The Young Victoria (2009, UK)

I feel like I use the same words a lot, but believe me when I say this film is indescribably beautiful.

To begin with, there were some incredible special effects done with the camera. My favorite was the servants setting up for the king's birthday dinner; as they laid glasses down this long table, the camera's focus shifted from glass to glass seamlessly. There was another scene with an attempted assassination of Victoria, and they zoom in on her mother's arm, where the hairs slowly raise on end at that moment. It was completely unnecessary to the story, but lovely.

The acting in this film was superb. Emily Blunt was perfect as a young and unsure but strong queen. She was so real and vibrant and full of life she practically left of the screen. (I was especially fond of the scene where she proposes to Albert.) Rupert Friend, as Prince Albert, was a perfect contrast. He was silent and steady, Victoria's rock. And between the two of them there was this kind of quiet chemistry. It's hard to explain, but it's almost like you can see their hearts touching and softly warming each other. That sounds incredibly cheesy, but I don't know how else to describe it. Their relationship brought this story alive, and I will never think of Victoria as an old dowager queen ever again.

And on the subject of actors, Jim Broadbent as King William. Wow. He is something else, that Jim Broadbent. I have no idea what King William was like in life, but I will never picture him any other way than the way Broadbent portrayed him. Jolly and kind. Perfect!

Artistically, the film was a visual delight. The costumes were well deserving of their Oscar. especially Victoria's coronation ball gown of gold and scarlet. I thought the settings looked pretty accurate for upper class Victorian England, but something tells me a lot of grime was missing.

I liked the choice at the end to mix shots of Victoria and Albert with end titles about what happened next, because it really emphasized how much they loved and relied upon each other. It suitably concluded the film and left a memorable impression of the ending, always a plus.

One last note on the score, which was heavy on the piano and fit the film perfectly. I'd also be willing to guess that it would stand on its own if you're looking for a soothing piano album.

I really liked this one, and I'd love to see it again. I'll also be on the lookout for more films featuring Emily Blunt.

Rating: 4.0

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