Oscar Postmortem Pt. 3: Music

I guess I'm just lucky to fall into the minority of people who actually enjoy song and dance, because there was a lot of it for me to enjoy on Sunday's Academy Awards ceremony. Things got off to an unusual but memorable start with Seth MacFarlane's tongue-in-cheek but controversial “Boobs” song (which speaks more to Hollywood sexism than Seth MacFarlane sexism in my opinion), followed by the odd but inspired pairings of Channing Tatum and Charlize Theron, or Daniel Radcliffe and Joseph Gordon-Levitt to join MacFarlane for some vintage swing and soft shoe. Seriously, when will we ever see that specific collection of actors performing together like that? He concludes with a brief, repurposed rendition of "Be Our Guest", always an old favourite:

What a boob!

Tatum and Charlize doing Fred and Ginger. Love the way they look tonight.

I have high hopes of seeing JGL tap into his inner song-and-dance man more often.

Seth's not a bad shoe shuffler himself.

Review - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

And that, as they say, is that. Ten years and some 7 billion galleons after The Philosopher's Stone first charmed Potterphiles the world over in 2001, J.K. Rowling's magical saga finally fades to black with Part 2 of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, which makes a fitting end to a beloved franchise. While I never felt as consistently invested in the films as I did the books, I can only tip my hat to the series as it takes its final bow, and to The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 in particular for leaving on a strong note. It strikes me as an appropriately representative cross-section of the whole; perhaps not as artistically intent as Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban, not nearly as lethargic as Mike Newell's Goblet of Fire, but a balanced mixture of thrill and sentiment that makes it easy to understand why moviegoers were so keen to keep returning to this world.

A token summary of the plot seems unnecessary for a review of this film, as surely anyone who's interested in seeing it will have read the books years ago... at least you had better have, or you'll find yourself inescapably lost. Writer Steve Cloves has ceased making concessions for the casual viewer, omitting anything but essential information and necessitating that we fill in the blanks. Though his resulting screenplay is inevitably less detailed than Rowling's involved tome, it proves a necessary evil; one not exercised enough in The Deathly Hallows' first half, but effectively employed for this closing chapter. The payoff is clear: a refreshing 2-hour run time, making this the most efficiently told entry in the octalogy. In retrospect, the move to split The Deathly Hallows in twain worked out for the better, although I still cringe sceptically at the original motivations behind the decision.

Review - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Last night, attracted by the reliable guarantee of a handsomely made production, I stabbed my conscience in the back and reneged on my protest to not shell out $10 (with the promise of $10 more to come) to see the first half of the final Harry Potter film, The Deathly Hallows.

Perhaps it is folly of me to try and review half a movie, so I'll try not to be too judgmental about the film's flaws, but of the most glaring ones I will make note: Steve Cloves and David Yates spend a great deal of time building a wonderfully grim and joyless tone (as is befitting the seventh book's dour atmosphere), but then they proceed to sabotage it with attempts at comic relief that, 99% of the time, miss the mark. This might be due to the fact that of all the Potter films, this one adheres to the letter of its mother text more staunchly than any of the others, thus including J.K. Rowling's usual sprinkles of wit and humour; a welcome presence as one trudges through the long dry passages of the novel, but a mood-killing distraction in this movie, which (even at 2.5 hours) feels much breezier by comparison. The film makers might have done better to eschew the book's jokes and play it completely straight-faced.

Another issue for me is the awkward dissection of the novel into two, but I'll hold off on that until I get to see the other half. Who knows? Maybe it'll turn out to be for... the best? Or should I say, “be$t”?

I mean not to be harsh. You know what you're getting with a Potter film. As always, certain standards of quality are upkept. Effects and makeup are first rate, Alexandre Desplat adds a few more beautiful melodies to the already rich library of Potter film music, and Stuart Craig's production design continues to satisfy with its ever-darkening colour palette. Though perhaps more impressive this time out are Jany Temime's costumes, from the cage-like pinstripes on Ministry of Magic employees to the tattered wools and flannels of our three worn-out central characters. Speaking of which, the three principal actors Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson continue to improve. I give the edge to Watson who has more heavy lifting to do than the boys.

There are a few truly excellent scenes and extended sequences. A daring infiltration of the Orwellian Ministry of Magic, an extremely creepy encounter at Groderick's Hallow that may have been guest directed by John Carpenter, and a brilliantly animated recounting of “The Tale of the Three Brothers” all breath life into an otherwise unambitious adaptation that just feels like it's going through the motions.

An Oscar nod for VFX seems unavoidable with five open slots, and Art Direction is always a reasonable call, but I can't see much more outside of that. Costume Design and Makeup deserve consideration that I doubt they'll get.

**1/2 out of ****

Video after the jump.