Little Women

Little Women (2019)

Starring Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Laura Dern, Timothée Chalamet, Tracy Letts, Bob Odenkirk, James Norton, Louis Garrel, Chris Cooper, and Meryl Streep

Directed by Greta Gerwig

Written by Greta Gerwig

Click here for my Letterboxd review

The RyMickey Rating:  B

The Circle

The Circle (2017)

Starring Emma Watson, Tom Hanks, John Boyega, Karen Gillan, Ellar Coltrane, Patton Oswalt, Glenne Headley, and Bill Paxton

Directed by James Ponsoldt

Written by James Ponsoldt and Dave Eggers

Click here for my Letterboxd review

The RyMickey Rating:  C-

Movie Review - Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Starring Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Audra McDonald Stanley Tucci, Kevin Kline, Hattie Morahan, Nathan Mack, Ian McKellan, and Emma Thompson

Directed by Bill Condon

Although I stopped my Disney Discussion before I got to their fantastic 1991 animated classic, it should be noted that the original Disney Beauty and the Beast is my second favorite film of all time.  (Only Psycho tops it.)  Needless to say, I was not avidly looking forward to Disney's live-action remake.  Much like the 1998 nearly shot-for-shot remake of Psycho which proved to be a waste of time when the infinitely superior original exists, I was extraordinarily hesitant heading into a theater to watch the remake of Beauty and the Beast.  While I'd love to say that this 2017 version is a glorious take on the classic animated film, I can't in the slightest.  Instead, I found myself asking the the following question throughout:

Why does this film exist if its creative team is not going to make a single thing better than the original?

Here's the thing about this 2017 version of Beauty and the Beast -- the story still holds up incredibly well.  I was never bored as I watched the tale of Belle (Emma Watson) and the Beast (Dan Stevens) unfold with the layers of their distrust in one another changing to love blooming in its place.  The nuances of Alan Menken's music and the late Howard Ashman's lyrics still paint a lovely picture in song and add pivotal characterizations to the film's core ensemble.  Yet despite a few new songs and some odd and misguided changes to the story, director Bill Condon has assembled a film that hews much too close to the original to have a feeling that it's its own unique piece.  If the only purpose of this film is create the same exact tone and feel of its animated predecessor but to do so in live action, what was the point other than to simply be a major cash grab for the Walt Disney corporation?

Frankly, it's obvious that there was no other point.  This is a cash grab through and through, moreso than any of the previous Disney live action remakes of the past few years.  Despite its epic failure, Alice in Wonderland at least was manically what it was.  Maleficent took on the Sleeping Beauty story from a different perspective.  Cinderella gave us more well-rounded and deeply developed characters.  The Jungle Book provided a sensory special-effects experience that was visually enticing.  This Beauty and the Beast does none of that, instead insisting on staying so close in tone to its predecessor that its reason for existence proves moot.  Sure, the film attempts to give us a little more backstory to Belle and the Beast (hence its 30-minute-plus longer runtime than the richly developed, yet concise original), but that exposition proves to be silly most of the time rather than insightful.  (As an example, one of the few unique moments of the piece -- a journey back in time to when Belle was a child -- seems aggravatingly unnecessary despite its attempt at character development.)

I realize my last parenthetical comment seems contradictory to my biggest qualm with the film.  Here I am complaining about this iteration's lack of originality and yet I'm berating its attempts to be different at the same time.  I was all for "difference" here, but there has to be a reason for it and I found most of the film's changes disappointingly uncreative.  Frankly, the best change is one that's been widely criticized in a large chunk of the reviews I've read.  Following their dance to the titular song (which is a huge let-down in and of itself in both visual and aural execution), Belle runs home to her father who she discovers is being harmed by the maleficent Gaston (Luke Evans -- the one shining aspect of the piece).  The Beast is in emotional shambles, destitute that his one true love (and his one chance of overcoming the horrible spell that's been placed upon him) has run away.  He sings a desperately emotional plea in the new song "Evermore" which, while not quite as emotionally heartbreaking as Broadway's equivalent version of this number "If I Can't Love Her, still succeeds in cluing the viewers in to the Beast's psyche at the time.  This unique moment is what I wanted more of from this film and instead director Condon, writers Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos, and the Disney corporation have just regurgitated nearly everything that made the animated film so fantastic.  The second time isn't always the charm, however, and that's the case here.

Emma Watson is lackluster (though serviceable) as Belle.  She lacks the charisma present in the animated character and while Watson's Belle is perhaps a bit more assertive and "feminist" (in a good way), there's an emotional blankness behind her eyes in many of the scenes.  I'll also never understand why one's singing voice isn't always a top priority when casting actors in a musical.  Sure, some musical films -- La La Land, as an example -- can skate by on the charm of the characters whose less-than-perfect singing actually adds a layer to their cinematic personas.  I simply don't think that works in a movie like this which sets itself up as an old-school stylized musical.  Being able to sing is important here and with the exception of a few adequate moments in the song "Something There," Watson lacks the emotional phrasing needed to succeed when starring in a movie musical.  Dan Stevens as the Beast fares a little better with the aforementioned "Evermore" number granting him an opportunity to give his character some hefty gravitas.  Granted, his performance is essentially crafted by motion capture special effects experts, but I found the Beast to be a well-animated effect at least.

Unfortunately, that's more than I can say for many of the other special effects-created animated supporting cast who take on the forms of candlestick Lumiere (Ewan McGregor), teapot Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson), clock Cogsworth (Ian McKellan), feather duster Plumette (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), armoire Madame Garderobe (Audra McDonald), and piano Maestro Cadenza (Stanley Tucci).  None of these performers (with perhaps the exception of Mbatha-Raw) do a thing to exceed their marvelous vocal predecessors who came before them and their gothic, dark design is almost always visually unappealing.  Essentially all doing voice-overs, the heart and charm of the animated film is lost in this version's characters.  Pivotal moments like "Be Our Guest" and "Beauty and the Beast" are disappointingly staged, poorly re-enacted, and oddly paced and sung by the likes of McGregor and Thompson, creating emotional vacuums where there should've been charm and heart.

The funny thing after writing all of the above which should seemingly yield a scathing rating below is that inherently the story behind Beauty and the Beast is still a successful one and since this version hardly deviates from the original, it's not an all-out failure.  While nothing in this go-around is better than the original -- although Luke Evans interpretation of Gaston comes awfully close as he fully embraces the hammy machismo that shaped that character in the animated version -- it's tough to say this film is unwatchable.  What I can't understand, though, is why anyone would want to watch this version when a perfect version of this same story is available.  Inherently, I do have problem with Disney reaching back into its animated vault to create live action versions simply to pad its coffers (albeit with boatloads of money if this film's success is any indication).  However, it they're going to have to do it, they need to at least be willing to deviate somehow from the original especially if it's one as perfect as Beauty and the Beast.

The RyMickey Rating:  C

Movie Review - Noah

Noah (2014)

Starring Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Logan Lerman, and Douglas Booth; with the vocal talent of Frank Langella and Nick Nolte

Directed by Darren Aronofsky

I go to church.  

I also go to movies.  

When I go to movies, they don't need to reflect any of the teachings that are espoused in the church, but if they do, I prefer not to be hit over the head with them.  I'm an intelligent enough guy to read between the lines and grasp any philosophical or religious undertones.  You won't ever catch me heading to the insanely (though perhaps dubiously) popular God's Not Dead for this very reason.  Blatant religious proselytization is a complete turn-off to me perhaps because it's not how I live my religious life.  (I'm one who you'll never find preaching my beliefs to others -- which perhaps makes me a bad Catholic, but I can't help but feel my beliefs are my own.)

The reason for that preface is to illustrate the point that those who are ragging on Darren Aranofsky's Noah for "taking liberties" with a Bible story that is two pages long don't know what they're talking about.  The criticisms lobbed at this one are utterly unfounded and quite honestly paint "religion" in a bad light.  Then again, I'm one of those religious folks who believe most aspects of the Bible are simply "stories" that present "how to live one's life" as opposed to "actual happenings."  But you Noah-complainers can go on believing that Noah lived to be 950 years old...

Noah is a beautiful film told by a talented director headlined by a movie star giving what could very well be the best performance of his career...and it espouses the overall tone of the biblical story of Noah to boot.  All of those reasons are why Noah is a success.  Granted, the film doesn't quite hit all the right notes -- Aronofsky (who also co-wrote the film with Ari Handel) throws in a "bad sheep" subplot revolving around one of Noah's sons Ham that proves to be the biggest issue -- but I greatly appreciated the film's attempt to display a man's religious convictions and how they shape his life.  While it's true that Noah may "go off the deep end" a little bit in the film's third act as he attempts to bring an end to all mankind as he feels that was God's plan for him, the film more than justifies that stance while also supplying an appropriate ending and epiphanic-type moment for the title character to realize the error of his interpretation of God's word.

Everyone knows the story of Noah (played by Russell Crowe) and his ark, but Aronofsky and Handel expand upon the short tale in great detail and with significant "free reign."  I'm pretty certain the Transformers-like Watchers -- six-armed stone creatures who protect Noah as he builds his ark -- didn't make an appearance in the Bible.  Nor was there an epic battle between Noah and the descendants of Cain headed by Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) who desperately want to find refuge on the ark to live through the water apocalypse.  Personally, I found that this expansion of the biblical Noah story added depth, heart, and even strengthened the religious aspects of the tale.

Noah is a man who wants nothing more for his family to live a life at peace with the Earth and the creatures and humans who inhabit it.  When we first meet Crowe's Noah, he's a humble, quiet man who we can tell deeply cares for the well-being of his family and has a strong faith in the Creator.  (This "Creator" nonsense is perhaps the biggest "uproar" the movie caused.  With only one mention of the word "God," opponents of the film are up in arms.  This criticism is utterly unfounded.)  However, when he "hears" God speak to him, telling him to build an ark to safely shepherd his family and two of every creature through the approaching storm, his calmness shifts to diligence and steadfastness to the Creator.  However, upon seeing the Creator's wrath upon humanity, Noah admittedly starts to go off the deep end, feeling that this horrific event imposed upon humans must mean that God doesn't want them to inhabit the Earth anymore.  (This religious fervor that Noah feels is essentially mirrored in the religious folks who don't want you to see this film.  To me, they're eerily similar in that they both feel they are fully aware of what God would want from them.)  Nevertheless, Aronofsky's Noah character is a tricky one and Crowe absolutely succeeds at portraying every aspect of the complicated and thought-provoking character.

Jennifer Connelly as Noah's wife Naameh and Emma Watson as Noah's adopted daughter Ila also provide powerful performances in a film that also heavily focuses on the women in Noah's life.  In fact, it's when the film attempts to shift to the trials of Noah's two oldest sons Shem (Douglas Booth) and Ham (Logan Lerman) that the film falters.  Their "love triangle" of sorts with Ila is disappointingly trite and Ham's attempts to undermine his father oftentimes feel cheap and overly dramatic.

As far as the cinematic aspects of the film are concerned, despite the subject matter this is most certainly Darren Aronofsky's most "mass appeal" film to date.  After the quick cuts of Requiem for a Dream, the somewhat erotic Black Swan, and the inward "simplicity" of The Wrestler, Aronofsky allows the story to take center stage (despite having a much bigger budget for this one than any of his other features).  That isn't to say that there aren't some typical trippy moments -- the "creation" story Noah details in the third act is beautiful in that it stands in such stark contrast to the rest of the aesthetic of the film while still feeling like it naturally belongs in the piece -- but this is the "least Aronofsky" Aronofsky film I've seen.  Personally, I love what he brings to the table and I think he created a very thoughtful big budget flick.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Movie Review - This Is the End

This Is the End (2013)

Starring Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, Emma Watson, and Danny McBride 

Directed by Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen

Those who have read this blog in the past may be aware that I don't exactly hold humor derived from drug-induced stupor in the highest regard.  So, considering This Is the End begins with Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel getting high, I wasn't quite sure I was in for something I'd find enjoyable.  Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised by how humorous I found the flick.  With actors Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, and Danny McBride essentially playing exaggerated versions of their real-life personas, the film isn't afraid to take jabs at the inanity of celebrity culture and that's the biggest reason This Is the End works.

The plot is fairly simple.  The aforementioned actors have gathered for a party at James Franco's posh abode (along with several other big-name cameos playing themselves as well) when all of the sudden, the apocalypse arrives.  The "good" people are whisked up to heaven in Star Trek-esque beams of light, whereas those less than worthy humans are left on earth desperately trying to hide from the devilish creatures that are sent to hunt them down.  Played for laughs rather than for scares or drama, the apocalyptic story gets a different spin than we've seen before.

Co-directors and co-screenwriters Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen were aware that without their cast gamely poking fun of themselves, this film wouldn't have worked, so they definitely stack the movie with humor related to their cast's "real" lives.  It's these moments where the film certainly shines.  The flick does veer off track a little bit when it actually tries to tell its basic story -- a rather unique criticism perhaps.  I found myself not caring so much about the apocalypse itself and wanted to spend more time learning about Danny McBride's masturbation techniques -- something I never thought I'd say and perhaps will wish I never said.  (Nonetheless, it was a scene that had me cracking up hysterically.)

I've been sitting on this review for over two months now.  I'm not quite sure why, but I think it stems from the fact that while I enjoyed This Is the End, I'm well aware that as a story, it's weak.  Fortunately, the balance of the real-life humor elevates the film to something worth watching.

The RyMickey Rating: B

Movie Review - The Perks of Being a Wallflower

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

Starring Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Dylan McDermott, Nina Dobrev, Johnny Simmons, Melanie Lynskey, Joan Cusack, and Paul Rudd

Directed by Stephen Chbosky

There's an aire of pretentiousness that runs throughout the novel The Perks of Being a Wallflower and I found it a book that kept me at a distance because none of the characters were embraceable, nor were they nasty enough to be characters you loved to hate.  I was hoping that the movie might change my tune, but my overall reaction stayed pretty much the same.  Overall, the book's author Stephen Chbosky does a nice job in his first directorial gig in nearly two decades and he adapts his novel quite adequately to the screen, but this is simply a tale I never quite found winning.

The problem with The Perks of Being a Wallflower never lies with the storyline of the main character Charlie (Logan Lerman) who, as the film begins, is starting ninth grade after having a difficult summer in which he lost his best friend to suicide.  For most of his life, Charlie has always been battling psychological demons, but he hopes he's pushed them to the side as he begins the angst-filled four years of high school.  Charlie ends up befriending two seniors, step-siblings Patrick and Sam (Ezra Miller and Emma Watson) and it's in these two characters and their surroundings that the film (and the book) disappoint.  It's not that Patrick and Sam prove to be unrealistic, it's just that I couldn't care less about their problems and dreams for the future.  Patrick is an incredibly quirky gay teen who is seemingly the class clown and Sam is lovable with a pixie cut that indicates a slightly rough edge.  Everything with these two just feels overly angsty with a vibe of "aren't we unique/no teenager has ever done this before" thrown in when, in fact, their shenanigans are quite commonplace.

However, the character of Charlie makes the film work better than it probably should and Logan Lerman is a standout.  Lerman's fairly new to the acting scene and while I can't say I've ever been disappointed by the kid, I don't think I ever would've said I've been impressed.  That has changed.  Here, the now twenty year-old Lerman perfectly captures the fear of the initial days of high school, the insecurity of being one's true self even if it doesn't make you popular, and the tentativeness of one's first forays into romance, alcohol, and the other difficulties that come with one's teen years.  Also nice was Paul Rudd's turn as Charlie's English teacher, a friend/mentor who helps shape Charlie into a young man who can be proud of himself.

While there's part of me that can understand the effusive praise The Perks of Being a Wallflower received upon its release -- the film looks good, the acting is decent -- I've never been a fan of Mr. Chbosky's novel so its transition to film was going to be difficult to reel me in.  Still, thanks to a great performance from Logan Lerman, this one definitely lands in the "you should see this" category.

The RyMickey Rating: B-

Movie Review - My Week with Marilyn

My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Starring Michelle Williams, Eddie Redmayne, Kenneth Branagh, Emma Watson, Derek Jacobi, Julia Ormond, Dominic Cooper, Dougray Scott, Zoë Wanamaker, and Judi Dench

Directed by Simon Curtis

I say this whenever I write of review of films like these, but I am not a fan of biopics.  I greatly admire actors who are able to mimic the well-known personas of others, but oftentimes, I find myself left completely empty by the films they inhabit which all seem to want to tell the same tale -- more or less -- about the character's rise from adversity to something greater.  While My Week with Marilyn certainly follows the biopic formula, it fortunately only gives us a glimpse at the sexy and alluring Marilyn Monroe (played quite well by Michelle Williams) during a brief stint in her life when she traveled to London to make the film The Prince and the Showgirl with Laurence Olivier (played over-the-top [although I imagine Olivier was that way in real life] by Kenneth Branagh).  Giving the audience only a small chapter of the well-known Monroe's life proves to be a much better moviegoing experience and allows the viewers to infer how events prior to making this film, her time during the filmmaking process, and her years after starring in The Prince and the Showgirl all shaped her into the tragic figure she became.  The sheer fact that we're allowed to "infer" things is a welcome relief in this day and age when we're always hit over the head with everything as filmgoers.

The film -- which is a showcase of the power struggle between Monroe and Olivier during the making of the frivolous romantic comedy in 1956 -- can be summed up in one good line spoken by Dominic Cooper (I believe) portraying Marilyn's manager Milton Greene:  "[Sir Laurence] is an artist wanting to be a film star; [Marilyn] is a film star wanting to be an artist."  The two just don't mesh, but by the end of the filming process they've perhaps made each other a bit better at their craft.  Although this struggle between the two powerhouse actors is certainly front and center, the "My" in My Week with Marilyn refers to the young 23-year-old Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), a young Brit who, despite his parents' disdain, travels to London to work on the set of the Olivier picture.  While performing the task of the third assistant director -- essentially a glorified intern position -- he befriends Marilyn whose method acting techniques are causing huge issues with the cast and crew of the production.  The two bond and, as any young man would be, Colin becomes quite enamored with Ms. Monroe who despite having just married her third husband Arthur Miller (Dougray Scott) is already having some marital issues which may very well work in Colin's favor.

As a fan of movies, admittedly it's fun to see "behind the scenes" stories like these and this film is no exception.  The scenes on set with the bombastic Olivier and out-of-her-element Marilyn are brilliantly funny -- Branagh's Olivier, in particular, is also a hoot as he grows ever more exacerbated in the scenes.  Admittedly, I'm not all that familiar with Olivier, but I can't help but imagine Branagh's rather snooty interpretation of the guy -- who not only acted in The Prince and the Showgirl, but also directed it -- is spot-on.  Adding to the excitement is a very nice turn from Judi Dench playing Dame Sybil Thorndike who becomes somewhat of a loving mother to Marilyn on set and a hilarious turn from Zoë Wanamaker as Paula Strasberg, Marilyn's famous acting coach in the Stanislavski acting method which created much tension with Olivier.

The film falters a bit, however, when we walk away from the movie set.  Most notably, there's a throwaway subplot involving a romance between Colin and a young costume designer (played by Harry Potter's Emma Watson in a completely thankless role) that could have been (and should have been) left on the cutting room floor.  Additionally, as Marilyn begins a downward spiral after several difficult weeks on the set, the film shifts much too awkwardly from a light comedy to a rather serious look at the toils and troubles that made up Marilyn's life.  The tonal shift never quite finds an appropriate balance which is a shame.

Fortunately, never once does Ms. Williams' performance shift into a caricature of Monroe which it so easily could have done.  Surprisingly, however, Williams ends up shining in the more intimate moments of the film's second half rather than the comedic realm of the first half.  This ends up working in the movie's favor as us viewers can latch on to Williams' performance when the film -- which becomes a bit too psychoanalytical for its own good -- begins to falter.

The RyMickey Rating:  C+

Movie Review - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two (2011)

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, and Alan Rickman

Directed by David Yates

All I can say is that I'm happy the Harry Potter saga is over and done with so I can now never have to watch another moment of this boring fantasy series again.  It's not that any of the movies are godawful, but considering these flicks are supposed to be trips to a fantastical world of magic and sorcery there is a severe lack of creativity and joy onscreen in any of these films.

Picking up immediately where the bland Part One left off, Part Two of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a showdown between Mr. Potter and the evil Voldemort.  I'm not going to get into any additional story description because it all boils down to Good vs. Evil and it's likely not going to be a surprise as to who comes out the victor.  

As stated above, the problem with all of these Potter films is that they all simply seem much too cookie cutter and by the book.  Directors (with the exception of Alfonso Cuarón's take on Prisoner of Azkaban, the third flick in the series) all seem to lack the imagination to make this cinematic series successful and David Yates is no exception.  As a director, he's responsible for not only making the film visually appealing (which this isn't), but also making the film flow...and this film doesn't do that either.

Granted, I think Yates certainly would have been helped had the film been released as a single flick rather than be forced to be stretched out into two parts.  As much as I would have hated the experience, I would have rather had a three hour-and-fifteen minute flick as opposed to 2 two hour films.  Presented in the way they were released, I couldn't help but feel like the editor had to leave stuff in just to pad the running time.

I will say that Daniel Radcliffe whom I criticized in my review of Part One proved to be rather good in this final installment of the series.  This second film is purely his with many the other characters including Emma Watson's Hermione and Rupert Grint's Ron pushed more to the outskirts.  Rather surprisingly, Radcliffe proves that he may well have a career now that his decade as Harry Potter is over.

Take my review of this one with a grain of salt.  This series just never worked for me and although I saw all of them in theaters, they never once transported me into the magical, mystical world of J.K. Rowling's best-selling series.  With the exception of a pleasant theme by film composer John Williams, there's really nothing worth remembering about the Harry Potter series in the slightest.

The RyMickey Rating:  C-

Movie Review - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One (2010)

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, and Ralph Fiennes

Directed by David Yates

I realize that the seventh and final book of the Harry Potter series was long, but, while whoever thought of separating the final film into two parts was a financial genius, the split causes Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One to be a tremendously boring film that fails on all fronts.  When it finally picks up the pace and actually gets going in the film's final thirty minutes, it's too little too late to redeem itself.

The gist of the whole thing:  Teenage wizard Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has to find some magic objects and destroy them before the evil Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) gets a hold of them and gains a bunch of power.  Potter's friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) are going to help him.

That's it.  Except for the fact that what's listed above is even more than what happens in the film.  I mention that Potter has to find some magic "objects" with an emphasis on the plural there.  Well, he actually only finds one object...in 150 minutes.  Two-and-a-half hours and he finds one frickin' object.  This intrepid quest really goes nowhere for this whole movie.  Instead, we get a bunch of shots of Harry standing around with Hermione and Ron, all of them looking really sad and worried.  There's no arc to the story and not a bit of an emotional arc with the characters.

Let's face it -- Daniel Radcliffe isn't a great actor.  He's rather awkward as Potter and he's not the least bit interesting to watch.  This has always been the case with Radcliffe throughout all the films, so I'm not sure why I was expecting anything different here.  The biggest problem, however, is that in this film Radcliffe is in nearly every single scene.  In the previous flicks, we'd at least cut away (maybe) to a little Ron or Hermione side adventure...and Rupert Grint and Emma Watson could at least hold our attention because of their charisma.  Here, even Grint and Watson are just dreary.  I realize these characters are facing some deadly and dire situations, but there was hardly a smile cracked onscreen the whole time.

David Yates is a more than adequate director and the most positive aspect of the film is the rather adult, simplistic way it's shot.  However, he (and his cinematographer) bathe the film in dreary dank blues and grays.  It's really not even a pretty film to look at despite some rather interesting settings.

All this being said, I was intrigued by the film's final half hour which utilized some very clever animation techniques to tell the backstory of the Deathly Hallows (this scene was the only one that really worked for me).  Ultimately, Part One ended on enough of a positive note to make me interested in knowing the outcome of Part Two.  However, this film should never have been broken up into two parts -- it's a move that will ultimately taint my decision of Deathly Hallows as a whole regardless of how much I like the final act.

The RyMickey Rating:  D+