HP2 has arove...

...and A.O. Scott says it's slightly better than the first, while Ebert frankly gushes. He writes: "What's developing here, it's clear, is one of the most important franchises in movie history, a series of films that consolidate all of the advances in computer-aided animation, linked to the extraordinary creative work of J.K. Rowling, who has created a mythological world as grand as "Star Wars," but filled with more wit and humanity....What a glorious movie."



Fair enough. But whenever somebody uses a phrase like "movie history," I wish there were more than one hundred years of it to judge by. Liz Taylor's "Cleopatra" made movie history, for example, but who thinks it's much good today? Pardon the segue, but this makes me think of an excellent book I ran across this past Spring, "The Monster Show" by David Skal. For anybody interested in the history of horror movies, it's must-reading. (Note I did not use the phrase "horror-history history."