Monsters University: We're OK! We're OK!

Monsters University is a cotton candy-colored return to form for Pixar after the poor Cars 2 and the fine, but overly childish Brave.  MU takes place an unspecified number of years before the 2001 Monsters Inc. at the titular school where Mike Wazowski and James P. Sullivan meet as competitors for the Scare Program.  The story is simple, Mike has book smarts while Sully has a natural ability for scaring.  The two become natural enemies as they prepare for their scare final which will determine whether or not they get to continue in the program.  After an unfortunate accident, however, the two are forced to become allies when they are banned from becoming Scarers.  Now they, along with their ragtag teammates from the nerd fraternity Oozma Kappa, have to compete in the annual Scare Games against the school's finest sororities and fraternities in order to win back their place in the Scare Program.  Familiar, for sure, but lots of fun.

Much of what happens is standard college movie fare.  The rivalries, the miracle victories, the cheating, the pranks, etc.  But it's all done with such panache and humor that it's easy to enjoy.  Really the biggest issue I had was that there wasn't a strong enough antagonist.  Like many college films, the bad guy here is the Dean.  Devilishly voiced by Dame Helen Mirren, Dean Hardscrabble is a formidable foe; frightening even to her fellow monsters, she's certainly menacing, but there lacked an ever-present villain.  Some of the other fraternities have typical jock-types (awesome voice work by the always charming Nathan Fillion and the geeky Bobby Moynihan), but none of them felt threatening enough.  They could have used Randall (Steve Buscemi) from the first film, there was a great set up with Mike and Randall being friends and roommates at the beginning, but the filmmakers made the smart choice of not referring too much to the original.  Just enough nods and winks without over doing it (watch for a subtle wink to the original with a throwaway gag involving the accident prone George Sanderson).

As with all Pixar films, the visuals are state-of-the-art.  The colors in MU jump off the screen (even in 2D) and the action set pieces are thrilling.  The new characters are great as well, particularly the hapless brothers of Oozma Kappa (perfectly abbreviated to OK).  Don, Squishy, Terry, Terri and Art are all unique and memorable, which can't be said of all the other characters in the film.  Each member of OK has their time to shine and is able to use their unique abilities to help the team in the Scare Games.  My personal favorite is the flighty Art, a New Age Philosophy major who can't wait to laugh with his brothers...and cry with them.  Squishy also has some wonderful moments as he constantly scares Mike by sneaking up on him, blank faced.  This leads to a great moment in the final act as the members of OK test their scaring abilities.

The sight gags and throwaway lines made this film a delight to watch and it's fun, as always, to play "Guess the Voice" as you spot John Krasinski, Aubrey Plaza and the other top-notch performers.  This film has great rewatchability, because so many of the jokes are quick one liners or visual jokes you miss on first viewing.  Like the joke from the improv club president.  I know I missed some great joke about never saying No in improv, but I was too busy soaking up the campus along with Mike on his first day.  The story is well structured and it moves along nicely, I never once checked my watch.  And while there is a lot that is familiar, there are still plenty of surprises to keep you engaged.  The third act, especially takes some nice turns.

So while many people will be bemoaning the fact that this isn't one of Pixar's "best" (although I might disagree) the film is solid.  It's fun, it's heartfelt and it's enjoyable.  In fact the story seems to be a metaphor for the movie itself and its place as part of the Pixar canon.  Sometimes it's good, maybe even noble, to be OK.  The brothers of Oozma Kappa learn that teamwork and supporting each other are more important than book smarts or natural ability alone and while it takes Mike and Sully a bit longer to realize this, they embrace their weakness and use it to become a strength. I also can't praise enough the epilogue that teaches a brilliant lesson: sometimes you can still fulfill your dreams with little time and a lot of hard work.  Maybe with some work and in enough time Monsters University will reach its rightful place among the best of Pixar.

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's...Loud.

The worst thing you can do with a franchise as marketable and branded as Superman is make it generic.  When the story and characters feel like they've been pieced together from stronger sources, it's time to rethink your strategy.  This was exactly the problem with Zack Snyder's Man of Steel; the climax is loud, and unstatisfying, and a lot of the story feels like a retread, nobly intentioned for sure, but rote.  Visually it's a feast.  Henry Cavill is superbly suited for the role of Kal-El and the rest of the cast is top notch as well.  You just have to wish they were given better material.

My problems are these: Superman is so well defined and known in the American (and now Worldwide) mythology, so why waste such an impressive budget on an origin story?  We live a narrative saturated world, I was once told, and writers don't have the luxury of exposition anymore.  If something is known, you don't have to state it.  So much time in Man of Steel is dedicated to telling us things we already know.

Also, there's only so much you can blow up or knock over before you lose the humanity of your characters.  But Superman isn't human, you say?  Well this movie does a fine job showing us that he really is as much human as he is Kryptonian.  The reason Superman is a compelling character, as I see it, for two reasons: 1.  He's an alien trying to live as human being and 2. He's an immortal being while all the people he loves are mortal.  These two paradoxes create symapthy for a character that is basically invincible and make him someone we can root for.  There is a lot in this film that gives us cause to cheer and weep with him.  The moment when Pa Kent (wonderfully played by Kevin Costner) reassures a young Clark that he is in fact his son, is touching.  Jor-El (another strong performance in Russell Crowe) telling Kal he can be the best of both these worlds is inspiring.  So why then do you waste these beautiful moments of mythology with a bombastic ending that could have come out of Transformers?  Two alien "robots" duke it out amongst the ruin of a city that is suddenly devoid of human life.

Which gets me to my third and biggest gripe with Man of Steel, how can you justify that much destruction in a movie about a being who represents a Savior?  There was no real world cost to Supe's and Zod's slugfest.  I told a friend, if, in the sequel, they don't address the fact that over half of Metropolis is destroyed it will be criminal.  That statement is partially a moral one and partially a narrative one.  There has to be a cost for this "victory."  If they do account for it in the next one (and yes, there will be a next one) it could be a huge opportunity for Mr. Kent to reflect on what his choices (huge theme in this film, more on that later) mean for those he loves and those he has sworn to protect.  Until then, I stand by the fact that the third act (the final showdown) is just too much.  Too much blowing up, too much punching, too many buildings collapsing, too much noise.  Maybe I'm just an old fart now, but I left the theater with a slight headache.

I also had problems with the story, but I also enjoyed great parts of it.  The overall story is a bit convoluted.  Something about Zod creating a new Krypton and something called a Codex (there's an awful lot of technobabble).  That's ok, I could follow it for the most part.  One thing I found myself really taking note of was the dialogue, and lack thereof.  I feel like a lot of the filmmakers working today are of the film school variety where you're told, "Don't say it.  Show it." And because of this we have a generation of people who think characters scowling into the sunset has meaning.  This happens a lot in Man of Steel.   For the most part this is ok, but I like dialogue.  I LOVE dialogue.  Good dialogue sends shivers up my spine.  So wasting all your dialogue on exposition shouted by military men of various intergalactic races only to have your lead character hardly say a word seems like a waste.  I understand that this was supposed to be an introspective film for Clark, Kal-El and Superman (all the same person, in case you didn't know), but give the guy some stuff to work with I think Henry has it in him and when you've got David Goyer as the writer you can do great things.  I mean, this is one of the guys responsible for Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.

Now I need to be fair, I've only discussed the films weaknesses (as I see them), but there is also a lot to like about this film.  And I did like it.  I may have even loved it.  Repeat viewings might be needed to fully come to terms with it, but only after my headache goes away.

First of all, I really like what they did with Lois Lane.  Her trying to track down Clark is great.  I like that he's become a vagabond while he has been finding himself.  I wish that were more of the movie.  The "relationship" between the two happens a bit quick, but I like that they cut that corner and didn't waste time on a love story we all know already exists.  If they followed this example with the rest of his origin, it may have helped.  I think that Lois Lane is also one of the great things in the mythology of Superman that humanizes him.  And it's the human moments, like Perry White and his staff as they look death in the face, or Clark finally understanding why his father hid him from the world, that make the movie really soar.

I also love the themes in the film.  The biggest one that stood out to me was that of choice versus destiny.  David Goyer does a great job of creating a conflict inherent in Superman of what his choices are and what his destiny can be.  Without giving anything away, the conflict between Zod and Superman is the conflict between what is expected of us by our society and our ability to choose whether or not to live up to those expectations.  Again, if the sequel is done right, Superman's choices will haunt him and cause him to question his destiny.  I was worried that this movie would become a Nolanification of a superhero that represents hope and optimism, but I think a lot of hope is given while not overlooking the difficulty and Catch-22 nature of being Superman.

And above all the film looks great!  The design and the cinematography and the effects are all top notch.  Some of the fight scenes were a little concussive and I wish Mr. Snyder would have brightened some of the hues, but overall the film is spectacular to watch.  Not just the design and look of the film, either, but the actors.  I think this is one of the best cast superhero films ever.  Each part was played well and everyone looked great doing it.  Oh and the ending!  Sublime.  Even though I still wonder, do the glasses really fool anyone?

So while the film had a lot of issues, I think the good stuff won out for me.  Like Superman himself, this movie struggles to understand what it wants to be.  As I reflect, I see that its aspirations may exceed its grasp, but that doesn't make the aspirations any less noble.  Just as the Man of Steel is trying to find his place on Earth, Man of Steel tries to find its identity in an overwhleming sea of superhero movies and, hopefully, the next film will show us that this rocky step was worth it.

A Case for Les Misérables

I am an unabshed fan of this musical.  That needs to be stated upfront.  I saw it for the first (and really only) time when I was 8 years old.  The Monday night before my family went to see it, we sat around our old CD player as my father told the story and we listened to all the most important songs; though we skipped Lovely Ladies (and the thus the subsequent explanation of what that song is about) and Master of the House.  I don't really remember actually watching the play at Raleigh Memorial Auditorium.  I'm pretty sure I fell asleep.  It doesn't matter though.  Since that night I have listened to the original Broadway cast soundtrack over and over and over.  I've memorized every song and on the right tracks I belt it out along with Colm and Terrance.   So when I heard they were making a movie I was excited (read: extremely upset someone beat me to it) and after seeing the film the for the first time in theaters, I, like many people, was disappointed to a certain degree.  I felt like there were moments that were good and some that were great, but I had problems with the directing (so many close-ups!) and the performances (Wolervine stop being so nasally!).  I still felt, however, that the central messages were there and as a religious person it is refreshing to see those make it ever-so-rarely into big studio films.  I told people, "I liked it, didn't love it."
   But see, I have a problem.  I buy movies.  Too much.  And so when this one was coming out I thought, why not?  And I bought it.  My lovely wife had not seen the movie yet, so on another Monday evening some 19 years after my parents sat me and my siblings down, my wife and I sat with our daughter and watched.  And you know what?  I love this movie.  I love the music.  I love the messages and I love the performances.  It was great.  Wonderful.  Beautiful and moving.  I found myself forgetting (maybe just forgiving) some of its flaws.  Problems I had melted away.  I will get to my theory on why a little later, but first here are the things I love about the movie (and musical) in no particular order (there may be some spoilers):

THE MESSAGE
Hollywood loves a good revenge story and, truth be told, I do too.  The day I proposed to my wife I saw Taken in theaters and it was a revelation.  There is somthing cathartic about seeing people who deserve to go down get their due.  But Les Miserables is a story about forgiveness.  A much harder act both to perform and to portray in a film.  The character of Javert is the antagonist, but he's not a bad guy.  He's trying to do what he feels is right.  He believes in law and justice.  Of course it's ridiculous that he's hunting down a man who broke parole over stealing a loaf of bread, but that's the point.  Javert is the Old Testament law coming into conflict with Jean Valjean, an embodiment of New Testament compassion.  He represents what Javert cannot fathom - reformation and change.  It's heartbreaking, then, when Javert does the only thing he can think to do to make amends for a lifetime of misguided justice.  The ending of this film is sublime to me.  It's didactic for sure, but a message like this often is.  Faulting a film like this one for being didactic though is a bit like going to Church and complaining that it's too preachy.

DREAMING DREAMS
I just want to say that even from the first trailer I've defended Anne Hathaway's performance.  Singing live during the filming was a risk and I think it paid off more often than not.  When Fantine begins to sing "I Dreamed a Dream" you see the physical toll her choices and situation have brought down upon her.  My heart breaks every time I hear her choke out the words, "I dreamed that God would be forgiving."  I've heard plenty of criticism of Ms. Hathaway's perfomance and subsequent Oscar win, but that scene alone was worth the price of admission for me.  I never loved the song "Lovely Ladies," because I thought it took a serious situation and made a joke out of it.  This rendition, tied to the subsequent aria, made the song have relevance and context.  It was no longer a joke, but a sad story of a fallen woman.

VIVE LA CROWE!
This will probably get me into trouble, but I loved Russell Crowe as Javert.  His voice is gravelly and he doesn't have the gravitas of many of the stage performers who have played the role, but I think he was great.  People have told me they felt like he seemed too nice in the film and when he was supposed to be menacing, he just came across like a teddy bear.  Maybe I've watched Gladiator enough times to see he can mean business, or maybe I just like the fact that he played the role with some compassion to it.  Javert has always been my favorite character because he sticks so doggedly to his beliefs, but ultimately does the right thing.  A tear comes to my eye every time he pins his medal to the body of little Gavroche.  My wife turned to me at this point and said, "Best scene of the movie."  It was a little touch that helps round out a character that easily could have been very flat.  For those who think Russell Crowe was a bad choice because he can't sing, go back and watch the film.  His pitch is pretty good, even if he still lacks some of the showmanship of a professional singer.  It helps that I love the character so much, but I'll defend Russell anytime.

HOME VIEWING
My last thought is one that might be a bit of a stretch, but...well here it goes.  After finishing watching the film from the comfort of my couch, with a few interruption for ice cream and putting babies to sleep, I thought, "Wow.  That was so good."  For some reason the extreme amount of extreme close-ups didn't bother me.  The performances felt stronger.  Hugh Jackman's high notes...well those still bothered me, but not nearly as much.  And then as I got ready for bed I came up with a theory, and hear me out on this one.  I think home video is closer to theatre than going to the movies at the cineplex.  Think about it.  Theatre is live, it's organic and it's intimate.  Broadway theatres are smaller than you would think and you really feel like you're part of the show.  Sitting on my couch, with my wife close by, felt more like going to a play than watching a movie and I think that improved the experience and also the film as a whole for me.

Now this film, like any, is not without its flaws, but for me it's pretty great.  I would say that if you've seen the film and didn't like or it, or liked it but didn't love it, give it another try on DVD or Blu-Ray.  Maybe you'll find more to like.  Maybe you won't.  I'm not making any promises.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: The Simians Strike Back

Movies in general, and Summer movies in particular, seem to be less and less surprising to me. Stories often feel recycled and their execution is tired. At the very least I feel like I already know what to expect when I get to the theater. That last issue is my own fault. Too often I get excited about films and I spend hours researching them and reading reviews. Before I ever get to the theater I already know what's going to be good and what will disappoint. This summer was no exception. Super 8 was fun, if a little derivative. Harry Potter was climactic and exciting (but a little too quick). Cars 2 was a bust. I knew this going in and in a way it lessened my appreciation or excitement for these films. Then at the end of the summer, along comes Rise of the Planet of the Apes. A film that should've been dismissed simply for its title, but surprisingly wasn't. Critics and moviegoers began to take notice and respond well. Like other movies of the summer I followed the reviews and the box office for ROTPOTA and was shocked as anyone else that it was doing so well; until I saw the film.

Even after high expectations and review overload I went to see Apes and went bananas for it! It was thrilling, emotionally involving (weird right?) and it left me wanting more in the best way possible. The story is simple enough. Will Rodman (James Franco) is a scientist trying to discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease, but loses his funding after one of the apes he was testing the drug on goes berserk. Turns out the ape's reaction wasn't to the drug, she was simply trying to protect her baby. The baby, Caesar (played amazingly well by Lord of the Rings' Andy Serkis) becomes Will's new test subject when he discovers Caesar inherited the effects of the drug . Will secretly begins to study Caesar at his own home. Why does Will have such a desire to cure Alzheimer's? Turns out his father suffers from the disease.

Caesar begins to develop faster than other chimps. He has an increased vocabulary (in sign language) beyond any other ape. He soon becomes a part of Will and his father's family. But after Caesar attacks a neighbor while defending Will's dad, he's sent to a facility for apes (think ape prison or an ape pound.) It doesn't take long for Caesar to realize not all humans are as friendly as Will and his dad. He also discovers that not all apes are as smart as he is. Using his advanced intellect, Caesar frees himself and his counterparts at the pound. He also exposes the apes to the same serum that made him hyper-intelligent. Now Caesar has become the leader of the revolution of evolution. The apes are free to take revenge on their human captors.

The premise is a bit silly, but it's fun and extremely well executed and it ties in nicely to the original film. The genius, however, lies in the amazing special effects and above all the brilliant performance of Andy Serkis as Caesar. I was a little upset after Lord of the Rings that Serkis got no Academy recognition for his role as Gollum. Sure it was a CGI character, but Serkis was on set same as all the other actors and his movement and facial features are what we saw on screen. Sadly, I feel Serkis won't get any recognition for POTA either, but he definitely deserves it. It's exciting to watch him perform.

Sure the movie has its weaknesses as well. The human characters are much less interesting than the apes, but the actors do a great job of playing their types (particularly John Lithgow as Will's dad). I feel bad for Freida Pinto, the lovely actress from Slumdog Millionaire, who plays Will's girlfriend. She really has no point except to remind Will that Caesar needs to have a normal life. Pinto is much more talented than the material allowed her to be. The film also can go over-the-top with some of the action scenes, but I forgive that offense, because it's so cool to watch apes terrorize San Francisco.

I can't wait for the sequel to this movie, provided it is as engaging as this film. I think the idea of showing the war between humans and apes could be very fun, but it needs to be handled delicately. We all remember how bad a Planet of the Apes movie can be, right? However this movie is my vote for best of the summer 2011! Bring on the War for the Planet of the Apes! (I call dibs on that movie title!)

4/5

X-Men: First Class - A Mutant's Revisionist History

I didn't know what to expect going to see First Class. The two most recent X-men films, Last Stand and Wolverine, left some to be desired, the last one in particular. The trailers for this film looked decent, but I was still wary. I also don't really like the idea of restarting established series so soon after the last entry (*cough*Spider-man*cough*), but the reviews I had read seemed to speak highly of it so I took the chance. And I wasn't disappointed, at least not fully.

The film starts off exactly (I mean, shot for shot) as the first X-men movie did. We see young Erik Lehnsherr, being dragged from his parents in a concentration camp. The scene was, I believe, recreated using a new actor and not actually the exact same footage. The opening goes one step more, though and introduces us to our villain Sebastian Shaw (played by Kevin Bacon). Shaw forces Erik to us his power to save his mother's life, when he is unable to do so, Erik taps into his true potential, much to the pleasure of Shaw. Thus begins a life-long hatred of Erik for Shaw. The prologue also introduces us to young Xavier and Raven (Mystique), but it's not that interesting.

The story follows Xavier and Erik (later known as Magneto) teaming up as friends with the CIA to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is being masterminded by none other than Erik's nemesis, Sebastian Shaw. Shaw has an army of minions (Emma Frost, a mindreading vixen who can turn into...diamonds?, Azazel, a devil look-a-like transporter and some guy that makes tornadoes with his mind, IMDb tells me his name is Riptide) which he enlists to help him start WWIII against all humankind. He believes that mutants are the future and therefore superior to weak humans. Xavier, however, believes it is possible to coexist peacefully with humans, once they get to know each other. So he joins the human CIA people to battle Shaw. Erik is just in it to kill Shaw. But, the good guys have to enlist help, so they find a group of young kids with special abilities (sonic voice, ape feet, some laser firing power, flight, etc) to help them.

The film is set in the sixties and that is one of the best parts of the movie. The cool clothes and sets give the movie a throwback feel that suits it well. I was impressed with how real the setting felt and how the filmmakers were able to make technology and fashion that was so dated, still look cool.

While the setting helped the film a great deal, the greatest asset this film has is the chemistry between the two leads. Erik and Xavier's battle over how to deal with humanity is interesting and Fassbender and McAvoy (the actors) do a brilliant job making it feel real. I've always thought the idea of X-men is intriguing, especially the idea that two nemeses could have been great friends. This film seems to imply better than the others, in fact, that these two care for each other even after they go their separate ways. It begs the question, how can you fight your best friend. They both understand each other perfectly, they just have different approaches to their collective problem.

The strength of First Class also is its undoing. Since the leads are so strong, the peripheral characters don't get a fair treatment. Sure, there's a little pathos with Henry McCoy (Beast) struggling with his identity, but it isn't enough. Most of the gang just seems to be there to fill a very specific roll in the climax that Erik and Xavier couldn't have predicted would have been necessary (even for those who can read minds). But the biggest weakness by far is the writing. The story is okay, straightforward, often predictable (how can it not be when you know the outcome of the Missile Crisis), and the dialog suffers. Only the scenes between Xavier and Erik have any real heart. Some of the lines are just laughable, especially Mystique's lines. I wished they made her more of a character instead of a caricature. Also, I was miffed with the ending. Seemed too all-of-a-sudden.

Despite weaknesses, though, this film is exciting and enjoyable summer fun.

3/5

Super 8: A Blast from the Past

I had high hopes for this movie. I mean a collaboration between Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams? I'm in no matter what they're selling. I was also wary that my personal hype would cloud my judgement. But I'm happy to say that I was not disappointed. This film felt like Goonies, ET, and Cloverfield all wrapped together in a perfect package. It was suspenseful, heartwarming, nostalgic (in the best way), and hilarious. Being Abrams first film that was not a franchise (see: MI:3 & Star Trek) studios took a big risk with this film, but it definitely paid of both critically and commercially. (Most films these days really make their money overseas, but Super 8 made over double its budget back with little help from foreign sales.)

The story follows Joe Lamb and his friends as they attempt to make a zombie movie for a small film festival. One night while filming near some train tracks (for "production value") the kids witness a massive train wreck which they miraculously survive (They have to right? Otherwise there's no movie!). The train wreck seems like an accident, except to Joe who saw a truck drive head-on into the train. Soon Joe's small town is swarming with military and government officials who don't waste time in covering up the train crash. Something is missing from the train and it doesn't appear to be friendly.

Abrams is a huge fan of mystery and, for the most part, that mystery serves him well in this film. Like Jaws, the threat of the creature is scarier than the creature itself. But, the thing that gives the film its most suspenseful moments, also robs the film of its deserved emotional climax. At the end of the film we're supposed feel empathy for the creature, but we've spent so little time with it that we don't really feel anything. At the end of E.T. when he tells Elliot, "I'll be right here!" we're on the verge of tears. Joe's moment with the creature at the end of Super 8 feels contrived and simplistic. But it can be forgiven since the rest of the film is so well done.

The acting, for me, is what really makes the movie special. Anytime you work with younger actors you run the risk of, very quickly, wearing out your welcome. Making kids the stars of your movie only ups the stakes. Abrams did a brilliant job of casting mostly unknown kid actors. Instead of being irritating and juvenile, the kids are endearing and funny. Abrams walks a thin line and succeeds. My only qualm (expressed clearly by a friend of mine) was the amount of foul language used by the kids. I don't like swears as a general rule and younger kids using them doesn't help anything. I think it's difficult, but better, to find other ways of expressing frustration.

Overall, I loved this movie. It's the perfect film for anyone who grew up watching Spielberg's Amblin-esque films or who was an amateur filmmaker themselves.

4/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part the First

In an act of willful defiance of bedtime Jo and I decided to catch a midnight showing of the penultimate Harry Potter film. Having been a fan of the books and movies for over ten years now I was looking forward with great anticipation for this movie. However, after sitting in front of what may have been the nerdiest group of Potterites in Utah County (they played Would You Rather - HP style. "Would rather ride a hippogriff or a thestral, etc?") I realized I was barely excited for the movie compared to the groupies behind me. Perhaps one day I will repent, but for now I must be content with being a mere initiate in the world of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Despite the unfortunate realization of my incompetence as a Harry Potter fan, I still enjoyed the film quite a bit. Despite slow parts and missteps the seventh movie lives up to the glory of the precursors and sets us up incredibly well for an amazing finale.

Anyone familiar with the book knows that this film was going to be the slower of the two finales. And just as you would expect the film has it's slow bits. I mean most of the film is Harry, Ron and Hermione walking around being grumpy with each other, but the director, David Yates, does a fair job at keeping the pacing quick enough to hold your attention.

Different from the previous six films, Deathly Hallows takes place entirely outside of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. With Voldemort back in power and Dumbledore dead, nowhere, especially his beloved school, is safe for Harry Potter. After a few attempts on his life that endanger his friends Harry decides (along with Ron and Hermione) to go on the lam to keep those he loves safe and simultaneously continue his search for Voldemort's Horcruxes (cursed items in which the Dark Lord has hidden bits of soul in an attempt to be immortal). During this search there are many moments of looking out across the vast wilderness longingly and hissy fits among the trio due to the evil effects of one of the Horcruxes.

The search isn't all bad, though. There are some beautiful moments quiet (Harry and Hermione's dance) and otherwise (a creepy run-in with a Bathilda Bagshot impersonator). The film is beautifully shot and very well put together. I wouldn't be surprised to see this on the Oscar list for Cinematography just like other films in the series. The script has it's weak points, but I believe most of that comes from omissions in previous films. Now the writers have to introduce characters that haven't been in previous movies (even though they're in the books) so that important plot points can come out. This isn't to say that the script is bad, for the most part it's very strong, but whenever a movie goes into, "The reason why this is..." mode I tend to do a mental eye-roll.

So while this movie may be slow, it was expected and to be honest I really enjoyed some of the slower moments. Maybe there was a bit too much pining, but even some of those could be poignant. The film's final act picks up and leaves you hanging in excruciating agony. Of course they would end it where they did. Not leaving you sad, happy or angry, just extremely anxious for the final film. We know the direction things are going and it was nice to have this methodic, deliberate film before the director puts the pedal to the metal in the final film. Bring on July!