The Brewhaha on..."The Secret of NIMH"

"In the beginning, we were ordinary street rats, stealing our daily bread, and living off the efforts of man's work. We were captured, put in cages, and sent to a place called NIMH..."
-Nicodemus, discussing the organization which apparently never had to change its name after this movie came out

"The Secret of NIMH is more important as Bon Bluth's declaration of dependence on a form of popular art that can infuse every corner of the imagination with its rainbow light. If Uncle Walt were to gaze on his renegade nephews, even he might approve."
-Richard Corliss, TIME Magazine

"The film concentrates on Disney horror and trauma without the relief of Disney charm. With its strong maternal theme, it suggests a less cute version of Poltergeist. Not enthralling, but worth seeing for anyone interested in the mechanics of this arcane art."
-Dave Kehr, Chicago Reader

“The soundtrack alone is just…perfect.”
-A buddy of mine

“I dunno.  It’s too Disney-fied for me.”

-Me, on the above

“What?  If that was the case, there’d be random musical numbers everywhere.  Of course, there was that sequel…”
-A buddy of mine, on the above

“The Secret of NIMH” is a 1982 animated film by acclaimed animation director Don Bluth, whose other works include the original “Land Before Time,” “Not All Dogs Go To Heaven,” “Titan A.E.,” and a slew of other animated films.  Despite his extensive resume, though, “The Secret of NIMH” is generally considered his magnum opus, as well as one of the greatest (if underrated) animated films of all time.

The first thing we, as viewers, must consider when reviewing a Don Bluth film is that while Bluth has worked on his share of Disney movies, Bluth and Disney are not the same thing.  Bluth is one of those people who believed cartoons could be made as much (if not more) for adults as for children.  So while Disney gives us things like talking animals who burst into song, Bluth gives us animals that will scare the crap out of you.  “The Land Before Time” gave us Sharptooth, “Dogs Go To Heaven” gave us the dog version of hell, and “The Secret of NIMH” gives us, among other things, a giant spider and an even more giant murderous cat.

The basic plot alone might also be a bit much for some viewers.  Star Wars, for instance, gives us the tale of a young man struggling to save the galaxy, as well as the exploits of his two bumbling droid companions and the tragic tale of one Sith lord’s utter failure to raise a family.  (In other words, it’s very audience-friendly stuff.)  “The Secret of NIMH” isn’t much more difficult to follow than that—if anything, the tension is palpable from the first few scenes—but the whole “genetically-engineered rats” subplot was probably a tough thing to market.  “From the creator of such films as ‘The Land Before Time’ and ‘An American Tail,’ comes a tale about some rodents in someone’s backyard…”

Plot summaries aside, though, it’s easy to understand how “The Secret of NIMH” has become such a cult classic, and also why it is so doomed to obscurity.  It’s dark, brooding, energetic, and epic all at once, with the top-notch animation found in many a Bluth film.  It’s also nightmare-inducing, very introspective, and completely lacking in those staples of animated films such as a “message,” a musical number, or characters voiced by Robin Williams.  The ending also uses an out-of-left-field plot device which leaves a lot to be desired.

However, a film is only as strong as its characters, and NIMH gives us a heroine for the ages, one Ms. Brisby, a humble farmyard mouse whose fear of the unknown is exceeded only by her determination to save her children.  Her supporting cast includes a wizened old mentor who knows more than he’s been letting on, a menacing and all-knowing owl, and the pigeon…or something…who’s fallen in love with our heroine…

Yes, because if you’re going to see any kind of romance in a Bluth film, it’s going to be inter-species romance.  Granted, it's still a kid's movie, but the tension between those two is not the kind you see between just friends, if you know what I mean.

The A-plot moves into focus with the introduction of the…uh, genetically-engineered lab rats, who are trying to take over the world (“the world,” of course, being the electricity they’ve managed to siphon off from their friendly neighborhood farm), and from that point on, the plot gets rolling and doesn’t stop moving until the climax.  The only thing that’s really “off” about the end is the means, which is simply too “magical” and is never really foreshadowed, and has been the point of contention for many fans.

Admittedly, it still falls into many of the trappings of children’s movies.  But it is a emotionally-charged and painstakingly-crafted animated adventure, and it pushes the bounds of what many would call children’s entertainment.  You can find it on Hulu for free as my friend and I did, so the only thing you need is a decent Internet connection.  There’s also a sequel, which I’ve heard nothing but bad things about.  I look forward to not watching it any time soon.

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer, who has resolved to post one review per week after the New Year.  Be sure to watch Salvatore Giunta on New Year’s Eve.  And also try to lose some weight, and stop smoking, and try to save your money.  And quit hitting people.

The Brewhaha on..."Sym Bionic Titan"

"Engage Sym-Bionic Titan!" 
-The last words an alien monster hears before a profound ass-kicking

"If we're going to blend in with these Earthlings, we need to know more about them."
-The show's basic premise (besides the whole "giant robot" thing)

"Well-paced, funny, unpredictable. But the show is rated PG and airs at 8:00 p.m. and reairs at 8:30 a.m. on Cartoon Network.  A kid's cartoon should not involve a cheerleader trying to seduce a fat geek by dancing on a pole as 'Shake It, Shake It, Booty Quake It' blares."
-One blogger, complaining about the resident robot being seduced by the local cheerleader

"Even with all the amazing new talent that Cartoon Network has cultivated over the years, Tartakovsky still stands as one of the greatest living animators. Seeing him employ everything in his (and anyone else's) arsenal at once without skipping a beat cements that fact."
-Karl Olson, Toonzone.net

Tonight, on a very special edition of the Brewhaha, we take a look at the latest work of Genndy Tartakovsky (I'm going by faith that the quote above shows the correct spelling for his name), a giant mecha cartoon known as "Sym Bionic Titan."

For those of you who don't really follow cartoons, Tartakovsky made a name for himself back in the 90's with "Dexter's Laboratory," the show where the red-headed boy genius and his ballerina sister Dee-Dee made their way into the hearts of millions of kids.  He also did work with "The Powerpuff Girls," helping design several episodes and providing animation direction for the movie.  His other works include "Samurai Jack," which was his first foray into a more dramatic series, and "Star Wars: Clone Wars" (the one which introduced General Grievous as less Darth Vader-lite and more the Jedi killer he always claimed to be).

Tartakovsky is basically the Michael Bay of animation.  His breakout series in Dexter showed his skill as a comedic director, but "Samurai Jack" and "Clone Wars" introduced us to the Tartakovsky many animation fans know today as an action director.  In particular during "Samurai Jack," he became known for his cinematic style, which stressed the buildup of suspense and a minimum of dialogue.

Thus, at a time when Cartoon Network was starting to phase out much of its cartoons for...wait for it...live action programming...they tapped Tartakovsky to produce a new animated series.  It was first announced some time last year, with me personally raising an eyebrow at the title alone.  "So, that means what?"

Then came the trailer. 

As someone who doesn't really appreciate all of the references and homages to other "giant robot mecha" shows, I can only approach this as another Tartakovsky work, with its own strengths and, dare I say, weaknesses.

Like I said, Tartakovsky uses a more cinematic style, which emphasizes buildup as much as the payoff.  With this in mind, the action this time around just seems more rushed, and the animation almost seems like it's taken a step down from his previous works.  The greater use of lines in the artwork detracts from the atmospheric effect, whereas in his previous works (specifically "Samurai Jack"), characters and structures could fade in and out of the scene without seeming out of place.  All these random new wrinkles on the characters' faces just take some getting used to.

This series is also more plot and dialogue-driven than his previous works.  Our intrepid heroes arrive on Earth, and they're basically on a mission.  You get a sense of the urgency rather than a focus on scenery.  Nine times out of ten, they're either getting more accustomed to Earth, or fighting off the monster of the week, where "Dexter" and "Samurai Jack" have the benefit of showing more "slice-of-life" stories--not that the show doesn't have time for such moments, there's just less focus on the "mundane" and a more overall focus on what you might call the A-plot.

I've seen maybe five episodes so far, but from what I can tell, the focus is on Lance, the bodyguard and token tough guy of the heroes (who even gets his own episode as a vigilante!).  Ilana is the princess he's basically been placed in charge of, and who is having more trouble adjusting to life in human suburbia.  Rounding out our trio is Octus, a sort of energy-based robot guardian who can create a hologram to disguise himself as one of us mere humans.  He acts as the token "nerd" of the group, and helps them adjust to life on Earth while "analyzing" our TV shows.  The three make for interesting heroes; one of the strengths of this show is its depiction of how they interact with each other and us mere humans.

Without spoiling too much, and without judging based on maybe half of the episodes that have aired, all I can say is that this show holds no punches.  It's funny when it needs to be, and it's flat-out brutal when it needs to be.  As befitting a children's cartoon, it has some decent messages for kids, such as "You should learn to work together," or "Eat healthy."  Or, "Don't try to fight crime, or else the aliens will find you." 

A word of warning, though:  It may be a tad intense for the younger viewers.  Tartakovsky basically has a license to kill from Cartoon Network, and he's not afraid to use it.  Some of the dialogue may also be suggestive (especially if Octus's stint as a "tutor" is anything to go by) and it touches on...you know, sex.  If you're willing to give this show a chance, I would recommend screening it before letting the young'uns watch it.

Overall, though, from what I've seen, "Sym Bionic Titan" is a good show.  It has its flaws, but it's still a show that can stand on its own two feet.  It's part satire, part sitcom, and part sci-fi epic--but what else would you expect from Genndy Tartakovsky?

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer who would like to wish you a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, good Kwanzaa, a happy...uh, I dunno, Chinese New Year?

The Brewhaha on..."Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer"

“That’s right, officer.  Missing.  Hit by Santa’s sleigh.  Yes, we’ve been drinking egg nog…hello?”
-Mr. Spankenheimer

The "evil" CEO:  “And you would be?”
Santa Cla- “SANTA CLAUS!”
-Santa, on one of his bad days

Grandma Spankenheimer:  “Who are you?”
Santa Cla- “Oh, we better get her some medical attention!”
-Santa, on one of his better days, I guess

Cousin Mel:  “All you have to do is sign.” 
Grandpa Spankenheimer:  “Sing?”
-In which an anagram is used as a segue into another “song”

“If Santa goes to jail, it’ll be the end of Christmas.”
-Sis Spankenheimer, forgetting the true meaning of Christmas


“Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer,” it turns out, is both a Christmas song and a Christmas special.   How one gets the gall, though, to adapt a song based on an old lady becoming the victim of “sleigh-icular homicide” into an animated children’s Christmas special is beyond me.

If this movie didn’t air about twelve thousand times every Christmas season, it would just be known as a ho-hum animated Christmas special.   As it is, though, this movie gets an unneeded amount of attention and airtime, especially by Cartoon Network.  And as it is, this movie has developed a vocal hatedom.

GGROBAR, as I’ve chosen to abbreviate it, is one of those pieces of television and movie magic where you get the impression the creators had a lot more fun making it than viewers have watching it.   There are all these running gags and holiday in-jokes and fanservice…yes, fanservice…that somebody somewhere must enjoy watching, but it’s at the viewer’s expense rather than their benefit.

Now, from a technical standpoint, it’s not a bad movie.   The animation, if somewhat by-the-numbers, isn’t terrible, and the voice actors, while not great, aren’t horrible either.  As is typically the case with many an animated “hero” though, our lead character Jake is a very bland character and leaves something to be desired.  Granted, they mention he’s kind of a computer geek, but considering he never thinks to reach Santa Claus on Twitter until nearly a year after the fact, whatever defining characteristics he has beyond his role as the goody, goody goody nice guy who truly believes in Santa Claus and is a special little snowflake are something of informed traits.

This brings us to Santa, the guy who apparently put Jake on the “nice” list.   Now, I don’t know how you screw up the freaking patron saint of Christmas, but apparently he has a few character and plot holes in his sack.  For instance, he knows enough about Jake (including his love of Christmas, which toys he wants, and whether or not he does his homework each day), but he doesn’t know what the freaking kid’s grandma looks like?  So he knows when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake, he knows what kind of toys you want and the grades on your midterm tests…but he can’t recognize your relatives?  Beyond this, GGROBAR can’t even decide whether Santa is supposed to be the jolly old man of yuletide yarn or some glorified North Pole landlord with a temper.

The main antagonist is Cousin Mel, the relative of the Spankenheimer family who wants to sell their family bakery to the CEO of whatever evil corporation owns half three-quarters every other business in town.   She is also way out of place in what is presumably a children’s film, seeing how sensual her character is supposed to be…the key words being “supposed to.”  With everything from her long red hair, to her choice of dress, to her attempt to seduce the CEO and “consummate” their (financial?) relationship, to the God-awful musical number (if one can really call it that) she gets in a bikini and skirt, to her stuffing a business card and a letter from Santa down her freaking shirt, clearly the creators are trying to needlessly sexualize her. 

(In my humble opinion, they are also trying too hard.   Gone are the days when our animated women had that natural beauty, from the otherworldly mermaid Ariel, to the exotic enchantress of Princess Jasmine, to the bookish swan Belle (no, not that swan “Belle”), or even the malevolent yet somewhat tantalizing curves of the tentacled sea witch Ursula.  Now we have Cousin Mel, a plastic, dolled-up shrew of a character who uses her feminine wiles to try and destroy Christmas.  Truly, a feminine role model for the ages.)

Oh, and also, she can’t stand Christmas.   So, yeah, not a good person.

The overall moral is par the course for Christmas specials, but still no less maddening (if somewhat cliché).   GGROBAR tries to give us the old “spending time at work is bad, spending time with your family is good,” “earning money is bad, lending out ‘credit’ to customers is good,” “the corporation willing to buy you out is bad, halting progress is good,” “trying to make Christmas more easy and efficient is bad, but spending time to haul a Christmas tree into your home is good,” “that jolly old guy in the red suit you never really see is good, but the high-tech robotic Santa and reindeer at the disposal of Cityville is automatically bad”…well, hopefully you get the picture.

Even barring all of this, GGROBAR is still riddled with flaws.   The motivations of the villain/CEO (and the outright assumption that he’s supposed to be a villain), the blatant and not-too-subtle demonization of big business, the “idiot” moments of the characters (but especially Grandpa Spankenheimer), the needless cutaways to generic and overlong “music numbers,” the assumption that freaking Santa Claus is within the jurisdiction of Cityville law…all of it just amounts to a yuletide yawn.  (Please take the hint, networks, and stop showing this over-exposed travesty of a holiday special.)

Note:  
Grandma’s gonna sue the pants off of Santa,
That’s what Grandma’s gonna do!
Grandma’s gonna sue the pants off of Santa,
’Cuz Grandma would’ve wanted it too!
Grandma’s gonna sue the pants off of Santa,
He knows the law is on his side (awwwwn his siiiiiiiide…)
Grandma’s gonna sue the pants off of Santa,
Santa’s going for a ride! (a lawwwng one…)
Grandma’s gonna sue the pants off of Santa,
That’s what Grandma’s gonna do!  (evil laugh!)
Grandma’s gonna sue the pants off of Santa,
’Cuz Grandma would’ve wanted it too!  (no pantalonés)
Grandma’s gonna sue the pants off of Santa,
He knows the law is on his side (awwwwwwwwwn his siiiiiiide…)
Grandma’s gonna sue the pants off of Santa,
Santa’s going for a ride!
Santa’s going for a ride!
Santa’s going for a ride!
Santa’s going for a ride!
Santa’s going for a ride! (stuck in a loop…)
Santa’s going for a ride! (it won’t stop playing!)
Santa’s going for a ride! (…make it stop…)
Santa’s going for a ride! (God’s sake, make it stop!)
Santa’s going for a ride! (can we get tech support?)
Santa’s going for a ride! (they won’t stop singing)
Santa’s going for a ride! (…won’t…stop…)
Santa’s going for a ride! (…unnngh…)
Santa’s going for a ride!
Santa’s going for a ride! [Insert Spanish here]

The Brewhaha on..."The Informant!"

“I've been to Tokyo. They sell little-girl underwear in the vending machines right on the main drag, the Ginza, or whatever. Guys in suits buying used girl panties. How is that okay? That's not okay.”
-Matt Damon, as himself, giving a typical monologue for the movie

“All is explained, sort of, in 'The Informant!,' and as Soderbergh lovingly peels away veil after veil of deception, the film develops into an unexpected human comedy. Not that any of the characters are laughing.  'The Informant!' is fascinating in the way it reveals two levels of events, not always visible to each other or to the audience.”
-Roger Ebert

“It resembles in some ways last year's Burn After Reading, another comedy out of step with prevailing conventions. But where the Coens' film went dark, Soderbergh's opts for light. Even as his tapestry of fibs is unraveling, the upbeat Whitacre enthuses, 'There are so many really nice people in the world.'"
-Christopher Orr, The New Republic

“Though Whitacre is a manic-depressive, we only see the manic. Which mirrors the film itself. If we had been given a chance to see the other pole, something that might have grounded the character as well as the film, this project might have carried some resonance.”
-Kimberly Gadette, Indie Movies Online

Steven Soderbergh, the director of such films as the Ocean’s Trilogy, “Erin Brockovich,” and “King of the Hill” (no, not that one, the other one), brings us the tale of a corporate drone who ends up becoming something more.  Matt Damon stars as Mark Whitacre, the title character of the 2009 film, “The Informant!”  (Punctuation included and necessary as approved by the federal government…)

The movie is based on an all-too-true scandal involving an employee at Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) who acted as an FBI informant to expose prize-fixing in the company’s bio-product division.  The FBI tracked the conspirators’ activities from 1992 to 1995.  Real-life spoiler:  He ended up assisting the federal government with one of the largest and most successful anti-trust investigations in U.S. history, with ADM finally settling for $100 million.  However, it soon became apparent that he had embezzled a good $9 million from the company, and ended up in jail for ten years—three times as long as any of the corporate rivals he had helped convict.

His story became the subject of a book by Kurt Eichenwald, a former New York Times reporter, on which the movie was based.  Noting Whitacre’s various instabilities, Eichenwald criticized the FBI’s failure to acknowledge Whitacre’s efforts as an inside man, the stress of which had apparently contributed to his mental deterioration.  Subsequent books and media coverage have portrayed Whitacre in a more sympathetic light, with several FBI agents coming out in support of Whitacre and even pushing for a presidential pardon.

Judging solely from the previews, it would be impossible to realize the background behind the movie, which was billed as a sort of spy spoof, with Damon himself as the hapless “squealer” trying to stay one step ahead of the bad guys.  In truth, while it does contain such elements, this only makes up a small part of the movie as a whole.  Let’s face it, moviegoing audiences can only sympathize so much with Mark’s quest to stop the price fixing scheme and save the bacteria they use to purify their grain products.

In truth, this film is more of a dark comedy.  We see Mark Whitacre’s journey from the beleaguered, “technicals” guy who doesn’t know his way around the FBI any more than he knows his way around the wheat vats, to the man who basically tries to extort the government, and his own employer, out of millions.  Throughout this whole journey, the viewer gets a sense of a man who is clearly without a clue—the world is his “Office,” and he is the Michael Scott of informants.

Soderbergh makes use of a sort of “jazz” soundtrack, and a carefree, matter-of-fact narration from Whitacre himself, to establish a contrast between the reality of Whitacre’s situation and his absolute disconnect from that reality.  We see a man who has guaranteed his own hanging even as he puts his coworkers on the gallows.  He has a flighty personality, even “forgetting” how much money he has taken from ADM.  He has soliloquys about polar bears or making new friends, even as he heads to a business meeting to record a secret discussion between the price fixers.  The end result is someone so crazy, he is basically his own worst enemy.

Even the various side characters are cast by notable comedians—including Joel McHale as one of the FBI agents, Patton Oswalt as a prosecuting attorney, and Paul F. Tompkins as one of the task force heads—to make us question just whether or not Whitacre should even be taking his attorneys, his coworkers, his FBI liaisons, or any of his other associates in the investigation seriously. The end result is something absolutely surreal.

One last thing to consider:  This is the FBI we’re dealing with, and this is a movie made specifically to make one of their informants seem sympathetic—if somewhat skewed as far as his priorities are concerned.  Granted, it’s a comedy, and we’re not supposed to take it seriously.  Even so, if the government can make an affidavit into a script, why not?  (And, while we’re at it, why not get the director of “Ocean’s Eleven” on board?)

So, overall, is “The Informant!” a good movie?  Yes.  Is it a great movie?  Yes.  It’s surreal, hilarious, and simply different from anything you’ll see in theaters.  Matt Damon, worlds away from his uber-efficient Bond 2.0 of the Bourne movies, is just as comfortable in the absent-minded persona of one of the FBI’s most notorious informants.

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer.  You know, there are probably millions of bloggers out there.  There was one blog where this guy has two kids.  He would superimpose them, use PhotoShop or something like that, so the kids—toddlers, maybe 2 or 3 years old—are up against this city, and it’s all on fire and stuff.  So the kids ended up looking like Godzilla, just stomping around.  It was very funny.  I wonder if I can get whoever did that picture to do my kids' graduation cakes.

The Brewhaha on..."Scott Pilgrim vs. the World"

Scott:  "You used to date her?"
Ramona:  "I was a little bi-curious."
Roxy:  "Well I'm a little bi-FURIOUS!"
-Our hero, caught in a love triangle from hell

"Scott, if your life had a face, I would punch it in the face."
-Kim Pine, basically speaking for me

"Cera is a superhero for an indecisive generation, which might work if the disjunction were played for satire. But it’s just a disjunction. Scott Pilgrim needs too much help from video games to really save the world."
-David Edelstein, New York Magazine

"An example of attention-deficit filmmaking at both its finest and its most frustrating, "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" blends the styles of videogames, sitcoms and comicbooks for a mostly hollow, high-energy riff on the insecurities of young love."
-Peter DeBruge, Variety.com

"Scott Pilgrim thinks it has found redeeming social importance in all those video games we men of a certain age used to play. Street Fighter II wasn’t just a vacuum for quarters and an excuse to ignore homework and human interaction... it taught us that you have to fight for what you want...or whatever."
-Marty Mapes, MovieHabit.com

So goes the hype (and criticism) for the 2010 video game/action/indie romance/indie music/high school/college/comedy/slice-of-life/hero's journey/deconstructive movie (and possible doomsday device) "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World," adapted from the six-volume series of comics graphic novels by Bryan Lee O'Malley.  The film stars Michael Cera as the title character, who must win Ramona Flowers (who, incidentally, is not a prized and sacred bouquet) by defeating her seven evil exes.

Well, what is there to say about this movie?  The only thing I can really say is that it's not one of those movies you run across very often.  It is simply atypical in every sense of the word, and there are going to be those people who simply don't "get" it.  Before we go on, though, it probably needs to be said that Edgar Wright, the director, is also known for his work with the sublime "Shawn of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz," so if there's any shortcomings, it's probably less a matter of his skill and more a matter of the sheer nature of the material he was trying to adapt to the big screen.

Even as an adaptation, there are some shortcomings, which become clear simply in the premise.  Scott has to defeat seven exes in the space of a two-hour movie, so I would say there were definitely some pacing issues (even considering two of the "evil" exes were twins who fought him at once).  It would be like Luke having to take on not just Darth Vader, but also Darth Maul, Palpatine, Boba Fett, General Grievous,  and, hell, let's just throw in the Silver Surfer and General Zod too while we're at it.

You'll notice the use of quotes around the word "evil" exes.  Well, the fact of the matter is they're not totally built up as menaces.  Granted, the movie is viewed through the POV of this new boyfriend of Ramona's, so the concept of "good" and "evil" is probably pretty skewed, but there are some little things that could have been used to better establish them as bad guys--say, for instance, the bit in the graphic novel about the head of the League of Exes keeping his own exes brainwashed and imprisoned.  As well as his tendency to emotionally abuse others.  Including the girl we end up spending 2 hours getting to know

Michael Cera probably isn't the ideal hero in any situation, but he manages to play the title character as the sort of "manchild" we all know and...frankly, kind of hate.  The point, of course, is that he's supposed to grow into the role of Ramona's "savior," not unlike Luke Skywalker or Buffy.  Or, say, Christian Bale and Daniel Craig's green-behind-the-ears takes on Batman and Bond, respectively.  He also works as a sort of stand-in for the audience, for anyone who's ever had to deal with exes--their own or anyone else's, for that matter.

The whole video game motif...theme...points system...er, whatever you want to call it...takes some getting used to.  The beginning uses a lot of subtitles along the lines of...God knows which game...to point out Scott's lives, his friends, their names, his girlfriends, their exes, his exes, the bathroom, the medicine in the bathroom, toilet up, toilet down, how much piss he has left in his system...it just took getting used to.  It was hard not to feel detached, as they go through the motions of introducing this girl he's apparently dating in high school, introducing Ramona, introducing her friends.

A lot of this, again, has to do with the simple problem of pacing.  The whole video game motif becomes less intrusive once it's confined to the "boss" fights with the League of Exes, but there's nothing to make us care about Scott or Ramona or any of the love triangle even after the film gets going.  The exes, our main antagonists, simply pop up out of nowhere, which adds to the tongue-in-cheek humor of the film, but also makes it difficult to develop any of them.  And the chemistry between our love birds is nonexistent; one could say this is simply because it's not "that kind" of movie, but a lot of this is related to Ramona being a stand-in for the girl of our dreams rather than someone we can remotely relate to, and Scott Pilgrim himself just not being a great guy, or a good guy, or even a likable guy.

So overall, is "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" a good movie?  Well, it's pockmarked with flaws, including the pacing, the chemistry, and the fact that this reviewer is simply shut out of the underlying video game universe they're in.  I wouldn't call it a bad movie, because beneath the trappings of the evil exes, saving the girl, the Swords of Self-Respect, the bad guys bursting into coins, and the sense of a giant Sue-fic put into movie form, it's a story many of us can relate to.  It's more of a potentially good movie that makes me want to punch it in the face at times.

Note:  So, this Brewsky, he's a contributor and movie reviewer...what does that mean?  What does that even mean, "contributor"?  What is he "contributing" to?  He...his face is a contributor.  That's right, I said it.

The Brewhaha on..."Cop Out"

“Medio loco en el coco (Ido de la mente!)”
-Cypress Hill, summing up this movie in ten words or less

Tracy Morgan:  “That’s called parkour.  It’s a French martial art to get you around and over stuff.”
Bruce Willis:  “What are you, Wikipedia?”
-The two leads, discussing something out of a better movie

“Director Kevin Smith capitalizes on the duo's great chemistry and gets laugh-out-loud performances from Morgan as a bag of insecurities (not far from his 30 Rock role) and Willis as the stoic macho man.  Still, the subplot about cash-strapped Jimmy's need to fund his daughter's wedding falls flat.”

-Thelma Adams, U.S. Weekly, in its entirety

“The nonsensical title of this movie (which was originally supposed to be something smuttier) pretty much says it all. It’s a phoned-in, gutless piece of hack work that reminds you of other, better films in the same vein.”
-A.O. Scott, The New York Times

“The Upside: There are a few funny moments sprinkled throughout, mostly thanks to Tracy Morgan. The movie’s never boring.  The Downside: It’s thoroughly predictable and basically a waste of Kevin Smith’s talents.”

-Robert Levin, Film School Rejects

So goes the “hype” (and criticism) for Kevin Smith’s latest film, the 2010 homage to buddy cop movies the world over, featuring the shoot-‘em-up, beat-‘em-up, and just for good measure team-‘em-up between Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan, better known as “Cop Out.”  With a movie like this, and more specifically a movie with personalities such as Kevin Smith, our two male leads, the guy from “Half Baked,” and co-writers Mark and Robb Cullen providing the screenplay, what should we, as viewers, expect?

Well, for starters, we have Bruce Willis, who came to fame as the aloof yet unstoppable action hero he has ended up playing in countless other movies.  Then we throw in Tracy Morgan, best known as…what, that guy from “30 Rock”?  Somebody please help me out here, what does he actually do?

Then throw in a “villain,” a baseball geek and notorious Hispanic gangster “Po’ Boy,” played by Guillermo Díaz, the aforementioned individual who has also starred in such movies as the Chappelle vehicle “Half Baked” and who is incredibly hard to take seriously as a result.

Then we have Kevin Smith, a man who has directed, written, acted, and even provided us with everything from religious satire to Superman scripts to comic books, but who is probably best known as the latter of Jay and Silent Bob.  Kevin Smith has kept his hands off the screenplay this time, though, instead delegating the writing process to brothers Mark and Robb Cullen, best known for works ranging from…hmmm…if IMDb is anything to go by, they’ve done TV movies such as “Manchild” and “New Car Smell.”  Interesting…

Then we have…oh, God…we have Seann Stiffler Scott.  Why?  Why?  Why is he anywhere near this movie?

For those of you who don’t recognize the name, Seann William Scott is better known as Stiffler from the American Pie series, as well as one of the whitest guys around.  This should be a nice clue that what we have on our hands is more studio-driven than the other works of Kevin Smith, who supplies more dialogue-driven scripts and typically gives his films a sort of “indie” feel that a lot of critics these days seem to enjoy.

Kevin Smith was more-or-less willing to acquiesce to the plague on mankind that is Stiffler and other various studio demands, confessing that he was trying to create a movie that his late dad would have liked.  Presumably, he’s referring to the mindless, audience-friendly buddy cop flicks of the 80’s.  In this sense, his heart is at least in the right place, but his apparent desire to churn out something other than his usual fare doesn’t make for good cinema.

The result, as even a cursory Google search should tell you, is something less than good cinema.  Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan don’t make for the best cop duo, the writing is far below anything we would expect from Smith, the comedy is sophomoric at best, Stiffler…is in this movie, the plot leaves much to be desired, Díaz makes for one of the most implausible big screen villains ever, the two rival cops apparently have a fetish for boots…

That being said, I liked it.  I watched it with a good friend of mine from out of town a little while ago, and we both liked it.  In fact, I dare say we loved it.  We both realized that what we were watching was crass, moronic, and a two-hour-long pandering session targeted directly at the lowest common denominator, but we loved it nonetheless.

The two leads become much more tolerable once you’ve accepted that it’s simply Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan playing cops and robbers.  This becomes clear in the opening, where Morgan decides to go all “Scarface” during his interrogation, while Willis simply shakes his head at the “Die Hard” catch phrase.  Somewhere between Morgan spouting movie quotes and Morgan running around in a giant cell phone costume, you realize this isn’t the kind of movie you shouldn’t be taking too seriously.

Speaking of the “movie quotes,” what little script there is falls victim to Morgan’s constant ad-libbing, which is about as hit-and-miss as you’d expect.  It’s easy to tell when he’s going off-script—specifically, during those scenes when he proceeds to emphasize his disgust with Stiffler’s proposals.

As I was saying before, Guillermo Díaz’s murderous gangster was incredibly difficult to take seriously as the main villain.  Luckily, both the actor and the movie were self-aware enough to realize that Po’ Boy really shouldn’t be played all that seriously.  The end result is a thug who’s ruthless and entertaining all at once.  My favorite scene has to be his first confrontation with the buddy cops (yes, a villain as pathetic as him gets more than one scene with the heroes).  Say what you will about Tracy Morgan or Stiffler, but something about the guy from “Half Baked” trying to threaten a cop is hilarious.  (Probably has a lot to do with the baseball card.)

Is this movie politically correct?  Well, it’s a buddy cop flick with, among other fine actors, Stiffler, so that should tell you something.  Somewhere between the scene with the guy getting shot by who I can only assume was a Hispanic, and…Stiffler…it’s easy to tell one way or the other.  Oddly enough, both of our lead characters are loving husbands (even if one of them is divorced), and the prostitute hostage found during the second act played a fairly convincing damsel, so there was some chemistry between the male and female leads beyond “Make out with me, you will.  These are the droids you’re looking for…”

So, is “Cop Out” a good movie?  Well…

Note:  No.  No.  Mm-mmm.  Mm-mmm.  No.  No, no, no!  No!  HELL no!  NO!  NO!  I refu-NO!  NO!

Also, that chase sequence linked at the top of this post is made even more awesome when listening to Metallica.  Specifically, "Wherever I May Roam." 

The Brewhaha on...James Bond (Daniel Craig)

“The name’s Bond.  James Bond.”
-The last five words you’ll hear from 007

"Arm yourself because no one else here will save you
The odds will betray you
And I will replace you
You can't deny the prize it may never fulfill you
It longs to kill you
Are you willing to die?
The coldest blood runs through my veins
You know my name..."
-Chris Cornell, discussing the life of 007

“Craig, always a charismatic presence, often looks unsettled by that dislocation; his sex scenes are more energetic than those of his predecessors but even less convincing; he is hardly allowed any comedy. As a result, by the end of a curiously back-to-front film, when he finally gets his theme tune and introduces himself - 'Bond. James Bond' - he, like the creaky franchise itself, seems profoundly unsure whether he is coming or going.”
-Tim Adams, The Observer

"I never thought I would see a Bond movie where I cared, actually cared, about the people. But I care about Bond, and about Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), even though I know that (here it comes) a Martini Vesper is shaken, not stirred.  [...]  Vesper and James have a shower scene that answers, at last, why nobody in a Bond movie ever seems to have any real emotions."
-Roger Ebert, on "Casino Royale"

There’s very little left to explain about James Bond, the secret agent who has basically kickstarted an entire genre.  Even if you’ve never seen a Bond movie in your life, you’ve hopefully at least heard of Bond, are familiar with the tuxedo-donning, high-speed-racing, gadget-wielding, rooftop-jumping, cloak-and-dagger, master marksman and agent of Her Majesty’s Secret Service, heralded only by his simple introduction of “Bond.  James Bond.”

The world’s most popular and prolific secret agent has a career spanning almost fifty years, with a series of novels spanning even longer than that.  James Bond made his debut in Ian Fleming's 1953 novel Casino Royale, and went on to make his first big screen appearance in the 1962 film “Dr. No.”  Since then, he’s been in nearly twenty-five films, with portrayals by a half dozen actors (twice that many, if you count the 1955 and 1969 versions of “Casino Royale”).  Fans have debated which of the Bond actors has portrayed the best Bond, which Bond girls are the hottest, which villains are the most compelling, etc.

Personally, my first foray into the world of 007 was with a movie and a Bond many fans have eviscerated—specifically, “The Man With the Golden Gun,” one of the campier 70’s films featuring Roger Moore.  This particular film featured one of the most reviled Bond girls ever, Mary Goodnight, a supposedly skilled government agent who was basically there to get rescued.  As a teenager, I never really saw anything wrong with that.

The three main Bonds that typically come to mind are Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan.  Oh, and that new guy, too.  Sean Connery, as the original flavor, is typically viewed as the best of the Bonds, creating a character who was both suave and cultured, and a cold, efficient killer.  Roger Moore was the more comedic brand of Bond, playing the character with a certain amount of class while milking his situations for every joke he could get.  Brosnan came in during the 90’s to carry on the Bond franchise as an action series, and regardless of his own strengths and weaknesses, is still the face of Bond for many people.

Of course, the shortcomings of the Brosnan era became apparent as the tone grew closer to the campier Moore films, and the films became more tech-heavy and reliant on gimmicks than the interactions between the characters.  After the critical failure of “Die Another Day,” both the filmmakers and the audience were looking for something different.  So the first thing they went for, needless to say, was a blond Bond…

The two latest Bond films, “Casino Royale” (the 2006 version) and “Quantum of Solace” are meant to evoke a more down-to-earth feel, with a James Bond who is more flawed and closer to the original version created by Fleming.  The plots are less about the gadgets and action pieces and more driven by the basic thematic elements surrounding the character of Bond.  Rumor has it that another film is in production, and due for release some time in 2012.  But of course, we are getting ahead of ourselves…

Daniel Craig plays 007 at the beginning of his illustrious career.  His films are set in a contemporary period, but as evidenced by the grisly opening of “Casino Royale,” Bond has just earned his license to kill.  Craig’s Bond is rougher around the edges, and is outright labeled as a “blunt instrument” by Judi Dench’s M.  You get a real sense of the man behind the monster (and vice versa), a closer look at his vulnerabilities as well as an ego unchecked by even MI6.  He’s a man who’s unsurpassed at what he does, but as he himself admits, he’s someone who would never be able to hold down an honest job.

Craig has drawn criticism from some Bond fans precisely because he’s so different from his predecessors.  Worlds away from the classy spy made famous by Connery, Moore, and Brosnan, I can see where these criticisms are coming from, due in no small part to the fact that Craig’s Bond is a blunt instrument, a hired killer and thug who tears through a city leaving nothing but destruction in his wake…and he never gets fired.  The old school Bond is someone who can make the impossible happen, in a world that desperately needs saving.  The new Bond is basically a cowboy cop of the breed found in so many action movies, except on a more global scale and with no qualms about leaving an embassy in ruins.  As M puts it, “I miss the good old days when a rogue spy would at least have the decency to quit.”

The old world of Bond was a world where the victory of good over evil was a given.  The new world of Bond is where a blond menace with a chip on his shoulder is allowed to wreak as much havoc as possible.  Within fifteen minutes of “Casino Royale,” it’s become clear that, in trying to reflect a more flawed Bond, the film’s creators have gone too far in the other direction by creating a flawed Bond and then enabling him.  They have created a world where Bond is allowed to pursue his “quantum of solace”…with a vengeance!

The threat of Bond himself is exacerbated by the sheer lack of presence on the part of the so-called villains.  Le Chiffre, the mastermind behind “Casino Royale,” is basically trying to get his money back in a poker tournament while staying one step ahead of the “repo” men.  Dominic Green was…what was he trying to do, anyway?  That’s one of the pieces of info I honestly missed the first time around in “Quantum of Solace.”  (It probably doesn’t help that he screams like a girl whenever he throws around that axe.)  Both of them are despicable individuals in their own right, though, and I will say that they fit the overall tone of the new movies.  In any case, “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” aren’t really villain-driven movies anyway.

Are the latest two movies politically correct?  No, because the Bond series in general isn’t politically correct.  It never has been politically correct.  The Bond movies are still a world where you can have a “good” Bond girl and a “bad” Bond girl…or in the case of the latest two films, a “dead” Bond girl and the one who manages to get away.  In the latter case, “Casino Royale” gives us the one who got away, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who ends up becoming the love of his life, while “Quantum of Solace” gives us a Bond girl who, in the mold of several other movies, is a woman out for revenge and a match for 007 himself.  Both Vesper and Camille are reflections of 007, one reflecting the lover, the other mirroring the killer.

Daniel Craig’s Bond benefits from a more down-to-earth series of films which have grounded 007 in reality, and given us a fresh take on a film series almost fifty years in the making.  However, his flaws include being a cowboy cop of the highest caliber, and removing much of the charm of the older Bonds, making what can seem to be little more than a series of action films.  “Casino Royale” was a new beginning, with a new Bond, in a new world.  “Quantum of Solace” builds on this reboot, giving us a tale of revenge as Bond seeks to avenge the fallen Vesper.  Already, the Craig series is falling into its own “formula”:  007 gets mad, people die.  It’s a formula that’s worked for years, if not centuries.  However, with the revenge plot unfolding, Bond is fast on its way to becoming “just another action film."

Note:  The Brewsky is...a man who takes care of business.  He makes...contributions.  He...reviews movies.  He's what you might call...a half-monk, half-hitman.  And when push comes to shove, the "half-monk" can slide.

The Brewhaha on..."(500) Days of Summer"

“She’s just a girl.  She’s just a girl, who wants to keep it casual.  Which is why she’s in my bedroom right now, but that’s casual.  That’s what casual people do.”
-The male lead, before walking back in to have sex with the mistress of the mixed message

“This is a story of boy meets girl, but you should know upfront:  This is not a love story.”
-The narrator

“Boy meets girl, boy loses girl. It's been done to emo death. That's why the sublimely smart-sexy-joyful-sad (500) Days of Summer hits you like a blast of pure romantic oxygen.”
-Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

“Dude, this movie will change your life!  It’ll help you get over that stupid girl of yours!”
-A buddy of mine

“What?”
-Me

So goes the hype (and criticism) for the 2009 romance flick that isn’t quite a romance flick, (500) Days of Summer, the story of the highs, the lows, and everything in between for a young man who falls in love, falls out of love, and struggles to find out which is which.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (from “3rd Rock From the Sun,” as well as that one movie where he’s stuck in a dream) plays Tom, the character who acts as a stand-in for every male ever and has a job writing messages for greeting cards.  (I wish I was making that up.)  Our hero and greeting card specialist ends up falling in love with the title character, played by Zooey Deschanel.  From there, the rest is history—five hundred days of history, to be exact. 

The plot progresses in a non-linear fashion, moving back and forth along Tom’s spell with Summer, almost as if Tom himself is looking back on his time with her.  One minute he’s breaking plates to liven up his kitchen and drown out the pain of his breakup, the next he’s at his desk, seeing Summer for the first time.  You see him dancing through the street following the above quote at the beginning, and then you see him a year later, dragging himself in to work after another lonely, sleepless night.  (Again, I wish I was making the “dancing” part up.)

Summer, for her part, is the girl we would all want.  She’s smart, beautiful, and apparently into indie music.  Most importantly, though, she’s also in love with our friendly neighborhood greeting card writer…for, oh, about the first 250 days. 

The important thing about this particular picture is that it is not a love story.  This is a story about two kids who happen to be in love, or who happen to think they are in love, or possibly are trying to decide what “love” really is.  In fact, the plot is driven by Summer’s own struggle to discover true love, or to even so much as figure out what true love means to her.  Without her discovery of true love, there basically is no movie.

In all honesty, the ending left me with a bad taste in my mouth for a moment.  Obviously the movie is called “500 Days of Summer,” rather than “‘Til Death Do Us Part” or “I Will Always Love You.”  Or “Diamonds Are Forever…Until They Die Hard.”  With this in mind, you can pretty much guess how it ends.  Unfortunately, if one takes the ending at face value, the moral of the story becomes less a matter of defining love and how we deal with it, and more a matter of, “Hey, since you’re here, babe…”

The truth, though, is that this isn’t a romance movie.  Or a romantic comedy, even.  It has elements of romance and comedy, but overall this movie doesn’t fall square into either of those categories.  It’s more of an unrelenting, realistic look at what “love” really means.  The fact of the matter is that “one and only” in our lives may not actually be our one and only, which is why we shouldn’t be taking our love lives so seriously.  The fact of the matter is this is a “romance” movie from guys, about guys, for guys.  Especially for guys who have ever come out of a really bad breakup, or are simply having a hard time with the women in their lives.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, it’s okay if you want to just be friends, Jenny Beckman.  I realize you weren’t looking for anything serious, and I can respect that, Jenny Beckman.  I don’t even need you, Jenny Beckman.  So get out of my life, Jenny Beckman.  Yeah, and take those “Twilight” books with you, Jenny Olivia Beckman.  (God, that is such a hot name…)

So overall, is “(500) Days of Summer” a good movie?  Yes it is.  Is it a great movie?  Yeah…no.  Like I said before, the ending was a tad bittersweet in my book, and it left me thinking, “Nah, I don’t think so.”  Again, this is a good movie, this is a really, really good movie, but the “meh” ending is just enough to keep it from being a great movie.  That being said, this movie is also a refreshing take on the very overused “boy meets girl” formula, and I would definitely say it’s worth checking out.

Note:  The Brewksy is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer,
With a very nice desk and office.
But in his darkest hour, when he’s lost his love, his heart, his very life to her,
He must find his Quantum of Solace…

The Brewhaha on..."Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I"

Harry: "I thought you knew what you’d signed up for."

Ron: "Yeah, I thought I did too."

Harry: "So what part of it isn't living up to your expectations? Did you think we’d be staying in five-star hotels? Finding a Horcrux every other day? Did you think you’d be back to Mummy by Christmas?"

-The war against the Dark Lord begins…

Sideshow Bob:  “The greatest murder since Snape killed Dumbledore!”
Bart:  “Oh, I haven't gotten to that part yet!”
Sideshow Bob:  “It's a four-year-old book!”
Bart:  “I'm a slow reader.”
-The Simpsons, discussing the last book and the importance of spoilers

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I is all tease, zero payoff. No investment banker left standing could fail to applaud the studio's initiative in halving the seventh and last book in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series to squeeze the goose for more gold. But a movie that plays like a 146-minute trailer for the actual final chapter — Part II opens next July in 3D! — is a definite cheat.”
-Peter Travers, RollingStone.com

“Sure, in terms of action and plot events, not a heck of a lot happens. But we get to see the characters raw and frayed – almost junkie-like – without the saccharine pill coating that usually helps us swallow the bad stuff that happens in Harry Potter Land.  Who knows what awaits in Part II? (Well, besides 300 million folks.)”
-Mike Ward, Richmond.com

So goes the hype (and criticism) for “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1,” the penultimate installment of the Harry Potter saga a decade in the making (and a tad longer than that if you’ve been following the books).  The world’s most famous boy wizard and his friends return in their seventh and final year to combat the evil Lord Voldemort, who has taken over the Ministry of Magic and renewed his reign of terror.

Well, what is there to say about Harry Potter that hasn’t already been said?  We’ve been with him through seven books and six movies already, since that fateful day when You-Know-Who decided to carve a lightning bolt in his head at the ripe old age of about five minutes.  We’ve been with him in his hellhole of a childhood home, the discovery of his ability as a wizard, his journey through the wondrous school of Hogwarts, and the various friends and enemies he’s made over the years.  Even his supporting cast, from the sagely headmaster Dumbledore, to his professors McGonagall and Snape, and of course his BFF’s Hermione and Ron, have all become household names at this point.

For those of you who have been following the series, it should be said that this is easily the darkest entry in the series.  For those of you who haven’t been following Harry Potter at all, it should still be said that this is the darkest entry in the series.  The opening credits make this abundantly clear, with the Warner Bros. logo slowly rusting amid a cloudy backdrop and a swelling, pumping orchestra that wouldn’t sound out of place in “The Dark Knight” (or frankly, anything by Christopher Nolan).  Our first scene is an emergency press conference with the Ministry of Magic, and then we join Voldemort and his merry men and women…

This really shouldn’t be news to anyone, though.  Harry Potter has its roots in the more light-hearted vein of fantasy, but once he takes on a Basilisk in Book 2, Rowling and her characters never look back, with each new entry in the series darker than the last.  The series has always been building up to Potter’s final confrontation with Voldemort, and Deathly Hallows is definitely no exception.

Part 1 of Deathly Hallows finds our heroes as far away from Hogwarts as possible; with Dumbledore’s dea…you know he’s dead, right?…the characters are most concerned about keeping Harry away from Voldemort.  Apart from the occasional confrontation with the Death Eaters and the now-corrupt Ministry, Harry, Ron, and Hermione spend most of the movie hiding in forests, plains, canyons, people’s houses, you name it.  This edition to the series is more plot-driven than the others; it’s less about Harry adjusting to the wizarding world and more of a action thriller chronicling their uphill struggle against the greatest enemy the wizarding world has ever known.

Of course, if the plot drives the movie, the plot itself is driven by our three main characters.  Voldemort very seldom appears, but his influence is felt throughout the movie.  Slowly but surely, Harry and the others are simply overwhelmed by a world at the mercy of their sworn enemy.  More than any of the other movies, we get a sense of the coming of age story between our three BFF’s.  Nowhere is this more apparent than with Harry, as we finally get a sense of the enormous burden on our hero’s shoulders.  Harry wants to do something, anything, and his frantic quest to stop Voldemort drives a lot of the emotional weight of the movie.

Interspersed throughout the movie are some tightly-plotted action pieces.  Deathly Hallows kicks off with an aerial chase as the Order of the Phoenix tries to get Harry away from the Death Eaters, culminating in…well, high voltage, that’s all you need to know.  From there, our heroes proceed to re-enact the Bourne and Christopher Nolan class of action movies, with one notable confrontation in a café as Harry’s BFF’s and a pair of Death Eaters proceed to literally shoot the place up.  However, one scene goes a bit too far in the direction of the Bourne trilogy; specifically, their race against Fenrir Grayback sees a lot of that “shaky cam” that’s in a lot of movies lately.  It’s a trick directors like to use to make a scene more “tense”; unfortunately, it was one of the few scenes where the movie really lost my attention.

Speaking strictly as (*disclaimer!) someone who has never read the books, I can say that they found a good cutoff point between Parts 1 and 2.  It could have ended on a less than perfect note.  Instead, it ended with Fenrir, the Malfoys, an axe-crazy Bellatrix, and of course, Dobby.  They say it’s always darkest before the dawn, and short of the upcoming Hogwarts battle (c’mon, people, it’s a four-year-old…uh, three-year-old book), it doesn’t get much darker than that.

So overall, is “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I” a good movie?  Yes.  In fact, let’s just go ahead and make the jump to “great movie.”  If nothing else, it has left me anxious for Part II.  (Although it probably wouldn’t have killed them to come up with a decent shorthand title…)

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer, and a horcrux of He Who Must Not Be Named.  He also kills Ron in the second to last chapter.  Seriously, how do you not know that?  He kills Ron, and then Hermione kills him.  How?  You mean you don’t know how?  C’mon, she used that one spell, with the…y’know, the thing with her finger.  C’mon, this is first-year stuff…