pschwebe Reviews

Ad Astra (2019)

Visually beautiful, inaccurate, slow, and just plain oddly plotted.

[3/10 · 9 October 2019]

There's obviously a lot of talent here, and a lot of effort. It can't make up for a thin plot. You know you're in trouble when the music is crescendo-ing and you don't know why.

The accuracy of the depiction of space is a mixed bag. It's clear that they put some thought into it, just not enough. For example, the lack of sound in the exterior shots contrasted with sound heard when conducted through bulkheads or through the ground was well done in many places. On the other hand, it looked like the spacecraft spent a lot of time accelerating through space, yet inside the astronauts remained weightless, which would not be the case. There are similar lapses in thinkingthrough the use of technology (and physical law) throughout the film.

The plot, takes us through a tremendous amount of effort to examine a father and son relationship. Oh yes, and save the planet. The setup for requiring the Brad Pitt character to go to Mars makes no sense. Sending a manned mission to destroy the offending experiment orbiting Neptune makes no sense. We are very good these days at blowing things up from a distance. In the future depicted in the film, we would be much better at it. And then, in between Mars and Neptune. . . . baboons? Really?

I suppose you can take the whole thing metaphorically. Then, you don't have to care about accuracy. You don't have to care about characters who are deemed psychologically fit when they are clearly not.

Or perhaps, the writing is simply not very good.

The Umbrella Academy (2019–2024)

A Messy Manipulative Pastiche

[3/10 · 23 February 2019]

For all the visual beauty of the series, the dramatic arc of the first season was predictable from the first episode. As intriguing and inventive as the situation is, some of the pivotal moments simply don't make sense unless you arbitrarily change characters' personalities, intelligences, and moral centers in order to justify the plot. In other words, things have to happen for no reason other than it says so in the script. For all the talented cast and crew, it all suffers from the lack of rigor in the writing.

Star Trek: Discovery (2017–2024)

Really? Really?

[3/10 · 14 October 2017]

When I listen to a lot of pop music (I am old, but I have kids) I can hear where the talents of the production lie. Some songs that I like and that first hit me as really good, begin to fade over time, and I realize that the real talent lies in the people who arrange and produce, while the song itself is weak melodically and lyrically.

Discovery is like that. After the initial "wow!" you realize that, by far, the talent and attention of the production was given mostly to visual impact. It's the single most important value of the show, from the opening scene where the doomed Captain Georgiou walks around the desert to create a big badge outline so her ship can find them. Why not stay in one place and pace out a big spiral? Visual impact. All that tech on board and the ship has to see them to find them. Really? So the ship appears spectacularly out of the opaque clouds to get them. Wow. Visual impact. Of course, the ship couldn't see them if they were up in the clouds, but never mind. Visual impact. Time after time, the show's direction is based on style over substance. A big disappointment to Trek fans for whom substance is the point.

There is some good stuff. The cast is very good, excellent in places. They really make the most of the ham-handed writing and characterization. The idea of the central character not only not being the captain, but being a disgraced officer, is wonderful.

But the more you think about the series as a whole, the more you realize how superficial and downright wrong-headed the writing and other creative (non-visual) input is. Some examples.

This has been written about before, but Burnham's mutiny makes no sense. Anyone in today's military knows that a violation of the chain of command like Burnham's is an invitation to total chaos, never mind a future military organization like the Federation. It's also totally out of character for Burnham, based on her own backstory. Then to follow that with her and Georgiou going (yeah, the captain and a mutinous first officer) ALONE to an enemy starship, and then Burnham violating the entire point of the mission (the point she insisted on in the first place) by killing T'Kuvma? Really? And then, they can't beam back a dead body? Really?

Another one. This is the Federation, circa 10 years before TOS, right? From he look of the crew, there are many species that belong to this union. As a species, humans would have to have learned a hell of a lot about inter-cultural know-how in order to participate. For Georgiou, a trained and well-respected starship captain, to go into a confrontation with an alien species with "the Federation doesn't shoot first" attitude, makes no sense at all. She was written as a shallowly drawn 20th century liberal stereotype. Really? Really?

Okay. One more. Klingons have gotten progressively uglier over the course of producing Star Trek series. Get it? Ugly means bad. Black apparently means bad, too. Notice how predominantly black the Klingons are? Really? Really? And to top it off, they have injected a heavy religious element to the Klingon's motives. In other words, the Klingons can't really be a complex technological civilization that has complex and nuanced aspects to it. No, they are just religious fanatics. Black radical jihadists. Now the writers now don't have to think about the real problems of cultures in conflict, something the original Star Trek was brilliant at. But maybe they should think about some of their own cultural assumptions.

I think I'll give The Orville another try.

American Gods (2017–2021)

Disappointing (so far) adaptation of a very good book.

[3/10 · 2 May 2017]

While I'm planning to keep watching, the series did not get off to a very good start. The production values are good, the casting is solid. What bothers me is the writing.

My perspective is as a fan of the book, so I can't really speak to the experience of seeing the series just for its own sake. For me, the series has to maintain the essential qualities of the book that made it such a good story. So far, the TV adaptation is failing in two of them.

One: It is gratuitously violent. In the first episode, there are, literally, buckets of blood. There is simply no narrative reason for it, and no more room for dramatic contrast, since they've already bathed the viewers in gore.

Two: What carries the book for me is Shadow's character. He's a very interesting guy. He has had time to think in prison. He doesn't want to go back. He's developed the thoughtfulness and the discipline to be a calm center, trying to find his place in a world that just gets weirder and weirder. This Shadow, who now has the last name of "Moon" (why?) is easy to provoke. He comes off more as a thug who has come out of prison still a thug. Compare the book to the TV version of his first meeting with Mad Sweeney. He claims to have read many many books so he could come back to his wife a better man, but he sure doesn't act like all that reading made much of an impression.

The OA (2016–2019)

Unable to suspend my disbelief past episode 2

[3/10 · 19 December 2016]

By the end of the second episode, it becomes clear that the writers were thoughtlessly tossing a variety of not-so-original plot elements into a cinematic pot without thinking through either the story arc or really...making sense.

While the opening premise is compelling, the collection of characters are so thinly drawn, they come off as types rather than people: The weird girl, the plain Jane teacher, the sociopath drug dealer, the over achieving student with a drug problem, etc. And the lack of consequences for the assault of one student by another in the first episode was unbelievable. You need a long chain of people who either don't think or don't care for any of this action to work.

All the drama leading up to the first meeting of the group in the oh-so-conveniently abandoned house next door, leads up to . . . . a looong expository lump. The momentum that gets built up to this point grinds to a halt. Then, after all the buildup, after Prairie insisting that everyone meet at midnight (why is it always midnight?), everyone had to leave their front doors open (which any parent would notice in the middle of winter). . . after all that, everyone just. . . goes home? It's just a bunch of weird for weird sake.

And the poor plot device that gets Prairie captured, especially for someone with her particular backstory, simply makes no sense.

Suicide Squad (2016)

Sound and Fury. Signifying nothing.

[3/10 · 7 August 2016]

A talented cast suffers from poor writing and poor directing. This is pure superhero porn: set action pieces stitched together with incoherent bits of plot. You have seen this all before, and better, in older movies. They make the "good" guys almost as bad as the "bad" guys. I suppose this makes the latter seem not so bad. And, like many superhero flicks, the writers seem to feel compelled to try to flesh out their characters, to make them more, what...relatable? It doesn't work very well here. Again, the screen writing is to blame. That said, there is some fun to be had. A few good lines. Jared Leto's take on the Joker is enjoyable. Otherwise, it's the usual thing. All major roles are kick-ass because the script says so. They do all the killing, and all the extras drop like flies.

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

Hollywood takes yet another whack at Alice. Whack. Whack whack whack...

[5/10 · 19 March 2010]

99 words or less (okay 118):

Lewis Carroll's episodic nonsense has always struck me as entertaining plot less and a bit flat. Tim Burton's attempt is pretty much the same, only he has felt compelled to add an unimaginative backstory to justify the characters' motivation. Mr. Carroll never required his book to make sense Therein lay its charm. Mr. Burton's retelling has none. His Alice declares her independence from others expectations, then proceeds to follow them. Unfortunately for us, we also know what's expected of her, and so there is no drama to be had in the otherwise colorful and artfully designed spectacle. The performances of the actors, both real and pixelized, are competent and professional. One would wish they had more to work with.

I feel better now.

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010)

If you're expecting it to be like the book, don't see it. And if not...don't see it.

[2/10 · 2 March 2010]

Review for folks that loved the books:

I was prepared to like this movie even after all the Internet buzz about how it was going to be unlike the wonderful book series by Rick Riordan, I figured, hey, they'll change it, but it could still be a fun movie. I don't know what it is about the Hollywood process that gets interested in a book, then makes a movie with so little respect for it. Let's see, they dumb down the plot, remove several major characters, miscast those that remain, and, oh yes, change the villain. I have known movies that improve on their source material by making improvements based on cinematic considerations. But I can't think of one change they made that didn't make the story worse. Why, when you have a clever capable writer like Riordan, do they hand the material off to lesser hacks, or at least, a screenwriter that had no enthusiasm for the material. Director Columbus and crew treated this as a ho-hum project. It's flat, the script is full of trite lines and situations and so, no suspense. Obviously, the movie makers just didn't get it.

Review for folks that never read the books:

A wonderful plot premise: the Greek gods are real. Great central characters: demigods, the neglected offspring of the Olympians. So why is it sooooo boring? There are no surprises here. The problem is laid out clumsily in the first 5 minutes. The characters literally follow a map from one CG-enhanced skirmish to the next up to the predictable conclusion. The Gods come off as not too bright, not very powerful (I mean, how does Zeus lose track of his lightning bolt?). The thief is revealed, but how the theft was accomplished is never explained. Director Columbus and screenwriter Titley must've sleepwalked through this project. You can, too.

My daughters asked me to add this: When they came back from the theater, they both were yelling about how much was left out and how terrible it was.

Bedtime Stories (2008)

Definitely sleep inducing

[2/10 · 7 June 2009]

In a nutshell:

Another lackluster vehicle for Sandler. Why a talented performer like him sleepwalks through this thing I do not understand. They have clumsily stuck on the usual clichés: The boy and girl meet but do not like each other. She gradually realizes that underneath he's really a nice guy, although how that happens is a mystery to me. Oh, I know, because it says so in the script. The boy works for a bad corporation that doesn't appreciate him. The bad corporation is going to tear down the girl's school, but don't worry, the boy will save the day. Typical pot shots taken at overly politically correct, health conscious mom. All that nutrition stuff is just kooky, isn't it? And we know what driving a Prius means, right?

Trouble is, there's no connective tissue to run between all these bits and pieces. Nothing holds it together. They've just thrown a bunch of loose fitting schtick together with some mediocre CG work and called it a movie. Don't waste your time.

Star Trek (2009)

Star Trek is dead. Long live Star Trek.

[3/10 · 29 May 2009]

In a nutshell: Go see it. It's not a good movie, but go see it. Plenty for fans and newbies alike.

Pay attention to the casting credits. Those people deserve an Oscar. The casting for the movie is great. They delivered a group of young actors that update the legendary characters with that balance of respect for the past, but forward looking. Their screen chemistry works. On that basis alone, it's worth seeing.

The visual effects are seamless. This is something we're coming to expect from Hollywood, but it's worth mentioning just the same.

That being said, it's a bad movie. Most of the Star Trek movies are sketchy when it comes to the story, the only exception being The Wrath of Khan. This movie is worse than most. The story makes no sense. If story matters to you, you will be disappointed. However, if you think of the story as random stuff used to fill the time between explosive action sequences, this movie is perfect.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Strong stomachs and weak voices

[4/10 · 14 December 2008]

99 words or less (well, 141):

When you watch experienced musical actors they do not simply sing the songs. They act them. Depp is reasonably good at this, though he tries to channel David Bowie to distraction. Carter, as the dotty pie shop owner, Mrs. Lovett, doesn't seem to get this at all. The lyrics don't come off the page. Her interpretation of the character is dreary, downtrodden, mousy. Whether this is her idea or the director's I don't know, but the effect is to make the production unrelentingly bleak.

The Broadway Mrs. Lovett provided a small amount of comic dottiness that helped ameliorate the inherent bleakness of the play. That is gone here, and we are left with nothing but insanity, blood, death, irony. The subtleties of the original are gone, washed away in the buckets of blood the director seems to have such affection for.

Ah, I feel better now.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Klaatu Badmovie Dontgo

[4/10 · 12 December 2008]

99 words or less (oh well, 232):

Early on in this remake of the Robert Wise movie of 1951, a mysterious motorcade arrives to whisk the scientist-heroine away. She (Jennifer Connelly) repeatedly asks what's going on, and is told repeatedly, "All will be explained en route". But, you know, that never happens.

That kind of sums up my movie-going experience here.

This movie tries too hard to do too many things. It tries to respect the expectation of the fans of the original. It tries to update the story from the folly of the Cold War to the folly of environmental destruction. It tries to reconcile the strained relationship between mother and son. And, it tries to be original.

It fails on all counts. Even if you accept the inane story line - no spoiler here, it's in the trailer: "If the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives." Get it? - the script and direction are too weak to pull it off.

The CG work is competent and fun to watch. Fans of the first movie may get a kick out of the re-invention of Gort, the robot, with his name finally explained.

If you want to watch a great movie, rent the original, oh and make it a double feature with "Forbidden Planet."

If you want an evening of B-movies that are fun to laugh at, rent this remake along with "Johnny Mnemonic".

Bolt (2008)

Surprised me. I was expecting mediocrity, and got real entertainment

[8/10 · 23 November 2008]

99 words or less (okay 110):

Like another reviewer, I had seen the trailers and was expecting...not much. One of my daughters insisted on going, and my wife and I drew straws. I lost, so I had to go. Added to that, the show in our local theater was in 3D, a format I have never liked.

Imagine my surprise. The plot, though predictable (hey, it's Disney. you are expecting a SAD ending?) was well executed, with interesting characters, good script and storyline and what is becoming the usual: beautifully rendered animation. The 3D glasses looked and felt like slightly polarized sunglasses and the effect enhanced the experience.

Go see it. Happy ending and all.

I feel better now.

August Rush (2007)

Overloads my suspension of disbelief.

[4/10 · 9 November 2008]

99 words or less (okay, 101): Well intentioned, but immaturely written fable about a boy, his parents, and music. It touches on rich ideas, but only superficially, making up for the shallowness by making it all sort of, you know, well, mystical. Yeah, cool.

The movie pulls out all the manipulative melodramatics: It's oh so moving when we know something the main characters don't. And this happens over and over again. Swells of music in appropriate places. Implausible plot turns. Lot's of emoting. Makes you cry, but you kind of resent it.

Rent "Once" instead. A great movie about the redemptive power of music with no compromises.

I feel better now.

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008)

More and more and more of the same.

[6/10 · 9 November 2008]

99 words or less:

If you liked the first one, you'll probably like this one. The first movie centered around how the characters cope, as a group, with landing somewhere strange and unexpected. This movie is not quite as focused. They've broken it up into several sub-plots involving the main characters.

That being said, well, it's funny. It's got the zany kind of humor of the Bugs Bunny/Warner Bros. pantheon. Tongue-in-cheek, self-referential, nothing new, but hey, it's entertaining, the animation's wonderful and it-all-comes-out-right-in-the-end. Fun fluff.

I feel better now.

Be Kind Rewind (2008)

The eternal inconsistency of the plot less director.

[6/10 · 6 November 2008]

99 words or less (okay 106):

It becomes obvious early on that this movie is a fable. That is, there aren't any real characters, and the story moves at the whim of the director. It is not character driven, not plot driven, and respect for physical laws is absent. These kind of stories are easy to write, because you don't have to worry about justifying any turn of the tale or unbelievable actions/dialog of any character. The entire film serves "The Point".

But, Gondry's "Point" here is poignant and true, and almost redeems the whole affair. The inventiveness of the amateur filmmakers is worth watching. Watch it twice. You'll have to.

I feel better now.

WALL·E (2008)

Peerless animation, but somehow...flat

[5/10 · 28 June 2008]

First of all, let me say that my 8 year old loved this film. My 10 year old liked it well enough, but she's over it already and looking forward to "Get Smart".

Me? A mixed bag. I know when I go to see a Pixar film that they will have given it the best they've got. Their animation is peerless, they really work the story. So why, when I'm walking out of the theater, do I feel, well, just sort of "ungh"?

I hate to think I'm getting blasé about the spectacular visuals. I mean, these people worked really hard on the look of this film, and it shows. Oscars all around. And, yeah, point taken: Waste, garbage, meaningless consumption, machines more human than the fat, over- indulged human beings. And, additional point taken, we, the humans, are really okay, once we wake up. Is there anything that's not cliché in here? Ungh.

And the human characters. Well, they're just "Okee Dokey" machines. Live a life of luxury out in space? "Okee Dokey". Return to Earth? "Okee Dokey" Face the Herculean task of repopulating Earth which is still a stinking garbage dump, with bodies totally unsuitable for the task and no knowledge whatsoever? "Okee Dokey". It doesn't ring true. Didn't anybody want to stay out in space in the lap of luxury?

Ungh.

Now, Pixar features have been known to grow on me, and that might be the case with Wall•E. If that happens, I won't eat my hat. But I will edit this review.

Update: It's the day after the Oscars. I have to admit. I still don't get it. After having seen it again on DVD, the movie has actually gone down in my estimation. The one thing it has over all other CG movies of it's year is the best rendering. These guys make visual art. BUT, the story was even worse on 2nd viewing. It just doesn't hold together well. EVE is looking for life, but blasts anything that moves. EVE is looking for life, but the cockroach doesn't set off her alarm. They make a point of showing the artificial gravity turning on when the ship carrying EVE returns to the AXIOM, so how come when OTTO tilts the ship everyone slides to one side? If OTTO got these orders not to return to Earth, why send working EVE probes out? Wall-E is so broken at the end that after EVE repairs him, he's just a standard issue Wall- E...but only for a while. Then, uh, I guess, some magic happens. Never mind how. It just does.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

A Product of the Nutrimatic Drink Dispenser

[4/10 · 27 March 2008]

In 99 words or less (well OK, 172 words or less):

Somewhere in Southern California... Los Angeles... Hollywood - there's a clever little machine designed to turn anything you tell it to into a movie. For example, say you take an series of books by Douglas Adams. Assume that they started life as an idea in his head. This idea blossomed into a uniquely crazy series of radio programmes (UK spelling) in the UK. The radio series was turned into a book. The popularity of the book was such that it spawned a whole series of delightfully screwball books. Now, take all of this stuff: the idea, the radio programme, the books, and feed it to this clever little machine. It carefully analyzes it. It takes into account the context of the book, the existing readership, the intention and creative impulses of the author, and creates a motion picture that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I feel much better now, and apologies to the late great Douglas Adams. Someone ought to apologize to him, after all.

Juno (2007)

One smart cookie

[9/10 · 9 March 2008]

99 Words or less:

Juno works in spite of the overly precocious central character who is not smart enough not to get pregnant, but has the best lines of anyone else in the movie – by far. That being said, this is a well written story. People are people here. They get to be unpredictable. Moms and Dads can be frustrated, but still understanding. Driven yuppies can be deeply caring. Lovers can be dorks and still be loving. At several points, the story could have lapsed into stereotypes. But it doesn't. Go see it.

I feel better now.

The Spiderwick Chronicles (2008)

A Nice Bunch of Bumps in the Night

[6/10 · 9 March 2008]

99 words or less:

Caveat: I have not read the books, so expect no comparisons.

An engaging fantasy with the requisite CG characters. It is charming in that the adventure is small. It's not about saving the country, the world, the universe as we know it, etc. It's about saving a family, a wood and the creatures in it. A modest story, nicely told. Solid performances by the cast. Seamless work with Freddie Highmore in a double role. Enough funny moments, scary moments, touching moments, Hogsqueal spit, and bits of hobgoblin.

I feel better now.

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (2007)

Smoke and Mirrors

[4/10 · 9 March 2008]

99 words or less:

Well-intentioned, but the writer/director Zach Helm has no faith in the audience, nor in film as a visual medium. There is no wonder here, only great swells of music where it says in the script. What little he has to say is spoon fed to you by the dialog and the voice-overs. Colorful SFX can't compensate for the walking clichés that replace real characters: Magical Guy. Blocked Artist. Lonely Child. Boring Accountant. Yeah, it's a Kid's Movie. Cap'n Krunch is Kid's Cereal. Does that make it good?

I feel better now.

Jumper (2008)

Boing boing.

[4/10 · 4 March 2008]

99 words or less:

Okay, there's these natural teleporters, folks who could zip from place to place at will. Jumpers. Trendy young people, trendy music, very self-consciously hip. Bad guys want to kill them. Why? No good reason. Religious fundamentalists. Ancient battle over time. Think Highlander with Tragically Hip instead of Queen. Our hero gets attacked, escapes, then what does he do? Finds his old high school crush and drags her into the whole mess. Why? No good reason. The writers/directors just too lazy to think beyond the cool CG scenes. Hip cliché.

I feel better now.

Sunshine (2007)

A Huge Ball of Gas

[1/10 · 13 February 2008]

99 Words Or Less:

Almost impossible to watch. The science is sloppy, the plot is manipulative and contrived. I wouldn't let most of these angst-y 30-somethings anywhere near any dangerous equipment. How they got to be scientists and astronauts, I'll never know. Claustrophobic closeups mix with long special effects shots and fast cuts of blurred monster shots. Oh, did I mention the monster? Soylent Green is....(wait for it)...people! Oh, wait, wrong movie. Nah, not really. This IS the wrong movie. Great CG work can't fix it. Go rent "Dark Star" instead.

I feel better now.

Equilibrium (2002)

Swordfights, only with guns. Except for when they're swords. Plot? Naaaah!

[2/10 · 21 September 2007]

This is a movie that repeats what has already been done by earlier, better films, and tries to pass itself off as having something to say.

First of all, the movie starts with a voice over narration to set the scene. I always consider this a bad sign. Any director or screenwriter that feels compelled to just tell me a bunch of stuff at the beginning either has no idea of how to tell a story visually, or is too lazy to do so.

Secondly, the premise, while interesting, is simply not done in any believable way. The drugged out population is reminiscent of THX1138, and the police that go after violators are an echo of Farenheit 451, and the dress code has a hint of Matrix to it. But the filmmakers haven't really given much thought as to how a society set up like this could work in any plausible fashion. In other words, they don't make the world consistent enough for me to suspend my disbelief.

And, I'm sorry, but I don't care how much training the anti-emotion patrol has. Christian Bale standing still and mowing down a roomful of heavily armed opponents? I just had to laugh. That's just one of those scenes where the hero doesn't die because the script says so.

Visual smoke and mirrors are no substitute for substance. The plot plods on in fairly predictable fashion, the bad guys have much worse aim than the hero, etc.

I like Christian Bale and Emily Watson, but they're wasted here.

If you're hard up for a movie, get the Matrix again. This movie is just a wannabe.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Feast or famine? A little of both.

[7/10 · 11 July 2007]

Let me start by saying that book 5 of J.K. Rowling's is my least favorite of the wonderful Harry Potter series. It's too long, with too much run-on writing, and it seemed to me that she had to manipulate Harry's personality to make the plot work, so much so that it often came off as contrived. That being said, the movie has gone a long way toward trimming the fat, and improving on the meandering of the book's nearly 900 pages. I'd have to say that, plot-wise, I enjoyed this Harry Potter more than any of the others. The new non-CGI characters, Dolores Umbridge, and Luna Lovegood, are transferred from the page to the screen with near perfection by Imelda Staunton and Evanna Lynch, respectively.

Screenwriter Michael Goldenberg had his work cut out for him trying to preserve the essential elements of the book without disappointing his audience. The results are mixed. Some subplots are completely missing, yet there is still so much crammed into the 2 hour and 20 minute running time that any viewer who hasn't read the book will be at a disadvantage when it comes to understanding what's going on. For this reason, the editing is sometimes jumpy and disjointed. You have to depend on your knowledge of the book to fill in the gaps. The end result is, much like the first two movies, an exposition of the essential aspects of the book for fans, as opposed to a movie that generates its own drama. That being said, Mr. Goldenberg improved on the book in several respects. Harry's motivation's are more understandable, his relationship with his almost-girlfriend is carried off well. The battle in the Department of Mysteries is more believable and less protracted.

The cinematography is grittier, the colors less saturated. The director, David Yates, has a nice sense of how to use the camera, sometimes up close and with a hand-held quality to give the action a, dare I say it, edgy feel; other times in long sweeping shots to convey scope and space. This is particularly effective during the last third of the film.

This installment in the Harry Potter pantheon will please Ms. Rowling's loyal readers. If you are one of them, go see it. Now that I've had my fix, I can manage to wait for Book 7!