Sunday Openings: Atonement

I’ve had Atonement on my mind a great deal this past week ever since I saw it for the umpteenth time this past week. But, my appreciation for Atonement is not news to the blog. I’ve waxed on about the film, the performances, a particular scene and even the sex. But, Sunday Openings is relatively new and why not dedicate a week to the succinct brilliance of it? No, I don’t plan on doing a Sunday Opening for each film I’ve covered in Scene On A Sunday, but clearly my love for Joe Wright knows no bounds. I’m not one to shirk at films with massive lengths, my favourite film is almost three hours, but it’s impressive just how much information Hampton and Wright manage to deliver to us in a mere two hours running time – the opening is a fine paradigm for that brevity.

I’m a bit undecided as to where the opening ends, but I like to think of Dario Marianelli’s impressive score as a guide. So, I’ll stop the scene when he does.

Technically, the title card isn’t really part of the opening, but I love how the technical aspects of the film coalesce. The percussion and piano inspired score, in the vein of Briony’s typewriter, plays as the film’s title appears. It’s the small things like this which make me go crazy for Atonement.

I vaguely remember that back in 2007 when Atonement was to come out it was being touted as the next best romantic feature and there was a trailer released with Lifehouse’s “You and Me” playing over scenes from the film. I happen to love that song, but it’s such an odd concept because Atonement is such an odd film that it sort of defies genre-identification. It’s as much a class drama as it is a love story, as it is a war film, and so on. And, to add to the confusion Cecilia – our de factor lead (but, not really) is not who we open the film with. It’s Briony Tallis’ writing which we open with, but before we even get to Briony we have a shot of the Tallis house…sort of…

This shot of the model of the house with Briony’s “toys” is such a peculiar one to take.

And, it works excellently. Briony is such a precise individual that it makes sense that she has her toys set up in a manner that’s so exact. I’m never sure what to think of Briony – Ronan plays her as something diabolical in training, Garai plays her as an unlikely victim and Redgrave plays her as a misunderstood woman. The fact that the animals all seem to be bowing to her is a bit disconcerting, though.

And the way the camera revolves to find her, first from the back is not quite sinister, but it’s as if she’s being sized. It’s as if we’re being warned to keep our eyes on this girl.

And speaking of eyes...

“Now we can see what all the fuss is about”

Captain America: directed by Joe Johnston; written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely

In the grander scheme of things, I suppose that a current tally of seventeen reviews films for 2011 is not as abysmal as I make it out to be. But, each time I peruse the films I’ve watched this year I feel like I haven’t watched much, and maybe that’s because the films I have seen haven’t made much impact on me. I wasn’t madly excited about Captain America’s release but I couldn’t help but hear positive rumblings from people who always have interesting things to say, and the promise of the throwback to the 40s piqued my interest. It’s another Avengers prequel, and I know virtually nothing of its source material – I’m not American, so perhaps that accounts for the divide. I don’t mean to me flippant at all, but the prospect of reviewing Captain America had be feeling grossly ambivalent. Perhaps it’s not a terrible film, but almost everything ended up rubbing me the wrong way.

Like every superhero (with the exception Clark Kent, and perhaps, Thor) Captain America’s powers aren’t inherent. He begins the film as Steve Rogers, a diminutive Brooklyn boy in the forties with dreams of defending his country at war despite his incessant list of ailments. By way of a dubious scientist he ends up getting the opportunity he seeks, but it’s really to act as a guinea pig for some scientific breakthrough which sees the scrawny Rogers turning into the very buff Captain America, the prototypical image of American valour, I suppose. The muscles, apparently, aren’t essentially because Captain America’s purpose is to be a propaganda machine of sorts – a pretty face for the war. But, that wasn’t Rogers aims and eventually he puts those muscles to good use and saves a couple hundred men from Nazi capture (in a manner I’m still uncertain of).

I can’t even muster up the energy to adequately assess what my issues with the film are but essentially I find Captain America to be woefully lacking in bite. The movies looks lovely, but the movie is not very compelling. What reason do we have to follow Steve’s trajectory? His would-be relationship with Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell)? Evan’s charisma? A band of riveting supporting players? No one all counts. Evans and Atwell have scant chemistry, and Evans lacks the drive to carry the film. And the supporting characters hardly demand your attention and it doesn't help that the film moves along for the most part in a humourless stupor.. I don’t know, maybe my general movie funk has blinded me to the good in Captain America, but I feel as if I’ve missed the bus on this one. I’d love to get the memo as to its worth, but I don’t get the reason for the fuss.
          
C/C-

TV Week in Review: July 24th-28th

We’re almost at the halfway mark for a number of the summer shows. I always find the shows during the summer to be more performance based than regular network shows and we get some fine performances this week.

Breaking Bad: “”; Season Four, Episode Two [B/B+]

This episode is a step up from last week’s good, but not great premiere. For one, it’s an episode that’s Jesse centred which is never a bad thing – Aaron Paul is a fine actor. The thing is, I can’t help thinking that Paul’s Jesse is a lesser version of Joel Kinnaman’s Holder on The Killing. I’d definitely watch a spin-off where the two of them have a clash, baggy jeans and all. Watching Jesse try to inject enthusiasm into the life around him is disturbing especially in those quiet moments like that brilliant closing scene. I’m not as interested in [ ]’s own machinations, although Cranston does manage to make everything that he does work. Truly, Walt is turning into such an insufferable douche I actually feel bad for Marie. I’m still wondering, though, exactly where this current season is headed. The first two episodes haven’t given us any indication as to the season’s arc.
[Writing: B/B+; Directing: B+]

Entourage: “Home Sweet Home”; Season Eight, Episode One [B/B+]

I know Entourage has lost its fans over the years, but I’m glad to have it back. It’s been three months since last year’s finale and Vince is out of rehab, Sloan has terminated her engagement with Eric and Ari is still living out of the house. For me, Entourage never delivers unparalleled brilliance with their premieres, and true to form this episode is good but not faultless. But, it sets up the story for what’s going to happen in this final episode. The filial relationship between Vince and Drama is always fun to watch and watching him trying to de-drug the house is fun. Vince is still being something of a dick, especially to Eric who I’m feeling badly for – broken engagement and all. It’s a true shame, though, that Jeremy Piven has lost his streak of Emmy nominations. His expression when his wife tells him that she’s seeing someone is brilliant as is his tearful gaze as he watches Vince’s house go up in flames. What does the future hold for this motley crew? Well…we’ll see, I guess – but it’s a solid start.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B/B+]

True Blood: “Me and the Devil”; Season Four, Episode Five [B]

This week the folks at Bon Temps offer up what’s probably the weakest episode of the season, which is not to say that it’s a bad episode in itself – it’s just a bit of a fall from the first month of goodness. Recently the great number of characters on the show has been turning into more of a crutch than a blessing and it’s becoming a bit difficult to focus on the goodness of characters like Pam when people like Alcide keep turning up to annoy me for no reasons. I’ve no idea what will become of Arlene’s demon baby, but the arc seems decidedly forced this time around And, of course, I have a right to resent any episode of True Blood where Sam doesn’t turn up until the halfway mark. On the upside, though Marnie is becoming even more interesting of a character and it’s nice to see just what those witches can do to the vampires. It’s nice to have Jason back in the human world, although I’m undecided as to what I think of his dreams. The episode is marked by some great duo moments, though – Sam and Tommy bonding over the death of their parents (none too soon) was a nice moment. Amidst the occasional confusion, though, Paquin holds down the episode with great moments opposite Skarsgård, Shaw and Wesley. And, on that note, it’s great that Tara’s gets more to do in this episode. Still, the overall episode is lacking in bite, a bit.
[Writing: B/B-; Directing: B]

The Closer: “To Serve With Love”; Season Seven, Episode Three [B/B+]

We’ve had episodes where Finn and Provenza have been the cause of craziness but this episode was interesting in that Brenda is relegated to almost supporting status. It’s fun watching the men interact with each other, and it becomes even more fun when Buzz is added to the mix. The case is an interesting one, and it’s great how everyone keeps ignoring Commander Taylor and it’s even more hilarious watching Brenda trying pull one over Fritz and the FBI. It’s a filler episode of sorts in that the major plot-points like Captain Raydor’s investigation are absent, but as far as filler episodes go it’s a delight.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B]

The Big C: “Cats and Dogs”; Season Two, Episode Four [B+]

Honestly, The Big C is being absolutely brilliant in its second season. It’s the fifth episode in and every episode has been stellar, and it’s all because the show keeps surprising you. Watching Cathy bond with her fellow cancer patient is nice, and when I saw the previews I was dubious about Cathy having another potential adulterous dalliance. But, we’re thrown a curveball and it’s just great that her new friend turns out to be gay. It allows Linney to breathe a little and have a little fun. On the topic of fun, Hickey is just hilarious playing Sean and it’s good to see that the drugs haven’t made him lose all his peculiarities. I loved the arc with him and Adam (and Adam’s hooker). Adam is being a bit of a dick, recently, but Basso always makes him come off as at least sympathetic. What’s more is the show has managed to make strident dramatic moments work in a comedic register. Paul’s job troubles are sad, but Platt’s final scene is lovely and wanly comedic. I love this show.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+]

Web Therapy: “Desperate Measures”; Season One, Episode Two [B/B+]

RASHIDA JONES!!!! Sorry, I love Rashida and that’s two weeks in a row she pops in her awesomeness on great TV shows (first Wilfred then Web Therapy). She gets way more to do this time around playing the girlfriend to Fiona’s patient and the arc is great to watch especially when Fiona has her freak-out. The first beats of the episode felt a bit reticent, but by the midpoint it was back to ridiculous humorous bits. Kudrow is still true brilliance to watch and even though there’s something decidedly uncomfortable in watching Fiona control Richard it’s still funny as hell.
[Writing: B/B+; Directing: B/B+]

Damages: “I’d Prefer My Own Office”; Season Four, Episode Three [B+]

Glenn’s back. Sure, Close has been putting in good work since the season began but this episode depended on the virtuoso of Patty Hewes. In theory, her search for Michael shouldn’t be that riveting but Close is always great with quiet bouts of emotion. I especially liked the scene between her and Goodman, even though I haven’t been especially moved by Goodman on the show, yet. Byrne continues turning in effective work and the drama of this season’s case continues to unfold. I really hope Messina doesn’t die (well, at least not soon) he’s turning in fine work and making me rethink his ability as an actor. I have to significant props to the show for managing to be such a riveting drama with such a low interest in romantic hijinks.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+]

Wilfred: “Conscience”; Season One, Episode Six [B+/A-]

What is there to say about Wilfred? It’s one of the best comedies on television at the moment and this early in the season (it’s little over a month old) I’m wondering if any male actor is going to top Elijah Wood’s fine work on the show. Even as a ridiculous concept like a talking dog to develop its narrative, the show is so brilliant in the way that it touches on significant issues despite all the silliness – even if the silliness is excellent. Will Ryan and Jenna eventually hook up? I can’t say, I don’t really care. The show’s great either way.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+]


Standout Performers
Aaron Paul in Breaking Bad B+/A-
Glenn Close in Damages B+
Elijah Wood in Wilfred
Lisa Kudrow in Web Therapy B+
John Benjamin Hickey in The Big C

Laura Linney in The Big C B+
Jason Gann in Wilfred B+
Rose Byrne in Damages B+
Chris Messina in Damages
Rashida Jones in Web Therapy
Dan Bucatinsky in Web Therapy
Jeremy Piven in Entourage B+
Gabriel Basso in The Big C B+
           
What did you watch this past week?

The Seven Ages of Man: Double Feature Theatre

All the world’s a stage…it’s only one of the gazillion or so quotes that Shakespeare is noted for. The thing is, people remember the beginning and forget that the monologue is actually about the seven ages of man. Marc of Go See Talk is hosting a blog-a-thon which has a brilliant idea – imagine yourself to be a theatre owner, what would a week of double features at our theatre look like? He’s given us the opportunity make up our own rules and so, I dedicate my seven days to Shakespeare’s seven ages of man…with a twist…each day showing a classic and a contemporary film.
             

Monday: The Second Childhood

I’ve inverted the ages so that we begin with the end. Instead of carrying the audience from beginning to end we’ll begin with the close and reverse, and what better film to kick it off with than The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. It’s all about the body going in one direction, and the mind in another. It’s not about second childhood in the most typical sense, but for a vast portion of the film the boyish Benjamin is trapped in an old man’s body. It will double with On Golden Pond Katharine Hepburn and Henry Fonda’s Oscar winning film. It’s a true ode to the beauty of growing old with someone you love.

Tuesday: The Pantaloon

What is a pantaloon, you ask – essentially he’s an aging buffoon? It’s not quite old age, but it’s getting there. This double feature features films which hinge on their men – Hopkins in a Merchant Ivory film, and Hulce and Abraham in the Forman epic. Hopkins butler isn’t quite a buffoon, but he acts it at times and Salieri ends the film well on the way to madness. The films are only a decade apart, but for me Amadeus is undoubtedly a classic and no one will do contemporary period films as well as Merchant/Ivory.

Wednesday: The Justice

The age where man bequeaths justice…Judgment from Nuremberg is a fine docudrama on the Nuremberg trials and I can’t have a day of Kate Hepburn without a day of Spencer Tracy (although it’s Maximillian Schell and Judy Garland who really floor me). I could have gone with a number of modern legal dramas, but to cheer you up after the sadness of Nuremberg we turn to My Cousin Vinny. Pesci’s barrister is unorthodox, but he and Mona Lisa Vito will fight for justice.

Thursday: The Soldier

There are so many films on war to choose from, especially since even those not about war often have it as a back-story but in the end the choices were not that difficult to make. The Messenger doesn’t take place on the battlefield, but I find it to be a provocative look at war and when paired up with From Here to Eternity it only becomes more interesting.

Friday: The Lover

It’s ridiculous for me to use Shakespeare as a paradigm and not have a Shakespearean flick, thus it’s a no-brainer that Zefferilli’s lush Romeo and Juliet is the one that I’m choosing. It’ll be paired up with the equally LUSH Bright Star and perhaps you’ll be depressed after this one-two of dying heros, but c’est la vie. My theatre, my rules.

Saturday: The Schoolboy

Perhaps, Lindsay Lohan and James Dean don’t have much in common but who can say no to a double whammy of Mean Girls and Rebel without a Cause. Both of them have protagonists dealing with new schools and both manage a knack for the zeitgeist without being overwrought.

Sunday: The Infant

For obvious reasons movies about babies are difficult to pull off…they don’t act. And I must admit when I saw that we needed three films for the final day, I got worried. But, I’m a boss at sidling out of sticky situations. I’ll begin with Rosemary’s Baby, follow it up with Children of Men and close with the guilty pleasure Look Who’s Talking. and, perhaps, only one is explicitly about infancy, but you know you want to see all

Go check out what's going on at The Mad Hatter's theatre who I first saw the blog-a-thon on....

           

Which days would you be coming to the theatre?

Enter Patricia Clarkson...

Shhh, Patty is resting - and she should be, she's constantly turning up in movies and making them exponentially better....now she's turning to TV

I only recently said that Patty Clarkson should show up in everything and be awesome and now comes the news that Ron Swanson, the legendary character on Parks and Recreation (do not dispute that statement) is going to be the impetus for Patty's appearance on the show. Yes, Tammy I will be played this paragon of cinema. (via)If there's anyone who can instill fear in Megan Mullally and Nick Offerman, it's Patty.
          
Now I can't wait for Parks and Recreation to be back.

The Spin-Off: 2.1

I've been remiss about some of the running features on the blog and it’s been some time since I delivered on an episode of The Spinoff – wherein I find ideas for sequels (prequels, spin-offs – you name it) more inspired than what Hollywood is tossing out. Of course, in Hollywood’s defence that’s not a difficult task when the most recent sequel in production is Ghost Rider, but I digress.

CS actually had a post a few weeks ago about knowing when to keep supporting characters supportive so I should probably tread lightly in the resuscitating of the feature. But, I’m starting with a kick-ass supporting character – Matron Mama Morton from Chicago as played by Queen Latifah. Chicago was a major high in 2002, what with its 13 Oscar nominees and whatnot. And, sometimes people remember Queen Latifah’s nod as one of those coaster nominations but I think that’s a bit of an underestimation of the work she does. But, this post isn’t about her specifically – it’s about Mama.

Chicago runs amok with interesting characters on the side-lines, and Mama Morton’s number is one of those pseudo-biographical musical numbers (I am ---, and so on) and it’s not just a significant number for the double entendre moments. I do wonder if Marshall and Condon were being anachronistic when they cast a black woman as a prison matron in the twenties, but wouldn’t that be an interesting (non-musical) story to tell? Just imagine all the hijinks she could get herself caught up in. Hollywood has been known to make money off ass kicking females, although Mama Morton’s brand of justice probably won’t be very altruistic. I’ve got faith in Queen Latifah, but I’m tempted to bring in Viola Davis for the spin-off. And who better than Martin Scorsese to direct? He knows his gritty crime dramas - and yes, Mama's tale is going to be a gritty crime drama, and Alfre Woodard will show up to play her mother.
        

Would you watch this spin-off? How would you rate it as against Hollywood’s own sequel ideas?

Clothes Horses: Episode Five

I’m offering a double dose of Clothes Horses this week, one’s a hold-over from a couple of weeks back and the other’s a new one. Now, I gave the dress before with the clue “She needs a holiday!” – if you figure out that key piece of dialogue you’ve got it made. And, because I’m such a pushover I’m giving you a clue that should uncover it all. Both films are from the same year.

Go. Who’s wearing what and in what movie? 

 UPDATE: So, either you've gone lazy or my clues are awful. Probably the latter...okay one of the women takes pictures, the other gets pictures of her taken. The contemporary one is an Oscar winner, but was not nominated for this role. The period one is a multiple Oscar nominee, one of them for this role. If you find one, just think of what other films came out that year

“What about the woman?”

The Conspirator: directed by Robert Redford; written by James D. Solomon
 
I couldn’t possibly write anything on Robert Redford period/political drama without pointing the way to Tim’s review which says everything I could possibly say with much more alacrity. So, in a way, this review suffices as something of a footnote because even though I’ve got nothing particularly new to the table I’d feel bad devoting nary a word to the film. The first I heard about The Conspirator was a post that RC of Strange Culture did before it was released, and there’s no doubt that American History is mellifluous enough to precipitate dozens of interesting tales about the Civil War era and whatnot. There is an interesting story to be told in The Conspirator, but there’s a devastatingly trite way in which it is told.

Court-room dramas are in many ways a dime a dozen on film, and even less on television but The Conspirator has a strident hook, and I’m not just talking about the fact that it’s based on a true story. The imprudence with which the trial against Mary Surratt unfolds is a fine example of the lesser aspects of the human race but Solomon’s script approaches the issue with a stifling lack of zest. The technical aspects of the film are done with the right amount of gloom necessary for the proceeding but the script itself peters between unwarranted sagacity and occasional hectoring. And Redford is the kind of director who’s obviously interested in making a “statement” so there’s a fighting tendency for his directing to encourage the script’s occasionally heavy handed nature.
              
But, the cast subverts that nature. I feel a bit annoyed with Redford that he has such a brilliant cast and fails to give them impeccable work. But, looking at the film you wouldn’t know it, well not really. It’s a good ensemble and the actors are all willing to put in credible work. I was looking forward to The Conspirator because of Robin Wright. She made my list of nominees in 2009 for her work The Private Lives of Pippa Lee a film she held down with her luminescence. She doesn’t get to do quite as much here because as much as the film is named after her titular character Solomon’s narrative seems more interested in James McAvoy Aiken, the war hero turned lawyer. And, McAvoy is fine – as is the entire cast – but it’s such a shame that Wright in particular is forced to play her role in a single register (excellently, but still). The film’s female cast – made of Wright, Evan Rachel Wood (impressive in a role that’s too small) and Alexis Bledel in a surprisingly poignant turn. Even though Wright is the de facto lead Redford is intent to leave her for the men of the narrative, sometimes to the disservice of the film. It’s a true shame that Wood and Wright never get a proper scene together.

I can’t berate Redford for trying to make a statement with his own film, but the unfortunate thing is - The Conspirator is not the type of film where entertainment needs to be sacrificed for edification. There’s enough material for his “message” to hit home. It probably won’t be remembered as the end of the year as anything seminal, and it’s not really seminal in fact but even though the film itself is imperfect it’s home for a talented cast and some fine technical work. It’s strange, the film is about the woman behind it all but it’s really about men...too many men.
       
C+

Cee is soaking up the sun unaware of the imminent library sex to come in a few hours. How’s the heat treating you?

Forgotten Characters 4.3

Another week, another forgotten character to wax on about. Sometimes I think it’s not so much a character that’s forgotten as it is an actor who’s completely forgotten, so that any interesting character becomes something of collateral damage. It doesn’t help when you’re not a technically “big name” in a film where some big names are rubbing shoulders and I think that, perhaps, that’s what happens with

Lucy Liu in Kill Bill Vol. 1

as O-Ren Ishii

For the record, Kill Bill is my favourite Tarantino film – it’s an outrageous blend of disgusting gore and irreverent humour and it works, Uma Thurman is fabulous. But, my allegiances have never really been with the Bride, at least not for the first volume because I’ve always had a soft spot for Lucy Liu (who, I’ll maintain, was excellent in Charlie’s Angels). She plays O-Ren Ishii in Tarantino’s film, the first on the list. The introduction to O-Ren Ishii is my favourite of the lot. Liu is one of those actors who works well with expressions, the volume of her work here depends on emotion transferred not by words by her eyes and you don’t doubt the bio that the Bride gives her.

“At a time when I knew the least about my enemies the first name on my death list O-Ren Ishii was easiest to find but, of course, when one manages the difficult task of becoming queen of the Tokyo underworld one doesn’t keep it a secret – does it?”

The film is all about those quick moments that take you from the trite to the insaneand Liu has a sort of animalistic physicality so that imagining her as Queen of the underworld is believable even as you find it a bit comical as she moves from

 in a matter of minutes.

 It’s the run-up to her death that’s my favourite chapter. The Bride decapitates O-Ren’s army and, sure, it’s full of virtuoso and whatnot but it’s not the battle that gets me in that scene. It’s the part where The Bride realises that she might have underestimated her enemies. I love the banter between Uma and Lucy.

O-Ren: “You didn’t think it was going to be that easy, did you?”

The Bride: “You know, for a second there, yeah I did.”

O-Ren: “Silly rabbit...”

  

 

O-Ren/The Bride: “...Tricks are for kids.”

It’s such a perfect moment, not only does it underscore the zaniness of Tarantino Lucy gets to be awesome – just a few moments before her death.  I remember back when everyone was ruminating on a potential candidate for Catwoman I said Lucy Liu was the best choice, and I stand by that claim. She's agile, she an do pity and she fights like an animal.And, she's photogenic...which can never hurt.

Yeah, sure, O-Ren is a psycho murderess and what not, but I still feel a bit bad when she gets killed by that Hattori Hanzo sword. And, she gets a killer final line.

“That really was a Hattori Hanzo sword...”

      
So, sure, The Bride is an iconic character and whatnot - O-Ren Ishii is worth remembering...right?

“Of course it’s happening in your head; why should that make it less real?”

Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows II: directed by David Yates; written by Steve Kloves
          
I imagine that writing a review of the latest Harry Potter is in the technical sense akin to intellectual masturbation – I’m probably the only one getting any gratification from it. This is probably why reviewing it is wrought with so much difficulty, approaching it without taking note of its zeitgeist aspects is impractical. I’d wager that any critic – pseudo or otherwise – went into the film suspecting what they were going to think of it, what grade they’d give it. After seven films there isn’t much that can drastically change about the series, the things that you loved have endured into the aspects you look for and the things that annoy you’ve learned to contend with – and ignore, if possible.

The marked difference between this instalment and its previous encounters is the time it covers. Save for a few minutes of what functions as a prologue, and a scene of memories the film covers a few hours which makes the film seem as if it’s hurtling towards its close and it turns into more of an exercise in all things visuals than anything significant story wise. Essentially, a final two Horcruxes must be found which requires breaking into the Gringotts vault and then Hogwarts. With the particulars of the story stripped to the bare essentials the visuals aspects become principal – a sort of the medium becoming the message sort of occurrence; and it looks fabulous. It’s a battle for the ages and the film looks better than any of the previous instalments.

I always wished that the Harry Potter films had stuck to a single director over the tenure of the entire series. This sort of fantastical fare is the type that places greater emphasis on style than substance and if one were to talk into account the hours devoted to these characters prior to this one, the film surprisingly lacks that emotional profundity that you’d hope for in a final instalment. It’s probably unfair to expect Yates to manage that when previous directors have brought their own flair to project, and it’s doubly unfair because this instalment is a film in itself and not just a glorified epilogue – which, in my defence, it seemed to be at times.

It’s where I have to divide my de facto appreciation from the series from the actual worth of the entry. I’m conscious that it’s not a wholly brilliant endeavour, even though in my mind it’s as good as I could hope for. I devoured, yes devoured, those novels from the moment they came out and I’ve been following the films since they came out so in my mind the situation is probably a whole lot more majestic than it would be for a non-believer. I can point out the shortcomings like an abysmal use of every single supporting character, but I can just as easily make experiences for them because more than any other of the films this is Radcliffe’s show. It seems like such a facetious thing to criticise Radcliffe's acting, especially now when he seems to be the indelible Potter. Acting wise, I'll always say he was at his strongest in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. It's the single installment which depended expressly on the work put in by the child-cast, but here Dumbledore's Harry's is relegated to random moments, some which work more than others. The opening at Shell Cottage isn't as searing as you'd hope, but bigger things like Harry's final walk to Voldermort manage to come off splendidly. There's a moment where Ron and Harry's eyes interlock and you can grasp the importance of the moment. You really can't can't force that sort of rapport, even if Yates places little emphasis on it overall.

Still, I just as easily don’t place as much credit in the things that the film does right like the Pensive, for example because I expect no less. In the same way that I expect nothing less than great Britons to turn up and give great performances from the sidelines in the form of Maggie Smih, HBC and Kelly MacDonald (who is shockingly effective in only a few moments). It’s one of those damning effects of being inextricably linked to a film and its source. So, when that camera panned out and we got that shot of the trio looking out from the ruined castles it wasn’t so much a sigh heaved after a thrill, but a quiet contentment. And sure, in my head I pretended that those last four minutes didn’t happen, because that’s how I wanted to remember it. It was, after all, my party.
      
B/B-