The Return

It’s not the whole Odyssey, it’s just, as the title suggests, the last and most important part. The story is told here quietly (mostly) and with a great deal of restraint, until the resolution comes. This telling relies on subtle speech and gestures to get its message across, about the pain of separation and loss, about duty and honor, and war and peace, and family and home. Details matter here. The film appears to have been shot only in natural light, either the clear and sometimes harsh light of the day, or the flickering and obscuring light and shadows of fire, as befits a tale that tells us of the Bronze Age. The tone is meditative through much of the film’s narrative—and yet, when that climax is reached, that extraordinary scene of both triumph and tragedy, it is thrilling to watch, a magical moment that has come down to us through the ages and never grows old, even if heroes like Odysseus do. What a gift the Greeks gave to us, their progeny, in this tale that defines what a classic is, and this rendering is very much worthy of resting within that canon. This is a bow well strung that hits its mark precisely.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Well, that’s that. As Marge Simpson once said, “It’s an ending,” and I suppose there’s little more to say beyond that. One has to assume that every single person who has ever watched this movie—or indeed any outing of the series—knew before sitting down how things would play out, so there were no points to be scored through surprises or reveals. So this project had to stand mostly on feeling, on how well it captured the vibe of the publishing phenomenon. And I think it did a good job at that. But I remain touched by the sense that the overarching story’s turn from fun to dark, not to mention vaguely tragic, ultimately represents a kind of literary—and by extension cinematic—stumble, if not an outright failure. The latter term seems too harsh, so I guess it’s best to declare that the author painted herself early on into a narrative corner, and simply had to carry it through to the end. Fortunately, there remain further dimensions of the film to appreciate, most prominent being the fact that you get to spend one last time with characters (and actors) you’ve come to like and admire, maybe even love—though this sort of finality always brings a touch of the bittersweet with it. We must go on without Harry, Hermione and Ron, plus certain others (I'm partial to Luna). At least we can always pick up a book and give it another reading, if the separation proves unendurable. Thanks, kids, not for making magic, but for being it. Farewell. 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

You know why these books were so popular? They were fun. At least, for the most part they were fun. This movie? Not fun. Not saying “bad,” but emphatically not fun. This is more like watching The Revenant, or maybe even A Boy and His Dog, than watching a big-budget, tentpole fantasy production. That makes evaluating this entry in the series a bit of a puzzle. Again, it’s not bad, but it is so far away from where the saga started that you can’t help but feel that the rug has been, if not pulled out from under you, then at least shifted while you were standing on it. The dark turn of the story was inevitable, one supposes, given the tale's very linear plot; there really was no other way to go. The rapidly-aging kids do a good job with the difficult material, and the presentation is well done all around, yet this film ultimately leaves this viewer, at least, feeling like the ride he's getting is not the one he wanted. We know where it’s all going, of course, and perhaps the last act will ultimately be redeeming—will pull off the ultimate trick, as it were. 

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Interesting to note about the books: as the series progressed, the publisher simply stopped editing Rowling’s text. That’s why the books got bigger and bigger with each entry. (That, and they realized they could charge more for heavier tomes.) That presents a problem if you’re adapting them into movies. Sprawling texts are problematic but viable in print, whereas including everything, kitchen sink and all, won’t work for a movie. Thus, some parts have to be left out, and you start to see that effect at this stage of the series. Some characters and subplots—or at least plot elements—are eliminated noticeably here, for the sake of avoiding a four-hour film. Those excisions don’t necessarily hurt the story—arguably, it improves the tale’s overall flow—but fans of the series will recognize the absences. Still, this outing provides an experience consistent with the rest of the series, and as we established in the earlier reviews, this enterprise achieved its goals, if little more. Meaning: a satisfying experience for almost all viewers. Presto cinemo! 

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

It occurs to me, only at this ridiculously late stage, just how dark and ominous and at times downright sad this story is. Shouldn’t really be a surprise, that; after all, the saga begins with a double murder. But that through line is buried much deeper in the first few episodes. Here, it rises up to become substantially more prominent, with the result that this outing is a lot more effecting (at least for those who remain capable of honest emotions anymore). Most encouraging in all this is that the lead performers show improvement with age here, despite my having besmirched them in the original reviews; the kids are really quite good. Notable, too, is the work of the supporting players; British acting has a remarkably deep bench, as it were. Lastly, I wish to note one aspect of these flicks that should never be overlooked: the visuals are wonderful. The scenery—both the real and the fake—looks fantastic all the way through, and represents a note perfect representation of Rowling’s vision. (Not that she invented Britain’s gothic landscape—she just put it to very good use.) Going forward, it becomes more and more apparent that this series was done about as well as it could have been. A neat trick, when it comes down to it. 

Conclave

You’d think I’d be put off by the sight of so many priests and nuns, but I guess miracles can still happen. In fact, this film is good enough to overcome any religious biases one might have. The story is fascinating, absorbing, entertaining, enlightening and and even somewhat inspiring in its faithful dimensions. The performances of the principal players are note-perfect all the way around, especially Ralph Fiennes as the dean in the titular gathering’s lynchpin role. And, last but not least, the presentation is a visual feast, with the spectacular scenery of the Sistine Chapel playing at least as prominent a role in the story as any of the actors. One might quibble that there’s a certain predictability in the plot's outcome—in the broad stroke, not so much the final twist—but that hardly spoils the full experience. Ultimately, this is as much a tale of ideas as it is a chronicle of any human actions, and it’s in those thoughts and concepts and beliefs where the work finds its fullest depth. The church may have gone astray, but there is, or once was, something that means a great deal to a great many, and this movie argues that a kernel of that core belief still has a place in this world. Must-watch stuff. 

No Time to Die

A fitting swan song for Daniel Craig’s run as James Bond, even if it does get a little too mushy here and there. There are some minor pacing problems, but when the action comes it does so in sequences that rival any in the series. As with any Bond film, the eye candy must be first rate; here Lea Seydoux and Ana de Armas admirably fill that need here. Other cast members do good to excellent jobs in support. Mostly, though, this is about Craig, stating his case as (maybe) the best Bond ever. It may be hard to lift him above Connery--who after all defined the role, and had the advantage of better context (Cold War) and, frankly, better productions (storylines, writing, and that certain, mid-century spy movie joie de vivre) on his side--but the modern man probably sits at at least No.. 2. That's hardly something to be ashamed of. This last trip through the MI6 underworld reminds us how lucky we’ve been to have had the franchise resurrected from its seeming expiration back in the Dalton/Brosnan days, when the joy largely went out and camp was practically king. Our man--or, at least, the original king's man--will return, per the post-credits teaser--but it’s hard to imagine the new guy doing any better than Craig's body of work. (That is, assuming the new Bond is a guy, and that the producers don’t go really far off the reservation with their choice). This Bond may not have gone out with the biggest bang, but he left a big, shining legacy for film history to remember and enjoy.

The King's Man

Another happy-go-lucky display of ultraviolence and snark. Well...not quite. This outing in the series has a surprisingly tempered approach to the proceedings; this is a movie that has a lot of deep stuff on its mind. Its relatively poor performance upon first release was probably due to screwed up expectations--the marketing sold it as an action farce, when in fact there's a great deal more tragedy in the storyline than the commercials ever suggested. From this point of view, that's not a bad thing; seriousness can be entertaining, too. On top of all that, the writers even got a lot of the history correct. I'm seeing this as an underappreciated work that will probably get more love as time goes on. And, yes, the movie does still have a number of truly audacious action sequences. So there's that. Not everyone's cup of tea, but worth it in this viewer's opinion.

Wrath of the Titans

There may be a class-action case in the title here: technically, there's only one titan present in this tale, Kronos. That's one of the minor quibbles with this flick. That in and of itself is a surprise, as this work exceeds the standards of its predecessor. There's the usual dose of professional CGI work in the monsters and battle scenes, but there's also some real plot at work in this story, including good symmetry in the interactions of multiple father-son storylines. There is, dare I say it, some pathos included with the blow-shit-up sensibility typical of these swords-and-sorcery flicks. The eye-candy factor is lessened here, though Rosamund Pike gamely tries to hold up her end of the bargain. Still, this was one sequel that turned out surprisingly good, from what seemed like unpromising potential, so it definitely deserves some props for that. Like the Greeks, I have a word for it: goodenough.

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Cavorting like the Greeks of old...well, maybe not in that way. This reboot of the old Harry Hamlin classic is designed to be substantially more macho than that sort of Ancient Greek, as befits an action flick in a world of 300 and Lord of the Rings and endless superhero stories (of which the old myths are predecessors, if not outright source material). This outing does a decent job; it never loses the viewer's interest, presents a decent amount of spectacle for your dollar (particularly if you watch it on TV), and features enough eye candy (hearty applause for Gemma Arterton) to make the outing pleasant for at least half the audience. Weirdly, the weakest point of this movie may be the lead hero himself; as Perseus (as in other roles), Sam Worthington had a certain blankness to his demeanor that renders his actions not entirely exciting or inspiring, even when everything in the story has all CGI hell breaking out everywhere. But given the level this film aspires to--which is not exactly an Olympian height, ironically--I suppose that's not really that big a deal. Plus, it's a bit of a hoot to see several big-name actors playing roles that are probably the campiest vehicles they've stooped to in a long time. You can do worse than this one--certainly, others have--and as long as you have a little time to kill (at an hour and a half, brevity is one of the film's strengths) and a desire for something loud, actiony, and relatively mindless, you're not likely to be disappointed here.

Hail, Caesar!

Sometimes it’s good; sometimes it’s not. Everyone is so given over to Coen Brothers hagiography at this point that mumbling a bad word about any movie they make is likely to elicit strong reactions...which is, in a lot of ways, what this movie does not elicit. There are moments, highlights, that are quite good and make you want to give this effort more credit than you ultimately are comfortable doling out. Perhaps if one of the subplots--I’m looking at you, Scarlett--had been left on the cutting room floor, this might have turned out to be a stronger, tighter movie. Alas, the boys overreached, probably because they were too interested in paying homage to classic movies and moviemaking--perhaps they noticed that such things burnish a film’s Oscar-bait credentials--and the overall work suffered accordingly. It’s definitely worth watching if you’re a fan, of the old days or the brothers; otherwise, it may not pass muster.

Spectre

Oh, yeah, it’s great and all that, probably among the best Bond movies of all, but...one can’t help but feel like this is more of an ending than a beginning. No wonder there was all that talk about this being the last in the series for Daniel Craig. It would be an odd point of departure; they’ve only just finally put the band together, and now they’re going to break up after one album, so to speak? Leaving such speculations aside, what can be firmly stated based upon this movie is this: Sam Mendes really knows how to direct a movie. He brings a visual flair to just about everything, and it’s a filmmaking sensibility that heightens everything in the picture, including the action set pieces, almost (but not quite) to a level of high art. The other thing is how perfectly Christoph Waltz captures the arch villain's fundamental enigma: a guy who’s smart enough to run the world is also stupid enough to let Bond get away, again...and again....and again. It’s all entertaining as hell--I just wish there wasn’t the constant threat that it’s all going to go away so soon.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

As with every Wes Anderson film, you get quite the avalanche of quirky here. The effect is almost overwhelming at first, but eventually the film settles into its own little groove and winds up telling a story that’s clever, engaging, and ultimately both satisfying and a little bit heartbreaking. I don’t know if this movie would actually pull in anyone who isn’t already an Anderson fan, but for those who appreciate his oeuvre, this one is certainly worth a look.

Coriolanus

A new experience in so many ways. There are many Shakespeare plays that I have seen several times (in person and on film), a few I’ve seen once, several that I haven’t seen but know the story pretty well...this ain’t one of them. I had no clue what Coriolanus is about until I saw this film, yet I found it to be one of the more powerful presentations of the Bard that I’ve ever witnessed. Mad props go to Ralph Fiennes for both his performance and direction; he has put together a film that is not only entertaining in its totality, but the visual storytelling is so strong that you’d know what’s going on even if you were watching the movie with the sound off and no captions (good news for people who complain that they don’t understand Shakespeare’s language). A triumph, one any good Roman would hope to achieve.

In Bruges

The positive review comes tenuously here. This movie is described and was advertised as a comedy, but it’s possibly the most uncomedic comedy ever. But it’s not bad--interesting, entertaining, and a little different, just not particularly funny. I suspect many potential viewers wouldn’t “get” this flick, but those of us who are more broad-minded and willing to stretch the boundaries will probably enjoy it.

The Hurt Locker

I need to be cautious here. This is a good movie. A good movie. But this is not a Best Picture movie. I suspect that award had much more to do with the politics of the award-givers, and what they wanted to say, versus the actual quality of this film. The performances ring true, the direction is well done, and the scenes look for all the world like they really were filmed in Iraq in 2004. But again, this film is less a narrative plot than a series of scenes/vignettes on the subject of war and what it does to people (a.k.a. the Saving Private Ryan effect). I'm starting to think that this represents a trend in moviemaking on the subject of war; why the reluctance to show a real war story, instead of just a pastiche representing feelings about the conflict? Is there something there that filmmakers are trying to hide? Avoid? What's going on here? Answering those questions might eventually yield some real Best Picture war movie material.

The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Wallace and Gromit's shot at the big time. Don't know if they'll get another one, but they certainly gave it their all here. This film has the whole W & G package: the brilliantly executed stop-motion animation, a flood of clever sight gags and in-jokes (including Wallace's typical Goldbergian contraptions), the goofy sense of flair--all wrapped around a smart, entertaining story. Full marks for this effort, and let's hope there's another one.

Strange Days

So-so sci-fi thriller. Ralph Finnes is good, and his performance keeps you interested. It could have said a little more about new technology's role in creating our emerging dystopia, but I guess you get what you get (which probably isn't enough, here).