OVP: Tenet (2020)

Film: Tenet (2020)
Stars: John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, Elizabeth Debicki, Dimple Kapadia, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Michael Caine, Kenneth Branagh
Director: Christopher Nolan
Oscar History: 2 nominations/1 win (Best Production Design, Visual Effects*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Well, after six months (and literally 169 movies caught at home) I have finally seen a movie in theaters since the start of quarantine...well, sort of.  I am still debating, but am probably getting close to the point where I will want to see films in theaters again, even if I time it so I'm going on a day that is less trafficked (and will be pickier about what I catch in a stadium), but for Tenet I lucked out.  A drive-in movie (80 minutes from my house, so appreciate the devotion) was showing this and so I drove all the way and watched this for the first time from my car (I'd never done a drive-in movie).  While I loved getting back into theater mode and enjoying a movie on the big-screen, I will admit that I enjoy traditional theaters better (there's something more immersive than sitting in your car, where it's easier to grab your phone or let your thoughts wander).  Still, even if I'd been forced to watch Tenet with subtitles, I sincerely doubt that stretches of Christopher Nolan's stunning-but-convoluted new epic would've made complete sense.

(Spoilers Ahead) Tenet has a lot of plot, some of which doesn't make sense upon first viewing, and the characters don't all have names but I'll attempt to ground for a discussion.  We have the Protagonist (Washington, who doesn't warrant a real name apparently), who in the opening scenes is in a Russian opera house trying to deactivate a bomb, and in the process is nearly shot by a bullet that "un-fires" and after he grabs a strange artifact, and eats a cyanide pill in order to stop himself from giving secrets to his captors.  It turns out this is a test, and that he is being recruited into a secret organization, partnered with Neil (Pattinson), and together they have to essentially stop Andrei Sator (Branagh), a man who has the ability to commune with the future.  Soon Neil & the Protagonist are communicating with the past, moving back using a weapon to correct or change the past; aided by Sator's wife Kat (Debicki), they eventually stop Sator from destroying the world with a dead man's switch, and in the end it is revealed that Neil has known the Protagonist for some time...and was in fact hired by him, as we learn the operation (Tenet) was the Protagonist's in the future, and he is the actual mastermind behind the Tenet operation.

The movie sounds awesome (with all of the complimentary & pejorative associations of that word), and it is.  The fight scenes early on in the movie, especially the car chase sequence, is well-constructed & impressive, and Nolan knows how to open a movie (the opera attack is thrilling, and a good reminder as to why we should be rooting for movie theaters to work-as this will never play as well on a small screen).  The acting is mixed, with Pattinson taking best-in-show.  Debicki is a brilliant actress, but kind of gets sidelined with the "grieving wife/mother" role that is such a Nolan cliche, and I don't know if Washington is quite up to the movie star caliber that you need to play this part (this is unfair because his dad is one of the great stars, but man it would've been cool to see a young Denzel in this role).

The problems are the same, though, that you'd expect from most Nolan films.  His movies always have the same four issues: bad parts for women, expository plotting, strange sound mixing, and a sloppy final half hour.  All of these are here in Tenet.  We already mentioned Debicki's underwritten part, but the plotting is worse.  The film requires a lot of dialogue explaining the complicated theories in Tenet, a sign, perhaps, that Nolan didn't quite know how to handle even the logistics of a time travel movie (he fell into a similar hole with Interstellar, though I liked Tenet better than that picture).  When you have to have your characters explain every complicated move you watch, it's proof you aren't nailing down the logistics of your film.  This affects the final act of the movie the most, with multiple, repetitive action sequences (it's hard to tell entirely what Robert Pattinson's Neil is doing during this it gets so convoluted), and even an obvious payoff (it's clear that the Protagonist is going to be the mastermind from the first art heist), doesn't feel satisfying we've detoured so much.

Nothing, though, compares to how bad the sound mixing was (I toyed with a 2-star rating just as punishment for this, but decided the movie is too good for that).  Seriously-Nolan's hatred of his own dialogue is bizarre.  There are scenes in the movie where the explosions or action are so loud you wish that the theater had subtitles, and it takes away from the movie because you don't understand what the (helmet-wearing) Aaron Taylor-Johnson & John David Washington are even saying.  This particularly becomes bad in the final thirty minutes, and that's a problem because if you're going to have high-concept detailing in your movie, you've gotta let us hear the explanations & emotions.  I looked past this with Dunkirk because of the hyper-realism (also because other than some spots with the dialogue, this feels like a home run), but this was a serious issue with Interstellar and Tenet it gets worse.  Someone needs to take Nolan aside and just let Willie Burton do his damn job please, because his films are too rare & too visually intriguing to be ruined by something so fixable.

Little Ashes (2009)

Film: Little Ashes (2009)
Stars: Robert Pattinson, Javier Beltran, Matthew McNulty, Marina Gatell
Director: Paul Morrison
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

This is potentially going to be a niche question, but do you ever find on a streaming or (especially) your Netflix DVD queue movies that you don't really remember why you wanted to see them in the first place?  I have been trying adamantly during this quarantine (and yes, despite the weather and other people seemingly taking it less seriously, I am very much still sticking to quarantine behavior & will probably be one of the last people to start going out of this willingly), I've been making a point of having a near-constant rotation of Netflix discs, and as a result, I'm getting to some movies that I probably added a decade ago, and never really got around to hitting the top of my queue until now, always lumbering somewhere in the 250's (I have, in grand total, almost 900 films in my Netflix DVD queue).  This is why Little Ashes is coming to you today, a decade after you vaguely remember it existing.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is based on the early life of Salvador Dali (Pattinson), Luis Bunuel (McNulty), and activist-poet Federico Garcia Lorca (Beltran) when they are attending art school in Madrid.  The three men, obviously incredibly talented, spend most of their days discussing art and politics and revolution, and when Bunuel is controlling the conversation, women & sex.  Dali & Lorca begin to have an emotional affair, which briefly turns into a physical one, albeit an affair that Dali cannot seem to consummate despite clearly wanting to (though the film toes the line a little bit with this, it doesn't feel so much that he's not sexually-attracted to Lorca so much as it is that he can't get past the moral & legal implications of having sex with a man).  The two grow apart, physically, romantically, and most crucially, politically, with Dali becoming much more conservative & capitalistic, while Lorca becomes more involved in the fight against the Nationalists, which leads to his eventual assassination.

I'd like to pretend that my love of art history was the reason that this was initially put on my queue, but that would be a lie.  In 2009, when Little Ashes was released, I would've been in the throes of Twilight fever still.  I was way too obsessed with the Twilight franchise back in the day, both the movies and books, which I'll admit are not high quality, and I'm not going to defend my choices here other than I don't have a lot of guilty pleasures, particularly cultural ones, so I'm allowing myself this (and yes, I am going to read Midnight Sun the day it comes out).  So the idea that my "Team Edward" shirt might be making out with another guy was enough for me to pursue this film, though the Twilight fever apparently wasn't enough for me to ever bump it up my Netflix queue.

The end result is disappointing.  Gay sex scenes in movies are always quite prudish, but with a new star who's about to be a matinee idol for a major film franchise, I have to imagine that the studio heads weren't willing to let more than a few chaste kisses slip between Pattinson and his leading man (though supposedly this is the film where Pattinson "actually" masturbated onscreen because he couldn't simulate a realistic-looking orgasm, and while there's no nudity, that scene does make the film's final cut).  Without that passion, between two men whose character are entirely driven by their own artistic heat, the film falls apart.  It's boring, the leads aren't allowed to have chemistry, and McNulty's Bunuel, who could've been the saving grace, falters into wild mood swings that deny us the ability to understand his character.  As a result, this is a movie that if it is lounging in your queue after a decade, it's okay to admit you just don't want to see.

OVP: The Lighthouse (2019)

Film: The Lighthouse (2019)
Stars: Robert Pattinson, Willem Dafoe
Director: Robert Eggers
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Sophomore efforts can be a challenge, particularly when your first film was critically-lauded.  Robert Eggers' The VVitch was at once instantly iconic (you can buy "Black Phillip" Funko dolls if you wish to live deliciously) and a mesmerizing film.  It was also the sort of movie that likely stays in your head for years, rumbling around as a truly great idea with a twist ending that shocks the audience.  How, precisely, do you follow up a clear passion project with something equally challenging and provocative?  This has been a question mark for several filmmakers this year, including Ari Aster & Jordan Peele, and today we'll discuss a third notable "horror film" sophomore effort of 2019, The Lighthouse, a film that takes the motif of The VVitch and then continually challenges us as an audience in a way that makes you forget the lessons you learned from Eggers' original picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) This film is an acting duet between Robert Pattinson as Ephraim Winslow and Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake (they are the only two actors in the picture with speaking parts).  They are tasked with manning a lighthouse deep off the coast of somewhere (presumably North America, but we'll get to this in a second), with Wake as the one in command and Ephraim doing most of the menial chores, never getting to actually man the lighthouse.  What is initially supposed to be a four-week stint turns into a time indeterminate, as no boat shows up to relieve the two men of their duties and they are essentially stranded at sea, their rations depleting, and slowly even their booze, to the point where they mix kerosene with spirits to continue a drunken haze, as they seem to only be able to stand each other while in some state of inebriation.  Eventually secrets start to come out-Ephraim is really Thomas Howard, as Ephraim Winslow was a young man whose death he had declined to prevent, and whose life he then overtook, and it's revealed that despite a friendliness between the two men, Wake has been secretly recommending that Winslow not be paid for his efforts, citing him for insubordination and drunkenness on the job (even though it was Wake who forced Winslow to partake in the alcohol).  The film's closing scenes are of the men violently attacking each other, with Howard killing Wake in pursuit of looking into the light in the lighthouse, and seemingly going mad from what he sees (though it's possible he'd already reached that point by the time he stared into the abyss).  The film ends with Howard dead and naked on a beach, seagulls feasting on his intestines.

There's a lot more to this film I could get into, quite frankly-the film is brimming with plot and detail, which is a fascinating juxtaposition to the bleak and empty island that the lighthouse inhabits.  The film uses a lot of metaphor (other authors have noted the film borrowing from Greek mythology, particularly the legend of Prometheus giving fire to man), and it's hard not to see some of the clear parables about man's fight with one's self.  There is no indication of life off of this lighthouse, and the fact that both men eventually share the same name lends credence to the idea that they are in fact the same person, fighting different sides of themselves.  I personally wonder if this is a case of "they were dead the whole time," with the Lighthouse serving as some version of hell for the real Thomas Howard's inaction to save the real Ephraim Winslow, forever haunted by the false ambitions he held in life (in the form of Thomas Wade).  It's hard to fold in the mermaids, predatory gulls, and tentacled Willem Dafoe into this vision, though, and this might be my biggest problem with The Lighthouse-while it's breathtaking to behold, it's also packed with too many ideas.  This was also a problem with Ari Aster's Midsommar (though weirdly not Jordan Peele's Us, which had a brilliantly clear through line running through its plot), and perhaps it would hold up on repeat viewings, but I feel like some of the illusions were just there to keep us flabbergasted, rather than to aid the film.

The movie is shocking enough when it just comes to the two lead performances, as Dafoe & Pattinson give excellent work in this duet.  The performances are not particularly glamorous (Dafoe's character's flatulence is a recurring theme, as is Pattinson's character's habitual masterbation), with Dafoe sporting an unkempt beard and Pattinson's natural beauty hidden under a veneer of soot and sweat, but they still find a strange eroticism.  It's not clear if the two want to kill each other or just fuck by the end of the film, but it's probably some combination of the two.  Pattinson, derided for so long as just "that guy from Twilight" should shut up pretty much filmgoer who claims he can't act here in the same way Kristen Stewart did in Clouds of Sils Maria, bringing a tortured soul out, though not always needing his humanity.  Dafoe, who has been consistently dazzling his whole career, but particularly the last few years, lends a cartoonish bellow to his character that so easily could have become overacting, but instead is just manic & terrifying.  He gets the flashier role, but it's also going to be the one people remember from The Lighthouse, his haunting glare as he throws out Shakespearean-style soliloquies, casting all (including the audience) into the unforgiving deep.

The Lost City of Z (2017)

Film: The Lost City of Z (2017)
Stars: Charlie Hunnam, Robert Pattinson, Sienna Miller, Tom Holland
Director: James Gray
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I had what may end up being one of my most hilarious moments of the cinematic year this past month with The Lost City of Z, though it had nothing to do with the script of the film.  I was terribly ill when I attempted to see this movie the first time in theaters, eventually having to leave the AMC just during the opening credits as I was getting a massive tension headache (I get those occasionally), and as a result had to rent the picture to finally see the movie.  While I was watching the movie, I was stunned at how intensely dark the picture was (literally, not metaphorically), and was genuinely worried that either there was something wrong with my eyes or the cinematographer was insane to have lensed the picture in such a depressing way, and had planned on it being a centerpiece of my review.  The next day, while stating that I thought the film was dark to family members, I realized that the settings on my TV had been off by a significant margin and as a result for potentially weeks I had had my TV settings way too dark, likely from sitting on the remote.  Anyway, I re-watched the film and realized the movie's cinematography was much, much clearer than I initially had found, and my eyes are seemingly fine.  Anyway, let's get into actually reviewing the picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) The Lost City of Z is the story of Percy Fawcett (Hunnam), a member of the military that while impressive, doesn't come from the "right background" to be able to get promoted and thinks that the only way that he can succeed & regain his family's honor is to fight in battle.  He doesn't get that opportunity, but instead is sent on a mission across the world by the Royal Geographic Society to survey the Bolivian/Brazilian border to prevent war.  While in the Amazon jungle, he discovers broken pottery and statues that indicate that there was an advanced civilization in the middle of the jungle, and comes to believe through conversations with locals that a lost city, an El Dorado of sorts, is within the confines of this jungle.  He is met with scorn and criticism, but is intent on proving himself correct, not being pegged as a failure like his father, and becomes increasingly obsessed by the quest, eventually alienating his wife and sons.  The movie ends like in real life, with Percy and his son Jack (Holland) trekking into the jungle, and never being found again.  A true story, neither Fawcett was ever seen again, though the film ends with the implication that he found the city, with him sending a compass to the Royal Geographic Society (it was his intention to do so to indicate that he'd found the place).

The film is beautiful (once you adjust your television), and a handsome if occasionally stilted production.  It's hard for me to watch the movie and not think of the considerably better and more philosophical Embrace of the Serpent from two years ago, as they have similar looks at white men going mad trying to find a secret within the jungle that alludes all.  The film doesn't seem to know precisely what to do with some of Percy's home life, frequently making Sienna Miller a lifeless form in the picture, always doting but never really doing anything outside of being a dutiful wife; even in the scenes where she pushes back, it's with the implication that she won't deter her husband.  This steals away a third of the picture, and whenever we're not in the jungle the movie drags.

The film, though, is saved from being simply eye candy by a rugged turn from Charlie Hunnam.  Hunnam, who has had a strange career graduating from twink to biker to now handsome leading man,  is easily the best part of the movie, finding a strong central core in his Percy, a man haunted by failure, and willing to put everything he has on the line not to end up like his father.  The script doesn't push that narrative, but it doesn't need to with Hunnam pulling it out at every turn; the way he over-extends and gleefully embraces any sort of success, as if he's been deprived of it for his whole life is excellent.  He never quite takes us into madness, but you can see it in his eyes-you can see the unhinged way he recklessly embraces the world that when he ends up lost, perhaps taking with him the life of his first-born son, you know that anything could have been possible next in his existence.  Considering the laundry list of Percy Fawcett theories, Hunnam does a great job in projecting what might happen into the future, and gives a great piece of acting at the movie's core.

Those are my thoughts on The Lost City of Z, a movie that grew on me upon second viewing and not just because I could finally see the picture.  How about you?  Do you think this film finds any way to improve upon Embrace of the Serpent, or are you as fascinated as I am about what happened next to Percy Fawcett?  And when is Charlie Hunnam going to get an awards magnet role, as he's clearly capable of one?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Cosmopolis (2012)

Film: Cosmopolis (2012)
Stars: Robert Pattinson, Sarah Gadon, Paul Giamatti, Samantha Morton, Juliette Binoche, Jay Baruchel
Director: David Cronenberg
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

"Weird for the sake of weird" is something that I, as a filmgoer, am far more forgiving of than your average movie attendee.  I celebrate films that try to play with form and that are willing to go to different heights for a movie.  I do occasionally find them hard to grade (I'm still not sure if The Counselor was a good movie or not), but generally I try to at least see what the point of the weird was, because if there's a point or a larger purpose, I can get onboard with the movie.  Sadly for me and for my Thursday night, Cosmopolis is simply a film that's weird for the sake of being weird, rarely actually trying to make a strong statement that resonates outside of robotic, intense dialogue even though it has polished literary roots and a fine enough cast.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film, based on the novel by the acclaimed Don DeLillo, essentially follows Eric Packer (Pattinson), an obscenely wealthy but deeply neurotic hedge fund manager who spends most of his day in his state-of-the-art limousine.  We see Eric, recently married to the beautiful but largely uninterested Elise (Gadon), struggle with both his hypochondria (he literally gets a medical exam everyday, including a prostate exam that is both deeply disturbing and wildly erotic early in the picture), and his enormous sex drive, sleeping with multiple women and making sexual release a huge part of his day.  The film takes a turn late in the picture when Eric gets his inner Patrick Bateman on by randomly killing his head of security and then coming face-to-face with a man who has been threatening his life Benno Levin (Giamatti).  The movie's progress is steep, with him losing everything but still seemingly favorable to the life of Benno, and the film ends with Benno attempting to kill Eric, but we don't ever see if he pulls the trigger, and a series of Rothko paintings over the end credits in a callback to an earlier scene where Eric tries to buy the famed Rothko Chapel in Houston.

The film succeeds on occasion, it's worth noting.  Robert Pattinson's ability as an actor is definitely there (he's not Taylor Lautner) but he's not really as strong as he could be (he's not yet Kristen Stewart).  However, the role seems tailor-made for him, as few other people could play someone so deeply disturbed, but yet through money and unattainable beauty every person, including the audience, remains drawn to him even as he becomes a murderer and someone who is less and less concerned with his own welfare.  The other actors can sometimes play into the movie, particularly Juliette Binoche as a randy art dealer, seemingly screwing Eric not for the job but because he's actually good at sex, and Samantha Morton as an employee of Eric's who can command the screen just with that wonderfully firm voice.  Both Binoche and Morton are in the film only fleetingly, but they are great cameos and something the film could have used more of as it progressed down the rabbit hole.

The problem is that these few pluses don't make up for the myriad subtractions in the cast.  For starters, the dialogue, while clearly stylized to the point of incomprehension, borders that line between "a fascinating departure" and "how cool am I?" to wobbily and especially in the final showdown with Giamatti it gets far over the top, to the point where you almost wish it were a silent picture.  Cronenberg is a fascinating director when he wants to be, but I'm not sold yet that he's a great screenwriter, and that's true here, as the dialogue isn't quite sharp enough in its "autre" mode to actually be profound.  Combine that with the worst scenes of the film being toward the end (Paul Giamatti is one of my least favorite actors, and this is hardly his The Master moment of redemption as he hams it up and is actually playing a character that plays into all of his worst acting tics).  All-in-all, a boring movie that is interestingly shot and I truly wish he'd found a way to amp up the directorial flourishes, perhaps never actually leaving the limousine as the picture all falls apart when he takes away that insulation from a restless, disruptive outside world.

Those are my thoughts on this film, one I've wanted to see for a while and Netflix gave me a mailed reason this week.  How about you-are you a fan of Cosmopolis or the films of David Cronenberg?  Is there ever going to be a film of Paul Giamatti's where I actually love him in the role?  And Robert Pattinson-is he ever going to have an undisputed critical triumph?  Share your theories down below!

Maps to the Stars (2014)

Film: Maps to the Stars (2014)
Stars: Julianne Moore, Mia Wasikowska, John Cusack, Robert Pattinson, Olivia Williams, Sarah Gadon, Evan Bird
Director: David Cronenberg
Oscar History: While it's bizarre release schedule stopped it from gaining any Oscar traction, Moore did snag a Golden Globe nod for the film.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I have always been fascinated by the way that film handles the concept of celebrity.  Whether it's a movie like The Bling Ring, where it's being glamorized at the same time it's being skewered or whether it's like Maps to the Stars, where the manufactured glamour is barely concealed behind a veneer of ugliness, I find it voyeuristic and fantastic to watch what happens when Hollywood turns the unfiltered lens on itself.  We get a lot of juice and really some great monologues in Maps to the Stars, however the film itself isn't quite sharp enough and isn't scripted quite well enough to deliver on what some of the actors were promising in terms of excellence and game performances.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film's chief problem lies in having too many things to do.  The movie opens pretty abruptly on Agatha (Wasikowska) and Jerome (Pattinson), one a woman from Florida coming to Los Angeles after striking up a Twitter friendship with Carrie Fisher (which feels made up until the film bizarrely reveals it's true, making you wonder if you're just one clever DM from palling around with an A-lister) and the other a chauffeur who looks too beautiful to be driving around Hollywood who dreams of being an actor (which feels like it may be true for almost every young chauffeur in Los Angeles).  From there we end up introduced to a truly heinous teen star Benjie (Bird) who is plotting a comeback after a stint in rehab, his manager/producer mother (Williams), his self-help guru father (Cusack) and the film's best creation, a washed-up but still widely-known actress named Havana Segrand (Moore), a woman who is attempting to play a role in a film remake of her enormously famous mother's, and constantly feels haunted by her ghost.

The character of Havana Segrand almost makes the movie move into the good column by itself, as Moore is marvelous and the character is so delicious.  Havana is clearly someone who knows how the game is played in Hollywood-she's been an actress for years, but wants to strike up a comeback in a major way after her career and life seems to be in the toilet, and all the while she's haunted by her beautiful mother, who comes across as a Mommie Dearest meets Natalie Wood sort of figure from her past (she's played by Sarah Gadon, who still feels about two seconds away from being a major star, doesn't she?) and you spend a good chunk of the movie wondering who Moore has in mind when she's playing the character (is it Carrie Fisher, who makes a cameo appearance in the film, or Liza Minnelli or Tatum O'Neal or...the list goes on and on but you can see the fun here).  The thing about Moore's Havana is, though, that she comes across as completely scenery-chewing but extremely believable, and there's still enough glamour and intrigue there that you get why everyone who comes across her is mildly obsessed with her, even if she feels like a washed-out shell of a former star.  It's a fascinating performance, and one that I'm glad I caught (and the Globes noticed as well, even if that may have just been from Moore fever last year).

The rest of the cast kind of pales in comparison.  It's not like anyone is particularly bad, but Cronenberg makes the rest of the film come across as a bad Brett Easton Ellis novel.  The film doesn't really know what to do with all of the other characters, particularly Cusack and Williams as parents who are both destroying their child's life as well as essentially just trying to cling to money and fame, but it doesn't quite work.  Evan Bird's Benjie is a truly horrible human being, but you don't quite get enough of the public persona or the personal draw to understand how he became a star in the first-place, and there's not enough of a focus on the way that publicists manufacture an image to make that leap.  Mia Wasikowska is bizarre as a schizophrenic who is actually the long-lost daughter of Cusack and Williams (who tried to kill Benjie when she was younger), but this is part of a third act twist that doesn't really work except for the bizarre image of Julianne Moore being beaten to death by Wasikowska with a Genie Award (in one of those "only in Hollywood" twists, both Moore and Wasikowska were nominated for the modern-day equivalent of the Genie Award for this movie).  And Robert Pattinson's job is literally just to be pretty, so he more than meets the requirements but considering what his ex-love Kristen Stewart was able to accomplish this past year in Clouds of Sils Maria, he has to be wishing that there'd been more of a challenge in this role.

All being said, Maps to the Stars fails in my estimation, but it's a fascinating failure and one where, if you like unconventional cinema, you might want to give it a look (and if you're a Julianne Moore fan, you need to rent it immediately).  If you've seen the picture, please join in in the comments as I'd be intrigued about other people's takes as it's surely an interesting picture.

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.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2 (2012)

Film: The Twlight Saga : Breaking Dawn, Part 2 (2012)
Stars: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Peter Facinelli, Elizabeth Reaser, Ashley Greene, Jackson Rathbone, Kellan Lutz, Nikki Reed, Michael Sheen, Dakota Fanning
Director: Bill Condon
Oscar History: Ha, yeah right. Though it could easily sweep the MTV Movie Awards
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I'm going to start this write-up with a diatribe, so if you just want to jump straight to Twilight goodness, you should skip to the second paragraph.  I saw this film at a Sunday matinee, and in a packed theater, so I expect things like louder "oohs" and "aahs," potentially some cheering or even wolf whistling when the inevitable shirtless Taylor Lautner moment happens.  However, that is no excuse for someone who lets a two-year-old run rampant, talking and kicking chairs and playing with two blocks, smashing them together.  I get that babysitters are expensive, but so are movie tickets, and you shouldn't punish people by letting your child, who should not be seeing a film with vampires, werewolves, and decapitations in the first place, run rampant and ruin the film for everyone else.  It's irresponsible, selfish, and quite frankly, makes you a terrible parent and film patron.  If you can't find someone to watch the kids, wait to see it-Netflix, Redbox, DVD's, On Demand, there are dozens of ways to see a movie if theaters aren't an option, but don't punish the rest of us by treating the movie theater as your personal living room.

All right, that REALLY bugged me, so I had to get it off of my chest, but let's dive into the movie.  Since we're all confessional right now, I will also share that I'm kind of a Twilight fan.  I'm aware that the plots are hackneyed, that Bella is a horrible role model (though she's much better compared to Anastasia Steele), the acting wooden, and I just don't care.  I still have seen every movie and read every book, have swooned alongside Bella over Jacob and (especially Team) Edward, and I went through my obsession phase with the movies, and so I will admit that I'm a bit sad to see the series close.  We all have our guilty pleasures, and since I don't watch any reality television, do not know any High School Musical songs, and think 1980's teen movies are largely terrible, this gets to be mine.

The last half of this book could have easily been included on the last film, and we all would have been fine, but I digress.  The movie picks up where the last movie left off, with Bella fully transformed into a vampire, Jacob having imprinted on their daughter Renesmee (which is super creepy-I don't care how much they attempt to convince me otherwise), and the Volturi certainly on the move.  We get treated to a couple of fun moments before we dive into the actual plot-the Emmett/Bella arm-wrestling match, the cabin full of clothes, Bella getting into a screaming match with Jacob.  Since we're about to say goodbye to all of these characters, it's nice that nearly every one of them gets a line or a moment to be highlighted.

And then, we get the disappointing histrionics of the movie.  The sad thing for Bill Condon, easily the best director to tackle the series, is that he happened to land the worst of the four books.  For a novel that stretches on for hundreds of pages, it's relatively light on plot, and really, the entire plot of this movie could be summed up as: the Volturi here about Renesmee, decide to go and destroy the Cullens, the Cullens assemble a Benetton ad of vampires, and then they meet and nothing happens.  Seriously, that's the entire plot of this half of the novel.  It's helped by game performers like Lee Pace playing one of the recruited vampires and giving some much-needed life to the film, but overall the entire thing is a bit of a letdown.

The film is not helped out by its clunker of an ending.  Spoilers The movie ends with the Volturi and the Cullen crew gathering in a large field, with the Volturi looking to destroy the Cullens, and then Alice, who has the power of seeing the future, comes to the rescue and shows the Volturi what will happen if they attack the Cullens.  Of course, Condon "cleverly" makes it seem as if this is actually happening, even though any person who has seen more than two movies will be able to see the fake-out (which shows them killing Carlyle and Jasper, amongst many others).  The film ends with the happy ending that we've always wanted for Edward and Bella, and shows a flashback of the past movies, their romance, and eventually all of the characters.

The acting in the films is usually the thing that serves as the biggest punching bag, and with the exception of Pace, I have to agree with the critics in this case.  They hire someone as excellent as Dakota Fanning, and yet I don't know if they actually had her speak the entire movie.  I'm not 100% certain what Michael Sheen is doing in this film-perhaps channeling Vincent Price in the latter part of his over-the-top career-but some restraint may have been in store.  And while Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson can act (I can't say the same for Taylor Lautner and his splendid deltoids), they don't really take that opportunity here.

So you may be asking, why the 3 star review when I largely panned it?  Because we all need our guilty pleasures, and this is mine.  I'm not giving it an Oscar (it doesn't deserve one), but for me these characters are beloved, and I will admit that I can't 100% be unbiased (though New Moon was terrible, and even I can admit that).  That's my prerogative-you share yours in the comments!