What's life without a few dragons? Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire, Derailed
Went to see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Derailed this afternoon. One of them was very very good, and the other was very very bad. I'd let you guess which was which, but then I'd have nothing to write about so I'll just tell you instead.
Given Harry's age at the time (and thusly, the age of his audience), the fuzzier early efforts by Chris Columbus were definitely appropriate, but the series really came into its own with the the darker work that started later on. The aesthetics presented in Alfonso Cuarón's piece definitely reflected this, showing us a looming, more dangerous Hogwarts, and Mike Newell definitely picks up where he left off. Here is another director, like James Mangold, with a filmography that seems to know no rhyme or reason. From Four Weddings and a Funeral to Donnie Brasco to Mona Lisa Smile, he's all over the place when it comes to genres. His broad experience seems to have served him well, however, in directing a film that would seem to call on all of them. Goblet of Fire was a wonderfully dark and exciting adventure, and may well be the best of the current lot (or at least tied with Azkaban...). And as an added bonus, Pulp's Jarvis Cocker (with a little help from the quieter lads of Radiohead) made for a rockin' good time at the Yule Ball.
Order of the Phoenix is slated to be directed by a relative unknown (David Yates) in 2007, and that poor boy's gonna have some mighty big shoes to fill (although a glance at imdb reveals an affinity for J.G. Ballard, which definitely earns him a few cool points).
Speaking of pulp, those of you keeping count at home will have by now figured out that Derailed was the very very bad. I won't reveal any details, but explaining why it was bad could contain some minor spoilers, so you've been warned! Proceed freely and of your own will.
I wasn't expecting much from Derailed. I chose it mostly on account of it was the most convenient time after Harry Potter let out. I didn't read many reviews, but I did read the opening line of Ebert's, where he compared it to Double Indemnity. Going into it with that in mind, I figured it'd be some good, pulpy fun. Instead, what I got was really, a pretty ugly film. What made Double Indemnity so good was that despite that the people involved were so unpleasant, the characters and dialog were sassy and fun. That made it a good time despite the circumstances. Derailed had similar circumstances, but without any of the cleverness or good times. It was adequately produced and acted, but there just wasn't much to like in it. Save your time and money and rent some old 'noirs instead. If you want to take Ebert's advice, Double Indemnity's a fine place to start.