Back to the art house
Movies seen winter 2007.
Originally written: August 2007
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Ocean's Thirteen
Shrek the Third
Zodiac
Knocked Up
Dogma
Pan's Labyrinth
Prizzi's Honor
Third time's the charm! There's another proverb that Dr Strabismus (whom God Preserve) of Utrecht might have wanted to test. The evidence in recent weeks seems strongly against it, at least when it comes to movies. As noted lastish, we are in for a superfluity of third entries in continuing series; or, to put it another way, second sequels. We didn't find the first Spiderman entertaining enough (Tobey Maguire as superhero? Give me a break!) to see even the second film, let alone a third. But, in the case of three other series, noted below, we did venture to essay whether the souffle would rise a third time. Previously, I have speculated that, with the exception of The Return of the King and perhaps Goldfinger, it is rare to see a third movie better than the first two. (I still lean towards From Russia with Love (number 2) as the best of the Bonds and both it and Goldfinger were great improvements over Dr No. The series has, with few exceptions, deteriorated more than somewhat since.) The third Godfather was pretty ordinary and, while Return of the Jedi was marginally better than The Empire Strikes Back, it was nowhere near as good as Star Wars. The Search for Schlock Spock might be regarded as an archetypal third film - it was dire. So was Batman Forever. But three is not always the number of the counting: we are anticipating, if not looking forward to, a fourth Christmas with John McClane and the third Die Hard was almost as good as the first and far superior to the second. And Harry Potter is now entering his fifth year at Hogwarts - and the series maintains a high standard, with The Chamber of Secrets (number 2) the least good and The Prisoner of Azkaban (number 3) being close to being the best. So there is no hard and fast rule but, as noted below, you can make some reasonable guesses based solely on numerology.
CM
is the Featured Attractions Review and Criticism section.
Also in
CM
Alphabetical archive of movies reviewed
also in
Movies
Opening Credits
Critical Mess - Reviews
From the Director's Chair - Essays
Lists
Look Back in Anger
One series that seems to be defying the numbers game is the series of films adapted from J K Rowling's Harry Potter books. And this is not the least because the books have such a strong narrative drive. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the fifth in the series, is the longest of the novels and, in many ways, the most problematic. The coming darkness (prefigured in the end of the Goblet of Fire, with the death of Cedric Diggory), Harry's adolescent angst, the arrival of the evilly banal Dolores Umbridge, and the imminence of the OWLs create problems for the film-makers. But they have met the challenge brilliantly. A new script writer, Michael Goldenberg, replacing Steve Kloves who adapted the first four books, has taken a leaf out of his predecessor's book: he has pared the story to the essential narrative arc. That means that much of the book's subsidiary concerns have been eliminated, or reduced to passing moments. For example, the Umbridge sub-plot is largely dealt with, visually, by a running gag centring on Filch's nailing up of education decrees, higher and higher, in the Hogwart's vestibule; and Fred and George's farewell performance is reduced to some pyrotechnics. Tonks, Mad-Eye, Lupin et al are reduced to very minor bit-parts and Kreacher almost eliminated. But there still is the main thread, particularly the development (and subsequent defeat) of Dumbledore's Army and the climactic battle in the Ministry of Magic. The concentration on main narrative thread means that we see more of Neville and, particularly, Luna Lovegood and a little less of Hermione and almost nothing of Ron. The school staff is there and each has a scene or two, but they are very much in the background. Even more than in previous episodes, this film is aimed at the book's readers rather than the casual viewer. But it still works on its own terms. The film, even more than its predecessors, concentrates on Harry (and his perceived link to Voldemort) and the other aspects of the plot, including Umbridge's machinations and the private Defence Against the Dark Arts lessons, flow from their interaction with Harry. As a result, Daniel Radcliffe's performance is more important, and the success of the movie largely arises from the strength of his acting - which is a quantum leap upwards from where he started. Emma Watson remains a reliable foil and her Hermione the most accomplished of the characterisations among the kids. Newcomer Evanna Lynch manages to convey something of the feyness of Luna Lovegood, providing a different quality than the other young actors. Matthew Lewis and Bonnie Wright have more to do this time, as Neville Longbottom and Ginny Weasley become more central to the plot, and as the original threesome of young heroes becomes a sextet. They do well. To the array of scene-stealers (you have to see Richard Griffiths and Fiona Shaw in floral shirts and shorts to believe them) and luvvies who form the adult cast are added Imelda Staunton, who almost steals the film as the unctuous Umbridge, and Helena Bonham Carter as a barking mad Bellatrix. The film is the briefest of the series so far, and the one with the fewest sub-plots. As a result it zings along (which is in contrast to the novel version of the fifth story, which seemed to me to bog down in the third-floor swamp at times). Goldenberg's adaptation, directed by newcomer David Yates (the least experienced of the four directors who have helmed the series), allows for this accessibility. The effects are nicely integrated (although I was a little dubious about the realisation of Grawp). The more serious and threatening undertones (like The Goblet of Fire before and The Half-Blood Prince after, The Order of the Phoenix climaxes with a regretted death) take us further and further away from the playful tone of the original book, and nearer to the inevitable confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. And it now looks like Radcliffe, Watson and Rupert Grint, together with their supporting cast of contemporaries and luvvies, will continue through the seventh film. This is a good thing as the series continues to get better, even as it becomes a little less suitable for the littlies.
Third time's no harm
Captain Jack Sparrow if perhaps the finest comic creation of this millennium. As portrayed by Johnny Depp, the infamous pirate, who is either the best or the worst pirate one's ever seen, sashayed, stumbled, mumbled and generally stole the show through the first two Pirates of the Caribbean movies. The problem with Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is that Captain Jack's appearance is delayed for too long at the start. On the other hand, if one Captain Jack Sparrow is a good thing, a myriad of Captains Jack Sparrow, a plethora of Johnny Depps, as pop up when he finally does enter the story, is even better. In fact At World's End is the best of the three 3s that we saw recently and is quite a good movie. Just not as good as the first two Pirates movies. The story is unnecessarily complex and there is far too much plot - and this gets in the way of the film's enjoyment. The best thing about The Curse of the Black Pearl was the simplicity of the story arc: it allowed the writers and actors to concentrate on the absurdity. As a result Depp and Geoffrey Rush (Captain Barbossa), especially, kept up the comic invention. In Dead Man's Chest, Rush wasn't to be seen but Bill Nighy (Davy Jones) stepped up to the plate and did an equally fine job. Throughout those movies the ingenu, Orlando Bloom (William Turner), had less to do and was less effective while the ingenue, Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), moved in the opposite direction. In At World's End these trends continue: Depp and Rush are very good and Knightley becomes more of an initiator and gets more of the action. Bloom has a confused and confusing role and is, accordingly less effective. There are a number of other 'main' characters with little to do - including the villains, Norrington, Davy Jones and Cutler Beckett, and a new pirate captain essayed by Chow Yun-fat. The story takes us from Singapore to World's End to the Caribbean, where a gaggle of pirate captains must band together to defeat the fleet of the East India Company - cunningly working in the wrong hemisphere. There are some spectacular fight scenes and enough buckles being swashed to keep any fan of pirate movies happy. That it is neither as funny nor as inventive as the first two movies is regrettable - and perhaps inevitable. But it is still entertaining.
Third time's few qualms
... which is more than can be said for Ocean's Thirteen, the second sequel to the re-make of the Sinatra 1960s camp original. The players are all there: Cooney, Pitt, Damon and co, with Al Pacino added for extra spice. But the script is a mess. The caper is overly complex and not nearly so smoothly executed as the heist in the first movie. There are a couple of times when suspension of disbelief becomes unwilling. The problem with fingerprints and associates should have been anticipated as the arrest connected with it was part of the plot; instead we have an unconvincing scene where they scramble to improvise a way out. The olfactory element in the Damon/Baskin sub-plot was also so incredible as to beggar belief; in fact that whole aspect of the caper was weak. And the importation of not one, but two, very big digging machines, without anyone in Nevada being much the wiser, is the cherry on the incredulity cake. What remains, aside from these problems, is an occasionally fun heist movie, with too many plot complications, but some spirit still remaining from the very good first of the series. Many of the actors have an enormous charisma, and you can appreciate the charms of George Clooney, Al Pacino, Don Cheadle and Matt Damon, even as they battle against the drag of the script. Caan minor and Affleck minimus, not so much. This is definitely a case where the series has gone down hill from first to third, and the third entry is worthy of no more than a DVD hire on a night when you want to turn off your brain and veg out on the couch.
Third buys the farm
... and that still makes it better than Shrek the Third. This limp animated entry sees the ogre and his princess in her daddy's kingdom, with Shrek about to inherit the throne. Prince Charming aims to stage a coup, while our hero seeks to get cousin Artie back from school to do the ruling. Meanwhile Fiona is in the family way and some ogrets are due. Things gets so desperate that the script calls for the voices of Donkey and Puss to switch - which makes no sense and adds nothing to a cartoon. The jokes are few, and mainly unfunny. They set up the array of surplus princesses as a sort of Charlie's Angels and than abandon the joke; there are a Lancelot and Guinevere at school with Arthur but, after being introduced, they disappear from the movie. It's really a shame that the great comedic invention, and potentially interesting characters, of the first movie (and the OK second movie) have been pissed away by a failure to find a decent vehicle for them. Still the animation is top drawer - if you like that sort of thing.
Staying on the trail
Zodiac is a well-written and underplayed mystery, based on a true story. The script is derived from a true crime book, written by former newspaper cartoonist Robert Graysmith about the "Zodiac" killer, who committed his crimes in the Bay Area for about a decade from 1969. Committed in a number of jurisdictions, the crimes are brought together by a series of ciphers sent to the press by the killer. On his trail are officers from the San Francisco police (Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards) and a couple of journalists (Robert Downey Jr and Jake Gyllenhaal - as Graysmith). Each becomes more or less obsessed with the murders, and one by one they drop by the wayside, through choice, burn-out or drugs, leaving only Graysmith to continue his obsessive quest for an answer - a monomania that ruins his second marriage. Directed in a generally understated style by David Fincher, whose movies are usually much more confronting, Zodiac has some graphic material at the beginning, when the murders are shown, but is much more cerebral as it progresses - which is not to say that it is without drama and tension, because it has both. Downey gives a remarkably good performance as Avery, the crime reporter who first takes up the Zodiac case in the press and follows it up for a while. As he drops out, Graysmith, a cartoonist who helped solve the cipher, and had been hanging on to Avery's coat-tails, starts to look further into the matter, collecting material on the crimes, and hounding the police. The police are less well developed as characters than the reporters. Ruffalo, portraying David Toschi, a legendary cop, who inspired Bullitt, among other movie characterisations, comes across as a little to prosaic and Anthony Edwards is content to live in his shadow. There are some telling cameos, including Brian Cox's impersonation of Melvin Belli and Arthur Leigh Allen's chilling suspect, to add spice to the mix. Zodiac is not a showy movie and is never likely to join some of Fincher's earlier works as (unworthy) "cult classics" but it is a much more mature and assured work, well worth a look at.
Knocked Up? Get Down
I don't think that I am quite on the same wavelength as the mainstream of US critics. They saw Knocked Up as a great comedy romp. I saw it as a pretty good movie, although it failed to live up to the hype. The McGuffin is simple enough: Alison, who has just received a promotion to become an on-air personality on an entertainment channel, while celebrating, meets Ben, a slacker who shares digs with four slacker mates. She is on the fast-track to media success; he is working on a website about movies that feature actresses' hooters. A one-night stand becomes complicated when the rubber hits the floor and she discovers she's in the family way. While termination is mentioned briefly as an option, she is determined to bear and raise the child and he, after some initial reluctance, agrees to see if a relationship between the two of them can work. So we have a roundabout and very modern version of the classic comedy set-up: a mismatched couple meets cute, works towards a relationship, breaks up, and then gets back together for the happy ending. So far, so cliched. What sets it apart, and puts it a step or two above the ordinary, is a very good script, that keeps the situation and the comedy boiling along through to the end; some interesting characters; and some good acting. The leads are Katherine Heigl, starting her break-out from TV stardom to movies, and Seth Rogan, normally a character actor, but showing here the ability to play a lead. They are supported by Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd, as Alison's sister and brother-in-law, and by a posse of individuals as Ben's roomies and mates. Leslie Mann is the wife of writer-director Judd Apatow and was previously best known for her interpretation of Ursula Stanhope in the live action George of the Jungle. In Knocked Up, she is very good, and provides much of the contrast that brings out Alison's basic sweetness. There are in fact a number of very funny scenes, but mainly this is a likeable and charming movie. I remember it more for the over all look and feel, than for any outstanding comedy moments. Where most American comedies are built around the questionable talents of a lead comedian, often allowed to caper and prance, stressing the physical over the verbal, Apatow has relied more on situation and on strong scripting to bring out the humor inherent in his plot. An enjoyable movie.
On DVD
We caught up with two very different genre movies in recent weeks. Dogma, Kevin Smith's angel fantasy, has an outstanding cast, including Linda Fiorentino, Alan Rickman and Matt Damon, and a wild and weird story about an attempt by two angels to circumvent their expulsion from heaven. It is one of those movies where any description would be both misleading and unhelpful. It is a generally hilarious movie, with one or two moments where it goes completely off the rails, often those bits featuring the slackers Jay and Silent Bob from Smith's earlier works. If you're in the mood for something that is very far out of the mainstream, which is both incredibly blasphemous and at the same time reverent, but salted with foul language, Dogma might be for you.
On the other hand, Pan's Labyrinth (more accurately El Laberinto del Fauno) is a fascinating piece of very serious work. Alternating between the dire reality of Ofelia, a child, first in the home of a fascist captain and then in her fantasy world, the film concerns her being led into the underworld of faerie by a legend and a faun (not Pan as the English title would suggest) which sets her a series of tasks to perform. The film is a fascinating study in escapism and magic realism. The confrontation between the fascists and the loyalists in the hills becomes increasingly bloody and, in the background, Ofelia's mother is faced by a difficult imminent birth of the captain's child. The film's best aspect is the beauty and complexity of its secondary world creation and in other technical aspects of the film-making, including the lighting and the cinematography. This dauntingly beautiful film is let down by the stolidity of the acting and by the violent and bloody reality in both warfare and childbirth. But, in retrospect, these concerns do not take away from the haunting, yet surrealistic, fantasy that serves as a major sub-plot, but provides the title.
From our DVD collection - reviews of good and great movies not previously reviewed
For all that the film is concerned with the doings of a pair of stone killers, Prizzi's Honor is one of the funniest movies ever made. Jack Nicholson and Kathleen Turner were at the top of their form and the two most sensual actors of the mid-1980s. Each had been looking for an analog capable of matching them. The script by Richard Condon, who wrote the book, and Janet Roach provides them with the parts. And you can add one of the great character parts, with a superb performance from a relatively unknown William Hickey. John Huston's direction brings out the best in the actors. Nicholson is Charlie Partanna, a slightly dim-witted killer for the Prizzi family; Turner is Irene Walker, an independent hitter brought in by the Prizzis for a kill. Charlie sees her at a family wedding and likes what he sees. In a series of increasingly frantic cross-country trips they fall in love, get the Don's permission to marry, and do a job together. The complication is that Irene is not an innocent and Maerose Prizzi, the Don's grandniece and Charlie's ex, decides to stir up the mixture. Angelica Huston is excellent in this role. It is here that William Hickey comes into his own. A fifty-something playing the ancient and dissolute Don Corrado, whose oleaginous evil comes to the surface as he confronts Charlie and makes him choose between love and the family. The resolution is equal to the events that build up to it. A must-see comedy classic, withy serious undertones, and one of the last great films of Huston, one of the last great directors of the "Golden Age".
[Note: Information about the movies mentioned, including cast and crew lists and all sorts of trivia, is available at the Internet Movie Database (IMDb).]