots and feels as urgent as a PSA. 

          More than anything else, this is a Joe Johnston film.  I don’t think there’s a more workmanlike director employed in Hollywood today.  His directorial credits include: Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, The Rocketeer, Jumanji, October Sky, Jurassic Park III, Hidalgo, and The Wolfman.  At best his films are competent and entertaining and at worst competent and boring.  Johnston isn’t a director of great ambition and he rarely screws the pooch, so it’s a little difficult to hate on the man too much.  And with a $140 million check he’s delivered Marvel a picture that should please the devout and casual moviegoer alike.  The fact that the film fails to make an impression beyond the theater lobby is another issue.

          Chris Evans plays the titular hero.  Evans is a good actor, and he’s always managed to elevate most of the material he’s in (Cellular, Not Another Teen Movie).  He’s a good choice for Cap, delivering a lot of geniality that never ferments into cheese.  The supporting cast of Stanley Tucci, Tommy Lee Jones, Toby Jones and Hugo Weaving all play their parts fine too.  They’re doing their thing.  Weaving gives Nazi-villain Red Skull a swell German accent.  But the most exciting casting decision is that of Hayley Atwell, playing British love interest Peggy Carter.  Her 1940’s aesthetic is perfect- with beady eyes and ruby red lips, she nails old-fashioned beauty.  Carter is the easy and intoxicating balance of English smarts, aces with a pistol, and never the damsel in distress. 

          Stylistically, Johnston makes some good decisions.  Rarely going for an all-out CG fest, the action is mostly grounded, using real motorcycles, real dynamite, and big sets.  This brings an old-fashioned tone that suits the material well, but is never rousing.  Practical doesn’t need to mean flat, and the film seems to forget that.  There are several good montages that keep things flowing nicely and an ending that is the only genuinely surprising moment of the movie. 

          So, sure, there are a handful of appealing things about this piece of summer escapism.  But I never felt inspired nor wowed nor invested in the characters, the action, or the story.  It’s fine and anyone that hates on it too hard I would tell to get the hell out of my country!  But for the hero made in America, and for America, our country deserves a little better than a Joe Johnston film.   

 

6/10    

 

 

              

Trailer for Life in a Day.   Click here for a list of release dates and corresponding theaters, and to request a screening if it isn’t coming to your city. 

LIFE IN A DAY

By Chris Gonzalez

On July 24, 2010 a global experiment took place. Producer Ridley Scott, You Tube, and director Kevin Macdonald asked people from around the globe to document a day in their life and submit the footage to create “the first user-generated feature-length documentary.” Over 4,500 hours were submitted from 192 countries. A year to the date of filming, Life in a Day had its premiere at one show time across the country.

This is a fascinating experience, pointedly asking a world that is connected through global communication to create something out of this new technological union. The result couldn’t be more magnificient. Even if you’re more annoyed than inspired by how people use YouTube, this 90-minute feature is justification for every annoying YouTube bomb you’ve ever had to sit through.

The real master behind this incredible undertaking is editor Joe Walker. To describe the movie as a tapestry of the world is neither unwarranted nor pretentious. This is a beautifully put together piece of art. Featuring moments that are hilarious, terrifying, illuminating, confounding, strange, wonderful, and down right depressing, the audience experiences instances where it can relate, and others where relating is the last thing imagineable. But this is also a very personal film, and however you react to it will say much more about you than about the film. My reaction to Life in a Day was very similar to that of Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life. It’s a profound and joyous experience for anyone who sees genuine magic in the world. It is for anyone that accepts terrible beauty and beautiful tragedy, has felt large and small, and for anyone that knows, but forgets, a universal truth: our own experience is no more significant than anyone else’s.

To get a taste for what you’re in for, watch the trailer above. But know that the film is much larger and less sentimental than the ad (“Best. Day. Ever”… cute, trailer, real cute). It unfolds in a way that washes away all expectations and marketing because, however edited, it’s real. Life in a Day goes out in limited release on Friday, July 29th- making it’s first stop in Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle. Click here for a list of release dates and corresponding theaters, and to request a screening if it isn’t coming to your city. Demand to see this movie. You’ve never been more a part of a cinematic experience.


10/10


HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2

By Chris Gonzalez

I was always worried about this final installment of the Harry Potter series. While I thought the book was a fantastic conclusion, there was a lot of plot back and forth that didn’t make perfect sense while reading, but I decided to let go of the minor details and focus on the characters journeys. I thought a lot of this wouldn’t translate well on-screen, and the epilogue would be a double-edged sword. Then early reviews for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 started to pour in, raving about its excitement, clarity of story, and incredible emotional impact. The reviews, by far the best of the series, made it seem like the first Potter film that had a chance at major award consideration.

My verdict: it’s a Harry Potter movie. Let me tell you right off the bat, everyone involved in this series has done a very commendable and near incredible job with it. To have a perfectly chosen cast that remains constant through eight films is legendary. To maintain a noticeably excellent aesthetic and style is a gift. And in all eight films, there isn’t a rotten apple in the bunch. All of them are between decent to great. This one is good.

I’m going to safely assume that if you’re reading this you’ve read the books or already seen this movie ($160+ million in 3 days). If you haven’t seen it, just know I’m going to get into specifics.

There’s a lot that works in the film, and it could have easily been the best of the series, but a sense of awkwardness and odd restraint presides over most of it. The movie is too short. It’s the shortest of the series and certain moments needed more development. These are small things. In the battle for Hogwarts and for the future of ‘the good,’ we want to see our heroes excel and our villains fall. There are missed opportunities. Most egregious: Mrs. Weasley confronts Bellatrix Lestrange and defeats her in about 20 seconds. It’s not poorly done per se, but it’s executed so quickly that you can’t invest in the intensity the moment requires, and the defeat of a major villain isn’t fully rewarded. It just happens. This ‘just happening’ is something that occurs far too often in this final film that is designed to be the ultimate payoff. We need to see George, Tonks and Lupin fight ‘til the death; we need to see Ron, Hermoine, and a few professors engage in combat that lasts more than an instant. We needed that scope and grandeur because, after 10 years, everyone watching has been emotionally invested and primed.

On the same note, some characters that were well developed in past installments are given almost nothing to do. Ginny Weasley doesn’t have a single moment that registers here, compared to Neville Longbottom who gets about 300% more attention. That’s just… dumb. Why not give Ginny the scene where Neville runs down a bridge, being chased by an army of Death Eaters and blows it to all hell? Even a character switch that small would have given a variety of courageous moments in the sun. It’s a little disappointing that the most rousing moment of this film, filled with consequence, is given to Professor McGonagall as she prepares the castle for war. Maggie Smith brings bravado, fun, and leaves the series on a high note. More characters should have been given the same amount of attention and honor.

The final confrontation between Voldemort and Harry is supposed to the moment of the franchise. It’s very good, with sweeping shots of the characters zooming around Hogwarts and melding into each other. This enhances the themes of Voldemort living within Harry, and the battle between good and evil in all of us. Voldy’s demise doesn’t ask for audience applause, and I like that choice too. We see the villain disintegrate into the sunrise and it provides for a wistful image. The moment harkens to Dumbledore’s sage advice: “Don’t pity the dead, pity those without love.” But just because the audience isn’t asked to cheer doesn’t mean the characters can ignore the moment. Harry simply strides back into the maimed castle and everyone is up to their usual shtick and “all is well.” There needed to be a transitionary scene of celebration and emotional release before that. We needed to see the characters applauding this victory and Ron and Hermoine hugging their best friend, happy to see that he survived this lifelong ordeal. The film decides to be subtle when it needs to be bombastic and we’re left with something that isn’t bad, just odd and disappointing.

I realize I just went on a rant about things I disliked in a movie I’m a fan of. None of this enraged me, as I’m sure it did for some hardcore fans of the books, they’re just missed opportunities and keeps this “epic conclusion” from being truly memorable and operatic.

There are still many home runs and beautiful things to savor. The film opens with an exquisite shot of Dementors hovering over a gloomy Hogwarts. The dragon in the film has more personality than most creatures. Snape’s death is perfectly shot and edited, and his revealing montage is absolutely rewarding. Harry’s reunion with his lost loved ones will put a lump in your throat, at the very least. Voldermort Fetus is fetus perfection. And the battle that runs for the majority of the movie is damn good entertainment. Reaching for transcendent emotion, there’s a scene of our three heroes running through the battle that takes inspiration from The Thin Red Line, as a mournful score is the focus of the proceedings instead of mayhem and destruction.

The aforementioned epilogue is handled just about as well as it could have been. Set 19-years later, the scene provides finality, simplicity, and full circle closure to the saga. I’m glad it exists and I’m glad they didn’t cast older actors to replace the 3 leads that we’ve watched grow and mature. Mild make-up is applied to age the actors, and naturally, it’s cheesy and distracting at first, but I decided to leave those feelings behind and just go with the moment. It’s a tacked on ending that works much better on paper. It’s fine overall, but unfortunately awkward. It kind of summarizes the entire viewing experience of this final film: it works very well, but a little more finesse and attention to breath could have solidified the capper as a classic.

Now that ‘it all ended,’ I’m still enthusiastic about the Harry Potter film series. They will endure and they’ve served J.K. Rowling’s books well. They’re far from perfect (Part 6, The Half Blood Prince, gets pretty close in my book), and they definitely aint no Lord of the Rings, but I’ve had a great time watching these films for the past 10 years. I don’t agree with the majority of people my age when it comes to the series. Some seem to take it too personally. One camp could be labeled as the “this marks the end of my childhood” team, and the other is “fuck all things Harry Potter!” When removed from the hype, adoration to the source, and phenomenal fan base, I don’t think the movies are substantial enough to encapsulate a phase in one’s life, or annoying, poorly made pop machines that should be treated as consumerist crap. They’re simply great entertainment.

7.5/10