Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

After years of anticipation and excitement, it is finally the beginning of the end.  Since the release of the first book in 1997, people have been absolutely enthralled with Harry Potter and for good reason.  With the first of eight movies being released in 2001, part one of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released last week and has already accumulated $125.0M (Over $100M higher than the runner up, Megamind).  Just as a refresher, or for those who haven't seen the movies or read the books, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is placed just shortly after the death of Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) and follows Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) on their quest to vanquish Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) once and for all.  After having seen the sixth movie last summer, I was skeptical as to whether or not this movie would do the book justice.  When I found out they were splitting it into two parts, I was somewhat relieved; a great downfall of the sixth movie was that it cut out moments of great importance and didn't seem to really do The Half-Blood Prince justice.  However, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 was pleasantly surprising and left me in anticipation for the coming of the conclusion that is Harry Potter.

One clear improvement from the movie released last year is that they gave themselves room to really touch on all of the important details.  Certain details are still shut out and others are even ignored, but the movie really manages to touch each and every important moment and only skips over less important aspects of the movie.  What is even more impressive is that the movie manages to fill out the two and a half hour time block while seemingly nothing is going on.  For those that have read the book, the entire first half is essentially comprised of major events separated by long spans of time where the three main characters are trying to figure out what their next move is.  The same feeling translates into the movie, but not at any point in time do you feel that the movie is dragging its feet.  The movie successfully fills up the time slot and ends at a point which will not only fuel viewers anticipation, but may also be a surprising stopping point to readers.

While the movie still falls short with certain character interactions (such as that between Harry and Ginny) and doesn't utilize some of their stronger actors as much as one would hope (Bill Nighy and Alan Rickman among them), it finally makes that turn from a kid's movie to a more adult drama.  In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince there was a large amount of opportunity to make this turn and even have viewers on the edge of their seat in fear.  However, it seemed as though they tried to compensate the feeling of fear with awkward teen interaction and fluffy love triangles.  What Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 1 finds strength in is that it knows when and how to make you feel sad/fearful/anxious/etc.  The depressing moments are sad and don't turn the corner with a quick one liner;the genuine moments make you feel the trio's friendship; and most importantly, the frightening moments have such a large scale and truly dark mood that they create scenes wrought with tension. 

Other standout points in the movie are the special effects and the cinematography.  The special effects have really taken a large leap and blend into the world almost seamlessly, and while you know some of the creatures and scenes are merely CGI, at times it's hard to pry yourself away from fantasy.  Never before have I been able to say anything about cinematography with any of the Harry Potter movies, but for this one, certain shots and angle make you notice how great the direction is.  The acting is still nothing above and beyond what it should be for a Harry Potter movie, but outside of Radcliffe's grimacing, you can tell that the primary acting cast is finally starting to fill out their adult shoes.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is a huge improvement from the let down last year.  It manages to transform into more of a drama while still keeping true to its fans.  It touches on just enough from the book to make readers feel as though they weren't cheated.  The special effects and directions are much better than in past films and the film was truly a joy to watch.  Without question, the whole world will be eagerly anticipating July 15, 2011 when Harry Potter finally comes to a close.

Fallout: New Vegas

Alright, I've been meaning to get this review up for a while, but Fallout: New Vegas is a big ol' game and I had to get a good amount of hours in on it before I felt qualified to write a review on it.  Fallout: New Vegas is the newest RPG released from Obsidian Entertainment, a followup to their 2008 hit, Fallout 3, although not a direct sequel.  For those that aren't familiar with the Fallout series, the game places you in post-apocalyptic America.  In Fallout 3 you were placed in Washington D.C. and various expansion packs sent you to Pittsburgh and even space.  As you can probably guess New Vegas places you in Vegas.  More specifically, you'll spend more time wandering around the Mojave Desert and using New Vegas as a hub where you'll receive a large portion of your missions.  The story is very different from that of Fallout 3 and places you in the shoes of a courier who was shot and killed for the package he was carrying.  Luckily, a robot named Victor saves you and takes you to a doctor in order to fix you up.  The first portion of the game is played trying to get revenge on Benny (voiced by Matthew Perry), the man that killed you and took your package, the platinum chip.  As you progress, you find out that the platinum chip is very valuable to several people and you are placed in a situation where you can take about three or four different paths, all of which will have different consequences, story lines, and endings.

The graphics of New Vegas aren't anything different from Fallout 3.  The graphics are essentially recycled, although certain textures and environments seem a bit sharper than in the game's predecessor.  The setting of New Vegas is enormous and will give you plenty of things to discover and lots of time to roam around.  New Vegas, in particular, is a strong contrast from any city in Fallout 3 in that it is heavily populated and booming with prostitutes, gamblers, and belligerent drunks.  While New Vegas is a lot of fun, it could be a lot more free flowing.  The city is divided into various segments and large buildings which makes for a lot of loading times while wandering around New Vegas.  Outside of that, however, there are little to no loading times across the Mojave Desert, save for when you enter a building.  On a similar note, the loading times are pretty reasonable and are never excruciatingly long, which is surprising for how much needs to be loaded in the game's massive environment. 

The story line of New Vegas doesn't relate you to your character as much as Fallout 3 did, but tosses in a new element that Fallout 3 didn't have.  The route you took in Fallout 3 was pretty straight forward and not until the very end did you really have a choice to stray from that path.  In New Vegas, almost immediately you have to choose between three different factions to side with or to just rebel on your own as a vigilante.  This not only makes the story more engaging, but makes it unpredictable.  Another new factor in New Vegas is the various factions that you can either side with or rebel against.  This makes the game more engaging, giving you the option to manipulate certain groups while working with others, gaining favor with some for protection, or even getting everyone to side with you only to turn on them in the end.  This factors into the main storyline with the three biggest factions: Caesar's Legion, the NCR, and Mr. House.  Playing these factions against one another is difficult, but can make for a very independent and unique storyline. 

Possibly the most interesting aspect of New Vegas is hardcore mode.  As would be expected from venturing across the Mojave Desert, one needs to stay well hydrated and have a constant supply of food as well as necessary rest.  What hardcore mode does is make it so that you have to drink water, you have to eat, and  you have to sleep.  In Fallout 3, the only time you had to eat was if you needed some health; you drank water if you needed health; you slept if  you needed health and were near a bed.  In New Vegas, you have to drink water or else you'll suffer from dehydration sickness; you have to eat otherwise you may die of starvation; you have to sleep or you'll be sleep deprived and, yes, all of these things will affect your character gradually from moving slowly, limping, or even losing strength.  Other factors play into hardcore more such as ammunition has weight to it, stimpaks and food heal over time (as opposed to instantly), and you can only be fully healed and fully rested if you sleep in your own bed.  Hardcore mode definitely makes the game more difficult and makes you monitor your actions and well-being more closely than before.

One large complaint among critics, however, has been the mass amount of bugs and glitches in the game.  I will agree that New Vegas does have its fair amount of bugs and glitches, but I commend Obsidian for coming out with patches within days of the game's release.  However, even though updates have been put out, I still experience a glitch every now and again.  Now, I'm not talking about your simple AI character getting stuck in a wall glitch; let me give you an example.  At one point I went to my Pip-Boy (which is an in-game device on your wrist for those that aren't familiar) and exited only to find myself flung twenty feet in the air.  Another time, I was shooting at a mole rat at the bottom of a hill and suddenly saw it flying in the sky.  Needless to say, with a game that is so expansive and leaves a lot of decision to the player, there are bound to be some bugs.  However, for so many bugs to be present in the game at the date of release is somewhat unforgivable. 

Looking past the little bugs, Fallout New Vegas is a fantastic game.  While it does recycle a lot from Fallout 3 in terms of graphics, it is by no means Fallout 3.5.  New Vegas is a game entirely in and of itself.  The unique storyline allows players to choose their own adventure with an incredible amount of flexibility.  The game play is as fun as ever with the continuance of various guns, VATS, and followers (some make a reappearance from Fallout 3 and those familiar with Dogmeat will enjoy the robotic dog Rex in New Vegas).  New Vegas has an expansive environment that will please those who played Fallout 3 and will guarantee several hours of game time (I've already racked up 15 and I'm no where near finishing the main storyline).  Newcomers should definitely give New Vegas a shot if they've never picked up a Fallout game.  Various improvements are made from Fallout 3 while still maintaining the same level of fun and enjoyment.  Other perks in New Vegas include a great soundtrack with artists such as Dean Martin, Bing Crosby, and Nat King Cole making an appearance.  The list of voice actors is expansive as well including Matthew Perry as Benny, Ron Pearlman (who has been a narrator for most of the franchise's existence), William Sandler as Victor, and Wayne Newton as the radio host Mr. New Vegas.  Fallout: New Vegas may have its flaws, but they pale in comparison to the expansiveness and versatility of the overall game.  Fallout: New Vegas is definitely a game any RPG fan should pick up and should be a game that everyone should at least try.  It holds true to the Fallout feeling, but separates itself from Fallout 3 as a spectacular game in and of itself with unique environments, characters, and storyline.  Thanks for reading and check back for reviews on Call of Duty: Black Ops and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood in the coming weeks.

Review: The Social Network

I've been meaning to review this for a while but haven't had time, so here's my review of The Social Network.

Consider, for a moment, the first time you ever logged onto a social networking website. What thoughts crossed your mind, entering that sphere of information, so vast yet so deeply personal? Who told you to join? Why did you do it? What parts of yourself did you put into that system, trusting that its unseen makers would connect your virtual being to thousands of others like you?

These are some of the many questions raised by David Fincher’s astounding new film, The Social Network. The movie follows Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) through the process of creating and founding the social giant known as Facebook. It is created in the style that Fincher has made all his own, drawing on the best parts of his best films (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac). It is unremitting in its movement, churning forward through its 120 minutes with lightning speed and mechanical precision. The film, unlike many of Fincher’s previous works, is immune to spoilers, because though a great deal happens, it all moves towards an inevitable conclusion. There is no great payoff here, no last-minute twist. Though Fincher showed in Se7en and Fight Club that he is more than capable of executing these tropes, The Social Network finds him at his most mature, working with restraint instead of shock and spectacle.

The Facebook story is well known enough: Zuckerberg, a brilliant Harvard student, creates a social networking engine in his spare time that comes to be a billion-dollar entity. Along the way, questions arise concerning whether or not Zuckerberg stole his idea, specifically from the Winklevoss twins, two wealthy Harvard rowers who are just perfect enough to be creepy. The film smoothly entwines the story of the past with that of the present, where Zuckerberg faces two separate lawsuits over the origin of the Facebook concept.

Such a story might seem more history than drama, but screenwriter Aaron Sorkin has managed to create a script that his so engrossing that one will barely notice that two hours have passed between the film’s credit sequences. His dialogue is harsh, witty, and arrogant, and is delivered expertly by Eisenberg and his costars, most notably Andrew Garfield, who plays Zuckerberg’s best friend and colleague. His character is at once a sympathetic victim and a helpless obstacle, frustrating in his ignorance of Zuckerberg’s workings.

Technically, The Social Network is nothing short of a masterpiece. Every aspect is polished and seamless, woven with unmatched attention and lucidity. One scene in particular, a beautifully photographed rowing race, captures a sequence of speed and brute force in elegant detail, and is matched perfectly by the film’s excellent score. The music, composed and recorded by Trent Reznor of the industrial outfit Nine Inch Nails, is uncanny in its sonic representation of Fincher’s themes, meticulous and technologically innovative throughout.

Though the film is extremely well-crafted as a whole, its most notable achievement lies in its ability to capture what social networking is really all about. The concept originally relied on its exclusivity, drawing users only through others who already had access to the site, and then only if one had an email address from a member college. Eventually, Facebook became open to everyone, but its allure remains. It is exciting, it is cool, and everyone wants to be a part of it. Therein lies the paradox of social networking: despite its hipness, something lingers under the surface that is somehow vulgar, ugly, ominous. We join the networks and control our appearance there, but in truth, we allow them to access our lives, to penetrate those secrets and desires which we ourselves sometimes do not recognize. In the end, though, we are all too willing to continue. In today’s world, after all, what choice do we have?

Due Date (2010)

 Released just this past Friday, November 5th, 2010, Due Date pairs Iron Man's Robert Downey Jr. with The Hangover's Zach Galifianakis for a trip across the country.  Robert Downey Jr. plays Peter Highman, an architect working on a project in Atlanta who is about to fly home to L.A. just before his wife gives birth to his first child.  On his way to the airport, a reckless driver smashes the door to his chauffeur's car right off its hinges and out steps Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis).  From the very moment they meet and switch bags, Tremblay does everything possible to rub Highman the wrong way.  After being put on the no flight list, Highman must figure out a way to get home to his wife and, having left his wallet on the now airborne plane, has no choice but to embark on a cross country road trip with Tremblay.  The entirity of the movie circles around the odd couple sort of interactions between Downey Jr. and Galifianakis.  Galifianakis relies on a dead pan, inappropriate, almost demented humor at times, which is quickly juxtaposed against Downey Jr.'s more harsh, blunt comedic delivery.  Galifianakis' most funny moments come with his inappropriate laughter and through Ethan Tremblay's atrocious acting skills of which his favorite line seems to be "What are you, a girl or something?"  Downey Jr.'s more funny moments, however, come when he is "seeing red" and tearing Tremblay a new or, my favorite, when he hits a child and says, "Play cool or I'll thump you again."

The comedic duo seems to play off each other relatively well throughout the entire movie, but never really seem to click as a dynamic all that often.  Rather, they play as two separate entities with their own individual moments.  However, one particular strength of the film is its unexpected sentimental moments.  Throughout the movie, Galifianakis mourns over the recent death of his father, and at times it is incredibly heart wrenching.  These moments are often broken up with quick one liners, such as Tremblay saying "Dad, you were like a father to me," but more often then not they linger around to really make the audience feel something.  There are some great shocker moments as well, as can be expected with Galifianakis.  Downey Jr. brings a bit of class to the movie, but also counteracts the ignorant, well intentioned Galifianakis incredibly well by being almost the exact opposite: intelligent, blunt, and impatient.  Other cameos in the movie make the movie more enjoyable such as the brief appearance of Jamie Foxx, Juliette Lewis, Danny McBride, and Matt Walsh.

While Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis manage to make an interesting duo they don't really accomplish anything that any other odd couple type of movie hasn't.  They can, however, be placed on par with other favorite odd couple movies released this year such as Dinner For Schmucks and The Other Guys.  There are definitely some wow moments and to see the relationship between the two protagonists develop is both entertaining and heart warming.  I would recommend going to see Due Date in theaters, but if you want to wait for it to come out on DVD/Bluray, I wouldn't hold it against you.  Without doubt, though, you should see it.  No?  "What are you, a girl or something?"