Patrick Ogle

_ The Woman in Black is not a particularly memorable film. But that doesn’t mean it is a bad film either. If you walk into the theater expecting something other than what the film is you will be disappointed. If you walk in with no preconceptions and are a fan of old style ghost stories you will be entertained. The film looks good and is paced well, even if it is allowed that it is quite slow, but what really matters is Daniel Radcliffe. He makes the movie work and he does it with very little dialog, with nervous looks and a stiff, Victorian, upper lip (distinct, of course, from a Georgian or Elizabethan upper lip).

It is to be hoped that Radcliffe will take a few more shots at the genre as well. He is a solid actor and he has a certain “gravitas” about him. It is a different sort than when that term is generally used, however. He seems like one of us; he isn’t a giant of a man, he doesn’t come off as a movie star. He seems like a regular person. He is the sort of actor you want tossed into a supernatural maelstrom.

_ One of the problems with a film like this is its marketing; how it is presented in ads and trailers creates an expectation. And marketing nitwits often don’t seem to get that tricking people into a film is less desirable than just telling the truth about it. The truth about Women in Black is that it is a moody, old fashioned, slow moving ghost story. It has more “creeps” than “leaps” in it. But the film’s promotion shows a woman sitting in the theater with patrons as if to say “This movie will scare the crap out of you.”

Not even if you were five.

Again, that doesn’t mean it is bad. It does a solid job of creating a mood and a place—rural Britain in the late Victorian era (more or less). The mood is heavy, dreary and palpable. As noted, the only character that really matters, played by Radcliffe in his first post-Harry Potter role, is well developed. We know who is; he is a grieving man with a small child. His career is in tatters and his last chance is to sort through the papers of a deceased woman in an old, scary-ass house. The locals are leery of him and jittery. No one wants him there but he has no choice.

That is all we need to know. The other actors in the film are fine. They just are given very little to do. We know what is coming; we know who they are without too many details.

Some of the scenes in the house where Radcliffe moves from room to room seeing a parade of creepy scary things (man, Victorian-era parents gave their kids some spooky-ass toys) go on a little longer than they should. But really what ELSE is the movie going to do? The more detail given the sillier it would get. This never gets silly. It never seems overlong but it never quite 100 percent satisfies either.

In the past year two other horror films spring to mind when watching The Woman in Black. One of these is Don’t Be Afraid of The Dark. It features Guy Pearce and Katie Holmes (who does a fine job) and has the Guillermo Del Toro cachet as well. It is nominally better than The Woman in Black.The other is Insidious, the silly, fun, also old fashioned (but from a later period) horror film released in February 2010. While I am sure Daniel Radcliffe was paid more than Insidious’ entire budget, again, I have to say Insidious succeeds SLIGHTLY better in what it intended than The Woman in Black.

Part of the problem, and it can be debated whether this is actually a problem, is that this has been done before. Really what hasn’t? The trick is for a filmmaker to FOOL us into thinking we haven’t seen it before. That is why they make the big money. That is why we remember a film. You will be entertained by The Woman in Black but it is unlikely you will recall much about it—excluding Radcliffe.

_ A Separation is a film that could have been made by John Cassavetes if he had been an Iranian and were still alive. It was, in fact, directed by Asghar Farhadi. He also directed the excellent Fireworks Wednesday which is out on video by IR Films.

Whether the film is a real representation of people’s lives is immaterial; it seems like it is real.  It feels real. It smells real. It almost tastes real. The writing is close to flawless and the acting is so natural you feel that the film is almost a documentary—excepting the fact that people are usually not so natural in documentaries.

Often, “Iranian” films that are seen in the West are never actually screened in Iran.  They are made by brave people bucking the system. Sometimes they are good. Sometimes not so much but people in the West are loathe to attack a film that was so difficult to make. This film, apparently, is an exception to this. I heard it was a hit in Iran (I have some questions as to what that means). But there is at least some indication people in the Islamic Republic connected to it. That is what a “hit” is indicative of a film that somehow connects with people on some level.  This fact sometimes makes me unable to fall asleep at night, I wake up shrieking “No…NO…Rob Schneider,”  then I realize he hasn’t had a hit for years and I fall asleep for a bit until some specter resembling Michael Bay pulls off the covers and rolls me onto the floor.

What is most fascinating about A Separation is how those DASTARDLY Iranians are not ranting mullahs or slick politicians but people very much like Americans. They do stupid things. They lose their tempers. They have to deal with bureaucracy. They love their kids. They worry about if they are doing the right thing. Sometimes they lie.

_ Of course, the film is being currently castigated in Iran as somehow representing Iranians in a bad light. I cannot imagine how. It represents them as humans. Of course all fanatics, be they religious or Stalinist, usually create an image of the perfect human and then try to pretend their belief system creates this perfect human and no one in society who isn’t a traitor deviates from that “norm.”  This isn’t a film they are showing in a Basji barracks. I mean they show a woman’s HAIR. That might ignite a sexual frenzy offensive to God.

But I didn’t start writing this with an aim of castigating fanatics—here or there.  This film shows how similar we are, not how different. We face the exact same things—a rocky marriage, dealing with our kids, parents who get old and sick and trying to fit our religious beliefs into the reality of our everyday lives. The film has a great deal in it about differing levels of belief and the conflict between the educated and uneducated, between the middle class and the poor. Change the religion to Christian and the language to English and most of the film could take place in Omaha.

The biggest difference between “us and them,” in the context of the film is that Iranians at least think about emigrating. Americans, traditionally, do not.  That is a small thing.  There may be better foreign films out there this year. But it is to be hoped that this one wins the Oscar in that category.  The world needs to take a deep breath and see that Iranians are people—regardless of how we view their government.

_ Werner Herzog’s Into The Abyss is not Grizzly Man nor is it Cave Of Forgotten Dreams.Both of those films had some sort of wonder and joy in them. Many will scratch their heads at the word “joy” being applied to Grizzly Man—many cannot see beyond the unhappy ending. How many people tick off days of their lives sitting in an office sending email to someone who sends it on to someone else who decides how the latest widget should be marketed?

Personally? I would much rather be mauled to death by a bear.  Timothy Treadwell lived for something and died for something. And he left behind the remarkable footage Herzog used in his film. Argue all you want, then go back to your cubicle and send out another email.

Into The Abyss has none of that wonder and no joy, no hope either. There is a section of the film titled, “A Glimmer of Hope” but it seems a faint and false one.  If Herzog truly sees hope in this story his eyes are keener than mine.

The film is the story of a murder, the murderers and the families of the victims. It is about people, not much detail about the town, about the setting. Nothing really matters except the interviews—and most poignantly with a man not even involved in this specific case.

_ One of the greatest things about Herzog as a documentary filmmaker is his honesty. In this day where the likes of Michael Moore have turned the term “documentary” into “political screed” or even, “propaganda” Herzog is honest. When it is his opinion—he literally TELLS you it is his opinion. Herzog does not believe in the death penalty, which is stated right up front. It doesn’t mean the condemned men are “exonerated” either. He directly says that as well and never tries to trick the audience. He doesn't even state the obvious or point out which interviewees are "unreliable narrators." That is left to the audience.

There are several points in the movie where, an audience member trying to find a point may despair; then there is an interview that ties pieces brings it together. A former prison guard talks of his experiences and you see the effect of state sponsored revenge on people guilty of nothing other than doing their job (in fact, this is how the film starts). An aging inmate comes to realize he wasted not only his life but the lives of his sons. None of this is pleasant but should this story be pleasant? Why would you force "pleasantness" upon it?

And just because Herzog makes his distaste for the death penalty known it doesn’t mean everyone’s reaction to the film will be to turn against the ultimate punishment upon seeing the film. It isn’t meant to do that. It is meant to make you think about it, make you see it. The audience sees people who probably deserve to die and the heartbroken people with ruined lives left behind.  Who witnessing that has the strength to say; “Enough”?

But if, after watching this, you have no appreciation as to how the crime and the reaction to it by the state, by us, is nothing less than a terrible tragedy, you may have some empathy issues of your own. You may not walk out against the death penalty (it may even make you more for it) but you will think about it more seriously, unlike two older women who sat next to me and my son, who were laughing throughout. My son, who at 14 asked me to take him to this film, said “I wanted to punch those people next to us.” I thought; no punch could be worse than living your life with a mind that thinks any part of Into The Abyss is funny.

Some Guy Who Kills People is a horror thriller comedy that is making the film fest rounds. It better get a wide release. In part because it is so clever on multiple levels but also because it could make money--which would help other less-than-giant budget films getting out to the people. Insidious should have taught the lesson but perhaps it didn't.

I saw this film at a festival that had a really solid selection of shorts (for the most part). While this was especially true of the shorts even the features were bearable.

This film stood out from this pack even--way out. Produced by John Landis and directed by Jack Perez (Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus) the film manages to be suspenseful, funny, kind of touching and has plenty of splatter--but all of that is pretty tongue in cheek.  Shaun of the Dead (which is a great movie) may spring to mind while watching this but the similarities tend to be more in tone than anything else--the mix of horror and humor. It has nothing to do with Lucy Davis being in the film!

Speaking of cast, the film stars the likes of Kevin Corrigan (The Departed, Pineapple Express etc), Barry Bostwick (in a really funny, movie stealing, somehow channeling Peter Falk-performance), Karen Black as a chain-smoking smart-assed mom, Leo Fitzpatrick (The Wire, Kids, My Name is Earl). It also features a really endearing performance by child actor, Ariel Gade, who appeared on the TV show, Invasion.

All the actors put in memorable performances which are, in part, due to the snappy writing and pace of the film. If you have good writing and a film that moves . It might not be quite on the Shaun of the Dead level but it is, let's say, every bit as good, if not better than Hot Fuzz. You will find yourself laughing more in this film that you will in most films billed as straight up comedies.

The basic plot revolves around a man released from an asylum. He gets a job at an ice cream parlor and lives with his mom. Suddenly a series of rather gruesome murders begin. More alarming for Corrigan's character, he meets his 11 year old daughter from a week-long relationship.

He is an artist, with rather gruesome proclivities, he doesn't talk much but his life changes, for the better, when his daughter enters it. The smart and sometimes surprisingly subtle, writing makes it all work--and the direction and pacing rarely let it lag.

It may be that the film doesn't look like a Hollywood film. But I will point out--neither did Insidious. If anyone got behind this film; if it had distribution and some ads, it might surprise people. It is a humor-horror hybrid that, if it isn't a home run, is at least a solid triple. Come on, this is being written during the World Series, there has to be a baseball analogy.

I meant to write something about Moneyball. Not a review but more a review of reviews on how sometimes you see a movie you think is really good but other people (critics or not) go CRAZY about it. You don’t want to disagree, having LIKED the movie, but you feel like while the movie was good it just wasn’t THAT good.

In my head I refer to this as “The King’s Speech Syndrome” but on to more important matters, specifically the film Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame. This Chinese Mystery/Kung Fu/Fantasy/Period piece has everything you could want in an action film. The film has an albino, a sort of evil empress, a really cute palace official, a wise cracking detective who can kick butt and a fight wherein the hero goes up against several talking deer.

One would think that deer capable of speech and massively outweighing a human would be able to best him but he does have a special mace as a weapon. It is sort of magical.

At this point you REALLY want to see this move or REALLY do not. That is fair enough. This is an old school Kung Fu type movie, excepting that there is a lot of CGI and camera trickery going on. The really old school films didn’t do that (mostly due to the lack of a budget).  I write “kung fu type” because it is also one of those vaguely mythical history films. There is a lesson in it for your average Chinese viewer that the party is not going to be annoyed with at all. But it is also something that isn’t going to annoy a Western audience either—they likely won’t even notice this.

Walking into the theater do not expect Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or Hero. This is not of the caliber of those films. If you go, refrain from scoffing, as the people behind me did. I wondered what sort of movie they thought they were going to see.  Raise the Red Lantern maybe? The ads for this could not be CLEARER as to what this movie was going to be.

So shut up and save your sighs for after the movie when you can talk about jazz and tilt your beret “just so.”  Is this movie beyond criticism? Hell no but for what it is intended to be? It is executed quite well. The plot is pretty silly and simple, the dialog—well who knows? I speak no dialect of Chinese but the translation is fairly goofy in parts.

This calls to mind something about the acting. It reminded me of soap opera actors and how those actors are frequently VERY good at their jobs. If you can even say the drivel that makes up the plot you have to be a good actor. Likewise, I think, in highly stylized films like this. The actors who are not good at their jobs just mug and swagger. In this film they mostly give it the old college try and pull it off—within the confines of the plot and this is not Shakespeare.

One rule is often that the amount of actual Kung Fu is inversely proportional to the skill of the actors.  If they cannot act? They better be able to fight. This film doesn’t have wall to wall fights but it does have four or five great action sequences which are well choreographed and shot. The fight sequences were choreographed by Sammo Hung (who needs no introduction to Kung Fu aficionados and the rest of you can Google him). Director Tsui Hark never, NEVER, lets the film drag or get bogged down in “plot.” They use devices from voiceover to titles to tell the audience any details that might lead to a boring conversation—and that is as it should be in a film like this.

We don’t want talk, we want guys fighting deer!

Contagion is a message film and the message is; you are not safe. And when it comes to epidemics or pandemics this is totally true. Your wealth won't help you much. Nor will your current state of health. Sure, those already ill or weak are at greater risk but sometimes the young and hale lack resistance that their elders have.

Ergo, no one is safe.

And then they start rattling of information on how many times we touch our faces in a minute after touching GOD knows what else. Then we hear about fomites (basically anything can carry and transfer an infectious agent). AND then we see subtle shots of everyone touching things and other sneezing, hacking cough sufferers touching those SAME surfaces. If this doesn't make you want to wash your hands more then you are the nut. The film is a masterwork of pacing and making you care about the smallest of characters. Yes, this has a lot to do with fine acting but it also doesn't happen without fine directing as well.

The message "you are not safe" well worth hearing. Every time there is a warming about a potential epidemic that sputters out or doesn't appear it makes people skeptical and lackadaisical which makes the almost inevitable real epidemic all the more dangerous. Between 1976 and 2006 estimates of yearly deaths, in the USA, from flu range from lows of 3,000 to highs of 49,000. . Find out more on flu at the CDC website. Even the regular yearly flu can kill you.

Contagion seems almost a docudrama but it is one with fine acting and a story that never allows it to slow down or get caught up in jargon or scientific mumbo jumbo. Other efforts at "epidemic" film making that have turned out dismally (Outbreak springs to mind) usually side-step reality and into Hollywood crapola. The crapola usually indicates the government CREATED the plague afflicting mankind. Those bad BAD men in Washington! There is almost always an "evil general" in the bad epidemic movies but not in Contagion.

In fact, there are few bad guys in this film--at least among major characters (with one exception). Everyone is trying to do their job and when some of them fail, when they do something "bad," audience members generally cannot blame them.  For instance, we'd all put our families before protocol wouldn't we? Even if that wound up being a disaster? Yes, we would.

That is another way Contagion is realistic. People behave as you might expect. Some loot, some panic, some are led into profiteering they justify, some are brave but none turn into Darth Vader.

But back to hand washing. Hand washing gets knocked but it is one of the most effective ways to keep from getting sick. That includes run of the mill flu or a 1918-style pandemic. 

One place you can find out information on infections disease is the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. They have information and links to information on infectious disease info everyone should know. They also have a section on bio terrorism. I had occasion to interview Michael Osterholm who is the director at CIDRAP during the Anthrax attacks.  In a general discussion on infectious disease he said the one vital thing we can ALL do ourselves is to frequently wash our hands.

If Contagion causes people to do this we may have fewer flu cases this year!

One last not on the film. Often when you see a large ensemble cast of big name actors you can almost SMELL a bad movie. This is not the case in this film. Gwyneth Paltrow has minimal screen time and makes the most of it. Matt Damon, again, proves he can handle just about any role. He can be over the top or he can be subtle and convey emotion with an expression. Laurence Fishburne has the gravitas of Gregory Peck. Jennifer Ehle also stands out as an incredibly brave researcher. I'd use the word "gravitas" but I already did. None of these actors are alone. Everyone in this film makes you care about them--one way or another--without tons of character development. When that happens it means you have a great group of actors.

So The Guard is one of those movies that is well written, well shot, well paced (and I cannot ever emphasize how important this is in a film) everyone in it acquits themselves well but, nonetheless, the entire film could go down in flames based on the performance of one actor.

In this case that actor is Brendan Gleeson. Every other person in this film could be replaced by a long list of actors--and some of them are fine actors--and it wouldn't matter a whit. Gleeson, by the very nature of this film has to load it on his shoulders and carry it. And he does.

Usually when one actor has to carry a film it doesn't bode well for a movie. Think of all the Robin William's vehicles of years past...brr...brrrrr...BRRRRRR. I am going to need a couple of shots now.  Sure, Williams, has done some good work but when a movie was laid on him? What do you wind up with? Good Morning Vietnam or that one where he plays a robot.

There are other examples of this and it usually means, at best, a mediocre movie. In this case all that surrounds Gleeson IS good and the dialog is unrelentingly witty. Often the lead actor is the key to a film but a film can still be good with them being mediocre. Any number of Ben Affleck films bear this out.

What makes this all the more remarkable is that Gleeson's character is shown less via what he says and more by his expression (and how he behaves). What comes out of his mouth in the film is often just "taking the piss out " of people. His character goads people and pokes at them. Don Cheadle's character (and I paraphrase) says "I am not sure if you are an idiot or a genius".

This is a very funny film. That has to be said and should have been said earlier. It is a comedy and rare are the actors who can be funny like this. Few are the actors who can pull of a role like this.

It has hints of films such as Snatch and also other "rural" Irish comedies. But, it never gets "precious." Go to see it, it will likely be out of theaters soon. If you miss it there be sure to put it in your Netflix cue.

So this is late. Shockingly, I went to see a "Planet of the Apes" related movie two weeks or so after it was released. I have no excuse. But it does give me an out on the trap I hoped to avoid when I first began this movie section here.I wanted to avoid reviewing movies. Of course, essentially that is what I have done.

No apologies, not to any of the films I hated or the dumbass who really liked that dull-witted Another Earth movie (seriously....who would leave a COMMENT on a website asking for my "credentials" over such a mundane lifeless piece of shit). See? Already you can tell this isn't a review. But damn, it seems like a BLOG now.

I had hoped to avoid that too. I hate blogs; "Here is what I ate today" or "I am so blessed." That's all great I am only mocking a little but I don't want to do that (I did have some awesome Chinese noodles I bought at an Asian Grocery store on Kimball Ave by the highway in Chicago and I am blessed with incredible good looks).

What I wanted to write about is perception and movies. Usually when people do this they are writing about some tedious Godard film (I admit. Most of the time, I hate Godard). But it doesn't need to be high brow. We perceive the low brow every day. I sometimes get up early enough to watch morning talk shows. I once watched part of that Ozzy Osbourne reality show thing.

The first two opinions I had of Rise of the Planet of the Apes came from professional journalists, writing for a major newspaper. I saw their interaction on Facebook. One reviewed the movie. The other wrote an excellent "history" of the previous "apes" efforts. The latter liked the movie while the former disliked it.

But let's look at this movie, this film of the rise of the apes.

It is about an hyper intelligent ape who becomes that way via testing for a drug aimed at defeating Alzheimers. This is Citizen Kane plot-wise compared to ANY film in the previous series. This could almost HAPPEN. They also make you FEEL something for a CGI ape. It isn't even Roddy McDowell in an ape costume. Who didn't love Roddy McDowell?

The film also make sense within its own parameters. There are no real red herrings. The performances are all, at worst, tolerable. Tom Felton (Harry Potter's Drago Malfoy) is basically used as a device to toss references to the old movies in but that is hardly his fault. John Lithgow delivers a fine performance in a small role, understated but real. James Franciscus...oh wait...he isn't in this. James Franco, is fine. He doesn't get to show his skill as he did in 127 Hours (another Best Actor Oscar robbery, King's Speech my ass) but he is fine. And stop whining about him on the Oscars. He was fine there too. No one is ever really GOOD doing that. Awards shows blow.

So what is to HATE? I get not liking it as a matter of taste. But hate?

I suspect there are a lot of things going on when we hate something that isn't THAT bad. We might have expectations that are unreasonably high. Previews might stoke us up for a film that was never really made. The best bits might ALL be in the previews. The people who edited the previews often seem more adept editors than those who edit the films. If I hit the lottery the preview editors will be editing the entire first Patrick Ogle produced film. I want the ghost of Erik Von Stroheim or Billy Bob Thornton--someone nuts and on a career suicide trajectory--to direct. In this expectation mode we walk in expecting a GREAT film and find a GOOD film and it pisses us off. It makes us HATE the movie.

Sometimes you see a film again and reassess it. But then what does that mean? Did you like it better when you saw it on cable because you perceived merits you missed? Or did you not have to pay $10 to get in and $8 for popcorn (and god forbid it is in 3D because you really get clipped on that).But regardless of the reason you do reassess. I am sure were I too see that horrible Resident Evil IV movie again I could relax and just stare at Milla Jovovich.

It can maybe be chalked up to environment when the shift is only from HATE to mild dislike (theater vs. home). I could discuss LOVING a film like Rise of the Planet of the Apes too, which is equally irrational and possibly based on blind fanboyness, How the fuck did anyone sit through any of that second set of Star Wars films? I wanted to poke out my eyes watching the first one.

Fanboy or Fangirlness are explanation one

But this love could also be based on wildly LOW expectations. Like when I saw 2012, the disaster movie. I had similar expectations to what most people would have watching a 7 hour documentary on Soviet farm collectives made under Stalin. But in 2012 as long as shit was blowing up or Woody Harrelson was on screen? I was tolerant. Harrelson should be in every movie by the way.

An example of where I realized something I thought SUCKED but not only didn't SUCK but was pretty close to great, was Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys.  I saw it in the theater and hated it like poison. HATED it. Then, years later a friend who I hadn't seen in awhile busted it out and said; "Hey this is really good, want to watch it?" I didn't feel like being rude.

And after the second viewing? I thought it was pretty close to a great movie. What happened? Was I just in a piss poor mood at first viewing? I do not recall that. It wasn't that MANY years between viewings. I was an adult in both situations with my tastes pretty well set. I mean I loved Every Which Way But Loose when I was 11 but my opinion was wildly different at 16.

There are no conclusions I can come to on this. It is more a starting point for discussion and thought. It may also just be an excuse to mention Godard and Every Which Way But Loose in the same piece.

Another Earth is proof that not every small film, not every indie film, is a brilliant masterpiece. Some of them are mundane drudgery. It isn't the worst film ever made and that is the best thing you can say about it.  It is professionally shot, it is paced reasonably and it has a basic premise that is interesting.

But, those things alone don't make a watchable film or a film where you won't hear audience members groaning and guffawing at various points (especially the predictable, eye-roller of an ending).

Why do indie films go wrong?

It is often  the same reason better-funded films stink up the screen; someone comes up with an idea but never bother to craft a story beyond that idea. With Blockbusters sometimes they decide to make up for lack of content with explosions. Indies often do it with pretension.

Another Earth has an interesting premise. Another world appears in the sky, apparently inhabitable. As this news is breaking a young woman, Rhoda, played by Brit Marling (who co-wrote this mess with director Mike Cahill), does something terrible throwing her life away and ruining another life in the process. But that is it. There is nothing much else to it. The idea of parallel worlds is given short shrift. The idea of redemption is made to seem as mundane as buying a Big Mac, fries and a Coke.

As the movie moves forward this other world figuratively and literally (it gets bigger in the sky) moves nearer. And the main character, Rhoda enters a contest to fly to this other world. I won't give away more details but, be aware, there are not many more to give away.

The problem here isn't the sci-fi. It is everything else. The most believable thing about the film is that this other, identical earth appears in the sky. Most of the dialog is forced and a great deal of the story is told via voice over "news coverage."  The people just don't do or say what you would expect people to do or say in these situations. The writers, at least, make an effort to explain the most ludicrous part of the plot but it still doesn't fly. How does someone not know who it was that killed his family? A lame explanation is given but it doesn't withstand much scrutiny.

The writing is stilted, the acting so robotic that it is difficult to tell if they are good actors or not (William Mapother was fine on Lost!). Every word out of Rhoda's brother's mouth sounds like it was written for a reality show (until the last words out of his mouth which ring more true).

This is a film that it is difficult to even come up with something to say about it; it is just so mediocre. It is a waste of effort and a waste of time to watch. You will feel nothing watching it and you won't think about it ten seconds after you leave the theater except to say "Damn, maybe I should have gone to see Captain America."

Another irksome thing about the film is that it really thinks it is profound. It oozes self-regard. It is not profound. There is no depth to the concepts approached. It has no charm and I challenge you to give a rat's ass about any character in the film (should you be unfortunate enough to see it).

I think the reason I wrote about this at all, because I take no joy in writing negatively about modest movies, is that I take issue with those who laud every movie that isn't about a super hero. Or any movie that can be labeled as "independent." I have seen a lot of such films in the past five years and their rate of failure is as high as Hollywood. They are not all good, many are mediocre and many will make you want to poke out your eyes (this one isn't quite that bad). The real question is why does this film get the distribution other, much better, films never see? I have seen great films, GREAT ones, that only made it into the dingiest big city art house theaters. How does Another Earth get the exposure they deserve?

I don’t want to write a review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. Too many others are going to weigh in—calling it a masterpiece or calling it a travesty because they got the color of Professor McGonagall’s undergarments wrong (super fans can be nit pickers, I mean I threw away my Gandalf pajamas after the second Lord of the Rings movie). My reaction to the movie interests me more than a specific review; I found myself disappointed when the movie ended and it wasn’t because the film wasn’t good.

It was because I am sad these films are done.  I had a similar feeling when I put down the last book. There are not going to be any more of them.

The films were not all brilliant perhaps and Order of the Phoenix (the book) was drudgery. And yes, I have read those braying about how J.K. Rowling would NEVER been allowed to sit at the Algonquin Round Table and how she is CERTAINLY not (fill in your favorite writer pompous people name drop and often haven’t actually read-- Proust for instance). But snotty assessments and recommendations led me to read Philip Pullman. It was a good atheist screed. But the story fell apart like the Dune series.

I find J.K. Rowling’s series, as a whole, to be as fine a series of books written for young adults that I can think of. I would add that they stand quite high in the world of fantasy writing as well.

Admittedly, one of the reasons people latch on to even mediocre fantasy as brilliant is that so much of it is dismal. It is always about a magic sword, or ring or douche. The magic douche must be wielded by a special person and have just the right amount of vinegar.

 Yawn. Tolkien did it. He did it better. Please stop.

Occasionally, however, someone comes along post-Tolkien, who captures the imagination and creates a new world, one that transports us. Frank Herbert maybe did it for a bit. Philip Pullman did to I confess, until his ideology overcame his story. But neither of them was really writing for kids and the movies for Herbert and Pullman’s books are also dismal. I hold the unpopular opinion that only the first of the three Lord of the Rings movies is actually good (the other two being moderately entertaining masterpieces of CGI).

So when it comes to fantasy-for young adults or for general audiences-really only the Harry Potter films manage to capture the magic of the books. Sure the first two are pedestrian but they improve they move on and become darker, as the characters grow up and as the stories grow up.  The movie for the book Order of the Phoenix is significantly better than the book. And the books and movies differ in many ways but the filmmakers usually capture the essence.

These films often do something other adaptations do not—at least when they are at their best. They subtract more than they add. If you tried to make a film including extensive screen time for all the peripheral characters in these books the movies would be an unwatchable mess. Some of the side plots have to go, or at least be severely curtained.  Sure there are mistakes and additions and subtractions that may cause fans of the books to scratch their heads a little. But overall?

All I have to say is go try to watch the original Dune.

In Potters world they subtract but they leave it open to the viewers imagination that, somewhere in the world of the movie, these acts and characters are living and acting and breathing off the screen somewhere. So goodbye to this fine series and I am not sure I want Rowling to write anymore. They can stand on their own. Start something new.

Now, let’s just hope The Hunger Games films surpass these.