A Great Adaptation That Only Meets Us Halfway

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

*** out of ****

Directed by: David Yates

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Bill Nighy and Helena Bonham Carter

Running time: 146 minutes

It was J.K. Rowling who introduced me not only to a sweeping and fully encompassing fantasy world of magic with her Harry Potter series, but to the magic of fiction as a whole.

Thankfully, as an avid fan of the novels, I have not disliked one of the film adaptations, even as they shifted from Chris Columbus' kiddie-oriented adventures to Alfonso Cuaron and Mike Newell's soarting tales of dangers - adolescent and magical - to David Yates' obediently adult political parables.

For this Potterphile, Hallows ranks third of the seven installments released thus far, behind Half-Blood Prince (the most character-driven) and Goblet of Fire (the most royally entertaining). Part 1 is rapt with spellbinding action sequences, nuanced performances and sinister political overtones, but is sadly a mere transitional set-up for the series finale, set to razzle-dazzle awestruck fans on July 15, 2011.

In Part 1, Harry (Radcliffe), Ron (Grint, the show-stealer yet again) and Hermione (Watson) are not making the yearly trip to Diagon Alley, Platform 9 ¾ or Hogwarts. There are more pressing matters at bay: they must retrieve Voldemort’s remaining horcruxes (the Dark Lord is played by Ralph Fiennes), where he has hidden his soul to attain immortality.

Meanwhile, Potter is “Undesirable #1,” wanted by the Ministry of Magic, now firmly controlled by Voldemort in true Big Brother fashion. To make matters worse, Death Eaters are pursuing the scarred wizard and his friends so that Voldemort can finish off Harry before the horcruxes are relinquished.

Godspeed to all who are unversed in Rowling’s literary universe, as the film overwhelmingly zigzags when referencing events and characters from earlier installments. The young adult wizards have received ambiguous clues and items given by late Hogwarts headmaster Dumbledore in the last film, and now find them to be frustratingly unhelpful. This convoluted mystery is reminiscent of a hyperactive, although decidedly darker Scooby Doo episode.

For diehard fans who whined that the previous entry, Half-Blood Prince, was disappointingly low in action, there's no need to fret: Yates has worked overtime in orchestrating full-throttled action set-pieces. From a riveting, unbearably suspenseful hide-and-seek situation with a ghoulish snake to an exhilarating car (and broomstick) chase through the streets (and skies) of London, Yates, for the most part, frames the action coherently and keeps the spells rattling off at a quick, nifty pace.

The film’s action centerpiece, where the three friends, disguised as other wizards, infiltrate the Ministry to search for a handy device, contains both sharp comedic timing and suspenseful momentum (also, watch out for the nod to Terry Gilliam's Brazil). The high-octane spectacle is not bad for Yates who, until Potter, was a reliable source for filming small BBC miniseries and TV movies.

Unfortunately gone in this version are the plush, Victorian interiors of Hogwarts so artfully designed by Stuart Craig. Instead, we get a delightful, devilish piece of shadow-puppet animation during a brief expository piece – the story of the titular Deathly Hallows – that more than makes up for the lack of gothic mise-en-scene.

Of course, the Hogwarts faculty, usually populating the screen in supporting roles and consisting of nearly every English actor currently employed, is mostly gone or reduced to mere scenery. Alan Rickman’s detestable Snape gets a few lines, and John Hurt’s Ollivander (who hasn’t been seen since Philosopher’s Stone in 2001) shows up briefly near the end but doesn't do much.

With the adult ensemble given the silent treatment, the weight of Deathly Hallows solely falls into the laps of Radcliffe, Grint and Watson. The three actors are capable of carrying the film, and all deliver series-best portrayals. Given a quest that seems almost impossible to finish, the comrades struggle to find the strength within them to continue on this daunting task. Hope recedes and tension mounts, especially when Ron becomes envious of Hermione’s blossoming admiration for his best friend.

The core friendship – the driving force of Rowling’s series – is, unfortunately, the sole withering point of Deathly Hallows, even if the portrayals are pitch-perfect. The actors are game with carrying the mystery along, but their relationships could have used more weight. Save for a somber dance between Harry and Hermione, much of the camaraderie and humanity is taken a back seat to make way for – gasp – a pithy adolescent love triangle between the three that recalls Stephenie Meyer.

With so much time spent on dissecting the details of the complex journey at hand, there are few poignant moments that reiterate the grave expense these characters are risking their lives for, and their noble decision to brace it together.

Deathly Hallows may be the best Harry Potter film adaptation, but I can’t determine that yet since halfway through, it ended. I understand that as the biggest money-making franchise in Warner Brothers' history, it is tempting to keep going for an extra installment. But one can dream of what a no-holds-barred three-and-a-half hour finale may have looked like.

The decision to split the films sucks out the momentum and keeps character development to a minimum (having our pockets picked in the process doesn’t help, either). I don’t blame Potterphiles who want to ship the Warner studio heads off to Azkaban immediately.

It’s a shame we can’t get Part 2 immediately, since the first installment sets it up admirably, with strong performances, exhilarating battles, formidable pacing and unrelenting menace. It’s a remarkably entertaining film, but also only half of a film, or rather an invigorating and exciting 146-minute teaser for the real finale.

The Wright Stuff

Trigger

***1/2 out of ****

Directed by: Bruce McDonald

Starring: Tracy Wright, Molly Parker, Sarah Polley, Callum Keith Rennie and Don McKellar.

Running time: 78 minutes

“I don’t care about the destination,” says Vic, the sour ex-rocker portrayed by Tracy Wright in Bruce McDonald’s new film, Trigger. “I’m more concerned about the velocity.”

Wright, a Canadian character actress, passed away this June from pancreatic cancer. McDonald, who also helmed the Canadian punk-rock reunion flick Hard Core Logo, rushed Trigger into production after Wright was diagnosed last December so she could complete it before she succumbed to the disease.

Trigger is her swan song, a terrific film that encompasses Wright’s versatile talents. She is so cool and comfortable within her character’s skin that her bitterly funny, emotionally devastating performance comes off as sharp rather than cold, and revealing instead of wretched.

The film is almost entirely a two-woman show, and chronicles the one-night reunion of the titular punk-rock duo at a Toronto benefit concert. On one side is Vic, who is sitting in the shadows as a struggling, acoustic musician who has moved toward spirituality to make up for past sins. On the other side is Kat (played by Molly Parker), who is walking in the sunlight as a successful music advisor for an L.A. television station.

They have not seen each other in twelve years. They used to perform at loose, rowdy concerts under the influence of booze and heroin (shown in black-and-white archive footage at the film’s start.) Now, Vic and Kat are looking at their fragile, dysfunction friendship as older women, vulnerable and filled with regret.

In the film’s blistering 15-minute opening scene, Kat and Vic meet at a chic, urban restaurant. Instead of catching up and reminiscing joyfully, the two get all of the disrespect out on the table until all they are doing is spouting out gutless profanity and insults. (The piercing, ping-pong dialogue comes from the pen of famed Canadian playwright Daniel MacIvor).

What does this opener do? It introduces us to the pain simmering between these two complicated women. Trigger bluntly releases all the tension from the get-go, allowing the two actresses to bounce off each other with verve and insatiable wit.

Parker is wonderful as Kat, a carefree personality who’s having a bit of trouble controlling her demons – the actress’s glassy gaze hints at a deep insecurity within the character. It also helps that Parker has the vocal chops to own the spotlight at a funky stage performance midway through the film.

Make sure to watch out for other Canucks in brief cameos, such as Sarah Polley as a controlling stage manager and Don McKellar (Wright’s real long-time partner) as Vic’s scrounging novelist boyfriend.

Trigger will undoubtedly be remembered as the final tribute to one of this country’s finest actresses, in a role that epitomizes the passion, the class and the overall cool that Wright personified. When she recites a memory about her Scottish lover and their drug-fueled escapades, Wright exerts a brazenness and then an anguish that will be hard for anyone – uninhibited rock star or otherwise – to shake for days.

Wright was right: the destination doesn’t matter. It is her accomplished, high-velocity performance – full of wit, energy and poignancy – that does. One would be hard pressed to imagine a more perfect way to cap off a legendary career.

Strangers and a Train

Unstoppable

*** out of ****

Directed by: Tony Scott

Starring: Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Rosario Dawson and Kevin Dunn

Running time: 98 minutes

It rockets forward, careening at 80 miles per hour. The brakes are disconnected, the conductor is absent, the materials inside can be deadly if exposed near certain chemicals. If it veers off track for a split second, the impact could be catastrophic.

That’s the set-up for Unstoppable, a sleekly paced and solidly acted adrenaline rush from director Tony Scott. While Scott’s reliance on hyperkinetic editing and swooping camera movement have become overwhelming in his later films, he wisely decided on a project featuring a centerpiece that also cannot stop moving.

The film marks Scott’s fifth collaboration with Denzel Washington (and his second in a row featuring a dangerous train, after last year's Pelham 1 2 3 remake). Washington is Frank Barnes, a blue-collar engineer on a Southern Pennsylvania railroad who is partnered up with a young conductor, Will Colson (Chris Pine).

But with a runaway train chugging along nearby, and a young yardmaster, Connie Hooper (Rosario Dawson, appealing as ever), responsible for fixing the potentially deadly situation, she calls on the twosome to stop it manually. As the locomotive careens toward urban Pennsylvania, there’s a high chance it could derail on a sharp, curvy turn that would send it crashing into a fuel oil tank farm.

Unstoppable is loosely inspired by an incident in 2001, when an unmanned train spiraled through the tracks of a Northwestern Ohio railway for 66 miles. The speed was lower (under 50 m.p.h.) and the consequences far less perilous, but that wouldn’t have made for a very exciting film.

Here, you got two likable and virile actors, Washington and Pine, playing characters who are easy to root for, even when Mark Bomback's script introduces some disarray within their lives. This was likely done to ensure that these characters can reconcile these flaws by saving the day.

As swift the pacing and as high as the stakes are raised, it might have been wise had Bomback packed in more time with the two central characters. The film’s reliance on news outlets spelling out the situations and emphasizing the danger are overused. We need to care more about the "who" than the "what," even in an intense life-or-death situation.

Regardless, it's a minor flaw for an otherwise formidable achievement in action filmmaking. With Scott as the film's superconductor, toning down the CGI and amping up the swerving tracking shots, the action sequences – with real trains at really high speeds with really crazy close calls – are masterfully shot and edited.

Although the characters may be a tad too ordinary, the heroics within Unstoppable are extraordinary. It delivers as an aggressive, taut thrill ride that lives up to its title, meaning it would be wise to upsize that popcorn.

A New Addition to The Screening Room

Dear My Faithful Followers,

I have decided to take on a new endeavour on my blog, The Screening Room.

Every month or so, I will post a list in the form of a Top 10 or Top 20. The lists will focus on an aspect of film and entertainment, and my choices will be decided by a “Ten Best” or “Ten Worst” type of criteria.

My first “Top 10” list (or “Top 20,” I’ve yet to decide) was inspired by a moment in my film theory and analysis class yesterday. My professor, the shrewd and intelligent Andre Loiselle, mentioned that he wasn’t nuts about Inception. Following that statement, there was an audibly stunned response from my fellow peers.

Being a film critic is not a difficult thing. If you can analyze and view films keenly, with more than mere passive amusement, it doesn’t take much to recite a thoughtful, well-constructed opinion. The problem, however, comes when you mention that you love something that the vast majority hate, or hate something that is virtually admired by all - especially the latter.

If few agree with what you say, it becomes a challenge to argue the validity of your argument without offending the predominant view. And if few agree with you on a consistent basis, are you even a reliable source of criticism?

For my first list, I will be counting down The Top Films That Everybody Loves… But Me. I plan on putting the record straight on movies that I feel are wildly overpraised and appreciated far beyond the level that they deserve. The list should be up by the end of the year.

Expect me to return next week with a new review, a new analysis, and perhaps more. Until then, take care, and please vote in the new poll.

Note: If you have any ideas for this segment, I'll lend you my ears.

Just Don't Call Them "The Expendables"

RED

**1/2 out of ****

Directed by: Robert Schwentke

Starring: Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Mary-Louise Parker, Morgan Freeman, Karl Urban and Helen Mirren

Running time: 110 minutes

RED is not just the title for Hollywood’s latest reunion of vintage thespians re-enacting moments from their action-packed prime. It stands for “Retired and Extremely Dangerous,” which already gives away much of the story and character details. But the acronym title could also be “Really Entertaining Diversion,” which is all that the film amounts to.

Leading the pack of veterans is Bruce Willis – a lot more coherent and lively than he was during his brief stint in another testosterone-filled reunion, this summer’s abysmal The Expendables. Here, he is Frank Moses, a retired CIA operative who has settled into idyllic, suburban Cleveland and is now working on a long-distance, over-the-phone relationship with a romance novelist named Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker).

But when a team of insurgents barrage his home, Moses decides to flee, picking up Sarah along the way, and beginning to plot revenge on the mastermind out to get him and a crew of retired black-op agents, among them the drug-raddled Marvin (Malkovich, who’s a hoot here) and Joe (Morgan Freeman, underdeveloped and underused).

RED also features Helen Mirren cozied up with a Kalashnikov, a brusque baddie from Star Trek’s Karl Urban, Richard Dreyfuss and Brian Cox embracing one-note caricatures with sleek class and a goofy smile, and one of the sweetest – and most unexpected – cameos from an Oscar-winning charmer, this time playing a CIA records keeper.

As you can probably guess, the secret to RED’s success is its inspired casting choices.

The rest of the film, based on a bloodthirsty comic-book series, is less than inspired; regrettably, the plot is a rehash of conspiracy thrillers (with many similarities to In the Line of Fire, which starred Malkovich) and over-the-top explosive theatrics (ones that recall Willis’s Die Hard series).

The meager storyline is of secondary importance: having our cast of characters reunite and evoke memories of the good ol’ days before they embark on their new mission comes first.

Its reliance on cueing action-movie clichés and half-decent wisecracks only go so far. This is the type of flick where characters will simply dust off the bloodshed they’ve inflicted after a carnage-heavy sequence. But RED doesn’t want you to take its storyline too seriously.

It’s the ingenious casting that makes RED worthwhile. Its performers are packed with so much candor, class and charisma that it prevents the onscreen action from being, well, expendable. Watching these seasoned stars chew up the scenery like it’s the pocpcorn you’ll undoubtedly be stuffing your face with is pure fun, and given the tired (or, more appropriately, retired) material, it's the best anyone can expect.