Edge of Tomorrow.

Review #1569: Edge of Tomorrow.

Cast:

Tom Cruise (Major William Cage), Emily Blunt (Sergeant Rita Vrataski), Bill Paxton (Master Sergeant Farell), Brendan Gleeson (General Brigham), Noah Taylor (Dr. Noah Carter), Jonas Armstrong (Skinner), Tony Way (Kimmel), Kick Gurry (Griff), Charlotte Riley (Nance), Franz Drameh (Ford), Dragomir Mrsic (Kuntz), and Masayoshi Haneda (Takeda) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper (2008) and #1256 - Mr. & Mrs. Smith)

Review:

"I never want to repeat myself. I can’t imagine anything else as upsetting as realizing I’m redoing something I did before. For some reason, when it comes to film, I’m very good at not repeating myself. Even though in the rest of my life, I’m constantly repeating my mistakes."

It is a strange thing to note this as one of Doug Liman's best features, since he has made a steady career for himself over nearly three decades of work, primarily in action or comedy. The son of a painter and a lawyer, Liman found himself interested in film at a young age, which led to study at the International Center of Photography and Brown University before studying at the University of Southern California and their school of Cinematic Arts. He started with small-scale features that resulted in notice such as Swingers (1996) before moving on to bigger budgets with The Bourne Identity (2002) and other various features. The film is adapted from a Japanese sci-fi novel named All You Need Is Kill, written by Hiroshi Sakurazaka and illustrated by Yoshitoshi ABe originally published in 2004, with subsequent adaptation into manga and graphic novel; one can only imagine how they might find inspiration from playing a video game and dying over again and make their own story from that, as was the case of inspiration for Sakurazaka. The film (which Warner Brothers mandated have their title rather than the title of the novel or Liman's preference for the tagline as the title) had gestated in pre-production for years, starting with a spec script done by Dante Harper in 2010, although this would be discarded for reworking by other writers such as Joby Harold. Before filming started, Harper's script was mostly discarded by Liman, and the resulting screenplay that eventually came out was done by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth (which did not have a set ending at first).

What an interesting time one could spend with this film. It is a neat little action film, finding an edge in terms of making repetition involving action come across as useful entertainment with amusement. Is it more than just "Groundhog Day (1993) but with killing aliens"? In parts, sure. It proves to be a fun one, particularly for those who desire some sci-fi thrills with a light story that is right to follow along with for 113 minutes without becoming stuck in a loop. Cruise does fairly well with this role, one that invites curiosity for the challenges needed in playing a hero who has to fail over and over again and grow with the feature in capability and charm. Blunt proves efficient here, just as capable in handling action without hitting a false note, who makes her time of tough heroism roll along with guidance with enjoyment that never wavers from our attention once properly introduced to us. In other words, they make for a good team together in beat-by-beat training. Paxton and Gleeson make up useful support, generating some wry amusement when Cruise shares the screen with either of them (since each seem right at home with action fare like this). Taylor and the others do fine in parts, since the main threat is making sure to handle bulky suits and effects-driven adversaries, which is useful to follow along with. The ending does fine for what is needed in closing the loop for an action film without short-changing itself too much, relying on its effects to carry through without being too murky or unclear to follow (although novel fans will note its clear departure with its ending). The film was a modest success for its lofty budget (because one needs to spend over $100 million for either action movies or in marketing), and it isn't hard to appreciate the film as a useful example of an action movie that bets on itself in captivating the audience with flair and a degree of intelligence to it. In any case, there are supposedly plans to do another film (called Live Die Repeat and Repeat, because words fail me), but who knows how intriguing that could be? As a whole, while it certainly seems more polished for its first half over the second, it generally works out well in capturing the challenge of trying to make a breezy film with thrills that weaves a decently conceived idea together with a useful cast and visuals to go alongside it for a useful time to have time and time again.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Troy (2004).

Review #1538: Troy.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Achilles), Eric Bana (Hector), Orlando Bloom (Paris), Diane Kruger (Helen), Brian Cox (Agamemnon), Sean Bean (Odysseus, King of Ithaca), Brendan Gleeson (Menelaus, King of Sparta), Rose Byrne (Briseis), Saffron Burrows (Andromache), Julie Christie (Thetis), Peter O'Toole (Priam, King of Troy), Garrett Hedlund (Patroclus), and John Shrapnel (Nestor) Directed by Wolfgang Petersen (#414 - Air Force One)

Review: 
"Homer's work was violent and brutal and sexy and bold and powerful," he states. "It's long and it's epic, with a lot of characters - a full spectrum of bloody, beautiful elements. The material does not ask you to cut a corner here or remove something there. This is too extreme; too rough, too violent…And I suppose I have to mea culpa, because there I was, crying in the editing room, but still doing it… I've learned a lot and next time, I promise, there will be a big fight!"

Bring on the spectacle, bring them on from all places in the world. Wolfgang Petersen gradually rose up the ranks in his native Germany through the theater (along with doing short films of his own in 1968) before studying at the Film and Television Academy in Berlin that helped him move on to television and eventually his first film feature in 1974 with One or the Other of Us. It was Das Boot (1982), his third work, that generated the most attention in his country and abroad, which The NeverEnding Story (1984) helped continue to that trend. Over the years, Petersen has made twelve films (mostly regarded as blockbusters) that have resulted in mostly fruitful successes. What better way to try and do an epic based in some part on myth by taking out the mythological effect and striving to make an historical epic? Of course this is a loose adaptation Homer's Iliad (with the script of the film being written by David Benioff, who had done The 25th Hour two years prior), considering the fact that numerous characters don't actually die in the poem as compared to the film that condenses its Trojan War to a few weeks. The original version of the film was 162 minutes, while the director's cut adds 30 minutes. I saw the original version because hey, that's the DVD I had.

Whether one eels having intervention from above is a bit silly or not, it definitely makes this film a bit strange to view through the lens of an epic, and the result is something that will either prove just fine for some and a little hollow for others. Maybe one could blame Gladiator (2000) for the idea of doing ancient epics like this with big spectacle for gladiatorial combat in ancient times and a flash of stars while taking brevity out to the toolshed to hammer repeatedly. Honestly though, there isn't anything inherently terrible about this particular movie, but it just happens to be so incredibly mediocre in pretty much every aspect, where the only thing going for it is a flash of scenery and spectacle to gaze upon. In a way, it is like seeing a large dog rumble around in the yard wearing "clothes" - it's a dopey sight, but it is probably too precious to think of as anything other than just silly. Pitt certainly looks like he tries to give his all to looking and seeming the part of the big hero (despite his subsequent reservations about the film's lack of mystery) that works in parts in trying to inspire some sort of nuance that sort of works in conviction but seems sort of lost in the shuffle of camp. Bana and Bloom come and go with about as much charm as dollar-store mannequins, where one fights the urge to look at their watch (particularly in the case of the latter, playing a bland coward). Kruger was brought in because Petersen wanted an unknown for Helen of Troy, but she never really seems that compelling to really drive drama forward to really serve as a "face that launched a thousand ships", instead seeming like a face in the crowd. Cox certainly seems to be having a grand time in being involved in a epic, and I can applaud him having bluster with a big bulky costume. Bean and Gleeson compliment things just fine in reserved moments, although it is obviously O'Toole who seems to make the most out of a paycheck-I mean appearance as a king with clarity. If I cared about what went on with this spectacle, maybe it would matter more than its ultimate result, the bastion of clichés ancient and less ancient that seems suited for irritating fans of mythology or flat-out making them yawn for all the stuff that comes out at them like a grand old cutscene.  If one believes in its scope through shots in Malta and Mexico and its 163 minute odyssey through some sort of meaning in mythology, trek on and relax with where it wants to go in its bellowing of an epic for its own time. I can't give it a winning recommendation, but you can certainly draw the line in the sand for yourself for if it matters enough to seem right for you.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Cold Mountain.

Review #1536: Cold Mountain.

Cast: 
Jude Law (William "W. P." Inman), Nicole Kidman (Ada Monroe), Renée Zellweger (Ruby Thewes), Eileen Atkins (Maddy), Brendan Gleeson (Stobrod Thewes), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Reverend Solomon Veasey), Natalie Portman (Sara), Giovanni Ribisi (Junior), Donald Sutherland (Reverend Monroe), Ray Winstone (Teague), Kathy Baker (Sally Swanger), James Gammon (Esco Swanger), Charlie Hunnam (Bosie), Jack White (Georgia), and Ethan Suplee (Pangle) Written and Directed by Anthony Minghella.

Review: 
"I had never thought of myself as a director and found out that I was not. I am a writer who was able to direct the films that I write."

Writers matter to a good film, particularly ones that happen to direct it as well. Minghella had aspirations of playing music prior to going to the University of Hull, playing in a couple of bands at keyboard that credited writing songs as a precursor to writing plays (once stating that he saw his early plays as "being a format for music"). His first film came at the age of 24 that was filmed in his native Isle of Wight in under three weeks with A Little Like Drowning (1978). His studies in drama led to graduation from there before attempting to study for a doctoral thesis (with his big influence as a writer being Samuel Beckett) alongside lecturing at the school for a few years. He moved himself to writing for television for the BBC and ITV alongside doing his own plays and adaptations by the 1980s, which did receive notice, although it was Truly, Madly, Deeply (1990) that proved important, since it went from being made initially for television to being given a theatrical release that resulted in praise. His time spent adapting The English Patient to film in 1996 resulted in tremendous audience and critical favor. Before his untimely death in 2008, Minghella directed seven features while also serving as producer for several other films and doing work on the board for the British Film Institute.

This was Minghella's sixth feature film, and it is an adaptation of the 1997 novel of the same name by Charles Frazier, who loosely based it off the service of William P. Inman, a member of the 25th Infantry Regiment in North Carolina that Frazier has stated is his great-grand uncle. There have been quite a few war romance films that try to carry a torrid romance into an odyssey where the time spent together is just more lasting than the segments involving war (with the despair of said war being right there as well). This is basically right in the middle of quality in terms of epics, handling itself well in style and occasional moments of inspiration that cloud over its expected glacial pace and decent splitting of narratives that is best suited for seeing its supporting characters from time to time in the fields of North Carolina (or more specifically, Romania) for 154 minutes. I wish I liked the film enough to really call it good, but I at least get why it could prove more satisfying for those who seek it out. Law does just fine with a capable element of conviction in keeping level with evoking some level of quiet range that handles courtship and war just fine. Kidman, handling the other storyline of a film that needs to handle yearning alongside farm trouble, does just alright in tender care for drama that basically works out decent chemistry with Law in that we do generally await to see what happens next. Zellweger however proves the most interesting in generating a resourceful performance that shows some humor alongside resilience despite only showing up in the movie an hour into obviously dire proceedings. Gleeson provides a warm presence to otherwise dour times, while Hoffman and Portman make momentary appearances and do fine with they need to run with, while others such as Winstone seem really lacking in time needed. Honestly, while I do note the fact that there are quite a few films that can utilize two-and-a-half-hours for well effect and the fair performances here, I just only see a decent movie that seems a bit cold to me in being anything other than just careful in treading the waters of what you might already know about brutal wars and romances that are just too much for anyone to stay put and so on and so forth. It reminds me of what a good copy of a lost painting done from fairly accurate recollection - on the surface it looks nice and could probably pass for a classic, but if you look at it a little bit more you just might see it as just fine. In any case, it sweeps the board with fair flourish that will entertain those looking for what it yearns to show in passion and style that will win admirers in the art of patience or for its particular brand of telling said story more than those who don't find it as well-meaning.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Review #1528: A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Cast: 
Haley Joel Osment (David), Jude Law (Gigolo Joe), Frances O'Connor (Monica Swinton), Sam Robards (Henry Swinton), Jake Thomas (Martin Swinton), William Hurt (Professor Allen Hobby), Brendan Gleeson (Lord Johnson-Johnson), with Jack Angel (Teddy), Robin Williams (Dr. Know), Ben Kingsley (Specialist), Meryl Streep (Blue Fairy), and Chris Rock (Comedian Robot) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, and #1520 - Saving Private Ryan)

Review: 
"While there was divisiveness when A.I. came out, I felt that I had achieved Stanley’s wishes, or goals."

This was most definitely a film I anticipated and feared ever watching. On the one hand, it has sensibilities of two great directors mixed into one prolonged experience both in length and the time it took to actually develop it to the screen. For starters, the film is an adaptation of the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss, written originally in 1969. The original work included just four characters (David, his parents, and Teddy), which talked about the doubts of a boy's existence and what is real while his "parents" wait for the chance to have their own child. Stanley Kubrick had acquired the rights to the story by the 1970s. An array of writers would come and go in writing/consulting a script for Kubrick, which included Aldiss, Bob Shaw, Ian Watson and Sara Maitland, with Kubrick treating the soon-enormous script as resembling The Adventures of Pinocchio. One key thing that stopped progression of getting pre-production going was a perception by Kubrick that effects-work had to evolve enough to suit what he wanted (the release of Jurassic Park helped spur the idea of potentially doing the film again, but Kubrick ultimately retained focus on what ended up being his last project, Eyes Wide Shut in 1999). In the middle of all that searching for the right tone, Steven Spielberg had been approached by Kubrick to direct it, and it was after Kubrick's death in 1999 that led Christiane Kubrick to approach Spielberg to take on the project; Spielberg would develop a screenplay based on the story done by Watson, with the most notable aspect being the "Flesh Fair" sequence.

The ambition shown here in bringing such a project like this to life is admirable, regardless of how the final result turns out. It is a decent film, for better or worse. It has some of the edge needed when it comes to a visual level that makes an interesting curiosity that may perhaps inspire some thought about its deeper implications involving machines, that much is for sure. And yet there is just something about it that seems hollow when it comes to being consistently interesting in actually springing a story that really makes care all the way forward, which combines with a quiet ending that really seems to try to cover too many bases without truly deserving it. In other words, it is a fine movie, but I can't say I really, really liked it enough to justify 146 minutes of runtime, where it seems more clinical verging on silly than properly bleak and innovative, which basically means you get the decent but not perfect writings of two visionaries. Osment does just fine when it comes to a really tough task: a robot boy built to love, complete with an enduring spirit and robotic actions that carry this film as much as he can in unblinking fashion that will either lead to great heights or meandering. Law does fine, amusing in the manner of trickery to go along with the other side of what makes Mecha made to love. O'Connor and Robards don't really do as well, strangely enough, since they really don't help the first half seem that involving. Evidently the 22nd century has led to parents and children made out of wooden acting, where a voice of a teddy bear has more charm in comparison. Hurt does do a fine job, but he is gravelly underused, having basically just two scenes in the whole (meaningful in terms of hammering in the whole aspects of a robot child yes, but still). Williams is funny in his one scene to shine in exposition.

I really just wish I enjoyed this more, because there certainly are bits and pieces that seem suited for greatness that get slogged out of enjoyment. At least the original author Aldiss thought it was "inventive, intriguing, involving film", so to have a film that at least doesn't make the author mad is okay by me. For a story originally just about the plight of parents who struggle with loving a robot child, it sure is strange to have a film go from that to a "Flesh Fair" involving beating down old robots and a quest to become a real boy as Pinocchio with mommy issues. In a future that has cultivated the flooding of New York and had to rebuild itself with exploiting robots, why should it be surprising that at some point in time someone wanted to make a robot that loves you - basically this is the story of an advanced robotic pet looking for a way for their master to come back. The "Flesh Fair" sequence is in some way the make-it-or-break-it sequence - either it will help the film gather depth in the underbelly of robot use, or it will seem a bit too much for its own good. I'm fine with it, but it just seems so jarring when compared to the first half. I appreciate the look of the film, which does fine with featuring the future with some decent robotic effects, although its last trick for the end is a bit unwieldy. And then of course there is that ending, one that tries to resolve the pursuit for the "Blue Fairy" with a half-measure for a fable, as his plight for chasing down this delusion is thought of as like a human's ability to chase down their dreams (I...suppose). Keep in mind, this was the ending devised by Kubrick (not Spielberg), so it only goes to show that sometimes you just can't please everyone when it comes to resolutions. The setup to its little ending was ridiculous enough (because the odds of making a robot into a boy are pretty much nil, so either I expected him to wither away or give up), and the payoff is just an eye-roller more than a tear-jerker when it comes to meaningful science fiction. It is quite possible a re-viewing would help in seeing the layers beneath a vaguely provocative film, but honestly that really seems like a tall order - why not just spend time watching a better movie again instead? If one wants to compare and match, if I want a better Kubrick sci-fi time, I'll pick 2001: A Space Odyssey, and if I want a better Spielberg sci-fi time, I'll pick E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. What we have here is a film that is too cloying and too much for its own good to really become something other than a parable gone awry. I am glad that I saw the film in curiosity for measurement as a film of the 21st century, even if it is ultimately just a decent experience in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible 2.

Review #1100: Mission: Impossible 2.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Thandie Newton (Nyah Nordoff-Hall), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Dougray Scott (Sean Ambrose), Brendan Gleeson (John C. McCloy), Richard Roxburgh (Hugh Stamp), John Polson (Billy Baird), Rade Šerbedžija (Dr. Nekhorvich), and William Mapother (Wallis) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off and #336 - Broken Arrow)

Review: 
The first film was a fairly decent adventure that managed to juggle its spy elements with a decent story and a capable cast to make for a satisfactory experience, for the most part. Four years later, a sequel was created, with Robert Towne returning to do the screenplay (with the story being done by Ronald D. Moore and Brandon Braga) and Cruise and Rhames returning. It's easy to say that the sequel is not as good as the original movie, feeling like a bit of a letdown in terms of its execution. The action sequences certainly seem to be competing with the plot to see which one can go faster in pace, and it would seem that the action sequences win out in terms of effectiveness. The film seems to enjoy having scenes compete with themselves for most ridiculous, such as a rocket containing sunglasses to deliver exposition that explode into the title sequence, a car chase with reckless action and even more reckless hair, doves flying out of nowhere, and a climax complete with a game of chicken and fights in the sand. I can't really give the writing too much guff since the film at least moves moderately well - up to a point, anyway. The motivations make sense roughly 60% of the time, although the plot-line certainly jumbles itself silly at times.

Cruise does a fine job, keeping this character fairly interesting to watch around, having a degree of confidence to him - complete with the opening shot of him doing rock climbing. Newton is fine, although the writing does sometimes let her down. I find that the scenes with Cruise and Newton don't have too much chemistry with each other, not really seeming any better than what you might see in a James Bond movie, for example, although I would note that if you compared it to the three Bond films released in the 1990s, this one would probably fall in the middle in terms of quality, although it certainly wouldn't beat GoldenEye (1995). Apparently, Woo's original cut was three-and-a-half hours long, so it is evident that something was lost in the process to make the final cut 123 minutes long. I do wonder if the longer cut would've made these characters a bit more interesting than they ended up being, particularly with the villain, although I really can't blame Scott for not being up to task for such a thankless role. It sure is nice to see Rhames, albeit in a less role than the first time around, although he certainly seems more interesting than the other member of the "team" in Polson. Gleeson and Roxburgh prove to be fairly watchable as well. Even though the original one was prone to twisting itself a bit too much, I felt that there was something interesting about where it took itself that worked for the moment, but this film doesn't really to work as handily for the moment, making for a movie that is mildly entertaining but not as good as the previous one. It isn't anything to give too much criticism for, but it also isn't anything to really find loving unless one doesn't have much expectations going in.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Beowulf (2007).

Review #648: Beowulf.

Cast
Ray Winstone (Beowulf), Anthony Hopkins (Hrothgar), Angelina Jolie (Grendel's mother), John Malkovich (Uniferth), Brendan Gleeson (Wiglaf), Robin Wright Penn (Queen Wealtheow), Crispin Glover (Grendel), and Alison Lohman (Ursula) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and #581 - Forrest Gump)

Review
It is somewhat weird for me to write a review of a movie I also had to write a compare and contrast essay about, but here we are. Beowulf is a classic tale from long ago that inspired many tropes of heroism in other stories, which is why it has had a few adaptations over the years, like The 13th Warrior, or even the 1999 version of Beowulf, along with spin offs such as Grendel (and the film of it as well), but this movie is something of its own. Motion capture animation is hit and miss when it comes to scenes, at times it can look good, like the battle scenes but other times it looks a bit off-putting, such as closeup shots of characters looking more like a 90's interactive adventure story. The actors are at least entertaining, they seem to have a grasp on making these character interesting, though the character motivations and the plot itself is changed significantly. The idea to have Beowulf be a flawed man is either a brilliant way to make the plot seem more interesting, or just disappointing that they couldn't follow the story even in motivations.

At least the characters are given more screen time to develop, though the story sometimes seems more like a telenovela then an action film. At least the film has moments that are pretty fun to watch, the scene at the end is pretty good, I like how the movie doesn't hold back on the action/violence, and even though the movie has its silly moments (the beginning scenes are a bit odd to watch), it at least is an entertaining movie. Is it a movie that's true to the story? Not really, the whole subplot of Grendel's mother has a few new subplots and the movie ends on an ambiguous note, whereas the story ended on outright victory. I guess the movie's quality depends on your relation to the story and if you can let changes not affect your perception of the movie. I thought it was just okay, but at least it tried to be an entertaining movie, and it probably did a better job at doing that then the other two Beowulf films I mentioned earlier, which I guess is a good thing.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1.

Review #123: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Warwick Davis (Griphook), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Ralph Fiennes (Lord Voldemort), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Brendan Gleeson (Alastor 'Mad-Eye' Moody), Richard Griffiths (Vernon Dursley), John Hurt (Garrick Ollivander), Rhys Ifans (Xenophilius Lovegood), Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), Bill Nighy (Rufus Scrimgeour), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), and Fiona Shaw (Petunia Dursley) Directed by David Yates.

Review
This film begins the final adventure of this saga, and it figures the most important of them all gets two parts to accompany it (even though there were rumors Goblet of Fire could have been separated into two) Anyway, this film has good acting from the main three once again, with the others following nicely. The film has one abundant thing for about 30-40 minutes, and that would be in the woods. The film doesn't suffer that much from the walking, talking, and fighting. One thing I must bring up is that they cut the departure scenes out of the film, I feel that it should've been included as it bringed closure for the Dursleys and Harry, but we don't get that. The quest is a giant one, with risk at every trail. The story delves deeper and deeper, connecting things, especially from Sorcerer's Stone (Hard to believe that it was released in 2001 wasn't it?) The action is alright, as we get closer to the battle of a lifetime, with two sides fighting...And only one can win. This ends Part VII. Stay tuned for Part VIII...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Review #120: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Brendan Gleeson (Alastor Moody), Robert Pattinson (Cedric Diggory), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Ralph Fiennes (Lord Voldemort), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), Miranda Richardson (Rita Skeeter), and Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom). Directed by Mike Newell.

Review
This film is good, as it differs from the others in its opening, finally not having the Dursleys, getting to other things, and being a bit darker then the last, going in a pattern that would set the pattern (feels familiar...) The acting is decently good as usual, with Gleeson being the standout (With David Tennant also doing well, and...Robert Pattinson does a decent performance) The plot's decent as it tries to jam things in to make it not overlong or too short, even if it cuts things a bit (Such as in the World Cup sequence in which it just cuts out of the game) The series is now half over, we get darker and darker...This ends Part IV of Harry Potter Week. Stay tuned for Part V...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.