The Odyssey (2026).

Review #2561: The Odyssey (2026).

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Odysseus), Tom Holland (Telemachus), Anne Hathaway (Penelope), Robert Pattinson (Antinous), Lupita Nyong'o (Helen of Troy / Clytemnestra), Samantha Morton (Circe), John Leguizamo (Eumaeus), Zendaya (Athena), Charlize Theron (Calypso), Jon Bernthal (Menelaus), Himesh Patel (Eurylochus), Bill Irwin (Polyphemus), Elliot Page (Sinon), Benny Safdie (Agamemnon), with Corey Hawkins (Polybus), Niko Nicotera (Peisander), Elyes Gabel (Elatus), Iddo Goldberg (Amphimedon), Jamie Harris (Agelus), Mia Goth and Logan Marshall-Green (Melantho and Melanthius), Ryan Hurst (Mentor), and James Remar (Tiresias) 

Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer, #2322 - Interstellar)

Review: 

"Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy. Many cities did he visit, and many were the nations with whose manners and customs he was acquainted; moreover he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men, for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattle of the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever reaching home. Tell me, too, about all these things, O daughter of Jove, from whatsoever source you may know them."

Once upon a time, there were old tales that people decided to freewheel their own interpretation to communicate to the masses (such as say, Samuel Butler, who stated a theory, whether 100 percent seriously or not, that the Odyssey was written by a Sicilian woman). As the seasons changed and the technology grew larger, you could see and hear other freewheeling interpretations of tales on a screen perhaps unfathomable to a person dated in antiquity. Some folks probably read the Odyssey in their youth or maybe read it online (the link I noted above is a centuries old public domain translation, which used the Latinized name of Ulysses), or maybe heard about it from other certain oral traditions (hey, Arthur was an institution for some kids), or with James Joyce's Ulysses, or, well, you get the idea. Various productions had been done of the work, with most being in Italy, such as the film Ulysses [1954] (a Dino De Laurentiis production with Kirk Douglas and others), the 1968 miniseries (known in its native country as L'Odissea), looser adaptations such as O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), and recent ones such as The Return (2024), which started with no mythic beings or Gods with Odysseus back in Ithaca. Christopher Nolan wanted to be the guy to direct a movie that had never really been done for a large-scale production with the Odyssey, and it should be noted that he had been once tapped to direct Troy (2004), which had been loosely based on the Iliad. He wanted to tell it "in a fresh and modern way", which to him read differently from his perspective of middle age that he felt he has been telling in his films for years, simultaneously calling it a "family story, a love story, a revenge story, a war story, a coming-of-age story... a very strong foundational text". There were various inspirations that Nolan listed prior to the release, ranging from the various translations of the Odyssey (such as the Emily Wilson 2017 translation), the visual style and atmospheric tone of Kurosawa's Ran (1985) and the mythology-inspired films worked on by Ray Harryhausen such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963). It was shot entirely with IMAX film cameras, the first of its kind in a movie that already sounds like a crowd favorite*.

In a time of "apparent magic", yes, you basically get a tale of original sin. It basically is a grounded take of the sword and sandal epic with an earthy feel that feels more psychological than mythological. In some ways, it might seem bloated at 173 minutes, but actually it often feels more like a breeze to sift through as it dwells through the divide of a lead that wavers between an everyman and a superhero. The veterans of his campaigns walk the shore in life and death because only one man will end up by divine will back home and yet he still thinks defiance is the way to go. Men from the sea attack and all around a kingdom, the law of Zeus (okay, xenia) is not being abided by while others go on about a face, a fleet, and tricks to break away and burn Troy screaming to the ground. Amidst the prophets, giants, and nymphs is a story of a man realizing what his actual place is among the crumbling of foundation and realizing that what you want most may very well be what you already had (okay that came from a bit about the Sirens, but in fairness, what is a man if not one with the hubris to listen to them knowing they will survive anyway). It jumps around in the narrative with a type of curious enthusiasm that has a few moments that really do spark me to go "cool", namely with the Laestrygonian sequence (the giants clad in armor), complete with camera tricks (hey, the cyclops [Polyphemus] is cool to see too, and the witch realization is also darkly amusing, but still). Of course, the underworld sequence might be the real showstopper in seeing the true price of years spent getting on and trying to leave one particular blood-stained beach (and one horse*).

For all of the stuff I say about the movie, it really is one to look upon familiar faces and find a few fun moments in Damon leading the way in the unraveling of civilization, at least if you go with someone having enough hubris to believe that they really are the, shall we say, Oppenheimer of their times. Basically, you have a complicated hero that you know is going to reach some type of home (his kingdom, wife with the stature of Hathaway, however you want to interpret it) but not necessarily will be a better man for it, and in that sense, Damon makes for a curious cipher that either grows with you or just withers away in elusiveness, and I found it was a case of the former most of the time, which I suppose is helpful when talking about the wavering road of hero or fool. Some could contend that Holland might be easy to gloss over amidst the seasoned presences around him. Well, that's a bit silly to me, mainly because that's the whole point: this is a foolish young prince that is between a rock and a hard place: old enough to maybe take on actual responsibilities but not in the position to actually rise from "son of Odysseus" (to a certain point, anyway). In that sense, Holland does pretty well with showing the vulnerability of being out of one's depth, of literally being a face in a long crowd, especially when contending with the likes of Leguizamo, who really does sink into his role with weary curiosity.  Pattinson and Morton each sell the moments that they take part in more so than the mostly okay times encountering Theron or Nyong', with Pattinson in particular seemingly having plenty of fun in towering overconfidence (as one does when citing a James Woods character* as inspiration). I just wish the film stuck the ending better, because amidst a flourish of inevitable "hey, the man of the house is among us" realization is a finish of trying to sell the closing of the loop of a man who can't really go "home" (as one does when fiddling with the ending of the original tale in, what, divine intervention?) that just...sits there as an ending more than anything. As a whole, making The Odyssey was a task that required a director willing to stamp their own interpretation on what is so special about a long trek back home in a time of myths and monsters, and I think Nolan made a pretty good rendition worth viewing on the best screen possible. It's not a great movie, but being a pretty good time is just as useful for me anyway.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Any thoughts about the casting of say, Nyong'o or Page? Yeah, conservative grifters whining about it can either watch the movie for themselves or piss off. The movie is full of Greek characters, do we care if most of them are played by Americans or Brits? No? 

*Or the dog reunion, because, hey.

*Not to be confused with the current James Woods

*It's a hard 8/10 in that I would rather go 8/10 for a movie that teeters at 8.5 rather than having subsequent regret in giving a 9/10.

Mickey 17.

Review #2356: Mickey 17.

Cast: 

Robert Pattinson (Mickey Barnes / Mickey 17 / Mickey 18), Naomi Ackie (Nasha Barridge), Steven Yeun (Timo), Mark Ruffalo (Kenneth Marshall), Toni Collette (Ylfa), Holliday Grainger (Gemma), Anamaria Vartolomei (Kai Katz), Thomas Turgoose (Bazooka Soldier), Angus Imrie (Shrimp Eyes), Cameron Britton (Arkady), Patsy Ferran (Dorothy), Daniel Henshall (Preston), Steve Park (Agent Zeke), and Tim Key (Pigeon Man) Directed by Bong Joon-ho (#1584 - Parasite [2019]).

Review: 

"What is repressing us from living a human life? What is stopping us from truly pursuing a genuinely human life?’ And I think the appeal of sci-fi is that it lets you deal with those questions and these stories quite directly.”

There is probably at least one review that doesn't describe the film as the one that came out after Parasite (2019). But so it goes. The movie is based on the book Mickey7, which was published in 2022 by Edward Ashton, who had apparently written it as an expansion of a short story he did years before about "a sort of crappy immortality" that attracted attention from the very get go of its publishing; incidentally, as a result of the film adaptation entering production, Asher wrote a follow-up book with Antimatter Blues in 2023. Bong has stated in interviews that he specifically wished to focus on the human printing concept presented in the book as "down to Earth", which also went down to the characteristics of the lead character as, basically "more working class". Due to the SAG-AFTRA strike, the movie missed its original release date of 2024 (after finishing production in 2023), as one probably already guessed.

Technically speaking, it is a pretty good movie to experience, when you get down to it. Messy, chaotic, and generally amusing, the best times one has with the film rely heavily on the double-act played by Pattinson. The underdog story is as familiar as it gets, particularly when it comes to "some bugs aren't as scary as bug-brained humans", but it is a movie that wears hope on its sleeves with actual commitment rather than, say, being a mishmash of slop or bland oblivion. In other words: regardless of how the movie goes with audiences (read: money), somehow, some time, someone will call the movie a cult classic, and they probably won't seem insane to label it as such. Pattinson does manage to be pretty distinct in the "two Mickeys", which can inspire chuckles in those interesting things that arise in what one can see in personality that ranges from lovable goof (take it or leave it) to assertive that each make for quite the timing in terms of differences, as one might see when paired with Ackie that makes for a few riveting sparks of chemistry and energy that feels as real as one might see in looking upon someone and believing it matters to be there for that person(s). Ruffalo and Collette are amusing in parts when it comes to the synthesis that comes with riffing on the power-mad weirdos that inhabit certain spheres of society (so no, the movie explicitly is not based on any one politician), although the former sounds more like a Marlon Brando pastiche than anything. You can feel the ooze and wonder aloud where all that goes if one was even remotely dealt like that in our actual world.* For a movie with a "good" label, I wonder why I do wish I liked the movie more. I liked the movie but wondered why the nebulous "and yet" tried to get in my head. Complaining or talking about a movie's length seems futile for some, but I can at least see where someone thinks it runs (137 minutes) a bit lethargic, mostly because its foundation to set the stakes sure feels like it takes a while.  Somehow, I can't help but wonder if I just expected something different with the whole "man is being printed over and over to die as a crash-test dummy for people who start at not caring about what happens to him" thing. Quibble with what you feel about the question that arises in off-brand immortality vs how the film handles it however you like**. Bottom line: one gets a handful of stuff to chuckle about just as much as to quibble about. The visuals are generally pleasing to go along with a few amusing moments involved with the "creepers". The climax does stir a bit of a lasting impression for a movie that aspired to inspire some curiosity alongside its goofs that can at least be applauded for going on its own in hit-or-miss energy. As a whole, it manages to deliver most of the energy one might see coming in a chaotic space adventure. It has a few interesting moments to dwell on in the weird world of exploitation and overall hope for what might work just in your sweet spot for creeping enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Movie Night does not recommend getting rid of people as shown in Mickey 17. I do however recommend watching movies like The Substance. And disgustingly complex hamburgers.

**seriously, you can comment here anytime, it could even to say I should get hit by a bus.

The Batman.

Review #1814: The Batman.

Cast: 

Robert Pattinson (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Zoë Kravitz (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Paul Dano (Edward Nashton / Riddler), Jeffrey Wright (Lieutenant James Gordon), John Turturro (Carmine Falcone), Peter Sarsgaard (Gil Colson), Andy Serkis (Alfred Pennyworth), Colin Farrell (Oswald "Oz" Cobblepot / Penguin), Jayme Lawson (Bella Reál), Gil Perez-Abraham (Officer Martinez), Peter McDonald (Officer William Kenzie), Alex Ferns (Commissioner Pete Savage), Con O'Neill (Chief Mackenzie Bock), Rupert Penry-Jones (Mayor Don Mitchell Jr) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield)

Review: 

“I’ve always felt that the Batman story was a very special story. He’s not really a superhero. He’s someone who’s driven by the pain of his past. He’s trying to find some way to make sense of his life. It’s a very psychological story. This is the character I relate to most.”

I understand there were folks who doubted that Robert Pattinson could be the character of Batman because of some old movies from the mid 2000s or something. Well, one wonders just how ridiculous that sounds when compared to the minority of folks who decried at the casting of Michael Keaton for the title role in 1989 because of some old movies from the mid 1980s. But we have moved on from films that were influenced by comic books like The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns to films that are influenced by comic books such as Batman: Year One (1987), The Long Halloween (1996-97), and "Ego" (I read two of those stories quite a few years ago, incidentally). But you likely know of those comic books if you are interested in seeing another Batman film. After all, there have now been nine actors to have portrayed the character in film (live action and animated) since 1966. They all have had distinct perspectives when it comes to depicting the character often called the "Caped Crusader", and one can certainly find something to appreciate from each and every director that was behind it, whether that was Leslie H. Martinson, Tim Burton, or Christopher Nolan. You may remember that it has been a couple of years since the last Batman film in live-action - ten years, in fact. I'm sure you know that Ben Affleck appeared as the character in three films (one cameo), and he intended to direct and write a standalone film which apparently was described as "almost James Bond-ian" slate for filming in 2017. However, by that year, Affleck would step away from the director's chair and later would step away from starring in the film (of course, five years ago the DC Extended Universe was vastly different from now); incidentally, there are plans of a Batgirl film in 2022 that has its own cast in mind for the key roles. Reeves would be tapped to direct in 2017 with his own script, with an initial target for June of 2021 for release (we all know how that worked out). Reeves and Peter Craig received credit for the script, which had some un-credited work from Mattson Tomlin. Reeves is best known for directing both Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) and War for the Planet of the Apes (2017).

Honestly, comparing what is the best Batman is a curious thing, because I'm sure most folks haven't seen every Batman-related piece of media (comics, TV, film), but I will maintain that my favorite generally falls between either the Animated Series or the 1966 television series (the Nolan films with their grounded take narrowly edge out the gothic Burton films). Regardless of one's favorite, I'm sure you can find something to like here within the great myth of Batman. One can add Reeves to the list of capable directors behind a Batman movie. In fact, this film might actually rank in the top section of Batman films, one that creates plenty of atmosphere within its comic book trappings and noir ambitions that makes a distinct narrative that turns upon vengeance and hope to deliver a relatable piece of entertainment with bleak and ambitious aim that works quite well for the current age without becoming too absorbed. Pattinson does a splendid job as Batman, one still fairly green in terms of being the "World's Greatest Detective" that is basked in desperation. He makes a great imperfect interpretation of the role because of the fact that he just isn't who he thinks he is. Instead of a Batman movie with the usual trimmings and a considerably more memorable villain, it is more balanced this time around. In other words: he has the layers required to drive the film. Kravitz and her graceful charm work well when paired with Pattinson and their palpable chemistry that drive the film at times with great interest. Dano does just fine for a role that I wish I could agree with more, playful in terror. No, I don't mean I yearn for a villain that is agreeable. But it is a strange quality to wonder why one would think "Riddler" and "Zodiac Killer" in the same sentence, because the Riddler just seems more of a compulsive puzzler man rather than a serial killer (Reeves had the serial killer aspect early in the script). I just don't find the character to be anything other than just "fine" (him and his terrifying 500 followers, I kid, I kid), and it is probably not the easiest thing to say that the most memorable Riddler portrayed in film is still Frank Gorshin after half a century. At least one could be curious to see if Dano would ever appear in further features, but I just hope that any further films find something useful to cover within reflecting the title hero, such as maybe Mr. Freeze or the Mad Hatter (i.e. not just the Joker, because that character is overplayed). Wright and Serkis both prove well in their moments spent playing against Pattinson in the familiar roles that engage well without running into comparisons of the past. Farrell does quite fine with a role half-covered in the shadows that shows the seeds of ruthlessness that could be apparent in further times without becoming desperate. Turturro creeps through the film with the right touch of oozy decadence. The last thing I want to mention is the music by Michael Giacchino, who weaves a capable film score with a title theme that has managed to stick in my head a few days later (of course Reeves could also get credit for his use of "Something in the Way", because who doesn't want a fitting song from Nirvana in a Batman film?).

Honestly, I figured the run-time would not be too much of a problem. 176 minutes is just about right for the kind of sprawling curiosity that Reeves has for depicting the duality of seeking justice without becoming a bloated mess (besides, going "it could have been edited down" is not exactly a valid response). The film does have noir aspirations, but it also finds time for dazzling action sequences alongside tinges of horror that generally do well without becoming off-kilter. It manages to capture most of what has proved interesting to say about the character of Batman within a story of seeing both sides of the coin in exacting justice with certain force. It leaves one curious for what can occur further within this type of storytelling in film without begging deeply for it. It isn't perfect, but it doesn't need to be when it comes to the task of showing the character of Batman in a way that seems fresh and relevant, which it does quite well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: As noted before, it is Wings (1966), the Soviet classic.

Tenet.

Review #1618: Tenet.

Cast: 

John David Washington (the Protagonist), Robert Pattinson (Neil), Elizabeth Debicki (Katherine "Kat" Barton), Dimple Kapadia (Priya), Martin Donovan (Fay), Fiona Dourif (Wheeler), Yuri Kolokolnikov (Volkov), Himesh Patel (Mahir), Clémence Poésy (Barbara), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Ives), Michael Caine (Sir Michael Crosby), Kenneth Branagh (Andrei Sator), and Denzil Smith (Sanjay) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk, and #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises)

Review: 
No question... the most ambitious film we’ve made. It’s a film of great ambition and great scale that takes a genre, namely the spy film, and tries to take it into some new territory, and tries to take the audience on a ride they might not have had before, and might not be expecting."

What one knows and doesn't know about this film likely could make for a good discussion between friends. But, dear reader, are we really friends when looking upon the flow of time or just strangers in the night? I imagine that statement probably made about as much sense as Tenet ultimately does in the long run: figure it out later after the experience is over. Honestly, the curiosity to doing this film came about months after its release into theaters (you may or may not recognize that fact with all the other things that happened in the year) - there was buzz and other such talk, but it seemed right to just wait it out for release at home (a release on physical media, mind you, as I will fortify myself on the hill of physical releases and/or cinema releases in a pandemic-less world forever). While the script took six years for Nolan to develop, images and concepts for the film were there in his head over the past two decades. He wanted to make a spy film that captured the excitement of films like the James Bond features (for which he is a fan of) that would be like working from a memory rather than specifics. It does not contain as many visual effects shots as his other films like The Dark Knight Rises (2012), but the creativity in its execution with certain sequences can't be overlooked, including a sequence with a real plane being used for an explosion, and I am sure the inversion scenes will catch one for a loop.

So, after all that hubbub in the twilight, how is the overall film in entertainment? Oh, it is a fine movie. If one tries not to understand it but instead feel it, they hopefully will get a feeling of enjoyment rather than the worst-case scenario of frustration. It is likely a film that will require a second viewing not so much to try and absorb more of what it really is all about but more just to see how it resonates in its excitement and narrative decisions from viewing to viewing. But ask yourself: how many folks will go through the time of 150 minutes and decide to do it twice to try and improve upon fine spectacle? I imagine that I will do the film over again at some point in time, probably when I ever look back upon one of Nolan's other big-scale films involving science fiction in some way such as Interstellar (2014). In other words, some of it made sense, some of it will probably make sense another time, and the rest falls somewhere in between, one that will please those who desire a bit of cerebral interest while making the action folk have a bit of glaze in their eyes. Washington, a former high school/professional talent that found his first prominent role in the TV show Ballers (2015-19), certainly hits the mark when it comes to collected pace and on-the-go charm, which is required to make sure he isn't lost in the action pieces. Pattinson (having done quite a few smaller budget films over the past few years that received some notice) does well here, a worthy one of the time needed in following his instincts for a crisp and interesting performance to go right with Washington when needed (reportedly one of his inspirations was an attempt at trying to do an impersonation of author Christopher Hitchens). Debicki also does well with those moments of balance between calm and growing tension that makes a key effort in interest and grace. Branagh definitely seems to touch upon the "Bond villain" aspects a bit, right down to the attempt of a Russian accent and for what the film needs it goes alright in fatalistic interest. Others have their moments, such as an elusive Kapadia, but the real star proves to be in the staging of action, which for the most part is pretty good (sound mixing jokes aside, because the magic of subtitles makes me worry less), and I imagine that finding out more about the nature of those effects being created will be thought of just as much as folks who try to level out all the explanations about exactly how much Tenet makes/doesn't make sense. It is playing a game on us, and the way to win is to just sit back and not hurl at the ride. The opening opera sequence is quite a ram-shackling highlight, alongside a sequence that one gets to think about twice involving action. As a whole, it is a strange piece of ambitious entertainment, one that will strike at the heart of curiosity for those wanting something with a bit of thought placed into the trappings of action and sci-fi, although for others it will just seem opaque in the measure of its plot alongside other aspects; in short, one can call it the most intriguing film Nolan has ever made, or find it to be one of his lesser efforts - I find it to be right in the middle. If one needs a puzzle, sometimes one just needs to feel up to it to see how it all goes, and Tenet will certainly prove a curiosity for it.

Well, the year is up, and this happens to be the tenth review on New Year's Eve for Movie Night, which seems apt enough to mean covering a film from 2020 (a most quiet year for new releases when one focuses on everything else instead). Happy Holidays, and we will see each other again in 2021 for Season 11.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Twilight.

Review #344: Twilight.

Cast
Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan), Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Peter Facinelli (Carlisle Cullen), Elizabeth Reaser (Esme Cullen), Ashley Greene (Alice Cullen), Kellan Lutz (Emmett Cullen), Nikki Reed (Rosalie Hale), Jackson Rathbone (Jasper Hale), Billy Burke (Charlie Swan), and Cam Gigandet (James Witherdale) Directed by Catherine Hardwicke.

Review
Ah, yes, Twilight. It has been nearly five years since this film had been inflicted on the sorry masses of people and nearly eight years since the novel by Stephanie Meyer was released. When I first heard of the film nearly two years ago, I had no idea of what it was...and I had the (now unfortunate) chance to watch it back then. It didn't leave much of an impression, but over time, I started to groan at the strange following for this film, so I decided to give this film a watch. And how is it? It is undoubtedly the most mind numbing film ever made. But not for its visuals, but for how the story manages to be so...stupid. How it manages to ignore logic and manages to annoy and depress you at the same time. Trying to compare the acting can be very easy simplified like this: Stale, weird, meh, forgettable, silly, ?, etc, etc. I also wonder why no one questions why when Bella is saved, no one other than the two notices a car door got crumpled and she hadn't had a scratch. But what bugs me the most is how anyone can be invested in the main character or the *spoiler?* vampire. She loves a being who 100 years old in a 17 year old body that creeps at her and "can't read her mind". She may monologue, but I don't think there's one moment where there's any interest for or by the character. Its not much of a love story, more a weird tale to...Trust a guy who follows you and is older than you? Pattinson does his weirdest, but sometimes it gets too laughable. Sometimes it gets to the point where the person who watches it has to chide it for being almost as silly as Batman & Robin, and when you do that, your film is doomed. But of course, not all films suffer for silliness and some get sequels. It's a sad film when you realize that no matter what, this "monster" of a film got sequels. Notice how I didn't mention the vampires, and that's only because if I did, this review would last nearly an hour. But oh- Never mind. Countdown to 350 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

Overall, I give it 3 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.