Strange Days.

Review #2494: Strange Days.

Cast: 

Ralph Fiennes (Lenny Nero), Angela Bassett (Lornette "Mace" Mason), Juliette Lewis (Faith Justin), Tom Sizemore (Max Peltier), Michael Wincott (Philo Gant), Vincent D'Onofrio (Burton Steckler), Glenn Plummer (Jeriko One), Brigitte Bako (Iris), Richard Edson (Tick), William Fichtner (Dwayne Engelman), and Josef Sommer (Palmer Strickland) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark, #2361 - Blue Steel)

Review: 

"Well, I don’t see Strange Days as a pure action genre piece. I think of it as a character-driven piece. It’s got a tremendous amount of dialogue and story—at one point we thought of it as science fiction as if written by David Mamet. The pauses in Strange Days are motivated more by story and character than by the need to linger on the mise-en-scène. That’s not to say we don’t fill every frame; your eye wanders outward to this complex environment that the principal characters don’t bother to acknowledge. They take it for granted that there’s an ad hoc revolution taking place, a civil war."

Inadvertently, I stumbled onto this movie when looking around for further movies involving Kathryn Bigelow. This was her fifth film as a director that just happened to be in between Point Break (1991) and The Weight of Water (2000). It came around after years of script development from James Cameron, who first envisioned it in 1985 and apparently wrote it mind for Bigelow (incidentally, they were once married) to direct it. They then collaborated on working the elements that interested them into the film, with Bigelow striving for grit while Cameron strove for the romance that resulted in a treatment. The treatment was then worked by Jay Cocks into a script that happened to get developed around the time of the Rodney King beating and the L.A. riots (incidentally, Bigelow was involved with the city cleanup). Cameron was more involved with the effects than being on set as a producer (he noted he visited the set just twice as a co-producer), particularly with wondering how the opening scene would look like in showing someone being part of a robbery that sees them swarmed by cops to see one run up a staircase and then have a jump from a ledge that had special cameras and rigs for it. This film and True Lies (1994) were part of a deal between 20th Century Fox. Set in the then future year of 1999 on December 30 and December 31, the movie was released in October of 1995 and somehow flopped with audiences, making less than half of its $42 million budget*, but there is a slight cult audience for the film.

  

Okay, so here's one: an electronic device (SQUID: Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) that lets you experience recorded memories and physical sensations of other people that happens to have little discs for storage (older film lovers might remember that interfacing oneself to record their sensations on tape for others to experience came a bit earlier with Brainstorm [1983], although that dealt with the military trying to get their hands on it). Memories were meant to fade, particularly when doomsday or redemption is on the line. This is a fascinating film that is hard to really piece down as belonging to any one genre, mainly because it makes the mark for sci-fi thriller just as much as it does belong to the noir genre, complete with plenty to astound the audience with beyond its violence. Sure, maybe we aren't all looking upon the world with VR headsets, but our fascination with technology is a strange one when you consider where "parasocial" has evolved to in the last couple of years with how now we can see any type of "living" to stream on a phone you can hold in your hand. People probably are isolated now more than ever, particularly in what we "see" and "feel", and there is something amusing in parts for what the film shows in how people use and don't use SQUID, specifically with the lead two characters. Fiennes (cast in the wake of being nominated for an Academy Award for Schindler's List instead of Andy Garcia) makes for a fascinating conman, one who is particularly vulnerable and fascinating because of how he eventually lands up in the quest to do the hardest thing one might think of: learning to let the past go and actually move forward. There's more to life than being a two-bit pathetic person, and he makes it a curious one to actually emphasize with. Of course, it is Bassett who provides the key moral center of the film, one who is just as handy in asserting herself (such as with a fist) as she is someone clearly desiring to see someone actually make a leap forward with her (as one does with arguably the biggest hero of the film). Sizemore and Lewis might seem outmatched within the confines of basically being in a noir (right down to the latter singing like a femme fatale might do), but I liked both of them in what they provide in their odd duck qualities that think people can be used up just like a beverage to eventually see go by the wayside. The 145-minute runtime leads to plenty of buildup for what type of world would have such a device go around even if someone might use it on a person dying of sexual assault, for example (also disturbing is a scene showing someone going brain dead from amplified signals). Sure, it might hit a ray of hope for its climax that may only work best as if one was watching a fable close itself down, but there is something to be had about a movie that seems to want to remind us to actually get real beyond being looped in playback. As a whole, Strange Days is a curious film in its desire to show the weird world of voyeurism within the confines of a dystopian future that may very well seem a bit familiar to those viewing the world with their eyes and ears nowadays. It deserved better than where it landed in 1995 and should be looked at by all the curious ones out there for its dazzling execution.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

See you in 2026.

*In comparison, in its first full week (it was limited on the first week) of release, the movie was beaten out by newcomers such as Jade and the Scarlet Letter to go along with the popular movie of the week again with Seven. And yeah, Get Shorty was the week after that.

Spectre.

Review #1891: Spectre.

Cast: 

Daniel Craig (James Bond), Christoph Waltz (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Léa Seydoux (Madeleine Swann), Ben Whishaw (Q), Naomie Harris (Eve Moneypenny), Dave Bautista (Mr Hinx), Andrew Scott (Max Denbigh [C]), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), Jesper Christensen (Mr White), Monica Bellucci (Lucia Sciarra), Ralph Fiennes (M), Stephanie Sigman (Estrella), and Alessandro Cremona (Marco Sciarra) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall and #1585 - 1917)

Review: 

Go figure that this ended up being split into multiple paragraphs. Actually, this is the first Bond film I saw after deciding to start getting into the James Bond novels, you know, the ones that inspired the movies. So yes, Casino Royale was a pretty neat book, and I am curious for the other books done by Fleming and maybe I will look at the movies a bit differently by the time I finish them.

It is interesting to consider how people try to spin the wheel of continuing the James Bond franchise (as produced by Eon Productions) into another decade. The Daniel Craig era started in 2006 with Casino Royale, probably the best Bond film since either Goldeneye (1995) or Licence to Kill (1989), depending on your tastes. It did so with its attempt to inject a bit grittier realism into the series while keeping the entertainment level high. One never knows what to expect from a series created out of a character intended to be boring, as devised by Ian Fleming. Quantum of Solace (2008) was so much of a nonentity that I can barely remember watching it, but Skyfall (2012) certainly resounded better for all of its strange little quirks that came with attempts at emotional depth. The beauty of covering a film I took a pass on doing because it seemed too mild to watch in a theater seven years ago is that there isn't exactly much to spoil for those who do films. Of course, if you like surprises, go ahead with whatever you want to do. Besides, the Bond series would continue with Craig for No Time to Die (2021) after a number of years in development that retained certain actors from before. There were four writers: John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Jez Butterworth. Mendes and Logan apparently came up with the main concept of the plot together before lingering dissatisfaction in script from key groups led to asking Purvis and Wade to step in for re-writes (Butterworth ended up stepping in for the screenplay), and you may remember that Logan & Purvis had served as writer on these films since The World Is Not Enough while Logan helped to write Skyfall. So, three years later, with the same director in Sam Mendes from the previous film, who decided to do the film after initially saying no (Nicolas Winding Refn had said no in the meantime), here is another one of these Bond movies. Oh, but it's not any kind of mild follow-ups, no, it's the kind of sequel that tries to go all out in all the narrative and epic pulls you might see in a franchise blockbuster of the 2010s. 

Guess what? It isn't particularly good. It reminds me of a goldfish in a fishbowl: the fish seems to be happy in the bowl, and it gets to look something nice outside the bowl, but its memory span will prove forgettable despite all the food (spectacle in this case) you give it. In short, it manages to show not the strengths of spectacle in locations and budget but rather the weaknesses of trying to use it to hide a limp story that runs at 148 minutes for reasons I can't really comprehend. You may or may not remember that the character of Blofeld had been featured in physical form as the primary villain in four movies (one being a non-EON feature), but none since the 1980s. Of course, you would hope in that time spent away dealing with litigation with Kevin McClory that EON found folks that could make a quality adversary that would make the best portrayal (Telly Savalas) proud. Nope! Being overshadowed by Bautista playing a heavy with one word to say is bad, being nondescript and being brought down by narrative choices is just as bad. He manages to be like a shadow, non-descript in menace because of the choice of time given to Waltz (because hey, time to visit another country on the plot that is totally not familiar). And yes, there is a twist to help connect these previous films together: Quantum is basically a subsidiary to the real power behind the throne of secret doom: Spectre (no, not SPECTRE), complete with being linked together because someone found a ring that had everyone's fingerprints all over it (get it?). Spectre and the master plan involves surveillance that seems cribbed from both a 1984 ripoff and the "Cain and Abel" narrative. Maybe I wouldn't have seen the twist coming if I never saw the villain having a connection to the spy in "family"...in Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002). The idea of one adoptive brother wreaking havoc on the other adoptive brother is hysterical in its ridiculous contrivances - remember that after Blofeld reveals his whole "daddy liked you better" spiel to Bond and mildly tortures him (tied to a chair, but thank goodness for watches), his next brilliant plan is to go to an abandoned building and taunt Bond to find him with arrows pointing where he is while trying to do the "save yourself or save the girl and die"...totally not a parody to guess how that goes. Exploding watches are one thing, but somewhere you have to draw the line (that line probably gave up when it heard about smart blood). It almost clouds the fact that the "surveillance angle" the film tries to play is the bare minimum of an angle, which would not be a problem if you have a striking villain or actual conviction to do something beyond "Is James Bond still relevant?" again. Simply having an adventure while tinkering with the tiniest things of the formula is too much, nah, you have to play it really safe or throw as much spectacle in digital effects to distract from this being a neutered average movie (unless you count not shooting someone as innovative). Having the illusion of an opening sequence done in one take is probably the best trick the film plays in a movie that seems to have no idea where the third act is going to go besides just throwing things up in the air and "leaving it to God" (which is probably how they decided on Sam Smith being the title singer for the film rather than Radiohead). 

You know you might be in trouble when you have not one but two Bond romances to go around, and one of them is basically a glorified cameo that really is there for info-dumps than actual passion (Bellucci, in a role I imagine had a nice paycheck, because "oldest Bond girl" means diddly squat). Seydoux reminds me of a broomstick in that things are meant to happen, but you completely forgot why you had it there because you fell asleep. The chemistry of Seydoux and Craig is amusingly dry (the age difference has never been more apparent, going from 10-11 in the previous three to...seventeen), inflicting only the bare minimum of what you might expect from a Bond romance arc...but of all the ones where you see the two do a walk off into the sunset, this is not even in the top half of being convincing. Perhaps not surprisingly, the parts that work to the usual Bond formula (a Q, a M, and a Moneypenny) do pretty well when it comes to seeing Fiennes try to make his first mark as M or the small moments of Harris and Whishaw when paired with Craig, whether that involves seeing how James Bond lives for the first time in a while or hijinks with tech. Bautista does make a useful adversary in the art of quick-skilled brutality (mostly in his first scene) that contributes to an involving chase scene or two that works best among the rest of the muddy foundation points, which goes with Scott and his "totally not a bad guy" presence and Christensen...uh, I will be honest in forgetting who he was supposed to be (Casino Royale had him get shot in the leg and that's all I remember). Of course, Craig still seems like the stellar man to play the lead role, one who has the confidence required to pull the film away from being the total disaster it might have been with someone who can't have a little bit of fun with some of these lines. In other words, he still seems likes the kind of person who can pull off being an odd man that big things happen around him (while not reminding one of late 1980s Roger Moore). As a whole, I really did want to like the film. I wanted to like the idea of a James Bond feature that continued the thrill of where the previous venture left off and see where one can go further in spy adventure as the series goes past its 50th anniversary. And yet, somehow, I found it to be probably the most mind-boggling misfire since Die Another Day (2002). In trying to dazzle the audience with new tricks, all they managed to do is show an empty hand. It may be a nice film in parts, but it is a dull stinker in all the other ways that make it a muddle to sit through. It isn't the worst Bond film, but it is probably the most confounding, and I imagine whenever I see the next one I can only have the slightest of expectations that they found a way to just, you know, do a Bond movie that isn't a big muddle when everything else is fine.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Lego Batman Movie.

Review #1864: The Lego Batman Movie.

Cast: 

Will Arnett (Batman / Bruce Wayne), Michael Cera (Robin / Dick Grayson), Rosario Dawson (Batgirl / Barbara Gordon), Ralph Fiennes (Alfred Pennyworth), Zach Galifianakis (Joker), Jenny Slate (Harley Quinn), Jason Mantzoukas (Scarecrow), Conan O'Brien (The Riddler), Doug Benson (Bane), Billy Dee Williams (Two-Face), Zoë Kravitz (Catwoman), Kate Micucci (Clayface), Riki Lindhome (Poison Ivy), Eddie Izzard (Voldemort), Seth Green (King Kong), Jemaine Clement (Sauron), Ellie Kemper (Phyllis), Channing Tatum (Superman), Hector Elizondo (Jim Gordon), and Mariah Carey (Mayor McCaskill) Directed by Chris McKay.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember the Lego movies, if only because of how bright and colorful they were. This was the second Lego-themed movie released by Warner Bros through their animation department, with the first being The Lego Movie (2014). That movie featured Will Arnett in a supporting role as a Lego version of Batman. A sequel was evidently planned for this movie, but the acquisition of the film rights by Universal Pictures in 2020 scuttled those plans. Admittedly, the Arnett Batman was meant to be as amusing as possible with a gravelly voice and macho characterization, so a movie wasn't particularly out of the element, self-promotion for Lego or not. This was the feature debut of Chris McKay, who had had studied at Southern Illinois University and Columbia College Chicago for film. He worked a number of years for video and equipment rental companies before starting his own venture into making videos and small movies; he also worked on television programs such as Robot Chicken in animation and direction. McKay served as animation supervisor on the aforementioned 2014 Lego movie, and he also served as a co-editor. The movie was written by Seth Grahame-Smith, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Jared Stern, and John Whittington.

Honestly, I kind of just forgot to consider the movie when it came out five years ago, a casualty of just being the odd man out when it comes to spending time and money at a movie theater. I'm not sure I missed too much when it comes to looking upon the saturation of Batman movies in the last ten, twenty, thirty, forty years (or so). It may be the lightest toned of the movies since the 1960s Batman, all things considered (complete with a handful of references, such as having the "POW!" graphic show up near the end). It's a Batman movie that you can show the kids with no doubts (at least ones who get antsy about PG-13 ratings), which means you have a 104-minute movie with a few silly jokes that plays its family angle (or more specifically, family message) to moderate effect. Arnett plays the gravelly loner to basically what you would expect in heightened ego-pull that inevitably gets to learn a lesson and yadda yadda he has the timing required to carry it through. He won't exactly be included in the discussion for the ideal Batman (no animated version gets their due, no matter how much I can argue for Kevin Conroy), but he sticks out in showing the ideal version of what a Batman can be: confident and vulnerable. Cera proves quite eager to serve as partner to Arnett in a few chuckles that would probably make Burt Ward smile, which actually works in the favor of the movie when it comes to the lack of Robins in film to begin with. Dawson does fine here, a calm presence among the oddballs that does what is needed without delay, which can apply to Fiennes and his precise pinpoints of a role played again and again (one that is hard to mess up anyway). Galifianakis makes a quality foe in the vein of campy folks from long ago, hamming it up in ways expected when chewing scenery and counteracting Arnett in an attempt at hero-villain chemistry that lends some deranged charm (maybe not quite Cesar Romero charm but close enough). The other villains aren't exactly given more than a line or two but seeing the handful of references to the colorful assortment of villains through the Batman years is worth a chuckle or a view (along with non-Batman properties, which is kinda funny to see in Lego spoof). It's a Batman movie that happens to feature Legos, as long as one doesn't see the seams of a joke wearing thin (i.e. making too many of those jokes or movies) or sticking in bland mud, you have a good case to entertain your audience, and I think the movie works well in that regard. With a not-too cloying message about togetherness that makes a bright and cheery success, The Lego Batman Movie does pretty well for itself as a real one-of-a-kind look into Batman that does exactly what it aspires to do.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Hurt Locker.

Review #1549: The Hurt Locker.

Cast: 
Jeremy Renner (Sergeant Sergeant William James), Anthony Mackie (Sergeant J. T. Sanborn), Brian Geraghty (Specialist Owen Eldridge), Guy Pearce (Staff Sergeant Matthew Thompson), Christian Camargo (Lieutenant Colonel John Cambridge), David Morse (Colonel Reed), Ralph Fiennes (Contractor Team Leader), Evangeline Lilly (Connie James), and Christopher Sayegh (Beckham) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker)

Review: 
"War's dirty little secret is that some men love it. I'm trying to unpack why, to look at what it means to be a hero in the context of 21st-century combat."

The artist can come from anywhere, whether for film or beyond that, no matter how much time it takes to develop their craft or find a following with viewers. Kathryn Bigelow gradually found a place within cinema with her style of handling action cinema. She had actually started out originally striving for study in fine art (specifically painting), graduating from the San Francisco Art Institute in 1972. She spent a few years as a starving artist, being involved with conceptual art, and appearing in a few short films, but she subsequently entered Columbia University to study theory and criticism in the film program, stating film as becoming "the interchange where all these ideas were intersecting.”, and she started making her own short films with The Set-Up in 1978 (while noting the two films that opened up her landscape to film being The Wild Bunch and Mean Streets in their irreverence and intensity). Since beginning her feature career with The Loveless (1981), Bigelow has directed a variety of genres that generally deal with violence or thrills of some kind,, which resulted in a diverse quality of films that ranged from cult films like Near Dark (1987), to hit action films like Point Break (1991) to ones that did not find enough audience appeal like K-19: The Widowmaker (2002) for a career of so far ten films in a career of nearly four decades.

For this film, she wanted to do the film on her own control with less-known actors (the ones you would associate as name actors in Fiennes and Pearce are here less than ten minutes, and even less for Morse) and filming in the Middle East (which was done in Jordan), which would entail some extremely hot conditions for its crew (particularly for those wearing bomb-proof Kevlar. For me, the only thing that I was really curious about was to see how it fared in its dealings with war and the people around it in the context of its decade (particularly within world events). The film was written by Mark Boal, a journalist that previously had one of his articles turned into a film that he co-wrote with In the Valley of Elah (2007). Boal was embedded with troops and bomb squads for a time in 2004 in Iraq, and he used those observations and interviews to make the script, and he would also serve as a co-producer. What we have here is a film wrapped in tension and careful planning for people who move toward danger rather than run from it. In that sense, Renner does quite well in his reckless edge that suits the desire to stay on the pulse that feeds upon the pressure on his hands with calm conviction. Mackie goes along with well-mannered effectiveness in the simple act of trying to maintain oneself under pressure that might also resonate in some way with perspective like Renner if one thinks about it in some way. Geraghty certainly ranks as the reserved one of the main group, but he holds his own in trying to maintain one's sense of self with the unpredictability and brazen nature of what happens in these fragmented moments here. It wraps itself in modern warfare with fair conviction in capturing what is necessary in intricate experiences with our main trio of actors that resembles documentary-style filmmaking at times without becoming spectacle for the sake of it or wrapped up in fervor of too many message-making - leaving it to the viewer for better or worse. Its a fragmented film, wrapped with its trio with occasional perspective to the surroundings around them while focusing on the circumstances (and tensions) that wind them up instead. In this case, I would say it makes a good experience in ferocity for 131 minutes that captures the drive necessary in some way to carry on with its tour of service without becoming consumed in macho fervor that connects the dots in sobering interest for adrenaline-laced perspective that makes a useful curiosity for its time as a middle-ground winner.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Kubo and the Two Strings.

Review #836: Kubo and the Two Strings.

Cast
Art Parkinson (Kubo), Charlize Theron (Monkey/Kubo's mother), Matthew McConaughey (Beetle), Ralph Fiennes (Raiden the Moon King), Rooney Mara (the Sisters), George Takei (Hosato), Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (Hashi), and Brenda Vaccaro (Kameyo) Directed by Travis Knight.

Review
In the two films I've reviewed done by the studio Laika (#189 - Coraline and #240 - Paranorman), they were both enjoyable and wonderfully made animated movies. Fortunately, this film continues that trend. This is an exquisite piece of work that manages to establish (and maintain) a dark sense of adventure and fantasy, with a fair cast of characters and gorgeous imagination and animation. Parkinson does a fine job in the lead role, giving this character the needed weight and depth to make him more than just a typical fantasy kid lead. Theron and McConaughey are also exceptional, managing to keep the movie on its heels, with a few moments of laughs between the trio as a whole. It's a fun movie, complete with enough of everything for everyone; mot to spoil anything, but this is also a movie that pulls enough strings and twists correctly as well. The stop-motion animation is wonderful to watch, managing to help make the world the movie builds to life perfectly, such as when the movie utilizes origami paper (a miniature warrior created by the paper is with the group for most of the film) to great advantage. Fiennes isn't in the movie until the last half of the film (with Mara being seen more often, playing the two sisters wickedly well), but he makes for a fine enough villain, with a climax that is pretty spectacular to watch as well. At 102 minutes, this is a fine film to watch, with exceptional marks in almost every subject. It's clear that there was a lot of labor and love put into this film, and I applaud them for making a movie as fun as this. Despite the limited amount of people at the theater for the film, this was still a good time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Skyfall.

Review #572: Skyfall.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Judi Dench (M), Javier Bardem (Raoul Silva), Bérénice Marlohe (Sévérine), Ralph Fiennes (Gareth Mallory), Naomie Harris (Eve Moneypenny), Albert Finney (Kincade), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), and Ola Rapace (Patrice) Directed by Sam Mendes.

Review
Skyfall tries to do two things: Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Bond franchise without going overboard (I'm looking at you Die Another Day), and to try and make people forget about Quantum of Solace and get back to what makes Bond work. Does it do its goals? Yea, pretty much. Without completely veering off into how even though Quantum of Solace tried its hardest to bring a theme of coldness and still entertain and fail, Skyfall manages to be fun to watch and have a level of change. By the time this film ends, we have a new Q, a new Moneypenny...and a new M. The gadgets are simple (a gun that only firs to the one who holds it and no else and a radio), but the villain is complex, yet enjoyable to watch. Bardem can be energetic to watch, but he can also be a chilling equal to Bond. Daniel Craig is magnificent, it seems he has grown into this role fully, and he works especially well with Dench, who is given more time and therefore is given her moment to shine in Dench's swan song as M. Fiennes is entertaining in the amount of time he's given, and I do look forward to seeing him in the next film soon. The realization of what exactly Skyfall means is a nice twist. In the end, this a good way to continue the franchise that has been chugging for over 50 years now, and I can't wait to see what happens next. Skyfall is Bond's childhood home.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Schindler's List.

Review #351: Schindler's List.

Cast
Liam Neeson (Oskar Schindler), Ben Kingsley (Itzhak Stern), Ralph Fiennes (Amon Göth), Caroline Goodall (Emilie Schindler), Jonathan Sagall (Poldek Pfefferberg), Embeth Davidtz (Helen Hirsch), Małgorzata Gebel (Wiktoria Klonowska), Mark Ivanir (Marcel Goldberg), Beatrice Macola (Ingrid), Andrzej Seweryn (Julian Scherner), Friedrich von Thun (Rolf Czurda), and Jerzy Nowak (Investor) 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, and #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull)

Review
This is a polarizing film. This is a film that blends into any time period, managing to have shock and horror, but not disgusting you to the point of leaving. It keeps you in, managing to work for all with Spielberg obviously wanting to do this project, and to do it right, and for good reason. Films usually don't always touch us, some are for entertainment, some are for art, some are for others, but this is for many, many people, as a tribute, which works to the film and to the people. It is a reminder, it is a sad tale, with the black and white working especially well. The acting is good, especially from Neeson, who manages to leave an impact on you. It's been twenty years since this film, and even so it still works very well. It is what most call a masterpiece.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Quiz Show.

Review #252: Quiz Show.

Cast
John Turturro (Herb Stempel), Rob Morrow (Richard Goodwin), Ralph Fiennes (Charles Van Doren), Paul Scofield (Mark Van Doren), David Paymer (Dan Elright), Hank Azaria (Albert Freedman), and Christopher McDonald (Jack Barry) Directed by Robert Redford.

Review
This film is based upon the Twenty One quiz show scandal of the 1950's, where the contestants were assisted with the questions by the producers. In short words, cheating. The subject of the film needs a good director and acting to work well. Does it? Yes. The acting works very well, with Turturro, Morrow, and Fiennes being the main standouts. All three portray characters that work in different ways. The film is nailgripping in its drama, being very well delivered, all thanks to the direction by Robert Redford. While it may not be all entirely accurate (This is a rule I should call "The Movieilization Rule"), the film still works out well, giving a good sense of drama and entertainment.

Overall, I give it 9 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 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.