Harry Potter 7: Deathly Hollows 1

I grew up with dead authors. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, C.S. Lewis Narnia and Space Trilogy, Asimov's Foundation and Robot series, even Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. I grew up knowing that when I started book 1 of a series, I could read as fast or slow as I wanted, but was still able to finish the series. Somehow this is my default expectation for any series, and if this expectation is not met, no matter the reason, I find myself annoyed at having to wait. I read the first 7 books of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, only to give up after being required to wait 18 months for the release of book 8. I couldn't imaging not finishing the 12 book series for another 10 years. I am similarly annoyed by Paolini's Inheritance series (which also turned a 3 book series into 4), and until recently Terry Brooks' Shannara series.

Why do you care about this in a movie review? HP7DH1 is one of these unfinished series. In the grand tradition of Back to the Future II and III, DH1 is clearly a setup film. A well made and entertaining setup film, but a setup film none-the-less. Voldemort is in charge and things are changing. Everyone is in danger. In fact, 80% of the film is spent showing everyone in danger. Harry and Co. spend their time searching for Horcruxes, but basically, their search is a series of travels into and out of danger because of the recent regime change. They don't actually make much progress. So over the course of two and a half hours we learn that things are dangerous and we learn what the Deathly Hollows are... to be continued...

While I of course understand marketing and capitalism and why films are made ($$$), I personally would have preferred to wait another 12 months and then paid double for a 5 hour feature length film that didn't climax with the credits. Which means that next year, I will probably just need to organize a Potter marathon and set 18 hours of my life aside so I can watch the 8 films in sequence. And I will wait until 2012 when the "final" Wheel of Time novel is released to pick that series up again.
3 stars (out of 5)

Pieces of April

This probably showed up in my Netflix queue after I watched Please Give, enjoyed Oliver Platt, and proceeded to add anything Platt that I could. Platt plays a supporting role as April's (Katie Holmes) father. April lives in Manhattan with her boyfriend Bobby. They have invited the entire family to their place for thanksgiving. The film is really two different stories: that of April preparing for the family to arrive and that of the family driving from upstate NY into the city for the meal. April (of course) encounters problems with cooking her first ever turkey and gets to meet a bunch of neighbors in the process. The family tiptoes around mom's health, grandma's senility and a pretty open disdain for April. In fact, the common theme through these stories is that both April and the family are processing April's role in the family. The beauty of the film is that the heaviness of family dysfunction is balanced by the comedy of family dysfunction (a la Little Miss Sunshine without the keystone cops routine). Very well done and the fact that the sound track is full of The Magnetic Fields pushes this into the 5-star category.
5 stars (out of 5)

The Painted Veil

Set in the early 20's, a research doctor (Edward Norton) and his new wife (Naomi Watts) travel to China to help combat the spread of a cholera epidemic. Along the way, the two must sort out a trunk full of baggage ranging from why they got married, to why they are still married and what is it about each other that they like and/or loath. Highlighting the difficulty of relationship and the difficulty with honesty, the film surrounds all of this difficulty with the fabulous natural beauty of China. Throw in a little bit of political intrigue (western immigrants v. warlords), a little bit of faith searching and a bit of pestilence to wrap up an engaging, well acted film.
3 stars (out of 5)

Crossing Delancey

In this 1988 film, thirty something Isabelle is a single woman running an independent bookstore in Manhattan. She is happy and has a full life, but her Jewish mother doesn't believe it for a minute. When the mother hires a matchmaker, Isabelle is beside herself with annoyance and embarrassment. This is not how relationships are started these days. The mother is conniving and persistent and Sam ('the match') is patient and understanding. There are no surprises where this film is going, and the "niceness" of the characters is unbelievable (as in, not believable). But there are also enough cute interactions (especially between Sam and mom) that made this enjoyable to watch.
3 stars (out of 5)

A Wednesday

An Indian action-thriller where we follow the police over the course of a day chasing down a potential terrorist. In the morning, a call comes in from a man claiming to have planted several bombs throughout the city. One of these is in the police station, and when that one is found, the threat is real. The demand of the terrorist is the immediate release of 5 men serving time in prison who also have terrorist connections. The police chief and two of his trusted officers work throughout the day to insure the safety of the people of Mumbai. This film fills the typical no-nonsense form of Asian action thrillers. There is no time "wasted" developing character or background. Instead, there is a problem to be solved and we are working to solve it...quickly. The feel of the film is hasty, if not skittish. But in fact, based on the tension that the plot is building, this pacing actually accentuates the experience of watching the film. A bit like Speed or even Crank where the circumstances of the film and the style of direction build the tension. And at the same time, by the end you feel that you know a bit more about the characters than you would in any Hollywood action thriller. Somehow, it all gets in...
3 stars (out of 5)

The Social Network

This film has been getting good reviews and I just couldn't fathom why. It seemed like it would be in the same vein as the Jobs v. Gates film Pirates of Silicon Valley and all of its made-for-TV glory. And in some ways, it is. We get the story of the invention and development of Facebook and some of the back story on the main players (primarily Mark Zuckerberg). We get the tension between Zuckerberg and his co-founder Eduardo Saverin, his Harvard elitist enemies and basically the world. And we get a story of how a nerd is finally in charge of something cool and are left wondering if he really is seeing a long term view in building this thing, or whether he is just a nerd who can't deal with letting his coolness fade. I was engaged throughout this film and am really having a hard time point a finger to a specific reason. I guess I will attribute it to good acting and an engaging story that wasn't just paparazzi news.

One thing that I did find fascinating is the lack of a sympathetic protagonist. Instead, there were three distinct types of asses that drove the film. Zuckerberg, Sean Parker (of Napster fame) and the Harvard elite. Zuckerberg was an ass to most people, but I don't think he knew that he was. He was simply not engaged with the relational part of any relationship he had and was instead engaged with the intellectual gamesmanship that a relationship provided. This carried over into his business as well and I will call him the Intellectual Ass. Parker was portrayed as a "F--- the Man" ass who was really about being the "The Man 2.0". Everything revolves around "The Man 2.0" and he thinks he is so revolutionary that no one would confuse him with The Man, but it is painfully obvious that he is just a Narcissistic Ass. Finally, there are the Harvard elite asses. I use Harvard here because that was the role played in the film by the Winklevoss brothers (I have no particular gripe with Harvard). Their particular brand of ass-ness is based on inherited wealth and entitlement. They are in fact The Man, even as 20-something undergrads. All of this leads me to wonder if there is in fact a classification of asses. For example, is there an enneagram of asses, where different ass types have specific characteristics? I am sure there are and I am sure that the three named here are pretty common. It was just interesting to see three distinct types (Intellectual, Narcissistic and Elitist Ass) portrayed so clearly and distinctly in a single film.

4 stars (out of 5)

Agora

The story of Hypatia, the renown philosopher of Alexandria in the 300's A.D. Very fictionalized in that we don't really know what science or study she was able to complete. As such, creative license was given over to allow her to work out the motion of the planets as elliptical orbits some 1200 years before Kepler was able to do so. But the science/philosophy is a back story. Instead, this is a story of the developing political power of the Christians in a pagan world. As the Christians gain more momentum and popular support, they increasingly take control of the bureaucratic structures as well as the intellectual structures of Alexandrian society, leading to the famed burning of the library. Since this is obviously highly fictionalized, I am not sure about the historical basis. What I wonder is how true to fact the cultural portrayals are. In an ancient urban area, how much mob mentality and killing in the streets really happened? How violent and despicable were "the christians" really? I am sure quite (based on the history of the crusades and even 20th century events) but the imagery seemed to fall too neatly into my preconceived notions and for some reason did not ring authentic. Perhaps an authentic portrayal of ancient urban culture would sell even less tickets that Agora did as written. Overall, while I found this interesting and at times painful in its portrayal of the christians, I also found it too slow to develop and rather "made-for-TVish".

2 stars (out of 5)