The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Super 8

Directed by: J.J. Abrams

Produced by: Steven Spielberg

J.J. Abrams

Bryan Burk

Screenplay by: J.J. Abrams

Starring: Joel Courtney

Elle Fanning

Kyle Chandler

Ron Eldard

Noah Emmerich

David Gallagher

Riley Griffiths

Music by: Michael Giacchino

Cinematography by: Larry Fong

Editing by: Maryann Brandon

Mary Jo Markey

Studio(s): Bad Robot Productions

Amblin Entertainment

Distributed by: Paramount Pictures

Release date(s): June 9, 2011 (Australia)

June 10, 2011 (United States)

August 5, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 112 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $50 million

Gross revenue (as of publication): $220, 089, 773

Outside of the movies I've been watching for review (believe me, they are still coming, despite my near/week-long absence), such as Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes and tomorrow's Cars 2, I've been seeing a lot of classic films. Kurosawa's Drunken Angel and Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity would teach many filmmakers how exactly to use tension in a film. Also, on the reviewing side of things, I will be seeing for definite Final Destination 5 and I Saw The Devil, the new Kim Ji-woon film, and hopefully Pedro Almodovar's The Skin I Live In, Cowboys And Aliens, The Smurfs, Spy Kids 4 and One Day. As you can see, I'm still pretty freaking busy!

Super 8, today's film, is the latest to come from J.J. Abrams, most famous for his work as the creative force behind Alias and Lost, producing Cloverfield and directing the latest feature-film instalment in the Star Trek universe, 2009's eponymous Star Trek, a film I like very much. Steven Spielberg produces the new Abrams film, which initially had a marketing campaign reminiscent to that Cloverfield, but later was marketed as a throwback to film's in the 1980s such as Spielberg's own E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial and Robb Reiner's Stand By Me. In the summer of 1979, Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) loses his mother in a factory accident. His father Jackson (Kyle Chandler) has one of the wake's attendees Louise Dainard (Ron Eldard) taken away in handcuffs. Four months later, Joe and his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) are working on a low-budget zombie film, and convince Dainard's daughter Alice (Elle Fanning) to play the protagonist's wife. When they are filming a scene at a train station, Joe witnesses a truck drive onto the tracks, which derails the train. As is the case with movies of this sort, things go amuck and the army arrive to contain their 'property' in a rather secretive and dubious manner.

To start with praise on Super 8, the young cast must be applauded. Each member is instantly likeable, and the screenplay is written as such that they are given their own personalities (on another note, one of the kid's looks the spit of a young Jaz Coleman!). Nevertheless, there are three I would like to applaud specifically. Joel Courtney is wonderful as Joe Lamb, and has a tough range of emotions to master, and does so with grace. He lends a tremendously three-dimension quality to the character and gives Henry Thomas in E.T. a run for his money. Elle Fanning is also great, taking a character that could have been fodder and giving it real depth and humanism. Finally, Riley Griffiths' Charles is the film's scene-stealer. His is the character who could have been most annoying, but instead his passion/obsession in making his film comes across as endearing and his insults of the people around him are hilarious. This is easily one of the best supporting male actor roles of the year. As is expected in a J.J. Abrams film, the film's technical wizardry shine throughout. Zack Snyder's regular collaborator Larry Fong does a great job as cinematographer and the film's co-editors Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey also do fine work. An important part of the film is the score by Michael Giacchino. For those of you who don't follow the blog, I often have problems with orchestral scores, but here it really works. Giacchino's score adds another layer of pathos to what is already an emotionally strong film and gives us one of the year's finest in film music. Finally, this is really a project of passion for J.J. Abrams, and this passion is the skin that keeps the film together.

That said, whilst J.J. Abrams' work as a director of this film are praiseworthy, his screenplay, though full of well-written characters and dialogue, is less praiseworthy. As a throwback film, it is inevitable perhaps to be compared to film's such as those mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, Super 8 does not stand out from the pack and despite being a great film is one of the, if not the most cliched film I have seen all year. I won't indulge heavily, as that would give away plot spoilers, though to be truthful you could see them a mile away. Our lead protagonist Joe of course has lost his mother and has a busy workaholic father, the military comes into the small town of the fictional Lillian, Ohio in a suspicious manner etc. etc. How many times we have seen this before I don't know, and for a film that is so praiseworthy, it is infuriating that it was not as original as it should be. Not just plot details, but the structure of the screenplay, seems to revel in a bath of cliches that we are expected to just accept because Abrams has delivered an already great film. Well, to be frank, I don't!

If you can overlook the serious overabundance of cliches (which I can't), Super 8 contains just about everything you'd want to see in a film. Heck, even with these cliches, it is still a great film. The young cast, specifically Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning and Riley Griffiths are great, and Kyle Chandler who plays Joe's dad Jackson. As is expected from a J.J. Abrams film, the technical aspects of the film are pretty solid, and the film also contains an unexpectedly powerful orchestral score from Michael Giacchino. Finally, though an auteur's work it stands pretty cliche and unoriginal, Abrams' passion for the project shines through and gives us a thoroughly entertaining film.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 8.4/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Very pleased

P.S. Shows my great skills as a review, but I forgot to mention the production design, the costumes and the special effects. This film has a great, naturalistic mise-en-scene that puts us firmly into the world that the character's inhabit

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Zookeeper

Directed by: Frank Coraci

Produced by: Todd Garner

Kevin James

Adam Sandler

Jack Giarraputo

Walt Becker

Screenplay by: Nick Bakay

Rock Reuben

Kevin James

Jay Scherick

David Ronn

Story by: Jay Scherick

David Ronn

Keenan Donahue

Starring: Kevin James

Leslie Bibb

Rosario Dawson

Ken Jeong

Steffiana De La Cruz

Donnie Wahlberg

Joe Rogan

Voices by: Sylvester Stallone

Cher

Nick Nolte

Adam Sandler

Maya Rudolph

Bas Rutten

Judd Apatow

Jon Favreau

Music by: Rupert Gregson-Williams

Cinematography by: Michael Barrett

Editing by: Scott Hill

Studio(s): Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Happy Madison Productions

Distributed by: Colombia Pictures

Release date(s): July 8, 2011 (United States)

July 29, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 104 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $80 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $131, 997, 000

Allo, allo, allo. Me again, as per usual. I watched Pixar's Cars for the first time tonight and found myself really enjoying it. A lot of people get on top of Cars as being one of the more lackluster of Pixar's films, but I found it highly entertaining and yes it looks the anthropomorphism that one can find in their previous films, but I still empathised with the characters. Also, tractor-tipping looks pretty damn hilarious. Finally, I plan on going to see either Sarah's Key or Super 8 today, so keeps your eyes open for an upcoming review on either or both.

So, today we have Zookeeper on our hands, the new Kevin James movie. For those of you who don't follow the blog, me and Kevin James have a bit of a chequered history. He starred in 2009's hit comedy Paul Blart: Mall Cop, a film I intensely disliked, as well as last year's hit comedy Grown Ups, one of my five candidates last year for worst film of the year. Saying that, James did star in Hitch, a film that is by no means perfect, but I did like, in which he and his character were actually funny. I'd be lying if I said I had a completely open mind going into it, as Adam Sandler's Happy Madison Productions always seem to saddle Kevin James with terrible projects, so I went into Zookeeper frankly bracing myself for the worst.

Say what you will about Kevin James, and I'll be the first to say it as I don't think he is particularly funny, he does have a likeable screen presence, it's just a shame that he has to play up the likeable goofball so much. Also, there are glimpses of his potential as a performer, although the film takes no time to indulge in this. Some of the voice cast do some amusing vocal acting. Sylvester Stallone's proud lion that has a lot of deep insecurities raises a few smirks, and Adam Sandler's bezerk turn as a monkey that teases a crow by sarcastically suggesting that children might say "Mommy, I want to see a crow." Don Rickles also makes an appearance, but in a far-too-short capacity. The gorilla suit in the film is done very well, as Kermode would say, and the production design for the zoo looks spot on.

That's it. At least, that would be it if I didn't have to tell you how godawfully bad Zookeeper is. To start off, the opening scene that sets us up with all the context of Griffin Keyes (trust James to play a character called Griffin) is terrible. It is neither funny or tragic, the awkwardness that is intentionally there failing to come across appropriately in either manner. Also, it is the lowest form of comedy. Ken Jeong makes his appearance's yet again doing the same old schtick and I'm getting more and more annoyed with him every time I see him. The script also doesn't help, as it is really, really poor. For starters, much of the gags are not particularly funny and have either been done a million times before and/or are the lowest form of comedy. I know he wrote part of the script, but I really am waiting for the time when Kevin James let's someone defecate on his chest for a gag, because to see him bouncing around like a bear in this film is simply embarrassingly bad, and he still seems like he is holding back some! Also, some of the animals are annoying, such as Judd Apatow's elephant that really needs to shut up, and the mouthes don't even move in sync with the voices. Furthermore, the film is unbelievably predictable. I felt like Nostradamus I was so far ahead of this movie. James receiving life lessons from the animals is silly, and his character is a terrible arc of 'learning' and that old favourite 'going on a journey.' No spoilers or anything, but I predicted the movie's ending less than ten minutes into the film, the applause of onlookers, and of course the animal's must have a terrible, terrible singalong to More Than A Feeling during the credits. Speaking of music, the soundtrack of songs selected for the film is rubbish and so goddamn populist that once again The Thin White Nostradudeus was able to predict some songs for the scenes. A full on forehead slap occurred when I saw the name Rupert Gregson-Williams as the composer for the film, as the composition was as bad the soundtrack, and I couldn't help but think of the great work of his brother Harry rather longingly. Finally, Zookeeper is a movie that is clearly not meant to be taken seriously, so it is rather annoying whenever it decides to parade around the idea that is something more to this movie than Kevin James falling on his ass. I have no problem watching a fat guy fall on his ass, I am a Laurel And Hardy fan after all, but Stan never turned to Ollie and said "Hey, Ollie, I think there's more to this than you falling over and my lack of brains." Twenty-five minutes into Zookeeper, I was thoroughly nauseated, and actually felt myself wanting walk out, something that I have never done in my time as a reviewer.

To be fair on the film, it is not as bad as Swinging With The Finkels, my current worst film of the year. It lacks the obscene pretension and pseudo-intellectual upturned attitude of that flick. However, excepting some good vocal performances, production design and a couple of glimpses of James' potential as an actor, it an all-round grotesque piece of work. Just look at the poster: now tell me, if that isn't one of the worst poster's in film history, I will eat my own shoe.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 2.4/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Furious (having woke up late and having so little time to do things, stuck reminiscing on Zookeeper)

P.S. This movie cost $80 million to make. What the fuck? The Hangover Part II cost the same, and while it is a bad movie, at least I can see where that money went!

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Debtocracy

Directed by: Katerina Kitidi

Aris Hatzistefanou

Produced by: Kostas Efimeros

Written by: Katerina Kitidi

Aris Hatzistefanou

Music by: Giannis Aggelakas

Release date(s): April 6, 2011

Running time: 74 minutes

Country: Greece

Language: Greek

So, ladies and germs, I've finally started watching some movies online this year. I know, it is not quite the movie experience one might hope for, but sure, if the screen is close enough to your face you can pretend you're in the cinema. Just kidding, although I think that the internet can be a good source for watching films, particularly those that are harder to find. Last year, I watched Dogtooth and A Serbian Film online before they found DVD release, and the fantastic website www.topdocumentaryfilms.com was my source for Collapse and last year's winner for Best Documentary Restrepo.

It was using the Top Documentary Films source that I was able to find today's film Debtocracy. The film's focus is the ongoing national debt crisis in Greek and the potential future solutions to this ongoing issue. Funded by online donators wishes to see a documentary on this topic, what was meant to be a short subject became a feature-length film and upon it's release under a Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 License online has become both a Greek national and international sensation for it's depiction of debt and recession. Going into Debtocracy, I knew nothing about it, and simply let the film take me where it wanted to.

Given that it's topic does involve both national and international economics, one would expect that Debtocracy is a well-researched piece and there is no question that it is indeed just that. Revealing the history of Greek's debt issues, we find that in the 190 years of the country's existence, it has only been a lender once, during German occupation, and for the rest of the time it has been the recipient of loans. Research such as this is important in getting to the root of the country's problems and in this regard, it is successful. The filmmaker's Katerina Kitidi and Aris Hatzistefanou also draw parallel's of the Greek crisis in the Argentinian economic crisis at the end of the beginning of the new millenium and suggests the case of Ecuador as an example of potential solutions. This is textbook, sound documentary filmmaking that in itself parallels the three-act structure of a screenplay. It puts us in context of the Greek crisis, displays a mirror image that is a reflection of their country's current state of affairs, and suggests a solution to the issue: it is a perfectly appropriate and logical approach. Furthermore, it is well edited by Leonidas Vatikiotis, who presents to us the filmmaker's argument in a wide variety of manners. Also, the contributors who the filmmaker's have selected are from a wide variety of backgrounds and view the situation from different perspectives, yet all are in agreement that something is fundamentally wrong Finally, to put the film in an even wider context, debt is an issue that extends to all countries, not just those that live under the capitalist banner. As such, Debtocracy is a film that importantly reaches out to something universal in the world we live in. This is what a good documentary (or any type of film for that matter) should be doing, catering to a wide audience and touching upon universal real-life issues.

As admirable as Detocracy is, and I certainly do admire it for the views that it takes on the solution of national debt, there are a number of problems with the movie. Unfortunately, it is one of those movies that I think will alienate a few people because it is a case of a factual mortar attack. We are absolutely bombarded with facts and figures, and I did find myself having to really try to remember what certain sections of the film were about. At only seventy-four minutes, I still found the film occasionally troublesome and overlong. In comparison to Anvil! The Story Of Anvil, my Best Picture of 2009 and a film of roughly the same length, Debtocracy does not really cater to keeping people entertained and despite being a bit of a political creature found myself peter off to an indifferent mood of not giving a damn. The film does struggle to maintain sufficient interest in what is an important issue, which is a real problem considering it's running time. I fear that as a result less people will want to see it.

There is no doubt that Debtocracy is an admirable film for the way in which it was funded by people's demands to see these issues depicted. The filmmaker's present a strong argument that is well thought out and meticulously researched. Also, it is well-structured and a balanced film, with some strong editing by Leonidas Vatikiotis. It is a good film, but it is certainly not without it's problems. We are bombarded with facts and statistics and barely given room to breath, and despite being by all means a short feature-length film, it feels a lot longer and fails to keep me as entertained or as interested as I should be. I wish I could urge people to go and see it more than this, but I would be lying if I said it was any better than the film I have presented to you now.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 6.4/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Needing (for this film to be better than it is)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Captain America: The First Avenger

Directed by: Joe Johnston

Produced by: Kevin Feige

Screenplay by: Christopher Markus

Stephen McFeeley

Based on: Captain America by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby

Starring: Chris Evans

Tommy Lee Jones

Hugo Weaving

Hayley Atwell

Sebastian Stan

Dominic Cooper

Neal McDonough

Derek Luke

Stanley Tucci

Toby Jones

Music by: Alan Silvestri

Cinematography by: Shelly Johnson

Editing by: Robert Dalva

Jeffrey Ford

Studio: Marvel Studios

Distributed by: Paramount Pictures

Release date(s): July 19, 2011 (World Premiere)

July 22, 2011 (United States)

July 29, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 124 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $140 million

Box office revenue (as of publication): $262, 037, 277

Right gang, alo alo alo! Watched Videodrome last night again and thought it was awesome once again. There aren't many eighty minute movies out there that can pack as much content into to one movie and still make you want more from it. I would sincerely recommend that everyone should take a look at this great movie. Also, unfortunately today I missed the opportunity to see any new movies, but on the plus side I was off shooting some cracking scenes for my friend's birthday present/film/sequel to last year's epic Lauce, Camera, Action!, LCA2.0!. And while I'm at it, hello to Lauce, you fucking legend!

Anyway, this is not about birthday shout-outs and what have you (though that does seem to be the route of sorts for the introductory bullshit paragraph), but about the new film Captain America: The First Avenger. It is worth noting that contrary to critical opinion/memory, there has been a previous adaptation of Captain America. I too was unaware of the 1990 version starring Matt Salinger (son of J.D.) and Ronny Cox, but I think that one should really do their research before they make bold statements like '...the first film adaptation of a much-loved superhero...'. Nevertheless, this is the first major, big-budget studio adaptation of the character, and is the last in line of Marvel's superheroes to be introduced before next year's The Avengers, which is to be followed by Iron Man 3 and Thor 2, so the Marvel 'Avengers' Universe is well in motion and features at present five films. In Captain America, present-day scientists discover a circular object with a red, white and blue motif. We are then thrust back into 1942, where Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is rejected due to health problems in his attempts to enlist in the U.S. army. However, upon overhearing Rogers' motivation for wanting to help the war, Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) allows Rogers' to enlist under the agreement that he become subject for a 'super-soldier' experiment, under he, Colonel Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) and Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell). The experiment works, and local politicians and senator's have Steve Rogers tour the U.S. as 'Captain America.'

To start off with what is good about the film, thumbs-up to Marvel for casting Chris Evans as Captain America. Evans is a terrific actor who has starred in a lot of supporting roles but hasn't quite had the big role that deserves yet. He is a fine screen presence and is completely believable and credible as Captain America/Steve Rogers. Also, well-done to the special/visual effects/make-up crews for making Chris Evans believable both as Steve Rogers, both pre and post-experiment. It is always great to see such convincing effects that do not look at all hoky. The film also has a very clean and distinct visual style that is down to the fact that the movie is both well-shot and well-lit. Production design too for the film is of a quality to be expected of a production such as this. 1940's New York is recreated in a completely believable manner and the costumes are also great. In the case of war-torn Italy, it too looks well, and the stunt team have done a very fine job. Also, it helps that the film packs some strong actors. Hugo Weaving plays a nefarious villain with a German accent in Johann Schmidt/Red Skull and Toby Jones plays Arnim Zola, Schmidt's lackey and a biochemist in the Nazi Party. The strongest of the supporting cast though is Tommy Lee Jones, who is perfectly cast as Colonel Phillips. A rough and uncouth Colonel who disapproves of a lot of things is perhaps not a stretch for Jones, but it is his damn sure entertaining. His interview scene with Toby Jones and his delivery of dialogue makes for some of the film's best moments, providing at least one big belly laugh from this critic. Finally, it is for the most part a very well structured film that, whilst by no means is challenging, does what is needed to tell the origin story of Captain America.

That said, while Captain America: The First Avenger has a lot going for it (including a Wilhelm scream), I think that equally it has as much problems that detract it from being as enjoyable a film as it should have been. As is usually the problem with a lot of films, they fail to address the problems at their basest level, the screenplay. For starters, the film is very 'chop-chop' and bounces all over the place, cutting from protagonist to villain to secondary characters to bit-parts/extras and back again in different combinations and orders. Alfred Hitchcock always used to say how it was more interesting shooting a film from one side of the story and leaving the audience in the dark as to what was happening on the other side. This also makes for some silly and pointless shots of a cutaway to a character looking pensive, nervous, angry etc. You can imagine the re-takes for these shots: "Toby, can you look a little more nervous. Action! (Looks nervous) Cut! Toby, this time would you be able to look a bit more thoughtful, as though to say 'this is interesting.' Can you do that for me? Alright, cheers. And, action!" It highlights a certain absurdity and does not make you want to believe in the acting. Also, the film is far too long and gets big for it's boots, and as a result you simply lose interest. The plot moves in directions that are rather obvious predictable and throughout the picture I seemed to be like Bobby Fischer predicting the moves of the opponent in front of me. Guys, I read your Poker Face, hello Lady Gaga. Finally, some of the dialogue is absolutely terrible. It is dialogue such as "You've gotta be somewhere in thirty minutes""Yes, I do" (with added emphasis) that makes the film seem like a bit of a joke with too much an air of self-importance. Outside of the screenplay, the film also teeters too much on the side of overt. It has a very bombastic and pushy score by Alan Silvestri, a composer whose work I like, that just doesn't work here and detracts and distracts from the film. Also, subtlety does not exist in this film's language, and it has a distinctly propagandist feel about it in the way that it pushes it's moral code down our throat, and I'm not talking about the Captain America war-propaganda, I liked that stuff. The film's moral code also reeks of hypocrisy when you have your lead character being told not to forget 'it's about heart, it's about what's on the inside that counts' by his mentor figure whenever women are throwing himself at him after his post-experiment makeover. I do think that film's can't be digested from a moral stance, but it does bother when a film changes it's moralities and philosophies with the turn of the tide, that is where the problems come. It is the hypocrisy and the back-pedelling that bothers me.

Captain America: The First Avenger is a highly admirable film. It is also an equally condemnable film. It is frankly astonishing how a movie can be nearly equally as good as it is bad, or vice verse. My ultimate feelings following the film's conclusion was that it merely exists to set up Marvel for The Avengers release in May 2012. Unlike the first Iron Man, a thoroughly entertaining film, it feels like a story of exposition and not it's own self-contained film. This is Marvel's way of spending $140 million to get movie audiences up to speed with the comic-book audience so that everyone knows the shit that's going on. Frankly, although I think The Avengers will do great box-office, I wouldn't go so far as to predict it breaks the $1 billion mark and I think it will suffer, like the X-Men film's, from having too many characters. Nevertheless, Captain America: The First Avenger is a decent blockbuster that is strides above recent offerings such as Green Lantern.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 5.5/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - In need (of the bog!)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows - Part 2

Directed by: David Yates

Produced by: David Heyman

David Barron

J.K. Rowling

Screenplay by: Steve Kloves

Based on: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe

Rupert Grint

Emma Watson

Helena Bonham Carter

Jim Broadbent

Robbie Coltrane

Warwick Davis

Ralph Fiennes

John Hurt

Jason Isaacs

Alan Rickman

Maggie Smith

David Thewlis

Emma Thompson

Julie Walters

Music by: Alexandre Desplat

John Williams (Themes)

Nicholas Hooper (Themes)

Cinematography by: Eduardo Serra

Editing by: Mark Day

Studio: Heyday Films

Distributed by: Warner Bros. Pictures

Release dates(s): July 13, 2011 (International)

July 15, 2011 (United Kingdom and United States)

August 4, 2011 (Mainland China)

Running time: 130 minutes

Country: United Kingdom

United States

Language: English

Budget: $250 million (Shared with Part 1)

Box office revenue (as of publication): $1, 148, 401, 620

Me again, back and making the usual excuses about being away for a week and not being able to type up my review, long overdue at that, for HP7.2. In my own defence I will say that I have been away in Newcastle for a week fulfilling my duties as a Scout Leader (I do other things believe it or not than spend my free time in dark rooms). As I am not a Scanner and can't tap into computers via a payphone, this denied me the opportunity to review anything. Since coming back, I have seen Captain America: The First Avenger, and am planning to see Cars 2, Zookeeper, Super 8, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, The Smurfs and Cowboys And Aliens in the coming fortnight, so keep your eyes on this page.

So, without further adieu, here comes the review for the milestone Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows - Part 2. It all ends 7.15 (or rather has ended, given my delayed response) reads the poster, and so with it, ends one of the most beloved of all cinematic franchises. A lot of people are getting very emotional about the end of Potter, as like me, they grew up with the books, and have also grown watching filmmakers bring pure imagination into the realm of collective reality. Furthermore, unlike some other franchises, the Potter series is universally revered and loved, by audiences and critics alike, old and young, and so we have come to expect from the series a high quality of film, so by the time HP7.2 was released in the wake of Part 1, which I feel to be the best of the whole lot, the hype could not be any larger. I went to see the film in a packed press screening which also, much to my displeasure had a Cool FM sponsorship with ticket winners to the premiere taking family and co together. Despite my grumbles, including children making noise and the 3D glasses, it had a real big event feel to it, the likes of which I haven't felt since Avatar, and I feel gave me good enough food for thought to review.

To start with the good, I can't praise the producers enough for their casting of Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson as Harry, Ron and Hermione. Despite the tremendous spectacle of the film's, ultimately it is their story, and the three actors tell the story of their characters with strength and conviction. As the years have went on, Radcliffe has established himself as a thoroughly legitimate screen presence who carries the weight of this behemoth of his shoulders. Like Harry, he himself is challenged as an actor in this film, and succeeds with grace. At this key stage of the series, we believe in Radcliffe as Harry, and he delivers a powerful performance, perhaps the best he has done in the series, in this film. Harry's situation pushes Radcliffe to the extremes of his abilities and he handles it with power. Although the focus here is clearly Harry, Grint and Watson are strong as ever playing Ron and Hermione. On the acting spectrum, I would also like to point out Ralph Fiennes. His villainous role as Voldemort is also given the spotlight in this film, and he run's with suitable menace in the part. Finally on the acting, I would like to point out the work of Alan Rickman. It could be a case of favourtism as I like Rickman very much and he is my number one impersonation, but his key part to the story in this film is important. As such, Rickman shows us all of his acting tools, and really gets down to the crux of the Severus Snape. One of the best written characters of the series, Rickman shows us the various layers of complexity in Snape, and delivers a great performance. Another of the great things about the Harry Potter series was the overall mise-en-scene. Say what you will about Warner Bros., as they have made some real clusterfucks with regard to where they put their, they put it to good use in the Harry Potter franchise and created a magical world that one previously could not believe existed outside the imagination. In HP7.2, the setting of Hogwarts is an extraordinary achievement in production design. I always address the main trio's return to Hogwarts, followed by Voldemort's arrival as the 'Battle Of Hogwarts,' and the mise-en-scene certainly lives up to that label. Hogwarts becomes a battlefield that looks like something lifted from Band Of Brothers as opposed to the glossy sheen we were introduced to so long ago. Also, thumbs up to the stunt/choreography teams for managing to inject this controlled madness into the film. It really benefits the battlefield atmosphere of the film. Eduardo Serra's terrific cinematography is once again in full force. His dark hues and shades gives the film a distinctive colour and signature look. Furthermore, as HP7.2 is in many ways an action film, he gives some so-called 'action cinematographers' a run for their money, proving you can create a frantic atmosphere while still being able to see what is going on. This time around, editor Mark Day is also like some of the actor's pushed to extremes, as his job here was unquestionably that of long, hard work. Like the other members, he takes the ball and run's with it. We know from State Of Play (TV series, also directed by Yates) that he can make a conversation look a whole hell lot more entertaining than it might be in reality, but the action is a big challenge. Admirably, he shows a lot of restraint in this regard, whilst also being able to keep the intensity levels on high. The best work is that of the final battle between Harry and Voldemort. The whole series has been leading up to this, and Day's editing (with help from fine sound editing and visual effects) is befitting of this monumental clash. It is rare to see such freneticism and intensely brilliant editing outside of the work of Sergei Eisenstein, and this is terrific work. Finally, a big pat on the back must be given to director David Yates. Burdens seem to be the recurring theme of this review, but as the director of this project, ultimately, it was up to Yates to deliver a satisfying end to a stellar franchise. He delivers the final product very well and should be thoroughly proud of his fine contributions to this film and the entire series.

Geez, I didn't realise I had that much to say, and there is still more to come, now that we are entering the bad about the film. I really gushed over Part 1, and I suppose I did in many ways about this film, and while unquestionably a thoroughly satisfying film, it is fundamentally flawed in it's screenplay. This is such a shame, as Steve Kloves delivered such a well-balance and well-structured screenplay in last year's film. In the fact that we spend less than an hour before we get to what I call the 'Battle Of Hogwarts', which occupies most the film's screen-time, HP7.2 ends up feeling like the third act to a movie. I know there has been a Part 1 to all this, but Part 1 can clearly be separated from the context of this follow-up and viewed in it's own self-contained universe. This unfortunately must be viewed completely in context of the series and taken apart from this, viewed organically it is like the film has had it's foot lopped off with a machete. Furthermore, the film digresses into needless sections of exposition that take up large chunks of the movie and destroy the momentum of the 'Battle Of Hogwarts.' Also, despite being the shortest of the Potter film's at 130 minutes, it feels like a three-hour film. My recommendation: add more minutes. I know that sounds crazy to a film I already feel is overlong, but trust me, if a movie is well-structured and balanced, a longer film will feel far shorter then it is, and therein lies my logic. Finally, there is a certain set of makeup and visual effects, which I am being careful of because of spoilers, that simply does not convince me. Those of you who have seen it may well know what I am talking about. And no, I'm not going to shit on Alexandre Desplat. His score for this film worked, and his work on The Tree Of Life means I can forgive him for some of his other work.

So, it has ended. Harry Potter as a film franchise is done. That said, J.K. Rowling has in the wake of both the books and the films being over has been talking of late of the possibilities of an eighth Harry Potter book. I would welcome it with an open mind, but I feel that the franchise has come to a solid conclusion and personally three words ring in my head: 'let it be.' This final film in a fine series is a very good, worthy conclusion to the franchise. It has some strong acting from the central trio, Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman, a magnificent mise-en-scene, technical proficiency and a strong level of control is exhibited by David Yates. However, ultimately it is a very flawed screenplay that is badly structured that let's it down from being the masterpiece that it really should be.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.6/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Tired (be glad to watch Videodrome again after I finish this)

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - The Tree Of Life

Directed by: Terence Malick

Produced by: Dede Gardner

Sarah Green

Grant Hill

Brad Pitt

Bill Pohland

Screenplay by: Terence Malick

Starring: Brad Pitt

Sean Penn

Jessica Chastain

Music by: Alexandre Desplat

Cinematography by: Emmanuel Lubezki

Editing by: Hank Corwin

Jay Rabinowitz

Daniel Renzende

Billy Weber

Mark Yoshikawa

Studio(s): Plan B Entertainment

River Road Entertainment

Distributed by: Fox Searchlight Pictures (United States/United Kingdom)

EuropaCorp (France)

Release date(s): May 16, 2011 (Cannes)

May 27, 2011 (United States)

July 8, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 138 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $32 million

Gross revenue (as of publication): $37, 428, 179

Okay, I may or may not be firing in a review for Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 today, because I have come to the conclusion that despite annoying children in the screening I can still make a valid and accurate analysis of the film. I would like to get this done today as it is my last day of reviewing for at least a good week as I am taking our scout troop away for a week on a trip, so that should be fun. Of course, whenever I get back I will be reviewing Cars 2 and I think Captain American is out in the next few days so that will probably be on the list. Speaking of American, I found a copy of Anton Corbijn's The American starring George Clooney, one of my favourite film's of 2010 for £5 the other day so I can't wait to kick back and watch this film.

Today's film is a rather interesting case. One of the year's most highly anticipated films, The Tree Of Life registers as an event as it marks the release of a new film by Terence Malick, one of America's most influential directors over the past forty years, despite having only released five films. Met with a chorus of both boos and applause at Cannes, as well as taking home the Palme d'Or, Malick's stylistic approach has truly polarised audiences. I'm going to avoid the usual plot synopsis, as it is one of those film's that truly needs to be seen, whether you like or not, with as little plot detail as is possible. Instead, I will tell a couple of little stories about the screening. I was worried going in as I didn't have much money on me and whether or not I'd be able to afford both a ticket and a taxi home. I knew at the QFT it was going to be at least a fiver, but the £6 admission fee certainly through me off balance. Even more off-putting was a group of silly old women, who were at the previous showing, blabbing their conclusions about a certain character in the film, while I was out the front having a cigarette. As someone who believes in the integrity of not spoiling a film, this was rather annoying, and even more annoying was their bemused looks when I said aloud "spoilers, spoilers, spoilers" as though not aware or purely ignorant of the fact that they are blurting important details aloud. Nevertheless, these miscrepancies did not stop me from making the 9.15 deadline.

The film opens with a quote from the Book Of Job, and from here we are truly taken on an extraordinary cinematic journey. Emmanuel Lubezki cinematography is breathtaking to behold. The various images the fill the screen show some great imagination in the location shooting, but the scenes involving the O'Brien family in 1950's Texas really have a dreamlike, hyper-realised quality that is wholly appropriate to the narrative and thematic treatment of the film. The Tree Of Life also has the distinction of being the film with perhaps the largest collection of credited editors (five in all) for a feature film I have seen for a long time. Considering the epic scope and nature of the project, it is my conclusion that they each worked on certain parts catering to their strengths. Overall, they did a really great job. This film is one that really has a phenomenal overall mise-en-scene that encompasses the viewer and throws us right into the deep end. Another important contributor would certainly be Douglas Trumbull, whose role as 'visual effects consultant' I think was vital in contributing to the legitimacy and believability of the project. The biggest pleasant surprise was that Alexandre Desplat, a composer I have had problems with in the past, has created some fantastic pieces for this film that stand head-and-shoulders alongside the classical recordings that have made their way into the film. The central cast in the film too are spot-on, bringing a sympathetic, human feeling to a technically brilliant film. Brad Pitt gives a tremendous performance as Mr. O'Brien, and Jessica Chastain is wonderful as Mrs. O'Brien. The young cast too are also terrific, but I would like to single out specifically Hunter McCracken as the young Jack. The changes in his personality are very subtle and handled with grace and the craft of a fine actor. One cannot talk about this film without mentioned Terence Malick. As the film's writer-director, it is his singular vision and style that guides this project to fruition. The film has been criticised in by elements of the critical community as being a collection of too many images being thrown together, and there was a particular twenty/thirty-minute sequence where I thought "Gee, he better have something connect the dot's so that it makes sense." Thankfully, Malick did, and the whole thing, despite being all over the place, does make sense, so you don't have that horrible feeling of a filmmaker declaring "this is art" because you appreciate as art without being told. Malick's script, despite going places far and away, is actually very well-grounded. He is very much in touch with human emotion, and injects this film with the humanism and spirit that is lacking in a lot of films of this type. Importantly, people have complained about the non-linear narrative/non-narrative style of the film's structure. I feel that it works brilliantly, the fragmentary nature being consistent and appropriate. Also, as a singular directorial achievement, it is stunning, and matches the work Christopher Nolan and James Cameron on Inception and Avatar respectively. Furthermore, the comparisons have been made between this and 2001: A Space Odyssey. I like 2001 a lot, but this does everything 2001 does and contains a warmth and heart that is lacking in that film. It is unquestionably a masterpiece.

The Tree Of Life truly is a majestic film, but there are problems which are identifiable with the film and not just mere niggles that happen to be a matter of personal taste. Sean Penn plays the character of Jack when he is older. Unfortunately, despite being a pivotal character is this story, Penn gets all off about ten-minutes of screen time at the very most in which to express his character. I think this is certainly a fault when you bring an actor of his caliber into your film and do not utilise him appropriately. Saying that, I've heard that Penn's role was significantly decreased in post-production. Frankly, I could have watched this film for another twenty minutes I was enjoying it that much, so it is a shame that we are missing more footage with Penn. You just get the impression that they use Penn in the manner that Sergei Eisenstein would use typage in his film's, casting unknown's via their faces to express an emotion in little screen time. This certainly is the main problem with the film, and I feel personally that it is poorly balanced by comparison to the rest of the film, and leaves a gaping hole in an otherwise fine film.

I really do have a problem with lack of balance in the Sean Penn aspect of The Tree Of Life. However, despite this hole, The Tree Of Life is a wonderful film. It is overall a fine technical achievement in the cinematography, visual effects and editing departments. The score/soundtrack is very powerful and contributes significantly to the success of the film. Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain and Hunter McCracken gives great performance. The thematic content of the picture is dense, entering the realm of the meta-physical and will no doubt conjure debate from humanist and spiritualist philosophical circles for years to come. Finally, the singularity of Terrence Malick as the architect of this film is the key to unlocking Pandora's Box, and watching The Tree Of Life we bear witness to a true masterpiece of film.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 9.1/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Bowled over

The Thin White Dude's Reviews - Horrible Bosses

Directed by: Seth Gordon

Produced by: Brett Ratner

Jay Stern

Screenplay by: Michael Markowitz

John Frances Daley

Jonathan Goldstein

Story by: Michael Markowitz

Starring: Jason Bateman

Charlie Day

Jason Sudeikis

Kevin Spacey

Jennifer Aniston

Colin Farrell

Jamie Fox

Music by: Christopher Lennertz

Cinematography by: David Hennings

Editing by: Peter Teschner

Studio(s): New Line Cinema

Rat Entertainment

Distributed by: Warner Bros.

Release date(s): July 8, 2011 (United States)

July 22, 2011 (United Kingdom)

Running time: 98 minutes

Country: United States

Language: English

Budget: $35-37 million

Gross revenue(as of publication): $74,367,000 (Estimate/Domestic only)

At the risk of sounding like everyone else at the moment, rest in peace to Amy Winehouse. Yesterday, we lost one of the greatest young talents in music today. Although she had a small output of two albums, Frank and Back To Black, she certainly made a positive impact on the music world and will be sorely missed. Some weekend, eh? Amy Winehouse is dead along with Anders Behring Breivik killing (at time of publication) another 92 in two separate attacks, one a bombing in Oslo, another an attack on a youth camp on the island of Utoeya. We've still got all of Sunday to get through! I'm half expecting a jet engine to land on my house! In other news, I am going to be seeing The Tree Of Life and hopefully Cars 2 this week, so the reviews will be coming in.

And so we go, another day, another comedy. Despite being glad of an invite to another press screening, courtesy of Daniel Kelly once again, I found myself trying to go in with an open heart. I just find that I have been seeing so many comedies that they have a tendency to overwhelm with how bad they are or underwhelm at how average they are. Daniel made a fair point whenever he mentioned how comedy is the genre which divides opinions and taste the most of all film genres. This'll be a short synopsis, for it is always better to sum up the movie in as little words as is possible without spoiling much of the plot. Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman) works for an abusive psychopath of a boss in the form of Dave Harken. Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) works for sexually abusive man-eater Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston). Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) works for a sweetheart of a boss Jack Pellitt (Donald Sutherland), who treats him like his son, but things go belly up when he dies of a heart attack and his cocaine-addicted biological son Bobby (Colin Farrell) takes over. With the help of Dean 'Motherfucker' Jones (Jamie Foxx), the three plot to kill each other's bosses.

And so, there is your plot. It is all you need, for it is a movie strong enough to invite viewer's on the strength of this concept alone. By no means is it an entirely new concept (Hitchcock's Strangers On A Train could be seen as a point of reference), but the fact is that screenwriters Markowitz, Daley and Goldstein have approached the subject matter with care. Although it certainly contains some of the vulgarities which have become standard issue for mainstream comedies today, it's humour is far darker and actually has a bit of edge to it. Setting up the three leads as fundamentally nice people who decided that their lives would be better without these nasty people is a nice twist as opposed to the usual idea of bad people killing good people. The film's main strength is perhaps the way the cast is able to convey their characters and the story being told. Bateman in particular, but also Day and Sudeikis, are great at playing everyman characters with distinct personalities. Also, this is a trio that I would rather watch any day than a certain other famous comic trio doing the rounds of the box-office over the past few years. Praise must also be given to the bosses. Jennifer Aniston, who has not had the best feature-film track record although certainly a good television actress, is very strong as man-eating Julia, who is constantly in the ear (if not chewing on the ear) of Dale. The way she presents the character, with the right sense of tone and double entendres, is spot on for this character. Also, Colin Farrell, although having far less screen-time than the other two bosses, makes a strong impression as Bobby Pellitt. Despite being drastically different than his usual appearance, Farrell is not out of place as this slimy, greasy character with a combover, pot-belly and countless tics. The best role as a boss and in the film though is reserved for what is the best written character, with the magnificent Kevin Spacey playing Dave Harken. Almost like he is playing up the more menacing roles in his career (but not to tedious self-parody), he taps into the fine line of tension between humour and horror. Walking onscreen, Harken carries a powerful presence which puts you on the edge of your seat, and Spacey skilfully pulls off the character's dialogue to put the audience at ease, and then blasts you down to bottom of your seat. The essence of the film itself is nailed with the character of Harken and the performance Spacey gives.

That said, despite liking a lot of the film, it was hampered occasionally by a number of different problems. As I said, it contains the vulgarities expected of mainstream comedies. That, I have no problem with. What I did have a problem with was the fact that there were times whenever Horrible Bosses did deteriorate into 'tried and tested' trademarks of the mainstream comedy and didn't have the strength of it's convictions to remain in the black comedy domain where it so belongs. Also, there were times when the film was unnecessarily loud, not due to Christopher Lennertz's score even if he has done some terrible work for terrible films in the past, but because the whole movie's sound design caters towards excessive, boorish and with added OOMPH! as I call it, or as Kermode would say, PHWOAR! There really is no need for the film to sound like Transformers 3 whenever it is just a case of three guys trying to kill their bosses. Less is more! It is nowhere near as loud as The Hangover films, but it did suffer from these problems occasionally. Finally, the wrapping-up of the film came across as rushed and did not convincingly bring a close to an otherwise solid film.

Horrible Bosses has some horrible problems in it's sound department and attempts to appease the mass market and not have the strength of it's conviction. However, for the most part it is a pretty successful comedy, with a sharp script that's handled with care by director Seth Gordon, and an all-round strong cast of comic acting, particularly from Kevin Spacey. Alongside Bridesmaids, this film stands as among the strongest comedies to emerge from America this year and is a real pleasure to watch.

The Thin White Dude's Prognosis - 7.5/10

The Thin White Dude's Self-Diagnosis - Relaxed (in dressing gown and it's near 3'o'clock)