Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 [Review]

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was first released upon audiences in 2001, some four years after the book was published. Now, ten years later, the series has finally come to a close - with the screen adaptation of a book (or half a book) that is also, fittingly, four years old. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 has been the centre of a media circus for months now, with all the talk raging around the actors and actresses and how they feel about the saga ending; what they will do now and where they will go. And yes, while it's all very sad for the cast and crew to have to leave the cosy home of Leavesden Studios and brave the big wide world all over again, the final Potter film means a lot more than that to a different group of people.

I am of course talking about the audience; from those who camped for three days straight in Trafalgar Square for (probably) the very last time you'll see Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson walking down the red carpet together, to those who simply cosied up with a book every night and eagerly anticipated each new release, a generation of fans have grown up with the boy wizard. To see it come to an end meant no disservice could be done to the series - one of the primary decisions behind splitting the seventh book into two parts. A lot rests, then, on this film. Part 1 was released to widespread critical acclaim, after the misery that was Half-Blood Prince, and a steady stream of trailers have built up a solid base of hope that director David Yates will deliver. And deliver he has.

From the opening scenes at Shell Cottage right through to the final, inevitable battle between Harry and Voldemort, Part 2 is a whirlwind ride of magic and mystery that doesn't give you a second to breathe. Unlike Part 1, however, this feels less like a montage of disjointed events and more like a fluid, fluent piece of art. Breathtaking CGI and action sequences collide with gut-wrenching emotional jaunts; if you've been following the series all the way through, you'll be lucky to leave the cinema without shedding a tear (manly or otherwise). These are the characters we've spent the last decade getting to know; the characters we've seen blossom from quivering, pyjama-clad eleven year-olds into mighty, fearless warriors (here's looking at you, Neville Longbottom). To see them taken away from us is disturbingly upsetting, particularly as we're talking about fictional characters here. But that's just testament to the strength of the storytelling, and indeed, the integrity of the transition from book to film.

Part 2 begins with a daring raid on Gringotts Bank in search of another Horcrux, one of the elements of Voldemort's soul that must be destroyed in order to finally defeat the Dark Lord. One treacherous goblin and a dragon ride over London later, and it's off to Hogwarts for one of the greatest battles in cinematic history. Fire, brimstone and ash dart maniacally around dozens of Death Eaters, students, teachers, giants; even the giant spiders are back for one last attempt to eat anything in their way. Alongside this, of course, is the continued search for said Horcruxes, the remainder of which, inevitably, lie in the school itself. Harry's quest is satisfying - staying remarkably true to the book, quieter moments intersect with the constant attack on the senses of the battle itself. But still there is no sign of things slowing down, as the plot moves at a remarkable pace. Unlike the earlier books where secondary plot points could be omitted, most everything in Deathly Hallows is crucial to the story - and thus most everything has been replicated in visual form here to some extent, perhaps excusing the rapid speed at which the film travels. At just over two hours, though, this is in fact the shortest of the Potter outings - and it's worth wondering whether an extra ten minutes or so might have helped to calm things down.

But then that might have been missing the point. The battle of Hogwarts is an incredibly climactic point of the novel, and it seems Yates has attempted to replicate this on screen, with mostly success. While the ultimate climax doesn't follow the book word for word, it's satisfying enough to please fans, if actually slightly anticlimactic in execution. Similarly, key character deaths are glossed over fleetingly in places. While still emotional, one can't help but think they could easily have been done better with thirty seconds more screen time. Luckily, such emotions are enhanced by the actors - and what fine actors they are.

Since the first Potter film, the three main stars - Harry (Radcliffe), Ron (Grint) and Hermione (Watson) - have come a long way. Part 1 alone is proof enough of that; Part 2 only exemplifies matters. Finally the kids get a chance to shine (it's just a shame they had to wait until they were adults). But the unexpected star of the show is none other than seasoned villain Alan Rickman, once again resuming his role as the most complex character of the lot, Severus Snape. Now Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Snape spreads tyranny amongst the youngsters with the help of a couple of Death Eaters. But as his story unfolds throughout the film, we witness truly the motives and background of one of the greatest fictional characters of all time; yet no other actor could have displayed more testament to his prowess. If the rest of it left you brazenly unflinching, prepare to break out the tissues for The Prince's Tale.

A superb supporting cast return from the various films throughout the series; Emma Thompson as Sybill Trelawney and Jim Broadbent as potions master Horace Slughorn are both present and correct, as is Maggie Smith, reprising her role as Deputy Headmistress Minerva McGonagall. In a further surprising turn, Smith's boldness shines through in McGonagall, unrelenting and unwavering, while Ralph Fiennes continues to terrorise as big bad Voldemort, consistently proving his eagerness for the role. It’s been a long time coming that I can say a Harry Potter film has next to no evidence of poor acting - Yates must have stumbled upon his own batch of Felix Felicis during filming.

It’s a satisfying end to the series; breathtaking and unyielding, a visceral and visual assault on the senses, Deathly Hallows: Part 2 leaves us shattered, with a Potter-shaped void somewhere in the depths of our now cold, brazen hearts. A truly defining moment of an entire generation; $6 billion, 10 years and 8 films later, and finally we wave goodbye to Harry Potter.

And what a journey it’s been.

✰✰✰✰✰

See also: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

Dir: David Yates
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes
Warner Bros Pictures, 130 mins, 15/07/11

Synopsis: The final chapter of Harry Potter is upon us, complete with deadly duels, a full scale battle, dragons, swords and more, as the three leads continue their quest to find and destroy Voldemort's remaining Horcruxes... 

Read More

Horrible Bosses [Review]

Having a quick glance around this website, you might notice this review is considerably shorter than most. And there's a very simple reason for that. Horrible Bosses is a comedy film; a comedy not engrossed in subtlety or sophisticated humour, along the lines of Monty Python, but of the more obtuse and exaggerated, the lewd and the loud. That's not to say it takes things over the top; the film in fact manages to achieve that which many screenwriters find so difficult - it is a comedy everyone (of a certain age, of course) can enjoy, without having to resort to jokes about passing wind.

Revolving around a trio of working-middle-class thirty-something men, Horrible Bosses does exactly what it says on the tin - each character has an incessantly intolerable superior; be they a nymphomaniac or a drug-fuelled sociopath, the bosses in question seem to make it their mission to cause our leads as much emotional (or physical) pain as possible. This of course drives the men to decide to brutally murder each other's superiors, as any logical train of thought might. Thus proceeds ninety eight minutes of bumbling hilarity as the office worker, accountant and dentistry assistant attempt to become stone-cold killers.

The acting is fine, but you're not convinced of the plot. More of a B-list cast, the most notable names being Jennifer Aniston (that's the nympho) and Jason Bateman (one of the suffering employees), the three leads struggle to act as though they might be capable of such an atrocity - making the outcome hardly surprising. Yet while it's predictable stuff, you can't help but get swept along for the ride, particularly when it's injected with so much humour. The chemistry between the trio seems unlikely but, somehow, it works.

And sure, Horrible Bosses doesn't do anything revolutionary. But it doesn't need to. It's a daft Saturday night comedy of the best kind - think Superbad, Dinner for Schmucks, etc. That it does manage to make its audience laugh is a clear indicator of success, and success that is due the three leads. While not entirely convincing you of their nature as murderers, their haphazardness does spark its fair share of laugh-out-loud moments. And to that end, Horrible Bosses achieves what it sets out to do. Of course, unlike the now classic Superbad, the longevity of the film is doubtful - hardly that memorable, it won't warrant a second viewing. But you'll enjoy it while it lasts.

✰✰✰

See also: Superbad (2007), Dinner for Shmucks (2010)

Dir: Seth Gordon
Cast: Jason Bateman, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Farrell
New Line Cinema, 98 mins, 22/07/11

Synopsis: Three everyday, average Joes decide they hate their bosses enough that they should stop living. And it's all downhill from there...

Read More

Cars 2 [Review]

For many years now, Pixar has built itself modestly upon a throne of fervent praise; a throne most warranted by a library of films of the highest calibre. Not so much as a single negative comment can be said about the majority; though perhaps most of The Incredibles (2004), arguably the weakest of the bunch. To be celebrated of the studio indeed was its inherent originality; the Toy Story trilogy notwithstanding (though great as all three instalments were, it was certainly excusable), Cars 2 is the first of reportedly many sequels lined up over the next few years. And while not without its merits, if this is a sign of things to come, Pixar may well have had its day.

From the off, Cars 2 faced difficulties. Perhaps one of the least well-received of Pixar’s films, the original Cars (2006) was criticised for its predictable story and unsophisticated humour, and while in many ways Cars 2 works to right these wrongs, it still falls short in various areas. The first automobile outing was a small-town adventure; mostly enjoyable if slightly clichéd, but revolving around a few central characters. The sequel, however, goes global - in more ways than one. Much as the Star Wars prequels appeared to be created solely for the wallets of Lucasfilm’s glorious empire, so too does the cast of Cars 2, numerous beyond reason, exist apparently to sell toys. And that’s what this movie will inevitably do: sell merchandise. The first film was Pixar’s most successful in that respect, though what good it has done the franchise is debatable - indeed, many have criticised this sequel as no more than Disney milking another of its cash cows ‘till its udders run dry.

Regardless, Cars 2’s plot is undoubtedly - and perhaps inevitably - on a much grander scale than it’s predecessor’s. A World Grand Prix to celebrate the founding of a new renewable fuel source takes protagonist Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) to all corners of the Earth; from Japan to Italy and right back to good old Blighty. Well, actually, that’s the only three places it takes him, but at least it’s across different continents. Allow me to correct myself, however: when I refer to Lightning McQueen as the film’s protagonist, this is simply due to the manner of the first film of placing him on this pedestal. For the sequel, director John Lasseter and his crew decided instead to focus the spotlight on the token imbecilic comedy character of the original: Tow-Mater, voiced by Larry the Cable Guy, and all the stereotypical ugly-Americanisation that he puts into the happy-go-lucky truck. But this was a poor decision.

The main plot of the film circles around an MI5 style spy ring of vehicles (perhaps a more apt title for the film would have been Planes, Trains and Automobiles 2), led by one of the many, many new characters - Finn McMissile, in an instantly recognisable turn by Michael Caine. Mater is inevitably drawn into this in all his ineptness, and thus begins an escapade around the world to thwart an evil corporation of, uh, ‘lemons’ (a name attributed to cars with bad engines, and played upon brilliantly in one of the film’s more subtle jokes - look out for the table decoration during a meeting in Italy). But nevertheless, while Cars 2’s plot is ambitious, it doesn’t feel apt for this film. Granted, there’s a Grand Prix going on, but it’s all in the background. Secret agents and the like don’t seem like a natural choice for a film about talking cars. Combine this with the decision to support an entire film on a secondary character, and you’re setting yourself up for failure.

It’s lucky, then, that Pixar’s traditional scriptwriting runs much stronger here than the original. The humour is more subtle, or else more sophisticated - watch out for famous London vehicular landmarks such as Tyre Bridge or Big Bentley - while the dialogue is mostly tighter than before. Sadly, stereotypes still abound: the hippy one, the army one, the crazy one - they’re all still present from before, this time joined by a host of international typecasts. But aside from a loosely crammed in plot to give McQueen more screen time - a clichéd quarrel between Mater and the racecar over friendship that screams a carbon copy of the original - the script mostly improves on the first.

As always, Pixar’s animation quality excels, with dizzying visuals and a finely crafted London cityscape for the film’s finale. And sure it’s enjoyable, but while the plot is fairly more unpredictable in places - you won’t see the final twist coming - and the humour more up to Pixar’s usual standard, Cars 2 still doesn’t feel in the same vein as the studio’s usual brand of magic found in classics such as Toy Story (1995), or even the recent surprise emotional rollercoaster Up (2009). Moral stories lie under no subtext or pretence, and stereotypes display little imagination of character yet again. Even despite a slamming by critics, Cars 2 will no doubt become a commercial success, though whether it deserves it is another question entirely.

✰✰

See also: Cars (2006), Johnny English Reborn (2011)

Dir: John Lasseter

Cast: Larry the Cable Guy, Owen Wilson, Michael Caine

Disney Pixar, 106 mins, 22/07/11

Synopsis: Racing champion Lightning McQueen and sidekick Tow Mater head overseas to compete in the World Grand Prix. But Mater soon becomes embroiled in the world of vehicle espionage... 

Read More

Transformers: Dark of the Moon [Review]

Shia LaBeouf lives a fairly abnormal life. You or I might wake up, grab a bite to eat and head off to the daily grind. But LaBeouf enjoys no such frivolities. Seemingly a typical day for our hero consists of waking up, being faced with impending doom and giant transforming robots, before ending in a haze of barrel-rolling gunfire and smog in a bland American cityscape. He wakes in a daze, a typically beautiful woman thrusting cuddly toys in his general direction, and rests in blood, sweat and tears. Such is the life of Sam Witwicky, the recurring protagonist of the Transformers series, who never breathes a minute of screen time without a word; indeed, without a shout, scream or frantic dash in some general direction, Michael Bay must not consider his main character pivotal enough.

But this is to tell a familiar tale with Bay’s Transformers films; a tale told only too often, as criticisms ran abound of the first two instalments. While these were perhaps deserved of the second film, Revenge of the Fallen, such comments were harsh of his first efforts. While there were flaws, these were not detrimental - and as an action piece, it held well. Much is true of Dark of the Moon, for its achievements far outshine its limits to the point that the series has again become enjoyable, rather than the lacklustre and excruciating attempts of the first sequel.

The plot of Dark of the Moon is loose yet formulaic; once more, the Decepticons have returned, much to the dismay of humankind and the Autobots. This time they’re after a series of ‘pillars’ that will help to create a link between Cybertron and Earth, so that a new planet might be created for the transforming bots to inhabit, with humanity as its slaves. In and around this underlying theme we’re introduced to the granddaddy of the Autobots, Sentinel Prime (played superbly by an instantly recognisable Leonard Nimoy), taken to, yes, the dark side of the moon, and witness a couple of clever twists and turns - something of a first for the series. And while some plot points may seem overly confusing - characters might sometimes disappear between shots and reappear somewhere else with no explanation - everything’s tied together a bit tighter than before.

The main problem for Michael Bay is one he has failed to overcome since Revenge of the Fallen: the introduction of vast amounts of new characters, and the subsequent underplay of many of them. Falling particularly foul of this error of judgement is Sentinel Prime; arguably the central point of the film, Nimoy’s aged bot is discovered on the moon in the film’s montaged opening scenes, but featured less heavily as the film goes on. The never-ending, hour-long ‘finale’ sees almost no mention of Sentinel until the closing minutes, aside from the odd flicker to a hastily delivered one-liner. Similarly, returning antagonist Megatron is much less of a threat than in previous films; wounded in the second instalment, his presence feels unnecessary and wasted.

Recurring human characters are few and far between - poster boy LaBeouf is back (and predictable as ever), as are his parents and a handful of army boys - but the newbies are more than welcome. Gone is the dull, overrated and overshadowing presence of Megan Fox; here are the alluring, contented and so very British tones of fresh-faced Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Carly Spencer, Sam’s new love interest. Of course, a few cheesy romantic lines pursue, but not so that they detract from the film’s wittier moments - exemplified by the genius casting of John Malkovich as Sam’s dictatorial employer.

But Transformers stands, primarily, as an action film - it’s neither the plot nor the characters that will draw you to it; rather, the massive and amazing setpieces. And in this respect, Dark of the Moon doesn’t disappoint. Particularly memorable during the Chicago stand-off in the film’s closing forty-five minutes is the struggle of Sam, Carly and a band of soldiers to make their way through a skyscraper while it is simultaneously demolished by the writhing tentacles of Kraken-like Decepticon Soundwave. Such setpieces do carry their misgivings, however - clichés run in heavy frequency, with the near-death experience running in full force. By the final stand-off between Autobot and Decepticon (and apparently this time final means final - Bay has stated this will be his last Transformers outing) you’re left with the expectation that some other plot device will be right around the corner to stop everything once again, and prolong things for just a little bit more, in a film that’s already an obtuse two hours and thirty minutes long, bloated with its own exuberance (but arguably one that can afford to be, given its grandiose and superb special effects).

Luckily, though, this absurd length and overwhelming amount of intense action sequences is no longer marred by the traditional direction of Michael Bay: where in the previous two instalments, you might have struggled to comprehend most of the combat scenes even after a third or fourth viewing - such was the frantic camerawork of Bay - here the pace is toned down, and a clearer sense of events can be grasped. One or two moments still fall foul, especially when minor characters are duelling; often it’s much easier to understand who’s fighting who when the participants are the likes of brightly-coloured bots Optimus Prime and Bumblebee. But even when the screen’s plastered with monotone Decepticons, the action is perfectly pitched to accommodate the audience rather than to blur straight past comprehension.

The third of Bay’s Transformers escapades, then, easily outshines its immediate predecessor, and almost bests the original. Still succumbing to the same flaws that held back the first, however, Dark of the Moon runs a little short of being the perfect action film; an abundance of clichés and overly complex plot see to that. But an amalgam of memorable setpieces, an occasionally witty script and a toned down approach to the intense camerawork combine to make Transformers: Dark of the Moon still one of the best action films you’ll see this year.

✰✰✰

See also: Transformers (2007), Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Dir: Michael Bay
Cast: Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Peter Cullen, Leonard Nimoy
Paramount Pictures, 154 mins, 29/06/11

Synopsis: The bots are back for a third outing, as a Cybertronian spacecraft is discovered on the moon. Thus commences a race between the Autobots and Decepticons to find its secrets...


Photo: TFW2005

Read More

Remember Potter? A Saga Overview

The past ten years have been a tumultuous rollercoaster ride for the Potter franchise - we’re not talking box office figures here, which are pretty much certified high, but instead the ability of each film to hold its own as a piece of cinematic art. Some managed it; others did not. The penultimate chapter, I’m happy to say, did.

With the saga’s climax, Deathly Hallows: Part II, due for imminent release in cinemas, I revisited the first half of the screen adaptation of the closing J.K. Rowling novel; not simply to jog my memory, but also as a reminder of just how far the series, and indeed its pivotal cast has come since the bespectacled boy first appeared on the silver screen in 2001. While that might give the impression the series has only improved, the previous link will hopefully go some way to dismissing such an assumption - for the Harry Potter saga has indeed been a mixed bag.

Starting with Philosopher’s Stone (or Sorcerer’s depending on which side of the pond you’re sitting) an entire decade ago, the series began positively. An all-round achievement by cast and crew, and much the faithful adaptation, the only criticisms might come in the slightly wooden acting of some of the kids; but they were only young. There was time yet to improve. Otherwise a heart-warming, family-friendly tale, spiced with a hint of danger and demise, the first film bore well with fans and critics alike.

Then, just a year later, the first sequel was upon us: Chamber of Secrets. Harry’s second outing, and one that even, in some ways, began the trend of the series’ spiral into ‘darker’ and ‘grittier’ themes, director Chris Columbus again excelled. While, in this reviewer’s opinion, the source material was weaker than the first venture, the adaptation was even closer than before, and the wonderful acting talents of Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith and co. were improved further still by the addition of Kenneth Branagh as bumbling fraud Gilderoy Lockhart.

Perhaps one of the peaks of the series, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban hit cinemas two years later. Another gritty turn for the series, but by now the kids were starting to mature a bit too - and further stellar contributions to the adult cast (Gary Oldman and Timothy Spall most notably) were to be applauded. A new cast member volunteered his efforts this time round; Alfonso Cuarón, replacing Chris Columbus in the director’s chair, made good with what was arguably also one of the best Potter books - certainly, the third film received the highest critical acclaim of the series (despite attaining the lowest box office ratings of the seven thus far). A triumph for the saga, the heights of Azkaban would not be matched for six more years.

For the next two instalments, Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix, while not in any way atrocious films, were under-par for the series. Things got a bit grittier, a bit darker, and inevitably, a few people were bumped off. The big bad, Voldemort, finally had a body to play him (an admittedly brilliant turn by Ralph Fiennes), and the kids got a bit angsty as the teenage years came into full effect. But the main problem with this pair was how far they drove from the source material. Such was the length of the books that this was unavoidable, lest they were split in the manner of the final chapter, but to gloss over the entire first quarter of the novel in five minutes of film (Goblet of Fire being the guilty party here) and even exclude an entire character (Ludo Bagman - again, Goblet of Fire) seemed criminal. As films, they were decent; as adaptations, they suffered. Phoenix was the greater of the two; more majesty in its visuals and scripting, more elegance in its acting and directing, and generally a touch more… magic. But still the Potter series had not begun to seek the highs it attained back in ’04.

The torrid sixth instalment, Half-Blood Prince, represented an all-time low for the saga. Harry Potter had turned into a badly directed olive rom-com, and much that had been wrong with past films was only amplified here. Again, see my full review for further analysis of this; suffice instead to say that, well - there is no more to be said. A pitiful excuse for a film, much less a Harry Potter film, Half-Blood Prince seemingly sought to destroy all the acclaim the series had won through a myriad of poor acting, scripting and general cinematography. Director David Yates had a lot to answer for.

It’s satisfying to say, then, that Deathly Hallows: Part I does indeed manage to rectify some of Yates’ failings. Here we witness moments of ‘movie magic’ that dare to aspire to the heights of Azkaban some six years earlier; from the wonderfully matured Rupert Grint as best friend Ron Weasley to the astounding improvement of Daniel Radcliffe - whom one might now consider a ‘serious actor’, defying all notions of the previous six films - the acting talent excelled. Combined with the closest adaptation to the book (and rightly so, considering the split) since number three, vastly improved visuals and colours, and a script so tight it might as well be a hardback rewrite of the original source, Deathly Hallows: Part I sits proudly alongside Azkaban; a shining example of the Harry Potter saga at the top of its game. And with Part II right around the corner, let’s hope the series can finish even higher.

Read More

Blue Bloods - Series 1 [Review]

What struck me most in the four months I’ve been watching Blue Bloods (on a weekly basis as per the limits of Sky TV’s viewing schedule) was how inherently the scripts, week in, week out, bled with typical American morals and values.

There’s the average American family: four generations, tighter knit than your annual Christmas sweater, all in virtually the same profession, aspiring to be ‘just like dad’. Then there are the weekly dinners, a custom of each episode, during which the adults discuss some kind of moral crisis threatening the NYPD (or New York Police Department for the uninitiated), the city, religion or the family itself, whilst the kids sit in blissful ignorance. These themes are threaded through the entire series; most of all, Tom Selleck’s character as ‘man of the house’ Police Commissioner Francis Reagan, acting the moral compass - a man of few words, Frank’s throne is indeed atop the highest moral ground known to man.

And while this blatant attempt to thrust a shiny, gleaming representation of the typical American family into the consciousness of its audience might be considered brazen and unabashed of Blue Bloods’ scriptwriters, the show’s ability to simultaneously handle modern and real threats in the form of criminal activity in North America’s most widely-known city, New York, whilst at the same time managing to keep such a high moral standard, must be appraised.

Throughout the series such issues as drug use, paedophilia, serial murder and rape are drawn upon and discussed, while socio-economic values of class differences in 21^st Century USA are in equal amounts exposed and torn apart. This contrasting nature helps to keep the show vibrant and modern whilst reinforcing traditional American culture, with great effect. The format of Blue Bloods is typical in its form as a police drama - but it’s the backbone of the Reagan family that makes it unique.

From 14-year old Nicole (Sami Gayle) to retired Police Commissioner Henry (Len Cariou), the Reagans are a charismatic bunch. Character development over the series is commendable; the main family member Danny, a leading Detective, whom most of the episodes revolve around, is well portrayed as the strong, dependable hero by Donnie Wahlberg (yes, brother of Mark). Over the course of the series, we see Danny go from incredible highs to equally incredible lows - perhaps the most morally temperamental character in the show, Danny’s flashes of anger make for a far more interesting narrative than many of the subplots involved in Blue Bloods.

For instance, there's that of Jamie, who attempts to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of his brother Joe (whom, it should go without saying, was also a cop), though seems to do so at such a slow pace he might as well be going backwards. Surprisingly, even Frank’s (Selleck) subplots become less interesting as the series goes on; the incessant ‘moral good deeds’ theme that overrules so many of Frank’s adventures as Police Commissioner becomes increasingly more tiresome.

It’s lucky, then, that these are indeed just subplots. The main storylines of Blue Bloods’ twenty two episodes, however, are each as gripping as the next; from the senseless murder of a homeless war veteran by upper class snobs to even the kidnap of one of the Reagans, all the classic conventions of the police drama are replete throughout the series. And it’s this that’ll keep you coming back time and time again.

Where Blue Bloods’ unique selling point shows signs of weaknesses, so do the more typical conventions of the show prevail. It might not be in the family scene that you find a liking for this show; certainly, it adds to the character development, but ultimately it’s the characters themselves, driven both by said family orientation and their own backgrounds, portrayed by a superb cast, that really drive the backbone of Blue Bloods to become what it is - a heart-warming, gripping and deep police drama. Roll on the second series!

✰✰✰✰

See also: The Chicago Code (2011)

Creator(s): Mitchell Burgess, Robin Green

Cast: Tom Selleck, Donnie Wahlberg, Bridget Moynahan

USA, 2010-Present

Synopsis: Police Commissioner Frank Reagan heads up not just the NYPD, but also a family of law enforcers. Issues of morality, ethics, family, religion, politics and more bind and come between the tight-knit family, in more ways than one...

Read More

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides [Review]

The first thing you’ll likely notice about the fourth instalment in the Pirates franchise is the scale. Gone are the majestic effects and locales of the previous trilogy; there’s barely a cannon fired - returning antagonist-turned-protagonist Captain Barbossa comes closest, flirting a skirmish with the Spanish which inevitably fizzles out - and the use of fewer locations diminishes any feeling of a lengthy journey or crusade.

But On Stranger Tides doesn’t feel like it needs them. It's a more personal adventure, but something of a pirate road trip - the film revolves around a race to the Fountain of Youth, as teased by the close of At World’s End, the final chapter of the Will Turner trilogy. Jack’s back, obviously - this is, at heart, Johnny Depp’s franchise, after all - as are the aforementioned Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who’s now a King’s Privateer and sporting a dashing wooden leg, and Jack’s faithful sidekick Gibbs (Kevin McNally). But that’s about as far as it goes for returning characters; replacing Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley’s romance thread are the token religious fanatic Philip (yes, even Pirates has one now) and mermaid Syrena, captured in one of the film’s strongest scenes. Penélope Cruz has a rather surprising turn as one of Cap’n Jack’s old flames, who joins the big bad on his ship - the beautifully designed Queen Anne’s Revenge. Ah, yes, the big bad of Pirates 4 - notorious villain Edward Teach, aka Captain Blackbeard.

Ian McShane does wonderfully with the material he is given - the only problem is, there isn’t enough of it. And sadly, this tends to ring true for much of the new cast. Despite a lengthy 136 minute running time, On Stranger Tides has developed a rabid case of Harry Potter syndrome. Characters are introduced for a line or two then discarded without second thought; Blackbeard himself remains a mystery - at one point something is mumbled about his crew being ‘zombies’, but no explanation is given as to why or how they have come to be in this state. The audience is simply left to accept that Blackbeard is some kind of living deity who can manipulate his ship and crew merely by pointing a sword in their face (in an obvious and cringe-worthy attempt to showcase the series’ adaptation of the frankly unbearable 3D phenomenon).

But such criticisms, thankfully, fail to detract completely from On Stranger Tides. The race to the Fountain of Youth is a less exhilarating one, but then the series feels less like it’s trying to cram grandiose action down its audience’s necks at the expense of the bulk of the film’s character and narrative development. Seemingly director Rob Marshall has done all in his power to stay away from Michael Bay methods of filmmaking: we’re given time to consume the plot and characters, and it is herein that the strength of On Stranger Tides lies. But that’s not to say it’s gone all serious - the action is still replete throughout, regardless of the scale or brevity of it; particularly memorable are the mermaid capture at Whitecap Bay and the fast-paced, classic Pirates intro involving an impromptu dash through London town.

A more pointless plot device comes in the form of the Spanish: merely an instrument to prolong the warring Barbossa and Blackbeard’s plight for their watery treasure for just a few minutes’ more runtime, their presence might be considered irrelevant - particularly based on their actions when they eventually reach the fabled fountain. But this mechanic still doesn’t feel jarring; simply an obstacle that is passed over briefly (and does allow for one of Depp’s more cynically humourous moments, whereupon he pulls apart a staple of fight scenes - watch out for it in the final act).

And once again, the Pirates series has somehow managed to overcome its flaws while riding them along anyway - by now, these films exist purely as entertainment; they’re enjoyable. It doesn’t matter that some of the characters might be paper-thin, or the plot not water-tight; Captain Jack is back, and, amidst a summer of South London street gangs taking on Independence Day and everything being Furiously Fast (Five times over), he’s damn welcome.

✰✰✰

See also: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Dir: Rob Marshall
Cast: Johnny Depp, Penélope Cruz, Ian McShane
Walt Disney Pictures, 136 mins, 18/05/11

Synopsis: Jack's back, racing against both Captain Blackbeard and the Spanish Armada to the fabled Fountain of Youth, with the help of a few familiar faces...

Read More