Featured Audience Ratings

• Alexander D

  
  RENT is, all in all, truly lovable. I listened to the soundtrack to the Broadway musical after I watched this, and I realized immediately that a good chunk of the music was cut out and transformed into dialogue (i.e. the argument at the café which ends in the waiter telling Mark that… More
  RENT is, all in all, truly lovable. I listened to the soundtrack to the Broadway musical after I watched this, and I realized immediately that a good chunk of the music was cut out and transformed into dialogue (i.e. the argument at the café which ends in the waiter telling Mark that he could not pay for his coffee last time he visited the café), but, defensively, that makes the film more cinematic.

• Steven C

  
  In trying to let the classic songs and the classic story speak for themselves, Chris Columbus' direction comes off as totally uninspired and boring. Despite this the movie succeeds because the songs are classic and so is the touching and timeless story. The actors are all too old… More
  In trying to let the classic songs and the classic story speak for themselves, Chris Columbus' direction comes off as totally uninspired and boring. Despite this the movie succeeds because the songs are classic and so is the touching and timeless story. The actors are all too old for the roles, but since they originated them it's nothing but natural. "Rent" is an iconic musical with an important message.

• Jay H

  
  A fulfilling film with some catchy music to boot.

• Martin S

  
  Well....The music is good...I can't deny that...but I don't know...I didn't care to much for the story...there wasn't ant development

• Cassie H

  
  Very good controversial musical. It was definetely not what I expected. I usually wouldn't watch something with this much content but the music and the friends in this movie made it a very excellant movie!

• Megan S

  
  I enjoyed it, now I want to see the real thing. I love Jesse L. Martin even more than I did before.

• danny d

  
  although the music was pretty good and a few of the performances were solid, this film was an overall dissapointment. the plot was scattered and unclear and the story was told in fast forward. bravo for attempting to tackle tough subjects, but contraversy doesnt automatically make a… More
  although the music was pretty good and a few of the performances were solid, this film was an overall dissapointment. the plot was scattered and unclear and the story was told in fast forward. bravo for attempting to tackle tough subjects, but contraversy doesnt automatically make a good film.

• Alice S

  
  Life-affirming and sexy-fun :~P Alternate ending is better.

• Rachel F

  
  This was pretty good. It made me want to see it on Broadway.

• Lafe F

  
  The opening song was really catchy, but then I lost interest. Some musicals just don't grab me.

• Wildaly M

  
  One of the best musicals of all time about love, AIDS and life. The music is truly amazing. Introduced me to a whole new love for musicals.

• Morgan S

  
  The music was pretty good. sad. Not too bad.

• Michael S

  
  I loved the broadway musical, and I loved the film too.

• Jason S

  
  I have seen the stage play and I thought this was a good version of it. It was cool to see the original cast come together.

• Fernando Rafael Q

  
  great musical, nicely taken to the big screen

• Leigh R

  
  LOVE IT!

• Rico Z

  
  Having seen the stage production on which this film was based just a few weeks ago, I have to say this adaptation is a nearly perfect one. The only thing that keeps me from giving it 5 stars is the exclusion of a few pivotal songs that were in the stage version. Another reason is… More
  Having seen the stage production on which this film was based just a few weeks ago, I have to say this adaptation is a nearly perfect one. The only thing that keeps me from giving it 5 stars is the exclusion of a few pivotal songs that were in the stage version. Another reason is Chris Columbus' idiotic decision to set this in 1989. It makes for anachronysms that shouldn't be. Otherwise, this film is a faithful adaptation and is worthy of much more acclaim than it actually received. Here, you have most of the original stage cast making their film debuts. Some may look and sound a bit older than the roles they're playing, but I wouldn't want it any other way. The original cast is perfect and it's only fitting that they reprise their respective roles for this tribute film. Rosario Dawson is a perfect choice to play the role of Mimi; the hooker with a heart of gold. The cast is top-notch and the directing is rather good too. An AMAZING soundtrack; particularly Dawson's numbers. The girl can sing. If you're not familiar with the show, be aware that nearly 100% of it is sung and there is very little dialogue. So, there you have it. Go out and RENT this movie today!

• Nate Z

  
  [center][font=Arial][color=darkred][i][img]http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/3060/photo190ys.jpg[/img][/i][/color][/font][/center] [font=Arial][color=darkred][i][/i][/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred][i]Rent[/i] is one of Broadway?s biggest sensations in the last decade and… More
  [center][font=Arial][color=darkred][i][img]http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/3060/photo190ys.jpg[/img][/i][/color][/font][/center] [font=Arial][color=darkred][i][/i][/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred][i]Rent[/i] is one of Broadway?s biggest sensations in the last decade and has become a cultural cornerstone for many. Jonathan Larson updated Puchini?s famous opera [i]La Boheme[/i], transplanting the setting to East Village New York, swapping TB for AIDS, and turning his characters into struggling bohemians fighting for their voices to be heard and love to be kindled. The musical also has an added sense of tragedy. Larson suddenly died on an aneurism during the final dress rehearsal, sadly never getting to see his finished creation. [i]Rent[/i] went on to win Tonys (including Best Musical), a Pulitzer Prize, and damn near the heart of every girl I went to college with. To say it?s been a smash is an understatement. And where ever there's money and an insatiable audience, there will be Hollywood's eyes. Now comes time for the Hollywood gloss with director Chris Columbus ([i]Home Alone[/i], Stepmom) and when [i]Rent[/i] ditches the intimate confines of theater and hits the big screen, it?s much harder to hide its flaws.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]The story takes place within the span of one year (or 525,600 minutes as you?ll be told repeatedly in song), covering Christmases from 1989 to 1990. Mark (Anthony Rapp, [i]Dazed and Confused[/i]) and Roger (Adam Pascal) are roommates trying to keep warm during the winter in their giant New York loft. They?re flat broke and their former friend and current landlord Benny (Taye Diggs) expects a full year?s rent to be paid pronto. Roger is racking his brain trying to write that one perfect song; he?s also HIV positive, the unfortunate side effect of a relationship with a junkie. Mark is an aspiring filmmaker and has also recently been dumped by the impetuous performance artist Maureen (Idina Menzel) for ... another woman, Joanne (Tracie Thoms), a black lawyer. It must be noted that all three of these characters do not have HIV/AIDS; they?re in the minority. Tom Collins (Jesse L. Martin, [i]Law and Order[/i]), a gay school teacher, is visiting Mark and Roger when he gets mugged in an alleyway. Angel (Wilson Jermaine Heredia), a drag queen with a heart of gold comes to his rescue. Both men have HIV but won?t let their shortened time stop them from falling in love with one another. Mimi (Rosario Dawson) lives below Roger and Mark and works as an exotic dancer down the street. She too has HIV from a nasty smack habit. She also has her heart set on Roger but he needs a little motivation. For a year these characters will interact and live, love, die, and sing a whole lot.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]It seems like if you want an adaptation to lack any additional artistic merit as a film, you call Chris Columbus. He directed the first two [i]Harry Potter [/i]films, both rather rote and absent individual flair, and now he?s tackled Broadway with his lack of imagination. I?m actually starting to wonder if Columbus gets directing jobs because he?s basically an empty wind tunnel of creativity. In [i]Rent [/i]everything looks mostly lackluster, like Columbus had taken their not-working credo to heart.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]The villain of the piece seems to be Benny by default (unless you count AIDS, poverty, and ignorance). Our unemployed band of heroes is upset because dear Benny expects them to, gasp, pay their rent. [i]The scoundrel[/i]! Here?s what I don?t get; clearly Benny has a dream for a business and the other artists denounce this artistic dream because it involves money exchanging hands. Benny?s passionate about his dream and actually does something productive like make friends and influences with the business establishment, people with capital to bankroll an entrepreneur?s dream. It?s like everyone?s mad at Benny because he put a suit and tie on and got a job. [i]The scoundrel[/i]! [i]Rent [/i]even manufactures a mea culpa from Benny that feels exactly that, manufactured and inorganic to the story. I suppose he?d be a better person if he were a vagrant like every one else.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Besides, there is something inherently pretentious about [i]Rent[/i]?s anthems of sticking it to the man and brash commercialism. Guess what, after 9 years [i]Rent[/i] is a franchise. You can get [i]Rent[/i] T-shirts, coffee cups, soundtracks, and practically anything that can be merchandized and marketed to the disenfranchised youth with disposable incomes. A musical about the soullessness of commercialism is itself a cash cow, so it rings a little hollow when the deadbeats thumb their noses at the evils of capitalism. Seriously, Mark just about gets hives at the thought of being a cameraman for a TV news show (he calls it ?selling out?). In the end he quits his job so he can make his masterpiece ... cobbling together home movie footage. It took him a friggin? year of artistic turmoil to edit a lame home movie? Selling out never looked so good.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Speaking of vagrancy, the film version of [i]Rent[/i] is populated with 6/8 of the original Broadway cast (Dawson and Thoms are the only fresh faces). This is a well-intention move by Columbus but it backfires. It?s one thing to listen to 20-something bohemians fight for their artistic integrity and worry about food, shelter, rent. It?s quite another thing when the majority of your cast is in their mid 30s. You?ve gone from a bohemian to a bum. I?m not condemning the pursuit of your artistic ideals and making your name in the world, but not at the price of food and shelter. I?m reminded of a line from [i]The Big Lewbowski[/i]: ?Your revolution is over! The bums lost. The bums will always lose!?[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]It?s hard to feel for some of these characters, who come across as whiny, slutty, pretentious, or just plain misguided. Maureen has a wild side that includes flirting with everything on legs, and eventually this leads to a song called ?Take Me for What I Am.? Maureen is irritated that her life partner is upset that she was flirting during their engagement party. I mean, really, what?s to get upset about? Take you for what you are? A self-involved, slutty, drama queen? It?s pretty bad when [i]Rent[/i] kills off one of its main characters in a musical montage. A MONTAGE! Afterwards all the characters eulogize what made this person so great. Hey, all that character stuff would have been handier before the death, and then I would have felt something. Larson?s story really does a poor job of building these characters and making them likable.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Some of these same problems exist with the original stage version, but [i]Rent[/i] the movie, and especially Columbus as director, make some bad additions. The original stage version of [i]Rent[/i] took place in modern day when it opened. Here, Columbus has dialed back the timeframe and set his story from 1989-1990 (someone forgot that a song references [i]Thelma and Louise[/i], which came out in 1991, but oh well). What makes this time jump shaky is that the film also adds a scene of the happy families championing each other over their racially mixed lesbian daughters? engagement. They moved time backwards but people?s tolerance was moved forward. What?s the point of changing the timeline if it causes all these anachronistic headaches? That?s not all. It?s bad enough that Roger has a Bon Jovie haircut for the entire film, but then Columbus adds scenes of his escape to New Mexico and we, the audience, are treated to Roger belting his heart out to nature on top of a desert gorge ... just like in Bon Jovi?s ?Blaze of Glory? music video. Maybe this finally explains why they transported the film to the 1980s.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Where the musical does strain credibility is its fear of fulfilling the dark end of Puccini's opera. [i]Moulin Rouge[/i] is also based on Puccini's tragedy and it had the guts and the ambition to end on a tragic note. I?ve cried at the end of [i]Moulin Rouge[/i], but I didn?t feel like misting up once during [i]Rent[/i], probably because these faux-bohemians kept me at a distance. [/color][/font][url="javascript:void(0);"][font=Arial][color=darkred]It?s rather terrible that Mimi can be brought back from the dead by the power of a cheesy rock ballad[/color][/font][/url][font=Arial][color=darkred], and if this holds true, then Bon Jovi is wanted to the ER, stat! The cheap fake-out ending for [i]Rent[/i] is just the nail in the coffin. Everyone has AIDS and thus on borrowed time and yet we can?t have an adult ending dealing with tragedy. That would break this romantcized fairy tale.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]With all this in mind, some things in [i]Rent[/i] really do work. The songs are catchy, somewhat fun, and the splashy lyrics follow suit. The cast collectively are entertaining and sing well, though Dawson can get a bit monotone at times. Some of the dance numbers are exciting and amusing, like the ?Maureen: Tango? between Joanne and Mark chatting about the spotty behavior of their former and current lover. At one point we flash to them in full classic dress buffeted by a chorus line of fellow tango-ers. ?La vie Boheme? is the sassiest and most electric song, finally piecing Larson?s sardonic, witty pop culture lyrics with a lively image. This is a musical that?s got clever lyrics, good singing, and catchy pop rock songs.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]For many, especially the [i]Rent[/i] heads, a movie version of their favorite musical will be bulletproof. They'll be thrilled to enjoy an afternoon with their best friends on the silver screen singing their favorite harmonies. I'm sure fans of Rent and fans of broad musical theater will be pleased. For me, the movie falls apart when you pay attention to the story, the characters, the drama, and then the choices in adapting it to film. I just didn?t care for most of the characters and found the story dated, silly, naïve, pretentious, and overly romantic, even if the majority of the characters do have HIV and/or AIDS (a certain song from [i]Team America[/i] comes to mind). Columbus' weak direction and poor decision making turn Larson's rock-opera into a movie that wants points for being different when everything about it has practically become marketable and cliché. I?d recommend buying the soundtrack instead of seeing the movie, because at least then you can turn it off when you reach your breaking point.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=darkred]Nate's Grade: C-[/color][/font]

• Mike N

  
  Wrote these for a newsletter. Finished earlier this evening. Reviews were written for and limited by the format, so, slight deposition of style. But it's about time I inject this journal with some movieness. Ran outta gas by the Potter review. [b][font=Book Antiqua]Kiss… More
  Wrote these for a newsletter. Finished earlier this evening. Reviews were written for and limited by the format, so, slight deposition of style. But it's about time I inject this journal with some movieness. Ran outta gas by the Potter review. [b][font=Book Antiqua]Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang :fresh:[/font][/b] [font=Book Antiqua]Check your guilt at the door before entering ?Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang,? for the peals of black-coated laughter will erupt more freely. Darkly comic and unendingly self-referential, this gleeful neo-noir tucks and rolls through the crossfire of naughty wisecracks, genre parodies, and, oh yeah, bullets. Robert Downey, Jr. and Val Kilmer chew up the scenery of Hollywood nightlife with effectively clashing styles (a bumbler and smooth-walker, respectively) and play the audience?s role in unraveling the maddening plot, or rather, piecing together various plots. Their buddy-cop bandying indulges the viewer with violently dispensed meta-insults with wit so sharp you could poke somebody?s eye out. And if given a choice, a movie this twisted might lunge for the poke. The story was sometimes too confusing for its own good, and while riddling noir conventions with a spray of gunfire (which was refreshing), it still perpetrated a mugging self-awareness that seemed a few scenes short of somebody bursting out of the screen and shouting, ?Hey, I?m a movie and I know it, and I want you to know it, too!? So while ?Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang? may play out like one big ?Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge,? its fresh modernizing of tried-and-true movie clichés give it a fluid swagger and hip likeability that is hard to resist. In fact, I gave in. Except that one squeamish scene?oh, you?ll know it when you see it.[/font] [font=Book Antiqua]7.5/10, ***1/2[/font] [font=Book Antiqua][b]Capote :fresh:[/b][/font] [font=Book Antiqua]Effectively brooding and accurately artistic, ?Capote? is a largely involving portrait of eccentric novelist and flamboyant New York socialite Truman Capote (played brilliantly by Philip Seymour Hoffman). The film wisely focuses on Capote?s career-defining and life-altering authorship of [i]In Cold Blood[/i], a compelling account of a grisly multiple-homicide in 1959 Wichita, and apparently the first of its kind: the non-fiction novel. Capote investigates the incident for a magazine article, but after interviewing prime suspect Perry Smith (Clifton Collins, Jr.), full of sky-blue guilt and intriguing complexities, the project assumes a life all its own and balloons into a novel determined to untangle this dark web of truth. Truman, a homosexual, develops a sort of curiously intimate but distanced friendship with Perry, of which fuses the film?s two halves (part crime thriller, part biopic) with a captivating emotional dilemma: the human instinct of empathy and relationship vs. the artist infiltrating his own art. Was he really affecting the integrity of his own story by continuing to buddy up with the main character? Like any artist at one point, Capote deals with it by reverting to hermetic impulses and ruminative spells of bed-writhing and sad faces. The film echoes the sometimes solemn tone with dreary, cold color tones, and to further mirror his torment and expose his curt self-interest, friend and fellow novelist Harper Lee (played by Catherine Keener) achieves fantastic success with her novel, [i]To Kill A Mockingbird[/i]. ?Capote? suffers from the occasional marshy patch and lapse in focus, but it ultimately succeeds in showing the title character?s selfish faithfulness to his art conflicting with an innate faithfulness to humanity.[/font] [font=Book Antiqua]8/10, ***1/2[/font] [b][font=Book Antiqua]Rent :rotten:[/font][/b] [font=Book Antiqua]?Rent? makes the leap from stage to screen with ?Rent,? where it didn?t take me long to regret it didn?t take a flying leap into oncoming traffic. The cinematic ?Rent? is a frustrating melodramatic cocktail of a group of gay and non-gay artist friends, all stubborn, broke, and diseased, who belt out song after throat-busting song about the oppression of bohemia in late 80?s New York City. Sweet merciful landlord, it was like somebody just vomited up their life problems on my lap, totally unprompted, and then they try to sing their apology to you. Not gonna work, buddy. Okay, so about half the songs are genuinely entertaining on their own merits, sans story. Great vocal work, interesting music, spirited projection. The other half, however, were elongated hiccups full of clumsy lyrics sailing on power chords worse than a cracked-out Night Ranger jam session. And yet, and yet...I remained open to this ragtag band of AIDS-addled art urchins and their vision of art and liberation, but I never got a palpable sense of their artistic output. There was an impressive performance art piece (orchestrated by vampish Idina Menzel, yowsa!), but that was the extent of it. The documentary featured, still shots of ?the gang,? was a twitchy joke. Which brings us to another point: that the viewer is supposed to accept that these 8 characters are friends. That?s fine, but I need to see a real connection beyond that it serves the story?s purpose. But there was not. I couldn?t buy their notions of love, their art felt like a farce, and their actions were petty and immature for ?adults.? Even when the film was challenged, such as when a homeless person derides ?the artists? for no real contribution, there was no response. Silence, initially, and eventually forgotten about and never addressed; a chance for these characters to show some grit, but came up navel-gazing as always. The most poignant moments dealt with something everybody can relate to: real pain and real loss, bare and honest and triumphant after the sashes, the leather, and all the accoutrements of the vivaciously flat story are stripped away. A stirring scene in a church highlighted this rawer emotion, leveraging natural empathy for those with AIDS or HIV for a real idea of their heightened state of mortality. Another point to the film, and this likely was accidental, was my fascination with this nostalgic New York City, a kind of zeitgeist that seemed romantic only with the idea that it doesn?t exist anymore, as if, for a few fine moments, this movie functioned as a period piece. It came close, but it was not enough to redeem ?Rent.? I can see how some can be overcome by the whiz-bang energy of the music, but I could not accept this film?s concept of broken love, instead of something profitable, like, say, a relatable story. Entertaining, but unsatisfying, [font=Book Antiqua]with vanilla performances from most. A[/font]ll the movie deserves from you is a smile and an eviction notice.[/font] [font=Book Antiqua]5/10, **[/font] [font=Book Antiqua][b]The Squid & The Whale :fresh:[/b][/font] [font=Book Antiqua]The complexities of divorce assume an apt metaphor of nature (witness the film title) in this often bittersweet and inexplicably goofy indie film from the writer of ?The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.? Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney star as the embittered couple with two adolescent boys caught in the fray of their separation, with split custody in their future. There is some interesting analysis on the troubling psychological effects a divorce can have on the kids, but the connection felt assumed and not clarified enough. The strange behavior of the children simply felt like strange behavior, with no adequate explanation and never explored to a satisfying degree. Daniels and Linney are both flawed, sometimes rotten parents with diverting objectives in life, both safe and dangerous, conscious and subconscious. They are both PhD?s in literature, affording them many strappingly intellectual quips and phrases that may be clever, but nearly drown the film with their off-the-wallness. It?s really an unfortunate case of the characters ruining a premise by being too weird. But heroically enough, the characters also manage to save the film with some well-timed moments of resilience and affection and subtle degradation, though the movie as a whole is a missed opportunity. Still, it has an amazing soundtrack.[/font] [font=Book Antiqua]6/10, **1/2[/font] [font=Book Antiqua][b]Good Night, and Good Luck. :fresh:[/b][/font] [font=Book Antiqua]Edward R. Murrow and his merry band of CBS producers engage in a televised battle of politics with infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy in ?Good Night, and Good Luck,? an intelligent treatise on the malevolent uses of a very powerful weapon at our disposal: mass media. Murrow, wonderfully depicted by David Strathairn with a steely noirish determination, and the producers of his primetime news channel ?See It Now? [font=Book Antiqua](incl. George Clooney, Jeff Daniels, Patricia Clarkson & Robert Downey, Jr., who were also very good) [/font]tackle McCarthyism, almost a foe too large, during the famous Communist witch hunt in 1950?s America. It?s low on immediate tension, but the drama here is not in the formula. It arrives with a grander picture, defining our stance on the role of journalism and media in civilization, and more specifically in America. Dishonesty begets corruption, and media is latest handmaiden in a long line of political tools to manipulate the masses. As Murrow states, media is only as honest as the intentions of its operator, and reflects the character of those who use it, ranging anywhere from slanderous propaganda wars and creating insulated snowglobe universes for the millions of television dependents all the way to illuminating minds with brave, truly educational material. Murrow?s own attack on the evils of McCarthyism and the resulting fallout is a perfect thematic complement. Clooney directs, filming it with the necessary lens of historical captivation (black-and-white) and ?chaptering? it with pensive, moody jazz pieces. Not an emotional journey, but still a great film.[/font] [font=Book Antiqua]8.5/10, ***1/2[/font] [font=Book Antiqua][b]Pride & Prejudice :fresh:[/b][/font] [font=Book Antiqua]Timeless romance is sought after yet again in this year?s ?Pride & Prejudice,? the latest in a long line of Jane Austen adaptations. This one, however, deserves to be prized among the more lionized of adaptations, for it was simply marvelous. Probably the latest grail for the hopeless romantic?comedy fan (though it does not adhere to those banal formulas). Keira Knightley is Elizabeth Bennet, the second oldest of five daughters among a family of a somewhat deficient social reputation, but the parents (particularly the mother) are always seeking to marry off each one to men of good standing and wealth. ?Pride & Prejudice? gracefully chronicles the tribulations of the daughters in seeking, or fleeing, suitors amidst many a social gathering, and is adorned with all the classical vestiges of the era and colored with humorously awkward encounters that make all the difference, and in particular, Elizabeth?s confrontations with love. One determined fellow, Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen), charmless, pithy and eloquent, is besotted with Elizabeth?s cleverness and beaming fortitude. And probably her excessive smileyness, too. The film?s momentum is gathered from his efforts to woo her. Now, I am allergic to sappy romances (they use an evil kind of sweetness), but this film never over-sentimentalizes and completes a full, mature emotional arc for the characters and the audience. Great performances all around, with Keira carrying this one quite competently. While it took me a few minutes to adjust to the language of 1797 England, and there was a staged quality to the circumstances of conversation in the early go, I was quickly swept into a charming ride that never veered far off course. This one should be savored until the last drop.[/font] [font=Book Antiqua]9/10, ****[/font] [b][size=2][b][font=Book Antiqua]Harry Potter & The Goblet Of Fire :fresh:[/font][/b][/size][/b] [font=Book Antiqua]The annual Potter promise continues with ?Harry Potter & The Goblet Of Fire,? the 4th in the series, with all the old characters back for more light fun. Light? Oh no, says the filmmaker (his name is Mike Newell, by the way). This film is PG-13, and noticeably darker than the first three films, says he. Okay, says I. We shall see about that. The latest adventures at Hogwarts follow a prestigious event called the Tri-Wizard tournament, setting the stage for old Lord Voldemort and his evil bag of tricks to lure Harry to his doom. Also new to the Potter universe is that unholy nightmare of a thing: romantic tension. The scenes of adolescence, such as Harry and Ron attempting to approach girls and ask them to the dance, capture the mentality well enough, and there are some acceptable, if a bit loosely executed, scenes of character growth for the famous trio of Harry, Ron and Hermione. The fluidity of the story was rough, likely due to the book-to-film transition, but the edges weren?t trimmed crisp enough. The progression of time, too, was faulty and not as effective as the previous films (ie.- the recurring device of the tree in ?Prisoner of Azkaban?). However, there was some agility to the filmmaking, capped by some exciting sequences with dragons and evil mazes, and a delicious scene featuring Ralph Fiennes. But, was it dark? Yes, says Mike Newell. Of course it was. Ah, says I, Only a smidge. But it was acceptable. I am coming to appreciate this series more and more, and am grateful of their schedule: actors aging with the story. ?Goblet of Fire? presents the world of Hogwarts as thoroughly imaginative as ever and aligns itself consistently with previous installments. Fun holiday fare.[/font] [font=Book Antiqua]7/10, ***[/font] [font=Book Antiqua]Others:[/font] [font=Book Antiqua][b]Jarhead[/b]: 4/10, ** :rotten:[/font] [font=Book Antiqua][b]Walk The Line[/b]: 7/10, *** :fresh:[/font]

• Dannielle A

  
  I tried to make it the whole way through, but I only made it through 70 minutes of pure torture. I disagreed with every single value and message. It was racy and disgusting.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings