Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is a fantasy movie directed by David Yates, and is based on the novel by the same title by J.K Rowling. 

This is part one of the 7th movie about Harry Potter and his fight against Voldemort – the Dark Lord. In the previous movies we watched Harry working towards this, finding out things about his present and also things about Voldemort. And now he’s back, and he finally knows how to kill the dark Lord – by destroying the horcruxes. But there’s yet another problem: finding those damn items. Living in different places from night to night, Harry and his friends Ron and Hermoine fights to keep the morale and spirit up as everything they know and love seem to fall apart – every night they hear about families killed or disappeared on a radio and every day brings new sorrows. 

Hagrid and Harry on a flying motorcycle.

 One of the things that have bothered me with the earlier movies was that the films missed too many vital points and twisted my picture of the whole Harry-universe so badly that I in fact tried to avoid seeing this one. Reading the book before I saw the movie backfired at me. But this time it felt really right, things in the movie was similar to how I imagined them while reading the book. The movie is divided in two parts to paint a more detailed picture, and that was a smart move. On the other hand it pretty much sucks as the novel this film is based on is scattered – one part where there’s little action and much seeking and arguing, and one part with much action and thrilling scenes. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is about the seeking and arguing. 

What I really love about the Harry Potter movies is the special effects. Weird items and creatures looks brilliant and watching Hagrid and Harry driving a giant motorbike through a tunnel followed by two Death Eaters on flying broomsticks looks awesome. They also make the different places, such as The Burrow (where the Weasley’s live), the Lovegood’s resident etc look very adventure-ish. Special effects such as things exploding when a deadly spell is tossed at it makes the fights with the Death Eaters even more exciting, and one of the scenes where Harry and Hermoine tries to escape Death Eaters uses a very shaky camera and switches angles and perspectives so often that the entire scene feels so intense that it confused me more than it entertained. 

Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint play the magical trio that wanders in the woods. They all fit their roles very good, even though the acting is a little shaky now and then. They’ve always fit the books description of them (except from Hermoine. She never had the hair or teeth the books talk about). Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) also looks as repugnant as the books describe him, and Yates manages to do his changes with the story so swift and elegant that it doesn’t matter that some parts of the movie don’t always reflect the book’s twists and turns, but rather change them to fit his cinematic interpretation. Great, Yates! 

Lord Voldemort and his henchmen.

This movie is probably the best Harry Potter film so far. As the 7th book is parted up into 2 pieces it is more detailed than the previous films. July 2011 will bring us the end of this story when Part 2 is ready to be shown. If you’ve read the books you already know what will happen, and those who have seen the previous movies also has a clue of how this one will be. I recommend it especially for those who liked the book series and also to the one who have seen the previous movies. But if you haven’t read the books nor seen the movies, then you won’t get what’s going on (but who haven’t seen or read about Harry Potter?). Good movie, and the next part is longed for!

- LB

The Bucket List (2007)

The Bucket List is a drama-comedy film directed by Rob Reiner, and is a feelgood film featuring the brilliant actors Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman.

The movie is about two patients suffering from terminal lung cancer with very different backgrounds. Edward Cole (Jack Nicholson) is a single and not very happy billionaire and also owner of the hospital he’s on, while Carter Chamber (Morgan Freeman) is a rather poor mechanic with a good family and a good life. Lying at the same room, they decide to make a list of things they want to do before they “kick the bucket”. When the list is complete, Edward tells Carter that the list can be reality, as he has all the money they could possibly spend. The movie portraits the two aging men on their journey around the world experiencing and doing things they’ve always wanted to do.

As mentioned, the movie is a good-feeling movie, which means a movie that plays a melody on your large set of strings (unless you’re a sociopath), called feelings. It’s a film that gives you a feeling of happiness while watching it. The Bucket List is a bit touching, but it’s also too predictable and the story gets old after a while. They visit all the places you’d think they would visit: The Great Wall of China, Taj Mahal and the Pyramids etc, and the visits are filled with philosophic chats about the meaning of life, whether God exists or not and subjects like that. Every now and then Edward’s assistant appears with his jokes and rude criticism of his boss.  

Nothing is like a good conversation on the top of a pyramid.

 Beside from the negativity mentioned, the movie is really nice after all. I mean, it’s not revolutionary in any way, and you’ve probably seen it all before. But Nicholson and Freeman do deliver good acting once again, and there’s no doubt why these men are as big as they are. Some of the conversations will make even the largest pessimist smile and the film contains some very nice footage of the different areas they visit. 

The movie does not add anything new to the genre, and you kind of know what’s going to happen already in the beginning of the movie, but yet you will keep watching. It does give you a good feeling, and the friendship the guys develop is moving. Your life can definitely be complete without seeing this movie, but this will not be a bad choice for a good-feeling film on a Sunday evening.  

- LB

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Clash of the Titans is a fantasy movie directed by Louis Leterrier, and is loosely based on the old Greek myth of the demigod Perseus. This movie is partly a remake of the film by the same title made in 1981, but Leterrier tried to make this his own version rather than remaking the original. 

The movie is about a battle between men and gods, where the men declares war against the gods because they’re getting tired of the gods destroying their fishing seasons and their crops. Zeus decides to take Hades’ (God of the underworld) advice to unleash the ancient and almost unbeatable beast Kraken, the underwater titan with enormous tentacles. It will destroy the city of Argos unless they sacrifice their princess, Andromeda. Argos’ king brings a handful of his finest soldiers and the demigod Perseus (Sam Worthington) for a quest: they have to seek and ask the Stygian Witches for a way to slay this titan, because he don't want his city destroyed nor his daughter killed.

The movie has got the typical epic movie-attempt, with its large titans and monsters and its heroic story about the demigod (half-god) that tries to defy his faith in order to save Argus from total destruction. Unfortunately the movie isn’t as epic as it could be, and it always struggles to build up the excitement and the mystic era before and during the battles. It also fails to leave us with this epic feeling at the end of the movie, and what strikes me is that they’ve made the movie too short. 

Perseus with the ultimate weapon: the Medusa's head.

In other words, you could say that Clash of the Titans is an epic tale played in fast forward. They kind of failed to build up this epic atmosphere and after some fights I sat with one thought in mind: “Was that it?” Especially after the last battle scene which disappointed me big-time – if it qualifies as a fight. And I wonder how much better the movie had been if they’d added scenes to build up the excitement, and also added scenes to the fights to make them longer, harder and more epic (which the movie really is about). The movie did have some scenes that were quite cool though, and I did laugh every now and then.

On the other hand, Leterrier and his crew did things right as well. They have some respectable actors in their stable. Liam Neeson (Taken, The A-Team) plays the role as Zeus here, and Ralph Fiennes (Schindler’s List, Harry Potter-series) is the ugly Hades. Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator Salvation) plays Perseus, and the Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen (Casino Royale, King Arthur) is Draco, the leader of Argus finest soldiers. The acting is good, and the plot is as well.

Argus' Finest with a demigod, a woman and an... um... unknown beast in the back.

The movie lacks of the scenes that gives you the ‘whoa’-feeling and ends way behind other fantasy movies such as Lord of the Rings. They do good things with this movie (the environments are fantastic, the creatures looks awesome, the music is good and they’ve got good actors playing these roles), but the bad aspects of the movie drags it down to a mediocre movie. Not a bad movie, not at all, just a good one with some unfortunate trouble. I really wanted it to be much better, but it wasn’t, so I can’t brag it up to the skies. Those who enjoy the Greek mythology will recognize creatures such as Harpies, the Medusa etc and probably will get more out of it than those who just saw it for the action. 

- LB

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) is a remake of the classic A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), and is a slasher film directed by Samuel Bayer, featuring Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger. 

Freddy Krueger has in his later days grown less scary and more comical, but Samuel Bayer and his crew tried to take him back to his dark side again and create a remake that was scarier that the original. This is a slasher film, which is a sub-genre of horror. Typical for the slasher genre is that we follow psychopathic killers killing their victims often with sharp cutting tools, such as scythes and chainsaws. 

The new and more frightening Freddy Krueger.

The movie is about a group of teenagers who are stalked in their dreams by a man who knows all of them. They all have pretty intense dreams, and weird things are happening. One of them gets cut in the dream by the man calling himself Freddy, and when he wakes up he is bleeding from where he was cut in the dream. They realize that they are haunted in their dreams by a psychopath killer, and that if they die in there, they will die for real. Then it’s just a matter of either staying awake forever or trying to solve this mystery.

This is the place where he play his games with the teens.

One thing that has annoyed me for the last year is that most of the horror films I’ve seen haven’t been very frightening. Some of them are not frightening at all, while others are pretty lame all the way through. This movie might seem like the last mentioned, but A Nightmare on Elm Street is actually not lame at all – a little bit improbable, yes, but a fucking great movie. I was frightened as hell by the deadly combination of Freddy Krueger, good sound and a wide, wide screen.

The creators of this movie have added a few new things to the movie, for us to detest Freddy more than we did before. I do not want to spoil anything, but his past is puts him in a totally different perspective. As already mentioned, this is a part of the whole making-Freddy-scarier-process. Giving him a motive as well.

What makes this one different from many of the other horror movies is how this movie manages to stay interesting and thrilling all the way through. Adding the new past was a smart move by the creators, as we through the entire movie wondered about what the connection was between Freddy and these teens. It was kind of obvious after a while, but I still watched with caution to get my suspicions confirmed.

Quentin isn't happy about the situation he's in.

 A Nightmare on Elm Street is a great remake of a horror classic, with a bunch of frightening scenes and an enjoyable story. It’s quite satisfying to actually get frightened again, and Jackie Earle Haley impresses as the interesting character Freddy Krueger. The more unknown actors playing the teenagers are also playing well, and together they make this movie one worth watching. In Norway the movie has age limit 18+(well, no one cares about them, though), but immature kids; beware – if you believe in what you see, you might develop insomnia after seeing this one! So I recommend this for the experienced horror movie watchers and enthusiasts only, and not to easily frightened mothers. And it’s not recommended to show it to your girlfriend unless she’s a tough one! (Not based on personal experience!)  

- LB

Zyzzyx Road (2006)

Zyzzyx Road is one of the movies that are truly worth watching, even though it stinks – it will give you a good laugh, and the mediocre movie you saw the day before will suddenly seem like a good one. This flub is directed by John Penney, and was released in 2006.

Lou Grillo experiments with his new friend 'the Shotgun'.

 

The plot is thin and quite predictable, and believe me when I say we’ve seen better before. The grown man Grant (Lou Grillo) is in Los Angeles to meet up with his much, much younger lover Marissa(Katherine Heigl), and when they get to her motel, her boyfriends accidentally appears and wants explanations. 1) What the hell did his girlfriend do with another man, and 2) why the hell did the lucky man look like her father. 30 minutes later Grant and Marissa are driving towards Zyzzyx Road (the road that leads to nowhere) with a body in the trunk. 

Even though the plot did not deliver, the movie still had a chance. If only the actors convinced us with brilliant acting – but unfortunately they didn’t. I was really disappointed, because the acting at times reminded me of the acting in my short movie at a school project a year ago. For the most the acting was okay (not good or anything, just okay), but every once in a while something happened, and the acting during these scenes gave me flashbacks to the school project again.

But on the other hand, the actors can’t be blamed entirely, because the manuscript isn't worth much, so playing scenes such as these would make even Brad Pitt seem like a B- or C-actor. There’s no charm, no enthusiasm. And the psychological aspect is also sad as the plot is so predictable. 

Age difference doesn't matter - the love is what counts.

The movie suffers from a big problem-cocktail, and the finished result is not anything for the history books. Some ridiculous scenes and shameful acting ruins what could’ve been a mediocre movie. This is not recommended – if you want a movie, you should look for something else! But if you’re looking for something that didn’t compete for the “Movie of the Year 2006” or want to see something rather bad, this is a good choice. John Penney – I’m sorry, but this close to crap!

- LB

Shutter Island (2010)

Shutter Island is a psychological thriller directed by Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas, The Departed) based on the novel with the same title by Dennis Lehane. 

The movie is placed on an island outside of Boston in 1954, where U.S Marshal detectives Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his new partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) is investigating the disappearance of a patient at the mental hospital on the island. The woman, Rachel Solando, is gone and no one saw her leaving her room, which was locked anyways. Teddy struggles with trauma from his past, as he fought during the WW2. In one of his dreams, we get to know that he was in the first company to discover the Dachau concentration camp. The detectives have got no clues but a tiny note, so the fact that the personnel working on Ashecliffe Hospital don't want to help them with the investigation makes it even harder to solve the disappearance. 

The lighthouse conceals gruesome secrets.

The best aspect of this movie is the story, no doubt. The structure and the way it’s driven forward is amazing, and the curve of excitement is building up from the first scene till the climax at the end. Teddy’s background, which is quite interesting (and has relevance to the story) is revealed through his nightmares. These are filmed and edited with such brilliance that I sometimes wonder if Scorsese hired God to take care of them. These, and the cinematic direction takes the whole psychological atmosphere to a higher level, especially as mysterious things are happening and Teddy reveals hideous facts about Ashecliffe Hospital.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays the role as Teddy very good. He shows us a good interpretation of the character, and I really believe the story Teddy tells us. Mark Ruffalo and Ben Kingsley also deliver good roles.

The movie does play with you mind, and at a certain point of the movie I sat completely clueless and had no idea of what was going on. I did not know what to believe. I sat there with several options and tried to solve the mystery, but I couldn’t. Scorsese impresses once again. 

DiCaprio in a suitable role.

Shutter Island is a great thriller with an engaging story and a fantastic structure, a good manuscript and music that suits the movie perfect, even though it’s not written for this specific movie. The way the movie plays on mystique and feelings is brilliant. A splendid choice for the watcher that likes thrilling films.

-LB

The Social Network (2010)

The Social Network is a drama movie directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), and it's about the founding of the popular social networking site Facebook. The main character of the movie is the founder Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), and The Social Network is pretty much about Mark’s life before and during the founding of Facebook, as well as the process of expanding to other colleges in the U.S and later to the U.K. 

The movie leaps between two different time settings; the present and the past. The present, where Mark is testifying in the two lawsuits against him: one of them filed by the Winklevoss brothers who says that Mark stole their idea for HarvardConnection, and the other by his ex-best friend Eduardo Saverin who feels like he was betrayed and replaced. The past follows Mark through the making of Facebook, and you get to know the whole story of how the boys on Mark's dormitory created Facebook, how it grew big and got famous, and also how mark steps on the toes to Eduardo and the Winklevoss brothers, and how he gets to know the internet entrepreneur and founder of Napster Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake). 

The movie starts in the past, but after a while it leaps in a pattern where questions are asked in the present, and the answers are shown in the past. That makes the movie more interesting, because it switches between two different places and times so you'll be able to see the characters from different perspectives and how they develops through the years, both in behavior and relations to each other.

Sean and Mark before an important meeting.

 The movie is an impressive describing of the founding of the greatest internet social networking site ever created (so far). The characters are most interesting and well played by a handful of good actors. The manuscript is good and contains many good dialogues; subtitles are advised though, as they talk rather fast and computer-ish in some scenes. Also - David Fincher once again shows us that he capable of creating great films and serves us a movie that I recommend to whoever likes movies. This is one you should not miss. Definitely one of the better movies I’ve been seeing lately!

-LB