Movie Review: Mamma Mia 2 – Here We Go Again

Ten years after the first movie came out, we have the sequel to Mamma Mia. But does it work? Will it get the movie-goers up and dancing?

The premise is simple: Donna Sheridan (Meryl Streep) passed away a year before the events of this movie (we are not told what happened) where her daughter Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is reopening the hotel as Villa Bella Donna and making her mother’s dreams come true. But there are challenges: her beau Sky (Dominic Cooper) has been offered a job in New York and he is thinking about taking it and not coming back to the island, and her two fathers out of three (Bill Andersen/Stellan Skarsgard and Harry Bright/Colin Firth) can’t make it for the re-opening. And her on-island father Sam Carmichael (Pierce Brosnan) is grieving for Donna. While we follow Sophie’s journey and her struggles, we are also taken back in time to when Donna was growing up, and how she met the three potential fathers. Does everything work out in the end?

Well, yes. This *is* a feel-good movie after all!

Let’s start with the returning cast. Amanda Seyfried is really good in this one – I really think I preferred her in this movie compared to the original, and I absolutely and unequivocally loved the duet between her and Sky after their phone call where it seemed as though the relationship was at at end. Not only were both their performances heart-breaking (in a good way, I was totally in the moment), but the way it was shot was beautiful.

Sky (Cooper) isn’t in the movie much, much like the first instalment. But I did have a niggle with his contrived plot point: I mean, okay, he came back mid-way but why did he? Fine, every single decision doesn’t have to be explained, but I was genuinely confused with his ‘I couldn’t stay away’ reason, but hey-ho I’m just nitpicking now.

Both of Donna’s friends, played by Christine Baranski and Julie Walters in the current day, were as brilliant as always. And it was amazing to see that their younger selves, played by Alexa Davies and Jessica Keenan Wynn, were so perfectly cast, I couldn’t believe it. Both forms of these characters were so in sync, I was well impressed.

And the same goes for young Donna. Played by Lily James (I first discovered her in Downton Abbey), I was blown away by her voice and her performance throughout the movie. Cannot wait to see more of James in the future.

Now, on to the dads. Pierce Brosnan still isn’t necessarily the best singer of the lot (sorry Remington Steele, I still adore you) but he puts on a better performance than 10 years ago. How much he misses Donna can be seen through his nuanced acting, and I felt like I could feel his pain as he looks over her photographs. Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard were hilarious, and Firth’s comic timing is still perfection. Quick note about the younger actors who played them: I hadn’t actually noticed them in anything before, but they were great! And such good singers too!

So, Cher is in the movie. When she starts singing, it’s like, OK this is what we were waiting for. She obviously, absolutely nailed every song she performed. I almost wish we had had more of her powerful voice in the movie. Andy Garcia is also in the movie, as the older, still smouldering, hotel manager, and his role in an enjoyable song later in the movie led to so many laughs and cheers in the theatre. I wish so much I could have heard him sing more, though.

Mild spoiler alert, so maybe gloss over this para if you can? There is a touching scene at the end of the movie which left me tearing up. The whole mother-daughter connection (what, you thought it was all about ABBA?!) was strong in the first movie, and is strong here too – especially where we are seeing the parallels between what Sophie is going through and what Donna was dealing with so many years ago. But it all comes to a satisfying, bone-tingling and eye-tearing end when Sophie and Donna share a duet, in a ‘she’s looking down at you from the heavens’ way that worked, that actually didn’t make you think, ‘well this is cheesy’ but made you sing along and cry because that’s how wonderful it was.

OK YOU CAN READ FROM HERE ON, SPOILER AVOIDERS!

The plot isn’t exactly strong and obviously some points seem built just so a song could be sung, but it’s so much fun nonetheless. Since so many of ABBA’s hit songs were used in the first movie, there are some that are repeated (like Mamma Mia, Waterloo, I Have A Dream and so on) but done well enough that it doesn’t matter. Look, I watched this movie right after Mission: Impossible – Fallout which stressed me out so much for nearly three hours, this one calmed me right back down and I left feeling chirpy.

Do you enjoy ABBA, love singing, and want to see a feel-good movie that may make you cry and laugh? OK, here’s your chance.

And stay for the last song where all the characters get to sing and dance together, it’s so worth it.

Advertisements

Movie Review: Game Night

The premise of Game Night is relatively simple: a group of die-hard gamers (who indulge mostly in board games) enter a real-life ‘game’ of their own where the stakes are life or death. And hey, it’s a comedy!

Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams star as Max and Annie, and they are introduced to us in an almost Up-esque montage of two people who meet over common interests, bond, and then host game nights forever. Once the cutesy montage is over, we reach a point in their lives where they are trying to have children, but Max is brutally told by the doctor that his sperm are lazy and tells him that it’s also most likely a by-product of his sibling rivalry with his brother, Brooks (played by Kyle Chandler, whom I discovered in Early Edition which I LOVED). Brooks is constantly living the jet-set life much to the envy of Max, but he returns one day and offers to host the couple’s regular game night at his new swanky digs one day. He hires a company to engage them in a real-life mystery game, but that’s when it all horribly goes wrong. Brooks is taken by real goons and, while the group of six don’t realise it at first, they soon catch on that this is playing for the high stakes, where nothing is really transparent.

So I said group of six. In addition to Max and Annie, we have Billy Magnussen as Ryan (who is a character that’s slightly blank and seemingly superficial) who, to this game night, brings along Sarah (played by Sharon Horgan), who is pretty different from the usual kind of date he has on hand. The final two are married couple Kevin (Lamorne Morris) and Michelle (Kylie Bunbury). Added to this is the standout performance of Jesse Plemons as Gary, the next-door neighbour of Max and Annie’s, who is their friend Debbie’s ex-husband as well as a cop.

This is a movie with comedic moments, sarcasm, hilarity, and some brilliant deadpan moments. The chemistry between Bateman and McAdams is pretty good, and both their comedic timing is perfectly in tune with each other. Plemons, as I said earlier, steals the show. His character is devoid of any reactions of personality and his blank face and creepy expressions just add to the fun in the movie. And Chandler is great as a rake!

By creating sub-plots for most of the characters, the writers have cleverly pulled off depth and backstory for them, which is nice. There’s a few cool set pieces in the movie, one involving a dog, and the other involving a fairly absurd chase through a huge mansion. The plot isn’t necessarily straightforward though – there are twists and turns, and by the climax scene, it’s almost like the characters are acknowledging that there have been an almost silly number of ‘gotchas!’ – you’ll see what I mean when you see it.

So yes, the story gets absurd at some points. But what works in this movie is that it doesn’t take itself seriously. It’s a game night-themed movie that was presumably set out to entertain audiences, and that’s just what it does.

Geek alert: Mystery Box ME

Do you like sci-fi (books, movies, everything)? Anime? ‘Verses like Star Wars, Star Trek (yes you can like both – look at me!), Firefly and more? Comics? Gaming? OK, well you’re going to want to know about Mystery Box ME, if you don’t already!

I’m not sure how I came across the geek-themed Mystery Box ME, but I’m really glad I did. If I had to hazard a guess though, I’d say it was something I found via the geek-in-the-know, @theregos.

Anyway, the premise is simple. You sign up to receive a… well, a mystery box every month. You don’t know what’s in the box, other than that it will arouse the interest of all geeks.

Here’s an example of just one month:

Other months have included a Batman-themed fidget spinner, a Baby Groot bobble-head, a t-shirt with Futurama’s Bender, a Deadpool chef figurine, a t-shirt with Serenity (the ship) on it, a variety of comics, and so much more.

The website lists all the subscription opportunities; you can buy a one-off box for AED 199, or take monthly plans, ranging from a three-month plan to a one year plan, with prices obviously dropping with the volume that you purchase. I find that it’s always worth it…opening that box has never disappointed.

This month, the website released a “themed” box – Star Wars. The website also currently lists a video game-themed box. These do list what you’re getting when you order the boxes. Definitely looking forward to more of these!

Check out the official website for more information and to order your own box!

Want to see more? I’ll end with one of my (many) unboxing videos… 

Movie review: Man of Steel

Minor spoilers, none give away plot but refer to elements within the movie.

Man of Steel follows the story of baby Kal-El from the planet Krypton who is jettisoned into space by his parents Jor-El and Lara when General Zod attempts to take over the planet, which is rapidly dying. Kal-El crashes into Earth and is found by Jonathan and Martha Kent who take him in and raise him as their own son – Clark Kent. Thirty three years later … General Zod arrives to find Kal-El … and something else…

The character of Superman is meant to be perfect – how do screenwriters show perfection on screen? Thankfully, in this version, they scratch away that veneer and break it down. Make him real. Make us believe that he can exist. They manage to show that even Superman can struggle.

One of the small things that the writers do to aid this perception is strip away the use of the word “Superman” as much as possible. You hear it only three or four times at best. This is a coming of age movie. We don’t start off with Clark Kent as a reporter on the Daily Planet. We start with him struggling to accept who he is, wondering if the world will.

In this movie, the first thing that struck me was that the origins of Kal-El was explained very well. Why does Superman have a cape? We now know. Why does Superman wear a lycra-esque outfit? We now know. Why does he get affected by Kryptonite? WE NOW KNOW. Was Superman that egotistical to wear a massive “S” for Superman emblazoned on his mighty chest? Actually he wasn’t. A minor spoiler if you will: the “S” isn’t actually an S but it means “hope” on Krypton. Fair enough.

Krypton itself is detailed exquisitely. We learn a bit more about its society, about its people, and its fauna. We learn that the planet has indulged in breeding babies – with Kal-El being the first naturally born baby on Krypton in centuries. Fleshing his back story out has allowed the movie to take the story in a slightly different path yet stay true to the character.

Special mention to Kevin Costner for a fantastic performance as Jonathan Kent; there was a scene in the movie where Costner’s single hand gesture to Clark left me in tears. Absolutely loved him. Russell Crowe was excellent (as Jor-El) as well, delivering a measured performance as he is prone to do. Two absolutely moving appearances by these formidable thespians.

Michael Shannon as General Zod was a pretty good villain and thankfully doesn’t follow the cheesy villain pattern we’ve seen so far in this series. Although in terms of character development, I didn’t understand why he was doing what he did on Krypton or on Earth for that matter. What were his motivations? Did he really need to attack Earth? I suppose it’s sort of explained when he says he was bred to do all he could for his planet but it didn’t feel like a satisfactory enough explanation for me.

Amy Adams as Lois Lane? I wasn’t convinced. She doesn’t make the character very interesting and her pouty rendition of the line, “I’m a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist” served me to be put off by her more than anything else. And I’m sorry, but in the movie, HOW did she manage to follow Clark into that gaping hole in the mountain with no special equipment or skills? I’m sorry, what? How come she was the only one to figure out who he was?

Henry Cavill … aaah. I “discovered” him in the British TV series The Tudors, so when I found out he would be the next Clark Kent, I must admit I squealed a little. He tackled the role well, stayed restrained most of the time, letting his stolid demeanour rip where needed. A bit of it admittedly felt stiff, but by the end, I would imagine most audiences would accept him as the new Superman.

One of the gripes I had with the movie was its ending – oddly enough there was far too much action. At the end, it felt long and drawn out. I unfortunately reached a stage where I just wanted the movie to end. And that’s not a good thing. I’m no movie editor, and I’m sure the filmmakers had their reasons, but I do wish they had found a way to make the last few action scenes more concise.

Random mini-spoiler: the line at the end of the movie where someone asks Superman whether they can trust him not go against the “interests of America” made me laugh a little. What about making sure he doesn’t go against the world? Politicisation much?

Definitely a better Superman movie than the last reboot, Man of Steel packs a mighty punch. Expect no cheesy one-liners or red underpants outside the tight outfit. Expect a fast-paced tale to start off a potentially absorbing super-hero series.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey review

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the story of Bilbo Baggins and his adventures in Middle Earth. I read the book after I read, and saw, the Lord of the Rings series. I remember when I read the books thinking that The Hobbit was an easier and quicker read than LOTR. So when the news broke that it would be broken up into three movies, I was fairly confused. The movie did diminish that confusion somewhat, for which I am glad.

Peter Jackson, who did a marvellous job on LOTR, is back at the helm. This helps as it keeps the Middle Earth universe looking consistent. That said, I did not get the whole argument between 24fps and 48fps – perhaps I’m far too ignorant of film-making to understand what kind of difference this is meant to create.

I was a little surprised though – there were one or two points in the movie where…I can’t believe I’m saying this…it was painfully obvious some things on screen were CGI. One was when you see Smaug’s tail disappearing into Erebor, and another when the Eagles were flying over the mountains. I was not expecting that. Was this a result of the fps issue? Anyone more well-versed in these matters, please clue me in!

Anyway, the book, if you’ve read it, is meant for a younger audience but I’m not sure I was necessarily take children to this movie. Some action sequences, especially with the Wargs and Orcs might scare the young ones.

The acting is fantastic. Ian McKellen makes a fitting return as Gandalf, even though he inexplicably seems older than the LOTR movies (well yes, he’s obviously older, but bear in mind, the events of this movie are meant to take place well over half-a-century before LOTR). Martin Freeman does well as Bilbo Baggins, bringing a charming sense of humour and reality to the character – you forget he is Watson. He IS the hobbit. Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, the leader of the dwarf company, is magnificent. His kingly behaviour makes me think of Aragorn a lot. Excellent stuff right there.

The other dwarves are cast well, although it’s hard to say more since they don’t have, obviously, as much screentime as Thorin and Bilbo. I did get to see Aidan Turner’s Kili quite a bit, which is awesome (for me) since I’ve been a fan since watching BBC’s Being Human.

The villains…what have we got here? A fire-breathing dragon Smaug, whom we don’t really see (imagine my surprise when I found out Sherlock‘s and Star Trek‘s Benedict Cumberbatch is voicing the deadly dragon – AND another villain…coming up). A necromancer (Cumberbatch too apparently!) who is causing havoc in the forests of Mirkwood. Azog, the pale-skinned Orc, who has sworn revenge on Thorin for chopping off his hand (this isn’t in the book either). There’s even Saruman who makes a quick appearance, potentially to tie in this movie with LOTR – although those who will not have seen LOTR or read the books will not know the importance of his character, or the consequences/import of his appearance.

Gollum, however, is a star. Andy Serkis returns to his inspiring motion-capture performance as the schizophrenic creature, and it is his scene with Freeman/Baggins that makes The Hobbit worth the watch. Highly commendable part of the movie.

Purists might object, and they have. Why? LOTR, while making changes in the story with cinematic license, largely stuck to the books. The Hobbit definitely has the basic premise down pat: the dwarves wanting to reclaim their home and wealth along with the help of an unlikely ally, a hobbit. But what it doesn’t have is utter loyalty to the book.

Many changes have been brought on the script, including licenses taken with timelines as well as what was in the book. Who is Azog? Why is the necromancer in the movie at all? A Morgul blade? Where did Galadriel come from? I’ve read a lot of articles and listened to podcasts, and what I’ve taken away is this: using additional texts, appendices and unfinished works of Tolkien, the screenplay has encompassed parts of Middle Earth lore that relate to the tale in this book/movie, and which the makers thought would add to the entire storytelling. It does.

So my advice to the purists: buzz off. The movie is done well. Yes, cinematic license has been taken. Get over it. Or make the movie yourself and see if you can do it better.

Anyway, it may, at some times, seem slow. There were certain points where I did think: COME ON, MOVE ON! Some additions may seem stilted – for example, when the movie suddenly moved to Radagast the Brown (again, not there in the book AT ALL) in Mirkwood, it was beyond, beyond confusing for a few minutes. Who is he? Why is he there? Why are porcupines important, and … WHAT’S GOING ON?! I’m hoping all three movies will help put it all together, more neatly than this one felt.

Quick nod to the musical score…absolutely brilliant. Loved, loved, loved it.

While I do like the backstory and emphasis on motives and cause-and-effect that has been created in this movie, I’m wondering whether three movies were necessary. I’m hoping the next two installments will resoundingly tell me: Yes, we were.

My final verdict is that the movie was good – not as brilliant as I’d hoped, but I’ve a feeling the next two movies will more than make up for it. I’d say 3.75/5.

Note: This first installment of the trilogy spans the first six chapters of the book, along with more additions than I’d care to count.

Movie review: Avengers Assemble

When Loki decides to attack Earth, it’s up to the superheroes, Captain American, Iron Man, Thor, and Bruce Banner/The Incredible Hulk, along with the Black Widow, to step in and fight alongside Nick Fury.

That’s quite a few massive egos in one team. How does that work out?

Quite well actually, and one of the main reasons for this is that Joss Whedon, who was at the director’s helm, is a genius. 

It’s not easy to bring together four big guns into one ensemble, and then mix them with equally important supporting characters, and make it a success. But that’s exactly what Whedon does. Creator of the hit TV show Buffy along with Angel, Firefly and Dollhouse, Whedon has spun together a believable and strong tale of action, adventure, and lots of humour thrown in generously. And to no one’s surprise, every character has their own part to play, with no one cutting in to another’s role.

Robert Downey Jr.’s deprecating charm and wit is out there as always, and he’s managed to deliver his role as Iron Man/Tony Stark with an ease many would envy. Not just a comic element, his role portrays emotional power as well. Chris Evans does well as Captain America, although his perfection can seem annoying at some times. Chris Hemsworth is still rocking the Asgardian armour as Thor, delivering a strong and stable performance. Mark Ruffalo is perhaps the surprise as Bruce Banner. In his Banner role, he seems vulnerable, yet sweet, making a great contrast with his angry green half. And their chemistry together is amazing, which makes it all the more exciting to watch.

Tom Hiddleston’s Loki is evil to the core, making it great fun to watch them try to defeat him. His complicated, twisted mind has been shown well. 

Nick Fury, head of S.H.I.E.L.D. is suitably dangerous. Scarlett Johansson’s portrayal of Black Widow perhaps echoes more to those familiar with the Whedonverse of strong, intelligent women who have an emotional side. Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye had a smaller role but did it well, although a backstory there would’ve been more interesting. 

There are many scenes that lend themselves to a laughing audience, or one gripping their seats. I shall not, however, spoil it for you. There are alien races apart from the Asgardians, there are some absolutely hilarious comic moments – even during the climax action scenes – and there are some losses.

I saw the movie in 3D, and after the initial discomfort that sets in, I actually forgot I was watching it in 3D. I think though, that that’s what one needs: watching 3D and forgetting it’s in that format and immersing in the movie and how good it looks, without worrying whether the alien is going to fly straight towards your nose or not.

The movie may be slightly longer than most, at just over two hours, but is a fine amount of time to develop the story well and leave the audience waiting for more. And it’s not the CGI that dictates the flow of the movie, and for that I’m extremely thankful.

It’s a dysfunctional motley of heroes we’ve got, but they put on a show. And what a show it is, conducted by the ring leader, Joss Whedon, who must really take a bow for his accomplishment.

A super-hero film that relies on great acting, fine direction and a whole lot of gritty pizzazz. Watch this movie, because it’s one of those rare gems that really does live up to your expectations.

 

Book-to-movie adaptations; what do authors think about it? An @EmiratesLitFest panel.

An author, whom I must admit I hadn’t heard of before this year’s LitFest*, said something I whole-heartedly agreed with:

“It’s almost blasphemous to say this in a panel of writers, but a bad adaptation is when the movie is literal.” – Tom Rob Smith

*I shall add, Tom Rob Smith, that I’ve since purchased your book Child 44 and hope to dive into it soon.

He was speaking amidst the film panel at the Emirates Litfest 2012, on Friday, March 9. This was also my first session this year, and I’m happy to say I felt the weekend would go well with such a cracking start.

Img_0997

The panel consisted of Smith, Mark Billingham, Nicholas Sparks (whose solo session I already blogged about) and Chan Koonchung, and was chaired by Paul Blezard.

Movies and TV shows are such an integral part of my life; I’ve got rows and rows of (original) DVDs lining the shelves in my living room, and I’ve been known to maniacally click on Amazon.co.uk’s Black Friday deals two years in a row now – the first year I came away with the entire boxed collection of Agatha Christie’s Poirot, and the second time got Star Trek: The Original Series.

Poirot is perhaps a good starting point. Based on the books by whodunnit writer extraordinaire Agatha Christie, the TV-movies are mostly excellent adaptations of her stories. But not all movies get it right.

My friends know I quite love the Harry Potter series. But I’ve no qualms in admitting the first two movies in the franchise were, to me, absolutely awful. Why? One massive reason stood out amongst others: it was too literal. Which is what Smith said.

Img_1002-2

He went on to add that, in his opinion, the novel was the product, whereas the screenplay of the movie was the template. Sparks agreed with Smith and said as an author, one should be willing to see the movie “can be different from the novel”.

Img_0998
And while movies that strike a chord with people leads them to seek the inspiration behind the story, for example the book it was based on, Blezard posed a question on whether the reverse was true…whether bad movies reflected badly on the authors of the book.

Sparks said not. “No one associates the movie with the book if the movie is bad, but if the film is good you get a bump. They are like commercials for your book-writing career if they are done well.” Sparks has three of his books in various stages of movie production at present.
Img_0999
The problem with getting a movie to be an excellent adaptation is the essence of time. Blezard put it well; he conducted an experiment of sorts with a friend and here’s what he got out of it: “The average novel is about 120,000 words and it contains 700-800 events. The average movie is 120 minutes long and has 70-80 events and that’s why you lose so much of the essence of the book.”

Billingham had a similar point of view, I imagine, when he said short stories make better movies than novels, “because often great movies are the best of the heart of the novel than anything else.”

The authors agreed that getting to the essence of the book was important for getting a good movie; Sparks even commented on how the movie version of The Notebook was different from the book in treatment, that is, the life of the lead characters when they were young was given more air time than it was present in the book. Yet, he liked the movie because the essence of the book was captured.

I’m really glad the authors had to say this, because I’ve often had to deal with loyalists of books like Harry Potter, for example, who rant and rail about how the movie took liberty with the story, but from the third movie onwards, I’m so glad they did because clearly making it literal was just plain bad (an exception to this is in the last movie when I was actually really upset about how Voldemort was killed, but a minor quiffle after eight movies is not too bad, innit?).

When asked to pick their favourite book-to-movie adaptations, here’s what we got:
  • Smith – Jurassic Park
  • Billingham – Jaws and the Godfather series
  • Koonchung: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
  • Sparks: Forrest Gump
Img_1000

There was a bit of a hilarious discussion on how important an author on a movie set really is. Billingham said the writer probably comes below the caterer in the grand scheme of things. He added that most movie production teams ask if the writer wants to get involved and secretly hope they won’t get involved at all.

Even another session with YA horror author Darren Shan, later in the day, brought up the topic of movies. I haven’t seen the film myself, but Shan seemed surprised he was happy with it. He said: “I didn’t think I would like it (the movie), but I did. It wasn’t perfect but it was a nice freaky film. But I really liked the manga adaptation.”

Img_1017
Going back to the film panel, I really enjoyed the discussion that morning – along with discussing what the authors think of their books being brought to life, there was a lot of insight on how the film industry works and the lack of 100% control these authors have over the screenplay.

A lively session, which I’m glad, as a movie-buff and bookworm, I attended.

Movie Review – Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows

Many who have grown up reading Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes may not recognize the character in the movie version. Holmes in the movie is snappier, more prone to action, and so much more debonair.

When the first installment in the series came out in 2009, it enthralled. The second one is interesting, but in a different way. Game of Shadows has no substantial story to speak of (the movie’s storylines have nearly nothing to do with the ones we have read in the books). It’s basic: Professor Moriarty is unleashing himself on the world, with the dastardly plan of causing the first World War before its time and Holmes takes it on himself to stop him.

The actors slip into their roles easily. Robert Downey Jr is still the rogue-ish Holmes, and his banter with Jude Law’s Watson still making us chuckle. Rachel McAdams is wasted in her miniscule appearance as Irene Adler. Stephen Fry steps in to Mycroft Holmes feet and has his moments. Noomi Rapace is cast as a gypsy whom Moriarty is trying to kill for various reasons but fails to impress. Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan) appears…but you blink and he’s gone. Kelly Reilly rounds up Holmes’ supporters as Watson’s wife. Which brings us to Jared Harris as Professor Moriarty. When you see the trailers, he does not look like he can be menacing at all. He’s not. I was yearning for Mark Strong’s eerie and chilling portrayal of Lord Blackwood. Don’t get me wrong; Harris does his job well…but I’m not scared of him. And I want to be.

Guy Ritchie picks up the pace from the first movie and runs faster. The slow-motion sequences are aplenty, but the most eye-catching and attention-grabbing being a chase sequence set in a forest. Its direction lends a different viewpoint and indeed, a clearer idea, of what happens when the guns are blazing and people are running for their lives. By one point though, the amount of slow-motion shots in the movie make you want to close your eyes and wait for it to be over.

It’s not really a detective story by this point, but more an action adventure. There is a quick nod to The Final Problem but that’s as close to the books as you’re going to get.

As Holmes himself said: “It’s so overt, it’s covert.”

Review – Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (Part 2) | The Graduate Times

Review – Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (Part 2)

Devina Divecha reviews the highly anticipated final installment in the Harry Potter series – CAUTION – SOME SPOILERS

Review – Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (Part 2)

★★★★☆

It’s the last bow for The Boy Who Lived. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), along with his friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), work towards finding the remaining Horcruxes (the objects that have pieces of Voldemort’s soul in them) and destroying them.

Being the last film in an epic series spanning 10 years, there are a lot of expectations from this movie. Have David Yates, the director, and Steve Kloves, the screenwriter, made it worth the wait?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 takes off where the first one left us: Dobby’s death and Voldemort finding The Elder Wand in Dumbledore’s grave. The film gives us about ten minutes of peace, and from then on viewers are taken on a rollercoaster ride.

Harry, Ron and Hermione embark on robbing Gringotts Wizarding Bank, having an encounter with a dragon, and then facing the Death Eaters in not one, but two battles at Hogwarts. Voldemort and his Death Eaters are there every step of the way to foil the trio’s plans. And we get to see almost every member of the Harry Potter series since it started, making blink-and-you-miss-them and cameo appearances.

The lead actors have grown so much from when we first saw them in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson have grown into fine young actors. I’ve always had a problem with Watson’s acting, but I couldn’t fault her this time. A special mention goes out to Helena Bonham Carter, who got Watson’s portrayal of Hermione down to a tee, in the scenes where Hermione is disguised as Bellatrix Lestrange.

Dame Maggie Smith shone as Professor McGonagall, her quips making me laugh: “I’ve always wanted to use that spell!” or, “…had a particular proclivity for pyrotechnics”. The famous “Not my daughter, you bitch!” scene between Molly Weasley (Julie Walters) and Lestrange (Bonham Carter) was anti-climactic, as it felt rushed, chopped and not given its due attention.

Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape makes many cry in this one, where the truth of his character’s innocence is revealed, along with his undying love for Lily Potter. Ralph Fiennes is inspired as Voldemort; he is chilling, as well as awe-inspiring. He truly makes you think of the line: “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things. Terrible things, but great.”

The battle sequences are nothing short of fantastic – we see Hogwarts and its surrounding areas in a larger scale than ever before. Kudos to the set designers. In addition, seeing the movie in 3D has its benefits: Nagini the snake, the dragon, and the Dementors look even better and menacing than we could have ever hoped.

There are a few details that have been changed, but it can be brushed away by the benefits it brings to the movie adaptation. However, there is one major scene in the movie where viewers are left feeling underwhelmed, and many may have cried out: “Wait? THAT’S IT?”  I know I did.

One major gripe aside, the final instalment in the series is a worthy one. It is full of action, emotion, and excellent performances. Goodbye Harry Potter.