A Final Bow: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two

July 15th marked a day that would live in infamy. Children and adults came together dressed as wizards, witches, and elves to commemorate a special moment in film history. It had nothing to do with remembering Robin Hardy's The Wicker Man. Fans came together for the last installment to the Harry Potter franchise. After seven novels and eight films, Potter Heads were forced to say goodbye to the boy wizard permanently. Did the franchise end on a good note?

What's the story?

The film picks up immediately where part one left off. After narrowly escaping capture at Malfoy Manor, our heroes find security in the home of Bill and Fleur Weasley. Three horcruxes have been destroyed, yet Harry believes another is hidden in the wizarding bank Gringotts. Griphook, a former Gringotts employee, agrees to help sneak them in for ownership of a significant item. Eventually, their hunt brings them back into the familiar halls of Hogwarts. Voldermort, aware of Harry's current intentions, summons every Death Eater to initiate an attack on the castle. As the forces of darkness advance, Harry and his allies come together to make one final stand against the Dark Lord.

The Result?

As a follower of the novels and films, it was an enjoyable experience. Those with no background in Potter mythology, would find it extremely difficult to follow the plot. However, David Yates brought a giant sense of nostalgia and closure to the final installment. A characteristic that no Potter Head should take for granted. The film didn't capture the same experience as the novel, yet the overarching themes were well translated.

The strongest of the performances came from Alan Rickman. Until the final chapter, never have we understood Severus Snape's hatred for the young protagonist. Once the credits roll, revelations will have audiences pity and respect him.

Tyler's Verdict: 3 1/2 Stars. A respectable ending to a respectable franchise.



The King's Speech: Power of the Voice

*TYLER'S PICK*

No human being has a greater gift than their voice. As a writer, I enjoy the beauty of words, stories, and narrative structure. However, anyone who can stand up in front of others has the power to change lives. Tom Hooper's depiction of a British monarch is more than just a history lesson. It's about communication; a universal desire that we all carry.

What's the Story?

The year is 1925. The Duke of York, Prince Albert, suffers from an intolerable stammer. He is treated by the best doctors in the country, yet no method seems to create an everlasting effect. Albert's wife, Elizabeth, decides to take the matter into her own hands. Elizabeth's search brings her to Lionel Logue, a man much more fitting as a Shakespearean actor than a speech therapist. Albert is hesitant upon seeing another therapist. During their first session, Lionel manipulates him into recording himself reciting lines from Shakespeare. He places headphones over Albert's ears with deafening music, preventing him from hearing anything he is saying. A frustrated Albert storms out of Lionel's office, unconvinced anything has changed. As the years pass, he eventually plays back the recording. He is left stunned as he finds himself speaking with no stammer. Throughout their sessions, Lionel helps Albert to understand that the stammer doesn't stem from a physical disorder, but more so from his insecurities. Following the death of his father, Albert ascends to the throne once his older brother David chooses to abdicate. Lionel instills upon Albert courage and confidence that he is worthy of the crown. The film reaches its climax as Albert prepares a speech declaring Britain's intent to go to war with Germany.

The Result?

Colin Firth gave his best performance to date in this biographical film. He portrayed a man appearing to suffer from violent temper tantrums, but was really a frightened soul with little confidence. Firth's stammer was believable and far from forced. Geoffrey Rush also brought us a character, which yearned for a life on the stage, held back by a desire to continuously help others. The characters are interesting, complex, and portrayed in a subtle manner.

The film produced a beautiful message about the importance of communication. No matter if one is optimistic, pessimistic, outgoing, or introverted; we all want to be heard in some way. Hooper was successful in delivering the message, yet the film was not without any flaws. The pace was incredibly slow. The scenes facilitate well rounded characters, but they don't always further the progression of the narrative. As a filmmaker, it's an inevitable factor. The creation of a well-rounded character is imperative, when a film lacks dynamic plot. 

Tyler's Verdict: Four Stars. The performances are stunning, but the message will stay with you for years.





Catfish: The Consequences of Online Deception

Online social networking has many different objectives. It serves as a central hub to bring people together from across the world, yet others use it as a means of escapism. The World Wide Web allows users to take on different identities. Consequently, their appearance is much more attractive, smarter, and extraordinary than they actually are. What boundaries are crossed, when we constantly lie about ourselves? Do we lose touch with reality? How far is one willing to go for social acceptance? Directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman touch on these questions through their film Catfish.

What's the story?

New York photographer Nev Schulman enjoys posting pictures of his work on Facebook. He captures the attention of eight year old Abby Pierce, also a Facebook resident, who mails him paintings of the pictures posted online. Instantly, Nev forms an online friendship with Abby, her mother Angela, Angela's husband Vince, and Abby's older half-sister Megan. Nev, convinced he found his ideal girl, begins a romantic correspondence with Megan. The relationship extends beyond Facebook to text messaging and phone calls. Eventually, she sends him recordings of songs written by her, but Nev discovers that they were all fabricated from much more famous musicians. Heartbroken, he decides to confront Megan at her house. Unfortunately, he learns of a much bigger deception than just a simple act of plagiarism.

The Result?

A critic should never judge a film by its trailer. Unfortunately, I am guilty of falling into that trap. I was expecting a much bigger climax, yet it wasn't what I desired. The problem was an error in the narrative. If  nothing had been revealed about Megan, then there could have been a much more lasting impact. Joost and Schulman should have played more with the idea of deceiving the audience. Megan's lie watered down the film's theme that appearances are misleading.

The originality and concept were interesting ideas. Joost and Schulman explored how users let themselves be fooled by what is shown to them online. Social networking websites create this built in validity, yet we accept all this information without question. Assumption over inquisition hinders our chances for a positive outcome.

Tyler's Verdict: 2 Stars. A nice idea, but it offers nothing special.

Super 8: A Love Letter to Steven Spielberg? Not Quite.

J.J. Abrams loves to bring us to the edge of our seats. Fans of LOST are not strangers to his method of storytelling. He is a director who doesn't unravel his plot right away, rather he creates scenes that imply an idea. As that same notion resides in our heads, he will amplify our original thoughts into something bigger. He prefers to keep us in the dark as a means of creating suspense. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the story for Super 8 was top secret. As the first teaser trailer premiered last summer, little has been revealed about what Abrams project was actually about. Today, we are three days past the premiere. So, what's the verdict?

What's the story?

In the summer of 1979, 13 year old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) is trying to overcome the recent death of his mother by helping his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) finish a zombie movie that is filmed on a Super 8 camera. One night, they decide to shoot at an old train station, where they witness a train wreck. In the midst of the destruction, something inhuman escapes from the trains cargo. After making a vow to keep silent about what they have seen, the kids notice strange things happening in town. The military shows up answering no questions, people begin disappearing, and abnormal electricity shortages become common. Joe, like all teenage protagonists, ignore the warnings to find out the truth. What he discovers will leave him forever changed.

The Result?

Conceptually, the film was fantastic. It was both a love letter to Steven Spielberg and a tribute to Science Fiction B movies of the 1970s. Elements of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and The Goonies are everywhere. The Spielberg nostalgia fuels the heart and soul of the picture.
Unfortunately, a variety of problems made the experience unbearable.

The screenplay contained an excess amount of cheesy dialogue and stock characters. Often, the plot stopped to extract a cheap laugh from some of the character absurdity. In all fairness, Abram's direction was meant to satirize the B movie. However, this satire has no consistency.

Character development was absent. Joe Lamb and his love interest Alice (Elle Fanning) are the only ones that demonstrate genuine moments. The rest of the kids create annoyance. Charles was loud, crude, and had an obsession with saying how things are so "mint". During any of his screen time, I wanted him to shut up. He did nothing for the film's story, except play off a Hollywood cliche that every adolescent lead needs an obese best friend.
Tyler's Verdict: 2 1/2 Stars. The terrible writing and cliches pollute the originality of the idea.