“HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I” (2010) Review

”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I” (2010) Review

I have been a major fan of J.K. Rowling’s ”HARRY POTTER” novels as much as the next person. But I would have never become a fan if it had not been for the movie adaptations of the novels. Mind you, I have not harbored a high opinion of all the movie adaptations. It has been a mixed bag for me over the past nine years. Of the seven movies that were made, I have a high opinion of at least four of them. And the most recent movie – ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I” – happened to be one of them.

I never thought I would think highly of ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I”. When I had heard that Warner Brothers planned to split Rowling’s seventh novel into two movies, I did not think it was a good idea. And I felt it was an attempt by the studio to get as much profit from Rowling’s saga as much as possible. Being a steady fan of the franchise, I went ahead and saw . . . and thanked my lucky stars that the movie had not been shot in the 3-D process. Not only did I develop a high opinion of ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I”, I fell in love with it. Considering the number of complaints I have heard about the movie, I suspect that many would be surprised by my opinion. But I did. I fell in love with that movie. And considering the detailed nature of Rowling’s novel, the decision to make two movies from it may have done justice to Steve Kloves’ screenplay.

Directed by David Yates, ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I” told the story of Harry Potter and his two close friends – Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger – and their efforts to elude Lord Voldemort and his Deatheasters throughout Britain, after the latter assumed control of the wizarding world following Albus Dumbledore’s death in ”HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. Not only did Harry, Ron and Hermione do their best to elude Voldemort and the Deatheaters; they had to find and destroy the remaining horcruxes – objects or receptacles in which Voldemort had hidden parts of his soul for the purposes of attaining immortality. Harry had destroyed Voldemort’s school diary in ”CHAMBER OF SECRETS”. And before the start of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, Professor Dumbledore had destroyed another – Marvolo Gaunt’s ring. There remained five horcruxes for the trio to find and destroy. But as fugitives within Britain’s wizarding world, their task proved to be difficult.

As I had stated earlier, I ended up falling in love with ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”. But this feeling did not blind me to its flaws. And it had a few. One, what happened to Dean Thomas? For the first time in the saga’s history, he had a bigger role. At least in the novel. He failed to make an appearance in this adaptation. Mind you, his lack of presence did not harm the story. But it would have been nice for Harry, Ron and Hermione to encounter at least one fellow Hogswarts student (other than Luna) during their adventures. And poor Dean Thomas had been sadly underused since the first movie. Two, I wish that director David Yates and editor Mark Day had chopped some of the scenes featuring the Trio’s ”Winter of Discontent”. I could understand that the three friends would endure a great deal of despair over their situation and the state of the wizarding world. However . . . was it really that necessary to endure so many shots of Harry, Ron and Hermione staring into space, looking depressed? These scenes nearly bogged down the movie’s middle section. The Dursleys barely made a presence in this movie. Worse, Kloves had decided to delete Harry and Dudley’s goodwill good-bye. Who became the new owner of Sirius Black’s home, Number 12 Grimmauld Place, following his death? Since ”THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” movie failed to clear the issue, I had hoped this movie would. It never did. I had also hoped that ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” would clear reveal the identities of the two other horcruxes that were revealed in the sixth novel – Helga Hufflepuff’s Cup and Rowena Ravenclaw’s Diadem. The only thing that Kloves’ script did was mention that the Trio did not know about the cup, the diadem and two other horcruxes.

Despite these annoyances, I still love ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”. The only HARRY POTTER movie that I love more is 2004’s ”HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN”. There had been complaints of the movie’s dark tone. Personally, this did not bother me one bit. In fact, I reveled in the story’s darkness. Other HARRY POTTER have ended on a dark note. But the story’s dark tone was not only well handled in Rowling’s novel, but also in Kloves’ script. Why? Because it suited the story. Aside from the ”Winter of Discontent” sequence, the rest of the pacing for ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” was well handled by Yates and Kloves. The movie also featured some outstanding sequences. Among my favorite were the following:

*Lord Voldemort’s murder of Charity Burbage at the Malfoy Manor.

*The Order of the Phoenix escort Harry to the Weasleys’ home, the Burrows.

*Harry, Ron and Hermione’s escape from Bill and Fleur’s wedding at the Burrows to London.

*The attack upon the Trio by two Death Eaters at a London café.

*The Trio steal Salazar Slytherin’s locket from Dolores Umbridge at the Ministry of Magic.

*Ron’s departure from Harry and Hermione, following a vicious quarrel between him and Harry.

*Harry and Hermione’s narrow escape from Godric’s Hollow.

*Ron’s reunion with Harry and Hermione and his destruction of Salazar Slytherin’s locket (a horcrux).

*Xenophilius Lovegood’s (and Hermione’s) narration of Peverell brothers and the Deathly Hallows.

*Dobby’s rescue of the Trio, Luna Lovegood and Mr. Ollivander from the Malfoy Manor.

Of the above scenes, at least three of them stood out for me. One of those scenes was the quarrel that broke out between Harry and Ron during the ”Winter of Discontent”. I found it ugly, brutal and emotional, thanks to the performances of the three leads. They really made this scene worked and for the first time; it occurred to me that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson had really grown in their skills as actors. Hell, in this scene, they gave the best performances in the movie. Another scene that really stood out was Xenophilius Lovegood’s narration of the bleak tale regarding the Peverell brothers and the three Deathly Hallows (the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility). What made this sequence unique was that it was shown via some visually stunning animations designed and directed by Ben Hibon. But the one scene that really impressed me was the Ministry of Magic sequence that featured the Trio’s retrieval of Salazar Slytherin’s locket from the odious Dolores Umbridge (now head of the Muggle-Born Registration Commission). From the moment that Harry, Ron and Hermione used Polyjuice Potion to transform into three workers from the Ministry of Magic (Sophie Thompson, David O’Hara and Steffan Rhodri), until their escape via apparition; the entire scene was a fabulous ride filled with tension, humor, chaos and adventure. I would rate it as one of the best sequences in the entire saga.

I had already commented on the marvel of the three leads’ performances. For once, Radcliffe, Grint and Watson were the ones to give the most outstanding performances; instead of a supporting cast member. But there were other excellent performances. One came from Tom Felton, who continued his ambiguous portrayal of Hogswarts student Draco Malfoy that began in ”THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. Another came from Ralph Fiennes, who gave a better performance as Lord Voldemort – especially in the opening sequence at Malfoy Manor – than he did in both ”THE GOBLET OF FIRE” and ”THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”. In fact, I could say the same about Helena Bonham-Carter, who seemed less over-the-top and a lot scarier than she was in her previous appearances. Rhys Ifan was deliciously entertaining as Luna Lovegood’s equally eccentric father, Xenophilius. And I have to give kudos to Sophie Thompson, David O’Hara and Steffan Rhodri did a great job in conveying their adolescent characters (Hermione, Harry and Ron) through body language – especially since the three leads added their voices. And in his few scenes, Alan Rickman was his usual superb self as the enigmatic Severus Snape. A good example of how ambiguous he could be can be seen in the sequence featuring the death of an old friend of Snape’s – Charity Burbage. All you have to do is look at Rickman’s eyes and face.

Considering that this tale has no choice but to end happily in ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART II”, I could assume that ”Part I” might prove to be the darkest movie in the HARRY POTTER. On the other hand, Yates and Kloves might prove me wrong. But despite a few flaws, I believe that ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I” is one of the best movies in the franchise. I have not truly enjoyed a HARRY POTTER this much since ”THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN”. And I can thank director David Yates, screenwriter Steve Kloves; and the three leads – Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. Excellent job, guys. Excellent job.

“AMAZING GRACE” (2006) Review

“AMAZING GRACE” (2006) Review

Ever since the release of the 2013 Oscar winning film, “12 YEARS A SLAVE”, there seemed to be this idea – especially with the British media – that Hollywood has remained silent regarding the topic of American slavery. I find this opinion ironic, considering my failure to find many U.K. films on British slavery.

When I first read McQueen’s criticism of Hollywood’s failure to produce a good number of films about American slavery, I decided to check the Internet to see how many slavery movies that the British film industry had produced. So far, I have only come across three – and one of them is “AMAZING GRACE”, the 2006 movie about abolitionist William Wilberforce‘s efforts to end Britain’s participation in the Atlantic Slave Trade.

Looking back upon “AMAZING GRACE”, I could not help but feel that it would have made an appropriate companion piece to Steven Spielberg’s 2012 movie, “LINCOLN”. Although one focused upon the slave trade throughout Britain’s Empire around the Georgian Era and the other focused upon the United States’ efforts to officially end slavery during the last year of the Civil War, both explored the political impacts on the institution of slavery in their respective countries. But there were differences. “AMAZING GRACE” focused upon the end of Britain’s official participation in the Atlantic slave trade and received only a few accolades. “LINCOLN”, on the other hand, focused upon the end of slavery altogether (the country’s participation in the slave trade ended around the same time as Great Britain) and received a great deal of accolades.

“AMAZING GRACE” begins in the middle of its story with a very ill William Wilberforce traveling to Bath with his cousin Henry Thornton and cousin-in-law Marianne to Bath for a recuperative holiday in 1797. The Thorntons decide to play matchmaker and introduce him to their friend, Barbara Spooner. Although the pair initially goes out of their way to resist any romantic overtures, Barbara ends up convincing Wilberforce to relate the story of his career.

The movie flashes back some fifteen years into the past, when Wilberforce was a young and ambitious Member of Parliament (MP). After he experiences a religious enlightenment and aligns himself with the evangelical wing of the Church of England, Wilberforce contemplates leaving politics to study theology. But friends such as William Pitt, Thomas Clarkson, Hannah More, and Olaudah Equiano convinces him that he could be more effective doing God’s work by fighting for the issue of Britain’s slave trade. Wilberforce’s convictions are deepened by a meeting with his former mentor, John Newton, a former slave ship captain turned Christian, whose regrets of his past participation in the slave trade led him to become an evangelist minister and writer of the poem that led to the song, “Amazing Grace”. Despite great effort and assistance from his fellow abolitionists, Wilberforce’s efforts fail, thanks to the pro-slavery cabal in Parliament after fifteen years. Following his marriage to Barbara Spooner, Wilberforce takes up the cause again with different results.

I am going to be brutally frank. “AMAZING GRACE” did not strike me as superior or at the same level of quality as “LINCOLN”. I am not stating that the 2006 movie was terrible or even mediocre. I simply feel that it is not as good as the 2012 Oscar winning film. There is something about the style of “AMAZING GRACE” that lacked the more complex nature and characterizations of “LINCOLN”. I found it . . . well, ideal and very preachy at times. I realize this movie is about the institution of slavery throughout the British Empire. But I believe that just because a story ( in any form) centers around an unpleasant topic like slavery does not have to be told with such a lack of moral complexity. I suspect that screenwriter Steven Knight tried to inject some kind of complexity in Wilberforce’s original reluctance to take up the cause of the abolition of the slave trade and in his despair over the failure of the abolition cause by 1797. But the movie simply lacked that murky ambiguity that made movies like “LINCOLN” and “DJANGO UNCHAINED” more complex to me. Even worse, there were times when the movie fell into the danger of transforming Wilberforce into some idealized character – what is known by those familiar with fan fiction as a Mary Sue. The movie seemed to hint that the success of Britain’s abolitionist movement centered around Wilberforce. And I found that annoying.

I have one last problem with “AMAZING GRACE”. The use of flashbacks struck me as a bit . . . well, confusing. This especially seemed to be the case in the first two-thirds of the movie, which alternated between the present setting (1797) and the past (between 1782 and 1797). I hate to say this, but director Michael Apted and editor Rick Shaine did not handle these shifts in time with any real clarity. After my third viewing of the film, I finally got a handling on the shifts between the narrative’s past and present. Many film critics have pointed out the movie’s historical inaccuracies, which include the time period in which Wilberforce became interested in animal rights and the Duke of Clarence’s erroneous service in the House of Commons. Honestly? They are simply bloopers and nothing for me to get excited over.

Despite its flaws, I must admit that “AMAZING GRACE” is a first-rate and stirring film. It touched upon a subject that I knew very little of . . . namely Britain’s abolition movement. In fact, when I first saw the film, it reminded me that countries like the United States, Cuba, and Brazil were not the only ones with strong ties to slavery and the Atlantic slave trade. These ties were especially made apparent in scenes which Wilberforce and his allies battled with the pro-slavery forces like Banastre Tarleton and the Duke of Clarence and St. Andrews (the future King William IV). Although “AMAZING GRACE” mainly focused on the political aspect of abolition in Great Britain, there are two memorable scenes that reflect the horrors of slavery – Wilberforce and Olaudah_Equiano’s tour of a slave ship and Newton’s verbal recollections of his time as a slave ship captain. However, “AMAZING GRACE” also touches upon Wilberforce’s personal life – especially his courtship of and marriage to fellow abolitionist Barbara Spooner. And it is to Ioan Gruffudd and Romola Garai’s credit that they had created a strong and very believable screen chemistry.

“AMAZING GRACE” is also a very beautiful movie to look at. And that is an odd thing to say about a movie about slavery. As always, I tend to look at the production designer as the one responsible for the movie’s overall visual style. In the case of “AMAZING GRACE”, the man responsible was Charles Wood, who did an amazing job in recapturing Great Britain during the late 18th century. His work was ably assisted by the art direction team led by David Allday and Eliza Solesbury’s set decorations. And since “AMAZING GRACE” is a period drama, I cannot ignore the costumes designed by film icon Jenny Beavan. Needless to say, her costumes were beautiful and perfectly adhered to the movie’s time period and the characters. I especially enjoyed her costumes for actresses Romola Garai and Sylvestra Le Touzel.

All of the beautiful costumes, magnificent photography and impressive production designs in the world cannot save a movie. Aside from a first-rate narrative, a movie needs a talented cast. Thankfully for “AMAZING GRACE”, it had one. Ioan Gruffudd, whom I tend to associate more with television, gave an excellent and passionate performance as the dedicated William Wilberforce. Also, Gruffudd more than held his own with the array of more experienced performers that were cast in this film. I do not know when Benedict Cumberbatch first made a name for himself. But I cannot deny that he gave a superb performance as William Pitt, the politician who eventually became the country’s youngest Prime Minister. Cumberbatch did a first-rate job in portraying how Pitt’s idealism, political savy and professional ambiguity sometimes clashed. Romola Garai gave a beautiful performance as Barbara Spooner Wilberforce, the politician’s wife of thirty-odd years. By expressing her character’s own passionate beliefs in the abolitionist movement, Garai portrayed her more than just Wilberforce’s love interest.

Albert Finney made several appearances in the film as former slave ship captain-turned-evangelist John Newton, who became Wilberforce’s mentor. Despite his limited appearances, Finney brilliantly portrayed Newton’s pragmatic nature about his past and the guilt he continued to feel for his role in Britain’s slave trade. I also have to comment on Rufus Sewell’s very entertaining performance as abolitionist Thomas Clarkson. I do not think I have ever come across a performance so colorful, and at the same time, very subtle. The movie also benefited excellent support from the likes of Michael Gambon, Ciarán Hinds, Toby Jones, Jeremy Swift, Stephen Campbell Moore, and Bill Paterson. Senegalese singer-activist Youssou N’Dour gave a solid performance in his acting debut as former slave-turned-abolitionist Olaudah Equiano. And Nicholas Farrell and Sylvestra Le Touzel, who co-starred in 1983’s “MANSFIELD PARK” together, reunited to give entertaining performances as the Wilberforces’ close friends, Henry and Marianne Thornton.

Without a doubt, I regard “AMAZING GRACE” as an entertaining, yet very interesting look into the life of William Wilberforce and his role in Britain’s abolition of the slave trade. Granted, the movie came off a touch pretentious and there were times when the Wilberforce character came off as too idealized. But the movie’s visual style, intelligent script, excellent performances from a cast led by Ioan Gruffudd, and solid direction from Michael Apted made this film worthwhile for me.

“HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” (2009) Review

”HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” (2009) Review

When the producers of the sixth installment of the HARRY POTTER movie franchise had announced their intentions to push back the movie’s release date from November 2008 to July 2009, a relative of mine had expressed disappointment. My own disappointment was muted by the possibility that the movie required further retakes for improvement. After I had first saw ”HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, I began to wonder if any retakes had ever been made.

Judging by my words, one would assume that I harbor a low opinion of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. Well . . . that person would be right. Because I do have a low opinion of the movie. I am almost inclined to declare ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” as the worst HARRY POTTER ever made. But I believe that it would receive stiff competition from 2005’s ”GOBLET OF FIRE” for that particular title.

Not all of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” seemed terrible to me. One, the movie can boast some of the best acting featured in the entire franchise. Director David Yates seemed to have gone through a great deal of trouble to draw out some excellent performances from the cast. I was especially impressed by Rupert Grint’s lovesick Ron Weasley; Jim Broadbent as the new Potions Master, the eccentric and slightly selfish Horace Slughorn; Michael Gambon as a frighteningly vulnerable Albus Dumbledore; Jessie Cave as the Ron-infatuated Lavender Brown; the always superb Alan Rickman as Severus Snape; and Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy. I was surprisingly pleased by Felton’s performance as a Draco who found himself recruited by Lord Voldemort to carry out a special task involving Hogswarts and Dumbledore. Felton’s past performances seemed to have been an exercise in adolescent hammy acting that was usually accompanied by sneers. For once, Felton portrayed Draco as a complex individual who may have gotten himself involved in something that was over his head, instead of a caricature of a school bully.

The movie also featured some rather memorable moments for me. Bruno Delbonnel’s photography and John Richardson’s special effects really shone in a sequence that featured the Death Eaters’ kidnapping of wand maker Mr. Ollivander (John Hurt) and attack upon one of London’s bridges. I also enjoyed the humorous scene that featured Slughorn’s introduction into the story. And from an emotional point of view, one of my favorite scenes centered on a quarrel between Hermoine Granger (Emma Watson) and Lavender over a hospitalized Ron, recovering from a love potion and poisoned mead meant for Dumbledore. But my two favorite scenes happened to be Harry and Dumbledore’s encounter with inferi inside a seaside cave; and also Bellatrix Black Lestrange (Helena Bonham-Carter) and Narcissa Black Malfoy (Helen McCrory)’s visit to Snape’s home in Spinner’s End. Although some fans have dismissed the inferi shown in the film as ineffective, I found them creepy. Especially when they attempted to claim Harry’s body for themselves. Dumbledore’s fiery solution to their threat proved to be breathtaking. As stated earlier, my other favorite scene featured the Black sisters – Bellatrix Lestrange and Narcissa Malfoy – visiting Snape’s home. Not only did I enjoy how Delbonnel’s photography captured the gloomy and rain-soaked atmosphere of Spinner’s End, I also enjoyed the tense interactions between Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham-Carter and Helen McCrory when the sisters managed to coerce an “Unbreakable Vow” from Snape in order to protect Draco.

As much as I had enjoyed the above aspects of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, there was a great deal about the film that disappointed me. One of the main problems I had was the movie’s pacing. How can I put it? It was too damn slow! I cannot think of the numerous times I nearly fell asleep or squirmed in my seat out of sheer boredom. Perhaps the movie had emphasized too heavily upon the love lives of Harry and his friends and not enough on both Lord Voldemort’s past and the identity of the Half-Blood Prince. Even worse, the movie not only left out scenes important to the saga’s main narrative, but inserted scenes that proved to be irrelevant to the story. I will begin with those scenes featured in the novel, but not in the movie.

Considering that the name of this particular story was ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, I found it odd that screenwriter Steve Kloves had placed such a small emphasis on the title character’s Potions book discovered by Harry. Moviegoers saw Harry use the book to win Slughorn’s favor during Potions class. And in one scene, Kloves allowed Hermoine to express annoyance at Harry’s use of the book. Moviegoers even saw Harry briefly spot the Sectumsempra spell before using it in a duel against Draco. But the movie never hinted any real effort by the friends to discover the real identity of the Half-Blood Prince, as they had done in the novel. And Snape’s identity as the owner of the book seemed to have come out of the blue near the end of the film. Nor was it ever mentioned that his witch mother’s surname was Prince. Hell, that Potions book almost became an afterthought in the film.

I also found myself annoyed that the movie only featured two flashbacks or memories of Voldemort’s past – one in which Dumbledore first met the eleven year-old Tom Riddle, and the second in which Horace Slughorn told an older Tom about horcruxes. As any fan of the HARRY POTTER franchise knows, a Horcrux is a “receptacle in which a Dark wizard has hidden a part of his soul for the purposes of attaining immortality.” With part of a wizard’s soul thus stored, the wizard becomes immortal so long as the Horcrux remains intact. For this reason, Horcruxes are typically hidden in a safe location. The literary version of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” allowed Harry to learn about the objects that Voldemort had converted into Horcruxes via the memories of others who had met the dark wizard. In the movie, Harry only learned that the diary he had destroyed in ”THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS”, Salazar Slytherin’s locket and Marvolo Gaunt’s ring were Horcruxes. I can only wonder how Yates and Kloves will reveal the identities of the other Horcruxes in the two ”DEATHLY HALLOWS” movies. What exactly are the seven Horcruxes that Voldemort had created? They are:

*Harry Potter – Dumbledore realized that the boy wizard was a Horcrux right before his death
*Nagini – Voldemort’s pet snake seen by Harry in his dreams about Voldemort in ”GOBLET OF FIRE” and ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”
*Tom Riddle’s diary – destroyed by Harry in ”CHAMBER OF SECRETS”
*Marvolo Gaunt’s ring – found and destroyed by Dumbledore in ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”
*Salazar Slytherin’s locket – taken by Regulus Black and substituted with a fake
*Rowena Ravenclaw’s diadem – unbeknownst to anyone
*Helga Hufflepuff’s cup – unbeknownst to anyone

The movies have only revealed the following Horcruxes to the audience – Harry, Nagini, Tom’s diary, Gaunt’s ring and Slytherin’s locket. Of the five, the movies have either skimmed over or never revealed the origins of the ring and the locket. Nor has ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” bothered to reveal how Voldemort got his hands on Ravenclaw’s diadem or Hufflepuff’s cup. Without any additional scenes featuring Voldemort’s past and with Dumbledore dead, I am curious to see how Kloves will allow Harry, Ron and Hermoine will learn about the diadem and the cup in the two ”DEATHLY HALLOWS” movies.

There are other deleted scenes that disturbed me. Audiences had learned in the first story, ”SORCERER’S STONE” that Snape had coveted the position of Defense Against the Dark Arts instructor for years. Yet, when he finally assumed the position, the movie never gave audiences a glimpse of his tenure in this position. Also, Dumbledore did not put Harry in a body-binding curse and hide him underneath his invisibility cloak. Instead, Harry is instructed to hide when Draco and the Death Eaters make their appearance in the Astronomy Tower, and do nothing. I really cannot see Harry following these instructions. Even if Dumbledore had made them. Even worse, Yates and Kloves also left out the battle between the Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix, after the former managed to infiltrate Hogswarts’ grounds. Either the director or the producer had claimed they did not want to repeat themselves, considering a similar battle will be featured in ”DEATHLY HALLOWS II”. But audiences will not be able to see this in another two years. I really see no reason why they could not have included this. It made no sense that the aurors posted at Hogswarts would not eventually become aware of the Death Eaters’ presence, especially with Bellatrix Lestrange whooping it up inside the school’s Great Hall. In fact the entire finale left me feeling disappointed. Not only did Kloves and Yates include a scene that featured Dumbledore instructing Harry to hide inside the Astronomy Tower, they deleted Dumbledore’s funeral, yet included a scene in which the students and faculty at Hogwarts had gathered around Dumbledore’s body before paying homage to the dead wizard by lighting up their wands. Let me go on record in stating that this whole ”We Are the World” moment left me rolling my eyes in disgust.

And speaking of inserted scenes, I have noticed several others that were included in the film. One scene featured a flashback with Harry and Dumbledore emerging from the Ministry of Magic, following the battle that resulted in Sirius Black’s death in ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”. I can only assume that the flashback was meant to hint Harry’s continuing grief over his godfather’s death. And yet . . . aside from a brief mention by Horace Slughorn, there was no further mention of Sirius. The filmmakers had decided to add this scene, yet did not bother to add a sequence featuring Harry’s inheritance of the Blacks’ home at Number 12, Grimmauld Place and their house elf, Kreacher. A plot point that would prove to be very important in the upcoming ”DEATHLY HALLOWS”. Another scene featured Harry at a neighborhood café, where a pretty waitress manages to catch his attention before Dumbledore made his appearance. Was this scene supposed to be a foreshadow of the adolescent soap operas that permeated a great deal of the movie? Or Harry’s own libido? Well, the topic of Harry’s libido was first approached in ”GOBLET OF FIRE” and continued in ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”, through his relationship with Cho Chang (Katie Leung). In other words, I found both the Ministry of Magic flashback, and café scene irrelevant to the story. Both could have easily been replaced with Harry learning about his inheritance from Sirius. Yates and Kloves also decided to include a scene featuring the Death Eaters attacking and burning the Weasleys’ home, the Burrows, during the Christmas holidays. My question . . . why bother? What purpose did this scene serve other than to include an action sequence in the movie? Neither Ron, Ginny or Harry seemed disturbed by the event following their return to Hogwarts. In fact, audiences never learned where Molly and Arthur Weasley were staying following the fire. And in the end, the sequence only robbed more potential screen time from the more important horcrux storyline.

Another aspect of the movie’s story that annoyed me turned out to be the Vanishing Cabinet that Draco used to smuggle Death Eaters inside Hogwarts Castle. Now, I am well aware that the Vanishing Cabinet played a major role in the story. But Kloves and Yates took it too far. In other words, they gave away the mystery surrounding Draco’s actions before they could surprise the moviegoers. While still in London; Harry, Ron and Hermoine managed to eavesdrop on Draco interacting with the owner of a Knockturn Alley shop called Borgin and Burkes. And instead of following Rowling’s example by maintaining the mystery behind Draco’s actions until near the end of the story, Kloves’ screenplay continuously hinted Draco’s intentions and the cabinet’s magic properties before the finale at the Astronomy Tower. In my opinion, Kloves and Yates could have maintained the mystery, leaving enough time to explore the horcrux storyline via memories of Voldemort.

Although I found myself impressed by the acting featured in the movie, I had a problem with three of the characters. One of the characters I had a problem with happened to be Cho Chang (Katie Leung), Harry’s girlfriend in ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”. Or should I say a lack of Cho Chang? What happened between Harry and Cho? ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” never bothered to bring closure to Harry and Cho’s story, after he and Hermoine discovered that Cho had been forced to expose Dumbledore’s Army thanks to the Veritaserum (truth potion) forced upon her by Dolores Umbridge. I had expected to see such closure in ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, but it never materialized, much to my disappointment.

I also had a problem with the characterization of Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright), as well as the Harry/Ginny romance. I just want to say that Bonnie Wright is not to blame. She has shown in the past – namely in ”GOBLET OF FIRE” that she is quite capable of portraying Ginny as J.K. Rowling had written her – a lively and sardonic girl, whose outgoing personality made Harry feel relaxed. And then came ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” and David Yates. In both the fifth film and this one, Ginny seemed quiet and . . . dull. Well, at least two scenes in ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” gave Wright a chance to portray a lively Ginny – one that featured the Quidditch tryouts for the Gryffindor team in which she managed to get everyone to shut up, and the Room of Requirements scene that led to her first kiss with Harry. There were times when I suspected that Yates had a view of Ginny as the quiet type and that it seemed to be at cross purposes with Rowling’s portrayal. As for the Harry/Ginny kiss in the Room of Requirements . . . meh. I am not certain if they actually kissed or simply touched lips. Harry’s kiss with Cho in ”ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” seemed more memorable. Either Daniel Radcliffe found Katie Leung more attractive than Bonnie Wright or . . . you know what? I do not know. I just was not that impressed by the kiss.

Last, but not least, there is Evanna Lynch’s performance as Luna Lovegood. After seeing “ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”, I was very critical of Ms. Lynch’s portrayal of Luna. I thought she came off as too unemotional for my taste. And two years and one movie later, her performance has not improved one whit. I hate to say this about the Irish actress, considering that she is such a major fan of Rowling’s book series. I hate to say this, considering that everyone else seemed to think that she is perfect. I simply find it hard to accept this prevailing view of her performance. Ms. Lynch does not strike me as a talented actress. I’m sorry.

I might as well be blunt. Although I found cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel’s photography of the Death Eaters’ attack upon London and the Spinner’s End sequence impressive, I hated the rest of his work. I hated that he had decided to use a dark, washed-out tone for the movie, similar to what Roger Pratt had used in ”GOBLET OF FIRE”. For some reason, there seemed to be this idea that in order to convey the story’s darker tone, the film had to look similar to the second and third movies from the ”LORD OF THE RINGS” trilogy. And I am not that fond of those two movies. I also hated both Yates and Delbonnel’s decision to emulate ”LORD OF THE RINGS” again by shooting Dumbledore’s fatal fall in the same manner that Gollum’s death was filmed in 2003’s THE LORD OF THE RING: RETURN OF THE KING. I found the whole scene rather cheap and worthy of another eye roll.

I wish I could say that I loved “HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE“. I wish I could say that I even liked it. I will admit that I enjoyed a few scenes featured in the movie. And I certainly felt impressed by the cast’s performances. But . . . I feel that screenwriter Steve Kloves and director David Yates made some major mistakes with the movie’s plot by leaving out scenes and storylines that were necessary to drive the saga’s main plot. And even worse, they inserted scenes that were not in the novel and – at least to me – irrelevant to the plot. Nor did it help that the movie crept at a pace that nearly put me to sleep, halfway into the film. Honestly? The filmmakers of the HARRY POTTER franchise could have done better than this.

“THE KING’S SPEECH” (2010) Review

“THE KING’S SPEECH” (2010) Review

Inspirational movies have been the hallmark of Hollywood films over the decades. They especially became popular between the mid-1970s and the early 1990s. After the mid-90s, I never thought they would become popular again. But the recent release of the historical drama, ”THE KING’S SPEECH” proved me wrong.

Directed by Tom Hooper and written by David Seidler, ”THE KING’S SPEECH” told the story of Great Britain’s King George VI’s difficulties with a speech impediment and his relationship with Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue, who helped him overcome his stutter. The movie opened with George VI (then Prince Albert, Duke of York) at the closing of the 1925 Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium, with his wife Elizabeth by his side. There he gives a stammering speech that visibly unsettles the thousands of listeners in the audience. After nine years of unsuccessfully finding a speech therapist that can help him, Elizabeth recruits Australian-born Lionel Logue to meet him. The two men eventually bond and Logue helps the Duke of York overcome the latter’s stammer during a series of crises that include the death of George V; his brother, King Edward VIII’s romance with American divorcee, Wallis Simpson; the abdication of Edward; the Duke of York’s ascension to the throne as George VI; his coronation and the start of World War II. Also during this period, both king and speech therapist become close friends.

What can I say about ”THE KING’S SPEECH”? I cannot deny that it was a heartwarming tale about the growing friendship of two men from disparate backgrounds. Seidler’s script was filled with wit, charm, warmth and pathos that filled the heart. The cast, lead by Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, did great credit to the script. There have been complaints about the film’s historical accuracy from both the media and historians. And there is a good deal of the story that is historically inaccurate. George VI and Lionel Logue’s collaboration began as far back as 1926, not 1934. And the king was also pro-appeasement in the late 1930s. In fact, the majority of Britons during that period were pro-appeasement. What historians fail to realize is that appeasement was popular due to a lack of desire for another war against Germany. World War I had traumatized a generation that included George VI. One also has to remember that ”THE KING’S SPEECH” is a drama based upon historical fact, not a documentary. One would know by now that complete historical accuracy in a work of fiction is rare. It has been rare for as long as there have been fictional work based upon history. And to be honest, I do not believe that the movie’s fiddling with historical fact has not harmed the story.

One would think that I consider ”THE KING’S SPEECH” to be one of the best movies this year. Frankly, I find labeling what is ”the best” rather subjective. I did enjoy the movie and it made the list of my Top Ten Favorite Movies of 2010. However, I must admit that I do not consider it to be a particularly original film. One, it is one of those inspirational films that moviegoers tend to love – movies like ”SEABISCUIT”, ”CINDERELLA MAN” and the 1976 Oscar winner, ”ROCKY”. And if I must be brutally honest, there was nothing original about ”THE KING’S SPEECH” – even for an inspirational film. I already have a nickname for it – ’ROCKY in the Palace’. Another problem I have with the movie is that I was not that impressed by its visual style. I found Danny Cohen’s photography rather pedestrian. And Eve Stewart’s production designs and Judy Farr’s set decorations were very disappointing. Only the movie’s exterior shots prevented ”THE KING’S SPEECH” from becoming another filmed stage play. And the actual sets struck me as very dull. My hopes of a rich look at London and the rest of Great Britain during the 1920s and 30s fell short. I suppose I should not have been surprised by the movie’s uninspiring visual style. It only had a budget of $15 million dollars. I suspect the producers had very little money to work with.

With a few exceptions, the cast turned out to be first-rate. Colin Firth gave a superb and complex performance as the insecure sovereign with the speech impediment. I am not that surprised that he managed to earn nominations and win a good number of acting awards. Geoffrey Rush, who portrayed Lionel Logue, gave a first-rate performance filled with a great deal of sly humor. Also, he and Firth generated a strong screen chemistry. Helena Bonham-Carter was a charming and witty Duchess of York/Queen Elizabeth. However, I would have never considered her performance worth of any acting award nomination. She was simply portraying the “loyal wife” schtick. I was surprised to find Guy Pierce portraying the love obsessed and selfish Edward VIII. And I must he was very subtle and effective in revealing the man’s less admirable traits. The movie also benefitted solid performances from the likes of Michael Gambon as King George V, Claire Bloom as Queen Mary, and Anthony Andrews, who was surprisingly effective as Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin.

However, there were some performances that I found unsatisfying. Being a fan of Jennifer Ehle, I was disappointed in the limitations of her role as Logue’s wife, Myrtle. She hardly had a chance to do anything, except murmur a few words of encouragement to Logue. Her only great moment occurred in a scene that featured Myrtle Logue’s realization that the King of England was one of her husband’s clients. Seeing Ehle and Firth in the same scene together brought back memories of the 1995 adaptation of ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE”. I also had a problem with Eve Best’s portrayal of American divorcee, Wallis Simpson. Her Wallis came off as more extroverted than the divorcee in real life. And I hate to say this, but Timothy Spall’s interpretation of Winston Churchill seemed more like a parody than a serious portrayal. Every time he was on the screen, I could not help but wince.

In conclusion, I enjoyed ”THE KING’S SPEECH” very much. Despite its lack of originality, I found it heartwarming, humorous, and dramatic; thanks to Tom Hooper’s direction and Seidler’s writing. And aside from a few performances, I was impressed by the cast, especially leading men Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. I would never consider it artistically worthy of an Oscar for Best Picture. But I cannot deny that it was entertaining.

“GOSFORD PARK” (2001) Review

“GOSFORD PARK” (2001) Review

In 1999, actor Bob Balaban had approached director Robert Altman with the idea of developing a film together. Altman suggested a whodunit set at an English country estate. The two approached actor/writer Julian Fellowes if he could take their concept and write a screenplay. Their collective efforts resulted in the 2001 comedy-drama, “GOSFORD PARK”.

In the movie, a group of wealthy Britons, a British actor/entertainer, an American movie producer and their servants gather at Gosford Park, the country estate of a wealthy industrialist named Sir William McCordle, for a shooting party over the weekend. Sir William is not a popular man. His wife and most of his in-laws despise him. And most of his servants (aside from one or two) dislike him. When Sir William is found murdered inside his study during the second night of the weekend, there seemed to be a list of suspects who have a very good reason to kill him:

*Lady Sylvia McCordle – Sir William’s bitchy wife, who despises him and had married Sir William for his money

*Commander Anthony Meredith – One of Sir William’s brothers-in-law, who is desperate for the industrialist’s financial backing in a venture regarding shoes for Sudanese soldiers

*Raymond, Lord Stockbridge – Sir William’s snobbish brother-in-law, whose wife might be having an affair with him

*Lady Lavinia Meredith – Sir William’s younger sister-in-law and devoted wife to Commander Meredith

*Mrs. Croft – Gosford Park’s head cook and former employee at one of Sir William’s factories, who despised him

*Mrs. Wilson – Gosford Park’s housekeeper, Mrs. Croft younger sister and another former employee of one of Sir William’s factories

*Lord Rupert Standish – a penniless aristocrat who wants to overcome Sir William’s opposition and marry his only child, Isobel McCordle

*Constance, Countess of Trentham – Sir William’s aunt-in-law, who is dependent upon a regular allowance from him

The weekend party include other guests and servants, such as:

*Mary Maceachran – Lady Trentham’s lady maid

*Elsie – Head housemaid whom Mary befriended, and who was definitely having an affair with Sir William

*Ivor Novello – Famous actor/singer and Sir William’s cousin

*Morris Weissman – Producer from Fox Studios

*Henry Denton – Weissman’s valet, who is actually a Hollywood minor actor studying for an upcoming role

*Robert Parks – Lord Stockbridge’s new valet

*Jennings – Major domo of Gosford Park, who has a secret to hide

*Honorable Freddie Nesbitt – A local impoverished aristocrat who had earlier seduced Isobel. At the shooting party, he tries to blackmail her into convincing Sir William to give him a job

*Mabel Nesbitt – The daughter of a self-made glove manufacturer whom Freddie married for her money, before spending the latter.

*Louisa, Lady Stockbridge – Sir William’s other sister-in-law, with whom he might have had an affair

*Probert – Sir William’s personal valet and one of the few who actually grieved him.

Needless to say, the list of characters is a long one. Following Sir William’s murder, the local police in the form of one Inspector Thompson and Constable Dexter arrive to solve the murder. Being incompetent and a complete snob, Inspector Thompson seemed to regard the higher class guests as worthy suspects for the murder of Sir William. Constable Dexter, on the other hand, seemed more interested in Jennings’ World War I past and the clues at hand. In fact, Dexter managed to ascertain that Sir William had been poisoned by one person, before another drove an ax into his back. But it was lady’s maid Mary Maceachran who managed to figure out the culprits in the end.

I cannot deny that after ten years or so, “GOSFORD PARK” remains a big favorite of mine. When the movie first reached the movie screens in December 2001, many admitted to enjoying the film, but predicted that it would age with time. There are perhaps some critics who believe this has actually happened. But I do not agree. Considering the increasingly bleak social landscape of today, I believe that the theme behind “GOSFORD PARK” has remained relevant as ever. Despite my love for the film, would I consider it perfect? Honestly? No. Other critics may be able to find more than two flaws in the film. On the other hand, I was able to find two that bothered me.

The pacing for most of “GOSFORD PARK” seemed to be on spot . . . at least for me. It possessed a great set-up for introducing the characters, the setting’s atmosphere and the revelation of the suspects’ motives for wanting Sir William dead. However, the murder did not occur until two-thirds into the movie. Once Inspector Thompson appeared on the scene, the movie’s pacing began to drag. And it did not pick up again until the movie’s last twenty minutes. For me, the pacing during the last third of the film struck me as merely a minor flaw. There was another that proved to be a bigger one for me – namely the Henry Denton character.

I have nothing against Ryan Phillipe’s performance as Denton. Trust me, I thought he did a superb job. But Julian Fellowes’ portrayal of the character left me shaking my head in confusion. According to the script, Denton was an American actor for Fox Studios who accompanied Morris Weissman as his Scottish valet in order to study British servants for a role in a “CHARLIE CHAN” movie. This little deception strikes me as something actors did for a role during the past thirty or forty years . . . certainly not in 1932. The deception ended when Henry admitted his true identity to the police. But the one thing that really disturbed me about the character was his attempted rape of Mary Maceachran during the first night of the weekend. Why did Fellowes include that scenario in the first place? Henry had already made a date for some nocturnal activity with Lady Sylvia McCordle, several minutes earlier. If he had already scheduled a night for sex with the mistress of the house, why have him assault Mary a few mintues later? I suspect that Fellowes wanted to establish a character that most of the characters – aristocratic and lower-class – would dislike. Both aristocrats and servants alike reacted with glee when one of the servants, portrayed by Richard Grant, dumped a cup of hot tea (or coffee) on Henry’s lap. With Henry being an American, I can only assume he made an easier target for the derision of everyone. I can only wonder why Altman and Balaban did not question this heavy-handed characterization of Henry. Regardless of Fellowes’ reason for vilifying Henry, I found the rape attempt as an example of clumsy and unnecessary writing on his part.

Thankfully, most of “GOSFORD PARK” proved to be quite a cherished gem. Not even the flaws I had pointed out in the above paragraphs can overcome my appreciation of this movie. Altman, Balaban and Fellowes took a classic literary device – “country house mystery” – and used it to explore the British class system of the early 1930s. “GOSFORD PARK” revealed the changes that affected Britain’s social landscape by 1932. Aside from Lord Stockbridge, most of the aristocratic characters seemed to be struggling to make ends meet financially in order to maintain a lifestyle they had been born into. Those from a middle-class or working-class background like Sir William McCordle, his “cousin” Ivor Novello, Morris Weissman and Mabel Nesbitt have become successful, wealthy or in the case of Mabel, the offspring of a self-made man. Their success and wealth has allowed them to socialize amongt the aristocracy and upper-class. But their origins continue to attract scorn from the likes of Lady Sylvia, her sister Lady Lavinia and their aunt, the Countess of Trentham. The servants featured in “GOSFORD PARK” seemed to be divided into three categories – those who are blindly loyal to their employers; those like Elsie, Robert Parks and Mrs. Croft, who despise their employers; and those like Mary, Jennings and Mrs. Wilson who do not love or hate their employers, but simply take pride in their professionalism.

What I found interesting about “GOSFORD PARK” is that both servants and guests possessed both positive and negative traits. The exceptions to the rule proved to be Mary, who struck me as a bit too ideal for my tastes; and of course, Henry Denton, whose portrayal I had already complained about. Most people would add that Sir William had also been portrayed as a one-dimensional villain. But the humiliations he endured under the snobbish Lady Sylvia and Elsie’s warm recollections of him saved the character from such a fate.

Another aspect about “GOSFORD PARK” that I truly enjoyed was its overall production design. Stephen Altman did a superb job of re-creating the atmosphere of a country manor home in the early 1930s. He was ably supported by Anna Pinnock’s set decorations, along with John Frankis and Sarah Hauldren’s art direction. For me, it was Jenny Bevan’s costumes and the women’s hairstyles that made me realize that the production team really knew what they were doing. I have rarely come across a movie or television production set in the 1930s that was completely accurate – especially in regard to costumes and hairstyles.

There were plenty of first-rate performances in “GOSFORD PARK”. But there were a handful that stood out for me. Both Helen Mirren and Maggie Smith earned Academy Award nominations for their portrayals of Mrs. Wilson and the Countess of Trentham, respectively. Mirren was superb as the no-nonsense housekeeper, whose stoic personality hid a passionate nature that would eventually be revealed upon a discovery she made. In my review of Season One of “DOWNTON ABBEY”, I had complained that Maggie Smith’s portrayal of the Dowager Countess of Grantham bore a strong resemblance to her Lady Trentham in “GOSFORD PARK”. I stand by that observation. But there is something about Smith’s portrayal of Lady Trentham that struck me as a lot more subtle and a little more poisonous in her class bigotry. Clive Owen gave a charismatic performance as the mysterious valet, Robert Parks, whose past attracts the attention of both Mary Maceachran and Mrs. Wilson.

Michael Gambon gave one of his more interesting performances as the mystery’s main victim, Sir William McCordle. Superficially, he was as crude and cold-blooded as many regarded the character. Yet, Gambon injected a certain charm into his performance that made it easier for me to see why Sir William had a way with the ladies. Bob Balaban provided some fine comic moments as the droll Hollywood producer that harbored a slight contempt toward his aristocratic hosts behind a polite veneer. I have already pointed out Ryan Phillipe’s portrayal of Henry Denton. I must admit that he did a first-rate job in conveying the portrait of a smooth hustler. Many have commented on Maggie Smith’s wit in the movie. However, I thought that Emily Watson’s portrayal of head housemaid Elsie was equally sharp and sardonic. Alan Bates gave one of his last best performances as the stuffy, yet likable major domo of the McCordle household, who harbored a secret about his past as a conscientious objector during World War I. At the same time, Watson was wonderfully poignant as one of the few people who not only mourned Sir William, but appreciated his friendship and words of wisdom to her. I found it surprising that the movie’s moral center proved to the be the sweet and eventually wise Mary Maceachran, Lady Trentham’s new personal maid. Kelly MacDonald was in her mid-20s when she did this movie and her character was not particularly flashy in compare to many of the other roles. Yet, not only did she held her own against the likes of Maggie Smith and Emily Watson, she did a great job in becoming the movie’s emotional anchor . . . even if her character was a bit too ideal for my tastes.

“GOSFORD PARK” earned a good deal of accolades after its release. It was nominated for seven Academy Awards and won a Best Original Screenplay for Julian Fellowes. It also earned five Golden Globe awards and Robert Altman won for Best Director. Would I have voted “GOSFORD PARK” as the Best Picture of 2001? Not really. I was more impressed by Peter Jackson’s adaptation of the first “LORD OF THE RINGS” movie. But thanks to a superb cast, Julian Fellowes’ screenplay and Robert Altman’s direction, it not proved to be one of the cinematic gems of 2001, but also of the last decade.

“EMMA” (2009) Review

“EMMA” (2009) Review

After a great deal of delay, I finally sat down to watch “EMMA”, the latest adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1815 novel. First seen on the BBC during the fall of 2009, this four-part miniseries had been adapted by Sandy Welch and directed by Jim O’Hanlon.

“EMMA” followed the story of Emma Woodhouse, the younger daughter of a wealthy landowner in Regency England. As a dominant figure in the provincial world of fictional Highbury, Emma believed that she was a skilled matchmaker and repeatedly attempted to meddle in the love lives of others. After successfully arranging the recent marriage of her governess, Miss Anne Taylor, to another local landowner named Mr. Weston; Emma set out to make a poor young boarder at a local girls’ school named Harriet Smith her new protégé. Unfortunately, her plans to find a new husband for Harriet ended in disaster.

I have been aware of other adaptations of ”EMMA” for the past decade-and-a-half, including the 1996 Miramax movie that starred Gwyneth Paltrow and the 1996 ITV version, starring Kate Beckinsale. And considering that I quickly became a major fan of the Paltrow version, I found myself curious to see how this recent four-part miniseries would compare. Many fans seemed to believe that the miniseries format allow this version to be superior over the others. After all, the format allowed screenwriter Sandy Welch to follow Austen’s novel with more detail. Other fans still view the Miramax version as the one superior to others. There are fans who viewed the Beckinsale version as the best. And many have a high regard for the modern day version, ”CLUELESS”, which starred Alicia Silverstone. And there are even those who believe that the 1972 miniseries, which starred Doran Godwin as the most faithful, and therefore the best. My opinion? I will admit that I became a fan of this miniseries, just as quickly as I became a fan of the Paltrow movie.

One of the aspects that I love about ”EMMA” was the main character’s backstory featured in the miniseries’ first five to ten minutes. Most fans of Austen’s novel frowned upon this introduction, considering that it was not featured in the novel. Not only did I enjoy it, I believe the sequence provided a possible explanation for Mr. Woodhouse’s agoraphobia and fear of losing his daughters, Emma and the older Isabella. I also enjoyed the miniseries’ photography. First, cinematographer Adam Suschitzky shot the series with rich colors – mainly bold and pastels. Also, both Suschitzky and director Jim O’Hanlon did an excellent job in filming the series with some provocative shots – many of them featuring windows. One of my favorite shots featured moments in Episode Two in which O’Hanlon, Suschitzky and film editor Mark Thornton cleverly conveyed the change of seasons from winter to early spring. Contributing to the miniseries’ colorful look were costumes supervised by Amanda Keable. They perfectly blended with Suschitzky’s photography, as shown in the images below:

I have read ”EMMA” . . . and enjoyed it very much. But I must say that I had no problems with the changes featured in Sandy Welch’s screenplay, even if a good number of Austen’s fans did. The biggest complaint seemed to be that Welch did not convey much of the author’s language or dialogue. I guess I could not care less, especially after I had learned that Emma Thompson’s screenplay for the 1995 adaptation of ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” had very little of Austen’s dialogue. I believe that Welch did an excellent job in adapting ”EMMA”. She (along with stars Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller) captured the chemistry and wit of Emma and Mr. Knightley with some very funny banter. The screenplay also featured some comic moments that either left me smiling or laughing heartily. Those scenes included Mr. Elton’s attempts to woo Emma, while she drew a picture of Harriet; Mr. Woodhouse’s consistent reluctance to leave Hatfield (most of the time); and Emma’s first meeting with Mr. Elton’s new bride, the obnoxious and less wealthy Augusta Hawkins Elton. But Emma’s hostile soliloquy, following her meeting with Mrs. Elton, left me in stitches. I thought it was one of the funniest moments in the entire miniseries. But ”EMMA” was not all laughs. Welch’s screenplay also featured some poignant and romantic moments between Emma and Mr. Knightley. And this is the only version of the Austen novel that truly conveyed the poignant and warm relationship between Emma and her father.

However, I did have some problems with ”EMMA”. Most viewers seemed to be of the opinion that Episodes One and Two were a bit off or that they barely captured the novel’s spirit. Most of my problems with the miniseries stemmed from Episode Four, the last one. There seemed to be something heavy-handed about the Box Hill sequence and I do not know whether to blame the actors, O’Hanlon’s direction or Welch’s screenplay. This heavy-handedness could have been deliberate, due to the sequence occurring on a hot day. But I am not certain. Some of the dialogue struck me as a bit clunky – especially those moments in which Frank Churchill and Mr. Weston tried to use clever words to praise Emma. Rupert Evans’ portrayal of Frank in this scene struck me as oppressive. And I barely missed Emma’s insult to Miss Bates, due to Romola Garai’s performance. She almost threw away the line. I realize that it was Jane Fairfax who refused to see Emma, following the Box Hill picnic in the novel, instead of Miss Bates. Which is exactly what Welch added in her screenplay. Pity. I think it would have been more dramatic if the screenwriter had not been so faithful to Austen’s novel and allow Miss Bates to reject Emma’s presence following the picnic. Just as writer-director Douglas McGrath did in his adaptation in the 1996 Miramax film. And Welch’s screenplay never allowed viewers to witness Harriet Smith’s reaction to Emma and Mr. Knightley’s engagement . . . or her reconciliation with Robert Martin.

Despite any misgivings I might have about ”EMMA”, I really enjoyed it. And a great deal of my enjoyment came from Romola Garai’s portrayal of the titled character. Despite a few moments of garrulous mannerisms, I found her performance to be a delight. Her Emma Woodhouse did not seem to be that much of a meddler – except in regard to Harriet’s relationship with Robert Martin. But she did inject her performance with an arrogance that usually comes from a privileged youth that believes he or she is always right. And I absolutely adored her hostile rant against the newly arrived Mrs. Elton. Not only did she have a strong chemistry with Rupert Evans (Frank Churchill), but also with Michael Gambon, who portrayed Mr. Woodhouse. In fact, Garai and Gambon effectively conveyed a tender daughter-father relationship. Yet, her chemistry with Jonny Lee Miller surprisingly struck the strongest chord. I really enjoyed the crackling banter between them and their developing romance. Most fans had complained about her penchant for being a bit too expressive with her eyes. That did not bother me one bit. However, I found one moment in her performance to be over-the-top – namely the scene in which Emma expressed dismay at leaving Mr. Woodhouse alone in order to marry Mr. Knightley.

Speaking of the owner of Donwell, many fans of the novel had expressed dismay when Jonny Lee Miller was cast in the role of George Knightley. Despite Miller’s previous experience with Jane Austen in two adaptations of ”MANSFIELD PARK”, most fans believed he could not do justice to the role. Many feared that he was too young for the role. I found this ironic, considering that Miller was around the same age as the literary Mr. Knightley; whereas Jeremy Northam and Mark Strong were both a few years younger than the character. After viewing the first half of Episode One, I could tell that Miller was already putting his own stamp on the role. Thanks to Miller’s performance, I found myself contemplating another possible aspect of Knightley’s character. During his proposal to Emma in Episode Four, he admitted to being highly critical. I could not help but wonder if this trait was a manifestation of some arrogance in his character. This seemed very apparent in a scene in Episode Two in which Knightley made a critical comment about Emma’s character in an insulting manner. He was lucky that she did not respond with anything stronger than a reproachful stare. Another aspect of Miller’s performance that I enjoyed was the dry wit and observant manner that he conveyed in Mr. Knightley’s character. In the end, I found his performance to be very attractive and well done.

Michael Gambon, who happens to be a favorite of mine, gave a hilarious performance as Emma’s father, Mr. Woodhouse. I have read a few complaints that Gambon seemed too robust to be portraying the character. I found this complaint rather strange. For I had no idea that one had to look sickly in order to be a hypochondriac or an agoraphobic. I suspect that Gambon used Welch’s description of Mrs. Woodhouse’s tragic death to convey his character’s agoraphobic tendencies. This gave his character a poignant twist that blended wonderfully with his comic performance. Another performance that mixed comedy with just a touch of tragedy came from Tasmin Grey, who portrayed the impoverished Miss Bates. As from being a spinster and the poor daughter of Highbury’s former vicar, Miss Bates was also a silly and verbose woman. Grey portrayed these aspects of Miss Bates’ personality with perfect comic timing. At the same time, she did a beautiful job in conveying the character’s despair and embarrassment over her poverty. Two other performances really impressed me. One belonged to Christina Cole, who portrayed the meddling and obnoxious Mrs. Augusta Elton. Her performance seemed so deliciously funny and sharp that I believed it rivaled Juliet Stevenson’s portrayal of the same character from Douglas McGrath’s film. Almost just as funny was Blake Ralston, who portrayed Highbury’s current vicar, Mr. Elton. He did a marvelous job of portraying the vicar’s lack of backbone; and a slimy and obsequious manner, while attempting to woo Emma in Episodes One and Two.

Rupert Evans did a solid job in portraying Frank Churchill’s energetic and sometimes cruel personality. Although there were times when he threatened to overdo it. Laura Pyper (Christina Cole’s co-star from the TV series ”HEX”) gave a slightly tense performance as Jane Fairfax, Miss Bates’ accomplished niece that Emma disliked. Pyper did a solid job in portraying the reticent Jane and the tension she suffered from being Frank’s secret fiancée. Louise Dylan made an amiable, yet slightly dimwitted Harriet Martin. Although there were times when her Harriet seemed more intelligent than Emma. I do not know whether or not this was deliberate on O’Hanlon’s part.

If there is one thing I can say about ”EMMA” is that it quickly became one of my favorite Jane Austen adaptations. Yes, it had its flaws. But I believe that its virtues – an excellent adaptation by Sandy Welch, beautiful photography by Adam Suschitzky and a first-rate cast led by Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller – all well directed by Jim O’Hanlon. It seemed a pity that it failed to earn an Emmy nomination for Best Miniseries. And I find it even harder to believe that ”RETURN TO CRANFORD”, which I enjoyed, managed to earn one and ”EMMA”, which I really loved, did not.

“HAIL, CAESAR!” (2016) Review

“HAIL, CAESAR!” (2016) Review

When I had first that Joel and Ethan Coen had plans to release a film six years ago, I rejoiced. When I learned that this new movie – called “HAIL, CAESAR!” – would be set in old Hollywood, my joy increased. Then I discovered that this new film would be released in February 2016. And . . . my anticipation decreased. Somewhat.

Now, why would my anticipation for “HAIL, CAESAR!” dampened after learning about its release date? Simple. February is one of those months that is considered by the movie industry as the graveyard for second-rate films. A Coen Brothers film set in February. This did not sit well with me. But my enthusiasm had not dampened enough for me to forgo “HAIL, CAESAR!”. I simply had to see it.

“HAIL, CAESAR!” is the fictional story about one day in the life of Eddie Mannix, the head of “physical productions” at Capitol Pictures and a “fixer” who keeps the scandalous behavior of its stars out of the press. The Lockheed Corporation has been courting him with an offer of a high-level executive position, but he is unsure about taking it. While Mannix contemplates a career change, he has to deal with the following problems for his studio:

*Unmarried synchronized swimming actress DeeAnna Moran becomes pregnant and Mannix has to make arrangements for her to put the baby in foster care and then adopt it without revealing herself as the mother.

*Mannix is ordered by the studio’s honchos to change the image of cowboy singing star Hobie Doyle, by casting him in a sophisticated drama directed by Laurence Laurentz. Unfortunately, Hobie seems uncomfortable in starring in a movie that is not a Western and gives an inept performance.

*While fending off the inquiries of twin sisters and rival gossip columnists, Thora and Thessaly Thacker, the former threatens to release an article about a past scandal involving Capitol Pictures veteran star Baird Whitlock and Laurentz, when they made a movie together some twenty years earlier.

*Mannix’s biggest problem revolve around Whitlock being kidnapped, while filming one of Capitol Pictures’ “A” productions, an Imperial Roman drama called “Hail, Caesar!”. A ransom note soon arrives, written by a group calling itself “The Future”, who are a group of Communist screenwriters, demanding $100,000 for their cause.

There were a good deal about “HAIL, CAESAR!” that I enjoyed. Primarily, I enjoyed the fact that the movie was set during the Golden Age of Hollywood and that it was about the Hollywood industry during that period. I enjoyed the fact that this was one Old Hollywood movie that was not a murder mystery, a biopic about the rise and downfall of some actor, actress or director. And I was especially relieved that it was no borderline nihilist portrayal of Hollywood like 1975’s “THE DAY OF THE LOCUST”. I had no desire to walk out of theater, harboring a desire to blow out my brains. Instead, the Coens’ film gave audiences a peek into a Hollywood studio circa 1951 with a good deal of irony and humor.

Out of the five story arcs presented in the film, I really enjoyed three of them – namely those story lines that focused on Hobie Doyle, DeeAnna Moran and Mannix’s new job offer. Although I suspect that the DeeAnna Moran character was at best, a superficial take on Esther Williams, I believe the storyline regarding the character’s pregnancy was based upon what happened to Loretta Young in the mid-1930s. I found this story arc mildly enjoyable, thanks to Scarlett Johansson’s funny performance as the blunt-speaking DeeAnna. But I would not regard it as the movie’s highlight. I also found the story arc about Mannix’s new job offer from Lockheed mildly interesting. There almost seemed to be a “would he or wouldn’t he” aura about this story arc. As any film historian knows, the real Eddie Mannix never received a job offer from Lockheed. Then again, he worked at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), not the fictional Capitol Pictures. And he was married twice with no kids, not married once with kids. So, at one point, I did find myself wondering if the events of the day would drive this Mannix into accepting Lockheed’s offer.

However, I felt that one of the movie’s real highlight centered around the Hobie Doyle and Capitol Pictures’ efforts to turn the singing cowboy into a dramatic actor. Why? It was funny. Hilarious. Not only did Alden Ehrenreich give a rather enduring performance as the charming Hobie Doyle, he was funny . . . very funny in one particular sequence. In fact, I could say the same about Ralph Fiennes, who portrayed the elegant director Laurence Laurentz tasked into transforming Hobie into a dramatic actor. I did not find this scene mildly amusing, as I did many of the film’s other scenes. Instead, watching Laurentz trying to direct the limited and very awkward Hobie in a sophisticated drama nearly had laughing in the aisle. Both Ehrenreich and Fiennes were incredibly funny and talented. The other highlight proved to be Josh Brolin’s performance as the much put upon Eddie Mannix. Brolin did an excellent job of carrying the film on his shoulders. More importantly, he gave a tight and subtle performance that allowed his character to serve as the backbone to all of the surrounding chaos.

“HAIL, CAESAR!” was set in 1951, a time when the Hollywood studio system was going through a traumatic shake-up. And this period was definitely reflected in two story arcs – Mannix’s job offer and the kidnapping of Baird Whitlock. However, a part of me wishes that the movie had been set in the 1930s – especially the early 1930s, when Hollywood was battling the censors and the Great Depression. Oh well, we cannot have everything. But I was not that particularly impressed regarding the story line involving Mannix’s concerns over Thora Thacker’s knowledge about some past scandal regarding Baird Whitlock. Why? The movie’s screenplay barely focused upon it. The entire story arc was wasted. And so was Tilda Swinton. I find this doubly sad, considering that Swinton gave a sharp and funny performance as the Thacker twins. Instead, the Coens used the Baird Whitlock character for another story arc – the one centered around his kidnapping at the hands of a group of Communist writers and a Communist contract player named Burt Gurney.

I might as well put my cards on the table. This story line featuring Baird Whitlock’s kidnapping did not strike me as well written. In fact, I did not like it at all. Neither George Clooney’s funny performance or Channing Tatum’s dancing skills could save it. The main problem with this story is that Whitlock was basically kidnapped to provide funds for Gurney, a song-and-dance performer who was a thinly disguised take on actor/dancer Gene Kelly, who was known to be a hardcore liberal. The end of the movie revealed that Gurney took with him, the ransom from Whitlock’s kidnapping, when he defected to the Soviet Union via a Russian submarine. The entire story arc struck me as simply a waste of time. And I found myself wishing that Whitlock had been used for the scandal story line, featuring Thora Thacker.

I certainly had no problems with the movie’s production values. Jess Gonchor did a fairly decent job in re-creating Los Angeles in the early 1950s. His work was ably assisted by the film’s visual and special effects teams, Nancy Haigh’s set decorations and Roger Deakins’ cinematography. However, in the case of the latter, I could have done without the occasional use of sepia tones. I also enjoyed Mary Zophres’s costume designs. But they did not exactly knock my socks off. One aspect of the film that I truly enjoyed were the different “film productions” featured in the movie – especially the ones for DeeAnna Moran and the Hobie Doyle/Laurence Laurentz debacle. I know what you are thinking . . . what about the dance sequence featuring Burt Gurney and dancing extras portraying sailors? Well, I found it well executed. But the whole number, including Tatum’s performance, seemed to be more about skill, but with little style.

In the end, I rather enjoyed “HAIL, CAESAR!”. I believe the Coen Brothers did a fairly successful job in creating an entertaining movie about Hollywood’s Golden Age. The movie also featured excellent performances from a talented cast – especially Josh Brolin, Alden Ehrenreich and Ralph Fiennes. However, I think I would have enjoyed this movie a lot more if it had ditched the kidnapping story arc in favor of the one featuring the potential Baird Whitlock scandal. Oh well, we cannot have everything we want.

“HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” (2007) Review

“HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” (2007) Review

I usually try to avoid reading reviews of movies I am interested in seeing. Instead of relying on the opinions of others, I prefer to form my own opinions. However, nearly fourteen years ago, my curiosity had overcome me and I could not help but read several reviews and opinions of the fifth film from the HARRY POTTER franchise – namely “HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”.

J.K. Rowling’s 2003 novel had never been one of my top favorites in her literary saga. But after the near travesty (okay, perhaps that description is a bit exaggerated) . . . after the disappointment of 2005’s “HARRY POTTER AND GOBLET OF FIRE”, I could not help but wonder this next movie would fare. After all, the novel was longer than even the fourth entry. Fortunately, my fears proved groundless and “THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” has become my third favorite HARRY POTTER movie.

Before I begin to wax lyrical over the movie, I need to point out what I consider to be flaws in the movie. My sister had informed me that the producers of the HARRY POTTER movies had originally intended Mike Newell – director of “GOBLET OF FIRE” – to helm the fifth movie. Somehow those plans fell through and they found themselves scrambling for a new director before production was scheduled to begin. They eventually settled upon British television director, David Yates. I must say that for his second theatrical production, Yates did an excellent job.

But there is one aspect in which his years in television did the movie a disservice. The pacing. Quite frankly, I found the pacing a bit rushed. The movie felt more like it had a running time of at least 100 or 110 minutes, instead of a movie that was over two hours long. I understand that Yates planned to helm the next HARRY POTTER movie, “HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, as well. Fortunately, his future HARRY POTTER films proved to be better paced.

I also had a few other problems with the movie. One of them happened to be Evanna Lynch, who portrayed the eccentric Hogwart student, Luna Lovegood. Before I receive accusations of sacrilege, please hear me out. Ms. Lynch physically captured the essence of Luna perfectly. And although she managed to convey Luna’s offbeat persona in a competent manner, there seemed to be something missing from her portrayal in the movie. Then it occurred to me that there were times when the movie Luna seemed to be devoid of any emotion. She came off as too serene. And as I recalled, the literary Luna was capable of expressing more emotion – including anger at Hermoine’s dismissive attitude toward her. And Luna was not the only character I had problems with. Characters like Remus Lupin, Percy Weasley, Nymphadora Tonks and the Blacks’ house-elf Kreacher; barely seemed to exist. Lupin’s biggest moment came when he tried to prevent Harry from chasing after the murderous Bellatrix Lestrange.

One last problem I had with the movie was the lack of closure on a few plot points. We never learned the consequences of Harry’s discovery that the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher Dolores Umbridge’s had used veritaserum on Cho Chang in order to coerce her into exposing “Dumbledore’s Army” and Harry’s lessons. I never understood why Kreacher even made an appearance in the movie, considering he did not seem to have an impact upon the story. The movie failed to bring some closure or allow Harry to discuss with Sirius and Remus about Snape’s memories of the bullying James Potter. And what happened to Lucius Malfoy after Sirus or Remus managed to defeat him inside the Ministry of Magic? The movie never revealed his fate. Audiences had to wait until the next film.

Despite the above flaws, I enjoyed “ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” very much. It still managed to be a more than satisfying summer movie. The original novel happened to be the longest in the entire series. Yet, screenwriter Michael Goldenberg managed to pare it down to the novel’s main narrative. I suspect many HARRY POTTER fans would have preferred an exact adaptation of the novel. Thankfully, Goldenberg spared the movie audiences of what could have been a long and excruciating period in the movie theater. To this day, I still believe that “HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER’S STONE” and “HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS” could have faced a little more editing. And some of the changes made to the story – Neville Longbottom’s discovery of the Room of Requirement (instead of Dobby the house elf); no visit to the St Mungo’s Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries (along with no repeat appearance of Gilderoy Lockhart and Neville’s parents); Neville’s own revelation of his parents’ fate to Harry (instead of the discovery being made at St. Mungo); and Cho Chang’s exposure of the Dumbledore Army (instead of Marietta Edgecombe committing the deed) – did not hurt the story at all. However, I am certain many fans would disagree. What made “ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” work for me was the combination of a mystery regarding Harry’s connection to Voldemort and the growing fascist state at Hogswarts that also reflected within the Wizarding World under Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge. I have to commend both Yates and Goldenberg for skillfully weaving these two elements within the movie’s plot.

The movie also benefited from excellent acting by the cast. In fact, I found this to be a great relief after suffering from the hammy acting that permeated “GOBLET OF FIRE”. Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint as Harry Potter and Ron Weasley were top-notched as usual. And so was Matthew Lewis as the likable, yet clumsy Neville Longbottom. I especially must commend Radcliffe for conveying Harry’s angst over Cedric Diggory’s death from the last movie and frustration at being ignored by Dumbledore. And I want to sink to my knees and give thanks to the spirits above and David Yates for preventing Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Ralph Finnes, Jason Isaacs and also James and Oliver Phelps from repeating their over-the-top performances in “GOBLET OF FIRE”. Oh, such a relief! On the other hand, Helena Bonham-Carter’s portrayal of the insane Bellatrix Lastrange did seem over-the-top. But considering that the literary Bellatrix was equally hammy, I had no problems with this. By the way, I must applaud Imelda Staunton for her delicious portrayal of “Miss Hitler in Pink” herself, namely the ladylike, yet poisonous Dolores Umbridge, a Ministry undersecretary who became the new Defense Against the Dark Arts instructor. In the novel, she is described as being toad-like, yet Ms. Staunton is obviously a more attractive-looking woman. But despite this, she managed to capture Umbridge’s insidious and bigoted evil beautifully.

However, the movie’s piece de resistance – at least for me – happened to be the battle that took place inside the the Ministry of Magic. I must confess that the literary version of the battle usually left me slightly confused. I guess I simply found it difficult to visualize what took place. But Yates’ direction not only clarified the entire battle for me, it left me feeling thrilled beyond measure. In my opinion, the battle had catapulted in what I now feel is probably one of the best sequences filmed in the entire movie franchise. It was simply superb. Yet, there are other little golden moments in the film that I managed to enjoy:

-the Dumbledore Army’s Defense Against the Dark Arts lessons
-Ron stands up to Seamus for Harry
-Filch’s attempts to get inside the Room of Requirement
-Ginny’s jealous glances at Harry and Cho
-Dean Thomas’ (Alfred Enoch, who had more lines in this movie than the last two combined) argument with Umbridge
-Hermoine’s handling of Gwarp (different from the novel)
-the fact that both Ron and Ginny helped Neville and Luna escape from Draco and the Inquisitor’s Squad (I could be wrong that Ginny helped; if so, please inform me)
-Harry and the Order of the Phoenix’s trip to London via broomsticks

And one of my personal favorite moments in the movie turned out to be Fred and George’s torment of Umbridge before making their escape from Hogwarts. Classic moment.

“HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX” possessed have some flaws that prevented it from becoming my favorite HARRY POTTER movie so far. “HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN” still holds this title as far as I am concerned. But I must admit that back in 2007, I had felt reassured me that the movie franchise had not declined following the slightly disappointing “HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE”, thanks to Michael Goldenberg’s screenplay, excellent performances from a cast led by Daniel Radcliffe and David Yates’ first-rate direction.

Top Ten Favorite Movies Set Between 1750 and 1799

Below is my current list of favorite movies set between 1750 and 1799:

TOP TEN FAVORITE MOVIES SET BETWEEN 1750 AND 1799

1. “The Last of the Mohicans” (1992) – Michael Mann directed what I believe is the best film adaptation of James Fenimore Cooper’s 1826 novel set during the Seven Years War. The movie starred Daniel Day-Lewis, Madeleine Stowe, Wes Studi and Russell Means.

2. “Dangerous Liaisons” (1988) – Stephen Frears directed this sumptuous Oscar nominated adaptation of screenwriter Christopher Hampton’s 1985 stage play, which was an adaptation of Pierre Choderlos de Laclos’ 1782 novel. The movie starred Glenn Close, John Malkovich and Michelle Pfieffer.

3. “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) – Ang Lee directed this superb Oscar winning adaptation of Wang Dulu’s wuxia novel. The movie starred Chow Yun-fat, Michelle Yeoh and Zhang Ziyi.

4. “Amazing Grace” (2006) – Ioan Gruffudd, Benedict Cumberbatch and Romola Garai starred in this biopic about British politician/abolitionist William Wilberforce’s efforts to end Britain’s TransAtlantic slave trade. Michael Apted directed.

5. “The Scarlet Pimpernel” (1982) – Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour starred in this superb adaptation of Baroness Orczy’s 1905 novel and its 1913 sequel, “Eldorado”. Directed by Clive Donner, the movie co-starred Ian McKellen.

6. “Pride & Prejudice” (2005) – Joe Wright directed this first-rate adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1813 novel. The movie starred Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen.

7. “1776” (1972) – William Daniels, Howard da Silva and Ken Howard starred in this adaptation of Peter Stone’s 1969 Broadway musical set during the American Revolution. Peter H. Hunt directed.

8. “The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh” (1963) – Patrick McGoohan starred in this Disney adaptation of Russell Thorndike’s 1915 novel, “Doctor Syn: A Tale of the Romney Marsh”. James Neilson directed.

9. “Jefferson in Paris” (1995) – Ismail Merchant co-produced and James Ivory directed this semi-fictionalized account of Thomas Jefferson’s tenure as U.S. Ambassador to France. The movie starred Nick Nolte, Greta Scacchi, Gwyneth Paltrow and Thandie Newton.

10. “April Morning” (1988) – Chad Lowe, Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Urich starred in this adaptation of Howard Fast’s 1961 novel about the Battle of Lexington and Concord. Delbert Mann directed.

“HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE” (2005) Review

“HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE” (2005) Review

Despite the release of the first two movies in the film franchise, I did not become a fan of the “HARRY POTTER” series until I saw the 2004 movie, “HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN”. I became so enamored of this third film that I regarded the release of its successor, “HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE”, with great anticipation.

Released during the fall of 2005 and based upon J.K. Rowling’s 2000 novel, “HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE” follows boy wizard Harry Potter’s fourth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. This year proves to be a special one for Harry when he unexpectedly finds himself competing in the wizard world’s Tri-Wizard Tournament, a magical competition for young wizards from three different schools, who are 17 years old or older. Not only does the 14 year-old Harry have to deal with the contempt from Hogswarts students who believe he had cheated to enter the competition, he also have to deal with the dangerous tasks that make up the competition and an unpleasant surprise that awaits him once the tournament ends.

When the movie first hit the theaters nine years ago, many had hailed “GOBLET OF FIRE” as the best of the four HARRY POTTER movies, released thus far. I wish I could have agreed with that assessment of “GOBLET OF FIRE”. I really wish I could. But . . . I cannot. Personally, I feel that these critics may have overrated the 2005 film. Why? I considered it the weakest of the first four movies. I would not consider the movie a complete waste of my time. It did feature some very entertaining and mesmerizing scenes. My favorites include the opening sequence in which Harry dreams of Lord Voldemort, Peter Pettigrew and a mysterious man being interrupted by an elderly handyman named Frank Bryce inside a mansion, before the latter is killed by Pettigrew; Headmaster Albus Dumbledore pulling the names of the Tri-Wizard Tournament competitors from the Goblet of Fire; Harry and Ron’s quarrel over the former being one of the tournament’s competitors; the competition’s second task; the third task inside the claustrophobic maze and Harry’s encounter with the . . . uh, unpleasant surprise. But my favorite sequence in the entire film has to be the Yule Ball – the Christmas celebration for the tournament’s participants, the foreign visitors and Hogswarts’ students and faculty staff. I would say that it is one of the best sequences in the entire “HARRY POTTER” film franchise. It is just a joy to watch . . . from the preparations for the ball (that included finding dates and learning how to dance) to the immediate aftermath of the special night.

“HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE” featured some pretty decent performances. But they seemed far and between. Both Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint gave excellent performances as the two best friends – Harry Potter and Ron Weasley. I was especially impressed that they managed to restrain from any theatrical acting when their characters became drawn into a quarrel over Harry’s participation in the tournament. Maggie Smith was her usual competent self as the always dependable Professor Minerva McGonagall. Alan Rickman’s portrayal of potions teacher Severus Snape continued to be a joy to watch. My only disappointment was that his role seemed rather diminished in this film. I was pleasantly surprised by Brendan Gleeson’s portrayal of the colorful teacher and former wizard aurorer, Alastor “Mad Eye” Moody. Gleeson could have indulged in a great deal of hamminess with such an eccentric character. But he kept his performance in full control, while conveying the oddball nature of “Mad Eye”. Miranda Richardson gave a deliciously wicked performance as Rita Skeeter, a reporter who harbored an indulgence for yellow journalism that annoyed poor Harry to no end. I found Jason Isaac’s portrayal of Lucius Malfoy rather theatrical in the Quidditch World Cup scene. But I must admit that I was very impressed by the subtle manner in which he portrayed his character’s obsequious manner in the film’s last half hour. The movie also featured solid performances from Robert Pattison and Katie Leung, who portrayed the student lovers, Cedric Diggory and Cho Chang; Timothy Spall as Death Eater Peter Pettigrew; Robbie Coltrane as Hogwarts teacher Rubeus Hagrid; Frances de la Tour as Beauxbaton Headmistress Olympe Maxime and Eric Sykes as Riddle handyman, Frank Bryce.

Unfortunately, I could find nothing further to admire about “HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE”. My first problem turned out to be the screenplay written by Steve Kloves. I did not expect him to be completely faithful to Rowling’s novel. It would take a two-week miniseries to be completely faithful to it. But there were some scenes I wish Kloves had not eliminated. One, he cut the scene featuring the Weasleys’ visit to the Dursley home on Privet Drive to pick up Harry for the Qudditch World Cup. I mourned this cut, for I believe it was one of the funniest scenes in Rowling’s book series. But Kloves’ further cuts left the main narrative with some serious plot holes. Kloves’ screenplay never explained how Death Eater Barty Couch Jr. managed to escape from the wizarding world’s prison, Azkaban, without the Ministry of Magic’s knowledge. How did Lord Voldemort and Couch Jr. learn about the Tri-Wizard Tournament in the first place? Also, there was one scene that featured “Mad Eye” Moody’s arrival at Hogwarts with no luggage or trunk. Yet, there was another scene in which Harry visited Moody’s room and spotted a trunk. How did the teacher convey his trunk to the castle?

There were other problems that marred my enjoyment of the film. I read an article in which director Mike Newell decided to portray the Hogwarts students in a more “realistic” manner – in other words, as British school children would behave in real life. Unfortunately, his attempt at “realism” merely allowed most of the actors and actresses portraying Hogwarts students to engage in theatrical performances. Even worse, Newell did the opposite with the visiting foreign students from Durmstrang and Beauxbatons by allowing the actors to indulge in one-dimensional cliches with their portrayals. I found one scene in which Harry’s trip to the school prefects’ bath was interrupted by a ghost known as Moaning Myrtle. I realize that Myrtle was supposed to be around 14 (the age of her death), the same age as Harry was in this story. But watching actress Shirley Henderson, who was at least 39 years old at the time, flirt with a half-naked or naked Daniel Radcliffe made me squirm in my seat with a good deal of discomfort. On the other hand, I felt a great deal of disappointment toward the movie’s production style and look. I get the feeling that Production Designer Stuart Craig and Cinematographer Roger Pratt, along with Newell, were trying to recapture the look or style of Middle Earth, as shown in “LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS” and “LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING”. I hated the look in those movies and I hated it in this film.

My biggest problem with “GOBLET OF FIRE” turned out to be the acting. I have already pointed out what I believe were the better performances in the film. As for the rest of the cast . . . sigh. I have never encountered so much hammy acting in my life. It seemed as if three-quarters of the cast spent most of the time shouting their dialogue. I am not just talking about the performances of those portraying the students, but especially the adult actors and actresses. There were some questionable performances that really caught my attention. Emma Watson is a first-rate actress, but she seemed to be trying too hard in her portrayal of Hermione Granger in this film. Michael Gambon, who had done such a wonderful job in his debut as Headmaster Albus Dumbledore in 2004’s “HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN”, gave a completely different – and very hammy – performance in “GOBLET OF FIRE”. Roger Lloyd-Pack was another actor whom one could depend upon for a first-rate performance. Not in this film. He seemed to be a bundle of out-of-control nerves and very theatrical in his role as head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, Barty Crouch Sr. The previous performances mentioned were nothing in compare to both David Tennant and Ralph Fiennes. Lloyd-Pack’s twitchy performance was nothing in compare to David Tennant, whose performance as Death Eater Barty Crouch Jr. revealed more twitchy mannerisms in this one film than Bette Davis did in her entire film career. But when it came to chewing the scenery, no one did it better than Ralph Fiennes in his debut as the series’ main villain, Tom Riddle Jr. aka Lord Voldemort. Words cannot describe the over-the-top performance he gave in the movie’s climatic scene. And I cannot help but wonder why Newell did not reign in his performance. Then again, he was barely able to do the same with other cast members, as well.

Yes, “HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE” struck me as far from perfect. Thanks to the plot holes, unattractive production look and the numerous hammy performances, I found it difficult to consider it a great favorite of mine. But despite its flaws, I still managed to enjoy the film. It just strikes me as a pity that it turned out to be a comedown after the franchise’s first three films . . . at least for me.