Troll 2 (1990)

I am in no way a connoisseur of terrible cinema. Sure I've beheld the cinematic atrocity that is Plan 9 From Outer Space because one simply kind of has to. I focus on seeing films that are supposed to be good or sound good, but I have to admit it is refreshing to see an awful film every once in awhile, if only to remind me why those other films actually are so good. If excellence is the norm then you quickly become hard to impress, until you witness something so horrible that you run back into the arms of Tokyo Story because now you feel it is a masterpiece compared to what you just saw.

But here's the thing about most "bad" movies: they are unforgivably boring. MST3K has remedied this problem by adding their uneven though often funny commentary to the lowest budget films in existence. But these films, if viewed without all the smart assery, would bore you to tears and you would more then likely switch them off after half an hour. The truly best of the worst actually somehow manage to entertain you on some perverse level, and keep you entertained throughout the entire thing.

Think about it. The worst films you've ever seen are films that made you angry and are films you would never consider watching again. They are usually films that upset you on some level, or just simply bore you to tears, or rape your senses. You don't think of the worst film ever with pleasure, you think of it with disdain, you try and erase it from your memory.

Troll 2 is certainly nowhere near the worst film ever made. But it is the best worst film I have ever seen. The acting is awful, the plot pathetic, the dialogue dreadful, and the effects abominable. All these elements come together to create a film you truly have to see to believe it exists. It's so bad, its actually enjoyable somehow.

And I think one of the key elements to Troll 2's success is that the plot actually moves. Scenes are not drawn out, there are a variety of characters to keep the film from dragging (especially when the protagonist is so vexing). The film makes up the rules as it goes, and while normally I would be offended by this, here I was fascinated.

I don't really want to get into the specifics of the plot, or point out the characters, or anything like that. I'm actually somewhat disappointed in myself for watching Best Worst Movie, the documentary made by Troll 2's child star about the cult following the film has developed, because it spoiled some of the delights the film contained (though certainly not all). Best Worst Movie and Troll 2 make a good double feature, and which one you watch first is irrelevant; though the film does show some of the best scenes, it leaves one of the most over-the-top characters off screen for you to discover for yourself. But make sure you watch the films together. They make a good companion piece.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is a bit of a curious film to me; I saw the original Swedish film during 2010's summer and found it to be a completely engrossing thriller, with a mystery that got more perverted the deeper you looked into it. Audiences, whether they like to admit it or not, are obviously fascinated by anti-heroes, extreme rebels, social outcasts, which can only begin to explain why the late Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy (as it has been dubbed) is such a huge hit over here in the states.

Certainly this tale is tailor made for its director, David Fincher, who revels in tales of social misfits and anti-system messages. His Fight Club is one of the ultimate "stick it to the man" films, ending in the destruction of America's financial sector. And I'm sure he was drawn to the material, if only so he could bring the character of Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to life. She is the ultimate Fincher heroine, with piercings, tattoos, and wacky hairdo, not to mention an independent streak that sets her apart from almost any other heroine in film.

Daniel Craig also stars as the film's other protagonist, Mikael Blomkvist, editor of Millennium magazine (where the trilogy no doubt draws its name), who has fallen under a scandal and lost his life savings because of an unfounded allegation he made against a fellow magazine mogul. Labeled with libel, he is whisked to northern Sweden where, on a remote island populated by a wealthy but estranged family, he is asked to investigate the murder of one of their members some forty years ago.

Lisbeth and Mikael stay separated for over an hour of the film as he begins uncovering a string of possibly related women murders, and she has an unfortunate run-in with a piggish social worker who will release Lisbeth's money to her in exchange for favors. Eventually they collide and the film focuses fully on the murders, though one wonders how much this will connect with Harriet.

The original title of the book and Swedish film is Män som hatar kvinnor which translates to Men who hate women. It's an apt title, considering all the content, though a film with that heading would never get recognition in the states (or a book for that matter) and the retitling is a bit more intriguing (though we never do learn the significance of that dragon tattoo). The film has an incredibly brutal rape scene and sex scenes that would have earned an independent feature an NC-17, but such is the Hollywood system that of course this skated by. Maybe its a sign of maturity on the MPAA's half that we can handle more extreme content, but then I remember Shame has an NC-17 rating.

But here's the thing: the film is almost identical to the 2009 Swedish one. Oh sure, it has a bigger budget, a more assured director, and a fantastic cast, not to mention a dynamite opening credits scene with a cover of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song that was quite the hit back when the trailer first dropped. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who won Oscars for their unique and haunting score for The Social Network (2010) return as composers, but it feels like more of the same. Their style of music certainly lends itself well to the unease that surrounds this film, but at the same time I couldn't help but think back to The Social Network and its score.

There is also a structural problem with the film. It opens with Mikael's problems at Millennium, then introduces with the missing girl Harriet, then introduces with the string of women murders. Then each one of these threads is resolved from the murders on back, but the film suffers in the resolution between Mikael and his foes at the rival magazine. It's a protracted denouement that drags on and on after Harriet's plot is resolved, when we have little interest in what's going on.

The film just feels pointless. The Swedish version was thrilling and engrossed me, and this version felt like the same thing but in English. It's a sign of how lazy we are that we won't see the foreign language version because we don't like reading our movies (though anyone who got through the book should have no problem with subtitles). I feel even Fincher reflects this notion: he doesn't feel like he's trying here, like he simply watched the Swedish one and said, "Well, they did a good enough job, so I'll just make the same version in English, make millions, and call it day." Which I don't fault him for.

The performances are great, especially Rooney Mara as Lisbeth, but I also feel like they aren't too different from their Swedish counterparts. If I had to pick who was better, Noomi Rapace or Rooney Mara, I would have to go with Rapace because Mara's performance is clearly modeled on hers.

Anyone who doesn't know the material will surely be entertained, but anyone coming back to see if anything new was done will be disappointed. It's as pointless as watching Let Me In, the remake of Let the Right One In. At least when Seven Samurai was remade in America, they changed the story to cowboys so it felt fresh (though American samurais are something that wouldn't work anyway). I don't mind a remake if it does something new with the material, or approaches the subject from a different angle. True Grit was hailed as superior to the John Wayne version, though that also may be because forty years means something new can be done with the material.

I'm just tired of these pointless remakes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Which reminds me of Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. He was asked to remake it, so he did. There was very little wrong with that film, and it never felt dated, so Van Sant figured it would be the easiest thing to do. He had the right idea.

The Muppets (2011)

I've never really been into the Muppets. Sure, I saw their films as a child, and I loved them for it, but I still have never seen an episode of the show (blasphemous) and as a result, they are not a huge part of my childhood, as they are for others. That being said, this movie still provides people less in love with the Muppets with plenty of reason to enjoy the flick, as we get a round-up of all the classic characters, plus a new one.

The plot revolves around Gary (Jason Segel) and Walter (voice of Peter Linz), a man and Muppet who grew up together. Problem for Walter is he never really "grew" and as such feels like a bit of an outcast, until he discovers the Muppet Show and falls in love. Gary, Walter, and Gary's 10-year long girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) go from Smalltown to Tinsel town to visit the Muppet studios, which they discover is in ruins. Walter further uncovers a plot by a rich Texas oil man Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) to demolish the studios to drill for oil that supposedly lies underneath. So Gary, Mary, and Walter enlist Kermit the Frog (Steve Whitmire filling in for the late Jim Henson) to roundup the old gang and put on a show to save the studio!

The film is very self aware, to the point that would make Mel Brooks proud, and gets a lot of mileage out of characters referencing the dance numbers they just performed, or other gags such as "travelling by map" because, well, its faster. Despite the original Mupeteers being all but absent, somehow Segel and co-writer Nicholas Stoller (who directed Forgetting Sarah Marshall) manager to make the dynamic between all the old Muppet characters work. Chris Cooper even gets some good scenes, including one random rap complete with sing-a-long text.

But where the film doesn't work is in the addition of the three "straight" characters, Gary, Mary, and Walter. Mary feels neglected by Gary, who always puts Walter first, and Walter is invited to participate in the Muppet Show and struggles with figuring out what his real talent is. The problem is, these stories are not very compelling, and I almost wish Segel and Stoller had written a script that did not include these characters. They are fine for the first 15 minutes, but once Kermit begins rounding up the gang, they are relegated to the background and you forget their stories because, well, they were boring, until it is suddenly brought back to the forefront to remind that, hey, these guys matter too.

Walter is also probably the worst Muppet...ever. He has no personality to speak of, versus every other Muppet who has something that characterizes them. And I won't give away what his "talent" is, but I felt cheated that the film didn't foreshadow this in some way. Walter just produces this ability out of his ass.

Top all that off with Animal's anger management problems, the tension between Kermit and Miss Piggy, and the pressure to put on the show and beat Tex, and you have a lot of plots spinning around. I would have much preferred the film if it had focused on the Muppets and left Gary, Mary and Walter out of it completely. But as it is, there is just too much going on, and though it produces some funny musical numbers (Man or Muppet and Me Party) it doesn't gel as easily as it should.

But I do want to reiterate that despite the plotting problems, the film is still a ton of fun. Cooper, Segel, and Adams are all clearly having a good time, and the vast menagerie of guest stars that show up is also entertaining. If a second film is made, I hope Walter is merely a secondary cast member, and that Gary and Mary stay put in Smalltown, USA.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Tintin (2011)

Tintin, in America, is almost a niche thing. You have to have accidentally been introduced to it in order to know what it is. In 3rd grade, my classmates began reading the comics in class, and I became so intrigued that I acquired the comics for myself from the library. Out of the 21 official volumes, I have read 19 (somehow never made it to two of them), but Tintin has been something that I have long since forgotten about.

Now here comes Spielberg, making a movie I would have desired 12 years ago, and one that I was skeptical about. Tintin came to Spielberg's attention in the 80s, when his Indiana Jones was compared to the intrepid reporter from Brussels. I'm thankful he didn't make the film then, even though he received Hergé's (Tintin's author) blessing to adapt it. But he didn't need to do another Indiana Jones then.

The formula of Tintin is almost Hitchcockian as he accidentally stumbles across trouble and then it gets worse from there (although unlike Hithcock's ombudsmen, he is a very resourceful and intelligent reporter). Tintin (Jamie Bell) himself is a one-dimensional character with no flaws, in both comic book and celluloid form. This is a bit unfortunate, but I guess I'm happy the screenwriters didn't try and saddle him with some made up backstory. Fans of the series will forgive this, but I'm not so sure newcomers will be as quick to accept the character.

Of course, this is why Tintin has a fairly strong array of supporting members, most notably the drunk, alliterative curser (though his vocabulary doesn't include anything that would make the film PG-13) Captain Archibald Haddock (Andy Serkis). Captain Haddock is a nice, dark contrast to the always optimistic, never-do-wrong Tintin, and his incompetence can be a bit predictable, but he shines at the right moment. There are also Interpol cops Thompson and Thomson (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) and Tintin's dog Snowy.

I guess I should back up and give a brief summary of the story. Tintin purchases a beautiful ship model in a market, and is immediately harassed for it by two interested buyers (one is the villain, Sakharine (Daniel Craig)). He soon discovers a scroll hidden within the ship which contains a riddle, and sets out on a globe trotting quest to solve the Mystery of the Unicorn (the name of the ship the model is based on).

Probably one of the largest concerns with the film comes down to the use of Motion Capture, rather then just letting animators freely create the movements. It's a controversial format that has only been successful in James Cameron's Avatar (2009), and even that blended the Mo-Cap with live actors (and the mo-cap aliens had big eyes, so it was easy to erase the dead eye effect). Tintin is so far the best use of Mo-Cap I've seen (full use), and actually seems to address a lot of the dead eye effect issues. I still think the format needs some tweaking, and I still believe letting animators create the movements is the best way, but it still works really well in this film. Andy Serkis gives the best performance, and is a master of the art form, having portrayed Gollum, King Kong, and most recently Caesar in the last Planet of the Apes movie. His performance adds a lot.

But what it comes down to, besides story, besides character, is how much fun the film is, and I haven't been this exhilarated by a film in a long time. It takes its time getting going as Tintin gets a lot of scenes where he just speaks out loud to no one in particular (except his faithful dog Snowy) about the mysteries he is pondering, but once Haddock is introduced, the film takes off. From a thrilling sea plane ride through a thunderstorm, to an unbelievable 5 minute unbroken shot detailing a chase through Morocco, to a final battle involving shipping cranes. Spielberg takes the form of animation and uses it freely, and the result is pure...awesome.

At that's really the best justification for it: Spielberg does things in this film that could not have been achieved in Live Action without a significant amount of CGI, which would have made it look like a cartoon. The Moroccan sequence is particularly spectacular, but throughout the whole film Spielberg's camera moves freely, as if he's a child delighted by a new toy he's discovered. Granted all this movement might become a little sickening in 3D, but in 2D it is perfectly amazing (though I would like to see this on IMAX).

The film opens with a sweet scene where a man modeled after Hergé's visage (the creator of Tintin), sketches a portrait of the young lad that is exactly like the comic book drawings. We are then introduced to the "real" Tintin, and this is a memorable introduction for longtime fans of the books. But how this film will do in America is beyond me. It received an end-of-October release date across Europe and won't hit our cinemas until Christmas (in case you're wondering, I was in Europe when it came out, so I saw it then). The producers are hoping that it will do well enough in Europe that it will generate some interest in America, and if the film does well enough Peter Jackson will helm the sequel (once he's done with The Hobbit).

I highly recommend you all see it. It's a good family film as well, though some families may take the lampooning of Haddock's alcoholism as something that isn't appropriate for children (though I think they can handle it). It may not be perfect, but it's a damn good time at the cinemas. It's what Indiana Jones IV should have been.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

In my travels through the U.K. I have noticed one amusing thing: many films that we got in America during the summer are only just now starting to surface here. I've seen posters and advertisments everywhere for films like The Change-Up, Friends With Benefits, and Jane Eyre. However, Europe also gets films before we do, as in the case of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (no release until Dec. 9th in the US) and Tintin (which comes out at the end of October here and not until Christmas in America). The opportunity to see a film several weeks before it comes out is something that entices me, so I jumped on the opportunity.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is based on a 1970s novel by John le Carre, adapted into a BBC miniseries staring Alec Guiness at the end of that decade. Why they decided to now make a movie is beyond me, but it certainly is an interesting piece to behold. I have not read the novel, nor seen the miniseries, so my exposure to this material was limited and I came to this with a fresh perspective.

The film concerns a hunt through MI6 for a mole, lead by George Smiley (Gary Oldman). The suspects include, but are not limited too, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Toby Jones, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ciaran Hinds, and David Denick (the cast also includes John Hurt and Mark Strong). The film is a confusing labyrith of spies and secrets, and to say I didn't understand the film is putting it mildly.

Eventually I stopped trying to piece together the film and just let the colds tones of Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography wash over me (this is, after all, a cold war espionage tale). The performances were all fine, especially Gary Oldman in the leading role as a the passive investigator.

But I couldn't help but feel there were pieces of the film missing. Part of my confusion is due, I think, to the film's lack of a set-up. We are barely introduced to our key players before they all start intermingling in various exchanges, until I couldn't tell whether what they were doing was for their government or for another.

The plot, I feel, is probably not complicated and screenwriters Bridget O'Conner and Peter Straughan mixed up events in the film to further confuse and mislead the audience, which is not clever but lazy. It seems like the fault of the film lies with the screenwriters and the director, Tomas Alfredson, whose most notable credit is Let the Right One In. This film definitely reflects that one's tone.

It is then left to the actors to try and help the audience understand what is going on, and excellent as they all are, I feel they more or less fall short in this pursuit. I'm not necessarily miffed because I didn't understand the film: I enjoy confusing thrillers that you need to revisit to fully grasp what is going on. I'm more pissed that I didn't care for any of the characters. Oldman, Firth, Hurt, Strong, Hinds, and so on, all seem at a distance, which may very well reflect the nature of the spy but leaves me feeling very excluded.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

We've moved well past the era of the known, popular superheroes and are now delving into new ones that the public may not be so familiar with. This summer we got Thor and Green Lantern, two comic heroes that are not as well known to the general public. Now Captain America, who everyone knows by name, but many don't know the story. You can count me as part of that group, as I had no knowledge of the mythology surrounding Captain America, the first junkie.

I'm being cruel. Captain America establishes the character of Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) as a 90-pound weakling, a kid who keeps getting beat-up despite his courage, and who keeps enlisting in the army despite his multiple rejections. His plucky attitude catches the eye of eccentric mad-scientist Stanly Tucci, affecting a wonderfully overdone German accent, who convinces him to undergo a (dangerous) new test that will make him a super soldier. Tommy Lee Jones provides a gruff colonel character, and Hayley Atwell puts her clothed assets and wonderfully red lips on display.

The experimental test goes well, and we receive Captain America, the idealized American hero who will not bat an eye in the face of evil and has the courage and resolve to sacrifice himself for his country (an early scene with a grenade is the filmmaker's way of practically punching you in the face with what the Captain will do later). But on the flip side is the villain, Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving, returning to the evildoer's chair after 8 years), who finds a cosmic blue cube thingy and then harnesses its energy into crazy super weapons that vaporize its targets. His scenes with Dr. Zola (Toby Jones) are Grade A pulp fun, as he develops his own breed of soldiers to usurp even Hitler. You know he's a bad guy when the SS's commanders come investigating, and he murders them.

The movie has a beautiful look to it, harkening back to that city of the future model we saw in a prior super hero film (wink wink, guess which one), and the production design's retro 40s outfitting is warm and welcoming. The goofy sets are great fun, and though they are primarily CGI, they are still wonderful to behold. It kind of fits this alternate take on our past anyways.

Roger's development as a character and hero is well done in this film, and is something we haven't seen in superhero films in awhile (though I can't speak for other offerings this summer, as I have yet to see them). His can do attitude and resolve in the face of adversity is admirable, and we spend a great deal of the first hour with Evans in his 90-pound CGI body. (I have to give the artists big kudos here, I thought they simply grafted Evans' face onto a skinny person. Instead, they actually reconstructed Evans' body, a truly remarkable feat).

But once Rogers becomes Captain America, and Schmidt pulls of his face to reveal he is the Red Skull, the movie lost me. No, I wasn't confused, I just suddenly wasn't emotionally invested anymore. The film establishes both the hero and villain quite well, and then suddenly begins rushing events as the Captain begins tracking down Red Skull, in a rather boring, though explosive, montage. It felt like the filmmakers realized they had to keep the film within a two-hour running time, and began condensing later events. The result is choppy and detached.

And there's no real relationship between Captain America and Red Skull. Oh sure, Skull has someone executed who matters to Captain America I guess (I shan't reveal who, but the character is gone before you know it). But they don't share a connection like Peter Parker and Norman Osborne, or a contest like the Joker and Batman. Besides threatening to blow-up America, Red Skull doesn't quite strike you as truly evil beyond his blasé plan to conquer the world, and he's hard to take serious in that silly red make-up. Hugo Weaving is way more terrifying as himself then spaghetti sauce face.

Ultimately its an enjoyable flick, but as far as the comic book film canon goes, it is below other superhero fare. This has all, of course, been building to Marvel's tentpole event of next summer, The Avenger, where we will see the Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America unite. I will of course see Thor to better prepare myself for this coming film. I do look forward to that film.

Final note: The biggest crossover in the Marvel films occurs here, with Dominic Cooper playing Howard Stark, father to Tony Stark/Iron Man. He plays a large role in the film, and is one of the pleasures of Marvel's big giant crossover fest.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

It's odd to finally say goodbye to something that has been apart of my life for so long. The series of Harry Potter truly ended four years ago with the release of the seventh and final book, something we all anticipated with baited breath. That came out when I was making my transition from High School into College.

Now I have graduated College, and so it seems like fitting timing for the final of the Harry Potter films to be released, and for me to finally lay to rest and bid adieu the series that will define my generation. Truly, there have been few things in pop culture to rival the popularity of Harry Potter. We may never again have a book series so exciting that it causes all ages, kids to adults, to line up at midnight to purchase the new entry in the series.

And the films themselves are a remarkable achievement. True, they don't come close to rivaling the books, but the fact that the same core stuck with the film for so long, and that the only recasting came from Richard Harris' death is remarkable. The films have been magnificently successful, and the fact that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson have grown to embody these three iconic characters is owed in large part to the casting. Ginny Weasley is one of the few characters who was ill cast (Bonnie Wright has never been particularly compelling).

And how does the final film hold up? It opens right where the last one left off, with Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) stealing the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's grave. Then we pick up with Harry, Ron, and Hermione staying with Ron's brother and plotting their next move, a break-in at the great Wizarding Bank Gringotts to infiltrate Bellatrix Lestrange's vault, in the hopes they will locate another Horcrux.

After the first five minutes, the remaining two hours take place over a single 24-hour period, as the trio infiltrates the bank in a wonderful sequence that finally, FINALLY gives us the scope of the caverns that lie beneath Gringotts, something that many criticized film one for leaving out. There is also a dragon, that owns its screen time and becomes quite a sympathetic character, yearning for sunlight and savoring its freedom once obtained. It's moment that could easily have been overlooked, but the CG wizards make it an emotional instant that works.

Harry then returns to Hogwarts to locate another Horcrux, and inadvertently begins the final standoff with Voldemort. It's a rather well executed final battle, and my only nitpick is that we don't get to see more of the resistance against Voldemort's onslaught (his army indeed outnumbers the forces at Hogwarts by 10-1). But there's also so many loose ends and back story to tie up that this can be forgiven.

Rather then continue summarizing, I will instead break off and mention what worked and what didn't. Probably the most important element that they nailed was Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), who is above all the most complex character in the Potterverse. The emotional impact his story has, the final revelation of his true colors, nearly brought a tear to my eye and definitely choked me up. It drives home the central theme of the entire series, that love conquers all. To see Snape's undying love for Harry's mother, and his allegiance to Dumbledore to protect her and her son, is a touching yet heartbreaking moment.

And Fiennes is finally given a lot of screen time (after being absent in Half-Blood Prince), finally making Voldemort the terrifying, fantastic villain he was meant to be. Not only does he strut about, sure of his immortality, but he is also allowed to express vulnerability as he realizes Harry is slowly wearing him down. The villain is always more fun to play, and Fiennes makes Voldemort a truly frightening presence.

There are also other great British actors, though Jim Broadbent (Slughorn) and Emma Thompson (Trelawney) are decidedly wasted and do nothing significant. But others including Maggie Smith, Jason Isaacs, Robbie Coltrane, Gary Oldman, Helena Bonham Carter, John Hurt, Warwick Davis, and Michael Gambon are put to good use and round out this terrific, powerhouse cast.

But the real pleasure has been seeing all the kids in the cast, including Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom, grow up into capable adults. Their lives have been presented to us in a sort of shortened Up Series, progressing from 11 to 21 (all the actors are around the same age as me). Years from now, they have the rare ability to look back upon these films, a time capsule of their youth (and ours).

Now, what the film did wrong: The whole final ten minutes, including Voldemort's death, is slightly underwhelming and doesn't quite pack the epic, satisfying punch that I was hoping for. Sure the movie delivers several cheer worthy moments, including the destruction of Voldemort's snake, but Voldemort's demise is more of a fizzle then a bang, though Harry and Voldemort's final duel is decidedly more action-packed then the novel (Harry talked down Voldemort for a solid ten minutes and explained a lot of things). But Voldemort simply dissolves into the wind and the next scene is simply all the characters sitting around drinking tea and recuperating, instead of joyously celebrating the fact that Voldemort has died. It's a moment that should have the audience on their feet, crazy with applause, and instead Voldemort just disappears. Disappointing.

And a moment that didn't work in the book or the movie is the 19-years-later epilogue, which while it provides the necessary wrap-up, feels like something out of an SNL sketch showing these characters nearing middle age (especially Radcliffe's make-up). It does provide a sweet moment between Harry and his son, and brings the series full circle, but I've always felt it make everything too perfect. Harry and Ginny stayed together, Ron and Hermione stayed together, and all was well. For a series with such a dark view of the world, the ending is decidedly optimistic.

These quibbles aside however, one must applaud David Yates, the man bequeathed the task of taking Harry into the final run by directing four of the eight films in the series. If he hasn't come out as a stylist, he has successfully created a continuity between the universes of the films, and ended the series as satisfyingly as he could. Alfonso Cuaron, director of part 3, still made the most stylistic Potter, and the most filmic. His hand has never been rivaled and everyone wished he would have helmed more, but hey, you can't always get what you want.

The films may have never achieved what the books did, but you have to admire Warner Bros. for sticking it out, through and through (how could they resist 7 or 8 easily marketable and definitely profitable films). Plenty of other popular children books have failed to translate (including the wonderful The Golden Compass), and the fact that this series made it is a feat in and of itself.

Harry Potter's end serves, I guess, as my final closure to the world that I have embraced for 12 years since I first discovered the books. I have left college now, and must look on to a terrifying yet exciting future, without any more Harry Potter films to look forward too. I have grown with these movies; I was 11 when the first movie came out, and am now in my early twenties, ready to bid adieu to the series. There will be no other film series like Harry Potter, that takes us through such a long, emotional journey that spans ten years and actually ends on a mostly fantastic note. This type of thing is once in a lifetime, and though I hate to do it, it is finally time to say a heartfelt farewell to the characters, the actors, the books, the movies, the entire world of Harry Potter. Thank you for providing escape to a magical, far off world, something that I will share with my children in years to come.