By Rocky
I guess this isn't a review of the movie an much as it is a review of you people watching it.
No, I'm not going to condemn this movie for leaving scenes from the book out. If anything, they should have changed more. Everyone knows how the book ends. What bigger twist could the movie have than if Voldemort died from eel diarrhea (it is indeed a real thing)? Nevertheless, I'm here to bring us back to Earth. No you idiots, REAL Earth. Where no wizards live. You may think that Harry represents our generation. He doesn't. How many people do you know with lightning scars, magical powers, and the ability to survive death... twice? (If your answer is more than two, you're either lying or crazy. Either way, you lose.) That's like saying Spongebob Squarepants represents our generation. No matter which one you choose, you're gay and probably need to get out more. Now hear me out, the movie is good, but it's not Oscar worthy. Hell, it's not golden globe worthy. It might get an MTV movie award or 8, but if Step Up 2 can get those, then it's really a wonder why people even keep the trophy. The problem is simple. People get too wrapped up in all the Harry hype they don't judge the movie objectively. Luckily you have me.
Finally, after the last snooze fest where Harry Potter & the gang of justice roam the Earth for 2 and a half hours, some real shit happens. I honestly thought no movie could involve more walking than Lord of the Rings, but I was wrong. Ron throws a bitch fit, Hermione cries, and Harry yells a couple times about You-know-who. Which quite frankly, is retarded. They've been saying Voldemort off and on for 6 books and 7 movies now, not to mention we all know who. He'll say Voldemort for 20 mins and switch to you'know-who. How stupid is that? If Hitler came back from the dead and killed a bunch more jews we wouldn't call him "that-evil-guy". Maybe it's a lack of British balls, but now that I think about it, we did have to save their asses from "that-evil-guy" so it's starting to make sense. But aren't we really getting the sense that J.K. was just stalling for time? In every book since the 5th the people need something. Whether it's a globe of knowledge, or a horcrux, or a person, everything leads to something else. Each time they get to something else, they find a person has been there, taken that. When they finally (after traveling forever, only to accidentally stumble upon it) find the dude, he's dead. But he hid that thing away. Then they accidentally stumble upon that. It's the same every time. There are so many "clues" that finally they all come around and start to make some sense. Like she planned all this out with the first one, when really she was biding time. The name of the 7th should be Harry Potter and the National Treasure because that's what it started reminding me of. (Nicholas Cage as Snape? Maybe. Finally, he'd be able to underact!)
But thankfully, we made it into part two. Unlike my colleague Ferris Bueller, I'm more into movies than books. Sure, 4-6 COULD have been split up into two parts to stay more faithful to the books, but like the Jeff Goldblum conundrum in Jurassic Park, SHOULD they? The answer? A resounding no. Is it really worth another 2 and a half hours of snoring to explain how butterbeer is made, or the origin of magic? Where would the fifth end? At the end of the really boring shit, so the 2nd part is more action packed but the first makes you rip off your testicles/ovaries from boredom? Or maybe the beginning of the good parts, 7/8 the way through the movie, so you at least get some literal bang for your buck? Every one says the same thing, "the books are always better". The reason is because while you are sifting through the filler, you can get up and stretch or get some snacks, or put it down for another day. Not so with a movie, lest you run the risk of missing something exciting. People don't realize how much of an art form movies are. You have got to make them exciting, action-packed, thrilling, thoughtful, funny at times, all in a two to three hour time frame. Not so with a book. You can write completely boring, awful crap for as long as you like. Danielle Steel makes a living doing that.
With that said, part two does a very nice job with a lot. It's a very good movie. Just it wasn't epically brilliant. Some people are sad to see Harry go - even though he left when the book came out - but I'm rejoicing. Finally, they give us an ending I didn't see coming, Good beats evil. Hollywood finally throws us a twist, with never ending stream of movies movies such as Star Wars Episode V and... er ... Episode III ending in gut-wrenching agony. But with this movie comes an end to the infinite loop of searching for things. The action is great, no matter where the location is, and I'm not just talking about the Harry-Ginny sex scene (Spoiler alert: She's a squirter). Wait, what? Oh sorry, I was watching Harry Potter and the Magical Clitoris.
This is getting long, so I'll just go right in to the bones I had to pick with this movie.
1) They're wizards. Can't they use a spell to a) get out of water or b) dry their clothes?
2) When they ask for Bellatrix's wand (Helena Bonham Carter is an amazing actress btdub and has put some unbelievable performances into these movies), why can't she just give it to the goblins?
3) Was any one else hoping that Snape had a love affair with Lilly Potter and was secretly Harry's dad?
4) when they burn the bridge, why didn't the enemies just use a broom stick to fly across? It seems like if you're storming a castle where the only land routes involve two bridges, then you'd bring one. Also, the castle is connected to a lake (as seen in the movie. Couldn't some bad guys have attacked via boat? Voldemort: Dark wizard extraordinaire? Yes, but war general? No.
5) I have seen a lot of wizards use their wands for crazy things, but why can only bad guys fly? Hermione casts a levitation spell, surely flying isn't too much harder. That would help out so much.
6) I know it's a tribute, but Albus Severus Potter? Good god, Gag me with a wand. If I were him, I would rather avada ke-whatever myself than have that name. Who names their son Albus? I would rather name my son Slappy. Or Eskimo.
and 7) How old are the actors? 21? Well 19 years later, they will look... 23. Maybe someone made some age defying potion, but they had 10 years to cast separate actors for that, they couldn't find any?
Well in the end I'd give it an 8/10. Or 4/5. Or 3 stars. It really all depends on which scale you like. But some of you peeps think it's an 11 or 6 or 5 and that is certainly incorrect.
No comments:
Post a Comment