Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Once again, a lot of sparks, but no substance
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 1, is the 7th film of the series, and I have to say it is the best one so far. All the sets, clothes, special effects and actors are great once again, and there was a little improvement on the script and on the direction, which makes this film a little less clumsy than the first six. Also, since they decided to split Deathly Hallows in two movies, that gives them plenty of time to tell the story, and they remain more faithful to the events of the book than ever.
However, that does not a good movie make. The events may be there, but the soul of the book is missing. There's none of the humor, suspense or drama that jump off the pages, and the only emotion the movie is able to induce is sleepiness. For anyone who hasn't read the books, the movie is incomprehensible and utterly boring. And for those who have, the only way to stay awake is remember how the scenes played when J.K Rowling wrote them, and not Steve Kloves. All those poignant moments Hedwig dying, the trio entering the Ministry, Ron leaving, everything that took place in Godrics Hollow, Ron coming back, the events on the Malfoy Manor, the death and burial of Dobby, everything are reduced to scenes that merely make you shrug or grimace.
It's too bad J.K. Rowling didn't wait a few years before she let Warner Brothers adapt her books. That way, maybe the director and screenwriter could have been actual fans, people with a real understanding of the series who would be able to capture the atmosphere of the source material. I guess now we'll have to wait a few decades for the remake.
The Terminal (2004)
I was shocked to see how good the ratings for this movie are here on IMDb because this movie, to put it briefly, is CRAP. Tom Hanks does a good job as Viktor Navorski and the plot about a man who is trapped in an airport due to a technicality could be an interesting one. But Steven Spielberg treats his viewers as idiots and tells a story where nothing makes sense, expecting us to feel an emotion simply because the soundtrack is telling us to do so. Why does Frank Dixon hate Navorski so much? Why is the hot stewardess played by Catherine Zeta-Jones enchanted by him? If his friends were going to be fired, why did he go to New York anyway? Couldn't they find an old Indian guy who were a better actor? And if Navorski finally made to New York after all this trouble, couldn't he at least go to the Statue of Liberty or something too? Did he only have time for the jazz show? This movie is an excuse for the advertising of Burger King, Nike and other brands that are shoved down our throats with barely any excuse. Don't waste your time.
Friends with Money (2006)
I was very surprised to see how pointless this movie is. I expected a lot more considering the great actors that star in it. It could be a reflexion about how a woman who has chosen a career that doesn't pay so well deals with the fact that all her friends have more money than her, and how that doesn't necessarily means that those friends are happier people. But none of the conflicts in the movie are satisfactorily solved, with the possible exception of the couple who finally, thank God, gets divorced. But is Simon McBurney's character gay or straight? What is the problem with Frances McDormand's character exactly? Why are Joan Cusack and Greg Germann even in the movie? And what is going to happen to Jennifer Aniston's character? Are all her huge problems solved simply because she met a man who is even worse than her, but who also happens to have a lot more money? None of this is explained, and we leave the theater with nothing but the feeling of having wasted two hours of our lives.