"Wonder Woman" movie review

Love trumps war. That is the gist of the phenomenal movie that is “Wonder Woman”. And it makes total sense for the ultimate female badass superhero and proto-feminist to be as considerate, nurturing, and loving as she is strong.

The film did plenty of things right – first and foremost is putting Patty Jenkins behind the camera. As a fan of “The Killing” (and if you know that show, you’d know, too), Ms. Jenkins does well when it comes to atmosphere/mood and character studies. And the fact that the film is an origin story makes this the ultimate character study and makes Ms. Jenkins perfect for it. That she was able to execute the film’s fight scenes with heart as well as tension is just the cherry on top. There was no “male gaze” to distract audiences from Diana Prince’s story. And her vision for Themyscira, its Amazon warriors, and its ultimate “god-killing” weapon was something out of every woman’s fever dream. I applaud her for sticking the landing.

Another thing they got right was the casting. Everything has been said about Gal Gadot. What a star. To say she’s the perfect embodiment of Diana Prince is highest praise, one that I share. (Apologies to Lynda Carter, whom I also adore!) I need to give Zack Snyder props for this decision as he was then casting for BvsS. He was not wrong. Ms. Gadot had the right mix of strength and sweetness and vulnerability. She radiates idealism and optimism – a true north superhero modeled after Christopher Reeve’s Superman (still the benchmark, in my opinion). To watch her innocently check herself out wearing glasses in the department store mirror was so subtle and yet that powerfully understated beauty was still not lost on Steve Trevor, nor the audience.

Speaking of Steve Trevor, the producers certainly struck a goldmine in Chris Pine. I need to pause here for a confession: I love Chris Pine. Out of the all the Chrises, he’s the only one I would put at the top of my list (though he’d be neck-and-neck with Evans). Chris Pine is kind of like a Renaissance guy: he can do drama, comedy, action movies, and he can SING. He can be the baddie or the hero. He’s got really nice eyes - though admittedly, that’s all secondary from the fact that this guy has got talent AND brains (he’s a UC Berkeley alum). He’s loved by women, men, and geeks everywhere.

Now that I got that out of the way, I need to talk about the chemistry that he has with Ms. Gadot. THESE. TWO. HAVE. CHEMISTRY. TO. BURN. And oh, does it sizzle and burn, with terrifically comic back-and-forths. And it’s not just about romantic chemistry. They are allies, first and foremost, in their mission to stop the war. Diana may always be one step ahead of him, but Steve is right there on her heels, with a rifle (and a really horrendous German accent). For all of Diana’s “men are weak when it comes to pleasure”, she certainly has done a 180 after having been in Steve’s company for a while.

Because, and this is also where Ms. Jenkins and screenwriter Allan Heinberg got it right, Steve is pretty awesome himself. His character is amazingly fleshed out – and it’s not even his origin story! For once, out of all the superhero films made in this century, the love interest and sidekick is believable in his motivations, is sufficiently empathetic to root for, and is hella funny and charming beyond measure. His monologue towards the end is infused with righteous desperation, and makes you BELIEVE. And Diana did believe, even if, for one moment, I had an incredulous look on my face when I realized what was happening at the end. And Chris Pine sold it. From the moment Steve’s father’s watch makes another appearance, he SOLD IT.

And Ms. Gadot, with her wonderful breathy accent, luminously poised and regal in her indignation and POWER, vanquishes the enemy. She is revealed as the weapon all along, a compelling force of nature and authority.

All the supporting players are fantastic. It’s pretty obvious Ms. Jenkins had enough love for everybody. Trevor’s three-man support group was both diverse and interesting (with enough pathos and hilarity to match Steve and Diana’s witticisms). They each had something to teach Diana about humanity (from Native American genocide, to frustrated ambitions, and the nightmares of war). To be playing third fiddle and yet still have as much impact on the hero this way is something else. Sky-high kudos indeed for Ms. Jenkins and Mr. Heinberg and for the actors themselves (loved seeing Ewan Bremner here – hello, Spud!).

The actual introduction of Diana into battle – also called the “No Man’s Land” sequence – is downright revelatory and inspiring. The fact that some scenes had played themselves repeatedly on movie trailers and Youtube does not diminish its impact on the big screen at all. To see the scene as a whole is mesmerizing, and nearly made me want to jump up and applaud. Oh does it build up so, with the men on her heels (again). When Trevor says “no man is allowed to cross” over to the trenches, that doesn’t stop Diana. And she truly doesn’t stop, as she moves on to liberate the village on the other side, flushing out the enemy, and finally subduing them with one swift leap to a crumbling church steeple. (The latter with a little help from Trevor’s memory from his short time on Themyscira.) Ms. Gadot’s action scenes in this setpiece were truly amazing. Behind-the-scenes footage show her being led shot-for-shot by stunt director/coordinator, Damon Caro, another guy who deserves a ton of applause. He gives Ms. Gadot her angles, the leverage, and warrior swoop she needs to overpower all these Germans.

The animation at the beginning that tells the story of Zeus and the gods, and the birth of the Amazons, was glorious as well. Ms. Jenkins and cinematographer, Matthew Jensen, made good on their promise to deliver what looks to be a John Singer Sargent painting – infusing the rest of the film (particularly the London/Belgium half) with the same look. For all the pomp and hype surrounding this film, there’s so much about it that makes it stand on its own as a DCEU entrant. Snyder and Company would do well to follow those things that make “Wonder Woman” unique, compelling, and successful. (JLA will be a tough second act, for sure.) I can’t wait to see what Ms. Jenkins does with the sequel. (Geoff Johns better not screw this up!)

I’m not ashamed to admit that I was so overwhelmed by the iconic imagery and female badassery being played out on screen. So overwhelmed, that yes, I cried. Themyscira was the ideal stuff – loved seeing Robin Wright lead a horseback charge on the beach, and the resulting balletic Amazonian fighting style. And the “No Man’s Land” sequence was all sorts of amazing. And, finally, that last closeup shot of Capt. Trevor – a mix of emotions on his face, with relief being the last one, was… something else. No spoilers here. Just a lot of love for this film. (All I’ll say is Chris Pine’s contract was for 3 films, and he’s appeared in 2 of them already.)

No other superhero has defeated villainy or war with love before. It took a woman to do that, of course.

Jump...

Film Review: "Whiplash"

Rare is that film with a definitive soundtrack in its most literal sense. The music on “Whiplash” tracks the film’s cinematic highs and lows, and it is key to manipulating the audience’s pulse, towards that applause at the end once the film’s greatness descends upon their consciousness. The movie ended on such an extremely high, WTF note that you can’t help but lay back on your seat and breathe out “that was so gooood”. And that’s exactly what it was. Kudos to wunderkid Damien Chazelle for writing and directing such a smart, wildly engaging movie that was at times slightly unnerving.

The movie opens on Andrew, played superbly by Miles Teller, practicing on his drum kit. When in walks music professor, Fletcher. The venerable character actor, JK Simmons plays the borderline-“abusive” (perspective shifts in this movie, so will mine) professor with a fearless intensity. They begin a strange back-and-forth akin to a mating ritual of sorts – if you like your significant other to be rude, profane, and incredibly overbearing. The film progresses into an eventual unraveling by both men, and that progression is both riveting and alarming. Both actors throw themselves into their roles, with Teller literally attacking a drum kit, and Simmons displaying an acting masterclass in both severity and subtlety. Teller’s Andrew literally transforms from shy, unsure freshman jazz drummer into an obstinate and entitled prick of a teenager. Both characters are unlikeable yet unassailable – both traits that the audience (myself definitely included) has somehow latched on to in the face of a gripping script, and thus turned them into a duo worth rooting for.



Despite the director’s admission that some aspects of the film have been “heightened” for drama, the well-grounded screenplay coupled with the fervent commitment displayed by the actors to their roles have given the film an air of credibility. Of course music artistes are fierce and competitive and eventual loners in a universe where success is measured by acclaim and perfection. And of course music teachers, like any other reputable coach or mentor, can dish out tough love on par with a drill sergeant. The belief that genius can somehow be earned is something that resonates with the Joe/Jane Everyman who is sitting in the theater and watching this movie.



The film's peak takes place in Carnegie Hall for a JVC concert. Fletcher intentionally mindfucks Andrew to the point of the latter crashing and burning in front of the eyes of a high-profile and discerning audience. And then, after walking offstage into the arms of his beleaguered father (played with both a tender and stern hand by Paul Reiser), Andrew returns to his stool and proceeds to play “Caravan” – that piece that launched his obsession for that elusive double-time swing and launched the dysfunctional relationship he currently shares with Fletcher. Then there’s this wonderful moment where he is a student no longer, and instead morphs into a bandleader as his father watches wide-eyed from the wings and Fletcher’s rage simmers underneath the stage lights. He tells the bass player “I’ll cue you in”. And he does. And the rest of the band follows suit, avoiding disgrace and saving face. And Andrew most beautifully mouths “Fuck you” to his former mentor.

Or was he?

For another beautiful scene takes place, as Fletcher recognizes that there is a MOMENT happening and he is quick to take advantage of it. “Sadist-enablers” is what I call both of them. They are both perfect and wrong for each other. The dysfunction is off the charts between these two, even though I understand their complex and acute need for each other to survive and thrive in the unrelenting professional world of jazz music. Discovering that Fletcher has finally found his Charlie Parker is as terrifying as it is mind-blowing.

Jump...

Next Stop? Everywhere! (Happy 50th Birthday to the Doctor Who-verse - Aliens, Companions, Robots, Villains, All!)

I just finished playing the Google Doodle celebrating Doctor Who’s 50th anniversary. It took me a while to get all letters, but I made it to the end. It was the latest in the long line of DW teasers celebrating this Saturday’s anniversary special. It will feature Doctors Ten and Eleven, my favorite Doctors of the series.

But I suppose “favorite” is too weird a word to use, especially in a serial that spans 50 years. For every Doctor, there will be a dud episode, a weird plot arc, an iffy companion, a ridiculous villain, and a backstory factoid that won’t seem to fit the canon. If you play the part long enough, the law of averages will win out, and you will have some series’ peaks as well as some crazy troughs. (That was certainly true of the Tenth Doctor.) But what matters in the whole history of my admittedly short DW fandom is that I started the journey. And thankfully, that journey is still ongoing.

My first Doctor is also the youngest – Matt Smith. That seems weird to say on paper, but I do have HUGE affection for Matt’s Doctor in that his series’ debut was the very first DW episode that I watched in full. Never mind that I was stuck on a treadmill debating what to watch on the little TV screen in front of me. I clicked on the BBCA channel in time to see little Amy Pond see a blue police box crash into her garden and I’ve been hooked ever since. Very soon, I was rooting for Number Eleven as much as I was rooting for his companions’ relationship to survive the trials of being sucked into the time vortex. Amy and Rory were my favorite Doctor Who companions. Not Rose or the Doctor. Or Martha and the Doctor. Or whoever else. It was Amy and Rory. Arthur Darvill, in particular, was an inspired and lovely piece of casting. As the Doctor described him in “The Wedding of River Song”, “The loyal soldier, waiting to be noticed. Always the pattern. Why is that?” It was such a sweet summary of Rory’s character through the seasons. Though Amy waited for her Raggedy Man, Rory waited for his girl, his Amy. And he fought for her amidst the wars of the universe. It was quite fitting that their final episode has them transported back in time where they lived their years together. And fans were treated to our beloved Rory character getting closure through a storyboarded webisode where their son meets his grandfather for the first time and explains why he’d have to keep watering the plants from now on.

The fact that his companions were sometimes larger-than-life compared to the Doctor possibly necessitated a change. Whereupon Clara came in. it was quite a clunky character device, in that she was supposedly in the Doctor’s timestream and therefore a part of all his reincarnations. We will see what the 50th anniversary episode has for us.

My first brush with Doctor Who fandom, meanwhile, happened much, much earlier. I was a fan of the series “Heroes” and in one episode, Christopher Eccleston guest-starred. At that moment, the Internet LIT UP like crazy. The Doctor is in this episode! The Doctor! Doctor Who! At the time, I was like, aptly enough, “Doctor who…?” I tried to look him up and it turns out he played the Doctor the year before. I was like, “okay great” but didn’t go beyond that. I thought, well, he’s no longer the Doctor now.

Then a year or so later, when I was reading through casting news for the new Harry Potter Goblet of Fire movie, news of David Tennant being cast as Barty Crouch Jr. spread like wildfire and also took the Internet by storm. I was like, “who IS this guy??” Upon seeing the movie, I thought to myself, “he only has like, 5 minutes of screentime – what the heck was the fuss all about??” I read up on him, going backwards, and again, Doctor Who cropped up. This is nuts, I thought. And it wasn’t until I was transfixed on that small TV screen on the treadmill that day that I finally figured out what the fuss was all about.

Since I didn’t have a DVR or subscribed to Hulu or Netflix, it wasn’t easy to watch the series backwards. Sometimes BBCA would randomly air a Tenth Doctor episode, but that was rare. And even rarer was a Eccleston episode. At some point, I’d have a pretty good sample of Ten episodes (there were a lot; he played the role for 5 years!) to figure out that he did a phenomenal job with the character. He’d had something like 4 major companions (Rose, Martha, Jack, Donna), and the recurring companions like Jackie and Mickey and Wilf. My top two DW episodes are all Tennant’s: “Blink”, “Waters of Mars”. Third goes to Eccles’ two-parter “The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances”. Funniest episode had been “Partners In Crime” and possibly most of the Doctor/Donna season. I LOVE Catherine Tate. Next to Rory, Donna was my other favorite companion. I love that she was “just a mate” of the Doctor’s. None of that romantic nonsense. And then third goes to Capt. Jack Harkness. That Capt. Jack love eventually translated to me binge-watching the first three seasons of “Torchwood” – it was great! (Jack-Ianto forever! Also, *sniff*…)

If it weren’t for 2013 being the anniversary year of Doctor Who, I would never have watched any episode of the older Doctors. But the BBC did show at least one memorable episode from each Doctor’s time, and it was fun watching old-timey sets and costumes (Tom Baker’s scarf!) back then, along with the older versions of the TARDIS, the Cybermen, and other monsters of the week. It was fun watching the original Master duke it out with the Doctor for the first time. And the Daleks never changed, save for a pop of color in the current version. The Daleks are still the enemy. Some newer “monsters” came along, and at the top of any Doctor Who list of terrifying monsters, especially my list, were the Weeping Angels. “Blink” was the first time they appeared on the series and I was rightfully frightened out of my mind. I was thankful that it aired in the daytime, because I otherwise would have jumped out of my skin at the climactic scene. Though Tennant did not feature largely in this episode, Carey Mulligan did a fantastic job as Sally Sparrow, as did the first-time lady director. The episode was both outstanding and a standout in that it didn’t have the same look and feel as the rest of the Tenth Doctor Who episodes at the time. And the story structure was different, too. Combine these along with a superb heroine, a mostly absent Doctor, and a truly terrifying monster of the week, and I will say that “Blink” is the best and my favorite DW episode of all.

As a fan of Matt Smith, I love that he is a huge goof and makes the Doctor funny and approachable and relatable. I think the fact that he was very young, had humor, and had companions that were his age helped cater to a younger demographic and most likely brought an increased audience to DW (myself included). And also the fact that he wasn’t afraid to be KissyDoctor helped as well (a character trait born from Paul McGann – the underappreciated Eighth Doctor and one whom I still love to bits).

But I think Tennant, and to some degree, Eccleston, showed the best characterization of the Doctor. Not just with humor and empathy, but with a great deal of enigma and tragedy as well. “The Waters of Mars” was a particularly telling story that emphasized the “Lord” in Time-Lord. Tennant’s Doctor showed us that, while he can take a pratfall or two, he is ultimately a powerful being that can do away with any compunction whatsoever if he feels like it. It’s a recurring theme that was planted in Nine, and underlined in Ten’s legacy. That, despite being an advocate of peaceful resolution and the fact that he does not utilize any weaponry, he could erase universes and alien races, bring down governments, and manipulate individuals and events that could change history. And indeed, he has done all those things. When he brought about a character’s suicide towards the end of “Waters of Mars”, the tragedy that plays out on the Doctor’s face was very telling and yet you knew this was just all in a day’s work for him. In “The Stolen Earth”, when Davros chided him for fashioning his companions into weapons, you felt the weight and guilt of that statement on him. It was one of the risks associated with being the Doctor. Sure you can travel and create extraordinary experiences. But to have lived so long and alone amidst great darkness and evil was bound to affect your psyche and, eventually, the people you associate with.

I had assumed that Doctor Who will have an endgame at some point. People are talking about a finite number of regenerations, and yet the franchise continues to amass and amaze. The Twelfth Doctor was also a genius casting choice (Peter Capaldi, who will need to keep his tongue in check and play/talk nice for now) and whom I will need to enjoy the ride for as long as he is able. I don’t know if they are going to end the series, nor how. I think the “how” is a good question. Will the Doctor finally find peace? Happiness? Love? Well, we all know he’s married to River Song, and has a granddaughter Susan. So there goes “love”. And I don’t think “peace” will ever be achieved as long as inter-planetary turmoil continues to be an issue. So, “happiness” maybe? It’s odd to think that a franchise with such a devoted fan base is predicated on a character that is lonely and sometimes, angry. I’m not sure how this will all end. For now, I will enjoy the journey. Bring on Number Twelve, please.

But first, let’s see how three Doctors are going to save London again this Saturday.

Jump...

An Open Letter to the National Theater Live, and to Everyone Involved in the Production of “Frankenstein”

In the intro to "Frankenstein", we were encouraged to react via Twitter. However, allow me my moment of foolishness, to wear my heart on my sleeve. I need more than 140 characters to capture what I truly felt upon watching "Frankenstein" that night. I hope this reaches the right people over at the NTL. Because God knows their impact is stronger than they realize.

Last week, I traveled more than an hour’s worth of subway rides to see the National Theater Live’s re-broadcast of “Frankenstein”. I had been looking forward to this for months, and I was prepared to brave the cold Evanston chill on a Wednesday night just to see the two Sherlocks duke it out on stage.

I have heard of this production a year after it ended its stage run, so you could say I was very “late to the party”. I’m not even sure how I have come to hear about the play. I must have been reading a Benedict Cumberbatch Wikipedia entry one day and seen it on there. Or I must have been checking out the National Theater website and simply started clicking on links here and there and stumbled upon the 50th anniversary re-broadcast. However I discovered it, I instantly regretted not knowing about it early enough, and I vowed to see it. Even if I had to travel all the way up to a north Chicago suburb to see it.

So yes, I was excited. I have been a fan of Jonny Lee Miller ever since “Eli Stone”, of Benedict since he broke out as “Sherlock”, and Danny Boyle since, well, everything (but primarily “Trainspotting”). To discover that the stars aligned to see these three creative forces commit to “Frankenstein” was nothing short of a miracle, I could imagine. It was no surprise that the whole original run was sold out, and the leads’ performances were acknowledged and recognized by critics and peers as extraordinary. I’m not sure if the decision to have them switch between Victor and The Creature was a novel one, but it certainly worked with only actors of their caliber. The production I saw had Jonny Lee Miller take on The Creature and Benedict as Victor. As a biased observer, I can say that The Creature’s confusion, loneliness, and desire to be loved resonated with me very much. I confess to not having read the original source material, so I was rooting for him all the way to the end (and cursing Frankenstein for neglecting him in the first place). I admit to being heartbroken when The Creature killed Elizabeth, only because I honestly thought he could be redeemed. It was a fantastic play, and the way Jonny portrayed The Creature, in my mind, was spectacular. With humor and pathos combined. I felt rather tortured with the way the production toyed with my feelings – sad one moment, overjoyed the next, then heartbroken after that. But I relished it because it proved that the production was compelling and memorable enough for me.

The production itself, primarily the set design, seemed to take on a steampunk aesthetic. Quite apropos, given the sci-fi and morality themes within the material. And the way Underworld rendered the lighting and score only served to reinforce the aesthetic some more. Much was also said about The Creature being given a point of view, which gave the production its moral (or amoral, depending on how you look at it) center. “Frankenstein” certainly set out to be different from other versions of the tale. Sometimes it tried too hard, and you can tell when it did. But the end result was something creatively definitive and memorable.

I should add, however, that I saw it with a heavy heart. As excited as I was to see it, I had mixed emotions going into the theater that night.

I am currently into the last two months of my stay here in the US. My work visa is expiring, and I am trying to lap up and savor as many experiences as I could, especially those that I could not experience at home. You see, growing up in a Third World country meant that cultural pursuits were expensive, if not accessible. Though I was privileged to be educated in a top-ranked institution, the curriculum was directed more towards local culture and history. I had a dearth of knowledge about what you'd call the Western "classics" – like Shakespeare, and Emerson, and Whitman. I tried to read them, and about them, in my own spare time, but I was only limited to what I can get my hands on(e.g., buy in a bookstore) and what I can understand. It was perhaps the reason why I was grateful to Hollywood for “visualizing” the literature for me (I must have consumed more versions of “Romeo and Juliet” that I can remember, and seen more Bronte-inspired rom-coms than I care to admit). And why “Deads Poets Society” resonated so much with me.

In my 8 years living in the US, I have always been enamored of how the arts and culture are perceived and supported here. When the time comes for me to pick up my bags and leave, I will truly miss how accessible the arts are here. The fact that I can watch an innovative take on “Frankenstein” more than two years after it was staged, just boggles my mind. And the fact that I saw it in a Stateside theater is just as astounding. Whoever thought of the idea to broadcast UK theater – be it from the National Theater, or the Royal Shakespeare Company – is a genius. Never mind the income that it generates. Think of the cultural effect it will have on the many, many people who can now access this kind of cultural phenomena when they initially couldn't. I myself am inspired so much that it makes my heart burst – and only because I do not know where to begin with my story.

I had only been in the US for a year, studying for a graduate degree, when I decided to spend the scholarship stipend money I’ve been saving up on a ticket to see “The History Boys” on Broadway. I do not know why I decided on that particular play. I only glanced over the synopsis on the website. But I saw it and had the most wonderful time. It was my very first time to see a Broadway play, and I got to see Richard Griffiths onstage, as well as the original UK cast. I got to hear Posner sing “Bewitched, Bothered, Bewildered”. And I got to see some of the main cast before they became popular. The material was reminiscent of “Dead Poets Society”, and I remember walking out of the theater after the matinee, not minding the pouring rain, and thinking to myself, “I’m going to write them a letter.” And I did. I thanked them for giving me such a lovely first-time experience. And Nicholas Hytner wrote me back. I still have that letter.

With the National Theater Live program, the National Theater itself does not need to rely on Broadway versions of its productions to reach out to audiences beyond the UK. And I know that this program has entertained many others like me, and inspired many others like me. My only misfortune is that I can no longer access this program once I return home. And while the needs of a developing country are different, and possibly more dire, I cannot imagine how showing a Shakespeare play can hurt. But like I said, going home means taking on a different set of priorities. And I quietly weep at the possibility that I will no longer have access to National Theater Live productions.

“Frankenstein” will be my last NTL production before I leave for home. I wish I could stay here longer to see “Coriolanus” and “War Horse”, but I’m afraid I will have to miss them. The UK-bred productions are a wonderful export. Broadway is great, sure. But there’s a certain history, quality, aesthetic, and novelty that the UK stage brings to the world of theater. And so it bears repeating: I hope you folks are aware of the cultural effect you have on people who otherwise can’t see a play in the UK. I can’t thank you enough for entertaining me through the years, and for putting me in a cultural space that believes anything is possible. I will have to do away with you for a while. But be assured that it gives me a goal to strive for. Maybe save up for a trip to London and see something live for the first time?

That would truly be mind-blowing.

Jump...

The X-files on their 20th Anniversary

Today is September 10, 2013 and the 20th anniversary of The X-files. I’m writing this is in the middle of a busy work afternoon because I feel like I should write some sort of paean to the series that kick-started my habit of “appointment viewing” as well as my devotion to all the things good about the small screen.



The show didn’t make its way to the Philippines until months later, if I recall correctly. The honest truth is I didn’t know how I stumbled upon this show. I most likely heard about it from reading the Entertainment section of the newspaper. (It certainly wasn’t promoted very well around these parts, that’s for sure.) Cable TV and the Internet were still in its infancy, and quite possibly the most hi-tech gadget of the period was a brick-sized mobile phone. I was certain I was still in high school when the show premiered in the Philippines, but it was during my early college years when it reached the height of my fandom. All I remember was hearing about it, being very intrigued, and parked in front of an old TV set in our kitchen on the night it premiered. It was aired on a Friday night over a government channel with a muddy reception. So when I tuned, it was half white snow half black and white, with sporadic TV crackle amidst the dialogue. But there was no mistaking the fact that I was watching the most popular sci-fi drama in the US at the time. As a typical teenager, I would normally gravitate towards the good-looking male leads in the TV shows I watched. But for some reason, on The X-files, I fell in love with Scully’s character. And in turn, because I was a teenager, I wanted her to fall in love with Mulder’s character.

Borderline obsessive character shipping aside, I tuned in every episode for the crazy plotline of the week. It could be the ongoing saga of government conspiracies, or the monster-of-the-week episodes, or whatever weird supernatural phenomena they decided to tackle. For a series that boxed itself in a genre, the content at their disposal was ENDLESS. And regardless of how disparate it may seem, they all felt organic to the show. The fact that the exposition was tied down at the very beginning (Mulder as the irrational one who believed his sister was abducted by aliens and believed in government shadow conspiracies teamed up with Scully as the rational doctor whose sole job was to find the science underneath all the crazy and rein her partner in) helped to structure the series and gave it a tonal foundation that is unmatched today. The fact that the two leads’ personalities and backstories were very different helped give the stories a yin-yang quality. Compared to today’s standards, you’d be hard-pressed to find a show that had a similar distinct tonal center, and one that only needed very few characters to achieve it. (The closest I could think of was “Breaking Bad” and I like to think that Vince Gilligan got a lot of help from his experience on “The X-files”.)

Another way that the show distinguished itself was through its production values. Even though I squinted through the poor reception in our kitchen for half of the episodes I saw in my lifetime, I could make out the production design and the cinematography that gave the show such a wonderful atmospheric quality. Though it was mostly set in Vancouver (for the first half anyway), the production team deserved a ton of praise for working off a limited geography and giving the show a feel that was both metropolitan, small-towny, and alien all at the same time. Looking at the sheer scope and breadth of the series’ technological achievements, it was no wonder that so many of its well-known and well-praised alumni were folks who worked behind the scenes – writers, producers, directors, designers, all. Again, it is hard to find another current TV show whose behind-the-camera talent were just as revered and adored as the ones in front of it. The fact that fans of the show were also fans of the show’s crew meant that “The X-files” as a whole was its own universe.

The show ran for nine seasons, and I admit I tuned out by the time Scully left the series. The channel they showed it on likewise gave it up as well and I remember being unable to watch the series finale until a long while later, somewhere on the Interweb. But for the first few years of the show, I was obsessed with it. I was the only one in my family who was, and they knew better than to try to watch another TV show while I was watching. There was one time when a friend called while the show was on. She was my best friend, so I took the call in the living room, out of eyesight of the TV set. The conversation went on for about an hour, and I completely missed the episode that night. However, while I was on the phone, I could also hear some faint shrieking and gasping that was coming from the kitchen. I knew the TV was on, but for all I knew, my older sisters had hijacked it and changed the channel to something else. Imagine my surprise when I finished my phone call and returned to kitchen to see my two sisters excitedly gabbing about “The X-files” episode they had just seen. It was the much-celebrated “Tooms” episode, and they had been frightened and fascinated at the same time. I was silently cursing myself for missing out on the sequel to one of my favorite monster-of-the-week episodes, but I was happy that my sisters finally understood my obsession for the show. Or they did at the time. They never did watch the show again with me. Oh well.

Apart from the two “Bile-man” episodes, there were a number that I recall being hugely entertained by. I particularly loved those episodes that played up the duality of its characters, with extra humor. I remember loving “Small Potatoes”, “Arcadia”, “Jersey Devil”, “Ice” – a lot of early episodes, for sure. I didn’t think the Philippine broadcast aired the episodes in order, and I didn’t understand the “hiatus” concept yet, so I became a little antsy when they kept re-airing previous episodes (though I didn’t complain). But I loved seeing Mulder and Scully try to explain the phenomena they were investigating, and usually the explanations were a little ridiculous or out-there. But you had two actors who could sell anything, including mounds of sexual tension. I thoroughly enjoyed watching them play off each other.

The show was also notable for featuring some of the most iconic lineups of supporting players – who didn’t have to have names! Apart from fan favorites Skinner and The Lone Gunmen, you had the Cigarette Smoking Man, Alex Krycek (Mulder’s “Murdoc”, as I called him). The rogues’ gallery of villains on this show is fantastic, with most of them as likable and anticipated as they come. I remember lighting up whenever Krycek would show up, and yet, true to his villainy status, I cheered a bit when he was killed by Skinner.

My love for the show after the first season had me devouring all and any news I could get my hands on. That Rolling Stone cover that launched a thousand sighs? I begged a friend of mine from the States to buy an issue for me, and I still have it, in my childhood bedroom back home, covered in plastic. Reports about Gillian Anderson’s pregnancy leading to a storyline twist had me anticipating the “Duane Barry/Ascension” episodes like a kid on candy. They did not disappoint, although the next Scully-less episode made me miss her terribly. At the time, I didn’t realize why I was so invested in her character. I must have thought she was expendable, especially after reading reports where the Fox executives didn’t even approve of her casting at the start. And that certainly, the X-files was a Mulder thing, and that if Scully got taken off the show, it would still go on.

But there’s the irony. She WASN’T expendable. In fact, the show hinged on the chemistry and professionalism of these two actors. And the reality was Duchovny left the show first, and it still went on. It was only when Anderson also left that the show took a bit of a dive. Looking back on my Scully love, I must have gravitated towards the fact that she was an intelligent, confident, and FUNNY woman. She was the lead on a TV show that was not afraid to write strong female characters. She held her own against an admittedly charismatic co-star, and racked even more awards and recognition than he did. Hers was the only character who developed progressively over the course of the series – from skeptic to believer. Ok, maybe not a full-fledged believer. But she was able to rationalize Mulder’s beliefs in a way that only he can accept. She took the X-files to a place that is beyond tolerance, and fought for truth that is out there just as valiantly as Mulder did.

I still see re-runs of “The X-files” on TV, and I try to stop and watch each time when I can. The series’ timelessness is absolute. The fashion is pretty generic “FBI agent in a suit” (although Scully would probably disagree that her power suits date her in early 90s Hillary mold). In a world dependent on technology and social media, we still believe in an X-files world where the characters don’t rely on Google so much, or where they don’t automatically reach for their mobile each time the other is in trouble. We don’t miss the technology that is out there in here. The banter remains funny and current. And the story’s conspiracy mythology is still alive and kicking in the real world. I firmly believe that “The X-files” will still be a hit if it debuted today.

Twenty years later, the show is no longer running but its legs still do. Vince Gilligan is in the midst of his extended goodbye letter to “Breaking Bad” fans and it is epic. James Wong writes for the multi-acclaimed “American Horror Story” series (which I still refuse to watch because I don’t want to have nightmares). Gansa and Gordon continue to produce “Homeland” and deliver great results (I only have the awards to go by as I don’t have Showtime and thus don’t watch it). I still see David Nutter’s name in the credits, most recently on “Game of Thrones”. John Shiban has tested the BBC audience with his involvement with “Torchwood”. And Rob Bowman, God bless him, directs my guilty pleasure show, “Castle”. And the list goes on and on. We know that both David and Gillian are enjoying their small screen successes, though Gillian’s post-X-files career is mostly set in the UK.

And while their fans have grown up, they are multiplying by sharing their love of the show to their kids, or simply to others. When I was watching the show, I didn’t have anyone to talk to about it because I didn’t think anyone my age watched it. Turns out I was wrong. As soon as news about the show’s 20th anniversary started appearing, some of my friends’ FB updates started lighting up. And I was certain most of the online chatter did, as well. Their anniversary was gloriously celebrated in the house that Star Trek/Star Wars built along the shores of San Diego. So apropos that they ended up communing with the hard core fans in Comic Con. And if you’ve never been a Scully fan before, well you’ll love her for saying this: "I've never done them before and I'm doing them for a year -- it's the 20th anniversary of when the series started -- and I thought, 'Just for a year, if it fits into my schedule, I'll show up and meet the fans." Oh Anderson, you are just AWESOME. Now that I'm older, I'm no longer dying to see physical manifestations of Mulder and Scully's love for each other. However, that exchange at the Comic Con panel was a HOOT. I have no doubt in my mind that Mulder and Scully should have slept with each other ages ago. But I love that David and Gillian continue to have fun with their characters even twenty years later. It never gets old. Kudos to Chris Carter for conceiving this whole universe, for sticking to his guns on hiring Gillian, and on stubbornly refusing to defuse the sexual tension until many seasons later. And doing it off-camera, too.

When the 1998 movie came out, I entered a local newspaper contest that awarded premiere tickets to the winner who wrote the best essay in answer to “Why I love “The X-files””. I won the contest and I took my sister to see it. I no longer remember what I wrote to “why I love “The X-files””. All I know is I still love it and feel it. The fans thank you, Gillian and David. And Chris. And everyone who was connected to the show. And everyone who connected to the show. It may have been twenty years but it’s hasn’t gotten old at all. And we know the truth is still out there somewhere.

Jump...

Prognosis is good. Whew.

I thought I'd lead with the positive thought that Kevin Ware is going to be ok. And I also wanted to show a photograph of Ware putting everything in perspective for his teammates. Even though I think that was the shock talking.

Anyway, I wanted to let the universe know that this was a lovely exception to live broadcasting. Everyone acted appropriately. The Louisville players acted appropriately (distraught and, later on, determined to win the game - which they did). One player, in particular, acted really courageously. Luke Hancock, who was on the bench at the time of the injury, immediately ran over to his fallen teammate to console him. While medical personnel were trained to automatically rush to someone's aid, Luke felt no compunction about going to Ware while everyone else tried to look the other way.

Coach Pitino acted appropriately. He put on a brave face, tried to help his player. In the end, he let a few tears fall. He even reacted appropriately when press asked the question of whether or not this was the worst feeling he had ever felt. He mentioned losing a child a few years back - that was worse. Again, perspective.

The Duke bench acted appropriately. You could feel the worry on their faces. Thornton's reaction was particularly memorable. You even felt Coach K's paternal instinct as he kept an eye on the other bench. But they kept on their side of the court. They clapped in encouragement when Kevin was finally wheeled off the court.

The Louisville cheerleaders acted appropriately. Typically known to give in to fits of OTT-ness, the ladies were surprisingly restrained and drama-free. And never forgot to do their job. They continued to yell support and encouragement at the fallen player.

CBS and the rest of the broadcast team acted appropriately. They kept the replays to a minimum, and simply let the gravity of the scene do the talking. They kept focus on the other players, the worried crowd. They temporarily ceased to discuss strategy. And, as USAToday wrote, the segue back to the game was in good taste.

Medics, doctors, and hospital staff definitely acted appropriately. And gave Kevin Ware a good prognosis.

Jump...

The Kiss

The teasers did advertise it as the "kiss heard around the world". Well, the fact that the sound crew did little for that scene but just keep still and quiet meant that this was an important development. "New Girl" has always been one of my must-see TV shows, and the chemistry between Jess and Nick has always been palpable ever since the Thanksgiving episode in season one.

I wasn't really sure if I like the idea of letting them kiss this early in the show. But I'm interested to see how this all pans out. I know there will be consequences, and that should make for plenty of comedy.

I wonder how many takes that scene took? And whether Nick going for another one was planned? I'd like to think of Jake as being in the moment and kissed Zooey again. It certainly sold the scene for me. That was HOT.

Clearly Nick and Jess are the endgame here. But I can't help but feel might bad for Sam and his inner dork. I really really like him, and think he's way cool and well suited for this band of crazies. If there was a way to have Sam and Jess break up but still give Sam a reason to hang around, that would be ideal. I mean, Cece does it when she's no longer with Schmidt, so weirder things have happened. (This always happens to me; as soon as I get invested in someone's TV love interest, they break up. See: Josh from "The Mindy Project".)

Anyway, glad "New Girl" is keeping things moving at least. And good for them for dominating last night's ratings.

Also? Winston finally gets a girl. About damn time!

Jump...

It's Not About the Bike Anymore

Lance Armstrong is a jerk and a bully. He said so himself Thursday night in an interview with Oprah Winfrey. And I believed him. I personally knew athletes, and I know how terribly disciplined they can be. They need to train, to be on a strict diet, to follow a schedule for months on end. They are sometimes not the happiest campers on earth. Lance Armstrong was telling the truth about himself being a jerk and a bully.

He is also a cancer survivor. It's a story that's resonated with the general public. It's difficult not to know someone who hasn't been touched by cancer, whether as a patient or a family member/friend. His survival story is legendary, and inspiring. That he really did beat cancer I can believe. And it says something about his fighter spirit. I'll bet he thought that if he can bully the disease into remission, then he can bully his way into anything. Including another shot at the Tour de France.

Which he did. Seven times. While his desire to win was channeled into something healthy, his transformation from patient to athlete showed aggression and a ruthlessness that fed into the doping culture of the sport. Like he said on Thursday, he didn't do anything to stop it. And he did all he could to surround himself with a culture-friendly and -savvy retinue.

The backlash will be enormous. He has already pinned a dollar figure to his losses ($75 million in just days after the USADA report went out). He has admitted to going to therapy, and reaching out to those people he tried to ruin when they spoke up against him. He has already felt the shame and humility of admitting the truth to his children. In that moment, as he struggled to speak on television, one can't help but be consciously aware of the burden these children are operating under. And that there was nothing more Armstrong can do but to tell them to stop defending him anymore.

He admitted that stepping down from the foundation was the most humbling thing for him to do. But no one can deny that it was the right thing for him to do. However, the foundation has done more than just raise awareness for cancer. It became a social network of folks touched by cancer. It's become bigger than Lance Armstrong himself. Those Livestrong bracelets are his legacy. The millions of dollars it has raised for many years will go on to contribute much to cancer research. That legacy is nothing to be sneezed at. And this is why Lance Armstrong, for all his flaws, will continue to be relevant. Maybe not within the sporting world, but he will stand for something else greater than all his yellow jerseys combined. Some people have criticized that Armstrong keeps hiding behind his cancer story. By golly, if you had beaten stage 3 cancer, you would have celebrated it as well. His cancer story is out there for everyone to see, and it is the believable truth that he does not have to hide from. That it took him only two years to get back into fighting, cycling shape was remarkable as well. Everything about his cancer story, right up to the point when he started doping, is something that needs to be told.

The fact that Armstrong was able to redefine himself post-cancer was a phenomenal feat in itself. To millions, he is an inspirational public figure. A dedicated athlete who was also a philanthropist and cancer warrior. It's as his book title shows, he's not about the bike anymore. The fact that he admitted to the drug use and the bullying will not stop people from still seeing him as someone to aspire to. He may feel enormous shame, and he will feel vulnerable after all those therapy sessions will have made their "tectonic shifts" on his psyche. But I think he will raise up the fighter in him to go on with his life.

I have no doubt in my mind that the conversation that Lance Armstrong started will continue. And it could even happen that Lance Armstrong himself will no longer figure into the debate. But the legacy that he has started, with his foundation and his yellow bracelets, will go on. Lance himself will live on. And live strong.

Postscript - Of all the articles I've read about Armstrong in the past few months, I was most impressed by this Grantland article by Wesley Morris.

I even managed to crib from the ending of his article. He has a personal stake in Armstrong's legacy, however. As do millions, I would imagine.

Jump...

"The inevitability of time"... reversed by Bond

It's a big day for a cinephile like me - I just saw my very first Bond movie in the theater. And I couldn't have picked a better film to be "Bond-tized". Nearly every film critic I've read have nothing but praise for Skyfall. And on one lazy and wintry afternoon, I decided to hoof it to the cineplex and see it.


My dad is a huge Bond fan, and so are millions of others worldwide. Until today I had been completely immune to the icon's charms. Even when it modernized itself and kept up with the times and added more bang, I simply resisted it. I didn't know why. I wasn't worried about not knowing what the backstory was, because I knew there wasn't any. Bond was a standalone character, and was clearly on the side of good. The Bond films didn't need to exposit on previous films because they weren't in series. All you need to know was that Bond was an agent for the British intelligence, he was a ladies' man, his colleagues are named M (his boss) and Q (the weapons expert), and he liked his martini shaken. I think my disinterest stemmed from the fact that the films were always straightforward, and always ended happily for Bond. People will say that the journey is more important than the ending, but I wasn't a huge fan of filmic formulas. So I stayed clear from these movies for more than three decades.

Until Skyfall. When the franchise came into the 00's, the Bond character had gradually transformed into a brooding fellow unlike the campy ones of yesteryears. Daniel Craig's Bond had devolved into a devilish debonair agent, turning him into a complex character. This attracted me to it a great deal, and I expected a lot coming into it. I was not disappointed. While Bond films have always been mega-productions, the opening sequence in Turkey where he used a bulldozer to pursue his quarry on a moving train was pretty inspired. And jumping ahead a few scenes, what I really loved about this particular Bond film were the fight sequences.

The choreography and staging of all the fight sequences were excellent. One that I particularly enjoyed was the sequence on top of a Shanghai tower. The cinematography on this one was fantastic, with the blue lights and the neon jellyfish graphically going in and out of frame and helping to camouflage the players. And the fact that the actual fight was done in real time and in a single-camera setup was brilliant. There was no disguising the stunt. I actually wanted it to go on for longer because the choreography was really good. Kudos to the person who choreographed the fight. And of course, to Roger Deakins for making it all look so bloody good. I want him to win an Oscar for this one. He'll be in a competitive category, but I want him to take it all.

I also enjoyed the Aston Martin DB 5 being recalled back to duty. (And thanks to Top Gear, I knew instantly what a wonderful nugget that was for Bond fans. I wasn't a Bond fan to begin with and yet I got so excited when I saw the car.) I even loved the inside joke about the ejector seat button hidden in the stick shift. And good for the writers to finally give M something substantial to do other than phoning orders from the home office. Dame Judi is such a badass. (And I loved that her plucky ceramic British bulldog survived a bomb blast. And even outlived its owner *sniff*)

One thing I'd like to point out was the heavy-handed way they carried out the theme. That Bond was "old", and past his prime. Even M was on the way out, and Q has been replaced by a young 'un (Ben Whishaw is adorable though). Heck even J.M.W. Turner's "The Fighting Temeraire" gets a cameo and nearly clunks us over the head with it. But I love how they use this theme to an advantage - that of Bond relying on old-fashioned persistence and muscle and guile, on a straight razor to shave, on his old Aston, on radio transmitters, on an old-timey hunting knife, and on going back to the ol' Skyfall homestead. (So Bond is Scottish? He doesn't sound like one.) I wish he was still a standalone character with no back story or family issues that we know of. Instead, he turned out to come from a pretty wealthy family, and knew how to hunt. It feels as though the Bond franchise's turning 50 felt its age, and the producers had to stick that in. But ultimately, it was able to weave the theme tightly into the story, and with the way it ended, it was a very wise and understandable decision. And it made Bond seem more human and relatable.

As a Bond film, the fact that it gave Bond a personal history was one of the things it deviated from any expectations I had about the material. (Though Fleming readers will know that Bond does have a personal history; the movies just don't delve into it until recently.) And there were others. The Bond Women were kept mostly on the fringe, away from the main conflict (in fact, I'd say M figured to be the most central Bond Girl in this film). The bulk of the film was set in familiar London/UK, not an exotic location at all. (Though you can say that the Scottish highlands can substitute for one, with its dreary and mysterious expanse.) Gone were the exploding pens and the cartoony villains. (Though Bardem's Silva was fantastic, and displayed subtle camp when he shows himself to Bond for the first time.)

I think the one part I loved the most, and will anticipate moving forward (if I decide to see future Bond movies) is the new M. I have always been a fan of Ralph Fiennes, so I was really glad that his character grew from a government administrator bent on modernizing MI6, to becoming an agency head who can see past the bureaucracy. His firsthand experience in a shootout at Parliament helps hasten his character development and gives him the requisite "field experience" to gain his agents' respect (Bond, most of all). By the end of the film, you are fully convinced that he would make a good M, and would have 007's back.

I'm happy I made the decision to see this film. People have said this may be the best Bond film in the series, and I could see why they would say that. As a first-timer, it's shattered some of my preconceptions about the franchise, and manages to move it's 50-year old self into a new era. Not bad for an old-timer.

Jump...

The one Harry Potter film I didn't like

As Ron would say, I must be “barking”, but I’m one of those in the minority who didn’t love the sixth Harry Potter movie. Don’t get me wrong. I love love LOVE Harry Potter. I love the sixth book. But I’m afraid the movie doesn’t hold a candle to the richness, the depth, and the complexity of JK Rowling’s writing. I blame Kloves and Yates for cinematically "mangling" such a great book. I was hoping to love it, I really did. I even watched it a second time to try to figure out what I didn’t like about it, or to see if I can change my mind about it. But it didn’t.


One of the film’s major offenses was in terms of characterization. Now I admit to not loving all the characters in Rowling’s Potterverse, but I love the books enough to want to see them all cared for and characterized in a truthful manner. While most of the major characters were safe in terms of characterization (even Professor Snape's character was all-too truthfully "revealed" with the addition of a previously unwritten scene with Professor Dumbledore), some weren’t safe from Kloves’ screenplay. Most telling was Ginny’s. OOTP failed to present her as the best spell-caster among the Weasleys, and HBP failed again (why was she in the Slug Club?). The film showed her relationship with Dean Thomas, but it failed to show HOW that relationship ended. Instead, it showed her carrying a torch for Harry, which, granted, she always has done. But what the script ended up doing was portray Ginny as some sort of a fickle girl who found it easy to go from one boy to another. Which I found rather unfair especially since JK Rowling wrote her with such sincerity that I found her compelling even though she was my least favorite Weasley.

And while they did an adequate job painting Snape as the person that he would become by the end of the series, they didn’t do as adequate a job at depicting him as the Half-Blood Prince himself. They didn’t show Snape being as informed of Harry’s Potions brilliance, even though he saw Harry use the Sectumsempra spell. I am frankly amazed that Snape was able to make that leap about his old Potions book.

Another instance where characterization was fully lacking was with Fenrir Greyback. Did they establish he was a werewolf? Also, Kreacher. The House-elf, along with Grimmauld Place, failed to make another appearance (or even a mention), which makes me wonder how on earth they would be able to tie together the events in the seventh book. And the scene where Luna discovers Harry beneath his Invisibility Cloak due to the Wrackspurts surrounding him was totally made-up and annoyed me. While Luna is not entirely “loony”, and I suppose anything is possible in the Wizarding World, it must be said that Luna’s philosophy is supposed to be at odds with Wizarding reality (which is why they are on the “fringe” of magical society). So for the film to actually depict Wrackspurts as true – well, I got confused and annoyed, quite frankly. And it wasn’t even a case of building Luna’s character for the seventh movie, since she gets quite a bit of screentime here. I guess it was because they shaved off the “Tonks is in love and depressed” storyline that they had to find another way for Petrificus Totalused Harry to be found – and in so doing, basically confirmed the Lovegoods’ beliefs, but added themselves a potential headache in having to explain another relationship in the seventh film (although I could have sworn I heard Tonks use a term of endearment towards Remus at one point – or it could be I was just wishing too hard).

Another offense was the lack of continuity among the scenes. The scene after Dumbledore asks “too much of Harry” again was suddenly that of Dumbledore (and Snape) in the Astronomy tower and Harry arriving. What gets my goat is that spoilers (the theatrical trailer even!) showed a scene of Harry telling Ron and Hermione that he was off to find a Horcrux with Dumbledore, with Ron wishing his mate good luck, to which Harry supposedly replied that he doesn’t need it because he’s with Dumbledore. Where the eff was that scene?!? And there was an immediate jump to the scene for the second Tom Riddle memory, which was frankly confusing. They also awkwardly edited the scene where the Trio stalks the Malfoys to Borgin and Burkes, when we suddenly find them on a rooftop. And it annoyed me no end that, after Ron had just had his brush with death, he still found time to crack a one-liner before lying somewhat comatose in the infirmary. They’re really pushing him hard as the unnecessary clown, aren’t they?

In conjunction with the wonky continuity was the pacing. It certainly didn’t help that Rowling wrote in a complicated matter which gave her books ebbs and flows. While I applaud portions of the movie for segueing nicely between comedy and drama, there were many moments where it felt very disjointed and came off rather roller-coaster-y for me. In the books, these ebbs and flows delineated chapters. But in the HBP film, it came off fast and quick like a factory line: from Ron’s kiss to Hermione’s tears in the stairwell, from tipsy Hermione to cursed Katie, from ralphing McLaggen to Harry overhearing about the Unbreakable Vow, and so on and so forth. The film suffered from a pacing overload, and for a non-reader, it can get very confusing. I suppose it keeps the film-goers on their toes, but I think it just serves to muddle audience reactions to certain plot points.

Such as the Horcruxes. Why fast-forward through the explanation of Marvolo’s ring? And they didn't even emphasize the importance of the locket! The diary was wonderfully and succinctly explained, though. I would have loved to have the film emphasize the importance of the Horcrux hunt, since it would be a major storyline in the seventh book. But it seemed that there was a lack of balance between telling Draco’s story, the Half-Blood Prince’s story, and the Horcrux story. And in between, of course, they had to tell the budding love stories. It was, to be honest, quite a lot of plot lines to juggle, and it was the reason why the pacing failed. I probably shouldn’t blame them for taking on a massively complicated book, but all the other books were similarly complicated and this was the ONLY Harry Potter film that I remember complaining about the pacing and characterization.

I suppose I was spoiled by Cuaron’s Azkaban, with his wonderful sense of continuity and the way the film was paced in terms of clever fadeouts. I loved that device. I just found it very odd that Yates (and Kloves – definitely Kloves) was very unsuccessful in the attempt here when he was rather good at it in OOTP. Must be the screenwriter, perhaps? I did like Goldenberg’s script, no matter how ridiculously condensed it was. I’d like to blame Yates, who must have tinkered with it too much in the lengthened run-up to theaters. In which case, I should probably blame Warner Bros for delaying the film’s launch in the first place.

The only time I felt there was a great effort at continuity was in the very first scene – a flashback to the Ministry for Magic, right after Sirius’ death and Voldemort’s escape, where Harry and Dumbledore are accosted by the press. It set the tone for the scene after (where we discover Harry to be recklessly going about London trying to take his mind off Sirius), even though it did not follow through with the rest of the movie. It was a good attempt, however, and I liked that the film opened that way.

But then THE ENDING – goodness me. I could not stop gritting my teeth after seeing the ending. That of Harry and Hermione overlooking the balcony with Ron in the background with NO LINES. What was that about? Can Rupert not fit in with those two on the balcony?? Is this Kloves’ way of getting Hermione more screentime after throwing Ron a bone with the love potion and Quidditch and snogging scenes? I mean, us Ron fans barely got enough of him in the last three movies, so I was hoping this sixth would more than break even for us. Instead, we find Kloves’ Mary Sue Hermione at the forefront again. And what's worse, it gave off the impression that Ron was just going along for the ride, and that it was Hermione's idea all along to help Harry with the Horcruxes. When in FACT, the book specifically states that it was BOTH their decisions to join Harry to the end! Sigh. I knew it was too good to last. Thankfully Ron was in the final frame as the Trio watched Fawkes soar through the sky (an idea borrowed from Newell's ending to Goblet of Fire, it seems).


Of course, not all of the movie was bad. I did love the cinematography. LOVE it. I always did love DelBonnel’s work, and his work here in HBP showed a very sophisticated sensibility. I agree that it looked very different from the previous movies, and that it was more saturated. It gave the film an overall look that was less fantastical, and more grounded and mature. There were some scenes where the cinematic composition was really good. The scene where the camera pans from Malfoy and Snape in the corridor to Harry in the next one listening to them. That was a very simple shot but it was very unique in its staging. I also liked the scene in the cave (or, as I called it, the “Fortress of Solitude” – seriously, what’s with the crystallized rocks, Yates??) when Dumbledore cast the spell for fire and seeing it light up the lake surface from below. That was pretty cool. And that scene outside of Hagrid’s hut where Bellatrix cast a spell which flung Harry backwards. The far shot of that scene was very identical to a fan art that I saw a few years ago and I was surprised when I saw that scene in the trailer. I liked that particular fan art and whether or not Yates did base it off that, I was glad to see that particular scene shot that way. (Although it would have been nice to see Hagrid – and Fang! – leaving the hut to safety.)

I have two favorite shots in particular from the film. The first was the far shot of the Burrow on fire and Harry, Ginny, Mr. Weasley, Tonks, and Remus were running through the tall grass towards it. I loved how dramatic the grass swayed and the sense of urgency as they ran through the field to get to the Burrow, with the light from the fire contrasting with the evening dark. I could almost – ALMOST – forgive them for adding this unnecessary scene just for that shot alone. And during Aragog’s memorial, that far shot of Hagrid, Slughorn, Harry, and Fang with Hogwarts in the background. I loved that it reminded me of Cuaron’s fadeouts and those early Sorcerer’s Stone painted posters back in the day.

There were also the Easter eggs strewn throughout the film, the small moments that made me smile. The Regulus Black shoutout. Arthur Weasley stopping to admire a plug. Hermione’s bushy brown hair making a comeback. Lavender calling Ron “Won-Won” (but not the “Won-Won” necklace). The use of the Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder (even though it wasn’t exactly as it was used in the book). The return of the Invisibility Cloak. Seeing the Slytherin compartment (and how all the students in there really did look like the typical Slytherin!). The return of Quidditch.


But I think the film’s biggest success is how much the Trio’s performances have improved. They are now capable of nuanced performances and even tears. They no longer rely on eyebrow twitches, shoulder raises, and theatrical modulations. They’ve come such a long way from their Sorcerer’s Stone days. Emma is showing more confidence with each film and owns her dramatic scenes. And I must say she’s a beautiful crier. Dan, meanwhile, has always shown his passion and range. And I’m delighted to see his comic side come out in this film, too. In fact, I’m pretty sure he was being himself when he did his Felix Felicis scenes. The scene with Hagrid with him mimicking Aragog’s pinchers was definitely classic Dan.


But Rupert is still the most natural actor them all, imbibing even his one-liners with an effortless ease. I love how wonderfully restrained he was here – actually, he always has been a very controlled actor. He lets go with the slapstick sometimes, but there’s no denying his impressive verbal comic timing. I’m so happy – SO HAPPY – that he’s gotten a lot of screentime in this film. He laughs, he struts, he snogs, he fights Harry, he gets drugged, he convulses, and he continues to be his clueless charming self after his bout with the love potion. Despite some earlier misses, I do thank Steve Kloves for giving Rupert so much to do this time around. I really did miss him being in the thick of the action since Chamber of Secrets. And I love that there were more Harry-Ron interactions in this movie. No matter how big a role Hermione played in the series, there will always be something different and special about a friendship between two boys. Rowling captured it beautifully in her books - all the angst and humor and affection. I'm glad the movie tried to show that as well.

The rest of cast acquit themselves well, too (with the exception of Bonnie Wright who really hasn’t improved much to me). I liked Tom Felton in this movie. I’m glad he’s got his moment in the sun, which is just as well since I find him underused in the Potter films. JR Rowling has written such a complex, dark character in Draco and I’m glad Tom was able to match that. The kid who played Tom Riddle as a teen was also pretty amazing, too. I did find his voice odd, but he had such a sinister innocence about him that made him perfect for the part of a budding Dark wizard. As usual, the people in the casting department are geniuses.

The grownups were just as magnificent. I agree with a blog post last week that said that Rowling’s insistence on having British actors for the Harry Potter parts guaranteed quality. And this film was teeming with it. I thought Jim Broadbent was fantastic as Professor Slughorn. I had my initial misgivings about him when I first heard the casting news (because he definitely does not remind me of a walrus). But he plays the part of Slughorn so well, with an amiable ease and a tragic sadness about him. And Helen McRory as Narcissa Malfoy was also amazing in the few minutes that we see her. You felt her unbearable sadness, as well as her steely countenance that makes her a perfect Malfoy. She acted a gamut of emotions that ranged from sadness, to desperation, to fear, to hope. That scene in Spinner’s End was short but very powerful. Those three – McRory, Rickman, and Bonham-Carter – were just geniuses playing off each other. It was an awesome scene (and I loved the idea of the Unbreakable Vow leaving bond marks on the skin). And speaking of that scene, how much do I love Timothy Spall for being in this movie despite having no lines and so little screentime as Peter Pettigrew?

I guess despite not liking the movie, it is hard not to disregard it altogether. There is still the magic of Harry Potter, after all. Plus, the wonderful actors that make it all work. And of course, being a Ron Weasley and Rupert Grint fan, there was the wonderful sense of seeing this amazing literary character go through a series of fantastic events, and seeing this amazing young actor grow up in front of you and become even better than when you saw him last. Of course, that made the film for me.

Jump...

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix review (originally written July 15 '07)

Note to reader: Although I took a look at this again, and edited it, this continues to be a very very VERY long piece. Now that I've included a bunch of stuff I missed before, this has become longer than the previous one - which was seven pages in a Word document, and single spaced. Not sure if you will reach the end without yawning or scrolling over swaths of paragraphs, but if you do, thank you.

So, where do I begin?

With the book, I suppose. “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is the longest book in the series. It is also said to be the least favorite book of many Potter fans. I am one of the few, then, who do not share the same sentiment (my least favorite book was, and remains to be, “Prisoner of Azkaban”). Much ado has been made over the fifth movie, with plenty of people saying it is the best Potter film yet. I have seen it already and, while it boasts of truly excellent production values, I do not like to hold it in such high regard yet. Definitely, it was a huge improvement from “Goblet of Fire” - which seemed like a lightheaded romp - but it does not share the kind of success that Alfonso Cuaron had with PoA. All three post-Columbus directors were given some reasonable degree of cinematic license with the films, and yet only Cuaron was able to fashion a commendable movie hewing closely to his directorial style, and had both heartfelt emotion and digital bells and whistles that propelled, not just the main plot, but a number of subplots as well. (An obvious example of Cuaron being more successful in remaking the HP franchise was Yates’ continued use of Cuaron elements in OOTP, including the whirling locks on the Great Hall’s massive doors, and the look and position of Hagrid’s hut.)


My foremost complaint with OOTP was that it was short. I realize that the book is the longest, and that there will certainly be huge bits that need to go. And I was steeling myself for it. But I guess the missing parts do not really hit you until you are outside of the theater. Or worse, during a certain scene. Such as when Ron dares the whole Gryffindor common room to speak if they have a problem with Harry. That scene was supposed to establish Ron’s authority as a prefect. Since the whole prefect subplot was taken out, it just served to strengthen Ron’s role as loyal friend. But since we all know already that he is a loyal friend, it simply made it look as though Ron’s character had not expanded at all. (And worse for Rupert Grint, it had the effect of making it look like he was given very little to do in the movie – which is, and should, not be the case.)

However, short though the movie may be, it does seem to have the sort of snappy pace that helps most of the scenes along. The exposition provided by the Daily Prophet and the numerous Educational Decrees were ingenious devices. The rhythm of the Dumbledore’s Army training montage was quite good as well. And David Yates’ small screen training helped some scenes immensely by showing sweet restraint and subtlety. A good example would be Harry and Cho’s kiss. The only other scene from all the HP movies that I could think of that did not give in to audience indulgence and instead pulled off a similar sense of control was the scene in the Sorcerer’s Stone where Harry simply sits in front of the Mirror of Erised enjoying his parents. It was short, sweet, and quite emotional still.

With every HP film, there are certain plot devices in the books that I always look forward to seeing on screen; the ones that, when you read it in the book, makes you go “How in the world will they do that in the movie?” In the Sorcerer’s Stone, it was the Invisibility Cloak and Ron’s life-size Wizard Chess. In Chamber of Secrets, it was Harry entering Tom Riddle’s diary (yes, I was that clueless; it was not until the movie showed Harry being sucked into the diary with a flash of light that I got the visual the book was trying to give). In PoA, it was the Marauder’s Map (which was frankly AWESOME). In GoF, it was the Portkey. For OOTP, to me, it was supposed to be the giant brain that engulfed Ron at one point during the battle at the Ministry of Magic. BUT that was cut out (a shame, really, for it would have been intriguing to see how “thoughts could leave deeper scars than anything else” – a good thing to reflect on). So what was left for me to look forward to were three things: how Prof. Umbridge’s cruel quill would play out, the great Black tapestry, and the Veil. While I could understand the quill scene, I was more interested to see how it would look visually and whether it would come off as graphic as it was in the book. I was not disappointed, and it was one of the few times in the movies where I was thankful that the director did not hold back. As for the tapestry, I always visualized it in my head to be some sort of extravagant window dressing. I had no idea they were going to turn it into a sort of wallpaper. It was quite creative, actually, and I liked the idea. (Unfortunately, for those Book 7 theorists and so-called pundits, Regulus Black was not seen. Which means it will be up to the director/s of the sixth and seventh film to introduce Regulus Black – depending on what happens when the seventh book comes out. Narcissa Malfoy, nor Tonks, was not mentioned either.) Incidentally, the Black family manse was quite a nice piece of production design – looking ancient and forbidding – although I did miss Mrs. Black’s screeching (I expected it when Tonks nearly slipped in the hallway). What I also did miss was Phineas Nigellus.

Phineas Nigellus is probably my most favorite new character in OOTP. He was certainly not a major character, but he was strangely arresting to my point of view. The way he was written – an immensely clever wizard who had achieved much (he was a former Hogwarts headmaster after all) but had a brutal honesty and a suspicious character about him (he was part of Slytherin House after all). In spite of his faults and his constant sniping at Harry, I loved the scene in the book when he learns of Sirius’ death. He gives an eerily controlled feeling of surprise, and simply storms off in a huff. That singular piece of emotion nearly brought me to tears, to discover how such a disdainful character can still feel a sense of familial love. Even Harry took notice, and seemed to find comfort in the fact that he was not the only one feeling his godfather’s loss. It was, to me, one of the best-written characters JK Rowling has ever produced in the series. Unfortunately, he only appears fleetingly in the movie, and does not even speak! I waited for his portrait to come alive in the bedroom in Grimmauld Place, but it never came. He may have been one of the portraits in Dumbledore’s office, but I never felt his presence.

Meanwhile, the Veil was quite an interesting bit of visual effect in the movie. I had envisioned it to be some sort of archway with a, well, veil billowing from it. Like a cloth or curtain. In the movie, however, it was some sort of hazy barrier, the kind that opens into another dimension. While fascinating to me visually, it was not entirely plot-friendly to those who had not read the book. The “death” was made to be nothing more than Sirius stepping back (flying even!) into an unknown place. What made the “death” more clear was Harry bursting to the seams with gut-wrenching emotion at seeing Sirius… disappear. Despite that clarification, it still gave some audience members a few seconds in which to feel puzzled initially, and I’m not sure that is forgivable. And it did not help that Remus Lupin was not forced to feel just as tragic; after all, another one of the Marauders had just died. And what I also wondered about was whether Bellatrix used the Killing Curse on her cousin, which the book never really revealed (nor did it say what color the jet of light was that struck Sirius to his death). But now that I heard what spell she used, it was now easy for the average viewer to conclude that Sirius was indeed dead. Meanwhile, what I DO appreciate was when David Yates focused on Bellatrix Lestrange’s reaction after Sirius steps into the Veil. While I think Helena Bonham Carter went to town with her characterization of the female Death Eater, her reaction to Sirius’ death paints a tragic sadness quickly replaced by triumphant glee. That quick shot of hers was pretty inspired, and gives off some sense of humanity to her. As I mentioned earlier in Nigellus’ characterization, it was a similar sense of familial love that overcomes Bellatrix for just a teensy moment. It was one of the few artistic licenses that I am willing to afford Yates and screenwriter Michael Goldenberg. And they gave her a cool exit, too.

It is nice that OOTP becomes a vehicle for interesting female villains. Apart from Bellatrix, Prof. Dolores Umbridge was maniacally superior in an ardently self-controlled way. Imelda Staunton was a great bit of casting, and she was amazing. In fact, one of the strengths of the movie is its inspired casting choices. Evanna Lynch’s Luna Lovegood was surprisingly well-played. I initially had my reservations about Luna’s character when I first read the book, but she grew on me as I re-read it. I was afraid that that might be the case in the film, that her character would take some getting used to. But she did well for a newcomer like her. Her vocal characterization of Luna was pretty much on the nose, exactly as I hear it in my head. Goldenberg wrote her with an obvious sense of affection and it is nice to see her best scenes in the book played out in the film.

Meanwhile, although the general quality of the acting has risen in this film, much more remains to be done. What I was particularly disappointed in was the casting of Mrs. Arabella Figg. Speaking as a fan of the book, however, I may be irrationally out of line by criticizing that Mrs. Figg was not “batty” enough. The newer cast members, those in Dumbledore’s Army, also provided weaker performances. And two of them were not even credited properly (Slightly Creepy Boy and Slightly Doubtful Boy?!?). Those who have read the books can tell that they were most likely Terry Boot (who had asked about Cedric) and Zacharias Smith. Ron even tells “Zacharias” off for doubting Harry in the Hog’s Head. It seems to show that producers are looking to cast these two boys properly in the next film (should they even appear in the next film – although I think Zacharias should). This myopic view of casting hurts the film acting-wise. Another example of a poor performance goes to Devon Murray’s Seamus Finnigan. Although the initial confrontation in the Gryffindor common room was fine enough, his apology scene was weak and uncomfortable to watch (you would think that, after five movies, he had learned something from them). And, despite providing a richer emotional tone to her voice, Emma Watson continues to act with her eyebrows and retain her signature “heavy sigh complete with drop of the shoulders”. Meanwhile, I was confused at the inclusion of "Nigel" at the DA, because I initially thought he was Colin Creevey. Where was Colin Creevey, anyway? I realize that Nigel was in GoF, but I don't think he warranted enough importance to come back for OOTP. I preferred seeing Colin again than the Nigel kid; at least the former was more familiar. (Unless Yates was trying to do a Cuaron and force on us an unknown Hogwarts student with a large amount of screentime - like how the African-British kid in PoA did some of the exposition.)

Rupert, meanwhile, has shown great strides in his acting. It was certainly nice to hear him say more than just “I dunno really!” (haha). Although he continues to bite his lip in that strange (yet oddly familiar) way of his, he has gone a long way in terms of performance. Which is why it is such a pity that Ron Weasley, even in the hands of another screenwriter, was given so little to do except dish out the zippy one-liners and feel protective of Hermione. As I wrote earlier, much of the major and interesting subplots in the book have been cut out, and much of that have to do with Ron’s character: the prefect issue, Quidditch, and the brain scene. Quidditch I realized I did not miss very much (although I do expect it to be a major plot point in the next movie), but the other two I did miss. As I said before, much of Ron’s character growth is explained in these subplots and sadly, they were not in the films. That being said, I suppose I should be grateful for the characterization they gave Ron in this movie – that of fiercely loyal and protective friend. The few scenes that Rupert is given to work on are amazingly well-played. When Ron asks the Gryffindors if they had a problem with Harry, he gives off a subtle but threatening look. In the boy’s dormitory, when Harry unfairly tells Ron to sod off, Rupert reacts with perfectly controlled indignation while looking like a haplessly stung boy. When Ron tells Harry that “maybe you don’t have to do it alone, mate”, he says it with just the right mixture of pathos and affection, as though he realizes that Harry is as much his friend as he is a victim. To be frank, it all brought back memories of Ben Marshall and his tyrannical mum all over again. And when he duels with Hermione, prior to being disarmed, he feeds off Neville’s fraternal support and displays a boyish swagger that is more adorable than arrogant. Rupert has improved so much in his performance that the movie lets me down somewhat whenever they obviously shove Ron in the background. Indeed, I have lost count of the number of frames that Rupert is in the background (one shot – the scene of Prof. Trelawney’s banishment – even has Rupert’s face entirely blocked from view by a Hogwarts student extra). In contrast, I have lost count of the number of times Emma is in frame even though she does not have much to do in the scene. I was not pleased that they even cut out what could have been an interesting scene of Ron giving a “fist up” to Harry (which was shown in the trailers – during Harry’s speech about how “every great wizard started out as nothing more than what we are now; if they can do it, why not us?” - while that speech was in the movie, Ron's fist up action was not; Neville's made it, though).

And even sadder still was this one scene in the movie that I thought should have been expanded. When Harry first wakes up in his dormitory bed after having his regular nightmares, he finds Ron watching over him from his bed. THAT scene should have been played out longer even though it was not in the book (where was cinematic license when you needed it?). I found it interesting because it would have reinforced the impact of the dreams Harry has been having about the Ministry of Magic. And it would have given Ron a more pivotal role in pursuit of that plot. Plus, it would have also strengthened his character as loyal friend (not that it was inadequate, but still). That, apart from Phineas’ fleeting screentime, was what I personally found unsettling.

In the meantime, the Ron/Hermione scenes became even more suggestive, despite their low-key nature. The exchanged looks over the table at Christmastime, the constant compliments (“You’re the most wonderful girl I know”/”That’s really clever, Ron”), Ron’s protectiveness, and his jealousy over Grawp. In spite of what other fans said, the latter I did not find to be the foremost R/Hr shipping moment of the movie. To me, it was that scene in the Gryffindor common room after Harry kissed Cho. The moment towards the end, when both smile widely at each other and laugh unabashedly is quite a moment that deserves its own Pause button (and gratefully revisited towards the end of the movie as part of a series of flashbacks - thank God for Youtube!). It is actually that scene that I love the most in the OOTP book, and it also has my favorite conversation of all:

Ron: Are you bad at kissing?
Harry: I dunno. Maybe I am.
Hermione: Of course you’re not.
Ron: How do you know? (God I miss this line, because it was just hilarious in the book.)
Hermione: (explains Cho’s feelings)
Ron: One person can’t feel that all at once or they’d explode.
Hermione: Just because you’ve got the emotional range of a teaspoon doesn’t mean we all have.

Well, at least that last line made it into the film (a shortened version of it anyway). It was my favorite line in the whole book, actually (next being the line about Ron being the most insensitive wart Hermione has had the misfortune to meet), so I’m happy with that at least. The post-kiss scene seemed like a disjointed piece of the whole movie, however, largely due to its funny and lighthearted nature. It was comic relief that brings together the burgeoning feelings of romantic love and sexual tension while immersing itself in the unpretentious follies of friendship. While the shadows and firelight in the scene was in tune with the darker tone of the film, it was nevertheless a light comic romp that gave the audience a welcome breather. According to the trio, the laughter in the scene was genuine, and I believed them. It certainly did come out that way. It was probably the only sincere moment in the whole film. Not even the scene in Dumbledore’s office towards the end was as affecting as it was written in the book. No, it was a simple moment of adolescent dishing that felt strangely real and comforting to me.

There are other scenes that I felt deserved to be fleshed out more. All the foreshadowing from Ginny – her impending romance with Harry, and her being the best spell-caster among the Weasleys – were good, but poorly established and lacking, particularly for non-readers. But the bits that did make it into the script were good enough, and Bonnie Wright does well with them (also nice that she is growing up just as nicely as Emma Watson – although her real-life wardrobe choices leave much to be desired). There was no closure from Cho; the relationship seemed to end abruptly when Harry chose to ignore her after the DA’s detention with Umbridge (it was also confusing because the other members of the DA were not as determined to ignore her as Harry). The subplot of the Weasley twins being serious about their joke shop was not established very well. And it did not help that the ultimate rebellion scene was written loosely, like some sort of juvenile fun as opposed to the cruel but delightful premeditated prank it was in the book. It cannot be stressed how impressive the kind of the magic the twins are capable of - comical results notwithstanding. Even Hermione was impressed at the kind of magic their products could create. It should have been a nice point to make in the movie, especially since their products will be instrumental in the sixth book (and probably the final book). Kreacher’s appearance in the movie was obviously an afterthought (it was admitted by the producers as well), although his short stint in the film gave off a truly remarkable and sinister presence. Percy Weasley was seriously underutilized, which might cause non-readers to forget he is also a Weasley. I do not think they adequately established Snape as a member of the Order, despite that throwaway line in the beginning of the movie. And I do not think they adequately established how Neville, Luna, and Ginny were caught outside of Umbridge’s office when Harry sought to use her fireplace to contact Sirius.

Apart from the ones I mentioned earlier, some of the other scenes in the book that I missed from the movie were Dumbledore’s howler to Petunia (which I thought to be significant in the book, but apparently was not as important as Kreacher), the Slytherin three (Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle) wanting revenge on Harry Potter, the mention of Crabbe and Goyle’s fathers as Death Eaters (I feel that the Death Eaters are just as important, and their connection to Slytherin House should be established), the thestrals being boarded by those who could not see them (what I would give to see Ron and Hermione clambering on an invisible steed), and Ron being protective of Ginny. Surely, if he can be written as protective of Hermione, it should be logical that he is as protective of his sister (but apparently that was not significant as well). In those scenes that had found their way into the movie, there were some obvious nitpicks, such as misplacing the stone wizard away from the fountain centerpiece of the Ministry of Magic, Harry being wandless at the Occlumency lessons (although he wasn't at the last lesson), and the use of the Levicorpus Charm during the DA training (that does not figure until the sixth book – although it was already seen in Snape’s memory).

And speaking of Snape’s memory, Goldenberg and Yates found an interesting way to condense it, including taking out the Pensieve (the Protego Charm should be the new deus ex machina) and shortening the memory. All it took was a series of excellent casting choices. You could definitely recognize Sirius, James, and Severus, as well as a split-second glimpse of Remus and Peter (although I would have liked it if they also showed Lily longer). As with all moving pictures (including those in the Hogwarts castle), I enjoyed seeing the photograph of the original Order of the Phoenix, and looking at the adult Longbottoms for the first time. It was crucial to introduce Neville as part of the grand scheme of things, and this, as well as his reaction to the news of the mass breakout at Azkaban, was a good step in that direction. The digital re-rendering of the centaurs was a good decision, and they looked much better than last time (although I did miss Firenze a bit). I also enjoyed Argus Filch’s increase in screen time (earning another round of cinematic license forgiveness from me), particularly when he camped out in front of the door of the Room of Requirement. Likewise, Prof. Flitwick’s short stint in this film was as enjoyable and charming as ever. The sweet scene depicting Arthur Weasley's fascination with Muggle technology is wonderful, and I am thankful they included it, because I thought Mr. Weasley had been woefully underwritten in the series so far. And I personally liked how they continued to visually incorporate Cedric Diggory in the story, even as a photograph. He was, after all, the first character in the books that I shed tears over. It was an ingenious touch that his picture was posted in the Room of Requirement (alongside that of the original Order), as an inspiration to them all that there are dangers out there, and that there are things worth fighting for.

There was one thing that I noticed in the movie, that I thought was a nice touch to realism. It may seem irrelevant to everyone, but I give props to the costumer for having Hermione and Ron wear the same outfit (or top, at least) in separate occasions. Hermione, as far as I can remember, wore her fuchsia knit twice (during the Hogwarts train ride and the encounter with Grawp). And Ron, as far as I can remember, wore his red sweater twice, too (during the Hogwarts train ride and the adventure at the Ministry). I thought it was in character for Ron to repeat some of his wardrobe (not being rich and all), but I also realized it also in character for Hermione to do the same thing (it is canon in the books, after all, that Hermione is not very fashion-conscious).

The climax of the movie was supposed to be the battle between Lord Voldemort and Dumbledore. In the moments leading up to it, we find the ragtag team of Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Ginny, and Luna taking on the Death Eaters at the Hall of Prophecies. As to be expected, cinematic license takes hold once again and nearly ruins the whole scene, and even Ginny finally figuring out to cast the Reducto Charm seemed anticlimactic. Admittedly, however, the whole scene plays out great in visual terms. And if I were a non-reader, I would have instantly taken to the suspenseful pacing as the youngsters run for their lives in the Hall of Prophecies. Yates likewise gave them a cool entrance into the Death Chamber, as well as a different series of events prior to their rescue by the Order: all the students held at “wandpoint”, Harry actually handing over the prophecy to Lucius Malfoy (who proceeded to break it), and Sirius non-magically punching Malfoy in the face.

With such creative digressions, I had expected the Dumbledore vs. Voldemort battle to be an indulgence in CGI. Surprisingly, it was just like Harry’s first kiss: short and sweet (albeit of a different kind). It was a display of nonverbal but fearsome magic. The special effects team did a tremendous job visualizing how different the fighting styles and spells used were for the two great wizards (fire and water, for example). And the scene after the battle, when Harry becomes possessed by Voldemort, turns into a protracted version of the one in the book. It basically rounds up the key themes of the film, themes that were responsible for Harry’s survival up to this point: friendship and love. His life and loves flash back before his eyes (incidentally, it was telling that there was no Cho – and unfortunately no Ginny). He has the Weasleys, Sirius, his parents, and particularly Ron and Hermione, who are represented by their adorable SS, CoS, and PoA selves. (Also telling was the lack of GoF footage. I wonder why.) It lingers on a fairly recent and lovely memory of them laughing in front of the fire in the Gryffindor common room. And this snaps Harry back to reality, telling Voldemort that he is to be pitied because, unlike him, Harry is loved. He had seen Ron and Hermione, who had come from the Death Chamber, and he was moved with emotion. The realization that he is surrounded by friends who are willing to fight with him and for him, and the humiliation that they saw him like this - overcome by the Dark Lord - he fights back, and is filled with hope once again . Voldemort, refusing to be cowed, intimidates Harry by saying that he has much more to lose. He Disapparates, but not before Ministry members arrive and see him before their eyes. And just like that, they transform into believers. That prolonged scene was a good creative decision, even though the script bordered on being cheesy. Nevertheless, it was effective in portraying love and friendship as formidable weapons against Voldemort.

In the meantime, as always, the HP films continue to churn out weak endings for the movies. So far, Mike Newell provided the franchise with their best ending yet (although Cuaron had the most creative end credits so far). I liked how Harry verbalized what he learned from the battle at the Ministry, but I wished the actual scene had been visualized better. (I do like the blocking involved; seeing the Slytherin three off to one side looking regally sinister while Harry marches to another summer.)

All in all, it was a great piece of work. As I said, production values were excellent, and some were at par with the precedent set by Cuaron in PoA. Emotion was pretty much at the core of the film, even though some of it lacked heart. The pacing was quick, and contributed well to those scenes with a distinct message. Despite the absence of some subplots, it cannot be denied that the key scenes did combine to tell the main story coherently. Despite some plot inadequacies, some interesting stylistic and creative pursuits did serve the story well. Acting was stellar among the cast members who had been in the previous films. The villains, including Umbridge, were fantastic. Dan Radcliffe has finally found his inner Harry Potter, and his maturing angst goes well with his performance in the movie. It helps that a lot of the film is spent inside Harry’s head, thus delivering a pretty insightful analysis of Harry’s psychosis. Dan wonderfully rises to the occasion. I am particularly impressed with his acting during the possession scene. It is one of my two favorite scenes in the movie (the first being the post-kiss scene in the Gryffindor common room.) Emma continues to be Hermione. And I have already said that Rupert is the most improved of them all. Indeed, we all know by now that Dan, Rupert, and Emma are excellent casting choices even six years on (thank God they will go all the way until the seventh film). It is truly a blessing to have such a committed crew of actors.

With this movie, it serves to whet the appetite for the sixth film. And most especially, the final HP book. What do I think will happen? Personally, I think Voldemort will die, Snape is really good, Pettigrew will save Harry at some point, there will be massive losses amongst the Death Eaters (probably Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange among them), the centaurs and some giants will side against Voldemort, and… Ron could die. It has been foreshadowed three times already in the books, but I seriously hope he lives on. In the meantime, while we are tragically aware that the end is near, the films have more to go. And I will be waiting.

Jump...