REVIEW 19: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2 (3D)

Release date in India:	July 15, 2011
Director:	David Yates
Cast:	Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, Maggie Smith, Helena Bonham-Carter, Julie Walters, Tom Felton, Jason Issacs, Michael Gambon

I guess it can safely be said that the world right now is divided into two types of people: those who’ve read the Harry Potter books and those who’ve not. And right now, my world, my friends and my social circle are divided into two sets of people: those who’ve already seen Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 and those who’ve not. If you’ve not read the seven books, do get a quick précis of the story so far from an earnest friend or a reliable website before you enter a movie hall for the grand celluloid finale. And even if you are a total Potter nut who (like me) has read all seven books twice over and seen the seven films that have preceded Deathly Hallows 2, may I suggest a quick revision?

We left Harry, his friends Hermione and Ron in The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 with the knowledge that three of the seven Horcruxes – vessels for the evil Lord Voldemort’s shredded soul – had been destroyed, and that there were four to come. The Deathly Hallows 2 begins with the trio in their quest for the fourth Horcrux in Gringotts bank. Beyond this, I’m not giving you much of the story because this review would get too long if I tried. Let’s just say that the final film remains faithful to J.K. Rowling’s book and though it compresses so much of what we read to fit its 126 minutes running time, director David Yates has still done a good job of wrapping it all up for us Pottermaniacs.

As you know, the last book of the series has been split into two films, one of which we saw late last year. Does the final film match up to the concluding chapters of the final book? No it does not. That’s not entirely Yates’ fault though, it’s largely a factor of the medium in which he’s working. No one could have possibly translated 100% on to film, the richness of Rowling’s imagination, the depth of the visual imagery she conjures up through her words or the intricate detailing in every tiny element in the books, right from the origins of the names she’s given her characters to the mythological creatures she’s resurrected for her tales. But despite the constraints intrinsic to the film medium, Yates has done a fine job.

The director has wisely assumed that everyone watching Deathly Hallows 2 knows what’s gone before. Imagine how long this film would have been if he had tried to explain Albus Dumbledore’s relationship with his brother, their befuddled sister, Luna Lovegood’s eccentric nature, Neville Longbottom’s particular reason for hating Voldemort and Bellatrix Lestrange, Platform Nine and Three-Quarters or Harry’s son’s fear of being assigned to Slytherin House. You’ll find it all in Hallows 2 without any idiot-proofing. And one of my favourite moments in this film, as it is in the entire book series, is when Harry kneels down on that curiously named station platform to whisper to his son: “Albus Severus, you were named for two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew.”

The acting honours in this film, as in the entire series, must go to the wonderful Mr Alan Rickman who has done a superb job of playing the seemingly cruel Professor Severus Snape with pasty-faced stoicism, aided by a gifted make-up artist. On the downside, I think the make-up team should have done a better job of Harry, Ron and Hermione 19 years after Hogwarts (good work on Ginny though). What I also missed in this film is the crackling chemistry between Rupert Grint (Ron), Emma Watson (Hermione) and Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) that peaked in that one nude vision of Harry and Hermione that Ron had in Deathly Hallows 1. Perhaps I was expecting too much. After all, this story is primarily about Harry, Snape and Voldemort, the three lonely boys whose widely differing choices shaped their very different destinies. But I must confess that the 3D did not add much to the spectacle for me, and while the ultimate battle between Voldemort’s army and Harry’s forces is a visual marvel, it’s still not everything I had imagined it to be. No doubt the special effects are excellent and the production design admirably re-creates the atmospheric settings … but the end result was a lot of people running helter skelter and what seemed like fireworks flashing repeatedly during soulless crowd scenes that drew no emotion from me, thrown in between the more crucial and certainly better executed fights between the main players.

The most poignant part of this film is when Harry dips into Snape’s memory and discovers the truth behind the teacher’s motivations for all his actions from Books1-7. Equally well explained is the confusion over Voldemort’s wand and why it was not answering to him – kudos to Yates for his effective handling of perhaps the trickiest part of the book series. Ron’s mother Molly (Julie Walters) makes the briefest of appearances in this film but oh how I loved that moment when she turns on Bellatrix and yells: “Not my daughter, you bitch!”

The likeable lead trio have matured remarkably sweetly through the years that we’ve seen them grow up before our eyes, and the supporting cast remains intimidatingly talented … Let me curtail my urge to go on and on, and conclude by telling you that Bellatrix’s death is every bit as satisfactory as I had hoped it would be; those moments when Harry enters a gradually weakening Voldemort’s mind are as disturbing as I’d imagined; Voldemort’s snake Nagini is both spectacular and terrifying to behold; and although I’ve read and re-read this line in the book, I still couldn’t help but smile when Dumbledore tells Harry towards the end: “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” C’mon Ms Rowling, you can’t be serious about ending it now! How about a prequel or any-other-kind-of-quel please?

Rating (out of five): ***1/2

Release date in the US:	July 15, 2011
MPAA Rating (US):	PG-13 (for some sequences of intense action violence and frightening images)
CBFC Rating (India):	U/A without cuts
Running time:	126 minutes
Language:	English

Photograph courtesy: http://tinyurl.com/65wlrkf (wikipedia)

REVIEW 18: TRANSFORMERS 3 (3D)

Release date in India:	June 29, 2011
Director:	Michael Bay
Cast:	Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Frances McDormand, Leonard Nimoy, Peter Cullen, John Turturro, Josh Duhamel, Patrick Dempsey

I’m seriously risking certain family relationships with this review. The children’s gang who watched Transformers 3 with me are flummoxed by my reaction to it. One of my teenaged friends even said to me in an affectionately patronising tone, “Ammama, just because you don’t get it, doesn’t mean that it’s not the coolest film ever.”

Well then, all you teenagers reading this review: be warned that this is a critique by an Ammama (a form of address for an aunt or elder sister in Malayalam) and not by a fellow teen.

Now that I’m done with that caveat, let me just say I think Transformers: Dark of the Moon a.k.a. Transformers 3 is quite a bad film. I remember enjoying the special effects in the first instalment of this series and even its quasi-philosophical/religious undertones. How could one ignore the allusion to the battle between the good angels and the forces of the fallen angel – the evil rebel Lucifer – while watching the story of Optimus Prime and the one who strayed away from the right path, Megatron. But it’s Part 3 now, I’m no longer so overwhelmed by those cars, trucks and other sundry everyday machines repeatedly transforming themselves into gigantic robots, so I need something more. Unfortunately, the “something more” that Transformers 3 offers is just more chaos and one new super-glam Barbie.

Let’s go over the story once. Fans of the franchise would clearly remember that in the first Transformers film, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is an American teenager leading a normal teen’s life when he buys a car and discovers that it’s not a mere automobile but a mega-robot which can transform itself into the vehicle at will. In flashback we are told about the robots from the planet of Cybertron, the battle between the Autobots (the good guys) and the Decepticons (the bad guys) that destroyed Cybertron, the descent of both groups on Earth in search of the All Spark which is the object that was responsible for creating their alien robotic race, and so on.

In Transformers 3, the Autobots continue their strategic alliance with humans … well actually with Americans, but as we all know, that’s the entire human race in Hollywood’s book. Sam – now a disgruntled college graduate without a job – discovers through a series of developments that the Decepticons are planning to steal Earth’s resources and use humans as slave labour to rebuild Cybertron. We are told that a Cybertronian spacecraft manned by Optimus’ senior Sentinel Prime had crashed into the moon many decades back and that was what prompted US President John F. Kennedy to kick off America’s mission that sent Neil Armstrong to the moon. There’s a connection to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the story that I will not describe in detail. But the gist of Transformers 3 is that in present-day America, Sam Witwicky and Optimus Prime once again take on the task of saving Earth from the Decepticons.

It’s all very clever at one level, but the manner in which the story is told is plain downright immature. Besides, there is so much plot confusion that at one point it seemed like everyone was shouting and attacking everyone else without quite knowing why. I mean, if the Decepticons intend to use humans to rebuild their planet, wouldn’t it make sense to conserve humanity? And yet, before any provocation is thrown in their paths, they start running riot in Chicago, ripping buildings apart, and killing every man and woman in sight.

I can see why Shia LaBeouf would want to be a part of this silly enterprise. After all, it’s this multi-million-dollar-earning series that has made this youngster an international star. But it beats me why Oscar winner Frances McDormand or hotties Josh Duhamel and Patrick Dempsey were willing to join the cacophony. Model-turned-actress Rosie Huntington-Whiteley replaces Megan Fox as Sam’s girlfriend. Ms Whiteley looks delectable in a white shirt and nothing else in an early scene in this film, but seems incapable of moving the muscles in her face. If director Michael Bay was looking for a mere hot bod for that role, why on earth didn’t he think of someone like swimsuit model Brooklyn Decker (Just  Go With It) who is beautiful, has a fabulous figure and … wait for it … CAN ALSO ACT!

For me, the selling point of the first film was the imposing Optimus Prime behind whose metallic facial features I could visualise a ruggedly handsome man. Sadly, Transformers 3 does not have enough of him. Equally sad is the fact that the film makes a mere token bow to femininity – the robots are probably genderless but they sure as hell all sound like human males and there’s a passing glimpse of a female Autobot. What the film does have in good measure is the wonderful and well-chosen Leonard Nimoy (Mr Spock from TV’s Star Trek) who lends dignity and strength to the voice of Sentinel Prime.

Any sci-fi action adventure treads a fine line between being profound and being silly, depending on how effectively it coaxes the audience into a suspension of disbelief. Unfortunately, Transformers 3 falls way past that dividing line into juvenile territory. The film clearly intends to send out messages about the conservation of resources, basic goodness and honesty (which Optimus exemplifies) and certain political issues that are of universal concern. It is no doubt making a statement on alliances with evil forces (I’d like to believe that’s a reference to the inevitably self-destructive nature of America’s tie-ups with known perpetrators of terrorism in its war against terror). There’s also a condemnation of political and diplomatic opportunism here (the Decepticons’ human partner-in-crime teams up with them because he is convinced that they will be victors, not because he feels they are right). A well-meaning storyline, sequences of awe-inspiring action and special effects do not add up to good cinema. Seriously man, please lay this franchise to rest!

Rating (out of five): **

Release date in the US:	June 29, 2011
MPAA Rating (US):	PG-13 (for intense prolonged sequences of sci-fi action violence, mayhem and destruction, and for language, some sexuality and innuendo)
CBFC Rating (India):	U/A
Running time:	151 minutes
Language:	English

Photograph courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers:_Dark_of_the_Moon