Red Riding Hood, 2011

Red Riding Hood, 2011
Director: Catherine Hardwicke
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Lukas Haas, Gary Oldman



Stage: Home theatre


Hood in short: Valerie (Seyfried) is a beautiful young woman torn between two men. She is in love with a brooding outsider, Peter (Fernandez), but her parents have arranged for her to marry the wealthy Henry (Irons). Unwilling to lose each other, Valerie and Peter are planning to run away together when they learn that Valerie's older sister has been killed by the werewolf that prowls the dark forest surrounding their village. For years, the people have maintained an uneasy truce with the beast, offering the creature a monthly animal sacrifice. But under a blood red moon, the wolf has upped the stakes by taking a human life. Hungry for revenge, the people call on famed werewolf hunter, Father Solomon (Oldman), to help them kill the wolf. But Solomon's arrival brings unintended consequences as he warns that the wolf, who takes human form by day, could be any one of them. As the death toll rises with each moon...


Preps: Hm.. some recommendations from my friends. Juvenile audience pouring from the cinemas. A hot thing a while ago, and me curious about everything.



Reality: Yuk. Mix a fairy tale with some dillusion of Beowulf, Robin Hood, King Arthur.. well, you end up with Red Riding Hood. I hadn't had any perticular picture in my head what this movie was supposed to be like, but I for sure didn't have this in mind. The story is weak, the effects are poor, the music and the scenery are high-school-ish.. sometimes when you mix that many famous movies ever made and put them together, the song just doesn't have a tone, rhyme, doesn't fit. In this case, in my opinion, a strong failure.

It is not until the very last scenes that the Red Riding Hood is given the stash with goodies for the grandmother. And even there, they cannot follow the original fairy tale. Maybe quite naive, but I wanted to see the film version of the fairy tale. Why bother to take the original title, if you are going to do something completely different? The link between her childhood and present seems lacking in confidence and competence - it doesn't link at all. Furthermore, the love triangle is vague and minimized, although the director obviously wanted it to run the complete show.

No recommendation whatsoever. Rather see the other mentioned movies, from where this weird mix of scenes derives. They are much better.

My personal rate: 1,0 (erase it, don't waste your time. Honestly!)

Hood on IMDB

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hollows, 2010

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hollows, 2010
Director: David Yates
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint


Stage: Local Colloseum, movie theatre. The morning edition


Harry Potter in short: As Harry races against time and evil to destroy the Horcruxes, he uncovers the existence of three most powerful objects in the wizarding world: the Deathly Hallows.
The story plot: Voldemort's power is growing stronger. He now has control over the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts. Harry, Ron, and Hermione decide to finish Dumbledore's work and find the rest of the Horcruxes to defeat the Dark Lord. But little hope remains for the Trio, and the rest of the Wizarding World, so everything they do must go as planned.


Preps: Haven't read the book really. Remember starting it, but so far haven't finished it. In these times sometimes you can see a better piece on screen than printed out. In many cases this isn't so. I am curious, as the masses are running around to see this.


Reality: Well, it's the seventh part. As I claimed in the saga Saw, this is something a bit different. In a sense, you can watch each part by itself, because they are pretty much independent. Nevertheless, the seventh, the last part was made actually in two parts. A good marketing perspective. Reminds kind of on LOTR. On the other hand, it makes the movie too long in its first half and making the viewer swallow the dead ends (sitting in the forest, doing nothing, main actors dealing with themselves - and not including viewer into this - in a sense, remaining boring in its middle.

On the other hand Potter now upgrades action, everything moves to 3D and I am surprised Potter isn't filmed in 3D, because some scenes are truly meant to be in this technique. Why would a snake bite into the middle of the screen if not? And for many other reasons too. Witch world is fantasy world, therefore the director can pretty much depict everything he desires, because the viewer will believe this.

The haunt for the hollows is deadly and some scenes make you fly through them, on the others (more static ones) you dwell and wait for some action to happen. The love story between Hermiona and Ron remains in secret, the story between Potter and Ginny is also in clouds, but I see this as a good point, as the movie should really focus on the deathly hollows, as it does. The muggle scenes are hideous, as you imagine the rage with which they are haunted, and the magic scenes are incredible, as you wish you were capable of going into an institution like this to learn something a bit similar to those spells that the kids use. Definitely worth seeing for all Potter fans, those that read it and those that feel a citizen duty to see it even though they didn't.




My personal rate: 7,5 (an upgrade from the other versions of the Potter, however, it lacks some action inbetween and more comprehensive script in many cases.

Harry on IMDB

Harry official page