Movie Review Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) 

Directed by Mike Newell 

Written by Steve Kloves 

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Robbie Coltrane, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon

Release Date November 18th, 2005

Published November 17th, 2005 

Four movies, three different directors and not one slip in quality.  This is the extraordinary track record of the Harry Potter film series. I am of the belief that a visionary director is the necessary component in making a great film series. George Lucas may not have directed all of the Star Wars films but his vision was constant and his aims achieved. Peter Jackson's imprint is the lasting legacy of the Lord of The Rings series.

What the producers of Harry Potter have achieved is astonishing for not having one director guiding the series with one singular vision. What Harry Potter does have is the brilliant work of author J.K Rowling whose hand in shaping the films made from her books cannot be underestimated. Even as she allowed each of three directors to bring something of their own aesthetic to each film, it is Rowling's imagination that finally ends up on the screen and it's the reason why Potter will go down as one of the greatest film series ever.

Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire thrusts you right back into the world of Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) as our hero reunites with friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) for year four at Hogwarts school of magic. Upon their arrival, after a brief and surprisingly dangerous visit to the Quidditch World Cup, they are informed that things are going to be different this year.

This year Hogwarts is playing host to the legendary Triwizard Tournament, a dangerous and deadly trial that introduces two other schools of magic heretofore unknown to us. From France the Beauxbaton Academy with female students as lithe and lovely as their school's name. On the other hand Belgium's Durmastrang students are as menacing as their school name and notably features the stern charismatic presence of Quidditch champion Viktor Krump.

For the Triwizard Tournament each of the schools will place names in the ominous Goblet of Fire, which will magically choose which students will represent their school in the tournament. Because of an age limit Harry, Ron and Hermione are not eligible for the tournament, or so we are told. Viktor Krum from Durmstrang, Fleur De La Course (Clemence Poesy) from Beauxbaton and Cedric Diggory from Hogwarts are supposed to be the only competitors however the Goblet has other ideas. Somehow, the name Harry Potter escapes the Goblet and, rules or not, Harry is forced into the tournament.

Harry did not submit his name for the tournament and one of the mysteries of the plot is who did put him in the tournament and what nefarious reasoning was behind it? Was it the new Dark Arts professor MadEye Moody (Brenden Gleeson), or was it the shady headmaster of Durmstrang Igor Karkaroff (Predrag Bjelac) who has a secret tie to the dark lord Voldemort? It certainly was not Ron or Hermione who were afraid for Harry's safety and in Ron's case a little jealous.

The Triwizard Tournament is yet another of the many visual wonders of the Potter series. Though the dragons of the first challenge are only okay in terms of CGI creativity, the chase scene they are part of is the film's first exciting moment. The underwater challenge, featuring some very unappealing mermaids, is, without a doubt, the best of the film's action. Using magic provided in a way by MadEye Moody, Harry grows gills, allowing him to remain underwater as long or longer than his fellow competitors. The challenge involves saving his closest friends from drowning. Not only does Harry save Ron's life but when Fleur is unable to continue with the challenge Harry risks his life to save one of Beaubaton's students as well.

The final challenge, an ever shifting maze leading to the tournament cup is only a mere precursor for the film's finale which features our first ever look at a living, breathing Lord Voldemort in the person of Ralph Fiennes. If this showdown is a bit of letdown-- it features a dreadful talking killer bit by Fiennes-- it's likely because we have three more chapters left in this film series, plenty of time before we have the true final throwdown.

The main subplot of Goblet of Fire is the ever quickening maturity of our heroic trio. As big a challenge as the Triwizard Tournament is, it may pale in adolescent comparison to the kids' first ever school dance, the Yule Ball. For Harry and Ron, finding a date may be more fearful and daunting than any evil magic they have faced. For Hermione it's only slightly better since she landed the most sought after date in the school, Viktor Krum.

Director Mike Newell, the third director to tackle a Potter movie, is the first British director to try his hand at this very English series and his Englishness comes through in the film's aesthetic. Britain is stereotypically gray and wet and such is the look of The Goblet of Fire often gray and wet. There is very little color and very little light which is also a function of this story's tone which is darker than the films that preceded it. Even in comic moments like Harry's uncomfortable bathing encounter with the ghostly Moaning Myrtle (Shirley Henderson) the look of the scene is so dark and gray you can barely see Myrtle's non-corporeal form.

The contributions of writer Steven Cloves cannot be understated. When producers first received the book from J.K Rowling and found it was an eye-popping 734 pages there was talk of splitting it into two films. However, with director Mike Newell only signed on for one picture it was put to Cloves to pare the book's many plots and subplots into one script and keep it to the series average two and a half hour runtime. 

Kloves' work is extraordinary if you are like me and have only watched the movies. I was impressed with the speed with which we were drawn back into this story. However, some fans of the book are finding some of their favorite subplots, including encounters with Harry's non-wizard family, the Dursleys, and a plot involving Ron's little sister Ginny, missing from the film. There is apparently a whole beginning of the book that was cut, likely in favor of getting back to Hogwarts quicker, that many fans are rather upset about.

Regardless of the few criticisms from hardcore Potter book fans, I doubt director Mike Newell could have made a better version of The Goblet of Fire even in two movies. The characters have deepened, the story has progressed well and while I prefer Alfonso Cuaron's warm inviting visuals, Goblet is better than its immediate predecessor in terms of preparing audiences for what is coming next.

The best compliment you can give a film that is intent on supplying sequels is to say you cannot wait to see what happens next. Well, I cannot wait to see what happens next. Harry Potter and The Order Of The Phoenix comes out in 2007, which feels like an eternity away. I would consider reading the book but I don't want to be disappointed by the cut corners that will be necessary in adapting that book for the screen. I don't want to be disappointed the way some Potter acolytes are disappointed with Goblet of Fire.

It's not a disappointment in terms of outright dislike. Rather, most Potter book fans are going to enjoy this adaptation. It's more of a longing to see played out before them all that they had imagined from the book. Not seeing some of their favorite characters or subplots has dampened some of the enthusiasm for the film but overall fans should be satisfied with Goblet of Fire.

What comes next in the Potter series is likely to be a bigger challenge behind the scenes than in anything in the story. Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix is scheduled for theaters in 2007. It will be the first of the series to not feature a script by Steven Kloves who is taking time to direct his own feature called The Curious Incident of The Dog In the Night. The script for Phoenix will be penned by Michael Goldenberg best known for 2003's Peter Pan and the Jodie Foster movie Contact.

Even more daunting is that the new director will be David Yates, a television veteran who will make his big screen debut in one of the most highly anticipated franchise offerings in history. Even a seasoned veteran might be a little frightened by such a task.

Movie Review: 'Bee Season'

Bee Season (2005) 

Directed by Scott McGehee, David Siegel 

Written by Naomi Foner Gyllenhaal

Starring Richard Gere, Juliette Binoche 

Release Date November 11th, 2005

Published November 11th, 2005 

The narrative balancing act between explaining too much and not enough is quite a metaphorical tightrope for a filmmaker. Critics like myself tend to jump on a film that over-explains its plot through dialogue or image or excoriate a film for being too obtuse and inaccessible. In the case of the movie Bee Season, starring Richard Gere, the latter is the problem. The film, based on a novel by Myla Goldberg, is so inside itself in terms of characters internalizing their motivations that following what seems like a simple narrative about family strife becomes a herculean task of assumption on top of assumption.

Saul Naumann (Richard Gere) is a professor of Jewish studies and an avid follower of kabbalah. He is also a loving father to his son Aaron (Max Minghella) and daughter Eliza (Flora Cross) and a caring husband to his wife Miriam (Juliette Binoche), at least on the surface. Underneath it all Saul is driven zealot who has made his son's religious education an all consuming quest.

Aaron is a prodigy of religious studies who can recite passages of the Torah from memory. He flourishes under his father's attention even if it can be suffocating at times. The father-son bond is put to the test when younger sister Eliza shows an aptitude for spelling. Being a follower of kabbalah, Saul believes words are the keys to the universe, a path that leads directly to god. He see's Eliza's gift with words as an opportunity to reach the religious transcendence that neither he nor Aaron have achieved.

Aaron, seeing the attentions of his father taken away, rebels by following a beautiful woman named Chali (Kate Bosworth) into the beliefs of the Hare Krishna. Meanwhile Miriam withdraws from the family into a secret life of kleptomania that see's her breaking into strangers homes and stealing shiny objects.

Each of these plots evolve individually around Gere's character. Saul is an often overbearing presence who's religious obsessions tend to overwhelm good judgement. However, he is not nearly the bad guy the plot seems to want him or needs him to be. Saul is shown to be a very caring father who showers love and praise on his children and his wife, makes dinner for the family every night and wants only for everyone to be happy. For the plot to work Saul has to be more of a problem than he really is.

The script for Bee Season, adapted by by Naomi Foner-Gyllenhaal, seems to want us to believe that Saul's lavishing attention on Eliza is too much for the whole family to take. Unfortunately the film never bothers to demonstrate why this is such a big problem. Neither Aaron or Miriam object to Saul's treatment of his daughter, probably because Eliza is a willing accomplice avidly accepting her father's indulgence.  So what is the problem that causes Aaron and Miriam to rebel?

Aaron's subplot about joining the Hare Krishna is played as both an earnest interest in achieving religious transcendence and as a teenager rebelling against his father. But there are scenes missing that might clarify just which is the more significant motivation. Aaron is alternately a true believer seeking religious enlightenment and an impulsive teenager who follows a hot girl into a cult like behavior that he knows will really irk his devout father. The film is far too vague about Aaron's true motives for us to care why he does what he does.

As for Miriam, the film never thoroughly examines how she is affected by her daughter's success and her husband's subsequent obsession. Though we are often diverted to scenes of Miriam sneaking into strangers homes and stealing shiny trinkets the movie never bothers to explain how this behavior relates to the rest of the film. Is it a cry for help or attention? Is it mental illness? How is Miriam's troubled behavior related to Saul's obsession with helping his daughter win the spelling bee?

Though the plot of Bee Season flows from Saul's actions, the focus of the film is Eliza and her unusual gift with words. Eliza does not so much spell the words given to her as experience them in her mind . In the spelling bee scenes Eliza closes her eyes and the words begin to materialize around her in special effects renditions of the words themselves. Given the word origami, Eliza imagines a paper bird alighting upon the individual letters which she repeats aloud. I suppose this is an indication of some kind of divine intervention but how do you explain how she had this gift before she began studying kabbalah with her father.

In Myla Goldberg's novel it is Eliza's narration that binds these various plot strands together. Her first person perspective guides us through the motivations of the other characters and clarifies the narrative. In the film however, co-directors Scott McGehee and David Siegel begin with Eliza's narration then quickly abandon it. Bee Season is the rare film that could benefit from narration which often is a screenwriting crutch and in the wrong hands a hack device. The plot of Bee Season is so convoluted and obtuse that only narration could bring together these diverging stories.

12 year-old Flora Cross delivers an extraordinary performance in Bee Season. Her halting voice always just above a whisper and her often downturned gaze hide a spark of ingenuity that provide the few remarkable moments in this otherwise unremarkable film. Cross is riveting in a calm and assured veteran performance from a 12 year-old girl in her first starring role.

If only the rest of the film had been as focused and engaging as Cross. Unfortunately Bee Season can't pull itself together. The script introduces one plot then abandons it to begin another one only to abandon that shortly after. Plots like Miriam's kleptomania are introduced, forgotten, returned to and yet never connected to the rest of the film. Aaron's flirtation with the Hare Krishna is dropped in on but by the end of the movie is all but forgotten.

And somehow through it all, despite his not being a bad guy, all of the family's troubles are heaped on Saul whose sin seems to be that he is too loving and too attentive. Saul could be a little more benevolent in giving attention to each of his children equally and not just when one child meets his various obsessions but for the most part he is shown as a great guy and a caring dad. Gere gives a strong performance but as written the character is basically untenable.

For Bee Season to work Saul has to be a sort of villain. Not exactly a menacing presence but distant, overly driven, a little selfish. Character traits that could help us understand why his family, save Eliza, resents him so much. Without some sharper edges on Saul it's hard to believe the family would fall apart as they do.

It is fair to wonder if the novel Bee Season was simply unadaptable. So much of the family troubles are internalized which is well translated in the written word. But translating inner monologue to outward action is not simple. Movies require a level of explanation that can be difficult to define. How much is too much or too little explanation is impossible to calculate. In the end Bee Season comes up short and it's a shame because the performance of Flora Cross is so good I really wanted to like and recommend this film. But I can't.

Movie Review My Bloody Valentine 3D

My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009) 

Directed Patrick Lussier 

Written by Todd Farmer 

Starring Jensen Ackles, Jamie King, Kerr Smith, Edi Gathegi, Tom Atkins 

Release Date January 16th, 2009 

Published January 15th, 2009 

I love when a movie surprises me. It is one of my favorite experiences. As much as I try to keep an open mind and not prejudge a movie, it happens sometimes that I dread seeing something. It most often happens with horror movies (Thanks Eli Roth). Rarely are my expectations exceeded. So, when they are, it's invigorating and exciting. My Bloody Valentine 3D surprised me. I did not expect to have such a good time with this remake of an obscure 1981 horror footnote.

My Bloody Valentine 3D sets up a Jason/Freddy style murderer named Harry Warden. 10 years ago he killed a bunch of his coal miner coal workers before being nearly killed himself when the mine exploded. A year after the accident, Warden awoke from a coma and set about on 14 murders before being hunted down by cops at the mine and killed.

10 years later, teenagers who survived the attack are now in positions of power in the city. Axel (Kerr Smith) who managed to rescue two friends from Harry Warden, is now the town sheriff. Tom Hanninger (Jensen Ackles) has now taken over ownership of the mines from his late father and has just returned to town to sell the mines.

The woman both Axel and Tom love, Sarah (Jaime King) is now married to Axel but she still thinks often of Tom who she was in love with the night Harry Warden went nuts and Tom disappeared. Now, ten years later, new murders have sparked fear that Harry Warden may have returned.

My Bloody Valentine 3D. has many of the typical cliches of the average horror movie. Most egregious is an awful, manipulative score that spikes when it's supposed to and is completely over the top with the expected orchestral shrieks and dives.

The characters make many of the typical horror movie character mistakes from running the wrong direction to not taking care when checking out strange noises to continuing to underestimate the villain even after he has demonstrated unending malice. The killer too does everything expected, not the least of which is over-complicating his plot to the most unnecessary degrees.

All of those gripes aside, I did have fun watching this movie. Director Patrick Lussier offers an oddly shaped narrative early on that shows the killer to be less than supernatural. He faints and weaves his way through the second half of the movie and despite the cliches, does manage to build some solid suspense and mystery.

Most importantly, for me, Lussier doesn't go weak in the knees when it comes to the R-rated stuff. Lussier smartly goes all in on the classic horror movie gore, overstated to the point where the audience can have distance from the human elements but understated enough to make you watch through your fingers as you squirm in your seat.

That's a balance that has eluded most horror movie makers. The Eli Roth's of the world certainly aren't squeamish but the way he and Rob Zombie seem to enjoy their violence makes it off putting. Then there are the Asian invasion PG-13 horror movies who trade gore for atmosphere and more often than not bore audiences to death instead of scaring them to death.

Lussier finds the balance between reveling in the violence and drawing clear moral lines between victims and killer.

I would be remiss if I didn't talk about the gimmick of 3D. It is just a gimmick and nothing more. There isn't much that an audience will get out of the 3D My Bloody Valentine that they would not have gotten out of the 2D presentation. I like the digital picture clarity and Lussier's crisp shooting style lends itself well to the presentation, he smartly avoids the typical overly dark settings for more modestly lit scenes that allow audiences a better chance to keep track of the action.

In the end, My Bloody Valentine 3D cheats a little for drama and suspense but it works because Patrick Lussier makes good use of the horror movie formula. He isn't reinventing the wheel, he's just putting it to better use than most other genre directors. We can hardly ask him for much more than that.

My Bloody Valentine is a real surprise, a pretty good formula horror movie.

Movie Review My Best Friend's Girl

My Best Friend's Girl (2008) 

Directed by Howard Deutch

Written by Jordan Kahan 

Starring Dane Cook, Kate Hudson, Jason Biggs, Lizzy Kaplan, Alec Baldwin

Release Date September 19th, 2008

Published September 19th, 2008 

Picture in your mind's eye Kate Hudson. Blonde and beautiful with a screwball quality that she got from her mom Goldie Hawn. Now imagine Jason Biggs. The pie guy from American Pie. Twitchy, neurotic far from conventionally handsome. Considering his most recent roles, gay/not gay in Over Her Dead Body, 12 bananna to Paul Walker and a bunch of dogs in Eight Below.

To believe the premise of the new romantic comedy My Best Friend's Girl you have to buy the idea that Hudson and Biggs could ever have been a couple. Then again, if this were the only contrivance of this insulting and stupid comedy, things might not be so dismal.

In My Best Friend's Girl Jason Biggs plays Dusty, a whiny, needy little dweeb who somehow has for five weeks been the steady companion of Kate Hudson's Alexis. After Dusty takes her out to an expensive dinner and fumblingly confesses his love for her Alexis finally realizes just how much time she has wasted. She dumps him.

Returning home, Dusty confides in his roommate Tank (Dane Cook). What luck for Dusty that his roommate has a side business being a misogynist a-hole to depressed women. Tank's gig is going out with girls who have just dumped douchebags, cheaters and jerks. Tank takes the girls out, is a complete pig and the girls go crying back to the ex's who look kind and wonderful by comparison.

So Dusty hires Tank to work his anti-magic on Alexis and.....

If you don't already know where this is going you should consider your mental health alternatives. The plot could not be more insultingly predictable if it were a Dane Cook stand up routine. Directed by Howard Deutsch, who was once the gentle, thoughtful director of Pretty In Pink and Some Kind of Wonderful, My Best Friend's Girl grinds through an achingly conventional plot attempting to liven things up by allowing Cook's Tank to ratchet up his sociopathy.

Apparently we are supposed to find Tank endearing in the same way we found Will Smith's Hitch charming. Both characters are all about helping guys in need right? Yup, they are really alike. Except that Hitch is played by Will Smith with the charm and warmth of.. well Will freaking Smith. Tank is played by Dane Cook in his typically spastic, unpleasant fashion.

As a stand up comic Dane Cook masks bad jokes behind the veneer of gangliness. spasming limbs and pseudo-clever catchphrases. Invariably, ask a Cook fan, usually college age and female, why he is so funny and they will reply that he is "hot". There is no denying that at over 6 feet tall, muscled up and insanely self confident, Cook knows how to draw people to him.

That appeal however has yet to find a film forum. Instead, the roles Dane Cook plays inevitably feel like roles Adam Sandler turned down. He has never seemed natural or comfortable on screen. He strains for every punchline, much like his physical begging for laughs in his stand up, and hides very often behind broad misogynistic or gag reflex humor.

Don't believe the misogynist thing? In My Best Friend's Girl, like the worst of Sandler's shtick, every woman is excitedly in love with Cook. It doesn't matter what a dirtball he is, every woman on screen is commanded to swoon over him. This is the ego of the misogynist. And while some of you will dismiss it as harmless, I worry about the message we are sending to the young girls growing up as Dane Cook fans.

My Best Friend's Girl has an unexpressed bitter sadness to it. The premise is hate filled and desperate and then forces itself toward a saccharine happy ending. Howard Deutsch should know better. Then again, he has directed 3 sequels to films where he did not direct the original. He has developed into a hack and saddled with an awful script and Dane Cook in the cast the writing was on the wall from production day 1.

Kate Hudson's career meltdown is too sad to consider while Jason Biggs is just pathetic. Dane Cook however is a disaster. He was already not very funny. Asked to play a jerk character only amplifies the qualities that make him unwatchable.

Movie Review Munich

Munich (2005) 

Directed by Steven Speilberg 

Written by Tony Kushner, Eric Roth

Starring Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Ciaran Hinds, Geoffrey Rush, Hanns Zischler, Matthieu Kassovitz 

Release Date December 23rd, 2005 

Published December 22nd, 2005

Despite my liberal political tendencies, I have always held one particularly conservative point of view. That Israel is justified in its actions in protecting itself from Palestinian terrorists. The Palestinians have, in my opinion, never done a very good job in presenting their case that the land that is now Israel should belong to them. It's impossible for me to sympathize with Palestinians who target civilians with suicide bombers over Israelis who react to such attacks with a righteous military assault.

So when Steven Speilberg set out to make Munich, a film that presents a message about how violence only leads to more violence and that Israel is not as righteous as some, like myself, perceive, I was fascinated. Munich is now part of the public discourse and while it is a thoughtful and well-made film about the futility of violence and vengeance, it is easy to understand why some Israelis might find the film to be little more than liberal hand-wringing.

Munich stars Eric Bana as Avner, an agent of the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. Avner is a former bodyguard to Prime Minister Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen) and through this connection Avner is offered an assignment like none he has ever been given before. In the wake of the Palestinian terror attack on Israeli athletes at the Summer Olympics in Munich, Germany, the Prime Minister has decreed that vengeance must be taken and Avner will lead the covert operation to gain that vengeance.

With a list of 11 names, each somehow linked either to planning Munich or belonging to the Palestine Liberation Organization which assumedly backed the terrorists at Munich, Avner meets his team and sets about his grisly task. Along with Avner are fellow Mossad operatives Steve (Daniel Craig), the driver; Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz), a toymaker turned bombmaker; Hans (Hanns Ziscler), a forgery expert; and Carl (Ciaran Hinds), an expert in covering up after the fact.

Once the team is assembled Munich unfolds like a spy novel complete with covert meetings, shady informants and precisely planned operations. What separates Munich from your average spy movie, however, is the often surprising lack of skill involved in the first few operations. These covert ops are messy and, at times, convoluted. On one occasion Avner himself is nearly killed by a bomb that was much too large for the task at hand. In arguably the film's most breathtaking moment a young girl returns home in time to intercept a phone call on a booby-trapped phone meant for her father.

Speilberg's skill for mass appeal entertainment serves him well in crafting the moments of spy intrigue and operational misfires. The script for Munich by playwright Tony Kushner provides the film's intellectual underpinnings though not as effectively as Speilberg's action scenes. Kushner's taste for speeches that state the obvious and underline the same point again and again grows tiresome by the fourth or fifth time you hear it.

The point that Munich wants to make is that the continuing retaliatory strikes between the Israelis and Palestinians are futile. No progress can be made by continuing to kill one another. As Avner experiences in the film, killing one terrorist means another possibly more committed and horrifying terrorist takes his place. The film questions, quite effectively, the moral grounding of Israel's wont for vengeance. How does one rectify vengeance with their religious beliefs? Not to be too cute about it but 'What would Moses do'?

Eric Bana delivers his first mature and focused performance since his star-making turn in Black Hawk Down. Bana's Avner is nothing like his special forces officer Hoot Gibson, a brash and confident killer who never questions his mission even as it goes horribly wrong. Avner is an efficient killer who is committed to following orders but he is not afraid to question his motivation and express remorse and even guilt for what he does. The two performances together show why so many in Hollywood believe in his leading man talents even after the dual disasters of The Hulk and Troy.

The film's two best performances come from two peripheral characters. Mathieu Amalric and Michael Lonsdale play French operatives who help Avner locate his targets for a price. Where they get the information from, who they work for, and why they do what they do are mysteries the film does not need to solve. Leaving those questions open brings tension to every scene they are in. They leave tantalizing details at every turn like intimations that the Palestinian terrorists at Munich may have been financed by the CIA! The Frenchmen may be the film's most fictional element but also its most intriguing.

Munich works well as a civics and morality play and as a thriller but I would not call it popcorn entertainment. While Steven Speilberg is trying to change the world many an audience member will yawn awaiting the next exciting action sequence. No matter your feelings on the conflict in the Middle East you will respect Speilberg's attempt to contribute to the important discourse, but so much speechifying can turn an audience waiting to be entertained into an audience ready to leave.

Especially when the speeches are repeated and at times extraneous. A scene in which Avner sneaks back to Israel to see his father in the hospital is merely an opportunity for another character, Avner's mother played by Gila Almagor, to underline why it's important for Israel to fight for its existence. It's a well-delivered point but a point made effectively earlier in the film by Lynn Cohen as Golda Meir.

Each of our protagonists, save for Daniel Craig's Steve, is given the opportunity to explain their feelings and qualms, often the same issues, in drawn out speeches that underline the film in ways that take you out of the movie. Ciaran Hinds and Hanns Zischler both deliver similar speeches on the moral repugnance of what they are doing and why they are doing it and while it may be good for the characters to express these points as it deepens them equally, both speeches are delivered as if reading the Cliff's Notes of why the movie Munich was made.

I'm not trying to tell Steven Speilberg to stop trying to moralize and just entertain us. I am saying that there are more subtle ways to underline his points and get them across as effectively. The speeches are not delivered by the actors in ways that are preaching or haranguing but they are written that way and that gets tiresome fast.

Munich is a thoughtful and well-crafted film with its heart on its sleeve. Steven Speilberg truly believes that art can change the world and I respect that. At the same time Speilberg is realistic enough to know that this conflict is too complicated for any one act to change its course. That is, in fact, the point of the film. Both sides should realize there will never be a point in the continuing violence when one side will never strike a winning blow.

On the flip side, Speilberg's Munich may have been more effective in making its points with one speech as opposed to continued speech after speech and finding other equally effective ways to make the same point without stopping the movie to get on a perpetual soapbox. I still recommend Munich on the strength of its well intentioned ambitions and its excellent craftsmanship but I think it could have been much more.

Movie Review Mortal Engines

Mortal Engines (2018) 

Directed by Christian Rivera 

Written by Fran Walsh, Phillippa Boyens, Peter Jackson

Starring Hera Hilmar, Robert Sheehan, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Lang 

Release Date December 14th, 2018

Published December 14th, 2018

Mortal Engines are a pretty big mess. It’s not terrible but this Peter Jackson produced CGI epic is lacking in numerous ways. Aside from a grand ambition, it definitely has that, Mortal Engines lacking in the kind of engaging, compelling characters that are needed to compete with the massive and rather uninteresting CGI machinery on display. The stars of Mortal Engines are not the actors but the massive machines and those machines, though impressively rendered, aren’t nearly engaging enough to make a good movie.

Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar stars in The Mortal Engines as Hester Shaw. Hester is seeking revenge against the man who murdered her mother, Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), chief weapons manufacturer for the roving city of London. What do I mean by ‘roving city’ you ask? In this universe, cities are not stuck in one place. Following a massive, apocalyptic event cities became mobile, rebuilding themselves atop massive wheels and running down other cities to steal their resources.

Hester is aboard a small mining city when London attacks it and takes hold of it. Getting on board London, Hester gets her chance to kill Valentine right away and manages to stab him before a kid named Tom (Robert Sheehan) tackles her and then chases her off the edge of the city. Before she goes, Hester tells Tom her secret about Valentine and when Tom tells Valentine what he knows, he kicks Tom off the edge of London.

Forced into the wild, Hester and Tom team up in their attempt to stay alive while Valentine survives his stabbing and sets off after someone who wants Hester dead as much as he does. Shrike is a CGI character with an incredible back story and a far more interesting storyline as a reanimated warrior machine, like a steampunk Terminator. Hester had made Shrike a promise after he saved her life and now he wants to kill her to collect on her debt

Had Mortal Engines settled on the story of Shrike and Hester, it would be one hell of a movie. Shrike is the most interesting and well built character in the movie. He’s incredibly dangerous and volatile but he has this shred of a memory that keeps him tethered to his former humanity. It was that shred that led him to keep Hester alive when he found her near death following the murder of her mother and to raise her from the age of 8 until London arrived on former European shores and she set out for revenge.

The flashbacks we see to young Hester and Shrike are more compelling than anything remotely related to Hugo Weaving’s quest for power or the neutered romance between Tom and Hester which couldn’t be more perfunctory if the studio had announced the romantic plot in a press release. Hilmar and Sheehan have the chemistry of a brother and sister who don’t particularly know or care for each other.

Make a movie about Shrike and Hester that is part Leon The Professional and part steampunk Terminator Judgment Day and you’ve got yourself quite a movie. Unfortunately, the movie we get isn’t nearly as interesting. The characters do grow on you a little as you get closer to the end of Mortal Engine but there is never a moment where they stand apart from or above the monstrous and inhuman CGI.

Even the most skillful computer generated image cannot compete with our connection to another human being. Say what you will about the creation of Gollum in Lord of the Rings or Caesar in the modern Planet of the Apes, they are nothing without the humanity of Andy Serkis behind them. We’re supposed to be impressed by the massive moving cities and the bizarre airships and weapons of mass destruction but without characters we care about around them, it’s like watching a very expensive live action cartoon, minus the laughs.

I have nothing against the young actors in Mortal Engines, they do what they can with these thin characters. The problem is director Christian Rivers who assumes we care about these characters without giving us a reason to care. Rivers has a habit of introducing characters as if their faces matter to the moment. When we meet Tom and we meet Hester, we get reveals of their faces as if we are supposed to recognize them but we don’t.

It’s not the actors fault, they are just not known to most of us watching this movie. Perhaps audiences in Iceland will cheer when Ms Hilmar’s face is revealed for the first time but most Americans will be trying to place her. Sheehan has the bland good looks of an English Justin Long but he lacks any of that actor's modest charisma and likability. One actor, who I can’t even find in the IMDB cast list, is given a reveal as if we are absolutely supposed to recognize him, the camera lingers on his face and he kind of looks like actors we’ve seen before but he isn’t and we're left to wonder. 

I don’t understand many of the choices made regarding Mortal Engines but most especially, I don’t understand the title. I have seen the entire movie and I assumed at some point the title would come to make a semblance of sense. But no, at no point does anyone bother to give a reason for the movie to be called Mortal Engines. I could make something up perhaps but I honestly don’t care enough about this movie to try that hard.

Mortal Engines are far from terrible. It’s competent and passes by well enough. It’s expensive and the expense is all on the screen in the high end CGI but there isn’t anything compelling enough to recommend you spend money on it. The characters are thin and dull, the romance is DOA and the action is of a kind you could get in any of a dozen movies you might actually enjoy and connect with.

The biggest sin of Mortal Engines however, is creating a better movie within their bad movie and leaving us so unsatisfied as we dream of what could have been. No joke, that Shrike and Hester movie had so much potential. Shrike is the best character in Mortal Engines and he’s not even real. He’s given more human qualities and dimension than the male romantic lead and his tragic backstory combined with Hester’s has a depth and complexity the rest of Mortal Engines can’t begin to evoke. I hate Mortal Engines for not being about Shrike and Hester.

Movie Review Morning Glory

Morning Glory (2010) 

Directed by Roger Mitchell 

Written by Aline Brosh McKenna 

Starring Rachel McAdams, Harrison Ford, Diane Keaton, Patrick Wilson, Jeff Goldblum 

Release Date November 10th, 2010 

Published November 9th, 2010

Can one woman cure the ills of a last place network morning show through the sheer force of her adorable-ness? One might also ask can an actress cure the ills of a troubled dramatic comedy through that same adorable-ness? The answer to both questions, based on the movie “Morning Glory,” is a shocking, yes.

Rachel McAdams is so vibrant, energetic and adorable that she wills this otherwise rickety dramatic comedy; the definition of that oh so vague, made up term ‘dramedy,’ into becoming a sweet, endearing romance of woman and her work oh and yeah there is this pretty guy in there too.

Rachel McAdams stars in “Morning Glory” as Becky, an adorable whirlwind of a TV news producer who, when we meet her, is on the verge of a promotion. Or so she thought. Turns out she was being fired due to budget cuts. As with all plucky movie heroines however this is merely a speed bump on the way to the job she needs.

After a comically fraught job search in which our peppy wannabe big city gal irritates the entire news infrastructure by reading her resume, she finally gets an interview. The job is with the 4th place network in America, IBS, as executive producer of the lowest rated morning show on network TV.

Her new boss, Jeff Goldblum, in all his Goldblum-y glory, has zero confidence that she can turn the show around but she can’t make it any worse. Or can she? On her first day Becky fires the co-anchor; a sadly under-used Ty Burrell from TV’s Modern Family, despite his irreconcilable contract and leaves the show minus its required male co-host.

Ahh, but our heroine has a plan; on the IBS payroll is a news legend that due to his multi-million dollar contract has to work or not get paid. Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford) was demoted from Nightly News Anchor because of his bad attitude and slight drinking problem. Nevertheless, he’s a big name with a long track record that would be a perfect opposite to bubbly co-host Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton).

Unfortunately for Becky even if he has to by contract, Mike Pomeroy doesn’t want to do morning news. He refuses cooking segments, entertainment interviews and basically anything that your average morning news shows do. Mike longs for the days of actual journalism but as Becky correctly points out, the battle between news and ‘info-tainment’ was fought long ago and Mike’s side lost.

Can the plucky upstart wear down the cantankerous superstar while rescuing the floundering show and corralling a new boyfriend, a fellow news producer played in perfect bland handsomeness by Patrick Wilson? Admittedly, the stakes aren’t all that high but star Rachel McAdams makes each feel like an urgent concern.

This is the Rachel McAdams many thought was coming when she starred as the lead ‘Mean Girl’ opposite Lindsey Lohan or when she battled Cillian Murphy in the innovative thriller “Red Eye.” McAdams has wandered in the woods the past few years starring in junk like “The Time Traveler’s Wife” and seeming to crush her potential with poor choices.

Apparently, McAdams was just waiting for writer Aline Brosh McKenna and Roger Mitchell to give her something she could really play. Play it she does in “Morning Glory” amping up the kind of adorable that would shame puppies and kitties and yet remaining sexy instead of merely cute and substantial rather than just perky. No matter how delightfully scattered Becky is, McAdams infuses her with bright ingenuity and can-do capability.

The rest of “Morning Glory” is riddled with trouble. Harrison Ford is the least likely network news star since Howard Beale and even more cantankerous. Sure, Ford projects a stately air but with his gritted teeth growl it’s hard to believe that even news junkies took to his Mike Pomeroy, no matter if he was on a battlefield in Kosovo or opposite the President.

Diane Keaton plays cute and clueless a la Kathie Lee Gifford quite well but don’t do not consider her character’s back story for too long as it reveals inconsistencies the story cannot explain. Patrick Wilson’s handsome love interest guy is less problematic; he’s merely under-written and called upon to make uncomfortable attitude turns simply because of plot requirements. But other than that, he’s fine.

“Morning Glory” is riddled with all sorts of minor potholes, including a rather arrogant attitude about morning news shows, but Rachel McAdams overcomes all of those troubles by making the movie all about how plucky, adorable, sexy and smart her character is. She is so winning that we can forgive all of the problems around her which are almost meta when you consider the troubles piled up around both character and actress.

Not kidding at all dear reader, Rachel McAdams deserves an Oscar nomination for “Morning Glory.” Any actress who only through the awesome appeal of her performance can turn around an entire movie at least deserves to be in the Best Actress conversation and McAdams does that in “Morning Glory.”