Movie Review: Captain America – The First Avenger (dir. by Joe Johnston)

Posted on July 23, 2011 by Leonard Wilson

This won’t be the only review for Captain America: The First Avenger here on the Shattered Lens. This may very well be considered an editorial on the film, depending on whether I can stay on topic (I gush a lot in this one). Once they see it, both Arleigh and Lisa Marie will probably make their own posts. Either way, you’ll have more than one perspective on the film.

Addendum: Arleigh’s review is up.

Many years ago, Marvel Comics decided that with all of it’s key franchises spaced around various film production companies, they’d create a series of films that would culminate to one big “Team Up” story. That team is known as The Avengers and it’s members (for the sake of the films, anyway) are Iron Man, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, The Scarlett Witch, Hawkeye and Captain America. The project really went into high gear when Marvel Studios was born and Disney purchased Marvel.

I didn’t have a lot of hope for Captain America: The First Avenger. I know very little about the character save for the comics my older brother used to read. He was an army guy given something to make him super and he had a really cool shield that he’d throw and have return to him.. That was basically the bulk of my knowledge. When taken into account the announcement that Joe Johnston was directing the film, after his somewhat disappointing turn in The Wolfman and that Chris Evans was playing the role, I was certain the film was going to fail. I mean, wasn’t he just playing the Human Torch in The Fantastic Four?

Now, you need to understand that hearing Joe Johnston’s name attached to this left a mixture of feelings. I absolutely love The Rocketeer (1991) and period pieces in general. He was able to give it a nice ‘30s feel, right down to the old war serials that used to be shown before films. Hell, even the poster to that film was something grand. My little brother had a Rocketeer toy and I used to film home movies with it, holding the character just in front of the camera and running around the house as if it were flying. Unfortunately, it didn’t quite work out as well for Johnston or Disney then – but that’s another story.

As for Captain America, the movie floored me. The story isn’t as complex as say, The Dark Knight or as full of itself as Green Lantern, but it’s hands down the best story in the whole Avengers arc that Marvel’s worked on. From my viewpoint, only Iron Man comes close to competing with this film.

The premise of the story is pretty straightforward. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is a frail man with just about every problem you can think of. He’s short, he’s asthmatic, and he can’t do a pull up to save his life. Yet, as his parents were in the Army, he felt it was right that he do his part. Every time he tries to enlist, however, he’s told he can’t. This doesn’t sway him from the belief that he can do it, it just forces him to find other ways in. When a scientist overhears Steve’s reasoning behind wanting to join, he gives him a big chance to become the first of many Super Soldiers. The process does indeed work, but a mishap leaves Steve as the only Super Soldier the Allies have, and thus, Captain America is born.

Now, I’m kind of summarizing things there as the story’s just a little bigger than that, but it really needs to be noted just how great a job Chris Evans did in this. He portrays Steve Rogers as one of the most noble characters I’ve seen since Superman. The character never loses that drive or passion, and it came across so well that on reflection, I can’t recall ever thinking once about the Human Torch (something I fully expected to do here). I found myself really wanting this character to succeed, which is more than I could say about Hal Jordan in Green Lantern despite loving the comic. Evans truly was the right person for this film, in my opinion. Again, die hard Captain America fans that have grown up with the character may disagree.

Captain America also has a rich supporting cast. Hayley Atwell, coming over off a great role in the Starz Miniseries The Pillars of the Earth plays Peggy Carter, a tough as nails Army Officer that helps to motivate Rogers toward the path he’s destined to take. Atwell is beautiful, demure at times and responsive at others, every bit as she was when playing Alienna. Also from Pillars of the Earth is Anatole Taubman as one of Johan Schmidtt’s (Hugo Weaving’s) Officers. Tommy Lee Jones’ Colonel has some of the funnier lines in the film. Weaving does a great job as always at playing the villian. There’s really very little I can say on that other than the make up job they gave Weaving’s Red Skull was nice, right down to the visible seams just under his ears. Sebastian Stan has a good role in Rogers’ best friend, Bucky, but I think he could have used a little more. Even Natalie Dormer (Cassanova, The Tudors) and Amanda Righetti (Friday the 13th) have cameos. If the film has two supporting anchors other than Atwell, it would be Stanley Tucci (Easy A) and Dominic Cooper (The Devil’s Double). As Abraham Erskine and Howard Stark, respectively, they both almost steal the show from Evans. They both have a few key moments in the film.

If Captain America suffers from any problems, it may be that it gets from Point A to Point B a little quicker than I’d have liked it to. Some of the pacing is done in Montages, which is okay for showing the audience that the Captain is making progress, but I would have liked to have seen another mission or two before the finale. The buildup to Steve Rogers becoming the Captain is fast, and everything else moves pretty quickly from there on in. The last battle sequence could have been stronger – I’m reminded of the tank sequence in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade – but considering the era in which the story was told, I wasn’t really expecting lightsabers or anything along those lines. It wasn’t bad, but it was over sooner than I expected. I should also point out that it really does help to have seen the other Avenger related movies. It’s not really a requirement, but the larger puzzle really comes into view on seeing this film.

Visually, the film is great. Johnston really catches that sense of old New York, though it may not be as nuanced as Jackson’s in King Kong. The colors are a little muted in some places, but I’m thinking that’s part of the tone that was set. There’s even a musical number that’s somewhat cute. The 3D effects in this are okay for some scenes. The end credits in particular were nice, but over all it’s really nothing to write home about. I’m still of the notion that 3D should really be restricted to animated features.

Overall, Captain America was a fun film in the vein of Joe Johnston’s earlier film, The Rocketeer and is easily the best of the Marvel Studios Avenger prequels. I’ll be heading back to see it again on Sunday.

And remember, when the movie is done, don’t leave. After the credits comes something definitely worth seeing (at least the yelling and cheers from my audience seemed to deem it so).

6 Trailers To Help Dry Lisa’s Tears

Posted on July 23, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Oh my God, yesterday sucked.

First off, I was supposed to be seeing Capt. America but when we were standing in line to get our tickets, I started to feel dizzy and then I kinda sorta ended up fainting. Which I know sounds like something serious but, to be honest, I faint all the time. I’m like a Tennessee Williams heroine that way. It’s no big deal except to my sister and my boyfriend who decided that instead of going to the movies, I should go home, lay down, rest, and “take care of myself.” so, I told them that they were crazy and that I was perfectly fine and they were like, “You’re so full of it, Lisa Marie,” and then I stood up to show them how healthy I was and I guess I didn’t put my feet on the ground correctly because suddenly, I was going down again and anyway, long story short, I ended up being dragged back to the house.

And then once I got back home, one of my longtime twitter followers suddenly decided to unfollow me because apparently, I haven’t been a good enough friend to him. Which I found interesting considering that I had just spent the past week literally holding his hand while he attempted to get over not one but two girls who never liked him in the first place. So, yeah, learning that despite my best efforts, I’m apparently just a self-centered bitch who foolishly uses twitter to talk about what I want to talk about as opposed to devoting all of my time to helping some asshole deal with problems that a 12 year-old should be able to freaking handle, well, that kinda sorta hurt my feelings just a little bit. (Contrary to popular opinion, redheads with big boobs actually do have feelings. Go figure!)

However, things are not a complete bust. First off, as I type this, I’m watching the old episode of Degrassi where Emma and Alex have that huge fight in the school hallway while Paige and Spinner skip school and Ashley gets dressed up like Elvis and then Mr. Simpson finds out his cancer is in remission. I love that episode. And, along with watching Degrassi, I’m also putting together the latest edition of Lisa Marie’s Favorite Grindhouse and Exploitation Trailers.

Things are looking up already.

1) Last House On The Left (1972)

Yep, that’s the kind of mood I’m in. I’m starting things off with the trailer for the evil grindhouse/drive-in movie to end all evil grindhouse/drive-in movies, the original Last House on the Left. Why? Because, as the trailer tells us, the road leads to nowhere…

2) Destroy All Monsters (1968)

If I do get out of my present funk, it’ll be due to trailers like this one. It’s just so goofy!

3) Cheerleader Camp (1988)

Erin claims that actual cheerleader camp was nothing like the cheerleader camp in this trailer.

4) The Park Is Mine (1986)

This Canadian action film stars Tommy Lee Jones, who was also apparently in Capt. America. Not that I would know.

5) The Undertaker and His Pals (1966)

Believe it or not, I’ve got this one on DVD and this is one of those films that looks a lot more extreme in the trailer than it actually is. The film itself is a collection of bad performances, juvenile humor, and silly gore effects. The trailer looks a lot more sick than the actual film, which is why it’s a classic of grindhouse advertising.

6) It’s Alive (1974)

This is yet another trailer from the fertile mind of Larry Cohen. It’s alive! What is it? It can either be your dream or your NIGHTMARE! Much like me.

Lisa Marie Goes To Rio (dir. by Carlos Saldahna)

Posted on July 17, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Rio is one of those films that I missed when it had it’s initial run at the theaters. However, last week, I finally got a chance to see it at the “dollar” theater. Now, I have to admit that I consider the dollar theater to be something like the sixth ring of Hell and, before the movie started, I posted the following to twitter: “Wow, there’s a lot of ugly and obese children in this theater.” And indeed, that was the case. What I forgot to mention is that a lot of them were there with equally ugly and obese parents, the types who talked loudly through the film in accents that carried the dual twang of ignorance and stagnation. Despite the surroundings though, I found Rio to be a perfectly pleasant little animated film.

Rio is the story of Blu (voice by Jesse Eisenberg), a blue macaw who, though originally from Brazil, has grown up in Minnesota and, as a result, has never learned how to fly. Blu returns to Brazil with his owner (Lesley Mann) so that he can mate with another macaw, Jewel (Ann Hathaway) and keep the species from dying out. However, things don’t go exactly as planned as 1) Jewel is more interested in escaping captivity than in mating and 2) both Rio and Jewel are abducted by a psychotic Cockatoo named Nigel (Jermaine Clement). Nigel works for a bunch of poachers and soon Jewel and the flightless Blu find themselves on the run, looking for their owner while the Rio Carnaval goes on all around them.

As one of my old theater teachers one said about me, Rio “is not without a certain fun charm.” The film’s storyline of neurotic animals getting lost in an exotic locale and eventually finding the strength to believe in themselves is pretty much standard animation fare but the action moves along quickly and the movie takes full advantage of the whole Rio mystique. The film’s animators create the Rio de Janeiro that everyone hopes they’ll discover if they ever make it down to Brazil. Perhaps most importantly, Rio is child-appropraite without ever being so childish as to inspire adults to start drinking while the little ones laugh.

The voice actors all do a pretty good job distinguishing their individual characters. Jesse Eisenberg is perfectly neurotic as Blu while Anne Hathway’s vocals are properly headstrong as Jewel. The real stand-out here is Jermaine Clement of Flight of the Conchords. Clement, with his deep, wonderfully dramatic voice, brings a lot of flair to the villainous Nigel and, despite being a psycho Cockatoo, quickly became an audience favorite. Though the human bird owners don’t get much to do, Leslie Mann and Rodrigo Santoro are so endearing that you actually wish they had more screen time. On the other hand, if, like me, you found George Lopez to be grating before seeing Rio, this film isn’t going to do much to change your mind. (Lopez, not surprisingly, plays the know-it-all bird who helps Blu and Jewel make their way through Rio.)

As I watched Rio, I realized just how spoiled we all got last year as far as animated films were concerned. Last year, I got a chance to see Toy Story 3, How To Train Your Dragon, Shrek Forever After, A Town Called Panic, The Illusionist, Megamind, and Despicable Me. It was, in many ways, a banner year for cinematic animation. With the exception of Rango, there haven’t been any animated films so far that can really compare with what we were given last year. As a result, it’s easy to be dismissive of a straight-forward, relatively simple family film like Rio. That’s unfortunate because, taken on its own terms, Rio is a perfectly enjoyable way to spend 90 minutes. Just don’t go into it expecting to see Toy Story 3 and you’ll be fine.

Quickie Review: Witchfinder General (dir. by Michael Reeves)

Posted on July 17, 2011 by Arleigh

The late 1960’s saw a major shift in horror films. There have always been horror films which had an inordinate amount of gore and violence, but were always relegated to the niche cinemas which catered to horror exploitation films. In 1968 it all changed with the release of George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead. Not only did this film graphically show gore and violence on the screen it also paired it with a well-told story. Another film which became infamous the very same year for it’s portrayal of torture, rape and sadism on the screen was British filmmaker Michael Reeves’ horror film, Witchfinder General.

Witchfinder General starred horror icon Vincent Price in the title role as Matthew Hopkins who was tasked as the Witchfinder General by the Cromwell government during the English Civil War of the 17th-century. His Hopkins would travel the region of East Anglia (Cromwell-controlled territory) rooting out witchcraft and sorcery wherever they might be found. Assisting him in this task is the thuggish, brute Stearne (played by Robert Russell) who relished in torturing suspected witches in towns the two visit. It’s during one such visit to the town of Brandeston, Suffolk that Hopkins and Stearne begin a sequence of events which would pit them against the soldier Richard Marshall (who also happens to fight on the same side as Hopkins and Stearne) whose fiancee and her uncle became the latest victims of the Witchfinder General’s sadistic methods of rooting out confessions.

The film as a horror has less to do with the supernatural, but more of the hypocritical horror which begets a political environment where powerful men contest for more power and uses fear and the superstitious ignorance of a populace to cement their power. In this amoral vacuum comes in the opportunistic Matthew Hopkins who uses the power given to him by his government to not just do his duty to eradicate witchcraft but also abuse it for his own personal (and as seen in the film a way to sate his own personal lusts) gain. It’s this hypocritical nature of who was suppose to be a Puritanical and righteous agent of God which emphasizes the true historical horror of religion and politics becoming one and the same.

Vincent Price as Matthew Hopkins was at the top of his game in Witchfinder General. He gives his role not just an air of superiority over everyone he meets and deals with, but he also makes Hopkins’ truly an amoral character who sees nothing wrong in taking advantage of his position and actually feels like he deserves the desperate attentions of those willing to do anything to save their loved ones from his machinations. Robert Russell as his licentious and sadistic assistant Stearne also does a great job in portraying an individual who might seem brutish and thuggish, but who was also more honest with is situation than his master. It makes for an interesting pair despite their roles being the film’s prime antagonists.

The film more than truly earned the outcry it received upon it’s release in 1968 as scenes of torture and sadism was extreme for a British horror film industry so used to the Gothic sensibilities of the Hammer Films of the era. Graphic depictions of burnings, torture and drowning were done not to seem gratuitious or to cater to the burgeoning gorehound crowd of the era, but done so matter-of-factly that they seem even more horrific.

The Witchfinder General really helped usher in the death of gothic horror which dominated the genre with the Hammer Films in the UK and the Edgar Allan Poe films of Roger Corman in the US. The film continues to impress new generations of horror fans and is still considered by older fans of the genre as one of the best horror films ever made. For some the film might look dated due to the acting (most of the actors of the era were stage actors first and film ones second) and the effects work, but they also fail to look at the film in context of the era and how even by today’s standard it would still shock those not well-versed in the genre of horror. They definitely don’t make horror films like this anymore and that’s a shame on many levels.

6 Trailers of Separation

Posted on July 16, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Hi there! Welcome to the latest edition of Lisa Marie’s Favorite Grindhouse and Exploitation Trailers.

1) Ghost Town (1988)

Let’s start things out with this film from 1988. I haven’t seen this film but the trailer has a certain silly charm to it and how can’t you enjoy the use of the fake lightning special effect? Plus, those finger nails screeching across the car — Agck! Freaky.

2) Blue Sunshine (1976)

This is one of my favorite movies. Basically, a bunch of hippies take some really powerful acid in 1968 and then, eight years later, they end up having the worst flashback ever! To say that Zalman King gives an “interesting” performance as the film’s hero is a bit of an understatement.

3) Road Games (1981)

“Jamie Lee Curtis is…Hitch.” Well, that would probably explain why she was destined to end up hitchhiking. Seriously, parents — give it some thought before you give your child any old name. Anyway, Road Games was director Richard Franklin’s follow-up to Patrick and it’s one of the better slasher films of the early 80s.

4) The Dungeonmaster (1985)

Oh my God, this looks like a bad movie. The trailer, however, is just so silly and kinda endearing in the way that it seems to desperately be saying, “No, it’s not as bad as it looks! Look — we have ice people!”

5) Conquest (1983)

All I need to say here is that this film was directed by the one and only, Lucio Fulci.

6) Maniac Cop (1988)

Finally, let’s end this latest edition with Bruce Campbell, shall we? This is the trailer for William Lustig’s Spinell-free Maniac Cop.

Review: V for Vendetta (dir. by James McTeigue)

Posted on July 16, 2011 by Arleigh

“Remember, remember the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.”

Alan Moore’s decision to want his name off the final credits for the film adaptation of V for Vendetta now makes sense. Moore has had a hate/hate relationship with Hollywood and the film industry in general. They’ve taken two of his other works in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell. and bollocks’d them up (to borrow a term used quite a bit in V for Vendetta). Outside of Watchmen, Alan Moore sees V for Vendetta as one of his more personal works and after reading the screenplay adaptation of the graphic novel by The Wachowski Brothers his decision afterwards was to demand his name be removed from the film if it was ever made. Part of this was his hatred of the film industry for their past mistakes and another being his wish for a perfect adaptation or none at all. Well, V for Vendettaby James McTeigue and The Wachowski Brothers is not a perfect film adaptation. What it turns out to be is a film that stays true to the spirit of Moore’s graphic novel and given a modern, up-to-the-current news retelling of the world’s state of affairs.

V for Vendetta starts off with abit of a prologue to explain the relevance of the Guy Fawkes mask worn by V throughout the film and the significance of the date of the 5th of November. I think this change in the story from the source material may be for the benefit of audiences who didn’t grow up in the UK and have no idea of who Guy Fawkes was and what his Gunpowder Plot was all about. The sequence is short but informative. From then on we move on to the start of the main story and here the film adheres close enough to the source material with a few changes to the Evey character (played by Natalie Portman) but not enough to ruin the character. Caught after curfew and accosted by the ruling government’s secret police called Fingermen, Evey soon encounters V who saves her not just from imprisonment but rape from these so-called Fingermen.

Right from the start the one thing McTeigue and The Wachowski Brothers got dead-on was casting Hugo Weaving as the title character. Voice silky, velvety and sonorous, Weaving infuses V with an otherworldly, theatrical personality. Whether V was speaking phrases from Shakespeare, philosophers or pop culture icons, the voice gave a character who doesn’t show his face from behind the enternally-smiling Guy Fawkes mask real life. I’d forgiven the makers of this films for some of the changes they made to the story and some of the characters for keeping V as close to how Moore wrote him. Once V and Evey are thrown in together by the happenstance of that nightly encounter their fates became intertwined. Portman plays the reluctant witness to V’s acts of terrorism, murders and destruction in the beginning, but a poignant and emotionally powerful sequence to start the second half of the film soon brings Evey’s character not much towards V’s way of doing things, but to understanding just why he’s doing them. This sequence became the emotional punch of the whole film and is literally lifted word for word from the graphic novel. This is the sequence in the film which should resonate the loudest for most people whether they buy into the rest of the film or not.

The rest of the cast seemed like a who’s who of the British acting community. From Stephen Rea’s stubborn and dogged Chief Inspector Finch whose quest to find V leads him to finding clues about his government’s past actions that he’d rather not have found. Then there’s Stephen Fry’s flamboyant TV show host who becomes Evey’s only other ally whose secret longings have been forbidden by the government, but who’s awakened by V’s actions to go through with his own form of rebellion. Then there’s John Hurt as High Chancellor Adam Sutler who’s seen chewing up the scenery with his Hitler-like performance through Big Brother video conferences (an ironic bit of casting since John Hurt also played Winston Smith in the film adaptation of the Orwell classic 1984). I really couldn’t find any of the supporting players as having done a bad job in their performances. Even Hurt’s Sutler might have seemed over-the-top to some but his performance just showed how much of a hatemonger Sutler and, in the end, his Norsefire party really were in order to stay in power.

The story itself, as I mentioned earlier, had had some changes made to it. Some of these changes angered Moore and probably continues to anger his more die-hard fans. I count myself as one of these die-hards, but I know how film adaptations of classic literary works must and need to trim some of the fat from the main body and theme of the story to fully translate onto the silver screen. The Wachowski Brother’s screenplay did just that. They trimmed some of the side stories and tertiary characters from the story and concentrated on V, Evey and Inspector Finch’s pursuit of both the truth of V and his own journey in finding that truth. This adaptation wa much closer to how Peter Jackson adapted The Lord of the Rings. As a fan of Moore I understood why he was unhappy with the changes, but then Moore was and still is an avowed perfectionist and only a perfect adaptation would do.

Critics on both sides of the aisle have called V for Vendetta revolutionary, subversive, daring to irresponsible and propagandist. All because the film dares to ask serious questions about the nature and role of violence as a form of dissent. But the granddaddy question the film brings up that has people talking is the question: terrorist or freedom fighter? Is V one or the other or is he both? Make no mistake about it, V for all intents and purposes is a terrorist if one was to use the definition of what a terrorist is. The makers of this film goes to great lenghts to describe throughout the film just how Sutler and his Norsefire (with its iconic Nazi-like imagery and extreme fundamentalist Christian idealogy) party rose to power in the UK. Partly due to what seemed like the failed US foreign policy and its subsequent and destructive decline as a superpower and the worldwide panic and fear it caused as a result. V for Vendetta also ask just who was to blame for allowing such individuals to rule over them. V has his reasons for killing these powers-that-be, but he also points out that people really should just look in the mirror if they need to know who really was to blame. For it was the population — whose desire to remain safe and have a semblance of peace — gave up more and more of their basic liberties and rights for a return to order. If one was to look at the past 100 years they would see that it’s happened before. There was the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, Milosevic’s Greater Serbia, and the king of the hill of them all being Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Inner Circle.

Another thing about V for Vendetta that will surely talked about alot will be the images used in the film. Not just images and symbols looking so much like Nazi icons, but images from the events of the past decade which have become symbols of oppression and censorship. The film shows people bound and hooded like prisoners from Abu Ghraib. The reason of the war on terror used time and time again by Sutler to justify why England and its people need him and his group to protect them by any means necessary. V for Vendetta seems like a timely film for our current times. Even with the conclusion of the film finally accomplishing what Guy Fawkes failed to do that night of November 5th some 400 plus years ago, V for Vendetta doesn’t give all the answers to all the questions it raises. I’m sure this would be something that’ll frustrate them some audiences. So much of people who go to watch thought-provoking films want their questions answered as clearly as possible and all of them. V for Vendetta doesn’t answer them but gives the audience enough information to try and work it out themselves.

In final analysis, V for Vendetta accomplishes in bringing the main themes of Alan Moore’s graphic novel to life and even does it well despite some of the changes made. It is a film that is sure to polarize the extreme left and right of the political pundits and commentators. But as a piece of thought-provoking and even as a politically subversive film, V for Vendetta does it job well. It is not a perfect film by any respect, but the story and message it tries to convey in addition to its value as a piece of entertainment mor than makes up for its flaws. Alan Moore and his followers might not love and approve of this film, but it doesn’t mean the film in and of itself wasn’t a good one. Sometimes calls for literal adaptations of beloved works or no adaptation at all also becomes a form of creative oppression and censorship.

Film Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 (dir. by David Yates)

Posted on July 16, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Well, we all knew it would have to end someday and now, it’s over. The Harry Potter film series, which began way back in 2001, is concluding right now in a theater near you. On Friday night, me, Jeff, my sister Erin, and our friend Evelyn went down to the AMC Valley View and we saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2.

The cinematic story of Harry Potter is over and yes, I did cry as I watched it end. I didn’t just cry because of the movie, though the movie itself is one of the best of the year and it has one of those wonderful endings that just makes it impossible to remain dry-eyed. No, I cried because — with this film — an era of my life is truly over.

When the first Harry Potter film came out, I was only 16 and still trying to deal with the fact that I had been diagnosed as being bipolar just a few weeks earlier. I felt alone and broken and destined to spend the rest of my life on the outside looking in. The three hours that I spent watching Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone were three hours when I didn’t have to worry about suddenly bursting into tears and having everyone around me worrying about whether or not I was actually taking my hated medication. For three hours, I could escape to another world where those who were different were celebrated precisely because they were different. For three hours, I could imagine that just maybe I had a special purpose for existing too and maybe I had benevolent wizards and witches looking out for me too. And I’m sorry if all that sounds trite in retrospect but, when you’re 16 and you think you’re too damaged to love, anything that gives you hope and pleasure in the present is a precious treasure.

Over the years, I eventually came to realize that being bipolar was hardly a curse and, as I matured and grew up and discovered new things, there was always a Harry Potter film either playing or about to come out. Whether I was escaping high school, graduating college, or dealing with just every good or bad thing that makes up life, Harry Potter — this character who I first met (in book form) when I was 13 — was always there. So, at the risk of sounding overdramatic, the end of Harry Potter is the end of a chapter of my life.

One final personal note: As I watched Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part Two, I had three dolls (or action figures, as boys insist on calling them) in my purse. These dolls — Harry, Hermione, and Ron — came out around the same time as the second Harry Potter film and my mom (who collected dolls) ordered them off of Ebay three years ago, shortly before she entered the hospital for the final time. Now, my mom was not a huge fan of the Harry Potter series but she knew that I loved it and that’s why she made those dolls her final gift to me.

And those are some of the reasons why I found myself crying as I watched the finale of Harry Potter. However, there’s another reason why I cried and that’s that this is just a great film and the perfect conclusion to the series.

Essentially, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part Two starts up immediately after the conclusion of Part One. Dobby is dead, Lord Voldemort (a wonderfully neurotic Ralph Fiennes) and the Death Eaters are intent on destroying everything, and Severus Snape (Alan Rickman, wonderful as always) is in charge of Hogwarts. After spending the first part of Deathly Hallows as fugitives, Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson) return to Hogwarts to take a final stand against Voldemort. Things end in a surprisingly bloody battle (this film is not for children) that leaves several characters dead and ultimately reveals that one wizard wasn’t the saint we always assumed he was while another is revealed to be the secret hero of the entire series.

Let’s get one question out of the way right now: will non-Harry Potter fans be able to follow this film? Uhmmm…no. Sorry. Then again, why would a non-Harry Potter fan be at a film called Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part Two anyway? I mean, seriously, if you’re just going to film because everyone else is doing it than who are you to bitch anyway? This is what you non-Harry Potter fans need to do. Stop reading this review. Go watch the previous Harry Potter films. Watch them in order. Take your time because Deathly Hallows is going to be in theaters for a while. And then, once you’ve become immersed in the story, go see how it all concludes. And then come back here and read rest of this review.

Okay, so is everybody up to date?

Cool.

One of the more interesting features of the Harry Potter series is that so many different directors (each with his own definite, individual style) have been involved in bringing these films to the screen. Among Harry Potter fans, hours can literally be spent debating the merits (and weaknesses) of Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell, and David Yates. My own theory is that each director was perfectly suited for each film he directed. The audience-friendly vision of Chris Columbus was what the first two films needed, just as Prisoner of Azkaban needed Cuaron’s far darker vision and Mike Newell’s attention to character made Goblet of Fire one of the best of the Harry Potter films. And while David Yates may not be as well-known (or critically acclaimed) as Newell or Cuaron, he brings exactly the right tone to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, a perfect combination of spectacle and humanity. It is to Yates’ credit that the scenes in which the characters simply talk to each other are just as compelling as the dramatic sequences where Voldemort and the Death Eaters attack Hogwarts. Yates understands that this material could easily come across as silly or childish and to his credit, he never allows the audience to simply dismiss this film as a lot of blathering about wands and CGI magic. As opposed to other directors who have given us summer blockbusters, Yates takes his film seriously.

And, fortunately, so does his cast.

One of the great pleasures of the Harry Potter series is that it’s given American audiences the chance to discover (and rediscover) some of the great British character actors and a lot of them show up (some for only a matter of minutes) here in the finale. Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Julie Walters, Robbie Coltrane, Gary Oldman, John Hurt, David Thewlis, Emma Thompson, and Jason Isaacs all put in appearances. Kelly MacDonald has a great scene playing a ghost, Helena Bonham Carter is perfect as the evil Bellatrix Lestrange, and Alan Rickman is brilliantly ambiguous as Severus Snape. (And yes, Snape’s actions are explained in this film and yes, I did cry.)

Ralph Fiennes plays so many villains that I now find myself expecting him to show up killing people in every movie I see. He’s like a British Christopher Walken. Still, it’s easy to take an actor like Fiennes for granted. For the entire Harry Potter series to work, Lord Voldemort can’t just be an ordinary villain. He’s got to be the sum total of all things evil and deadly. You’ve got to believe that people would be scared to speak his name. Great heroes need a great villain and Fiennes’ Voldermort is a great villain.

Ultimately, however, the true credit for the success of the Harry Potter series belongs to three actors who have literally grown up on the movie screen — Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson. The producers are fortunate indeed that the cute kids that they cast over a decade ago have all grown up to be talented, attractive, and likable actors. If the first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows seemed to showcase both Grint and Watson (almost to Radcliffe’s expense), part 2 is most definitely centered on Harry Potter. That doesn’t mean that Watson and Grint aren’t good in this film. They are and they get to share one of the best movie kisses of 2011. (As well, for those who keep count, Grint says “Bloody Hell,” three times in the film.) But, for obvious reasons, this film is all about Harry and Radcliffe’s performance as Harry. It’s a challenge for Radcliffe and it’s a challenge that he more than succeeds at conquering. As the film ended, I realized that I was sad to know that the adventures of Harry Potter were done but I was excited to see what the future will hold for Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson.

Incidentally, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 has been released in both 3-D and 2-D. We saw the 3-D version and if you have any knowledge of how I feel about 3-D (and how motion sick I tend to get while watching 3-D films) then that should show you just much I love the Harry Potter series. I loved it so much that I was even willing to overlook my hatred of 3-D. The 3-D here (which was added after the film has already been filmed) doesn’t really add much to the movie. There were a few cool moments where I was all like, “Look, I can reach out and grab a piece of Voldemort,” but otherwise, the 3-D was a negligible factor as far as the overall film was concerned.

Still, there was one interesting thing about the 3-D. The theater we saw the movie in was half-way empty. At the same time, the neighboring theater — in which the 2-D version was playing — had a line of people waiting to get in. They were not only waiting to see the 2-D version, they were waiting to see a showing that wouldn’t even begin until a full 90 minutes after the 3-D version started. I mention this because, in the wake of Avatar, so many people have taken it for granted that 3-D is the future of movies and soon, as long as a film is in 3-D, we won’t have to worry about the difficult stuff like an interesting plot or compelling characters. However, 3-D has become an overexposed gimmick. For every film like Cave of Dreams that uses 3-D to craft an actual artistic statement, there’s a 1,000 films like Priest which use 3-D just because it’s an easy way to trick sucks into spending an extra dollars to see a crappy film.

What so many filmmakers seem to forget is that the majority of film goers are not looking for 3-D. We’re just looking for a good film. And sometimes — like with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — we get lucky and we find a great film.

(Oh, and one last thing: I know everyone always expects me to claim to be just like Hermione but actually, I’ve always related more to Ginny Weasley. Like her, I’m the youngest of four siblings, I’ve got red hair, and I always get my man, in the end.)

Quickie Review: Punisher: War Zone (dir. by Lexi Alexander)

Posted on July 11, 2011 by Arleigh

If there was ever a Marvel Comics character who was perfectly suited to star in a grindhouse film it would be Frank Castle aka The Punisher. He’s a character who takes the term anti-hero past its limits and who makes other film vigilantes seem like sissy, choir boys. In December 2008 Lionsgate released a sort of reboot of The Punisher by Jonathan Hensleigh and starring Thomas Jane in the titular role. This time around the role of Frank Castle goes to Ray Stevenson (The Other Guys, Thor, Kill the Irishman) with German-filmmaker Lexi Alexander taking on the director’s reins.

Punisher: War Zone takes much of the characters in the film from story-arcs found in the Marvel Knight’s Punisher MAX series which took the character and his stories into a darker realm of violence. This latest film definitely owes much of it’s darker and more violent tone from that comic book line while at the same time creating a look which brings to mind the garish and over-the-top grindhouse action films of the early 80’s. The film quickly establishes who the Punisher is and what motivates him to take on and kill (heavy emphasis on kill) the criminal underworld of the city. In an opening sequence that probably out-violences every other film released in 2008, the Punisher wipes out a gathering of mobsters in every bloody way as possible. Blood and gore flows and splatters a-plenty in the first 10-15 minutes of this film.

There’s a semblance of a story which involves Castle mistakenly killing an undercover FBI agent which causes him a momentary crisis of conscience, but it really doesn’t last too long as there are more criminals to kill, main and blow up. If there’s one thing the Punisher knows how to do best it’s those three things. Ray Stevenson in the title role doesn’t get to emote much, but does a great job in showing the characters ice-cold ruthlessness paired with a sort of dead-man walking persona which rings true to how the Punisher has been written up of late. His Frank Castle is dead inside and only when he’s the Punisher does he even show any sort of life (even if it’s the barest hint). His foil this time around brings one of the Punisher’s earliest arch-enemies in the disfigured mobster (caused by the Punisher) Jigsaw (played with over-the-top campy relish by Dominic West). Where Castle is deadly serious to the point of morbidity his opposite was all garish with a liberal dose of crazy.

Punisher: War Zone really dispenses with any complexities to it’s plot and just finds reasons and excuses for the Punisher to go on another killing spree against criminals that for some it might not be enough. As a lover of grindhouse and exploitation films what this film offers was enough and really goes a long way in entertaining in such an 80’s fashion. It’s a film that revels in its violent absurdities and campy storytelling. Even the acting by all in the film passes the line of campy and into a sort of Looney Tunes level which makes the extreme violence and gore of the killings more cartoonish than realistic. This was a film that celebrated it’s grindhouse roots from the actors, the filmmakers all the way down to it’s cinematographer and art directors. It’s disposable entertainment and it knows it so doesn’t bother to try and hide that fact and just tries to entertain in every manner possible and then some.

Quickie Review: The General’s Daughter (dir. by Simon West)

Posted on July 10, 2011 by Arleigh

The time around the late 1990’s saw a slew of filmmakers who seemed to have been influenced by the filmmaking style of one Michael Bay. In 1998 one such film which had a certain Michael Bay look to it was the crime thriller The General’s Daughter by filmmaker Simon West (fresh off his success from the previous year’s Con-Air). This film adaptation of the Nelson DeMille novel of the same name starred John Travolta when he was still enjoying the second renaissance of his career brought on by his role in Pulp Fiction.

The General’s Daughter was pretty much a crime procedural wrapped around the secretive and insular world of military life. It has Chief Warrant Officer Paul Brenner (played by Travolta) of the Army’s CID investigating what seems to be the apparent rape and murder of a female officer who also happens to be the daughter of the base’s commandant and political-minded general. Brenner’s soon joined by another CID agent, Sara Sunhill (Madeleine Stowe), who must now navigate the insular world which makes up the officer ranks of the military. They find suspects cropping up faster than they could handle and the one prime suspect in base psychologist Col. Moore (James Wood in an over-the-top performance) has secrets about the victim that could jeopardize the lives and career of not just most of the officers on the base but the victim’s own father. This set-up and the basic understanding of the plot should make for a great thriller, but the by-the-numbers direction by Simon West and the over-the-top performances by too many of the characters in the film sinks The General’s Daughter before it could soar.

The story in of itself really has nothing to drag down the film. From the beginning the screenplay does a great job in tossing red herrings to keep the true murderer secret until the very end. It’s these red herrings which manages to bring out the ultimate reason as to the death of Capt. Elisabeth Campbell (Leslie Stefanson) and how a traumatic event in her past became the one major link which would lead to her death early in the film. It’s how these events were acted out which brings down the script. It’s been said that great performances could raise a mediocre script, but the same could be said for the opposite. Very average to bad performances could drag down a great script.

Travolta’s performance was good enough most of the time. He’s especially good when pouring on the Southern charm to try and gain an advantage over those he’s interacting with, but when he suddenly switches over to tough Army investigator that he goes from just beyond campy to over the line into full-blown camp. The same could be said for pretty much everyone in the film from Stowe’s character who manages to just stand around doing nothing but act as a sort of “gal Friday” for Travolta’s character until the very end when she suddenly becomes a crack investigator to help move the plot along. Clarence Williams III really hams it up as the base general’s right-hand man and one would wonder if he realized he wasn’t actually in a grindhouse or exploitation film when it was time to act.

Despite the performances dragging the film down I must admit that The General’s Daughter was quite watchable and entertaining to a certain level. It’s the film’s inadequacies which also makes it quite a disposable fare that should’ve been more. One wonders how the film would be done today with a different set of actors and a filmmaker who knew the nuances of how to navigate around a thriller. Until the inevitable remake from Hollywood gets greenlit (the way things get remade now it’s bound to happen) it’s this version of The General’s Daughter that’d be on record and it’s a film that has too many bad performances for a great screenplay to overcome. A film that ultimately remains mildly entertaining but forgettable in the end.

The Evil That 6 Trailers Do

Posted on July 9, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Hi. I may be on the road at the moment but I wouldn’t ever let that stop me from providing everyone with the latest edition of Lisa Marie’s favorite grindhouse and exploitation trailers.

1) The Evil That Men Do (1984)

I haven’t seen this film but I love Shakespeare.

2) Satan’s Bed (1965)

Speaking of the evil that men do, this sexploitation film from Michael and Roberta Findlay is pretty rough even by today’s standards. Don’t watch this if you’re easily offended. If you are easily offended, just remember that ten years after making this film, Michael Findlay was decapitated by a rotating helicopter blade.

3) Moving Violation (1976)

On a slightly less disturbing note, here’s the trailer for Moving Violation. The film is actually a bit more odd than you might guess from just the trailer.

4) The House By The Cemetery (1981)

From the great Lucio Fulci comes this film, the third part of The Beyond trilogy. This film gave me nightmares the first few times I saw it.

5) Macon County Line (1974)

This is one of the most financially succesful films of all time and apparently, it extended the life of the Southern drive-in by a good decade or so. It’s actually a pretty good movie.