Dear Harry Potter, thanks for the memories

By Sarah Sluis

In the decade since Harry Potter first came out, I've aged from 16 to 26. There were a couple of movies lagging toward the end (including the penultimate Potter, Deathly Hallows Part I) that had me questioning my loyalty to the series. Maybe I had just outgrown it.

Rest assured, Harry Potter fans. The final film will not disappoint. Clocking in at a swift 131 minutes, the story propels swiftly the finish. Action scenes, which can be a little harder to visualize on the page, adapt to the screen in perfect form. After seven films, the eighth still manages to innovate on the existing Potter shorthand. As the series has evolved, it seemed as though we would be stuck with whatever the original set designers came up with. Instead, we get a Gringotts bank like you've never seen it before. Small changes, like the layout of the Gryffindor common room, help keep everything fresh.

Seeing Harry Potter and the evil Lord Voldemort duel for the final time adds excitement and finality to the series. Unlike earlier films, which had to omit or adapt the charming, meandering scenes that made the book so great, the final film is mostly business. The attack on Hogwarts castle is even more memorable than in the book, especially with the epic-level crowds of wizards fighting for control.

As the advance tickets sales and midnight screenings that characterized the series suggest, Harry Potter is one of those movies that demands to be seen with an audience. There are very few films that prompt audiences to clap and whoop not only after the movie, but during (I won't say when). So much of the laughter and involvement was from seeing Harry, Ron, and Hermione evolve over the decade. In flashback scenes, Harry looks so young! It's like flipping through a family photo album.

Deathly Hallows Part I finished with just under $1 billion worldwide. Surely, the final film will attain the $1 billion mark. I hardly believe that will be the end for the series, which is something like the Star Wars of a generation. DVDs will be bought. Books will be re-read. Action figures will be purchased. The series will live on as a theme park experience.

In fact, I couldn't help but watch the Gringotts scene and think that the creators must have consulted roller coaster creators when staging the set piece (which includes a water soaking, a traditional roller coaster addendum). The just-opened, wildly successful Wizarding World of Harry Potter attraction in Universal Studios has plans (indeed, a mandate) to expand and incorporate material from the final films. What better way to cap the Harry Potter experience than to take a ride through Gringotts yourself?

CGI 'Monsters vs. Aliens' first entry in DreamWorks' all-3D plan

By Sarah Sluis

Last week I saw a preview of scenes from Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D.  The film, which will release on March 27, 2009, also recently unveiled its trailer online.

Unlike home-runner Pixar, DreamWorks' animated pictures have been much more uneven, critically and commercially.  Monsters vs. Aliens comes eight years after Pixar's Monsters, Inc., and employs a similar monsters-are-our-friends take on the freakish creatures.  Although I wish the two studios could stop their critter competition (rats in Ratatouille and Flushed Away; fish in Finding Nemo and Shark's Tale; insects in A Bug's Life and Antz), the latest offering looks like a worthy match to Pixar's offering.

Conceptualized and animated entirely in 3D, the film forgoes using the popping effect to shock (a la my previous benchmark, Universal Studios' theme park ride Terminator in 3D) but often makes something as simple as an over-the-shoulder shot pop out, bringing the 3D effect to the most quotidian of film compositions.  The first set-piece, in which the United States president (Stephen Colbert) attempts to make contact with the alien spaceship, makes the most cinematic use of 3D--staircases jut out from the center of the screen, helicopters swoop in, and missiles (including one emblazoned with "E.T. Go Home") fire to impressive 3D effect.  The new wave of 3D glasses are clear and not meant to cause headaches, but it took me the greater part of one sequence for my eyes to adjust and the whisper of a headache to subside.  The polarized glasses also have some unintended effects: the red EXIT sign multiplied by seven and cast itself into my left eyeline.  Not the biggest deal, but if you're paying the premium price ($15.00 for an adult 3D ticket in Manhattan, a $3.00, 25% markup), you want the image to look perfect.

From a storytelling perspective, there is much to commend: little details, like a series of preemptive comedic shrieks, temper the scare factor for youngsters.  For adults, the voice casting plays on the star personas (roly-poly Seth Rogen plays a blob, "House, M.D."'s Hugh Laurie plays a mad scientist cockroach, Stephen Colbert as the President...).  Along with a smattering of Shrek-like allusions to classic monster and alien films, the snappy dialogue, visual gags, and mild gross-out humor will please adults and kids alike.  Watching the film, I knew exactly which moments would prompt eager kids to whisper to their parents with glee ("Daddy! That man just scanned his butt!").  The film also avoids one of my biggest pet peeves: when a marketing campaign gives away too many plot points, forcing the audience to spend half the film waiting to get to the moment you saw or predicted from a thirty-second commercial.  Based on the introduction of the clips, it appears the monsters' defeat of the aliens marks the turning point, not the climax, earning the film major points according to my rubric.  Perhaps DreamWorks is taking a lesson from Pixar and its tantalizing teaser trailers.  With most animation moving into 3D, and DreamWorks committed to making all of their films in 3D from this point onward, the relative success of Disney competitor Bolt 3D stands to foreshadow Monsters vs. Aliens' success this March.