Review of Spartan (2004) by Stephanie G — 24 Jun 2004

Here's my next batch of 2004 reviews.

[u]Spartan[/u].

Spartan is a very engaging thriller. Mamet?s writing and directing are assured, and keep up the pace until the curtain falls. Spartan is somewhat of a minimalist exercise, focusing on one character, and letting the story move forward without much exposition. Val Kilmer is very good as Scott. Though the character doesn?t have much depth; Kilmer has enough screen presence and charisma to hold our attention. The only problem with the screenplay is the amount of unnecessary secondary character development. A lot of characters seem to be thrown in simply to garner an emotional reaction when they?re killed off. The editing and cinematography suit the look of the film perfectly, and the score is very good.

8/10.

[u]Miracle[/u].

Miracle reminds me of last year?s Seabiscuit. It?s a nice film, without a lot of depth, that manages to be one of the most entertaining and moving films of the year. Miracle is much better than Seabiscuit though, thanks to less melodrama and pretension. Kurt Russell gives one of the best performances of the year as Coach Herb Brooks, he gives the character such a human presence that we feel like we always know Brooks, know what he?s up to, and root for him without the need for pointless exposition. The supporting players are also very good. Though none of them really stand out, they all fit their characters fine. The film has some unnecessary schmaltz, particularly the ?I play for the United States of America!? scene, but it?s surprisingly light on it. The hockey scenes are gloriously shot; they?re tense and exciting, and well edited enough that we always know what?s going on, which is more than can be said for most sports movies. The finale with the face-off against the Soviets is one of the best scenes of the year.

9/10.

[u]Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban[/u].

The third installment in the Harry Potter is light years ahead of the first two in terms of quality. Director Alfonso Cuaron brings life to the project, when the first two had simply been staid retellings of the books. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are people now, not characters. Hogwarts is a place, not a setting. The film departs enough from the books quite a bit, which is a good thing, because now it can subsist on its own imagination. The Hogwarts castle is a place of mystery and magic, sometimes dark and frightening, sometimes light and cheerful. The characters are much better developed, giving the actors the ability to get deeper into character, which is the reason the acting, particularly by the three young leads, is much better here than before. Michael Gambon is a much better Dumbledore than Richard Harris, but that may be the director and screenwriter?s work of making everything much more magical than in the previous movies. One of the things I particularly enjoyed about this installment was the way the story moved forward. Though there was a main arc, the story moved much more like a series of vignettes about life in a school of magic, building its characters rather than pushing it forward. The story develops at its own pace. Particular accolades must go the art direction at Hogwarts, which is magnificent, and John Williams?s great score. If the film has any problems, it?s that is a bit overlong, so it drags before the conclusion.

8/10.

My review of Open Range will be up later, but I'd give it a :fresh: