Cloud Atlas

There's a bit of buzz generating around the upcoming epic Cloud Atlas, which is still in the early stages of production. The film seems to be shooting for the biggest possible reception, featuring actors such as Tom Hanks, Hugo Weaving, Hugh Grant, Halle Berry, Susan Sarandon and Jim Broadbent. It's being co-directed by the Wachowskis (the odd pair who made The Matrix) and Tom Twyker (Run Lola Run) and is based on a great piece of enigmatic literature also called Cloud Atlas. There's some concept art at Aint It Cool News but I'm a little concerned that people seem to be fixating on it as a 'science fiction' film. The novel actually takes place across six different time periods, with each period written in a different style, here's a breakdown:1850s Pacific Ocean voyage, written in the style of a historical journal

• 1930s Belgium, written in letters (IE. An epistolary novel)
• 1970s America, written like a pulp detective novel.
• 2000s England, written in the style of a memoir (and later dramatised as a film)
• A couple of centuries into the future in Korea, written as a dystopian novel ala 1984 or Blade Runner.
• In the far future in Hawaii, written in the oral tradition of tribal storytelling but also post-apocalyptic and written in an invented dialect ala Riddley Walker.

So only one third of the story can truly be called 'science fiction'. I can't help but think they'll mess this film up, but I'll be very interested to see how they do it - especially as the book has a rather unique 'russian doll'-like structure.

Danny the Champion of the World

Danny the Champion of the World is probably my favourite Roald Dahl book. I don't claim to have read them all or to be some kind of massive Dahl fan but this one particular book is the one that has resonated the most with me, and stayed in my thoughts past childhood like no other Dahl book.

Danny the Champion of the World seems to get less recognition than some of Dahl's other books... the more well-known Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, BFG, The Twits and The Witches all seem to get mentioned well before Danny. Even James and the Giant Peach gets the goggle-eyes on the kids swivelling around in excitement more than Danny. It could be the lack of fantasy or grotesque elements... Danny has no telekinesis, oompa-loompas, dream-catching giants, disgusting couples or club-footed, bald-headed crones. No, all Danny has is heart.

Danny lives with his father in a caravan. His father used to own a small piece of land once coveted by a greedy and unpleasant man named Mr. Hazel. Mr. Hazel used his various contacts to bully Danny's father off the land so that he could buy it and build a new town. The local villagers don't like Mr. Hazel. Danny's father, quite rightly, bears a grudge against Mr. Hazel and poaches pheasants off Mr. Hazel's land in revenge.

It's a fairly simple story told effectively well in Dahl's own inimitable style. Through Danny's eyes we're introduced to the bitter and unfair world of adults and the all-too-real villainy of Mr. Hazel. Although the events in this book are a good deal more realistic and sombre than those in Dahl's other books, his wickedly anti-authoritarian code of morals still shine through, and it's through Danny that the book's imagination is wielded. As a result, I dare say it's a good deal more uplifting than Dahl's more popular books. It just feels like a more relevant story. I've got nothing against the wonderful Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or the adventuring BFG, it's just that Danny really connected with me.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

After eight big movies and seven even bigger books, the Harry Potter franchise finally draws to a close with this epic destroyer of a film. No one is safe in this installment, major characters die all over the place, Hogwarts is nearly obliterated, and even Harry seems destined for the chop. Director David Yates pulls out all the stops to make this one count, everything he held back from in the past (such as the muted climax of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince) gets let loose in this grand finale. As much as I felt let down by film seven, I have to say that Yates really delivers on the final film - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a worthy finish to the series.

• The mystical and atmospheric beginning is more than a little remniscent of The Lord of the Rings. I think I'll let it slide though, the pomp and seriousness of it seems justified in the wrapping up of eight big films.
• The main set piece that I've been hanging out for since I read the book is the raid on Gringotts Bank. The shackled dragon is awesome realised, even better than I imagined, and I'm glad they got across how sad its predicament was.
• Helena Bonham-Carter does a terrific job of playing Hermione-playing-Bellatrix (for the scene where Hermione uses transmogrification to turn into Bellatrix). You can tell she's taken great care to mimic both Emma Watson and the idea of Emma Watson trying to mimic her. Complicated but cool!
• However, while we're on the subject of transmogrification, why is it that no one ever suspects Harry, Ron and Hermione of not being who they appear to be? The amount of times that they use transmogrification throughout the series suggests that it's fairly easy to do, so why does no one in the wizarding world ever expect it?
• The return to Hogwarts is very welcome. It feels like such a familiar place, and as a fan of the films it's hard not to get attached to it. I also enjoyed the wartime feel they gave to the place, with the clandestine radio broadcasts and Snape's reign of oppression.
• It's also great to see McGonagall back, her scenes during the re-taking of Hogwarts are quite stirring and Maggie Smith steals these moments and seems to be having a lot of fun doing it. It was also strange yet satisfying to see her interact with Harry as an equal.
• Also, hooray for Neville Longbottom, the true hero of Harry Potter. After his small appearances in the last few films it's a relief to see him have more than a few moments of glory.
• I was surprised to see Sprout appear as she hasn't been seen since since Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. It would've been nice if they'd gotten John Cleese back as well, but I guess we can't be too picky about this kind of stuff. I'm amazed that Timothy Spall hung around for all the films as Wormtail, he only really got some decent lines in Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire, after that he was just in the background a lot.
• Aberforth Dumbledore should've been played by someone more famous. Dumbledore was such a big character in the series (arguably the 'biggest' adult character), and so many of the supporting characters in Harry Potter were played by well-known and respected British character actors. It seems a shame to miss an opportunity like this, they could've cast any number of ageing British thespians in the role.
• Of course, the real reason to watch the last Harry Potter film is to see the final stand at Hogwarts. This is a full scale battle, unlike anything else we've seen in any of the other Harry Potter films, and it goes for about half the entire film (if not longer). It's a real spectacle. Top notch stuff.
  

It's hard to concieve that something as jolly and fun as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone could lead to the 'end of days' seen in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, but such is the course of these films. It's quite gory and disturbing in parts (such as the blood-covered Voldemort-baby, looking for all the world like a living abortion), and I definitely wouldn't let young kids watch it. It's a real journey too, watching Harry, Ron and Hermione grow from these little squirts into fully-realised adults, embarking on a range of exhilerating adventures involving all manner of monsters and magical maladies. Much like The Lord of the Rings, I think it's the best possible translation they could've made for the big screen. Sure, there are a few little things that could've been done better (mainly in the first two films), but the level of quality between the later films is pretty hard to fault. Bravo, and bring on the remake in ten to fifteen years time.

DIRECTOR: David Yates
WRITER/SOURCE: Screenplay by Steve Kloves, based on the novel by J. K. Rowling
KEY ACTORS: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Timothy Spall, Michael Gambon, Warwick Davis, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, David Bradley, Ralph Fiennes, Jason Isaacs, Helen McCrory, Nick Moran, Julie Walters, Tom Felton, Helena Bonham-Carter, Bonnie Wright, Matthew Lewis, Mark Williams, David Thewlis, Natalie Tena, James Phelps, Oliver Phelps, Clemence Poesy, John Hurt, Evanna Lynch, Ciarin Hinds, Emma Thompson, Gary Oldman

RELATED TEXTS:
- The novel Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J. K. Rowling
- The other films in this series are; Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1.
- After Potter... Emma Watson appeared in My Week With Marilyn and The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Daniel Radcliffe made The Woman in Black, and Ruper Grint appeared in Into the White. Director David Yates followed up his four-film Potter stint with a WWII drama called St. Nazaire.

AWARDS
Academy Awards - nominated for Best Art Direction, Best Makeup and Best Visual Effects.
BAFTAs - nominated for Best Make-Up, Best Sound, Best Production Design and Best Special Visual Effects.

Moneyball

Ah, America... the land of free enterprise, where money prevails over sportsmanship and fair play. A country where salary caps in sport are considered downright unAmerican. So, if you have a two-bit baseball club with about as much cash as an online businessman, how can you beat that? Moneyball tells the amazing true story of a small fry baseball club who dared to think outside the box in order to compete with the big boys. You don't need to be a sportsfan to appreciate Moneyball, in a way it's more about the talent in recognising groundbreaking ideas and the basic inequity that underlies the Great American Dream. It's also about the unexpected impact of information technology on something that's defiantly rigged in favour of the successful, making the film feel a bit like Jerry Maguire meets The Social Network.

Billy (Brad Pitt) is a team manager lumbered with the Oakland A's, a low budget team with a long history of underperforming. Frustration leads Billy to begin looking at the bigger underlying problem - the disparity between team budgets in America's first grade baseball comp, which causes some friction between himself and the rest of the club's administration. Quite by chance, Billy crosses paths with Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a college economics graduate who has devised a way to to beat the system by using computers and statistics. Together they try to overcome the resistance of the old guard and, as expected, it's quite a struggle.

I know it sounds mildly cliched in the way that all sports films do, but there are a few points of difference in Moneyball. These two guys (Billy and Peter) get together and make these great new ideas happen, and who isn't on board with that? Who doesn't like to see that? Sometimes having a great idea isn't enough on its own, you also need someone who can recognise a talented individual and give them the chance to shake things up. This carries on through to every aspect of the film, it's a movie about embracing change. The Oakdale A's change the way they play the game, Billy even changes the way he personally deals with people by allowing himself to get closer to them, daring to change his own rules to give himself that chance at success. It sounds dorky I know, but this film is a winning piece of motivational propaganda without the drawback of it being obviously motivational.

That aside, I don't know if it's exactly Oscar-winning material. This film... it's not a fillet mignon or a delicate lobster dish, it's more like roast beef and potatoes. You'll feel really good eating it, but it's not something that will be remembered for a long time. There's a certain satisfaction that comes when the naysayers in this film are essentially proven wrong, but I don't know if Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill really do anything intense or different enough to vindicate their Oscar nominations. Hill seems to just be getting by on the novelty of not playing an asshole for once, and with Pitt there's always that little bit of distance in his performance that he never seems to be able to shake with leading roles. He doesn't quite connect emotionally with the audience (at least not with this viewer) and I'd argue that he was a lot better recently in The Tree of Life. In Moneyball he seems to be setting himself up as a inveterate workaholic; a man who always eats on the run. I counted at least six scenes where Pitt eats something while participating in a non-eating related activity (like chowing down on something while having meetings with other characters). It's a pretty strange acting choice, but a quick piece of research turned up this page here, revealing that Brad Pitt tries to work eating-related scenes into all of his films!

DIRECTOR: Bennett Miller
WRITER/SOURCE: Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin, Steven Zaillian and Stan Chervin. Based on a book by Michael Lewis, which was based on real events.
KEY ACTORS: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Robin Wright, Chris Pratt, Jack McGee.

RELATED TEXTS:
- The non-fiction book Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game by Michael Lewis.
- Director Bennett Miller previously came to prominence with the film Capote, which also featured Philip Seymour Hoffman.
- Of the sports films I've seen, I think The Damned United is the most similar film to Moneyball. Some other sports films that might also apply (depending on your taste) include: The Blind Side, Invictus, Warrior, Bull Durham, We Are Marshall, Any Given Sunday and Rudy.

AWARDS
Academy Awards - nominated for Best Film, Best Actor (Brad Pitt), Best Supporting Actor (Jonah Hill), Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing and Best Adapted Screenplay.
AFIs - nominated for Best International Film, Best International Actor (Pitt) and Best International Screenplay.
BAFTAs - nominated for Best Actor (Pitt), Best Supporting Actor (Hill) and Best Adapted Screenplay.
Golden Globes - nominated for Best Film (Drama), Best Actor - Drama (Pitt), Best Supporting Actor (Hill) and Best Screenplay.

Small Town Murder Songs

A hidden indie gem with a great central performance from Peter Stormare, if you're interested in small town crime fiction or slightly-creepy drama then you should get some enjoyment out of this. Stormare is one of those character actors who usually gets cast in weird supporting roles (you might know him from Fargo, Jurassic Park 2 or even his turn as an angry chef in Season 6 of Weeds) so I went into this thinking he would be hamming it up or underplaying it in a desperate attempt to take it seriously. He's actually really good though, completely different to anything I've seen him do before, and it makes me wish he got meatier parts like this more often.

Stormare plays Walter, a small town born-again Christian cop with a dark past. When a dead body turns up in town he finds himself shadowed by FBI agents as he attempts to work his way back into the world he turned his back on, and he must overcome both his troubled past and the prejudices of the townsfolk in this fishbowl of a place. It's a small story, and one primarily informed by character, and some viewers will inevitably draw comparisons with Fargo in the way it combines a quirky self-contained story of murder with folksiness. Small Town Murder Songs does its own thing though, it's more serious, and uses Christian themes and a gospel motif to strike a unique tone of redeption and isolation.

The single best thing about the film is the amazing soundtrack of modern indie gospel songs. They combine with the subject matter to create a gothic/folksy edge, making it feel like a film version of the songs Everything's Turning to White by Paul Kelly and Where the Wild Roses by Nick Cave and Kylie Minogue. And that can't be a bad thing, we need more films like this. I saw Walter's slow-burn resistance to cracking as being similar to Klaus Kinski in the classic Herzog film Woyzeck. For anyone worried about watching a 'Christian' film, it isn't really like that... the Christian stuff is just there to add some colour, it could be any religion or any small faith-based community. It's like a serious snapshot, or a hick-tinged film noir. It's just a good, underrated film.

DIRECTOR: Ed Gass-Donelly
WRITER/SOURCE: Ed Gass-Donnelly
KEY ACTORS: Peter Stormare, Martha Plimpton, Jill Hennessey, Aaron Poole, Amy Rutherford, Jessica Clement, Jackie Burroughs, Stephen Eric McIntyre

RELATED TEXTS:
- Canadian writer-director Ed Gass-Donnelly previously made the Toronto-set film This Beautiful City.
- Other folk film noirs/crime dramas... Frozen River, Fargo, Winter's Bone, Blood Simple and Badlands.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

So, this is the beginning of the end. There was some degree of excitement from Harry Potter fans when it was announced that the seventh and final novel in the series would be adapted into not one but two films. Seven books, eight films. That's a pretty good deal, huh? The official reasoning behind it was that very little from the book could be cut out as it had the job of tying up all of the previous six films. The unofficial reasoning was probably that they just wanted to squeeze as much money as possible out of the franchise before finisihing it. I know, I know... I'm a cynic. Apparently you can't make four hour films anymore because they're just not profitable enough.

• This is it, the epic to end them all, so just to remind us of this the film kicks off with a death or two - including the offscreen demise of at least one major supporting character. It's all very dark and grim.
• Say what you like about J. K. Rowling, but it's pretty clear her series was extremely well-planned from start to finish. The emergence of the backstories of both Voldemort and Dumbledore begin to tie certain things together in a very satisfying way. Some answers are provided to questions that I hadn't even initially though to ask. Maybe the writers of Lost should've read Harry Potter.
• It feels strange for the main characters to be away from Hogwarts (one of the byproducts of the book being split into two films means that they're away from the school for the entirety of this film). Instead they go out and have 'adventures' in the real world, and it feels more dangerous than ever. There's a certain heightened realism as a result. The scenes set in the countryside have an authenticity that feels almost alien to the Harry Potter franchise... for example, the sequence where Harry and Hermione dance together in their tent feels more like it's out of an indie coming-of-age film.
  
• This realism is also reflected by the fact that Ron, Hermione and Harry have all become young adults now. The time for goofy cameraderie has gone, and there are one or two moments (such as Ron hallucinating about the coupling of Harry and Hermione) that tap into darker ideas relating to maturity and insecurity.
• Someone's cottoned on that cartoonish CGI just doesn't cut it in a film of this calibre - the visual effects are lot more seamless after the last few films.
• There's a moving scene near the beginning where Hermione uses the obliviate spell to erase the minds of her parents in order to protect them. It's nice that we get to see this, as it's not really featured in the book (simply because the books take place purely from the perspective of Harry). It's a shame that we don't get to see more scenes of Hermione and Ron without Harry, as they're generally more interesting (and believable) than our man Potter.
• Daniel Radcliffe suffers from cute kid/awkward-looking adult syndrome. He has an odd shaped head and a bit of a touch of the Elijah Woods about him.
• There's a couple of new characters portrayed by Bill Nighy and Rhys Ifans but they don't really get much screentime so neither actor gets a chance to make much of a impact. I was impressed more by Helena Bonham-Carter and Jason Isaacs in the ways they pushed their characters a bit more to the wire. In contrast to his cold portrayal in previous films, Isaacs is surprisingly effective in garnering some sympathy as the cowering Lucius Malfoy.
• There's a brilliant and unexpected part of the film that uses traditional shadow puppet-inspired animation to portray the story of the three brothers and the deathly hallows, as narrated by Emma Watson. It's actually the highlight of this particular movie, and shows a level of creativity not encountered elsewhere in the series.

Unfortunately, as much as I would enjoy watching these characters do anything, David Yates just isn't able to sustain prolonged action and momentum in the same way that some of the other directors in the series have. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 suffers too much from feeling like half of a film. I'm not sure it was the best idea to split the story into two parts as the first part feels too much like it's stalling before the big finish of the second part. It's structured less like a self-contained film and more like a prequel or a chapter in a much bigger story. Having said that though, there are a few crowning moments of glory (such as the animated sequence and the growing maturity of the teenage performers). Some of the camera work is more mature too, such as the use of shaky high-definition handheld cameras to capture chase sequences in the woods... it feels visceral and adrenalin-packed, a real far cry from the cartoonish theatrics of the earliest films.

DIRECTOR: David Yates
WRITER/SOURCE: Screenplay by Steve Kloves, based on the book by J. K. Rowling.
KEY ACTORS: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Timothy Spall, Michael Gambon, Warwick Davis, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, David Bradley, Ralph Fiennes, Jason Isaacs, Rhys Ifans, Helen McCrory, Bill Nighy, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Walters, Tom Felton, Helena Bonham-Carter, Bonnie Wright, Matthew Lewis, Mark Williams, David Thewlis, Natalie Tena, James Phelps, Oliver Phelps, Clemence Poesy, John Hurt, Toby Jones

RELATED TEXTS:
- The novel Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J. K. Rowling
- The other films in this series are; Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.

AWARDS
Academy Awards - nominated for Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects.
BAFTAs - nominated for Best Make-Up and Best Special Visual Effects.

Academy Awards Nominations 2012

Well, here are the nominees for the 2011/2012 Academy Awards. Another year gone and another batch of exciting new films to seek out or catch up on. Here are the major nominees...

BEST FILM
War Horse, Moneyball, Hugo, The Descendents, The Tree of Life, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help, Midnight in Paris, The Artist

So only nine films appear to have been nominated this year. Can't say I'm extremely pleased with this list... it's good to see Hugo getting the attention it deserves after most of the other Awards ceremonies missed it out, but all in all this is a pretty boring list. The last couple of Oscars have shown some contemporary spark by nominating genre films like Avatar, District 9, Inception, Winter's Bone, etc, but this year it's pretty much back to basics. The entire list upsets me in general due to the lack of recognition for Drive. I mean, would it have killed them to make it the tenth film in this list? And what's with Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close getting nominated? It looks terrible and it has been getting absolutely panned in some quarters, I'm kind of embarrassed for the Academy.

BEST ACTOR
Brad Pitt (Moneyball), Jean Dujardin (The Artist), Demian Bichir (A Better Life), George Clooney (The Descendents), Gary Oldman (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy)

A few surprises here, I don't think anyone really guessed that Demian Bichir would get nominated - especially when there was a lot of buzz around Michael Fassbender. I'm relieved that Oldman got his nomination, it was beginning to look like his last chance to finally get nominated. But, looking at this list, I don't know what they really bother - it's obvious that the voters are going to look at this pool of nominees and then just hand the Oscar over to Clooney or Pitt. As much as I like Brad Pitt, there is nothing about his serviceable and underplayed performance in Moneyball that is deserving of this kind of attention. Man, what does Ryan Gosling have to do to get nominated anyway? He has given three knockout performances this year, and did similarly brilliant work last year as well, but he just can't get in there.

BEST ACTRESS
Glenn Close (Albert Nobbs), Viola Davis (The Help), Meryl Streep (Iron Lady), Rooney Mara (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo), Michelle Williams (My Week With Marilyn)

It'll be Streep. She's been nominated a few times in recent years but none of those performances gathered the kind of steam that her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher has been gathering. If she wins it'll make her only the fifth actor in history to win three Oscars. I'm glad Close got nominated, and any other year she might win, but there's no fighting the Streep machine in full flight. I was surprised to see Rooney Mara get in there, I guess I'll have to watch The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo now...

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Kenneth Brannagh (My Week with Marilyn), Nick Nolte (Warrior), Jonah Hill (Moneyball), Christopher Plummer (Beginners), Max Von Sydow (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close)

The battle of the veterans! Nolte has a strong chance because he's one of only two Americans amongst the nominees, and his performance is actually a real against-the-grain, career standout. I don't see why Hill has been nominated... as great as Moneyball is, the acting in it just isn't anything special, and the difference in Hill's performance is pretty much just the fact that he's not acting like an arsehole for once. I'm seriously miffed that Albert Brooks didn't get the nod for Drive.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Berenice Bejo (The Artist), Jessica Chaistain (The Help), Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs), Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids), Octavio Spencer (The Help)

No surprises with the two girls from The Help being nominated. I thought they might've cast the net a bit wider than that, but the only shock here is Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids. I'm amazed she got nominated but it's definitely deserved, she stole that movie completely and I would absoluely love for her to win, though I'm fairly confident that Octavia Spencer (the favourite) will take home the gong.

BEST DIRECTOR
Martin Scorsese (Hugo), Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist), Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life), Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris), Alexander Payne (The Descendents)

I know Scorsese got his long-overdue Oscar for The Departed only a few years ago, but Hugo is so amazing that he simply deserves it again. I'll reserve full judgment until I see all the films of course, but at the moment I'm predicting that Hazanavicius will get the nod as a consolation prize for The Artist not winning Best Film.

Ender's Game

Ender's Game is an award-winning science fiction novel by Orson Scott Card. It won both the Hugo and the Nebula awards back in the '80s, two of the most prestigious genre awards a sci-fi novel can win, and I'm thinking there'll soon be an increased interest in this novel again now that a film is in production. Most of the novel concerns war games played by child geniuses in a space station against a backdrop of futuristic Cold War-inspired intrigue and an interplanetary war with a race of aliens referred to only as 'the buggers', which I guess will translate fairly well into a big budget movie. This movie will star Harrison Ford and Asa Butterfield, so it will probably be on everyone's radars when it eventually gets released, and I'm assuming the studios are hoping it's a hit so they can turn it into a multi-movie franchise (Card has written around 9 follow-up novels).

So, with all that now said, I want to get in early before the film gets made and say that the whole thing is a horrible joke. Putting aside the silliness of imagining Harrison Ford in a fat suit (his character gets fatter as the book goes on, something I can't really see Ford agreeing to), the novel is a hotbed of conservative wet dreams underscored with bigotry relating to race, gender and sexual orientation. I'm amazed it got the awards it did, though I guess the novel did get released right in the middle of Reagan and Thatcher's '80s. Anyway, before I go too far down that road, I'll break it down into the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good
As hackneyed as the writing style may be, it somehow works and never gets boring. The book is a real breeze to read in spite of it's many, many flaws. There's also an interesting suggestion that the war between humanity and the buggers escalates so badly simply because it's physically impossible for either side to communicate with the other. The best aspect of the novel is the way it demonstrates leadership styles and strategy in clear and easily understood terms.

The Bad
All the main characters are so smart that they can guess what each other are thinking, which would be tedious if the book didn't fly by so quickly. I don't imagine I could stand to read another nine books along such lines though. None of the characters really ever seem like children... I know they're meant to be geniuses but they're still kids, right? The entire book is kind of pulpish, which I'm thinking may just be a sympton of the poor literary standards of the sci-fi genre in the '80s.

The Ugly
Okay. There's so much in this book to be offended by, so I just singled out a few examples. The biggest offence is probably just how disturbingly right wing the whole thing is - this book is downright fascism in its purest form. Card plays out concepts of service vs. freedom throughout, and seems to be promoting the idea that individual freedom is selfish and counterproductive. Anyways, here we go...

Page 24 -A character makes mention of girls not usually going to Battle School because they have years of evolution against them. I could handle this if he'd said years of history, but the word 'evolution' implies that Card believes females to be physiologically inferior to males. It also doesn't help that Battle School turns out to be more reliant on strategy than physical activity, which further implies that Card thinks female brains just aren't up to scratch!

Page 48 - Card makes reference to the 'arrogant' French. He explains that they're arrogant in this vision of the future because they insisted on retaining political independence. This plays into his idea that a globalised, homogenised world culture is better than individual countries. It shouldn't come as a surprise that this homogenic culture happens to be very Americanised... I can't help but wonder if Card would be as much a fan of the idea if the world's globalised culture was based on another nation's ideas. It's also somewhat telling that Card uses France as an example of 'arrogant' independence in his scenario, as it's pretty stereotypical and could just as much refer to American views of France in the '80s.

50 - Casual homohobia with characters jokingly bullying each other with the phrase "Cover your butt".

68, 69 - The first black character introduced is meant to be a genius but yet he still speaks in a pidgin-like ghetto slang, EG. "I the sweetest friend you got" and "maybe they in a hurry to teach you everything". Card later explains that this future slang is something that all the kids use, but it's still unfortunate that the first time we hear it it comes from a black character.

69, 70 - Card has the gall to introduce a subtext that makes it pretty clear he thinks religious suppression is bad. So, Mr. Card, homophobia, racism and sexism is okay but religious suppression isn't?

85 - It starts to become clear in Ender's Game that hard maneuvers in the battle games require team work, often at the expense of the individual. This is one of the core themes of the book, that one must give up needs relating to individuality in order to achieve higher goals (which is very fascist indeed!)

100 - Oh look, a random and disturbing rant about Jews unfairly getting into positions of power and the 'false' ways they use claims of anti-semitism to reinforce their 'Jewness' and Jew-related power.

212 - "If you can't kill then you are subject to the power of those who can". I don't think I really need to analyse that one too closely.

312 - "Welcome to the human race, no one controls their own life". The crowning jewel in Card's anti-freedom subtext. He goes on to say "The best you can do is choose the roles given to you by people who love you", which stinks of high religion to me.

So, as enthralling as this novel may be, at the end of the day it's pulpish Nazi doctrine of the worst kind. Orson Scott Card is actually a devout Mormon who actively campaigns against the teaching of evolution in American schools, and also has a history of calling for homosexuality to be illegal (!) and has even suggested that homosexuality breeds pedophilia. What a great guy!

Hugo

There's some awards buzz surrounding The Artist at the moment, most of which holds the film up as a glowing tribute to the days of silent cinema. I don't think it would be fair to say that Hugo hasn't also had its fair share of critical acclaim, but I do like to think of it as the other tribute to silent cinema released in 2012. Martin Scorsese has a long and distinguished career as a groundbreaking director with a self-preserving reverence for cinema history. His films have mostly been of a decidedly adult nature (murderous gangsters, child prostitutes, dark obsessions) but his ability to both innovate on and revisit the techniques of cinematic storytelling have ensured him a place as one of the most iconic directors of his age. It's this sense of historical expertise that combines with the more family-friendly story of Hugo to create a truly wonderful experience that should appeal to anyone with even the slightest love of cinema. It's not a silent film, you don't need to be a fan of silent films to enjoy it, and without spoiling Hugo I'll just say that it's simply spellbinding in the way it unravels and explains the origins of movie magic. You get caught up in it. It's beautiful.

Hugo concerns an orphaned boy named Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) who literally lives in the clockwork of a 1930s Parisian railway station. He's on a mission to repair a clockwork man that his deceased father rescued from a museum, hoping that this automaton will reveal to him some kind of secret that will give his life purpose. Whilst stealing parts for this mission his path crosses with Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), a grumbling toymaker with a shop in the station. Georges confiscates Hugo's precious notebook, forcing Hugo to join forces with George's ward, Isabella (Chloe Moretz), on an adventure to recover this item and to uncover the mystery of the automaton.

I've restricted a few plot details in the above summary as I really don't want to spoil this film. I'll just say that Hugo deals with themes of usefulness, fate, and fulfilling one's potential. There's an array of supporting characters that fill the film with a lot of life and humour - the highlight probably being Sacha Baron Cohen as the bumbling Station Inspector fixated on delivering lost children to a nearby orphanage. A lot of this comes down to the performances, but it's also due to the wonderful one-of-a-kind book that this film is based on, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, a strikingly original children's novel that combined illustration and text in a unique way to tell a story that paid homage to the great yesteryears of the silent cinema. Scorsese is the perfect director to translate this to the screen, and here's why...

• Not only does Scorsese show the pioneering special effects of the early days of film, he also shows us how they were created. Revealing a magician's secrets would normally deprive the magic of its punch, but in this case it's an illuminating process because it allows the audience (who are about 100 years removed from these early films) to discover the wonder in what we now take for granted.
• Scorsese sneakily employs many techniques of the silent cinema well before their relevance is revealed to the audience. The opening introductory sequence takes place without any dialogue, though you barely notice it. Scorsese frequently allows events to unfold in a physical and organic manner without the presence of talking.
• I was elated to see some stop-motion used in the bit where Hugo repairs a clockwork mouse... stop-motion is rarely used these days, so it was nice to see Scorsese find a place for it in this film. I was further startled some time after this though when Isabella falls over and it looks like she's going to be trampled underfoot, and Scorsese actually uses double-exposure to show this. It's an unusual technique in that it was almost purely used before the advent of the 'talkies', but somehow he manages to make it work here as a homage to these earlier days - a time when the cinema was in a creative state of flux and yet to be constrained by the hallowed rules of filmmaking.

The other part of Hugo that makes it a must-watch is the setting itself. Scorsese has created an enchanting world, if I didn't know better I would've believed that this giant railway station had been constructed as a 100% real place, rather than a collection of ambitious sets combined with CGI and modelwork. There are loads of overhead shots that show the schemata of the place as Hugo races behind walls and through scaffolding behind clockfaces. The film really showcases the environment, and it was breathtaking to see it on the big screen.

I need to watch this film again, and again, and again. It was a brilliant experience and it was everything I could hope for and more. It's the kind of film I think I'll watch whenever I feel my love of movies dwindling, so that it can reaffirm my passion. Let there be no doubt from anyone that Scorsese isn't a master of cinema, he has finally made a piece of art that's entertaining, meaninful and something that anyone of any age or background can enjoy.

DIRECTOR: Martin Scorsese
WRITER/SOURCE: Screenplay by John Logan, based on the novel by Brian Selznick.
KEY ACTORS: Asa Butterfield, Chloe Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helen McCrory, Christopher Lee, Richard Griffiths, Jude Law, Frances de la Tour, Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Michael Stuhlbarg.

RELATED TEXTS:
- The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, who followed it up with a similarly structured book called Wonderstruck.
- Martin Scorsese's love for film history can be experience firsthand with the documentary A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Film.
- See also the films of Melies, such as A Trip to the Moon, Vanishing Lady, The Four Troublesome Heads, An Impossible Balancing Feat, Joan of Arc and The Merry Frolics of Satan.
- Other films referenced in Hugo include: Safety Last, Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat, The Great Train Robbery, The Thief of Bagdad and The General.

AWARDS
Academy Awards - won Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing and Best Visual Effects. Also nominated for Best Film, Best Director, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Original Music and Best Adapted Screenplay.
AFIs - nominated Best International Film and Best International Director.
BAFTAs - won Best Production Design and Best Sound. Nominated for Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Make Up and Hair, Best Costume Design, Best Original Music and Best Special Visual Effects.
Golden Globes - won Best Director. Nominated for Best Film (Drama) and Best Original Music.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

I know I've said things to this effect about the last two or three films, but I think Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the true beginning of the end for the franchise. The plot leads directly into the last two films, with the introduction of the Horcruxes and the rising up of Voldemort's Death-Eaters, so it starts to feel more like a continuous saga. This film also feels a little bit more like a regular school year at Hogwarts, it's a bit more slowly paced and takes the opportunity to let the characters breathe before everything changes so devastatingly at the climax.

• The Warner Bros logo at the beginning keeps getting darker and darker with each film. I wonder if I'll even be able to see it when I get to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II.

• No Dursleys this time around, Harry starts out the film in metropolitan London instead. The film uses this modern setting to up the stakes a bit, reminding us that the evil of Voldemort will impact on regular folk as well as the wizarding world. It makes it all a bit more immediate and less like a far away world of the imaginary.

• I like that this film doesn't forget that Harry is still a teenager. We see him picking up a girl in a cafe and fighting with Ron over a text book. They're just little moments, but it's touches like these that make the characters feel real and give Daniel Radcliffe some rare moments to act a bit more naturally (rather than doing that thing where he stares off into the distance and clenches his teeth).

• There's a scene early on where Malfoy kicks Harry in the face. It's quite brutal actually, you can really feel that kick. This heightened level of viciousness foreshadows a lot of what's still yet to come, preparing the viewer for the increased violence of the later films that contrasts so sharply with the wide-eyed wonder of the earlier films.

• It's weird seeing the kids all playing Quidditch again (something that hasn't been done since Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), especially when it has very little to do with the plot!

• I don't think they adequately explain what an 'auror' is. Readers of the books will be aware that Harry has ambitions of becoming an auror (a hunter of evil wizards), but it has barely even been touched on in the films so it feels odd for Harry to mention it now. A casual viewer wouldn't have a clue what he's talking about. There are a few other throwaway references or plot developments like this (such as the fact that Harry's now the captain of the Quidditch team( that needed to be made a little bit more clearer. Despite the more relaxed pace, I think Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the film that most relies on its viewers having read the books.

• The main new cast member is Jim Broadbent as the elitist Professor Slughorn. He isn't how I imagined Slughorn to appear (I imagined him being a more like a fat old Marlon Brando or Richard Griffiths) but it's hard not to like Broadbent in such a role. Slughorn is generally a bit of an odd character, there's a lot of talk of him 'collecting' students that makes him sound a bit like a sex offender. Thankfully Broadbent keeps the character as innocent as possible!

• Emma Watson shines in her scenes of unrequited love for Ron. Overall this film has a lot more shipping (which should please all the fans), with all the characters hooking up or wallowing in angst over not hooking up with their true loves.

• The climax isn't as big and dramatic as I expected it to be, but I guess they're holding back for the next two films. Michael Gambon is almost great as Dumbledore (sorry, I still can't give him that much credit!), and the sequence with the creepy undead creatures in the underground lake played out exactly as I had imagined it in my mind. I also thought the wands-in-the-air tribute at the end was a nice touch too.
  

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince actually turns out to be one of the funnier films in the series. The slower pace and the way it focuses more on the teenaged characters allows it to have some fun, and give some of the supporting players the chance to widen the dynamics of the film. Overall I think it might be a little too slow and overlong, but who can blame David Yates for indulging the fans a bit before the big finish of the last two films? This is one for the fans, and very enjoyably so. Now bring on the Deathly Hallows!

DIRECTOR: David Yates
WRITER/SOURCE: Screenplay by Steve Cloves, based on the book by J. K. Rowling.
KEY ACTORS: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Timothy Spall, Michael Gambon, Warwick Davis, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, David Bradley, Ralph Fiennes, Jason Isaacs, Emma Thompson, Julie Walters, Tom Felton, Helena Bonham-Carter, Bonnie Wright, Matthew Lewis, Mark Williams, David Thewlis, Natalie Tena, Katie Leung, William Melling, Devon Murray, James Phelps, Oliver Phelps, Dave Legano, Jessie Cave

RELATED TEXTS:
- The novel Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by J. K. Rowling
- The other films in this series are; Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
- Prior to making this film Emma Watson voiced a character in The Tale of Despereaux. Daniel Radcliffe didn't get a chance to do any extra-curricular acting, but Rupert Grint was able to star in a British action-comedy called Wild Target.

AWARDS
Academy Awards - nominated for Best Cinematography.
BAFTAs - nominated for Best Production Design and Best Visual Special Effects.

Attack the Block

"This has got nothing to do with gangs"
"Or drugs. Or rap music. Or violence in videogames".

There have been a few alien-invasion films over the last year or so, but none are as original as this British film from the producers of Shaun of the Dead. At first the 'heroes' of the film (a gang of estate hoodlums) seem completely unredeemable, but it eventually comes to pass that these kids are the sort of characters who are the best equipped to deal with an alien infestation. The action, dialogue and character-interplay all rings true and makes for an adrenalin-charged horror/sci-fi combo that holds the attention from start to finish.

I won't talk too much about the plot, it's the sort of film that gets straight into it and is all action and adventure and interesting characters. The chav bad boys at the centre of Attack the Block feel like unlikely leads in an alien invasion film, but really - they're the sort of resilient monsters who are realistically able to fight real monsters. These kids are all bravado and toughness, and the I guess the film's story arc is about them learning the hard way that actions can have devastating consequences. There's also a preppie teen supporting character who lives with his parents, and aside from being a source of ridicule/humour, his role is to remind the audience of the class concerns that fuel this British culture of housing estate aggression. Moses (John Boyega) and his friends are the kids at the bottom of the chain, and they even go as far as to excuse their behaviour as actual class warfare (see the scene where they realise that one of their victims, Sam [Jodie Whittaker], lives in the same building that they do and they tell her they wouldn't have robbed her if they'd known she was 'one of them').

The aliens are a truly inspired creation. They're a great, unique design - simple but also scary and effective. They look a bit like something out an Aphex Twin film clip, and the imagery of these ape-like creatures running amok in this urban wasteland is a big selling point for the film. It's iconic. Overall the film does for the British estate wasteland what District 9 did for the slums of South Africa, using a science fiction story to examine social issues and doing it with buckets of enthusiasm and energy. This is a great film that I could see myself watching more than a few times in the near future.

DIRECTOR: Joe Cornish
WRITER/SOURCE: Joe Cornish
KEY ACTORS: Jodie Whittaker, John Boyega, Alex Esmail, Leeon Jones, Luke Treadaway, Nick Frost

RELATED TEXTS:
- I guess there are some parallels to Shaun of the Dead, but by and large Attack the Block is very much a different kettle of fish.
- Other recent alien invasion films: Skyline, Battle: Los Angeles, The Darkest Hour and Cowboys and Aliens.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was never one of my favourite Harry Potter books. It's the longest book in the series, yet so little seems to happen in the course of the story - a lot of its page count is given over to Harry at the height of his teenage angst years. I found it a bit of a hard slog at the time but I had to admit that this level of whining was a fairly realistic portrayal of adolescence, and it clears the deck for Harry to get down to more serious business for the next two books in the series. The film of Order of the Phoenix is actually the shortest in the franchise (despite the book being the longest), and it doesn't feel particularly condensed either, which I feel is proof of the book's padding.

• I love the opening scene, where Harry and his cousin tussle in the urban landscape of the Dursleys' neighbourhood. It contrasts dramatically with the Dementors, who turn up and cast a pall over the setting.


• This entry in the series could also be called Harry Potter and the Attack of Bureacracy. Hogwarts begins to take on a sinister tone as the Ministry of Magic increases their level of interference, and the use of doublespeak and the media is a nice way of examining the way the shifting of power to bureacrats can restrict and cowl a supposedly free society.


• After the rock n roll stylings of the last film, it seems that someone decided to give all the kids haircuts. It reminds us that Harry and his friends are starting to approach adulthood, but unfortunately it also makes Ron and his twin brothers look a lot more dorky.


• As mentioned, this story has less happening in it, so a lot of feels like the calm before the storm. There are lots of montages as the year passes, and there's a real sense of time passing throughout Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.


• In order to get this thick book down to under two hours, quite a lot of the subplots have been cut out altogether. As a result, there's no visit to the St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries (which would've seen a return appearance of Gilderoy Lockhart from Chamber of Secrets) and the House Elf stuff (which takes up a large portion of the novel) has been excised completely.


• I still can't help but feel that the significance of some things would no doubt be lost on some viewers who have never read the novels. Ron's brother Percy turns up in one scene but virtually nothing is said about his role in the Ministry of Magic, and aside from his red hair and one throwaway reference in the first film there's nothing to suggest to casual viewers who this character even is. I'm guessing there came a point with the Harry Potter films where the production crew just decided that the bulk of the audience would be familiar enough with the novels to follow who all these background characters were.


• After Prisoner of Azkaban, the special effects seem to have gone backwards.Once again there's an over-reliance on CGI... I guess some directors just feel it's quicker to let their visual effects crew do all the work!


• The Death Eaters have been redesigned since their apperance in the last film. They now have a more original look (as opposed to the KKK meets Skeletor look).


• The new major castmember is Imelda Staunton as the persnickety Ministry stooge Doloros Umbridge. She's pretty much perfect in the role, making it a good deal more memorable than the written version of the character comes across in the book, though I always imagined the character to look a bit more like Susan Boyle. I guess this can't be helped though!


• Helena Bonham-Carter is also terrific as the deranged Death Eater Bellatrix. It's nice to see her in something that isn't directed by Tim Burton.


• I found myself really choked up at the bit where silly old Trelawny was getting the punt from Umbridge. It's a great scene, and it's one of the few moments where Michael Gambon manages not to fail completely in his portrayal of Dumbledore.

I like this film a lot, mainly because it trims the fat from the rather bloated book and sets about telling a singular and strong story really well. David Yates takes over as director with this film, and I guess he must've been pretty effecient because he went on to direct the rest of the series as well. I can't really fault this decision, as the last four films have a uniformity to their (relatively) high quality and it's pretty smooth sailing from this point on in terms of entertainment value.

DIRECTOR: David Yates
WRITER/SOURCE: Michael Goldenberg, based on the novel by J. K. Rowling.
KEY ACTORS: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Timothy Spall, Michael Gambon, Warwick Davis, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, David Bradley, Ralph Fiennes, Imelda Staunton, Jason Isaacs, Emma Thompson, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Walters, Tom Felton, Helena Bonham-Carter, Bonnie Wright, Matthew Lewis, Mark Williams, Robert Hardy, Fiona Shaw, Richard Griffiths, David Thewlis, Natalie Tena, George Harris, Jessice Hynes, Gary Oldman, Miranda Richardson, Katie Leung, William Melling, Devon Murray, James Phelps, Oliver Phelps, Timothy Bateson

RELATED TEXTS:
- The novel Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by J. K. Rowling
- The other films in this series are; Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
- All three of the leads took the opportunity after this film to appear in some other things. Rupert Grint put on his best Irish accent and starred in Cherrybomb, a movie about sex, drugs and juvenile deliquency. Daniel Radcliffe made the Australian film December Boys (where he did his best with an Aussie accent), and Emma Watson did a rather girly TV movie called Ballet Shoes.

AWARDS
BAFTAs - nominated for Best Production Design and Best Special Visual Effects.

Admit One

I don't think I really ever reviewed a memoir before. At least, not one written by someone who wasn't so famous my voice would go up a couple of octaves upon meeting them. This rather slight and slender tome is the memoir of up-and-coming British actor Emmett James. I was approached via email by someone representing the book who had no doubt stumbled across this much esteemed blog (haw haw haw) and wanted to know if I was interested in reading this book. Taking it to be some kind of analysis of films or a fictional novel heavily influenced by film-geekdom I replied - yes, of course I am interested, please send it along and I will read and review.

I'll cut to the chase for those involved with the book's writing and publication (in the off-chance case they are reading this review); I didn't hate this book, but it did leave me scratching my head a little.

Basically, the book is divided up into short chapters - each one named after and loosely connected to one of the author's favourite films. Each chapter deals with a chapter in the author's life, the earlier ones dealing with his Croydon-based childhood and the later ones dealing with his forays into the world of film-acting. It's a fairly brief book, probably owing to the fact that the author is relatively young and is yet to become a household name.

It starts in quite a promising fashion, with suitable payouts levelled at Steven Seagal and a cheeky and well-educated wit carrying along the prose, but I have to say that I was a little disappointed to find that the connection between each chapter's story and the films that they were named after became very tenuous at best, and I really was expecting less in the way of an actual memoir and more in the way of film analysis. I can't dwell on that too much because it was pretty much just my expectation after reading the tagline "A journey into film". I guess this is kind of subjective, so: my bad.

There are several amusing anecdotes throughout the book, the most amusing probably being the thinly veiled story about the author's attempt to audition for the part of Robin in Batman Forever. I couldn't help but laugh at how little effort he went to in disguising Joel Schumacher's identity when writing about this. But what ended up confusing me about this whole book was that just when the story started heading somewhere (I assumed it was building up to the author's big breakthrough role or something else that warranted the hyperbole written in the 'about the author' section) the book just ended. Is that it? Is the highlight of this guy's career a bit part in Titanic? Maybe the book is marketed oddly or something, I could understand it if the book was packaged as 'how I tried to break into Hollywood and almost made it' or the 'trials and the tribulations of an up-and-comer' but during the course of reading the book I just felt like it was selling Emmett James to me as a big star recounting his early days. I know everyone's life is of equal value (in theory) but if I was to write a memoir of my childhood and how I came to work in a bookstore at the grand old age of 28 I can guarantee there would be more than a few readers prefacing their reviews with a big 'so what?'

Sorry, it was an entertaining read and I always feel bad about not giving a great review when someone goes to the effort of sending a book all the way from America or England to my home in suburban Australia, but I felt a little disappointed when I finished reading this. I think it would've been much more effective if it had been fictionalised to an extent, making the book a literary adventure closely based on the author's experiences or something like that.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

I had intense worries when Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was adapted into a film back in 2005. The book was so much bigger than past installments of the series, it seemed impossible that it could be adapted into a satisfying film. There was initially talk that it would be adapted into two films, but director Mike Newell opted against this - confident that he could fit it all into one film. When I first saw Goblet of Fire at the cinema, I felt unsure about this. I felt unsure that someone who hadn't read the book would've been able to follow it... so much had been cut and condensed, and it was jam packed full of incident that it was hard to follow the finer details. Now, some time later, I found myself watching Goblet of Fire with no real recollection of the book, and it was a much more enjoyable experience. It does hold up and it does make sense, and the decision to compact it all into one film results in Goblet of Fire being perhaps the most relentlessly engaging and action-packed movie in the whole franchise.

• We kick off with a minor version of the theme tune, reminding us of how 'dark' the series is now getting.
• In a way, I think this film is the Empire Strikes Back of the Harry Potter series... it's the qualitive middle entry in the series that ends on a down note. Then again, you could say that about the next three Harry Potter films after this as well; films four to seven all end with the death of a major character. Granted, the character death in Goblet of Fire is that of a new supporting player, but Cedric's death marks the first point in the series where a character actually dies, and it isn't bloodless either - so it's quite a shock after the relatively happy shenanigans of the last three films.
  
• The Dursleys don't make an appearance this time around, I guess they're one of the many neccessary casualties of a large novel getting adapted into a two and a half hour film.
• An alternative title for this film could be Harry Potter and the Moody Teenage Years Part 1. The characters start to notice the opposite sex for the first time, which brings certain complications.
• The film opens with the World Quidditch Cup, which throws the wizarding world wide open in terms of giving the viewer an impression of something that's a lot bigger than just Hogwarts.
• This development also brings in the Death Eaters (Voldemort's evil followers). They're a combination of elements that call to mind the KKK, soccer hooligans, and terrorists all rolled into one.
• The sets are a little bit different again, reflecting the input of another new director. The only real factor of consistency between all eight films are the actors and their characters, something that the fans should be grateful for. The success of the overall franchise owes a lot to the commitment of these actors.
• There seems to have been a creative decision to have all the younger characters sport longer, rock 'n' roll type hair. Ron looks like a reject from the band Jet, and the twins look less dorky here than they do in later films.
• One of my favourite comedy moments in the whole series is the bit where one of Ron's brothers asks a girl to the dance just by making a few hand gestures towards her, and then he turns to the date-less Ron and winks at him. It's perfectly played and it cracks me up every time.
• As mentioned before, this film is all action from start to finish. It barely lets up, and makes the next couple of Harry Potter films feel slow in comparison.
• The special effects aren't as good as they were in Prisoner of Azkaban, but they're still fairly good in comparison to the first two cartoony films.
• It sucks that Mad-Eye Moody is so cool. I felt this as a massive betrayal when I read the books, the fact that they set this character up to be so awesome and inexplicably likeable and then J. K. Rowling takes that away from the reader at the end with a twist that negates the entire character's existence. It doesn't make sense! Having said that, Brendan Gleeson is great in the role. Gleeson is great in everything he does - seriously underrated actor.
• Michael Gambon is just a bit too sprightly as Dumbledore, but he's a bit more acceptable in the role now that I'm more used to him. He's still a very poor second to Richard Harris.
• For many fans the 'breakthrough' performance will be a pre-Twilight Rob Pattinson in the pivotal role of Cedric Diggory. Personal, I think he's adequate in what amounts to just a bit part, but I guess he has the easygoing assertiveness that lends itself to the character.
  
• Voldemort finally makes an appearance after four films of buildup. I think it's hard for films like this to do something new with evil super villains, but Ralph Fiennes actually defies the odds and works with the character's design and description to create something that's nearly iconic (I guess time will tell). He's quite unnerving in the role, and doesn't fall into any big cliches... I especially like his interpretation of Voldemort's high-pitched voice, and his big introductory scene at the end of this movie is worth the wait.
  

Despite the fast pace, Mike Newell's direction in Goblet of Fire is quite lush and almost stately. He revels in details, pumping this up as the moment where Harry's battle truly begins, and a lot of the smaller characters start coming forward to involve themselves in the plot more. From here on in the franchise feels a lot more like one big story. After Prisoner of Azkaban, I think this is my second favourite film of the franchise. It has more energy than any of the other films and there's never a dull moment.

DIRECTOR: Mike Newell
WRITER/SOURCE: Script by Steve Kloves, based on the novel by J. K. Rowling
KEY ACTORS: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Timothy Spall, Michael Gambon, Warwick Davis, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, David Bradley, David Tenant, Roger Lloyd-Pack, Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Walters, Tom Felton, Bonnie Wright, Matthew Lewis, Mark Williams, Robert Hardy, Robert Pattinson, Stanislav Ianevski, Gary Oldman, Miranda Richardson, Katie Leung, William Melling, Devon Murray, Clemence Posey, Frances de la Tour, Predrag Bjelac, James Phelps, Oliver Phelps, Shirley Henderson

RELATED TEXTS- The novel Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J. K. Rowling
- The other films in this series are; Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
- Mike Newell has also directed the films Love in the Time of Cholera, Donnie Brasco, An Awfully Big Adventure, Four Weddings and a Funeral and Mona Lisa Smile.

AWARDS
Academy Awards - nominated for Best Art Direction.
BAFTAs - won Best Production Design. Nominated for Best Special Effects and Best Make-Up.