July Movie #4: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Bonnie Wright, Matt Lewis
Directed By: David Yates
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is the final installment of JK Rowling's Harry Potter series. Harry (played by Radcliffe) and the gang finally come head to head with Lord Voldemort (played by Fiennes). Good battles dark magic.

Dawn, Joel, Jeff, and I saw this one up at "the lake." We went to a small town, out of the way theater. Oddly enough, this little theater was the only one in the area showing the movie in 3D, which is yet another reason we chose this venue. Shortly after arriving (with ample time), we were informed that summer camp had bought out the theater. We were stunned. It was a beautiful night and the campers were coming inside to see a movie? And at this hole in the wall? On our night? We quickly high-tailed it across several towns (a good half hour drive) to another theater. We had to see it in 2D. While there were the usual gimmicky stuff comin' at you moments (swords, wands, snakes, etc), I don't think we got robbed. 2D, as it turns out, was just fine.

When we saw part one of the Deathly Hallows last year, I remember being rather bored by the movie. Nothing  but wandering around the woods looking for horcruxes but instead encountering teenage angst consumed that movie. This movie, thankfully, was not like the first half. The first hour of this movie is incredibly intense. Harry, Ron (played by Grint), and Hermione (played by Watson) are desperately trying to track down the last of the horcruxes (the objects that contain parts of Lord Voldemort's soul) and trying to stay one step ahead of the Death Eaters that are pursuing them. You can feel the tension and their desperation. It's a fast paced ride. I did feel that a half hour of the movie towards the end dragged. Perhaps all the excitement had drained my energy. I just wanted someone to kill the snake (not that I  root for violence against animals but killing the snake was the way to get to Voldemort... not to ruin any plot points for those who haven't read the book or have forgotten key elements of the book). I clenched my fists and internally cheered for the end to come.

For those who do remember how the book ends, Jeff was hoping they wouldn't show the aged versions of the characters we've come to know and love. He always thought that ending was too nicely wrapped up, sort of a sell-out moment for the author (giving it a happy Hollywood ending). They do show the aged ending. And it was very well done (although I was disappointed that Ginny grows up to have soccer mom hair). After all the years of battling evil, it was nice to see Harry happy. I liked the sweet ending.

Of course, it has been awhile since I read the book so there are a lot of plot points that I had forgotten. I had forgotten who dies. It always makes me sad to think about the wonderful characters that didn't get that aged ending. I do have to wonder if those characters pissed off Rowling so she killed them off as a warning to future characters she might create. :-) At some point, I'll have to re-re-read the books... and then maybe have a major movie marathon.

This is a good movie. A nice wrap-up to all the others. Very well done, even if we didn't see it in 3D. Good-bye characters. It's been great watching you grow up!

July Movie #3: Zookeeper

Starring: Kevin James, Rosario Dawson, Leslie Bibb, Nick Nolte (voice), Adam Sandler (voice), Sylvester Stallone (voice), Cher (voice), Jon Favreau (voice)
Directed By: Frank Coraci
Run Time: 1 hour 44 minutes

Zookeeper is about a zookeeper named Griffin (played by James) who takes advice on how to win back the love of his life Stephanie (played by Bibb) from the animals at the zoo... who can all talk.

I took my nine year old niece Rachael to this movie because I thought it would be funny, cute, and appeal to an older child (but yet still a child). She said after the movie that she did like it and her mother told me that she probably did like it... but since she didn't laugh once and she looked incredibly bored throughout, I have a feeling she really didn't like it. I myself barely laughed... and that's saying something!

The previews were funnier than this movie. My sister absolutely loves the moment where the gorilla and the zookeeper pull up to TGI Fridays and the gorilla turns to the zookeeper and says, "Shut up!" because he's so excited about going to his favorite restaurant. But since I had seen that preview a million times, the actual moment in the movie wasn't funny. It was cute. But it had lost its charm. And that is true of a lot of the scenes. They had no charm in the movie.

Part of the reason I didn't particularly like this movie is because it spent far too much time out of the zoo, away from the talking animals. Outside of the zoo, Griffin is just a man, not a zookeeper interacting with animals that can talk. A man trying to woo an incredibly shallow and annoying person. The scenes with her are annoying. And not funny. There were just too many scenes outside of the zoo.

Back at the zoo, I did laugh a few times. A few short, soft, slight laughs. I think the problem there was that I didn't really like the animals. Sure, they were magnificent and cute and cuddly like animals are but there were few distinct personalities to make me love the animals. And me not loving an animal speaks volumes about where this movie went wrong. I did root for sad Bernie. I wanted to know more about his backstory, why he was so sad. I am really glad that they did let us know why he was sad. It was an interesting commentary about zoos in general. Very subtle. I did love little Donald the monkey. I liked his zinger about thumbs. And his advice about throwing poo. Which leads me to the other animals' advice. Another reason why this movie didn't gel - the animals' advice sucked. Of course, one could argue it's because they're animals that their advice was so sucky, both by nature of being a "dumb" animal and the fact that animal nature does not work in the real world. But I think it could have opened a whole can of funny if their advice conflicted more... and yet one does have to wonder why a human would think it was a good idea to growl at another human (although that scene was funny).

So... skip it. Yes, I am telling you to skip a movie about talking animals. Me. That's sucky and non-funny this movie is. It's not even a rainy day or sick in bed type of movie. It didn't have charm, talking monkey and all.

July Movie #2: Midnight in Paris

Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Kathy Bates, and Michael Sheen
Directed By: Woody Allen
Run Time: 1 hour 28 minutes

Midnight in Paris is about an American writer Gil (played by Wilson) who longs for the good ol' days of Paris in the 20s. He travels back in time to the 20s and meets Hemingway, Gertrude Stein (played by Bates), F.Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda, Pablo Picasso, and many others. Gertrude Stein also reads his manuscript and offers feedback.

I've read a few books by Fitzgerald and Hemingway. I know they all hung out in Paris in the 20s. But that's about all I know about their lives. I know they knew each other, that their lives intertwined. This movie suggested that they were always together, always at a bar or someone's house or had a common girlfriend. Their lives didn't just intertwine, they were fused together. This movie made me realize how much "history" I just don't remember. Perhaps I should correct that...

This is the first Woody Allen movie that I've actually liked. Didn't love it, but I did like it. I liked its message. I liked the story. And I actually liked the time travel portal. It's not fully explained how Gil travels back in time - and keeps doing it - but the lack of explanation suits this movie. Often, the details are too hokey to believe. Time travel is glossed over. It just happens. Deal with it. Perhaps it's just Gil's imagination (which doesn't explain the diary he finds at a flea market with his name in it) or perhaps it's just to fill a void in his life or perhaps it's only available during desperation.Whatever. It doesn't matter. It's well done regardless.

I did not like the character Inez (played by McAdams). She was pretty much totally unlikable. I don't like it when writers do that, make someone totally horrible. There are few people who are that cut and dry. Most people have a bit of likability to them. A bit. Inez didn't appear to have any. Although I do have to admit that I do know a few people like Paul (played by Sheen) who are arrogant, insufferable know-it-alls.  I did love the portrayal of Hemingway, always trying to be manly and starting a fight. It was funny.

I liked this movie, which did surprise me (considering it was a Woody Allen flick). I liked the romance of Paris. I liked the struggling writer who doubted his talent. I liked the time travel, back to an era that seemed perfect and grand (and the time travel within time travel, which really sealed together the movie). It's an interesting story well told. Not an own-able movie but one I'd see again, perhaps on a plane... but after I've read a bit of the classics.

July Movie #1: Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon

Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Frances McDormand, Josh Duhamel, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Patrick Dempsey, John Turturro, Alan Tudyk, Leonard Nimoy, Peter Cullen, Hugo Weaving
Directed By: Michael Bay
Run time: 2 hours 34 minutes

Transformers 3 is about the continuing battle between the Autobots (the good robots) and the Decepticons (the bad robots). Turns out,  the original moon landing was to find - and cover up - an alien spaceship crash landing. Fast forward to present day. Sam (played by LaBeouf) figures out that the US government did not bring back everything from the crashed spaceship. The leader of the Autobots - Sentinel Prime (voiced by Nimoy) - is still trapped in the spaceship. Optimus Prime (voiced by Cullen) brings Sentinel back to earth and brings him back to life. The battle between the good and bad resurrects as a result.

I read a headline (but did not read the article lest I spoil the movie for myself) that newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whiteley was horrible. I think I remember that the headline alluded that Megan Fox was better. Um, did that reviewer watch the same movie I did (plus the other two)? I did not think Rosie was so bad. Actually, she was quite decent. Much, much, much better than Megan Fox. Much. She had a lot of depth, which is saying a lot for a female character in a Michael Bay movie. Of course, leave it to Michael Bay to remind us who the audience of his movies really is with the up-butt shot of Rosie walking into the room. Um, yeah. But if that's all we see of her, I guess that's okay. There were some really challenging scenes (cue when she's stuck in the car and about to get skewered) that she was quite convincing in. Aside from the initial up-close butt shot, I rather liked Rosie and her character. I'll take her over Megan Fox any day. I'm sure there are a lot of guys out there who would agree.

Speaking of Michael Bay, let me just cut to the chase and be done with my whole Michael Bay observations (there are plenty). I think my review of Transformers 2 had a lot of "Michael Bay" references in it. I guess it's because you can't watch a Michael Bay movie without thinking, "I'm watching a Michael Bay movie." He makes himself known with the things he does. Heavy soundtrack. Quick edits. Explosions. A mastiff cameo. The soundtrack reminded me a lot of The Rock, another Michael Bay movie. I do love that he puts his own dog in every movie. Kind of an Alfred Hitchcock homage. I read another article that mentioned that his ego was really crushed (or perhaps just bruised) from the reviews of Transformers 2 because that movie just sucked. He really, really worked hard on Transformers 3's script. And it showed. I guess I'm glad that Transformers 2 sucked because if it made Michael Bay put more effort into making Transformers 3 not suck, than it was worth sitting through a sucky movie to get a good one. This one was good.

I really don't like John Turtorro. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's his teeth. I just get all heebie-jeebie when he enters the screen. What on earth has happened to John Malcovich? Seriously. Loved, loved, loved Alan Tudyk! He stole the show. I cheered when he walked onto the screen. For those non-sci-fi/Joss Whedon fans, Alan Tudyk is a phenomenal character actor who played Wash in Firefly (and the movie Serenity). So happy to see him in another movie. His character was a riot. I loved the Russian bar scene. "I'm so confused!" Classic. He seemed like he was having fun with his role. I liked that.  


Enough about the director and actors. On to the actual movie. I really liked this one. Perhaps not as good as the first, definitely kicks #2's ass, and all around likable. Of course, there was a point when Optimus and  Sentinel are reunited on Earth and I think to myself, "We've already been here for over an hour." Over an hour and we're still not to the battle scenes (and you know there's going to be a battle scene or two or three). There is write a lengthy backstory/set up to this movie. Speaking of backstory, the opening scene was unbelievably boring! It did not grab my attention at all, which is why I felt perfectly okay to leave the theater to get new 3D glasses (they gave me the IMAX version which was absolutely not working for the smaller screen). I never want to leave the movie and if the opening hadn't bored me, I would have actually sat through the movie with blurry vision (due to the wrong glasses).

Speaking of 3D.... I think either format (3D or 2D) would be fine. Normally I tell you that you don't need to see a movie in 3D if that extra dimension doesn't enhance the movie. This one... had some good scenes that 3D helped suck you in, make you feel apart of the action. The scene where Sam and Carly and the rest of the crew are inside a building that is breaking in half and everyone is sliding across the floor was definitely worth the 3D. I felt as though I was sliding with them. It was like a roller coaster ride.  Even the Rosie butt shot was designed to make you feel as though you were in the room with her, walking right behind her... butt. I could almost hear the 14 year old boy in Michael Bay exclaiming, "Excellent!" as he filmed that scene. Sigh. The opening moon landing scene, though, did not need to be in 3D. Boring with or without the extra dimension.

Why do I hate to see bad things happen to Bumblebee? Darn it for making me care about a robot! And I never see what's going on during the robot fight scenes. I had issues with it in #2 and the same issues again in this one. Why was the "blood" that the robots oozed red? Shouldn't it be black for oil?

Okay, questions and rants aside, this movie was quite good. The first one was definitely the best but this one was a close second. See it in 3D. Be prepared for a long ride, but a long ride that's worth it.