Now You See Me 2

First Hit:  Very convoluted and moderately interesting story to show large scale illusions.

I would have settled on a film that had big magical illusions by tricking banks, Wall Street, a crooked company or something of that nature. In other words, more like the first film.

The story attempts to make a computer chip have the power to get past any security on any computer. Insurance tycoon Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine) wants this chip badly because anyone breaking into his computers will find out he’s committed fraud. He enlists Walter Maybry (Daniel Radcliffe) to do what it takes to get the chip that the four horsemen have stolen.

Just to get here, the horsemen J. Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg), Merritt McKinney (Woody Harrelson), Jack Wilder (Dave Franco) and new horseman Lula (Lizzy Caplan), are in hiding from the last film and being chased by the FBI including the horseman’s insider Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo).

The film spends too much time making as issue of Atlas’s wanting to be in charge of the horseman, trying to make a connection with the mysterious “Eye”, and how they got to China.

Then there is the questionably antagonist Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman) who appears to be against the horseman but more specifically, Rhodes, but is he?

The film does come together in the end but the magic and illusion (the reason I wanted to see the film) of the last trick was telegraphed and I knew it was coming. In other words, it didn’t work on me.

Caine was appropriately stoic and arrogant. Radcliffe didn’t help his resume any. I didn’t think he was powerful enough to make his role work. Eisenberg was OK but not his best stuff. Harrelson had two roles, his twin and Merritt. I enjoyed their (his) interplay from time to time. Franco had a more minimal role in this film and I’m not sure that was the best move. Caplan as the new horseman was good and brought a more positive energy to the cast. Freeman was his ever present steady self. Ed Solomon wrote a convoluted uninteresting screenplay from his own story. Jon M. Chu probably did his best with this film but the story was weak.

Overall:  My guess there will be another film but if it is based on a story like this one, it will be a not be very good.

Horns

First Hit:  A rather unrealistic and lousy film.

This film did try to take itself seriously, however how could it? A guy growing horns out of his head? Sure. It tries to make a villain out of Ig Perrish (Daniel Radcliffe) because his girlfriend, Merrin Williams (Juno Temple) is killed near their secret treehouse. It was their hiding spot.

Previously to being found there she was last seen with him in a restaurant fighting. Telling you what they fight about would give too much away but needless to say that they have spent their life (since grade school) together and they were in love. Because Merrin is so loved and Ig vilified, he ends up growing horns which express the town’s hatred.

Radcliffe was OK in a role that really stretches the imagination but not in a way that I would recommend. Temple is devine and is the best thing in the film. Keith Bunin wrote a mostly ridiculous script and director Alexandre Aja tried to make sense of the story.

Overall:  This film was poorly conceived and barely executed better.

What If

First Hit: There are really good and engaging moments but it seemed too long overall.

Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe) is lamenting a breakup from his girlfriend.

It’s been a year and as we meet him, he finally deletes her last VM which he has saved 365 times. This was a good way to give the audience perspective of his sadness. He meets Chantry (Zoe Kazan) at a party.

There is an immediate chemistry through their banter. He walks her home and they decided to meet up again but she tells him she has a boyfriend. Through circumstance they meet up and end up being close friends. They spend a lot of time together (which is where the film gets long) in different circumstances and even their friends Nicole and Allan (Mackenzie Davis and Adam Driver respectively), seeing their connection, try to get them to get together.

What didn’t work for me was the script having Chantry being so hesitant to acknowledge what was really going on to her. Yes her boyfriend Ben (Rafe Spall) was a solid guy, but after 5 years together and he didn’t invite her to Dublin to live with him seemed like either a poorly written script or an obvious non-committed relationship.

To have an intelligent character put into this hold position for so long was false.  Her character was too smart to wait so long to make and act on a decision. This in-turn had me not believing the story.

Radcliffe was very good and he projected his restraint towards Chantry with a longing wistfulness that was done very well. Kazan was hampered by the script. I just don’t think she was given the opportunity to make the story better. We all knew the end of the story going into the film. Creating extra delay to get there hurt her ability to perform. Davis and Driver were both amazing and outstanding together. Spall was strong as the solid guy Kazan was waiting for. Elan Mastai wrote the screen play and as I’ve said already there were elongating mistakes in the script that kept the film from moving along to its obvious end. Michael Dowse directed the film and could have driven this film forward in a less meandering way.

Overall: This story had potential but was waylaid by the un-crisp script.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

First Hit: Somewhat better than Part 1 but frankly, I’m glad this long winded tale is over.

Thrusting children who are the bringers of light and lightheartedness to our planet into an ever increasing darker set of circumstances as they get older is part of our life on this planet; or so it seems.

The Harry Potter series of films reflects this transition in a different way and I’m not sure if it is (or was) to our benefit or entertainment. The tales took the mystery of magic and attempted to make it a real life thing and being embodied in a select few children. 

The series of films only focused on the selected few therefore we rarely were able to see or sense the difference between this magical world and non-magically gifted children or adults. This was one of the problems I had with this series of films. Where as the Hobbit tales were all fantasy.

These films originally started in a world where regular people were part of the story but they ended up being only fantasy until the very last scene when the main character's children are in a real life railway station heading off to Hogwarts School.

This film took started where Part 1 left off. Whereas Part 1 of the final chapter was long winded, boring and attempted to set-up our characters for the final resolution; Part 2 was filled with CGI action. Harry (like Luke Skywalker) was connected to the dark force of Lord Voldemort and had to be willing to kill himself to save Hogwarts and all the special magical kids who attend. One has to be willing to lose oneself to find oneself and this is true in the Harry Potter world as well as our own.

Anyway this film was dark (both in concept and visually), long, and, in some ways, filled with senseless action.

Daniel Radcliffe (as Potter) was good to watch in the first couple of films, but became limited and shallow as the series went on. He lacked depth of character in Part 2. My guess is (and I could very well be wrong) he’s glad to be through with this film series because it showed. Rupert Grint (as Weasley) probably won’t have much of an acting career after this last installment, there is nothing engaging about him or the character he played. Emma Watson (as Granger) was and is the strongest actor of the main three characters and will continue to have success as an actor. Alan Rickman (as Snape) is always enjoyable to watch and here he makes his character intriguing. Ralph Fiennes (as Voldemort) is good as the story’s evil dark character and it wasn’t because of the lines but because of his skill at creating presence. Steve Kloves wrote the screenplay from J.K. Rowling’s novel and some of the dialogue felt stiff. David Yates directed this and there seemed to be the belief that the more crap you throw up on the screen the more of it will stick. One scene particularly felt out of place, was when Harry was coming down some stairs after an intense encounter with the vision pool and Ron and Hermione are sitting there. Why were they there, how did they get there, why would they be sitting there as if they were having a private “together” moment in the middle of the battle for their school? Then they get up and after a couple of stilted lines, the three of them get more engaged with the war against evil again.

Overall:  I waded through all of the films and only one or two were noteworthy and engaging. This one excelled only in the amount of CGI stuff thrown up on the screen.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

First Hit: All I can say is Part 2 will hopefully be really good because Part 1 is one long boring piece of nothing.

I really wonder what the mindset is of a director who can create a long piece of preamble in hopes that he hits a home run with the epilogue.

Jesus, sitting there during hour after hour of darkly filmed set-up for Part 2 was an immense time waster. Here is what I learned: Ron (played by Rupert Grint) can dislike Harry (played by Daniel Radcliffe) if even for only 20 minutes of the film's time.

Ron and Hermione (played by Emma Watson) have a thing for each other. Muggles are dying and why should I care. Hogwarts as a school is history. The Ministry of Magic dies. A sword is important. People can switch wands.

And finally Yoda, from Star Wars fame, arises again in a slightly different body but speaks sentences in the same oddly phrased way. It was obvious that the producers skimped on lighting, therefore everything is dark.

And lastly I’ve got to find it within me to care about these people even though Harry is the chosen one, he isn't very smart and people follow him blindly to their death. I was astonished by the milking of the public in this way for a 2.5 hour preamble which does very little.

My question is: Will Part 2 begin with a synopsis of Part 1 (should take about 5 minutes)? If it does, don't waste your time watching this film and if it doesn’t; I'm not sure you need to this film to move the story along. I just didn’t learn enough in Part 1 (save the aforementioned above) to make it worth my while to see Part 2.

Radcliffe is about the same as he’s been in all the other Potter films except the first one where his innocence was a welcomed joy. There is nothing extraordinary about him as an actor and he doesn’t really give much to the audience and it is difficult to care about him in this part. Grint has changed a bit and has grown slightly. He also has to share a different set of feelings for Harry in about 3 minutes of screen time when he gets mad at Harry. But overall, nothing much new here either. Watson appears to have some acting chops as there were multiple scenes in which she says nothing but the audience is given a sense of feelings and shifts in her character. The snub nose on Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort is a good look for evil and that was entertaining. The best acting in this film is by Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange. She is great, brings great energy to the screen and was the only acting highlight. Steve Kloves wrote a boring screenplay from J. K. Rowling’s novel. Direction by David Yates is heavy handed, emotionlessness and overly dark.

Overall: If you must see this, rent it and eat dinner while watching so you get something done during the time. You won't miss much while you are chewing your food.