The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

scanned DVD case

Film: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Release: 2005, theatrical
Starring: Martin Freeman, Zooey Deschanel, Mos Def
Directed by: Garth Jennings
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: 12 minutes before the Earth is destroyed to make way for an hyperspace bypass, Arthur Dent's home is about to be demolished to make way for a bypass of the amazingly incredibly hugely fantastically ginourmously more mundane variety.

Hans' thoughts:

Before Martin Freeman played the role of hapless hero on a fantastical journey in The Hobbit, he played the role of hapless hero on a fantastical journey. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is the story of the somewhat dimwitted but overall very mundane Mr. Arthur Dent, Mr. Dent is unaware of quite a lot of things one of the more important things he's unaware of is that in 12 minutes his home planet and all that he knows will be completely obliterated by a race of unpleasant aliens with a love for bureaucracy and simple facts. Thankfully for the sake of Mr. Dent another fact he's blissfully unaware of is that his best friend isn't from Earth but actually from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse and it just so happens that he has knowledge of the impending doom. The way I wrote all that may seem like a bit of a mushy mess but that's the tone of voice that's used by the ever present narrator (voiced by Stephen Fry) throughout the film. The film is of course, based on the book of the same name written by Douglas Adams. 

The best way to experience the film properly is to take it at face value: A lot of information will be thrown at you rapidly at different points of time and you will be forced to simply accept whatever is happening and go along with it. Very much akin to the attitude of the very English Arthur Dent himself. My planet blew up? Well that's a spot of a bother innit? What do I do now? Oh well no need to rush to much about, about it. That may seem very odd and a bit inhumane but to perfectly honest it feels incredibly liberating. We can't do anything about it so let's not worry about it and worry about the next thing instead. Despite both our main character and the main villains being complete caricatures of modern era European society and the people living in it. This is of course helped by both actors and voice cast doing a really good job at delivering their lines none better though than Alan Rickman voicing Marvin the manic-depressive robot with an abnormally large noggin.

Visually, there's some very pretty stuff in there. The special effects team is in tip top shape (as they well should be) as they treat you to incredible panning shots of planets and the universe surrounding them. Entire civilizations believing the universe will be destroyed by a handkerchief, whales popping into existence. All that weird good stuff tied together nicely by our main characters quest to not die and probably get a cup of tea on the way is brought to life by effects that I feel hold up pretty darn well.  The theme seems to be that life moves on, with all the twists and turns that comes with it and it is a nice message, though a little buried beneath all the stuff going on almost constantly. There's no really quiet moments in the film, as there's just too much at stake at all times. What is going on? Why is it going on? Where is it going? You will probably be a little confused a lot of the time but stick with it because there's some truly great moments in it just waiting to be experienced.

V For Vendetta (2005)

Film: V For Vendetta
Release: 2005, theatrical
Starring: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman
Directed by: James McTeigue
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In the mid-21st century, Britain has become a fascist regime. One night on the 5th of November a reminder to remember a heinous plot is set to never be forgot.

Hans' thoughts:

Very vigorously would valuers of vindictive revolutionary vendettas value V for Vendetta for its volume as a vector for vocal web-users. Re-written and re-visited by the Whachowskis, it ventures wondrously within the very vague vicinity of the victorious and the virulent views of it's reviewers. The video relies the comic book verses regarding the vaudevillian vindicator which wears the visage called V visualized by the recitalist Weaving. I was be-wondered by the ventures victory in verifying the vexing wonder of V. . Vies a vie, it explores the reason for wearing a disguise whilst fighting crime - not as much as in Watchmen where it's the very vestige of the writers work though still very represented in some form. 

The visuals verily wear the visage of revolutionaries, while relying wisdom regarding the role of the victim compared to role of the victimisers. One again the Wachowskis flaunt their vigor for visual violence. while verily the recitalists realize the roles remarkably. Phew, Okay. I'm sorry. Enough of that. To anyone unaware the original introduction of our main character V features a very well written piece of dialogue with wordplay using the V-sound. Out of all the actors I felt Portman in the role of Evey lacked a little bit of energy and it seems as though she just kind of goes along with whatever happens to her, no matter how cruel it is. For the purpose of the story, Portman certainly does a well enough job that it doesn't distract too much however it's hard to not see it whenever she plays off of charismatic actors like Stephen Fry or Hugo Weaving - Weaving is of course given a momentous task as his face is never actually seen and it falls to the cameraman to accurately convey what the character is going through in any instance. That's of course helped a little bit by the fact that the character of V is supposed to be more of a symbol than an actual character. Most interesting to me was the journey of Stephen Rea in the role of the  police detective Finch as he uncovers more and more about the state of affairs in future Britain and the truth behind the government.

In the villain department, John Hurt makes a very threatening Big Brother-esque villain. Being shown on a giant TV-screen throughout most of the movie his knack for monologue and tone of voice shines through. Likewise does Tim Pigott-Smith pose a threat as the head of the state police known as finger men. However it seems like he channeled Dick Cheney of the then current Bush government in America. There's a lot of snarl and down to business temperament portrayed even when we're just looking at his face. V for Vendetta is above all a very beautifully shot movie and at times it distracts from the at times only half-hearted crime mystery tucked in between the plot-lines. Whether the mystery portion was more fleshed out in the original comic I unfortunately don't know as I've not read it, however it's safe to say that like with the movie adaptation of Moore's other famous work Watchmen, details were left out in favor of focusing on the underlying morale and point of the story. As it stands I can at least recommend V for Vendetta for a very captivating story, some masterfully done shot and the Wachowski staple of excellent action.

Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire (2005)

Film: Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire
Release: 2005, Theatrical
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint
Directed by: Mike Newell
Previous in the series: Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban
Next in the series: Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Leading up to his 4th year at Hogwarts, Harry is taken by his friends the Weasley family to see the Quidditch World Cup.

Hans' thoughts:

So once again we have a new Harry Potter and once again we have a completely different movie than the former. With Alfonso Cuarón out of the picture we now have Mike Newell. Whereas Cuarón played very much on the horror aspect of the franchise, Newell's approach is much more grounded in traditional fantasy.  That said, this is also a story in which we get a lot more information on magical creatures, and some more insight into the politics of the wizard society.

Of course the main event(s) of the story is thus: Harry is back at another year at Hogwarts, everything seems quite simple - they even cut out the Dursley's this time around. Which is quite refreshing, as the stories were getting rather formulaic. This time, Headmaster Dumbledore announces that Hogwarts has been chosen as host for a major competition called the tri-wizard tournament. What it basically is, is some kind of Olympic Championship wherein the three biggest schools of wizard society participate in skill. This also gives us a little bit of insight - not much though - in international wizard relationships. This is something this movie is the first one to do, in the books however we did get the odd mention of international wizards when Harry read the news. A running gag seems to be middle-eastern countries refusing to give up flying carpets. In any case, none of that has been mentioned in the movies and here we get our first meet with international wizards. We get the french school of magic for girls, Beauxbaton. Apparently all girls at Beaubaton must wear revealing capes and make suggesting gestures towards the men of Hogwarts. 

Where Cuarón had changed a lot of stuff from the second movie to his own, this movie curiously enough decided to stick with his changes - the character (played again, by Warwick Davis in what should have been a cameo appearance) that's never referred to as Professor Flitwick in "Prisoner..", merely "the conductor", suddenly lends it's appearance as what would become the permanent appearance of Flitwick for the remainder of the movies. Another consistency is the color-scheming of the movie, as this also settles very much in the grey and light-blue patterns. Albeit a bit more colorful than "Prisoner". 

As for the acting, I can finally tell that a lot of these actors have grown into their roles. I have to say though, if there's one change from the books to the movie I wouldn't have minded it would be the removal of Cedric Diggory. Cedric wasn't much of a character in the book and being played by stone-faced Robert Pattinson in the movie version certainly doesn't help his cause. I would call him a two-dimensional character, but that would argue he had a character to begin with. As such I would hereby like to grant Cedric Diggory the prestigious "Pointless-character-brought-into-the-forefront award". Congratulations Cedric, may this award be as rare as it is snarky.

Is this a bad movie? No it isn't. It's saved by the interesting plot that the book had - but trust me, it doesn't really have much else. It serves to move the plot forward, but whereas the former stories had such pronounced themes, this one just kind of happens. It's a spectacle movie first and foremost, and by now most of the audience had started using the "Might as well finish the series when I got this far" excuse, giving the company leisure enough to not really try anything out or go all-out. While still attempting to make the movie bearable or entertaining enough to not completely bore it's audience. It's a shame, because the story could have offered so much more. As it stands, this leaves me with the feeling that the quality of these productions had started to stagnate.