King Arthur and More Fantasy!

An Arthurian and Fanciful Trio!

By Kristin Battestella

Yes, I'm still waiting for a definitive Camelot film. Fortunately, be it Arthurian high notes or medieval fantasy and more magical swashbucklers, there's fanciful fun for one and all with this trio of enchanting, classic tales.

Camelot – Richard Harris (The Field), Vanessa Redgrave (Mary Queen of Scots), and Franco Nero (Django) star in this 1967 adaptation of the Lerner and Lowe stage musical complete with rousing overtures, smokey battle soliloquies, a de-aging backwards Merlin, and charming fairytale adventure. Sure, the cardboard looking trees and plastic snow are dated, but the award winning design, sixties hairstyles, and hippie-esque costumes somehow remain fittingly ye olde. Horses, castles, and medieval interiors add flair amid dancing spectaculars and a small but bemusing cast. They are having a good time, and why not? The sing song talking, full blown chorales, and uneven vocals make everything seem a lot more fun than the actual 5^th century England really was, but that over the top lightheartedness and self aware humor matches the fanciful. The “C'est Moi” introduction ridiculously captures Lancelot's full of himself righteousness, and nostalgic adults can catch the innuendo of “The Lusty Month of May” while young audiences enjoy the innocent fun – an aria for the concept of a round table! Three hours can occupy kids for sure, but the singing exposition and disjointed storytelling can irritate older viewers without a childhood affinity for this tale both serious and Robin Hood: Men in Tights in its overlong indulgence, unbalanced direction, and weak ending. This sweeping storybook stage style doesn't always play well onscreen and the musical entrapment is ultimately unnecessary, leaving the dramatic moments as the best here. Though the jovial is more important than interweaving a complete Arthurian recounting, the once sunny and snow white symbolism turns visually darker as the politics escalate inevitably. Despite the musical imperfections, young and old can enjoy the highlights here with sword in the stone fondness, knights of the round table drama, and meddling Mordred conflicts.

Crossed Swords – This two hour 1978 swashbuckler based on Mark Twain 16^th century switcharoo boasts an all-star cast including Charlton Heston, Raquel Welsh, Oliver Reed, George C. Scott, Ernest Borgnine, Sybil Danning, and Rex Harrison. Stirring Maurice Jarr scoring accents the chases, sword fights, fun faire peasantry, and quaint village while the colorful court and sweet ladies frocks add period fancy. Despite historical names like Edward, Henry VIII, and Norfolk, the coming and going cameos anchor the youth-centric lookalike fantasy, over the top whimsical, and sardonic flavor befitting of the novel's social lessons. Brief split screen effects blend seamlessly, carrying the uneven design, which looks elaborate in some scenes and cheap in others. Mark Lester's acting isn't perfect, either – he's stuck still playing a child's role and comes off as a simpleton whether he is the prince or the pauper. Shouldn't one or the other be shrewd or charismatic? Ironically, that lacking in grace fits both the street urchin with no upbringing and the coddled royal. Had Lester done this ten years prior following Oliver! his performance would have been perfect. Yes, liberties are taken here and the pace between its subjects drags. However, it is surprising this did poorly when today every intellectual property is unabashedly twisted into a big money American teen absurdity. Producer Ilya Salkind is clearly capitalizing on his Musketeer success with this literary adventure for kids complete with the same adult stars. Modern parents may find the overlong time tough to take seriously despite mature moments and a wild finish – but this isn't meant to be a sophisticated drama. This is The Parent Trap for boys wrapped up in a medieval ball of fun. I mean, the jester is in red and green harlequin with bells, go with it. 

 

Excalibur – Although I still need a Lord of the Rings caliber Arthur, this 1981 epic swelling with the Lady of the Lake, the Sword in the Stone, and the Holy Grail came out of a failed Tolkien adaptation. Go figure. Fiery orange and hellish battles accent the divine forests, waterfalls, and Irish locations. However the dark and looking low budget design is of its time with confusing action and corny jousting. Glowing reflections on the shiny armor, red lighting, and a green sheen upon the swords feel lightsaber influenced, but the medieval costumes, mystical fog, and colorful interiors lift the mature yet fanciful. While extended nudity and Arthur's birth may add that extra twenty on the two hour and twenty minute length, the often skipped Uther and Igrayne trickery is frankly addressed – even if it is director John Boorman's (Deliverance) daughter Katrine playing Igrayne. Awkward! Rousing and familiar classical music anchors the magical moments, but the otherwise limp scoring contributes to a clunky middle. This isn't as timeless or fantastic as it should be despite a generally complete script combining Mallory and other Arthurian sources for a linear birth, life, and death retelling. Lots of now big names are here, too – including Gabriel Byrne, Patrick Stewart, and Liam Neeson – however Nigel Terry's (Caravaggio) clipped delivery and over the top stage style is an odd choice for Arthur. Mumbling dialogue and fancy names make subtitles a must, but Nicol Williamson (The Seven-Per-Cent Solution) is a fun sage as Merlin while Helen Mirren as Morgana is an alluring villainess. Ironically, her antagonism is better than the core love triangle and a meh Nicholas Clay (Lady Chatterley's Lover) as Lancelot. This is firmly a fantasy not going for historical accuracy, yet the gritty and adult tone paints a not so pretty picture of mysticism versus religion, self versus duty, and messianic reflections upon mistakes befitting of the legend. It takes several watches and one has to be in the right mood for the duration, but the not always magical and mature drama captures the moral of the tale.

Saucy Science Fiction and Fantasy!

It’s Saucy Fantasy and Adventure Time!

By Leigh Wood

 

Be it science fiction, futuristic, fantasy, classic, camp, jungle, or pre-historic, these saucy romps are so bad its good glorious!

Barbarella –Producer Dino De Laurentiis (Conan the Barbarian) and director Roger Vadim’s (And God Created Woman) 1968 adaptation of Jean-Claude Forest’s comics immediately sets its camp sci-fi tone with a shiny, zero gravity, striptease and never looks back. The brassy sixties theme and score perfectly match the strangely tasteful nudity and fun fur ship interiors – although that has to be a bitch to clean! The bad SF designs, poor flying effects, ugly color, and psychedelic lighting are certainly dated, too. Awkward plastics, pleather get ups, and lots of tight tights further establish the kinky sex experimentation and whiff of bondage, lesbianism or fem-dom and liberation – toking up on “Essence of Man,” the Excessive Machine, and all that. I’m not really a Jane Fonda (Cat Ballou) fan, but surely she was very into personal grooming back in the day, for her costumes leave little else to the imagination. We don’t see all the sex glory, but it’s amazing the before and after saucy humor is delivered with such a straight face considering the preposterous technical dialogue and tongue in cheek tone. However, it is odd to have the feral kids, their ugly dolls, and the suggestive biting amid the juicy, and this kind of bad futuristic design is what gave the science fiction of the time a juvenile bad name. Poor editing and slow ass montages of bubblicious space travel and ridiculous skiing also hamper the bemusement. We get the generally pointless A to B adventures and excuses to have sex, but at 98 minutes, the lack of reason or rhythm from one scene to the next becomes overlong and tiresome. Fortunately, the goofy ship angles and wild filmmaking remain fun and mature audiences are fully aware of the viewing treats here. John Phillip Law (The Golden Voyage of Sinbad) has such nice…wings! Maybe one has to be stoned to appreciate what’s happening here – for while I can absolutely understand why its seventies re-releases raised its cult fame, I’ve never been quite sure what the heck is going on in this movie! I dare say kids can watch a television edit or the PG version purely for the hysterics and not perceive the innuendo or kinky overtone. Duran Duran anyone?

Barbarian Queen – Bad dialogue, anachronistic language, old speaketh names, Valley Girl style, and poor English sound set the campy mood for this boobalicious 1985 Roger Corman produced Amazon vengeance tale. An awkward opening rape and more sexual violence scenery make it somewhat tough to enjoy this film, and yet I dare say the torture scenes are bizarrely fun for bondage fans as are the woefully bad but brief gladiator fights. The rapacious, bodice-ripping titillation may be strange, but it is probably accurate for the Roman setting. Besides, it’s nice to see the nudity and gore instead of a kid friendly, magic filled fantasy and there are a few amusing brothel scenes and orgies, too. Granted, it would have been sexier to see the gals kick ass more, but the story isn’t that bad. It’s nothing new for sure, but there is some attempted character development and moments of sentiment with children and exiled villagers. Unfortunately, bad acting makes it tough to take the opening aggression or any dramatic turns seriously. The action and fighting move quickly and aren’t bad – in fact, they are well choreographed and edited – but small-scale designs and low budget toy swords keep the 70 minutes kitschy. The costumes are also eighties over the top colorful yet fittingly fantasy furs and sexy skimpy leather. What does it matter if you can’t always tell one annoying chick from the next? We don’t need the finite details on the big rebels versus bad guys finale, either. If we weren’t in the middle of a misguided, slo-mo, ridiculously CGI revival with poor fair such as the Conan reboot and Wrath of the Titans, I would say this deserves to be redone properly. Sadly, some audiences may also tune in now thanks to Lana Clarkson’s murder and the subsequent Phil Spector trials. This one may not do the genre any favors and shouldn’t be taken too seriously, but fans of the original Conan or The Beastmaster can enjoy this Showgirls sword and sorcery good time. 

Death Stalker – Clarkson bared more bod – I kid you not her costume is a cape and a g-string – in this previous 1983 Corman romp full of magical amulets, mystical swords, and drunken chalices. Bad dialogue, woeful names, and a confusing quests amid a tournament at the local evil wizard’s place compound the plot troubles here, and poor character motivation doesn’t help. The ripped Rick Hill (Today’s F.B.I.) only wants to fight, denies a request to rescue a princess, but then accepts this power trip instead. The back and forth riddles are tiresome and the titular hero doesn’t do much except bag some babes, however, that’s better than the nasty, lecherous pig cavemen having all the action. Everyone is so dirty and scantily clad that it’s tough to tell who or what is going on – although the early and often T n A, chicks in medieval hot tubs, chicks in cages, and mud wrestling dames make up the difference. Fun set pieces, an amazing amount of prehistoric g-strings, lots of horses, a warty witch, and an eyeball in a cauldron also accent the sacrificial orgies, near bestiality creatures, and voyeuristic cave troll turned horny old man. Though the music is often out of place – dramatic swells, comical tunes, or ethereal arias happen at the wrong times – and the magical aspects could have been better, voice actor Bernard Erhard makes for a would be intriguing villain. He turns one of his henchmen into playmate Barbi Benton! The fight scenes seem strangely slow and take too long when there’s no room to spare in this 76 minutes; by time we get to the warriors tournament, there’s little reason to care. Yet the thinly plotted, bemusingly so bad its good is like porn without the explicit sex. Is this about the quest, the tournament, or bagging as many babes as possible? Who cares? The magical something or other whatnot is corny for sure, but this remains quite the watchable adult fantasy. 

Sheena: Queen of the Jungle – Bond Girl, later day Charlie’s Angels star, and That 70’s Show mom Tanya Roberts has a good time in this shockingly PG 1984 comic book stretch. The well done opening fifteen minutes of jungle exploration and orphaned origins is actually played straight with no indication of the campy fun to come. Slow motion Tanya riding a zebra, however, quickly changes that! The mystical, sensual synthesizer music over the would-be serious action scenes are as out of place as the overlong slo-mo, and Roberts’ famously husky and sexy voice doesn’t match the near spiritual telepathic talk of the land or culture clash dialogue. Granted, she has an obligatory insipid romance and lots more silly stuff to do, but Roberts looks swinging on ropes strong and bareback riding capable. Besides, the main attraction here is her bemusing total exposures, if you get my meaning. The wild storyline is quite innocent and timeless, too, but unfortunately, the dated eighties designs, contemporary lingo, standard assassination ploys, and ruinous mining on the healing land plots detract from the exotic fun and ruin cool villainess France Zobda and classy Shaman Elizabeth of Toro. The cast is racially appropriate rather than white washed, but the coup-laden western-esque and corrupt Tigora kingdom versus the peaceful Zambouli tribe faux political story feels very poorly written considering the already delicate East Africa history. It’s not well acted or clearly developed, and the PG audience to whom this too long two hours was targeted wouldn’t care about these kinds of complexities anyway. The largely mother/daughter feminism does work well, and this should have been a straightforward good and evil origin story introducing the comic foil reporters to the jungle or a defending the earth against ruthless mining mercenaries tale. Though grainy photography and mixed wide and full screen formatting make some scenes look unusual, cool elephants, big cats, snakes, hippos, monkeys, and dynamite Kenya locations, grasslands, and sunsets add a delightful sense of wonder. Tribal nudity and some rituals or animal action may be too intense for small children, but kids can enjoy the innocent charm just as much as late night adults will skip to the saucy parts. I dare say I’d like another new Sheena if it could be done with a realistically strong chick, a hunky supporting guy, and no CGI.  Till then, it’s best not to let the actual story ruin the beauty here.

Tarzan: The Ape Man – John Phillip Law joins hunky Miles O’Keeffe (Waxwork) in this 1981 John Derek directed vehicle naturally focusing on his absolutely sexy and pretty to look at wife Bo Derek (10). We open with Edgar Rice Burroughs references and a fun MGM lion roaring Johnny Weismuller calls, but the narration is pointless and establishing travels over the lengthy credits make the Parker back story sooo slooowww. The camp tone, however, is apparent in Bo’s entrance, and the 1910/quasi eighties safari style and wispy white under things accent her delightful physique – as do those nude sunset swims and bathing montages. Antagonist Richard Harris (The Field) gets his junk about, too, but his fatherly scenes with Derek are too weird. The childlike conversation amid her rough hose down and naked tribal paint job is just…ew. While the role is in keeping with the slightly more mature written Tarzan themes – I’ve never understood why these books are classified as children’s material – it also reeks of erroneous white savior knows best for the primitive jungle and doesn’t work with the off on the wrong foot attention to Jane here. Derek is still a damsel in distress and looks too modern or old for this ingénue perspective, and the meandering pace, ridiculous slow motion, and cut away montage battle action takes half the movie to get to Tarzan. John Derek lingers on his own cinematography yet inserts out of place, wide-eyed up close Bo shots. You can have both female discovery and epic scope, but not when your husband is the director (awesome Ten Commandments Joshua though he is). Fortunately, beautiful landscapes, silhouetted frames, glistening water reflections, Sri Lanka locales, lion action, and snake squeezings detract from the stilted dialogue and Bo fan’s girling over Tarzan. She feels him up while he’s asleep and peels a banana while speculating on his virginity! I’m surprised there aren’t more saucy jungle movies – the erotic opportunities and loincloths seem rampant. Though the Burroughs estate understandably wants to keep the brand Disney friendly, O’Keeffe’s tiny loincloth doesn’t exactly fit and his beefcake is eighties laughable beneath that pre-requisite headband. With all the dry skin, wet skin, painted skin, tender love, and rough touching – what’s that orangutan doing? – this is as soft core as they come. Enjoy the bevy of gratuitous eye candy here, watch on mute, or skip to the naughty parts – this picture makes no sense otherwise.

Patriot Games

Patriot Games Better Today

By Kristin Battestella

Although I have the DVD, I can’t help but tune in every time Patriot Games comes on cable. The 1992 action thriller from Tom Clancy’s book is just as awesome today as it was then.

After averting a radical IRA terrorist faction’s attack on royal cousin and Northern Ireland Secretary Lord Holmes (James Fox, A Passage to India), former CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) returns to Maryland with his pregnant wife Kathy (Anne Archer) and daughter Sally (Thora Birch). Unfortunately, vengeful Ulster terrorist Sean Miller (Sean Bean) escapes from prison and plots the destruction of the Ryan Family. Jack returns to the CIA, helping Admiral Greer (James Earl Jones) find Miller and his compatriots Kevin O’Donnell (Patrick Bergen) and Annette (Polly Walker). When his family is gravely threatened again, Ryan must take matters into his own hands and stop Miller once and for all.

I do have a few issues with Patriot Games, so I’ll just get them out of the way first. Sometimes 1992 doesn’t seem so long ago to me-but when you see the almost eighties looking styles here, we do remember this really was almost twenty years ago. Kathy Ryan’s clothes and style might have been posh at the time, but now…not so much. Some of the action sequences are also a little dated in choreography. It’s not that Patriot Games is small scale or ill paced by any means. We’ve just been treated to a lot more effects laden and much more complex and violent films in recent years. This is an action film, but there’s a lot of thought, character, and emotion behind it. Strange to say, but sometimes that seriousness isn’t what a viewer wants if they’re looking for mindless, desensitizing action.

Director Phillip Noyce (Dead Calm, The Bone Collector) and screenwriters W. Peter Iliff (Point Break, Varsity Blues) and Donald Stewart (The Hunt for Red October, Clear and Present Danger) keep the best of Clancy and craft a fine blend of suspense and family drama. There aren’t many great one liners here, but the script is memorable and believable. Despite the extreme and sometimes improbable circumstances in Patriot Games, we believe that not only could this happen to the Ryans, but to any one of us. Even in the big action numbers, the camera is tight on the people involved. We feel the emotion whether things are rough and tumble or sad and somber.

But of course, who doesn’t love Harrison Ford? He is perhaps the best actor of this generation, and Ford shows his clout in Patriot Games. Instead of the bravado hero, we meet an older, worn family man. He’s a retired Dad-well off perhaps, but just like the rest of us in most ways. Jack Ryan is not a superhero. Ryan messes up; his family’s life is taken out of his control. Ford is able to deliver the sad eyes and tears when needed, but we know not to push a man to defend his castle. When Ford says, “I will fucking destroy you.” we believe the declaration as easy as we believe that the only thing in life that is “100% for certain” is his daughter’s love.

Before The Lord of the Rings, if Americans knew who Sean Bean was, they knew because of Patriot Games. His intense stare and quiet revenge boil over through villainous looks and actions-Bean only speaks about ten times in the picture. Even though that little dialogue is creepy, too, the silent intensity makes Miller’s vengeance-especially in comparison with Harrison Ford. Prior to Patriot Games, Ford (Do I really need to infer on Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Witness, Blade Runner and all that?) was the action hero with great toys and quick quips. He starts out the funny, elder family man; but as the film progress, Ford’s fear for his family forces him into equally brooding and silent defense. It’s perfectly acceptable for us to hate the silent killer Miller, but we root for family man Ryan to take matters into his own hands. What’s the difference between Miller’s revenge for his brother and Ryan’s defense of his family? Were the situation reversed, would we feel different? Although they aren’t onscreen together often, Bean and Ford make us love and love to hate their characters. You don’t find this character complexity and intelligence in just any action flick. This depth keeps Patriot Games great up against more recent, flashy action yarns.

This is why American’s who know who Sean Bean is actually really hate him. You can’t just shoot up Harrison Ford’s onscreen family and expect our love. However, Noyce smartly uses the evils of Miller to his advantage. We don’t see any of Miller’s kill shots-the camera is always tight and up close on Bean’s face, showing us the cold joy he shares in murder. Miller even smiles when his prey is imminent. This isn’t the frights of fictitious monsters. In the novel, there is no brotherly angle for Miller, he’s merely pissed Ryan bested him. Presumably, the family efforts were added to give reason or sympathy to Miller’s ruthlessness, but this also implants a frightening personal question to the audience: What would you do if it were your dead brother? How would I react if my family were in danger? The reality of these questions and answers keeps the villainy real and our hatred on par. It’s a fine performance by Bean-one so good that us Americans can’t separate the actor from the terrorist. After all, they are both named Sean, aren’t they?

Patriot Games may be simplified as a man versus man vehicle, but there’s actually quite an ensemble cast here. It’s another facet not often seen in big action pictures. A superstar, maybe one or two name support players, but then the talent pool drops. Here, however, we’re treated to Samuel L. Jackson and James Earl Jones (Star Wars, anyone?), Polly Walker (Rome), Patrick Bergen (Sleeping with the Enemy), a cute Thora Birch (American Beauty), and a charming Richard Harris (The Field, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone). Each actor has their moment of significance, and small, quiet, development scenes are allowed to blossom. Only Anne Archer (Falcon Crest, Fatal Attraction) seems a little out of place. At the time, she was the mature, wifely actress of note-but today, her star’s fallen against the rest of the international cast. Her Kathy’s a little snotty and uppity, too- a surgeon with a Porsche and nothing else to do. Even so, she looks the right age and style to match Ford-unlike some of the action hotties we often see.

Naturally, Irish and English relations are very different then they were in 1992. If Patriot Games was exclusively about IRA relations, its politics would now be one of study and history. By keeping the story personal with family and patriotism at the forefront, the politics are able to fold and meld into our current issues, thoughts, and feelings. That’s all well and good for a heightened movie experience, but I must warn that lovers of all things Irish might be a little offended at the somewhat stereotypical portrayal of Ireland and the IRA. Red wigs, some forced accents-the Celtic music, however, makes for a beautiful score. Careful listeners will also notice pieces of James Horner’s tunes from, of all films, Aliens; and observant viewers can spot Bean’s different hairstyles during the re-shot finale, too. On a side note, it’s also fun to watch Bean’s next film Lady Chatterley for the stitches and subsequent scar he received in the big finish with Ford. A boat hook to the left eye, ouch!

The Special Collector’s Edition DVD of Patriot Games isn’t necessarily as special as we’ve come to expect magical special editions to be, unfortunately. There’s restored film and sound, yes; but only a short interview feature with some of the cast and some trailers, whoopdeefingdo. Widescreen is a must, and a blu-ray edition is available in addition to several Jack Ryan sets. Readers of Clancy’s novel will find significant changes in the plot itself, and some might find the troublesome ending too far changed or rushed. Nevertheless, Patriot Games may perhaps be the most loved of the Jack Ryan film series. Of course, it is not the first. Alec Baldwin helmed The Hunt for Red October in 1990 and Ford would continue in 1994’s Clear and Present Danger before Ben Affleck too over for a prequel attempt in The Sum of All Fears (2002). Each has their mistakes as well as their moments. You don’t have to see all to appreciate one, but Ford fans who adore Patriot Games should pursue Clear and Present Danger.

Action fans looking for an intelligent caper need look no further than Patriot Games. Younger audiences may not grasp all the intelligence and subtleties; but outside of the built in fright of the storyline, brief sexuality, and mild language; there’s isn’t much to deter a family viewing-especially a television edit. Fans of the cast will also delight again and again. Great drama, action, politics, and performances- how can you not love Patriot Games?

Harry Potter: Films 1 thru 5

A Harry Potter Analysis

By Kristin Battestella

I must say straight off that this critique will be brief in comparison to experts and hardcore fans. I confess: I am a muggle. After recently viewing the first five films in the popular Boy Wizard franchise based J.K. Rowling’s best selling series; I wanted to express my thoughts in a quick, layman’s guide.

Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone – For starters, I don’t know why they go through all this trouble to change the Philosopher’s title. Oh, a wizard, not Socrates-we get it. This first film has a lot to pack in and director Chris Columbus (Home Alone, Adventures in Babysitting) never quite strikes the right balance between introducing Harry’s magical world and the stone chase at hand. I know it’s meant for kids, but I would rather forgo the CGI of Quidditch for a more complete story on the Philocerer’s stone. The titular task is tacked on in the latter part of the show. Despite these complaints, writer Steve Kloves (Wonder Boys) has adapted the essence of Rowling’s literary world. Though light-hearted at this point and I’d prefer more on the issues with magic rather than the awe; this debut is fun for kids. The cast-from the young stars to the elder veterans- has plenty to work with. Introductory and a little too open ended, but delightfully leading you towards the next film.

Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets – Columbus returns for a second installment that has many of the same troubles as its predecessor. Again, we don’t get to the meat of this tale until late and it’s resolved a little too easy. Secrets is a little more grown up, but it’s dark in some of the wrong places-it’s tough to appreciate the fine castle locales when everything is so dim. Story and talent are again on form, but the late entering culprit is a little obvious, too. What is with the Defense Against Dark Arts department? We know that’s where all the hang-ups are going to be, and it’s given sometimes undoes Snape’s fine ambiguity. Again, we end with a little bit of an Empire Strikes Back feeling: Are these films about the adventure at hand- or are they meant to be compilations of all the neat things in Harry, Ron, and Hermione’s given year? Part of me understands why some readers don’t like these quick adaptations. The rushed and stay tuned endings do give me a feeling that to know it all, you must read the books. More of the same, yes, but still entertaining enough to keep audiences going.

Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban- Three years after the second picture, we finally get to some maturity and unhappiness. New director Alfonso Cuaron (Y tu Mama Tambien) focuses on confusing magic, truths, identities-and all this at an age where real life is confusing as it is. The nighttime filming is bright enough to see-even if we do figure out all the foreshadowing ahead of time. Some of the comedic touches are a bit off, trading serious, murky characters for fun. Although I did laugh at Malfoy’s ‘bloody chicken!’ cries. I do prefer the late Richard Harris’ raspy Dumbledore to Michael Gambon’s more witty debut, but the rotation of adult actors like David Thewlis and Gary Oldman is a little annoying, too. Who will be the new addition next? Will they return in the series, nudge nudge, wink wink? I like Azkaban the best so far, but a lot of it is revelations and explanations-what’s really done here beyond tiding us over until the next picture?

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire – In Year Five, we’re getting to some of the heavy teenager stuff at last-dancing and asking girls out, oh my! And good Lord someone give these kids a haircut! Director Mike Newell (Four Weddings and A Funeral) mixes the growing up with the deadly Triwizard Tournament and loses a little bit of both. Maybe kids might shy away from the budding romances, but again that Defense Against The Dark Arts department makes things way too obvious. Normally, I don’t like the effects laden magical battles, but we don’t get to see all the competitors at the Tournament as we should. And yes, I couldn’t help myself from calling Cedric Edward Cullen. The two top dreamboat boys together, oh boy! Fine adult additions like Ralph Fiennes and Miranda Richardson are again squeezed for kinky stuff like Harry in the bath with Moaning Myrtle. Every adult actor in Britain seems to make an appearance in this series, but his or her roles are never as meaty as I hope.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix – New director David Yates (helmsman of Half Blood Prince and the final duo Deathly Hallows films) and screenwriter Michael Goldberg (Contact) somehow managed to make the shortest film from the longest book. Is Fire an uneven film trying to pack in too much-or is it a fallen adaptation to begin with? I noticed straightaway that we at last don’t waste any time on Quidditch, but on the dime Phoenix drops all the joyous wonders of Hogwarts for secret battle action. So many characters-old and new- magically show up, too. How many days do you think David Thewlis, Gary Oldman, Ralph Fiennes, Maggie Smith, Jason Isaacs, and Helena Bonham Carter worked on this film? (Did Emma Thompson and Bonham Carter cross paths to chat about their ex and previous Dark Arts Prof Kenneth Branagh?) We have such talent amid the old Order of the Phoenix- as well as the Death Eaters-yet we never get to the titular meat of these organizations. Again, there’s too much of ‘well the book explains it better, and so will the next movie’. When does this series stop leading up to something?

As it stands…

For all its carrot taunting the horse, to me the Harry Potter film series as is doesn’t stand out from any other juvenile fantasy. And let’s face it, the popularity of Rowling’s franchise has brought a lot of children’s fantasy books to the screen-including the dismissed The Golden Compass, The Spiderwick Chronicles, and the more successful but in production limbo Chronicles of Narnia- how could Disney drop such fine material for Fox to claim? The market is just a tad flooded for the forthcoming Percy Jackson films and the long awaited The Hobbit adaptations, isn’t it?

Of course, Harry Potter sets the bar with magical effects and action. The movies may be linear for the most part; but the story is involved, complex, and full of fine characters upon which the pictures merely graze. The bulk of depth and joy lost for the big screen makes me wonder why Harry Potter was never considered as a television series. Yes, its popularity warrants big screen treatment, but a progressively heavy seven-year journey ala Buffy The Vampire Slayer might have served the material far better. Twenty hours a year instead of two plus every two years or so, that’s something I could really have gotten obsessed with.

Right now, there’s not enough intrigue for me to embark on the reading opus required. The last time I did that, it took me four months to read The Lord of The Rings. It was one of the best times of my life, but not all of us adults can afford to drop everything for such literary obsessions-even one so book minded as I. It’s a bit of a sad statement on American society, unfortunately. We would prefer eating fast food while working through a stressful lunch in front of a pc before spending a relaxing bath with a fine book. Though some have complained about Potteresque influences on young minds, the series is keeping long-winded books in the instantaneous and desensitized minds of the next generation.

There are charming moments of magic, fun, and great characters in J.K. Rowling’s world; but after these viewings, I’m not obsessively in love with Harry Potter. Will I watch the forthcoming pictures? Sure, I like Harry and his world enough to see how all these hours end. I don’t deny the possibility that there’s enough in this series to make an exceptional film- or enough enchantment for me to carve out a summer with my niece’s Harry Potter books. As to The Half Blood Prince, you might be asking? Well, my husband saw it in the cinema and has been in a Potter kick since, along with my niece’s countdown to the IMAX Theater. Now you know why I had to watch these!

ETA: Please see our critique of the Half Blood Prince in our Defense of Blu-ray article, here.

The Field

Irish Locales Make The Field

By Kristin Battestella

I stumbled upon The Field through a six degrees game on the imdb. The 1990 film based upon the play by John B. Keane stars Richard Harris, Sean Bean, and Tom Berenger, but The Field is more than a connecting degree. Stunning Irish landscapes, potent performances, and bittersweet storylines make The Field a delightful little film.

Bull McCabe (Richard Harris) and his son Tadgh (Sean Bean) are proud Irishmen who rent the field from the Widow (Frances Tomelty) They till the land with fertilizing seaweed and graze their animals on the field, but after years of being terrorized by Tadgh, The Widow decides to sell the field at a public auction. None of the townsfolk will dare bid against Bull, and he uses the town idiot Bird (John Heard) in his intimidation plans. Newly arrived Irish American developer (Tom Berenger) wants the field for a new roadway, and unfortunately, he doesn’t take Bull threats to heart.

As refreshing as it is to see Sean Bean (Patriot Games, The Fellowship of The Ring) in a non villainous role, Richard Harris owns The Field. His Oscar nominated performance alone was worth the DVD purchase. Bull McCabe is just that, a bullheaded old school man who despises the English and those who couldn’t keep their land during the potato famine. Bull and his wife haven’t spoken to each other since their eldest son died 15 years prior, and Harris is superb at balancing the hardened laborer with the tortured father. When the pressure of purchasing the field under legal means becomes too much, Bull is willing to sacrifice himself, what’s left of his family, and anyone else who stands in his way.

As stellar as Harris’ performance is, the role would be diminished without worthy support. Bean is admirable as the tormented Tadgh. He’s young, not the brightest bulb, and not all that interested in the field-which puts him in direct conflict with Bull. The Elephant Man star John Hurt is unrecognizable at Bird. He puts on the town idiot role inside and out-the tattered looks, stuttering, and do-anything-for-a- drink style is a sad representation of what happens to those who lost their livelihood during the famine. As much as Bull genuinely likes Bird, he’s not above manipulating him into his devious plans. Richard Harris may be the star, but each character in the field brings his or her element of tragedy.

Little seen in the U.S. upon its release, The Field has another ace the hole. The on Location Irish filming is a character unto itself. Briefly, you can understand Tom Berenger’s want to change this small tight nit Irish community. If it weren’t for his fancy car, you could swear The Field takes place in the 19^th century. Horse draw carriages, no roads to speak of, thatched roof homes- the juxtaposition of this aging, strapped community against lush green and fertile land, stunning cliffscapes, and quaint Irish ways adds surprising depth to a film based on a play. These exceptional visual layers, however, can’t cover the thinness of the play turned movie. As bittersweet as the story is, some of its mystery elements are in fact too obvious to a film audience. The chain of events is a likely one, but the performances make the watch worthwhile.

Today’s American audiences might also find The Field slow or poorly directed. Naturally there’s no effects to speak of, and perhaps more monologues than we’re used to. With little action, there’s no need to move the camera either. Director’s slow zooming, following shots, or vast panoramas are meant to capture the scope of the region and the inner complexities of the characters. It’s not overtly art house styled, but viewers looking for something fast paced won’t find it in The Field.

Perhaps not commonly available at most retailers, The Field is more affordable at online purchasers. The DVD has no features beyond the film. I would have preferred a play to screen documentary and cast commentaries, but the film speaks for itself. Fans of Irish films and any of the actors involved should not miss The Field. Likewise classic film buffs or old school studies shouldn’t miss the tragic tale. Watch The Field today, ready with tissues instead of popcorn.