Search
Search results
Sam Richardson (11 KP) rated Guns Akimbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
A weird synergy of accents, Guns and violence
It's fair to say that this film is exactly what it says on the tin. Guns. Akimbo. The premise is fairly easy to guess.... Especially In the modern world of internet trolls getting their comeuppance. That's about where it stops for me. The bad guy is fairly intimidate In a panto villain way and the two main leads are acceptable. I was unsure about the way they team them up but it's American so, What can you expect? I'd give it a watch on a Friday night if you aren't going up the pub but there are better films out there if you like a violent flick
David McK (3185 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in Books
Jan 28, 2019
The first Harry Potter book, known in the United States as 'Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone' which I remember first reading well over a decade ago; before even the first (virtually word-to-screen) movie adaptation.
Despite that, on re-reading this I've discovered that while the parts that are faithful to the book are VERY faithful, there's also certain plot-lines that are left out almost entirely.
Framed as Harry's first year at 'Hogwart's school of Witch-craft and Wizardry', I find it impossible to read now without visualising Daniel Radcliffe in the lead role, or Professor Snape as any other than the late, great, Alan Rickman.
The narrative device of allowing Harry to discover the Wizarding world as we do also proves to be a savvy move, in that it allows the reader to identify with the main character while also still allowing the possibility of further surprises in later books: it wouldn't have provided so much of a hook to the reader, for example, if Harry had grown up knowing of his parentage and heritage.
Despite that, on re-reading this I've discovered that while the parts that are faithful to the book are VERY faithful, there's also certain plot-lines that are left out almost entirely.
Framed as Harry's first year at 'Hogwart's school of Witch-craft and Wizardry', I find it impossible to read now without visualising Daniel Radcliffe in the lead role, or Professor Snape as any other than the late, great, Alan Rickman.
The narrative device of allowing Harry to discover the Wizarding world as we do also proves to be a savvy move, in that it allows the reader to identify with the main character while also still allowing the possibility of further surprises in later books: it wouldn't have provided so much of a hook to the reader, for example, if Harry had grown up knowing of his parentage and heritage.
okletmereviewit (4 KP) rated Swiss Army Man (2016) in Movies
May 11, 2018
The movie ends with more questions than what it started with as turn after delightful turn unfold
Contains spoilers, click to show
OK so this is something that I thought looked absolutely stupid when I first saw the previews for it in the movies. I must say how horribly wrong I was. Swiss Army Man is unique and inspired. Daniel Radcliffe is amazing as Manny "the multipurpose tool man".
The movie opens with Hank (Dando) waking up on a deserted beach, unaware of where he is or what has transpired for him to be there. As he takes in his surroundings he gives way to despair and preps to commit suicide, when he notices a body on the beach. He races over to the body which begins to expel gas on which Hank rides Manny like a jet ski to get off an island. Shortly after,
Manny begins showing signs of semipermeable intelligence. At which point he slowly comes "alive" in a have animated have dead state, almost like a paraplegic zombie. The story centers around the two learning how to live again and a story of finding oneself and making it in the world.
Through out the movie Dano and Radcliffe are stuck in the middle of the woods, where Manny's many talents come to save Hank from the brink of death time and time again. While in the woods Hank tries to teach Manny how to live again, the two undergo a spiritual journey that eventually leads Hank and Manny back to civilization.
The movie ends with more questions than what it started with as turn after delightful turn unfold, you are left wondering what the hell is going on. It is a very funny, tongue in cheek, and almost campy movie at times, but I found it to be surprisingly delightful.
Due to some of the language and brief nudity of Daniel's butt, I would suggest that this not be watched with young children as it is Rated R.
The movie opens with Hank (Dando) waking up on a deserted beach, unaware of where he is or what has transpired for him to be there. As he takes in his surroundings he gives way to despair and preps to commit suicide, when he notices a body on the beach. He races over to the body which begins to expel gas on which Hank rides Manny like a jet ski to get off an island. Shortly after,
Manny begins showing signs of semipermeable intelligence. At which point he slowly comes "alive" in a have animated have dead state, almost like a paraplegic zombie. The story centers around the two learning how to live again and a story of finding oneself and making it in the world.
Through out the movie Dano and Radcliffe are stuck in the middle of the woods, where Manny's many talents come to save Hank from the brink of death time and time again. While in the woods Hank tries to teach Manny how to live again, the two undergo a spiritual journey that eventually leads Hank and Manny back to civilization.
The movie ends with more questions than what it started with as turn after delightful turn unfold, you are left wondering what the hell is going on. It is a very funny, tongue in cheek, and almost campy movie at times, but I found it to be surprisingly delightful.
Due to some of the language and brief nudity of Daniel's butt, I would suggest that this not be watched with young children as it is Rated R.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Guns Akimbo (2019) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'll start by saying that 'Guns Akimbo' is not for everyone. It's an ultra-violent, stupid, no brain action/comedy movie, and it doesn't pretended to be anything else. If you've seen the picture/meme of Daniel Radcliffe standing in a street in a dressing gown and bear-feet slippers waving two guns around then you've seen a publicity shot (and in some cases the DVD/Blu-ray cover) for' Guns Akimbo'.
The films premise is simple(ish), Miles (Daniel 'Harry Potter' Radcliffe) is a programmer for a mobile games company who's main outlet it getting inappropriate videos taken down and confronting internet Trolls. One day he comes across a site for 'Skizm', a real life, ultra violent game. Skizm don't take kindly to some of Miles's comments and break into his home and drug him. When Miles wakes up he has a gun bolted to both of his hands and is told that he has to kill Nix, the current top Skizm player or she will kill him.
'Guns Akimbo' does not hold back on anything, the film is filled with violence and drug use (including comparing the use of an asthma inhaler to taking cocaine), the humour is often immature (see Miles trying to work out how to go to the loo with guns bolted to his hands) and the sound track is fast and thumping. The film is made to feel like a real life computer game almost in the same way as 'Scott Pilgrim vs the World' and, in some ways comparing Guns Akimbo to Scott Pilgrim isn't wrong, Guns Akimbo is a lot more violent but, if Scot Pilgrim is a fighting game (such as Mortal Combat) then Guns Akimbo is a Doom Style shoot 'em Up. Guns Akimbo even has Scot Pilgrim style graphics occasionally interspersed through out.
The main problem I had with 'Guns Akimbo' is that it hasn't got a U.K. release, it's been released almost everywhere else but not here and, with no information as to why or when I can only assume that it's because our all powerful BBFC won't rate it or, at the very least want too many cuts to make it 15.
So, if you want an over the top violent film that you don't need to think about and you don't mind drug use, blood and daft humour then give 'Guns Akimbo' a go. Oddly there is no sex, I think this must be because it would get in the way of the violence.
The films premise is simple(ish), Miles (Daniel 'Harry Potter' Radcliffe) is a programmer for a mobile games company who's main outlet it getting inappropriate videos taken down and confronting internet Trolls. One day he comes across a site for 'Skizm', a real life, ultra violent game. Skizm don't take kindly to some of Miles's comments and break into his home and drug him. When Miles wakes up he has a gun bolted to both of his hands and is told that he has to kill Nix, the current top Skizm player or she will kill him.
'Guns Akimbo' does not hold back on anything, the film is filled with violence and drug use (including comparing the use of an asthma inhaler to taking cocaine), the humour is often immature (see Miles trying to work out how to go to the loo with guns bolted to his hands) and the sound track is fast and thumping. The film is made to feel like a real life computer game almost in the same way as 'Scott Pilgrim vs the World' and, in some ways comparing Guns Akimbo to Scott Pilgrim isn't wrong, Guns Akimbo is a lot more violent but, if Scot Pilgrim is a fighting game (such as Mortal Combat) then Guns Akimbo is a Doom Style shoot 'em Up. Guns Akimbo even has Scot Pilgrim style graphics occasionally interspersed through out.
The main problem I had with 'Guns Akimbo' is that it hasn't got a U.K. release, it's been released almost everywhere else but not here and, with no information as to why or when I can only assume that it's because our all powerful BBFC won't rate it or, at the very least want too many cuts to make it 15.
So, if you want an over the top violent film that you don't need to think about and you don't mind drug use, blood and daft humour then give 'Guns Akimbo' a go. Oddly there is no sex, I think this must be because it would get in the way of the violence.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Now You See Me 2 (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new Lionsgate film Now You See Me 2 is a sequel to the 2013 film of
the same name.
It brings back most of the same cast members: Jesse Eisenberg as J.
Daniel Atlas, Mark Ruffalo as FBI agent Dylan Rhodes, Woody Harrelson as
Merritt McKinney, Morgan Freeman as Thaddeus Bradley, and Dave Franco as
Jack Wilder. It introduces Daniel Radcliffe as Walter Mabry and Lizzy
Kaplan as Lula. It is directed by Jon Chu.
This film picks up some months after the first film ends, with the Four
Horsemen in hiding, and Dylan Rhodes pretending to try to track them
down for their crime of thievery from the rich insurance tycoon that
withheld paying Rhodes’ fathers’ life insurance claim 30 years earlier.
The movie is fast paced and full of special effects, but it is certainly
fantastical and unbelievable. I am not sure there was even a little
realism in the entire movie, but it was fun to watch.
The banter between characters was funny, and it was interesting, if not
believable, to watch the effects used to create the magic tricks in the
movie. I thought that the movie was suspenseful, and I had one ending in
my head, but that isn’t the way it turned out, so it was sufficiently
twisty to hold my attention.
My friend that accompanied me has not seen the first movie and was able
to follow the sequel just fine, due to the narratives that tie the two
movies together. Regarding this film, she says: “Just when you think
you’ve got it all figured out, its something else altogether. The movie
was light hearted, adventurous, funny and suspenseful.”
For me, the effects in the movie make it one that ought to be seen on
“the big screen” but I would be hard pressed to go during any time when
it was full price, rather, I would catch it at a matinee or with a
coupon or at the second run theatre.
the same name.
It brings back most of the same cast members: Jesse Eisenberg as J.
Daniel Atlas, Mark Ruffalo as FBI agent Dylan Rhodes, Woody Harrelson as
Merritt McKinney, Morgan Freeman as Thaddeus Bradley, and Dave Franco as
Jack Wilder. It introduces Daniel Radcliffe as Walter Mabry and Lizzy
Kaplan as Lula. It is directed by Jon Chu.
This film picks up some months after the first film ends, with the Four
Horsemen in hiding, and Dylan Rhodes pretending to try to track them
down for their crime of thievery from the rich insurance tycoon that
withheld paying Rhodes’ fathers’ life insurance claim 30 years earlier.
The movie is fast paced and full of special effects, but it is certainly
fantastical and unbelievable. I am not sure there was even a little
realism in the entire movie, but it was fun to watch.
The banter between characters was funny, and it was interesting, if not
believable, to watch the effects used to create the magic tricks in the
movie. I thought that the movie was suspenseful, and I had one ending in
my head, but that isn’t the way it turned out, so it was sufficiently
twisty to hold my attention.
My friend that accompanied me has not seen the first movie and was able
to follow the sequel just fine, due to the narratives that tie the two
movies together. Regarding this film, she says: “Just when you think
you’ve got it all figured out, its something else altogether. The movie
was light hearted, adventurous, funny and suspenseful.”
For me, the effects in the movie make it one that ought to be seen on
“the big screen” but I would be hard pressed to go during any time when
it was full price, rather, I would catch it at a matinee or with a
coupon or at the second run theatre.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Victor Frankenstein (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Victor Frankenstein is basically a prequel to Mary Shelly’s book, Frankenstein, where we get to meet Igor and a younger Frankenstein as they get to meet each other.
We start off with our story teller, Igor played by Daniel Radcliffe, and how he came to be rescued by our movies namesake, Victor Frankenstein played by James McAvoy. The movie begins showing the trials Igor went through, growing up, as the lowest sideshow freak who just happened to learn how to read and become a self-taught medic for the circus that keeps him. Victor came to the circus to find more animal parts to make his homunculus, which he is building out of various animal parts he has been able to procure from zoos, as his prototype for his ultimate endeavor, making a human and bring it back to life.
Igor and Frankenstein are brought together when Igor’s paramour Lorelei falls from her trapeze and they both run to help her. Victor is about to give up and let her die when the Igor’s genius shows through and is able to save her with his quick thinking and knowledge of the human anatomy. Victor’s shrew perception bring him to offer Igor a new life and to escape from the circus.
I give Victor Frankenstein 4 out of 5 stars only due to the fact that being a prequel to the novel and not the many movies about Frankenstein and his Monster will confuse many. If you go in expecting an action movie instead of a film done in the noir horror genre in the styles before the 1950’s, you will be disappointed.
We start off with our story teller, Igor played by Daniel Radcliffe, and how he came to be rescued by our movies namesake, Victor Frankenstein played by James McAvoy. The movie begins showing the trials Igor went through, growing up, as the lowest sideshow freak who just happened to learn how to read and become a self-taught medic for the circus that keeps him. Victor came to the circus to find more animal parts to make his homunculus, which he is building out of various animal parts he has been able to procure from zoos, as his prototype for his ultimate endeavor, making a human and bring it back to life.
Igor and Frankenstein are brought together when Igor’s paramour Lorelei falls from her trapeze and they both run to help her. Victor is about to give up and let her die when the Igor’s genius shows through and is able to save her with his quick thinking and knowledge of the human anatomy. Victor’s shrew perception bring him to offer Igor a new life and to escape from the circus.
I give Victor Frankenstein 4 out of 5 stars only due to the fact that being a prequel to the novel and not the many movies about Frankenstein and his Monster will confuse many. If you go in expecting an action movie instead of a film done in the noir horror genre in the styles before the 1950’s, you will be disappointed.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lost City (2022) in Movies
Jun 4, 2022
Charming...with Charismatic Leads
Like most folks, I barely gave THE LOST CITY any notice when it came and went in movie theaters earlier in 2022. This Sandra Bullock/Channing Tatum vehicle looked derivative from earlier films (most notably 1984’s ROMANCING THE STONE with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner) and it blew in and out of theaters with hardly a notice. But…sitting on an airplane…I ran across this flick and thought I’d give it a go.
And…I’m glad I did! For THE LOST CITY is a fun, charming film with 2 charismatic lead actors that you will want to go on this adventure with.
Written by Oren Uziel, Dana Fox and Adam Nee and Directed by Adam and Aaron Nee, THE LOST CITY tells the tale of Romance Novel Writer Loretta Sage (Bullock) who gets caught up in a treasure hunt when a crazed Mega-Millionaire (played with a spry twinkle in his eye by Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe) kidnaps Loretta for she had written something in her latest novel that he thinks is a clue to find the titular LOST CITY. Coming to her rescue? Her clue-less Fabio-like Cover Model (played with charming density by Channing Tatum). What could possibly go wrong?
With that sort of premise, the rest of the story is fairly predictable and pedestrian, so the weight of the entertainment value of this film falls squarely on the shoulders of the charm, charisma and chemistry of the 2 leads - and the Direction of the Nee’s.
And…I’m surprised (and happy) to state that these all come through with flying colors making THE LOST CITY a pretty enjoyable romp.
Let’s start with Bullock and Tatum. They are really looking like they are enjoying themselves - and each other. Bullock is no stranger to playing emotionally repressed intellectuals and Tatum is no stranger to playing dumb lugs…and they both embrace these stereotypes and had fun brining these two to life. Add to this the aforementioned performance of Radcliffe as the comedic villain and an extended cameo from a very recognizable “A-List” performer - and the charm and charisma meter in this film is off the hook.
The Nees, then, play to the strengths of these performers and move the film quickly from set piece to set piece, wisely only slowing down the action to let these performers play. The Directors show a light touch to this piece - and the audience is rewarded by this.
Not the type of movie that will cause focus groups to sit around and discuss it after, but if you are looking for a fun romp, summer action/comedy flick to sit on the couch some summer afternoon/evening with a bowl of popcorn and your favorite beverage, look no further than THE LOST CITY.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…I’m glad I did! For THE LOST CITY is a fun, charming film with 2 charismatic lead actors that you will want to go on this adventure with.
Written by Oren Uziel, Dana Fox and Adam Nee and Directed by Adam and Aaron Nee, THE LOST CITY tells the tale of Romance Novel Writer Loretta Sage (Bullock) who gets caught up in a treasure hunt when a crazed Mega-Millionaire (played with a spry twinkle in his eye by Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe) kidnaps Loretta for she had written something in her latest novel that he thinks is a clue to find the titular LOST CITY. Coming to her rescue? Her clue-less Fabio-like Cover Model (played with charming density by Channing Tatum). What could possibly go wrong?
With that sort of premise, the rest of the story is fairly predictable and pedestrian, so the weight of the entertainment value of this film falls squarely on the shoulders of the charm, charisma and chemistry of the 2 leads - and the Direction of the Nee’s.
And…I’m surprised (and happy) to state that these all come through with flying colors making THE LOST CITY a pretty enjoyable romp.
Let’s start with Bullock and Tatum. They are really looking like they are enjoying themselves - and each other. Bullock is no stranger to playing emotionally repressed intellectuals and Tatum is no stranger to playing dumb lugs…and they both embrace these stereotypes and had fun brining these two to life. Add to this the aforementioned performance of Radcliffe as the comedic villain and an extended cameo from a very recognizable “A-List” performer - and the charm and charisma meter in this film is off the hook.
The Nees, then, play to the strengths of these performers and move the film quickly from set piece to set piece, wisely only slowing down the action to let these performers play. The Directors show a light touch to this piece - and the audience is rewarded by this.
Not the type of movie that will cause focus groups to sit around and discuss it after, but if you are looking for a fun romp, summer action/comedy flick to sit on the couch some summer afternoon/evening with a bowl of popcorn and your favorite beverage, look no further than THE LOST CITY.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Here we stand, at the penultimate chapter of what has become one of the most loved franchises of all time, as well as the most profitable. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint and co have grown and matured right before our very eyes and its this new-found maturity which shines through in this; the first film of the final book in the Harry Potter saga.
Deathly Hallows Part 1 is once again helmed by silver screen novice David Yates and after his disastrous attempt at fashioning a movie out of the Half Blood Prince; chills were beginning to set in when his name appeared alongside the huge advertising campaign. However, after 146 magical minutes, those niggling doubts were soon erased.
The Harry Potter series had become somewhat like a trusty old steed, you know it’s going to be there for you when its supposed to, but it no longer fills you with the same excitement it once did. However, I am pleased to announce that a completely new direction of filmmaking, albeit a little late, has revitalised the series.
For any of you out there who haven’t read the book or haven’t kept up with the films thus far, good luck understanding the many twist and turns as the plot throws you from scene to scene in a melee of storylines that are incomprehensible for anyone coming to the series for the first time. This is not to say it becomes a muddled mess, however. Gladly, criticisms are really kept to a bare minimum as Radcliffe, Watson and Grint move away from the once safe haven of Hogwarts and attempt to find the elusive horcruxes that were introduced in the previous film.
Moving the trio completely away from Hogwarts was a dangerous move by J.K Rowling but thankfully David Yates has managed to make it work with references about the films humble beginnings throughout. Unfortunately, this lack of solid ground has meant that many of the saga’s most precious actors and actresses are given very little screen time, allowing the suspense to build up for what is coming next year. Dame Maggie Smith is missing completely and even Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter and Robbie Coltrane rarely have more than few words to say when they are on screen. On the plus side, Imelda Staunton and David Thewlis make a welcome return as Delores Umbridge and Remus Lupin respectively, proving their worth to the series with some great acting.
Ralph Fiennes obviously returning as Dark Lord Voldemort is fantastic and very much welcome after being absent from the 6th film.
Some new additions, including Rhys Ifans portrayal of Xenophilius Lovegood feel a little laboured and whilst being no means a bad actor, Ifans doesn’t fully suit the role and therefore leaves the scenes involving Mr. Lovegood wanting which is a shame because in the book, he became one of the most promising characters.
Praise must go to the special effects team who have been working on this latest instalment of the Potter saga. They are integrated so seamlessly into the film that you hardly even notice they are there; they are literally that perfect and work exceptionally well with David Yates’ fantastic cinematography and stunning scenery which is alongside Prisoner of Azkaban as the best in the series.
The climax is a little disappointing and abrupt but due to the film being 2 parts of 1 book; a natural ending was never on the cards. However, the filmmakers have definitely chosen a spot which will have audiences shouting at the screen in dismay after realising their final Harry Potter fix will not be in cinemas until July next year.
Overall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is by far the most beautifully shot movie of 2010 and has some amazing action pieces coupled with fantastic special effects and mesmerising performances from practically every actor and actress involved who looked like they really wanted to be in their roles. Prisoner of Azkaban still clinches best film in the series so far but fans will certainly not be left wanting with this stunning take on J.K. Rowling’s final book.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/11/29/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-1-2010/
Deathly Hallows Part 1 is once again helmed by silver screen novice David Yates and after his disastrous attempt at fashioning a movie out of the Half Blood Prince; chills were beginning to set in when his name appeared alongside the huge advertising campaign. However, after 146 magical minutes, those niggling doubts were soon erased.
The Harry Potter series had become somewhat like a trusty old steed, you know it’s going to be there for you when its supposed to, but it no longer fills you with the same excitement it once did. However, I am pleased to announce that a completely new direction of filmmaking, albeit a little late, has revitalised the series.
For any of you out there who haven’t read the book or haven’t kept up with the films thus far, good luck understanding the many twist and turns as the plot throws you from scene to scene in a melee of storylines that are incomprehensible for anyone coming to the series for the first time. This is not to say it becomes a muddled mess, however. Gladly, criticisms are really kept to a bare minimum as Radcliffe, Watson and Grint move away from the once safe haven of Hogwarts and attempt to find the elusive horcruxes that were introduced in the previous film.
Moving the trio completely away from Hogwarts was a dangerous move by J.K Rowling but thankfully David Yates has managed to make it work with references about the films humble beginnings throughout. Unfortunately, this lack of solid ground has meant that many of the saga’s most precious actors and actresses are given very little screen time, allowing the suspense to build up for what is coming next year. Dame Maggie Smith is missing completely and even Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter and Robbie Coltrane rarely have more than few words to say when they are on screen. On the plus side, Imelda Staunton and David Thewlis make a welcome return as Delores Umbridge and Remus Lupin respectively, proving their worth to the series with some great acting.
Ralph Fiennes obviously returning as Dark Lord Voldemort is fantastic and very much welcome after being absent from the 6th film.
Some new additions, including Rhys Ifans portrayal of Xenophilius Lovegood feel a little laboured and whilst being no means a bad actor, Ifans doesn’t fully suit the role and therefore leaves the scenes involving Mr. Lovegood wanting which is a shame because in the book, he became one of the most promising characters.
Praise must go to the special effects team who have been working on this latest instalment of the Potter saga. They are integrated so seamlessly into the film that you hardly even notice they are there; they are literally that perfect and work exceptionally well with David Yates’ fantastic cinematography and stunning scenery which is alongside Prisoner of Azkaban as the best in the series.
The climax is a little disappointing and abrupt but due to the film being 2 parts of 1 book; a natural ending was never on the cards. However, the filmmakers have definitely chosen a spot which will have audiences shouting at the screen in dismay after realising their final Harry Potter fix will not be in cinemas until July next year.
Overall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is by far the most beautifully shot movie of 2010 and has some amazing action pieces coupled with fantastic special effects and mesmerising performances from practically every actor and actress involved who looked like they really wanted to be in their roles. Prisoner of Azkaban still clinches best film in the series so far but fans will certainly not be left wanting with this stunning take on J.K. Rowling’s final book.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/11/29/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-1-2010/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
With the slow, familiar strains of “Hedwig’s Theme”, the leitmotif that shepherds us into the world of Harry Potter, we’re once again immersed in the magic and adventure of the wizarding world. If for some reason you forgot where the story left off at the end of The Half-Blood Prince, the mournful dirge that plays as Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley prepare to meet reminds you that their world has changed drastically.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The sixth instalment in the internationally loved wizarding franchise has been perhaps one of the most awaited films of the decade; even more so considering the gruelling year fans have had to wait since it was decided to push the film back 12 months.
David Yates is once again at the helm, which after the fifth film is somewhat of a surprise to many critics. With rumours speculating the return of Alfonso Cuaron as director, I breathed a sigh of relief, thinking perhaps we could get things back on track.
Alas, it was not to be. After two disappointing instalments, a third would be disastrous, though unfortunately, it seems to be the case here. Yates’ films just refuse to hit the spot, delving into unnecessary storylines that really don’t progress the film further. Take for example the climatic finale of the book atop the astronomy tower; well it’s been cut, replaced with an hour or so of non-stop snogging… ridiculous? I have words much stronger than that to describe it, but yes, ridiculous can do for now.
It would be silly to expect things to be perfect, but a little cohesion would have been welcome; to people who have not read the books, these films are starting to get incomprehensible and even to those that have, it still isn’t an enjoyable experience. Remember the chapter where The Burrow blows up? No? Well that’s because there isn’t one, but it’s been added, for explosions sake.
The Dursleys are cut, Dobby – cut, Dumbledore’s funeral – cut, Kreacher – cut, Bill and Fleur – cut, in fact most of the important things from the book; have been cut.
Happily, there is a rather small pot of gold at the end of this murky rainbow. The acting from most is absolutely excellent, Daniel Radcliffe has grown into his role brilliantly and Michael Gambon seems to finally have chosen the right moods for Dumbledore and his character. Newcomer Jim Broadbent is superb in his role as potions master Horace Slughorn and Alan Rickman is as usual glorious and fully able to spread his wings in the larger role he has been given in this film. On the negative side, Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley hasn’t developed into her role well, with her acting still being stilted; unfortunate, as her part is much larger in this film than the others.
Unfortunately, just like the previous two films, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince really hasn’t hit the spot, it seems the larger books of the boy wizards saga have in reality stumped their respective directors, ending up as a complete mess. It certainly has its moments, though at 153 minutes it should have; but it seems the best film from the 8 has been made slightly too prematurely. Film number 7, come on down!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/28/harry-potter-the-half-blood-prince/
David Yates is once again at the helm, which after the fifth film is somewhat of a surprise to many critics. With rumours speculating the return of Alfonso Cuaron as director, I breathed a sigh of relief, thinking perhaps we could get things back on track.
Alas, it was not to be. After two disappointing instalments, a third would be disastrous, though unfortunately, it seems to be the case here. Yates’ films just refuse to hit the spot, delving into unnecessary storylines that really don’t progress the film further. Take for example the climatic finale of the book atop the astronomy tower; well it’s been cut, replaced with an hour or so of non-stop snogging… ridiculous? I have words much stronger than that to describe it, but yes, ridiculous can do for now.
It would be silly to expect things to be perfect, but a little cohesion would have been welcome; to people who have not read the books, these films are starting to get incomprehensible and even to those that have, it still isn’t an enjoyable experience. Remember the chapter where The Burrow blows up? No? Well that’s because there isn’t one, but it’s been added, for explosions sake.
The Dursleys are cut, Dobby – cut, Dumbledore’s funeral – cut, Kreacher – cut, Bill and Fleur – cut, in fact most of the important things from the book; have been cut.
Happily, there is a rather small pot of gold at the end of this murky rainbow. The acting from most is absolutely excellent, Daniel Radcliffe has grown into his role brilliantly and Michael Gambon seems to finally have chosen the right moods for Dumbledore and his character. Newcomer Jim Broadbent is superb in his role as potions master Horace Slughorn and Alan Rickman is as usual glorious and fully able to spread his wings in the larger role he has been given in this film. On the negative side, Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley hasn’t developed into her role well, with her acting still being stilted; unfortunate, as her part is much larger in this film than the others.
Unfortunately, just like the previous two films, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince really hasn’t hit the spot, it seems the larger books of the boy wizards saga have in reality stumped their respective directors, ending up as a complete mess. It certainly has its moments, though at 153 minutes it should have; but it seems the best film from the 8 has been made slightly too prematurely. Film number 7, come on down!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/28/harry-potter-the-half-blood-prince/