Search
Search results
Taskmaster
8.8
Rate It
TV Show
Taskmaster is a British comedy panel game show originally created by British comedian Alex Horne...
Father Figures (2018)
6.9
Rate It
Movie Watch
Owen Wilson (“The Grand Budapest Hotel,” “Zoolander 2”) and Ed Helms (“The Hangover”...
comedy
The Real Deal: A Novel
10.0
Rate It
Book
Get ready for your next favorite romantic comedy, THE REAL DEAL! April Hamilton wants you to know...
David McK (3649 KP) rated Star Trek (2009) in Movies
Aug 23, 2020 (Updated Jan 22, 2023)
JJ Abrams prepares for Star Wars
"Space. The Final Frontier. These are the voyages ..."
2009 big screen reimagining of the iconic 60s TV series, and I use that as the touchpoint deliberately: we're back to a (recast) Kirk and co instead of the Next Generation crew, or even those from Voyager/Enterprise/Discovery.
In retrospect, it also somewhat comes across as director JJ Abrams pitch for making a Star Wars movie: this is also lens flare and slow motion, with the action ramped up considerably from the TV series or even most of the previous movies. it's also the first of the three Kelvin-verse Star Trek movies: I'm unsure whether we'll get any more in that timeline, what with the tragic death of some of the (young) key actors - I'm looking at you, Anton Yelchin (Chekov) - and with others of the cast moving on to other bigger (?) sci-fi things - yep, that's you Zoe Saldana (Uhura).
The plot, as alluded to above, involves time travel, with the events thus kicking off an entire new timeline, that here sees Chris Pine taking on the role of James T Kirk - initially introduced as a kid, driving his step fathers classic car off a cliff (talk about setting out your stall early!) - and Zachary Quinto (then more famous as the villain Sylar from TVs 'Heroes') talking on the role of a younger Spock.
Most of the cast, I felt, was pretty much spot on - the only one that really rubbed me up the wrong way was Simon Pegg as Scotty, although even he grew on me a bit (I'm also not entirely sold on the aesthetics of the USS Enterprise here - more like USS Chibiprise!). We also have the 'passing of the torch' (as it were) from one character to another, with the inclusion of a certain key half-human actor who will forever be associated with that role ...
2009 big screen reimagining of the iconic 60s TV series, and I use that as the touchpoint deliberately: we're back to a (recast) Kirk and co instead of the Next Generation crew, or even those from Voyager/Enterprise/Discovery.
In retrospect, it also somewhat comes across as director JJ Abrams pitch for making a Star Wars movie: this is also lens flare and slow motion, with the action ramped up considerably from the TV series or even most of the previous movies. it's also the first of the three Kelvin-verse Star Trek movies: I'm unsure whether we'll get any more in that timeline, what with the tragic death of some of the (young) key actors - I'm looking at you, Anton Yelchin (Chekov) - and with others of the cast moving on to other bigger (?) sci-fi things - yep, that's you Zoe Saldana (Uhura).
The plot, as alluded to above, involves time travel, with the events thus kicking off an entire new timeline, that here sees Chris Pine taking on the role of James T Kirk - initially introduced as a kid, driving his step fathers classic car off a cliff (talk about setting out your stall early!) - and Zachary Quinto (then more famous as the villain Sylar from TVs 'Heroes') talking on the role of a younger Spock.
Most of the cast, I felt, was pretty much spot on - the only one that really rubbed me up the wrong way was Simon Pegg as Scotty, although even he grew on me a bit (I'm also not entirely sold on the aesthetics of the USS Enterprise here - more like USS Chibiprise!). We also have the 'passing of the torch' (as it were) from one character to another, with the inclusion of a certain key half-human actor who will forever be associated with that role ...
Where You Are
8.0
Rate It
Book
Former model and B-list actor (B meaning really bad) Isaac Seidel is now a NYC firefighter on...
MM Contemporary Romance
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Lake Placid (1999) in Movies
Jan 7, 2022
Betty White Steals This Film
I have to admit, I actually saw LAKE PLACID in the movie theaters when it came out in 1999. I am a huge JAWS fan and am a sucker for any film that takes the elements of Jaws (or some of them, anyway) and tries to rip-off that classic film.
And, that is what Lake Placid does (is). It’s “Jaws with a Crocodile”. The residents of Black Lake are being picked off one-by-one by a killer croc and a ragtag group of heroes put aside their differences to save the day.
The “ragtag group” features an a few “B-Listers” (at the time) and one “up-and-comer”. Bill Pullman (fresh off INDEPENDENCE DAY) scores a lead role while Bridget Fonda (beginning to fade from view) is the “femme-fatale” and character actor Oliver Platt (currently on CHICAGO MED) eats the screen as the “eccentric, philanthropist Croc hunter” (I can’t think of a philanthropist croc hunter that isn’t eccentric). It also features a then unknown Brendan Gleeson (a few years before his turn as Mad-Eye Moody in the Harry Potter series) as the Sherriff of the town - the Roy Scheider/Sherriff Brody role from Jaws.
But the character that steals this film is, of course, Betty White as a foul-mouthed resident of the community. Flipping the coin on her wholesome image garnered from her turns on THE GOLDEN GIRLS and THE MARY TYLER MOORE show, Ms. White is - as should be expected - hilarious in her raunchiness.
While this movie is the very definition of “B-Movie” (maybe even “C” flick), it’s worth watching just for Betty White’s turn.
Rest in Peace, Ms. White. And THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES.
Letter Grade on Lake Placid: B (and I’m being generous)
Letter Grade on Betty White: A+
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, that is what Lake Placid does (is). It’s “Jaws with a Crocodile”. The residents of Black Lake are being picked off one-by-one by a killer croc and a ragtag group of heroes put aside their differences to save the day.
The “ragtag group” features an a few “B-Listers” (at the time) and one “up-and-comer”. Bill Pullman (fresh off INDEPENDENCE DAY) scores a lead role while Bridget Fonda (beginning to fade from view) is the “femme-fatale” and character actor Oliver Platt (currently on CHICAGO MED) eats the screen as the “eccentric, philanthropist Croc hunter” (I can’t think of a philanthropist croc hunter that isn’t eccentric). It also features a then unknown Brendan Gleeson (a few years before his turn as Mad-Eye Moody in the Harry Potter series) as the Sherriff of the town - the Roy Scheider/Sherriff Brody role from Jaws.
But the character that steals this film is, of course, Betty White as a foul-mouthed resident of the community. Flipping the coin on her wholesome image garnered from her turns on THE GOLDEN GIRLS and THE MARY TYLER MOORE show, Ms. White is - as should be expected - hilarious in her raunchiness.
While this movie is the very definition of “B-Movie” (maybe even “C” flick), it’s worth watching just for Betty White’s turn.
Rest in Peace, Ms. White. And THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES.
Letter Grade on Lake Placid: B (and I’m being generous)
Letter Grade on Betty White: A+
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
David McK (3649 KP) rated World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie Wars in Books
May 14, 2023
Audiobooks, I find, are a bit of a strange beast: some are good; some are terrible.
I think it all depends on the skill of the narrator, and how close they are to how the character 'sounds' in your head when you're reading a book: in audio (and televisual) form, after all, you are relying on someone else's characterisation.
That is where a unique - at least, I've never come across one quite like this before - hook comes in. Sure, I've listened to a few Graphic Audio's (essentially, a dramatization for the listeners) with a wide cast of characters (each performed by a different actor) before but I don't think I've ever come across one presented like this: essentially, as interviews with survivors of a global apocalypse, the World War Z(ed, not Zee - I'm British) of the title.
Forget the Brad Pitt starring movie of the same name: while it does take the occasional pointer from this, it's a very different beast indeed.
Instead, this is presented as Max Brooks - a survivor of the War - interviewing notable, key and even sometimes seemingly normal, mundane survivors of the fictional outbreak, in chronological order from the earliest inkling that something was wrong, through to the outbreak proper, the fall of society, the fight back against the hordes and the eventual reclamation of society.
I do have to say, however, that I felt that more than a few of the chapters 'sounded' the same (and I mean that in the style and tone of language used, not so much in the verbal intonation - although there is also an element of that in the audiobook), and that I did find myself 'zoning out' for periods of time. As I listened to the audiobook version, it also didn't help that one section would sound like a character was whispering (=sounds up full), and then the very next I would have to hurriedly turn the volume down if I didn't want to be deafened ...
I think it all depends on the skill of the narrator, and how close they are to how the character 'sounds' in your head when you're reading a book: in audio (and televisual) form, after all, you are relying on someone else's characterisation.
That is where a unique - at least, I've never come across one quite like this before - hook comes in. Sure, I've listened to a few Graphic Audio's (essentially, a dramatization for the listeners) with a wide cast of characters (each performed by a different actor) before but I don't think I've ever come across one presented like this: essentially, as interviews with survivors of a global apocalypse, the World War Z(ed, not Zee - I'm British) of the title.
Forget the Brad Pitt starring movie of the same name: while it does take the occasional pointer from this, it's a very different beast indeed.
Instead, this is presented as Max Brooks - a survivor of the War - interviewing notable, key and even sometimes seemingly normal, mundane survivors of the fictional outbreak, in chronological order from the earliest inkling that something was wrong, through to the outbreak proper, the fall of society, the fight back against the hordes and the eventual reclamation of society.
I do have to say, however, that I felt that more than a few of the chapters 'sounded' the same (and I mean that in the style and tone of language used, not so much in the verbal intonation - although there is also an element of that in the audiobook), and that I did find myself 'zoning out' for periods of time. As I listened to the audiobook version, it also didn't help that one section would sound like a character was whispering (=sounds up full), and then the very next I would have to hurriedly turn the volume down if I didn't want to be deafened ...
DaveySmithy (107 KP) rated Venom: The Last Dance (2024) in Movies
Dec 4, 2024
A Chaotic Farewell with Flashes of Brilliance
Venom: Last Dance marks the end of Eddie Brock’s wild, symbiotic saga, and while it doesn’t entirely stick the landing, it’s a fittingly chaotic swan song for the antihero. With Tom Hardy once again embracing the absurdity of his dual role, the film offers plenty of the franchise’s trademark blend of humor, action, and madness—but it’s also weighed down by an uneven plot and overambitious storytelling.
One of the highlights of this film is, unsurprisingly, Tom Hardy. His commitment to playing both the brooding Eddie and the wisecracking, gluttonous Venom remains the beating heart of this franchise. Their banter is sharper than ever, delivering both laughs and surprisingly tender moments as their unconventional “relationship” reaches new levels of complexity. Hardy’s performance makes it easy to forgive some of the film’s narrative shortcomings.
Visually, Last Dance is a mixed bag. The action sequences are bigger and flashier than ever, with symbiote battles that explode across the screen in frenetic bursts of CGI. Some of these moments are thrilling, but others veer into sensory overload, leaving me wishing for a bit more clarity and restraint. The film’s attempt to lean into darker, more gothic visuals works in some scenes but feels inconsistent overall.
The plot, while ambitious, tries to juggle too many elements at once. A new villain, played with gusto by a high-profile (but slightly underutilized) actor, brings menace to the story, but their motivations are murky and underdeveloped. Meanwhile, the film’s exploration of Venom’s origins is intriguing but feels rushed, leaving me craving more depth and fewer loose ends.
Despite its flaws, Venom: Last Dance manages to deliver an entertaining and emotional farewell to the character. It’s messy, but there’s a charm in its willingness to embrace the absurd. Fans of the series will find plenty to enjoy, though it’s unlikely to win over newcomers. For me, it’s a 7/10—an imperfect but enjoyable final ride with one of Marvel’s most unpredictable antiheroes.
One of the highlights of this film is, unsurprisingly, Tom Hardy. His commitment to playing both the brooding Eddie and the wisecracking, gluttonous Venom remains the beating heart of this franchise. Their banter is sharper than ever, delivering both laughs and surprisingly tender moments as their unconventional “relationship” reaches new levels of complexity. Hardy’s performance makes it easy to forgive some of the film’s narrative shortcomings.
Visually, Last Dance is a mixed bag. The action sequences are bigger and flashier than ever, with symbiote battles that explode across the screen in frenetic bursts of CGI. Some of these moments are thrilling, but others veer into sensory overload, leaving me wishing for a bit more clarity and restraint. The film’s attempt to lean into darker, more gothic visuals works in some scenes but feels inconsistent overall.
The plot, while ambitious, tries to juggle too many elements at once. A new villain, played with gusto by a high-profile (but slightly underutilized) actor, brings menace to the story, but their motivations are murky and underdeveloped. Meanwhile, the film’s exploration of Venom’s origins is intriguing but feels rushed, leaving me craving more depth and fewer loose ends.
Despite its flaws, Venom: Last Dance manages to deliver an entertaining and emotional farewell to the character. It’s messy, but there’s a charm in its willingness to embrace the absurd. Fans of the series will find plenty to enjoy, though it’s unlikely to win over newcomers. For me, it’s a 7/10—an imperfect but enjoyable final ride with one of Marvel’s most unpredictable antiheroes.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
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/