#2 Memento

Fuck The Dark Knight. This isn't a list of the most overrated movies of the decade. Memento is Christopher Nolan's masterpiece.

Memento is all Guy Pearce. Yes, there is a Matrix reunion here with Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss. But Pearce's Leonard Shelby is totally alone. And in the way this movie is filmed, the viewer is seeing everything through a perspective that's unique to Leonard.

Leonard suffers from amnesia. While this may be an overused plot in many stories(such as basic television dramas and RPG's) Memento tells Leonard's plight in a completely unique way. Leonard's form of amnesia is the opposite form that's typically depicted. Instead of having no recollection of events that occurred before he got afflicted with memory loss(such as what his name is and what his family is like), Leonard can't remember things that have happened since.

To me this is a far worse condition. If you can't recall certain memories after having brain damage, you know that you can eventually learn things again. But Lenny(which is what Teddy, played by Pantoliano, calls him) is trapped. He keeps reliving the night that caused his head trauma. The night when his wife was raped and murdered by burglars. And multiple times, every single day, that becomes his most recent memory.

Since Leonard knows nothing beyond that moment, all he can think about is catching the killer. In this way Memento becomes a neo-noir thriller. A private eye story with a radical twist. How do you catch a guy if you can't remember your detective work?

In order to solve this problem, as the movie's title suggests, Leonard keeps mementos. Polaroids, tattoos, and notes scatter his hotel room. Those are the only things that he can trust.

The audience sees everything out of order, just so that we get a small sense of what life is like for Lenny. This isn't like Pulp Fiction out of order. Within a particular setting, time will jump. Leonard will be running and then wonder who he's running away from. Anytime he wakes up in a bed that's not his he has no idea how he got there. Nolan plays with this mechanic so well, and the other characters in Memento play with Lenny. Even an employee of the hotel overcharges him, just because he knows that he can get away with it.

Within this film there is a side story told completely in black & white. Leonard is talking to an unknown person about a man named Sammy Jankis. This story seems completely unrelated to the rest of the film until the end. Or is it the beginning?

It's very difficult to describe what makes Memento so incredible, which is why I've been left to describing the general plot. There is so much that isn't revealed until the end of the movie that its brilliance cannot be discussed without spoilers. This is just one of those movies that must be seen many times to figure it all out.

And yet, no matter how well you analyze the movie, there are still questions that remain unanswered. I will try my best to not mention specific events, but this may contain some spoilers:

-The assumption is that even though it may be out of order, there is a beginning and an end to this story. But the truth is that we don't know how long Leonard has been looking for his "John G" and how much longer after the chronological end of the movie Leonard's story will go on for.

-The connection between Leonard Shelby and Sammy Jankis is debatable. If it is as strong as some may believe, then who was Leonard's actual wife? Was she even really raped and murdered? If she wasn't, then what is Leonard really trying to do with his life?

Just as was the case with Ofelia in my previous post on Pan's Labyrinth, maybe Leonard wants to believe what he believes. Perhaps he purposely leaves clues that are ambiguous just so that it's easier for him to solve his case. If he does catch the killer, how will he remember if he did? If the only thing you could know was vengeance, would you want to convince yourself that you had succeeded, no matter what the cost? And most importantly, if you were going to keep on having that desire forever, and if no one got in the way, would you ever stop? Would you want to?



As a side note, because I had no place in this post to mention this, I'd like to add that this movie has maybe the most incredible DVD box and menu ever.

#3 Pan's Labyrinth

Fairy tales are not always designed for children. They can be very haunting and disturbing. Pan's Labyrinth represents what a fairy tale used to mean.

Pan's Labyrinth is set in 1944 fascist Spain(and is told completely in Spanish subtitles). The main character, approximately 10-year-old Ofelia, is forced to move in with her very pregnant mom to a settlement in the middle of the woods. The mom is marrying one of the fascists leaders, Captain Vidal, who is hiding with his troop seeking out any resistance fighters.

This decade has had some incredible villains. Heath Ledger as the Joker, Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh, and Christoph Waltz seems to be the front-runner to be the third straight villain to win Best Supporting Actor for his performance as "The Jew Hunter". But my favorite villain of the decade? Captain Vidal played by Sergi López in Pan's Labyrinth.

By the end of the movie, there is no smidgen of sympathy that remains for this guy. His level of cruelty somehow finds a way to shock you multiple times. You are wishing the worst possible ending for him, but you know that there is nothing that can possibly be done to him that can account for his atrocities.

While her mother is in intense pain from her pregnancy, Ofelia finds herself wondering alone and stumbles into an alternate reality. Director Guillermo del Toro does an incredible job of designing this world; which manages to use modern effects, makeup and costumes while combining it with traditional fairy tale standards(for example Ofelia must complete three tasks).

Pan's Labyrinth is also a great war movie. The skirmishes between the resistance group and Captain Vidal's army are some of the best gunfights that I've seen in a while. Additionally, the inner effort to overthrow Vidal through the spy Mercedes is incredibly suspenseful.

But what makes Pan's Labyrinth work so well is the way that it seamlessly blends the two seemingly different stories together. Ofelia's world becomes so connected with reality that, especially by the end of the movie, the audience is forced to question if what Ofelia went through was real.

But how can we judge what is real? Well, we know what facts are. The world is flat and 2+2=4. But we can only ever experience life from our own perspective. So facts are just a consensus. Objectivity is just finding a commonality among many different subjective people. It's not a coincidence that reality and relative come from the same root word.

And if your reality differs from the majority? Then the world decides that you are wrong. But what if you are never told? Your reality feels just as real as anyone else's, and nobody is letting you in on it. As movies may say, Santa Claus or fairies or any other magical creatures only stop existing when you stop believing in them. And as cliché of an expression as it is, ignorance is very often the most blissful state to be in.

This is the situation that Ofelia finds herself in throughout Pan's Labyrinth. Her real world is so barbaric that her retreats into fantasy are not only understandable, but perhaps the only method she has of escape. Is she consciously pushing herself into another world to avoid the one she's stuck in? Does it matter? All that is important is that she buys into it and that the world is true for her.

#4 i ♥ huckabees

David O. Russell might be the biggest asshole in Hollywood. Apparently, on the set of Three Kings, he started choking George Clooney. When he heard that Jude Law was leaving i ♥ huckabees (pronounced I Heart Huckabees and it will be referred to as I Heart Huckabees for the rest of this post) for a role in The Prestige, he apparently got Christopher Nolan into a headlock. And during the filming of I Heart Huckabees, he got into a couple of feuds with Lily Tomlin. If you haven't seen it or heard it, I suggest you check it out.

But the craziest people are often the smartest. I Heart Huckabees is a weird movie. But it's just so original that I don't understand how people can't appreciate it.

Jason Schwartzman plays Albert Markovski; the type of ultra-environmentalist who rides a bike to work. Albert is in charge of an "Open Spaces Coalition" and is trying to put a stop to the building of a new Wal-Mart type store called Huckabees. Jude Law is an executive at Huckabees and gets rid of Albert by wooing the coalition with his Jude Law-ish charm, and becomes their leader.

Albert is having a crisis and visits a pair of "existential detectives" played by Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman. They tell Albert that everything in the world is connected and that everything has a purpose. They pair him up with Tommy, an anti-firetruck firefighter played by Mark Wahlberg. Tomlin and Hoffman inspect every inch of their customers lives to find out what will make their clients happier.

Eventually, Albert and Tommy become disenchanted with the philosophy of the existential detectives and meet up with a woman who believes in the glass half-empty approach. After going through both groups of therapy, Albert and Tommy draw their own conclusions about how to deal with their current situations as well as life in general.

In case you didn't realize it based on the cast, this movie has wonderful performances. Everyone is incredible including Naomi Watts, who plays Jude Law's girlfriend and the voice of the Huckabees commercials. But there is something that is so interesting about Jason Schwartzmann. He's not a typical great actor. Maybe what makes him so entertaining is that he comes off as such a nice and innocent guy, despite the seriousness and passion that he puts into his acting. I don't know if Schwartzmann intends for the audience to not take him seriously, but either way, he's so much fun to watch.

Many critics blasted this movie for being too existential, nihilistic, transcendental, or whatever. But the biggest thing they missed is that it's tongue-in-cheek. Yes, the movie does go into many philosophical conversations. But it also mocks them. There is a scene where Albert and Tommy conclude that the answer to everything is smacking themselves in the face with a dodgeball. How could anybody take that seriously?

I Heart Huckabees has incredible performances, an insanely original plot, and even manages to explore the meaning of existence in a humorous, non-pretentious way.

"How am I not myself?"

#5 Donnie Darko

For any angsty teenager, Donnie Darko is an idol. He's a loner, a freak and he has to be on medication because everyone says his crazy. But he knows that he's special. He knows that he is meant for great things.

One night his beliefs begin to come true. In one of his many sleepwalks, Donnie(in a breakout role by Jake Gyllenhaal) steps outside to see a man dressed in a freaky bunny suit. The man in the bunny suit identifies himself as Frank and informs him that the world will end in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds, which is on Halloween. Then, before he goes back into his house, a jet engine crashes into Donnie's room.

From this point forth, things get weirder. Donnie comes across characters such as Grandma Death and his teachers who both seem to hint at him that they can sense that something important is going on. Jena Malone, a crush-worthy teen idol in early 2000's indie films(such as The Dangerous Lives of Alter Boys and Saved!), plays Gretchen, Donnie's love interest . And she must also have a feeling that he's special, because the first time that they talk she says that his name sounds like a superhero.

And Donnie begins to believe it. Frank visits Donnie more and more as Donnie, as well as the viewer, begin to question what is real and what is a dream. Donnie can't figure out who Frank really is and when he asks him "Why are you wearing that stupid bunny suit?", Frank retorts "Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?"

But this doesn't matter to Donnie Darko. Frank makes Donnie feel invincible as he takes on everyone that he hates in this world. This is where the teenage fantasy comes in. The inspirational speaker who tells everyone how to live their lives? He gets exposed as a fraud and a creep(played wonderfully by the late Patrick Swayze). The self-righteous teacher who does an awful job acting like a sweetheart when she's really a crazy bitch? Donnie develops the courage to speak up and show the class her bullshit. It's very hard to not identify with this movie if you're a modern, unpopular teenager.

But it's not modern. It actually takes place in 1988 and there's no aspect of this movie that captures that period better than the soundtrack. Donnie's younger sister dances to "Notorious" by Duran Duran. And according to the Wikipedia page which constitutes most of my research for these posts, there is also music from Pantera and Joy Division. But the most famous song to come out of this movie is the Gary Jules cover of Tears for Fears "Mad World". Jules specifically recorded his version for Donnie Darko , which suddenly became a big hit a few years ago.

Anyway, Donnie gets more absorbed into Frank's demands as it gets closer to the point when the world will supposedly end. Donnie begins to look into time-travel as a way to reverse the impending apocalypse. Time travel is very hard to pull off in a story for two main reasons. First of all, more so than any other science fiction theme, time travel is maybe the most improbable thing to happen in the real world and the one most subject to paradoxes. Secondly, it's been done so many times, in so many great movies and TV shows and books, that to use time-travel in an original way is not easy. But Donnie Darko pulls it off. And in the way the story ends up, things find a way to make sense.

Well, not exactly. There are many ways to interpret this movie, most of which involve spoilers. But without giving any away, there are still many things to consider. We do know that Donnie is crazy, but how much of this is in his head? If Frank is real, than what is his objective? What do the other characters, such as Donnie's therapists and teachers know?

I enjoy movies that make me think, but not movies that make me feel stupid. You shouldn't have to watch a movie multiple times to have a clue about what's going on, like in Primer, which is another time-travel movie from this decade. But it's definitely nice to see a movie a second or third time and pick up on things that you didn't notice in the first go-around. You don't necessarily feel lost after the first time you watch Donnie Darko, but if you feel compelled to see it again you might interpret the entire movie in a different way. I believe it was after my fourth watching of this movie(and after seeing the Director's Cut), that I felt that I understood everything that needed to be understood.

But maybe movies aren't supposed to be like that. Maybe they're supposed to be like paintings. Sure, the artist may have had some message that he/she wanted to get across, but it doesn't matter. Art should be for the public and not the artist, and Donnie Darko is a great example of that democratic ideal. Maybe Frank's comment about Donnie being in a stupid man suit is a statement that Donnie's life is a facade for his true self. Maybe it means absolutely nothing at all.

But who cares? Either way, it's a great line.

#6 Adaptation.

Adaptation is written by a man who writes himself as two men, one of which is writing about the writing process involved in writing an adaptation about a book written by a woman about a man.

While that previous sentence may have been a bit of a spoiler, it is probably so nonsensical to someone who hasn't seen this movie that it doesn't matter anyway. So let me try this again.

Adaptation is written by twin brothers Charlie and Donald Kaufman and staring the characters of Charlie and Donald Kaufman, the latter of which isn't a real person. Okay, this still doesn't make sense but I'll keep on going.

Nicholas Cage plays both twins in his most critically acclaimed performance outside of Leaving Las Vegas. Donald is an idiot, but happy, popular, and very successful with women. Charlie is a renowned genius in Hollywood as the mind behind Being John Malkovich(as he is in real life). But he is depressed, very self-critical, bitter, a loner and despite his talent with the written word, he can barely talk to a woman that he finds attractive.

Charlie is working on his next script, but he has an incredibly bad case of writer's block. It's an adaptation of the book "The Orchid Thief" written by Susan Orlean(once again, a real book and a real person). Charlie loves this book and the way that Orlean goes into the beauty behind orchids as well as the oddity behind the main person she profiles, John Laroche. But he just doesn't see how he can make it into a movie. There's no explosions or murders. No steamy love affair and not even a real conclusion. The story is too much like real life, and no movie studio wants that.

The movie within the movie is the actual adaptation of "The Orchid Thief" itself. Meryl Streep who, despite being 60, might just be the most prolific actress in the world right now, gives a soft performance as Susan Orlean. At least at first. Chris Cooper won an Oscar for his portrayal of the orchid thief himself. He's a dirty hick and the last person who you would expect to be a genius when it comes to flowers. But his passion for plants and the way that they adapt(Ah! Now you get the play-on-words in this film's title) is so contagious that you can see why Orlean finds him so fascinating.

But that's it. Nothing happens between Orlean and Laroche, and both go back to their old lives. How can Kaufman fill up a movie with a story like that? Well, within the movie itself, Kaufman decides that in order to fill up more pages, his "Orchid Thief" adaptation should also include the story behind the writing of "The Orchid Thief". There is then an incredible scene where we see the Kaufman character narrating the exact actions that he was engaging in at the beginning of the movie. This movie is sometimes so self-referential that you feel like your brain is going to explode.

In the meantime, Donald decides that he too would like to become a screenwriter. Donald starts writing a story about a criminal, the person he kidnaps, and the cop. And the twist at the end turns out to be that they're all one person suffering from multiple personality disorder. Charlie criticizes Donald for not only coming up with such a used up twist, but for the logistics of one person kidnapping and chasing himself. In this way Adaptation is not only about Charlie Kaufman's writing process, but a great movie about the writing of movies.

While Adaptation is critical of movie stereotypes, it also acknowledges its own hypocrisy. For example, despite the Charlie Kaufman character being critical of Donald for writing such a cliché plot, the real Charlie Kaufman has written himself into the movie as two people. Eventually Charlie becomes so desperate to finish his screenplay, that off of Donald's suggestion he attends a screenwriting class(which is the epitome of everything Charlie hates about screenwriting). During a lecture the speaker informs the crowd that they should never use voice-overs. This is all of course going on in the middle of a Nicholas Cage voice-over.

Afterward, Charlie meets the speaker, played by Brian Cox, in person. By this point Kaufman has already gotten "The Orchid Thief" part of his screenplay done, as well as the part of the screenplay which described his adaptation of "The Orchid Thief" done. But as was the case with "The Orchid Thief", real life doesn't have conclusive endings. It doesn't have the stuff you see in movies. And how can Charlie adapt this book, as well as his life, in a fair way if it's not real?

That's BS, Cox tells him. In real life, everyday, people are born and they get killed. People fall in love and fall out of love. And what follows from that point on I will not spoil, but to suffice it to say, indicates that the real life Kaufman decided to follow that advice. Which means that he was either acknowledging the validity of it or making a mockery of it.

That is if anybody has any idea what the hell Kaufman is ever talking about.

#7 American Splendor

Biopics are definitely one of my favorite genres. Profiles of real life individuals are often Oscar bait because they begin with a story people are already interested in. But American Splendor is probably my favorite biopic of the decade, and it was about somebody I had never heard of.

That somebody is Harvey Pekar. But it's hard to say if it's strictly a biopic. Harvey Pekar is played by Paul Giamatti, but the movie also features interviews with the real Harvey Pekar. It's a story about an incredibly sad man and Giamatti's amazing performance makes this man's woes hilarious. So in a way American Splendor is a sad, funny, fictional documentary.

The movie starts off with Pekar being a depressive file clerk in 1970's Cleveland, Ohio. And it ends with Pekar as a depressive file clerk in 2000's Cleveland, Ohio. This everyman persona is exactly what makes this character so interesting. Harvey must have known it himself, because he started writing comics based off his monotonous existence. Originally drawn by legendary comic artist Robert Crumb, Pekar facetiously titled his comic book American Splendor which were just boring stories based off of his boring life. Yet somehow people found these tales very interesting.

But it's not hard to tell why. The movie American Splendor takes many scenes that occur in the American Splendor comics, and lets Giamatti bring it to life. His bitter, complain about everything attitude, is somehow hilarious in a Larry David-esque sort of way. You know that both characters are good deep-down, but they're both so honest that they come off as assholes. For instance, when a fan(who would later become his wife) flies out to meet Pekar, he introduces himself by saying "You might as well know right off the bat, I had a vasectomy."


It also does a great job of showing American life throughout the past few decades. In the 80's Harvey's friend Tobey (an insanely funny character played by Judah Friedlander) sells out at as he gets swept up in the MTV generation. Harvey himself can't handle his mild celebrity as his frequent appearances on Late Night with David Letterman as Letterman's punching bag eventually blow up in Pekar's face.

The movie constantly breaks the fourth-wall, as Pekar will go into soliloquies about life in general. There is one scene where he attends a play which is based on his life and he comments about what a weird sensation that is. And how it will be even weirder to see the movie that's based on his life. Now consider how weird it is for the real Harvey Pekar, who is featured within the movie, to see an actor in that movie playing Harvey Pekar, who is watching a play based on his life and remarking what it will be like to see a movie about himself.

And while that might not be the best ending to this particular post, I think it segways perfectly into my next film...

#8 City of God

What's more important when watching a movie, the amount that it gets to you or the amount that it entertains you? Schindler's List is certainly one of the most acclaimed movies ever, but is there enjoyment to be had out of watching it? The same can be said about a book, a TV show, or even a painting. Some people don't enjoy roller coasters. Why would they want to do something that frightens them?

If you fall amongst those who would rather avoid being disturbed, I highly suggest that you avoid seeing City of God. You think the "Slumdog" kids had it bad? At least they could get by just by stealing. There are only two businesses that are profitable for the characters in this movie: You can deal pot or you can deal coke. And, oh yea, there's probably more kids getting murdered in this movie than in anything I've ever seen.

City of God is obviously a sarcastic title. But it is a real place. The City of God(Cidade de Deus in Portuguese) is a district inside of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. As the narrator explains at the beginning of the movie, the government systematically moved the favelas (slums) out of the center of the city, so that the world would see the main part as a safer place. Even though this movie takes place decades ago, this makes me really concerned about having the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.

The protagonist in City of God sort of disappears in the middle of the movie, but it's probably because there are so many other characters in this movie that are well developed. And they all go by nicknames. Li'l Zé, Carrot, Knockout Ned. Even though you're reading subtitles throughout the movie, these are names that stick with you.

I obviously don't think this movie is great strictly because of its violence(which is probably the only reason people think The Boondock Saints is a good movie). But there's no question that the violence adds a tremendous amount of tension. There's one scene in which a kid is forced to choose between shooting one of two people. Was it incredibly disturbing? Yes. Would I say that I "enjoyed" watching it? Certainly not. But was it suspenseful, well filmed, and jarring? Definitely.

The violence in this movie isn't random. There are gangs. And they are organized. And they have plans. The rivalries that exist between the groups gets more fleshed out as the movie moves along, and in some ways City of God becomes a gangster movie that rivals a Scorsese picture.

That's not to say that the only great scenes in this movie are the violent ones. The opening scene involving the chicken is just so well shot and, after a movie filled with flashbacks, it's amazing that they manage to bring the story back to that scene.

There's one part where the protagonist(his nickname is Rocket) picks up a woman's phone number in a convenience store. He then, with his friend throughout the movie, gets a ride from a stranger. This stranger asks them if they wanted to smoke, and the main character proceeds to roll up the piece of paper that had the woman's phone number on it. He remarks that he was never good at picking up women, but he was always great at rolling a joint. This is simultaneously funny, bad ass, and very revealing about Rocket's life. In the City of God, children need to learn skills that aren't taught in school in order to thrive or survive.

There's a point in this movie where you realize that there can't be a happy ending. In fact, it would be hard to find an ending at all because every generation ends up repeating what happened in the previous one. However, somehow, the movie ends up finding a way to come to a conclusive ending with Rocket that doesn't seem unrealistic. But it should seem real. It is based on a true story after all.

#9 Grindhouse

There's obviously an incredible amount of subjectivity when it comes to coming up with any "best of" list. However, when it comes to movies, there are certainly things that professional critics and scholars tend to view as being among the more important factors in deciding a film's "greatness". For example, a story may have a so-so plot, but if the movie is paced well, has great camera shots and a fitting score, a critic may deem such a movie as an example of "good filmmaking".

But another factor that should be used in determining what makes a good movie is the actual experience of watching the movie. Obviously, it wouldn't be fair to say a movie is bad because you burnt your popcorn or you just got into a fight with someone before you started watching it. But a good movie maker should look outside of the movie itself and try to take into account the setting it is being viewed in. In this regard, there are certainly some movies that are meant to be seen in theaters. Many might think it's absurd to spend $10 to drive out to see something with other people, instead of staying at home and watching a movie over cable or Netflix. But, in many cases, you won't do a film justice if you see it at home.

Grindhouse epitomizes that type of movie.

It is a movie about the movies. A send-up of the days when people didn't go to movies at midnight because they had to be the first person to see something that will be playing at 4,000 screens the next day. They went to movies at that time because it was the only time that such perverted and gory material would be shown. And these midnight showings wouldn't be in megaplexes outside of a mall where teenagers would meet up to see the latest big-budget blockbuster. They were weirdos or creeps who would go into small, independent, and dirty theaters and watch some cheap trash.

Grindhouse relishes in that. It's a double feature with Planet Terror by Robert Rodriguez, and Death Proof by Quentin Tarantino. There are fake trailers directed by Edgar Wright, Rob Zombie and Eli Roth. There is acting that is (except in the case of Fergie) intentionally awful, fake cigarette burns and complete scenes that are missing.

Planet Terror is as B-Movie as you're going to get. It's a cheesy 70's style zombie fest. Freddy Rodríguez, (who may be my favorite Hispanic actor) is El Wray, which I believe, when translated into English, means "The Fucking Man". Rose McGowan is hot as always, and Naveen Andrews make his torturous Sayid character on Lost seem like a wimp as he plays a guy who collects people's testicles. There are also appearances by Bruce Willis and of course Tarantino.

Planet Terror may not be what the aforementioned scholars would refer to as a "good movie", but it's certainly awesome in it's awesomely bad way. However, it's biggest problem may be the setup it gave to the follow up feature, Death Proof.

I remember some of the people I talked to after seeing Grindhouse were much more pleased with Planet Terror than with Death Proof. Maybe because Planet Terror was a B-zombie movie, people expected something similar with Death Proof. That being said, Death Proof may go down as Tarantino's most underrated film.

Death Proof is about a stuntman who goes by the name Stuntman Mike. Now, Stuntman Mike gets off in an unusual way. Whenever he finds women attractive, he feels like murdering them with his car. In this way, Death Proof is half a serial killer horror film, and half an homage to the movies it specifically mentions within the story, such as Vantage Point and the original Gone in 60 Seconds.

While not as twisted as Stuntman Mike, Tarantino himself certainly has some weird sexual idiosyncrasies, like his obvious foot fetish. But his female characters in Death Proof are extremely entertaining, and their dialogue is as well written as any other Tarantino personalities. They are silly yet smart. Girly yet strong. Sexy yet independent. They act and talk in a way that I'd like to think women act and talk like when guys aren't around. And the second group of girls final showdown with Stuntman Mike has got to be one of the most female empowering scenes I have ever seen.

Unfortunately, Grindhouse was a disaster at the box office. Warner Brothers believed that this happened because people didn't want to see long movies in theaters, and reportedly cut the length of the 5th Harry Potter movie because of that reason. Now, I know that studios don't always act in the smartest way, but that has to be the dumbest rationalization I have ever heard. So The Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Carribean movies were unsuccessful? At least, I really hope that Warner Brothers was wrong. I can't understand how audiences are able to sit through eight hours of Johnny Depp being a pirate who fights zombies(and they're making another one!), but not be able to enjoy something as original as Grindhouse.

Whatever it was, Grindhouse wasn't that successful. And the powers that be now only air the movies separately on TV or sell them individually on DVD. So even though it will be impossible to replicate that movie watching experience, if you haven't seen either film I urge you to go out and check it out. And even if you have, you should see them again. Because there is plenty of extra material added that they didn't have time to show in theaters.

Two words for you: Lap-dance.

#10 Knocked Up

Due to his first name, I might be partial to the films of Judd Apatow. But I think that what he has done for comedy in the 2000's is comparable to what Kevin Smith did in the 90's. Yes, there are many "dick and fart" jokes in both Smith and Apatow movies. But what makes both of them great comedic filmmakers and screenwriters is that they don't rely solely on dirty jokes or "guy gets hit in the nuts" type humor. What distinguishes them both is the superb dialogue and interactions which captures their apathetic characters perfectly. And that is something that is instantly identifiable to an apathetic generation.

Although many people still prefer The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up is not only my favorite Apatow film, but definitely among my favorite comedies of this decade. The concept of the "romantic comedy" has been butchered down to what it was when Annie Hall was released. Producers realized it would be much more profitable to take out the "comedy" part of it and market their films for their star power. All you need to do is take some British guy(Hugh Grant, Gerard Butler, Jude Law) and put him with some American Sweetheart(Kate Hudson, Sarah Jessica Parker, Drew Barrymore), and now you have a romantic comedy.

But Knocked Up is what a romantic comedy should be. It is very much a love story. While it may not be a "chick flick", there should be no reason why women who love a great love story wouldn't love this movie. Yes, it does have the typical theme of a slacker guy who needs to change for his woman. But it actually feels real. You can see how both Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl manage to find ways to work it out. This plot line would normally seem very thin, but it's not. Things aren't exactly happily ever after at the end. Paul Rudd's character sort of resolves that his existence with his wife and children may not be wonderful, but it's what he has.

However, there are certainly a ton of very humorous moments throughout this movie. The Apatow crew of Jonah Hill, Jason Segal, and Bill Hader are always insanely entertaining. Leslie Mann is always fun to watch and her children in Knocked Up(which are her real kids with Apatow), are so cute when they talk about things like "Googling murder".

As much as I hate the typical romantic comedy, I get more upset by the way that people buy into it. That they believe in these silly fantasies. That's why I'm amazed that Knocked Up would've received criticism from the press and Heigl herself for being sexist. It seems that if a love story isn't specifically geared towards women it's sexist. I also recall reading a review saying that the story in Knocked Up is so absurd because a guy like him can never get with a girl like her.

To me, THAT'S sexist. To suggest that an attractive, successful woman is too shallow to get with a less attractive and successful(yet sweet) man, is incredibly offensive. Knocked Up is one of those movies that when I see on TV I end up sitting through the whole thing, even if I only wanted to watch one scene. But when I'm watching it, I'm not thinking about the impressions it leaves of men and women.

I'm just laughing.

The Top 10 Films of the Decade

I realize that every single time I claim that I will start writing more for this blog I fail to come through. In the summer it was actually easier for me to write here because I was unemployed, but either way I still managed to go months without writing anything.

Due to this I have decided to discontinue writing for this blog. If there comes a point where I feel that there is a reason to start it up again, I will do just that. And of course I won't get rid of this page. That being said, I don't want to have that notion in my brain that I should feel obligated to update this site more often. Which is a stupid idea for a page that gets probably eight views a month(five from myself).

So I decided to go out with a bang. I know I promised posts about games or music on this blog, but I figure that since I've been writing about movies so far I shouldn't stop now.

Everybody likes top 10 lists. And it's the end of the decade. Therefore, I'm going to be writing posts for my ten favorite films of the past decade. This won't be like the previous post which was just one long compilation. I will split this one up. Over the last month of this year, I will attempt to publish a new post approximately every 3 days. So by the end of December I will hit my favorite movie of the last decade. I'm sure all three of you reading this will be freaking out over all the suspense over the next month.

How did I come up with this list? Well, obviously there's some personal bias. I tend to like movies that are creative and more independent. That's not to say that just because a movie is different it's great. I think everyone should see Synecdoche, New York, just because it's something so original. But I can't possibly say it's a great movie. In the same way, the first movie I'm going to put on this list is a very commercial film. But there is a reason why it was popular, and there have been many wonderful high-grossing films from this decade.

Unfortunately, it is often the case that many great movies don't get the commercial attention they deserve and are much harder to see. Because of this, I decided that for this post I will list ten movies(in no particular order) from this decade that might be on this list if I actually saw it.

I'll see you with #10 in approximately 3 days.

Ten Films I Want to See From This Decade

4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days
Waltz with Bashir
Munich
The Hurt Locker
A Serious Man
United 93
Little Children
The Royal Tenenbaums
The Pianist
Gangs of New York

That's it for the Summer Ones

I know that I haven’t exactly been that reliable in regards to posting on this site. But I got to this point a few weeks ago where I was in a trap. The longer I went without a post, the less timely an article would be. And I also felt that if I went this long without writing, that once I finally did, I needed to write something more epic than a single review. So each week became harder than the previous one to go through with a post.

However, recently I realized that over my dull summer I have been to the movies more often than I have in a single year throughout my entire life. Since the start of the summer movie season (which is considered the beginning of May) until this point, I have seen 17 movies in theaters. Considering that I have already written extensive articles for two of these films, I thought that I can write an article which would compile impressions from the 15 other ones. Why not? It’s a relatively round number.

The films will be listed in the chronological order of when they were released in theaters. I’ll try to keep each review relatively short. Which, I know that considering the lengths of the previous articles, isn’t really saying much.

One more thing. I know that my posts so far haven’t exactly lived up to the description left in my first article, where I said that this site would focus on more than movies. And I know that considering everything so far has basically been “just reviews”, that this website has not been living up to its namesake. This will change soon. I plan on posting reviews of games as well as personal impressions that I’ve gotten from things I’ve witnessed throughout the many forms of media soon enough.

Star Trek

This is most certainly the best traditional summer popcorn action blockbuster of the year. If I may be more specific than that, it is probably one of the best movies of the year period. As someone who has not followed the Star Trek canon, this film allowed me to break into the series without feeling lost. And while hardcore Star Trek nerds(one specific individual comes to my mind) may lament the loss of the philosophical debates that were present in the original series, even die-hard fans have to appreciate the many references this film made to the previous movies and shows. Outside of the Star Trek aspect, this is just a fun movie to watch on the big screen and featured some of the best visual effects I have ever seen.

Terminator Salvation

My familiarity with the Terminator series is fairly scattered. I grew up watching pieces of Judgment Day (although I can't recall seeing the movie start to finish), saw the original Terminator a few years ago, and never saw the apparently atrocious third film. So I figure that I fall within an unbiased line of being able to recognize references to the previous films, without being obsessed enough with the previous movies where my judgment will be slanted. That being said, the most memorable thing about this movie is the recording of Christian "You're a Nice Guy" Bale flipping out (NSFW) during its production.

Salvation is not an awful film. The action's pretty decent and there is a fair amount of variety of evil robots for the protagonists to shoot at. There's just barely anything substantial about the film. Towards the end of the movie, the puzzle pieces begin to fall into place in regards to the spot this movie holds in the overall plot of the franchise. But I just didn't care. See it if you want to see an action movie, but don't see it if you expect to see a Terminator film that in any way advances the storylines told in the previous three movies.

Up

The first half-hour of Up (including the always great short-film that precedes every Pixar film), was perhaps the best half-hour out of any movie I've seen so far this year. There is a montage showing how 78-year-old Carl became 78-year-old Carl. It is very powerful and I probably have never been so moved by an animated scene since I was a little kid. Pixar showed once again that they can present a single scene in a way which can be interpreted differently by parents than by their children.

Unfortunately, once the main story kicks in, Up resorts to typical animated film clichés. Although I appreciate that the filmmakers didn't feel it was necessary to have celebrity voices in order to sell Up, once the movie introduced the talking dog (the worst animated cliché of all), the story turned into a better-than-average animated adventure movie. Perhaps my standards are too high, but after the films they've produced this decade, I expect much-better-than-average storytelling from Pixar.

Drag Me to Hell

Visualize this scene: An employee is talking to a customer in a quiet bank when all of a sudden the employee begins to have a bloody nose. But this isn't it a typical bloody nose. It's a projectile and it keeps on squirting all over the customer, the floor, and anybody that crosses its path. It seems to go on and on, until the place is soaked.

Now, if you thought that previous visualization was disgusting, do not see Drag Me to Hell. However, if you thought that was freakin' hilarious in a cheesy, campy sort of way, do see Drag Me to Hell. Because that is exactly what happens in one scene, and if you have that sort of sense of humor (as I do), you will definitely enjoy this flick.

The Hangover

There is no doubt that The Hangover is the surprise hit of the year. Starring only moderately recognizable actors, it has grossed over $273 million to become the fourth-highest grossing movie of the year. Not bad for an R-rated comedy. But is it really that good? In short, no.

In long, it is certainly better than the majority of the non-Apatow high grossing "party guy" comedies, such as Wedding Crashers, American Pie, and Old School. But I don't really know how much that's saying.

I certainly laughed a lot during The Hangover, especially at the beginning and end. But the middle act basically descended into the main characters getting beat up by everybody they run into. Funny for a while, but there is a point where you're just waiting for the movie to move along. That being said I was never a big fan of the "getting hit in the testicles" type humor, so I can see how this can become a classic amongst the frat kids.

Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen

This is the highest grossing movie of the year, and the 9th film of all time to make $400 million domestically, yet it is the worst movie I have seen this year. How is that possible? Are guys seeing it for Megan Fox and are girls seeing it for Shia LaBeouf?

I mean it's a PG-13 movie; I don't how much people expected to see. Are nerds the ones seeing it? Certainly they couldn't have liked Michael Bay's first effort.

I get it. It's robots fighting other robots. No one expects it to be Citizen Kane. If only it was a simple as that. For some reason, summer blockbusters are supposed to provide a plot now in addition to their mandatory quota of things blowing up. So now we're stuck with an awful story stretching for two and a half hours.

I actually saw this movie for free. What's your excuse? It wouldn't bother me so much that this movie made so much money, if it didn't mean that films like this prevent theaters from showing much better movies that make 3% of Transformers gross, such as The Hurt Locker. Things like this and the birther movement make me hate my country.

Public Enemies

Although the only other Michael Mann film that I have seen is Collateral, I have been told that he has a certain style to his gunfights. While I cannot compare this movie to his others, such as Heat, this filmmaking technique does seem to hold true for Public Enemies. Some of the shootouts and bank robbery scenes play out very well. Chicago in the 1920's seems like what Mann has been looking for, but I wonder if this is a fair biopic of Dillenger himself.

Of course, it wasn't designed to be. Well, not completely. When the film starts, notorious gangster John Dillenger has already done a significant amount of time in prison. The movie is clearly not designed to be a full biography. However, you would think that during the time period in which the film is taking place the audience would learn to identify with the main characters.

Public Enemies features Dillenger escaping, being on the run, committing a crime, and getting caught. I'm sure that this is exactly what Dillenger did in real life. But this rinse and repeat cycle that the film goes through prevents the audience from being critical or sympathetic of Dillenger. Most importantly, it stops us from caring about the character at all.

(500) Days of Summer

In a voice-over during the beginning of (500) Days of Summer, the protagonist (who's name is Tom) threatens the audience by saying that we shouldn't dare call this movie a love story. That's BS. Not matter how it ends up, a story that focuses on love is a love story. And the film has comedic elements in at as well. So please forgive me if I have the audacity to refer to this movie as a romantic comedy from this point forth.

I enjoyed (500) Days of Summer, but probably not for the same reason that many people love it and hate it. I didn't care about the indie soundtrack, or the laid-back attitude or fashion of Tom, Summer, or the other characters. I didn't like (500) Days of Summer because of it's trendiness. I liked it because it was a romantic comedy that didn't actually suck.

So many romantic comedies nowadays focus solely on the romance. I would have less of a problem with a lot of these chick flicks if people stopped telling me that there were jokes in them. Now, (500) Days doesn't focus on comedy as much as an Apatow love story, but I did chuckle a few times. And for a romantic comedy, that's saying a lot.

Funny People

Speaking of Apatow, Judd Apatow is not only the most prominent public figure to share my first name, but also probably the most important contributor to the funniest films of this past decade. It's hard to believe that considering the movies he's had his name attached to (Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Pineapple Express) that Funny People is only the third movie he's directed (after The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up).

Needless to say, I had my hopes up for Funny People. However, before I saw it, reviews started coming in and they weren't that positive. But after seeing it I can safely say that, aside from maybe Bruno, Funny People is the funniest movie of the year. When you think about it, because it's a film about comedians, the plot in itself is the perfect set-up for all the punch lines. There's nobody comedians like to mock more than themselves, and it doesn't take a genius to notice a long history of self-loathing among those whose occupation is to make us feel better about ourselves.

Obviously, this comes out in Funny People. Adam Sandler's character is not only bitter, but he's an ass too. And it's something I didn't mind. However, despite the fact that Funny People does live up to its name, because of its nearly two and a half hour length, it hits the quota for one of the funniest movies of the year after the first hour. Unfortunately, the part where Funny People stops being morose is the part where I stopped laughing. Sandler's character tries to change himself and I didn't care. The public doesn't want to see comedians be happy. Humor comes from people trying to push tragedy away from their minds, not from changing or learning how to cope with it.

In a sense though, the biggest thing Apatow exposed about comedians in this movie may have been unintentional. The worst parts of this movie may have said the most about what it means to be a funny person. The flaw with Funny People is the flaw with the characters inside of them. Just like the characters can never be happy and funny, neither can the film.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

G.I. Joe would earn the distinction of being the worst movie I've seen this summer if it weren't for Transformers. This movie is saved from being worse than Tranformers by understanding that if you're going to make a dumb movie with a plot which only exists to provide excuses for explosions; it does not need to last for two and a half hours. It's still almost two hours long though.

(side rant)

Seriously, Hollywood. When did you guys get this idea that longer is better? Did Peter Jackson put you up to this? Whatever happened to the skill of editing? Whatever happened to the idea that what a story doesn't say is just as important as what it does say? Why do the Pirates of the Caribbean movies need to be nearly three hours long? It's freakin' Johnny Depp as a pirate fighting zombies. I can appreciate a dumb, silly movie; just don't think you can give it a legitimate story at the same time.

(end rant)

Anyway, as far as G.I. Joe is concerned, there is enjoyment to be had from watching it if you look at it as though it is a comedy as I did.

Ponyo

I was considering writing this grand, sweeping essay, describing how the story of the world being flooded is allegorical of the art style washing away the necessity for a coherent plot. But that's not necessary.

This is all you need to know: If you've never heard of Hayao Miyazaki, this is not the first film of his which you're going to want to see. If you haven't liked his previous work, you're not going to like Ponyo. And if you are a Miyazaki fan, you've already either seen Ponyo or plan on seeing it no matter what I say.

And that's all I have to say about that.

District 9

The trailers for District 9 did not indicate in any way that it would focus on one man (*minor spoiler*well after a certain point he isn't exactly just a man*end spoiler*). But why would it indicate that? You can barely tell anything about District 9 from the trailers. While I'm not a fan of trailers that spoil large chunks of the film (like Funny People) I'm getting kind of sick of this Cloverfield secretive marketing style. Same thing with these Alternate Reality Games. You're not building suspense. You're just pissing me off.

Well, anyway this man's name is something really long and South African, which I don't feel like writing down. Oh yea, the South Africa thing. This is a movie that is made by a South African, was filmed there and takes place there. If you know anything about South African history over the last 50 years, the references to apartheid are quite obvious. Maybe before talking about the film's trailers I should've mentioned the fact that this movie is about aliens living on Earth who barely have any rights.

Okay, so here's the deal. Aliens landed in Johannesburg decades ago and have been held in an area known as District 9 to keep them away from the humans. The man with the long South African name is put in charge of relocating them again. Something goes horribly wrong and he uncovers a grand conspiracy regarding what the government is doing to these aliens.

None of this is surprising, but the film never really explains that much. Is it trying to purposely be ambiguous or is there just too much possible back story for one film? Will they make a sequel? I hope not. While the action is very entertaining, involving tons of alien and human guts splattering, there's really not much to be said about the plot. The apartheid theme runs dry soon and I for one am sick of shaky-cam films.

Inglorious Basterds

I don't care how much of a cliché it is for a twentysomething male suburbanite to say, but I love the movies of Quentin Tarantino. And not just the films he's directed. The movies he's written, his segment in Four Rooms and Sin City, and even his annoying acting. His style is so iconic, that it would be hard to prove that there has been a more important filmmaker over the last 20 years.

Sadly, my biggest problem with Inglorious Basterds is its Tarantino-isms. That's not to say that it's not one of the best films I've seen this year. But Inglorious Basterds is not a movie about eight hitman who sit around in a diner discussing tipping etiquette, nor is it about two hitman who discuss if foot fetishes are platonic. Inglorious Basterds is a WWII movie and in some parts even a Holocaust film.

There are some incredibly tense moments in this film. However, anytime Tarantino has something stylish (whether it's a weird font to introduce characters, Samuel L. Jackson voice overs, or a score that seems to come in at odd times), it just feels out of place. Some may argue that this film is just as tongue-in-cheek as his others. That especially considering the movie's climax, no sane person could take Inglorious Basterds seriously. But that just detracts from the powerful moments in the film, such as the scenes involving the excellent Christoph Waltz who plays "The Jew Hunter".

Also, Tarantino needs to learn to cut down on the length of some of his scenes. While the dialogue is excellent as always, there is at least an hour of this film which is composed of person A lying to person B, with person B knowing that person A is lying but letting it go on anyway.

Taking Woodstock

Taking Woodstock isn't about the music...man. It's a coming-of-age film, and even though many of the moments in the film are fairly corny, Ang Lee put together the feel(or at least what I imagine the feel was) fairly well. Demetri Martin does a great job in his first major role as the protagonist Elliot, a man in his 20's who can't seem to break free from his parent's home in upstate New York. There's no way Martin's performance will get any nominations, but his general timidness is something rarely seen among actors, let alone comedians.

Elliot is in charge of his town's Chamber of Commerce and helps bring the festival to Bethel, New York, which is nearly two hours away from the town of Woodstock. He never gets down to see the actual festival, but he does have some stereotypical moments seen in hippie films, such as an LCD trip which helps Elliot discover himself...yada, yada, yada.

Ok, this film does subscribe to many conventions. But I do believe it's done in a well way and is worth seeing as a small film against an epic backdrop. That being said, it is sort of ridiculous when movies are too referential to their time, or rather to how we would look at their time.

For example, there is a point in the film where Eugene Levy talks about how he saw someone pay $1 for a bottle of water. The concept of someone paying for water is laughable to him. Har, har. But the worst part is at the end of the festival when a major character tells Elliot about this big festival they're going to have in California starring The Rolling Stones. Filmmakers, please stop doing that. Does this generation constantly make references to how great it is to not be ruled by an army of giant robots? Wait...I didn't say anything.

Extract

The trailers for Extract clearly stretched that it was written and directed by the same person that brought us the cult classic Office Space. So even though the fairest thing would be to judge this film on its own merits, you can't blame me for doing what the marketing team wanted me to do. Jason Bateman, just like Ron Livingston before him, plays a man who hates his life at work and hates his life at home. However, as opposed to Livingston's character, Bateman's character doesn't really do anything about it on his own. He is, however, persuaded to do something under intoxication. This is thanks to his best friend/bartender/drug dealer, who is played by Ben Affleck.

Things go down and there were enough laughs to qualify this film as rental worthy. However, as I'm writing this review-despite it being the most recent film that I have seen in theaters-I cannot recall many events that happened in the movie or my major thoughts about it. Bateman's neighbor plays a character that is exactly the same as Lumbergh in Office Space, and Mila Kunis's character (while hot as always) does not really add anything to the plot nor is her character ever really explained.

Judge likes to tell ordinary stories. And many of them are successful. I think it depends on if that ordinary story describes your ordinary life. I have no idea how King of the Hill lasted 13 seasons, but maybe it's the most popular show amongst propane salesmen in Texas. And although for some reason I can relate to the white-collar life in Office Space, I couldn't do the same for the blue-collar Extract.

New Release: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

After seeing the 6th film based off of the most successful book series since the Bible, I've never been more excited to spend $20 in my lifetime.

I guess I got into the Harry Potter books somewhere in the middle. I definitely got the fifth book the summer it came out, and I'm pretty sure I got the fourth book when it came out as well. I do enjoy the books, although I wouldn't exactly consider them classic literature. The plot and mysteries of each novel have all been interesting, although I wouldn't say that the Harry Potter novels feature a great vocabulary or poetic writing.

What makes Harry Potter great is its depth. The world that J.K. Rowling created contains mythical creatures based off of stories from many cultures, over thousands of years. Each book, especially the last four, are just deep. The scope of the story itself is almost as relevant as the events that occur within. The fact that over the course of 4,000 combined pages readers have remained dedicated to this world, is proof that many of the events within the novels are all relevant to each other.

This, of course, is the problem with the movies. There is simply not enough time to give each story its fair treatment on film. Interestingly, even though the first two books were arguably the worst, simply because of the length of the stories, Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets might be the most accurate of the Harry Potter films. However I, as well as many other Potter fans, could see ahead to the latter movies and know the problems that they would face.

Movie theaters don't have intermissions anymore. You can't show a four hour film in theaters. Sure there are very long movies, although they usually are for independent films. The longest, recent, mainstream film that I can think of was Return of the King, which was 3 hours and 20 minutes. And that's only because New Line was not going to get in Peter Jackson's way. But Warner Brothers doesn't care.

Two years ago, after Grindhouse bombed in the box office, Warner Brothers came to the conclusion that people don't want to see long movies. Which is absurd. Besides the massively successful Lord of the Rings movies, the Pirates of the Carribean series were insanely financially successful. People see the Pirates movies for Johnny Depp and zombie pirates, yet somehow they're almost three hours long. Anyway, after Grindhouse bombed, Warner Brothers made Order of the Phoenix(#5), the longest of the Harry Potter books, into the shortest of the movies.

Even before Order of the Phoenix(which I will refer to as OotP from now on) came out, I knew that the only possible way to do the book series right, would be to make more movies than there are books. Even if Warner Brothers didn't think that audiences don't like long movies, the theater owners would object to a four-hour movie because they couldn't show as many screenings as a two-hour film. At first I thought that if they released one book into multiple movies, they might give a discount for Volume 2 if you bought tickets for Volume 1. I then realized that people will buy tickets for both films no matter what, so there's no way they'd do that. Still after the way OotP was butchered, I was happy when they announced in March that the final book would be made into two movies.

On the other hand, this almost seemed like an admission of guilt from Hollywood. They're basically saying that they screwed up with the first six books, but they'll do the seventh one better. Why is it that the last book, which is more than 100 pages shorter than OotP, is the one that needs to be made into two movies?

Going into Half-Blood Prince I felt hopeful. This is a story that is shorter than OotP, yet is being made into a film that's 20 minutes longer. As a film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (HBP) is very good. And as an adaptation of the book, it is certainly much more accurate than the previous film. But try as I might, I can't help but be disappointed.

Everyone that I know who didn't read HBP loved the movie. They felt that the story was understandable, without any gaps of explanation that were obvious in the previous film. Whether you read OotP or not, it was obvious that the plot in that movie was rushed.

However, HBP was more deceitful in its lack of information. It seems as though every element makes sense in and of itself. Film scholars would argue that a movie that's an adaptation should stand by itself, and a movie that's part of a series should also stand by itself. In that regard, yes, HBP is very successful. However, without giving away any major spoilers, there are a few examples of how HBP will make the last two movies harder to explain.

Right off the bat, when the meaning behind the title of the story, the Half-Blood Prince, is revealed, it is done very quickly. One would think that the significance of the meaning of the movie would be of great importance.

Elves have played a very crucial role in the book series, yet in the movies there was Dobby in the 2nd movie, and Kreacher briefly mentioned in OotP. First of all, Kreacher was responsible for all of the events that went down at the end of OotP, a fact that was totally ignored in that movie. But additionally, in the 6th book, Kreacher comes into Harry's possession and both him and Dobby play major roles in the final book. That was overlooked.

While a large amount of HBP revolves around Harry trying to retrieve a memory, when he finally finds it, it isn't even explained that well. Now those who only saw the movie may think that it was. However, the entire basis of the seventh book revolves around Harry searching for things that were based off of knowledge that the reader knows, but the viewer does not (this is all very hard to phrase without spoiling anything).

It's very hard to talk about my problems with HBP without sounding like a whiny nerd complaining about who shot first(I can't believe that has its own Wikipedia page). And perhaps I am. However, I don't believe that everything in the movies need to be the same as in the books.

For example, the opening scene in the film was totally different than in the book, but it worked well for the big screen. There are also aspects that were left out of HBP that I don't really think hurt the series that much. For example, in the book there is a character who planned on getting married and had an encounter with the werewolf Frenrir Greyback. This character was not mentioned in the movie at all and Greyback was only seen for a few seconds. While that part would have been cool in the movie, leaving it out was understandable.

My problem simply lies when the film doesn't back up the parts it decides to show. Leave out whole subplots, that's fine. However, don't have a build up, and then either not provide more information, or provide information that is contrary to the information that will be provided in future films.

I think that all of the Harry Potter movies, through all 4 directors, have done a good job of bringing the magical world to life. However, David Yates, who has done the last two movies, seems to do a greatest hits collection. I'd rather have more small scenes taken out, while having the moments that need to be stressed, stressed.

Hopefully, with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows being broken up into two films(both being directed by Yates), fans will finally get their due. And that is why I am so happy, as a broke and unemployed graduate, to throw away another $20, just to see the finale done right.