Movie Review: PIRANHA 3DD

PIRANHA 3DD

2012

R

"Welcome to rock bottom."

-- David Hasselhoff

Piranha 3DD is a 2012 horror-comedy directed by John Gulager that serves as a sequel to the 2010 film, Piranha 3D. The film opens with a news story telling us that the Lake Victoria massacre has left the town abandoned, and the reporter questions whether another such incident could possibly happen again. Fast forward one year, and we're now in the confines of a small Arizona town, where Chet (David Koechner) is preparing to re-open his late wife's water park as a not-so-family-friendly play-place, much to the chagrin of his step-daughter Maddy (Danielle Panabaker). After a close friend goes missing, Maddy discovers that the now-infamous piranha have migrated to the lake just outside the water park. Fearing for a spree similar to the spring break massacre, Maddy, her friend Barry (Matt Bush) and deputy Kyle (Chris Zylka) make their way to Lake Victoria to seek the aid of Carl Goodman (Christopher Lloyd). What they learn from him incites a new level of terror, and Maddy rushes back to the water park to plead with Chet to postpone the grand re-opening.

As I've said on so many different occasions, I couldn't begin to express my excitement for this sequel to the smash 2010 hit. I became an instant fan of Piranha 3D, and after I heard that a sequel had been greenlit, I waited (im)patiently for its ultimate release. There were to be a lot of changes: Alexandre Aja would not be returning to direct, and we were losing the basic setting of Lake Victoria. At the same time, we would see some familiar faces with returns from Lloyd, Ving Rhames and Paul Scheer. And, ultimately, we were going to have piranhas wreaking havoc. What's not to like, right? It took nearly two years, but I finally had the opportunity to sit down and watch Piranha 3DD.

What I'm about to say is a little bit discouraging: I don't know how I feel about the film. On the one hand, I thought that there was enough to make this an entertaining film, but at the same time, I honestly think that I've been gypped of so many months of waiting for something that's even a shell of what it predecessor achieved. Sadly, that can't necessarily be said about Piranha 3DD.

While the first film didn't necessarily have a plot, there was still a series of events that the audience was able to follow. This time around, however, nothing truly seems to be interconnected. We have one scene where something happens, then another where something else happens, then another and another. And yet, there's no flow to the narrative. It's simply one attack to another, with a little bit of exposition here and there. But there's nothing really to which the audience can cling, and that's going to leave a few people dazed and bored. 

One of the other reasons that Piranha 3D proved so entertaining is that we could actually care about the characters on-screen. Sure, the film didn't offer the greatest acting, but the characters were fleshed out just enough to make them redeemable and endearing. We knew who to love and who to hate, and that worked quite well in swaying us towards cheering for or against certain characters. In Piranha 3DD, we never get that. We know who we're supposed to like and who we're supposed to hate, but we just can't muster enough energy to have those emotions towards any of the characters. Some of the cameos prove to be rather entertaining, but even those are a little bit fleeting. Still, Lloyd gets to have a little more screen-time this time around, and even David Hasselhoff manages to evoke a few chuckles here and there. And yes, Gary Busey is in this movie, but his scene is over so quickly that you'll forget about it a few minutes later.

At the end of the day, Piranha 3DD is, at best, a shell of its predecessor, and a hollow shell at that. While there are a few redeemable moments, there just isn't enough to keep the film moving along as well as it should. Perhaps Piranha 3D was meant to be a novelty success, and although I can't completely hate this new piranha-centric film, I can't say that I love it either. I'm just on the fence, and sometimes, that's the last place a film wants a viewer to be. 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: D

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: MEN IN BLACK III

MEN IN BLACK III

2012

PG-13

"I promised the secrets of the universe, nothing more."

-- Agent K

Men in Black III is a 2012 sci-fi comedy directed by Barry Sonnenfeld that serves as the third installment in the Men in Black film franchise and the first to hit theaters since 2002. After a dangerous killer named Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement) escapes from his lunar prison, he heads back to Earth to find and kill Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones), who had captured and imprisoned him forty years earlier as he had attempted to aid in an interplanetary invasion. He devises a plan to go back in time to kill a younger K so that he will no longer exist in the present. Soon afterward, K disappears from the present day, leading to emotional unrest for his partner Agent J (Will Smith), who then follows Boris into the past to keep him from exacting his plan. When he reaches 1969, he finds a young K (Josh Brolin), and the two work together, with the help of a solitary alien named Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg), to stop Boris from destroying the planet.

It's been fifteen years since the first Men in Black film turned into a box office smash back, and it's been ten years since we last saw Smith and Jones team up as the alien-fighting team we've grown to know and love. Although I've enjoyed the past two entries in the series, I can't say that I was ever the biggest fan of the films. Still, they proved to be entertaining enough for me to want to see this latest installment, and the addition of actors like Brolin, Clement and Stuhlbarg definitely made the concept a little more intriguing.

Let's start with the screenplay. Although the film doesn't necessarily break any ground on bringing forth new ideas, it still manages to be entertaining. The jokes and gags are pretty consistent, and although I was never l rolling with laughter, I still managed to offer a chuckle here and there. The storyline proves to be engaging, and even though the idea of cinematic time travel has been tried and tested, it still manages to feel fresh in this one. And we're even getting a few twists and turns here and there, some of which I didn't predict until they happened. Ultimately, the story allows the viewer to enter the film and remain engaged with it throughout the film, and for that, it should be commended.

We're also getting a slew of decent performances from the cast. Smith and Jones are their standard selves, but this is really Smith's vehicle. Because of the story's constructs, Jones only appears in the early and later moments of the film. Fortunately, we're getting a clever impersonation job from the likes of Brolin in the intermediary moments. When I first saw the trailers for the film introducing Brolin as the younger Agent K, I immediately thought him to be a fine choice purely based off his look. After seeing the film, however, I can say that Brolin does a fine job filling the shoes, and he proves to bring most of the film's comedy to the table. I also thought that Stuhlbarg managed to steal the show with his performance, and if there's any reason to see the film, it's him alone. Also be on the watch for decent bits from the likes of Clement, Emma Thompson, Nicole Scherzinger and Bill Hader in a cameo appearance.

At the end of the day, Men in Black III might not be the best in the franchise, but it still proves to be an entertaining venture and pleasant addition to the franchise's overall storyline. It fills in a lot of questions that fans may have had about the characters, and even manages to flesh out our two leads a little bit further. For that, I think we can all be appreciative.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You See It? Yes

Movie Review: INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

1989

PG-13

"You call this archaeology?"

-- Professor Henry Jones

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a 1989 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the third installment in the Indiana Jones franchise. This film once again sees our hero, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) doing battle against the Nazis, who are once again on a quest to find a a famous Christian artifact: the Holy Grail. Indy is brought into the chase after wealthy artifact collector Walter Donovan (Julian Glover), who is funding an expedition for the Grail, tells him that his father, Henry Jones Sr. (Sean Connery), has gone missing whilst researching the Grail's whereabouts. Indiana immediately flies to Venice, Italy to pick up the trail where his father left off. He's joined by his close friend Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), and the two join forces with the young Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody), who had been assisting the elder Jones in his search. As the three dig deeper into the Grail legend, it becomes increasingly clear that there are many sides to the tale, both of the Grail and of the people on the journey.

Fans of the Indiana Jones franchise had to wait five years after Temple of Doom for The Last Crusade to hit theaters, but many of them found it to be quite the return to form. It definitely feels a lot more like Raiders of the Lost Ark, and many a fan greatly appreciated the switch back to that particular feel. I've always found to be The Last Crusade my personal favorite in the series, even if it's not necessarily the best of the bunch. There's something incredibly endearing about it as a movie, and it's entertainment factor is only matched by the franchise's first installment.

Part of the reason this film proves to be so good is the fact that we're getting what might arguably be the best screenplay in the franchise. On the one hand, we're getting a clever tale that rivals the quest for the Ark of the Covenant from Raiders, and the twists and turns with that part of the story make this one engaging and entertaining by themselves. It's some of the other facets, however, that push The Last Crusade over the top. The characterization provided by this particular screenplay is the best of the series by far, and for the first time since Raiders, we're given a true sense of being from the Indiana character. We're seeing multiple dimensions added to the character throughout the film, and by film's end, the audience can clearly see that he has changed. And he's not the only character who offers quite a spectacle. By introducing Indy's father into the series, we finally get to see the relationship between Henry Jones Sr. and Henry Jones Jr. We could've made a movie solely centered around that particular relationship, and it probably would've proved to be incredibly insightful and clever, but there's something even deeper going on here.

Although there's always been a facet of either religion or magic or mysticism or what have you in each of the Indiana Jones films, we never really get the sense that Indiana himself is starting to buy into all the hoopla. In Raiders, he merely understands the power of the Ark, but it's not as though he truly comes to respect it. In Temple of Doom, we get a look at an older, more pagan religion, so there wasn't really any sense of conversion on Indy's part. In The Last Crusade, however, there's a definite change in beliefs and ideas on the part of our hero. In order to complete his journey, he's almost required to go through a spiritual conversion, and that bit of personal growth is what makes this film all the more powerful. I know that I only hours ago stated that Temple of Doom was easily the most emotionally powerful of the Indiana Jones films, but after re-watching The Last Crusade, I think I have to change my opinion. With the spiritual change and the relationship between Indy and his father, there's no doubt in my mind that the screenplay allows for this one to take the emotional cake.

The strong characterization in the screenplay also allows for the actors to bring forth some fantastic performances. Of all the Indiana Jones films, I'd have to rank this as the best-acted by Harrison Ford, and a lot of it has to do with the aforementioned points of the script. It gave him the opportunity to flesh out Indy a little bit more than he had been able to do in the previous films, and for that, I think he owes the screenplay a debt of gratitude. It's also a pleasure to see the great Sean Connery on-screen, especially in what might be his most iconic role aside from his numerous portrayals of James Bond. The chemistry between Ford and Connery is so authentic that you'd even start to believe that they could be real-life father and son. They just work that well together. It's astounding, really. We're also getting some good performances from the likes of Doody and Donovan, who's more René Belloq than Mola Ram, and I think that works for the better. Also be on the watch for a short cameo from River Phoenix as a young Indiana Jones that proves to be rather entertaining. The only issue that I had with the acting was the performances by Denholm Elliott and John Rhys-Davies, who both reprise their roles from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Whereas they were both relatively serious characters in the first film, they seem to be more caricatures of themselves this time around. Now, this might be what the screenplay calls for, but it was just a little bit off-putting for me.

And, once again, we're getting a fantastic score from John Williams, who brings a lot of new pieces for this particular film to accentuate the march he established in the first film. One of my favorite pieces from this film is the score he gave to the Grail, which proves to be rather powerful and beautiful, in my opinion. Here's a snippet for your listening pleasure:

At the end of the day, I'd have to say that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is probably my favorite film in the franchise. Although it's not quite as good as the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, the characterization and spirituality of this film pushes it over the top in terms of personal preference. Ultimately, it's one of my go-to films whenever I need a pick-me-up because it just manages to blend all of its themes and tones together so perfectly. It's just a beautifully-made film, and I have to tip my hat to Spielberg for having the guts to give the Christianity bit another go-around. Kudos, good sir.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You Watch It? Yes

Trailer Breakdown: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

When the teaser trailer for the upcoming 2012 Christopher Nolan-directed film The Dark Knight Rises was released over the summer, I had every intention of creating a trailer breakdown for it. The time came and went, however, and the idea was tossed to the scrap pile. Now, we have two full-length trailers that have been released for the film, and I find it only fitting to bring you a trailer breakdown not only for the new trailers but also for the teaser I so terribly forgot. As I always do with my trailer breakdowns, I have gone through and watched the trailers a number of times and have written down some questions and comments that came to mind. Below for your viewing pleasure are the three trailers followed by their respective questions. Let me know if you thought of anything else while watching these videos - there's a high chance there is something I might have missed.

Now that you've been reminded of the teaser trailer, here are the thoughts I had whilst watching it:

1. One of the most prevalent images in the teaser trailer is that of the crumbling skyscrapers that ultimately form the "Batman" insignia. What might this mean?
Despite the penchant for the dramatic, I think this image is rather easy to decipher. If we remember the end of 2008's The Dark Knight, we have the Joker (Heath Ledger) behind bars, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) deceased, and the Batman (Christian Bale) run out of town and believed to be the villain. Because Dent supposedly will assume the graces as the hero and the evilest mastermind that Gotham has seen is now locked away, it might be safe to say that Gotham experienced a bit of a renaissance in terms of a drop in crime. However, with the visage of Bane (Tom Hardy) looming on the horizon, one can only imagine the destruction that Gotham soon faces. In a sense, the image of a crumbling Gotham is a sign of things to come.

2. Speaking of Bane, we actually catch a glimpse of him here in the teaser.
While this is a little old news by now, the teaser trailer was the first time anyone truly got to see Tom Hardy all done up as our central antagonist, Bane. Adorned with a massive breathing apparatus on his face and head, he still manages to send a shiver down the spine. We even get to see him square off against Batman in the final images in the trailer in what's sure to be a wonderfully-choreographed fight.

3. We're getting a lot of images and dialogue from the previous films. What gives?
I think this was done for a few of reasons. First, I think the filmmakers wanted to give everyone a recap of what had happened in the previous films while setting up this final chapter with something familiar. Secondly, I think they wanted to emphasize the finality of this film. Regardless of box office output and accolades, this will be the final installment in Nolan's Batman trilogy. They have two title cards that say, "Every hero has a journey. Every journey has an end." We also get a voice-over using dialogue from Liam Neeson's character in Batman Begins that says the following:

If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, then you become something else entirely. A legend, Mr. Wayne. A legend.

And, at the end of the trailer, we get another title card that says, "The Legend Ends." All of this ties together to emphasize the finality of this film. Finally, I think that, by using older scenes, they didn't have to use as much material from the new film, which is probably a plus for them given the nature of how popular this movie will probably be.

4. What exactly is Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) saying in this trailer?
I remember that when this teaser first premiered, there was a lot of debate as to what exactly Oldman's character was saying while lying on the hospital bed. After a number of listens, here's what I was able to scrape out (Note: the conversation also includes a line from Christian Bale, either as Batman or as Bruce Wayne):

Gordon: We were in this together, and then you were gone. Now there is evil rising. The Batman has to come back.
Wayne: What if he doesn't exist anymore?
Gordon: He must... he must...

Now that that part's out of the way, let's talk about what it might mean. Obviously Gordon is referencing how he and Batman had worked together to bring down the crime in Gotham, but once Batman left, Gordon was left alone, waiting for evil to return. He knows he cannot combat it on his own, so he's essentially pleading for Batman to return to Gotham and reinstate himself as the vigilante power he once was. Wayne is obviously doubting whether he could possibly reprise his role as the Batman, but Gordon insists it must happen if Gotham is to remain alive.


And now, for the first full-length trailer:

So there's the first full-length trailer for The Dark Knight Rises; let's see what I thought about while watching it:

1. What's with the football game and the kid singing "The Star Spangled Banner?"
Right when I first saw this trailer, that was my initial thought. If you were only working off that first image, you would probably never guess that this was a trailer for a Batman film; however, it ultimately comes into play later in the trailer when we see Bane set off explosives that cause the football field to collapse. For those of you who may have seen the seven-minute prologue for this film at theaters in the past week or so, you'll know that Bane is going to be portrayed as a terrorist rather than your average criminal. That being said, his destruction of a public place seems to fit the mold a little bit better. And, with the crooning of the national anthem throughout the trailer, there's this odd sense of foreboding that the music somehow fits perfectly. It's an eerie combination, but somehow Nolan makes it work here.

2. What is all this talk about "war heroes" and "peacetime?"
The first mention of this in the trailer comes when Commissioner Gordon is coming up to give a speech at what appears to be a memorial for Harvey Dent. Two men in the crowd discuss how the mayor is going to let Gordon go in the next few months because he's a "war hero," and those aren't needed in times of peace. If you recall what I said about the concept of a "crumbling Gotham" back at the top of this post, I think this idea makes a little more sense. Allegedly, The Dark Knight Rises will take place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, meaning that there has been an extended time of peace and prosperity in Gotham. As a result, the mayor may think that Gordon is no longer necessary in his position. As we see later in the trailer, however, a new evil is, indeed, rising, as is evidenced by the quote, "There's a storm coming," which is said a little later in the trailer. It looks as though Gotham might be getting ready to experience a scene of utter and complete chaos.

3. Who is that woman dancing with Bruce Wayne?
This is actually our first real look at Selina Kyle, more commonly known as Catwoman, who will be portrayed by Anne Hathaway. Although we're not getting a ton of detail from the trailer, I think it's safe to say that Hathaway looks to be a bit feisty in this one, and I'm sure we can all breathe a heavy sigh of relief.

4. We get our "first" real snippet of Bane's dialogue in this trailer, but what does he say?
For those of you who have seen the film's prologue, you might know that there has been quite a discussion about Bane's dialogue in the film. I personally have not seen the prologue, but I know that many a moviegoer is scratching their head as to what exactly Bane said in his scenes. We do get one line of dialogue from him in this trailer, and it reads as follows:

When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die.

Because he has a breathing apparatus, it may be a tad bit difficult to understand exactly what he's going to be saying. I read an article chronicling the prologue that talked about how an unintelligible villain may have been Nolan's only real option after having an over-the-top and charismatic villain in Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. To go in the polar opposite direction, Nolan may have done just enough to distance his Bane from his Joker so that audiences won't necessarily be able to compare the two. Instead, they'll be able to look at each villain as an individual and see how effective they actually are.

5. Finally, is the film going to get too bogged down with too many big-time stars?
I often ask this question whenever a film looks to have a massive cast list that includes a lot of A-list actors. Sometimes ensembles can work, but often times, there's just too much bravado on-screen for the audience to handle. Generally, I have faith in Nolan and his direction, so I'm holding out hope that this will all work out; however, here's a look at the major players who will be appearing in this film, some of whom I've already mentioned:

Christian Bale (as Bruce Wayne / Batman)
Tom Hardy (as Bane)
Gary Oldman (as Jim Gordon)
Anne Hathaway (as Selina Kyle / Catwoman)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (as John Blake)
Marion Cotillard (as Miranda Tate)
Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox)
Michael Caine (as Alfred)
Juno Temple (as Holly Robinson)

I don't know about you, but that seems like quite the crowded screen...


And now, for the latest full-length trailer:

Now that you've had the chance to watch the latest trailer, take a look at the thoughts that crossed my mind while watching it:

1. We're seeing a lot of familiar faces in the trailer, but we're also being introduced to what may be a bigger character than previously anticipated. What's up with that?

As you may have noticed, we are seeing quite a few characters from previous films as well as some we've already met in past trailers. We catch glimpses of Batman, Catwoman, Gordon, Lucius Fox, Alfred and Bane, but the biggest change here is that we're getting our first real look at Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character. As of right now, all that is really known about the character is that his name is John Blake, and he's a beat cop assigned to work under Gordon. However, if you've been listening to the rumor mill as of late, there's a little bit of talk that John Blake may be the character that stands up to take Batman's place should something terrible befall our hero. Perhaps it's just Internet rumor, but I wouldn't doubt Nolan taking a chance to leave his mark on the franchise.

2. I also thought there was a lot more action in this trailer.
Although previous trailers - as well as the previous films in Nolan's Batman saga - have shown quite a bit of action, I never truly thought of these films as strictly action-based. However, there's definitely quite a bit happening in this latest trailer. We're getting snippets of the opening scene - the one with Bane on the airliner - that has already been played for millions of fans, but it's the second half of this trailer that truly shows quite a bit of battle. We even catch a glimpse or two of hand-to-hand combat between Bane and Batman, which should be quite the treat for the audience.

3. Speaking of a fight between Bane and Batman... I thought I saw Bane holding a broken Batman mask?
Your eyes did not deceive you. As we've already seen in one of the film's teaser posters, this trailer confirms that there will be a scene in which Bane will toss away a broken Batman mask. In one strain of the comic books, Bane is the villain who finally kills Batman, and there's been a lot of talk as to whether Nolan will be going that route with his saga. The continued images of a broken down Batman and Bruce Wayne make it seem as though this might be the case, and this trailer even goes so far as to suggest that Bane may have a bit of a personal vendetta against Wayne. At one point, after hurting and terrorizing our hero, Bruce asks Bane why he didn't just kill him. Bane simply replies, "Your punishment must be more severe."

4. Should we still be worried that we won't be able to understand Bane?
After the first few trailers were released, there was a growing panic amongst fans that Bane may be entirely inaudible. I'm not sure whether this trailer debunks that idea or if we've just grown accustomed to trying to figure out his dialogue, but he seemed to speak more clearly this time around. The quote I gave you above is easily the most understandable line he's uttered in the trailers, but even another line - "I'm Gotham's reckoning" - is moderately understandable. Perhaps there's hope after all.

5. What will the relationship between Batman and Catwoman be?
It's starting to seem more and more apparent that the two will be allies during the film. The first full-length trailer made it seem as though the two might have a bit of a conflicted relationship, but this new one shows them working side-by-side on many an occasion. The two do happen to have one of the more interesting dialogue exchanges in the new trailer, however:

Catwoman: You don't owe these people any more. You've given them everything.
Batman: Not everything. Not yet.

I'll let your mind run wild with what that might mean. I have too many theories running through my head at the moment. 

6. Holy smokes, Batman! Is that the Batwing? 
Yes. Yes, it is. We finally catch a glimpse of the Batwing, and boy does it already look glorious. I know the cast and crew had some issues with the Batwing during filming, but the final product looks as though it should bring quite a bit to the table. I suppose we'll still have to wait and see.

*****

Ultimately, all of these questions will have to wait until the film is released this summer. Until then, I can tell you that I'll be waiting (im)patiently until I am able to see the film hit the big screen.

The Dark Knight Rises will be released in U.S. theaters on July 20, 2012.

Trailer Breakdown: THE BOURNE LEGACY

All of the fans of the Bourne film franchise received a bit of a treat today with the release of the first trailer for the upcoming fourth installment, The Bourne Legacy. Although I'm not a huge fan of the series myself, I am somewhat looking forward to this particular film based on some of the changes that have been made. The trailer proves to be more of a teaser than a full-blown preview, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a lot to talk about. Here's the trailer for your viewing pleasure, and I'll break it down and bring up the important topics afterward:

And now, for the questions that arose while I watched the trailer:

1. The first image we get is that of a beaten and bruised Jeremy Renner. What's the deal?
This is probably our first glimpse into the storyline of this particular film. As the images flash by, we learn that Renner's character is a soldier in the same mold of Jason Bourne. With each passing second, we see a stronger and more healthy-looking man until we finally get a full picture of him. In a sense, the first half of this trailer is giving us what will probably be the film's opening sequences, and this bit of exposition sets the tone of the film quite nicely.

2. Wait a second. Where's Matt Damon?
When this film was first announced, Damon was set and scheduled to return as his ever-famous Jason Bourne, and director Paul Greengrass was set to return as well. In 2009, however, Greengrass expressed disinterest in directing another Bourne film, and Damon soon stated that he would not appear in the film without Greengrass at the helm. Because Universal Pictures still wanted to release the film, a few changes had to be made. The biggest change is that of our lead star, which will be Jeremy Renner for at least this film, if not more in the franchise as well. I personally think that this is a step in the right direction for the franchise. While I don't hate Damon as an actor, I personally couldn't find him all that believable in his role as Jason Bourne. Renner has already made a name for himself in a few action-oriented flicks (most recently in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol), so giving him the star treatment here should work out well.

3. If Paul Greengrass isn't directing, who is?
Tony Gilroy has been attached to this film since 2010, so he shall serve as director for this film. It's not all that shocking if you don't recognize his name immediately, seeing as this is only his third directorial effort, and his first since 2009's Duplicity. While I did not see that film and therefore cannot comment on it, I did see his debut effort - 2007's Michael Clayton - for which Gilroy earned both Academy Award nominations for Best Director and Best Original Screenplay. Also, Gilroy has written or co-written the previous three Bourne films and has done so with this installment as well, so we can rest assured that he knows and understands the franchise. Still, we may have to wait and see whether he truly has directing chops or if he was simply a one-hit wonder.

4. We know about Jeremy Renner, but who else will star in this film?
We get a few glimpses at some of the supporting talent that will be joining Renner in this Bourne installment. We have three major actors - Joan Allen, David Strathairn and Scott Glenn - from past films in the trilogy who will be reprising their roles. Also immediately noticeable in the trailer is Edward Norton, who should bring his typical brilliance to the screen. Also be on the watch for the likes of Rachel Weisz, Oscar Isaac, Corey Stoll and Stacy Keach.

5. Where does this film fit chronologically with the rest of the franchise?
They're calling it a "sidequel," or a full spin-off with a new character who will have to handle the ramifications and consequences created by the Bourne character in the first three films. In a sense, it sounds like it will portray a story that runs parallel with parts of the previous trilogy, which should offer some interesting twists and turns if they manage to interplay the two storylines. That might not be on their to-do list without Matt Damon, but we'll see how it all plays out.

*****

Ultimately, it looks as though The Bourne Legacy should be bringing an action-packed experience to the movie theaters once it's released. There are quite a few changes from the previous trilogy's storyline, but with a new face in the lead and a spirited and knowledgeable director, here's to hoping that we'll be in for quite a treat.

The Bourne Legacy is slated for release in the United States and Canada on August 3, 2012. It will hit the United Kingdom two weeks later on August 17.

Movie Review: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL

2011
PG13


"Next time, I get to seduce the rich guy."
-- Brandt

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is a 2011 action film directed by Brad Bird that serves as the fourth installment, and the first since 2006, in the Mission: Impossible film franchise. We open on Agent Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) breaking Agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) out of a Serbian prison. With intel he received during his stay, the trio sets out to learn the identity of a so-called 'Cobalt' (Michael Nyqvist) who supposedly wants to start a nuclear war. When Cobalt alerts the Russian guards of their presence, however, the team barely escapes as Cobalt blows up the Kremlin, sending the Russian government into a frenzy as they take the attack as an undeclared act of war from the United States. After their escape, Hunt learns that the Impossible Missions Force (IMF) has been dissolved in response to the Kremlin attack and that any retaliation against Cobalt will have to be done with the help of the United States government. Aided by an analyst named Brandt (Jeremy Renner), Hunt and his team try to locate Cobalt and stop his plan to start a nuclear war.

Those of you who have been reading me for a while will know that I drafted a trailer breakdown for this film back in June 2011. At the time, I was moderately excited to see another addition to this franchise, but I wondered about the reasoning behind bringing it back to the big screen. After a five year absence, Mission: Impossible III seems like a distant - and entirely forgettable - memory, so despite the fact that all three previous films have fared well monetarily, I didn't really see the reason for creating another installment.

That being said, I have to say I was thoroughly surprised when the film opened to spectacular reviews. It currently holds a 93% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, which offers the following critical consensus:

Stylish, fast-paced, and loaded with gripping set pieces, the fourth Mission: Impossible is big-budget popcorn entertainment that really works.

In that regard, I suppose Ghost Protocol is a success. I found myself thoroughly entertained by the visual effects and the non-stop action, but is that all it takes to make a good movie?

Generally, I'd say the answer is no. It takes a number of factors to create a great movie, but in my own personal opinion, the two biggest factors are the screenplay and the level of acting within any given film. Let's start with Ghost Protocol's screenplay, shall we? While it's not necessarily offering anything all that brilliant, we do get a relatively entertaining story that adds a few twists and turns to keep the audience guessing. Although we all can readily assume how the story will probably end, the journey to reach our final destination is bumpy and loaded with excitement, which is exactly what the doctor ordered for a film like this. Sure, it's not a brilliant storyline, and it's not bringing anything new to the table, but there's something steady and familiar about this one that makes it all the more endearing. Had the screenwriters attempted to break the mold, they may not have been as successful. Instead, they merely bent the mold here and there to create something a little bit different, and I thought it worked splendidly.

The acting in the film also isn't all that spectacular, but it works within the constructs of an action film in the 21st century. Cruise brings the same character we've seen three times before, and although he's still the film's centerpiece, I feel like he does drop back a little bit and lets his supporting cast shine from time to time. That was always one of my issues with the previous Mission: Impossible films: they always seemed like Cruise-centric flicks that spiraled into drivel rather quickly. This time, however, there's a better combination of personalities, and each is given their chance to strut their stuff. Patton is very good as our main female lead, and although her character isn't given much depth, she does well with what she has. Pegg serves up enough comic relief to keep the film moving along. Renner is the revelation in the film, bringing his high-caliber acting skills to this franchise and offering a great foil to Cruise's Hunt. We also get a good performance from Nyqvist, who I recognized from the Swedish Millennium trilogy, which starts with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Also be on the lookout for a couple of cameos and familiar faces along the way.

One of the questions I posed in my trailer breakdown for Ghost Protocol was whether or not Brad Bird would be able to direct a successful live-action film. Before this, he had only directed animated films, so to make his live-action debut with such a storied franchise couldn't have been easy. Suffice it to say, I do think he's created the best Mission: Impossible film to date - although that's not saying a whole lot considering the caliber of the three previous films - so for that, he should be applauded. At the end of the day, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is a fun film that's sure to keep you entertained. Just don't try to over-think it.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+
1.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: A VERY HAROLD & KUMAR 3D CHRISTMAS

A VERY HAROLD & KUMAR 3D CHRISTMAS

2011
R


"Koreans have killed his mother and now his tree. Christmas is ruined."
-- Harold

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas is a 2011 comedy directed by Todd Strauss-Schulson that serves as the third installment in the Harold & Kumar franchise and the first since 2008's Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. This film shows the audience that Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) have drifted apart over a number of years, after Harold married his longtime sweetheart Maria (Paula Garcés), but after a random package addressed to Harold appears on the doorstep of the two's old apartment, they're thrust into one of their old adventures. When Kumar goes to return the package, he learns that Harold is stuck in a feud with Maria's father (Danny Trejo), who is a stickler for having a perfect Christmas. While Maria and the family go to Midnight Mass, Harold agrees to decorate the tree. In a mishap similar to the ones they've had in the past, Harold and Kumar find themselves in desperate need of a new tree before the Mass ends.

When I first heard about the plans for another addition to the Harold & Kumar franchise, I have to admit I was skeptical about the prospects for its success. Having been a fan of the first film, I was sorely disappointed by the lackluster effort put forth in the franchise's second outing. Add the fact that this little number was announced to be in the third-dimension, and all bets were off on my thinking it might actually be a decent film. However, it actually garnered a series of positive reviews - the film currently holds a 72% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com - so considering my affection towards the first film, I figured I'd give it a shot.

While the screenplay isn't exactly something to rave about, we're actually given a pleasant surprise. Like the other two films, our heroes' sole focus revolves around one particular desire - in this case, finding a replacement Christmas tree - but as they try to succeed in their plan, a slew of misadventures get in their way. While their adventures this time around hearken back to their standard drug- and alcohol-instilled scenarios of old, the addition of a bit of Christmas flavor brings a new bit of sugar and spice to the franchise. The screenwriters found a way to instill as many Christmas clichés as they can possibly conjure, and they all play to hilarious effect. We even get a bit of a drug-induced clay-mation sequence that ties in quite nicely.

Our central cast is just as good as it has been in the past. The reunion of Cho and Penn is a glorious one to behold, but there's a slew of smaller performances and cameos that definitely deserve mention as well. Trejo does a fantastic job in a limited role, and it's always a pleasure to see him on-screen. We're also getting great supporting performances from Thomas Lennon and Amir Blumenfeld (famous for his work at CollegeHumor.com). There are also some great performances from some of the smaller characters, but I think there's only one real reason that anyone should be ecstatic to see this movie: Neil Patrick Harris. Having appeared in the previous two installments, it was a safe bet that NPH would make another appearance this time around; however, his role this time was a little bit shorter than it has been in the past, but it just might be his funniest bit yet. We even get an appearance from his real-life partner David Burtka, as the two turn their real-life relationship on its ear. So to sum it all up, our ensemble cast is rather fantastic and proves to be simply hilarious.

But past all that, what's really fascinating is that, in between all the raunchiness and irreverent humor, there's a little bit of heart that shines through it all. It's a nice touch, and it's not something we've seen in a Harold & Kumar film to this point, and I think that sets this one apart from its predecessors.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B
1.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3

http://thismovieguy.blogspot.com/search/label/Lauren%20BittnerPARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3

2011
R

Paranormal Activity 3 is a 2011 horror film directed by Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost that serves as a prequel to 2010's Paranormal Activity 2 despite being the franchise's third installment. The home video footage takes us back to 1988 where we see a young Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) dealing with the arrival of our favorite demonic presence. Kristi starts to talk about her imaginary friend "Toby," but her mother Julie (Lauren Bittner) starts to think she's letting her imagination go a little too far. Julie's boyfriend Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith), however, has his curiosity piqued when unexplainable events start to occur around the house. He sets up a number of his video cameras in order to record and document the phenomena, but as time goes by, the demon becomes more and more violent with its presence, and Dennis starts to realize that there may be more to the story than meets the eye.

I think I have to start by saying that if you weren't a fan of the first two films, there's really no need for you to see this third one. I've run into a lot of people who hated these movies, but I've found just as many who've loved them as much as I do. I should probably tell you that as well - I instantly fell in love with the original 2009 film when I saw it in theaters, and as you can see in my review of the second installment (linked in the first paragraph), you'll know that I was rather fond of that one as well (although my views have changed slightly). Still, when the third film was announced, I had mixed feelings about whether it could succeed. I was hoping they would continue where the second film had left off, but instead, they chose to take us back in time and show the start of the girls' issues with this demon. The prequel idea was an interesting one to me (those of you who read my trailer breakdown for the film will already know this), but it still wasn't a guaranteed success. However, this film did garner more positive reviews than its immediate predecessor, so the filmmakers must have done something right.

Speaking of the filmmakers, this film was brought to us by the two directors who brought us the faux (?) documentary Catfish last year. While I found that to be a rather effective film, even if I don't think it's a true documentary, I thought they were an interesting choice to carry on the Paranormal Activity franchise. However, their direction is definitely noticeable, and they did a very good job with the hand-held camerawork once again. The deftness of their cinematography as well as their direction helped create a very spooky atmosphere, and while there were a few more "jump-out-of-your-seat" moments than the original film, I thought there was a lot more suspense than the second film. Those of my readers who have been following me for a while know that I'm a strong proponent of suspense over cheap thrills, so the fact that Joost and Schulman went in that direction is a huge plus for this film. I was definitely left on the edge of my seat, so kudos to them.

There isn't a ton to say about the acting in the film. Everyone plays their parts very well, but it's not as though we were expecting anything truly brilliant in terms of acting performances. We get our obligatory Katie Featherston appearance, but aside from that, we're not really seeing anybody I've ever seen in a movie before. Still, the cast rounds out nicely and performs exactly what you'd expect to see in a film like this.

While it's not quite as good as the original film, I'd have to say it's just about on par with the second film save for a strange ending that will hopefully be explained in subsequent sequels. After making a massive amount of money over its opening weekend, I think it's only a matter of time until a fourth installment is announced. Seeing as there are some holes left to fill, I'll be eagerly expecting next October.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+
2 Thumbs Up

DVD Challenge #24: JURASSIC PARK III

Jurassic Park III
2001
PG-13
Run-time: 1 hour, 32 minutes

Directed by: Joe Johnston
Starring: Sam Neill, William H. Macy, Téa Leoni, Alessandro Nivola, Trevor Morgan, Michael Jeter


When you start hitting the third and fourth films in a franchise, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep things fresh and entertaining. When Jurassic Park III hit theaters in 2001, I was a twelve-year-old kid looking for a bit of nostalgia. This is the first movie I remember seeing on opening night, and I recall being ecstatic both before and after the film. Now that I've had ten years to process exactly what goes on this film, I've started to notice the flaws in its overall approach.

We're given an interesting storyline from the get-go (I say "interesting" because I'm trying not to be harsh). While it's not the worst screenplay I've ever seen, there's just a little too much ridiculousness for it to be considered good by any standards. The basic storyline is good: a couple's son is lost on the dinosaur-ridden island from The Lost World, and they hire - albeit through lying - Dr. Alan Grant (Neill) to help them find him. As one can imagine, bad things happen, and everyone becomes stuck on the island, setting up a trek for survival. So, the story isn't bad. What's really worthy of some good eye-rolls are the leaps to assumptions that nearly all the characters take. Because some of the science is a little far-fetched, it's hard to assume that Grant and his protégé Billy (Nivola) can instantly know exactly what the dinosaurs are doing. However, they come to their conclusions with lightning speed, but it just plays out as a little over-the-top.

Still, it's nice to have Sam Neill back in the mix after missing his dry humor in the second film. His presence was steady throughout Jurassic Park, and while he's not quite as good in this installment, I think a lot of the issue has to do with the aforementioned screenplay. We also get a couple of good comedic relief performances from the likes of Michael Jeter and William H. Macy, who proves to be the best actor gracing the screen this time around. Macy has continually proven himself to be one of my favorite actors, and while Jurassic Park III is by no means his greatest achievement, he still brings a very fine presence to the film. Without him, it might be a total throwaway.

I think the biggest issue with the film is that it tried too hard to be different from the first two installments. It almost feels like the filmmakers were trying to spice it up, but they just didn't do so in the right way. Their biggest problem was taking out the T-Rex early in the film, settling for a different beast called Spinosaurus. Now, I see where they were going with this decision - the Rex had been the centerpiece of the first two films, but they wanted to bring something bigger and badder to this one. However, I think that fans of the first two films had grown rather fond of the Rex, and to see it simply cast aside after about thirty seconds was a bit of a let-down. At least we still get the Velociraptors, even if they look drastically different from the first two films...

Still, I can't really complain. We asked for a movie about dinosaurs chasing humans, and that's pretty much what we got. Although it doesn't hold a candle to the previous installments, Jurassic Park III still offers the special effects and the chase sequences, and who knows - maybe you'll get a laugh or two (intentional or not) out of it as well.


Awards
2001: Nominee - Best Sequel; Best Young Star; Best Visual Effects

DVD Challenge #23: THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK

The Lost World: Jurassic Park
1997
PG-13
Run-time: 2 hours, 9 minutes

Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Jeff Goldblum, Julianne Moore, Pete Postlethwaite, Vince Vaughn, Arliss Howard

Four years after the release of Jurassic Park, the world was graced with a sequel entitled The Lost World: Jurassic Park. After the smash success of the original film, there's really no question as to why a sequel was made. Money talks, and the first film showed that audiences loved their trip to the ill-fated Isla Nublar, so why shouldn't the filmmakers have given them another dose of similar medicine?

Like I mentioned in my post about Jurassic Park, my age has shown me some of the flaws in The Lost World as well. From the very get-go, there's a very ridiculous aura about this film, and when you actually sit and think about what's going on, there's little that actually makes sense. For starters, why was there never a mention of a second island during the first film? You'd think that'd be something they'd at least allude to from time to time. It almost feels like a little bit of a cop-out at the beginning of the film: "Oh, by the way, there's another island with dinosaurs that I forgot to tell you about, and they're living on their own so we're going to study them." If that doesn't have you scratching your head, then I don't really know what to tell you.

It's also lost a little bit of the awe and wonder of the first film. We never get that moment of magic like we had in the first film, but I think that's one of the reasons the film works despite a curious screenplay with more holes than a bowl of Cheerios. In a way, we're experiencing the emotions of Dr. Ian Malcolm (Goldblum), who survived the events of the first film. He brings a level of cynicism to this film that permeates through a lot of it. There's a scene early in the film where Nick Van Owen (Vaughn) and Eddie Carr (Richard Schiff) are amazed by the gigantic creatures they see, but Malcolm immediately responds by saying, "Oh yeah, ooh ahh. That's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming." In a way, he's telling us that we've seen this all before, but there's no reason we couldn't go along for the ride anyway.

The acting is, at times, of a little bit lower quality than the first film. Goldblum's character doesn't work as well in a leading role as he does in a supporting role, so that brings some issues. Moore isn't really at her best, but she's serviceable. Schiff probably brings the best performance in a limited amount of screen-time, with his dry humor bringing a consistent stream of one-liners. We also get a great performance from Postlethwaite, one of my personal favorite actors (so yeah, I'm probably a bit biased). We also do get a great score from John Williams again, so that's a plus.

Despite the over-the-top ridiculousness of the overall storyline, there's still a lot to like about The Lost World: Jurassic Park. The special effects are a step above what the first film created, so if anything, there's a legitimate reason to give the flick a view. Just don't think too hard about this movie - it's just supposed a fun, popcorn-munching flick that'll take your mind away for a couple of hours. And I mean, come on - it's a movie about dinosaurs. That's enough for you to want to love it.

Trailer Breakdown: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3

Another teaser trailer has hit the interwebs, so I thought I'd break it down for all of your reading pleasure. It's the trailer for the upcoming horror film, Paranormal Activity 3, and rather than ramble on here, I'll just get right to it. Below is the video and then some of the questions and concerns that came up while I watched it. Enjoy!

And now for my thoughts and questions that arose while watching the trailer:

1) For starters, do they really need another film in the Paranormal Activity franchise?
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I was a huge fan of the smash-hit original back in 2009, and I was definitely a skeptic when they released the second film last year, but I ultimately reviewed it favorably (although my overall view of that film has changed a little bit since then). Still, there were many things to say about the second film, and in some ways, I thought it exceeded its predecessor. I liked how they set up the possibility for another sequel, but there didn't seem to be a need to make another film. However, part three was green-lit relatively quickly, so all my skepticism came rushing back. There's no reason that this upcoming film won't continue with the previous success, but I don't know if we should really be expecting all that much from this one. Apparently, the original's director-turned-producer Oren Peli has stated that this film will be scarier than the rest, and I'm just afraid he's setting too lofty of a goal for himself.

2) This film looks to be a prequel rather than a sequel. How does that play into its overall effectiveness?
I personally like the fact that the filmmakers chose to go back in time - in this case, to 1988 - to give us a little more of the background on the demon that haunts Katie and Kristi throughout the franchise. I think it adds a little bit of freshness that a continuation story might not have been able to bring. Also, I think it adds the potential for more of an emotional connection to the girls playing the younger Katie and Kristi, a point where I thought the second film succeeded. As I mentioned in that particular review, part of the reason that Paranormal Activity 2 was so good was that it was able to pull at your heartstrings as well as your nerves. By adding a baby and a German shepherd into the mix, you couldn't help but get emotionally attached. Maybe the filmmakers picked up on this and thought that using children again might be the best way to go. However, there are some issues with the thought of a prequel. For example, because we ultimately know Katie and Kristi's fate, there's not going to be much suspense in terms of how they'll fare throughout this particular film. Sure, they're going to get scared time and time again, but at the end of the day, we know they're going to survive their childhood to some degree. Be looking for some massive twists and turns to keep the plot moving this time around.

3) On that note, I still want to know what happened to baby Hunter from the second film.
As of right now, it doesn't look like we'll really be getting much in terms of that part of the story, unless this "prequel" business is only a piece of what Paranormal Activity 3 will entail. If we don't get the answers to Hunter's whereabouts, we might be looking at a fourth film in 2012.

4) How much of Katie Featherston will we be seeing this time around?
As the first film's lead and a major source of drama in the second film, it goes without saying that we should expect Featherston to at least make an appearance at some point. The only way they could get away without her would be to keep the entire story as a prequel without any flash-forwards to more present day events, but because she's been the staple of the franchise, I'm not sure whether they'll be able to pull that off. Still, there's no official word on the Internet Movie Database as to whether she'll be making an appearance, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

5) How will the directors fare with this type of material?
Normally, the course of direction wouldn't pose much of a problem as long as Peli remains on-board as a producer, but the two directors helmin this particular picture do send up a little bit of a red flag for me. Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost, who made a name for themselves by crafting the 2010 faux documentary Catfish, have taken the reigns of this one, and I'm a little bit concerned as to how they'll approach it. They went to great lengths to prove to everyone that their last film was a true story, and I personally don't know if they've yet to come clean on that particular point of order. And considering this will really be their first foray into the horror genre - no, Catfish was not a horror film, or even a thriller, for that matter - it should be quite an interesting watch. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

Paranormal Activity 3 is currently set to hit U.S. theaters on October 21, 2011.

Movie Review: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2

2011
PG-13

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is a 2011 fantasy adventure film directed by David Yates that serves as the eighth and final film in the Harry Potter film franchise. This film picks up where Part 1 left off, with Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) kneeling before Dobby's grave. However, we quickly get to the action as he and his friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) attempt to find the remaining horcruxes in order to defeat Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). I could probably go into more detail about the actual specifics of the plot, but I'm going to refrain from doing so rather than attempt to explain all the intricacies of what transpires on-screen. Because I haven't read any of the books in the series, I feel as though I would butcher any real attempt at explaining the storyline here, so I'll simply stop at this point because I think I've given you everything you really need to know going forward. It's a battle between Harry and Voldemort, and that's exactly how the film plays out.

Now as I previously mentioned, I have not read any of J.K. Rowling's books, so I don't have the deep and intimate knowledge of the Harry Potter storyline that fans surely have. Because of this, my level of excitement for each film has been dramatically lower than that of your average Potter moviegoer. Still, I've found most of the films in the franchise to be rather entertaining, with The Prisoner of Azkaban and The Order of the Phoenix serving as my personal favorites. Those of you who have been reading me for a while will know that I didn't review Deathly Hallows: Part 1 very favorably, which I something I alluded to in my breakdown of the trailer for Part 2. I had my concerns heading into this final chapter, and I can honestly say that they were only slightly alleviated.

While I thought that the screenplay was a little less confusing this time around, I didn't think that there was anything truly "epic" being brought to the screen. I'm sure had I read the novels, the closing moments would have spurred a number of emotions, but without that prior knowledge, I think it fell a little bit flat. Still, there's quite a lot to like about the storyline, and I've always been a sucker for stories coming full circle. When you have an eight-part film franchise, it's very difficult to make them convincingly decent after a while, but at the end of the day, I think that director David Yates crafted a solid film that works on a number of levels. Some of the dialogue is spotty, but at its base, there's a good foundation and enough twists and turns to keep your uninitiated viewer guessing.

If there's one thing that I've always applauded about the Harry Potter films, it's their ability to draw fantastic actors into the fray. The cast list for the franchise is a laundry list of A-listers who all bring great performances to the screen. I've had my issues in the past with Radcliffe's ability, and he didn't really wow me here, but he does well enough to make him convincing until the end. I've always been fond of Watson and Grint in their roles, and they finish out the series just as strongly as they entered it, even if they've taken more of a backseat than usual. I could probably go into a great amount of detail in talking about each individual here, but I'll save that for a later date. There's just too many big names to mention here and now, but know that I was, and have always been, a fan of the acting in the Potter films, and Deathly Hallows: Part 2 does not disappoint.

On a quick side note, I thought the music in the film - this time composed by Alexandre Desplat - fits perfectly once again. He took John Williams's original score and made it fit the darker mood of this last film, and he should be applauded.

At the end of the day, I thought Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 was a very good film that puts a stamp on a fantastic franchise. Could it have been better? Probably. Seeing as I'm only viewing the films as films, not adaptations of a beloved novel franchise, I can only see what they give me. There's no room for me to read between the lines and see what's going on in the background because I don't know what's there to see. Were I a Potter fanatic, I'd probably review this one more favorably, but as it stands, I think it's a serviceable film that ends things on a high note.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B+1 Thumb Up