Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

David Yates, UK / USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

I’m sure anyone that’s talked to me is tired of hearing me say how much better The Prisoner of Azkaban is than any of the other films, not to mention me going on about how it’s probably better because it’s possibly the most unfaithful adaptation. To be honest, I’m mostly going off of what other people say, as I usually don’t remember the book to well by the time the movie version comes out, although as the gap between the two shortens, that’s gradually changing.

Well, I wasn’t too thrilled with The Goblet of Fire, but this film, the fifth installment, does seem to be an improvement, even if, from what I read, the changes that were made were fairly superficial; this, as I explained to my friends, who were generally less impressed with it, probably prevents the film from being better than it is, as we should be able to recognize that film as a medium has different story requirements than a novel (to put it mildly).

What bothered me about The Goblet of Fire was that it seemed to be a clip show, a “greatest hits” of the book, and that there was no real attempt to lend coherency to the narrative, as there had been in the third film. I don’t know if it’s the new director, the screenwriter learning from his mistakes, or just a more adaptable narrative in the novel itself, but this film definitely achieves thematic unity. To my friends, this mean that it was less action packed, but to me, Imelda Staunton’s bone-chilling portrayal of super-evil Stepford bureaucrat Delores Umbridge will stick in my head much longer than the dimly-remembered CGI hodgepodge of the last film. (Not to mention that Staunton was over-the-top in a more suitable fashion than most of her scenery-chewing predecessors). The same can be said for the final confrontation, which, while somewhat unsatisfying in terms of narrative, at least hit the right geek chord (I’ll be vague here, just in case).

What’s funny, I suppose, is that I figured that the fourth film would lack appeal for those who hadn’t read the film due to its disconnected nature, while the unity of the fifth film would be more appealing to them. My friends, however, have not read the books, and reacted in the opposite manner, as detailed above. It seems that it’s actually quite hard to guess what interpretative choices would be better for someone who’s coming to the material from a different place.

Source: Warner 35mm print
20 July, 7:30 PM

Ratatouille

Brad Bird, USA, 2007
4 out of 4 stars

In the first segment, I really wasn’t sure about this film. “Where is this going?” I wondered. Later on, I realized how nice it was not to know where everything was going, as almost everything that happened, even most of the major characters, came as a complete surprise. I don’t know how much the trailers have been giving away, but I guess it helps that I haven’t seen a movie in theaters since Spider-Man 3 and that I no longer have cable.

As for the film itself, well, it’s “heartwarming” in the good way, without the schmaltzy or annoying connotations that word usually has. Having skipped Cars, it’s a real joy to see both Pixar and director Brad Bird delivering a perfect follow-up to The Incredibles, providing a populist balance to the previous film’s vaguely elitist philosophy, as well as effectively achieving the elusive balance between the depiction of the human world and the anthropomorphized rat world (so much so that I objected, verbally, to the portrayal of a different kind of interaction in the trailer for Bee Movie that I saw later, as if Ratatouille should in fact be the last word on that). Finally, it portrays the French in a very-endearing warts-and-all manner that speaks fairly effectively to some real issues in their culture, certainly a better depiction than you might expect from the guy who brought us Bomb Voyage in his last film.

Source: Buena Vista 35mm print
6 July, 7:40 PM

The Thin Man

W.S. Van Dyke, USA, 1934
3 out of 4 stars

A few months back, NPR did a brief feature on the Thin Man series, explaining how what started as a throwaway, low-budget B picture, starring actors who were either no-names or washed out, actually gave rise to a mega-popular franchise based entirely on the witty banter and touching chemistry between the mystery-solving married couple. Having rented the film based on this description, I couldn’t help but be disappointed when the detective ditched his wife whenever it was time to actually do any sleuthing. Admittedly, it might beggar belief that he would bring his wife along to potentially violent encounters, but I can’t help but wonder if there is more of a sense of actual partnership, at least as far as the cases go, in successive films, after the producers realized what the draw really was. As for the film itself, it certainly has more filler than one might like, particularly since it’s only 90 minutes long, but the repartee between the two leads is quite entertaining, and there is an effective use of slapstick humor, much of it involving their very cute dog. And despite the separate beds we see the couple sleeping in, there is no shortage of often-hilarious innuendo; even my clueless students, who asserted in their papers that no one has sex in The Maltese Falcon, oughta be able to recognize the passion between this couple. I figured that the writers were just pushing the limits of the Hayes Code, but after a bit of research, it appears that this film was released about a month before the Code was actually enforced. If I do get around to watching the next film in the series, it will be interesting to see if and how the innuendo is reigned in.

Source: Warner DVD
30 June, 10:10 PM