Book review - "Arlo Finch in the Valley of Fire" by John August (2020)

John August is a super smart guy who sounds lovely. There's such a thing as a tidy cricketer and this feels like a tidy book - smart, elegant, compact. Nothing wrong with it. I didn't really respond to it but can appreciate it and am sure if I was 12 I would've loved it.

Movie review - "A Wrinkle in Time" (2018) **

I'm not the target market but I felt this didn't work. Trippy, lethargic tale of a simple story that should have worked - a girl's search to find her father. It's fun to see Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling, etc - but too much of the dialogue is platitudes, the adventures not particularly exciting. There's no thrills - it's an amble through space and time with some friends. Like a drug trip - the film that it reminded me most of was Disney's Alice in Wonderland.

The effects and photography are great. I like the actor who played the little brother and Chris Pine. The main girl was dull. I don't mean to be mean I know she's only a kid but she was a big draw back - an energy suck.

But like I say I'm not the target audience.

Movie review - "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" (2005) ***

Mike Newell takes over the directors chair and does a no-nonsense but sensitive job. There's lots of quidditch in this - and a big role for Robert Pattison plus Brendan Gleeson running around with one eye. It's good how Pattison's character is so perfect and he's killed. There's a contest which seems rather full on and makes you wonder why parents are so keen to send their kids there.

Movie review - "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" (2004) ***

The series gets a new director, more of an artist... Alfonso Cuaron, who moves the camera around more - a lot more, indeed after a while it was like "alright Alfonso, you can stop moving the camera around".

I like how they're aging the characters - hair more toussled, ties undone, a bit more rebellious. The plot concerns an escaped prisoner (Gary Oldman) who may be bad, a new master of the dark arts (David Thewlis) who may be bad. I liked bits of this like the reveal of a rat, and the final shot, but didn't find the story as compelling.

Movie review - "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" (2002) ***1/2

The second Harry Potter film shows an increased confidence from everyone around - director Chris Columbus, the young actors. There are some excellent additions - Ken Branagh's show pony wizard and Jason Isaac's Malfoy are both terrific - and the old reliables remain, well, reliable: Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltraine, Alan Rickman, Richard Griffiths.

I wasn't a big fan of the perennially whining Dobby but I did like how he was liberated at the end - this was very touching. There's more sport, more monsters, good banter between the three leads, a decent mystery about who has opened the chamber of secrets, Ron's sister is ideal stakes. The kid who plays Tom Riddle wasn't very good - and I wish the film didn't go for so long, there were places it could have been cut, if only trimming dialogue.

Movie review - "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (2001) ***1/2

I think the filmmakers on this one did a really good job. They had to be faithful to the book and made a lot of smart decisions - cast young actors who actually suited the roles (they couldn't act but were well cast), surrounded them with some superb British talent, ponied up for some gorgeous photography and art design.

It's a visual treat for the eyes - all those sets and effects and interesting buildings. It's not particularly well directed (I think Chris Columbus is a better producer than director) and John Williams' score feels wearying - it's something we've heard too many times.

But the set pieces work - visiting Hogwarts and the alley, the battle against the troll, the Quidditch game, the final battle. The film has a good heart - like Star Wars, which it resembles in many ways, some in story (innocent boy is of royal lineage, there's a force which attracts good and bad, colorful comic relief) but also in being a lively rehash of old tropes.

Daniel Radcliffe's acting at this stage was really the look, a smile and a double take - but he is a pretty good Harry. The same could be said for all the young actors.

I wish Richard Griffiths had more screen time, he was such fun, as was Fiona Shaw. Robbie Coltrane and Maggie Smith are terrific value, and Alan Rickman is superb as Snape. Ian Hart is a little undercooked but I guess that's the point of the role, to not notice him (I remember when I first saw the movie I couldn't recognise the actor... he really needs that turban for individualisation).

Movie review - "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2" (2014) *** (warning: spoilers)

Final installment in the series. They really should've made one third film - I get why they did what they did but it doesn't change how I feel. This has more weight - it involves the deaths of several characters, a clear goal (to take the capital), some very good actors, a complex political scenario. The military strategy stuff feels bodgy and they struggle to find stuff for Jennifer Lawrence to do - media stars aren't that important in war? Why not just send her on a mission to kill the president? Why miss out on a final battle? Why not have Woody Harrelson describe the contents of Philip Seymour Hoffman's wishes instead of reading a letter? (Would PSH really put it on paper).

Anyway the resolution of the love triangle was well done, the production values are good. It takes itself terribly seriously but that's part of it's charm.

Movie review - "The Hunger Games - Mockingjay Part 1" (2014) *1/2

Terrible movie - only the quality of the cast and production design stopped me giving this one star. Not only is it ruthlessly overlong, a thin story padded out to justify another movie, it's a stupid story. You think the revolution against the ruling class would throw up some interesting conflict and dilemmas but they make the whole movie about Jennifer Lawrence becoming a poster girl for the movement - apparently this is super vital, more so than say logistics or troop strength or weaponry or strategy and even, you know, battles. Has there ever been a military campaign in the history of the world that hinged on someone's media appearances? Sorry, Hollywood, I don't think so.

All these people who could be interesting are not used in interesting ways - Philip Seymour Hoffman's revolutionary officer does nothing; Julieanne Moore's leader looks as though she's about to go demagogue in an interesting way but she never does; Jeffrey Wright fiddles nobs; Woody Harrelson hangs around and watches; Liam Hemsworth just hangs around and gives Jennifer Lawrence the odd shoulder squeeze - how about some romance?

Well it's all Lawrence's concern for Josh Hutcherson - I never thought she liked him that much. She's worried he's been captured so wants revolution put on hold until that's sorted. He's brainwashed to the enemy, but even that situation is treated with simplicity.

Lawrence doesn't even get the chance to kick butt that much - she makes a speech and sings a song. We've got a camera crew following her around.

This film was crap.

Movie review - "The Fault in Our Stars" (2014) ****

Beautifully realised version of the best selling book which was a deserved smash at the box office. Like all monster teen hits (Twilight, The Hunger Games) the casting of the leads is impeccable - Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort are superb as the star crossed lovers. The world of cancer among teens is wonderfully depicted - tragic, humourous, matter of fact. These kids go to lots of funerals, deal with daggy therapy leaders and anxious parents and lots of doctors; the fall in love, bicker and banter, have favourite authors and are often scared to dream.

The first rate script is full of romantic, witty lines, and its expertly produced, with a top soundtrack. I had a few gripes - it is too long (at 133 minutes), the characters of the parents are so sketchy they may as well have been cut even more (Woodley has a scene with her dad at the end and it's like "who are you?"), there's a random writers assistant who accompanies them to the Anne Frank museum in Amsterdam.

Book review - "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" by J.K. Rowling (2003)

Number five in the series starts interestingly enough with Harry getting expelled, but then it's rescinded, and Harry joins a creepy secret society, the Order of the Phoenix and takes part in some exceedingly dull adventures. This book felt as though it went on forever, and was agonising to get through and I was becoming really annoyed at the series love for Imperial adventure (complete with forelock tugging servants and Bulldog Drummond style secret societies)... when, towards the end, all hell breaks loose and it becomes awesome.

Book review - "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" (1999) by JK Rowling

Decent third installment in the series benefits from the addition to the series of Sirius Black, a very solid character. There are also a lot of shenanigans involving animals. Reading these I'm surprised how relatively little Ron and Hermione actually do.

Book review - "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" (2001) by JK Rowling

This was heavy going - it felt badly needed of an edit and while reading it I felt it would never end. The stuff about the Quidditch World Cup is interesting, the Goblet if Fire tasks are dull, as are the digs at the News of the World. However there is a fantastic finale with the revival of Voldermort.

Book review - "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" by J.K. Rowling

It took a while for me to get into this - the beginning felt slow, Dobbie was incredibly annoying, and it inevitably lacked the excitement and underdog factor of the first in the series. But it got better as it went along, particularly upping the stakes - students are killed at school, Hermione is petrified - and some of it was genuinely creepy (the snake, the diary, Tom Riddle, the ending).

Book review - "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" by J.K. Rowling

The first in the enormously popular series. What else is there to say? Like a lot of phenomenal successes it succeeds in recycling a lot of old ingredients in a fresh way (Star Wars, The Hunger Games). It's very pro boarding school and coming from a good family; Harry inherits money, a good name, sporting ability, and a place at a school. However he is brave, works hard and is non snobbish. It's written with passion and flair with a neat line in humour and eye of characterisation and action.

Movie review - "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" (2013) ***

Sequel to the blockbuster isn't as good as the original, lacking focus and seemingly taking forever to get going, but has some good moments. Jennifer Lawrence remains a strong center for an action film - intelligent, brave, tough, stoic, dealing with all the men who fuss over her (around five in this one, by my count)... although I do admit having only just seen her in American Hustle there were one or two moments where I expected her to go nuts like in that film.

This is overlong, with a very extended first act, and I was impatient to get to the games. Once it did, that wasn't too exciting - they kept stopping the action so people can talk.

But there were effective bits - the death of the old black man, the final bow and arrow bit, the attack of the baboons. And the support cast is of incredible quality (one advantage to comic book movies being the only ones that make money these days is they are full of great actors): Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks, and Stanley Tucci return, with Jena Malone, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeffrey Wright being among the newcomers.

Movie review - "The Hunger Games" (2012) ****1/2

Hollywood may be on the slide when it comes to making adult entertainment but we are in the Golden Age of comic book movies - something never better demonstrated than in this first rate adaptation of the popular novel. Like Harry Potter, Star Wars and Twilight, it's full of elements which feel familiar but they are re-packaged well: a combination of Steven King, gladiator movies, gritty girl novels, post-apocalyptic dystopia, etc. It's pulpy, junk stuff given intelligent, through treatment and anchored by a fabulous performance from Jennifer Lawrence, who is everything Kirsten Stewart should be but isn't (except for looks): a top actor, full of serious gravitas, sympathy and relatability.

This is gripping, exciting stuff - the sight of teenagers turning on each other, killing young ones, isn't one you're likely to forget soon. The politics of the time is all too believable - I like how it didn't end in revolution but in a strategic victory, and as the heroes learning to use the media for their advantage, manipulating the emotions of the public. Josh Hutcherson is a bit vanilla but the support cast are superb. It took me a while to "get" the look of it, but once I did I was hooked.