Rant of the Day: Two-Part Movies

It all ends. If there isn't a Part 3.

Harry Potter and The Deathy Hallows comes out in July, finishing the Hogwarts saga. Excuse me, Part II of the final Harry Potter movie comes out in July.

Sequels and prequels I can tolerate. Reboots and remakes I can understand (and most I like – i.e. Nolan’s Batman). But two-part movies? No. Just no.

Where’s the logic in paying full price for half a story? I can’t imagine going into restaurant and being given half a meal. Or going into a bookstore and buying a book with two-hundred pages ripped out. But somehow this is appropriate if you’re going to a movie. It also pretty much negates the usefulness of any form of criticism:

Critic: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 was awful – slow, plodding, and too much uninteresting dialogue between boring, broadly-drawn characters.

Joe Public and Studio Exec: Um excuse me, but that’s Part 1. It’s only half the story. You have to see the full thing before you can accurately criticize the film. Therefore, your criticism is valueless. Thanks for coming out.

It’s a great strategy. Part 1 of a film is critic-proof because it’s not a full movie. It’s not a movie at all actually. Just a senseless and insulting cash grab for moviegoers. And totally unnecessary to boot. Remember Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King? That movie was 201 minutes long. Sure, it was a lengthy haul to get through, but at least it was an entire film. Unfortunately, it’s been decided that even though that film was a raging mainstream success and critical darling (it did win Best Picture), the studios could have squeezed some more pennies out of the franchise by making the final film a two-parter. They messed up with the Lord of the Rings, but don’t worry – it’s prequel, The Hobbit, is going to be done right. It’s a two-parter.

This was part 1 of a two-part criticism.

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to Rant of the Day: Two-Part Movies

  1. Dace says:

    Well spoken, and I agree for the most part. But where does Kill Bill fit in? Kinda felt that Part One had its own little thing going and was satisfactory as a whole. Of course, Part 2 was necessary to complete the story but they work as strong separate entries, me thinks.

    • Modest Movie says:

      I’m glad you mentioned Kill Bill. That was the movie I was thinking about while writing this post. It’s without a doubt my least favorite Tarantino movie, perhaps because it is a two-parter. It’s a stronger entry, no doubt, with both halves of the story being fairly satisfactory (I really disliked Vol. 1 but enjoyed Vol. 2). I still think it fits into my “Rant” category though, mainly for this point: what does splitting Kill Bill into two volumes really achieve (or add)? In my opinion, nothing really – which makes two volumes unnecessary.

  2. Julia Turnbull says:

    Clever, as always!!

  3. Pingback: Super 8 « Modest Movie

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: