Animation Week - Persepolis (2007)

Persepolis (2007)
No Batman this time, but Persepolis is another movie based on a comic book. It might seem like a weird follow up but this is oddly appropriate for me since Batman: Year One and Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi were two of the first comics or graphic novels I ever read and both made me appreciate the form. I didn't read these until I was near the end of high school and already thought of comics as either kids stuff or only featuring super heroes. Both surprised me and opened me up to a lot of stuff I would not have read otherwise. Getting back to the film, Persepolis is a coming of age story based on the real life experiences of author and artist Marjane Satrapi growing up in Iran in the 1970s and early 80s. As Marjane or "Marji" gets older she clashes with the ideals of the Islamic Fundamentalists in power. This eventually leads her to leave her country to study in Vienna before returning to her home years later. The movie is a French language film and I watched it with subtitles. I kinda want to see the dubbed version sometime though because the English language cast includes Sean Penn and Iggy Pop!

The comic Persepolis is made up of two separate books, while the movie covers the story of both. I've actually only read the first book, which ends with Marjane leaving Iran for college. Persepolis is a pretty accurate adaptation despite being condensed since it has to cover the material of two books. I can understand why this choice was made but still think it would've made more sense to make one movie for each book. The animation looks pretty much just like the comic. Even though some parts of the story were cut it did feel like I was paging through the comic again. I still need to read Persepolis 2: The Story of a Return but so I can't say how close on an adaptation that part of the movie is. But if it is like the first half then it is pretty close but just leaves out some less important parts of time. Persepolis was nominated for Oscar for Best Animated Feature Film in 2007 but lost to Ratatouille. I recommend both the book and the movie. If you've read the book you'll appreciate the film as a good adaptation and if you've seen the movie but want a longer version of the story then check out the comics.
8/10

Next up: Animation week concludes with a film that is not based on a comic or an adaptation.

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)
All I knew about Shoot 'Em Up before watching it was that it was an action movie released in 2007 starring Clive Owen. I had no idea what to expect, which when watching films can lead to great surprises or big wastes of time. Luckily Shoot 'Em Up ended up being tons of fun!
The opening scene sets the tone for the entire movie as we have a drifter, Smith, eating a carrot at a bus stop who then helps a pregnant woman being attacked by a hitman. Smith (Clive Owen) helps the woman give birth while being shot at (a bullet cuts the umbilical cord) then kills the hitman by stabbing him in the eye with a carrot! However, backup assassins arrive led by Karl Hertz (Paul Giamatti) who end up killing the woman. Smith escapes with the baby who tries to figure out why this woman was murdered and plan his next move, which involves getting help from a prostitute!

Shoot 'Em Up is oodles of violence combined with over the top action and great one liners. This is what I was hoping Hobo with a Shotgun would be and while I liked that movie I doubt I'll ever watch it again due to its grim tone. I still need to see Grindhouse which came out the same year as Shoot 'Em Up. There is some cool gun play like somewhat similar to Wanted (2008) but think that type of action works better here.
Shoot 'Em Up is basically a grindhouse exploitation movie combined with live action Looney Tunes. The characters played by Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti certainly have a Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd type relationship and at one point their banter even leads to the phrase "Wascally Wabbit" being used!
This type of movie only works with a good cast who understand what the film is trying to accomplish and that is certainly what we have here. Clive Owen does a solid job as the lead. He had some great dialogue to work with his and the habit of eating carrots was pretty unique. Besides the zingers and quirks Owen does make us care about his character as well. Paul Giamatti was awesome as the villain, especially because I'm used to him playing nebbish supporting roles like in Paycheck. Giamatti crafts an interesting character in Hertz, who besides his goal of trying to kill a baby also disgusts the audience when he feels up a dead woman. Hertz has marital problems (not a huge surprise after reading that last sentence, right?) which were depicted through phone calls to his wife who we never actually see.

Italian actress Monica Belluci (best known to me as Persephone from The Matrix sequels) pulls off a fun but surprisingly nuanced performance as a hooker who specializes in lactation fetishes. Although she was in her early 40s when filming, it made sense to have her character the same age as Clive Owen and she still looks fantastic. Stephen McHattie plays a secondary villain named Hammerson who is in cohoots with Hertz. McHattie is a great character actor who shows up in tons of movies and TV shows with over 165 credits and counting on IMDB. He had recent memorable roles in 300 as a Loyalist and Watchmen as the first Nite Owl. I have refered to McHattie as "Not Lance Henriksen" since the two look alike and even played twin brothers once on the TV show Beauty and the Beast.
Shoot 'Em Up is not without its flaws. For example, the bone marrow and gun control subplots could've been tied together better. However, the movie makes up for it in sheer/pure entertainment value. I had a blast watching this with a bunch of friends who all enjoyed it.
Although Shoot 'Em Up did not perform well at the box office, I think that it is on the way to gaining a cult following. This movie isn't for everyone and is rated R for a reason. But if you are older than 17 and in the mood for a fun, sleazy action movie that never takes itself too seriously check it out!
8/10

Spring Wrap-up Part Four

S1m0ne (2002)

I'm a big fan of Andrew Niccol's directorial debut Gattaca but had not seen another one of his movies yet. S1m0ne was his second movie, which like Gattaca he also wrote the screenplay for.
Al Pacino plays once a once successful film director named Viktor Taransky who is now struggling for a hit movie. After a demanding star actress (she only eats red M&Ms!) leaves the production of his current film it seems all is lost, until Taransky is given a computer generated actress from a computer scientist friend, which Taransky can manipulate any way he wants and is indistinguishable from reality. We even get the see images of the actresses that Simone is drawn from, in a subtle but hilarious joke includes... Ernest Borgnine?!
It is probably the dream of every director to be able to control their actors in this way and its fun to watch Taransky directing the fakery of Simone. While this starts off with Taransky controlling her acting, it quickly leads to him also having to keep up the illusion that she is a real person due to her skyrocketing popularity!
S1m0ne was ahead of its time in that it deals with concepts such as CGI, holograms, Photoshopping movie posters, technology in films like Avatar, and even reality TV. The themes of hero worship, cult of personality, celebrity culture, "manufactured celebrities," are hammered home with imagery that focused on cameras and eyes.
S1m0ne is a satire that feels like a Charlie Kaufman film with the biting wit of Heathers. Since the movie is a satire it doesn't take place in the real world, but instead in a universe that is real enough only with exaggerated features to prove a point. For example, Taransky works for "Amalgamated Film Studios" and the other women up against Simone for the Best Actress Oscar all have the last names of software (Apple, Corel, etc.).
Here are some of my favorite lines:
"I can't imagine any other actress playing the part!" "Hal, it's a remake..."
"It was so artificial... I didn't believe it was 17th century Lisbon!
"The escalating threat of violence and all out war was overshadowed today by the Oscar nominations"
"We're okay with fake, just don't lie to us"
Although I really liked S1m0ne, it does have some flaws. The two paparazzi guys are funny enough but I felt they were never fully pulled into the story. From the beginning they felt like a humorous but unnecessary side story. At first I thought the pair were stalker fans until it was later explained that they work at a newspaper, which was confusing.
The concert scene in which Simone becomes a pop star is a showstopper. Sure its necessary to show how big of a star she is, but did we really need to listen to her sing an entire song to prove this point?
Without giving anything away, the ending is a deus ex machina. Satires usually have trouble with endings as they often don't have an answer for how to solve the issue they are discussing. This is the case with S1m0ne, although to be fair I'm not sure how else the movie could have ended without making a huge shift in tone. The ending basically accepts the problem of celebrity overload but a great satire should figure a way how to fix the problem. Even though I felt the ending was a weak spot and could have been better, it didn't really harm my enjoyment of the movie as a whole. I can't wait to see more of Niccol's work!
8/10

Ghost Rider (2007)
I'm not a huge comic book reader and have never read any Ghost Rider. This movie is based on the Marvel comic and is one of the few Marvel properties that got a film which Stan Lee had little to nothing to do. Mr. Excelsior is listed has a producer but we don't get a cameo from Stan the Man!
Nicolas Cage plays our main character, stuntman Johnny Blaze, who becomes the superhero (or perhaps antihero in this case) Ghost Rider. Cage delivers a fun performance. It is not one of his better roles but that has to do more with the screenplay than his acting.
The premise is a deal with devil story in the vein of Faust. Johnny Blaze makes an agreement with Mephistopheles to cure his father's cancer in return for Johnny's soul. This eventually leads to events which cause Johnny to become Ghost Rider.
Sam Elliot does a nice job as the Caretaker, a predecessor of Ghost Rider. The Caretaker in the movie is apparently an amalgam of the character of the same name from the comics and and the Phantom Rider comics character.
I don't usually get into spoilers but there was something near the end that bothered me.  Highlight the text below if you are fine with spoilers.

Near the end of the movie the Caretaker reveals his true identity. This sets up that Ghost Rider is going to team up with the Caretaker to battle the villain. But right before the big showdown, the Caretaker changes back to human for no reason and says he used his last change which means he has permanently lost his powers. It was so stupid and disappointing as I was pumped up for a cool final battle and it ended up being a letdown.

Ghost Rider is not a good movie but its not terrible either and entertaining enough. A sequel came out in February this year and despite David Goyer (Dark City, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) having a writing credit I think I'll pass on it.
4/10

The Last Unicorn (1982)
Rankin/Bass is probably best known for their Christmas specials such as the stop motion Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1964) and the animated Frosty the Snowman (1969). Besides these holiday specials they also made many TV series and feature films, such as The Last Unicorn. Peter S. Beagle wrote the fantasy novel upon which this film is based but I never read it.
The fantastic cast includes the voice talents of Christopher Lee, Keenan Wynn, Angela Lansbury, Jeff Bridges, Mia Farrow, Alan Arkin, and Rene Auberjonois. The animation is also quite good though you'll never get it confused with a Disney film.The Last Unicorn is a kids movie but is intelligent and never plays down to its audience, which I highly respect. It's not the best animated movie ever but certainly something kids can enjoy with their parents. There is some slow pacing and weird stuff like the harpy and the "Red Bull" but I overall I liked it.
6/10

Thus concludes the final spring wrap-up post!

Next up: Two movies by a famous director, Two baseball movies, 2012 movies I have seen so far, and TV shows I am watching this summer.
And if you didn't notice the banner on the right, I'll be participating in the My First Movie Blogathon hosted by Forgotten Classics of Yesteryear in early August.

Four More Bad Movies

The Day the Earth Froze (1959)
I saw this movie via the show Mystery Science Theater 3000 which featured it along with the short Here Comes the Circus (1946). This episode was from the fourth season so it was a Joel episode.
The movie itself is a poorly dubbed Finnish/Soviet Fantasy adventure based on Finnish mythology.
Although this is a bad movie it is unintentionally amusing and the riffs were very good. I never heard of this MST3K before so I'd say its an underrated episode. If you're are a fan of MST3K but haven't seen this one yet give it a watch.
2/10

Gigli (2003)
Although I do remember Gigli bombing when it came out and hearing how bad it is, I never saw it. While at the time I wondered if it was really that bad, I'm kinda glad I saw it now because I can say yes, this movie does indeed suck!
From a technical standpoint Gigli not as bad as say Battlefield Earth, but at least that was more fun to watch in all its glorious stupidity. Even though Gigli features both Al Pacino and Christopher Walken, the two are not used properly and could have replaced them with anyone. The movie is incredibly dull as not much happens. Scenes are very long and usually take place in the same areas. I remember one scene in particular where the camera went back and forth to the same two shots so many times in a row I lost count. I know this movie had a beleaguered production, but that is no excuse to get lazy and the end result looks amateurish.
Clocking in at a full two hours this movie is about 30 minutes too long for the plot. It probably wouldn't have been so bad if it was shorter but the story really drags on with tons of scenes where nothing really happens and the conversations just drone on and on.
Despite having an estimated $74 million budget (production and marketing costs), Gigli only made back about $7 million worldwide. Not quite Pluto Nash territory but still a gigantic box office bomb.
Deep down I actually feel there was some potential here. I think if someone re-wrote the script for director Martin Brest, the movie was shorter, and did not star Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez (and therefore didn't try to cash in on their relationship) it actually could have been good. Over $24 million went to Bennifer which is over three times what the movie made in theaters. I have seen Affleck in other movies and while he's not a bad actor, he is awful here. I'm not too familiar with JLo so maybe she has performed better in other movies but she is just as bad as Affleck here.
To be fair, the mentally challenged kid was well acted by Justin Bartha (National Treasure, The Hangover) but not tactfully written. The kid's obsession with "Baywatch" was funny though. Gigli was Bartha's first movie so I am impressed that his career was able to survive being in this flop.

Gigli feels like its trying to copy Tarantino's style but falls flat on its face. For example, the movie uses the word "fuck" 124 times and for the most part the use of the word is completely unnecessary and just thrown in there it make it seem gritty. I've only seen Tarantino's first two movies but he broke a lot of screenwriting rules. However, he still did such a good job with stuff like dialogue that his touch worked. But Brest is not Tarantino and this movie fails miserably. Now to be fair Brest was around before Tarantino so who knows, maybe they both influenced each other.
In what should be no surprise, Gigli won six razzie awards including a grand slam of worst picture, worst actor, worst actress, worst director worst screenplay. It easily won worst on-screen couple.
As I alluded to earlier, director Martin Brest also wrote the script. Brest has directed some good movies but never wrote the script for those and that seems to be the problem here. To be fair this movie did have a difficult production with Brest battling the studio for control. Brest lost and and it was re-cut by the studio before being released. For example, a bunch of scenes in the trailer are not in the movie. Apparently Brest originally intended for the movie to be much longer (160 minutes!) but also darker and violent. However, the producers wanted to cash in on the tabloid craze of "Bennifer" and therefore turn the movie into more of a romantic comedy. A director's cut has never been released and I doubt I would watch it, but its probably better than the theatrical version. Still, you can only polish a turd so much.
The only other movie I've seen by Martin Brest is Beverly Hills Cop which I did like. I'll have to watch some of his good movies as I've been recommended Midnight Run and Scent of a Woman.
Looking at Brest's filmography it is clear he has talent and has made good movies. Brest hasn't made a movie since and even though Gigli is terrible I think that is a shame. Unfortunately pretty much everything that could go wrong did, which is a recipe for disaster. And if you look up Gigli in a thesaurus you will find the word disaster!
There are many movies worse than this from a technical standpoint that are still much more watchable. Gigli is not the worst movie ever but its certainly down there. As for Hollywood movies this is one of the worst I've seen but its still better than Cool as Ice.
2/10

The Land Before Time XIII: The Wisdom of Friends (2007)
Not many movie franchises get to 13 movies. Of course all the sequels after the original (a classic animated children's movie) were to direct to video, but I must still give them credit for making so many as I imagine this means the sequels sold well. As a kid I loved the first one and stuck around until about the sixth movie. What can I say, like most children I loved dinosaurs!
I watched this movie with a bunch of friends as a joke, and even though its a kid's movie, its still a bad kid's movie. Some people give bad kids movies a pass by saying they are simply meant for children, but that is just a slap in the face to the good kids movies out there.
There isn't much of a plot here, basically Littlefoot and his dino buddies have to help some dumb dinosaurs go back to their home, Berry Valley. The story is essentially a dumb-downed version of the original with far less tension and aimed at an even younger audience. The animation is mediocre at best and while the songs are annoying, they are completely forgettable which I guess is a good in a way because I'm glad I don't remember them!
Cuba Gooding Jr. and Sandra Oh voice two of the stupid dinosaurs. I know they are talented, but they have absolutely nothing to work with here.
I can't really recommend The Land Before Time XIII to anyone. If you liked these movies as a child, just re-watch the original. If your kids want to see this it can't hurt, but start them out with the first and perhaps the some of the early sequels as they are all much better that this thoughtless franchise cash-in.
2/10

Girl Happy (1965)
I had never seen an Elvis movie before so I didn't really know what to expect coming into this.
Elvis made over thirty movies between 1956 and 1969. By 1965 the Beatles just started to hit and Beach Party movie fad was in full swing. As a result of these new developments Elvis is given a band (one member is played by Bing Crosby's son, Gary Crosby) and we have the spring break beach setting of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Shelley Fabares, Harold J. Stone (X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes), John Fiedler (Piglet from Winnie the Pooh) were actors I recognized in this movie. All were also in different episodes of my favorite TV show, the Twilight Zone.
Besides those other actors, Girl Happy features Jackie Coogan as a police officer. Is he the only actor to be in movies with both Charlie Chaplin and Elvis Presley?!
Although this movie is technically a musical, I found none of the songs memorable.
For some reason this movie was not filmed on location and it is obvious they filmed Girl Happy on sets.
Despite these drawbacks and the dated 60s lingo this is watchable if you're in the mood for a silly little movie. Elvis steals a boat and puts it in a swimming pool!
4/10

After all these bad movies its time to switch gears. My next post will be on three great movies!

Weekly Wrap-Up (8/7) Yeah it's late...

Thanks again to Nate and everyone who participated in the monster movies blogathon! I greatly appreciated all the wonderful comments. Sorry for the long time for an update. I was going to post Tales from the Archive Part 2 on Saturday, but then I realized that I have too much content for one article! This is a good thing, so I'm still doing further research and figuring out how to break it up and present it. So without further ado, here is the belated weekly wrap-up.

Batman (1966)
The 60s Batman TV series starring Adam West and Burt Ward was quite enjoyable. Sure it was silly, but it was trying to appeal to all age groups and is responsible for bringing Batman to a larger audience. This movie was made between the first and second season, with Julie Newmar noticeably absent as Catwoman. However, Lee Meriwether did a good job filling in, and Cesar Romero (Joker), Frank Gorshin (Riddler), and Burgess Meredith (Penguin) are fun as usual. If you like the TV show you will like the movie as it is basically a long episode. I actually liked this more than Joel Schumacher's Batman Forever and Batman & Robin because it goes all out for humor while those two (especially Forever) tried to keep themselves in the Burton Batman universe. Sadly this is the only part of 60s Batman to be released on DVD. The TV show has yet to have a DVD release for unknown reasons, despite the demand by fans.
6/10

Winnie the Pooh (2011)
I saw this in theaters with my family and we all enjoyed it. It's not quite as good as the original Disney Winnie the Pooh films/shorts as its a little louder and busier at times, but its pretty close. The movie is short (just over an hour) and while I wanted more, I applaud the decision not to make it longer just to pad its running time. Instead the intent was to put out the best possible cut of the film. I noticed two pop culture references (Batman and Raiders of the Lost Ark respectively) which seemed a little out of place in a Pooh film. However, they weren't distracting if you weren't in the know, which is how reference joke should always be handled. The end credits were great and I loved the after credits scene. The short before the film, The Ballad of Nessie, was very good and the animation was straight out of 60s Disney (think Sword in the Stone). Winnie the Pooh goes back to the original A.A. Milne source material, so maybe we will see another movie in this style as there are still plenty of stories they can adapt. This movie is proof that Disney can still make a great traditionally animated film if they want to.
8/10

Dungeonmaster (1984)
Bad movies can be a lot of fun, as long as you avoid the ones that are bad because they are boring. While The Dungeonmaster is pretty damn bad, it is never gets too boring. The main reason for this is because the story is about a guy sucked into a video game (by Satan himself!) and he has to fight through a lot of different game levels. For some reason each level has a different director, but this is still not an anthology film. When a non-anthology movie has seven directors, you know its going to be bad! Besides my love of crappy 80s sci-fi/fantasy/horror flicks, the main reason I wanted to see this is because it contains the origin of the line "I reject your reality and substitute my own" which was popularized by Adam Savage of the TV show Mythbusters. In its original context it is used by the main character as a comeback, but its use in Mythbusters is much better! Richard Moll (Bull on the 80s sitcom Night Court) hams it up as the Devil, while we are also treated to a cameo by 80s metal band, WASP! For some reason this movie is also called Ragewar which makes about sense as its plot.
3/10

Death at a Funeral (2007)
Comedy is the most subjective form of creative expression. However, it is clear that Death at a Funeral is well written with fine acting performances and interesting characters. I have to rank this movie right up there with The Hangover as two of the best comedies from the last ten years. Not many movies revolve around a funeral, and of the ones that do this is probably the first comedy! I don't want to get too much into the plot as there are tons of fun surprises, but the basic story is about the chaos that ensues after the patriarch of a British family dies and his dysfunctional family and friends must come together for the funeral. Death at a Funeral had an American re-make in 2010, although I have no idea why as besides the accents and location, nothing is particularly British about this film. Believe or not, Frank Oz directed this movie. Yes, THAT Frank Oz!
9/10

Highlander (1986)
I had been meaning to watch Highlander for awhile and finally got around to it, in high definition no less! I have a good friend who loves this movie and it sounded like something I would enjoy. What struck me most about this film is how well it was directed. Not only are the scenes in Scotland beautiful, there are some fantastic cuts, great cinematography, and the action is paced perfectly. Sean Connery has a minor role, but steals the show as the mentor to Christopher Lambert's character, Connor MacLeod. I noticed that Highlander is kinda like The Terminator. But instead of soldiers from the future fighting in the present, these are soldiers from the past. The similarity is probably unintentional as they are pretty different movies, but its interesting to think about.
I've heard the sequels are terrible so I'll avoid them and stick with the original. There can only be one!
8/10

Legend (1985)
Legend is Ridley Scott's first, and so far only, fantasy film even though I would like to see him take another shot at the genre. Although the usual whipping boy from Scott's catalog is G.I. Jane, Legend isn't considered to be one of his better movies. Coming right off of Alien and Blade Runner, Legend looks spectacular (especially in High Definition/Blu-Ray). When it comes to the directing, camerawork, lighting, make-up, atmosphere, and special effects, Legend is a masterpiece and an incredibly beautiful film. However, the plot is thin and too simple, the dialogue is often silly, and the acting is hit or miss. Tim Curry is fantastic as the Lord of Darkness and genuinely terrifying with his fantastic make-up and gigantic horns. Remarkably this was Mia Sara's first film and although I have only seen her in Ferris Bueller's Day Off and Timecop, this is easily her best performance. On the other side, Tom Cruise was miscast. The voice actors for the other characters, especially for the elf named Gump, are over the top which is distracting and sometimes unintentionally funny. I saw the theatrical cut (only 89 minutes) but there is a director's cut which adds about 25 minutes to the total run time. While I enjoyed Legend, it had the potential to be much better. And despite all the beautiful scenes, beware of the ridiculous amount of Tom Cruise crotch shots!
7/10

Source Code (2011)
I loved Duncan Jones' directorial debut Moon (2009) and while Source Code is a different type of film, it is almost as good! Source Code is a high paced sci-fi thriller about a man who wakes up on a train in a different body and has to figure out who planted a bomb on the train since this person has another bomb going off later int he day in Chicago. I don't want to go any further because I don't want to spoil anything. Source Code is quite different than Moon, but I think anybody who liked Jones' first film would certainly enjoy his followup. Duncan Jones is now two for two, so I can't wait to see what he has up his sleeve for his next movie!
8/10

Iris (2001)
Normally this isn't the type of movie I would seek out, but my brother wanted to watch it so I figured what the hell. Iris is the biopic (based on a book) of British author Iris Murdoch and her struggle with Alzheimer's disease. I actually enjoyed this movie quite a bit, especially the acting performances from Jim Broadbent (Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter movies), Judi Dench, and Kate Winslet. Broadbent won an Oscar for his role and the other two were nominated. Dench probably deserved to win an Oscar for this role more than for her performance as the Queen in Shakespeare in Love (only because she was barely in that film!), but whatever. Memory was one of the main themes in this film, and I liked how the flashbacks were not always in chronological order, but as the characters in the present remembered past events.
7/10

On Friday I'll post a follow-up to my Summer TV article. See you then!

The Harry Potter movies, Part II

In preparation for the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, I have been re-watching all the Harry Potter films in chronological order. Today I'll post my thoughts on the final four Harry Potter films.

Before I get to the movies, I want to discuss something I forgot to talk about in Part I of my Harry Potter movie retrospective. The only main character re-cast in the Harry Potter series was Dumbledore, due to the fact that Richard Harris died after the second Potter movie was released. Harris was a great actor who brought a refined sense of wisdom to the character. While re-watching the first two I realized that Harris was more frail than I remembered, and had he lived I think he would have had trouble pulling off some of the more physical demanding scenes in the 5th and 6th movies.

Michael Gambon was a good replacement as Professor Albus Dumbledore, as he re-vitalized the role by being a little younger, and giving Dumbledore a stronger presence. Michael Gambon's entrance to the Harry Potter series re-united him with Maggie Smith (Prof. McGonagall) who he worked with in Gosford Park (2001). I feel that the Dumbledore of the books is a cross between Harris' and Gambon's versions of Dumbledore.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
The fifth Harry Potter movie features the fourth and final director of the series, David Yates. The Order of the Phoenix is the second shortest Potter film behind Deathly Hallows Part 2. However, The Order of the Phoenix is based on the longest novel of the series. While this may seem like a bad sign, it works since I felt that the 5th book was too long, and also my least favorite book in the series. Therefore this movie trims the fat and gets us right to the story and characters. For example, it took way too long in the book for Harry to arrive at Hogwarts. Yates' vision stays true to the previous films in the series, while keeping the darker tone of the last three books. The scenes with Snape are a nice preview for the final films.
7/10

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
The sixth Harry Potter movie has great cinematography thanks to Bruno Delbonnel, a three time Oscar nominee for cinematography. I loved the way he shot the hallways of Hogwarts and his use of desaturated colors is fantastic. This movie has a lot of humor and is by far the funniest of the series. But at the same time it is manages to also be one of darkest. In this way it does a great job of capturing the feel of the book. I loved the mystery of Professor Slughorn's memory as well as the identity of the Half-Blood Prince. This movie is another reminder that Alan Rickman owns the role of Snape and Robbie Coltrane owns the role of Hagrid. I can't imagine any actor doing as good as though two in either role. My main issue with this movie is that a lot of Voldemort/Tom Riddle's back-story from the book was cut. This was most likely done for time reasons, because its a show-stopper, and since most of this movie's audience has already read the books. However, it would help those who haven't read the books get more out of the story and give a better characterization to Voldemort.
7/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)
I wasn't too thrilled about the choice to split the last book into two movies, as it felt like a cash grab, but it does work. After seeing both parts I'm actually glad they did it this way and wish they split Goblet of Fire into two movies, or at least had a Lord of the Rings type extended cut. That said, this one still had some padding and was a little longer than it needed to be. The scene near the beginning with multiple Harry Potters scene was done very well. I was also impressed with the Polyjuice Potion scene since it felt like the other actors were really Harry, Ron, and Hermione in disguise because they did such a good job copying their mannerisms. There is a similar scene in Part 2 that is done just as well, but this one is longer and involves three characters instead of one. The animation for the tale of the three brothers was great. I'd like to see a whole movie, or at least a short film done in that style! Hermione's narration doesn't make it feel like too much of a show-stopper even though she is telling a story. Also it is necessary information as the deathly hallows are in the title after all.The ending is abrupt, but that was expected since it was split into two films.
7/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)
The final Potter movie was also my first midnight premiere! Well sort of, I couldn't get tickets to the 12:00 AM showing so I went at 12:45, close enough in my book. The audience was great (many dressed up as characters) as they clapped and cheered at the appropriate times but were never loud or talked over anything. Part 2 picks up right where Part 1 left off, and its quite a thrill ride down to the very end. The pacing issues from Part 1 have gone this time. Even the scene showing Snape's memories did not feel like a showstopper. I think the reason for this was because it was filmed like memories and went back and forth, not in chronological order but by his emotions. This part kinda reminded me of The Tree of Life actually! The Battle of Hogwarts was awesome and this was a great way to conclude the series. If you liked the other ones you won't be disappointed. Oh and I loved John Hurt's cameo as Ollivander, the wand maker. He is in three Potter movies and I think he has the most screen time in this one! There were still a few parts that could have been included to flesh out the story more, especially since this is the shortest Potter film. For example, there could have been a better explanation about Lupin's son, for those who haven't read the books. The only thing that really bothered my was the epilogue. I hated it in the book because it read like fan fiction, and its even sillier seeing it on screen. At the very least they should have just put it in as an after the credits scene. Draco's old make-up makes him look like Sean Penn while Ron and Hermoine haven't aged at all in 19 years. Neither has Ginny, they just let her hair down! Next time I watch this I am just going to skip the epilogue, its much better to go out on the real final scene. I am guessing that this will be the biggest movie at the box office this summer.
7/10

Final thoughts on the series:
I wish the series had more famous British actors (Patrick Stewart, Judi Dench, etc.) but all the acting is good, especially Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane. I'm glad that the role of the big three (Harry, Hermione, and Ron) went to unknowns. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint all did a great job respectively. I hope they don't get typecast and wish them all the best of luck in their post-Potter careers. While overall the acting was very good, the actress who played Ginny Weasely was by far the weakest. To be fair, Ginny was not a strong character in the books and her relationship with Harry near the end of the series feels like an afterthought. Despite some flaws I don't really think this film series could have been done much better. I can't think of another film series that went so many (8!) films with the same actors and told one cohesive story that is as good as the Potter movie series. It's not the best film series ever, but you gotta give it a lot of credit for having staying power and consistent quality over the course of ten years.

Since I didn't get around to watch any movies recently besides the Harry Potter films, there won't be a wrap-up this week. Instead I'll post my film article on Sunday and then we'll go back to the regular schedule.