LFF 2011: The Future

DIR: Miranda July

Miranda July is a conceptual performance artist. Yes, this is going to hurt. Following on from insufferably twee sounding art projects like Things We Don’t Understand and Definitely are Not Going To Talk About and her insufferably twee feature début Me and You and Everyone We Know (whose most memorable storyline featured a six year old boy talking to a woman in a chatroom about his fantasy of 'pooping back and forth, forever'... yes, I'll excuse you while you go and vomit) July has returned with this, her second feature film as writer and director. Guess what? It's twee, and insufferable.

The Future is about Sophia (July) and Jason (Hamish Linklater); a doppelgänger couple who have decided to adopt an injured kitten they have named Paw Paw, however, they can't take Paw Paw home until his paw heals, in a month. So, entirely logically, they both quit their jobs and decide to do what they want with 'their last month of freedom'. Jason joins a group going door to door selling trees, while Sophia decides to make 30 youtube videos of 30 dances. Eventually, bored, Sophia calls a number on the back of a picture Jason bought for them, and ends up meeting the artist.

It's not that I hate the people in The Future, more that I pity them. I mean, honestly, these people are in their mid thirties, they have nothing to tie them down, appear to be in a stable relationship (yes, with a person who looks creepily like their reflection, but still) and are gainfully employed, and yet these whiny pretentious douchebags have an existential crisis over adopting a cat. Here's a thought... If it's so troubling that you're going to panic about your mortality, call the animal shelter and don't adopt the thing. Or you could make some mind numbing performance art about it, I guess. Guess which way Miranda July goes here.

It's not that I hate the people in The Future, more that I don't believe these people exist. Nobody talks like this. These people don't have conversations, they speak in a series of non-sequiturs , spouting barely connected banalities at each other, as if that way lies profundity (spoiler: they're wrong). I can accept that maybe Sophia and Jason are just odd, maybe they both have aspergers or something, but honestly, everyone in the movie appears to be an alien. Jason goes to buy a hairdryer from an old man, who then becomes his main confidant, because that's what happens when you pick up an EBay purchase. The oddest moment comes when Sophie dials that number on the back of the painting, and talks to the artist. For some reason this guy never says (during the course of a supremely odd conversation) 'fuck off bitch, you are crazy', which, trust me, is the only sane response to Miranda July... sorry, to Sophia, and thus the entire second half of the film is rendered totally unbelievable.

When July wants you to feel something (I think we're meant to be sad when Sophie and Jason split up) you don't, because nobody in the movie seems to have feelings, or when they do they express them by burying themselves in the garden, or pulling a T Shirt over their head and improvising a dance... you know, like normal humans do. This is because July has ideas above her station, and think that her 'art' (and, look, I know I've defended some things as art that you might shake your head at, Martyrs for one, but if this is art then literally anything is art. Maybe I'll go and film myself shitting and if I give it a pretentious title like 'I am the void, and so are you', it will be art too) is so provocative and full of ideas that she doesn't need to engage with concepts like plot, character and emotion.

Good GOD this film is boring. It's not even really a film, it's just a series of quirky ideas that Miranda July had, but she's got no idea of how to express them in cinema. I don't know what she's saying with this film. It might be about Gen X ennui, equally it might be about a cat with a broken paw. In the film's most sick making device July herself does a squeaky voiceover, narrating the movie, as the cat waiting to be adopted. If that sounds 'cute' to you, by all means go and see The Future, and do feel free never to talk to me. I HATED this film, loathed it on a physical level, everything about it, and everything about the overwhelmingly fake and contrived July made me itch to get out of my seat as fast as humanly possible. I hated July's first film, the equally cutesy, equally vapid Me and You and Everyone We Know, but I gave her a chance here, well, this is worse, and I am done, no more Miranda July for me. Ever.

Final Destination 5 [15]

DIR: Steven Quale

Reviewing the previous entry in this franchise, the confusingly named The Final Destination, I declared the then nine year old franchise dead. I spoke too soon, and two years later, here we are again with the same idea; Attractive twentysomethings cheat death in a disaster (a bridge collapse this time out), then are picked off by death in a series of Rube Goldberg inspired lethal coincidences.

Here a group of work colleagues are their way to a weekend business retreat, when one of them (Sam, played by Nicholas D'Agosto) has a vision of the bridge they are on collapsing, and manages to get his ex-girlfriend (Emma Bell), some of their friends and their boss (David Kochener) to follow him off the bus to safety. Soon after, as ever, splashy violence ensues as Death rebalances the books.

I know, as do you, that at this point character isn't the most important thing in a Final Destination movie, but surely it would be nice, and asking only a little, to have characters that you could tell apart. I didn't even remember most of these people's names as I was watching the movie - though IMDB reveals that, yes, they have names, and the franchise tradition of invoking horror directors names continues with the likes of Peter Friedkin (Miles Fisher), Candice Hooper (Ellen Wroe) and Oivia Castle (Jacqueline MacInnes Wood). Again it's the leads who come off worst, some of the others have a trait (Peter is angry, Candice is nice, and likes gymnastics, Olivia is hot but - oh no - wears glasses). but Sam and Molly (Emma Bell's character) are voids, I nothing them, so it's hard to care much whether they live or die.

Another issue is that, while the build up to the death scenes, the series of coincidences that leads to each, tends to be excellent, there is often a rather listless, 'oh, that'll do' feeling to the actual deaths. The gym sequence is maybe the best example; an expertly shot and paced build up, using the space and the elements to build real tension as to what's going to happen, followed by an underwhelming, and, even by the standards of this franchise, credulity straining outcome. Another death that produces an 'oh', rather than an 'arrgghh' begins with a nightmarish medical procedure, but ends in a deeply anticlimactic fall.

This said, Final Destination 5 is largely fun. The 3D is gimmicky, but Steven Quale sees it for what it is and embraces, even revels in, the gimmick. Guts are thrust out of the screen at us on a regular basis, glass repeatedly shatters in our faces during the opening credit sequence (and how nice it is to see one of those these days) and the depth perception is used effectively - for this extreme vertigo sufferer anyway - in the inventively gory bridge sequence.

The performances are proficient, as is the direction, with Quale building up each death scene brilliantly, even if Eric Heisserrer's often tin-eared screenplay sometimes fumbles the final moments. Nothing rivals the OH SHIT impact of the first film's bus, or the sequel's fence, but the gore is as OTT and as guiltily funny as ever. What really makes Final Destination 5 stand out a bit though is its ending. There are clues (largely relating to technology) throughout the film, but a clever twist genuinely took me by surprise in the film's last ten minutes. It does mean that this really needs to be where the franchise ends, but it's a great nod to the fans, and quite a clever (and, when you stop and consider it, chilling) beat in its own right.

Final Destination 5 delivers what it promises on the label; it's dumb fun. Go with a girl who'll jump at all the right moments and consequently grab on to you, or go with a group of franchise fans, either way, though it won't change your world, you'll come out entertained.

Blu Ray Review: Heavenly Creatures [18]

DIR: Peter Jackson

The Film
Today, Peter Jackson is one of the major names in world cinema, and one of the most commercially and critically successful directors in the world, but it was not always so. In 1994, when Heavenly Creatures came out, Jackson was the mad maverick behind splattery black comedies like Bad Taste, Braindead and his 'Muppets from Hell' movie Meet the Feebles. It was, then, something of a surprise that he should be the filmmaker to tackle one of his native New Zealand's most infamous and shocking murder cases.

Heavenly Creatures tells the story of the intense friendship between fifteen year old Juliet Hulme (Kate Winslet) and Pauline Parker (Melanie Lynskey), which ended up, when the girls were to be separated, in the brutal murder of Pauline's Mother (Sarah Pierse). The girls, from opposite ends of the economic scale, bond over their shared history of medical problems ("All the best people have bad chests and bone diseases") and their creativity. This creativity bleeds into a fantasy world and the girls become increasingly obsessed with and dependent on it and on each other.

In many ways Heavenly Creatures is very different to Peter Jackson's previous films; it's set - largely - in the real world, deals with real people and events and is notably less extreme than the likes of Braindead, but it also shares DNA with those films, and is clearly the product of the same directorial mind. Jackson starts the film, after a shocking opening flash forward, by grounding us in the real world, we get footage from a promotional film for Christchurch, New Zealand, where the film is set, and a rather conventional looking (if beautifully shot) first couple of reels, however, as Juliet and Pauline become closer, and as their shared fantasy world develops further, Jackson allows his camerawork to become more and more extreme. As the film goes on it slips more and more frequently and freely into fantasy, and Jackson, even in the real world, plays up the oddness of his characters visually with offbeat, off centre angle choices. This, however, ceases for the climactic murder, which is rendered in brutal and disturbing detail.

What Jackson achieves by this is not just a film with a very individual feel, but one that draws us into the world and the psyche of its leading characters. The people that Juliet and Pauline dislike are seen almost as caricatures, and are shot in a larger than life way, often looming into frame (see the doctor who diagnoses Pauline as a lesbian, or the priest who comes to see a convalescing Juliet when she's hospitalised with TB), and their fantasies are rendered in stark contrast to the world around them, which is often drab. In the fantasy sequences even dowdy Pauline is transformed into a beautiful princess, colours are sharper and more saturated and everything is heightened.

The film is packed with memorable sequences and images in both the real and the fantasy worlds; an idyllic sequence early in the film in which the girls run through the woods, stripped to their underwear, singing and dancing makes for a sharp contrast with the almost nightmarish (and brilliantly cine literate) scene after they have seen a screening of The Third Man, and find themselves chased by "the most hideous man in the world", Orson Welles.

This contrast between the way the girls see the world as opposed to those around them is also drawn with a set of very strong performances. Sarah Pierse is particularly notable as Honora Parker; a mother who gets angry with her daughter through love and worry. Pauline sees her as the villain, but the film is very matter of fact about her, painting her neither as saint nor sinner and Pierse gives a very grounded performance which makes the march to the end (which, even if you don't know everything from the opening, is explicitly revealed as Pauline and Juliet plan the killing) absolutely bone chilling and deeply sad. The cafe scene at the end of the film (shot in the real location) is a great showcase for both Pierse and Melanie Lynskey, whose exhortation to her Mother to "treat yourself" to the last cream cake takes on a cold menace in context. There are also fine performances from the other actors playing the Hulme and Parker parents; Clive Merrison and Diana Kent as Juliet's upper class Mother and Father and Simon O'Connor as Pauline's fishmonger Father.

In the end though, the film rests on the shoulder of its two young stars, then sixteen (Lynskey) and seventeen (Winslet) and both making their film debut. Both are outstanding. Winslet is, at first glance, perhaps a bit over dramatic, but this is Juliet; she's a person of extremes, everything is either wonderful or ghastly, people are saints (James Mason, Mario Lanza and more) or 'the most hideous man alive' (the aforementioned Orson Welles), and her stories are packed with beautiful kings and queens, psychotic children and gorgeous gypsy girls. She's a drama queen, and Winslet plays that side of her perfectly. This - along with her distant relationship with her parents - also gives us an insight into why Juliet, clearly much more intelligent than Pauline, forms such an obsessive attachment to her young friend. Melanie Lynskey is also brilliant here. Her performance got less notice than Winslet's and, seventeen years later, she remains an undervalued talent. This is probably because Pauline, outside of her diary entries (all of which are real, and brilliantly read by Lynskey), she is a much more held in character. It's tough to understand a relationship like this, and a character like Pauline, but Lynskey plays her, seemingly without judgement, as just one more troubled, taciturn, teenager. By taking that starting point and moving the character credibly on through this growing obsession we get to understand how things end up as they do, because we see how Pauline, in contrast to the very open and expressive Juliet, holds her resentment in a tight ball until it explodes. These are two very contrasting and equally excellent performances.

I first saw Heavenly Creatures about fifteen years ago, and it has a special place in my heart. It was one of the first films that really interested me in cinema that was more offbeat and made beyond the US, and it was one of the first films that me and my best friend bonded over (yes, I realise that sounds odd, but honestly we're perfectly normal). For my money it remains as brilliant now as it ever was, it stands out in the distinguished filmographies of both Jackson and Winslet, and is a fascinating film about obsession and about murder. This, amazingly, is its first DVD release in the UK, and I'm really happy that a new generation of cinephiles, who may not have seen any of Jackson's pre Lord of the Rings work will now, at last, get a chance to discover this masterpiece.


The Disc

I received a screener copy of Heavenly Creatures, which did not include the extras. The release copy will boast a 'Looking Back' featurette with Kim Newman, Alan Jones and Rosie Fletcher and four postcards. I can't help but wish there was more; a Jackson commentary, a proper retrospective with the cast and the alternate cut, which is ten minutes or so longer, would all have been welcome.

That said, what we do have is a beautiful looking Blu Ray transfer. The film has been remastered, and looks like it was shot yesterday; the print has some grain structure, but is free of speckles and damage. The edges are sharp without seeming over enhanced, the colours pop brilliantly and there is a good deal of depth in the image (which is also, for the first time in the UK, in the film's original 2.35:1 ratio). This transfer perhaps doesn't have the jaw dropping appearance of a Terminator 2 or the 'wow, look how nicely that cleaned up' impact of some of Arrow's video nasty releases, but it's still a great job, and as good as this film is ever likely to look.


Thanks to Peccadillo Pictures and Rabbit Publicity for the screener. Heavenly Creatures comes to UK DVD and Blu Ray on September 12th.

If you'd like to buy Heavenly Creatures (and trust me, you would) and help 24FPS out at the same time then please use the links below. Thanks.

Rammbock: Berlin Undead

Here's a new review from Horror correspondent Steve Chandler. Enjoy.

DIR: Marvin Kren.

Clocking in at a little more than an hour including end credits I hesitate to call Rammbock: Berlin Undead a movie. It is to the feature length horror flick what the novella is to the full length novel. What we have here is a lean, mean calling card that has been stripped clean of anything that could be described as extraneous. In fact it has more substance in it’s short running time than most of what passes for horror cinema these days. As a piece of entertainment it provides substantial reason to mark director Marvin Kren as one to watch. I truly believe this could be his Mulberry Street. Back in 2006 at the Dead By Dawn film festival in Edinburgh I saw Mulberry Street and left the screening thinking “this director is going someplace”. The director in question was Jim Mickle who I recently found guilty of helming one of the best horror movies of 2011; the Zombieland meets The Road genre gem that is Stake Land. Rammbock has me feeling the same flavour of anticipation. I believe that given the opportunity Mr. Kren has a future classic up his sleeve and Rammbock will hopefully catch the eye of someone in the position to give him the opportunity to prove me right.

Rammbock shares a lot of it’s DNA with Mickle’s Mulberry Street. The focus is on a small cast of characters who live in an apartment complex somewhere in Berlin. They find themselves at the mercy of ever growing mob of ravening, bloodthirsty walking dead; victims of a virus that can be transmitted via contact with the bodily fluids of one of the infected. The movie opens with main character Michael (Michael Fuith) arriving unannounced in Berlin to return a set of house keys to the girlfriend from whom he has recently split. It’s obvious from the off that he still has feelings for his ex, Gabi (Anna Graczyk), as he rehearses a halting, ill prepared speech to the taxi driver who has just dropped him off. Michael is pretty far removed from your typical hero. I would place him in his mid to late thirties, with thinning hair and the physique of someone who is less inclined to hit the gym for a workout than he is the couch for a pizza and a few beers. The rest of the characters that inhabit this movie are, likewise, normal everyday people who, when faced with the virus outbreak and the resultant disintegration of society, react in a mostly believable fashion. Some rise to the occasion. Some go to pieces and make stupid mistakes that cost them and sometimes those around them their lives. Some are selfless and given to sudden moments of heroism. Some are revealed as base cowards who look out for no-one but themselves. But most importantly...they feel real.

I should also mention that Rammbock isn’t an zombie movie in the classic Romero sense. The undead here don’t shamble and moan. Instead they attack with the ferocity of a pack of bloodcrazed, wild beasts; emitting terrifying shrieks as they overwhelm any unfortunate soul that crosses their path. They have far more in common with the rage virus casualties of 28 Days Later or the victims of the demonic plague that breaks loose in the REC movies. The writer has also gone to some effort to put his own stamp on the nature of the virus. Once infected the virus lies dormant until activated by the first surge of post infection adrenalin. Once infected, if the virus continues to lie dormant for an undisclosed period the body’s immune system will fight back resulting in a complete recovery. In the event of the world going to hell in a handcart how easy would it be, when faced by such a terrifying situation, to maintain the necessary composure to combat the onset of the full blown virus? It’s this element of the movie more than any other that generates no small amount of suspense.

I mentioned that I don’t consider Rammbock to be a movie because of it’s length. That’s not to say that I think it should be longer. Many other directors would have shoehorned an extra thirty minutes worth of scenes into a story that simply doesn’t require it, in an effort to bring it up to feature length, resulting in an excess of flab. At no point does Rammbock outstay it’s welcome. It moves at just the right pace. Slowing down where necessary for moments of character development then hurtling at breakneck speed during the various set pieces where the survivors come under attack.

Alongside Michael there’s one other main character, a young maintenance worker by the name of Harper (Theo Trebs). They get trapped together in Gabi’s apartment minutes into the movie when all hell breaks loose. Both characters are fleshed out enough that I cared about them when the story placed them in jeopardy. Other characters are set up in a more economical fashion but skilfully enough that I understood who they were and gave a shit whether they lived or died. These are two tricks that many modern horror movies fail to accomplish. I’ve seen far too many horror movies that sacrifice character development on the altar of gore. None of the actors here are especially experienced but each and every one of them acquit themselves well.

Likewise, the direction is solid throughout. There was none of the shakycam nonsense that crops up so often these days to put a dent in my enjoyment. There was nothing showy about the camerawork but I welcomed the fact that I at no point lost track of what was going on.
So what we have here is an fantastic example of low budget horror movie making done right. Rammbock was produced by a group of talented individuals who have clearly seen a lot of similar movies and have succeeded in making something that doesn’t look like an uninspired hack job in comparison. A trap countless straight to DVD abominations all too easily fall into. I will admit that I’m predisposed to enjoy horror movies that stray into apocalyptic territory. I even got through the excremental Nightmare City, a movie that would insult the intelligence of a cabbage, without putting my size ten boot through the TV screen. Regardless of my infatuation with this genre this is an impressive début and I look forward to seeing what Marvin Kren has in store next. There’s nothing here to suggest that given a larger budget he won’t give us horror junkies something to really sink our teeth into. Something similar but on a grander scale would be very sweet indeed.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes [12A]

DIR: Rupert Wyatt
CAST: Andy Serkis, James Franco, John Lithgow
Freida Pinto, Brian Cox, Tom Felton


I hate trailers, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the perfect example of why. The trailer is abysmal, first because it appears to be a three minute summary of the film (not an inaccurate impression) and second because it paints this as a dumb, shallow and frankly boring film, which it is not.

Rise (if you think I'm typing that ridiculously overlong title again you're nuts) draws much of its inspiration from Conquest of the Planet of the Apes; the fourth, and for me perhaps the best, in the original Apes series. However, this isn't a remake, and even that fashionable term reboot doesn't quite fit. It's just a new take on some of the ideas of the franchise, reinterpreting and updating them for a 21st century audience. Rise charts the development of Caesar (Serkis, picking up where Roddy MacDowall's iconic performance left off); a Chimp born to a test subject who passed on the accelerated brain development that scientist Will (Franco) had managed to give her in his search for a cure for alzheimer's. After being raised as a surrogate child by his creator, Caesar becomes dangerous as he protects Will's Father (Lithgow), and is locked away by animal control. Soon, an angry Caesar begins using his advanced intellect to plot insurrection.

In an age where plot and character are becoming less and less important compared to noise and effects when it comes to Hollywood blockbuster making, Rise feels refreshing. It's a patient film, one that takes care in the development of its main character (and I don't mean Will, who is, like all the other humans, a dull cipher) and spends time developing a logically progressing plot whose stakes increase throughout. Sounds simple, doesn't it? But apparently these concepts are alien to many of Hollywood's most successful filmmakers (Yes, Zach Snyder, that's you I'm glaring at). It's also, like all the other Apes films - bar Tim Burton's botched early 2000's 'reimagining' - a film of ideas; a political piece as well as a sci-fi action movie. The ideas aren't quite as developed here as in Conquest (which is perhaps as relevant now, in the wake of the UK riots, as it was some 35 years ago), but at least there is thought and comment here, not just sound and fury.

Performance wise, Rise is something of a mixed bag. James Franco, seemingly aware that he's not what people have come to see, phones it in, which is a shame, because he's a fine actor. That said, aside from John Lithgow, who does what he can with a thankless role as Franco's alzheimer's stricken Dad, none of the humans come off well. Freida Pinto, despite her almost indecent beauty, is horribly dull; Brian Cox picks up a cheque, and Tom Felton contributes an inept American accent and a wooden performance as an eeevil animal control officer. Thank goodness, then, for the actors playing the apes. Karin Konoval and the digital team behind the Orangutan Maurice (one of several nice tributes to the original series) definitely stand out, giving the large, old, ape an imperious and melancholy presence, however, there is only one person to whom Rise belongs, and that is Andy Serkis.

Serkis has long been at the forefront of what is known as performance capture, but this is a giant step up for both actor and technology. In fact it may be the first truly seamless marriage of the two (Gollum always felt digital to me). As Caesar, Serkis has a wide range of acting challenges; he must play a wide eyed infant, an exuberant child, a rebellious teenager, an inmate and a revolutionary. Not only must he be all these things, they must all be the same thing, the same character. It's an astonishingly demanding role, but Serkis pulls it off. I say Serkis rather than Weta because, for the first time, there is a genuinely soulful feel about this performance capture character. There is physical weight and presence too; I never felt that I was watching animation laid over a performance, nor a trained animal. I was watching Caesar. He lives and breathes on screen, his eyes are alive and his facial expressions and body language speak louder than any amount of dialogue could. That is what is great, and what is remarkable, about what Serkis does here; it doesn't feel acted.

The film grows ever more intense and more interesting as it continues. It really takes off in the prison movie section (an effective analogue to that passage of the original where Charlton Heston is imprisoned by the apes). Much of this section of the film is silent, powered by Serkis and the other ape players. As Caesar's plans begin to take shape, the film becomes both moving and chilling (once in the same moment, as Caesar turns his back on his old life). The action ramps up only in the last half hour, and director Rupert Wyatt stages it effectively from both a technical and an artistic standpoint. The thick of the action is exciting, but Wyatt also knows when to pull back for a moment of quiet; a chilling shot of massed apes attacking the lab where Caesar was born, and the human army just waiting, staring at the fog, are both effective moments. The conceit of Caesar as an ape Che Guevara works pretty well, and it will be intriguing to see where the sequel takes the character, and where its sympathies will lie.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is both ultra modern, showing off the absolute bleeding edge of special effects technology (and doing so to stunning effect), but it's also curiously old fashioned. With its 2D visuals, patient pacing, character development and political content it feels more of the Hollywood of the 70's, and that's perhaps why it's such a treat, despite the rough edges of the first, human driven, half of the film. Bring on the rumoured sequel.

Conan the Barbarian [3D] [15]

DIR: Marcus Nispel
CAST: Jason Momoa, Stephen Lang,
Rachel Nichols, Rose McGowan

Do I really need to tell you that Conan the Barbarian is dumb as a brick? Do I really need to tell you that it has extremely limited character development, a story that is both incredibly simplistic and confusingly told, that the use of the word 'acting' would be to slightly over flatter the cast? Probably not. What I do need to tell you that despite (or, perhaps, because of) this it's actually pretty good fun.

In the interests of full disclosure I should say that I haven't actually seen the 1982 film with Arnie as Robert E. Howard's famous creation, and perhaps that let me have an easier time seeing this Conan as a stand alone piece. The screenplay weaves a simple tale of vengeance; Conan's father (Ron Perlman, genius casting) is murdered by a warlord (Avatar's Stephen Lang), but young Conan escapes. Twenty years later, Conan finally discovers the identity of his Father's killer and seeks his revenge. The details are a little more confusing; there's a mask that apparently makes the wearer invincible, but for some reason it needs the blood of a special girl (Nichols), the magic is never really that well established, but what more do you need than 'evil bastard wants to kill hot girl so he can resurrect his wife'?

The thing is, Conan is stupid, but it is seldom less than entertaining. Jason Momoa isn't someone I suspect we'll be seeing as he lead in an intensely demanding dramatic film anytime soon, but as a mobile wall of muscle with a voice that sounds like a constant low rumble, he's fine casting for Conan. Momoa hadles the copious action scenes well, as does director Marcus Nispel (who I had little faith in, having previously seen only his awful Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake). Several of the set pieces are genuinely exciting to watch. There's a dynamic chase sequence as Rachel Nichols finds herself pursued by Lang's men, and, refreshingly, while Conan does help rescue her, the film also shows her as a capable and instinctive fighter. Another standout sequence starts out as a glaringly obvious tribute to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but the fight between Momoa and Lang as they and Nichols dangle on a spinning platform above a pit is hugely exciting. The choreography also works well, with the cutting fast, but without obscuring the action.

Sadly, all this good stuff is filtered through a middling 3D conversion. It's not as catastrophic as the conversion of Clash of the Titans, but it does suffer similar problems like a very over dark look, which renders many of the film's later scenes a challenge to follow, and a smeary quality to fast motion which takes away from the film's greatest asset; its action. This is a film that will be much, much better in its original 2D version and that's how I'd advise you to see it.

To my great surprise I would advise you to see Conan. It's got some fun (hammy) performances, especially from Rose McGowan, enjoying herself as Lang's witchy daughter, some entertainingly bloody action sequences, a damsel who, if not exactly developed, is at least not in constant distress and a solid leading turn from Momoa. It's not going to end up in anyone's top 10, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it, and didn't think that you'd have fun seeing it with a few mates on a Friday night, in 2D.

Super 8 [12A]

DIR: JJ Abrams
CAST: Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Riley Griffiths,
Kyle Chandler, Ron Eldard

Despite its frequently abundant charm and fine, largely very young and inexperienced, cast, Super 8 doesn't quite work the way it should, and there's one blindingly obvious reason for that; writer/director JJ Abrams hasn't decided which of his two movie ideas he wants to make, the comic drama about a group of 12 and 13 year old kids making a super 8 movie to enter in a film festival, or a monster movie involving the air force taking possession of a small town. Unable to choose, Abrams jams the two together, and the result is never cohesive.

The film divides roughly in half. The first concentrates on setting up the kids and their relationships, and is definitely the part in which Abrams most nakedly - and most effectively - pays tribute to his hero (and producer) Steven Spielberg. The boys playing the group of friends are mostly first timers, and Abrams has found a remarkably natural set of young actors, all of whom do nice work even though some of their characters are a little one note (notably Ryan Lee's Cary, an explosives obsessive who would be tiresome but for Lee's funny and energetic performance). The standouts are the kids with the most developed parts; Riley Griffiths as auteur in training Charles, whose husky build ("the doctor says I'm going to lean out, it just hasn't happened yet") makes him nervous of talking to his leading actress Alice (Elle Fanning) and Joel Courtney as make up artist and on set odd job guy Joe, who has a very Spielbergian backstory (dead Mother, inattentive Father, love of movies, crush on the school beauty). Both young actors do some great work, with Courtney really standing out in his scenes with Fanning, and Griffiths coming into his own later, when Charles and Joe argue over Alice (one of many scenes from this side of the film that felt, at least to this viewer, very familiar indeed).

Like I said, all the kids do well, but one of them exists in a league all their own, and that's Elle Fanning. I've been tipping the younger of the Fanning sisters as a major talent since I saw The Nines, and every time I see something new from her I feel freshly vindicated. What's really amazing about her is her subtlety, and as Alice she fills her performance with little moments that communicate a great deal. In two standout moments we see her, as Alice, slip effortlessly into character. It's an amazing feat of acting for a 12 year old, because Alice never goes away during these moments, we're watching Alice act, not Elle Fanning. Though the film lurches further and further off the rails as its second hour runs on, one thing always works; the boys desire to save Alice, because quite apart from being beautiful Fanning creates a warm character who you feel would have been fun to have as a friend when you were these kids age.

All of the character stuff works; the awkward silences that pass for a relationship between Joe and his heartbroken dad (Chandler); the tense situation created by Joe's friendship and growing infatuation with Alice (and the backstory behind it, related by Fanning in one of her best moments); the dynamic between the kids and the way they pull together for Charles' movie. This all adds up to a great first 45 minutes, and it's why Super 8 is a monster movie that doesn't need its monster.

The monster first appears (I say appears, Abrams contrives - in ways that become increasingly strained - to hide it until the film's final scene) about an hour in to Super 8, and from there on the film begins a sad slide into formula, away from the engaging story of these kids, their families and their movie towards an increasingly dumb and derivative monster movie. The problems are many, one pressing one being that, while it is scary to keep your monster hidden in the first set piece it is involved in (and that set piece, scored to Heart of Glass on a teenage gas station clerk's new fangled walkman, is the best in the movie), those scares do tend to be undermined when, five set pieces later, we still don't know what this thing is. The last half hour is especially problematic, as Abrams throws out much of the character detail to focus on the hunt for the monster and for Alice, and while Joe certainly seems to be a smart kid I just don't buy how quickly he makes connections as to where he will find them, as there is not really a logical chain of information for him to follow. The creature, when we finally see it, is well designed, but Abrams' late in the day attempt to give it some personality results in an absolutely toe curling climax in which the film - perhaps appropriately for an homage to 80's Spielberg, now that I think about it, very nearly drowns in sentimentality.

JJ Abrams is clearly a capable director, after all he's drawn fine performances from a large cast here, and he stages action quite well, with all the set pieces feeling at least intelligible (though some are a bit darker than I'd like). However, Super 8 does have some directorial issues. First, and I really can't stress this enough, Abrams really, REALLY, needs to lay off the fucking lens flare. Secondly, and perhaps more pressing, some of the CGI here (notably the train crash, doesn't quite come off. I know this is 2011, but given the film's retro feel, love of the homemade, and 1979 setting, wouldn't practical effects have been a nice idea? The fakeness of some of the effects also slightly undermines your engagement in the film's action, which is never a good thing. On the plus side though, the film does largely look good, the period detail is strong, and it's not in 3D, retrofitted or otherwise.

I would on balance recommend Super 8. It's not consistent, it's not cohesive and it's not as good as it could (and should) be... but that first hour or so is tremendous, the kids are wonderful and you absolutely owe it to yourself to see Elle Fanning's latest tour de force performance, trust me, we'll be talking about her for a long time to come.

Nightmare City [18]

DIR: Umberto Lenzi

Please join me in welcoming to 24FPS, Steve Chandler. Some of you might know Steve as Psychocandy from the Joblo forums. As well as being a massive music geek Steve's a discerning fan of cinema, and particularly of horror, so he'll be chiming in from time to time with some genre reviews. Enjoy.

I’ve seen my unfair share of Italian zombie flicks. Zombie Flesh Eaters, The Living Dead At The Manchester Morgue and Zombie Creeping Flesh to name a few. But Nightmare City has something none of these movies have. These zombies aren’t the slow, shambling undead that were the norm back in the heyday of Italian gut munchers. Oh no. Director Umberto Lenzi obviously felt that would be far too boring. Instead we have a gun toting, knife wielding, axe swinging breed of undead who have been brought back to life after being subjected to a serious dose of radiation and move like Linford Christie being chased by a doctor requesting a drug test. They are also somewhat obsessed with female breasts. Yup...second only to shooting, stabbing and chopping their victims to death they love the boobies. And if they can combine the shooting, stabbing and chopping to death of their victims with some boob related action... so much the better.
Something Nightmare City certainly does share with most Italian zombie “epics” is an almost complete disregard for anything vaguely resembling logic. Most of the characters make choices that seem to be custom built by some insane higher power (i’m looking at you Lenzi) in an effort to place them in a situation that will most likely end with their demise. Certainly there’s plenty of death and destruction on display (including one thrown TV that inexplicably explodes in mid air taking out a couple of our undead friends as effectively as a molotov cocktail). However, the effects are so ineffectual that the movie doesn’t even work as an exercise in gore.

The zombie makeup is perhaps the worst I’ve ever seen. It’s not even consistent. Some of the zombies bear a close resemblance to the lead character from Troma’s Toxic Avenger series whilst some look almost human. Others look like they’ve had their heads dipped once in glue then twice in a barrel of oatmeal. The movie also has an odd tendency to shy away from some gory scenes just when they are about to pay off. This could perhaps indicate the actions of a censor but I think it’s more likely that some of the gore effects looked so bad Lenzi decided to excise them from the movie of his own accord. If the latter is the case I can’t help but think it would have been for the best if he’d exercised the same caution with every other aspect of the movie. This is one inept piece of film making. There’s a scene near the end of the movie in which one of the main characters has to put a bullet in the head of his wife. His first bullet hits her right in the middle of the forehead. A nice clean shot leaving a dime sized hole oozing fake looking blood. Then the second shot takes her head clean off her shoulders. Her body slumps to the ground and what follows is a shot of her corpse that reveals that her head has mysteriously reattached itself to her body and she once again sports a neat little hole in the middle of her forehead. I actually stopped the movie and rewound it three times because I was convinced I couldn’t possibly have seen what I saw.

So what works? Well nothing really. The acting ranges from appalling to barely adequate with all the actors, even the English speaking ones, having been subjected to an inept dubbing after the fact so that the words don’t quite match their lip movements throughout. Our hero looks like a geography teacher (he’s actually a reporter) and is almost as charismatic as your average geography teacher. Most of the female characters exist for no reason other than to provide the quite remarkable number of tit shots that frequently liven the movie up. Yes...it’s so boring that the numerous sightings of breasts really were the closest the movie came to making this reviewer sit up and take notice.

What about the script? Let me tell you about the script. You could restock the shelves of a hundred cheese shops with the dialogue of this movie. Most of the words that spill like a torrent of nonsense flavoured toilet water from the lips of these characters would shame a slack jawed fool if he’d written them. Now i’ve watched a lot of entertaining horror movies with risible dialogue. But when you couple the risible dialogue with the aforementioned lack of logic, an aesthetic sensibility that scream “I am inept” at the top of it’s lungs and makeup/gore scenes that look like they were cobbled together on a budget of monopoly money. Well... it’s not looking good is it?

Then comes the final kick in the nuts. The ending. I would normally stay well away from providing spoilers but the ending here is so cack handed that it beggars belief and if by revealing it I can somehow persuade even one person not to inflict this movie upon their person...well my job will have been done.

It’s all a dream.
Or a nightmare if you like.

In a movie almost totally devoid of anything resembling inspiration (machine gun toting, titty loving, olympic athelete zombies notwithstanding) this is the final insult. Mr. Geography Teacher wakes up in bed next to his wife (who in the closing moments of the nightmare fell to her doom from a rope hanging from a rescue helicopter only to suddenly transform into a woefully unconvincing dummy that proceeded to flop and flip in a most unhumanbeinglike manner as it bounced off the support frame of the rollercoaster below). We are then treated to the opening three minutes of the movie again as events in real life identically follow the opening events of the nightmare. Just before the end credits begin to role the following words scroll up the screen. “THE NIGHTMARE BECOMES REALITY...” My worst bad dream would be having to sit through another movie as bad as Nightmare City in the near future. Shame on you Mr. Lenzi. Shame on you.

Captain America: The First Avenger [3D] [12A]

DIR: Joe Johnston
CAST: Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell,
Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci

I have previously described Joe Johnston as a journeyman filmmaker, but frankly that was unfair, and undersells the man who made, among others, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, The Rocketeer, October Sky, and now this; one of the best blockbusters of the year. Obviously the film of Johnston's that this one most closely relates too is The Rocketeer, and actually they share quite a lot of DNA. From the square jawed hero to the World War Two setting to the ruby lipped love interest, this often feels like a large scale version of what Johnston couldn't quite afford to do twenty years ago, but it's the tone that is both most closely reminiscent of that film, and most refreshing.

After a lot of darker superhero movies, and the overblown and frankly tedious Thor, it's great to see a superhero movie that is as much boys own fun as Captain America, and that's what Johnston brings; a sense of fun, and a daring, a willingness to push the boat out just a little and do things that might seem a bit crazy (like the mid-movie musical sequence which introduces Captain America to the world at large). It all adds up to a pretty exhilarating watch, and a film that pulls you along on a wave of good will, even when it doesn't entirely work.

Captain America's origin story (which is retold here) is relatively well known, but for the record... 90 pound weakling Steve Rogers (Evans) wants to go to World War Two and fight, but he's repeatedly turned down until he's offered a chance by Dr Erskine (Tucci). Eventually Rogers is chosen as the test subject for a programme designed to create an army of super soldiers to fight the nazis, but Erskine is killed by a double agent and so Captain America must fight Nazi agent / megalomaniac 'Red Skull' (Weaving) as the army's only super soldier, leading a team of commandos.

Having been an irritating Human Torch in the awful Fantastic Four movie, Chris Evans wouldn't have been my first, second, or probably even sixth choice for the role of Captain America. Well, colour me surprised, because Evans proves to be just about perfect casting. Even if there are some problems (which we'll get to) with the opening forty minutes of the film, before Rogers' transformation, Evans' performance isn't one of them. He makes you believe in Rogers as a fundamentally decent and devoted man who deserves to be given this huge chance, so even before he gets to don the uniform, you're on his side (not that you wouldn't be, the other side being a Nazi with severe sunburn). Once we finally see him as Captain America it becomes clear just how much work Evans put into this character. First of all he's built like the brick shithouse that all the other brick shithouses are scared of, but he convinces as a character as well as simply as a force; there is an authority about him that works when he's leading the (howling?) commandos and a sensitivity that remains very much more Steve Rogers than Captain America.

As the evil Red Skull Hugo Weaving doesn't do anything especially groundbreaking, but his slightly cartoony German accent works well, he's quite menacing in both look and character and his big evil plan (though a little ill defined) is very big and very evil. Red Skull has always been, from a visual standpoint, one of the most striking characters in Marvel Comics long history, and he's certainly done justice here, with what looks to be a largely practical make up job achieving something in a suitable grey area between comic book extravagance and genuinely freaky. Weaving is also able to work well with the make up; a malleable actor, he loses none of his characterisation after the Red Skull is unveiled.

In the rest of the supporting cast there are drily funny turns from Tommy Lee Jones (whose "I'm not kissing you" to Rogers as he goes on his climactic mission may be the best of the film's surprisingly abundant good lines) and Stanley Tucci, each of whom function as something of a Father figure for Rogers. Sebastian Stan makes for a solid Bucky Barnes and recurring cast members like Dominic Cooper (as Howard Stark) and Samuel L Jackson (as Nick Fury) keep the Avengers tease ticking over relatively unobtrusively.

The script isn't exactly the most original you'll have seen, in fact there are times at which you'd swear that an uncredited magpie had written most of it, as it plunders other superhero and adventure movies for events, images and moments. It's hard to mind though, first because all the elements coalesce well, into a movie that feels very much of a piece, and also because this is something of a trademark of Joe Johnston's. In Honey I Shrunk the Kids he riffed on 50's sci-fi B-Movies like Them, The Fly and The Incredible Shrinking Man, The Wofman was one extended homage to James Whale (an unsuccessful one, but still) and in The Rocketeer he paid tribute to such diverse things as Errol Flynn, German expressionism and Rondo Hatton. Captain America is unashamedly - and entertainingly - a movie for movie fans, nods subtle and blatant are shot in the direction of Busby Berkley (in a hugely enjoyable musical sequence), Indiana Jones and even A Matter of Life and Death. It's just a slight shame that Albert Pyun's 1990 Captain America doesn't get a nod here (surely a movie like this can make room for the psych Hitler).

Obviously being a superhero movie, action is a key component of Captain America and, again, while it won't win awards for originality, the actions well mounted, easy to follow thanks to solid geography and calm cutting within scenes, pretty exciting and sometimes provides some unexpected moments (as Rogers chases a Nazi agent a kid gets thrown in the water, but before Cap can dive in and save him says "I can swim, go get him").

Not everything works though. There are three issues that conspire to stop Captain America from being quite as great as it should (and could) be. First, as is often the case, is the retrofitted 3D. It's not terrible (though I did notice, for the first time in a long time, some ghosting problems), but to describe it as necessary, or to suggest that it adds anything to the film would be untrue. This is not an especially deep film, and nor does it need to be, in any sense. The second issue is with some of the CGI. Most of the effects are seamlessly realised, but the Tron: Legacy like effects that turn Chris Evans into the thin, weedy, Rogers for the film's first act, though much better than they were in the trailer, often don't work. As was the case in Legacy the problems usually seem most pronounced when the character wears a shirt with a high collar - perhaps because it creates a hard seam - again it's not a disaster, but combined with the fact that Evans' deep voice struggles to fit in that character's frame it does give the film's first act a bit of an uphill struggle.

The third problem is the most serious, and it's with a major character. I'm sure British actress Hayley Atwell is capable and charming, but as Cap's love interest Peggy Carter she has little to do besides be very British and wear almost impossibly red lipstick. There are a couple of hints that she might be capable in action, but this is never explored, and aside from a brief glimpse of her wielding a machine gun she sits largely on the sidelines. This is a real problem, because Peggy is so unmemorable that she's even overshadowed by a brief but forceful turn from feline British actress Natalie Dormer, whose cameo made me wonder why either this actress or this character hadn't won the love interest role. As it is the love interest is a rare dull spot in an otherwise commendable film.

I won't pretend that Captain America: The First Avenger is a great film, it hasn't the depth of X-Men: First Class, the jaw dropping design of Batman Returns or the cheerful disregard for conventional limits of Kick Ass, but it is fun. Hang on, scratch that, it's Fun! It demonstrates that Joe Johnston knows how to help you have a rollicking good time, and that though that may not be the loftiest aim, it's no bad thing.

Potterthon Part 5: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 [12A]

DIR: David Yates

This isn't supposed to happen. Franchises that are seven films deep aren't supposed to still be good, and certainly they aren't supposed to be continuing to get smarter and deeper even as they hit an almost entirely action driven final chapter. Franchises seven films deep (or considerably less, look at the Final Destination series) are supposed to be moulded to be empty retreads; titles that can be exploited to shore up a studio's books, without scaring away a built in audience. That's just one way in which the Harry Potter films have thrown out the franchise rulebook.

As the tile would suggest, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is not really a film in and of itself so much as it is the concluding half of a single gigantic film, but you can't - even if it's Harry Potter - release a blockbuster aimed at 12 and 13 year olds that is longer than Gone With the Wind. That said, this film does, at least in its last two thirds, have a very different feel to that of its predecessor, where Part 1 was largely a quiet and reflective film, concerned with developing and deepening the relationship between its three questing main characters, Part 2 is the explosion of sound and fury, only this time it signifies everything.

After the close up on the central trio of Harry, Hermione and Ron in the first part, this film casts its net wider, in an attempt (which it largely succeeds in) to give us a moment of closure for all of the series' significant characters, all the while keeping the story of Harry and Voldemort's personal confrontation in sharp focus as the central thing around which the whole film pivots.

There are few actors new to the franchise in this film, and the performances - which are exemplary all round - benefit from the familiarity of the actors with their characters, as does the story. Much of the film's weight is really something that it gets for free, because it comes from the history as much as it does from what is happening in this film; for example when Molly Weasly (Julie Walters) protects Ginny (Bonnie Wright) from an attacking Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) both the act and the accompanying line "Not my daughter, you bitch" draw strength and shock from the fact that for the past ten years Walters has been a warm, serene, motherly figure in these films.

As I said above, the acting is excellent from all concerned, and with a huge cast it would be too time consuming to cover everyone, but some of the supporting players do need singling out. Matthew Lewis, who has been nerdy, accident prone comic relief from the start as Neville Longbottom, gets a great showcase here, as Neville steps up to the plate to become an unlikely but very real hero, without ever losing his essential character (in a nice moment after he barely survives a collapsing bridge he asks where Luna is; "I'm mad for her, and I've never told her, but I think I should since we'll probably both be dead by morning"). Helena Bonham Carter; thus far a mad screeching whirlwind as Bellatrix Lestrange, gets to do something very different at the start of the film, as Hermione takes polyjuice potion for a break in to Bellatrix's vault at Gringotts, and Bonham Carter gets to play very awkward Hermione now resembling the woman who, not 24 hours ago, tortured her. It's one of the film's few lighter moments, and welcome given the darkness of these 130 minutes. Also given an especially nice moment to shine is Maggie Smith as Professor McGonnagall, who gives strength to the rebellion at Hogwarts, and has a lovely moment of almost schoolgirlish glee when, just as battle is about to be joined, she gets to use a spell she's always wanted to try. Those are the moments, the ones you treasure, the ones that mean so much, because they are the ones that other blockbusters would miss, and - entirely non-coincidentally - the ones that make these people human, make us care for them. It's a shame to see the likes of Bonnie Wright and Evanna Lynch get a bit sidelined, but even they get moments to shine, and they take them with gusto.

Greatly expanded from the other films are the roles of Snape and Voldemort. Alan Rickman has always been something of a secret weapon for this franchise; his clipped tones perfectly suited to Snape's mix of menace and humour, and to conveying his murky and seemingly changeable loyalties. He's been a mysterious and intriguing character, and here Rickman finally gets to show his hand. Yes, the ten minute series of flashbacks filling in Snape's background and showing us what has been going on behind the main narrative of the previous films is a huge expository infodump, but it's gracefully executed. The casting of the young Snape (and of a young analogue for Geraldine Somerville's Lily Potter) is dead on, and the nostalgic soft focus gives it a different feel, while conferring what this memory means to both Snape and Harry, and it also happens to give the film's third act an even greater weight, to make the final confrontation feel even more apocalyptic. The battle between Harry and Voldemort has always been on two levels. It is an apocalyptic confrontation to decide the fate of the wizarding world, but as far as the films are concerned what is more important is that it is a battle between two men, tied together by fate, and this film, with its brutal end of act two twist, plays that up brilliantly. Ralph Fiennes has largely been a background figure so far; a looming threat, but in this film he finally gets to really explore Voldemort in more detail. It's an interesting piece of work, deeper than the stock evil bastard it could easily have been (it would have been easy for Fiennes to let all that brilliant make up do the work for him) but what's really interesting is how Fiennes lets us see the origins of Voldemort's evil; fear, and how as his fear grows, as his horcruxes are destroyed and he comes closer to to being able to die, he lashes out with ever more extreme and less directed fury.

The personal nature of the confrontation with Voldemort, and the heavy weight on Harry's shoulders also brings out the best in Daniel Radcliffe. Radcliffe was relatively unremarkable as an actor when he started, but as the years and the films have ticked by he's become better and better, and he's really excellent here, bringing great dramatic heft to the later scenes in particular, and convincing as a man who can command the loyalty of a great many very frightened people. Radcliffe is perhaps most effective as he walks to meet Voldemort and, in a slightly Star Wars like moment, talks to the ghosts of many of the people who have died to protect him, unlike Star Wars though, this scene carries a real emotional weight with it, and Radcliffe allows you to see it and to feel it weighing on Harry, without overplaying it.

There has always been a connection between Hermione and Ron's characters, and it's been a large part of the last couple of films. It's a pleasure to see it come to fruition here, and while there is the big emotional moment of the much talked about kiss (which actually is brief and sweet) much else is left unsaid (Hermione's simple look down to her hand holding Ron's at the end of the film speaks volumes). Again, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have visibly grown into their roles, to such a degree now that it's not really like watching actors anymore so much as it is just watching Hermione and Ron, and that's the holy grail as far as movies are concerned, once you can get the construct to go away and have your audience watching people, not characters, you've won.

Much has always been made (certainly I've done it over the past week) of the way that each film in the Harry Potter series has been darker and more adult than the last, and as befits a film that is largely about death, sacrifice and a final battle against an ultimate evil this is thee darkest and most violent of the lot. For much of its second act this is a war film, with a bloody battle that ranges through Hogwarts and takes the lives of several beloved characters, the bloodletting may not be explicit (this is still a 12A, though I suspect it pushes that rating quite hard), but it is still very real and very consequential. At the beginning of the third act, in a brief lull in the action, there is time to see the devastation, and it's hard not to get a little choked up as the camera tracks across dead and bloodied characters we've known for many years.

David Yates deserves a lot of praise for delivering on all these emotional moments while keeping the storytelling pacy (at 130 minutes this is the shortest of the series), the action exciting and the shots genuinely interesting to look at. Hogwarts itself seems different in this film; harder, colder and more foreboding than it has been before, and Yates focuses on its harsh lines and sharp edges in several moments that have an almost expressionist feel to them, given the shadowy cast of the whole film. You would expect a film with a budget this large to look good, but it's not always so, and as well as avoiding the Transformers trap of over designing characters and over crowding shots, Yates makes his effects work for his shots, not vice versa. I can't comment on the 3D, because I refuse to see this film in 3D for two reasons. First of all it was shot in and for 2D presentation, that's the director's intent, the DP's intent, the design department's intent, and that's how it should be seen. Secondly, this is a world we've been familiar with for a decade, and it's always been presented in 2D, why would I want to suddenly change the way I've experienced this world? Overall, the decision to present the last part of this story in '3D' strikes me as like switching ratios from 2.35:1 to 1.66:1 for no apparent reason for the last ten minutes of an eighty minute film. The film looks stunning in 2D; the use of light and shadow, the desaturated colours, augmented by the pyrotechnics of spellcasting, work brilliantly. This will all be diminished in 3D, thanks to the light issues the format simply can't avoid. You have to see this film, but do it properly, see it in 2D.

On its own terms, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is an exceptional film, though determining whether it is truly the best of the series (it feels like it right now) will take some perspective and some rewatches. What can be said now is that this is a film that deals deftly in both epic scope and personal drama, that its effects never overwhelm its acting or its action, that it is frequently genuinely moving, without ever feeling like it is manipulating you. Okay, so the 19 years later epilogue isn't really needed, but it's sweet, and really, after the past 18 hours, it would be churlish to complain about those five minutes. It has been a very, very long time (perhaps since Jurassic Park) since there was a blockbuster this good in cinemas, and it is likely to be a very, very long time before another comes close to this one. I'll miss Harry Potter, but there really couldn't have been a better way for this franchise to go out.

Potterthon: Part 4

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1
DIR: David Yates

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 has an extremely challenging job; it must be both the calm before, and the beginnings of the storm itself. Splitting JK Rowling's final book made sense in a lot of ways (not least commercially), but it does present a challenge for this film; how do you make setup play as an exciting and complete experience? Even though the first six films built to a grander point they all, to some degree, had a self contained quest. David Yates, now on his third Potter, deals with the challenge confidently, delivering a film that is pacy and exciting, but also, due to its different form (it's essentially a road movie, and set entirely outside Hogwarts) spends greater time and energy on character than any of its predecessors, making for a surprisingly satisfying experience for what is, basically, an extended prologue.

Much is asked of the core trio of Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint in this film. There are, for the bulk of the film, few of the regular minor characters to provide the spice that they usualy add. This is a film entirely on the shoulders of this young trio, and they carry it brilliantly. If Half Blood Prince showed how far Emma Watson's portrayal of Hermione has come, this time it is the turn of Rupert Grint, whose Ron finally graduates from comic relief status with some real heroism and a couple of extremely well handled dramatic scenes (particularly when, having been absent for a long time after arguing with Harry, Ron explains why he's come back to the fold). For much of the film's near two and a half hour running time we follow Harry, Hermione and Ron on their lonely quest to find and destroy the horcruxes that hold Voldemort's soul, it's here that we really get to dig into the characters and, rather than the visceral thrills that characterise both this and the other films in the series, get a couple of scenes of really taut tension as the group hide out from Voldemort's spies as they hunt the chosen one and his friends.

Two of the best scenes in this segment of the film are additions not found in Rowling's book. The first has Hermione almost discovered because, despite all her protective magic, someone smells her perfume, while the second sees Harry and Hermione, at their lowest ebb, dancing to a Nick Cave song on the radio. That moment is one of my favourites in the whole franchise; in 40 wordless seconds it speaks to all the years of friendship, all the feelings these two have for each other, giving them a brief respite from the darkness around them. It's rather beautiful.

Getting to this quest takes some work, and the process provides a handful of lighter moments. There's a lovely comic scene in which many allies take Polyjuice potion to make themselves look like Harry so that Voldemort and his Death Eaters won't know which Harry to attack, and a very funny scene, also involving Polyjuice potion, in which Harry, Hermione and Ron steal into the Ministry of Magic in pursuit of a horcrux. Even at these moments though, tragedy is never far away, in one of most movingly and subtly developed threads in the series, Hermione makes a huge sacrifice to go with Harry and Ron, erasing herself from her parents memory; another fine piece of acting from Watson there.

All the while, Voldemort and the Death Eaters, and both sides quest for the titular Deathly Hallows (whose background is filled in with a brilliant animated sequence which looks like the Lotte Reigner influenced fever dream of Guillermo Del Toro) are in the background, threatening the whole time to break through, which they finally do in a tremendous last twenty minutes. With Hermione, Ron and a heavily disguised Harry captured, Bellatrix Lestrange determines to discover if this is the real Potter she has. Thee resulting torture sequence is brief and not massively explicit, but actually it's all the more disturbing and upsetting for playing largely through Hermione's screams. This is where all the hard graft of the character work, all the history, pays dividends; it makes us care. We know these characters, most likely love them (unless you're rooting for Voldemort, in which case get the hell away from me you loony), and hearing one of them in pain, seeing her bleed, hurts.

This is what's uncommon about the Harry Potter films, and perhaps particularly about the last two (or one, depending how you wish to define it), there's a level of emotional engagement that most blockbusters either can't or simply don't care to reach.

The technical aspects of the film continue to be absolutely impeccable; the dark, desaturated, photography has a stark beauty, and matches the mood of the piece perfectly. Alexandre Desplat's score has an emotional tug, without seeming like it is instructing us as to how we should feel, and the special effects really deserve that designation, with the much improved Dobby the House Elf feeling, this time, like a real character rather than a digital approximation of one (which, again, gives a key moment a weight I'd never have expected given how I felt about him in Chamber of Secrets).

Aside from a couple of minor performances hiccups (the standard Bill Nighy performance; Welsh variation), Deathly Hallows Part 1 is just about perfect. It could have been little more than an extended trailer for part 2, but instead it continues to darken, and more importantly deepen this saga, and promises great things for the long awaited ending.

Potterthon: Part 3

For the second half of the franchise there has been just one director; David Yates, who came to Order of the Phoenix from acclaimed British TV series State of Play. It seemed an odd fit, but it was an inspired piece of directorial casting as the films moved into a new phase; the march to war.

HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX
DIR: David Yates

After the less focused and somewhat underwhelming Goblet of Fire, another new face came in behind the camera for the series fifth film; adapted from JK Rowling's longest book, new screenwriter Michael Goldenberg (in his only outing in the series, the rest all having been scripted by Steve Kloves) stripped the text back into the shortest, leanest and most focused film to date. Here, just halfway through the series, the march to war truly begins, and it does so in fine style.

Goblet of Fire never visited Privet Drive, but Harry's nightmarish Uncle (Richard Griffiths), Aunt (Fiona Shaw) and cousin make a reappearance for this film's opening sequence. The film begins on a glorious summer day, quite at odds with the visuals of the last two films, but soon, Dementors arrive, and director David Yates immediately shrouds even the muggle world in darkness. Yates retains the dark tone of the past two films, but brings his own vision to it (along with cinematographer Slawomir Idziak), giving the film a steely blue tint, which sets the tone of the world, and particularly of the scenes of Harry and his friends preparing for war, against the film's major new character.

Imelda Staunton's delightful turn as Dolores Umbrage gives the film a new kind of villain; a sweet looking middle aged woman who turns out to be a petty, dictatorial and cruel figure who wants to hide what is coming from the Hogwarts students to 'protect' them. This is, obviously, JK Rowling taking on education policy, but the film makes that undertone less prevalent and less irksome than Goblet of Fire did the 'satire' of the Rita Skeeter character. Staunton is hilarious in the role, but also frightening, portraying a butter wouldn't melt façade (complete with tinkling laugh), which becomes chilling when she is crossed (see the excellent scene in which she makes Harry do lines with a special quill designed to etch the words - painfully - on his skin).

Aside from Umbrage's bureaucratic and restrictive attitude at Hogwarts the film's main focus falls on Harry's attempts to do what she won't allow, teach a practical Defence Against the Dark Arts course, raising an army of students (which includes delightful new addition Luna Lovegood, played by Evanna Lynch) to fight Voldemort when the time comes. These sequences are fantastic, the film moves quickly through the training, dealing with much of it in a couple of montages, but it takes enough time that we still get character beats, Umbrage's attempts to discover the secret class, and a real sense of the progress being made. It's adaptation working at its best, reducing something that should take a long time down to its essence without losing the storytelling.

The film's last act is exceptional; a large scale set piece taking place inside the Department of Mysteries at the Ministry of Magic, with Harry and his small army (Ron and Hermione along with Luna, Ginny (Bonnie Wright continuing to make a tiny part resonate) and Neville (Matthew Lewis, convincingly gaining in strength with each film)) facing off with a group of death eaters which now includes an unhinged Helena Bonham Carter as Azkaban escapee Bellatrix Lestrange. The battle is brutal, with a moment when Lucius Malfoy punches Luna in the face, making her bleed, and Ginny's hugely effective 'Reducta' being especially memorable for the way they raise the level of violence from previous entries. In the pitched battle the spells that fly back and forth begin to feel like bullets, and Yates directs the sequence like a gunfight, which pays dividends when an important character is hit and killed.

You would expect, by the fifth film, for the returning actors to be settling into their roles, and so it proves. The leads have always had an easy chemistry, but it's really felt in this film; the group more close knit than ever. In a lovely moment Harry, Ron and Hermione are talking about feelings, and Hermione says that Ron has 'the emotional range of a teaspoon', the reaction, the slowly dawning laughter that spreads through their little gang here, really speaks to their closeness as well as any other character beat in the series. Daniel Radcliffe, in particular, has a lot more asked of him this time out, and he delivers. When the film's tragic loss comes his reaction is really powerful, as is the way he defeats Voldemort, who has possessed him for a moment. David Yates was hired for his work with actors, and it seems to have paid great dividends. The adults also deliver, with Helena Bonham Carter making for a memorable (if slightly underused) villain, Gary Oldman bringing both warmth and force as Sirius Black and the ever entertaining Alan Rickman again giving it his best English Christopher Walken as Snape.

Order of the Phoenix is a tight, well disciplined, frequently thrilling film, and for my money its one of the best of the Harry Potter series.

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE
DIR: David Yates

Despite a two and a half hour running time, the sixth Harry Potter film doesn't stand still for very long. Right from the off director David Yates' second crack at the Potter whip throws us into events, making no concessions to latecomers (which is as it should be, by this point you're either on board or you're not). He leads off with one of the film's most striking setpieces, the Muggle world finally seeing what's happening in the magic world as Death Eaters blast through Muggle London before arriving in Diagon Alley.

Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves maintain a loose, but effective, grip when it comes to storytelling, with much that could have required the sort of florid explanations common to the first few films actually told in a few images that at first seem incidental but which ultimately add up to something much greater than the sum of those elliptical parts (the best use of this is in Draco Malfoy's story, which seems, for a long time, to consist of shots of him opening and closing a cupboard). The only place where the storytelling falls down this time is really in regard of the title, as the Half Blood Prince (the previous owner of a potions book that Harry uses to become top of new professor Horace Slughorn's class) only reveals his identity late in the day, and when he does the revelation falls flat, because it doesn't seem to mean anything.

Harry Potter and the Growing Pains might be a more suitable title for this film, as while it builds up the ongoing Voldemort storyline very capably, and has many fine action sequences, much of the running time is given over to the changing relationships between the characters. These are some of the film's most effective and affecting moments, especially when both Harry and Hermione are unable to take the person they want to go with to a party thrown by Slughorn (Ron in Hermione's case, Ginny in Harry's), this leads to a beautifully played scene between Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe in which Hermione in particular seems more vulnerable than ever before. It's great that, even as war creeps ever closer, the films still take time to have these beats, because the investment they give you in the characters gives the encroaching threat more weight, because you care what happens to these people. There's also a nice smattering of comedy in this part of the film, supplied, as ever, largely by Rupert Grint, though Evanna Lynch gets to be adorably weird once more as Luna Lovegood (if you aren't charmed when she randomly pops up in a Lion costume then you're not human), and even Radcliffe gets in on the act when Harry takes a potion called liquid luck.

On the other side of the coin the film uses the new character of Horace Slughorn (an entertainingly scatty Jim Broadbent) to introduce memories of a young Voldemort, and lay the groundwork of plot for the next two films. The full horror of Voldemort's evil, and the difficulty of the task lying in front of Harry, Hermione and Ron becomes clear in this instalment as we are introduced to the concept of a Horcrux; a device holding part of a person's soul, which enables them to live even if their body is destroyed. This ushers in a whole new sense of threat, which is given weight both by the ever darkening visual style and by the much more brutal tone to the film. A fight between Harry and Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton, finally starting to come to grips with the whole 'acting' thing, but still very much the weak link in the cast) feels extremely personal, and the violence coming from Harry speaks clearly of how much he's changed since Philosopher's Stone.

The only real chink of light in Half Blood Prince is Harry's relationship with Ginny Weasly. It's nice to see Bonnie Wright; a serene background presence in each film, come into her own here, giving Ginny great strength and resolve. She and Radcliffe have a nice chemistry together, and Harry and Ginny's first kiss has a sweetness and an innocence which works well for the relationship that has really been bubbling under since Chamber of Secrets.

It's hard to know what to say about the cast and crew at this point; everyone continues to raise their game. Radcliffe's performance as Harry has acquired a moral complexity which is incredibly compelling, but remains a real (in all senses of the word) hero. Rupert Grint continues to give us a bit of comic relief, but is also able to bring some dramatic weight when Ron is called upon to help his friends, while, as I mentioned above, there is an emotional depth to Emma Watson's performance here that we haven't really seen before, and she makes Hermione feel much more human by showing us her vulnerable side. The film also looks exceptional, Yates seems to have grown in confidence, making more unusual shot choices (look at the opening frames) and the special effects are little short of miraculous. There's really not much to criticise.

There is a lot of plot to get through in this episode of the Harry Potter series, but as ever the cast and crew do it with assurance, and they make sure that even at the heaviest expository moments the film is never dull. The set pieces are stunning, especially a mid film moment in which the Weasly house is attacked by Death Eaters (not in the book), and though the battle that ends the book has been deleted (for fear it would prove to similar to the battle that forms the second half of the final film), Yates and Kloves manage to find final moments that send a shiver up the spine and bring a tear to the eye, and make you desperate to see, finally, how it all ends.

Potterthon: Part 2

In the next two films, the production team behind Potter made some changes, recognising that the story, characters and actors were growing up they brought in new directors with a darker vision. Most consider that this is when the films came of age.

HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN
DIR: Alfonso Cauron

Though Chris Columbus had created a strong visual identity for the Harry Potter films, and had led his young stars to better performances in the sequels, his move on from the franchise couldn't have come at a better time. With the stars and their characters in their early teens, upheaval was in keeping with the series at this point, as was growing up. Producer David Heyman could have gone for a safe pair of hands for this third film; another journeyman like Columbus, instead the offer went out to the visionary Guillermo Del Toro (who passed in favour of the more personal Hellboy) and then to his countryman and friend Alfonso Cauron, whose varied CV took in kids movies (A Little Princess) and who was coming off the back of a - very different - film about teenagers; Y Tu Mama Tambien.

Cauron brings a distinctly different flavour to this instalment, and though the process of darkening the series began with Chamber of Secrets, it was here that it took hold, and Cauron who really set the vision for the rest of the series. Where Columbus' Hogwarts basked in sunshine and was bright and primary coloured, Cauron's is darker and more forbidding, and quite often drenched with rainstorms. Colours are desaturated, and night time scenes play in near pitch darkness, accentuating the creepy aspects of Hogwarts castle. There is also a somewhat harder (though at this stage still PG rated) tone to the film's action, which seems to leave more of a mark than it had previously, and Cauron really up the ante on scary imagery, with a great Werewolf design and transformation, and the genuinely terrifying (were I still 9) Dementors; shrouded creatures who feed on good memories, and can suck out your soul should they so please. This is not to say that Cauron is above pulling back for some lighter hearted moments, but even those are now inflected with darkness (see the way Harry's passionate anger causes the films opening slapsticky set piece).

Another thing you have to give Cauron immense credit for is the improvement in the performances from the young leads. He apparently worked them hard, even asking them to write in character autobiographies (apparently these were delivered very much in keeping with characters; a solid effort from Radcliffe, dozens of pages from Watson, while Grint turned in nothing, saying that Ron wouldn't have written the essay). Clearly being challenged and asked to really go for something more truthful than had been asked of them before paid off, because all three visibly raise their games (Watson, benefiting from a larger role this time round, is perhaps most improved, while Radcliffe does some great work opposite Gary Oldman's Sirius Black).

The plot is solid and well told, and making it very personal to Harry and very connected to his past works well for both the film and Daniel Radcliffe's performance, giving the whole thing much more import than you felt (at the time at least) than either Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets had in the overall arc. It also raises the stakes, giving everything greater weight, because it's more emotional and demands more of Harry, making him seem more heroic.

The adult performers are largely as good as ever. I never warmed to Michael Gambon's Dumbledore, whose voice seems to be a series of one sentence tours of UK accents, and whose manner is very different to Richard Harris' softly spoken, grandfatherly figure. Among the new teachers, a scatty Emma Thompson is great fun as Professor Trelawny, and David Thewlis keeps us guessing about his allegiances as Professor Lupin. However, Gary Oldman steals the film with a short but resonant turn as Sirius Black; powerful enough to give his character real weight when he reappears in the fifth film. As ever, the old guard; Coltrane, and Rickman most notably, impress with colourful character turns, though Tom Felton continues to be a wooden disappointment.

The film, lensed by Michael Seresin, is much more visually dynamic than the first two entries, with Cauron's camera much more active than Columbus', exploring the nooks and crannies of Hogwarts and finding a lot of new angles on familiar sights.

On the whole, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the best films in the series, and clearly its great leap forward from being high quality children’s films to becoming something much more resonant, and rather closer to high art.


HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE
DIR: Mike Newell

Maybe it's the fact that the characters are now 14, and thus going through the most annoying and obnoxious phase of their adolescence (hey, we've all been there), maybe it's that director Mike Newell seems a little unsure of himself, maybe its the hilarious hairstyle choices (Daniel Radcliffe's continually surprised hair being the wooden spoon winner), maybe its the underdeveloped new side characters... No, the problem with Goblet of Fire is that, right up until the end, it just feels inconsequential - well, that and the fact that it has to follow Prisoner of Azkaban.

The central thread of the film is given over to the triwizard tournament; a magical contest between three schools, involving three deadly challenges which a champion from each school must take pert in. Harry is supposed to be too young, but his name is drawn from the titular goblet anyway, meaning that he must compete. Sadly this is the most aimless part of the film, it provides some acceptably realised action, but the stakes feel very low (even at Hogwarts I don't buy the idea that a child will be allowed to drown in service of a contest) and the storyline adds little to the film up until the final challenge, some 108 minutes into the film. All in all, after the drama of Chamber of Secrets and Azkaban's action scenes, this just feels like franchise is treading water, however good the dragon effects are.

Also thrown into the mix are some John Hughes like high school shenanigans; rivalry between friends (Ron has several Nomi Malone like strops with Harry, which is as tiresome as you'd expect), some of which works quite well, a funny scene in which Ron has to dance with Professor McGonnagal and the central Yule ball are both welcome diversions from the rather plodding tournament plot, though the relationship dramas between the characters play out to much greater effect in the subsequent films. On the plus side though, this plot does allow Rupert Grint to have some fun, and he's very amusing here, especially when recounting how he asked visiting witch Fleur Delacourt out ("You know how I like it when they walk").

The script also has some problems; Goblet of Fire was JK Rowling's first real doorstop of a book, and screenwriter Steve Kloves hasn't really found an organic way to reduce it down. Even at two and a half hours it feels brutally shortened (look at the abruptness of the Quidditch World Cup, and the terrible underdevelopment of Robert Pattinson's Cedric Diggory). There is also a real irritant in the form of Rita Skeeter; a Daily Prophet journalist who is Rowling's, and the film's, brutally unfunny, sledgehammer subtle, parody of a tabloid reporter, and who feels completely out of place here.

I don't want to make it sound like Goblet of Fire is a dead loss though, as there is much to enjoy and admire here. Mike Newell may seem an odd fit for this assignment, but he develops the look of the series capably, bringing even more darkness to it than Alfonso Cauron, particularly in a forbidding opening sequence which really sets the tone for this entry, and provides our first sense of the series' central villain; Lord Voldemort. Also strong is the performance of new recruit Brendan Gleeson, who is hilarious as new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher 'Mad Eye' Moody. His costume and the effects on his false eye are brilliant, and Gleeson overplays to the hilt, having a wonderful time, especially in a lesson in which he shows the students the three 'unforgivable curses'; magic so terrible that using it will get you a one way ticket to Azkaban.

However, the film really excels in its climax. If Prisoner of Azkaban saw the series begin to grown up, the end of Goblet of Fire, and specifically Lord Voldemort's haunting line "Kill the spare", sees it come of age, with a deep, dark, frightening and extremely high stakes set piece which sees Harry confront the real Voldemort (a deliciously evil and nightmarish looking Ralph Fiennes) for the first time. It is ten minutes of screen time so good that you can almost forgive the two hours of plodding it has taken to get there. What's really important about this scene, and what makes it the key to the rest of the series, is that it makes Harry's quest going forward a truly personal one - something severely lacking in the rest of this film. This one scene echoes through the rest of the series.

Overall, Goblet of Fire might be my least favourite of the series to this point, but it does make up a lot of ground in its last twenty minutes, and does, if only on the back of those twenty minutes, feel like a game changer for the series. It's inconsistent, but essential.

Potterthon: Part 1

The Harry Potter films have defined the last decade of cinema. Over eight films, JK Rowling's stories have dominated the cinematic landscape while becoming that rare thing; a blockbuster series that has not just been well received each time out, but has improved as time and films have gone by. On Friday the final film; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, will open, and in the run up to that I'm going to re-visit and review (or re-review, in the last two cases) all of the previous films, and try to look at the series as one overarching story. I'll tackle the first seven films in three parts, and on Saturday there will also be a featured review of Deathly Hallows Part 2. Enjoy.

HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE
DIR: Chris Columbus

It's not that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a bad film, just that it feels like a film that is very far away from what the series became, so much so that watching this unashamed kids movie, from the director of Home Alone, with its bogey jokes and slightly schematically told and overexplained plot, is a bit of a shock to the system ten years later. That said, it's a real charmer, and sets up the world of Harry Potter in a bright and engaging fashion.

Where Columbus really gets it right is in the film's design. Hogwarts itself is imposing and impressive, dwarfing the films young stars and immersing both them and us in ths magical world. In keeping with the age of the characters and the audience the world at this pint is bright, inviting and fun (and sometimes a little overly cartoony). The characters; Dumbledore, Snape, Hagrid et al, are larger than life, but Columbus makes them feel like a credible part of this world they inhabit, and this really allows you to buy into the reality of Hogwarts as well as engaging with its more fantastical elements. Right down to the tiny details (the fact that every wand is different and designed to suit the character who wields it) the film is beautifully and intricately designed.

Columbus also did sterling work when it comes to casting, and whatever you make of his films it's worth remembering that the bulk of the main casting was his work, and ingenious it was too, as even here it is hard to imagine anyone else in most of the adult roles. Robbie Coltrane's bumbling Hagrid (catchphrase here "Oh, I should not have said that"), Maggie Smith's authoritarian but warm Professor McGonnagal and Alan Rickman's brilliantly sinister Snape have all become iconic. Richard Harris' Dumbledore is a slightly different case; a less bombastic and more certainly accented performance than that of Michael Gambon (who took the role after Harris' death after Chamber of Secrets), his Dumbledore is a more immediately likeable character, one who sets you at ease, but it is hard to identify anyone other than Gambon with the role now.

The kids, all unknowns at this point and all but Daniel Radcliffe without any significant acting experience, largely acquit themselves well, but are all very visibly green here. Radcliffe (who always fit his part like a glove) and Emma Watson, as an energetic Hermione, are best, but Rupert Grint shows a knack for comic relief, and comes into his own during the chess scene. Only Tom Felton lets the side down badly, with a rather wooden turn as Draco Malfoy (a flaw that would take some time to rectify).

For all its charm, Philosopher's Stone does creak in parts. The opening hour has to be used to set up the characters and the world, and while that still leaves 90 minutes it does take a long while for the plot to kick into high gear. Add to that a somewhat ineffectual villain, and a level based climax that feels a bit computer gamey (complete with some effects that have dated very poorly) and you have a film that ends up being better at setup than it is execution. Still, it looks great, sets up a distinctive world, and is never dull. It's not a triumph, but it's a solid start for the franchise.


HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS
DIR: Chris Columbus

I'd never especially liked Chamber of Secrets, in fact I had always considered it the weakest of the films. Until yesterday. On this latest rewatch, Chris Columbus' second crack at the Potter whip played better than it ever had before; revealing a more muscular and more confident film, which even has a few signs of the way the series would evolve (in amongst, it has to be said, a still rather large helping of kid friendly silliness).

Though this, at 154 minutes, is an even longer film than Philosopher's Stone, it gets going much faster, with the world established thoroughly in the first film, Chamber of Secrets is able to give more time to its plot, which really heralds the first sign of encroaching darkness, by dealing with an attempt to open a secret room in Hogwarts, an attempt which, if successful, will release a monster trained to attack all the non-pureblood students at Hogwarts (including Hermione who, we discover here, has non-magic - muggle - parents). This is also the first sign of the films commentary on social issues, and particularly on racism, which becomes more pronounced as the series goes on.

Though production resumed very quickly after the first film opened, Radcliffe, Grint and Watson have visibly and audibly aged, and they all also seem to have found their feet as actors, giving performances that seem a lot more assured than the occasional rabbit in the headlights styling they contributed to the first film. Watson is a little sidelined here, but is charming and does what she can with a small part, and Grint provides solid support, but this is very much Radcliffe's film, and he carries it assuredly. In the film's climax - much higher stakes that that of Philosopher's Stone he battles a giant monster and a form of Voldemort to save little Ginny Weasly (Bonnie Wright, good as ever in a bit part) - a nice setup for what would come some years down the road. But it's really the character beats that carry that sequence; Harry's heroism in contrast to the cowardice of defence against the dark arts teacher Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh, in a breezy and hilarious performance) and Harry's bravery and willingness to sacrifice are things that have come to define the character, and here Radcliffe sells those aspects of Harry right from the start. You know he's not going to die of his basilisk bite, but it's still touching when he tells Ginny to go and find her brother, rather than stay with him in what might be his last moments.

The screenplay works much better this time round too and, aside from a mid film infodump from Maggie Smith, has a better sense of flow between scenes. Despite the length the plot develops at a good pace, and is well told. Characters new and old make strong impressions, and yet more great British actors get in on the act here, with notable contributions from Branagh, Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy (a deliciously clipped performance) and Shirley Henderson, then 35, playing the ghost of 12 year old Hogwarts student Moaning Myrtle. Visually, though it's nothing like as radical as what would happen on Alfonso Cauron's watch, Columbus does darken his style here, and especially in the second half of the film the bright primary colours of Philosopher's Stone are replaced with greys, greens and blacks. Happily Columbus is also playing with a larger budget, and despite being only a year further on, the special effects, and especially the compositing, make a quantum leap from the first film.

It doesn't all work; the ending is messy, and new character Dobby the House Elf is an irritant, while the early sidelining of Hermione means that the central trio don't actually get that much time together in this entry. Otherwise though, this is a big step on from the first film and a thrilling, high quality, blockbuster.