Movies

After a few days displeasure at not having been in attendance at the midnight showing as the movie opened, I finally got the chance to see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

This is the movie based upon the fourth installment of J.K. Rowling's ever-popular series. In this volume we see Harry Potter compete in the Tri-Wizard Tournament and in the movie we see little else.

I will not launch into my usual diatribe about the slaughter of innocent literary beauty for the betterment of cinema. For once I will spare you. I am trying to get better. Happy now?

With more than 700 pages of text to tackle, it is just not feasible to bring it all to the screen. It is a fact of life, one that I am trying to come to terms with. I tried not to focus on things that were different between the two versions but one thing that I cannot get past is simply how some scenes are stretched out and I blame Peter Jackson and George Lucas for giving us this new trend towards panoramic views and hard dramatic pauses. My only question is why can't you eliminate one or sixteen of those and add just one of the details you left out of the book?

With the movie being so directed towards the Tri-Wizard Tournament, there is little time for the furtherance of any characters or relationships between them. Regarding characters, here are my feelings on the movie:

1) Just take out the scene with Sirius in the fire. You never once talked about who he was, nor the relationship he has with Harry. You rely solely on the viewers having seen the previous movie(s). Odds are they have seen them, I understand that. Not only was he not brought up later, but the only thing of note that he tells Harry during their talk is to keep his friends close. The irony of this comment was lost on Harry as he was feuding with Ron and it seemed lost on the audience as well. This scene was essentially worthless.

2) What a great job this movie did in really letting the two young men who play the twins shine! The boys who play Fred and George Weasley were very well used in this, the fourth movie. They are practically the only two characters who are allowed to blossom. These two have really done an outstanding job as Fred and George in all of the movies, but in number 4 more than in the others you see how charming they can be; a trait very central to the characters they portray.

3) What a dweeb Cedric Diggory was. He makes a huge splash at the beginning of the movie as our heroes head to the portkey on the hill. He drops out of the tree because...well I guess because that is what big men on campus do. His character is what I feel is best equated to the star high school quarterback. Athletic, good looking, charismatic... When introduced, you have the impression he is each of those things and more. As the movie progresses he bears more and more resemblance to Edward, Prince of Wales, son of Longshanks, King of England in the movie Braveheart. No, that is not a positive comparison.

4) While the argument can be made that Richard Harris was just better suited for the role than Michael Gambon, I think that is not the point. The point is that the character of Albus Dumbledore just does not translate well. Take him off the page and he is a fish out of water flopping around on screen. The Headmaster of the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry has such a presence. Without having read the books you may not understand that there is no better word for it, and to use presence I find is rather perfect.

5) Though I cannot think of anything that could have been better, I thought the makeup done for He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was pretty weak. He is the most powerful wizard ever, right? Can't we make him look a little more intimidating and less like a slimy version of Beast in the old Beauty & The Beast TV series.

6) Was it me or did the students from Durmslang (Viktor Krum and his classmates) dress more like Klingons than Wizards?

Anyway, I did like the movie. I know after reading above you doubt that somewhat, but believe me. For at last the first five-sixths of it, the makers of the movie had me on the edge of my seat as the author does with each page of her books. For the remaining one-sixth...the movie just ended too abruptly. The tournament is over and all of a sudden so is the movie.

Overall: good film. The question was posed to me after seeing it was which of the four movies is my favorite. My answer is as non-committal as I always am. The movies are just too hard to compare. The first two really do such an excellent job of setting the mood of the fun and magic that is not just Harry Potter, but the fun and magic of the stories created by J.K. Rowling as well. Meaning that the stories are fun, but so is the feeling generated by them. I felt the need to separate the two for emphasis, get over it. The third movie (other than being not good) begins to really set the tone. The story moves much more quickly after the first two books. That was evident in the third movie and would have been if they had incorporated more of the story from the book in the fourth (ok ok, that was a cheap shot, I am sorry).

| Discuss it |

Will Ferrell's trademark off-the-wall lunacy kicks in for a comedy sure to score big with the whole family! Phil Weston (Ferrell) is a mild-mannered suburban dad - who's suddenly transformed into a caffeine-fueled sports maniac when he becomes the coach of his son's unruly soccer team. But when the championship pits Phil's underdog team against the squad coached by his own domineering dad (Oscar winner Robert Duvall), it's game on for the most uproarious mismatch of the season! Suit up for fun, Ferrell-style, with the comedy Ebert & Roeper give "Two Thumbs Up!"

Recipe to make Kicking & Screaming:
Take 3 parts Mighty Ducks add equal parts of Bad News Bears and Little Giants. Mix well in a bowl and add a splash of soccer. Let sit overnight.

They even did the Flying V! Why wasn't Emelio Estevez cast in this movie? At least give the guy a cameo...

I am sorry, but I was not entertained by this movie. My expectations were low, and even they were not met. I laughed at two, maybe three parts, but that was all. More than anything, the feeling that came over me was one of anxious anticipation of the end credits. I guess if you have little kids this could be a fun movie but even in that vein I think it was still too shallow.

Will Ferrell takes over as head coach of his son's soccer team when the regular coach leaves his post. With no qualifications except being the son of a good soccer coach, he starts from square one. The lesson is not to get too competitive in sports and to always remember to have fun on the field, but they really did a poor job of relaying this message. To help teach the boys how to play well and together Ferrell enlists the aid of his father's neighbor (an NFL hall of fame coach) who brings little more to the picture than his name, but he does help Ferrell pick up a nasty addiction to coffee.

The caffeine habit Ferrell develops was absolutely pointless to the story. Not only did it not add humor, but I think it only was in the story as filler. How do you make a short movie a little longer? Why not add a few scenes in a coffee shop? I know I am reaching a bit here, but if this was an attempt to make kids not want to drink coffee I would wonder how they received funding to make this movie.

Overall the movie was not horrible. I watched it with my sister and she enjoyed it. She said she was entertained the whole time. I was not, but we can't win them all.

What kind of favor do you owe someone when you, as Robert Duvall, agree to make a movie like this? "Hi, I'm Robert Duvall, maybe you have seen one of the movies I was in. Godfather? Apocalypse Now? Kicking & Screaming?" Here is how that is acceptable: "Grandpa, will you make a movie with Will Ferrell?" Done.

Don't see Kicking & Screaming. Just let it fade into the annals of cinematic history as it if never happened. And yes, I do realize that I was far too critical of a kids movie.

| Buy it from Amazon | Discuss it |

Hotel Rwanda

Don Cheadle gives "the performance of a lifetime" (Los Angeles Times) in this "remarkable" (Newsweek) and "profoundly affecting" (Houston Chronicle) true story of one man's brave stance against savagery during the 1994 Rwandan conflict. Co-starring Sophie Okonedo and Nick Nolte, Hotel Rwanda is "the kind of film that can change the world" (Joel Siegel, "Good Morning America").

As his country descends into madness, five-star-hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina (Cheadle) sets out to save his family. But when he sees that the world will not intervene in the massacre of minority Tutsis, he finds the courage to open his hotel to over 1,200 refugees. Now, with a rabid militia at the gates, he has only his wits and words to help keep them alive another hour...another day...

| Buy it from Amazon | Discuss it |

An aspiring film maker struggles against his own personal demons as well as external forces. In his quest to make his first feature length film we see how he encounters influence of drugs, alcohol, gambling, a dysfunctional family, and his own poverty.

To raise the capital for his first movie, he decides he must complete the short he started 10 years earlier, "Coven". "Coven" is in line with the short films he has made growing up and they are all the model for the full length movie he wants to make in the future. His genre is "B" Horror flicks.

He enlists the aid of friends to help as stand in extras, stage hands and film editors. Everyone is inspired by his determination to see the project through to the end and they never give up on him, though sometimes it was not easy to stay.

I had a class my senior year of college with a kid who suggested that I see this movie. I believe his words were something to the effect of "It's awesome." I must apologize to him for I must have missed something huge, for it fell well short of the billing he gave it.

Not even I can deny the impressive nature of Mark's (our struggling film maker) character. He is so driven to make his movie(s)...that or equally as driven to not work 8-5 in the factory. His knowledge of what it takes to actually make a movie seems a bit wasted on the crew with which he surrounded himself, but you get what you pay for I guess.

I enjoyed a laugh or two at how absolutely obscene the language could be between Mark and his family and friends. I fought with my own sense of political correctness as I tried not to laugh at one character's stories of substance abuse. Truth be told, that was the funniest part of the movie, but how horrible is it to laugh at someone sharing that part of their life?

I was entertained, but I just don't think that is enough for me to suggest this as a "Watch" movie. Though something inside me leads me to believe that I might take some criticism for this one. If you end up in a situation when someone has it and wants to watch it, go nuts. But there is no need to seek it out.

| Buy it from Amazon | Discuss it | Official site |

A woman, psychiatrist by day and best-selling author by night, gets caught up when one of her patients confides in her that he is in trouble. She promises to help him, but what can she do to make a $25,000 gambling debt disappear? Seemingly without alternative, she goes to see Mike, the man to whom the money is owed, in his club, The House of Games.

For helping Mike in a matter concerning a poker game she had interrupted with her visit, he agrees to forgive the debt her patient owes. Almost from the minute she meets him she begins a new education and a relationship develops between them of teacher and student; one with an overwhelming desire to learn, the other with a tremendous wealth of experience in the confidence game. At her request, Mike begins to teach her the ropes; a few parlor tricks at first before she finds herself in the middle of one of Mike's biggest scores.

Though the movie came out in 1987, it has only been on my radar for about two years. Back in Philadelphia, a good friend (Dr. Bob) would hold "movie night" at his house periodically. One night I had the honor of introducing the movie Confidence, one of my favorites, to the others. When it was over, I believe the gentleman's name was Bill who suggested to me that I see House of Games. It took me awhile, but I finally got around to it.

If you could not tell from the brief synopsis I wrote above, the movie is about the art of the con, grifting, the confidence game, call it whatever you want. Many movies have been made on the subject, some better than others. A few I would recommend to you are Confidence, The Sting and Matchstick Men (in that order). If you are interested in the genre, or maybe you just like David Mamet movies, I also recommend House of Games.

I do not normally like the work Joe Mantegna does, unfortunately. I do think he did very well in this movie (as Mike), all things considered. Overall the acting was pretty bad, but your primary focus should be the story which I thought was very well thought out. It does make you wonder if Mamet or co-writer Jonathan Katz had a bad experience with a psychiatrist which led to the exploitation of any parallels between psychiatry and grifting...

I liked House of Games.

| Buy it from Amazon | Discuss it |

Danny Deckchair is the story of an atypical cement worker from Australia. Despite his occasional wild idea, his girlfriend refers to him as one of the little people. She needs a little more excitement in her life. Learning this, however by accident, sends Danny into an emotional whirlwind. He devises his next big plan: to strap large helium-filled balloons to his deckchair until he can actually lift off the ground. His plan goes awry and before he knows what happened Danny is soaring among the clouds without his means of getting back down.

Danny Morgan, now the media darling "Danny Deckchair", has gone missing after his hair brained scheme floated him away. No one knows what happened to him. They have no idea that he landed in a far off town full of people who like to live as simply as he.

The race is on, two-fold. One part is the effort by his girlfriend to find him again (since he is now big news, a somebody), and the second is by Danny to remain relatively unknown to his new friends and thus able to leave his old life behind.

Danny Morgan is played by Rhys Ifans, maybe best known for his role in Notting Hill as Spike, Hugh Grant's flatmate. If you are familiar with any of his other work, you probably are not surprised when I tell you how well I thought he did. He has a very likeable on screen presence.

I do not want to inflate anyone's expectations (pun intended, sorry), but I was very impressed by Danny Deckchair. It had been awhile since I had seen a movie I enjoyed as much as this. Fun story. Funny movie. I liked this one. Check it out.

| Buy it from Amazon | Discuss it |

Harrison Ford and River Phoenix star in a movie (directed by Peter Weir) about civilization. The movie starts as Phoenix narrates an introduction of his father (Ford). "He dropped out of Harvard, to get an education" (para.). He has a knack for anything mechanical, always inventing. Whereas he could be making millions of dollars from his creations, he works on a farm and tinkers in his spare time. One result of such tinkering is a machine that makes ice from fire, no electricity required. On a whim, he decides to head into the jungle and bring ice to societies that have never known its pleasures.

Mosquito Coast was a title once reviewed in the original forums, but lost in the hack incident. I couldn't remember if it was a positive or negative one, though I know where I will make my stance.

Charlie: My father often talked of things being revealed - that was true invention, he said. Revealing something's use, and magnifying it; discovering its imperfections, improving it, and putting it to work for you. God had left the world incomplete, he said, and it was man's job to understand how it worked, to tinker with it, and to finish it. I think that was why he hated missionaries so much - because they taught people to put up with their earthly burdens. For father, there were no burdens that couldn't be fitted with a set of wheels, or rudders, or a system of pulleys.

Harrison Ford's character could have used his intelligence and creativity to really make a difference in peoples lives, which he did for awhile. Based upon that, I think this movie could have been so much more. I do not want to go into too much detail, but I will tell you that he does become obsessed with his quest to bring ice into the jungle to be set before people who have never experienced such a thing.

Once the conflict arises about whether or not to move back to the United States the movie took a serious downturn. I was relatively entertained up until that point, but not at all after. I found myself unable to avoid feeling embarrassed for Ford's character and the way he acted. I am happy to send this movie back. Bring on the next one. It was not horrible, I just feel as though it fell short. Fell short of what, I am not sure, but it was missing something.

Let me save you the almost 2 hours of your life. Watch something else.

| Buy it from Amazon | Discuss it |