Exit through the Gift Shop

Exit Through the Gift ShopTrying to nail down just what this film is about is a pretty tricky proposition.  Is it a documentary? A comedy? A commentary on modern attitudes about art? A critique of pop culture? The answer is yes, but with a rather large asterisk.  Exit Through the Gift Shop is, ostensibly, a documentary about an aspiring filmmaker named Thierry Guetta who bumbles his way through life peddling overpriced clothing at his shop while also filming everything around him.  Guetta takes a camera everywhere and fills bins upon bins with digital tape recordings of all the elements of his life.  So far, so good–the documentary has a unique subject and a story to tell.  Soon Guetta becomes fascinated with the world of street artists, and sets out to capture the underground world of graffiti art through the lens of his handycam.  Again, things are going pretty well, especially as Guetta begins to form a relationship with Basksy, one of the most brilliant and infamous street artists in the world.  But near the hour mark something strange happens–Banksy asks Guetta to show him the documentary he has been making (keep in mind the film we are watching is a documentary of a documentary…still with me?  Good.)  Guetta has piles of tapes and a passion for filming, but no clue how to actually edit and produce a film.  So Banksy takes over, and turns the film into a new kind of documentary:  he chronicles Guetta as he attempts to reinvent himself as Mr. Brainwash, legitimate street artist.

Mr. Brainwash Thierry Guetta

Mr. Brainwash...brilliant street artist?

And reinvent himself he most certainly does, with a blowout first show that attracts thousands of visitors over the course of its five week run in Los Angeles.  The catch?  Guetta isn’t really an artist.  He’s not really a filmmaker either.  He’s…well, he’s a frenchman with extraordinary sideburns who repackages the work of true artists with a team of Photoshop wizards and down-on-their-luck sculptors.  Just don’t tell that to the haute coutre crowd, the art world elite whose party Guetta crashed with a building full of poorly-conceived paintings and misshapen sculptures masquerading as modern art.  The crowd who now happily shells out tens of thousands of dollars for Mr. Brainwash originals.  The crowd who includes such high-profile names as Madonna, whose Celebrations album cover is a Mr. Brainwash original.

The real twist, though, comes when the film is over and the credits roll, as you start to wonder what it is that you just witnessed.  Would a guy like Guetta, who doesn’t strike me as someone who could properly cook a box of macaroni and cheese, really be able to pull off a full-scale art show with no artistic talent and no history as an artist? Would people around the world really be gullible enough to buy into the wares he was peddling?  What is it that defines art?  Or was the whole shebang just a ruse?  A massive practical joke played on the critics, collectors, and purveyors of the art scene by Banksy himself?  Certainly there are more questions than answers here, and the film does an outstanding job of challenging our conceptions of what constitutes art.  Banksy himself remains a steadfast enigma, shrouded in guttural voiceovers and pixellated blurs throughout the film.  His talent as an artist is undeniable, his methods legally questionable, and his vision unmatchable.  His film, too, is eminently watchable and thoroughly enjoyable.

Rating: [Rating:4/5]

Lethal Weapon 2

Lethal Weapon 2Once upon a time, action movies were gloriously overblown romps of bullet-ridden testosterone.  Action stars unapologetically careened around cities with the tiniest amount of legality to their actions–just barely enough to justify their immortal status as good guys.  They fought villains who were bad just for the sake of being bad, and needed no justification for their misdeeds and wrongdoings.  No moral grey areas existed in this golden age of action movies, which we will one day tell our kids about with the same glint in our eyes that my dad now possesses when he speaks of The Good Old Days.  Heroes were heroes, bad guys were bad guys, and you left the theater rooting for the chiseled machismo on display before your very eyes.  Sadly, this gilded age of dude-centric cinema faded out in the late 1980s and has yet to be brought back, despite attempts like Live Free or Die Hard and The Expendables.  Maybe it’s political correctness, maybe it’s technology (action stars just aren’t as cool when toting iPhones and netbooks), or maybe it’s just a cultural shift that no longer idolizes larger-than-life movie stars.  But watching movies like Lethal Weapon 2 sure makes me pine for those days.  The good old days.

There’s no subtlety in Richard Donner’s follow-up to his 1987 barn burner, the original Lethal Weapon.  And that’s a good thing.  For any kids who think Mel Gibson is off his rocker nowadays, here’s a news flash:  some of us have known for decades.  In Lethal Weapon 2 Mel Gibson plays Martin Riggs, an iconic coyboy cop: he’s crazy, unpredictable, off his rocker, and never follows the rules.  He gets chewed out by his police captain, but such conceps like regulations and procedures mean nothing to Riggs.  He does what he wants, chases (and gets) the girls, and shoots (many times) first and asks questions later.  Balancing him out is straight-laced cop Roger Murtaugh, played by Danny Glover at his bewildered best.

Lethal Weapon 2: Gibson Glover

Many people don't know it, but the real lethal weapon in the movie is Mel Gibson's mullet.

Together the two of them must solve an international caper that gets personal when the bad guys start taking out cops around the city.  The details aren’t really important–something about money laundering and South African smuggling–as the film is really just a means to showcase one of the best mismatched duos in movie history.  Martin and Riggs are the perfect pair of cops, and Gibson and Glover are the perfect actors to play them.  Joining the team for this second go-round is Joe Pesci at his greasy, fast-talking slimeball best, but his character is often just too annoying and distracting.  Still, his Leo Getz character does have a certain charm that kind of grown endearing by the end.

The movie starts with an entirely implausible car chase through the Los Angeles, and things only ramp up from there to the point of bordering on self-parody.  It’s the first of several increasingly ridiculous car chases sandwiched between exploding houses, exploding swimming pools (oh yes) and exploding toilets (you better believe it).  One-liners rack up like the body count, but this was 1989–a time when a hero could shoot a couple bad guys with a nail gun, followed by a quip like “Nailed ’em,” and get away with it.  Of course there’s a “romance” too, just to keep the ladies interested, but it’s not so much a romance as it is sheer conquest.  At times it’s almost comical to see Gibson careening down city streets clad in tight jeans and cowboy boots, or standing atop a bullet-riddled trailer home while spraying bullets from an M-16.  The whole spectacle just screams action movie but it does so with such unapologetic gusto that you can’t help but watch in awe.  Perhaps best of all, though, is the total lack of any CGI or digital trickery here.  When Dwayne Johnson takes out bad guys in movies like Faster you can practically smell the pixels.  But in Lethal Weapon 2, when cars crash and buildings explode there’s a palpable sense of reality knowing that something, even if it was just a model, really did meet a fiery end in order to get the shot filmed.

Maybe I’m waxing a bit nostalgic here, but watching Lethal Weapon is an astounding guilty pleasure.  And I could be a tad jaded in my old age, having turned the big three-oh last year, but when I watch action movies today I think about films of yesteryear like Lethal Weapon 2 and think how they just don’t make ’em like they used to.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

G-Force

G-ForceIf Jerry Bruckheimer, producer of such bombastic cinema travesties like Bad Boys, Con Air, and Pearl Harbor, were to attach his name to a movie for kids about talking guinea pigs, what would it look like?  Would it still have all the familiar Bruckheimer tropes we know and love?  Would Michael Bay direct it?  These are trying questions for trying times indeed, and strangely, the answer to most of these would be a resounding “Yes.”  It has everything we might expect given the pedigree of the individuals involved:

Car chases…check.

Giant destructive robots…check.

A world in peril…check.

A clock counting down to doomsday…check.

Explosions, explosions, and more explosions…check.

But equally strange is the fact that G-Force somehow works, and works quite well.  The film opens in the middle of a top-secret operation a’la True Lies in which the band of super-rodents, codenamed G-Force, are infiltrating the residence of a technology billionaire Leonard Saber (Bill Nighy) in order to steal top-secret information from his computer.  Information which could determine…bum bum BUM… the fate of the free world.  The little animal wonders, equipped with the latest in miniature spy technology and Happy Meal-Ready names like Blaster (Tracy Jordan), Speckles (Nicolas Cage), and Hurley (Jon Favreau), are actually the product of a government experiment to study and harness the power of human-animal communication.  But when the mission goes awry, the government shuts down the operation and their leader Ben (Zach Galifianakis) is left empty-handed while the fate of the world (something about orbital space junk and the power of magnets…it really doesn’t matter) hangs in the balance.

G-Force Poster

It's clever...because it's a guinea pig. Get it?

Who will get to the bottom of things and stop the destruction of planet earth?  Why, none other than G-Force of course! The talking guinea pigs take it upon themselves to get to the bottom of the conspiracy with plenty of pint-sized gadgets and gizmos from their genius bearded buddy Ben.  Along the way they meet up with a several action-figure-ready talking animals who help them out and teach valuable lessons about teamwork, sacrifice, and the power of friendship.  There’s a car chase and some robot fights thrown in for good measure too, just to keep things interesting.  And for what it is, it works just fine.  I didn’t start watching a movie about talking superhero rodents expecting Citizen Kane or Shawshank Redemption.

Criticizing a movie like G-Force is somewhat moot, since the film is aimed squarely at a target audience who buys Zhu Zhu Pets.  But unlike some of its peers like Shrek, G-Force thankfully never plays to the lowest common denominator of toilet humor and cheap pop culture references.  Like the Disney adventure Bolt from a few years ago, it’s silly enough to be fun, but doesn’t play its audience for fools either.  And unlike other Bruckheimer explode-fests, Michael Bay actually didn’t direct this one.  And that is most certainly a good thing.

Rating:[Rating:3.5/5]

Wild Hogs

Wild HogsWild Hogs is based on a premise not unlike so many throwaway sitcoms: take a few ecclectic personalities, put them in a unique or singular situation, and watch the hilarity unfold. And like so many throwaway sitcoms, the concept actually has starts out well with some genuine sparks of creativity but quickly loses its way and gets mired in a hopeless rut of infantile scatalogical gags and cheap jokes for which someone clearly forgot to pen a punch line. The situation here is a road trip, and the characters are as generic as one could ask for: four middle-aged men longing to recapture their glory days after being faced with the clear revelation that their best years may have passed them by. This group of friends, who call themselves the Wild Hogs, used to be (or so we are told) something of a daring troupe of young firestarters. Having succumbed to the Hollywood faux-realities of suburban life, they decide one day to take a motorcycle trip to the coast with the wind at their backs and no rules or women to get in their way. (This being a Hollywood movie, the women in these men’s lives serve as little more than one-dimensional facades with bullet points of characterization: nag, berate, belittle your man.)

The meta-joke here is that the four guys are played by somewhat washed-up movie stars seeking, ostensibly, to recapture a bit of their former fame. John Travolta, Tim Allen, Martin Lawrence, and William H. Macy, who seem just as out of place and uncomfortable in leather jackets and do-rags as one could imagine, do their best to act like lifelong buddies when it’s pretty clear they all just showed up to flash a grin and collect a paycheck. Nevertheless, they do form an entertaining bunch of buds, and Allen and Lawrence riff on each other with at least a shadow of the biting wit and sarcasm on which they built their careers more than a decade ago. Travolta must have thought he was filming Face/Off Part 2, as he spends most of the movie acting like an over-the-top Nicolas Cage. And that’s saying something.  We are supposed to believe the Wild Hogs are a close-knit group of lifelong friends, but the chemistry just isn’t there.  Instead they seem like a group of four guys who are getting paid to act as if they are lifelong friends.  Oh, wait.

Wild Hogs: Tim Allen

"This one time on Home Improvement, Jill was mad at me so I got advice from Wilson. And then I made fun of Al's mom!"

Once they shrug off the chains of women, kids, jobs, and escape from the seventh level of hades known in Hollywood as “marriage,” they find themselves careening down the highway without any worries, cares, or cell phones in order to recapture a bit of the good ol’ days.  But sure enough, things get out of hand pretty quickly as they encounter overbearing policemen, tent fires, and a paint-by-numbers motorcycle gang called the Del Fuegos who does not suffer posers gladly.  It’s too bad that the road trip has so many missed opportunities, as this type of setup is essentially a blank canvas for which to create any number of potentially funny situations.  But rather than trying to be creative or interesting, the movie races straight to junior-high humor and stays there.  We are treated to gags about bodily fluids, mishaps with wild animals, and a scene in which the guys decide to go skinny dipping in a hot spring only to be interrupted by (who else?) an unsuspecting vacationing family (oh the hilarity!).  Of all the possibilities afforded by the road trip setup and the four talented actors on display here, we instead get poop jokes and gay cops.

Something resembling a conflict enters the mix when the Wild Hogs set out to save a small town from the terrorizing throes of the  Del Fuegos and their schoolyard bully leader Jack (Ray Liotta).  Dudley (William H. Macy) also finds himself a love interest named Maggie (Marisa Tomei) who runs the local diner and could sure use a biker in shining leather to save her from the mean Del Fuego men.  Like the rest of the movie, it’s a by-the-book setup that plays out exactly how you think it will, which is again kind of sad given the sheer number of missed opportunities to be truly creative.  And despite good performances from Allen, Lawrence, and Liotta, there is very little here to recommend to anyone.

Rating:[Rating:1/5]

Man v. Food (Season 2)

Man vs. FoodMaybe it’s the excessive amounts of food I’ve been consuming this past week, thanks to various Christmas parties at work along with snacks that people have had around the office, but I think it’s high time I reviewed Man v. Food, Season 2.  The first season was a pleasant surprise, and I appreciated host Adam Richman’s unpretentious enjoyment of American cuisine.  Season 2 is in many ways just what one would expect:  more of Season 1.  But that’s not a bad thing at all.  The blue-collar premise of the show is pretty simple:  Richman visits diners and eateries around the country in search of good grub and doing his best to conquer the nation’s most (in)famous food challenges.  Sometimes he succeeds, sometimes he doesn’t, but it’s always a fun ride.

The basic gist of each episode remains roughly the same:  Richman travels to a particular city, such as Charleston, South Carolina, Boise, Idaho, or Tucson, Arizona, and visits three famous local restaurants in order to sample their food.  He doesn’t seek out fine dining or haute cuisine,  just good food recommended by the locals.  It’s still unclear just how the show’s producers select the venues for Richman to visit, but they do a fairly solid job of finding some of the famous local haunts in each location and staying away from more mainstream places.  It’s not quite Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives, but it gives viewers a good idea of some good off-the-beaten-path joints.  Of course there’s always the main event in each episode:  the food challenge, which always takes place at the final restaurant.  There’s plenty of teases leading up to the main event, but the first two thirds of each show are plenty interesting even without a challenge.  Richman keeps things light and fun, often talking with restaurant patrons and joking with the wait staff while talking about the food he’s eating.  Some of the adjectives get a little overused (how many ways can you say “delicious”?), and every now and then it’s clear that Richman trying his best just to be polite even though the food is clearly not all that great.  But to be fair, the guy does come across some weird concoctions, and they can’t all be scrumptious.  His visit to Harold’s New York Deli Restaurant was probably the low point: the sandwich he sampled was literally two pieces of bread with about ten pounds of sliced deli meat in between them.  Yawn.

Of course the highlight of each show is the challenge, and in many ways the ante was upped from Season 1.  There was the usual slew of artery-clogging concoctions like gigantic burritos, pizzas, and entrees, not to mention a couple extraordinarily spicy meals like the “suicide six wings” challenge, which once stopped Richman after just one wing.  But in order to add some welcome variety to the mix, there were some truly inventive and creative challenges too.  One had an entire restaurant taking part in bringing down a 190-pound burger, another was a food triathlon in which Richman and three teammates had to bike, swim, and run their way to victory while consuming massive quantities of food at each stop, and there was even a Man v. Food Live during which Richman had to finish a 48-ounce steak in 20 minutes.

Man vs. Food: Mally's

Seeing this in no way makes me want to eat a 190-pound hamburger. In fact, it's basically the opposite.

Even though some of the challenges were kind of silly (seriously, at some point just piling more and more potatoes onto a subway sandwich just gets kind of ridiculous.) it’s all in good fun and even when Richman loses he’s a great sport about it and makes sure the crowd, and TV audience, have a good time.

Some have criticized Man v. Food for promoting unhealthy overeating and gluttony, especially when obesity is such a major problem in this country.  Food Network host Alton Brown even went so far as to call the show “disgusting.”  I don’t see it that way, though. In fact, watching Richman attempt the massive food challenges is a way for me to live vicariously and enjoy, on some level, the thrill of the challenge without the unfortunate side effects.  Richman is an avid exerciser and maintains a relatively healthy weight by keeping a strict treadmill regimen, and I doubt anyone who watches the show would be inspired to overindulge.  If anything, watching Richman’s edible escapades has made me more aware of the food I eat and actually caused me to reconsider large portion sizes from time to time.  It’s enough that he does the challenges–I don’t need to do it too.  It’s fun enough just to watch him and enjoy it.

Rating:[Rating:4.5/5]

Batman Returns

Batman ReturnsAfter reinventing the Batman character in 1989, and introducing audiences to a new level of box office bravura, Tim Burton decided to up the ante in every way with the inevitable sequel.  But even the soulless title has overtones of what to expect here:  Batman is back, and has a new round of villains to fight.  The weird thing is, Batman never went anywhere at the end of the first film, so why did he have to “Return” for round two?  Alas, such questions will find no answer here, as the point is to simply push the envelope of good taste and cash in on a newly-minted franchise.  And while Batman Returns isn’t a complete train wreck, it jumps off the rails early on and never even tries to find its way back.

Burton’s first Batman movie, while flawed, at least provided some good entertainment and a solid hero/villain tale.  Batman was well matched against The Joker, and the conflict provided for some interesting, if not entirely quality, film making.  In an attempt to up the ante with Batman Returns, the story has two villains: The Penguin and Catwoman, neither of whom is as interesting or compelling as Jack Nicholson’s Joker.  To further complicate matters, each villain has an origin story in this movie, which means that the title character actually gets painfully little screen time.  The film begins with the grim birth of The Penguin, a child so horribly disfigured that his parents abandon him in a baby-sized river basket to float to a watery grave.  But since this is a comic book movie, this child is (of course) adopted and raised in a secret chamber inside the Gotham City zoo by a pack of wild penguins.  Years later Danny DeVito emerges from the sewers as The Penguin, ready to wreak havoc on the city.

Batman Returns: Keaton, Pfeiffer

Selina Kyle, demonstrating the newest trend in hairstyling: "The Bird's Nest."

Meanwhile, plucky do-gooding secretary Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer), who just can’t seem to catch a break, is tossed out of a window and left for dead by her evil corporate boss Max Schreck (Christopher Walken, whose unapologetic scenery-chewing is the best part of the movie).  But since this is a comic book movie, mere secretaries can’t simply die after 20-story defenestration!  No, they are brought back to life by a pack of wild cats.  Somehow.  And thus begins her transformation into Catwoman.

None of this makes any sense whatsoever, but when watching a movie about a rich dude who fights crime in a bat mask, all bets are off.  For reasons entirely unexplainable by any stretch of logic, Max Schreck recruits The Penguin to run for mayor in exchange for some political favors. Never mind the fact that just a week earlier The Penguin was entirely unknown to Gotham and had spent his entire life in a penguin-filled sewer.  (I know we live in a world where professional wrestlers can become state governors, but even this is pretty ridiculous.) And because the plot requires it, Catwoman joins forces with The Penguin to (what else?) get rid of Batman.  Because, you know, it’s a comic book movie and stuff.  In the middle of this is an awkward romance between Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle (oh, the irony!).

Batman Returns: The Penguin

The toy action figure creators really earned their paychecks on this movie.

Michael Keaton reprises his role as Bruce Wayne, either out of contractual obligation or some type of legal fine print. His blandness pervades every aspect of the character, and when he is not throwing awkward punches or delivering a menacing glare through the Caped Crusader mask, he is squirming uncomfortably in a suit or trying to warm up to Michelle Pfeiffer in front of a ginormous fireplace back at Wayne Manor.  DeVito turns in a solid performance as an aquatic terrorist, but the entire Penguin character is a disaster from top to bottom.  There is no reason for the character to exist, no reason for a conflict between him and Batman, no way (even by comic book logic) that he could have established a massive underground terrorist organization, dependent on mindless henchmen and hundreds of trained penguins, from inside a city zoo.  And somehow, wearing a skin-tight leather suit and assigning an feline-based moniker makes one impervious to the penetrating power of 9mm bullets.  The list goes on.  The entire movie is a series of face-palm-inducing moments and cheap thrills, wrapped up in a sadistically violent tale in which Batman himself is largely peripheral.  But hey, if it sells happy meals, why not?  Oh, wait.

Rating:[Rating:0.5/5]

Batman

BatmanI was nine years old when Tim Burton rebooted the beloved Batman franchise, replacing the aging Adam West with a much younger (and, for many fans, much more controversial) Michael Keaton and giving audiences their first look at a Gotham City that was dripping with darkness.  Far from the bright palettes and cartoony enemies of the 1960’s TV show, this new Batman was grim, unflinching, and strikingly violent.  It also ushered in a new era for comic book movies and summer blockbusters, and reaping a pile of cash for Warner Brothers that continues to grow to this day.  But was the movie any good, or was it all spectacle and marketing?

The answer is a little of both.  There are few effects-heavy movies that stand the test of time; aside from the original Star Wars trilogy, Kubrik’s masterful 2001: A Space Odyssey, and classics like Jason and Argonauts, modern audiences have little patience for obvious blue-screen chroma key and once high tech effects like stop motion.  Unfortunately, Batman does not hold up quite so well, but this wouldn’t be a problem if the plot and acting were any good.  As it stands, Batman can be seen today as an average comic book film or a sub-par comic book film, but either way it’s not much use outside of a footnote in the annals of summer blockbuster history books.

I grew up on the cheesy but lovable Batman after-school reruns where Batman and Robin battled an endless array of implausible foes while spouting dialog so terrible it made George Lucas look like Shakespeare.  It was campy and fun, and you have to respect a guy like Adam West who acts so badly with such utter conviction.  Burton eschews much of this campiness, but his version of Batman is trapped in movie limbo:  despite the dark and serious tone of the film, we are nonetheless asked to accept wild and outlandish premises that only work when planted firmly in the roots of 1960’s cheese.  Street thugs, crime bosses, and city officials are depicted as two-dimensional caricatures, barking out lines of such obvious exposition that it’s like watching an eighth-grade school project.  Jack Napier, one of the higher-ups in the Gotham crime syndicate, falls into a giant vat of green toxic waste which transforms him into the venerable Joker.  And his plot to take down the city (because what else would a criminal mastermind do) involves contaminating all the city’s cosmetic products with poison that causes victims to die of laughter (no I am not making this up).

Kind of makes the idea of exploding sharks seem almost normal.

Batman: Michael Keaton

Michael Keaton is Batman...striking bewilderment into the hearts of Gotham City criminals.

As if to countermand the potential silliness of some of these plot devices, this Batman is surprisingly violent.  Almost too much for a PG-13 rating, and certainly more than what most parents would be comfortable having their kids watching.  Watching the Joker dance around the room as he gleefully pumps his victim full of lead is a far cry from the classic Wham-Bam-Pow fight scenes of yore.  It serves the character, one might argue, but to me it reeks of overcompensation.  But throughout the film Jack Nicholson’s turn as the Joker is extremely well acted and the character more or less holds his own when pitted against Heath Ledger’s masterful portrayal of the same character in 2008’s The Dark Knight.  Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the bland, charisma-draining performance of Michael Keaton.  Woefully miscast as Bruce Wayne and his crimefighting alter ego, Keaton somehow manages to pump out lines like “I am Batman” with a straight face, though probably because he does it while wearing a mask.  The romance between him and Vicky Vale (Kim Bassinger, trying her best to fend off her 40’s) is as shallow and unbelievable as we might expect from a 1989 comic book movie, and only serves to give Batman a reason to go after the Joker in the end.  After all, what better motivation could a superhero have for fighting the bad guy than to get back his kidnapped girlfriend?

I have a feeling that if Tim Burton were to be able to re-make his original film today it would be more in line with Christopher Nolan’s mature, dark, and introspective Batman Returns and The Dark Knight. But back in 1989 audiences were hardly accustomed to plausible superheroes with innter turmoil and realistic villains, and in that sense I can kind of understand the motivation for straddling the line between comic book absurdity and dark reflections of reality.  But ultimately Batman is a lot of spectacle without much substance to back it up.

Rating:[Rating:2.5/5]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1)

Harry Potter Deathly HallowsI’m not the world’s most aredent Harry Potter Fan.  I read the first three books partly out of a sense of generational obligation, and partly out of mild curiosity, but always found their Lord of the Rings-lite sensibilities to be more than a bit uninteresting.  They were entertaining and charming, but midway through Goblet of Fire I gave up and went back to George Orwell and Tolkien.  I just wasn’t too interested in Harry Potter’s adolescent crises amidst the magical world of Hogwarts and bludgers and muggles…oh my!  Well, not in reading about them anyway.  I did enjoy the movies, as they tended to distill the essence of each book into an easily digestable cinematic experience, and all of them have been pretty solid film offerings unlike some other book-to-movie adaptations.  I also appreciated that the themes of the books and movies tended to mature with the characters and, subsequently, their audience.  There’s only so many Quidditch games and slug-vomiting potions a guy can take before he takes the advice of his 6th grade D.A.R.E. instructor and just walks away.

But the most recent movies like Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince (not to mention the ending of Goblet of Fire, which I thought was a bit of a cheap move on Rowling’s part, but dark nonetheless) have seen the tension factor ratcheting up higher, the implications of the conflicts grow ever wider, and the characters dealing with some serious life-and-death stuff.  Add to that some examination of spirituality and romance, and the Harry Potter series really has come a long way since magical chess games and diatribes on the correct pronunciation of Wingardium Leviosa.

Deathly Hallows: Harry, Ron, Hermione Grown Up

Harry, Ron, and Hermione, all growed up.

And so we have the stage set for the final chapter in the Harry Potter series.  Doing away with the concept of exposition entirely, since if you don’t know who these people are by now you have no business watching, the film gets right down to business with Potter and his friends on a mission to escape a posse of evil Death Eaters sent by Lord Voldemort, J.K. Rowling’s counterpart to Dr. Claw.  They all meet up at the Weasleys, the most ill-conceived safe house location ever (unless Hagrid and company were hoping Voldemort and his goons would overlook the most obvious place in the world for Harry Potter and his friends to hole up for a while) and take pains to evade detection by the most powerful evil wizard in the world by having a gigantic wedding party for a pair of secondary characters whom we are supposed to know or care about.  Soon Harry, Ron, and Hermione set out on the ultimate teenage wizard road trip/collect-a-thon as they try to locate seven Horcruxes–objects where Voldemort has stored up bits of his eternal soul.  Destroying these will bring an end to evil once and for all and allow Harry to finally get some much-needed closure about his parents’ murder too.

It’s actually kind of refreshing to have a Harry Potter movie focus so much on the three main characters.  Hogwarts is nowhere to be found in the entire film, and instead Potter and his friends set out to make the ultimate travel brochure by visiting every last gorgeous landscape and sweeping vista to be found in the entire United Kingdom.  As they magically transport from one locale to the next, they deal with a lot of relationship issues and even have a bit of good old-fashioned romantic jealousy come between them (even though Ron and Hermione are about as believable of a couple as Anakin and Amidala) while seeking out the Horcruxes and delving deeper into the mystery of the Deathly Hallows.  We are also given much more insight into the characters of Draco and Lucius Malfoy, and begin to ask some serious questions about Professor Snape as well.  It’s this type of three-dimensionality that this final installment offers that sets it high above so many other entries in the fantasy genre.

Deathly Hallows: Draco Malfoy

Draco Malfoy, who doesn't know the meaning of the phrase "bad hair day."

It’s an engaging tale well told, and as dark and grim as the series has ever been.  A couple beloved characters have been dispatched over the various entries in the series, but in Deathly Hallows it seems no one is safe from the Grim Reaper’s scythe.  The film even has some genuinely disturbing parts too, and is certainly not a movie for kids.  Women are tortured and sacrificed, bodies are mutilated, and we see Potter and his friends go to some very dark places in order to do what needs to be done.  It’s a world of ambiguity and grey morality, and offers some thought-provoking questions on what it means to simply do the right thing.

In the nine years since The Sorcerer’s Stone was unleashed into theatres, Harry Potter and his friends have been on some absolutely incredible journeys.  It’s almost sad to see things finally coming to an end, and as such I didn’t mind at all that this final film was split into two parts (Part 2 is scheduled to blow the doors off the box office in summer 2011).  We’re in the homestretch now, and even though Deathly Hallows is a striking departure from the rest of the series, it is a fitting beginning to the graceful swan song the series deserves.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]