Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)

Director: David Yates Stars: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson

Review:

I have been watching the Harry Potter films these few days from the start. I have never been much a reader and would be fallen asleep just by seeing the thickness of the Harry Potter books. Therefore I will express my opinion completely oblivious of what mentioned in the books. The series has been really taken a dark tone, from a family live-action cartoon to a war movie, and yes the whole Deathly Hallow Part 2 is basically a war.

There seems many elements that were supposed to mean something, but actually means nothing. Chekhov's Gun or Red Herring? Like Harry got his wand that is a twin with Voldemort's, but both of them just replace their wands instead, and it never matter if their wands were twins or not. Does it serves an excuse of getting a new wand and paves the way for the Elder wand? But Voldemort can still get the Elder wand just for the power, so the twin wands thing have little contribution to the excuse. And what does their pets do? Ron's pet does later revealed to be Peter Pettigew, but again, all the pet thing just for this plot point in one movie? Oh well.

Malfoy is nothing but a bully, and as the characters grow up, he become a cowardly bully. At the first several movies he does nothing but gives some competitions to Harry. His screentime contracted shorter and shorter as new threats and rivals show up, and in the last few movies everytime we see him he looks sort of crying. The only really evil thing he does was letting the Death Eater into Hogwarts, but I dont know why it takes a whole movie to do it, and that doesnt make him an effective villain at all. And his father is so stupid that I never seen him once win in a rap game of casting spells.

The main surprise that were praised was learning that Snape was the good guy all along, and he only killed Dumbledore to gain Voldemort's trust. But exactly what does Snape do after gaining Voldermort's trust? He followed his order and turned Hogwart's into a school of terrorists, and we never see him aid the Order in any way or betray Voldemort. Hell he even provide the Order's plan for Voldemort in the beginning of Part 1 so that they could be followed. Later he was just killed by Voldermort without knowing that he is a spy. Speaking of the killing, Voldermort kill Snape because to fully acquire the Elder wand one must kill its owner. Why doesnt Dumbledore gives the wand to Snape beforehand so that he can use the Elder wand against Voldermort, which might stand a chance? What was Dumbledore's plan or it is something made up on the spot just to squeeze our emotion?

And in the end something laughably stupid happened. Harry pretends to be dead. Malfoy's mother checks on him and answers Voldemort that he is dead, and Voldemort is so utterly stupid that nobody could just see it for himself or check his pulse or anything. No wonder when Harry gets up he is so angry on his own stupidity. So they have a little Dragon ball style energy beam fight, and they kill Voldemort snake which contains part of his soul, and killed Voldermort. The End. Wait. Why does Voldemort let his snake go so far away now that people hostile are near and conceal the snake in his robe when he is million miles away?

Oh and even better: why not make a Horcrux out of a tiny object and threw it into the center of the ocean, so that there is no possible chance for anyone to find it at all?

Overall, the Harry Potter movies are okay and I like it to a degree that I watched every single one of them. As for the final movie, I must say up to Snape dies I like it. The Hogwart's siege reminds me of The Two Towers (2002), which in my regard is the best castle battle of all time. Although when the character dies I does not have much feeling maybe because they have so little screentime. After Snape dies, everything went stupid, and the ending is so generic that there is nothing to talk about.

The Tree of Life (2011)

Director: Terrance Malick Stars: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken

Review:

To be honest I havent even heard of the name Terrance Malick until The Tree of Life (2011) won the Palme d'Or of the Cannes Film Festival 2011. After a little researching he is fairly unknown and has only directed a few movies before. The whole affair gets dramatic when Terrance Malick was banished from the festival due to his Nazi comment, but won the prize afterall. Does Cannes give him the prize to show how im-political the festival is? You'll be the judge.

So I went to see it, fully aware of people's comment of it being boring, having no clue what's going on, and dont know what the plot is. Firstly there is no plot. There is even no character. The whole movie is about a life. The images of universe would represent the state before we were born: somewhere in the universe, maybe some kind of spiritual existence, and then life forms as microscopic organism. Then we see birth, as an infant child and learning to walk. As the movie progress life complicates. We have emotions: jealoucy, hatred, sorrow. We goes through death, have problems with our father, financial difficulties. It was not a story but an attempt of show us and remind us what life is. From as simple as trees, grasses, water, to as complex as human relationship.

Some criticize the movie of having no new throughts about life. I would have to say it has to be this way. We all have our own reasons of being as complex as we are. The point that we all agree is we cant go back to the way of a child. That is why most arguing dialogues are muted. The reason does not matter. It just try to remind us how simple it used to be, and how irrational we was. The viewpoint is generic since we all goes through the phases of doubts of our parents love and dislikes of our father. It is not a perspective but a display of different impacts that each adds to our complexity of life.

Frankly it would be pretentious to say this movie is not boring. It is. The universe image can be cut shorter and I could not figure what the dinosaur scene adds. I have some idea of getting what life is long before human influence, but I am not sure. Also Brad Pitt and Sean Penn does not have real function but to trick people in. Especially Sean Penn, which actually gets nothing to do or say but walking around. Would it still won the Palme d'Or if some unknown actor plays the part of Brad Pitt and Sean Penn?

I do not hate this movie, but I may not watch it for the second time. I think I do get it, but I think there is better movies this year. I makes me think of my relationship with my father, but having a hard time to get into the whole god thing since I aint Christian. Afterall, the Cannes festival is more or less political biased. 

Sucker Punch (2011)

Director: Zack Snyder


Review:

Before I went in the theatre my friend warned me that this movie is not gonna be one of the best movies, but only something visually stylish. I was fully aware of that but I have too heightened expectation from Zack Snyder, since he has yet to make a bad film. Although this is not really bad, but it easily be his worst.

All things aside the opening credit is good. Zack Snyder made some very good opening credits in the past and this one is no exception. We see how the girl became an orphan, how his stepfather was pissed because she and her sister inherit all the wealth, and how she accidentially killed her sister and be committed. This is done without saying any dialogue and with some girly punk rock music to perfectly suit the girly theme going on here. However it is all going down hill from here.

The film is filled with different incoherent action sequences, from fighting in a Japanese Temple, the castle in "The Two Towers", the train in "John Carpenter's Ghost on Mars", to some futuristic war zone. Each fight represents a dance that the girl has to perform to get other's attendion while other girls steals some tools for their escape.

While these action scenes are nicely shot, and stylish, they are boring since we are not emotional invested. As long as we can tell they just fight and fight for some goals we fed right before, and though the computer graphics do look beautiful, it felt flat and meaningless. At the end when the narrator spills some words of wisdom we feel nothing cause what we have witnessed is just some beautiful girls in pointless action.

The plot is reminiscent to the 1962 short french film "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge", and the ending should be the same too. I looked upon this movie since I played a video game when I was small, called "American McGee's Alice". The story of the game is that Alice's (that Alice in wonderland) family was burnt to death in a fire accident, and tormented by guilt of inability to save her family, she was mentally ill and shut down in a mental hospital. When she was locked up, she visited the wonderland once more but this time it turned into a dark and brutal world.

Americn McGee's Alice

The movie should have done the same as the game: the action should be symbolize something of her mental problem and some obstacles that are tormenting her. And through the action she gained revelation and redemption.

I was hoping "American McGee's Alice" would be made into a movie. At first Tim Burton would be the perfect one to direct it but he failed with his "Alice". Now Sucker Punch also failed, and there is little hope on the official film adaption. Maybe it's for the best, and let the game exists as it is.