MULTI-REVIEW!!!

I've let this place go to the dogs after being threatened by lawyers reprisenting big business. But that doesn't mean I have stopped watching movies. Although 2010 has been pretty bad apart from one or two absolute gems scattered throughout. Anyway, this is what I've seen recently-

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010) David Yates - I haven't been a big fan of the last few Harry Potter films. In fact, I haven't really thought they were great since The Prisoner Of Azkeban. However, this film bucked that trend. There are some really quirky choices in direction which let the film down a bit. And even after seven films, Daniel Radcliffe still really sucks at acting. But Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are excellent, the film feels tonally like Fellowship Of The Ring. And it sets up really nicely for Part 2. Good job everyone!

9/10






The Social Network (2010) David Fincher - David Fincher is one of the few really really special directors working today. His films are worth looking out for as soon as they're announced. So it comes as no surprise that he could make a film about computer coding so damn exciting. Charting the early meteorical rise of Facebook, focusing on the relationships between Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin and Sean Parker, The Social Network is like All The President's Men for the 21st Century. Superbly written by The West Wing scribe Aaron Sorkin, and featuring excellent performances from all, but primarily Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg, The Social Network is one of the best films of 2010.

9/10





R.E.D. (2010)
Robert Schwentke - Based on Warren Ellis' comic book of the same name, RED is about retired assassins who are being targeted by an unknown source, possibly connected to the CIA. Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren and the rest of the cast are clearly in it for the fun, and that's what the film is. It's not outstanding by any measure, but it is entertaining and easy to watch.

7/10






Centurion (2010) Neil Marshall - I'll admit, I really just watched this out of morbid curiosity. Neil Marshall's films can go either way. And going in with zero expectations probably saved the film for me. It's absolute schlock. And Marshall loves his gore. It's rubbish, but again, there are worse ways to spend 97 minutes. Worth it for Michael Fassbender actually doing a decent job with a terrible script, Dominic West chewing up the scenery, Olga Kurylenko being terrifyingly hot and seeing a head being chopped in half the same way about 3 times.

5/10





I Love You Phillip Morris (2009) Glenn Ficarra and John Requa - This was surprisingly decent. It's the true story of a conman who basically took the piss out of George W. Bush's Texas penal system continuously for years. All in the name of love of another man. Surprisingly funny and with two really great performances from Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor, it's a very over-looked film. Really entertaining.

7/10






Jackass 3D (2010) Jeff Tremaine - Awesome. There's not much to say really, you know what to expect. Except in 3D. Nearly puked. Laughed my ass off. No apologies!

8/10














Four Lions (2010) Chris Morris - I'm a big fan of Chris Morris. So when I heard he was doing a comedy about four suicide bombers, I chuckled away to myself. The film is pretty shocking in parts, but then having seen Morris' other work, that comes as no surprise. Very well performed low-budget comedy about a subject most people wont touch, Four Lions is exactly the right type of satire in this current climate. Really excellent.

9/10






[REC] 2 (2010) Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza - I thought this would suck. It takes place roughly five minutes after the first REC finished, and picks up exactly where that film left off. It's incredibly creepy, gory, and features quite a few jumps. A horror sequel that expands on the original in a very inventive way. And while some complain that it takes a bit of the mysetery out of the first film, which admittedly, it does, it doesn't rest on it's laurels and instead expands on the story. Proper horror done really well.

8/10



So there you go. Some more films I've watched recently. The end of the year review will be coming soon, which should cover a few more of the films I've seen. Some good, some rotten. Hopefully I'll get a full top and bottom 10. But I wouldn't count on it! The cinema is costing more and putting out crap, so it really puts me off going. However, we shall see.

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE (2009) - David Yates

Right, so we’re at film six in the Harry Potter saga. Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince is the penultimate book, but not the penultimate film, as The Deathly Hallows is split into two parts, in order to fit all the story elements in. Or all the dollars they can squeeze out of us. But that’s probably just the cynic in me speaking. Taking place six months after Harry’s godfather Sirius Black was unceremoniously killed off, it’s a dark time for the kids of Hogwarts. Looks like bad boy Voldermort’s gonna wreck things up something awful. But while a dark tone overtakes the series, does the film hold up against the previous films?

Sirius Black is dead. Voldermort is gaining strength. And Harry can’t get a date. All in all, things aren’t exactly great for teenager Harry Potter. But we’ve all had to deal with those awkward teenage years where the undead murderer of our parents is trying to kill us with magic. Ho-hum! But the Dark Lord and his band of Death Eaters aren’t the only threat to the kids of Hogwarts. Raging hormones are sweeping through the halls of the school like the smell of a hundred unflushed turds and nobody’s safe. Harry’s fending off love-potion wielding wenches with a pointed stick... eh, his wand. While the real object of his affection is his best friend’s sister, and she has her tongue down the throat of another guy. While making eyes at Harry. It’s all very Dawson’s Creek. Meanwhile, Harry’s come into possession of a potions book that belonged to someone known only as the Half-Blood Prince. While the book does help Harry ace his potions class, his professor is a man of a questionable history, whom Dumbledore wants Harry to get to know. There is something in Professor Slughorn’s past that links him to Voldermort. Harry must find out what that is.



I’ve never been a huge fan of the Harry Potter series. I pretty much hated the first two films, and while the subsequent three films were far better, there’s always been something a little twee about the series. Maybe it’s the names of the characters and situations, that they’re all head-slapping puns. Maybe it’s the fact that all the heroes are kids. But then, you did have characters like Sirius Black and Mad-Eye Moody who were pretty badass. Anyway, it was with a sense of relief that I was told by a Potter-fan friend of mine that this story ups the ante somewhat. But that was the book. Something was lost in the film translation. I was aware of a pretty big story element that was going to happen and was ready for some gut-wrenching emotion. But really, I was left cold.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, but it does have quite a few flaws that, when added up, detract from the overall experience. Primarily, there is a distinct lack of urgency in the film. Voldermort is gaining strength and his agents are attacking even the muggle world now. Yet, nobody in Hogwarts seems that worried about it. Sure, there is some talk about how the parents of the students are concerned about sending them back to school, but that’s about it. Dumbledore isn’t too concerned with Harry’s safety and stays in the background for most of two thirds of the film. It’s only in the final third of the film that he really leaps to life. And that in itself is a big problem. The majority of the film doesn’t seem to deal with any of the overall plot that runs through the entire series. I thought that Harry Potter dealt with the sole survivor of an attack by the evilest wizard in the history of magic and his attempt to defend himself and ultimately defeat the Dark Lord. What we have for the majority of the film is a series of bumbling encounters with kids driven by their discovery of hormones and the opposite sex. The whole Half-Blood Prince aspect is merely mentioned and feels like even a tertiary subplot. A more appropriate title would have been Harry Potter And The Sexual Awakening. But then that wouldn’t have gotten past the draft stage.



The great characters played by heavy-weight actors are also sadly missing from the film. There’s no Gary Oldman’s Sirius Black. There’s no Brendan Gleeson’s Mad-Eye Moody. There’s no Jason Isaac’s Lucius Malfoy. Even Ralph Fiennes, Voldermort is missing for Christ sake. Now, other than Moody, there are legitimate reasons as to why these characters are absent. But the film feels like it’s missing something without these characters. Only David Thewlis’ Remus Lupin and Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape pop up, and even those are mere cameos. I was informed Snape really comes into his own in this story, and after seeing the film, you can see how he would have, but his character feels castrated. It’s kind of a big disappointment.

I have to say, most of the actors who play the kids have really come into their own over the course of the series. In particular, Tom Felton who plays Draco Malfoy and Rupert Grint who plays Ron Weasley have come pretty far. Felton in particular has a pretty important role in this film and he carries himself very well, even when playing off a seasoned veteran like Alan Rickman. Even Emma Watson pulls of her wide range of emotions very well. The same can’t be said for Daniel Radcliffe, however. His acting started off bad and hasn’t gotten any better really. At one point, I thought I’d missed a plot point where somebody sucked out Harry’s soul, because Radcliffe emoted with all the soul of a marionette. Thankfully Radcliffe is surrounded by a pretty heavyweight cast, so he’s naturally propped up by that.



David Yates’ direction is good enough for the series. It’s not exactly ground-breaking as he seems to have lifted bits from Alfonso Cuaron and a great deal of other directors for this film. Which is ironic, as in the last film, I felt his direction was dull at best. In this film, however, at moments, I felt like a was watching a best of compilation of other directors’ work, and in one particular scene which shall remain unnamed, I thought somebody had accidentally spliced in some footage from Fellowship Of The Ring. Naturally, there are elements of each series that are similar. But for a director to use a shot that was pretty much identical to another film is just lazy. And it’s down to Yates that there was no sense of urgency in the film. Sure, there was a lot of plot to get through, and fair dues, the film never really ground to a halt at any moment. But the best bits were flashbacks, moments that involved Severus Snape and the Death Eaters. All of which were secondary to the main plot.

Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince isn’t a great film. And it is nowhere near as good as The Prisoner Of Azkaban, which is still by a great deal the best film of the franchise. But The Half-Blood Prince isn’t terrible either. I realise that there was a hell of a lot of plot to get through. But other films have had the same task and handled it far better. There is just something inherently lacking in this film. Maybe it’ll become clear after seeing The Deathly Hallows, which this film feels somewhat of a set-up for. But this film is just a massive anti-climax. As the film ended, I wondered where the hell the action that was in the last film went. Especially after the huge plot point that had just passed. If Harry was to get a report card after this year in Hogwarts, it would read ‘A lot of potential wasted. Must do better.’


6/10

HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (2007) - David Yates

Films like those in the Harry Potter saga are fairly critic-proof. And as such, it seems fairly pointless to actually share one's views on the films. But hey, this is a place for the opening of debate, so one soldiers on! The fifth Potter movie, Harry Potter And the Order of the Phoenix hit the screen last weekend, and will no doubt bring in millions at the box office. The Order of the Phoenix opens, as with almost all of the Potter films, with Harry at home with the Dursleys, the abhorrent relatives he finds himself living with when not in Hogwarts. He, and the Dursley boy are attacked, and Harry, breaking the Ministrey of Magic's rules, uses a spell to defend himself. Potter is expelled from Hogwarts and brought to trial. He's found not guilty and allowed back into Hogwarts. Unfortunately for everyone at Hogwarts, the facist-leaning Dolores Umbridge, a Ministry stooge is appointed as the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, and quickly begins to impose her will on the school. She follows party line that Voldermort has not returned to cause havok and therefore she is not willing to teach the students the lessons they need to defend themselves. So Harry gathers some friends and prepares for a confrontation with 'He Who Shall Not Be Named.'



Okay, firstly, I'll admit, I'm no Harry Potter fan. I've watched the films, and heck, even enjoyed one of them. But other than that, I can take or leave the saga. However, I can appreciate how popular they are, and if nothing else, they are pretty great visually. So there'll be something for pretty much everyone in the films. I've always maintained that Alfonso Cuaron's Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azkaban has been the most accomplished of the movies (I don't particularly care what the books are like) and proof that a great director can pretty much make any subject matter interesting. The Goblet of Fire had some great sequences, but was pretty laboured compared to the previous film. But having heard the hype surrounding this film, I was looking forward to what was said by many to be the best of the series. Unfortunately, I think I saw a different movie to everyone else. I cant understand why people think this one is better than either of the previous two (the first two films are not worth mentioning, as they are, well, crap).

First, the good. The central actors, the 'kids,' really have matured in terms of acting talent. It's understandable that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson were going to be pretty poor actors when thrust into the central roles. But as the films have progressed, so has their talent, and they're pretty good in their roles in this film. They're surrounded by some of the finest actors in the industry, including Gary Oldman, Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, David Thewlis, Jason Isaacs and Micheal Gambon. But we barely see any of these actors in action, and here in lies the first fault. The previous films had really interesting adult actors in central roles which really helped the kids. Thewlis in the third and Gleeson in the fourth, but these actors are reduced to cameos. Imelda Staunton has the central adult role in this film as Dolores Umbridge, and is very good in the role. But the character is nothing we haven't seen before and quickly loses any interest. I was pretty much relieved by the time Ralph Fiennes' Voldermort arrived on the screen to spice things up, but again, it's little more than a cameo role in the end.



The major problem with the film is the pacing. I have to say, I was quite bored for three quarters of the film. There's no real focus to the story, and is instead a series of little incidents loosely tied together with a scant plot, as Harry teaches his fellow schoolmates to use their wands while trying to avoid the facist grip of Dolores Umbridge. There's no focusing elements such as a tournament in the previous film and no real threat for most of the proceedings, and I found myself wishing the film would just get on with it. There's the hint that there's going to be a huge confrontation towards the end of the film, but even this just arrives as a damp squib. Yate's direction is adequate for the film, but has none of the flair and trickery of Cuaron's direction. Yates continuously zooms in through newspaper articles, which gets tiresome quickly, and in one scene in particular, mysteriously focuses the camera on the wrong character. I hope he'll tighten up proceedings in the next film, as this film just seems to be a little drawn out. Which is ironic as it's the shortest Harry Potter film so far.

Overall, the film isn't too bad. It's aimed at kids, and will entertain them, and even scare them, as there are plenty of dark moments in the film. But I just found myself waiting for something exciting to happen. Not just the same old special effects rehashes from the previous films. And for an hour and forty five minutes, that's a long time to wait! Not terrible. But not great.


6/10