Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a 2011 fantasy movie directed by David Yates. The movie stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Warwick Davis, Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes, Tom Felton, Jason Isaacs, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, David Thewlis, and Robbie Coltrane. This is the last half of the Deathly Hallows adaption and also is the last Harry Potter movie in the series. The final showdown between good versus evil occurs when Harry Potter must return to Hogwarts in order to continue destroying the horcruxes (pieces of Voldemort's soul) This is a great movie and lives up to all the hype surrounding it. It's a very dark, extremely emotionally charged, visually stunning film that actually is not only the most faithful adaption of the novels, but has a leg over the book on print. What I mean by that is the battle of Hogwarts is such a grand and immersive sequence that the book really missed out on. This movie brought a significant amount of life into the Deathly Hallows book, which is very impressive because the novel was already superb. The performances in this film are all nailed to a point. Especially Matthew Lewis who plays Neville Longbottom. He's fantastic in this film and the character arch that this story gives his character is genius considering where he's been before in the stories. I also have to mention that this movie has a very emotionally charged atmosphere. This has some really depressing scenes, some really happy scenes, as well as a plethora of dark scenes sprinkled within it. My best analogy for this movie is to compare it to the original Star Wars trilogy. This film had great feeling and was filled with characters we care about. I was rooting all the way for Harry and his friends at the end of this movie. Since this movie doesn't have one boring or slow moment, I'm pretty much saying it's flawless. The 19 years later epilogue is great and very successful. It's brief, but offers a happy ending to a story with a lot of twists-and-turns. Overall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a great film that has emotion, great performances, and offers a overly satisfying ending to a great saga. Four stars

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is a 2010 fantasy film once again directed by David Yates. This is the first part of the Deathly Hallows which was divided into two movies. The cast stars the likes of Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, and Ralph Fiennes. The movie closely follows Harry, Ron, and Hermione as they step away from their school ties at Hogwarts, and move on to find and destroy the horcruxes (pieces of Voldemort's soul). Deathly Hallows Part 1 in short was a great, enjoyable movie. The reason I don't like this one as much as some of the other Harry Potter movies, is because it is significantly slower paced. This movie (with the exception of the 1st and 3rd act) has a second act that feels long. It's very drawn out and even though we are gaining essential aspects of this story we can tell we're watching something that's building to a bigger conclusion. It's the showdown between Voldemort and Harry that we want to see in the last movie. In all ways, this film sets us up for the final confrontation. Despite it's pacing, Deathly Hallows Part 1 is a great character piece. Exploring friendship, love, as well as the strength of bonds that we'd seen in Half Blood Prince. This movie has great action sequences. Especially the seven potters scene that happens to be one of my favorite scenes in this entire franchise. The last duel at Malfoy Manor between Malfoy's family and the main trio is great and wildly entertaining. Bellaxtrix Lestrange played by Helena Bonham Carter steals every scene in this film. Not for the good though. In fact, leaving this film you will feel a need for justice. This film also employs lots of really interesting camera techniques. The chase scene with the snatchers is excellently filmed and is a great scene. My point is that even though this movie is slower paced, it does indeed have some really crucial and well done scenes. Might I also add that the humor is properly injected into this movie. As always in the Harry Potter flicks. Overall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is an intriguing character piece with great action sequences, heartfelt performances, and a really great set up for the final film. Three stars

Rings (2016) Trailer Review

Today we finally got to see the first trailer from Rings (2016) which is another movie in the series of horror flicks beginning with The Ring (2002). I've never talked about the first original Ring movie, but I will plan to review it. In short though, it's one of the better horror movies of the 21st century. It's very creepy, but doesn't throw the scares at you and that's a huge plus as far as I'm concerned. This trailer has that same tone which was great to see. Rings seems like it fully captures the ideas behind the original and that's a great sign to see. My issue with this film is something that a YouTube commenter pointed out which is the excerpt shows far too much of the movie. After viewing, I'd felt as though I had scene all the great, climatic, crucial scenes of the film. It seems to show too much and I wasn't as crazy about that. Yet again, this movie does look good and it seems to have a faithful atmosphere towards the original. What exactly is this film though? There's already a sequel to The Ring and this film seems to copy and redo a lot of scenes and ideas from the original. So it's a remake?? I wasn't sure how this movie relates to the original. Other than this issue and the flaw of it showing too much, I thought this movie didn't look bad. It doesn't look great either, but it looks solidly good.

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

I cannot believe that I've reviewed this many Harry Potter films and only have a few more left. After that, what happens? Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a 2009 fantasy-adventure film directed once again by David Yates. The movie stars Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Dave Legeno, Helena Bonham Carter, and Jim Broadbent. As Harry stars his sixth year at Hogwarts, we're introduced to Draco's death eater side, the history of Voldemort, as well as the blossoming romances between Harry Potter and Ginny Weasley. Not to mention the iconic relationship between Ron and Hermione. Half Blood Prince was a great rewatch and still is a really good film. The acting in this film is great once again. Horace Slughorn portrayed by Jim Broadbent was an excellent choice in cast and proves to be a very significant character. The best acting that I extracted from Half Blood Prince was the banter between Daniel Radcliffe and Michael Gambon. These two are great together and have a very interesting friendship. Their relationship is one of those that grows significantly throughout this film and that is my next pro, which is the notion of bonding. This movie does a great job of strengthening the bonds between these people. It feels legitimate and I loved how these characters feel like old friends we visit. This movie also has great themes of loyalty, love, and power. It's a very interestingly directed film too. Great shots as well as fantastic quiddicth sequences make this a wondrous looking film. This movie is definitely not the greatest in the series. As much as I enjoy it, it does have some problems. One which actually stands out to me is how this film doesn't have as much of a straight-forward plot as the other movies do. There's the past of Lord Voldemort, the teen love triangles, and the key to destroying the dark magic. It's a film that sets up ideas. That's basically how I'd classify Half-Blood Prince. It's a great movie, but it is more of a film that is meant to establish and set up plot lines that will be executed later on in Deathly Hallows. This movie does add a lot to the book though. Not only are there wonderfully well - shot sequences not featured in the source material, but this movie really puts emphasis on the downfall of light. The book did that, but in a more subtle way. This film greatly thrusts the watcher into this world of darkness. Overall, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a great movie with great acting, interesting themes that work, and enhances the meaning of the novel which already presented a great story. Three stars

Movie Review: The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

The Bourne Supremacy is a 2004 thriller directed by Paul Greengrass. The movie stars Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, Brian Cox, Joan Allen, and Julia Stiles and is the continuation of Jason Bourne's self discovery which began in Bourne Identity (2002). The film also contains a revenge plot between Jason Bourne and an assassin played by Karl Urban. I wanted Bourne Supremacy to be a greater, larger, better directed film then Identity, which was already a great action flick. It was. The Bourne Supremacy is much better then the previous movie and simply because it's far more concise. Supremacy does not contain any scene, shot, or character that isn't essential to the story. While Bourne Identity was great in how it told the story, Supremacy gets right to the point from the beginning. From the first scene we get a clear sense of what this story might be about. This leads me to my next positive which is how heartfelt this film is. The movie (especially towards the ending..) is very emotional. Jason Bourne is not a character who appears to have morals, but in this film we finally see that he does. It's a huge character arch and I dug the way this movie presented this twist. The performances in this film are all great. Aside from Matt Damon (who appears to mold directly into this character) Karl Urban was fantastic despite his brief screen time. Brian Cox and Joan Allen were both really great and the film fantastically presents their conflicts and character traits. My hugest strength within this movie was how much more adrenaline filled this movie was than it's predecessor. This is a much more exciting film. It has all the feels of a good thriller and presents a much more intriguing conflict. The action sequences in this film are great, but this series seems to keep action to a minimum. It's present, but we're always left wanting more. Not only the sign of a good action movie, but grand storytelling. The last thing that struck me was how this film ends. Both The Bourne Identity and Supremacy have fantastic endings that are a combination of a great and climatic conclusion and yet also are wonderfully edited. Overall, The Bourne Supremacy is a great thriller film with great adrenaline, fantastic acting, and a more than satisfactory conclusion. Three stars

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix (2007)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix is a 2007 movie directed by David Yates. The film stars the likes of Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Robbie Coltrane, Imelda Staunton, Gary Oldmen, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, and Helena Bonham Carter. This is the fifth installment of the Harry Potter book and movie series and just so happens to be the longest novel out of all seven. Directing and writing Order of the Pheonix was a huge undertaking. Adapting an eight hundred-plus fantasy novel and condensing it into one of the shortest films (138 minutes apr) is a very demanding task and I praise David Yates not only for directing it, but the entire crew for making it. This is a very fun, surprisingly light, and filled with great scenes movie that did not disappoint me whatsoever. Order of the Pheonix is a great looking, great acted, and also has some great intros to characters that are crucial for the rest of the series. Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge was excellent casting. She is Umbridge. Her physical appearance, personality, and costume design fully inhabit the spirit that comes from that character. She's almost as unfriendly as a death eater herself and that's tough to pull off. As far as death eaters go, another perfect choice in cast was Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange. One of my favorite villians in the entire Harry Potter series, Bellatrix is sadistic, crazy, and filled with a lust for evil. Her acting was supurb in this film and she plays quite an important role (no spoilerss of course). Not to mention the Order of the Pheonix itself which is pretty awesome. Natalia Tena as Nymphadora Tonks (pre Game Of Thrones) gives a very brief, but awesome performance as a young, almost punk like character. George Harris (Raiders of the Lost Ark) as Kingsley Shacklebolt was greatly casted. Point is, the cast in this movie is close to perfection and shines in this film strongly. My only flaw with Order of the Pheonix is that we don't get the same emotional feel that we received in the previous four installments in this series. A very significant character is killed off and while it's depressing to see Harry's reaction, the act itself doesn't revoke much of a response from the viewer. That's my only flaw, but man is this movie dark. This film has scenes that make the hairs on the back of you stand. It's a great movie, but that lack of emotion was just so apparent. Overall, I really enjoyed Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix which is a light, magical, wondrous film that does have lack of emotion in places, but is still quite an enjoyable ride. Three stars

Movie Review: Nancy Drew (2007)

Nancy Drew is a 2007 mystery film directed by Andrew Fleming. The film stars Emma Roberts, Max Theriot, Kay Panabaker, and Amy Bruckner. The movie revolves around Nancy as she solves the mysterious vanishing and death of a famous Hollywood actress. I remember when Nancy Drew came out and it was everywhere. The marketing campaign was very good and I recall liking what I saw in the trailers. Rewatching this movie was an interesting experience because this movie sort of stumped me. It's not bad, but it's not great either. Positives first though. Emma Roberts in this movie gives a fine performance. She's not great as Nancy Drew, but she isn't forcing herself into the role. She does a fine job. Other than Roberts's performance (which isn't outstanding) all of the other roles are extremely forgettable. This movie doesn't really leave a lasting impression. That's my biggest flaw. You'll see it and then will instantly start to forget it. It is not a memorable film by any means. Perhaps my biggest issue with Nancy Drew is how it feels like it's making the story up as it goes along. Doors slam, holographic projections appear, a newspaper article just happens to catch the eye of one of the characters on screen. It feels too coincidental. This whole movie feels as though Nancy herself is not finding these clues, but they're finding her...way too easily might I add. The film looks good and the tone is cool and easy. However, Nancy Drew doesn't deliver on the level of a story. The mystery that's being solved doesn't have any of the compelling nature that a great mystery should. In fact, this movie feels like a made for tv mystery. The quality isn't so-so, but the story is. This is a short review because the movie doesn't have all that much too it. Overall, Nancy Drew is a fine film with entertaining elements, a good Emma Roberts performance, but does have a storyline that's uninteresting and doesn't engage what so ever. 2.5 stars

Movie Review: Halloween (2007)

Halloween is a 2007 movie directed by Rob Zombie. The movie is a remake of John Carpenter's original Halloween (1978) which is a great horror film. This movie stars Tyler Mane, Malcolm McDowell, Scout Taylor-Compton, and Daeg Faerch in the lead. Surprisingly, Rob Zombie's take on Halloween is actually a decent horror remake. This was actually an entertaining and good movie. The movie is not entirely a remake of the original. The first hour spends time on Michael Myer's backstory and then the second hour follows the events of the first Halloween film very closely. In that regard, I think this movie was actually successful in providing us with more information about Michael Myers. While the original was great, we don't get all that much information about who Mike Myers is as a person. In this film, we get a carefully constructed story that shows who Myers was as a kid. If you want more from the first film that you did not receive, you actually may like this film. I enjoyed that aspect because it made his character a lot more deep. That leads me to my next point which is how surprisingly well done the characterization was. All characters on screen are given enough screen time to establish them as people. That surprised the hell out of me because most horror movie remakes don't even develop anyone on screen. In fact, this proves to be one of the more carefully layered horror remakes in existence. The one thing that I didn't know what to make of was how this film's genre drifts significantly from the original Halloween film. This movie didn't scare me at all. There's not even one remotely scary scene. It's a gory slasher movie and that didn't pay homage well to the original. Halloween (78) which was a great film because it was dark, mysterious, and extremely suspenseful. This movie was all blood and guts and that is another dividing factor. It depends what you're looking for. Also, the performances in this movie were surprisingly good including my favorite performance: Malcolm McDowell. McDowell gives a fantastic performance in this film. In fact, I would bet he'd spent months and months upon even more months of research. This role was great for him and he also had a very good heartwarming side to his character. Are there flaws? Although this movie does have times where it departs greatly from the original film, I actually think most of the complaints with this movie will be from people who respond to one of the dividing factors that I've mentioned above. Of course this movie isn't Oscar material. In fact, I don't even think it's a great horror movie. I think it's a good, decent movie that is entertaining and enjoyable, but only as long as you don't compare it too much to the original. Overall, Halloween was a good horror movie remake and has endlessly entertaining scenes. Two stars

Movie Review: Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Fantastic Mr. Fox is a 2009 animated comedy directed by the one and only Wes Anderson. The film stars Meryl Streep, George Clooney, and Jason Schwartzman in the leading roles and focuses on a fox who after stealing chickens from three farmers, has to band together with friends and family as the farmers try to kill him. I was a huge fan of Roald Dahl as a child and I still greatly respect his work today. I loved the novel Fantastic Mr. Fox and to this day it is one of the most memorable stories from Roald that I recall reading. I didn't know what to expect with this one because the movie seemed good from the marketing campaign and yet I was not coaxed into seeing this film. I watched it and it's a great animated film. Wes Anderson is a hit or miss director for me. I love Rushmore and thought Grand Budapest Hotel was an extremely innovative piece of cinema, but some of his other films (while they have a good story) aren't as enjoyable to watch because of the style. In that sense, I was worried that this movie wouldn't hold up to the ideas of the book and would become a mess of style over substance. I was wrong because this movie was great. This is one of the most deep, thought provoking animated movies that I have ever seen. Exploring the ideas of father and son relationships, family, human difference. This movie nails exactly what was good about the book as well as adding great loads of depth to the story line. George Clooney and Michael Gambon are some of the greatest performances in this film. Mr. Fox himself is hysterical. Jason Schwartzman as Ash is by far my favorite aspect of this film. The story between him and his father is very intriguing. This brings me back to the most interesting aspect of this movie which is how I would define an experience like this. The novel which the movie is based off is a children's book. Yet, I don't think this movie would really interest or even entertain kids. It's very fast paced and there's a lot of plot elements that are extremely heartfelt and that would not be seen in a kids film. The decision to use stop - motion animation was a good decision as the film looks great. These animals don't exactly look real, but they do have aspects of them that are. I also have to mention that this is definitely a re-watchable film from Wes Anderson. It's quirky and also has a decent story. Overall, Fantastic Mr. Fox is a great Wes Anderson movie that has layers of depth to it that I was surprised to see. Three stars

Movie Review: Cujo (1983)

Cujo is a 1983 horror film directed by Lewis Teague and based off the book of the same name by Stephen King. Now I'm a gigantic Stephen King buff. His career has inspired me in endless ways and I always enjoy watching his films, reading his writing, and exploring the psychosis of one of the best authors to ever walk the earth. Cujo is a movie that I've seen before, but only once as a kid. This movie scared the crap out of me when I was younger and I was looking forward to seeing what still scared me today. Right off the bat, I noticed that this movie is very dated. Between the 1980s horror-style score and the large, bold, white graphics this movie proved to be an older film. It does not really hold up all that well all these years later and to some that might be a flaw. Others may view it's older tone as a pro and praise it as being a classic. I'm somewhere in between those two. While I love the movie Cujo in a nostalgic way, this movie actually surprised me in how good it was. This is a good movie and I wasn't expecting all that much from a film like this. The film stars Dee Wallace, Daniel Hugh-Kelly, and Danny Pintauro. The performances are great in this film and that's how the movie maintains a scary, disturbing, uneasy tone. Which leads me to my next point which is that while Cujo scared me years ago, it doesn't do the same today. While the child performance (Pintauro) in this movie is frightening (especially in the car scene) the film itself doesn't really provide all that many scares. Cujo himself ends up being more of an object of our sympathy. After all, it was not the dog's fault that he'd been bit by a bat. There's also a subplot about a wife cheating on her husband. While it does create the necessary story elements for Cujo to strike, it doesn't seem like we need to have it. The story could flow perfectly without a dramatic subplot and that's where this movie felt odd to me. Rewatching this movie, I noticed how tacked on certain elements were. The subplot doesn't feel like a necessity nor does it contribute to the story as a whole. Cujo is a good movie, but it does feel uneven and choppy which causes it to be a rather odd sensation to watch. I enjoyed this movie, but it's not perfection at it's finest. Overall, Cujo is a good, entertaining, greatly acted film that does have not needed story lines and isn't quite the scare fest that I recall. Two stars

Movie Review: Regression (2015)

Regression is a 2015 psychological thriller movie directed by Alejandro Amenabar. The movie stars Ethan Hawke, Emma Watson, Devon Bostick, and David Thewlis and follows a young woman (Emma Watson) who claims a devil - worshipping cult physically abused her. In addition to that, we uncover the secrets behind Watson's characters family and just how dysfunctional it is. Regression was a film that I saw on Amazon Prime. I streamed it as part of my Amazon account and I was not expecting much. With a very low rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a low critical reception, I'd expected this to be a pretty dull horror film with no substance. I was wrong, way wrong at that because this movie was actually a solid good horror film. Regression was very well made and the biggest compliment I give to this movie is how actually scary it is. This movie has moments where things get very very scary and I was surprised at how much horrific images were in this film. It spooked me out and so on that level it succeeded. The acting was also great. Ethan Hawke does a great performance as he slowly loses his mind, as does Emma Watson. My favorite role by far was David Thewlis. He's a very underrated actor and his performance in this movie was by far one of his best. He was fantastic and brought a lot to his character that I do not think another actor could've done. My biggest issue with this movie is that while this is an original, scary, functional horror thriller the ending message behind the film is not. It's not an original message and while I will not spoil what it was, it's something that films like The Crucible and Hunt have all used. I liked the overall product and how it presented the message, but the takeaway somewhat dissapointed me. I also have to be honest in saying that besides Watson's portrayal of Angela I cannot recall a single characters name. The characters themselves do not stand  out in the movie, yet the actors who portray them do. I like what this movie was doing and these people, but it doesn't quite work as an original or unique piece of cinema. Overall, Regression was a good and quite scary movie that succeeded excellently in that territory, but lacked a certain originality that I wanted to see in this film. 3 stars

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Looking back on these reviews of the Harry Potter series, I could not believe that I'm already talking about number 4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is directed by Mike Newell and stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Brendan Gleeson, and Ralph Fiennes. The movie focuses on Harry Potter as he goes into his fourth year at Hogwarts and is mysteriously chosen to participate in the Triwizard Tournament (A series of extremely dangerous, 3 tasks that Harry must compete in) Rewatching Goblet of Fire was a great experience for me because not only is this one of my favorite Harry Potter movies out of the entire eight - filmmography, but this is also a great film. It's so dark and suspenseful and it has a fantastic who done it type mystery that almost makes Goblet of Fire  like a thriller. I loved this movie. The film also reaches a much more emotional height then in the previous film. It's definite progress in the series as we see the characters and the story line mature. Mike Newell's direction in this film feels so coherent. This is the Harry Potter film that to me has the most linear feel to it. It's not a bunch of scenes cut together (not that any of the films are that bad), but this is the movie that really gets the sequence of events correct. In my mind Goblet of Fire is also excellent because it doesn't contain anything not important. Everything is valid in this movie. You don't just watch pieces of it because that wouldn't make any sense. This is a movie with no scene that should be wasted. Every moment on screen matters and contributes equally to the story. The new characters and including the original, great cast were terrific the Goblet of Fire. Brendan Gleeson as Mad Eye Moody channels just the right amount of heart and insanity. Not to mention Robert Pattinson as Cedric Diggory in a surprisingly great performance from him. I saw this movie way before Twilight was even a thing and Diggory's character was always something that stood out to me. His character is so well composed and created and crafted. I've been leaving one out on purpose and that would be Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort. Voldemort is a character that always really mystifies me because the story doesn't get affected by how we do not sympathize with him. We don't really give any emotional weight to Voldemort because your not as invested in him. It's the one flaw with Harry Potter that I always wondered why they never chose that. That being said, in the books Voldemort was the same character, and I never felt anything for him or even about him there either. Other than that, Voldemort is evil, sinister, and great. I loved Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and I think it's actually one of the best movies in the entire film series. Overall, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a great film with a fantastic, emotional, well directed narrative. Four stars

Movie Review: Suicide Squad (2016)

The most anticipated movie of the summer is finally here for me. I just saw it this morning and...well, you know.....there's some good and some bad. Suicide Squad is a 2016 superhero film written and directed by David Ayer. The film stars Jared Leto as The Joker, Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn, Will Smith as Dead Shot, Jai Courtney as Captain Boomerang, as well as an entire plethora of other performances. The movie revolves around a woman named Amanda Waller played by Viola Davis who assembles a team of villians and escaped jail prisoners in order to stop this beam from shooting into the sky which is brought on by Enchantress. Okay so the movie opens and for the first fifteen minutes or so (in other words the very beg) I was enjoying this film. I thought it was in the very beginning a good movie. Then the second act begins and the film just derails. The movie suffers from tons of issues (ranging from pacing to editing) but I'll go through positives first. The performances (aside from Viola Davis who doesn't really add much to the story) are great. These characters are interesting and there's a lot of humor in this film that works very well. My issues with the movie are virtually everything else there is. This film cannot tell a coherent, logically assembled, or even interesting story. It flashbacked many times during the duration of the film and the main plot surrounding the beam through the sky...well...that didn't work for me. This movie gets very flat and dull in parts and there's not much else to analyze. I also have to mention that the violence gets way too over it's head. It's all over the top explosions, gunfights, and random flash sequences and the movie feels so disorganized that it's impossible to approach it from a logical angle. The plot is boring and it doesn't allow the roles to shine. There are some great characters here. I loved Jared Leto as The Joker and Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. Not to mention Dead Shot portrayed by Will Smith. The movie has good characters and it does not use any of it's possible strengths to its advantage. Overall, Suicide Squad is not organized, the plot is not clear and doesn't have all that much to it (leaving it somewhat flat and boring), and with over the top violence and action...it does contain great characters though. 1.5 stars

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a 2004 fantasy movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The movie once again stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, David Thewlis, and Gary Oldman. The film revolves around Harry's third year of Hogwarts and how an escaped prisoner from Azkaban named Sirius Black (Oldman) is supposedly 'looking' for Harry Potter. Prisoner of Azkaban is a film that I have seen multiple times since I was a young kid. While no movie is ever great multiple times, this movie surprised me as I rewatched it today because it does actually hold up very well over time. The movie of course features another cast of great performances. David Thewlis as Remus Lupin is a great, nice man and is a character that I would like to know in person. Michael Gambon's replacement of Richard Harris as Professor Dumbledore was handled very smoothly and while the two performances differ, the character doesn't change. Then there's Gary Oldman as Sirius Black. Regardless of how many roles Oldman chooses to take, Sirius Black is by far my favorites. I love Sirius Black's character. He's not only just a "nice man" but he channels such a parental, friendly, kind performance. His character is very deep and while he receives just a few scenes in this movie, it makes you want to see more of him. Azkaban also has excellent special effects and brings to life so many creatures that are very important over the course of all eight films. The dementors are a negative, dreadful invention from J.K. Rowling and Cuaron's direction shows just how menacing these things are. Buckbeak is a great looking animal and the scene where Harry rides on him over the water not only has a fantastic score, but contains one of the best uses of special effects in the entire movie. I'd have to advise use about the book of monsters....The best thing I think about Prisoner O/Azkaban is the tone. It's so dark and eerie that its actually a very creepy film in places. Not to mention how well humor is woven into the narrative. It's a very quirky and creepy tone and it almost reminds me of Pan's Labyrinth. While Guillermo Del Toro didn't direct this Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, it feels like one of his movies. Director Alfonso Curaon should pat himself on the back for that. This is a borderline gothic and horror movie that works on all of those levels. Overall, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a great film with a fantastic score, great utilization of special effects, and an all around great time. Three stars

Movie Review: Cafe Society (2016)

Cafe Society is a 2016 rom-com directed by Woody Allen. The film stars Jessie Eisenberg, Steve Carell, Kristen Stewart, and Blake Lively and is the tale of a young man named Bobby who moves from New York to Hollywood and falls in love with a young girl named Vonnie. I'd had very high expectations for this movie. I enjoy Woody Allen and while his movies are often very light, they're considered to be some of the greatest flicks ever created. I was satisfied very much so with Cafe Society  and not only because it's your typical Woody Allen romantic farce, but because it delivers in multiple and unexpected ways. First off, from the first establishing shot we know we're going to witness a breathtakingly well shot film. This movie looks great and the cinematography really helps set the tone as it switches from a comedy about the film industry to being about a significant romance. The shots taken in the scenes between Eisenberg's character and Stewart's character are largely the best looking as they cast a very dim look upon the faces of the characters. Which leads me to my next pro which is the acting performances. This movie doesn't have one bad actor. If I were to take apart this film solely based on performances, it would receive four stars. Not only is Jessie Eisenberg fantastic as Bobby, but Steve Carell gives a very contained and interesting performance. Kristen Stewart establishes her acting very well in this movie and impressed the heck out of me. Not to mention Blake Lively who delivers an extremely welcoming role. The story about how Eisenberg's character Bobby deals with unrequited love, heartbreak, as well as multiple cases of rejection are where he starts to shine. Eisenberg not only channels a unique and original performance, but he literally is Woody Allen. I have two issues with this movie. One is that the film does slow down at parts, then speeds up quickly again, then slows down once again. It's a problem that I have with a lot of Woody Allen's films, but the quirky tone of his movies does seem to get a little overdone as an hour and a half passes by. The other issue (which I will keep silent as it's a spoiler) is how the movie ends. I thought the ending was great. Yet there is actually an opportunity a few minutes time before the end of the movie where it could have ended in a cliff-hanger. Not a bad one at that, but a stylistically chosen ending that would've been funny. Overall, Cafe Society is a good movie that showcases not only some of the best actors and actresses performances of recent times, but is an enjoyable and vividly romantic journey. Three stars

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a 2002 fantasy film directed once again by Chris Columbus. This time around, Harry and his friends are solving the mystery behind the chamber of secrets, a hidden dungeon that's supposed to be causing students to become petrified. The film stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Alan Rickman (in a much better role than the first film), Jason Isaacs, Tom Felton, Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane, and Kenneth Branagh. Out of the first two Harry Potter movies, this one by far is my favorite and that's because it is better in almost every conceivable way. Chamber of Secrets isn't a perfect movie, but it's so amazingly good. From the beginning I instantly was more engaged in the movie. My issues with Sorcerer's Stone was that characters give exposition that isn't necessary and that the movie lacks some depth. The first issue was eliminated in Chamber of Secrets because while there is exposition, all of that was essential to the story and allowed us to understand things further. The explaining in this film is actually a strength because it really makes you curious and interested in what the chamber of secrets is. As far as depth goes, this movie is a step in the right direction. You would never show a Harry Potter movie in a film class meant for analysis because they are just made to adapt a series of novels. I absolutely accept that fact and Chamber of Secrets was enough depth that I need to enjoy a movie like this. Chamber of Secrets is also increasingly dark, but excels in it's ability to add humor...especially through facial expressions. You'd have to watch this flick carefully, but Chamber of Secrets is actually very funny. Dobby the house elf is hilarious in parts and Kenneth Branagh as Professor Lockhart is great. The combination of a dark plot line and funny scenes made for a really enjoyable time. This movie felt shorter than it was (almost three hours). My only flaw in Chamber of Secrets comes when Harry comes face-to-face with Tom Riddle. There's a few moments when Fawkes the pheonix just flies into the chamber and gives things to Harry. As the audience, we're lead to believe that Dumbledore has sent these objects, but it still feels too coincidental. Proving that point even further is when Ron and Harry return to Dumbledore's office, he seems to have no knowledge of what transpired in the chamber of secrets. That seems like a flaw to me. Things I love about this movie are how it maintains innocence and makes it go slightly darker. As I said, the character Professor Lockhart is funny and interesting at the same time. Alan Rickman gives a much better, deeper, and more intricate performance as Severus Snape than he did in the previous Harry Potter movie. It's an interesting mystery and all a great time. Overall, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a really good film that improves over the Sorcerer's Stone while also being able to transition to a darker story through the use of comedy. Three stars