Alice in Wonderland

A new trailer for Tim Burton's upcoming Alice in Wonderland has been making the rounds and I thought I'd share it with you. The film looks wonderfully Burton-esque. I specially love Helena Bonham Carter's Red Queen. Do you love it? Do you hate it? Do you cover your ears at the Queen's insane scream (love!)? Let me know in the comments.



Au revoir,
M. Cinema

Portrait of the Ad as a Short Film

You may have noticed a trend that high-end ads are following these days. The thing nowadays is to turn ads into short films that happen to showcase the product in one way or the other. This type of advertising, where the line between an ad and entertainment gets blurred, is technically knows as branded content. The first of these commercials I remember watching is No. 5 The Film, a Chanel advertisement for the legendary perfume of the same name directed by Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge!). Featuring Nicole Kidman and Rodrigo Santoro in a simple, star-crossed-love story, the commercial raised the bar for advertisement everywhere (in my mind, at least).



This year, Chanel released a new ad for No. 5, this time a short film directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amélie), where he once again worked with Audrey Tautou. And although it's not as glitzy as the first one, it still is miles above what most fashion commercials are doing these days.



However, competition being what it is, rival fashion house Dior has released it's own contribution to this emerging genre. The Olivier Dahan-directed The Lady Noire Affair features a gorgeous Marion Cotillard and a dark color palette to go with the noir mood, along with the promise of Cotillard returning for the sequel, The Lady Rouge. Not only this, David Lynch is set to direct. Now, don't get me wrong, I find the Chanel ads much more charming than this one, but the thought of Lynch directing Cotillard in a John Galliano-styled short film is pretty interesting to me.



All of this leads me to the question; are these any good? Are these competently made short films? Or are they just above-average, different advertisements that grab my attention due to their originality? And if they are, are they an indication of what advertisement can aspire to be? Are these lofty aspirations even accomplishable? Let me know what you think in the comments.

Au revoir,
M. Cinema

Thoughts on Inglourious Basterds

Approaching a film like Inglourious Basterds is a complex thing. You don't just consider the film itself, but what went into making it and the history surrounding it. In the case of this film, that would be a more-than-a-decade-in-the-making script and Tarantino describing it as "epic". And with a two and a half hours length, it certainly feels that way. The film delivers on its promise of everything a Tarantino film should be and more. Allow me to elaborate.



Inglourious Basterds opens with SS-Standartenführer (Colonel) Hans Landa (Cristoph Waltz) and his arrival at a dairy farm. Landa (a.k.a The Jew Hunter) is there to perform a search for the last remaining Jew survivors in the area. While questioning the farmer who owns the property about the survivors, Landa remains utterly charming in a way no film Nazi has ever been, in my experience. He's eloquent, fluent in three languages (so far) and dangerously charismatic. He is also evil, ironic and absurd; in a thoroughly enjoyable way. Waltz deserves praise for bringing to life what Tarantino considered his greatest character ever. His Hans Landa is the kind of rotten character that you kinda want to watch get away with it in the end. Landa also provides unexpected comedy several times in the film; keeping his character solidly on our good side. I can thus honestly say there wasn't one scene he was in where I wasn't completely enamored with him. I wouldn't be surprised if Waltz got an Oscar nomination to go with his Cannes best actor award.


Escaping from Landa's clutches is a teenage girl named Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent). Laurent delivers an outstanding performance here that shall get her (much like her compatriot Marion Cotillard) in the international spotlight. Laurent's face is very expressive throughout the film and it is clear from the luscious (quasi-fetishistic) shots Tarantino takes of her (specially near the climax, where she dons a red dress right out of cinematic mythology) that she is his star, his archetypal tragic siren. Even if Shosanna's revenge story is played alongside a bigger, more action-packed portion of the film, her tale still involves you in ways the rest of the plot, perhaps, can't.


It's through Shosanna's machinations that Tarantino's plot to rewrite history becomes possible. It is through her clever calculations that most of the climax is possible. Some of these machinations include flirting with Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), a Nazi war hero who is now getting his own Goebbels film, "The Pride of the Nation".


I had seen Bruhl before in Good Bye, Lenin!
and it must be said even as a Nazi war hero, he still retains his boyish charm. It is also through Bruhl's skill, however, that we get a glimpse at the darker motivations of his character.


Aiding the Basterds in their quest is Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), a German movie star working as a double agent. Kruger is pitch perfect as von Hammersmark; being at once charming, glamorous, and wonderfully diva-esque. Her character is a ton of fun, adding some welcome snark to the proceedings. Kruger pleasantly surprised me with this role, showing talent I hadn't realized she possessed. Don't get me wrong, I've never disliked her or anything; but she hadn't ever really stood out for me.


Also aiding the Basterds is Lt. Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender), a suave British agent that pokes fun at the British stiff upper-lip humor stereotype like it's nobody's business. Fassbender is truly surprising here. Having previously only seen him in either small roles or his gruesome role in Hunger, I didn't quite expect the comic style he offers here. It is, nonetheless, a decent (if a tad small) part.


As for the Basterds themselves, their roles are relatively small (if idiosyncratic and special in their own way), but the focus remains on Brad Pitt's Lt. Aldo Raine (a.k.a. Aldo the Apache). Pitt is here tasked with playing a character that has to be at once funny and menacing. It is in his heroic southern patriot that the Basterds leadership and morale rest. I had my qualms about Pitt's role when I first heard about it, but he quickly puts those concerns to rest once he's on the screen.


Which leads me to the director himself. Quentin Tarantino has always been a divisive director. His films often lead to fierce discussion between die-hard fans and skeptics. What I've always said is that even if you find his style abrasive and lacking taste, he is technically a good director. He certainly knows how to handle a camera's angles and how to communicate a clear vision. He also has a knack for pushing actors to deliver iconic, larger-than-life performances that don't go overboard. He is, ultimately, a director that loves movies. Those two things might seems bound to each other, but if one looks around there is clearly a shortage of cinema-loving directors. He is, for lack of a better term, our very own enfant terrible. A lot of directors wish such a label be applied for them. The difference between Tarantino and the avant-garde hoi polloi is that he actually has the talent and vision to back it up.

All in all, I enjoyed the movie a lot and wholeheartedly recommend watching it and even re-watching it. Much like the relationship with a friend, a Tarantino film always benefits from repeated visits.

Le verdict: ****

P.S. And because I'm a shameless actressexual with a thing for vintage looks, here's one of the alternate film posters and another image of Laurent, in-character. Everybody now: gorgeous.

Thoughts on Orphan

Scary movies have a love-hate relationship with me. I always see the trailers and grow interested and then fight my reticence to see them. Almost always, immediately after exiting the theater I feel regret. Regret because I know I'm gonna be skittish all night long after watching a scary movie, yet again. Orphan, however, was enough of a draw (the trailer was suitably intriguing) for me to momentarily put aside my fears. I do not regret it.


Orphan is the story of the Coleman family and their newest member, Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman). We learn at the very beginning of the story that Coleman mother Kate (Vera Farmiga) had a miscarriage and that prompted her to attempt adoption. She already has two other kids: a partially deaf daughter named Max (Aryana Engineer) and a spoiled-yet-ignored son named Daniel (Jimmy Bennett). Her desire to make up for the miscarriage and get another kid is just too much, so she and her husband John (Peter Sarsgaard) register and start looking around orphanages. They eventually find a very charming and proper girl named Esther.


As is customary in these kind of movies (the child-from-hell genre, specifically), everything seems fine at first. It soon becomes apparent, however, that Esther has a dark side to her charming persona. Not only has she lied about her past, she actively undermines Kate and manipulates the people around her. One of the more odd things surrounding Esther is her fixation with the ribbons around her neck and wrists. She never removes them and any attempt to do so results in her screaming and flailing around. All of this arouses Kate's suspicions, but her misgivings about her new child are not well received by the people around her.


Even if the heroine-who-nobody-believes is a tired element in the horror genre, here it plays seamlessly; all thanks to Esther's machinations. What isn't half as easy to swallow is Farmiga's performance. She overacts in each and every scene she's in. You would think it's a bit hard to look fake when you're screaming after your endangered children (not much to do really, just scream and run after them), but Farmiga is so ham-endowed she even botches this.


More decent (though not by a long shot) is Sarsgaard's John, who (along with Kate, come to think of it) plays the stereotypical yuppie XXI century father. The scenes where he does lash out at Kate in frustration, however, ring true. Sarsgaard manages to remain bitter and oblivious yet oddly relatable.


The film's standouts lie not, however, with the adults. Rather, it's in Engineer and Fuhrman's performance's that the film really shines. Not only does their twisted sister dynamic manage to stay interesting; they also manage very decently when on their own.


Engineer's Max is a role that (much like Jadagrace Berry's in Terminator Salvation)requires her to be very expressive with her face without going overboard. Her fear and pain also genuinely make you feel sorry for her situation.


The cause of this fear and pain, of course, is the increasingly deranged Esther, who shines in Fuhrman's hands. She is charming, as noted above. This, of course, does not stop her from also being a chilling sociopath. It's the little things really: an evil glare here and there, a sadistic smile watching a fire, a realistic Russian accent, et al. The movie uses a lot of psychological thriller conventions, so the villain role really has to stand out for us to get interested. If it weren't for Fuhrman, the film wouldn't be half as interesting (or spooky) as it is.


Like I said above, the film works entirely within the conventions of the genre. These go from the lone-standing female heroine nobody believes to the shocking reveal of the villain's nature/identity. As a friend of mine noted, the makers of this film must have worked pretty hard to avoid stepping on clichés in this department. The ShockReveal isn't as shocking as others, but I'll still give it points on originality. Some better casting decisions and a tighter script around some scenes could've really elevated this to classic, Rosemary territory.

Le verdict: **

Thoughts on The Hangover

The comedic front in cinema has been on a rut as of late. "Where is the big comedy of the year?", we clamored. Well, mesdames et messieurs, The Hangover should assuage us all (at least for now). Here is a movie that squeezes every ounce of fun it can from one of the most random, chaotic script we've seen this year (even if its chaos detracts from it as a whole). Even if the movie's brand of crass humor wasn't always my taste, I have to recognize there's no situation or line that wasn't funny within it's own style. That's ambiguous, isn't it? Let's get on with the explanation, then.


The movie's premise is quite simple: four guys wake up in a trashed hotel suite after a night of debauchery with no memory of the events that happened in the aforementioned night. They must now find the fifth member of their motley crew, who just happens to be getting married in two days. As they go about piecing information about the night's events, they run into such random characters as a pair of sadistic police officers, a hooker with a heart of gold and an enraged Chinese gangster. See what I meant about the chaos?


The guys get divided into regular, male comedy archetypes. The whipped wimp, the socially awkward idiot, and the suave ladies man all make their appearance here. The roles are decently portrayed by Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis (I had to double spellcheck that name), and Bradley Cooper, respectively. It's nothing we haven't seen before, but within the context of the film it manages to still be fun. Even if at times Helms' whining and Galifianakis idiocy get a tad grating, it doesn't detract too much from the film.


The film's star, of course, is not its leads, but rather the random messes they stumble into on their search for their friend Doug (Justin Bartha, who just can't seem to get his big break.). The situations are, more often that not, politically incorrect and go from merely embarrassing to outright dangerous. If there's one issue the script has regarding these encounters is the fact that they don't really have cohesion. To put it another way, even if the situations are funny, they're not really connected. They're like roommates that don't hang out much; they share the same space but don't have much of a relationship.

Overall, the film provides a healthy amount of laughs and will keep you entertained from start to finish. It is not, however, anything we haven't seen before. Nor is it, as some people seem to think, the next Big Thing. It's a summer comedy, and a good one at that, but nothing else.

Le verdict: ***

Thoughts on Valkyrie

Let's get something out of the way. I've never really liked Tom Cruise. I don't necessarily dislike him, but I don't get excited when I hear he's on the cast for an upcoming movie. Valkyrie does not provide a 180° on my opinion of him, but it does change it up a bit.


Valkyrie tells the story of the 20 July plot, a failed attempt to assassinate Hitler that was orchestrated by the German Resistance. The film's protagonist is Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise), a war veteran who lost an eye and a hand during a British attack. Stauffenberg, disillusioned with the Third Reich, joins a clandestine group planning on staging a coup.


Overall, the supporting cast in the coup plot does a decent job but no one really stands out. Particularly alluring, however, was David Bamber's Hitler, who was subdued yet deranged. He doesn't have much screen time, but he works wonders (particularly with his eyes) during that time.


Carice van Houten (marvelous in Black Book) is wasted here as von Satuffenberg's wife, Nina. It's really a shame when a great actress is given a role she can't do anything with. This is not the same as saying small roles should go to bad actors. Dame Judi Dench did marvelous in Shakespeare in Love, despite her limited screen time. Carice's performance doesn't lower its quality standards from her other work, but we just don't see enough of her.

The film is interesting, but it's main flaw is that it is never truly engaging. For a film inhabiting as tired a historical period as WWII, this is particularly problematic. The way I see it, if you're gonna get into WWII, you must either bring something new into the game or be really good at what everyone else has done. The fact that the proceedings play as a thriller in a scenario whose ending we already know further sink this into exercise-in-futility territory. As I've asked before, if a thriller isn't particularly thrilling, is it failing? Maybe as a thriller, but the other thing this film has going on for it is its attempt to inform us; to let us know that not every German (indeed, that not even every Nazi) in WWII was a monster. Some attempted to fight back, to redeem themselves. It's a shame their courage is exploited here with such low quality standards.

Le verdict: **

Thoughts on Terminator Salvation

Let me be the first to say my dislike of this film is my own fault. I shouldn't have raised my expectations. Did I expect anything but loud explosions from Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines? Of course not. But with other succesful franchise reboots/reinventions still fresh in my mind, I allowed myself a bit of optimism for Terminator Salvation. This turned into excitement when I learned that both Christian Bale and Anton Yelchin were to star in it. Bale's performance in The Dark Knight was still fresh in my mind and I've found Anton Yelchin thoroughly alluring ever since I saw Charlie Bartlett. Alas, all of this would work against me when the film finally came out (a full two months after it had premiered elsewhere, I might add).


For those of you uninitiated to Terminator, the film concerns itself with humanity's struggle against Skynet, an artificial intelligence bent on our annihilation. Skynet became self-aware shortly after being activated and lauched a worldwide nuclear attack. The survivors must now square off against Skynet's machine army. This is the first movie in the franchise that is primarily set in the future, during the war. And what a bleak setting that is. Mankind is outnumbered and facing a ruthlessly efficient foe in a deserted world. Sure, there's the occasional ruined landscape or two, but they're filled with potential hiding places for the machines and as such are more dangerous than helpful; their mere existence being a reminder of Skynet's lowest blow against humanity (the cinematography in these scenes is actually quite good; all cold, gray and sandy, effectively conveying the dead landscape's feel).


On the human resistance we have John Connor (Christian Bale), who was prophetized to be mankind's leader against the machines but is having a hard time rising to that post on account of those who aren't ready to believe him. To say Bale's performance here is a disappointment would be an understatement. He's one-note and uninspiring. This wouldn't be so bad (it is a big budget, summer action film after all) if it wasn't for the fact that we've seen him do infinitely better. Not only have we seen him do better, actually, but the character too. And when your performance doesn't measure up to Edward Furlong's, you know you're in trouble (not to say he didn't do well in T2, just saying he squandered that later. An entry in the The Crow franchise? Hello?). The possibility was there, but he just didn't grab it. Maybe the direction's at fault here too, but I'll get into that later.


Playing (quite literally, sometimes) opposite Bale is Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright, a newly resurrected murderer who's trying to make sense of his new surroundings and atone for his past sins by helping out other survivors. Worthington is a breath of fresh air after Bale's listless performance, being both believably heroic and emotionally perturbed. Of particular note is his chemistry with Moon Bloodgood (more on her ahead). All thing considered, he could've let the character flounder, much like Bale, but doesn't. Since the script isn't that more gentle with him (giving him some truly awful lines near the beginning), I'll have to attribute that to Worthington's skill. But let's not get carried away. Opposite Bale, Worthington is nice, but he isn't anything we haven't seen in other (better) shapes elsewhere.




Moon Bloodgood's Blair Williams is one of the highlights of the film. Unlike her female co-star Bryce Dallas-Howard (who portrays Kate Brewster, John's romantic interest), who doesn't have much to do during the film, Bloodgood is pure female action star (inheriting Linda Hamilton's mantle of strong female lead performance). Not only can she sell her combat sequences, she also skillfully shows a more tender side of her around Marcus, resulting in some surprisingly endearing scenes. Plus, the girl can seriously rock the post-apocalyptic wardrobe.




Jadagrace Berry's (debut role) Star is a mute, orphaned survivor who works alongside Anton Yelchin's teenaged Kyle Reese to stay alive. Her role is small and doesn't require much of her, but I still liked her. She goes from a blank face to a very communicative expression aproppiately and doesn't utter a sound throughout the entire film, only occasionaly descending into gimmick territory. For a first timer 9 year old, she did a very decent job.


Last but certainly not least is the film's standout performance. Anton Yelchin's Kyle Reese (the boy who would, through time travel, eventually become John's father) is a testament to his acting skills. I'm a big fan of Yelchin and with each passing role I grow more confident that he has the chops to carve a longlasting, great career ahead of him. He convincingly conveys the furious sense of frustration and despair a teenage boy would feel if his entire world fell apart. He's fierce, and energetic, but doesn't ever descend into overacting. He also, apparently has the skills to pull a thrilling action scene (something Star Trek, his other summer job, didn't require of him). Yelchin continues to show a lot of promise and he's one of those people that gives me hope the future of young hollywood rests in good hands.

All in all, the film wasn't suppossed to be a standout dramatic outing, so we forgive some of it's acting and plot weaknesses. But if, as an action film, it doesn't reach the bar set by its predecessors (Terminator 2: Judgement Day is to this day, one of my favorite action movies), what does it have left? Maybe Joseph McGinty (I refuse to adress him as McG) should have done a better job in the execution department. Maybe someone else should have been given the job. Whatever the cause, this film ended up being an average action film. The disappointment here isn't in what it is, but what it held the promise to be.

Le verdict: *1/2
Le Verdict (Anton Yelchin's performance): **1/2

Thoughts on My Sister's Keeper

Before you bombard me in the comments with complaints of me being heartless and how could I not feel moved by this film, let me clarify something. I am not heartless. I cried at the end of Atonement, I cry during Stepmom (even if it is a tearjerker much like this one, I'll be damned if Susan Sarandon doesn't sell a melodramatic scene like nobody's business). My point is: I am as emotionally available to a movie as the next guy, but I don't like it when a movie tries to force it out of me. Which is the main problem My Sister's Keeper, the eponymous film adaptation of Jodi Picoult's novel faces. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's start with the fundamentals, shall we?


The film is about a family, a family who, after learning their two year old girl suffers from a rare form of leukemia, decides to have a second daughter, genetically engineered to be able to donate as many body parts as her sister might need. Thanks to this, Kate (Sofia Vassilieva)has lived far beyond her initial life expectancy of 5. Her sister Anna (Abigail Breslin), however, has been in and out of hospitals her whole life, all in an effort to prolong Kate's life. When she was born her cord blood was used to treat Kate. This soon progressed to donating blood, bone marrow, stem cells, etc.; all for the benefit of Kate. She loves her sister, so she's willing to go with her mother (Cameron Diaz) Sara's plans to do anything it takes to keep Kate alive. But when Kate's kidneys fail and Anna is about to be forced to donate one of her own, she decides to end it once and for all. She seeks the help of Campbell Alexander, a notoriously successful attorney, in order to become medically emancipated.


This creates a rift between the different members of the family (those who agree with Anna and those who don't) and Sara (who before discovering Kate's disease was a successful lawyer) decides to go against Alexander in court. Here is near where the film hits its first true problem. The film shows us flashbacks of the family from their various points of view (complete with voiceovers). For a tearjerker, this is not anything new and as such (even if it is a tired storytelling method) I had no beef with it. What really bugged me was the way these flashbacks were introduced. Right as we focused on a particular character, the screen fades to black for a few seconds and then we're in the past. It was lazy, clunky, and repetitive.


But let's forget about the direction and plot for a second and consider the performances. While Cameron Diaz's tough mother act was believable and a nice change of pace from her usual comedic roles, it was still nothing new. This is not to say her acting was flawed, but she didn't really add anything to the character either. Alec Baldwin's Campbell Alexander is a nice mix of cheekiness and heart that I didn't expect from him. He's not an exemplary human being but he cares about Anna and Baldwin's performance makes all the difference between corny kindness and engaging sympathy. The true standout here, however, is Joan Cusack as Judge De Salvo. Her courtroom scenes are not anything we haven't seen elsewhere, but her interview with Anna is a very nice scene. She's recently lost her own daughter in a car accident and talking about death with Anna only brings her pain back to the surface. While most actresses might have gone overboard and turned this into a ham session, Cusack makes us feel her pain in as simple and understated a manner as she can muster.


On the main performances arena we have Abigail Breslin's Anna and Sofia Vassilieva's Kate. Not only do they shine in their individual scenes, their sister dynamic is also believable. Breslin is, of course, the better performer of the two. She's convincing when trying to rebel and when concerned for her sister's well-being. This is one of her first truly dramatic roles in the spotlight, and the promise she shows is truly astounding. Sofia Vassilieva's performance is nice, but, oddly enough, I liked her better during the flashbacks. Even though her performance during the present scenes is decent, her I've-accepted-death-and-am-now-calm act is something that plagues this genre. Is it moving? Yes, but it falls to the worst traits of the tearjerker drama. On the flashbacks, however, Vassilieva strikes a nice balance between likable and bratty. Her teenage rebelliousness is a normal response someone in her situation would engage in. She's tired of her disease and of not living like a normal teen and isn't afraid to show it.


This leads me to a particularly poignant aspect of the film. While in the hospital, Kate meets a fellow leukemia patient named Taylor (Thomas Dekker, he of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles fame). They begin a relationship (both in and out of the hospital) and he even invites her to the hospital's "prom". The scenes detailing their relationship are sweet and touching without descending into sentimentalism. This is all due to the young actors' talent and the script's deft handling of their teenage romance.


Overall, the film is nothing above the standard tearjerker. Some of the problems it has could've been easily fixed by a more skilled director. Also, it's message and sadness are delivered in too heavy-handed a way for us not to feel like it's being shoved down our throats. And what happens when someone shoves something down our throats? We gag and choke, that's what. The film does contain some poignant moments and its honest attempt at portraying the minefield that is bioethics nowadays was not lost on me. Overall, if you're stuck on a bus or plane and this is playing, you won't cringe at it. But you won't exactly be thrilled either.

Le verdict: *1/2

Thoughts on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Let's start by getting the obvious out of the way. This post is futile. Why you ask? Because regardless of what I say, if you're a fan of Harry Potter you've already seen this movie and if you're not nothing I say will make you see it. However, my compulsion to share my take on things pushes me onward and will not be assuaged. So, with that out of the way, let's carry on, shall we?


All things considered, I must say this is my favorite entry in the franchise. While some people prefer the third or fourth films, I felt the third was great but lacked something I couldn't quite place my finger on. The fourth on the other hand, seems to be the most highly regarded by the critics, but as a fan I felt it left out crucial sections of the plot. I understand it's not easy to compress such a large book for a movie adaptation, but it could have done a better job. The fifth was a return to form, but it concerned itself with the teenage first love subplot in too awkward a manner. In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, however, David Yates and company have risen to the occassion marvelously. It's the tightest script we've ever seen out of the series, balancing humor with darker sections nearly seamlessly and providing a genuine good time. Thanks to the special attention payed to verbal comedy this time around, the film's two and half hour runtime doesn't feel nearly as long as it should.


Let's start with the three leads, shall we? Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have been on this since the start and I can confidently say this is the best we've seen out of them. Daniel Radcliffe is, perhaps for the first time, truly likeable. He still sells the boy-hero thing, but he also plays the straight man to Grint's (unexpected) comedic chops. He also plays for earnest comedy in the Felix Felicis scene and it works in ways I hadn't realized he could manage. On the other side of the comedy front we have Rupert Grint's Ron, who for the first time isn't just a sidekick, but a star all on his own. Not only is the script generous with him, his comic timing works great with it. And last but not least, Emma Watson's Hermione nicely balances comedy with teen drama without overdoing either one.


If we look past the leads we'll also discover a supporting cast that works wonderfully within the film. Michael Gambon's Dumbledore is as excentric and wise as ever, but the performance is still engaging. Furthermore, this is the first film in the series in which we get to see a vulnerable moment in Dumbledore's life. This is of course during the cave scene, in which his pain and pleading ring true with us, even if we only get a glimpse at them.


Evanna Lynch continues her excentric character (Luna Lovegood)'s use as comic relief. Even if this time around her role is smaller and her use as comic relief is all they get out of her character, she still manages to steal every scene she's in with her quiet demeanor and oddball antics.


Jim Broadbent (so thoroughly different from his role in Moulin Rouge!, I questioned whether it was the same man) portrays Horace Slughorn, a self-serving, connections obsessed professor who's memories are vital in aiding the defeat of Lord Voldemort. The performance is nicely layered, balancing humor, cowardice and shame in such a way that as pathetic a character as Slughorn is, we sympathize with him and even end up liking him.


Helena Bonham Carter's Bellatrix Lestrange, on the other hand, is a dark force of destruction. She doesn't add anything this time, but I'll be damned if it isn't fun (and still somewhat terrifying) watching her destructive vixen act. There's a particular scene near the conclusion of the film where after taking part in a murder conspiracy, she runs through the woods, cackling and twirling like a murderous, gothic dervish.


Another highlight on the supporting cast is Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, who plays the child version of Lord Voldemort. His role is very small, but his performance is still wonderful (specially for a 12 year old with only one other film credit under his belt). His portrayal of the twisted child that would become the series antagonist is dark and subdued. Of special note to me was the gleeful fascination he shows when he realizes Dumbledore really is a wizard. We only get a glimpse of his face, but it shows so much (surprise, glee, wonder, desire, piqued interest). I can't wait to see what he'd do in a bigger role.


Alan Rickman's Severus Snape is at his most menacing here. Even though his wardrobe hasn't noticeably changed throughout the series, his cape looks like never before, like a black cloud of misery trailing behind him. He still balances the darker moments with some dry comedy, as he's wont to do; but it's still a nicely dark (if a tad small) performance.


Which leads us to the film as a visual experience. The sets are beautifully detailed and the wardrobe is still very decent compared to most big budget franchises these days. Deserving particular note is the film's cinematography, which in the final scenes uses cold, metallic colors and light to heighten tension and when combined with the aforementioned sets truly is a marvelous visual thrill.


And speaking of visual thrills, the other thing this movie consistently pulls off better than most big budget movie franchises out there is the visual effects. They're great, of course, but the thing they do remarkably well is blend seamlessly with the rest of the movie. They never overpower scenes they're in unless they have to (as in the ring of fire in the above picture, which is truly wonder to look at). It's refreshing to see a movie where even though there's magic and whatnot flying across the screen every so often you don't wonder midscene how much that digital effect cost or if it even is a digital effect; you just go with the flow.

Overall, I have a very positive opinion of this movie, even if the ending felt slightly truncated. This is not something it could've done better, as the book it's based upon also felt this way. The book's place in the series is a final exposition and setting of plot points before the grand finale. Even considering this, the movie was very entertaining and I applaud its darker plotlines and heightened efforts in every department. I highly recommend it.

Le verdict: ***1/2

P.S. It is a testament to the film's visual delights that this has been my most picture-heavy post. And just because I love you, here's another shot of Bellatrix looking deranged yet oddly alluring, as it should be.