7/13/11

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

The staring contest of the century.

This is one of those movies where I have to identify my relationship with the series in order to establish where I'm coming from when I talk of this film. I'm a part of the Potter generation; I started reading the books when I was eleven and the last book came out when I was seventeen (significant ages, if you know anything about Harry Potter). I've seen all the movies in the cinema (here's a picture of my tickets), but I'm not really a fan of them. In fact, when I went to see the fourth, fifth and sixth films, I told everyone "I'm seeing then just so I can judge them". It's been a while since I saw the older ones, but as far as I remember, they only started being good in the sixth movie, and even that one had a really rushed climax.

But enough about movies one through seven. How's the eight and final one? It's really good. I was surprised to find that a film based solely on the third act of a single book is almost entirely devoid of pacing issues. The screenwriters cut some corners with the story, and added a little luff to make it work better in the cinematic medium. Some of the changes worked greatly, but I was disappointed that Dumbledore's backstory was removed, aside from a brief allusion. In contrast, Snape's flashbacks get presented at full length, but I can't help but not feel touched due to how limited the character's involvement in the movies has been. I'd sum up the story for those who haven't seen the films or read the books, but since the movie doesn't feel the need for that, I might as well not.

Now here's something I want to warn everyone of: Do not see this film in 3D. Unless you're a huge fan of 3D visuals like flying shards of glass on the foreground of a character in freefall, do not do it. This movie is seriously dark, and since 3D makes everything even darker, there were several scenes where I couldn't see anything except maybe some outlines (and I have good vision). This is most evident in the middle of the film, with establishing shots of the Hogwarts castle. Luckily, the action scenes have bright spells flying around and the very final battle is held during daytime, rather than night.

Aside from that problem the visuals are great, and HP8 (or is that HP7-2?) manages to balance out the different elements of the script with good directing and editing. Despite the movie almost entirely consisting of three extended action scenes, it never grows stagnant. Some of the dialogue is rather badly handled, but luckily it doesn't drag on for too much. While the previous two movies had too abrupt and rushed endings, this one feels natural and didn't leave me unsatisfied.

A special commendation must be given to Ralph Fiennes, who plays Lord Voldemort, as well as whoever was in charge of the character's aesthetic. In a departure from the books, Voldemort starts to physically and mentally decay as his magical immortality thingie-majiccers are destroyed. Not only does this show up visually, with his skin drying up and starting to flake, but Fiennes portrays the growing insanity perfectly. He previously played the villain in Red Dragon (my favourite Hannibal Lecter movie), and you can see a bit of the same maniac glee in his performance here. It is as if he realised that this is his final chance to play an evil magical overlord, so he decided to play the shit out of the role when he still has the chance.

Overall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is a damn good movie. Almost all of its flaws come from the incomplete nature of the adaptation process, so the original things to come out of it are imaginative and well-exeucted. Don't see it in 3D, and don't see it before you've seen the previous film (they might be worth seeing back-to-back), but do go see it if you care even a little about Harry Potter, or if you want to see really great fantasy action scenes.

Oh, and in case you care about that sort of thing, in this version of the story, Luna and Neville end up together, further proving that the screenwriters have been reading too much fanfiction as inspiration for the films.

7/10/11

Welcome to Imagines Mobiles

So, what is this blog about?

Ever since I started collecting movies about a year ago, I've felt like my opinions about films have become more and more pronounced. Most of the time, when I watch a movie, I end up giving my friends a short summary of what I think of it, and it's hard to just watch a film without feeling any impact.

As seen on the blog posts before this, I've started writing reviews recently. However, the site I used to write them on is limited to 500 words per review, which feels really restrictive. I'll continue writing reviews of most movies I see in the cinema here, right after I get home from the theatre.

In addition to brand-new films (judging whether it's worth to go see them and trying to avoid any too obvious spoilers), I'll be reviewing classics I never saw until now (evaluating whether they are worth the hype) and old, interesting cases (just telling what they're about for entertainment's sake).

Please leave a comment, but try to be at least as constructive as I'm being toward the movie I review. I love feedback, since it means I know where I still need to improve.

Welcome to Imagines Mobiles, and I hope you enjoy your stay.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon - "This movie was FANTASTIC!"

(Originally written 4.7.2011 for TV tropes.)
At least that's what the guy who sat behind me in the cinema said when he stood up to leave, in between loudly singing along with the lyrics of the Linkin Park song in the credits. His behavior reminded me of MovieBob saying that Michael Bay makes movies "by douchebags, for douchebags".

So, how's Transformers 3 in my opinion? It's the same old shit as the two first ones. Maybe a little better than either of those, but only because the studio twisted Bay's arm and made him remove the most controversial elements. No more rutting dogs, no more robo-testicles and no more blackface-bots. Instead, as if it was some sort of game, Bay has fit in new annoyances to piss off his haters, such as a "wacky" scene where Sam gets sexually assaulted by a co-worker and his boss thinks they're having bathroom sex, and a subplot where he gets a competitor for his new girlfriend's affections.

The first act of the movie plays like it's two entirely different films spliced together. It takes forever for the robot plot and Sam's plot to meet at all, and even then, it's like the script keeps inventing excuses to keep Sam locked out of the main plot of his own movie.

The climax is much better than Revenge's horrific clusterfuck. Instead of having a backdrop-battle with the characters running through it, the action flows from scene to scene, with new locations and enemies distinct from each other. The cinematography in action scenes is still confusing and hectic, but I guess I've gotten used to it by now, since it didn't piss me off much.

The story makes no sense, and the villains' motivations don't match in any way to the previous movies. It's kinda funny in a sad way, especially since I kept coming up with new plot holes for hours after exiting the cinema.

Leonard Nimoy as Sentinel Prime has a refreshing feel of class in a lowbrow movie like this, though the lines he's given are mostly clichéd and boring. Likewise, John Malkovich as Sam's new boss is funny in a crazy kind of way, though his character is written as an annoying dickhead.

I probably won't see this movie ever again. It was worth seeing once, I guess, and I'll admit I was entertained for roughly two thirds of the film. As is the case in all but two films I've ever seen, the 3D is worthless and you're better off saving that money and spending it on something else.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - The Blockbuster You'd Expect

(Originally written 20.5.2011 for TV tropes.)
Pirates 4 was good. Not great, but good.

I had two main problems with it: The first was the script. The story is really cluttered and awkward (though not as much as the third one), and there are huge plot holes to it (why didn't the Spanish destroy the plot coupon when they got it, instead of taking it to the Fountain?). Most of the dialogue is exposition, and instead of establishing character motivations and relationships through actions, we are told of them.

The Spaniards are presented as one of the driving forces of the story (the only reason that half the characters are going to the Fountain is that they don't want the Spanish to get there first), but at the end they are only used as a cheap plot device and leave without any real resolution. In fact, I bet most people don't know there are Spaniards in this movie, going into it. Well, the reason they aren't in any of the trailers is because they don't have almost any scenes, and they don't do or say anything interesting when they are on-screen.

The other main problem is the cinematography. By Bob, it's horrific. Every action scene switches angles five times in a second, and it's impossible to tell who's winning, what's happening and who is who in any given shot. Half the dialogue scenes, on the other hand, are shot in such bad lighting that it's hard to see anything at all. It really shows that they switched directors.

The good things? The score is fantastic. In fact, probably better than in the first three movies. The sets and costumes are great. The acting is entertaining and memorable (aside from Ian McShane as Blackbeard, who's just playing a stock villain and doesn't leave any impression). The non-exposition dialogue is funny, as usual for this series. When the action isn't hampered by the camerawork, it's fun and thrilling.

If you wanna go see a Pirates movie, go see this. You'll get your fix of Pirates. If you wanna go see an action-filled blockbuster... I suggest you pick something else or wait for another movie to come out.

The 3D is worthless, and I've heard it actually makes the movie worse, though I can't attest to that myself. If you can pick 2D (which I couldn't), do that.

Thor - A fun flick, even if not for the reason's you'd think

(Originally written 11.5.2011 for TV tropes).
Thor isn't really a superhero movie, at least any more than Disney's Hercules was. The movie is about a god having to prove himself worthy of his powers, rather than a regular person receiving superpowers by chance and having to decide how to use them. Even the film's use of the three act structure is uncommon for its type, since the second act is the slowest and most character-oriented, while the others are the loudest and most bombastic.

The movie is a good introduction of the comic-Thor to new audiences. I don't know if it's actually loyal to he comics, but whether it is or isn't, it's a great stand-alone production for those who have no preconception about the story and characters. The only thing from the comics which is never explained is the concept of "Odin-sleep", which comes out of nowhere and seems like a cheap plot device.

The beginning is really weirdly paced, and over all, badly handled. After a cold open on Earth, there's a twenty-minute flashback to Thor's life on Asgard. The fact that there is a flashback at all, especially one so needless, was really distracting to me. The opening infodump isn't helped any by the fact that Sir Anthony Hopkins (as Odin) refuses to act, and sounds utterly uninterested in what he's narrating about. Hint for moviemakers: Get someone who cares to introduce the audience to your setting.

The movie picks up in the second act, when Thor arrives on Earth. There's some genuinely funny comic relief and interesting character moments. The human sidecast is mostly likeable, and the love interest manages to come off as a real person, even if she does fall for Thor all too quickly. The sideplot in Asgard is a bit wonky, but luckily it doesn't drag on for too long. The third act is surprisingly minimalistic, with focus on personal drama and special effects rather than minion-smashing.

Loki's character annoyed me. Everyone who knows anything about the comics knows he'll be a bad guy, and all the newbies recognise his archetype the moment they see him. The movie manages to play with the audience for just a bit about whether Loki is actually a bad guy, but in the end they forsake all ambiguity. Would have been great to make him more tragic, rather than just whiny.

Overall, Thor is a good movie. Worth seeing for the second act. The 3D effects were badly applied. See it without them, if you can.