Snow White and the Huntsman (2012, U.S.)

Ugh. This movie was almost a complete disappointment. Usually I defend Kristen Stewart to all haters, because she really is a great actress. She wasn't bad here, but she didn't stand out either. But neither did Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth, Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, or any other great actors that peppered the cast. In fact, I thought Charlize Theron bordered on bad, because everything she did seemed so overacted, to the point of melodrama. Honestly, the whole thing was pretty melodramatic

Perhaps it was the writing or maybe the directing, but it just seemed ridiculous. Visually it was quite stunning, but on the other hand it seemed like they relied entirely too much on visual effects to the detriment of the plot. The nugget of plot was so good too.

It was also very distracting that every other minute something presented a visual reminder of another fantasy film, particularly The Lord of the Rings. (Down to the Tree of Gondor that graced KStew's armor... that was a bit much.) James Newton Howard is one of my favorite composers, and some of his pieces here were spot on, but he didn't quite win my favor this go round, because even his score echoed LOTR occasionally. Altogether strange, and you'd really have to see it (and be very familiar with the trilogy) to see all the subtle echoes. It was disconcerting.

I would recommend this to die-hard fans of any of the cast and people who like their fairy tales nice as dark (as they were intended), and even to LOTR fans who take pleasure in yelling, "Copycats!"

Rating: 3.0

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011, U.S.)

I want to be able to give this one more than Part 1, so it's getting a 3.0. Really, it was a struggle to give it more than a 2.5. Look, I love Harry Potter. The first few movies were quite good, and I was on the verge of loving Half Blood Prince because it was so bloody hilarious (though that clearly was the wrong tone to take). But. But but but.

The plot has been slowly and steadily losing momentum when it should be more and more action-packed. Although that's not quite the right way to phrase it, because the focus has shifted so far toward action, special effects, stunts, etc. that plot, character development, symbolism, etc. seem to have fizzled. I knew that by this point in the films a lot would make no sense, just because so many plot threads have been dropped. So that wasn't as much of a let-down as it could have been, due to internal preparation.

Still, it's hard to watch an adaptation of a novel that is so fundamentally about characters and the fight between good and evil and have all those key elements watered down. In fact, if you watch this film without reading the books or watching any of the others, you'd be hard pressed to identify just what's so wrong with Voldemort and the Death Eaters anyway. Life at Hogwarts doesn't look so bad, just especially organized with a very dark and gloomy ambiance. Where are the horrible, soulless adults enslaving the students? Well, there's just not time for all that if we're going to show all the explosions, epic Voldemort vs. Harry wand battle with blazing lights that might as well be lightsabers, etc. Even key moments that were so suspenseful and nail-biting in the book (I'm talking mainly about the Gringotts vault break-in here) were so diluted that they felt like they were put there just because they were supposed to be there, and the fear and excitement were completely removed. Even the horror of Horcruxes and the importance of their destruction seemed to vanished, replaced with a formulaic "destroy x, y, and z in order to achieve completion of Harry Potter equation." Meanwhile, the Hallows seem to become completely irrelevant. The Elder Wand's loyalty is important, yet its full power is mostly ignored. The Resurrection Stone serves its purpose, but with little fanfare (despite being one of the most moving parts of the novel) or explanation. And the Invisibility Cloak? What cloak? Not a mention. Very strange.

The thing that bothered me the absolute most, however, was the battle of Hogwarts, and it really sums up my feelings about most of the later series and this movie in particular. Yes, it was visually pretty cool. But emotionally, it was barren. Mrs. Weasley's classic line was there, but rather than focusing on a mother's fierce protection of her daughter, the focus of the moment is on Bellatrix's visually interesting (to be generous) demise. (Really, she like explodes into a bunch of black bits. What is that about?) All of the required deceased are there laying in the Great Hall at the end of the battle, but those scenes are robbed of the heart-wrenching quality of the novel. It's hard to explain, but the shots of rows of dead (and especially the most beloved) had an unemotional, detached feeling. It just wasn't good. I think the later filmmakers lost sight of what's important in the Harry Potter universe, something the earlier filmmakers had a better grasp of. They've traded human emotion and character for special effects, and the trade weakens the heart of a truly epic human story.

I hate to complete trash the visuals, because some things were strikingly done. Harry's version of King's Cross Station was phenomenal. (Also, that scene was pretty cut and paste from the book, so that was nice.) The ruins of Hogwarts were beautiful and sad. The Fiendfyre was pretty sweet. The passages beneath Gringotts were perfectly cavelike. (Sidenote: many of these things repeatedly reminded my friend and I of the places of Middle Earth, namely Moria, Helm's Deep, and Minas Tirith. I guess similar sights and events are inevitable in good v. evil fantasies, but it was still amusing.) The darkened halls of Hogwarts felt coldly realistic. So sets win over special effects.

Of course I don't repeat all the things I've said before about the great casting and how much the child actors have grown (as actors, not as children to adults). There were some surprising and talented people in minor roles who I didn't even recognize (especially Hinds as Aberforth Dumbledore). That role especially highlights the talent of the wardrobe and makeup departments. Maybe the were worn out, but a lot of the performances seemed lackluster, even compared to the first part of this film. Again, this could have been more because of the formulaic feel of the script, but who knows.

Scores since the early days seem to have been either memorable or not. Part 1's score didn't stand out to me (at least at the time, maybe it's great), but parts of this one did. The song that I especially loved, loved, loved was "Lily's Theme" (I looked up the name), which opens the film. It has that ethereal, otherworldly female voice sound that I love and the melody was beautiful yet eery and haunting. It was repeated during Voldemort's farewell, if you will, as little pieces of his cloak drift through the air in front of the ruins of Hogwarts, and it really struck a chord (har har) there. I loved this one song so much that I wanted to go back and buy the rest of the soundtracks I don't own (I only have 1-3). I also liked that they returned to their roots. Although the score for Deathly Hallows is a far cry from Sorcerer's Stone, the credits music sounded like it had come straight from the first film. It really tied everything together and brought the viewer back to the feeling of Harry's first trip from Platform 9 3/4. The transition from the final song of the film into the credits was smooth too, perhaps because the last scene was nearly identical to the book's epilogue, another journey from 9 3/4. Really well done. I really want to run buy the five scores I need to finish my collection.

Anyway, my overall feeling with this movie is, "Well I'm glad that's over." They weren't bad. In the early days they were quite good. But they just strayed so far from the important core of the novels that it was hard to hold on. Time for me to go reread the tales of the Boy Who Lived, the way they were meant to be told.

*edit: I almost forgot. We saw this on July 31, which I remembered is Harry's birthday. Now that was a happy accident for a nerd!*

Rating: 3.0

Hook (1991, U.S.)

I am a huge Peter Pan fan. I like the old Mary Martin version, I like the Disney cartoon version, I like the 2003 version (with Jason Isaacs as Hook!), I like Finding Neverland... I just love Peter Pan. I've never seen Hook, however. (I remember something about it being inappropriate for children, and I wouldn't have been allowed to watch it.)

On one hand, I thought the concept of this film was pretty interesting. Peter Pan finds something worth leaving Neverland for, grows up, has his own children. On the other hand, I don't think that scenario is consistent with the Pan character. And even if it was, I don't think he ever would have become a high powered corporate executive. Because of this, none of the rest of the film fell into place.

I did love Maggie Smith as Granny Wendy, and the concept of her becoming a rescuer of orphans. She was great. However, I've never really cared for Robin Williams, and I didn't like his Pan. And while I do like Dustin Hoffman, he just isn't a hook, like Cyril Richards or Jason Isaacs. Lastly, the Lost Boys just aren't the loveable, adventurous, stereotypical boys they are in other versions, with the exception of one or two of them. Mostly they were a rude mass, rather than adorable individuals.

The last thing I wanted to mention was the music. The whole time, I kept thinking it sounded familiar. This is usually a good sign that I know the composer. However, when it sounds this familiar, it's usually a good sign that John Williams did the composing. Well, surprise surprise, he did! Which explains why it sometimes sounded like the mischievous music from Home Alone and sometimes like the more mystical themes from Star Wars. Still, it was pretty good music for Neverland. (Though nothing can touch the score written by James Newton Howard for the 2003 version.)

To summarize, my general reaction to this movie was "Eh." A swing and a miss for Spielberg, I'd say.

Rating: 2.5

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009, U.S.)

So, the big movie of the summer (which was supposed to be the big movie of the fall). I went into this with absolutely zero expectations. In my opinion, the quality of the films peaked at 3 (which I love) and rapidly deteriorated toward 5 (which I practically hated). I assumed 6 would be just as terrible as 5, since it has the same director and has to cope with all the plot holes from the previous terrible scripts. (Sidenote: I've always loved the casting, the cinematography, the costuming, etc. The scripts have been what are so terrible!)

Well. It was definitely missing a lot. Some of the things were understandably condensed, but other very important things were left out. This whole book is about Voldemort's memories, very important things that build to the events of the 7th book, and yet they only show two. And one of them is dreadfully unsatisfactory. Secondly, it's called The Half-Blood Prince, for crying out loud. So why does Harry use the HBP's book to make one potion, only use one spell out of it, and then forget about it? Where is the Other Minister? Where is all the continuing panic and confusion of a dementor-infested England? Where is the challenge of getting into the cave? Where is Harry confronting the implications of his destiny and having to leave the people he loves? Where is Dumbledore's Army banding together to protect the school? Obviously, the thing I love the most (namely character development) was sacrificed for something that has never seemed important to me, especially in this series (namely action). But then, what do we expect?

I know that I shouldn't compare the movie to the book, but I can't help it. So here's what I think about it by itself. I think they did a wonderful job of showing that there is a world outside of Hogwarts. Harry hanging ont in Underground stations and flirting with waitresses, for example. Or the amazing fly-through shots they did of London, including Death Eater destruction of the Millenium Bridge. Seriously, that shot was one of the best things ever. They also captured what it's like to be a teenager. All the angst and crushes and giggles and tears.

Also, it was hilarious. It's hard to know how to feel about this, since this was one of the most serious books up to this point. (I have to say, they did do a great job with the darkness in the 5th film.) There were so many silly joke-type things. A lot of it may not have been actually funny (especially to teenagers), but so much of it was, "Ha ha, those teens are too wrapped up with themselves!" Also, Rupert Grint's face. That boy sure can act. He really has been the comedic relief for every movie, but he's reached a new high this time. Then there was Daniel Radcliffe, whose normal up-tight, pained, destiny-inflicted persona got a moment to cut loose after taking Felix Felicis. To act out his luckiness, he acted like he was on drugs. Priceless. And Emma Watson, whose acting has always impressed me more than the two boys', has gotten even more talented. She's subtle, and I think one day she'll be a brilliant actress. (You heard it here first. And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.) As much as I enjoyed all the laughs, looking back it seems like it took away the strength of the terrible moments, like when one character has to force poison down another's throat, or when an enemy is attacked and his chest ripped open, or when crazy Bellatrix is terrorizing England, or when a major character is killed. Completely lacking in transition.

I already mentioned the kids' acting. About the adults, I will say that they were as great as always. Alan Rickman is unparalleled as Snape. Really, he's incredible. As for new faces, I love Jim Broadbent, and even though he's not how I pictured Slughorn, I was looking forward to his performance. It was a bit disappointing, however. I wonder if he ever read the book, because he really didn't capture the most important (or really only) part of Slughorn's (rather flat) character. Also, the woman who played Narcissa was a) not the beautiful ice queen you would imagine and b) not very convincing in her only scene, in which she's trying to save her son. (And in case you're wondering, I looked it up. She has two children. So she should be able to pull this off.) Speaking of Malfoys, I want to quickly note that Tom Felton (Draco) has always been great at playing the weasel-y, bad apple type. But his portrayal of a bad (but not necessarily evil) kid forced to do terrible things to save himself and his family was incredible. He really captured the tortured, hopeless feeling. He should give his screen mother some tips.

Let's talk scenery. I mentioned before the incredible shots of London at the beginning of the movie. Everything else was as a beautiful as always. The only other thing I want to mention is the portryal of an abandoned Diagon Alley. They did a great job of making it look abandoned (although because of poor scripting, you're not sure why it's abandoned). And then there was Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes. The shop was amazing. They had to cut out a lot of what goes on in the shop, but they used it just enough to remind you of Fred and George and their continuing defiance of acceptable behavior. It was garish and loud and very them. (The twins are really my favorites, and I wish they could have featured more. Maybe next time!)

I will cut short this ramble with a mention (as I always must) of the score. So the first 3 were composed by John Williams, someone else did the 4th, and Nicholas Hooper has done the 5th and 6th. I don't remember paying much attention to the score in any since John Williams stopped composing. But I really loved this one. It was dark and ominous and sad, and what little of the appropriate tone that was conveyed in the film came from the score. Good stuff.

It wasn't the book. But ignoring print to screen comparisons (and in comparison to the 5th movie), it was pretty good. I was surprised. (Though I can't wait to see how they manage to fill all the holes they've created in the adaptations of book 7).

Rating: (and I can't believe I'm saying this) 4.0