doctorow

Both of us agreed, the Goblet of Fire was a soulless, mechanical, disappointment. The latest Potter movie has no humor, no wit, and substitutes frenetic action for plot and dialogue. The characters seem made of cardboard, being moved about by the director to advance the plot. There is none of the subtlety, or wit of the first movie. None of the character development and advancing friendship between the main characters of the second movie. As the Potter movies advance, they have steadily deteriorated. These movies now absolutely are not for children under 16 and are largely a waste of time. Special effects do not make the movie any more. We give the Goblet of Fire two thumbs down for sloppy script, lack of intelligence and substitution of mishmash for coherence.

Very few films create characters so interesting that you'll want to discuss and argue about them after leaving the theater. The plot, dialogue and direction are pieces of a puzzle that form an unusual study in personalities and culture. There were a few gratuitous sex scenes we could have done without. They added nothing, but overall most scenes in this film accomplish something and add to the overall enjoyment of the film. The transitional shots take us a little closer to the ambiance of this blue collar family living in North Carolina. The over the top wacky primitive artist is unbelievable yet...they are out there and there are nutty art collectors who do slobber over them and tell them lies to get their hands on their work. The movie presents characters you will recognize, even if you have never lived in the south. The shrew, the flighty estrogen driven daughter in law, the sullen, hurting brother. And the Dad is a masterpiece in understatement. You will get a lot out of this movie if you go to the cinema to be entertained and to think. If you are into car chases and explosions don't bother.

We found the Constant Gardener to be a disappointment. Great cast, but poor script and directing made this movie a grade B flick. The directors use of blurry transitions and "cinema verite" jiggly wiggly camera work is the kind of cinema you see from the ranks of junior grade film schools students. The camera style was distracting and detracted from the film rather than add to the ambiance of the story. Fiennes was OK Weitz was good. But both were struggling to make their roles come alive. Fiennes was almost milkquetoast in his portrayal of a British agent who prefers backyard flower pots to intrigue. The book was better. The film has gotten fairly good reviews but these come from the politically correct or incorrect crowd (whichever your persuasion) who think the film has a message worth seeing. We think the film is ham handed and mawkish in delivering its message that the downtrodden of Africa are taken advantage of by western governments and multinational corporations. I have no argument with the premise. But I do expect a film to meet certain professional standards. This one was about as professional as Spike Lee's Bamboozled. (A better film than this one-- at least it was entertaining).