The Good Thief

I hadn't seen The Good Thief in many years when I stumbled across it on Netflix recently.  My recollection of it was pretty foggy; I recalled a distinctly European vibe and being surprised that Nick Nolte was capable of entertaining me without a mug shot.  As it turns out, The Good Thief is a remake of a Melville noir, Bob le Flambeur.  I haven't seen that yet, but that trivia nugget was enough to pique my curiosity.  Did I like this film so long ago because Nick Nolte was awesome, or because there was a heavy dose of French cool in the story?  Not that it matters, I suppose, as long as it's good.

The plot of The Good Thief is nothing new, even considering the fact that this is a remake.  Bob (Nick Nolte) is a retired thief that has given up the fast-paced life of criminal intrigue for a dull retirement, filled with needle drugs and compulsive gambling.  But he was a really good thief, even if he has been arrested six times; he's kind of like a Danny Ocean with bad habits, if that clarifies things at all. 

This is Bob's Eleven Seven

Even though he has been out of the game for years, his police nemesis, Roger (Tchéky Karyo), has made a habt of checking in on Bob, to keep him on the straight and narrow.  But when Bob inevitably gambles his last dime (or ruble or franc or whatever) away, he is desperate enough to entertain an impossible robbery.  All he needs is the right crew and a plan.  It could be a very cut-and-dry plot, if not for the inclusion of one x-factor: a girl.

The Good Thief is not the sort of move that is going to have overwhelming performances.  For the most part, the cast is comprised of little-known actors and the director leans toward subtler forms of expression.  That said, this is easily one of the best performances of Nick Nolte's career.  He is perfectly aged for the role of the seasoned clever guy who has been through rough times.  Hell, his glass-shards-in-gravel voice alone would highlight the film, but Nolte also managed to make excellent use of his nonverbal scenes.  I get why he wasn't nominated for an Oscar for this (it was a relatively tough year), but he is damn good here. 

Doesn't he look like someone who's been in prison six times?

The rest of the cast is less impressive.  Nutsa Kukhianidze was okay as the lost and manipulative Anne, but I think a role this manipulative could have been done better.  Still, she managed to convey illicit sexuality and heartbreaking innocence at the same time, so I can't legitimately claim that she did a bad job.  

Mostly because lingerie doesn't hide nipples

Tchéky Karyo was solid as the obsessive cop; I liked that he was not clearly outsmarted by Bob, but  he didn't really have much of a personality to counter the charm of Nolte's Bob.  Saïd Taghmaoui, Ouassini Embarek, Gérard Darmon, and Emir Kusturica were fine is basic-level roles.  Embarek was not very impressive, but his Judas-esque part didn't require much from him.  Oh, and for some reason, Ralph Fiennes plays an uncredited role as a shady art dealer.  He was pretty good; I don't know why he was left uncredited, since he was featured in the trailers.

"You think that's weird?  Look at the painting I'm holding!"

Neil Jordan directed The Good Thief, and it is clear that he was interested in trying some new ideas.  The cinematography is, as a whole, unimpressive.  It does, however, have some odd moments where the frame rate seems to drop well below that standard 24fps.  It's like Jordan is trying to convey a slow passage of time, but his method is the exact opposite film technique that would result in slow-motion.  I didn't like it, but it was an interesting (if choppy) try.  Aside from that, there are not a lot of surprises here, from a direction standpoint.  Jordan gets an excellent performance from his lead actor, while the rest of the cast is fairly sketchy. 

Nobody (except possibly Franco-Judas) was bad, but most of the characters felt underdeveloped and devoid of personality. 

The strange thing about The Good Thief is that it is, at its core, a heist movie.  Despite that, the main character isn't really involved in the heist.  That can work (as in Ocean's Eleven), but you really need to invest in the theft and not the character at that point.  That doesn't happen here.  Not only is the audience primarily interested in Nolte's character, but so is the camera; we follow Bob gambling while the heist is taking place.  That should plainly say something about the story, but I don't think it is conveyed well in this movie.

Also lacking: fashion

There is plenty to enjoy with The Good Thief, though.  Nolte was surprisingly charming in the gruffest manner possible.  I liked the relationship between Bob and Anne, even if it was all sorts of shades of grey.  I also enjoyed the friendly rivalry between Bob and Roger; it is an under-used movie subplot, and was one fun character (the cop) away from being fantastic. 

To Nolte: "Do you want to do all the work in this scene?"

The idea behind the heist is a clever execution of feints and counter-feints.  Unfortunately, the movie is a little under-paced and the ending --- while clever --- is more cerebral than emotional or sensational.  In other words, it's cute, but I was expecting more.

Skyfall

I was worried there for a while.  I am a pretty big fan of James Bond, and I was pleasantly surprised by how good Casino Royale turned out.  After the pretty-good-as-a-sequel-not-so-good-as-a-Bond-pic Quantum of Solace came out, I was hoping for another Bond movie right away, so Daniel Craig could finally get out of his "James Bond Begins" mode and start carving his own identity as the suave super-spy/complete bastard.  But then MGM had money problems and went bankrupt in 2010, which made another Craig Bond outing seem unlikely.  But then somebody somewhere said, "Hey, if we need money, why don't we make another James Bond movie?"  Even better, they decided to get an Oscar-winning director to helm the film and an Oscar-winning actor to play the villain.  That's important, folks.  The gap between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall is the second-longest in 007 film history, after the last Dalton pic and the first Brosnan --- this needed to be worth the wait, like Goldeneye was.  The first hint that they got it right was with the theme song.

When was the last time a Bond theme came from an artist that was still relevant in popular music?  I'm pretty sure the answer is A View to a Kill's Duran Duran theme.  Yeesh.  Way to take 30 years off, Bond producers.  What I liked better than the choice of a popular artist, though, was the fact that Adele clearly fits with what fans identify as that classic Bond theme sound; I'm not saying that this was better or any more ridiculous than anything from Shirley Bassey or Lulu ("Skyfall" isn't the silliest Bond theme chorus --- I vote "Thunderball" for that --- but it's way up there), but Adele singing with brass and an orchestra behind her?  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.  The filmmakers deserve some extra kudos for piecing together a pretty cool credit montage to coincide with the music, as well as the first (I think) Bond credit sequence to actually show the faces of the actors, instead of just silhouettes.  But enough about the music!  What about the movie?

When we last left James Bond (Daniel Craig) --- it doesn't matter what happened before, he's chasing a bad guy now!  Apparently, some nasty man has stolen the computer files that hold the identities of every MI6 agent that is currently working undercover, throughout the world.  Not only does that spill the beans on a number of double agents spying on other nations, but it throws everybody working in deep undercover within terrorist organizations under the proverbial bus.  Who do you send to re-capture these files?  James Bond, 00-bleepin'-7, of course.

Eyes on the prize, gun pointed at your heart.  Or junk.  Whichever works.

But what if Bond doesn't grab the files?  In a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario, Bond's superior, M (Judi Dench) ordered Bond's supporting agent, Eve (Naomie Harris), to shoot at the bad guy, even as he tussled with Bond.  The shot missed the baddie, hit Bond, and he fell into the ocean, presumed dead, while the bad guy escaped.

But not until he straightened his cufflinks, like a true badass

Time passes.  Bond lies low and licks his wounds with a tongue that probably still has tequila on it.  Meanwhile, M finds herself under pressure to retire for allowing the secret files to escape.  That's when things start to get ugly.  Half a dozen undercover agents have their identities blown, with more promised in the coming days, and those agents are summarily executed.  As M heads back to her office to (presumably) drink copious amounts of scotch, her office gets a little explode-y, and several other agents die.

Realizing that he's needed, James Bond, super spy, decides to reenlist.  He pops up in London, looking haggard as all hell, and is approved for duty, despite a wretched performance analysis.

Ugh.  Gross.  Roger Moore didn't look this old and bloated in A View to a Kill.

Eventually, after meeting with the new Q (Ben Whishaw) and a sexy dragon lady (Bérénice Marlohe), Bond finds himself face-to-face with the mastermind behind this nefarious plot: former MI6 agent Sean Bean Silva (Javier Bardem).  Can James save MI6 and M from someone who is a shadowy reflection of himself?  If so, can he do it in a way that explains the title of the film satisfactorily?  Yes and yes.

The acting in Skyfall is some of the best the 007 series has ever seen.  That's not saying a lot, given that most of the actresses in the series had their lines dubbed over, but it is pretty darn good.  This is the most emotional James Bond viewers have ever seen, and Daniel Craig does a wonderful job.  It may be worth arguing whether or not his emotions are truly Bond-ian, but Craig managed to be super-cool, dangerous, whistful and angst-y, all while playing an icon.  Not bad.  Javier Bardem was easily my favorite Bond villain in at least 30 years.  Bardem --- who has consistently impressed me since Before Night Falls --- manages to do the nearly impossible.  He manages not to be sexy here.  Instead, he channels a blend of The Joker and Phillip Seymour Hoffman from Mission: Impossible III.  Is he a crazy, evil genius?  Obviously.  But he's also tired of having to prove it to everyone, and that somehow makes him a magnetic presence on the screen.  He's a little ridiculous and over-the-top, but Bardem embraces the role and winds up being the most memorable villain since...well, I'll get into that later.

It's like a caveman bleached his hair and bought ugly clothes

Skyfall is the first Bond movie to make any real use of M, Bond's MI6 director; ever since Judi Dench took the role, she had gotten significantly more screen time than any previous M, but this was the first film that actually required her to act.  Since Judi Dench is a British national treasure, it shouldn't be surprising that she was easily up to the challenge.  This film also served as a passing of the torch, of sorts, to Ralph Fiennes, who seems to enjoy playing small parts in ridiculously popular franchises (that's an interesting, if condescending, look at his recent career) instead of taking on roles worthy of his talent.  For what it's worth, Fiennes is pretty good as the kind-not-really nasty politician-type.  The new Q is Ben Whishaw, and he was suitably nerdy, and his nerdiness was directed away from ridiculous gadgets and toward computers.  That makes sense, and Whishaw was actually pretty charming, but I was a little disappointed that he was so...practical. 

"I don't need gadgets, I need and anti-STD spray"

Albert Finney played an elderly groundskeeper with ties to the Bond family and a truly impressive beard.  I don't think I need to explain this, but Finney was more than a match for his bit role.  The Bond girls in this picture took the traditional good and bad girl parts.  This was the first time I had seen Naomie Harris (of 28 Days Later and the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels fame) in a while, and she was pretty good.  My wife totally called the "twist" on her role early in the film, but I have no problem with her having a recurring role in the series. 

SPOILER ALERT: she's Bond's barber

The more classic Bond girl was played by Bérénice Marlohe, and she was sexy and dangerous.  Sadly, her character did not have a ridiculous or punny name to go along with her tragic-but-completely-boneable persona, but Marlohe was fairly decent in her part.

With a look like that, how is her character's name not Ivana Hatefukyoo?

Skyfall may just be the best-acted Bond movie of all time.  Since this is the 24th entry in the franchise, that sounds more impressive than it really is.  I will argue that this performance solidifies Daniel Craig as the best Bond since Sean Connery.  That's a loaded statement, I know, but I am more than willing to argue the point.  Javier Bardem also gave one of the best Bond villain performances ever.  His is easily the best villain since the 1970s (with Sean Bean as a distant second), and arguably fits comfortably within the top 5 of all time.  Even more astounding, the supporting cast is actually decent!  This is not one of those Bond movies where you scoff at Denise Richards being as nuclear physicist --- the lesser roles are played capably and realistically.

Assuming, of course, that people sail into neon dragon mouths to gamble

A lot of the credit for Skyfall's success belongs to director Sam Mendes.  It's been a quiet dozen years for Mendes, following American Beauty --- he hasn't been idle, but the acclaim hasn't matched that of his debut.  In a lot of ways, it feels odd watching a James Bond movie filmed by a capable director.  There are not a lot of clearly show-boat-y action sequences in Skyfall.  There are, though, several scenes with impressive cinematography.

Yes, this scene was cool

There was also quite a bit of character development in this film.  Bond movies are not really built for "development" --- does anyone really want to listen to Bond lamenting all the lives he's taken? --- but this was handled extremely well and turned out to be pretty interesting.  Obviously, the high quality of acting is a reflection of the best direction the series has seen to date, but I was also impressed at how well Mendes was able to capture the action and destruction scenes.

He didn't aim small

With directors known for character work, showy action and spectacular stunt scenes can sometimes feel contrived or poorly executed, but I though  Sam Mendes did a great job behind the camera in Skyfall.

As a longtime fan of Bond movies, I have to briefly address a few of the homages in Skyfall.  I liked the deprecating remarks toward Q branch when Craig finally met his Quartermaster.  Q has long been a source of the more ridiculous moments in a series known for silliness, and I liked the understated Q weapons this time around, especially when coupled with the goofier ones in the classic Aston Martin.  That's right; Skyfall somehow calls back to the Connery days by having Craig Bond own the classic Connery Bond car, complete with ejector seat.  It makes no logical sense, given the reboot, but continuity has always taken a back seat to fun in this series, so why sweat the details?

Only James Bond can sulk while standing by an Aston Martin DB5

Alright, so I liked this entry in the James Bond series.  That means that it is fun, but not necessarily good.  However, Skyfall surprised me by being genuinely, objectively enjoyable.  Like, conceivably-Oscar-nominated good, not a let's-have-fun-with-it good.  This is easily the best Bond movie in ages and deserves to be watched multiple times.  Great direction, great villain, and multi-layered lead performance means...

Strange Days

Science fiction movies often walk a dangerously thin line.  On the one hand, they need to be different enough from the modern day to make things interesting, but if you make things too different, you risk alienating your audience (unless you have a huge budget for cool special effects).  One solution that often works well is to set your film in the near future, so you can make some improvements, but not have to change the entire world; it's economical and takes a whole lot less pre-production to imagine a not-too-future world.  When I say that this method "works well," I mean that it succeeds upon the film's immediate release.  Movies like this can seem awfully quaint after the modern day passes what was once the near future.  Case in point: Strange Days.

In the last few days of 1999, Lenny Nero (Ralph Fiennes) has gotten himself into a lot of trouble.  For starters, he is a former Los Angeles police officer who has become a sleazy dealer of illegal technology.  You see, in 1999 Los Angeles, there are Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices (SQUIDs), which are cyberpunk tools for recording a person's point of view --- through their eyes, with their emotions and physical sensations --- and Lenny sells the recordings.  Of course, this was over a decade ago, so you probably remember all this.  SQUIDs are stylish, too, often taking on the appearance of obvious wigs.

Either a SQUID or somebody scalped a robot

It's not make explicitly clear why the practice is illegal, but I suppose a demand for "high-risk" memories of criminal acts could be a bad thing.  Anyway, Lenny is a fast-talking sleazebag with a heart of gold.  He spends his non-dealing time pining for his lost love, Faith (Juliette Lewis), and reliving his own SQUID-recorded memories of her.  Not surprisingly, his highlights usually include her in tight clothing or clothing-optional moments.  When I say that Faith is "lost," I don't mean dead; she just left him for the evil and gravelly-voiced record producer, Philo (Michael Wincott).  Philo is a rich jerk with psychotic tendencies and a habit for being over-possessive.  Faith wants to be a rock star, with all the egocentric behavior that implies.

"What a catch."  Apply the statement to either or both.

Man, science fiction movies require a lot of exposition.  Anyway, Lenny winds up at the center of a storm of evil-doing.  Someone is giving him SQUID tapes showing the anonymous user raping, murdering, and --- most disturbing to Lenny --- breaking into Lenny's apartment while he slept.  For one reason or another, Lenny concludes that this killer is going to go after Faith soon.  But who could the killer be?  Could it possibly be the two LAPD officers that are trying to kill Lenny?  Or are they a symptom of a deeper conspiracy?  Dum-da-DUUUUMMMMM?!?


For being a weird sci-fi movie, there sure are a lot of quality actors in Strange Days.  Ralph Fiennes turns in an interesting lead performance; he plays Lenny as a broken man, only a shadow of what he had been.  And yet, he is still capable enough to unravel a few mysteries and avoid getting killed on several occasions.  The cool thing about Fiennes is that his performance would have made Lenny's failure just as believable as his success would --- Lenny is not your typical movie hero, because he actually needs his friends.  Those friends turn in surprising performances, too.  Angela Bassett gets to play a tough, no-nonsense cabbie that also happens to be pining away for Lenny while he bitches and moans about Faith.  I don't know if we needed the romantic angle, but it was more depth than I expected from her buddy role.  The other buddy is Tom Sizemore as a sleazy private detective; while I normally enjoy mid-90s Sizemore, his ridiculous hairpiece was too distracting for me.

...or maybe I got lost in his dreamy eyes.

Vincent D'Onofrio and William Fichtner played corrupt cops (In Los Angeles?  In the 90s?  Suspend that disbelief!), but they weren't great at it.  Fichtner was fine, but D'Onofrio overacted in this one-dimensional role, somehow equating shouting and sweating with complexity.

And from this seed, Law & Order: Criminal Intent would sprout.

Glenn Plummer's character was a blend of Chuck D and Malcom X, so it should be no surprise that he didn't aim for quiet complexity in his limited screen time.  Career character actor Richard Edson (the parking garage valet in Ferris Bueller) had a bit part, too, and was only marginally more casual.  Michael Wincott once again played an evil character with an evil voice, and he is a pretty solid villain.  Juliette Lewis spent most of the film flaunting her body with either limited or tight-fitting clothing; that's fine I guess, but I've always been kind of weirded out by her.  This is in that time period when she somehow got every "crazy chick" role Hollywood had to offer, and she's as rude and obnoxious as ever.  My biggest problem with her part in this movie is that Lenny can't get over their break-up.

Who could ever get over this?

While I wouldn't say that any of the acting is all that good, I think the cast played up to the storyline pretty well and fit the general tone of the movie.  I had some major problems with the direction, though.  This was Kathryn Bigelow's follow-up to the successful and ridiculous bromance that was Point Break, and Strange Days definitely exhibits more confidence as a director than that film.  Unfortunately, I believe that confidence was largely misplaced.  Bigelow has trouble with the point-of-view camera work necessary to convey the experience of a SQUID recording; the sex scenes, in particular, felt like the cameraman was under strict orders to not follow a natural line of sight.  The pacing of the film is erratic, and the tone suffers from a number of action scenes that have no falling action; that's fine in a tightly-wound and taught thriller, but those words do not describe this film, if only because it takes a while to progress anywhere with this story.  And it is a long while, clocking in at almost two-and-a-half hours.  I understand that James Cameron co-wrote the movie, but he is certainly no genius when it comes to the written word; some more editing would have been nice.

There are also a few stupid ideas in this fabricated future.  That's to be expected from a lot of futuristic sci-fi movies, but these weren't errors in judging how we use technology, they are just poor choices.  I liked that most of the characters in Strange Days dressed more or less like normal people (it was set only five years in the future, after all), but the exceptions to that rule looked idiotic.  For instance, I don't care how eccentric the bad guy is, he's not going to hire a dread-locked albino woman wearing a bondage-themed outfit as a bodyguard, especially as a bodyguard who is sometimes called upon to assault and/or kill someone.  Flashy bodyguards with a license to kill tend to stick out in people's memories.  And why do only people in the future dress that stupidly?

Wasn't she in the Matrix sequel?

It also bothered me that this film deals with cyberpunk ideas, including having bionic parts put in your noggin, but we never see anything too bio-technical.  We get the stupid SQUID hair nets --- which are suspiciously bulky, considering they are recording and reading brain waves that include vision, emotion, and physical sensation --- but we never get to see a bionic eye?  Lame.

I would also like to ask what the deal is with characters who presume that their enemy has drowned.  I don't know how many times I have seen a movie where a car goes into the water --- the bad guys may shoot at the underwater car, or they might not --- and the villains wait to confirm that the good guys are dead...but give up a few moments before the hero resurfaces.  What is the big hurry?  Are these bad guys late for an evil henchmen dinner party?  If there's "no way anyone could have survived that," then why not wait a few more minutes until a body floats up?  That happens pretty frequently in action scenes, but I thought Vincent D'Onofrio's impatience in this movie was especially bad.

Despite its shortcomings, Strange Days is a decently effective science fiction adventure.  The story might have a few too many twists and turns to be truly effective, and the "future" is kind of quaint now, but it is a pretty well-realized future, and that deserves some respect.  I thought the relationships between the various characters was pleasantly atypical; while the plot may have been almost stock for suspense/thrillers at times, the characters didn't ever comfortably fit into that mold.  I would give this movie a higher rating, if not for one glaring flaw: there is absolutely no mention of Prince in this film.  That's right, a movie that climaxes on New Year's Eve, 1999, and was released in 1995 (the height of Prince's "The Artist Former Known As" fame) did not have anyone partying to Prince's "1999."  Talk about science fiction.

"I've got a lion in my pocket, and baby he's ready to roar!"

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

For franchises that have built up an enormous audience, filming sequels back-to-back seems like a smart move to save on production costs and make multiple movies at once, which are virtually guaranteed to be cash cows.  Critters 3 and Critters 4 are probably the best examples of this, but what about the sequels to Back to the Future, The Matrix, and Pirates of the Caribbean?  They range from fine (but nowhere near as good as the original) to implausibly disappointing to damn near unwatchable --- in that order.  Sure, they made money, but --- aside from the huge gambles that were the Kill Bill and Lord of the Rings productions --- this method usually winds up disappointing fans.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 did a good job of setting the stage, but it felt incomplete...because it was.  Will that mean that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 will suffer the same fate, or will it manage to do what so many series finales fail to accomplish --- end with a bang?

Where were we?  Oh, yes.  Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his wizard buddies are on the run from Mister Frowny Face, AKA Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), and his Frowny minions.  Voldie has broken his soul into seven parts and hidden the parts all over the globe (or, at least England) in six ordinary objects, with Part 7 being in himself.  Why?  This allows him to survive deadly attacks, as long as part of his soul still exists.  In Part 1, Harry, Hermione (Emma Watson), and Ron (Rupert Grint) had managed to find a way to destroy these soul-holders (that's horcruxes, in wizard-speak) and were left with only three to find and destroy before Voldie could be killed for realz.

"No" means no, Voldemort.  Harry doesn't have to "cross wands" with you.

So...they do that.  They wind up back in Hogwarts wizard school because one of the horcruxes is there; Voldie's people learn about this almost immediately, surround the school, and threaten to kill everyone in the school if they do not hand over Potter.  Since this is a tale of good vs. evil, the Order of the Phoenix (the good guys) show up to protect Harry, Hogwarts, and the students against Voldie and his terrible hordes.  In tough times like these, passions flare, characters die, and special effects take center stage.  You want to see some epic wizard battles?  This is the movie to watch.

I cannot believe that Alice Cooper and John Williams didn't collaborate on a re-recording of "School's Out"

The acting in this final Harry Potter is the best in the series in some ways, and emblematic of its recurring problems in others.  I thought Daniel Radcliffe really stepped up in this movie and held his own in several emotional scenes.  Emma Watson was good as usual, and Rupert Grint --- well, he seemed to have a lot fewer lines.  These three aren't unbelievably fantastic, but they do a great job playing their parts and reacting to their stellar supporting cast.  This film finally gives Ralph Fiennes some screen-time, and he makes the most of it; I won't say this is his best work, but he is both deplorable and pitiable as the mustache-twirling (if he had a nose to hang a 'stache on) villain.  Fans have been waiting for a decade to see Voldemort at his worst, and Fiennes doesn't disappoint.  Similarly, Alan Rickman's Snape character was finally given some emotional depth past his irrational hatred of Harry, and it turned out to be a surprisingly effective scene.

The supporting cast, as always, is distinguished, but doesn't get nearly enough attention to do justice to their talent.  Maggie Smith and the young Bonnie Wright get probably the most attention --- and it is well deserved for Smith --- but Michael Gambon, John Hurt, Jason Isaacs, Jim Broadbent, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Emma Thompson, Ciaran Hinds, and Robbie Coltrane have precious little to work with.  I get it, I get it...they're taking character parts to participate in this franchise, but it always makes me sad to see so much talent get stuck in bit parts.  On the bright side, Warwick Davis pulled off a dual-role performance pretty well and Helena Bonham Carter was memorable in her small role, once again.  I was disappointed that Tom Felton's performance took a few steps back, making his character seem like the weenie he was four or five years ago; his part was relatively small in the film, but I would have liked a little less slapstick from him.  Perhaps that disappointment is balanced by the surprisingly effective performances in small parts by Evanna Lynch and Matthew Lewis; both have been in the series for years as minor players, but they impressed me with more visible parts here.  Oh, and as a fan of kinetic 90s British cinema, I was happy to see Kelly Macdonald (Trainspotting) and Nick Moran (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) in small roles.

Matthew Lewis had to fight (and, presumably, lose) for his screen time

While this was never going to be a movie about the acting, it sure was nice to see that the cast wasn't Transformers-bad.  But that's just a pleasant bonus.  This is the movie that was finally going to fulfill the promise of an all-out wizard battle, with the forces of good taking on the hordes of evil.  And you know what?  It totally delivered on that promise.  This is, by far, the most action-packed Harry Potter film and, because it is the logical conclusion of a decade-long story, it feels very organic.  Most of the time, when a movie opts for the "all action" route, the story gets left behind in favor of bloody explosions.  The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 keeps a pretty fast pace, kills boatloads of witches and wizards, but still has many touching character moments.  More important than all that, this movie acts as a ridiculously satisfying conclusion to the series; it's easy enough for casual viewers to understand, but most of the spells and characters and magical creatures are taken from the earlier films, treating longtime fans by adding a layer to the film that is not always explained explicitly in the script.

There are doubtlessly many fans of the book that are upset over some of the changes that director David Yates made to the story.  Get over it, nerds (says the pot).  Film and prose are different mediums, and overly reverential adaptations usually lead to lifeless movies (The Watchmen, anyone?).  I liked the changes and omissions in this film; they worked with what had been established in the earlier movies, and that's what counts.  I have my own issues with parts of the film, of course.  I was hoping to see more creative wizard fights, like the Dumbledore vs. Voldemort battle that ended The Order of the Phoenix.  Sure, the battle scenes were hectic and cool, but in a world with so much potential for creativity, I thought I would see more colorful uses of magic.  The more I think about that, the more disappointed I am.  As for the epilogue...I'm not a huge fan, even though I see the storytelling value of coming full-circle; I think a few more minutes of Harry pondering Snape's motives would have made that final scene truly powerful, but it's still pretty decent, even if it's not my cup of tea.  I'm also not sure how well the two parts of this story will stand up on their own as time goes on; I just re-watched Part 1 this week, so the story was fresh in my mind, but will I eventually go back and watch Part 2 on its own?  I have no idea.

Squiggly lights?  What happened to fire demons, dude?

That is just me nitpicking, though.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 manages to do an astounding number of things right.  For starters, it's the shortest film in the series, and it spends precious little time with Harry and his friends safe from harm; this is definitely the most exciting movie in the series.  The acting is all good, and there are a number of tear-jerking moments, which is something you rarely see in a film with so much action.  The destruction of Hogwarts was pretty awesome and the characters all looked like they had been fighting in rubble for days.  This film should go down as one of the best final chapters of any franchise.  It was violent, cute, and cathartic in a major way.  Congrats, HP crew.  This is how you tell a satisfying ending.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

You know, for being a normal (albeit magical) kid, Harry Potter sure does get into a lot of trouble.  Every school year, there is some deadly threat that rears its ugly head, and it always seems to target Harry.  Up until this point in the series, that felt like an abstract coincidence.  Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the fifth film in the series, changes up the formula a bit; this isn't about the dreaded Lord Voldemort trying to return in some overcomplicated fashion; he's back, and he has a mad-on for killing Harry.

Advertisement for Wizard Gap

The story picks up a few months after the end of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.  Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) finds himself returning to school under more scrutiny than ever before; since he was the only living witness to Lord Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) return and was then immediately sent on summer vacation in the muggle world, a lot of people are doubting his claim.  The wizard government and newspapers have taken the stance that Harry is a spotlight-loving glory hound, content to lie and frighten the masses for attention.  This is mirrored in the student population at Hogwarts, too.  Before, Harry was a kid with a burden; now, he's a teenager that is actually being conspired against.  Cue some teenage angst.

Harry and his friends (that believe Lord Voldemort is back) want to learn more about protecting themselves from evil wizards, but the Ministry of Magic sends a new teacher to Hogwarts, Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), to prevent that from happening.  She starts off small, by assuming the teaching role of the Defense Against the Dark Arts classes and forbidding magic in the classroom, and works her way up; as the story progresses, she gains more and more power, forbidding more and more things, until the wizard school is a joyless, um, normal private school.  But Harry knows that he needs to learn more magic to fight Voldemort and his evil wizard posse.  He would like to join the official anti-Voldemort club, the Order of the Phoenix, like his godfather Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) and his idol, Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), but he is told that he is too young.  How can Harry and his friends learn to protect themselves if the nasty Umbridge won't allow them?  If Harry is at school, and that school is Voldemort-proof, how does the bad guy plan on getting to Harry?  And what is up with the creepy waking dreams Harry keeps having about Voldemort?  As luck would have it, this film tries to answer those questions.

Seduction of the Innocent?

As per usual in the Harry Potter series, the main child actors are getting better.  This was definitely the most varied performance by Daniel Radcliffe to date, and he managed to come across as a hell of a lot more likable than his character did in the book.  Rupert Grint keeps getting uglier as he grows up, but he's less melodramatic this time around, so it seems that he's getting better at acting.  Emma Watson turns in another quality performance, although this part is probably her weakest in the series.  The returning adult cast is of the same quality as they always are; none have particularly large roles, but they're all solid.  That means that Robbie Coltrane, Brendan Gleeson, Jason Isaacs, Maggie Smith, David Thewlis, and Emma Thompson all played their parts well enough.  Michael Gambon and Alan Rickman had slightly more important roles in this film, and I enjoyed the charm and spite that they respectively brought to their parts.  This film also gave us a longer look at Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, and he definitely enjoys playing the bad guy here.

Finally!  A Harry Potter spin-off!

The new cast members were great, but that's kind of typical for the series.  Helena Bonham Carter looked the part of a half-crazed evil witch, and I loved her childish taunting.  Her character design was pretty awesome and, despite the relatively short amount of time she is onscreen, she is quite memorable. 

This is what Tim Burton wakes up to.

Imelda Staunton was also excellent in her part.  When I heard that she was cast in this role, I assumed that she would be great, because she plays subdued but evil characters quite well.  I was right.  She hits every insincere line perfectly, forcing the audience to hate her abuses of authority at least as much as the Potter bunch do, if not more. 

The Devil Wears Pink

This is the first Harry Potter that was directed by David Yates, who only had television credits before this.  I have to say, this is a very impressive directorial film debut.  Yates doesn't do a whole lot that is too fancy with the camera or special effects (although I do like the subtle reddening of Harry's scar when he thinks of Voldemort), but he manages to get very good performances from the entire cast and made a compelling, two-and-a-quarter-hour movie from an 870-page book.  Bravo, good sir!  What impresses me most about this film is that it is based on my least favorite book in the series; the book has Harry acting like a pissy teenager (which he is) that bitches and moans for 800 pages.  Yates let the frustration and anger of Harry show, but he did it in a way that kept Harry as a likable character and didn't make me want to slap the magic out of him.

Magic-slapped!

For me, this is one of the best Harry Potters in the entire series.  The acting just keeps getting better, the big-picture storyline finally starts to heat up, and we get to see just how cool adult wizards are.  I like the tone of the movie, I like the washed out colors in it, and I really enjoyed the Voldemort vs. Dumbledore fight.

Wizard fight!

This feels like a step away from the childish wonder that anchored the first half of the film series; there is an important character death, there is no quidditch, and Harry's love life seems hopeless.  Instead, this is a movie that focuses on small victories in the lives of its characters, and it shows just how well Harry and his classmates stack up against real witches and wizards.  It might not be as much fun as some of the other films, but it does a good job balancing the comedic and dramatic.  If I had to pick one Harry Potter movie to get someone interested in the series, I would probably choose The Order of the Phoenix for its balance of character development, cool special effects, and tangible threats.

 

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

It's almost time for the final chapter of the Harry Potter series to hit theaters, so it's time for me to re-familiarize myself with the last few films (and review them) before the final wizarding battle.  Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the fourth film in the series, and in many ways is the turning point in the seven- (or eight-, if you count the Parts 1 and 2 of the final movie separately) part tale.  The kids are starting to look like teenagers (because they were actually becoming teens), we finally get some face time with the (to this point) mysterious villain of the series, Lord Voldemort, and the children are finally old enough to be legitimately accountable for their acting skills.  This is also the first movie that was forced to make drastic changes between the novel and the screenplay, since the book was over 700 pages and the movies from the 300 page novels clocked in at over two hours each.  The Goblet of Fire is my personal favorite book in the series, but that doesn't always translate into liking the screen version, does it?

Like the past few movies, The Goblet of Fire focuses on an entire year of schooling at Hogwarts, and the trials and tribulations that young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) go through in their fourth year.  This year offers something unusual, though.  In an ongoing effort to make the wizarding world a friendlier place, the legendary Triwizard Tournament is set to be held at Hogwarts; the chosen champions from three schools will compete in a series of tests, with the winner gaining fame for him or herself and honor for their school.  That means that a sizable group of students from the vaguely French Beauxbatons Academy of Magic and the vaguely Eastern European Durmstrang Institute will be staying at Hogwarts this year.  This shouldn't directly affect Harry, since he is under the age restriction to compete, but his name is selected --- along with champions from Beauxbatons, Durmstrang, and Hogwarts.  It's called Triwizard for a reason; this fourth selection is a bad omen, because someone very sneaky and powerful had to be responsible for it.  But why would someone want to arrange for Harry to compete in the Tournament?  Perhaps because it is extremely dangerous.  Perhaps there is another reason.  Nevertheless, Harry has to worry about this on top of all his normal studies.  This year is actually worse for him than usual, because his selection makes him notorious within the school and with his friends as a glory hog; add that to Harry's first real attempts to date a girl, and you have the recipe for an awkward year.

Speaking of awkward...nice suit.

Once again, the acting in this Harry Potter is a marked improvement over its predecessors.  Daniel Radcliffe finally seems to be getting the hang of things and does a good job of playing an awkward teenager.  Emma Watson is given a more complex part this time, and she nails it; her scenes at the dance were great.  Rupert Grint finally seems to be stepping up to the challenge, too, although his improvements are primarily in his comedic timing.  There are a few noteworthy additions to the cast at large in this film, with the most obvious being Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody.  Like the past few guest-starring Hogwarts professors, Gleeson is given a lot to work with, and he clearly has a good time as the eccentric and war-scarred professor.  Ralph Fiennes makes his Potter debut as Lord Voldemort, and he does a good job of being EEE-veel; I'm still not a fan of his noseless character design, but it is taken from the books, so...whatever.  This is also the first time we see Miranda Richardson as the tabloid-writing Rita Skeeter; she is fine, but her parts in the films never approaches her presence in the novels.  David Tennant has a small but important role as a fidgety over-actor.  Two of the other Triwizard competitors have popped up in other films; Clemence Poesy has had a few small American movie roles, and Robert Pattinson has been in...something...I forget what.  Neither is very impressive here, but most supporting child actors aren't.

Foreground: a vampire and a wizard.  Background: ethnic diversity.

The rest of the supporting cast is still around, and as solid as ever.  The teaching staff of Hogwarts is great, as usual, even with limited screen time.  Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, and Warwick Davis are all good, but I really enjoyed some of Alan Rickman's subtle choices, especially how he chooses to reprimand students.  Gary Oldman makes a cameo in a pretty cool special effects scene, but he doesn't get to add much to the overall story.  Similarly, I thought Timothy Spall, Jason Isaacs, and Tom Felton were fine in their returning parts, but none really had much to do in this movie (except Felton, who isn't much of an actor yet).  One of the more welcome expansions to an existing role was that of the Weasley twins, played by Oliver and James Phelps; they had been around in the past few movies, but they played a larger part here, and their mutually shared dialogue was endearing.

I think Oliver's the one that blow dries his hair.

This movie was directed my Mike Newell, andI think he did an impressive job editing this movie down to a digestible length.  The pace is pretty quick and it centers on the Triwizard Tournament, at the expense of the typical glimpses into everyday life at Hogwarts.  I liked that choice, as it kept things fresh and made this a very different film than the previous three.  This movie had the best performances from the cast to date; whether that was through his work or because the cast was getting old enough to sharpen their acting chops, I don't know.  This film has a more washed-out look to it, which mirrors the more serious tone that it would take.  Overall, I think he did an admirable job maintaining the spirit of the book while cutting substantial amounts from the film.

This movie marks a lot of firsts for the Harry Potter series.  This is the first time that the kids looked like normal students; they wore street clothes, grew ugly shaggy haircuts, and wore their school uniforms as sloppily as possible.  Incidentally, this movie has my favorite hairstyle for Harry; before this, it was just a mop top, after this it's very neat, but this is the unruly mess I pictured from the books.  This is also the first time that romance reared its head in the Harry Potter series, and it was handled surprisingly well.  This is also the first movie to skip the wizard game of quidditch (yes, it's mentioned, but we don't watch a match); that was always a "wizards have fun" part of the earlier films, but skipping that aids the more serious tone of this movie.  Most importantly, though, this is the first film in the series that makes good on the ever-lingering threat of Lord Voldemort.  Finally, we get to see bad wizards doing bad things, and we even get a wizard duel.  It was all pretty sweet, I have to admit.  I should also point out that one of my favorite pop stars, Jarvis Cocker of Pulp, was the lead singer in the Weird Sisters, the wizard rock band that played the Hogwarts dance; fans of Pulp and Radiohead might recognize some of the other band members.  Let it be known, even wizards like to rock.

Jarvis needs to know if you can dance like a hippogriff

As the complete lack of criticism above might indicate, I really liked this movie.  It is definitely my favorite Harry Potter chapter to this point.  A lot of it was done in pretty simple ways; it builds upon the foundations laid in the earlier films.  It's San Antonio Spurs-basic competence, but it works.  Is this a deep movie?  Not particularly.  Will it bring in new viewers into the series?  Probably not.  It is a treat for those that have followed the series and grown up with it.  The Harry Potter franchise has always stood out for making the right decisions on how to adapt its stories, and this was the film that showed that it was possible to adapt a huge book into a regularly-sized film.  This was also the last film that the cast was contractually obligated to make; this could have been the last in the series, or the precursor to an abrupt shift.  Instead, it took the serious tone that The Prisoner of Azkaban hinted at and ran, making this appealing to both the magic-loving innocent in us all and the dark part of us that wants to see bad wizards doing bad things.  Definitely the strongest entry in the series up to this point, and a promising look at things to come.

Oh, I thought up one criticism.  Wizard sports have to be the worst spectator sports ever invented.  All three Triwizard tests had the audience staring at nothing for most of the matches (an empty arena, the surface of a lake, and at the edge of a hedge maze).  Don't even get me started on quidditch.  Wizards need to take a page from muggle sports and build a damn jumbo-tron.

...And, because I love Jarvis Cocker so damn much, I have to include this interview with him.  At the time, he hadn't released any new music in about four years, so it was refreshing to see and hear from him again.  Man, I'm such an Anglophile sometimes.