Layer Cake.

Review #2257: Layer Cake.

Cast: 

Daniel Craig (XXXX), Colm Meaney (Gene), George Harris (Morty), Sienna Miller (Tammy), Tamer Hassan (Terry), Jamie Foreman (the Duke), Kenneth Cranham (Jimmy Price), Michael Gambon (Eddie Temple), Ben Whishaw (Sidney), Tom Hardy (Clarkie), Dexter Fletcher (Cody), Steve John Shepherd (Tiptoes), Burn Gorman (Gazza), and Sally Hawkins (Slasher) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class, #993 - Kingsman: The Secret Service, #994 - Kingsman: The Golden Circle)

Review: 

"The problem is that every gangster film's been full of all this gore-blimey-cockney-mate-I'm-a-*******-hard-guy nonsense and that's what Layer Cake isn't. Lots of people in the test screenings complained that the drug dealers in the movie were middle class. But that's how life is! The idea that every drug dealer is a cockney or a scouser is just a cliché. My aspiration was to make Heat but set in Britain. That was the goal."

Twenty years ago in October of 2004, Matthew Vaughn directed his first feature film with Layer Cake, which actually was an adaptation of the 2000 novel of the same name by J. J. Connolly, who had described himself as formerly being "an end-user, a punter." He wrote the novel with a handful of it being based on anecdotes by people he knew while noting that when he wrote the book, it was a time when "smart criminals" (as he put it) getting to find the idea of having a public profile abhorrent. The interest that the book generated in the public found its way to Vaughn. The son of a banker, he had worked as a film director assistant before trying (and dropping) to attend university in London for history. He produced his first film (at the age of 25) with The Innocent Sleep (1996). His next two features were with Guy Ritchie as a director that attracted attention in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000). He happened to encounter Connolly on a train ride and found himself wrapped up in directing the film, complete with Connolly writing the script for the film. A neat hit with audiences, Vaughn has managed to direct (and produce) a handful of features over the next two decades. Connolly wrote a follow-up novel eleven years later with Viva La Madness, which has yet to be adapted in any form.

Really one could say this is a skewed look at "the process", only now in the view of a criminal. It ends up wracked with twists and layers that end up doing a few favors in the art of clever engagement for a solid feature. Of course, it happens to be the film associated with Daniel Craig getting to play James Bond in Casino Royale (2005), and it probably goes without saying that this is a pretty good showcase for him. Sure, it is a familiar feature but being hip and spry for 105 minutes is not a hard thing to accomplish, and the commitment works when you have a cast that is worthwhile to follow with. Craig just has that "it factor" here, which is interesting considering he had been around for a handful of film roles of varying prominence (after honing his craft on the stage, naturally), but he has a way with words that draws you in how direct he is in the art of not wanting to be a career guy with such suave confidence. One wonders exactly what our unnamed lead would actually have ended up pursuing as a "gentleman of leisure", but I think you can see that whatever it could have been in terms of a pursuit, he sure would've made a killing at it. His pursuit of dancing in and out of the inane web set upon him is a fun one for him to show his charm while blood gets drawn around him, and it probably helps to have Meaney around, because the occasional humorous moments that occur (amid the violence and the situations that arise from that) are mostly because of him and his piercing qualities. Others come and go to varying effect, whether that involves Miller and a few alluring glances or the stark differences in Cranham and Gambon when it comes to established figures in the "layer cake" of crime (Gambon in particular is quite amusing). Evidently, there were a few endings shot for the film before Vaughn maneuvered it so the one used was the one he wanted (one that apparently is distinct from the book, but they share the same last line). It is a startling ending to the film but worthwhile when you really get down to it, at least when compared to the usual fare. As a whole, it is a pretty good feature with entertaining execution from all involved in the art of process within the criminal underworld that cuts like a knife on butter for solid results.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Book of Eli.

Review #2175: The Book of Eli.

Cast: 

Denzel Washington (Eli), Gary Oldman (Bill Carnegie), Mila Kunis (Solara), Ray Stevenson (Redridge), Jennifer Beals (Claudia), Evan Jones (Martz), Joe Pingue (Hoyt), Frances de la Tour (Martha), Michael Gambon (George), and Tom Waits (Engineer) Directed by Albert and Allen Hughes.

Review: 

"Allen deals with the actors, I deal with the technical side. Outside of that, we both do everything. I think it came up that way because I went to film school (at Los Angeles City College) and learned more of the technical side. Film school was just putting names on things me and my brother were already doing, different ways of doctoring up stuff. But even when we work together on the set, we both have opinions on each others' area."

Sometimes it matters to be two of a kind. The Hughes Brothers, composed of Allen and Albert, were born in Detroit but raised in California with a clear interest in film from a young age (as helped by their mother, who bought them two VHS machines and a video camera when they were 12). They honed their craft with music videos. At the age of 20, they made their first feature film with Menace II Society (1993). They followed this with Dead Presidents (1995), the documentary American Pimp (1999) and From Hell (2001); Albert moved to the Czech Republic in 2004. At any rate, this film was written by Gary Whitta, but re-writes were done by Anthony Peckham. This is currently the last film made together by the Hughes brothers, although each have continued to direct for separate features and television, such as The Defiant Ones (2017) and Alpha (2018), respectively.

Really one could just interpret the film as a slightly less hokey version of The Postman (1997). Think about it: both movies involve a wandering drifter with a particular vision in mind on their travels that run into someone wanting to maintain control of their part of a post-apocalyptic America that eventually leads to some sort of semblance of hope (hey, one gets a statue and the other gets a gravestone after doing what they set out to do), and both happen to feature a musician in a bit part. Of course, one has hand-to-hand combat and a runtime under two hours (118, but still) with this film, which is set...30 years after some sort of thing happened. Honestly, it probably would've looked the same regardless of if it was 5 or 10 years, but so be it. The result is a mildly involving attempt at parable that comes and goes on just how much one is interested in its eventual climax, which, well, is more a Western than anything (Pale Rider (1985) referred to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in its title, chew on that). The blind leading the blind, in good ol' browns and greys with some brand references (just how big were iPods anyway?), I think you get the idea of where things will go besides the part that really attracts my attention: a few moments of kick-ass with the hands. Of course, Washington is pretty good as the headline enigma to hold the film as long as it can, which exudes faith in the assured manner that fits what you would picture in your head in terms of trying to stay on the path that seems most obvious to him. That, and, well, he does make a quality presence to see handle a bunch of fools in their place that would fit a samurai film. Oldman handles the other side of the coin in just how much knowledge can lead a man on a certain path, which mostly involves craven nature, and this is mildly successful. It isn't exactly a role begging for scene-chewing, because Gambon and de la Tour can do that instead. Kunis makes a blank slate that may or may not work depending on one's patience for, well, seeing where a slate goes for a road movie. The film gives me more of a chuckle in its attempt at playing bleakness and religious nature in a familiar package that is only as good as the commitment to make it something worth sticking with. As a whole, it meanders in a certain type of meandering that could only come from something that is hazy in both construction and look that works best for those who don't look for the obvious signposts but instead just sit for the ride and relax.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Review #1553: Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Cast: 
George Clooney (Mr. Fox), Meryl Streep (Felicity Fox), Jason Schwartzman (Ash Fox), Bill Murray (Clive Badger), Willem Dafoe (Rat), Michael Gambon (Franklin Bean), Owen Wilson (Coach Skip), Wallace Wolodarsky (Kylie), Eric Anderson (Kristofferson Silverfox), Jarvis Cocker (Petey), Wes Anderson (Stan Weasel), Robin Hurlstone (Walter Boggis), and Hugo Guinness (Nathan Bunce) Directed by Wes Anderson.

Review: 
"I like to do things that are a little surrealistic but with characters who are real. So that, even if things are a little unusual, the emotions will come through anyway.”

The auteur filmmaker is one that knows and controls his style to create a distinct film of his own merit. Wes Anderson certainly has proven himself worthy of the label alongside a variety of others with his level of filmmaking. The native Texan made films from a young age - making his first films with a Super-8 camera. He liked films such as Star Wars and directors like Alfred Hitchcock, even working as a projectionist when studying philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1992, he directed a short film with friend Owen Wilson called Bottle Rocket (which he wrote with Wilson that was inspired by films like Mean Streets). A submission to the Sundance Film Festival (which James L. Brooks, upon viewing it was "dazzled" by) resulted in an opportunity to direct a feature film based on the short (with time spent re-working the script and filming) - released in 1996, it received notice but was not an audience hit. His next film in Rushmore (1998) proved more successful; after these two films, he already had one significant fan in Martin Scorsese (who called both films "very funny, but also very moving"). His subsequent films have received a good deal of notice that have made for nine released features in nearly 25 films of filmmaking. Anderson is noted for his distinct style of films, which he described as "very personal movies in a way", built with quirks in his characters and with the choices of music and look of each film, while also featuring a variety of recurring actors (such as Schwartzman, Murray, Dafoe, Wolodarsky, and Wilson). For this film (which he co-wrote with Noah Baumbach along with serving as co-producer), it would be done in stop-motion animation with figurines that were made out of fur (with tailored clothing of fabric that he designed himself).

Sometimes a film can be just a bit more than just a fine adaptation of another work. This was based off the 1970 children's novel of the same name by Roald Dahl (who many will recognize as writer of works such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, and The BFG, each of which I read as a child) - it was apparently the first book Anderson remembers owning. The film is mostly faithful to the novel, aside from having a focus on the relation of Mr. Fox to his family (which cut the four children to one) that expands upon the narrative (in other words, more than just a fox stealing chickens from a bunch of weirdos), in addition to a tweaking of the ending and a few added scenes. Sure, one could have the voices done in the booth, or they could have them done at a farmhouse as is the case here with such a marvelous film like this proves to be. It never wavers from delivering an interesting story with plenty of whimsy and skill with performances to go along with entertaining voices and design that make a wonderful classic worth 88 minutes. It all falls first to Clooney, who does quite well in brimming confidence that weaves interest and curiosity that generate subtle amusement fitting for that particular timing and character. Streep goes along with reserved grace that makes a well-tuned chemistry with Clooney in their scenes shared together. Schwartzman does well in generating interesting angst and smart remarks for when it is necessary that drives the film in those careful moments handled with his counterpart in E. Anderson (illustrator and author, who had made cameo appearances in his brother's films). Murray makes a few funny moments count without needing to hear too much of him badger on, while Dafoe equally makes his dandy moments count well in amusement. The film hits its stride early and never lets go in examining the nature of longing, alienation, and ultimately togetherness within a worthwhile adventure. I am dazzled by the animation of the film, as it looks quite intricate and rightly executed in creating a world of dazzling charm and palate (with a distinct lack of blues or greens) that never looks excessively gaudy or too much for enjoyment. I like the entertainment it brought to a charming work that honors the original book with its own flourish of humor and narrative for a resplendent achievement for animation alongside its era and director.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Sleepy Hollow.

Review #1295: Sleepy Hollow.

Cast: 
Johnny Depp (Ichabod Crane), Christina Ricci (Katrina Van Tassel), Miranda Richardson (Lady Mary Van Tassel and The Crone Witch), Michael Gambon (Baltus Van Tassel), Casper Van Dien (Brom Van Brunt), Jeffrey Jones (Reverend Steenwyck), Christopher Lee (The Burgomaster), Richard Griffiths (Magistrate Samuel Philipse), Ian McDiarmid (Dr. Thomas Lancaster), Michael Gough (Notary James Hardenbrook), Marc Pickering (Young Masbath), and Christopher Walken and Ray Park (The Headless Horseman) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes (2001), and #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure)

Review: 
Sometimes you really need something eccentric when it comes to horror and old folktales. It should only prove fitting that Tim Burton served as director for a film like this, which started out originally intended to be directed by Kevin Yagher (known primarily for his special efforts work such as the Crypt Keeper for Tales from the Crypt) from a script by Andrew Kevin Walker (writer of Seven) that would be a low-budget slasher based off the short story "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" by Washington Irving. There had been a few adaptations of the story done before, such as The Headless Horseman (1922) and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949, narrated by Bing Crosby), but this is certainly the most lavish attempt involving the story. The film takes plenty of liberties with the original story, ranging from the occupation of its main character to its climax, while having plenty of heads rolling around in a film that has plenty of style and a bit of humor that blend fairly well as its own thing. It pulls off a few frights together (particularly when combined with all the present fog), holding ground for most of its 105 minute run-time, with stand-out makeup and a fairly dynamic drive that feels reminiscent of Hammer horror films. The vibrant blood shots certainly help in that department, with well-executed gore and an interesting monster to boot. Depp seeps right into his part with tight conviction that would fit just fine in the traditional horror films of yesteryear without being lost in having a good time with such a squeamish yet compelling role. Ricci proves fine for a storybook type of role while having a bit of chemistry with Depp. Richardson proves to have a wicked time, playing two parts that come together just right. There certainly is an interesting cadre of supporting actors, ranging from Gambon and some fair theatrics to Hammer veterans Lee and Gough (who each get a scene each that plays out fine), and there really isn't a bad performer in the bunch to deter from the tense atmosphere the film wants to pull off. Walken may not say an actual word when it comes to the Horseman, but he sure has the chops to make it compelling to watch each and every snarl. The cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is exquisite, where the color only serves to help make its fantasy/horror trappings stand out more than the usual expectation, particularly when the Headless Horseman lurks around (the music from Danny Elfman is helpful as well with that intent). The climax does tend to feel a bit convenient when it comes to having to close off its telling of the legend (namely when its big bad tells someone the nature of their scheme that involves the horseman as well), but at least it can fall back on spectacle (exploding windmills? Why not?) to make it all seem worth it without having to beat you over the head with ridiculousness. On the whole, this proves to be an alluring experience, inviting you in with an interesting atmosphere and some capable acting that makes a different mark on a classic folklore without becoming lost in clichés or being anything other than a nice fright for the horror folks.

Next Review: The Evil Dead.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

Review #1273: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

Cast: 
Jude Law (Joseph Sullivan/Sky Captain), Gwyneth Paltrow (Polly Perkins), Angelina Jolie (Commander Francesca "Franky" Cook), Giovanni Ribisi (Dex), Michael Gambon (Editor Paley), Omid Djalili (Kaji), Bai Ling (The Mysterious Woman), Julian Curry (Dr. Jorge Vargas), Trevor Baxter (Dr. Walter Jennings), Peter Law (Dr. Kessler), and Laurence Olivier (Dr. Totenkopf) Written and Directed by Kerry Conran.

Review: 
Influences can be a wonderful thing. On the one hand, the film takes inspiration from films/comics of the 1930s like Flash Gordon, but on the other hand it also has inspiration from designers of the 1939 World's Fair like Norman Bel Geddes. A decade before the film's release, Conran had started work on making a teaser trailer for his idea in his living room with a bluescreen, spending four years on the project. Eventually, there was enough interest to make the film come to life, albeit as an independent film with plenty of producers for $70 million (or at least that is the reported figure for it, but regardless the film was not a success with audiences upon release). There are numerous things to be said for the film when it comes to its effects, since it is mostly done on a digital backlot. If anything shines, it is likely the digital artists and the crew tasked with making this world come alive. This is a film being sketched out via storyboards (hand-drawn) to be re-created as an 3D animatic by computer. This is a sibling type of contribution, with Kerry serving as writer and director, his brother Kevin serving as concept artist, production designer, and costume designer while his sister Kirsten served as art director. I can certainly applaud the efforts done here for a film that is very ambitious but also a pretty average one. It isn't a laughable experience, in part because one does find some time to gaze at what is going on around the actors, such as giant robots, sky ships, and so on. There is certainly a wonderful look present here that springs to mind the styles of the past that even springs to the characters, which can be hit-and-miss. The story certainly seems like a blueprint for the modern movie era, where one can make a bunch of references that try to distract from its own familiar story; it at least isn't a self-aggrandizing kind of experience, goofy yet friendly to sit through its 106 minutes. Law is up to some of the tasks associated with an adventurer lead, having some charm that comes with the territory that makes him somewhat interesting to go around with. Perhaps the implied history he has with Paltrow's character should've been shown more (as opposed to sprinkling scenes where they talk about it throughout), since they barely have any kind of chemistry with each other. One could just describe their scenes as aloof, as if I need reasons for a reporter to come along to an investigation about missing scientists and giant robots that steal stuff. Paltrow is just okay. She is playing a mildly interesting but familiar type that she makes come out in bits and pieces.  It's amusing how mild these two are when it actually would be interesting to see the others more, such as a lingo-spewing, eye-patch wearing Jolie that proves useful for the five (or so) minutes she shows up, or the robot assassin in Ling that never speaks, or even just Ribisi with talking the tech of this odd world. One wonders what to say about the digitized appearance of Olivier (who had died in 1989) into the movie to serve as a hologram of someone who had (are you ready for this) died decades earlier. So yes, he is used to essentially play a ghost of a mad man, which is pretty amusing, really. It just means that there is no real villain to speak of, since all the other adversaries are just robots, all tasked to do a dastardly plan like this. Sometimes you really need a cackling over-the-top villain. I suppose at the end of the day one has to wonder if the film is worth spending time with. Does it serve as a fine experience with plenty of distractions fitting for sci-fi action/adventure films? In my mind, I shrug my shoulders and leave it up to you. Sometimes it proves good to say a movie is "fine", sometimes it doesn't. I guess that this works out in the movie's favor, playing well as a curiosity with mild expectations that won't be forgotten too hard among other sci-fi adventure films.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2.

Review #124: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Ralph Fiennes (Lord Voldemort), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall), Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley), Ciaran Hinds (Aberforth Dumbledore), Jason Issacs (Lucius Malfoy), Julie Walters (Molly Weasley), James and Oliver Phelps (Fred and George Weasley), Mark Williams (Arthur Weasley) with Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), David Thewlis (Remus Lupin), Adrian Rawlins (James Potter), Geraldine Somerville (Lily Potter), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick/Griphook). Directed by David Yates.

Review
This film is the final one for the week and the series of Harry Potter, and it ends with a bang, as we get closure in terms of legend in sorts. The acting takes a slight sidestep to the action, as it should be for once given the circumstances. We get some revelations and all, even if (as usual) some of the book is omitted, such as Pettigrew, Potterwatch, and some others, but that does not matter too much as the film makes sure that all the stops have been put out in a great climatic end to the films. It all ends with a farewell scene, years later, and it is rather touching, making you remember back to the first book and the wonder that it had then and now. Looking back on all eight films, it has been fun. From 2001 to 2011, (2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011) there was a sense of magic and fun in the films, with a plentiful cast of good actors and all. Now that it is over, what happens now? We shall look back on the films and everything as the others hopefully go to other roles. It reminds me of another film series, The Star Wars Saga. Those actors (and the films) filled the air with wonder and adventure, as some of those actors went to fame for other roles, while others did other roles, yet they will be remembered for their roles in that series. Harry Potter will also be remembered for being a great film series, and it will live on for time to come.

Overall, I give it 10 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 Half-Blood Prince.

Review #122: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall), Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick). Directed by David Yates.

Review
This film is the last of Harry Potter's school years, as all is not well in Hogwarts, and the film is darker and better for it. The acting is good again, with Gambon, Broadbent, Felton, and Rickman being the standouts in all of this, as the film intrigues you with not just magic and wonder, but a sense of mystery and tragic nature. I think it's better then Order of the Phoenix and Goblet of Fire, just tying itself with Sorcerer's Stone. The film doesn't have much light-heartedness, as it omits the lightness to make a better film, as we get closer to the past of the wizard known as Tom Riddle. A good film that set the tone for the final parts in this great series...This ends Part VI of Harry Potter Week. Stay tuned for Part VII...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Review #121: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Imelda Staunton (Dolores Umbridge), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Ralph Fiennes (Lord Voldemort), Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom), Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood), Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick). Directed by David Yates.

Review
This film tries to do the longest book in the series justice, and it...shortens it to be the second shortest film in the series. But is it still a good film? Yes, yes it is. The acting again is superb, with Stauton, Lewis, and Carter being the main standouts (Other then the main three) The plot at least lasts 2 hours (given with the long 10 minute credits), but 20 minutes is used to have a trial scene which only makes us have one thing useful: The Order and the other characters, with the trial of course being good for Harry (I've seen more fairer Trials, but that Trial had someone called the "Boneyard", I believe) Anyway, the film omits some things and cuts into other scenes to have a faster climax. I wonder why they needed this to be the shortest, they could have made it just the same length as the others, but maybe it makes a better film by having not so much of the book. At least there is some characterization for some as this film might not be the best one, but it is not the worst by a long shot (There's no real worst), as we get close to the end. This ends Part V of Harry Potter Week. Stay tuned for Part VI...

Overall, I give it 8 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.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Review #119: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), David Thewlis (Remus Lupin), Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Emma Thompson (Sybill Trelawney), Timothy Spall (Peter Pettigrew), and Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom) Directed by Alfonso Cuaron.

Review
This film is a departure from the previous two films, getting darker in tone and in the color (Seriously, look at the color, it looks like they made it grey-ish), and it's an alright film, setting the tone for the rest of the film series, introducing things that won't be seen in the rest of the series while introducing things that do (Werewolves + Time Travel and Lupin and Black, respectively) The acting is good as usual, with Oldman and Thewlis being the standouts. The main three characters get better and better as the film proves we didn't need a villain in a movie to make a Harry Potter film (And to keep torturing Longbottom rather then make him a character...) This ends Part III of Harry Potter Week. Stay tuned for Part IV...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.