Review - "The Guard"

Despite the fact that I live in a bustling metropolis, all of the theaters that show smaller films are somewhere between 30 and 50 miles away. In “Dallas Traffic Time”, that translates to somewhere between 90 minutes and 16 days. As a result, I don’t get time to see many of these films until they come to DVD, if at all. In my experience, art house films are often the most difficult to write about and even more difficult to properly judge, particularly in the summer. When almost everything I’ve watched in the last three months has involved superheroes, aliens, or jokes related to bodily functions, I have a tough time transitioning to more mature and cinematic endeavors. So it is with “The Guard, a film entirely unlike anything else I saw this summer.

Sergeant Gerry Boyle (Brendan Gleeson) is an off-the-wall, somewhat crotchety veteran police officer who patrols a small Irish town. Shortly after beginning an investigation into a peculiar murder, Boyle discovers that his case is related to a major drug ring that is currently being hunted by FBI agent Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle). As straight-laced as they come, Everett is an odd pair for Boyle but the two are forced to work together to take down the cartel. When the case pulls Boyle in deeper than he would have ever imagined he is forced to reexamine his life’s work and turn himself into an unlikely hero.

If that synopsis makes “The Guard” sound wholly serious, bear in mind that it is completely and totally a comedy. A dark comedy to be sure but a comedy nonetheless. If you’ve ever wondered what “Hot Fuzz” would be like if it was subtle and less over-the-top, “The Guard” fits the bill. This is writer/director John Michael McDonagh’s first full length film but I would never have guessed it if not for the magic of IMDB. It is a witty, well-written film that makes its tone clear from the first scene. The pacing isn’t exactly what I would call slow but instead calculatedly casual; it knows where it intends to go and it makes its way with balanced determination. This is a film that knows its own identity and doesn’t stray from the dark comedy path more than a time or two. Its humor is smart and lively. Even with the thick accents (which probably caused me to miss a joke or two) “The Guard” is filled with exquisite dialogue and understated jokes that brought more laughs than anything from all but the very best big budget comedies this year has brought.

The plot of “The Guard” is simple but refined and that pushes all of the attention onto the characters and the actors who portray them. Cheadle is a solid straight man and as he always does, he makes the absolute most of every scene he is given. As one of the ringleaders of the drug ring, Mark Strong’s character is straight out of a Guy Ritchie film, a role Strong is great at playing. Please Mr. Strong: stick to these films and stay away from popcorn crap like “Green Lantern.” But despite all of the excellent actors around him, “The Guard” is all about Gleeson. His work in 2008’s “In Bruges” (coincidentally directed by McDonagh’s brother Martin) finally brought him the attention he deserves, but Gleeson has always been a favorite of mine, a magnificent actor who never fails to impress no matter how little screen time he is given. Boyle is a without a doubt a curmudgeon (and a slightly racist one at that) but Gleeson makes him exceedingly likeable. He is a wild card, the type of guy who does the right thing when you’re absolutely sure he’s going to continue to disgrace himself and Gleeson pulls this off perfectly. Moreover, he once again exhibits the brilliant comedic timing that has made him one of the best and most versatile actors Ireland has to offer. I’m not saying it’s his best performance but rather another in a long string of quality portrayals that illustrate just how undervalued this guy really is.

Fun, intelligent, and genuinely hilarious, “The Guard” is an excellent departure from my typical fare this time of year. I’ve made no bones about the fact that I really like summer blockbusters. I love them, in fact. But when a movie like “The Guard” comes along in the midst of the “Conan the Barbarians” of the world, it serves as an incredibly refreshing reminder of what we have to hope for in the coming months.

Grade: B+

I think we need a conversion chart for “Dallas Traffic Time”,

Brian

In Home Viewing: "Limitless"

Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) is a struggling writer whose life hasn't gone the way he thought it was. His girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) leaves him, his publisher won't read his material, and he's about to get kicked out of his shack of an apartment. All that changes when he runs into Vernon (Johnny Whitworth), his ex-brother-in-law and a known drug dealer. Vernon gives Eddie a pill that he accepts as FDA approved (the first in a long list of plot holes) and which he is told will allow him to use 100 percent of his brain. Upon taking it, he discovers that with that much brain capacity he can basically do anything. He turns a few bucks into big money, reunites with his girlfriend, and is soon working for a Wall Street bigwig named Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro). Soon, though, the drugs side effects become painfully obvious and he is forced to fight for survival while being pressed upon from all sides.

Occasionally I dislike a film so much that I can't come up with the words to sum up my dislike. So it is with "Limitless." I saw this movie two weeks ago and I've been struggling with how to write a constructive criticism ever since. Well, I can't. I hate this movie. I won't even go so far as to say this is necessarily a "bad" movie; I'll just say that I absolutely hate it. I've seen a few bad films this year but I'd rather watch almost all of them again before taking in a re-viewing of "Limitless."

First and foremost, I hated Cooper's character and I cared not if he lived or died. Cooper is good at playing unlikable characters ("Wedding Crashers") but I don't think that was the goal here. His transition from near-homeless writer to Wall Street baller is pathetic and stupid. It's like in a teen film when the "ugly nerd" cuts her hair and loses her glasses and suddenly becomes the new hottie. Actually, it's EXACTLY like that minus the glasses. Laughable. The narrative itself is ripe with plot holes and inconsistencies and it makes you wonder if the script was unfinished when director Neil Burger said, "Screw it, we're shooting" and off they went. Nowhere is this more evident than in the conclusion which literally feels like Burger called everyone together a week before the film's release because, "wouldn't you know, we forgot to put an ending on this thing, hahaha!" It's terrible. There's a very Philip K. Dick-esque story somewhere in here but it's so convoluted as to become embarrassing. None of the cast is used effectively. Cooper becomes obnoxious, Cornish is as one-dimensional as they come, and De Niro isn't even trying. (To be fair, if I'm De Niro, I probably wouldn't try here, either. As Michael Caine said, sometimes it's just about the pay check.)

If all of that wasn't enough, the production value behind "Limitless" is worthless. The "opening sequence in the future then flash back to the beginning" bit is tired. Only the best-told stories need to be told this way and yet we continually get average to below average films running blindly down this path. Add in a voiceover that probably could have been avoided through clever writing and you get a bundle of clichés that fail to impress on every level. Worst of all, "Limitless" wants desperately to be smart but doesn't have the brains to figure out that it simply isn't. It is like the "C+" student who is accidentally placed in the "honors" class but instead of pointing out the error in the office, he heads straight to the front of the class and writes out a jumbled equation that leaves everyone in the room scratching their heads and wondering if the "C+" student is actually a bit slow. I hate "Limitless" and now that I've written this review, I think I'm more willing to just say it's bad and be done with it.

Grade: C-

Review: "Attack the Block"

Occasionally I am fortunate enough to draw passes to a screening of a film before it opens in wide release. It’s always a bit of a thrill because I feel like an actual member of the press and it’s cool to have someone else pay for my movie obsession. I never know, however, what kind of crowd I’m going to encounter at one of these screenings. I have been to screenings in which the number of critics, paid or unpaid, far outnumber the casual moviegoers. Other screenings, though, have brought out the craziest collection of movie watchers the world has ever seen. I’ve had some of my best film going experiences in a screening and some of my worst. Unfortunately the screening for “Attack the Block” fell into the latter category. Never in my life have I been surrounded by a bigger group of loudmouthed, foul smelling, obnoxious toolbags in a setting that didn’t involve the DMV or a Nickleback concert. I’m not above telling someone to shut it or to stop texting during a movie but in this case, I, the considerate movie goer, was in the vast minority so I just had to grin (read: “grit my teeth and mutter curses under my breath”) and bear it. Because of this, my attention was placed only half on the screen and half on the laughing buffoon next to me who smelled more of booze than anyone who is not currently homeless. Therefore, should you see “Attack the Block” and disagree with my review, I ask that all of the blame be placed upon Cinemark 17 on Webb Chapel and the brutally distracting crowd they assembled.

While a group of young London thugs are in the midst of a robbery, a mysterious object crashes into a nearby car. Upon further investigation, Moses (John Boyega), the group’s leader, is attacked by a strange animal. After chasing it down and beating it to death, the group realizes that they have an alien on their hands. Juiced up from their triumph, Moses and his crew take the alien creature back to their apartment building (a low-rent complex that borders on a slum) and store the body in the pot room of the building’s drug dealer. Shortly thereafter, they begin to see more falling balls of fire and their neighborhood is soon infested with vicious, eyeless gorilla-bear creatures that seem to find Moses and his gang wherever they go. With no one else to help, the young crew is forced to battle against the extraterrestrial beasts with an assortment of fireworks, kitchen knives, and a showpiece samurai sword.

“ATB” falls right in line with the better works of executive producer Edgar Wright, such as “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz.” It is an alien invasion-comedy that transitions into more of a horror-comedy as the action unfolds. These three aspects come together beautifully and at no point does “ATB” become too bogged down in one genre or the other. Meaning, it isn’t overly funny to the point of becoming an out-and-out comedy but neither does it delve too deeply into a heavy sci-fi plotline or a gory blood fest. The blending of the different genres in a movie like this is always the tough part (see: “Cowboys and Aliens”) and writer/director Joe Cornish displays a sly ability to do just that and makes “ATB” a film that should appeal to a wide range of nerdy fanboys. The well-crafted story is wild fun, easily engaging, and while I wouldn’t go so far as to call it witty, it is much smarter than you might think.

Our young heroes (or anti-heroes if you prefer) are, for the most part, highly enjoyable. Their thick accents and un-Americanized lingo is at times hard to understand but generally quite engrossing. You have to pay close attention to the dialogue or you’ll miss the better jokes (the would-be hobo next to me probably forced me to miss about 15 percent of these utterances) and “ATB” is the better for this. Boyega, in particular, shows some real promise and does a good job of displaying the depth of his character without allowing his portrayal to become overly cumbersome. There is very little backstory or character development within this film but that shouldn’t be construed as a negative. In fact, I found this to be very refreshing; Cornish throws you head first into the alien invasion pool and simply asks you to swim along. This move also takes a TON of pressure off of these young, inexperienced actors in that they are rarely asked to do much beyond crack a few jokes, swear a little, and kick alien butt.

There is no pretense to “ATB” and that may be its stroke of genius. Whereas “Cowboys and Aliens” leads with a simple and bold title but bogs down in an overly complex and burdensome plot, this film avoids complexity to the extreme. It’s just teenagers fighting aliens, plain and simple. Even the explanation for the aliens coming to London is simple and sufficient, enough to create a plausible reason for making the film in the first place but it doesn’t lead “ATB” off into an abyss of sci-fi mythos. In short, it’s a great time at the movie theater, or at least it will be if the pair behind you isn’t arguing about the merits of their favorite respective Disney films: “Shrek” and “Ice Age.” I could not make that up.

Grade: A- 

“Shrek” is clearly a better “Disney” movie than “Ice Age”,
Brian

Review: "Crazy, Stupid, Love"

It’s not often that I pull out the, “Just See This Movie” card. I half-way did it with the most recent “Harry Potter” film but that was as much a plea to read the books as it was see the movie so I don’t think it counts. I allot myself no more than two “Just See This Movie” cards a year though many years I pass on playing one altogether. Movies are subjective and interpretive by their very nature; what works for me may not work for you and vice versa and I try to keep that in mind when I review a film (unless it’s a particularly bad one; I’ll smash on those films with no regard to differences in opinions). Therefore, I want to say upfront that I’m playing a “Just See This Movie” card on “Crazy, Stupid, Love.” I’m not going to promise you’ll love it; I won’t even promise you’ll like it. But I have a feeling that in five years I’m going to be the only person who remembers this film and it’s too intriguing to be forgotten. So…just see this movie.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” presents the audience with no build up. We are introduced to the Weavers right as Emily (Julianne Moore) tells Cal (Steve Carell) that after having cheated on him with a coworker (Kevin Bacon), she wants a divorce. Within minutes of screen time, Cal is forced to move out and starts trying to figure out what exactly happened to the life he spent 25 years creating. Lonely and depressed, Cal begins to frequent a bar where he notices Jacob (Ryan Gosling), a ladies man in the vein of Barney Stinson (“How I Met Your Mother”). To Cal’s surprise, Jacob takes an interest in him and begins mentoring him on the finer points of single life and picking up women. Cal is nervously but sufficiently transformed and regains some of his former strength under Jacob’s tutelage. The only question is whether or not he’d rather start anew or find a way to work things out with his wife. At the same time, Jacob finds himself enthralled by Hannah (Emma Stone), a would-be conquest who initially rejects him before embracing the spontaneity that Jacob symbolizes, a relationship that throws them both for a loop. All of this, along with another love-related story line or two, creates a skillfully designed yet unrefined look at the highs and lows of love.

It’s not often that we talk about the technical or behind-the-scenes work done on a romantic comedy. If anything, you might hear that the dialogue is well written but that’s usually about it. “CSL” is an exception to this rule. The directing team of Glenn Ficarra and John Requa and up-and-coming screenwriter Dan Fogelman made every effort to position this film as much more than a simple date movie. For one thing, the shot selection and camera work is exquisite. I’m not sure I’ve ever said that about a rom-com before but it must be noted. Angles, close-ups, and fades are used to simply and subtly enhance the tone of a given scene in a way that is usually reserved (or at least noticeable to an average filmgoer like myself) for Oscar bait. The story (or many stories) told within “CSL” is extremely intelligent and one that treats the audience with respect. The characters are multi-dimensional, the story isn’t black-and-white, and the film doesn’t superficially tug at your heartstrings, rather allowing the organic elements of the narrative to do that on their own. It is also gloriously self-aware, a cherry on top of the already appealing sundae.

That’s not to say “CSL” is a perfectly made film. The various plotlines don’t all come together for quite some time and that gets slightly annoying and puts a lot of pressure on the conclusion (which thankfully handles the pressure very well). Just when you really get into a particular story, the scene cuts and you’re taken back to another set of characters. Fogelman’s script is complex and the dialogue therein is even more so, requiring the actors to talk in bursts in a way that is similar to an Aaron Sorkin film. I’m a huge Sorkin fan so that didn’t bother me in the slightest but it can be difficult to keep up. Even some of the character relationships seem odd at times; not bad, mind you, but simply a bit awkward. (Though when you consider the differences in the characters and the situations they’re put into, it should be awkward.) In addition, this is not a seamless blend of drama and comedy. Many of the tougher, more impactful scenes pull back and allow for a tension-breaking joke when I might prefer the directors to take it a step further.

For me, however, “CSL” is better for its flaws. I can relate to flawed characters and situations that aren’t ideal and that relevance is where “CSL” excels. All of these characters are human; exaggerative examples of humans, sure, but human nonetheless. And each and every member of the cast (with the exception of Marisa Tomei who really isn’t given ANYTHING to work with) grabs hold of that humanity and runs with it. I’ve always been fairly lukewarm on Ryan Gosling fan but his performance here has won me over for good. “Womanizing hot guy with a dark past” is a tired, often overdone role but Gosling brings incredible depth to Jacob Palmer. At his heart he is a good person and Gosling makes that believablewhereas other characters of this type seem only to be “good” in theory alone. He also shows a distinctly humorous side that I didn’t know he had. The story goes that when he took the role, Steve Carell essentially demanded Gosling be his co-star, a decision which seemed strange at the time but is proven wise time and time again throughout this film.

Speaking of Carell, I don’t think there is an actor in Hollywood who is able to blend comedy and real, genuine heart like he does. He elicits sympathy from the audience without becoming pathetic and his timing as far as well-placed jokes go is uncanny. Meanwhile, Emma Stone continues to assert herself as a legitimate movie star. She’s had bigger and perhaps better performances in the recent past (“Easy A”) comes to mind but I don’t think she has shown the depth or versatility that she does her. Funny as always, she adds an element of mystique that makes it easy to believe that Jacob would leave his wayward ways to chase after her. Moore, Bacon, and even relative newcomers Jonah Bobo (who plays the Weaver’s son) and Analeigh Tipton (love-struck babysitter) all carry their weight as well, making this a well-rounded ensemble worthy of the many storylines the script weaves together. And the chemistry between the involved parties of each storyline (Carell-Gosling, Gosling-Stone, Carell-Bobo, etc.) ties “CSL” together wonderfully.

“CSL” is a sometimes jumbled collection of interconnecting stories, all of which stand well on their own and all of which are hell bent on exploring the truth about love. It is frustratingly beautiful, flawed but whole, hilarious at times and heartbreakingly harsh at others. Most of all, though, it is honest and that is what makes it such a worthwhile viewing. Consider the “Just See This Movie” card played and act accordingly.

Grade: A

Emma Stone is seriously close to stealing me away from Rachel McAdams,

Brian

For a much less sunny take, check out the review at Anomalous Material.

Top 10 Favorite Animated Disney Films

Yesterday in the weekly DVD Roundup, I chose "The Fox and Hound" as my New to Blu Pick of the Week and even went so far as to call it a top 5 animated Disney film of all time. That statement set the blogosphere ablaze (no it didn't) and numerous readers clamored to their keyboards (no they didn't) to lodge complaints. This (fictional) outrage has forced me to do two things: 1.) Revise my statement to be, "top 5 favorite Disney animated films of all time" and 2.) Make a list. I love lists and I don't do nearly enough of them. So today I present to you my Top 10 Favorite Animated Disney Films of All Time. (Pixar obviously does not count.)

10. "Sleeping Beauty" - 1959
This one is somewhat of a departure from the majority of the other films on this list in that it's all about a princess. Still, you have to appreciate a "chick flick" (so to speak) that features a totally wicked dragon. Of all Disney's princess films, "Sleeping Beauty" is the one I've always liked the most.

9. "Tarzan" - 1999
I'm going to be honest here: the reason this film makes the list is the killer soundtrack. As a hardened fan of rock and folk, I know that I should dislike Phil Collins but I have found this to be an impossible principle to live up to. "Tarzan" is a quality piece of children's entertainment but Collins' musical backing pushes it over the edge towards excellence.

8. "The Emperor's New Groove" - 2000
Also known as the last really good film Disney made before "Tangled." "Groove" is fun, it's lively, and the voice talent (David Spade, John Goodman) is solid. This is one of those films that probably no one will remember in 10 years (or maybe right now for that matter) but the rewatchability of "Groove" is incredibly high.

7. "Tangled" - 2010
In my mind, Disney spent the 10 years between "Emperor's New Groove" and "Tangled" building new theme park attractions and riding the coattails of Pixar with little attention paid to the animated films coming from their own studio. You could perhaps get me to watch "Lilo and Stitch" again but every other film from the decade is awful. I had low expectations for "Tangled" but I was pleasantly surprised to find that this film recaptured the Disney magic that had been lost for so long. It is also an excellent example of how to create a kid's movie that appeals to both genders.

6. "The Sword in the Stone" - 1963
Often forgotten when considering the great Disney films, "Stone" reached out to a group of young viewers (read: "boys") who had been placed on the backburner during the preceding three films ("Lady and the Tramp", "Sleeping Beauty", "101 Dalmatians"). King Arthur is always interesting to guys  (with the exception of "The Once and Future King", the "literary classic" that ruined my life during the summer before my sophomore year) and this is a great introduction to legend. Also, Archimedes is awesome.

5. "The Jungle Book" - 1967
Has any orphan EVER had a cooler life than Mowgli? He gets protected by a rockin' panther (Bagheera), pals around the jungle with a fun-loving bear (Baloo), and learns some of the catchiest songs in animated movie history. What a life! It's probably been 15 years (at least) since I've seen "Jungle" but I can still blow through the lyrics of "Bear Necessities" with ease.

4. "Aladdin" - 1992
At one time this was probably my second favorite Disney film. But then I had to take choir in the 6th grade and my teacher forced us to sing "Never Had a Friend like Me" every day for an entire semester. (That woman would probably get some hateful Facebook messages if I could remember her name.) Still, the narrative in "Aladdin" appeals to both genders and they managed to grab Robin Williams when he was still funny and put him in a role that was perfect for him. Great film.

3. "The Fox and the Hound" - 1981
And you thought I might back off my "top five" statement from yesterday. Well, you should know better by now. I love "Fox and Hound" so much that I should probably be its official spokesman. It seems like no one remembers this film and that fact gives me great pains. I can tell you right now, when I have kids they will either love or hate "Fox and Hound" due to the number of times I make them watch it but they will definitely remember it.

2. "The Lion King" - 1994
This is the bookend to what you could argue is the best five film run in Disney's history. Think about it: "The Little Mermaid" (rebooted the studio, much like "Tangled" last year), "The Rescuers Down Under" (the low point in this run), "Beauty and the Beast" (won a pair of Oscars), "Aladdin" (another pair of Oscars and a TON of money), and then "The Lion King." Wow. This is nearly a perfect film; beautifully animated, well-voiced, magnificent soundtrack, and an awesome storyline. "King" also gets bonus points for spawning a hit Broadway show and several re-releases, including a 3D version that'll open next month.

1. "Robin Hood" - 1973
If you put a gun to my head and asked me what the best animated Disney film is, I would probably say "The Lion King." But my favorite? "Robin Hood" by a mile. I absolutely wore this VHS out as a kid so we re-taped it (back then it wasn't considered piracy somehow), and I wore that one out. I love this film so much that as a college freshman my mother gave me a DVD copy for my birthday and I was totally stoked. A COLLEGE FRESHMAN. I've always been enamored by the Robin Hood story so that's a plus but even beyond that, the characters are wildly entertaining and that soundtrack...if you were a guest in my house, there's a pretty solid chance that at some point you'd catch my humming or whistling one of the songs from "Robin Hood." I love this film. In fact, I'm going to watch it now.

That's my top ten. What films would make your list?

In Home Viewing - "The Lincoln Lawyer"

Mick Haller (Matthew McConaughey) is a well-known but little-respected defense attorney with a knack for getting his often shady clients out of sticky situations. He operates exclusively out of his Lincoln and revels in the negative spotlight this puts him in in the eyes of prosecutors and cops alike. When Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe), the heir to a vast real estate fortune, is accused of the attempted murder of a prostitute and asks for him specifically, Haller thinks he's hit the jackpot. Before long, however, his entire life is thrown into flux as he finds his new client to be much more cunning and sadistic than anyone he's represented in the past. Knowing that he can't let Roulet get free, Haller must find a way to incriminate him without throwing his own life away in the process.

I have spent the last 10 or 15 years slamming on Matthew McConaughey's acting ability at every opportunity. It's not that I hate the guy or think that he's the worst actor in the world; I just don't think he's very good and I do not understand his appeal. I've never found him to be very charismatic and other than a few rare exceptions ("Dazed and Confused", "A Time to Kill") I usually hate his films. In his defense, he's been pigeon-holed into a relatively bad position wherein he's not getting offers for leading roles in high quality films so he ends up starring in worthless romantic comedies ("Failure to Launch") or dreadful action flicks ("Sahara") over and over again. His genuinely funny turn in "Tropic Thunder" suggests that he will be able to sustain a solid career if he can transition to a supporting role kind of actor but until then, we're all going to be treated to films like "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past."

With that in mind, "The Lincoln Lawyer" was a very odd experience for me. I'll be honest: I expected to hate this film. Instead, I found it to be quite entertaining and at least half-way intelligent. Even more shocking, McConaughey was without question the best part of the film. He's essentially the same character that he is in every film (overly confident, abundantly shallow, and constantly walking the line between sleazy and charming) but for some reason (and believe me, I'm having a hard time writing this), it just works this time. Haller is an absurd caricature, of course, and only a slight exaggeration of who I expect McConaughey is in real life, but there's more depth to him than to the majority of McConaughey's characters which I didn't expect. I actually rooted for Haller and McConaughey kept me interested in the film's plot even when it bogged down into the typical shenanigans that plague most courtroom thrillers.

On the flip side, though, there's Ryan Phillippe who yet again displays that he only has one skill: overacting. If you can harness that power for good ("MacGruber" and to a lesser extent, "Crash"), you can make Phillippe seem like a good actor. Most of the time, however, the result is painful. Not to bash on McConaughey again but the truth is, if you're the second billed star in a film starring McConaughey, you should dominate him from an acting standpoint. Instead, there are scenes in this movie in which you can almost feel the pain in McConaughey's voice as he delivers his line knowing full well that Phillippe is about to brutally murder any momentum he just created. Honestly, dear readers, this is one of the premier performances of the year if, in fact, you are a voter for the Razzies. Just terrible.

The rest of "Lincoln" pulls together nicely (with the exception of the stop-start-stop conclusion that lasts 10 minutes too long and involves at least two more scene changes than necessary). It seems far too easy to compare this film to those based on the works of John Grisham but that's exactly what this is: a Grisham byproduct. You know and expect there to be twists and turns but the film manages to prevent them from becoming too obvious and the methods Haller uses to work against Roulet are, at times, pretty darn smart. "Lincoln" is flawed but enjoyable and managed to keep my attention through each and every Phillippe assault on my brain.

Grade: B

Blu Ray Review - "Unknown"

Shortly after Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) and his wife Elizabeth (January Jones) arrive in Berlin, Martin realizes his briefcase was left at the airport. During the cab ride to retrieve it, his taxi is involved in an accident that leaves him in a coma. When he wakes up three days later, he finds that his wife doesn't know who he is and he had been replaced by another man (Aidan Quinn) claiming to be him. He begins to think he's gone mad until he is nearly captured and killed. With the assistance of the taxi driver Gina (Diane Kruger), he begins to piece his memory back together and tugging at a thread of a vast conspiracy.

"Unknown" has been unfairly branded as "Taken 2" when in reality the two are hardly similar beyond their star and European setting. Don't get me wrong, I quite like "Taken." I consider it to be one of the more enjoyable film experiences of 2009, a guilty pleasure if you will. But I have to be honest, it's an absurd movie. Actually, "absurd" might be putting it lightly. "Taken" is like "24" on steroids and that is saying something because as much as I love Jack Bauer (favorite TV character from an hour long drama/action ever), he is nothing if not absurd.

"Unknown", on the other hand, is a much more reasonable action-thriller, comparatively speaking. The film does an excellent job of keeping you guessing and refusing to allow you to get comfortable with one idea or another. You know Harris isn't insane because the film opens with him and his wife together but you start to wonder if perhaps he created all of that in his mind. When it becomes apparent that he really isn't nuts, you start working to piece together how anyone could pull a conspiracy of this magnitude off such a short period of time. And when the gears of the final twists and turns begin to whirl into motion, you're not sure exactly what's going to happen but you know it's going to be big. Throughout all of this, Harris serves as the voice of the audience. He wonders aloud throughout his searching and asks the questions that I myself was asking while sitting in my easy chair. As confused as we might be watching the mess unfold, it's no more confused than Harris is himself and it is this element that allows it to truly excel.

The actors that surround Neeson all range from marginally mediocre to half way decent and that at times can create an issue or two. In particular, Jones comes off as hollow and one note, just like everything else she's ever been in. But "Unknown" starts and ends with Neeson which is a pretty darn good bedrock on which to build a film's foundation. He's always been an excellent actor but in the last few years it seems that he's figured out how to make himself more approachable and therefore more enjoyable to watch. He plays characters that you root for no matter what and that's an underrated talent in Hollywood. He makes bad films pretty good and pretty good films very good. "Unknown" is the latter; the concept and subsequent twists would make a solid film regardless but Neeson sells his part wonderfully and pushes the movie to new heights.

Grade: B+

"Cowboys and Aliens"

The combination of the Western genre and science fiction is nothing new in Hollywood. In my mind, “Firefly” (briefly) perfected the mix in the early 2000s but it was only the descendant of “Westworld”, the original “Star Trek” series, and a host of other films and television shows that found a natural cross-pollination between the Old West and the vastness of space. I cannot, however, remember a film that so purposefully and blatantly threw the two themes together without any measure of pretense like “Cowboys and Aliens” does (at least not a mainstream film). Everything you really need to know about “Cowboys and Aliens” is right there in the title: it is two hours of cowboys fighting aliens. And on some level you have to respect director Jon Favreau and the powers that be behind this film for being so bold and open about the film’s subject matter, even if the finished product doesn’t quite live up to that boldness.

When Jake Lonergan (Daniel Craig) wakes up in the New Mexico desert, he finds a strange metal bracelet strapped to his wrist and he cannot remember who he is or where he came from. Upon his arrival in a local town, he is promptly identified and arrested as a notorious bandit who recently robbed a stagecoach carrying gold belonging to a tough rancher named Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford). As Lonergan is about to be handed over to Dolarhyde, a group of alien spaceships roar into town firing devastating guns and snatching up hostages, including Dolarhyde’s son. Suddenly the bracelet on Lonergan’s wrist begins to makes noises and converts itself into a powerful gun with which he is able to shoot down one of the ships. Soon after he remembers that he and his woman (for lack of a better term) were also abducted at one point and so he joins in the hunt for the aliens along with Dolarhyde, Doc (Sam Rockwell), and Ella (Olivia Wilde), a mysterious outsider who seems to know a thing or two about him. What they discover forces all differences and conflicts between cowboys, outlaws, and Indians to be put aside as former adversaries must come together to defeat a common enemy.

“Cowboys and Aliens” enjoys a pedigree that most movies can only dream of. An incredible cast, a hot director, and a highly sought-after writing team including Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman. At the beginning of the year, it seemed almost impossible that this type of quality talent could turn out anything less than a spectacular action film and yet the end result excels in only a few moments and becomes stagnant in many others. It all boils down to the fact that there’s not much done with the concept as a whole. The story isn’t so much cliché as it is just a rather bland infusion of Old West and sci-fi. The aliens look the way you’d expect aliens to look, the cowboys act the way you’d expect them to act, and the arrival of the Indians just throws the whole film into a frenzy of Western generalities. There’s absolutely nothing new in “C&A” and that causes the film to bog down when it should build momentum. Lonergan and Dolarhyde move from a fight with one group of people to a fight with another group of people and there’s very little room for development beyond some mediocre flashbacks that feel more “C.S.I”-like than I’d really care for in a major motion picture. The script is neither consistently humorous nor particularly gritty or edgy which leaves the film to tread water in the middle of a fairly shallow pool of mediocrity. I would also say that the combination of the two genres is a bit rocky; Favreau builds a pretty solid base for a traditional Western in the first 15 minutes and then suddenly the aliens arrive and throw everything off. Honestly, in spite of being a huge sci-fi fan, I would have probably preferred to see Craig and Ford in a Favreau Western than I would in a rough combo film like this one is. And while most of the actors hold their own, Wilde continues to vex me. I don’t understand her or her appeal. Clearly she’s extremely attractive and I wouldn’t call her a bad actress but I am never affected by any of her performances. That’s no different here as she just embodies the blandness of the film as a whole.

That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot to like about “Cowboys and Aliens.” Craig and Ford are both excellent and perhaps even more important, as a friend of mine said, neither of their performances brings to mind their previous, more iconic roles. This isn’t James Bond and Indiana Jones riding around in the Old West and the fact that they avoid that trap is a testament to both their abilities and the ability of Favreau as a director. I might argue that this is the best Ford has been in many, many years but then you would counter with the fact that he hasn’t had a meaningful role in many, many years. Touché. Seriously, though, “C&A” serves as a reminder that Ford is still a very capable, charismatic actor who deserves better than middling rom-coms like “Morning Glory” or childhood-erasing disasters like the fourth “Indiana Jones” movie. Rockwell provides solid comedic relief though considering the overall humorlessness of the film he almost seems out of place. The action sequences are all very good and the infusion of CGI and special effects is seamless (even if the aliens themselves are somewhat lackluster). And it is, if nothing else, wholly entertaining, the base component of any summer blockbuster.

“Cowboys and Aliens” has some value and certainly provided me with an enjoyable afternoon in the middle of a busy work week. I would also hold out hope that it could lead to some better roles for Ford and a rejuvenation of his magnificent career. Yet it seems to be simply uninspired and that takes away from the immense fun I expected to get from a film as boldly titled as “Cowboys and Aliens.”

Grade: B-

I’ve found that "B-" films are the hardest to write about,
Brian

For a deeper look at the "could have been better as a Western" thought I expressed above, check out the coverage by Anomalous Material.

"Larry Crowne"

Recently a colleague of mine hosted an event on his blog called “The Greater Good” in which he asked readers to pick a film that they would wipe off the face of the planet in order to better the movie industry as a whole. You know the concept: if “Grease” was never made, would I have been forced to live through 28 years of a non-talent like John Travolta parading his way across my film consciousness and prompting any number of murderous thoughts within my brain? Probably not. After seeing “Larry Crowne” I’m not entirely convinced that my entry into this event shouldn’t have centered on 2002’s “My Big Fat Greek Wedding.” That was, after all, the film that launched the career of one Nia Vardalos, who is unfortunately responsible for the horrendous script that hamstrings “Larry Crowne” from the outset and attempts to drive a stake through the brain of every mild mannered audience member who happened to be stupid enough to put themselves through this mess.

Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks) is a long-time floor manager of a Wal-Mart-like superstore who happens to love his job. Due to the recession, however, his company begins downsizing redundant employees and because of Larry’s lack of a college education, he soon finds himself without a job. In order to make himself more marketable, he registers for some classes at a local community college. Here he meets a set of new friends, led by Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and Dell Gordo (Wilmer Valderrama), who share his passion for scooters and who attempt to revamp his image. He also meets Mercedes Tainot (Julia Roberts), an alcoholic speech teacher in a failing marriage and an even less fulfilling job. The two strike up an awkward friendship that ultimately benefits them both in this story of revitalization and renewal in the face of adversity.

First off, I love Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. At one time or another, I would have listed them both as my favorite actor and actress respectively. Hanks is the classic All American Actor, the guy you root for at all times and who seems to genuinely understand his massive appeal. Roberts is the female version of Hanks, the beautiful girl next door who’s managed to remain a fan favorite for 20 years in an industry that forgets women the second they turn 35. I am always happy to see either of them on screen (unless it involves “The Da Vinci Code”) and despite the dip in productivity that each have experienced over the last decade, they can still get me out to a theater based solely on their names. I have long believed that you can’t make either of these great actors unlikable.

Well, I was wrong.

“Larry Crowne” is an absolute disaster in every sense of the word. None of these characters are in the least bit relatable or likeable. Tainot is an awful old bat that I pretty much hated the moment she stepped on screen. I’m all for a good redemption story and I understand that you have to start low to make the high more significant, but if this character had been hit by a bus in the tenth minute, I would have been fine. Larry himself is so thoroughly hapless that I just couldn’t bring myself to invest in him despite the numerous times my brain told me, “Come on dude, that’s Tom Hanks! You’ve got to love his character! It’s just a rule.” He is a painful mix of Forrest Gump (my least favorite Hanks film until now) and the kid from “Big” that comes across as wholly unbelievable. No one is this naïve. No one. The rest of the cast, which includes George Takei, Cedric the Entertainer, and Rob Riggle, ranges from totally worthless (Pam Grier) to cringe-worthy and one dimensional (Bryan Cranston, how in the name of “Breaking Bad” did you get talked into this role?!). That’s not even mentioning Mbatha-Raw who probably shouldn’t be allowed to act again. Shockingly, Valderrama gives the best performance of anyone in the film but in some ways, isn’t that all I need to say? The foreign dude from “That ‘70s Show” who has done absolutely nothing else of note in his career is the best part of this film. Ouch.

All of these retched characters are nothing, however, compared to the excessively cheery and somewhat pointless nature of the film’s narrative. There is no real humor in “Larry Crowne”, only watered-down jokes that might suffice on a middling CBS sitcom but don’t do the job in a feature film. The overt cheeriness goes hand-in-hand with Larry’s naivety but as I said before, this naivety is irritating, not endearing. Everyone is happy all the time (except for Tainot) and as a result there is no depth to the characters or the story. The events simply play out in front of the helpless audience instead of bringing them into the story. That’s not always a bad thing, I guess, but when you’re working with an extremely relevant topic like job loss, you’re wasting an opportunity to engross the audience. “Crowne” really doesn’t even make an attempt to do so and that is perhaps its most egregious offense.

In short, this film has Nia Vardalos’ fingerprints all over it. IMDB will tell you that Hanks co-wrote “Larry Crowne” with Vardalos but I don’t believe it for a minute. This mess has Vardalos’ fingerprints all over it: one note characters, a shallow plot, and abysmal dialog. That’s all Vardalos has treated us to since “Greek Wedding” scored $350 million at the box office and I was willing to accept that she would always be involved with horrible movies that I would simply stay away from. But now that she’s infected the glorious careers of both Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts…well, I think I’m ready to preserve the greater good and rid the world of “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” and everyone who had anything to do with it. Since I’m out of plutonium, however, I’ll just have to implore you, dear readers, to stay away from “Larry Crowne” and pretend you’ve never heard of Nia Vardalos.

Grade: C-

I never liked that movie in the first place,

Brian

"Captain America"

I always have and always will stand in support of the summer blockbuster. Heady dramas, witty comedies, and hard-hitting documentaries will generally be considered more significant, more meaningful, of course, and rightly so. But I believe the core of the movie industry is entertainment and no film quite embraces the idea of entertainment like a good summer blockbuster. By that logic, I very much enjoy comic book and superhero films. Excluding the rare and horrible outlier (read: “Green Lantern”), I am almost always entertained by the superhero genre and after all, that’s what I really want in July when it’s 129 degrees outside. So keep that nerdy bias toward superheroes in mind as we delve into “Captain America.”

Set during World War II, “Captain America” opens on Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) who has all the makings of a great soldier locked away inside a frail, 90 pound body. When a government scientist named Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) offers him a chance to join the fight, Rogers jumps at the chance and becomes Erskine’s guinea pig for an experimental program that would create an army of super soldiers. After successfully transforming Rogers into a muscly, athletic beast, Erskine is killed when a Nazi spy sabotages the laboratory and steals the formula. Unsure of the results, Colonel Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) turns Rogers over to a senator who uses him as a propaganda tool to sell war bonds. Feeling a new level of uselessness while on a USO trip to the front, Rogers, now known across the country as Captain America, becomes aware of Hydra, a secret Nazi organization run by Johann Schmidt/Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) who once worked with Erskine. After a daring rescue of a group of POWs that includes Bucky, Colonel Phillips sends Captain American and his team of commandos on a blitzkrieg across Europe, forcing a final confrontation with Red Skull that could determine the outcome of the war.

Coming in, I questioned whether or not Chris Evans could headline a film but that tentative uncertainty was stowed away quite early in this film’s runtime. Given what a make-or-break film this is for Evans I would have been willing to forgive some overacting as he tried to prove he belonged but there’s none of that in “Captain.” I’m not sure that Evans has the charisma of, say, Ryan Reynolds and yet he seems wholly comfortable within the role, as if it comes naturally. This version of Captain America (I know very little of the comics) is an unassuming and humble hero, the kind of guy who is willing to do incredible things because he is capable of such acts, not because he needs to do them. Evans embodies and exemplifies these personality traits well and this makes Captain America as relatable as a scientifically engineered super freak can be. Make no mistake about it, this is a career changing performance that will keep Evans away from horrifying romantic comedies (like “What’s Your Number” which he co-stars in this fall) for years to come.

His supporting cast, though, should not be overlooked. As special agent Peggy Carter who works with Colonel Phillips, Hayley Atwell is charming and strong enough on her own to make you overlook the fact that she’s a British woman who has somehow become a major player in the American military. In short, she does everything that Natalie Portman could not do in “Thor.” While her screen time is limited, this is the kind of strong female character that Hollywood desperately needs in their action movies. The inevitable romantic dynamic between Carter and Rogers is far more natural than you might expect and treads lightly upon the love interest clichés that run rampant through many blockbusters. Weaving, meanwhile, is sufficiently menacing and intimidating, a worthy villain for a superhero of Captain America’s stature. And then there’s ol’ Tommy, one of the great American actors that you sometimes forget about. Christie Lemire said in her review for “Ebert Presents” that this is the kind of role Tommy Lee Jones could play in his sleep and I whole heartedly agree. There is an ease with which Jones works that creates an overwhelmingly fun and thoroughly entertaining environment and that carries over to the rest of the cast and the audience.

The action sequences in “Captain America” are slightly more subdued than what you’d find in “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” but they’re no less powerful and engrossing. The script, put together by a collaborative host of writers, is lively and quite humorous in places. None of it is new, really, and much of the dialogue is easy but sometimes easy fits well and this is one of those situations. “Captain” is also a beautifully shot and colored film. Director Joe Johnston went with a sepia tint that truly works with the film’s nostalgic ideals and concepts. It’s a nice finishing touch that only adds to the overall fun of the film.

There are, of course, some flaws within “Captain America” that I can’t completely pass over. We are treated to a tired montage (similar to the ones found in “X-Men: First Class”) that needed a fresh take and a voice over sequence illustrating how Schmidt became the Red Skull that plays out like a bad horror flick. There are also a few moments in which the nostalgic wholesomeness of both the film and the leading character jump over the kitschy fence and roam freely in the Land of Cheese, all of which I could have done without. But on the whole, “Captain America” is everything you could ask for in a summer blockbuster. If you’re not a fan of superhero movies, this one isn’t going to change your mind. But being the nerdy guy that I am, I believe I’ll have to make room for it on my personal list of favorite comic book films.

Grade: A-

Can’t wait for “The Avengers”,

Brian

Blu Ray Review - "The Eagle"

At the height of the Roman Empire, young up-and-comer Marcus Aquila (Channing Tatum) is given his choice of assignments. Surprisingly, he picks a remote garrison in Great Britain, a short distance from where his father, along with a legion of 5,000 men and a golden eagle representing the Empire's power, went missing 20 years before. Soon after, he is injured in battle and is given his discharge from the army. Lost and purposeless, his uncle (Donald Sutherland) purchases a slave named Esca (Jamie Bell) for him and the two become constant companions. When word of the lost legion reaches Marcus, he and Esca set out for the great unknown beyond Hadrian's Wall in an effort to discover the fate of the legion and reclaim the lost eagle.

Here are the top three reasons why "The Eagle" sucks.

1. Channing Tatum is horrendous. I've been wondering aloud for some time now as to what in the name of Jason Statham it is that Channing Tatum brings to the table (beyond the obligatory looks). "A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints" is literally the only thing I've seen him in that that didn't cause me to begin plotting his murder. Just an awful actor. But I don't really blame him for "The Eagle" because he should have never been cast in the first place. Whoever thought it was a good idea to cast a muscly, hair gelled, American jock type as a hardened Roman commander should be dragged through the streets and locked in the stocks in a place that other casting directors can come and throw rotten vegetables at him/her. Here's a guy who struggles with the subtle nuances of "G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra" so what would make anyone think that he could handle a role like this? There is no way that ANYONE could watch "The Eagle" and take Tatum seriously as a garrison commander. To make it worse, Tatum seems to know this himself and so he tries oh so hard to seem Roman and the result is rigid overacting at its absolute worst.

2. The entire narrative of "The Eagle" could have been compressed into a 15 minute short film. There are approximately three plot points and they're all repeated over and over again. And even the film's main focus, the reclamation of the eagle, is kind of pointless. No one in the whole of the Roman Empire gives a rip whether or not the eagle ever shows up again except Marcus himself and that, in turn, prompted me to not care whether or not the eagle ever shows up again. Perhaps it's Tatum's terrible acting or maybe the script is just crap; I don't know. But I know that there was not one second during the journey of Marcus and Esca that I cared if they found the eagle or, for that matter, if they lived or died.

3. The historical inaccuracies within "The Eagle" are bountiful and egregious. The book it is based upon is referred to as "historical fiction" and I think that's putting it rather nicely. Much has been made about the American accents that each of the actors display but that doesn't really bother me. That never really bothers me, honestly; if you cast American actors, I'd rather them speak normally rather than force a bad accent. No, what absolutely killed me was the manner of historical indifference with which "The Eagle" operates. From the Romans not having any archers in their garrison (dumb) to the honorable discharge (that's the exact terminology) that Marcus is issued after his injury, virtually nothing within this film fits the time period. I'm FAR from a history scholar and I rarely get up in arms about inaccuracies as a whole. But "The Eagle" is so blatant about its disregard for the time period. If you changed costumes to military fatigues, weapons from swords to guns, and the setting from ancient Rome to, say, post-war Europe, you could literally take this script and make it a modern day "find the lost soldiers" film. The dialogue, the terminology, and the events are pretty much what would happen in your average American war movie. It is offensively dismissive of the time period in which it chooses to operate.

Beyond some decent action scenes and quality cinematography, there's almost nothing to like about "The Eagle." It's a complete waste of time that only furthers the negative stereotypes concerning American actors and films.

Grade: C-

"Cars 2"

When “Toy Story” opened in 1995, I was 12 years old and fully entrenched in the, “I’m too cool for cartoons” phase of life. “Toy Story” rocked my world and it was only the tip of the Pixar iceberg. Over the last 15 years, Pixar has put together perhaps the greatest track record of any studio in the industry. They simply haven’t missed. They craft visually stunning, intelligent, and hilarious films that kids love and adults appreciate even more. The real genius, though, is in their ability to take seemingly inhuman characters, such as toys, bugs, and robots, and make them so remarkably human. No matter what type of being the central characters are, Pixar always finds a way to make them and the stories they work within relevant and connectible. I’ve often said that Pixar’s slogan should be, “Making Grown Men Cry Since 1995.” Very rarely can I sit through a Pixar film without tearing up and some of the films, like “Toy Story 3”, manage to bring me to the brink of openly weeping no matter how many times I see them. With that in mind, I guess I can’t fault them too much for the misfire that is “Cars 2.”

“Cars 2” takes us back to Radiator Springs with famous racecar Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) returning home after winning his fourth consecutive Piston Cup. After briefly reuniting with his best friend Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), McQueen accepts a challenge to participate in an international race to promote a new form of fuel. There are greater things at stake, however, than a trophy. British spy car Fin McMissile (Michael Caine) has discovered that a syndicate of lemon cars (Gremlins, Pintos, etc.) have conspired to sabotage the race. McMissile and his colleague, Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer), mistake Mater for an American spy and soon incorporate him into their plan to counteract that of the lemons. Shenanigans ensue as the trio tries to unravel the lemon’s plot before they are able to get to McQueen.

First of all, there’s really nothing inherently wrong with “Cars 2.” It is a perfectly acceptable children’s movie. The negative press that this film has gotten is based solely on the fact that it is a Pixar film and you expect more from Pixar than quality children’s entertainment. And that’s exactly what it is: quality children’s entertainment. If you have a kid, you’d be thrilled if he/she got attached to “Cars 2” instead of, say, “Alpha and Omega” or “Hoodwinked 2.” But it simply doesn’t come anywhere close to measuring up to the strength of its Pixar brothers.

For one thing, there’s too much Mater. WAY too much Mater. Mater is designed for plucky comic relief not a starring role and his extended screen time gets old pretty quickly. There’s also just not a whole lot to build upon from the previous entry in the franchise. “Ratatouille” is my least favorite Pixar film but I think “Cars” is probably the weakest overall. The characters are the least relatable and the story is the least compelling. Moreover, the real strength of “Cars” is in the personification of Smalltown, USA and the loss of its simplicity. When you take the “Cars” characters away from that setting, they really lose all importance.

The real issue with “Cars 2”, though, is that none of this matters on any sort of emotional level. That’s what I want and have come to expect from Pixar films: strong stories that are allegories or illustrations of bigger issues that bring about genuine connection and elicit emotion. We get none of that in “Cars 2.” Instead, it plays out like a children’s rendition of a James Bond film. Only one scene, a tribute to the great Paul Newman who voiced the Hudson Hornet in the first film, is accessible from an emotional standpoint. Again, there’s nothing wrong with creating a fun kid’s movie but Pixar has always seemed above that. In truth, this is basically Pixar’s version of a straight-to-DVD film that was really only made because it is a passion project of Disney/Pixar chief John Lasseter.

All of that said if you’re a parent, you could do a lot worse than “Cars 2” (“Zookeeper” comes to mind). It is rich visually, has a handful of laughs, and the kids will undoubtedly enjoy it. But if you go in expecting the typical Pixar magic, you will be sorely disappointed.

Grade: B

I’d like to be done with Larry the Cable Guy now,
Brian

Blu Ray Review - "The Next Three Days"

What begins as an average weekday morning for John Brennan (Russell Crowe) suddenly changes dramatically when police officers burst into his house and arrest his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks). Accused of murdering her boss, Lara's trial and subsequent appeals go quickly against her and it becomes apparent that she will spend the next 25 years in jail. This is too much for John, a community college professor, to handle and as his desperation sinks in, he begins to plot a jail break. He speaks with Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson), a prison break expert of sorts who puts John on the "right" track. During his visits to see Lara at the county jail, John begins formulating his plan with extreme caution until his hand is forced by the news that his wife will be moved to a larger facility in only three days time.

"The Next Three Days" is half a great movie. The twists and turns that take place throughout the final act are exciting and tense and the fact that most of the action is done through the use of good old fashioned stunts rather than CGI is a plus in my book. The ideas that John comes up, both to execute his plan and to avoid being caught afterward, are often fresh and unique which is always a tricky task to pull off in a prison break film. And I really enjoyed the fact that the question of whether or not Lara is guilty doesn't get settled until late into the film. That last aspect creates a very different atmosphere from the traditional prison break narrative because it asks the audience to trust that the hero, John, is correct in believing that his wife is innocent when all the evidence says otherwise.

The other half of "The Next Three Days", however, would have trouble getting ratings on a Sunday night during the summer. The "keep the audience guessing" motto is taken far too seriously in the early going as the movie jumps from scene to scene, creating a horribly choppy experience that begs for editing. There is no flow to the first two acts and I actually had to rewind twice to properly put together what had just happened. "Days" plays out like a film that was cut down to fit a 100 minute runtime yet it stretches on and on for well over two hours. It is also surprisingly boring in places. I think writer/director Paul Haggis tried to make this film an homage to the slow-but-intense thrillers of the 60s and 70s but instead it just plays out like a bit of a knockoff, at least through the first two acts. Beyond the choppy story telling, the real culprit for this dullness is the absolute lack of compelling characters. Both of the Brennans, their child, John's parents, the cops, the lady that John becomes friends with, etc. are robotic, dreadfully boring people that I didn't care about one bit. In truth, there are no characters in "The Next Three Days", only character types, robotic roles in the story that never really touch on humanism. Only Liam Neeson's career criminal has any sort of depth and he's in the movie for five minutes.

Basically, Haggis puts the final dynamic act and some genuinely well-thought-out concepts up against a poorly edited story and characters that are fundamentally disconnected from the audience and hopes you won't notice the holes. Immediately after seeing "Three Days" I was fairly positive about the finished product because I really did enjoy the final 30 minutes. But the more I thought about it and the further out from my viewing that I got, the more the holes bothered me. It's a frustrating movie, really, because I can't stand when good concepts are wasted on films that don't warrant them. If you come across "The Next Three Days" on HBO and can skip directly to the final 30 minutes, it's worth a viewing, but otherwise I can't say that I'd ever want to see this film again.

Grade: C+

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II"

As I sat down for my midnight showing of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II”, I was struck by the realization that never again would I bear witness to a new entry into the “Potter” canon. 1050 minutes of film, 4100 pages of reading, a dozen or so beloved character deaths, approximately 100 trillion worldwide blog posts, and at least 30, “I’m not crying, I just have allergies that happen to only pop up when I watch these films or read these books” moments from this guy led to the final chapter of an incredible saga that amazingly felt much shorter than I would have liked. I could easily have taken on another three or four films and a dozen more books if JK Rowling had desired to extend the series. Harry Potter has been a part of my life for 10 years now with six of those years counting toward a type of total, all-encompassing devotion that is usually reserved for religious zealots and Trekkies. To know when the lights go down that, as the promotional posters read, “It All Ends” in just two short hours is an odd sensation; a mix of excitement for the story to be brought to life and of sadness that I won’t be sitting in this same seat a year from now, ready for the next chapter. After it’s all said and done, I’m left with the task of summing up a worldwide phenomenon in a thousand words or less and knowing that I could never do it justice. With that in mind, I ask for the forgiveness of non-Potter fans for the foolish blathering that is about to take place and from fellow Potterites for what will surely be an unfitting send off for the series that we have loved so much. Accio review.

“Deathly Hallows 2” literally opens right where “Part 1” left off with Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) staying at the home of Bill and Fleur Weasley. Their time is spent plotting their next step on the road to finding and destroying all of Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) Horcruxes, thereby making him mortal once more. (For the uninitiated, a Horcrux is an item that contains a piece of ones’ soul which would allow a person to return to life after death.) What starts as a simple break-in to the heavily secured Gringotts Bank turns into a haphazard and death-defying escape on the back of dragon, followed by the discovery that Voldemort knows of their plot. After racing to Hogwarts, the school they once called home and the location of a Horcrux, Harry and his friends find themselves confronted by the great villain himself, resulting in an all-out war that ultimately risks the balance of good and evil in the wizarding world.

For my money there is but one knock against “DH2”: because it is a “part two”, the opening sequences are tough to get a grasp of. There is absolutely no lead up in this film; there’s not even a set of opening credits. The Warner Brothers logo comes on screen and five seconds later we see the gravestone of Dobby the house elf and then jump directly into Harry planning the break-in at Gringotts. You don’t get the set-up that is so expertly crafted both in Rowling’s novels and in the other film adaptations. It takes a few minutes to feel comfortable in “DH2”, even for a hardened fan of the series who knows exactly what has happened and what is yet to come. This discomfort isn’t a matter of bad execution or poor storytelling; it’s just the inherent nature of essentially taking a long film and cutting it in two.

This is, however, an extremely minor and inconsequential issue that will be forgotten in the years ahead. In my mind, I know I will combine “Deathly Hallows” into one movie, just like the book, and will likely always watch part two immediately after part one, just like I do with the extended cuts of the “Lord of the Rings” films. Nearly everything else about this film is perfect. This is what I hoped for when I read “Deathly Hallows”, an action packed, emotionally charged epic that brings to life the very best of the heroes and the very worst of the villains. With Harry gone, Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis) assumes the position of leader, Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith) steps up to display her true powers, and Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch) proves to be far wiser than anyone would have imagined. Likewise, the desperation and frustration of Voldemort makes him even more terrifying than before, the years of self-conflict have worn the face of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), and the deep deceptions of Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) run just under the surface of his skin, dying to burst forth. The two sides push and prod each other to their highest levels of magical skill. Never in the “Potter” universe has that been more apparent than in the full-scale battle that overtakes the grounds of Hogwarts. To be sure, this is a mesmerizing and fantastic action sequence that combines FX and stunts with flair.

By this point, all of these young actors, Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, and their supporters, have become real actors capable of carrying their individual moments and completely selling the drama and tension of the situations they continually find themselves in. The veteran actors around them, who make up what I have championed in the past as the greatest cast ever assembled, all display the true brilliance of the characters they were provided, working seamlessly to become their parts rather than mere actors playing a role. Just as has been the case throughout the eight films in this series, you don’t watch Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, Ralph Fiennes, or the rest up on that screen, but rather Severus Snape, Sirius Black, Minerva McGonagall, and their cohorts. Never, however, has this been more apparent, more genuine, than in “DH2.”

These magnificent characters and esteemed actors are supplemented and highlighted by the geniuses behind the camera. David Yates and Steve Kloves prove once and for all that producer David Heyman was correct in giving the director-writer team the final three chapters of this epic. Kloves wrote a killer screenplay, one that implements every major facet of a huge book in beautiful fashion while adding a comedic undertone through witty banter and solid physical comedy. The combination creates a certain playfulness that has been building throughout the last few “Potter” films but matures spectacularly here. Yates, meanwhile, routinely puts his actors in the right place to succeed. He never asks too much, nor does he cut too early. There is real power in this story, in these relationships, and I think of all the “Potter” directors, Yates did the best when it comes to fleshing those factors out. There are a few differences between the book and the film but they are mostly cosmetic, save for the one involving Snape which, without giving anything away, actually adds to the already spectacular character that he is. This is Snape’s shining moment, the final opportunity for redemption, and Rickman sells the scene with heartbreaking intensity. Of all the great actors in this series, it is perhaps Rickman who most deserves award consideration.

As a general rule, we need our pop culture icons to end well. We want “Return of King”, the third season of “Arrested Development”, and Michael Jordan’s final championship winning shot with the Bulls. Our favorite things should always end on a high. Too often, though, we are treated to “Matrix Revolutions”, the ninth season of “Scrubs”, and Michael Jordan returning with the Washington Wizards. Words cannot express my joy at being able to say that “Deathly Hallows Part II” belongs in the first category, a fitting, compelling, and emotionally ripe end to an era. But to recommend this film isn’t enough. If you haven’t before, I implore you to read these books and see these movies. Take the opportunity now that it’s all over because there are millions of us who would give anything to start fresh and do the whole thing over again.

Grade: A+

My nerdiness obviously knows no bounds,
Brian

Harry Potter Retrospective Part VII - "The Deathly Hallows Part I"

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Deathly Hallows Part I"

I can't even begin to describe to you, dear readers, how happy I was with Warner Brothers' decision to cut the final "Potter" book into two parts. Some who didn't read the books complained that it was just a gimmick designed to bring the studio an extra $800 million (I'm sure that factor didn't hurt). But fans of Rowling's tremendous series were thrilled because, not only did it mean an extension of the Potter experience, it meant more of the book could make it to the film. Personally, I would have been happy to have "Order of the Phoenix" and "Half-Blood Prince" cut into two films each as well if it meant properly conveying more of the book's story. I stood in line for approximately four hours outside a local theater, braving the cold and annoying teenagers in order to be one of the first to see the "DH Part 1" and I was oh so glad I did.

My experience with the "Deathly Hallows" book was a new one. It was the first book that I read "live", so to speak. Volumes 1-6 were already available (in paperback form, no less) when I started reading them after the "Goblet of Fire" film opened. "Hallows" was my first opportunity to revel in the nerdery of a midnight book release and reading along with everyone else in the world. It is also the only book that I didn't plow through in a matter of days. This isn't because of lesser content but because I wanted to extend my "Potter" experience, to savor every page. I didn't let myself read more than a chapter or two at a time and I was almost sad when I realized I had only a couple hundred pages left before there would be no more new "Potter" stories. I genuinely wished I had gotten on board with the series from the very beginning. Curse my refusal to fall in line with the crowd!

I do think that "Hallows" has some flaws, whereas "Prince", "Phoenix", and "Azkaban" are almost perfect. The length of time that Harry, Ron, and Hermione spend alone in a tent, Apparating from place to place is overwhelming. It's not that I find it boring, I just think it's a bit redundant and it leads to a rushed feeling when the trio goes from doing very little for 400 pages and then suddenly break into a bank, free a dragon, and head to Hogwarts within 50 pages. Likewise, the scene in which Harry ostensibly dies and ends up speaking with Dumbledore in a sort-of Purgatory is a little unsatisfying for me. I'm honestly not sure what I expected from that moment but I didn't love it upon first reading. But these flaws are minimal in the grand scheme of things and I truly love the way in which Rowling wrapped up her series.

With all that in mind, in my opinion there's no question that, at least from an adaptation standpoint, "DH1" is the best of the films thus far. Having the same director-writer team for the first time since films one and two absolutely makes for a cohesive storytelling experience. Yates and Kloves are, quite simply, in a serious groove throughout "DH1." It feels comfortable and I think that lends itself to brilliant moviemaking. Chopping the book in half did exactly what all fans of the series had hoped in that it allowed for SO MUCH MORE of Rowling's content to make it to the screen. "DH1" is almost an abridged version of the book rather than an adaptation of it.

Better than in any of the previous installments, this film fully and wonderfully brings the scenes from the book and reimagines them onto the screen. One of the best scenes in the entire series is the shadow theater that is used to illustrate the story of the Deathly Hallows as Hermione reads it. Inspired. Elements as large as the opening chase sequence between the Order of the Phoenix and the Death Eaters and Harry and Ron's fight against the Horcrux down to the details of the Lovegood residence and the Weasley wedding are all exquisitely put together, near perfect illustrations of the words from Rowling's page. Likewise, the tones of "Hallows" (a theme I've harped on endlessly in this series) are so gloriously brought forth to the film. Ron's jealousy and general grumpiness, the haughty attitude of Minister of Magic Scrimgeour (Bill Nighy), and the pain that Harry feels while visiting the graves of his parents are all brought forth with precision. In addition, the loneliness and hopelessness our heroes feel while on the run, such a huge part of the book (to the point of redundancy as noted before), becomes a hallmark of the film; you genuinely feel lost, just like the characters on screen.

One of the best aspects of the film, though, is in its ability to elicit emotion and connection from the viewer just like the book did. The world in which Harry now lives is full of darkness, death, and evil but it is also overflowing with love and sacrifice. Hermione erasing from her parents' minds the memories of their own child, Xenophilius Lovegood's (Rhys Ifans) conflict over having to turn Harry over in order to save his daughter, the sacrifices of Hedwig and Moody, and even the look of fear and regret on Draco's face when Harry is brought to the Malfoy estate all force the audience to relate to what's happening on screen. And the final scenes, in which Dobby reappears at the time of greatest need and sacrifices himself in the process are heartbreaking and BEAUTIFULLY put together. In my "Chamber" review I called Dobby the Jar Jar Binks of these films. I never felt that way while reading the books but his on screen persona was so annoying that the existence of house elves is almost completely cut out of the films between "Chamber" and "DH1." To bring that character back five films later and put him into a moment that has the power to absolutely BREAK the viewer is a masterstroke of great writing and directing.

In short, I love this "DH1", both as a film and as an adaptation, above all the rest. I fervently hope that part two of "Deathly Hallows" is the best of the series; it should be, given the source material, and I think the rapid fan base deserves an outstanding ending. But even if it isn't, the decision to break the book up into two parts is fully and completely justified by the incredible entry that is "DH1."

Rank in the "Potter" canon: 1st of 7

Harry Potter Retrospective Part VI - "The Half-Blood Prince"

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

SPOILERS AHEAD

When Prince was moved from a late 2008 release date to one in the middle of the 2009 summer, I was furious. Furious, I tell you! One of my fellow Potterites sent out an email on the original release date lamenting the fact that instead of dragging into work that morning after seeing a midnight viewing, she was well rested and better prepared to teach her students. I wholeheartedly agreed. On the flip side, however, the push back allowed Prince to be the bookend for my glorious experiment known as The Summer of the Nerd. And what a great bookend it was.

After “Order of the Phoenix", "Half-Blood Prince" is my favorite of Rowling's books. I love the flashbacks, the filling in of Voldemort's past, and the piecing together of the whole Horcrux thing. More importantly, "Prince" fully fleshes out the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore and I truly appreciate that payoff. I think Rowling danced around the dynamic between these two for five books, giving us only a few moments of them actually interacting and leaving us wanting more. With the loss of Sirius, however, Harry is searching out a new father figure and so this book lends itself to the exploration of that pairing. "Prince" jumps directly into that storyline and it is magnificent. It also makes Dumbledore's murder all the more heart-breaking. It's not just about the loss of a great hero which in and of itself would be tough; it's also another thing entirely when you factor in yet another loss for poor Harry who has now experienced the death of his parents, his godfather/surrogate father, and now his mentor and counselor. It is a necessary death; Harry has to be on his own without a safety net in order to take on Voldemort. But you feel the loss and the betrayal in the pages of Rowling's book and that comes through quite well in the film.

In many ways, Prince is the best film of the series and it laid the groundwork for the final double volume. David Yates became the first director since Chris Columbus to direct a second Potter film and I think that consistency served it well. Cast and crew were also reunited with Steve Kloves after a one-film hiatus that didn't go so well in the eyes of many viewers. Yates and Kloves seemed to work well together and the strength of that partnership only grew in Deathly Hallows. The overtones again grew darker along with the plot line, giving the proper depth to the subject matter. I find the green wash of the film to be a brilliant touch, allowing Yates to subtly highlight important elements and bringing genuine creepiness to many of the settings. All of the young actors had fully matured by this point and the strength that Radcliffe showed in Phoenix, practically carrying the movie in places, carries over to Prince. Even Tom Felton, often the weakest link in the main cast, does an excellent job of displaying the extreme duress that Malfoy was under throughout this entire story.

Through strong writing and even stronger acting, Prince is able to embrace the atmosphere and emotions of the book. This is, in my opinion, an upgrade in this department from the other films. Harry's isolation-turned-hopeful connection with Dumbledore is wonderfully illustrated; the infuriating relationship between Ron and Lavender, and by proxy the relationship between Ron and Hermione is delightful; and Dumbledore's death at the hands of Snape is exactly the gut-punch that it was in the book. Gambon has been ridiculed at times for his portrayal of Dumbledore but between the excruciating scene wherein he is forced to drink a poison to his simple, "Please" before his execution makes his final 20 minutes of screen time his best in the series. I absolutely love the way Prince brought the book to life. 

My only complaint with the film is, unfortunately, a big one. As I've stated before, I completely understand that when you're adapting a 700-page book, some things must be cut, and some things must be altered. I get that. What I don't get is cutting and altering scenes that completely change the tone of the film. the exclusion of the battle within the castle between Dumbledore's Army and the Death Eaters is frustrating. Rowling used this scene to illustrate the strength of her other characters, to display that even without Dumbledore and Sirius, Harry was not alone. Leaving this battle out seems especially odd when you consider that an entirely new scene, in which Bellatrix Lestrange and Fenrir Greyback attack the Wealey home, is fabricated out of thin air, ostensibly to add a little action to the movie. It's never made any sense to me that Kloves drew up a new scene and then cut out such a dramatic, important sequence from the book.

Much more importantly, it INFURIATES me that when Harry and Dumbledore arrive back at Hogwarts, Harry remains hidden from view and doesn't intervene to save his mentor when he has the capability to do so. In the book, Dumbledore petrifies him and prevents him from coming to his aid. That is a MUCH more satisfactory conclusion than having Harry cower in a corner, an action that five films worth of content would suggest he'd never do. This is a MASSIVE mischaracterization that cheapens not only Harry but also Dumbledore, who, in the book, knows Harry couldn’t just sit tight and watch him die and has to resort to petrification in order to save Harry’s life. Again, I’m really not the type to harp on the differences between a book and its movie adaptation, but this is a huge sticking point to me, and I’ve never understood the alteration.

For me, this issue is the only thing that holds Prince back from being the best in the series. The acting is outstanding and once again, the cast improved with the addition of Jim Broadbent. The chemistry between Ron and Hermione develops naturally (and much better than that of Harry and Ginny, by the way). And there are numerous moments of legitimate humor, further proving that these kids have a grasp on comedy and Kloves' ability to write toward that. It is a visually compelling film and it is extremely rewatchable on its own whether you watch the other films before it or not. But man, it's tough to get past the deviations from the book!

Rank in the Potter canon: 4th of 7

Harry Potter Retrospective Part V - "The Order of the Phoenix"

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

SPOILERS AHEAD

"The Order of the Phoenix"

"Phoenix" is the first "Potter" film that I watched after having read the books. When I got out of "Goblet of Fire" the year before, I drove directly to the nearest Barnes and Noble and picked up the first book. Within a few short weeks I had rolled through all six. In the spring of 2007, I reread through "Half Blood Prince" in preparation for the release of "Deathly Hallows" and that coincided with the open of "Phoenix." It was a radically different experience seeing the vision of the book put to the screen and as such, I have an odd love/hate relationship with this film.

As such, I should apologize up front for the roller coaster-like tone I'm sure this Retrospective post is bound to take. "Order of the Phoenix" is my favorite book in this series. It speaks to me, and to many other male readers, in ways that perhaps the other books do not. The tones and the subject matter are those that men and boys can relate to. The first half is all about growing up, feeling isolated, and balancing the need for acceptance with the "lone wolf" spirit of wanderlust. The second half is all about the very traditionally manly act of doing something; of seeing a wrong, becoming fed up with it, and deciding to act. And no "Phoenix" discussion is complete without touching on the death of Sirius Black, to this day one of the most heartbreaking events of my life (that sounds a lot sadder than it should). Other characters had died in the Potter universe but none as important or emotionally relevant as Black. The pages leading up to and following his death are gut-wrenching. I read this book a few months ago, at least my third time through, and I dripped tears over about 50 pages. I'm not even ashamed to admit that. There is REAL pain within this plot point and I truly loved that character. More importantly, Rowling respects that character (and many others) enough to give him the time he deserves, even in killing him off. I love this book. And for the first (and thus far, only) time during my experience with these films, I have always had real trouble enjoying the film as a film and not holding against it the many times it deviates from the page.

From a purely film standpoint, there is nothing wrong with "Phoenix." In fact, I think it's quite good and perhaps equal to "Azkaban" which was the standard for the series at the time of this opening. New director David Yates fell in line with the tone and atmosphere that Cuaron and Newell had created before him and continued down that path. I love the way that "Phoenix" is shot; the coloring is beautiful, both muted and bright at the same time. (I wish I had the film school knowledge to better express what I mean here but alas, my degree is in kinesiology.) The camera is also used quite well to show the separation that Harry feels from his friends and the connection he has with Sirius: darkness here, light there; wide shot here, close up there. Likewise, the personification of Voldemort again evolves as he becomes genuinely creepy and menacing. The shots of him inside the train station dressed all in black are terrifying and brilliant. And as I've touched on numerous times now, Heyman again got the best talent money could to fill the new role, this time Helena Bonham Carter who is a perfect Bellatrix Lestrange. It all makes for a very good film...

Except that it totally misfires on almost every level from an adaptation standpoint. "Phoenix" is the longest book and yet it is the shortest film. There's very little filler in the book in my perspective so you have to ask, what gives with the shortened runtime? The first answer is that this is the only film in the series that wasn't written by Steve Kloves. The decision to move on without him stands as the worst one that Heyman and company made during the course of this ten year journey. Maybe the only decision that was worse was the choice to replace him with Michael Goldenberg, who is also responsible for the craptastic script that hamstrung "Green Lantern" right out of the gate. As I said before, this is a good film so I can't really say that Goldenberg can't write but he clearly can't adapt. The groove that Kloves had developed to this point, the knowledge that he'd gained in regards to what to keep and what to cut, is obviously and painfully lacking in "Phoenix." Major plot points are missed, tones are overlooked, the bonds of several relationships are missed completely, and the entire film feels choppy and rushed. I'm getting a little mad just thinking about it.

All that said, three factors still allow me to watch and enjoy "Phoenix" without getting too caught up in the feeling of, "how dare you butcher this story!!!" First, for the first time, Radcliffe is really asked to carry a lot of the movie and he does so very well. That may or may not happen with a better script to work with. Second, the final battle sequence which pitches the students against a group of Death Eaters in the Department of Mysteries is a quality fight scene; maybe the best in the series. Third, Imelda Staunton is masterful in the role of Dolores Umbridge and Umbridge is a tremendously difficult character to play correctly. Of all the wicked, evil characters that live in Rowling's world, Umbridge is without question the most hate able. You root against her throughout the course of "Phoenix", both on screen and in the book, with more vigor than you ever root against Voldemort. You want Voldemort to be defeated but you want Umbridge to be killed in Tarantino-esque fashion and that makes her a compelling and vital character. What makes her so difficult to play is the fact that Umbridge is vile and fully evil but she thinks she's good. That's such a tough balance to find and Staunton more than stands up to the task. 2007 was a down year for award caliber films but I personally felt like her performance was worthy of an Oscar nomination. All of this makes "Phoenix" very hard to judge properly and calls into question the "don't judge a movie based on the book" philosophy I live by. I love it for what it is and hate it for what it's not so while that drops it in the "Potter" rank, it's still a solid film overall.

Rank in the "Potter" canon: 5th of 7

Harry Potter Retrospective Part IV - "The Goblet of Fire"

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

Goblet of Fire brought my Potter experience back to the beginning: it opened just before Thanksgiving, 2005 and I was back home to see it with my family over the break. I was right on the cusp of becoming a full-on Potterite and needed just the final push to send me head-first over the edge. It did that and then some.

By the time Goblet of Fire rolled around, I think David Heyman and screenwriter Steve Kloves had found their groove, no matter who was in the director's chair. They knew what literary content needed to be preserved and what had to be chopped, even if it meant reworking characters and settings to get the point across in less than three hours. Things like the combination of Ludo Bagman and Barty Crouch into one on-screen character may not have been popular but it was a necessary choice. Likewise, the continued exclusion of all things related to house elves required some creative plot changes, but I personally didn't feel the film lost much in its translation. Mike Newell, the third director in three films, did an excellent job of picking up where Cuaron left off in Azkaban, keeping the dark themes and setting the stage for what was to come. Kloves also added in a fair amount of humor and a number of one-liners and I think this is a great addition to the Potter universe. Rowling is an exceptional writer with a tremendous understanding of her characters, but her books are almost devoid of jokes. Goblet of Fire (the film version) delivers some genuinely funny moments and I think it is better for that.

Goblet of Fire struggles in two areas. First of all, the book is slightly (and I do mean slightly) tedious. I love the themes of this book so much but at times the narrative feels stretched, something I am still amazed Rowling was able to avoid for the most part through the course of this series. “Goblet of Fire” is 300 pages longer than "Azkaban" and it is the only book in the series that I feel has unneeded filler. I think this put Heyman, Kloves, and Newell in a difficult position in that they have to stay as true to the book as possible but there's not quite as much to work with despite the added length. Second, Emma Watson regressed between Azkaban and Goblet of Fire. I wrote in my last entry that Watson made huge strides in the third film and was no longer the weak link. Well, she re-assumed that role in the fourth film. She re-finds her stride in Order of the Phoenix, I think, but for whatever reason, this film highlights her inconsistencies as an actress and some of those moments stick out a bit too much.

Despite those issues, Goblet of Fire excels in several places. The special effects are tremendous. The Hungarian Horntail that Harry is forced to battle against in the tournament is one of the very best movie dragons I've ever seen. Goblet of Fire displayed just how much the franchise benefited from the time Cuaron spent on set in the previous film. In addition, Heyman somehow, once again, added to his already incredible cast by bringing on Brendan Gleeson and the ever-impressive Ralph Fiennes. Seriously, best cast ever. Gleeson perfectly personifies the Mad Eye Moody copycat and that's a vital part of the story's tone. And Fiennes provides an incredible payoff for the three and a half film/book build up to the reveal of the fully reborn Voldemort. In any sci-fi, fantasy, comic book, or otherwise epic film or series, the villain is unquestionably the MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTER. It is SHOCKING how many directors, writers, and producers forget this. A hero will only go as far as his nemesis will push him and if you really want to excel, you have to create a villain that will carry the hero to the very brink of his ability and then some. Rowling understood that and made Voldemort that type of villain and Fiennes took up that mantle and carried through brilliantly

The final act of Goblet of Fire is both the best and the most excruciating of the series to this point. Everything, and I mean everything, in word and on screen, builds to this moment when Voldemort is restored, and the wizarding world is thrown back into flux. When Harry and Cedric are transported to the graveyard where Voldemort waits, I knew from the second their feet touched the ground that something horrible was about to happen. (Remember, I hadn't read the books at this point.) That entire scene, the killing of Cedric, the ritual rebirth of Voldemort, the battle between good and evil, and finally, Harry's return to Hogwarts with Cedric's body is exquisite and it perfectly, PERFECTLY, matches the tone of the book. When Harry and Cedric hit the ground and the crowd realizes what has happened, it's a true gut punch and takes the series into new territory. This death and the casualness with which it is carried out marks the end of innocence and the loss of youth in this world. To top it all off, the wails of despair that Amos Diggory (Jeff Rawle) lets out as he sees his fallen son...truly sobering. It's a scene that I both look forward to and dread every time I watch Goblet of Fire because it is remarkable acting but it also breaks my heart and brings a tear to my eye every single time. When I walked out of Goblet of Fire, I was dying to know what would happen next. I picked up the first book the next day and within a week, a genuine love for the Potter world had begun.

Rank in the "Potter" canon: 4th of 7

Harry Potter Retrospective Part III - "The Prisoner of Azkaban"

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Prisoner of Azkaban"

"Azkaban" marks the first time that I actually sought out a "Potter" film on my own without the influence of a family gathering. I spent that summer in Searcy, Arkansas which is amazingly even more of a boring place than it sounds. There were two theaters in Searcy. The first was a classic, one-screen, "Majestic"-like theater that sat right off of Main and unfortunately smelled as if it hadn't been cleaned since 1950. The other was an almost equally run down eight screen theater with rickety seats, bad projectors, and an owner that everyone called Slick who was a known drug dealer. But, Slick was smart enough to realize that there's NOTHING TO DO on a weeknight in Searcy, Arkansas so he started "Two Dollar Tuesdays" which is exactly what it sounds like: two bucks got you into any movie in his theater. And so it came to pass that my "Potter" fascination was born in this pot-funded cesspool of a theater.

"Azkaban" is a departure from the rest of the "Potter" films and books because its villain isn't He Who Must Not Be Named. "Stone" and "Chamber" feature watered-down versions of Voldemort and books four through seven display the great villain at full power but "Azkaban" barely touches on his presence. In some ways, this seems an odd choice for Rowling but I've always felt that it was a stroke of genius for several reasons. First, it provides a break in the narrative that keeps it from becoming repetitive. This was especially significant in the films. Second, "Azkaban" allows for the other characters and plot lines to really develop. We are introduced to a number of new and exciting characters and we get a much deeper look at Harry's family. This is important because throughout the entire series to this point, both on screen and in print, the audience learns as Harry learns and discovering what his family was before their deaths further deepens the connection between reader/viewer and character. Third and most importantly, "Azkaban" provides a near perfect base for transitioning the audience over to the new, darker world that Harry and his friends find themselves in. In my opinion, if Rowling, coming off the child-like nature of "Stone" and "Chamber", had delved directly into the grave subject matter of "Goblet of Fire" without taking a break from Voldemort in "Azkaban", she would have experienced some critical backlash. "Azkaban" allowed this series to preview the deep stuff that lay in the road ahead without jumping in head first.

I don't think any of the other films inspire such a great divide in terms of fan reception. You can find people who will argue this is the best of the series and you can find others who are infuriated by the mere mention of the film's name. The detractors almost exclusively point to the fact that the screenplay excludes numerous details from the book, particularly concerning the relationship between James Potter, Sirius Black, and Remus Lupin which is definitely true. Personally, however, I think the narrative of the film is almost perfect. You can't put 500+ pages into a movie; cuts have to be made. What David Heyman and new director Alfonso Cuaron did was create a film that works both as a companion piece to the books and a one-off for those who weren't reading the series. If you had read all of Rowling's works, you could fill in the blanks the film left for you to find with your knowledge gained from the page. On the flip side, if like me, you hadn't gotten sucked into the literature as of yet, you could enjoy the film without ever knowing that you're missing out on any information. That balance set a spectacular tone for future film installments because, as the books get longer and longer, more and more has to be left out of the screenplay and you have to choose a story that makes sense to both parts of the audience. I think "Azkaban" did that wonderfully.

From a purely film standpoint, "Azkaban" is a work of art. Other than Guillermo Del Toro, I don't think Heyman could have selected a better director to display the dark and dangerous world that this third film opened up. It is shot spectacularly, often with dark settings and even darker color contrasts, an edge that illustrates the maturing themes perfectly. When Harry and his friends arrive at Hogwarts, a group of students is singing "Something Wicked This Way Comes", a delightfully twisted little background note that caught my attention right off. Everything Cuaron did in this film was designed to make it clear that this was no longer a series for children. And just like the maturity of the film, the cast grew significantly in "Azkaban" compared to where they were in "Chamber." Radcliffe became an actor in this film whereas he had just been a character before. Grint turned into a bona fide comedian which screenwriter Steve Kloves recognized and utilized, feeding all funny lines to Ron. Watson, meanwhile, improved tremendously on her skill set and was no longer the weak link.

Possibly even more impressively, Heyman again went out and got the best British actors that money could buy to fill up the empty spaces in the adult cast. With Richard Harris having passed away, Michael Gambon was brought in to fill the role of Dumbledore and while that transition was a bit rocky, I've always felt that while Harris was the superior actor, Gambon brought much more life to the character, which was needed. David Thewlis, who to this point almost always played wholly unlikeable characters, completely embodied the spirit of Remus Lupin and made him even more lovable than he'd been in the book. I openly rooted for that character in "Azkaban." And then there's Gary Oldman, the best actor of his generation, and a great chameleon who so wrapped himself into the character of Sirius Black that you almost can't tell where Oldman ends and Black begins. Black is my favorite character from both the books and the films and I'll be quite honest when I say that without Oldman's portrayal, I'm not sure where the character would rank. In a cast filled with incredible actors, Oldman shined brightest and took this series to a higher level. Absolutely brilliant.

You can disagree with me as to where this film ranks with the other "Potter" films but there is no denying that "Azkaban" is the most important one in the series. Regardless of its departures from the book, "Azkaban" is the film that opened this series up to a whole new audience. It became acceptable among teenagers, college kids, and full grown adults alike to admit their interest in the franchise and made people, including me, recognize the maturity of the subject matter. I still didn't read the books but "Azkaban" made me truly appreciate the fantastic nature of these stories and left me legitimately wanting more for the first time.

Rank in the "Potter" canon: 3rd of 7

Harry Potter Retrospective Part II - "The Chamber of Secrets"

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Chamber of Secrets"

I went into "Chamber of Secrets" very similarly to the way I went into "Sorcerer's Stone." Again back from college for Thanksgiving break, my family bounded off for the theater and I tagged along, this time a bit more happily, however. In the year between these Thanksgiving viewings, I hadn't though much about the world of Potter. It had been nice for two and a half hours but "Sorcerer's Stone" hadn't sent me running to the bookstore to catch up on the series. But I was much more interested this time than I had been the first time around and maybe that's the point of the first two films after all, at least in terms of those who hadn't read the books: just keep them interested until this thing really takes off.

In my mind, "Chamber", both as a movie and a book, suffers from Sequelitis. It's always tough to follow up on a smash hit like "Stone" was, to build upon what worked without becoming redundant. Rowling spent too much time in this book rehashing what had already been said in "Stone", though I can't really blame her because you don't know your audience in book two of a long series. The majority of your readers will have read your previous installment but a larger number of people than you might think will pick up your second book without realizing it's a sequel and you want to hook those new readers as well and convince them to go catch up on book one. By the time the third book rolls around, especially if the series is a hit like these are, almost all of your readers will start with book one and move through the order. All that to say, I think the second book in a series is the toughest to write, save for the final volume.

By that reasoning, "Chamber" is by its very nature weaker in source material than "Stone" or any of the films that would follow. The film also loses a bit of the atmosphere from the book. It's not that the sets, costumes, landscapes, etc. are any worse; they're all incredible, just like I'd expect after watching "Stone." But "Chamber" as a book is about the opening up of the wizarding world and setting the stage for many of the things that take place in future volumes. The diary (which we later discover to be a horcrux) is a much more powerful piece of magic than anything introduced in "Stone." The ability to leave a piece of one's existence (again, we later discover this to be a piece of the soul) behind after death is a significant, heavy concept and one that far outweighs the wonderful charm of a cloak of invisibility, transfiguration, or even the sorcerer's stone itself. The depth and gravity that Rowling touches on in the book is somewhat lost in the film which at times borders on becoming boring.

I also think that, from a film standpoint, this is the only film that lacks a compelling villain. That may seem weird considering that the villain is essentially the same person in seven of the eight films ("Azkaban" has almost nothing to do with Voldemort) but this version of He Who Must Not Be Named is tame and dull compared to the rest of his incarnations. Tom Riddle just doesn't inspire fear as much as he seems like a snobby private school kid who needs a good thrashing. I don't think his powers translate over to Columbus' screen vision. I will say, however, that I think the reason for this is that "Chamber" is still a kid's movie and for Riddle to be as menacing as he needs to be, you'd have to stretch the boundaries of what you can put in a film aimed at eight year olds. There's also the matter of Dobby who was in Jar Jar Binks territory in this film and whose reception resulted in the complete banishment for all house elves in "Potter" movies until the seventh volume.

There are a number of improvements in "Chamber", however. The key child actors all upped their performances from the previous film and as a first time viewer, that was vital to me. I have always been willing to forgive kids for struggling in these roles; after all, they're kids. But I would say that the third, fourth, fifth, and so on installments in this franchise would have been a tough sell to me if Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, and the rest didn't show some growth in "Chamber." I was happy to note that the painful moments that pop up more than I'd like to admit in "Stone" get cut down upon significantly this time around. Likewise, Kenneth Branagh brought even more British professionalism to the screen; his casting as Gilderoy Lockhart was inevitably brilliant. In addition, the creatures and the special effects in "Chamber" are much better than what we were treated to in the previous film. The basilisk is a thousand times more menacing than Tom Riddle could ever dream of; Fawkes the phoenix is an excellent mix of animatronics and CGI; and the giant spiders...I watched "Chamber" a couple of days ago and as someone who suffers from a bit of arachnophobia, that scene still gives me the shivers. So creepy and so well done. "Chamber" also contains what was for me the first scene that really drew an emotional investment from me: Hagrid's return from Azkaban to the Great Hall is a touching moment and it has been known to water my eyes when I'm not being careful.

All in all, "Chamber" is the weakest of the franchise in my book. That said, when I saw it for the first time, it did nothing but stoke the flame of interest in the series within me. I still wasn't ready to commit to the books but I was legitimately disappointed when I found out that the third film wouldn't open until summer of 2004 rather than the fall of 2003. In that, the film did its job for me and countless others who needed a reason beyond the books to get excited for the upcoming films.

Rank in the "Potter" Canon: 7th of 7