Cavalcade** (1933)

Maybe it’s because it won Best Picture at the Oscars. Maybe it’s because it was so darn difficult to track down a copy. Whatever the reason, I think I came into this film expecting too much. Instead of a rousing through-the-years drama, Cavalcade turns out to be more like Cimarron for stuffy, upper-class Brits.

Beginning on New Year’s Eve of 1899, the Marryot family is living high on the hog. They’ve got a team of servants, two strapping young boys, and a very nice position among upper class London. The 20h Century offers more than they could have ever expected, as the family finds themselves intimately connected to several key historical events. The Second Boer War, the death of the Queen, the sinking of the Titanic, World War I, and beyond- yes the Marryot family sees it all as the cavalcade of years passes them by.

My initial reaction to this film is that many of the scenes feel very stagey. Sure enough, Cavalcade is based on a popular Noël Coward play from earlier in the decade. That explains the rigidity and plethora of static shots. I would assume that plays were being converted into films quite regularly in this time period to capitalize on popularity and mass appeal. The detail in the sets and costumes is certainly commendable.

The trouble lies in that these details don’t need to be quite so painfully exacting to build up the illusion in a film. Interesting characters and a good story are what drive film. The main characters haven’t aged well for modern audiences, so it’s up to the supporting cast to spice things up. As far as the story goes, it lacks any central conflict or purpose. It’s simply a series of vignettes progressing in chronological order. The only thing tying it all together is the Marryot family. At least with Cimarron there was the subtle plot of taming the wilderness of the American frontier hiding in the background.

I can see why this film won Best Picture (though I haven’t seen any of its competition yet). In 1933, some of the events covered in this film were still somewhat fresh in the minds of the industry bigwigs making up the Academy. This, on top of the popular stage play, probably gave it enough populist appeal to make it a no-brainer pick for the Oscar.

Unfortunately for Cavalcade, it has not aged as well as some of the other early Oscar winners. Static shots and a barely-existent plot make for a boring film by today’s standards. The sets are quite good and there are a few scenes that are large in scope but a few sprinkles can’t mask its decidedly vanilla flavor. Appreciable as it may be for what it is, I would steer you away from this film unless you are making a point, like me, to watch every single Oscar winner for Best Picture.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Rescuers (1977)

I remember loving to listen to the story of The Rescuers as a child on one of those Disney read-along books with the cassette tape that jingled when it was time to turn the page. I also recall adoring the sequel to this film, The Rescuers Down Under. You can imagine my surprise when, after taking this film in for the first time in ages, I found I did not like this film very much. Sure, it passes the Disney litmus test of likeable characters, a good story, and plenty of morals and lessons, but I find fault with its underwhelming animation.

In the heart of Devil’s Bayou, a little orphan named Penny sends for help via message in a bottle. This message reaches the Rescue Aid Society, an international assembly of mice determined to make a difference in the world. The lovely Miss Bianca (voiced by Eva Gabor) and her awestruck new partner Bernard (voiced by Bob Newhart) set out on a mission to save the poor girl from the clutches of the vile Madame Medusa and her nefarious cohorts.

The story is fine, though it rockets by quite quickly (even for a Disney film). The problem here is the animation. I hate to sound like a broken record but Disney botched most of its animated films through the 60s and 70s with lower-quality animation techniques. Thankfully, the xerographic technique seems to be improving because there aren’t anywhere near as many sketch lines running through the characters this time. Unfortunately, the animation here is some of the flattest in Disney history. Instead of detailed backgrounds that move with the characters like a real environment, many times The Rescuers involves static (but well drawn) storybook-like backdrops over which very two-dimensional characters moved. I find the lack of depth disconcerting. Rather than moving through space, characters simply move across the screen.

From researching the history of Walt Disney and the studio’s successes and struggles after his passing, I know that animator Don Bluth had once worked for Disney before defecting to make his own studio (and taking a number of young Disney animators with him). Within the first minute of this film, Don Bluth’s influence is felt heavily- the darker tones, a more ethereal and blended color palette, and minimal lines separating elements and characters on the screen. It all looks interesting, and works quite well with Don Bluth’s independently-made films, but it just doesn’t resemble a Disney film.

Maybe I’m biased because I grew up during the Disney Renaissance. Those films and the early films are the best stuff Disney Studios ever made. I can see how this totally different art direction seemed like a good shot to the arm at the time but I don’t think Disney could have sustained such moody atmospherics in films geared towards children. Breaking away from the formula can be a good thing (they certainly seemed stuck in something of a stylistic rut for a while) but The Rescuers diverges away from the “Disney formula” so much that it feels un-Disney.

Am I becoming some kind of obsessive Disney purist? Gosh, I hope not. I just can’t help but feel that this film is a tad too violent (yet corny at times as well- go figure!) and stylistically different from everything else I know to be a Disney product. I love the characters of Bernard and Bianca and their budding romance is cute to watch. Aside from this occasional cuteness, the film leaves me feeling on edge. Fortunately, Don Bluth and Disney would only share their awkward relationship partway into their next film.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)

I grew up watching Winnie the Pooh cartoons every Saturday morning as a kid. I remember loving the characters and adventures they embarked on. Watching this original animated collaboration was quite an interesting experience to say the least. Of all the Disney animated films I have watched on this journey from Snow White to present day, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh elicited the most jarring reaction in me from an adult’s perspective yet.

This film is actually three pre-existing Disney shorts: Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree, Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day, and Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too. The shorts are laced together with new segue sequences. Each segment features Winnie the Pooh and his friends on a new journey with lessons to be learned.

Each of the three animated shorts is enjoyable in their own right. The animation is consistent throughout, so it’s not like you can tell that Tigger Too is almost a decade newer than Honey Tree. Kudos to Disney for that. I also find the storybook animation and what they do with it adorable. Like Disney films of old, Pooh opens with live action scenery, including the opening of a storybook. Instead of transferring into just an animated world, we journey across pages with Pooh and his friends. There is interaction with the writing on the pages and hopping between page illustrations. It’s clever and works perfectly for the story material.

Another bold move is the breaking of the fourth wall. The narrator interacts with Pooh and friends and the characters also make their own sly quips directly to the audience. Children and adults will enjoy this because it’s rarely done in animated films. More importantly, it’s done right. Breaking the fourth wall can completely take someone out of the film, so it’s a dangerous move. It works here because the characters are innocent and likeable.

One thing that I was taken aback by is how irritating and rude Winnie the Pooh is. He’s referred to as being a little on the slow side but since when is that an excuse for being a shameless mooch? He gets hungry and discovers he’s eaten all of his own food so he invites himself inside his friends’ houses to eat theirs without allowing them any time to object. Maybe I’m making a mountain out of a molehill but it seems that the one crucial lesson going unlearned here is that Pooh needs to be more considerate of others.

In the end, Winnie the Pooh and his friends prove to be too likeable to get hung up over character flaws. Was Disney being just a wee bit lazy by throwing three preexisting shorts together? Yes and it comes back to bite them in the end, if only slightly. The slow and delicate pacing works great when you take each short individually but it drags a bit when showing them back-to-back-to-back. Even though it clocks in at only 74 minutes long, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh feels one adventure too long.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Robin Hood (1973)

With a few previous films using British folklore and fiction proving successful, Walt Disney Studios get its anglophilia on once more. In an unconventional but kid-friendly approach, the Disney crew tells the tale of Robin Hood and his merry men with anthropomorphic animal characters. With a solid story as its backbone and a little musical flair, this film gets an extra boost in my book from a little thing called childhood nostalgia.

The vain and money-hungry Prince John is taxing the people of England to no end. In the village of Nottingham, two men (or in this case, animals) dare to stand up against tyranny. Robin Hood and Little John find ways to steal from Prince John and give back to the poor what was taken from them. Their mission ruffles the feathers of the cruel sheriff of Nottingham and gains the support of many of the village’s denizens.

I have to be honest- I’m pretty sure that I rated this film higher than it deserves. I grew up watching this film and I have quite the sizable soft spot in my heart for it. I try to avoid subjectivity when rating a film but every once in a while I just can’t help myself.

There are a few things that Robin Hood has going for it. First, it’s anchored by a classic tale of fighting injustice. Second, it’s got a stellar soundtrack. Even after 20 animated films, Disney still boils down to animation and music. Most moviegoers don’t focus too heavily on the quality of the animation, so the music really matters. Which Disney films are the least well-remembered? By jove, it would be the ones that lack memorable songs! Coincidence? I think not.

While most moviegoers don’t consider the animation quality, I do. This is where I fear nostalgia has given this film a boost. The animation quality is better than The Aristocats in that there are fewer distracting sketch lines from the xerographic technique, but it may also be a bit worse in that there is little to no richness in background detail. It looks very much like a flat world, but not enough like a storybook to suggest an intentional creative artistic direction.

One thing that can go either way (depending on how picky you are with your Disney films) is the character of Little John. He’s drawn almost exactly like Baloo from The Jungle Book and is voiced by the same actor. This fails to bother me at all because I grew up loving this film. Perhaps that is the key to your opinion on his film. If you grew up with it, you’ll probably be more forgiving like me. If not, you might think I’ve rated it a notch too high. I fear the latter may be the case but I’m not entirely sure.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Aristocats (1970)

It’s hard to say what the Disney studio was going for with this film. Handpicked by Walt Disney before he died, The Aristocats probably should have been better than it turns out to be. With The Jungle Book as its predecessor, I was prepared to cut this film a little slack; the studio always struggled to put together back-to-back great films. All the Disney hallmarks are present, but the total package leaves me feeling like a victim of re-gifting.

Duchess and her three kittens live in the lap of early 20th Century Parisian luxury. Their owner, Madame Adelaide, loves them so much that she makes them her main heirs in her will. Enraged at her decision, Edgar (her butler) hatches a plan to dispose of the cats, leaving him to inherit Madame’s fortune. Waking up in the middle of the French countryside, Duchess and her kittens rely on the kindness of strangers to find their way home. Along the way they encounter a number of colorful cats who call the streets of Paris their playground.

Let’s not mince words- several times during this film I felt like I was watching One Hundred and One Dalmatians with cats. The urban European setting, the jazz music score, the human bad guy trying to kill the animal good guys plot, and the other animals helping to save the day. It honestly has a lot of similar components. Is it a complete retread? No. There are plot differences and a variety of unique and different characters. That subtle sense of the familiar creeps in on you throughout the film though, reducing the enjoyment slightly.

Another aspect that’s all too familiar here is the dirty looking xerographic system used to generate the final animation cells. Seeing the sketch and source lines inside what should be a solid object is getting old and I’m surprised that Disney couldn’t figure out a way to improve upon this in 10 years. The art direction compounds the problem. There’s more definition to objects than there was in One Hundred and One Dalmatians but much of the background elements can be reduced to a few choice shades from one color group or another. Maybe it was considered a smart, modernist look for Disney in the post-Beat and mid-counterculture era. Nowadays it just looks sloppy and leaves me yearning for the lush visuals of Disney’s first golden era.

Lest this review sound exceedingly negative for the rating given, The Aristocats is not a bad film. I think it plays to younger audiences more so than to general audiences, which creates problems. Sure, kids will love watching the playful antics of Duchess’s kittens but I think the adults in the crowd will be bothered by the subtle and not-so-subtle similarities with an older and better film, technically speaking.

If nothing else, The Aristocats has a cute, albeit familiar, story and some fun music. Two songs (“Thomas O’Malley Cat” and “Ev’rybody Wants to Be a Cat”) are memorable, which isn’t bad following The Jungle Book’s jam-packed soundtrack of hits. It’s not the best product Disney’s ever produced but it’s also not much better than some of the package films from the 40s. That is definitely a setback for the House of Mouse.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Bucket List (2007)

Cancer is one of the few subjects that are hard to make funny. It’s an energy-sapping, life-taking disease that brings nothing but sadness to the victim and their loved ones. Hollywood has tackled the daunting task of livening up terminal illness before but The Bucket List possesses a very specific trajectory. Once again, trailers promise us the stars but the full-length film doesn’t provide quite the shine audiences may be expecting or hoping for.

When wealthy health care tycoon Edward Cole (Jack Nicholson) is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer he just wants to be alone. Instead, he shares a hospital room with Carter Chambers (Morgan Freeman), a former auto mechanic. At first cynically amused by Chambers’ optimism, Cole aims to help his roommate realize his ‘bucket list’- the things he would like to do before he dies. Spending Cole’s money like kids in a candy shop, the two men set out on a globetrotting road trip to make the most of life while they still can.

One thing this film has in droves is chemistry. Freeman and Nicholson are two of Hollywood’s living legends and their collective acting prowess is on display in this film. The script caters to both men’s perceived types: Nicholson is sarcastic, witty and just a wee bit angry at the world; Freeman is the likeable straight man whose honesty is endearing and sense of humor is subtle but always perfectly-timed. They feed off each other like seasoned veterans of the big screen ought to.

Looking at it from 30,000 feet, The Bucket List is a bit clichéd and convenient. It’s yet another upper-class meets lower-class buddy film in which the rich guy gains an understanding and appreciation for the ‘little guys.’ As good as Nicholson and Freeman are, you can’t hide the convenience in teaming up with a super-rich guy to live out a few dreams. If you’re of the crass and cynical sector of moviegoers, this is how you’ll probably see the film.

If you don’t mind a retooled plot now and again, the worst thing you can say about this film is that it’s not as funny as it was hyped up to be. Nicholson has the ability to leave you in stitches when he isn’t indulging himself with dark roles. Freeman has always been able to make crowds smile and laugh in the right roles as well. Perhaps it’s the subject matter or the script that does the film in.

Much of the antics look like a lot of fun but could they feel too familiar to achieve maximum effect? Or is the weight of their cancer affliction too heavy a burden to allow us to fully enjoy their embracing of life? It’s hard to put my finger on it but I think it may have something to do with knowing a downer ending looms on the horizon no matter what comedy hijinks come our way. It allows us to guard ourselves from becoming emotionally attached to these characters, a critical element of any story. Yes, I think that must be it. The Bucket List is a pretty decent movie but your conscience might prevent you from having as good a time as the filmmakers aim for.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Quantum of Solace (2008)

After beating the odds quite grandly with a successful reboot of the James Bond saga with 2006’s Casino Royale, Daniel Craig is back as the world’s favorite spy. While this tale of revenge and deception travels at the speed of a bullet, it confuses more that it astounds. Certainly not the worst follow-up act in the Bond collection, but Quantum of Solace falls well short of the bar set by its predecessor.

Picking up only hours after Casino Royale left off, Bond fends off pursuers while bringing Mr. White in for interrogation. The questioning goes awry but tips off MI6 to the existence of a vast, international criminal organization called Quantum. Bond’s investigation of a Quantum mole within MI6 overlaps in his quest for vengeance for Vesper Lynd’s death. The trail leads him to a billionaire environmentalist and green resources magnate assisting with a coup in Bolivia. The clock is ticking while Bond frantically tries to connect the dots.

Daniel Craig continues to be in league with Sean Connery as one of the best James Bonds in the series multi-decade span. Bond is still very much rough around the edges. Refinement is something left for future installments to produce. That’s just fine with me, frankly. All the gadgets and cheesy lines got old after a while. It’s nice to see a Bond who is believable as a cold, calculating government assassin. The supporting cast is not as strong this time around but that may also stem from the fact that the characters involved aren’t as unique or interesting as they could have been. Power hungry billionaires and rogue generals feel a bit recycled (though the writers have quite a thankless and difficult task in keeping Bond fresh after 21 previous films).

I love the introduction of the Quantum organization. It sets up countless future missions for Bond to embark on and helps ratchet up the suspense. Who can you trust anymore when MI6 is infiltrated by a shadow organization with nearly unlimited resources? Other strengths of the film are some artful editing and cinematography. The entire Tosca sequence is marvelous, especially the chase and shootout sequence sans sound effects. The operatic overlay was a brilliant decision. The opening sequence begins beautifully, though it does descend into a barrage of quick cuts that make the progression hard to follow.

This overabundance of editing follows through much of the film. I can understand wanting Quantum to move a little quicker than Royale but the filmmakers went a little overboard in making this the shortest film in the entire Bond series. Some story elements get rushed beyond comprehension and believability, making the film hard to follow at times (especially when they use a horrid, unreadable yellow font for translation subtitles). With Bond more out for revenge than displaying his cocky swagger, Quantum occasionally feels more like a conventional action flick than a Bond film but it comes back around in the end.

Ultimately, your preference for this film will be determined by whether or not you liked Casino Royale. If you enjoyed it, as most people seemed to, this will probably come as a minor disappointment but still an enjoyable Bond film. If Royale wasn’t your taste for Bond, then you probably disliked this entry even more. As someone who holds Casino Royale as one of the best Bond flicks in the series, I find Quantum of Solace to be an underwhelming follow-up but still a modestly satisfying tale of deceit, redemption, and revenge.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Eat Pray Love (2010)

With all the Oprah love heaped upon the memoir this film is based on, not to mention the fact that it stayed on The New York Times Best Seller list for nearly four straight years, one would expect this film to have something going for it. For me, many film critics, and about half of the general populous, it doesn’t. Fans of the book and Julia Roberts’ films may consider this a splendid tale of one woman’s quest for enlightenment and balance in her life. The rest will probably see Eat Pray Love as a shallow travelogue for the 1%.

Elizabeth Gilbert (Roberts), is a successful and wealthy freelance writer, contributing to magazines and newspapers across the country. Her husband is a boring man though, leaving her dissatisfied with her life. After a heated divorce settlement, and a rebound relationship that doesn’t pan out, Elizabeth uses the advance money from her next book to fund a year-long trip including stops in Italy, India, and Indonesia. Each stop along her trek is designed to guide her towards self-discovery, self-understanding, and ultimately inner peace.

It’s all a very interesting idea but the execution fails miserably. For starters, stories and movies about rich people who are unhappy with their lives going on self-discovery journeys to find purpose and meaning just don’t work anymore. Perhaps it’s a sign of these difficult economic times that we live in. Perhaps I’m just that cynical. Whatever the case may be, not enough work is done to make Roberts’ character likeable in any way. Sure, she’s the focal point of the film, but main characters do not get de facto support from audiences anymore.

Gilbert’s behavior is often times annoying because she lacks any conviction in what she does. She doesn’t even try to work on her marriage; she just leaves the man because he doesn’t want to go to all her book events and swanky parties. She only gets involved with Eastern spirituality because her post-divorce lover tells her how great it is. She doesn’t actually believe in any of it but immerses herself in it because it’s the only thing she can think of doing for the religious/spiritual leg of her journey. It takes a couple of sharp-tongued, tough-willed people to call her on her posturing and fad-hopping. Instead of this being an indictment of this modern trend, it merely spurns her on to her next destination. All this while spending more money than normal people earn in a year, mind you.

There are just two redeeming qualities about this film. First is Javier Bardem- I would easily watch his scenes again. His character has more emotional depth than Gilbert could ever hope to strive for. His genuine pain and loss is such a contrast to Gilbert’s narcissism. This is a character they should make a movie about, not Gilbert. Second, the settings are wonderful. Lots of beautiful locations were scouted for this film and the cinematographer captures their beauty quite well.

One solid performance and pretty scenery do not a winner make. Maybe the book is better than the film. I certainly hope that is the case because I don’t think I could stand to read about Elizabeth Gilbert’s life if she really was as whiny and self-indulgent as Eat Pray Love suggests. I can only envision a narrow target audience for this film if you really know what it’s about. Thanks to trailers and studio advertising, this film looks much more interesting and fulfilling in a two-minute series of clips than its agonizing two-hour plus run time. If nothing else, this film will make you feel better about yourself when you realize it takes less time, money and whining than Elizabeth Gilbert suggests to ‘find yourself.’

RATING: 2 out of 5

Date Night (2010)

In a TV-comedy dream pairing come true on the big screen, funny guy Steve Carell and funny gal Tina Fey join forces in this madcap comedy. Perhaps an homage to the screwball comedies of yesteryear, Date Night has all the wit, action, and heart to please just about any willing viewer. It may not be an instant classic or live up to all the hype of its lead pair, but it’s got it where it counts.

Phil and Claire Foster (Carell and Fey) are in a bit of a rut. Married with children, approaching middle age (if not already there), and caught in a boring and repetitive suburban New Jersey routine, they are looking for a little excitement in life. When they go to a hip restaurant in New York City and steal a table from a no-show reservation, they get far more than they hoped for. In a case of mistaken identity, Phil and Claire find themselves running for their lives from gangsters and crooked cops.

It’s not so much the fact that mistaken identity comedies have been around forever that hurts this film. Rather, it’s the fact that two of the top funny people in the TV/movie business are in this film and the end result is not wall-to-wall funny. Yes, there are a lot of laughs to be had here but those laughs are not always the hearty belly-laughs that signify a great comedy. Carell and Fey are only working with the lines they’re given, so a fair amount of the blame needs to go to the scriptwriter for giving such moderately funny lines to such a dynamic duo. Still though, you would think that talented comedians would have tried a little ad-libbing to improve a scene or two.

Another attribute of the film that works both ways (good and bad) is the inclusion of so many colorful supporting characters. On one hand, it helps distract the audience from the fact that Carell and Fey aren’t being as funny as they ‘ought’ to be. Mark Wahlberg is hilarious as the shirtless security guy who repeatedly comes to the Fosters’ rescue. At the same time, it’s the kind of over-the-top stereotype character you aren’t surprised to see in a chase-comedy. A lot of the supporting roles are like this, which makes for some good initial laughs but the conceit wears out the longer you’re exposed to these folk.

What holds the film together is the likableness of the Fosters. Unless you’re deeply cynical towards middle-class, white suburban couples, it’s easy to root for them. They’re nice people who are just trying to keep life interesting- something most of us yearn for at some point in our own lives. It may help to be married, possibly with children too, to pick up some of the subtler quips and nuances. Young adults expecting something Hangover-esque will be disappointed but the rest of us will, at the very least, enjoy ourselves.

That’s the kind of movie Date Night is- one where you’re likely to enjoy yourself if nothing else. That’s certainly not a bad thing but it doesn’t make for a very memorable viewing experience. It’s a movie you wouldn’t mind tuning into if you come across it on the TV or, if you own it, one that you can pop in just about any time for a few easy laughs. While it would be nice for Hollywood to get back to making great films consistently, there’s also a need for more above-average comedies like this one.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows- Part 2 (2011)

After six and a half films in the span of a decade, what, really, is left to write about the Harry Potter series? The final installment provides the ending the series needed and deserved. For the first time in the whole series, I’m approaching a Harry Potter film the right way. I’m not concerned with its merits as an adaptation of the book. That’s a debate for another time and another website. I’m focusing on the technique, execution and realization of this story on film. With that as my starting point, I can proudly report that Harry Potter goes out with a crowd-pleasing bang.

After learning about the Deathly Hallows in Part 1, Harry, Ron, and Hermione set out to locate Lord Voldemort’s remaining horcruxes. Their journey is beset on every turn by danger. The young-adult wizard school pals stage a break-in at Gringotts Wizarding Bank and set their sights on a final good-vs.-evil throwdown with Voldemort and his army of dark wizards in the corridors of Hogwarts.

I doubt I could spoil this film for many people at this point. If you’ve read the book you know what happens. Same goes for anyone who already saw the movie. If, for some reason, you wanted to see this movie but haven’t yet, all I will say is that you are in luck. Unless you’re a purist to the books and live in a bubble where only tiringly literal adaptations like Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets make the grade, you will be pleased with what director David Yates fits into its 130-minute runtime.

On its own, Deathly Hallows Part 2 still comes up short simply because it is half a movie. While Part 1 was mostly build-up, Part 2 sees all of that energy released in a flurry of action, battle sequences, and hundreds of the magical spells and enchantments that we’ve come to expect. I wasn’t crazy about where the first installment left off because it lacked appropriate momentum. Part 2 makes up for that in droves. While there is still uncertainty about the location and appearance of the remaining horcruxes, gone is the sense of aimless wandering. Urgency is the theme for both sides in the looming magical war. This sense of urgency ratchets up the anticipation and the tension.

As with all the other Harry Potter flicks, Part 2 uses a bit too much CGI at times. Unlike some fantasy adventures, this film lucks out because the magical world is largely separate from the real world, making some of the less than stellar effects amenable. If your story is supposed to take place in the real world, audiences expect things to look real and interactive. Pure fictional settings are a gift and a curse because you can set your own rules. This leads to some filmmakers going overboard though. Since Harry Potter’s world is half-real and half-fictional, the filmmakers are able to blur the line of expectations quite well, giving them all the latitude they need to tell their story.

We had to wait several months for this concluding chapter in the Harry Potter film saga. It is well worth the wait and Part 2 undeniably improves upon Part 1. The truth is, though, that they are companion pieces. Neither film tells a complete story, so you have to take them both in at the same time to really get the full picture. In time I plan on re-watching all of the Potter films in order to give them objective reviews uninfluenced by my memory of the books. At that time, I plan on rating Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows- the complete version, not as a two-parter. This way I can judge it not as a sum of its parts but as the epic conclusion it was always destined to be.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5