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!

A-Team: I Love It When A Plan (Unexpectedly) Comes Together!

What is more fun than being surprised at the movie theater? In our age of internet, Rotten Tomatoes and discotheques I am rarely pleasantly surprised with movies. Now I almost always enjoy movies I see, but that's because I know what to expect going in. Toy Story 3 was great and I knew this before going to see it. Inception was mind blowing and I had read this probably 20 before stepping foot in the theater. So whenever I can go into a movie not expecting much and be fairly well blown away, I love it. Such was the case with this year's underappreciated movie: The A-Team.

I was not a fanboy of the original series. I may have been if I was in the proper age group, but I was about five or so years too late to really be a part of the fanbase. None of that matters, though, because I know enough about the show to enjoy this movie. And besides, the movie is an origin story anyway so you can come to it knowing nothing and enjoy the ride. I'm sure there are references I miss, but I'm fine with that.

The movie is an action/comedy that actually has great action and superb comedy. The story follows Liam Neeson as Col. Hanniball Smith an Army Ranger who leads a team of crack soldiers on ridiculous missions. The team consists of Lt. "Face" Peck (Bradley Cooper), Cpl. B.A. Baracus (Quincy "Rampage" Jackson) and Cpt. H.M. Murdock (Sharlto Copley). Each member has their speciality. B.A. is the driver, Face is the point man and Murdock is the pilot/resident insane person. The story starts with the explanation of how the team got together in a chance meeting in Mexico and goes on to show how, eight years later, they were framed "for a crime they didn't commit." After breaking out of four individual high security prisons they go on a mission to clear their names. The crime they were imprisoned for is something about plates used to print money stolen by some other army like guys. Ultimately it doesn't matter it is a revenge story.

The story is convaluted. I don't know that I can fully explain it, but it doesn't matter. Like the original show (I'm told) the movie and the characters in the movie specialize in the ridiculous. Never for a second are we supposed to say, "That is so unrealistic." Of course it is! And that's the beauty of it all. We don't care that you can't actually fly a tank by shooting the turret to direct it while it falls. Sure helicopters probably can't doo barrel rolls and pull out of a free fall. Who cares! They say funny stuff while it happens.

By far the stand-out performance comes from Copley as the pilot, Murdock. We meet him masquerading as a doctor and stitching up B.A.'s arm in the shape of a lightning bolt. We're told several times that he is certified insane, but also the best pilot around. We also get plenty of opportunities to see both claims during the course of the movie. Copley plays the part so well I have a hard time believing he's not like that in real life.

While Murdock is the source of most of the humor during the film, the other characters hold their own. Each character has their moments. Face is the ladies man and has some great moments with that, B.A. is hard core, but can be very funny when you get him talking about his fear of flying, and Hanniball demands your attention as the leader of the group. All do well with the material they have. Jackson (as B.A.) is probably the weakest link, but he's a UFC fighter and reprising the role made famous by Mr. T so you can't fault him too much.

The greatest weaknesses come from the action scenes. While they are fun and fast paced they follow the same idea as a lot of action movies do now. The idea is that action scenes aren't shot so much as edited. Most of the time I knew someone had a gun and then shot that gun (because I heard it go off) and then some got hit, maybe? Sure it may be more realistic but in a movie sometimes I just want to see the action that's going on. Also you don't have to say, "I love it when a plan comes together!" everytime a plan comes together. Even if they said it in the original show.

This movie was such a surprise to me because it knew so well what it was. It never takes itself too seriously while simultaneously making the action scenes compelling and fun. The humor is derived in large part from the dialogue, so it doesn't feel worn or forced. The actors work well together and in the end you realize that you just watched something people had fun making. I would love to see a sequel, but alas poor reviews and a niche target audience may have made that impossible. Here's to hoping my unknown blog can make that a reality.

Rating: 56 Barrel rolls in a helicopter

Toy Story 3: Don't Cry They're Only Toys

When will Pixar fail? Not this year, that's for sure. Lately it seems that anytime someone announces the third movie in a franchise we roll our eyes and say, "Omygoshnotanotherone." We've just been jaded too many times in the past (I give you Spider-man 3, Shrek the Third, Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End, etc.) and while I have no particular problem with trilogies Hollywood tends to forget what made the first two movies great when making the third. Even with a company as great as Pixar I was worried about this movie. The trailers looked good, but not great, yet I kept an open mind. After all How to Train Your Dragon looked awful and turned out to be fantastic. So I went to see Toy Story. I even sprung for the 3D show. And I have to say, it's fantastic. It was touching, funny, and action packed. I was not expecting it to be any good. Part of Pixar success must be in playing down expectations. For the last several movies (Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3) I have seen the preview and said, "Meh. Doesn't look that great." Each time I have been surprised at how fantastic the movies are. Maybe Pixar is the one studio that honestly doesn't know how good they are. If that's the case I hope they stay aloof for much longer.

This latest (and perhaps final) entry in the Toy Story saga takes place as Andy is preparing to go to college. His toys (Woody, Buzz and the gang) are all there waiting for Andy to play with them. Children's toys they may be, but naive they certainly are not. They know their time is running out and they begin to contemplate their various fates. In the toy world it seems you have three options: Trash, donation, or attic. None of them is ideal, but the consensus around the toy box is attic is preferred. At least there they can watch TV and hang out with the Christmas decorations. However after a mix-up Andy's Mom throws out the toys Andy was going to put in the attic. Once they figure out where they are they decide going to a day care may not be such a bad idea, so they escape and stow away in the Sunnyside Day Care donation box.

Upon arriving at Sunnyside the Toys decide they are in heaven. Toys get played with everyday and when the kids get too old they leave and new ones show up. It doesn't take too long, though, before the dark side of Sunnyside is revealed. It seems that the long time toys get special treatment while new recruits have to prove their worth by spending time with the destructive toddlers of the Caterpillar Room. Quickly the movie turns into a prison escape film that borrows heavily from classic and modern escape movies.

The story is great, the humor is strong (especially Buzz Lightyear as "Spanish Buzz" and anytime Ken is on the screen) and the heart is felt. I dare you not to get choked up as the gang faces their own mortality in a Dante-esque moment (Okay, I've never actually read Dante, but I have to imagine "Inferno" has some similar imagery). The movie is ultimately the purpose of toys, which is to be played with. It'll make you want grab your favorite toys from days gone by and be a kid again for a few minutes. Check it out, but don't waste the money on 3D. Not necessary, the story is good enough.

Rating: A Whole Ken's Dream House

Inception: Down the Rabbit Hole

Christopher Nolan has done it again. He has managed to make a thought provoking, exciting summer blockbuster that has you on the edge of your seat the whole time. I really enjoyed this movie, though I recognize it has its flaws. It seems that people are divided on whether they loved or hated this movie. I haven't come across too many lukewarm reviews of this film. I can safely say I fall into the "Love it" category. Going in I was looking forward mostly to the visual aspect of the film and was happy to find that it had a good story to go along with it.

The story is simple enough, on paper at least: Don Cobb (Leo DiCaprio) and his team (Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Leavitt, et. al.) go into people's dreams and steal their most guarded thoughts. That is until a businessman, Saito, (Ken Watanabe) asks Cobb if, instead of extracting an idea, he could implant an idea (this is known as inception). Cobb says he could even though others on his team disagree. Cobb takes the job because Saito promises he can get Cobb back to his kids if he does. Why can't Cobb get back to his kids on his own? Because he's a wanted man back in the states. Wanted for what you ask? You'll have to watch the movie to find that out.

So Cobb and his crew take the job. The mark is Robert Fischer Jr. (Cilian Murphy), heir to an energy empire whose company is Saito's rival and only roadblock to global energy control. The idea the team has to put into Fisher's mind: Break-up daddy's company after he dies. It seems simple enough, but it will require traveling to deep levels of Fischer's subconscious to achieve. If the team can't go deep enough the idea won't take. The problems: Fischer has hired extractors to train his subconscious to protect itself against other extractors. This causes problems for the team because the have to fight off "Projections" that work as assassins and these projections get more vicious the deeper they go. Also, the team has to travel through three levels of dream states (a dream within a dream within a dream), something that takes exceptional skill I'm sure. Finally, Cobb can't seem to shake his own unconsciousness within other people's dreams. He almost always comes face to face with his deceased wife, Mal, in every dream he enters and she always seems bent on destroying his work. Why? Well that's another gotta see it to understand it things.

In a nutshell there's the plot. As I said earlier I loved the movie even though I recognized its faults, but I want to highlight here the good and the bad. What worked and what fell short.

First, the good.

I loved the themes presented in the movie. As a film student I usually look past the basic plot to see what the movie is saying (intentionally or otherwise). As an LDS film student I like to see ways that "unbelievers" attempt to explain death and loss and life and meaning. This film makes a great attempt to understand the meaning of loss and what is reality. I think often people who don't believe in an afterlife or struggle to explain pain and suffering tell great stories that say, "Wouldn't it be cool if..." Inception does this. Wouldn't it be cool if we could create our own dreams and even our own worlds within those dreams. They even go so far as to say that we can be "like gods" when we create these worlds. (Where have I heard that before?) They toy with the idea of waking from those dreams thinking that the dreams are the reality and our lives our the dream. I think the characters, Cobb in particular, try to make this reconciliation. Like LOST I think Inception takes a stab at explaining our existence. Both fall short, but that's what happens when you aren't quite sure of what things mean. Yet in falling short they both touch on some beautiful truths that if only they understood they could move from, "Wouldn't it be cool if.." to "Isn't it cool that..."

Also a major plus, the visuals! I have never seen something this sharp and beautifully done. The fight scene between Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Leavitt) and Fischer's Projections is amazing. If this film doesn't win best visual effects I'm not sure what will.

And you can't leave out the ending! What great ambiguity! Is he? Isn't he? You want it to be true, but is it? This makes no sense of course and even if I told you the ending it wouldn't make sense without seeing the whole movie. Christopher Nolan, for the ending alone you win Best Picture of My Heart.

Yet with all its greatness there were some missteps:

The logic. It must be very difficult when creating a world with its own rules to stick to those rules all the time. A few examples:

1. The kick. If the sensation of falling wakes you up even from sedative induced sleep how did they not wake up when the van rolled? Also, how did they "miss the kick" I understand Arthur not kicking the group from the third level to the second, but how did Arthur miss the kick from the second to the first? (None of this makes sense without seeing the movie of course, but it will once you do)

2. The floating. Again Arthur floats in level 2 because the van is falling. Why are the guys in level 3 not floating? Sure they're asleep in level 2, but guess what? They're floating in level 2 also!

Another short coming for me was the dialog. Too much of it is exposition. It seems like they said, "We need to explain to our audience what's going on. Let's put a new character in the mix, Ariadne (Ellen Page) so the pros can explain the rules to the newbie and then everyone knows." It's a good workaround, but also a bit of a cheat. I think we're smart enough to get most of it on our own, spare us the chatter whenever you can.

All in all a great film. One I plan to own one day and one I wish I was good enough to make right now. I want to learn how Nolan did it all.

Rating: 18 Totems

Lost: The End

So most people on planet USA know that the sci-fi/action adventure show, Lost, finished its 6 year run last night. I was among the millions who watched the finale and I have to say, I was deeply impressed. It's not often that a show can be about time travel, polar bears, smoke monsters and plane crashes can be so universally enjoyed, but Lost figured out how to do it. I think it owes its success to the strong characters on the show. Good guys and bad and everyone in between had their moments. We sympathize with criminals and con men, doctors and rock stars, mothers and fathers (or fake mothers and fake fathers at that). There are no (or at least very few) shallow one-dimensional characters in Lost. Everyone got a chance to show the good and the bad about themselves. With that in mind let's examine (as best we can without giving too much away) the last episode of Lost: The End.

The biggest strength of the Lost finale was that it was about the characters. Over six years this show has raised a lot of questions and introduced a lot of mysteries. It would be foolish to try and answer all of them in the last episode. Many of the big questions of the series have been answered in the last season (what are the numbers, what is the black smoke, why did Oceanic 815 crash on the island), but still several were left unanswered. If the writers wanted to just answer questions the finale would have been a lot of talking and not as effective. They chose instead, wisely, to focus on the characters and Jack in particular. By doing this the writers let us say our goodbyes in the most poignant and meaningful ways. We get to see them interact with each other and come to terms with their destinies. The reunions expected and unexpected were sweet and charitable. Bad guys get some redemption and the good guys get their just reward. It was a surprisingly Christian/Spiritual ending for a mainstream TV show with lots of elements of forgiveness, redemption, and even resurrection. Two moments that stick out in my mind: Jack to the Man in Black: "Locke was right. I wish I could've told him that while he was alive." and Someone to Someone else (names hidden in case those who haven't finished it yet read this) "For what it's worth, I forgive you." "Thank you [name], that means a lot. It means more than you know." Powerful stuff for primetime television.

Lots of reconciliation happens in the finale. Not least of which is the reconciliation between the sideways world and the island world. Since the beginning of the last season audiences knew that there was some relationship between the two, but not until the last moments do we understand why. All I can say about the last few minutes is, "WOW!" I was floored when I realized what had happened and how it was all going to end. I never considered that it would end this way, but in retrospect I realize it was the only way it could end. It was so complete and final that it wrapped everything up nicely. We still have questions, but at the same time everything feels resolved. Maybe my religious background helped me appreciate the sweetness of the ending, but whatever the case may be it was touching.

Well finishing this show was like leaving at the end of a long family vacation. It was fun and you know you have to go back to regular life, but you're just going to miss everyone. Sure it may be silly, it's only a TV show, but as someone going into this field for a career it's nice to think the things your doing could have some meaning. Lost was great, the ending was pitch perfect for me and I'll miss it, but hey, there's always Lost on DVD!

The Fantastic Mr. Fox: It really is quote/unquote Fantastic

I pick this movie as my favorite from 2009. It is just so great. Subtle, dry and hilarious. Even upon a 2nd viewing at the dollar theater I enjoyed it just as much as the first time. Maybe even more because there was a larger, more responsive audience on try #2. Really, though, if you haven't seen this yet, go check it out. If it's gone you'll have to wait until March 23rd when it comes out on DVD. It is worth your time.

Now after that glowing praise a word of caution: this movie is definitely not for everyone. If you're a fan of the book, you might like it. If you are a fan of Wes Anderson (the director. See also: The Royal Tenebaums, Life Aquatic, Bottle Rocket, et. al.) you most definitely will like it. It is so classic Anderson it's not even funny, or rather it IS even funny. His characteristic dry wit and quirky family relationships abound in this stop motion piece of wonderfulness.

The animation is jumpy and awkward, but that's just the charm of it all. I love stop motion and Wes Anderson and his team have done a great job with it. But the heart of the film is in the voice-acting. With George Clooney leading the pack (intentional pun) it's hard to go wrong. He does great as the title character, but I will have to admit my favorite character is Ash, Fox's son (voiced by Jason Schwartzman). Schwartzman is so monotone and pitch perfect as the neglected son of Fox. For examples of this brilliance reference scenes where Ash and his cousin Christofferson discuss sleeping arrangements or Ash and his coach (Owen Wilson) discussing his potential as an athlete.

I could go on, but too many thoughts run through my head. Just go see the movie and if you don't like it, that's fine. Just don't be like the girl in the class I TA who, every time I mention this movie, says, "Ughh, mgoshthatwastheworst, ugh, mpfht, ugh, thists, thsihft." But you should like it. Cuss yeah!

For the very interested: http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1571554585/

Rating: 73 Boggis Chickens, 67 Bunce Geese, 85 Jugs of Bean's Cider

Where the Wild Things Are: Welcome to my Childhood

Since it has been awhile since I last posted I figured I would skip the end-of-summer movies I saw (My Sister's Keeper, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, etc.) and skip to the beginning of fall.

I was really excited to see this movie, especially after seeing the trailer sometime last spring.   My wife (she's really cute) and I decided to go see this movie at midnight and it was quite an experience.

The movie is based on a children's book that only has like ten words in it, so you wonder what they're going to do.  Director/Writer Spike Jonze took some liberties with the story (including making it nearly two hours long) and succeeds incredibly well.  Now I need to clarify a few things.  First of all this movie is weird, the dialogue is odd and the plot is jumpy.  For these reasons a lot of people were put off by it.  I LOVED it.  The reason being that all of these "inconsistencies" were intentional.  Spike Jonze knew exactly what he was doing.  Sometimes movies fall flat because of problems like these, but Where the Wild Things Are uses them very well.

The plot is pretty simple.  Max lives with his single mother and older sister.  He feels left out because his sister is starting to hang out with boys and his mother is doing the same.  Since he's left behind Max starts to act out.  One night after a fight with his mother Max runs away, finds a boat and travels to an island where the Wild Things Live.

The Wild Things are led by Carol, a passive aggressive monster with abandonment issues.  He is upset over his (girl)friend, KC, leaving.  Max steps in and becomes the king of the monsters.  The rest of the story revolves around his trying to help the Things build a perfect city where they can all live together.  But Max faces his own problems of having to grow up too fast and be a leader too soon.  He wants to stay with the Wild Things and be their friend, but he also has to lead them and he learns quickly that in order to do that he has to be the grown up.  This moment of realization came for me when Max and Judith get in a shouting fight and Judith tells Max he's not supposed to do that.  She tells him he's supposed to be better than that.  A great (albeit weird) scene.

As I said, the plot is jumpy and the dialogue odd.  Even with these unorthodox storytelling methods I found a lot of ways to connect with this story.  To me each of the Wild Things is an aspect of being a child.  There's Alexander (Paul Dano), the shunned one, Judith (Catherine O'Hara), the know-it-all, Douglas (Chris Cooper) the loyal friend, etc.  Each of the Things is me.  And I'm betting they're you too, even if you won't admit it.  And they're each Max, which is why he gets to be their king and control everything, because it's his imagination. 

The plot jumping around did not bother me in the least.  That is probably because I have the mind of a child and this movie basically is Max's mind.  Anyway, the point is I connected with and understood this movie very well.  So if you're still connected to your inner child, or you want to get re-connected with it, see this movie.  If you end up not liking it, you can't say I didn't warn you.

Rating: 50 Wild Rompuses.