The phenomenal success of J. K. Rowling’s series of novels for children about a boy in a school of wizardry has been augmented by the enormous box office grosses of the film adaptations. Left with the daunting task of maintaining the standards and quality of the previous installments, Director Mike Newell has fashioned in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, a marvelous, visual treat that matches the series’ previous highs.
A new year at Hogwarts brings old faces and some new ones as the school for witchcraft and wizardry is primed for great change and a growing threat. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is shaken by a recurring nightmare as the presence of Lord Voldemort looms ominously, and he summons Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) for advice. Soon a mysterious man, “Mad Eye’ Moody (Brendan Gleeson), arrives to help Harry against the dark forces. The school is preparing for a special gathering of two other schools to compete in a special Tri-Wizard Tournament, a fierce and dangerous competition in which only one older student from each respective school may enter via the Goblet of Fire. Harry becomes involved in the competition to the surprise of everyone including himself. As he and the other students find, the games are immensely formidable with dragons, underwater traps, and an endless maze of hedges. Meanwhile, Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) are experiencing the joys and pain of adolescence as the wonders of high school crushes and the anxiety of the school dance wreak havoc. Even Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) catches the romantic bug. Mistrust and accusations complicate matters for Harry, and Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) expresses his concerns about the future. Before long, Harry, Ron and Hermione bicker amongst themselves as their friendship is severely tested. When the tournament concludes, another set of tragic circumstances opens the way for new evil and betrayal. As the elder wizards (Gambon, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman) close ranks to protect the students especially Harry, the future remains uncertain at best.
Ironically, Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) is the first British director of the series, and, while he had the difficult challenge of continuing the series, he has added some nice wrinkles and touches by delving deeper into the emotional conflicts of these students. In fact, the maturation and changes these teens must encounter richly add to the already exciting story. We root for these heroes and feel their discomfort and pain because we have in a sense grown up with them. As with any Harry Potter storyline, not all the characters are good and, conversely, not all the suspicious ones are bad. Several plotlines are carried over from the previous films and new ones are primed for future sequels. Screenwriter Steven Kloves, the keeper of the flame, has done a herculean job of distilling the essence of Rowling’s novels into each film thus far.
As always, the trio of young actors, Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint, own these roles, and the thought of replacing any of them due to age concerns was unnecessary. All three look great as they are now a little older and wiser. Of course, Gambon, Smith, Rickman, and Coltrane are the old pros who are the constants at Hogwarts. Ralph Fiennes is perfectly suited for his villainous turn in the startling climax. Brendan Gleeson does a fine job as the menacing, yet benevolent ‘Mad Eye’ Moody who supposedly watches over Harry during the tournament. It also seems that the most recent Harry Potter film is becoming quite an international event as the cast of students is even more ethnically diverse than ever before.
As usual, the production values are outstanding with lavish sets and costumes imaginatively photographed by Roger Pratt. The special effects are quite impressive although nothing that you haven’t already seen in the Lord of the Rings trilogy or the Star Wars sextet. Just the generous details and little touches throughout the film like the animated paintings add to the overall care that still goes into these films. Make no mistake, this is a lengthy film, but the pacing is good as a large number of scenes are strung back to back to contain as much of the book as possible into roughly two and a half hours. It feels a bit episodic but never loses sight of the main story and the emotional state of the characters.
There are creepy images and a foreboding atmosphere through much of the film. This adaptation does contain more risqué scenes such as Harry’s bathtub scene or the terrifying menace of Voldemort, in which the tone gets downright mean-spirited. The students are not so innocent anymore as they curse, and in one climactic scene come face to face with the pain of loss. A PG13 rating signals that the Potter adventures are growing up fast.
It does require that the audience have a background in the series of books or films to fully appreciate the significance of critical events, although the film can stand on its own as pure entertainment and a coming of age. In some ways Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a classic bridge episode similar to The Empire Strikes Back. Not only is it a strong entry in the series with the most open ended finale yet, it proves a good setup for some potentially exciting things to come. Harry’s next adventure can’t come soon enough!
***1/2 of **** stars
Vertigo
Vertigo
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
JARHEAD’s Dogs of War
The first Gulf War in Iraq has been an occasional subject matter of films, but not until Jarhead has a bona fide story emerged which captures the experience and heartache as told by director Sam Mendes. Although Mendes has never been able to match the heights of American Beauty, he does an effective job of making the audience a participant in the rigors of desert warfare.
Raw recruits are thrust into rough, basic training (at times with tragic results) as they are prepared for duty in Iraq. Among them are Anthony Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Troy (Peter Sarsgaard). Drill Sgt. Siek (Jamie Foxx) whips the young men into soldiers as they are deployed in the Persian Gulf with the imminent threat of war. This is a rough life with constant humiliation and hazing. Then comes Operation Desert Shield with the endless training, waiting, monotony, and more time away from family and home where wives and girlfriends lose touch or stray. Such is the hapless life of the grunt. A hostile terrain such as dirty oil fields adds to the isolation and need for rebellious acts to mitigate frustration. Swofford and Troy are groomed to be snipers, and when their opportunity comes in Operation Desert Storm, they are more than ready until they are dealt an unexpected turn of events.
The recurring phrase or motif in the film is “Welcome to the suck.” That about sums up what these men are put through. Adapted by William Broyles Jr. from Swofford’s own real life experiences, it is an uncompromising recreation of ‘the suck’. Mendes is content to show you what it was like but never dwells on any one scene longer than needed to get his point across.
Told essentially from his point of view, the film opens and closes with a telling monologue by Swofford that sums up his experience. He and Troy form the nucleus of the film’s conscience and soul. Swofford made the mistake of signing up while Troy is the ironic soldier who wants to fight a war but is thwarted by bureaucracy. The film does ring true in its depiction of the preparation for warfare with the heavy toll it takes on the soldiers and their personal lives. Periodically, an onscreen tag will appear to list the number of days the surging numbers of troops were in Iraq (5000 troops increases to 575,000 troops in 175 days), which helps put the events in perspective. This film demythologizes war and instead presents war as a difficult and often life changing experience resulting not from actual combat, but from the tedium and loneliness.
It is important to note that although Swofford shows a dislike for this man’s army, he continues to do as he is told. This apolitical film does not really take a stance on the war. We really don’t get enough background on Swofford or Troy to understand what makes these men tick. Rather, we are left with what they experience and how they respond on a superficial level. Troy comes across as inconsistent and his motivations are questionable. While the evolution of their relationship doesn’t always make sense, the film still packs an emotional punch. About two-thirds through, the film’s momentum begins to lose some steam and direction. There is also a sad event toward the end that is never fully explained.
Gyllenhaal (Proof, Donnie Darko) is showing good maturity as an actor, and Sarsgaard (Kinsey) is effective as his closest buddy. Jamie Foxx (Ray) registers quite convincingly as the leader of this bunch. Dennis Haysbert and Chris Cooper have short but effective moments as commanding officers with axes to grind.
Although movies have been set in the Iraqi conflict like Three Kings, this film deals directly with the soldiers who must do the dirty work. In some ways this film shares a pedigree with an ensemble piece like Battleground. There are allusions to the Vietnam War particularly at the end involving a Vietnam veteran and also in clips from Vietnam movies like Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter. The early drills recall some of the most harrowing moments from Full Metal Jacket with the verbal insults and discipline. In fact, some of the vicious lines are hysterically funny. It’s certainly a far cry from An Officer and Gentlemen. Like the soldiers at the beginning of Born on the Fourth of July, they go in wide eyed, full of optimism, and ready for action. Instead, what they find is something that beats their spirits down. In a way, the structure of vignettes and random incidents is similar to The Big Red One without the periodic voiceover. Pop songs of the era are matched perfectly to scenes. Technical aspects are good including the camera work and editing. There are some memorable images including an eerie scene where the patrol comes upon a charred caravan of vehicles with burned, Iraqi people.
Jarhead is not a perfect film, but it is well acted and pulls no punches on what it must have been like in Iraq. Those looking for an action packed war film will be severely disappointed and let down. Except for some character inconsistencies, it is a realistic study in the psychological toll that military life takes on a human being.
*** of **** stars
Raw recruits are thrust into rough, basic training (at times with tragic results) as they are prepared for duty in Iraq. Among them are Anthony Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Troy (Peter Sarsgaard). Drill Sgt. Siek (Jamie Foxx) whips the young men into soldiers as they are deployed in the Persian Gulf with the imminent threat of war. This is a rough life with constant humiliation and hazing. Then comes Operation Desert Shield with the endless training, waiting, monotony, and more time away from family and home where wives and girlfriends lose touch or stray. Such is the hapless life of the grunt. A hostile terrain such as dirty oil fields adds to the isolation and need for rebellious acts to mitigate frustration. Swofford and Troy are groomed to be snipers, and when their opportunity comes in Operation Desert Storm, they are more than ready until they are dealt an unexpected turn of events.
The recurring phrase or motif in the film is “Welcome to the suck.” That about sums up what these men are put through. Adapted by William Broyles Jr. from Swofford’s own real life experiences, it is an uncompromising recreation of ‘the suck’. Mendes is content to show you what it was like but never dwells on any one scene longer than needed to get his point across.
Told essentially from his point of view, the film opens and closes with a telling monologue by Swofford that sums up his experience. He and Troy form the nucleus of the film’s conscience and soul. Swofford made the mistake of signing up while Troy is the ironic soldier who wants to fight a war but is thwarted by bureaucracy. The film does ring true in its depiction of the preparation for warfare with the heavy toll it takes on the soldiers and their personal lives. Periodically, an onscreen tag will appear to list the number of days the surging numbers of troops were in Iraq (5000 troops increases to 575,000 troops in 175 days), which helps put the events in perspective. This film demythologizes war and instead presents war as a difficult and often life changing experience resulting not from actual combat, but from the tedium and loneliness.
It is important to note that although Swofford shows a dislike for this man’s army, he continues to do as he is told. This apolitical film does not really take a stance on the war. We really don’t get enough background on Swofford or Troy to understand what makes these men tick. Rather, we are left with what they experience and how they respond on a superficial level. Troy comes across as inconsistent and his motivations are questionable. While the evolution of their relationship doesn’t always make sense, the film still packs an emotional punch. About two-thirds through, the film’s momentum begins to lose some steam and direction. There is also a sad event toward the end that is never fully explained.
Gyllenhaal (Proof, Donnie Darko) is showing good maturity as an actor, and Sarsgaard (Kinsey) is effective as his closest buddy. Jamie Foxx (Ray) registers quite convincingly as the leader of this bunch. Dennis Haysbert and Chris Cooper have short but effective moments as commanding officers with axes to grind.
Although movies have been set in the Iraqi conflict like Three Kings, this film deals directly with the soldiers who must do the dirty work. In some ways this film shares a pedigree with an ensemble piece like Battleground. There are allusions to the Vietnam War particularly at the end involving a Vietnam veteran and also in clips from Vietnam movies like Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter. The early drills recall some of the most harrowing moments from Full Metal Jacket with the verbal insults and discipline. In fact, some of the vicious lines are hysterically funny. It’s certainly a far cry from An Officer and Gentlemen. Like the soldiers at the beginning of Born on the Fourth of July, they go in wide eyed, full of optimism, and ready for action. Instead, what they find is something that beats their spirits down. In a way, the structure of vignettes and random incidents is similar to The Big Red One without the periodic voiceover. Pop songs of the era are matched perfectly to scenes. Technical aspects are good including the camera work and editing. There are some memorable images including an eerie scene where the patrol comes upon a charred caravan of vehicles with burned, Iraqi people.
Jarhead is not a perfect film, but it is well acted and pulls no punches on what it must have been like in Iraq. Those looking for an action packed war film will be severely disappointed and let down. Except for some character inconsistencies, it is a realistic study in the psychological toll that military life takes on a human being.
*** of **** stars
Literary Classic Shines in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE
Author Jane Austen has been a popular source of material for recent films and television miniseries. Her free spirited, individual women who search for happiness amid ignorance and old fashioned conduct are refreshing even by today’s standards. What’s pleasantly surprising is that Austen’s stories about manners, loyalty, honor, love, and betrayal have a universal appeal and a timeless quality amid a vivid period setting. A good example is Pride and Prejudice, which features thoughtful direction, a strong cast, and an impressive turn by its star, Keira Knightley.
In 18th century England, the Bennet family consists of a mother, (Brenda Blethyn), father (Donald Sutherland), and their many daughters including eldest Jane (Rosamund Pike) and the most independent-minded, Elizabeth (Keira Knightley). Desperate to marry her daughters to wealthy bachelors, mom will manipulate an event like the upcoming ball to play matchmaker. Enter the mysterious Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen) and his friend, Mr. Bingley, who are well-to-do and seeking a female date for the latter. Jane and Bingley seem to hit it off and another ball ensues at the Bingley estate. Meanwhile, the seemingly indifferent Darcy takes note of the free spirited Elizabeth. Gossip and rumors abound. When a soldier, Mr. Wickham, appears to woo Elizabeth and relays a tale of betrayal at the hands of Darcy, Elizabeth begins to despise Darcy. There later appears a cousin, Mr. Collins, who is heir to the Bennet fortunes and is searching for a bride to be. The problem is that Collins is hopelessly unappealing especially to the object of his affection, Elizabeth, much to the annoyance of Mrs. Bennet. Elizabeth finds herself still seemingly attracted again to Mr. Darcy when their paths cross by accident. Add to the complications the intentions of wealthy Lady Catherine de Bourg (Judi Dench), who has designs on Darcy for her younger girl, and you have a dramatic interweaving of a complex study of romance in which lovers fall from grace and reconnect.
Numerous versions of Austen’s novel have been filmed including the Laurence Olivier version from 1940 and a British television series with Colin Firth (ironically cast as a similarly named and etched character, Mark Darcy, from Bridget Jones’s Diary). TV veterans, director Joe Wright and screenwriter Deborah Moggach, do an impressive job of adapting the novel with good clarity of drama and moments of humor. It doesn’t feel like a book but rather an organic, filmic event, no small feat. This is not a ‘dumbed’ down version but a contemporary translation done with the right balance of reverence to the source material while making it accessible to modern day audiences.
Elizabeth is the kind of heroine who can think for herself at a time when women were not accorded many freedoms. She is cool as a proverbial cucumber as she makes a first impression on Darcy, and you feel an interest in how these two souls will come together despite some formidable obstacles along the way. It’s a delightful premise, and part of the fun is how this storyline and several other threads will develop. It is refreshing in any film to see how major characters will challenge an audience by evolving over the course of the story instead of remaining static.
Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean) at 20 is displaying the beginnings of a long, versatile career as a dependable actress who can tackle such prestigious material as this. In fact, her performance is not unlike the impressive turn of young Kate Winslet in Sense and Sensibility. MacFadyen is effective as Darcy, an aloof, cold fish when we first meet him. Blethyn (Secrets and Lies) is always good, and here she romps as the scheming mother. Sutherland, as the oblivious father, seems to fit period pieces quite well (Start the Revolution Without Me). Dench is always in command whenever she is on screen although it is a minor role. Rosamund Pike (Die Another Day) shows she can do more than action films.
Sure, there are minor plot holes and some inconsistencies in the characters, but the main themes work. The dialogue is proper, old English, and it takes a little time to get up to speed in deciphering the accents. The pace drags slightly toward the end, but it finishes with a nice flourish of resolution and optimism. Its dreamy ending will set hearts swooning and minds wandering to an elegant, romantic era.
The film has a natural, vivid sense of time and place. People bow and curtsey displaying all the proper mannerisms of the time. The cinematography is beautiful amid the English countryside and mansions. The extras are a realistic mixture of handsome faces and plain ones. Likewise, the interiors of the homes look worn and lived in. The balls are realistically choreographed in a manner reminiscent of TV’s Hill Street Blues where people come and go out of frame and others move throughout a fluid camera shot. Transitions that show a passage of time are cleverly done.
Pride and Prejudice is a worthy companion to 1995’s Sense and Sensibility. Don’t expect a boring film but rather a well paced drama with dashes of humor and heartfelt relationships. It not only proves that older, literary material can be brought to life cinematically without being stuffy, but that Knightley has emerged as a force to be reckoned with.
***1/2 of **** stars (especially for classic romance fans)
In 18th century England, the Bennet family consists of a mother, (Brenda Blethyn), father (Donald Sutherland), and their many daughters including eldest Jane (Rosamund Pike) and the most independent-minded, Elizabeth (Keira Knightley). Desperate to marry her daughters to wealthy bachelors, mom will manipulate an event like the upcoming ball to play matchmaker. Enter the mysterious Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen) and his friend, Mr. Bingley, who are well-to-do and seeking a female date for the latter. Jane and Bingley seem to hit it off and another ball ensues at the Bingley estate. Meanwhile, the seemingly indifferent Darcy takes note of the free spirited Elizabeth. Gossip and rumors abound. When a soldier, Mr. Wickham, appears to woo Elizabeth and relays a tale of betrayal at the hands of Darcy, Elizabeth begins to despise Darcy. There later appears a cousin, Mr. Collins, who is heir to the Bennet fortunes and is searching for a bride to be. The problem is that Collins is hopelessly unappealing especially to the object of his affection, Elizabeth, much to the annoyance of Mrs. Bennet. Elizabeth finds herself still seemingly attracted again to Mr. Darcy when their paths cross by accident. Add to the complications the intentions of wealthy Lady Catherine de Bourg (Judi Dench), who has designs on Darcy for her younger girl, and you have a dramatic interweaving of a complex study of romance in which lovers fall from grace and reconnect.
Numerous versions of Austen’s novel have been filmed including the Laurence Olivier version from 1940 and a British television series with Colin Firth (ironically cast as a similarly named and etched character, Mark Darcy, from Bridget Jones’s Diary). TV veterans, director Joe Wright and screenwriter Deborah Moggach, do an impressive job of adapting the novel with good clarity of drama and moments of humor. It doesn’t feel like a book but rather an organic, filmic event, no small feat. This is not a ‘dumbed’ down version but a contemporary translation done with the right balance of reverence to the source material while making it accessible to modern day audiences.
Elizabeth is the kind of heroine who can think for herself at a time when women were not accorded many freedoms. She is cool as a proverbial cucumber as she makes a first impression on Darcy, and you feel an interest in how these two souls will come together despite some formidable obstacles along the way. It’s a delightful premise, and part of the fun is how this storyline and several other threads will develop. It is refreshing in any film to see how major characters will challenge an audience by evolving over the course of the story instead of remaining static.
Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean) at 20 is displaying the beginnings of a long, versatile career as a dependable actress who can tackle such prestigious material as this. In fact, her performance is not unlike the impressive turn of young Kate Winslet in Sense and Sensibility. MacFadyen is effective as Darcy, an aloof, cold fish when we first meet him. Blethyn (Secrets and Lies) is always good, and here she romps as the scheming mother. Sutherland, as the oblivious father, seems to fit period pieces quite well (Start the Revolution Without Me). Dench is always in command whenever she is on screen although it is a minor role. Rosamund Pike (Die Another Day) shows she can do more than action films.
Sure, there are minor plot holes and some inconsistencies in the characters, but the main themes work. The dialogue is proper, old English, and it takes a little time to get up to speed in deciphering the accents. The pace drags slightly toward the end, but it finishes with a nice flourish of resolution and optimism. Its dreamy ending will set hearts swooning and minds wandering to an elegant, romantic era.
The film has a natural, vivid sense of time and place. People bow and curtsey displaying all the proper mannerisms of the time. The cinematography is beautiful amid the English countryside and mansions. The extras are a realistic mixture of handsome faces and plain ones. Likewise, the interiors of the homes look worn and lived in. The balls are realistically choreographed in a manner reminiscent of TV’s Hill Street Blues where people come and go out of frame and others move throughout a fluid camera shot. Transitions that show a passage of time are cleverly done.
Pride and Prejudice is a worthy companion to 1995’s Sense and Sensibility. Don’t expect a boring film but rather a well paced drama with dashes of humor and heartfelt relationships. It not only proves that older, literary material can be brought to life cinematically without being stuffy, but that Knightley has emerged as a force to be reckoned with.
***1/2 of **** stars (especially for classic romance fans)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)