Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (Yates, 2011)

Click here to read my reviews of the previous Harry Potter films.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” is good enough as an action adventure, but it’s elevated by pathos created through a decade of storytelling. It hardly matters if the action seems to stall a predictable ending or if there are too many sentimental monologues: the filmmakers have been earning these last moments for eight films. In many ways, we measure “Deathly Hallows: Part 2” along with all that has come before. The whole of the series has succeeded beyond the individual parts, and this chapter benefits from grand summation.

For the last time, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermoine (Emma Watson) get in over their heads trying to destroy Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes in his best performance of the series). Their teachers, played by the likes of Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman, float on the periphery, providing protection, guidance or clues to a mystery long buried. There are mid-air chases, wand battles and cataclysmic spells that would shake the whole of Great Britain. And there are goodbyes (too many, some would say) that feel appropriately bittersweet, given the years we’ve spent with these characters. There’s even a sequence in the Room of Requirement revealing props from all of the previous Potter films. Director David Yates might have a hard-line reason for this –- perhaps all magical objects retreated into the room with Hogwarts under attack –- but more likely it’s a wink to the audience, giving us everything we could possibly require in our last Potter outing.

The resolution is underwhelming, depending more on trivial wand lore than the themes that have grown the series. However, it plays fair and provides at least a semi-credible reason why teenagers could feasibly hold their own against the greatest dark wizard of all time. A better story twist comes a bit earlier in the film, providing devastating answers to questions that have lingered throughout the series. Here, the actors have a chance to show how much they’ve matured in past years. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson were impressive in the first half of “Deathly Hallows,” but in these scenes they are as authentic as any actors in more realistic genres. There’s a stark close-up of Radcliffe’s face after he makes a discovery. He looks straight into the camera, processing what he has learned. He is bleeding, broken and unmistakably a man now. The image is shockingly removed from the youthful face that decorated the first few Potter films. We get the sense that a character has been completed and that we were there every step of the way — a rare bit of cinema magic.

Grade: B+

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Bay, 2011) Format: 3D

Michael Bay’s “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” represents all that can go wrong with the Hollywood blockbuster — idiotic plotting, paper-thin characters, inadequate tension — but still is one of Bay’s better attempts at destroying the world and frying our synapses. It’s certainly better than the first two “Transformers” films, which featured gratuitously unfunny comedic gags and dispensable subplots that distracted from the robot melee. This entry dials down the unwelcome humor and makes way in the second half for some terrific robot beat-downs. Those who liked the first two “Transformers” movies will love this one. The rest of us at least do not have to be ashamed to say we saw it.

The first half of the movie labors, setting up a half-baked alien mythology that attempts to explain the truth behind the Apollo 11 moon landing and the disaster at Chernobyl. As its predecessors have done, the movie brings in handfuls of supporting characters who eat up screen time (among them Ken Jeong, John Malcovich and Buzz Aldrin himself) but do little to justify their presence. The main character, Sam (Shia Labeouf), remains a dull, unsympathetic lead and his quest to find a job after graduating from college is as uninteresting as his relationship problems with a new girlfriend, played by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (replacing Megan Fox as the female lead). Labeouf does his best to make Sam at least watchable, while Huntington-Whiteley is no worse than Fox at running from explosions in heels. The film also balances the testosterone of co-stars Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and Patrick Dempsy with an authoritative turn by Francis McDormand as a U.S. Intelligence director. She is also dangled as a possible romantic interest for John Turturro’s Agent Simmons character (who has no reason to still be in these movies), but her conviction thankfully resists that arrangement. Also, “Fox News” commentator Bill O’Reilly is in this movie, because of course he is.

The film’s second half fares better, as its multitudes take a back seat to the destruction of Chicago. Here the 3D format serves Bay well, enticing him to hold shots longer than usual to enhance the effect. As a result, he creates stirring visuals that he otherwise would not have the patience for. One scene features special ops members base jumping from exploding planes and flying over the city streets amid enemy fire. Another puts Sam and friends inside of a building that is toppling sideways. The effects are so polished and the stunts so impressive that the audience will barely notice there’s not a drop of suspense. The robots themselves look great, and their physical interactions with the actors are more credible than ever. More than once, Bumblebee is forced to transform from an automobile into a fighting Goliath with Sam still inside of him, requiring the robot to snatch the human from midair while deflecting blows from adversaries. The showmanship is generous, even if the sense of danger is not.

The chaos of the second half goes on far too long, especially for a film that does not feature a single interesting character. It’s also hampered by lame monologues from the Autobots and Decepticons as they fight, which rob from the visceral thrills and remind us of just how weak the writing is. But in some respects, this doesn’t matter, since the film dishes out twice the action of any other movie this summer. Bay is, as always, compensating for his weaknesses, but at least they’re no longer slowing him down.

Grade: C

Green Lantern (dir. Campbell, 2011)

“Green Lantern” is the worst kind of superhero movie — the kind that values the superpower over the person granted with it. Ryan Reynolds’ Hal Jordan is a concept instead of a character. A cocky, dashing fighter pilot emotionally handicapped by childhood trauma, Jordan spends his days bedding women he has no interest in and flying recklessly with a general middle-finger attitude toward his superiors. He fluctuates between smart-ass and doe-eyed, and apparently does all of his sit-ups offscreen so viewers have ample time to notice the shift. But they won’t buy it for a second.

It’s as if director Martin Campbell and his four screenwriters know Jordan is an amalgam of other, more interesting heroes, so they focus more on the mythology of the Green Lantern Corps. These guys at least have flair. They live on a distant planet, encompass many alien races and protect the galaxy with magic rings. Geoffrey Rush voices Tomar-Re, a fish-like creature that helps Jordan train to become one of the Lanterns. We know slightly less about Tomar-Re than about Hal, but at least we haven’t seen superhero fish a thousand times before. Unfortunately, the prominence of the alien world — appropriately stirring in its art design — doesn’t make up for the vapidity of the characters. Back on Earth, Blake Lively is a blank-slate love interest from Jordan’s childhood, and Tim Robbins is barely notable as a scheming U.S. Senator bent on investigating alien life forms. Only Peter Saarsgard seems to be having any fun, playing a subvillain scientist infected by a malevolent force. The film suggests a history between him and Jordan but doesn’t elaborate, presumably because it would rob from the color-coded theatrics.

“Green Lantern” spends most of its time explaining the magic rings and the mythology of their wearers. Green represents the power of will, they say, which they have harnessed in the rings. Conversely, yellow represents the power of fear. A villain called Paralax has escaped from exile and moves through space using yellow energy as fuel, manifesting his face through miles of lumpy plasma and looking like a Mt. Rushmore of curdled milk. If it sounds bad, it plays worse. Of course, Jordan eventually must face Paralax, in what likely will prove the most anticlimactic battle of the summer. It doesn’t help that the hero has a ring capable of creating anything he imagines and he uses it only to generate the most perfunctory objects, like shields and machine guns. A kid with a Green Lantern toy could envision better, and many will.

A shoddy script further impedes the story, as do stagnant themes. Jordan at one point gives a speech to the alien leaders about the value of humanity. It’s offensively didactic, but mostly it feels unearned because we don’t meet a real person the entire movie.

Grade: D

The Tree of Life (dir. Malick, 2011)

Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” plays like a nature documentary that observes all types of life with the same curiosity. It follows a family living in Waco, Texas, in the 1950s, as well as the first organisms that crawled out of the sea at the dawn of our planet. It considers an animal taking a drink from a riverbed with the same specificity as a father instructing his son on pulling weeds from the yard. The camera dances like a will-o-wisp, tracking rising oceans, laughing children sprinting across a yard and maybe the utter breaking of the universe before the movie is over. It’s an ambitious film that is probably better approached as an expanded version of “Planet Earth” instead of a family drama with existential footnotes. Viewers will not find easily identifiable character arcs here or a satisfying resolution. As an impassioned assessment of nature, the film rightly falls short of answers.

The movie has a plot, thin as it is. A mother and father (Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt) receive word that one of their sons has been killed. As they begin the grieving process, the movie flashes forward to view their eldest son, Jack, still mourning as an adult (Sean Penn). The characters weigh the importance of one individual’s life and death against the movements of the universe, prompting a sequencing showing the birth of the cosmos and the formation of Earth. The film tracks the progression of life and finally centers on humankind, and more specifically, Jack’s birth in Texas. He grows into an uncertain boy (Hunter McCraken), emotionally torn between his free-spirited mother and disciplinarian father. As he feels their influences tugging him, adult Jack similarly considers the apparent conflict of order and chaos in nature.

The scenes set in the 50s barely feel scripted, as they offer suggestions of a way of life rather than a narrative. Still, the family is well developed, suggesting that smaller details like slammed screen doors can do as much as monologues for suburban discontent. The relationships are easy to quantify, but they are not naive or simplistic. Take, for example, a scene where the father apologizes for being so hard on the boys, and young Jack responds, “It’s your house. You can kick me out whenever you want.” Is it a rebuff or a plea for sympathy? It’s likely Malick sees both in the exchange.

The visuals in “The Tree of Life” likely will be appreciated for years to come. Malick, not known for using special effects, uses both optical techniques and CGI to recreate the Big Bang in one of the most awesome cinematic spectacles since “2001: A Space Odyssey” went beyond the infinite. The beauty sustains for the rest of the film as Malick and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki find unfamiliar angles to shoot commonplace objects, turning trees and skyscrapers into towering monoliths and open kitchen windows into gaping portals. What will be harder for audiences to embrace is the film’s ambitious reach, which seeks to unify smaller moments like Jack’s first steps with presentations of Earth’s Late Cretaceous Period. But it works. The journey is focused, and the tone is consistent. It might be a bit overlong for story without much closure, but how often will we have an experience like this in our short lifetimes?

Grade: A-

Watch the trailer here:

Super 8 (Abrams, 2011)

J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8″ is a meticulously crafted entertainer that unfolds predictably but charms just the same. Its mystery may ultimately prove underwhelming — with trappings recycled from early Spielberg wonder flicks and old “Twilight Zone” episodes — but the film is memorable for its emotional payoff, helped to fruition by Abrams’ skill as a storyteller and a radiant young cast.

Also beneficial is the movie’s sense of place. The characters live in a small Ohio town in the summer of 1979, a locale and time that require daydreaming. They film movies on Super 8, ride their bikes just to cross the street and can see a train coming for miles. The setting functions as an homage to early Spielberg productions, but it’s also crucial to the plot when a train derails on the outskirts of town and resulting power outages and missing persons throw the community into upheaval. It becomes apparent that something unnatural escaped from the train, and a government clean-up only serves to rile the locals further.

The mysteries of the train crash and of the force unleashed on the town drive the story, and while the audience is not spoon-fed every answer, the few explanations provided by the end feel more like worn genre staples than satisfying revelations.

Thankfully, the movie is not really about conspiracies, but about a boy named Joe (Joel Courtney) who finds himself witness to the bizarre occurrences four months after his mother’s accidental death. His father (Kyle Chandler), a sheriff’s deputy, manages the townsfolk amid the chaos but is reticent to give the same attention to his son. Joe falls for Alice (Ellie Fanning), who also has a strained relationship with her father (Ron Eldard), and she and Joe find solace in each other. Their friendship becomes the heart of the movie, complimented by interactions with Joe’s buddies, who are as amusing as any band of young movie heroes in recent memory. Together, the kids discover the truth of the train wreck, and regardless of the hokum they find, their decisions and admissions along the way feel refreshingly plausible.

Even with its routine facade, Abrams has designed a stalwart blockbuster with “Super 8.” He understands conventions and when to supply or subvert them. He knows to establish credible characters so the audience will care what happens to them. And he grasps the value of adventure, whether we experience it firsthand or invent our own under those endless Midwestern skies.

Grade: B

X-Men: First Class (dir. Vaughn, 2011)

Strangely, “X-Men: First Class” gets in the way of itself by being an X-Men movie. The central plot involves two men: one who uses uncanny abilities to seek revenge, and another uses his powers to promote harmony. The men become unlikely friends when their interests temporarily align, but they chose their paths years prior and must eventually part as enemies. The story carries ample weight and gravitas, and is surprisingly devastating in its resolution. However, because “First Class” has a target audience to please, it clutters the proceedings with too many mutants and subplots — none of which are as engaging as the central relationship between Professor Xavier and Magneto, played terrifically by James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender.

The movie takes place mostly in the 1960s, showing how the first group of X-Men formed. While none of the mutants feel slighted in their screen time (a commendable feat, given their number), most seem like broadly drawn representations of a specific theme. One would have a harder time identifying what kind of people these characters are, making them less interesting and their presentation incongruent with the aim of the movie.

“First Class” struggles to balance heavy drama with its camp factor. Villain Sebastian Shaw (a one-note Kevin Bacon) and his cronies look like they stepped out of a Halloween costume shop. They pontificate like cheesy bad guys from an early James Bond film, and their plot to destroy the world might better serve an after-school cartoon. Meanwhile, the film’s Cuban Missile Crisis subplot promotes some hammy War Room dialogue and obnoxious bystander comments that disaster films like this seem to specialize in. Naval Officer: “If the Russians cross that line, it’s an act of WAR!” Other Naval Officer: “God help us all.” Meanwhile, our X-Men battle a horn-tailed teleporter and a guy who can throw tornadoes from the palms of his hands. It all distracts from the Magneto/Xavier relationship, but the writing is strong here and resists being overshadowed completely.

A paired-down “First Class” story would have made a better movie, but since the franchise continues to thrive on overblown mutant melee, it’s hard to fault the writers and director, who all are adept at telling a grand story economically. The entertainment works, even if we don’t care about the tornado guy.

Grade: B-

Thor (dir. Branagh, 2011)

“Thor” looks like a film that would implode if it took itself too seriously, but it manages to keep a straight face through the celestial guffaw and still get away with it. Director Kenneth Branagh effectively juxtaposes the reality we know on Earth and one we can scarcely comprehend in the realm of Asgard, where gods Odin and Thor stride over floating mezzanines and ride across rainbow bridges. Branagh can take Asgard seriously because he has Earth to make light of it. Still, the emotion and action hit just as hard in our world; after all, when Thor is cast out of the heavens and marooned in New Mexico, his giant hammer comes with him.

The movie has all of the ingredients for a successful action adventure: good acting, smart writing and savvy direction. Branagh stands out here, as he seems to have done the impossible by making a city in the clouds populated by bearded Norse gods in ridiculous outfits just as credible as more customary government cover-ups, physics experiments and good coffee. He has built a movie where Facebook references and Frost Giants can co-exist. A marvel that lives up to its brand.

The writing and acting support the balance. The script is cheesy fun that still proves deeply emotional. The actors are just as game to bring consequence to the proceedings or signal that they’re in on the joke. Chris Hemsworth as Thor goes through an emotional upheaval during the movie, but he can turn on a dime and wink his way through another Earthly misunderstanding if he needs to. Natalie Portman as Thor’s love interest, Jane, manages to do enough with a broad character, tipping from driven investigator to flustered romantic without succumbing to either tendency. Of course, Sir Anthony Hopkins is appropriately gallant as Odin, but the surprise performance here is Tom Hiddleston as the puckish Loki. You’ll think you know where his story is going, and you’ll be right. But it doesn’t make the journey any less satisfying.

Thankfully, “Thor” also manages not to bog itself down with Marvel in-jokes and references that foreshadow the Avengers film due next summer. This kind of bloating practically sunk “Iron Man 2,” but a few nods to the forming franchise do not distract this time around.

The only problems with “Thor” seem to be the undercooked love story – Thor literally falls for the first girl he sees on Earth and she seems seduced only by his looks and ethereal heritage – and the fact that the movie feels so much like the first step of a greater journey. This chapter lays the groundwork, but what distinguishes “Thor” from other superhero films is that it literally has worlds to conquer.

Here is a movie about absurd things that knows what it is and what its audience wants, and delivers it again and again without treating viewers like idiots.

Grade: A-

Fast Five (dir. Lin, 2011)

“Fast Five” is perfect for about 30 minutes of its running time. These minutes contain spectacular action scenes with some ballsy stunts, convincing effects and, most importantly, very little talking. However, the movie is over two hours long, and the rest is a dirge of lame dialogue and rote character interactions.

Yes, these movies are not made to showcase characters, discourse or plot, but then why is there so much? “Fast Five” should have been 90 minutes long, featuring mostly action scenes and occasional bouts of exposition growled by Vin Diesel. But because writer Chris Morgan and director Justin Lin are making more of a heist film than a racing movie this time around, they assume that the audience should just hang out with the characters, a la “Ocean’s Eleven.” However, these people don’t have a fraction of the chemistry that Ocean’s gang did, and the filmmakers don’t have comparable material. At least the movie presents one winning character with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s Agent Hobbs. He’s a shrewd archetype with barely any substance, of course, but at least he doesn’t stand around posturing. Audiences will find themselves wishing he was on the screen any time that he isn’t.

Beyond Johnson’s performance and the occasional set piece, the audience is forced to sit there and notice things, like how jarringly awful most of these speeches about fatherdom are, how uninteresting the bad guy is and how many variations Lin is using of the same shot of the Christ the Redeemer statue overlooking Rio. Is Lin saying something here? Are these characters beyond redemption? Is he paralleling the over-the-shoulder shots he uses of Johnson and Diesel plotting their heist? Probably not, but what else are you going to think about until someone finally gets in a car and hits the gas?

This is the kind of movie that posits the need for a heist because the characters are on the run and “starving,” despite that everyone has plenty of outfits that proudly boast AE Performance and Under Armor logos, tailored perfectly so that we can see chiseled triceps when they point or reach for something and defined abs when they leap into the air during foot chases. Are we supposed to believe Paul Walker is starving because he is five-days unshaven? He’s always five-days unshaven. He has never not been five-days unshaven in one of these movies.

It’s one thing for me not to believe in a movie, but why shouldn’t it believe in itself?

Grade: C-

Review 1

Harry Potter and the Nodding-Off Viewer

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Columbus, 2001)

Chris Columbus’ “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” is a very boring movie. It recites nearly every step of J.K. Rowling’s novel but fails to convey a spirit of its own, or any spirit at all. Discovering that you’re a wizard should be an exhilarating experience, presumably. But under Columbus’ passive direction, young Harry’s adventures consist of characters taking their mark and spouting line after tedious line of exposition, talking about exciting things that never seem to happen. The film offers no thrills, despite having ample ammunition from Rowling involving a troll attack, a giant chess board with murderous pieces and a perilous Quidditch match that marries rugby, baseball and soccer hundreds of feet above the ground. Everything plays out in a padded and pedestrian manner, as if the storyboarder was told to behave himself or else. To make matters worse, leads Daniel Radcliff, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson rarely seem comfortable with the material except when the script calls for them to make a funny face. They’re either too wooden or they’re shouting their emotions to the rafters. At least the three have a natural chemistry with one another, which I suspect is why they were chosen. The film’s saving grace is probably the supporting cast, including the likes of Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith and Richard Harris. They aren’t given much to do, but they’re better at making the whys and wherefores sound natural. Oh, and the sets are nice. Altogether, this chapter of the Harry Potter saga is stuffy, overlong and shares the same immaturity as its titular hero.

Grade: D

____

Review 2

Harry Potter and the Of Course! Phoenix Tears Have Healing Powers!

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Columbus, 2002)

Why is this still so boring? Unshackled from the introductions and foundations of the mythology, director Chris Columbus’ second Harry Potter film should be a much lighter, more heedless journey than the previous entry. However, it feels just as lethargic as part one, if not more so. Sure, the kids are a bit better this time around, and the more believable adult characters extend their screen time. The effects and sets are more impressive as well, and they class up the third act when the kids are attacked by hordes of spiders and Harry must face a massive snake in the caverns below Hogwarts. But mostly, everything is just as dull. People stand and talk at each other instead of with one another, explaining magic as if it was a math equation and sucking the wonder out of every moment. Most of the blame must fall on Columbus, who has no idea how to handle an adequate adaptation from writer Steve Kloves other than to have everyone do line readings with pointy hats on. He only improves as a filmmaker when revisiting the Quidditch match, which is more exhilarating than the glorified game of Pong he filmed last time. The five-minute set piece also mercifully leaves the plot behind for a few moments (while still working in service of it), which is more than can be said for the other 2 hours and 30 minutes. These movies need to reassess what made the books so popular in the first place. Something tells me it wasn’t the dry informationals about the history of Slytherin House — but rather the excitement of wondering if, just around the next corner, we’d confront what is slithering.

Grade: D+

____

Review 3

Harry Potter and the Mischief Managed

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Cuarón, 2004)

“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” is an example of great direction elevating requisite material. The movie was written by screenwriter Steve Kloves, the same scribe behind the first two movies. Again, the script is serviceable, and it could make either a fun adventure or a mausoleum of dead-eyed moments, depending on its director. Thankfully, Chris Columbus has been replaced by helmer Alfonso Cuarón, director of the excellent films “Y Tu Mamá También” and “Children of Men.” Under Cuarón’s guidance, the world of Harry Potter is filled with life and charm and odd little moments that make it more convincing than the first two films, despite a more incredulous narrative boasting cloaked reapers, werewolves and time travel. He also imbues the story with boundless energy, even during scenes when characters are obliged to discuss backstory and little else. Watch the scene taking place in a pub in Diagon Alley where Arthur Weasley explains the threat of Sirius Black to Harry. It’s all done in one shot, with Weasley moving Harry behind pillars to shield their conversation from the merriment at a nearby table. Floating pitchers levitate nearby refilling cups, images run rabid on the Daily Prophet newspaper, and in the shadows of the foreground, we see the screaming image of Black on a wanted poster, a face Harry can’t seem to avoid. Look at all Cuarón does with a simple expository scene. Columbus undoubtedly would have shot one actor explaining stuff and the other reacting, and then cut back and forth frantically to keep us from dozing off.

Cuarón fares just as well with the rest of the movie. Not only does he maintain an even pace by injecting momentum into talkier sections, he also gives the film an identity by mining the story for subtext. Cuarón has said he was inspired to make the film after watching Francois Truffaut’s breezy masterpiece “The 400 Blows,” which is about a kid acting out in his struggle to deal with the frustrations of adolescence. “Azkaban” is roughly the same story with more trappings. Appropriately, Cuarón begins the film with a scene showing Harry breaking the rules by testing spells outside of Hogwarts. It’s simple, effective and truthful — what kid sent home for the summer with a wand would be able to resist magicking a pillar of light or two? It’s also overtly sexual (he handles it under the sheets), a theme which builds throughout the rest of the movie. The kids are teenagers now, after all. Why should the franchise be afraid of this kind of honesty? Especially when wands are so phallic.

Most of the scenes are gangbusters, including a sequence where the students learn to defend themselves from a creature that assumes the shape of whatever they fear the most and one where Harry rides a flying beast, a sequence which Cuarón lets play out for several minutes, well, because flying is actually really awesome, despite what Columbus would have you think. The real showstopper, however, is the third act, where the students learn the truth about Black (a bedlam Garry Oldman) and witness a terrific exchange with Snape (Alan Rickman, milking each syllable for perversion and animosity) and Remus Lupin (David Thewlis). Then, they embark on a time travel mission that revisits their earlier adventures, where Cuarón handles the doubled action masterfully and John William’s staccato themes compliment the urgency. The whole sequence builds to a climax of light — a nice payoff for Harry’s fumblings in the first scene and another call to his burgeoning sexuality — as the audience sees the full-bodied Patronus charm for the first time. It is a beautiful moment, both furious and graceful, that proves just how dynamic these movies can be.

I need a cigarette.

Grade: A

____

Review 4

Harry Potter and the Blimey, Did the Most Powerful Dark Wizard Ever Plot His Return While I Was on a Date?

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Newell, 2005)

“Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is the first entry in the series to feel distinctly British. This is fitting, as its director, Mike Newell, is the first Englishman at the helm of the franchise. He opts to largely subvert the magic daring-do and instead emphasize the bustling activity of the social scene at Hogwarts, morphing it from a rudimentary school of magic to a chaotic boarding school. The sense of humor is potent this time around, teeming with British slang and dry asides. Social tensions also rise and fall on native grumbles (“You’re a right foul git!”), but this in itself is a bit of comedy too.

There are, incidentally, three or four grandly staged action set pieces, but between these beats one can scarcely tell this is a fantasy. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson have grown into their roles, for better or worse, and their characters seem like real people, if not by the skill of the filmmakers then at least by the passage of time. In Newell’s telling, they seem bored with mastering the uncanny, and instead push and shove and yell and grow their hair out and dread asking fellow students to the dance. While the believability of their adolescence helps ground more fantastical elements (Harry faces off against a fully grown dragon, and guess who wins), the meanderings also rob the film’s plot of some much-needed immediacy. By the end — and it is quite a grave ending — the audience may feel awash in the film’s schizophrenia. It wants to talk, prod and joke, and then dazzle with action while running the gauntlet on the overarching mystery. Finally, it wants its audience to bask in the splendorous horror of the risen Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes, with effeminate gestures and startling mood swings), back from spiritual limbo and really pissed off. The film also kills one of its supporting characters, but since he barely was one, it’s confounding that the movie relies on this as the crux of its emotional payoff. Newell’s shoehorning of a didactic eulogy taints the palate even more. The entire journey feels too rushed and discombobulated, and viewers don’t have time to fathom the implications of any of it until Hermoine, in the final moments of the film, awkwardly asks, “Everything’s going to change now, isn’t it?” Harry replies, “Yes,” blankly, probably while thinking about getting a haircut.

Grade: C

____

Review 5

Harry Potter and the Darkity Darkness

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Yates, 2007)

Those worried that the inconsistent tone of “Goblet of Fire” would bleed over to the rest of the series can put those fears to rest under the blue, grim hues of “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” a film determined to prove that the franchise is no longer interested in child’s play. Dark times are ahead for the wizarding world following the return of Voldemort, and the focused direction of David Yates (a resident Brit who helms each chapter henceforth) presses the matter with freaky close-ups of a snarling Ralph Fiennes and washed-out shots of Daniel Radcliffe brooding about. The tone is a little overdone — the students are allowed to laugh only once or twice, and even those moments are used as leverage in Harry’s lame mind battle with Voldemort — but the lugubrious “Phoenix” at least knows what kind of movie it is. It’s also gifted with a more ever-present adversary in Professor Dolores Umbridge, played by a scene-stealing Imelda Staunton. She’s a bright blotch of pink on an otherwise dim canvas, and her sadistic disciplinary methods being the most clear and present danger is a nice bit of counter-programming on the villain front.

Still, this entry of the Potter saga feels dry and mechanical. Yates, known for his stage and television work before the Potter films, tries to mimic Alfonso Cuaron’s generous camera from the third film but fails to capture the auteur’s mojo. Perhaps it’s because Yates was, at the time, still a novice with blockbuster filmmaking, or perhaps the script by Michael Goldenberg doesn’t manage as many energetic movements. This is the only screenplay in the franchise not written by Steve Kloves, and it might be the worst. Goldenberg does a fine job aggregating the book’s overstretched narrative. However, he crams in too many Voldemort fever dreams and unnecessary asides like Hagrid’s giant brother, and relies to an almost embarrassing extent on newspaper headlines and montages to tell his story. He also writes cloying lines like, “We have something Voldemort doesn’t. Something worth fighting for.” The actors impress by making most of these posits feel credible. Radcliffe especially seems to have made great strides, aptly shouldering heavier scenes with the great Gary Oldman. They must know the script isn’t doing them any favors.

The film goes out on a high note with a series of action scenes in the Ministry of Magic, which for some reason is painted jet black before the bad guys take over. Here, the series’ first real wand battles feel frightfully immediate. The air pops and crackles as if infected with rampant electricity, wizards are blasted across rooms, and viewers realize they are a far cry from the impotent spells that began these films. The danger is palpable and the rush is invigorating, even if we’re already satiated from hours of doom and gloom.

Grade: C+

____

Review 6

Harry Potter and the Dirty Pretty Things

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Yates, 2009)

After proving himself an adequate caretaker of the franchise, Director David Yates comes to “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” with a more interesting vision. While his “Order of the Phoenix” is an average, single-minded fantasy, “Half-Blood Prince” is an expansive, gorgeous epic that incorporates several plot lines with skill and grace. It’s the best film in the series since “Prisoner of Azkaban,” but it’s most akin to “Goblet of Fire” in the way it juggles various tones. In a sense, it’s the film “Goblet” wanted to be, switching genres suddenly without feeling disingenuous and providing a sweeping emotional experience for viewers.

Although the wizarding world is more dangerous than ever, Yates no longer hits the audience over the head with violent jump cuts or malevolent color palettes. He and cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel instead craft a mood reminiscent of a waning afternoon, with prominent greens and browns that characters seem to cling to in the face of coming darkness. The kids by now are used to living under the threat of attack, and their focus has returned to things like homework and the allure of fellow classmates. There’s a lot of snogging this time around and even more come-hithers. Harry seems to embrace his new mantle as the Chosen One, who is prophesied to battle Voldemort to the death. He gleefully boasts once in front of Hermoine, and why shouldn’t he? He’s not fighting Voldemort now, and that cute brunette in the library isn’t going to wait forever. This return to trivialities might not make “Half-Blood Prince” the most exciting chapter of the Potter saga, but it’s a necessary recourse that keeps the ongoing story from drudgery.

Still, danger is closer than they think, with classmate Draco Malfoy (a more well-rounded Tom Felton) tasked to perform a shocking task before year’s end and Professor Severus Snape (fan favorite Alan Rickman) sworn to watch over him. Yates excels at balancing this story with all of the teeny hokum, often using the same shot to show students interacting frivolously and then finding Malfoy, alone in the dark, struggling to divest some potentially fatal burdens. The film also contains some standout flashbacks, shown through the Pensive device as moving ink blots. Here, the most important part of the Potter mythology — the horcrux — is revealed, thankfully, through a stirring discovery rather than a pedantic lecture. Figuring prominently into this storyline is Professor Slughorn, played masterfully by Jim Broadbent as a sycophantic oaf embattled by his own memories. Slughorn is one of the most interesting of Rowling’s supporting characters, and Broadbent’s performance is one of the best of the series.

“Half-Blood Prince” is not a perfect movie. There is an action scene in the second act that, while beautifully shot, contributes nothing to the film. Additionally, Yates still seems to think that awkward is the same thing as funny, a habit he imposed on some cringe-worthy asides in “Order of the Phoenix” as well. The movie also doesn’t reach the exhilarating mysticism of “Prisoner of Azkaban,” but that probably reflects the reality that older teens are awed by breasts rather than enchantments and conjury.

Ultimately, it’s the small details — most of them visual — that make “Half-Blood Prince” such a success. Luna’s Gryffindor lion hat, Harry’s shadow moving down the stairs toward an inconsolable Hermoine, a wand battle at twilight at the base of the behemoth Hogwarts castle. Nicholas Hooper supplements the lush visuals with an especially moving score this time around, which thankfully leaves John Williams’ well-trodden themes behind. There is also more subtext than usual in this entry, most of it of examining post-9/11 paranoia and school violence. Students are searched before entering Hogwarts and silk Death Eaters habitually test the school’s defenses for weaknesses. Even dark wizard-catchers pace back and forth before the candlelit Great Hall, preparing for attacks from beyond the gates but ignorant of the threats already inside. Those shots of children socializing in the foreground while Malfoy stalks the halls behind them are haunting in their authenticity. Sometimes the most potent fantasies are allegories for things too painful to tell outright.

Grade: A-

____

Review 7

Harry Potter and the No Country for Small Kids. Part One.

Why did we waste all that time playing Quidditch at Hogwarts when we should have been running track?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (Yates, 2010)

The following is my original review that I wrote last November, when HP7.1 was released in theaters.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1″ undoubtedly benefits from 10 years’ worth of character work in the six preceding chapters of the series, but it’s a formidable examination of waning youth in its own right.

Yes, the film merely sets up a grander story and ultimately makes little narrative progress before the end credits, but a kind of emotional catharsis develops by “Part I’s” stopping point that indicates our heroes are finally ready to accept an adulthood where their lives are forfeit.

The movie lays down an emotional gauntlet for the three leads (all of whom have developed into refined thespians, despite being inconsistent in earlier entries) while aptly balancing typical adventure tropes. This is a particularly difficult endeavor for director David Yates who must volley frenetic action beats in the first and third acts around a long middle stretch driven entirely by sparse dialogue, radio static and the saddest sunsets you’ve ever seen. The pacing is disjointed, yes, and those who take issue with the second act have the right instincts.

But the film should be this way. For the first time in the series, the narrative literally stops and waits. The youths, free from the guidance of wiser wizards, move the story completely on their own steam. Days and days go by in the film when literally nothing happens unless one of the leads forces an action or conversation — but even then, usually nothing comes of it. It is a frustrating new angle for the franchise, but a necessary one. Harry, Ron and Hermoine must decide who they are before they can decide what they do. Nothing could be more appropriate for a saga about maturity.

Here we find justification for Warner Bros.’ decision to split the final book into two releases, aside from financial incentives. Yates inevitably would have had to reduce this middle portion if “Deathly Hallows” was made into a single three-hour film. Some would say good riddance, but the story would have lost several terrific scenes. Is there a better sequence in the entire series than Ron battling a nebula of black magic imprisoned in a locket, which projects a nude Hermoine taunting his heroic shortcomings against the great Harry Potter? Is there a better montage in this franchise (and there have been many) than the kids wandering through abandoned trailer parks and hiding in barns as silk Death Eaters weave patterns through the sky, scanning the countryside for their prey? Both sequences drastically re-frame the franchise, as does a wonderful and violent animated sequence that charts the legend of the Deathly Hallows.

The nuances in “Deathly Hallows, Part I” may be easy to miss the first time around, but they contain rewards for those who have followed this story from the beginning.

Take for example a scene where Harry wrestles with a massive snake, a sequence which easily could have played like a by-the-numbers monster attack. Although the scene begins in a typical old, dimly lit house, Yates has the fight burst through a wall into a conjoined townhouse where it continues on the floor of a bright, modern, white-walled nursery with an empty crib. These houses are said to be near where Harry’s mother was murdered while he lied in his own crib as an infant. Now we see him years later, on his hands and knees, struggling just a few feet from the crib against the same obstacles. It’s a particularly painful and honest representation of how years and wisdom often can lead us, like our heroes, nowhere at all.

Now, some thoughts after re-watching it:

When I first reviewed HP7.1, I graded the film an A-. However, after viewing it again, I find the first forty minutes or so too erratic to earn a rating equal to the superior “Half-Blood Prince.” True, the film becomes terrific when the kids are on their own in the wilderness. Here, our heroes seem less like plot turnkeys and more like real people, and the film effectively utilizes a near-avante garde presentation unfamiliar to most big-budget movies. However, before the wonderful second act, the film is inconsistent. The unreliable pacing sometimes works, as when the kids take refuge in a coffee shop and swiftly go from discussing their plans to fighting for their lives against two Death Eaters. Yet, the story mostly comes in unwelcome fits and starts, and without a necessary sense of danger. Characters talk about enemies hiding behind every corner, but besides the coffee shop scene, the audience never feels the threat. There is even a sky battle and an attack on a wedding that both come and go so fast that we have no time to sense dread or fear or loss, all of which apparently are felt by Harry. An alarming amount of horrible things seem to be happening off screen, and the characters become wide-eyed when hearing of them. But the loss of a major character in the sky battle or the fall of the Ministry of Magic don’t carry any dramatic weight at the offset. Finally, when the kids escape into the countryside the film stops to breathe, to appreciate their predicament. Here, Yates parses their dialogue and movements, stretching out interactions over an entire desolate winter. Some nights pass silently, but sometimes a branch cracks out past their campsite. Now, we sense the danger. And now we’re on the right track for a conclusion that seems, for the first time, remarkably tangible.

Grade: B+

Scre4m (Craven, 2011)

The first evidence that the fourth ‘Scream’ film — entitled ‘Scre4m’ on the title card — is a barking mad commentary is the numeral. Numbered titles in the horror genre typically designate uninspired sequels that cash in on the success of an idea that was once fresh and innovative. ‘Scre4m’ embraces this mantle like a badge of honor because, well, at least it’s not a damn remake. The film satirizes the recent slew of horror remakes and pokes fun at Japanese horror movies, torture-porn flicks like ‘Saw’ and non-movie conventions such as Facebook, video blogging and smartphones. It might sound gimmicky, but ‘Scre4m’ is aware that audiences assume it’s a sterile money-grab checking off topical jokes. However, by the end, the sequel reveals itself to be the first ‘Scream’ since the original that goes beyond the trendy humor and meta-fictional amusements. There’s a lot about society that director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson find scary, and this film is their bloody exegesis.

The plot is as generic as always. Someone with a beef against veteran victim Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) starts killing all of those around her. The frivolity begins when other celebrity victims Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) and Dewey Riley (David Arquette) discover that the killer is recreating the deaths from the original film. So, even though Craven and Williamson are making a sequel, their antagonist is doing a remake.

The body count climbs as the movie winds its way toward a lengthy climax that reveals this installment’s true intent: to skewer the nature of modern celebrity. It does this obviously and with buckets of gore. How else are you going to distract people from their iPhones long enough to deliver the message?

This all sounds a bit hateful — and it is — but the movie is not without affection for its lead characters, who have evolved in different directions since the tragedies of the original trilogy. Campbell, Cox and Arquette still make convincing protagonists, and while their younger co-stars feel more broadly drawn, the disparity helps emphasize the implied vapidity of today’s youth. Actors Hayden Panettiere, Emma Roberts, Aimee Teegarden, Justin Michael Brandt, and Rory Culkin are persuasive as the new crop of teenagers. Entertaining turns by Alison Brie, Marley Shelton, Anthony Anderson and Adam Brody provide compliment, and in some cases, knife fodder.

Although the movie deals in obvious critiques, there’s more to mine in its subtext if viewers care to look. Many of the film’s scares take place twice-removed from the audience through tech displays, and Craven has traded suspenseful chase sequences for faster, gorier kills. And then there’s that annoying ’4′ replacing the ‘a’ in the title. All of this seems to reflect an audience more desensitized, impatient and digitally inclined than the one that endorsed the original ‘Scream’ in 1996. The film works as a metaphor for American youths bearing these characteristics who are cutting each others’ throats for their time in the limelight. As one teenager notes, you don’t have to be talented anymore to be famous. And with our personal lives so overtly lived on the Internet, fame is only a few hundred Twitter followers away.

On the surface, audiences will find a witty, above-average slasher film that still can elicit dread with the simple ringing of a telephone. At least some things haven’t changed in the past 15 years.

Grade: B