Failing Upwards

Review: "The Losers"

I firmly believe that no knowledge of the source material should be required when watching an adaptation film. Frankly, even knowing that there is source material seems pointless as they're wholly different universes. The comic book adaptation "The Losers" not only doesn't care if you know the source, it really doesn't care if you're paying attention. 

It's the typical story of an elite special forces team who gets screwed over by their enigmatic boss and  plots an overly complex revenge. As always the enigmatic boss is a meglomaniacal psycho so you can really root for the heroes as they try to take him down. Throw in some minor betrayal, a more-than-she-seems hot chick, and some major whatever technology and you have a movie.

But, what "The Losers" excels at is taking those elements that you've seen before and, through a director that was clearly having a great time, displays them in weird and interesting ways. Slow motion kick-ass fight in a flaming room? Sure. Blasted apart mirror reflects the action from other angles? Ok. Random parkour? Why not? Director Sylvain White throws it all at you to keep you visually engaged in a film that is in no way mentally enganging.

On the whole "The Losers" is a comic book on film. I had no idea it was a comic before seeing it but every facet of the film reminds you. You don't need to know the plot, the characters, or even really their motivations, but if you turn your brain off and drink in the visuals you'll have a pretty good time. C

Capsule reviews: Nominees '10

Before I say anything I want to point out I am aware that I'm late on these but I did just see them. This is by no means a complete list of the 10 Best Picture nominees (I've yet to see all 10) but this past weekend I crammed in 3 of them and had a few thoughts to share.

"District 9"

A gripping tale of the racially divided city of Johannesburg, South Africa with a twist! When a giant  spaceship filled with refugee aliens appears in the sky above Jo'burg, the South Africans do what they do best- ghettoize them! ( I tease, but the comparisons between the human/alien conflict and the various racial tensions that the South Africans have been dealing with for decades are far too clear) First-time actor Sharlto Copley plays Wikus van der Merwe, a company nice guy who, through an act of nepotism, gets put in charge of relocating the Aliens from their current slum District 9 to the newly created District 10, a concentration camp-like place where the aliens can be both out of sight and out of mind for the populace. But when Wikus becomes a wanted man only the residents of District 9 can help him.

Filled with phenomenal effects, a moving and exciting story and an amazing debut from Copley, "District 9" is a wonderful film that shows the dark side of humanity while also showing that humanity isn't a solely human concept. A

"The Hurt Locker"

The newly minted 82nd Best Picture is a tough movie for me. While it's good, well acted, and wonderfully directed (by Kathryn Bigelow, the first woman EVER to win a Best Director Oscar) "The Hurt Locker" is at it's core a war movie. It doesn't particularly break new ground in the war genre, nor does it really say  anything new about war. What it does do is reinforce the "war is hell" motif while emphasizing war as a different experience for all involved. The story is secondary really to the reactions of the 3 main characters. As the film unfolds, all three (Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty) begin to show cracks in different ways and we find for one, war may in fact be his crack. Revolving around the last rotation of an elite army bomb squad, "The Hurt Locker" is well worth watching but the hype around it baffles me. Was it the best picture of the year? Maybe or maybe not but it is extremely well done. As a side note, while Jeremy Renner was good as the leader of the squad, his co-stars were robbed of nominations as their emotional journeys were well rounded, believable, and phenomenally well performed. B+

"Inglourious Basterds"

Quentin Tarantino's fantastic WWII fairy tale is a witty, fun, and intense ride. The fact that the history doesn't hold up is secondary to how much fun the movie is. Tarantino's signature style of long dialogue-heavy scenes unspool as we meet the extremely disparate characters: Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) the leader of a Nazi-killing army made up of Jewish soldiers who gleefully slaughter any enemies they encounter (in full Tarantino-esque violence-porn glory), Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Academy Award winner Christoph Waltz in an AMAZING performance) a brutally effective detective, and Shoshanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) as a Jewish escapee and movie theater owner who comes to the attention of an up-and-coming Nazi propaganda star (Daniel Brühl) and formulates a plan to take down the party.

Tarantino has a very specific sense of humor and film-making style. His films are not for everyone, but the performances alone make this gleefully deranged film worth a watch. A

Review: "Up in the Air"

Honestly, to my mind it's hard to review "independent" movies (can we even call them independent anymore? I mean, they're not really independent. They still show at festivals, but so do many other things. "Art cinema"? "Mood pieces"?) because in general the plot doesn't really matter so much as the acting and the message. Think about it, most movies that fit into this genre (and oh yes, it's a genre unto itself) are not about the story so much as the story is a flimsy structure on which to get the point across.

Such is the case with "Up in the Air" a film on the surface about a man who has created an insular life  for himself and judges his success based on the number of miles he accumulates. But moreover it's a film about the difficulty find a connection in an uncertain world. George Clooney plays a man who flies across the country as a corporate downsizer, his life is the road (or, more accurately, the sky) and the loner life he's carved out is perfect for him. In his spare time he flies all around the country (sense a pattern?) doing motivational speaking engagements which are thinly disguised speeches about how he lives his life. 

It's also about how his life is thrown up in the air (ha) by two very different women: Alex (Vera Farmiga) the sexy frequent flying business woman whom he bonds with over a shared desire for closeness in their equally transitory lives. And, Natalie a new woman at his company who wants to change the business model and permanently ground him. Both teach him valuable lessons, ask tough questions, and become very important in a somewhat Jiminy Cricket way.

I'm sorry, does it seem like I'm undervaluing this film's greater message? I'm not, really, it's just that the-value-of-human-connection motif is a well-worn path in films- especially the artsy-set. To overlay that message over the current economics crisis' unemployment explosion seems somewhat overkill. But, as there are correlations and the whole affair is really well-acted I'll somewhat let it slide.

The 2 biggest gripes I have with this movie is how thoroughly predictable it is, although as I mentioned the "plot is secondary" I guess I should ignore that, but, even if the plot is fifth on the list, this level of predictability is just sad. Secondly, the message is so beaten into our heads. Stupid people rarely watch  art films, and those that do don't like it and don't care. So why dumb down the message?

All in all "Up in the Air" is worth seeing for some wonderful acting, Anna Kendrick is particularly sensational, if a less than remarkable story. C+/B-

Review: "Sherlock Holmes"

 It's always tough to take on an iconic character. You'll want to put your own spin on it, make it your own, but still be faithful to what made the character popular to begin with. The essence. The thing about the character of Sherlock Holmes is that his essence is deductive reasoning and intellect. Subtle details making or breaking a case. How do you maintain that while also entertaining the masses? This is a question director Guy Ritchie has yet to answer.

Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes" is a loud, quickly edited gray-tinged mess. Some scenes move too fast to get what's happening while others, the overly expository fight scenes as an example, are as plodding as they are repetitive. Literally, they play twice. The back and forth non-linear storytelling wouldn't even be so jarring if it was at least consistent. But no, through much of the movie you move along through normal time and then, BAM! time travel. Some of the film happens in the past, then the present, even sometimes the future before slamming into another time.

Speaking of inconsistent, the main characters of Holmes and Watson- played admirably I must say by Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law who tried so hard- are one second best friends, then colleagues, then drowning in homoerotic subtext. As characters, Holmes is the lovable scoundrel equally intelligent and rakish, if seemingly wandering and annoying. Watson on the other hand is calm, controlled and always analytical. Then there's the woefully miscast Rachel McAdams who fumbles through her femme fatale role almost as much as she fumbles through her period wardrobe. 

The plot is so convoluted as to require a truly comic booky explanation scene to tell the audience what the heck has been happening for the past 100+ minutes. Is it clear and internally consistent? I suppose so, but they could've told me that alien seahorses had built Big Ben and I would've gladly agreed. So much of this movie was long stretches of quasi-cerebral nattering on punctuated by awkward fight scenes/ridiculously forced action or seemingly inconsequential close-ups of, say, soot. 

Ritchie, or rather his production designer did however excel at creating a stylized industrial revolution London. Part "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", part fantastic CG the visuals are great. I would suspect that the lack of attention to...every other aspect of the film was refocused into production design. At least they put the money into something that turned out well. D+

Review: "It's Complicated"

I could begin by talking about the myriad romantic comedies out there or the well tread tropes that they espouse. Or, I could talk about the older-man-younger-woman paradigm and how prevalent it's become in media and reality. But, I think I'll start by saying Meryl Streep has amazing hair.

Really, it could be another cast member in "It's complicated" the story of a 10-years divorced couple who give it another go. Between Streep's hair and the Pottery Barn/Williams-Sonoma/Food Network orgy set I could see why EW called this film "femme porn". But, I am going to take another tact and point out that this film is about the actors.

Face it: romantic comedies can only say so much about life, love, people and relationships. The plots of these films generally don't even matter too much and they're generally just a vague collection of circumstances that drive 2 opposites together. Here though we have 3 seasoned actors (Streep as well as Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin) embodying archetypes of our age: The independent mother/divorcee, the cheating ex with the new young wife, and the newly divorced sensitive guy and playing them for all they're worth. They dance, laugh, and flirt with wild abandon and you can tell just by watching them that they are having a blast. Their energy is infectious and it raises the caliber of all of the actors in the film to their bests.

On that though is the sole downside of this fun romp, the supporting cast- with the lone exception of the delightful John Krasinski, is less than stellar. Their best is only 1/20 as good as the megastars they share the screen with and they simply drag down the film. Special mention goes to Weeds' Hunter Parrish as the recent graduate son for having possibly the least expressive face of any actor on the planet. He was like a talking blond wall through most of the film. And, the deeply pinchy Lake Bell as Agness, the young new wife, spends so much time scowling you forget that her role is to be ostensibly hot arm candy.

As a romantic comedy "It's complicated" is a cute fun ride that doesn't quite go where you expect it to go. But, as a vehicle for some stellar actors to have a great time it's even better. B+

Review: "Avatar"

Take the most beautiful film you've ever seen. The most spectacular, visually stunning, jaw-droppingly gorgeous film in your memory. Now, double the beauty, and amp of the color by about 15 times. Meet James Cameron's 10-years-in-the-making "Avatar"

Cameron intended this film to be his followup to "Titanic", and after 10 years of planning and wating for technology to catch up to his ambition, it turns out it is. "Avatar" is a spectacle of just what is possible in film in 2009. It's cutting edge in so many ways; there was even a language created for this film. But, while the scope is far-reaching it's story is a simple one with a clear message.

Paraplegic ex-marine Jake Sully arrives on the far off planet of Pandora, a jungle world populated by the impossibly agile Na'vi, to become an avatar driver. Essentially, his consciousness will be placed in the body of a cloned Na'vi (grown form Human and Na'vi DNA) to better interact with the natives and convince them to allow mining of something improbably called "unobtainium."

Beyond that, watch "Pocahontas" and you've got the basics. But does it matter? Clearly this movie, while having an environmental message, is about the lengths to which technology can improve a movie. In fact, it took what could be a rather dull retread of a stale plot and reinvigorated it with fantastic effects, views, and wonderous vistas.

Now, that's not to say that all movies can rest on their use of computers. And, to a degree "Avatar" doesn't. The action is intense, once it begins, and the acting is serviceable  with gusts to not too shabby in some parts. But if you're going for intellectual pursuits or stellar life changing plotting this is the worng film. But if you want breathtaking views surrounding a predictable but entertaining plot, head to your local theatre and say "3D please!" B

Review: The Twilight Saga: New Moon

A new moon is a monthly phase in which the moon is not visible to the naked eye. It's seen as a refresher for the moon, a night off if you will. What this has to do with the doomed and overly intense love of a whiny girl and her vampire I don't know, but there you have it.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon is the second installment in the newly titled saga. As the quartet of books is now a tween bible and the first film grossed a bazillion dollars last year, Moon spares little time catching up new viewers and simply cuts to the plot, such as it is. Bella loves Edward, Edward fears for Bella's safety, Bella is sad, and Jacob broods.

But, emotions be damned this film is about wolves. Gigantic werewolves. The effects for the wolves are the highlight of this overlong borefest. That and the "wolf pack's" seeming allergy to shirts. Here's the thing: the books this "saga" is based on is about 4,00,000,000,000 pages in 4 books. In that, maybe 30 things actually occur, the rest of the bulk is concerned with brooding, plaintive staring, description, and so very much whining. While several of the 30 things that occur are...interesting-the possible entertainment value is removed by various circumstances up to and including the whining- they are so spaced out that making them into interesting films if difficult. The first film, Twilight, had many adjustments made to the structure of the book to even allow for something to happen in the film. Moon however takes a different tactic- several things are omitted from the book but other things were elongated to...compensate maybe?

This being only the second of four planned films, several things were set up for future movies including a somewhat twist (which isn't really one at all if you've read the book series) ending. Director Chis Weitz- late of the American Pie movies- does an admirable job but languid shots of the forests of Vancouver can only interest you so long during the seemingly endless stretches of nothing occuring in this film.The wolves, which had the biggest marketing push of the entire campaign, don't even make their first appearance until well past the 30-minute mark. Hopefully David Slade, the incoming director of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, can learn from this one and get with his writers soon. As "Eclipse" is in my opinion with weakest book (yes I can rank them, although I found them all to be exceedingly weak), the Eclipse team has a long way to go to wake the audience up and very little source material to go on. Luckily the target audience can easily admire their adoring vampire's sparkling skin for hours on end without feeling they've wasted their parents' $10.   C-

Reduce, reuse, and remake

--TV's cancellation-fest has continued with the sad, albeit expected cancellation of FOX's "Dollhouse." Joss Whedon shows require a cult following and FOX is notorious for not letting viewership grow*, but the fact that "Dollhouse" even secured a second season was utterly shocking. Its new status, after a second season of extremely low ratings and, in my opinion, under promoted airings someone finally read the writing on the wall.--

I've decided that the trend of remaking older, or nostalgic hits is a byproduct of the Green movement. It really is the only explanation for why some forgotten, and in some cases with good reason, "classics" have been dredged up and redone with today's modern graphics and actors. It's recycling!

Take for example the remake of "Clash of the Titans." Based on the 1981 stop-motion cheese-tacular, this new version is, as sci-fi wire calls it, a "balls-out" actioner. The question is, is it needed? The original had basically fallen out of popular memory, save for a few brief references to star Harry Hamlin's hair, and by-and-large the world was happy about it. But, sometime in 2010- summer most likely- the mythological adventure will return to screens with a new cast, a new energy and (one can hope) a new stylist.

A&E is also doing a remake, I'm sorry "re-imagining", of 1968's "The Prisoner" now with Jim Caveizel taking over for the late Patrick McGoohan as "Number 6." The original "Prisoner" lasted just one season but has stayed somewhat in the pop-culture consciousness. its trippy and bizarre world has inspired shows like "Lost" and countless parodies (one from "The Simpsons" particularly sticks out to me). Why remake it? The original British classic was perfect as a little seen, but oft-referenced cultural anecdote but the new version- simply based on the trailer- is darker and more paranoid. Perfect for our new reality where we all feel trapped and oppressed by forces beyond out control. 

And, let's not forget ABC's new revamp of 80s "classic" "V", once a holocaust allegory featuring reptile-in-human-clothing aliens and now a tale of how hope and and the human spirit can be turned against us by seemingly benevolent Visitors.

Has the mainstream entertainment media "run out of ideas" as so many have criticized? Or is this trend of re-imagining really for the best in that it takes the nucleus of an idea from the past and rebuilds it to a new form from today's perspective? Frankly, neither. A terrible idea from the past can still be a terrible idea today (See "Car 54, where are you?" the TV series and the movie), it's only when the idea from the past can be expanded, changed and most importantly grown into a new a better form (see the new "Battlestar Galactica" vs the original, or even "Galactica 1980") that this from of media recycling transcends the cliche of the remake and truly becomes a new form of art. Whether this latest spate of remakes, re-tweaks, rejiggers, and redos will fall into the latter column of remarkable or the former of retarded remains (ok, I'll stop) to be seen.

*See? No mention of "Firefly"-related bitterness. We've all grown a bit! But, seriously Joss, if you HAVE to go a a FOX related network in the future, think FX.

Review: "The Nanny Diaries"

The young-girl-gets-rude-awakening-about-the-real-world is a well trod genre of film. Be it green reporter gets eaten alive in the big city newsroom, or young actress find Hollywood a lot less glamorous than the E! channel implied, it seems young women getting disillusioned is fertile grounds for film. Rarely however does a formulaic concept like this also include and obvious and heavy-handed, yet well needed observation of the chosen venue.

It's only fitting I suppose that The Nanny Diaries focuses so fully on this "expose" of rich upper-east-side parenting as the main chaacter is studying to become an anthropologist when she's thrust into the nanny world.  The character, played  wonderfully by Scarlett Johansson, becomes so caught up in her "observation" of this society that she begins to subconsciously enable its continued existence.

The Nanny  Diaries is a film about longing.  Johansson's Annie longs to find her way in a life whose future she finds to be "to bright" and overwhelming. Her young charges' longing to find a way for his parents to actually see him as a living being. And, her employer's longing to find some respite in her world of benefits, functions, gatherings, and shopping. Ah, woe is the life of a mother. But, mostly it's a film that expresses to us all that we can always strive for more- more acceptance of who we are, more respect, and more time to explore what really matters to us.

The acting in this film, which is told as though it were a living "field study", is solid throughout. Johansson is wonderful and usual, Laura Linney slips effortlessly into the role of a society woman who hides her inner pain with lavish parties and a tight smile, and Paul Giamatti plays the role of a lascivious businessman/distant father with an eerie aplomb. Even Chris Evans as the barely fleshed-out perfect man archetype manages to to be dynamic on screen while given very little "character" to work with. The true revelation of the film though is 8-year-old Nicholas Reese Art as Grayer the child with everything except someone to love him. With a single look from this lonely child your heart melts and your scorn for his parents grows.

The lesson here is obvious- materialism is no substitute for good parenting. Or, don't let your ability to acquire cause you to lose what's most important. But, deeper than that, I think this film teaches that the grass isn't much greener on the other side, it's simply different grass. B+

Review Dump: Summer '07

First, why am I doing a mass review of the summer of '07 in August, isn't summer still going? Well any movie fan worth their weight in popcorn knows August is where movies go to die. So nothing particularly interesting will likely come along this month. Second, some of you may be upset that I'm not doing more in-depth reviews on some of these films. As it stands I'm posting this way after the release dates of most of these so I feel that more than the "capsule" style would be somewhat irrelevant. Anything there is to say has been said. I'm writing them at all because I haven't weighed in yet an we all know that my opinion is paramount in all of your lives.

License to Wed
A romantic comedy starring Mandy Moore sounds good on paper. Pairing her with "Office" cutie John Krasinski is an even better one. Casting Robin Williams and the couple's man-of-the-cloth foil is where this movie went terribly, horribly wrong. It's very difficult when watching these types of movies because you know the end result. Hell, in this case the couple started out together. Williams' purpose in the film is to try to tear them apart to prove that they belong together. And the whole mess unfurls so slowly that when you get to the eventual conclusion, not only do you not care in even the slightest, you have a strong hatred for all involved. Even the extras. D

Knocked Up
Another type of romcom, the dirty kind. This is the eventual endpoint of all slacker/stoner comedies: unexpected pregnancy hijinks. Katherine Heigl plays it straight as the unwilling incubator of Seth Rogen's lovechild and to her credit escapes relatively unscathed. Rogen on the other hand, although grasping for redemption late in the film, spends the FAAAAAAAR too long runtime being all kinds of juvenile, disgusting, misogynistic and irritating. They both, however, commit the cardinal sin of all romantic comedies: No romance, little comedy. D

Shrek the Third
The Shrek films have a history of taking pop-culture, fairy tales and fart jokes and spinning pure comedic gold out of them. For the third installment however, they produced the lamest retelling of Arthurian legend since First Knight. Nothing works in this overstuffed, under-plotted bore. The gags that have left kids and adults alike rolling in the past come off here as flat and smug. And the brilliant casting of Eric Idle as Merlin in a series that has used magic so perfectly in the past plays here more like an unremembered cameo.  As eagerly as I awaited the release of this film, I wait with dread for the inevitable fourth installment with a glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe the team can pull it out of their asses and back together. C

Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer
Oh, another comic books movie. I had zero expectations for this one as the first was so very bad. But this had slightly more potential as it could drop the deeply boring origin story and move on to some serious team fighting of Silver Surfer (who's not really, technically, a bad guy). And, actually, it wasn't so bad. I feel like the producers and writers, and to a certain extent actors, realized the level of film that they were in: hokey. They played to it, and made what was sure to be a painful superhero flick into a real popcorn film. Fun and entertaining in a totally not-stupid way. Sure they made comic-staple character Galactus into a giant planet-eating storm cloud. Sure Jessica Alba's makeover made her look more alien than the completely CG Surfer. Sure the Surfer never uttered his signature line "...the power cosmic...". But it was fun, not nearly as overwrought as the first one and in many ways, less stupid. So, good on them. B

Sicko
Reviewing a Michael Moore film isn't so much about the film but whether you agree with the point of view. His films are so polarizing that saying you liked or disliked it is akin to thumbing your nose at the opposing camp. This film is one that shouldn't create that reaction as it's all about health care reform: how it's done internationally and exploring maybe how it should be done here. Sure his tactics oftentimes far overshadow the message but the message is what matters, and like most of his films I feel it's important that everyone watch this. Love him or hate him he brings up issues that need to be talked about and perspective that don't often get heard. On this particular film? Never have I wanted to move to England more. B+

Ratatouille
Disney-Pixar's ability to deliver amazing animation and beautiful character's can't be denied. But, let's discuss the writing shall we? Plot-wise these movies run the gamut from brilliant to ineffectual, as to how many are in each category, I would say many trend towards the latter (Monsters Inc.)  while a select few hit the apex (the aptly titled The Incredibles). Ratatouille, named after a funny sounding food, is about a rat who longs to be a gourmet chef. Likable characters aside, the concept just isn't interesting enough to sustain our attention through. Everything is likable enough, but the boredom far outweighs any interest that could be gleaned from this paper-thin plot. C-

Transformers
The third most anticipated film of the year for me, Transformers has the most going against it: Cult-classic translated to film by extraordinarily pompous, overblown director (Michael Bay), and the untested marketability of Shia LaBeouf. The effects really make this movie. Could Bay's team really translate the giant battling robots to the screen? The answer is a resounding yes. The Transformers themselves are so cool as to be marveled at. They look and feel real and right. The plot, like many of Bay's films could easily be summed up by monkeys, it's not complex. Good vs. Evil. LaBeouf proves himself to be surprisingly good at comedy and playing against enormous CG robots. In short, lame movie that's ridiculously cool. B

I now pronounce you Chuck & Larry
Adam Sandler has a filmic niche that he fills with aplomb: fratboy-style douchey comedy. In general his movies are offensive but harmlessly so. He's made fun of golf, the disabled, fatherhood, Satan and countless other things in his career. Here he makes fun of the gays. Just guess how I fell about that. To be perfectly honest, after debating this film for a bit, what bothers me the most, is really, sadly, nothing that could've been avoided. They played the gays for laughs and tried to shoehorn in a positive message. I feel that even doing that, they did it poorly, but I'm beginning to think that had they not been SO FAR OVER THE TOP the target audience would've been so confused by the lack of swishiness that the message would've been missed completely. I wish that they had taken the responsibility of social consciousness even a little seriously and not made every gay character so very stereotypical, but again, the target audience wouldn't have been able to comprehend that. So, I upgrade my review because frankly the fact that the minuscule message got out there at all is better than nothing. C

The Simpsons Movie
After 18 years on the air, and no end in sight, "The Simpsons" is one of the best known cartoon families of all time. Since the heyday of their popularity movie talk has come up. For reasons I don't know, it's never materialized. As the years wore on and popularity waned, talk had lessened. But now it's here and it's great. Hearkening back to the glory days of the show, the movie plays like an episode became that has grown to truly awesome proportions. The jokes are quick, funny, and well done. The animation, surprisingly 2-D, is beautiful. And, at 87 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome. The perfect summer movie! A

Hairspray
The original John Waters film is, at least to me, a classic. A film about racism being shattered by dancing. In 2001 it became a successful Broadway musical, which has now been made a movie. The music and the dancing and the acting and the message are all fantastic.  In fact the worst part is John Travolta's creepy prosthetic drag performance which isn't bad per se, just... creepy. But I have no complaints. Well the soundtrack is infectious and is invading my mind, but that happens. A

 

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
WOW. Beautifully adapted from the enormous book (Longest of the books, shortest of the movies, hmmm) the 5th Harry Potter movie is the beginning of the war, the coming of the darkness and a continuation of the theme of loss and sadness that permeates all 7 books. The three main actors have grown remarkably as the movies have gone on and the new actors play their roles with eerie accuracy. Imelda Staunton in particular is chillingly amazing as the horrifically evil Delores Umbridge, while Helena Bonham Carter gives us a glimpse of what's to come in her future portrayals of Bellatrix Lestrange. But the real story is how the film portrays Dumbledore's Army, a group of young wizard's led by Harry who practice their magic in preparation for fighting ultimate evil. While this key plot point is handled better in the book, people who don't feel like wading through the 859 page tome will get the point. All of the plot points are hit  in a way that  the average viewer will get it.  But the original book, as it should, gives so very much more. But as an adaptation, this is the 5th straight Harry Potter to get it right. A+