Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1

Initially when I found out about the "Deathly Hallows" being divided into two separate movies I must say that this fact irritated me. It's no secret that the film company made such a decision with the inevitable financial aspect in mind - I believe it would be safe to say it's common knowledge that every new Harry Potter movie is the equivalent to the creators having a billion dollars more in their pockets. After watching the first part of the "Deathly Hallows" however, I conceded that this clearly economic move did the movie a favour.

In this episode of the "Deathly Hallows" the magical world of the famous film saga we have come to know is immersed in darkness and seized by Lord Voldemort (Ralph Feinnes) and his minions. At the same time, we accompany those that are in rebellion against this new order - the rebels being Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint). They decide to fight. And that's why they head out to locate and annihilate the Horcruxes in which fragments of Voldemort's soul are hidden. It turns out that in the final showdown with "You Know Who" the Deathly Hallows could prove to be of major importance.

"The Deathly Hallows part one" proves successful in captivating the audience's full attention throughout the duration of the movie. Due to the plot being less branched, director David Yates was able to immerse himself in the main storyline to a much greater degree. When watching this movie it is obvious that the makers didn't just "do the job". "The Deathly Hallows" is graced with a touch of fantasy and pure creativity of the creators. This can be noticed thanks to some alternative, yet creative visual effects - for instance, the animated story about the deathly hallows, filmed in a black-yellow colour and in the scene where Ron is being tempted, reminding us of Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings". The world seized by Voldemort's powers was stylised in a way that it reflected what Germany looked like when ruled by Hitler, and this turned out to be a brilliant move - the grim buildings, the everlasting feeling of danger or the muggle persecution inspired by the Holocaust intensify that aura.

David Yates took a risk by gracing the young trio with most of the screen time, severely restricting accredited supporting roles. And in all honesty it has to be said that the trio Radcliffe, Watson and Grint actually do very well. Nowadays they're more mature actor-wise and do a great job in displaying their emotions; whether its anger or warm feelings, which bond the characters. Up until this point the stiff Radcliffe portrays a character comprising blood and bone. His character shares the traits of the "chosen ones" known from other works of culture, whether it be Neo from "the Matrix", Frodo from "the Lord of the Rings" or the biblical Moses. He's an unfortunate "one" chosen by fate; an average person lacking muscular build, a beautiful mind or even the ability to dance. He dreams of a calm life and doesn't feel capable of completing his mission's objective. Not quite a hero, he is able to go up the ladder of fate thanks to the help of his loyal friends: the great wizard Dumbledore, the nerd Hermione and the liable to sacrifice Ron. The whole saga praises friendship, showing that anything is possible with the help of devoted friends. And that's why it's not necessarily true that "Harry Potter" is a devoid of any value "outsider" of pop culture, as the "Deathly Hallows" as well as all the other parts of the saga possess a certain educational quality. 

Apart from that, the audience are supplied with sheer entertainment; with an addicting and absolutely captivating storyline, and action scenes soaked with imaginativeness. Let's not forget about the stunning pictures held in an epic, grim tone and the exceptional soundtrack courtesy of Alexandre Desplat.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1" isn't just the best movie of the whole saga, but it's also the best fantasy since Peter Jackson's cult classic trilogy. This movie is great to watch, there's not a single moment that tires the viewer. With each addition to the series, David Yates raises the bar of the Potter saga. Here's hoping the second part of the "Deathly Hallows" doesn't turn out to be an exception.

Melancholia, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, 8 1/2

Firstly I’d like to apologise to all readers of my blog for the long break in review publications. Unfortunately, for a period of time I was cursed with little time and restricted access to the Internet, thus encountered many obstacles in writing reviews. And that’s why I now have a few shortened movie reviews to present to you – movies I recently had the opportunity to watch.

"8 1/2 ”directed by Federico Fellini 

Classic. Federico Fellini tells the story of an Italian director, who is going through a creativity crisis, a period lacking artistic afflatus. This problem is portrayed with conviction and the film’s opening vehicle sequence remains ingrained in memory. Unfortunately, there are boring moments and the film all in all doesn’t deserve to be regarded as a masterpiece. With all said however, the final verdict is rather high though slightly far-fetched.

„Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” directed by Kerry Conran

Apparently the movie was a real breakthrough in motion picture history as it was the first motion picture to have been completely filmed using the “blue screen” technique (it depended on filming the actors in a studio with a blue screen in the background, creating the surroundings and screenplay on the computer.) It’s a simple adventure about Sky Captain (Jude Law) and his ex-partner Polly (Gwyneth Paltrow.) The idea for a simple and light story with a handful of movie quotes itself wasn’t that bad, however the animations of dubious quality and the many stupid explanations regarding certain events in the story don’t strengthen this movie production at all. “Sky Captain’s” fate isn’t even saved by star actors – Giovanni Ribisi and Jude Law.

„Melancholia” directed by Lars von Trier

In the opinion of many film critics it is Lars von Trier’s picture that should’ve have won the Golden Palm at this year’s annual film festival in Cannes. But for me - Melancholia failed to intrigue. Apart from the satisfactory roles of Charlotte Gainsborough and Kirsten Dunst, nice pictures, beautiful special effects and scoring nothing really struck me. It’s a good film. But that’s all.  

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

In the newest edition of the incredibly profitable blockbuster series, Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) - undoubtedly the “face” of a prominent brand that the “Pirates of the Caribbean” has become over the years - is searching for a water source of life, however this time without the heroic Will Turner and pugnacious Elizabeth Swann. Also, a few of the notable supporting pirates aren't present in the cast line-up. From the old crew only Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) and Mr. Gibbs (Kelvin McNally) remain. On the other hand however, we have a whole new line-up of new characters – a bad captain, his attractive daughter, a confident priest, a few mermaids, a drunken sailor (not exactly groundbreaking), pirate zombies, stiff Spanish defenders of their beliefs, an obese English king.

Rob Marshall's “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” heightens and rejuvenates the saga's standard after the soaked in pathos final addition to the trilogy, though doesn't quite compare to the fresh and innovative “Curse of the Black Pearl.” In the most recent motion picture there are a lot less fantasy elements, a noticeable lack of batalistic scenes riddled with special effects, though the trademark sense of humor isn't lost. A few diamonds in the rough can be observed – the showdown between the two Sparrows, the Russian Roulette scene with Blackbeard, or Jack's and Barbossa's snatching of the two important objects from the Spanish's hands. However, the movie doesn't keep that high a standard and very often evokes mixed feelings, giving us the hot and cold treatment – either by the unsolicited rush of events or the banal philosophical-religious issues. Hans Zimmer's soundtrack sounds great. In truth, the German decides to reach for well-known motives from the movie's predecessors without changing their arrangement and because of this the audience could feel bored or a sense of repetition, though the two new musical motives in some degree act as compensation. As always Dariusz Wolski's pictures present themselves very well, and a feeling of delight strikes when we see the beautiful landscapes and the unbelievable art direction/scenography. (a potential favourite to the OBF awards? :)) The whole mix is nicely binded together in a cool, grim style. And served in 3D (utterly unnecessary.)

And finally everything falls onto the actors. It's because of them that the new love story, as if from a fairytale, turns out to be pretty average – the ones involved in the love affair being a (highly) stylized Will Turner clone (Sam Claflin) and a mermaid (Astrid Berges-Frisbey.) Claflin's terrible performance is only partially redeemed by his love interest who portrays a mythical and devilish beauty with sheer conviction. Ian Mcshane's portrayal of a 'dark horse' character turns out to be one of the movie's strong points; as always it is a pleasure to watch Penelope Cruz who (as if expected to) to some extent plays the role similar to that of her character in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”; Geoffrey Rush displays quality acting. However, the movie benefits most from the amazing Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow. In a way he doesn't offer anything innovative, but his problems, behaviours and facial expressions are PRICELESS.
The fourth part of the renowned series, despite the numerous cons and script defects, is an enjoyable adventure movie, a good choice for a warm evening. Partially because of my fondness to the pirate series, partially because of my content regarding the change of direction when bearing in mind “At World's End” I'll give this motion picture a (slightly exaggerated) four.

the Town

Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck) and James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) are the leaders of a dangerous criminal group responsible for organised crime, mainly robbery. During one of their heists they take a young bank manager – Claire Kessey (Rebecca Hall) hostage. It turns out she lives in their area, inturn causing Doug to track her every move and spy on her to determine whether or not she is aware of his group's real identity. Claire doesn't know Doug, yet gradually becomes infatuated with him. Their acquaintanceship flourishes, and Doug is determined to change his life.

I expected something different of this movie. I thought Affleck would supply the audience with a motion picture based on allegory, perhaps based on one meaningful metaphor. With the film's title in mind, I expected “the Town” and its model of society to drastically shift and transform into a place in which even the thieves turn to be decent and respectable, perhaps even exemplary citizens. However, Ben Affleck's “the Town” was just a highly gripping and intelligent action movie full of twist and turns, and moments of sheer suspense.

Unfortunately, throughout the majority of the movie Affleck concentrates solely on the developing relationship between the two main characters, Doug and Claire, and because of this the film's tempo stutters and fails to be fast paced. Rebecca Hall's and Ben Affleck's acceptable performances aside, the lack of on-screen chemistry between the two seems to be a minor imperfection, and the love story feels slightly tiresome at times, regardless of the relationship's climax having a direct and decisive impact on the movie as a whole, which was cleverly delivered by the director and screenwriters.

The greatest pro of “the Town” are the spectacular sequences of action: cleverly thought out and nicely edited heist scenes, and dynamically filmed pursuits which were breathtaking. The bleak and dreary aura and surroundings create a realistic world in which, especially the supporting actors, find their place and shine. Known from “the Hurt Locker” and Oscar nominee Jeremy Renner graces the audience with a stunning performance – at times he portrays a rather dark character, but depicts one so pure, one comprising blood and bone. The character is a simple man, raised in a decrepit district, accustomed to its all-pervading evil. Also, it's enjoyable to watch Pete Postlethwaite in his last movie performance prior to his death.

Ben Affleck isn't an eminent actor, though in the future he may turn out to be worthy of being a world class director. For now however, he stands out for his lean manipulation of convention and satisfactory cooperation with the actors. I'm convinced that we haven't seen the best of him – haven't yet seen him in his prime and believe he has something special in store for us.

127 hours

“Slumdog Millionaire”, showered with numerous awards, appreciated by eight Oscars (including those for best picture, screenplay, director, music, film editing and pictures) dissappointed me. Indeed, from a technical point of view much cannot be criticised, Danny Boyle reveals his storytelling ability and exceptional control over its form, and also shows his... market knowledge. I don't know how it was possible that a formal masterpiece lacking substance like “Slumdog Millionaire” convinced critics, in the meantime sweeping all awards from right under the political genre bomb that Ron Howard's “Frost/Nixon” was. Boyle enchanted people around the globe and was able to create an additional artificial Hollywood-Bollywood ideology to the story of Cinderella. Another movie, courtesy of the English director – 127 hours – consists of many elements that comprises “Slumdog Millionaire”, however, fortunately it varies hugely in its substance layer.

“127 hours” begins a story about freedom told with the language of popculture. We meet the character – Aron Ralston (James Franco) – who, in search of a surge of adrenaline and wanting to endure a sense of freedom, travels around the canyon in solitude with a camera, bike and backpack with essentials. Like he himselfs states – the canyon is his second home. By running, playing around, jumping from rock to rock he shows off his physical abilities. The camera lens is always directed at his face – he enjoys watching his own reflection. And after millions of confident, faultless stunts he fails only once. Almost instantly he becomes a prisoner of a gigantic boulder, which crushes his upper arm. At that moment something reaches its demise; the epic locations, the soothing sound of music – somewhere along the line the freedom manifestation becomes suppressed. The movie's title appears and the cramped drama of one actor commences.

From capturing a graced by sunlight canyon to an imprisoned between boulders arm – Boyle supplies the audience with a visual rollercoaster. The popcultural imagination of freedom (wind blowing through one's hair, wide plains in the sunlight, soothing music) contrasts with a tight rocky gap. He ponders upon freedom and humility. Aron Ralston is confident that he's a free man. His excursions away from the city, the breaking away from family and friends were supposed to be a sign of independence from the world and the “system”. Jumping from rock to rock the main character felt like a king of the hill, putting his manly pride and egotism at rest, humbling nature while simultaneously integrating with her. He thought that nature plays a part in the process of him breaking free from the global village's chains; that thanks to it he can be someone exceptional, gain a real, unique personality. And all of this was supposed to render him as someone great, atleast in his eyes.

Boyle confronts Aron's imaginations with nature; a nature so adament and neutral. With the fall of a boulder that crashes the character's arm, a changing process occurs, an alteration commences. On our very eyes the director presents a clash between the character's thoughts and the truth – reality. Desiring and longing for something to drink, he thinks of pictures from commercials. Reminiscing about past mistakes, he presents them in the form of a television drama. It turns out that he's a slave of globalism just like everybody else. Was he really free? Did he know what freedom actually was? 

With time, Aron begins to understand his past mistakes. In this boulder he sees some kind of divine message, one that could change his attitude towards the world surrounding him, one that was supposed to be a chance for a different future by mending the mistakes of his past youth. And when the last of the 127 hours end, Aron is a totally different person.

“127 hours” didn't have to be a success. Its plot was thought to be boring and not movie material. Fortunately, Danny Boyle shows an unbelievable director's craft, a talent for interesting storytelling, exceptional cooperation with the actors, and experts responsible for visual effects. The pictures are great – courtesy of Anthony Dod Mantle (awarded for “Slumdog Millionaire” and with an OBF award) and Enrique Chediak – which were merged into a quick and creative film edit by Jon Harris. The art direction presents the canyon very well with A. R. Rahman's music wonderfully complementing it. Also, a vital aspect of the movie are spectacular music singles such as Dido's “If I rise” and Sigur Ros' “Festival”. Especially the latter sounds beautiful and just, and proves to be a wise choice of melody for the movie finale. However, it seems that James Franco hugely contributed to the final success of “127 hours”, giving life to an unbelievably mature and emotional character. At times the camera focuses the audiences' complete attention on him. It is then that Franco shows off his theatrical abilities.

Danny Boyle had a vision for this motion picture. He supplies a true feast for the eye, simultaneously reaching for quite a universal subject. At times he's able to shock us, sometimes he manages to cheer us up. “127 hours” is a beautiful film, hugely hypnotising and emotional. It is a masterpiece – a masterpiece so mature, so complete.

True Grit

Joel and Ethan Coen's “True Grit” aroused high expectations, especially due to the impressive ten nominations it had received from the Academy. The talented brothers, with an unbelievably fertile imagination, fiddling and playing around with convention, disintegrating various set stereotypes, create masterpieces and one of a kind motion pictures with a characteristic aura, with an attractive and recognisable style, giving life to mass imagination. This is why their movies arouse emotion, attract attention. Besides the fact that they produce atleast one film each year, contrary to other renowned directors such as Christopher Nolan or David Fincher, critics can always feel confident that with the premier of another Coen brothers motion picture, something special is in store for them and atleast a satisfactory movie awaits. Unfortunately “True Grit” is just a satisfactory movie.

A resolute Mattie (Hailee Steinfeld) intends to kill Tom Chany (Josh Brolin), the murderer of her father. However, the fourteen-year-old girl isn't capable of capturing such a lethal criminal on Indian territory and thus seeks help.  She sets out in search of Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) – a brutal and merciless drunken federal sheriff. And eventually finds him. In an outhouse.

In “True Grit” the creators lack conviction. The Coen brothers portray a world known from classic westerns – the gold of desert seems striking in the beautiful pictures, the scenography is identical to that of “3:10 to Yuma”, the music reminds of the 70's and 80's westerns. The movie's setting adhers to a classical western, but it doesn't lack cliché-less scenes that are capable of taking any western into an 'anti-western' direction. However, the directors fail to give us an idea of what kind of a film they intended to create. Was it a tribute to the genre? Was it supposed to be a demostration of breaking the rules, playing around with convention, a real anti-western? Perhaps a homage of their own, seasoned with a pinch of Coen-like irony? To defend this assumption, it would be necessary to notice  something more than a handful of shocking scenes in 'True Grit' in which the character of the creators of “No Country for Old Men” is evidently present. Moreover, the story itself seems a little bit bookish, as if it weren't properly “remade” by the screenwriters. Lengthy dialogues with a classical exchange of information embossed with a touch of irony seems to be the remedy here, only traces of the characteristic humour can be observed, and the final showdown disappoints with its sloppy portrayal and lack of finesse.

 “True Grit”, like I said earlier, is a satisfactory film. As if by tradition, the Coen brothers have a strong cast. Above all Jeff Bridges is the one that fascinates and intrigues, portraying a role that is complete and just. Actors restricted by the script like Matt Damon, Josh Brolin and the known from “Saving Private Ryan” Barry Pepper all showed titanic effort in their roles, and though graced with little screentime, their performances remain ingrained in memory. A certain maturity can be noticed in their performances and, especially in the case of Brolin, the audience can be slightly disappointed due to their shortened to the minimum plot. Unfortunately, Hailee Steinfeld who appears throughout the majority of the movie offers only a mediocre performance. Her portrayal of the character lacks clarity and, in fact, irritates instead of arousing sympathy.

The greatest pro of the film are the pictures. Classical and highly picturesque, at times even striking. The professional contribution of Roger Deakins can be felt. It is the sequences of the sheriff on a galloping horse in a race with death and the initial pictures from the prologue that remain ingrained in memory. However, the mentioned earlier final showdown turned out to be a disaster for the whole crew and even Deakins presented it in a sloppy a manner.

 “True Grit” is the Coen brothers' poorest motion picture since “Intolerable Cruelty”. It lacks an artistic bite, a certain confidence in implementation. But it is watchable and has a few memorable scenes. However, the Coen name has set a rather high level of expectation and it just doesn't seem right to plunge below that anticipated level and create a movie that is not worth the hype. For the audience's sake and benefit, and also the creators'. That's why I have to put this film down to a cautionary three.

the Fighter

“Everything has been said in the history of movie-making” - Quentin Tarantino once stated, an idol amongst real movie-maniacs. “Nowadays, a moviemaker's goal is to first modify, and then use the same old beaten up tricks.” Agreed, a certain repetition in movie-making can be observed, yet it often tends to tell a different story altogether, in some degree supplying the movie industry with a fresh breeze of innovation. David O. Russell's newest recent motion picture “The Fighter” is a perfect example that confirms this.

For a long time now sport dramas, precisely boxer movies (though I have no idea whether professionally you can include any film into such a genre)  have been regarded as an epitome of overexploited film, one of only a few outlines, which isn't possible to miss and develop. After the cult-classic “Rocky” with Sylvester Stallone we witnessed an authentic series of twin-like movies under the sign of gloves and a boxing ring. Indeed, such films had their ups and downs, though each nearly told the same exact story. Only did it change with the protagonist's position in his career – as a boxer, the story told itself somewhat differently. An icon was on a losing streak and had to give it his best shot to once again reach the top, a beginner proved everybody wrong, working his fingers to the bone during training sessions. At last comes the great fight on which our boxer's future depends on, symbolizing the struggle in striving for a better future. Let's not forget about the family, who, sure enough was involved in everything, motivating the protagonist in his strive for success, from a financial perspective to a morale one. Most of the time the film is based on a true story.

Every movie (this generalisation doesn't exclude exceptions :) ) about boxing has its foundations – a boxer protagonist; a motivation or incentive to act – a master's fall from grace or a beginner's ambition; conflict – a need for income; and a difficult and problematic love-family affair in the backround. And The Fighter also comprises these elements, including the real characters as a fundamental part contributing to the script.

Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is a young boxer, Dicky's (Christian Bale) brother, the son of Alice Ward (Melissa Leo). Dicky is an ex-boxer, who once threw away his career due to drug abuse. He lives in the past, constantly reminiscing about his one huge match, dreaming of a comeback, in the meantime training his younger brother. Their mother and also Mickey's manager, Alice takes care of her nine children, following the footsteps of the “Bold and Beautiful” characters that live by the the saying: “Family is most important.” Apart from her, there's the father that is incapable of taking control of the household; a chain of already grown up sisters still living with their parents; and a brother-junkie. Micky isn't making the most of his potential, being a prisoner of the toxic family ties surrounding him. He's quite shy, unable to put his foot down and express his views, approving of anything and everything with only a slight grimace on his face. It is Dicky who is the star – everybody knows him, is often called the pride of Lowell, their mother spends most of her time speaking of his comeback rather than focus on the career of her youngest son, and the sisters just adore him. The family refuses to notice that their 'golden boy', the so-called pride of Lowell has lost his life and is a human wreck. Because of this, Mickey is suffering defeat after defeat on a regular basis, his career hanging by a thread. One day the underachieving boxer is introduced courtesy of his father to a female bartender – Charlene (Amy Adams) – a college dropout that has drowned her ambitions in the alcohol she each day serves to her drunken clients. With the progression of time, their acquaintanceship takes on a different form. The confident girl turns out to be the perfect antidote for Mickey's poorly conducted, abysmal boxing career. Alongside a local businessman, policeman and the boxer's father, she offers him another chance at making his dreams finally come true in getting a better life, however at the cost of his cooperation with his mother and brother. Micky makes the decision and agrees and as soon as Dicky is thrown into jail, his career begins to flourish. However, once he participates in his first major match, his strategy fails him. It is the moment that he takes advantage of his brother's advice that he stands victorious and wins. Micky's success eventually guarantees him a chance at the world title, but finds himself in a possibly career-changing dilemna: he stands at a crossroads on whether to continue down the path that Charlene has chosen for him, or to reunite with his brother and mother.

For the majority of the film I wondered whether the main protagonist's poor personality was in keeping with the movie's initial vision, or was it just an effect of Wahlberg's rather mediocre acting performance. Of course, an unbelievable lack in opinion and letting other's grab the steering wheel of his destiny turned out to somehow be a thorn in the story's side, but Wahlberg wasn't able to live up to the expectation and deliver a sense of plausibility to his character. The impressive cast didn't make his job any easier – the oscar-winning duo Christian Bale and Melissa Leo. Christian Bale in his role as Dicky delivered the best acting performance since Heath Ledger's Joker, literally bombarding the audience with a wide range of acting skills. Excellent voice control, exceptional posture and eye play, great facial expressions, and apart from that a huge sacrifice (he lost twenty kilograms to portray a drug-ridden physique). Bale changed immensely, choosing a method smilar to that of Heath Ledger's. Bale literally turned into Dicky, and this is emphasised by the movie's creators once an authentic clip of the two brothers is shown next to the credit roll. Melissa Leo plays an uneducated woman who, on every step, uses the term 'fuck' and excessively results to cigarettes, successfully portraying a character of pure blood and bone, without making it seem like a target for ridicule.

“The Fighter” consists of many elements that make a classic boxer movie, but despite the occurrence of a few clichés, the audience doesn't endure a moment of boredom or distaste. David O. Russell attracts attention on to the main protagonist's unfavourable predicament. Micky's chance at a career is used by his closest family members as an opportunity to put their complexes at ease and recompensate for their past mistakes. Putting a boxer into such a situation has never been done before, and actually facinates and intrigues. Christian Bale's portrayal helps one get through the boring moments and clichés during the movie. The banal editing and convincing narrative also doesn't seem to get in the way. The viewer just sits down and observes. And sometimes even admires.