4 Mini Reviews

As I mentioned yesterday, we will be doing three days of mini reviews as I catch up on the movies I saw in 2018 (and today one FilmStruck movie I never got around to reviewing) in an effort to wrap up 2018 before we will start doing OVP's from that year in the next few months.  As a result, here are four additional films I saw in 2018, that, while interesting, I will be giving an abbreviated review to rather than a full one as I'm a bit behind & am tired of being behind on my film reviews.

(Spoiler Alert: If you haven't seen Smallfoot, Red Sparrow, Paddington 2, or 1961's Victim, please skip over those sections & come back later when you have!)

Smallfoot (dir. Karey Kirkpatrick)

Yes, yes, we're all aware that Zendaya is Meechee, but the better question is-is this movie any good?  The question is hard to answer, as there are moments of charm in this kind of dismissible animated feature that, like seemingly all animated features, still grossed over $200 million.  Centering on the unlikely friendship between a Yeti (Channing Tatum) and a documentarian (James Corden) trying at first to exploit his new friend & then protect him, it's cute that they focus on this from the Yeti's perspective, having the humans be the "imaginary creature," but the joke gets old after a while, and no one in the voice talent is particularly good in their role, with Tatum's earnestness being the best fit for the role.  The songs are lackluster, and there's too much plot for a 96-minute movie, making the entire Percy-redemption storyline feel a bit combed over.  (Ranking: 2/5 stars)

Red Sparrow (dir. Francis Lawrence)

Jennifer Lawrence had been taking an interesting tact post-Oscar win, using her massive celebrity to greenlight movies like Joy and Mother!, which got a wider audience than they ever could have hoped to get without her face across the posters.  There's unfortunately nothing noble about her Red Sparrow, though, as this is a completely commercial play, and not an enjoyable one (or that successful of one).  The spy thriller moves along at a glacial pace (it's 140 minutes long, and could have dropped a half hour without any speed bumps), and is easy to see coming.  All of the twists are apparent to anyone who has seen a movie like this before, and the film relies heavily on extreme violence and sex to titillate the audience, but it just feels gross after a while.  Even with actors as pedigreed as Jeremy Irons & Charlotte Rampling filling out the supporting class, there's little to redeem here and Lawrence's considerable movie star charisma can't save such a dud.  Here's to hoping that she either works with better blockbuster directors going forward or returns to the arthouse soon. (Ranking: 1/5 stars)

Paddington 2 (dir. Paul King)

The best movie on this list by a country mile, Paddington 2 takes the lovely, calm tone of the first film and perfects it, with a better villain.  Hugh Grant made my personal ballot for Best Supporting Actor in 2018, and with good reason-he's marvelous as a vain, conniving washed-up actor who is desperate to find a hidden treasure by way of a pop-up book (a beautifully constructed sequence).  The film fills out the cast with a cavalry of Royal Shakespeare Company actors, but it's Grant and Ben Whishaw's Paddington, so calm, so of a different era, yet totally at home in such a film that makes this movie special.  I'd say "they don't make them like this anymore," but clearly they do, and it's refreshing & a bit shocking to find out that a movie like Paddington 2 has an audience.  Bravo to Paul King, who manages to avoid what could have been pablum and pulls together a sweet tale without ever making it sugary. (Ranking: 4/5 stars)

Victim (dir. Basil Dearden)

Considering the landmark position Victim has in LGBT cinema, it's kind of crap that I am not writing a full review on this one, but let's be real here-this is a basic suspense film that's only proper calling card is featuring a gay main protagonist.  The film, centering around the blackmail scheme of a barrister who has had a romantic (but non-sexual, cause heaven forbid he get laid) relationship with a man twenty years his junior.  The barrister is played by Dirk Bogarde, who famously was well-loved in Britain but never became proper star in the United States (probably because he was gay in real-life & didn't downplay this to the degree that would have been acceptable in 1960's Hollywood, making this film all-the-more-shocking), but I wasn't blown away at all by his work here-he plays his repressed homosexual as a constant reassurance to the straight audience that he "isn't like" the deviants that are immediately coming to mind.  This is my way of pointing out that while this was aggressively progressive at the time (it's the first English-language film to use the word "homosexual"), it has aged poorly, to the point where you really have to focus on the non-gay elements to see if it works...and it doesn't, as the suspense is marred down by antiquated politics & a thin plot.  I try to grade based on the era, rather than our current one's, but even by that metric this is just 2/5 stars.

The Lady in the Van (2015)

Film: The Lady in the Van (2015)
Stars: Maggie Smith, Alex Jennings, Jim Broadbent (plus a lot of really fun cameos that I won't spoil here)
Director: Nicholas Hytner
Oscar History: Smith received nominations for the Globes & BAFTA, indicating a strong play (I'd argue that it was either she or Mirren who was in sixth place at the Oscars that year), but 2015 was arguably Best Actress's strongest slate in this decade, and so she just missed out on a seventh Oscar citation.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

This morning we returned to 2015, and I have every intention of continuing to plow through 2015 so that I can get that year off of my back.  But before we can bid that annum adieu, we have to catch a pair of 2015 films that were nominated for major acting precursors, but for some reason I never got around to at the time.  The first of these films is arguably the one that made the most sense as a precursor (the other sort of came out of nowhere), and I suspect was just a few votes short of being part of our OVP to begin with: The Lady in the Van.  What initially felt like just another toss-away "I can do it in my sleep" Maggie Smith role actually ended up being a bit more challenging work from the actress, or so the critics had proclaimed.  As a result, I watched this with interest to see if Smith, one of the best actresses of her generation who seems to have caught a whiff of the "Robert de Niro/Coasting Legend Syndrome" could actually create a compelling new creation.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film focuses on the real-life relationship between Alan Bennett (Jennings), the noted playwright and author of The History Boys, as well as Mary Shepherd (Smith), an eccentric older woman who would be all-but-homeless were it not for the van that she lives in on Bennett's block.  They develop a strained friendship, with Bennett fascinated by her, having her inspire his work (much to his chagrin) and in many ways she reminds him of the mother with whom he has a complicated relationship, not least of which because he's hiding his homosexuality from her and the world.  Shepherd seems to have lived a dozen lives, once a war nurse and a concert pianist and potentially a killer (this is how Smith opens the film, with her hitting a man with her car, seemingly by accident but it continually haunts her).  Their friendship turns into something real, and we watch as she lives essentially in his driveway for fifteen years, never entirely giving in on her own independence even as she continues to rely on Bennett more heavily.

The movie has a few quirks that you'd only find in a British comedy.  Bennett is actually two separate characters, one a flesh-and-blood man & the other his manifested subconscious, where he has conversations about the things he's hiding from the world and the way that he resents himself for continually writing about Shepherd rather than his own life or his romantic pursuits.  The movie is littered with cameos, including all of the original History Boys, which is wonderful to see (James Corden & Sacha Dhawan are my favorites of the bunch here, and of course Russell Tovey plays the random lover, because Russell Tovey is always a sex bomb whenever he's onscreen so why not lean into it?), which occasionally keeps the plot moving as it becomes a bit repetitive and Bennett as a protagonist is at times infuriating; he keeps his own personality at arm's length, and it doesn't make it better when he's expository about it late in the film.

But the movie is worth the price if only for Smith (and the cameos), as she truly hasn't been this good on the big screen in years, perhaps since Gosford Park.  Smith finds some interesting humanity in a character she could have just gone-through-the-motions with and still gotten a similarly solid box office.  I love the ways that she gives us hints of not just the woman she once was, but the woman she might have been had tragedy and mental illness not struck.  The big scene where she sits at the piano, in the dark, could have been indulgent in a lesser actors care, but here it feels so real, so heartbreaking as she must break the shell of a character she's needed to craft to get through each day, and must only for a moment find a window into a world she once inhabited.  In almost any other year, this would've been an easy Oscar nomination  (put this in 2014 or 2016, for example, and she'd have made it, and probably not even in fifth place), but I'm glad the Globes & BAFTA found room so that I could catch this late gem in Smith's career.

OVP: Brooklyn (2015)

Film: Brooklyn (2015)
Stars: Saoirse Ronan, Domhnall Gleeson, Emory Cohen, Jim Broadbent, Julie Walters
Director: John Crowley
Oscar History: 3 nominations (Best Picture, Actress-Saoirse Ronan, Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

I am a longtime sucker for a period romance, and up until 2015, I was kind of in a bit of a drought.  In the past few years though, this is a genre that has seemingly gone out of style, so imagine my wonderful surprise when I realized that not only were there three major period romances this year, but they were all magnificent (Testament of Youth and Carol were the other ones).  Brooklyn was the one, however, that made the biggest impact on Oscar, though, as it's the only one that made it into the Best Picture race and is the final 2015 Best Picture nominee I haven't reviewed yet on the blog.  Thankfully, I got the review in just under the wire as the Oscars are, of course, tomorrow.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is the story of Eilis (Ronan), a young Irish girl who goes to the United States in the 1950's to get a better life for herself.  She becomes a shop girl, and spends much of her time alternating between a job that she doesn't seem particularly good at and homesickness amongst her occasionally catty boardinghouse mates.  As the film progresses, she falls in love with Tony (Cohen), an Italian also living in Brooklyn, and their unlikely pairing ends in marriage before Eilis must go back to Ireland upon the death of her sister.  After falling for an Irishman named Jim (Gleeson), she realizes that her heart still belongs with Tony and she returns home to him in Brooklyn, forgoing a potentially more conventional life in her home country.

The film's greatest strength is that it actually takes itself seriously.  For so many years I've watched romantic films that have too many winks.  Side characters that are meant to make us think that what is happening isn't important or humor that doesn't feel organic to the everyday moments of the picture.  Brooklyn has humorous elements (particularly the wonderful scenes with Julie Walters and the other women in the boarding house), but they feel so natural in the story and never like a side distraction from the seriousness that is happening onscreen.  So often, especially in pictures that center around women and romance, we are expected to lighten up and told that the struggles of our characters aren't important, but Brooklyn never patronizes us and it presents Eilis' decisions as very much central to herself and her future.  Let's not forget that these are two vastly different worlds, and the writers know that and make sure that the film is steeped in finely-tuned drama.

This sort of seriousness has created some of the best pictures of all-time, in my opinion, and while Brooklyn doesn't hit quite that lofty of a title, it is clearly near the shadow of movies like Waterloo Bridge, Brokeback Mountain, and Doctor Zhivago.  The actors and cast are uniformly good.  It's weird to think of Saoirse Ronan, that girl who rocked our world in Atonement, graduating into adulthood so seamlessly, but here she proves she's more than ready to tackle serious roles and sit alongside the likes of Brie Larson, Alicia Vikander, and Gugu Mbatha-Raw as a new generation of actresses become matinee idols.  I love the way that Nick Hornby makes both Jim and Tony extraordinarily likable and worthy of her; so often in romantic dramas you see two different characters and you know which of the people she "has to" pick, but here the film moves in a way that you can just as easily find her going toward Jim because her life will be easier but just as full.  That's a testament to a truly great source material and adaptation.

I know the film only scored three Oscar nominations, but I'm so glad that one of them was Best Picture.  Movies like Brooklyn feel like a mirage they come along so rarely.  Elegance and introversion are scarce breeds on the silver-screen without ostentatious indulgence.  While it may not win tomorrow, Brooklyn surely has my ballot for Best Picture of 2015.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Did you love Brooklyn as much as I did, or were you hoping for something a little bit more crackling?  Where do you see the careers of Ronan and Cohen going next?  And are you excited to see Julie Walters' TV spinoff of this series come to the BBC?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Paddington (2015)

Film: Paddington (2015)
Stars: Ben Whishaw, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Madeleine Harris, Samuel Joslin, Julie Walters, Nicole Kidman, Jim Broadbent
Director: Paul King
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

While my childhood was filled with books in every corner of the house and bedtime, Michael Bond's stories about a bear named Paddington never reached my ears.  Perhaps they were a bit too British, or perhaps it was because my mother's love of Judy Blume and CS Lewis precluded her from investigating these tales, but I was wholly unfamiliar with the Paddington series, other than the bear's iconic hat and blue coat, when I popped in a DVD of the film yesterday evening.  As a result, my only real interactions with the series were two bizarre contradictions: the initial trailers for the film, which looked egregiously bad, to the point of blaspheming on the beloved children's tale, and the reviews, which were almost universally adulatory to the point of nearing 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.  These two contradictions intrigued me enough to ensure Paddington was seen before the end of the year, and as luck would have it rose to the top of my queue more quickly than I anticipated.

(Spoilers Ahead) The question now, of course, is if I liked the movie, which I did.  Not having been familiar with the stories I don't know if we are seeing a carbon copy or a complete misread of the books, but the film has a hearty glow of English loveliness to it.  It's hardly groundbreaking entertainment, but that doesn't have to happen every film (not everyone is Richard Linklater or Terrence Malick), and there's really no falseness to it.  In a world where we feel like every cartoon or childhood character has to be hip or modern, Paddington feels very authentically at home in a different era.  This is the sort of film like Matilda or Babe in the 1990's that children could cling to without any parental worry about cynicism.  Just a love for a bear in a coat.

Part of this is achieved through a series of simple, but always genuine, interactions with Paddington and both his aunt/uncle as well as his adopted family the Browns.  The film isn't shy about relying a bit on cliches to establish the characters, principally the children who get very little to do in the movie, but it has the good sense to hire actors who are aware of this books place in British lore and who give this film respect and not treat it like a paycheck (which oftentimes feels the case with children's movies, let's be honest).  Sally Hawkins has a warmth as Mrs. Brown that is undeniable, but also keeps her character very real, as does Hugh Bonneville as her nervous husband.  Best of all is Nicole Kidman as a scheming taxidermist, off to restore her family's honor by putting Paddington on the mantlepiece.  Kidman, who has a cool elegance that lends itself well to a movie villain, occasionally hams it up but by-and-large she stays within the universe of Paddington, letting the bear stay the star even when her charisma and role could steal the film from beneath his paws.

The weirdest thing about the film, quite frankly, is that the trailer showed arguably the worst scenes.  There's a gross-out sequence with a toothbrush followed by an implausible situation with bathroom plumbing that was the highlight of the trailer, but really this is the lowest moment of the film and the only toilet-bowl scene (quite literally, in fact).  The rest of the movie is leisurely, investing time in side characters but particularly in making Paddington himself a well-rounded individual, and all-in-all it's an adorable little film.  Like I said above-this isn't rocket science here, but simplicity is hard when it's done well and without dullness, and Paddington and his lovely charms surely reach that point.

There you have it-I debated between three and four stars and went with the former just because I don't love the film even if I admire it (it isn't in my heart like Matilda or Babe, admittedly), but I surely would recommend it to anyone, particularly anyone with children, and wouldn't begrudge someone giving it that extra star (I'd be part of the 98% Fresh ratings on Rotten Tomatoes if I were part of that community).  In the meantime, though, please share your thoughts on this movie-were you a fan?  Did you skip it due to the trailer but are coming back due to the ratings?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

OVP: Live Action Short Film (2014)

OVP: Best Live Action Short Film (2014)

The Nominees Were...

Oded Binnun and Mihal Brezis, Aya

Michael Lennox and Ronan Blaney, Boogaloo and Graham

Hu Wei and Julien Feret, Butter Lamp (La Lampe au Beurre de Yak)

Talkhon Hamzavi and Stefan Eichenberger, Parvaneh

Mat Kirkby and James Lucas, The Phone Call

My Thoughts: Continuing on in our look at the short film nominees of 2014 (see the bottom of this page for more short film contests, including 2014's Doc Short race), we're going to take a look at what is usually the hardest race to crack of the three-the race for Best Live Action Short film.

Like the documentary short films, we're going to begin with the first film presented by the fabulous ShortsHD team who put out these wonderful movies each year and take a look at Parvaneh, a Swiss film about a young Muslim girl who is trying to find a way to transfer money to her family in Afghanistan.  The film itself is merely okay, and hardly worth the price of a nomination.  I loved the look inside Switzerland (for our international readers, Americans usually get more travel information about France, Germany, and the UK than some of the more inland European countries), particularly their famous banking system.  That being said, this is a pretty antiquated "worlds collide" sort of story that was far more popular in foreign films of the 1980's, and uncomfortably recalls The Intouchables (which, you may recall, I HATED).  Parvaneh is too short to be that bad, but it's certainly not good.

Our second film, which is Butter Lamp, is easily the strangest Oscar-nominated film I've seen this year.  The film itself is nothing more than a collection of quick snapshots at a variety of people.  The movie is set up with just a photographer taking random photos of a number of Chinese families and couples behind select backdrops.  The film feels more like an art piece than an actual movie, and is probably the least conventional film I've seen nominated for an Oscar since Dogtooth.  That doesn't mean it's bad, though, by any means-it's wildly watchable, even if you continually wonder where it's going, and the ending, which juxtaposes the fake landscapes of modernity with the majesty of rural China feels like an "ohhh..." moment without spelling it out too loudly.  Still, there's not a lot there except a clever idea and a strong ending, so I wouldn't select it for the trophy.

Not when you have something as special as The Phone Call coming for you.  Every few years one of the short films stars someone you've actually heard of, and here we have Oscar nominee Sally Hawkins as a grief counselor named Heather trying to find a way to help a grieving widower in Jim Broadbent's Stan.  The entire film plays like a thriller, with Heather trying find a way to save Stan, who is dying from a sleeping pill overdose, and we as the audience cannot quite tell whether or not she'll get there in the end.  In reality, while the thriller aspect carries the film, it's the acting and the message that you remember.  Hawkins in particular is just wonderful, with her plain Jane appeal and practiced note-taking and speaking.  And I loved the message right up until the last few moments, as it really shows the importance of simple interactions that we have every day, and how much they can matter even when we don't know it.  I didn't like the final frame, as it felt a little cheap and cloying, but overall this was a wonderful experience.

While Butter Lamp is on the surface the strangest of the films, the movie Aya may have been the oddest for my friend Liz who went to this screening with me, and I can feel why.  We have two individuals that are randomly pushed together by one's rash decision: Overby (a pianist in Israel trying to go to a piano contest) and Aya (a woman who randomly decides to be his driver when a twist of fate leads to this confusion).  The film is odd principally because Aya's motives are never properly revealed.  We do learn that she has a life we didn't expect, but are these two playing a game, and in Aya's case in particular, does she float from reality to reality, never quite finding herself but being whatever others reflect on her (throughout the film I was expecting some sort of bizarre artistic reasoning behind the characters, much like Certified Copy with Juliette Binoche a few years ago)?  They don't give enough impression for such credit to the film, though, and I think it may just be a strange woman who finds comfort with an odd soulmate on a highway.  The film (along with the next one) is the film that feels like it could easily be expanded into a feature-length movie, for whatever that's worth.

The final film is thankfully a comedy (though none of these films have the depressing after taste of the documentary shorts), and we get a wonderful look at two young boys who get pet chickens named Boogaloo and Graham.  The film is cute and a fluffy trifle compared with the next two films, but it's also insanely watchable, as the young boys have a frankness that is wonderfully-timed, and I loved Martin McCann as their father, both a complete softy for their sakes and really an adolescent at heart when it comes to his wife.  Occasionally the film hints at the harsher reality of Ireland in the 1970's, but the win here is in the charming depiction of the family.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Academy releases a shortlist of the films eligible for this award so we know that Bahdad Messi, Carry On, My Father's Truck, SLR, and Summer Vacation were all relatively close to being on this list.  The BAFTA Awards oddly doubled-up with a nomination here (they usually don't), as Boogaloo and Graham won the trophy over Emotional Fusebox, Slap, The Karman Line, and The Brothers.

Films I Would Have Nominated: Sadly they don't put short films before films with regularity anymore (don't you wish they did?) and so I don't get to see enough nominees to complain.

Oscar’s Choice: After last year I'm loathe to speculate (Just Before Losing Everything is the best short film I've ever seen in all of my years of watching these movies...and that includes docs, animated, and live action), but I suspect that the star power of The Phone Call will separate it from the pack in a similar way to The Shore a few years back.

My Choice: Quite certainly The Phone Call-it might not be perfect, but it comes the closest.  I'll follow with the wonderfully cute Boogaloo and Graham, and then Butter Lamp, Aya, and Parvaneh.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Did you see these films, and if so, who did you cheer for?  Share in the comments!

Also in 2014: Documentary Short

Past Live Action Short Film Contests: 2012, 2013

Finding the Magic in the Harry Potter Movies

I love the Harry Potter movies.  Love, love, love.  It's one of those situations where as a blogger I know that I cannot remain even the remotest bit objective, and so I figured on this totally arbitrary day (I'm going to be honest-I didn't get a chance to write the larger post I was expecting because I was out too late last night), I decided to randomly finish a giant Harry Potter post I did a while back but for a different site but has never seen the light of day here.  Enjoy (and obviously spoilers abound, but if you haven't seen the Harry Potter films yet, you are the biggest of muggles)!

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Review: It’s a bit odd, all-things-considered, to revisit the very beginnings of Hogwarts. Even if you are just stumbling across it for the first time, entering the magical world of Harry Potter seems utterly familiar-you would have had to been locked in Azkaban prison for the last decade to not know the tale of the Boy Who Lived. And yet, there are still wonderful things to uncover in this slightly by-the-numbers, but ultimately rewarding first outing. The actors may be mere children (try being born before 1987 and not feeling dauntingly older by watching this movie), but they have the moxie and charm that would become their trademarks, and not even Chris Columbus’s limp direction can stifle the creative magic of Jo Rowling’s best moments-the streets of Diagon Alley, Hogwarts letters sprouting out of thin air, and a Sorting Hat who knows a thing or two about the future.
Best Moment: Ollivander’s, by a country mile-John Hurt gives a giddy and just a teensy bit wicked performance as the wandmaster who helps Harry choose his destiny.
Worst Moment: Ron’s heavy-handed speech before being blown off a horse during chess-so out of character.
Film MVP: Daniel Radcliffe, who manages to bring a wonderful and celebrated literary character to life, despite being unable to drive a car.
Totally Arbitrary Harry Potter-themed Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d give it a Nimbus 2001-it’s faster than other models, but you know there’s something better ahead.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Review: The second, and thankfully last film from Chris Columbus, who didn’t find an emotionally cloying moment he didn’t spread across ten minutes of film. This is the least of the Harry Potter films, which is like saying it’s your worst visit to Disneyland-you may not get to ride the Matterhorn, but you can still enjoy the ambience. There are, however, moments to love about this film-primarily, Jason Isaacs and Kenneth Branagh delivering their characters of Lucius and Gilderoy (sneering malevolence and pompous certitude, respectively) with eleven shades of scenery-chewing (that doesn’t sound great, but it works in a film this shoot-for-the-moon). And of course, Jo Rowling gives us a strong showdown between Tom Riddle and Harry Potter that will overshadow the film’s weaker moments.
Best Moment: Moaning Myrtle-such a snide and spoiled ghost she turned out to be, and it gives the Hogwarts Trio all of their best lines.
Worst Moment: The ending-Hagrid getting a standing ovation? Ludicrously out-of-character for all but the Gryffindor house.
Film MVP: Jason Isaacs, who on second viewing is obviously making a completely different film than the rest of the cast (he would be even better in 2003’s Peter Pan-rent it now, for the love of hippogriffs!)
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d say it’s the film equivalent of Gilderoy Lockhart’s Magical Me-obviously entertaining and sometimes engaging, but clearly there’s some falsity below the surface.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Review: Ahh, now this is more like it. Alfonso Cuaron is the best director to ever cast his spell over Rowling’s universe, and this is perhaps the best (though, amongst the don't-stray-from-the-books fans, the most controversial) film of the series. It certainly captures the transition between childhood and adolescence with a clearer picture than almost any film out there. From the choir of singing students (and toads) to the Lewis Carroll acid trip of the Knight Bus to the delicious sarcasm that rings from every line that Emma Watson utters, this is the only film in the series that would stand on its own-if there were no other tales of Hogwarts, Azkaban would ensure it were a clever legend. Mischief managed, indeed.
Best Moment: I’ve always had a strong fondness for the scene where Harry fights the Boggarts with Professor Lupin. It may not be the flashiest in the flick, but it’s quiet wonder and the sheer joy of overcoming a small obstacle is perhaps the closest any of the movies came to capturing the tiny moments that made us love the novels.
Worst Moment: Daniel Radcliffe is many things, but a decent crier (at least in this movie) he is not.
Film MVP: I’d give it a tie between David Thewlis, whose reserved Professor Lupin gets better on repeat viewing, and Watson, who comes into her own with the help of some delicious dialogue.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a Patronus-light but strong, and it creates a sort of spell that only a few special people can muster-movie magic.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Review: If HP directors were James Bond actors (go with me here), Alfonso Cuaron would obviously be the suave Sean Connery, David Yates would be the dependable Roger Moore, Chris Columbus would be the miscast Timothy Dalton, which may leave poor Mike Newell as George Lazenby-solid, perhaps even worthy on occasion, but only given one chance to shine and then be replaced. Goblet is Newell’s only film in the series, and he is given the rather difficult task of making sense of Rowling’s most “jumbled” (I say that with love) book. He mostly succeeds, particularly in capturing teen angst and its sheer awkwardness and unfairness (come on, it must have been REALLY difficult growing up looking like Robert Pattinson) in the best moments of the film, even if he sometimes loses us in the bog of too-many-new-characters plotline. In particular, though, he gives David Yates a much freer palette to paint the final four films from-a nice transition from the traditionalism of Columbus and the out-there, could only make it through one film brilliance of Cuaron. By letting Harry grow up, he allows Yates to shake and stir the characters.
Best Moment: The Yule Ball-didn’t you want a song called “Dance Like a Hippogriff” at your Prom?
Worst Moment: The plot transitions-for those not familiar with the books, this is the jumpiest and probably most confusing editing in the series.
Film MVP: Brendan Gleeson gets all the good lines and steals all his scenes, but I have to go with Gambon, all wisdom and worry.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d say it’s a bag of Bertie Bott’s-some sweet, some bitter, but overall an experience worth the galleons you shelled out to see it.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Review: I’m going to be honest-there are times when the last three books seem to blend. And there are moments when I’m a little floored that they cut perhaps my favorite moment in this book, when Petunia gets her howler (never, in all seven books of reading, have I ever been so intrigued by one moment in the book). But that doesn’t mean that this isn’t a wickedly wild ride. We begin the first of the four David Yates films with the creepiest moment at the Dursleys, and are scuttled into the world of a doubting Ministry and character assassinations for political gain. Harry and the gang are truly excellent in this film, as Yates takes the time to flesh out characters like Neville and the daffy Luna Lovegood. Of course, Yates can’t take credit for the single best performance in any of the HP films thusfar, that of the pink sadist Delores Unbridge, ably played by Academy Award nominee (sadly not for this movie) Imelda Staunton (I say with much certainty that even in 2007’s cinematic excellence, she should have won the Oscar). With her, Harry finally gets a villain worth fighting against, and we get a straight-forward blast of a blockbuster.
Best Moment: Umbridge & Harry in detention-the film wouldn’t have worked if we didn’t hate Umbridge so fiercely.
Worst Moment: The Snape Occlumency lessons-so crucial and important in the book, and yet too glossed over in the movie.
Film MVP: Staunton, who gives every little “hmm” and “ahem” a cruel undertone that few other actors could have managed.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a nice pint of Butterbeer-warm and refreshing, with just enough of a kick to know it’s working.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Review: The even numbered books in the series were always, in my opinion, slightly less than the odd numbered ones that preceded them. So it is a little odd to say that this film is better than the one before it. Even without the cruel Delores Umbridge, we are still given a wild ride, and perhaps even a little peak into some of the characters who have until now been just “versions” of themselves from the books. Michael Gambon gives Albus Dumbledore a stronger and more fleshed out personality, and Jim Broadbent is absolutely brilliant as the status-minded Horace Slughorn. As this is the Hogwarts Trio’s final year at Hogwarts, it is fitting that we get a bit more teenage angst (though Yates doesn’t quite understand it as well as Mike Newell), and we also get a tear-inducing ending. The film also gives one of the most terrifying moments of the series thusfar (though HP7 would equal it with the snake-eating teacher) with Tom Riddle asking about horcruxes. All-in-all, this is perhaps the only film in the series that, while not the equal of the book, sewed together some of the pieces of where the book lagged. 

Best Moment: I kind of want to go with anything Broadbent did (seriously, between Thewlis, Staunton, and Broadbent, this series should have three acting Oscar nominations), but I have settle on his devastating monoluge about fish.
Worst Moment: Not to be cruel, but who was the casting director who hired the Lavender Brown actress?
Film MVP: Broadbent, such a weary traveler in the world of magic.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a veela-you know there’s something about it that you justifiably love, if at times you’re being too kind to its flaws.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 (2010)

Review: I’ll never be 100% certain that they made the right decision splitting this movie into two. I mean, they used to make 4 hour movies-and wouldn’t that have been seismically epic? However, I shouldn’t let that stymie this admirable production. As the film series goes along, the movies become more polished, a bit more manufactured, and while they are consistently strong, they sometimes lose the childlike wonder of something like Azkaban. That said, this film has three distinctly perfect scenes-the opening, particularly Hermione erasing her parents memories, the hearing (the final stand of Delores), and finally the tale of the three brothers, an indy touch to a highly mainstream movie. These three scenes together make it one of the best films in the series, and the fact that we have now made the leap to three capable, competent actors proves that the casting director a decade ago knew exactly what they were doing when they called the names Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson off the call list.

Best Moment: As I mentioned above, I have three, but if I had to pick, it’s those opening scenes, where all of them slowly cast their spells and ward away childhood.
Worst Moment: The Oscars totally ruined “the tiny ball of light” moment for me.
Film MVP: With no teachers to steal the scenes, and Rickman/Fiennes sadly relegated to the backburner, I’d say it’s a threeway tie between the Hogwarts Trio, who all use their big moments in the film to shine hard.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s an invisibility cloak-not too flashy, but substantive when it needs to be and it hits just the right balance.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 (2011)

Review: And so it all ends, not with a bang, but with the most iconic castle outside the Magic Kingdom being blown to smithereens. That’s right people-if you were hoping that there’d be some top notch special effects in this film, you’ll be in for a treat. Then again, if you’re like me, hoping for the quiet moments throughout the film, you’ll get them, particularly in the first half. Yates was kind enough to give us some of the brilliant moments with Maggie Smith (one of two times I think I may have cheered in the movie) and Kelly McDonald (the gloriously melancholy Grey Lady). And of course, this film wouldn’t have been complete without Julie Walters taking out Helena Bonham Carter in pure style. I am glad, however, that Yates stuck most closely with the Hogwarts Trio in this one-all three of them had grown into young adults before the eyes of the world, and as this film proves, they’ve grown into fine actors as well. A fitting close to a wild ride of a series.

Best Moment: A tough one for me-the obvious choice would be Julie Walters taking down HBC (seriously-when I read that in the book, I knew that was going to be one of my favorite moments in the movie), but I really loved the walk in white with Dumbledore and (my ultimate choice for best scene in the picture) Maggie Smith’s taking charge.
Worst Moment: If I cheat, it would be that I didn’t see Dan take out the Carows in defense of Professor McGonagall. However, I’d probably go with the choppy transition at the beginning of the film.
Film MVP: Radcliffe or Smith-both of them made every moment they had onscreen count, and still added levels to their characters.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s the first ride on the Hogwarts Express-thrilling, new while still familiar, a bit mysterious, and full of wonder.

OVP: Another Year (2010)

Film: Another Year (2010)
Stars: Jim Broadbent, Ruth Sheen, Lesley Manville, Oliver Maltman, Peter Wight, Imelda Staunton
Director: Mike Leigh
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Original Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

Approaching the films of Mike Leigh is always something that I feel I need to do so with caution.  Unlike many other filmmakers, I'm never quite sure what I'll be encountering, and while I love the excitement of not knowing what is next, I also want to be emotionally prepared-am I going to be dealing with a traditional despair or joyous happiness?  Am I going to see a lot of people that will improve with their film, or a group that will largely stay staid throughout the film?  I know I'm going to be mesmerized and get brilliance, but in what package?  It's a bit like a Christmas present that I get to open every couple of years at the cinema or from my Netflix envelopes, and that is exactly how I feel about Another Year, his 2010 triumph and the latest film from this marvelous auteur.

(Spoilers to come) Another Year starts deceptively, with us focusing on the sleeping troubles of a woman named Janet (played marvelously by Imelda Staunton, one of many Leigh regulars that litters this film).  She is first seen by a doctor, and then by a psychiatrist, and we see a woman that is bitter, lonely, and hates what life has dealt her.  She is married, but clearly not happily, and her children are no comfort to her.  We see her lash out at her shrink Gerri (Sheen), and then Leigh pulls the first of several fast ones on us as an audience.  For once the session is over, we follow not the Oscar-nominated Staunton, but instead Sheen (another treasured British character actress), and though we remember her well throughout the rest of the movie, we do not encounter her again, nor is she even mentioned after her two key scenes.  It's an interesting choice, to cut arguably the most well-known star in the film (give or take Jim Broadbent), and instead focus on the therapist.  I know getting comments at the blog is sometimes a difficult task, but I'd really encourage anyone who reads this review to respond, as I'd love to know what your thoughts are on the "why" here.

Perhaps it's because Gerri, and her husband Tom (Broadbent, and yes, the name pairing is noted in the film) are so used to having miserable people in their lives.  They have a son (Maltman) who seems unhappy, and is not married, a friend named Ken (Wight) who is overweight and slowly realizes that his life has past him by and he is no longer able to enjoy the things he once did, and we finally have Mary (Lesley Manville, who missed an Oscar nomination due to category confusion, which is a shame since she should have ousted someone from either lineup with her bravura work), who is the third lead in the film along with Sheen and Broadbent.  Because of the unconventional structure of the film, we don't actually know that Mary is going to be our primary protagonist until the film has ended-Tom and Gerri are onscreen far more often, and the stories of Ken and Tom's brother take up a solid portion of the film, but it's Mary that we latch onto throughout the film, and the film, as it progresses, becomes largely Mary's story.

I suppose that means that it's important for us to introduce Mary, a secretary who is single, unlucky in love and money, and relies on Tom and Gerri far more for her happiness than they do on her.  It's difficult not to compare the two and call Gerri the total winner-she has a successful career, a lovely home, a son and husband who clearly adore her, and a beautiful coop garden that fills her leisure time.  Her life is not grand and opulent, but it is wonderfully happy and content and filled with meaning and love.  Tom and Gerri's life is, if we truly admit it to ourselves, what we're all really hoping for-a partnership with someone we love, a life of comfort with little worry, and filled with meaning and goals that are consistently achieved.

Mary, on the other hand, is single, and increasingly desperate due to the failures she must endure day after day.  There are multiple recurring issues in the films, including Mary's constant troubles with her car, an investment she made with pride in the first chapter of the film (the film is divided into four chapters, one for each season), and by the fourth chapter she has sold it for a pittance and is once again forced to ride the tubes to get to her friends' house.  Mary also has a slight crush on Tom and Gerri's son, Joe, which grows throughout the film, to the point that she behaves horribly to Joe's girlfriend when she pops up in the autumn chapter of the movie, which causes a huge rift in her friendship with Tom and Gerri.

One of the genius moments in Leigh's film is a result of this.  In the winter chapter, after at least twenty Mary-free minutes where Tom comforts his brother after the death of his wife, we once again encounter Mary, first without Tom and Gerri (where she is simply chatting and confessing her life's problems to Tom's brother, as is her norm), and then as Tom and Gerri return and look disgusted that Mary has shown up uninvited, and on the night where their son and his girlfriend will be showing up, their happy relationship blossoming into something similar to that enjoyed by Tom and Gerri.  The genius is when, after watching Mary pour her heart out to Gerri and confess that her friendship means everything to her, we see Gerri react to her as if she's reacting to Janet in the opening scenes-with a sympathetic distance.  While Tom and Gerri's friendship with Mary has meant everything to Mary, it's little but a speck in the life of Gerri, who has largely moved on from their friendship while Mary has clearly been tortured by their fracture for months.  Gerri tolerates Mary for the remainder of the night, but instead of doting on her like she has in the past, she instead treats her as invisible, and the film's final, daunting shot, is of the happy dinner companions, chatting and largely ignoring Mary, who is at the table, devastated both because she will never have this happiness, and because she knows that she is no longer welcome in the one world that gave her any sense of self-worth.

Leigh's use of loneliness in this way is something few directors would dare to do, because it truly is difficult to watch onscreen.  Most films would have given some sort of bone to Mary, a suitor or a new job or something, but Leigh instead shows the shards of her only happiness, her relationship with Tom, Gerri, and Joe, snatched away in the film's final scenes.  It's a gutsy move, primarily because of its honesty.  We all know Mary's in real life-the people who are at the periphery of our lives, that we remember when it's convenient or out of obligation, and that we may not realize are counting on us far more than we know, or care to know.  Perhaps some of us are Mary's.  It's a stunning sort of message to point out the obvious-some people don't get happy endings, and they have to watch and wonder why other people do.  Some get love and success and joy, and some are so unlucky.  It's a message that we all must face as truth, even if we are constantly comforting the Mary's in our lives (or ourselves) that happiness is just around the corner.