|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Aug 30, 2017 19:46:59 GMT -5
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Directed by: Chris Columbus  Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe, and Rupert Grint in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Rating: ★★★★
This is part of what makes Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone such an enchanting motion picture, one where almost everything goes right when so much could've went wrong. Like the books and the narrative arc that unites each one, it's firmly focused on entertainment and wonder without rewarding the audience too easily with a sound and lights show. It brings us a story, where each scene offers a new whirlwind of characters to meet or instances to admire while establishing a thoughtful framework on which to build.
For 152 minutes, we remain as wide-eyed as our trio of young stars, encapsulated in memorable wonderment. We are in the company of characters and actors who we would eventually watch grow up with the children that were captivated enough to stand outside in the bitter cold in the late hours of the day in order to be the first of their friends to read the latest installment cover-to-cover.
The film opens with Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), the hulking groundskeeper of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardy, Headmaster Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris), Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith), the head of the Gryffindor sector of young wizards, delivering an orphan by the name of Harry Potter to his last surviving relatives in the wee hours of the morning. Ten years later, Harry is heartbreakingly mistreated and neglected by his aunt and uncle, but is soon given a blizzard of letters requesting his return to Hogwarts until these ignored messages prompt a visit from Hagrid to take him back himself. He informs him that he is a wizard with a backstory that will soon not be so foreign to him.
Hagrid shows Harry around Hogwarts, letting him play with his newfound fortune a bit, choose a wand (or allow a wand to choose the respective wizard), and remain aghast at such commonplace occurrences as delivery owls dropping in mail or the abundance of kids his own age testing out their gifts. He befriends the quirky but amiable Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and eventually the smart and spunky Hermione (Emma Watson) before the three get accepted to the houses of Gryffindor. Just when Harry thinks he's got Hogwarts and being a wizard down to a science, he learns he's got the chops to be the house's best Quidditch player, a sport where players fly on broomsticks to retrieve flying balls, or that the head of the Slytherin house, Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), and his student Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), aren't as innocent as they appear.
The titular object is the name of a stone (also known as the "Philosopher's Stone" in some parts of the world, as the film also goes by the title Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone) that has the power to grant immortality. It's guarded by a three-headed dog named Fluffy, owned by Hagrid, and Harry fears Snape is trying to obtain the stone to grant his own immortality, something that would be detrimental to Hogwarts given his demeanor and intentions.
For three young actors to command the screen so frequently and in such a gifted manner, Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson deserve all the praise. Their chemistry with each other is remarkable because, through all their special abilities as characters, they are still treated like ordinary children, even if ordinary children don't memorize unpronounceable spells and engage in activities aided by flying broomsticks. They're given room to breathe and ample space to be who they must embody over the course of seven more installments, as well as appropriate footing that sets up so many possibilities for the future endeavors.
One must credit director Chris Columbus for a lot of the actors' success. Be it in Home Alone or Mrs. Doubtfire, Columbus knows how to successfully utilize young, inexperienced actors in order to get the most out of their performances and placement in a project that is so much larger than them. Columbus also maneuvers his camera and his actors very effectively through a maze of special effects; the real magic present is the way the visuals never overtake the performers. They are what they should be and that's conservatively employed effects that do their part without ever overdoing it.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone holds up far better than I remembered. Even the opening moments where Harry takes a trip with his aunt and uncle to an aquarium is better than I remembered, with the perfect tone and elements employed. Although this will change in the coming weeks, this is still the only Harry Potter film I've seen in its entirety. Despite appreciating it the first time around, nothing ever drew me back to continue anticipating the events of Harry, Ron, and Hermione. I thought I was ahead of my age, watching Friday the 13th and Final Destination films, learning and studying the marks of those franchises and others beyond my years when kids my age were salivating over the next book or movie in this franchise. It turns out, I was, and still am, miles behind.
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Richard Harris, Tom Felton, Maggie Smith, John Cleese, and Warwick Davis. Directed by: Chris Columbus. |
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Sept 5, 2017 18:26:09 GMT -5
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Directed by: Chris Columbus  Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is about to discover what's behind the "Chamber of Secrets" in the second Harry Potter film. Rating: ★★★½
We still have a long way to go before I can say more about that last hyperbole, but I'm not ruling it out and therefore remaining optimistic based on what I've seen. In an even better opening sequence than the first film, we see Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has gone back to his aunt and uncle Dursley's home to spend the summer off from Hogwarts, with letters from his friends being withheld as he resides cooped up in his room with his owl. A strange house-elf by the name of Dobby (voiced by Toby Jones), who refers to himself in the third-person, appears in Harry's room and warns of a tumultuous and dangerous year for him if he doesn't remain homebound. Harry doesn't listen, and after Dobby's disobedient antics get Harry in deeper trouble with his relatives, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and a few of their mutual friends stop by in a flying Ford Anglia to pick up their friend.
Back at Hogwarts, tensions between the Gryffindor and Slytherin houses arise in the form of Harry, Ron, and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) frequently butting heads with the pompous Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) and questioning the ulterior motives of Headmaster Severus Snape (Alan Rickman). Though Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) tries to keep the Gryffindor group in line, she can't stop the spunky duo of Harry and Ron when they get word of the "Chamber of Secrets," a secret lair erected by one of Hogwarts' founders, Salazar Slytherin, which is rumored to house a monster that only his heir can control. The goal in mind was to purge Hogwarts of wizards with impure blood, derogatorily referred to as "mud-bloods," as Hermione discovers, leading Harry and Ron to believe that Malfoy is the heir to the Chamber of Secrets if such a room does indeed exist. If that's not the only concern, the trio's mentor Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and his potential involvement in the chamber is even more worrisome given the gang faces expulsion if they're found monkeying with the Slytherin-affiliated house of secrets.
Columbus appears to feel more confident maneuvering his camera amongst a large, crowded space this time around. His directing was sufficient during the last outing, sure, but this time around, he's shown a desire to experiment with more sweeping shots and perfectly framed camerawork. One of my favorite moments was Harry's visit to Professor Dumbledore (Richard Harris) via a concealed, winding staircase of stone with a protruding eagle statute on top. We watch the staircase spin from the very top of the eagle's head until it comes to a stop where Harry is still shown from a bird's eye perspective, his head positioned perfectly between the wings of the eagle and in front of its head. It's a unique shot that expresses a great deal of confidence on Columbus' behalf, as does the closing shot which pulls back from a close-up to an extreme, exterior long-shot in a matter of moments.
Columbus' direction is very Spielbergian, and the foundation him and Kloves worked diligently off which to build from Sorcerer's Stone comes through with a lot of confidence and great skillful filmmaking on display here. This would come to be the last film of the series to be directed by Columbus, who opted out after a strenuous two-and-a-half-years of filmmaking between the first and second film combined. I'm willing to bet, however, with each subsequent installment, Columbus' influence on Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson was felt, as they are all comfortable and assertive in their performances, something Columbus can do with even the most inexperienced child actors.
Probably the most different actor of the bunch is Radcliffe, whose voice is deeper and his angst and determination far more realized this time around thanks to his age. In only a year's time, not only has Radcliffe the performer gotten better, but Harry Potter the character has gotten more interesting. With themes of the reliability of sources and even self-identity coming into the picture, Harry has transcended from a little kid who can make small-talk with a snake while it taunts his cousin to the kind of fearless tween who can look one in its eye as it's about to attack him in a magic duel before his classmates. Radcliffe's chemistry with Grint and Watson has only improved too, but most notably with Grint, as Watson's Hermione remains absent for much of the second half of the film due to her character being rendered unconscious. When the two are about to be steamrolled by a rapidly accelerating Hogwarts Express train whilst flying in their unmistakable blue car, a real sense of early-2000s, Disney-esque adventure washes over the film in the most entertaining manner that reminds you that these films are just as much odes to bygone film serials as they are their own living, breathing adventure.
The aforementioned issues I took with Chamber of Secrets are small, but present. At 161 minutes long, the film is the longest in the franchise (if we treat Deathly Hallows, as we should, as two parts) despite this specific book being the shortest of the series. The film does take a bit too long not only to establish the titular location, but also dance around the high risk of trouble the group might get into if they're caught tampering with the chamber, on top of Malfoy's increased harassment of Gryffindor that realistically would've rendered him kicked out. Kloves' writing does its fair share of meandering, so thankfully this time around we're not only acquainted with the characters at hand, but we like them enough that spending an upwards of three hours with them is more often a treat than a tribulation.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a worthy sequel with its same commitment to characters and eccentric events, but never letting one swallow nor undermine the other. Despite some plodding, it's an atmospheric installment that shows confidence has increased in nearly everyone involved, but has not swollen to the point where a bloated movie with little artistic merit has triumphant or dampened the potential of what has so far been a really spectacular franchise.
On a final note, this is not an original thought or musing by any means, but why exactly does Hogwarts continue to put up with the Slytherin house? Given all the problems that have arose as a result of the sector's defiant history, you would think Dumbledore would've made the decision eons ago to close the sector and remove Snape on grounds of suspicious and potentially harmful activity. Perhaps Syltherin is much like the fraternities found on many college campuses across the United States; they're problematic, harmful, and dangerous, but the kickbacks from wealthy legacies and publicity are just too much to pass up.
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Tom Felton, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Kenneth Branagh, and Toby Jones. Directed by: Chris Columbus. |
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Sept 6, 2017 18:20:45 GMT -5
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón  Ron (Rupert Grint), Hermione (Emma Watson), and Harry share an emotional moment in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Rating: ★★★½
The film opens, yet again, on Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) spending another summer taking abuse and grief from the Dursleys, eventually running himself out when he makes his uncle's sister balloon in weight and float away following some horrible remarks about him and his late father. Harry, usually one to keep an even-temper, is officially becoming a teenager in these moments, forgivably hormonal but uncomfortable with the lack of respect and opportunity that burdens him while he's away from Hogwarts. He returns by way of the famous Hogwarts Express and a triple-decker bus that drives more recklessly than New York and Chicago drivers put together, where Harry and his loyal pals Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) learn about Sirius Black (Gary Oldman). Sirius is an imprisoned felon guilty of collusion with dark wizard Lord Voldemort, has escaped from the prison Azkaban. Harry also learns the darker secret that Sirius is the one who allegedly killed both of his parents.
From there on out, it's essentially a quest to garner information about the fugitive and his whereabouts, as well as experiment with Patronus, a new magic spell Harry learns. The trio get a lesson from Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) about werewolves, which proves to be a prominent detail in regards to Sirius, Lupin (David Thewlis), and Peter Pettigrew (Timothy Spall), another acquaintance of the escaped convict. Also during this time, the gang's confidant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) gets promoted to being a professor, schooling the young wizards and witches on proper ways to interact with and ride a hippogriff, a large, winged beast known for its prideful nature, and Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) remains the instigating force, but still somehow can't toughen up when confronted with Hermione - especially when a wand is at his throat, but I digress.
After two wonderful installments helmed by Home Alone director Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuarón assumes directorial duties this time around and adds darker, grimmer vibes to Hogwarts and the wizard world. This seems appropriate and the tonal shift is welcomed following two films committed to building a stable foundation while offering commendable thrills. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban doesn't offer much spectacle; there isn't an epic battle or a rumored chamber of unspoken virtues that may or may not incriminate Slytherin and its problematic history and this doesn't seem to bother Cuarón nor screenwriter Steve Kloves (who wrote the first two films). The two are more focused on a comfortable but simultaneously abrupt transition for the series' characters and the audience, showing that things have gotten far more serious and the stakes aren't as ostensibly low as they've been before.
I can only compare it to that of a video-game, where, speaking both in a conventional and yet archaic sense, the player must advance level-by-level before culminating his or her adventure by challenging a boss at the game's conclusion. With each installment, we get the feeling that Lord Voldemort is getting that much closer to either making an appearance or severely harming Harry, Ron, and Hermione, and through competent and attentive buildup, we aren't spoiled too early. This makes Cuarón's tonal shift and cinematographer Michael Seresin's moodier cinematography that much more of a welcomed, necessary advancement for the storyline in order for the stakes not to flatline and the payoff not be too meager.
We also get the sense of how the dynamics of the central three's friendship has evolved into a more loving one rather than one of mutual circumstance. My favorite scene in the film comes seconds after the execution of a hippogriff, which has Hermione turning away to sob into Ron and Harry looking on albeit with great sadness and discomfort. The moment these three share is one of intense protection of each other's feelings, and it's only further illustrated when a lion's weight of the third act rests on the shoulders of Harry and Hermione due to Ron's disappearance. The two must meander through a dangerous plain, with time-travel as well as shapeshifting humans running amok, and, throughout the entire sequence, Hermione has Harry's back out of protection and loyalty; the same goes for Harry in the case of both of his friends.
Much like the inevitability of growing older, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban reminds us how our drastically different our introductory school years are from our later ones. We might know our way around the halls but we still need to learn how to navigate out of harm's way as well as through a plethora of new experiences. The third installment in the Harry Potter franchise shows us - with a darker and more intense color palette - just how tough that is, especially when there seems to be all these rules but no precise path for implementation when it comes to being a competent wizard or witch. You can't go through life getting your way by aiming a stick at someone's jugular.
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Tom Felton, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, and Timothy Spall. Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón. |
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Sept 7, 2017 17:55:06 GMT -5
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Directed by: Mike Newell  Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) find themselves with dates at a fancy ball in the fifth film adaptation of the Harry Potter franchise. Rating: ★★★
Adapted from the 734-page novel yet still somehow shorter in runtime than Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (the shortest book of the series, mind you), Goblet of Fire is the first time in this franchise where I've noticed some considerable shortcomings. Maybe it was the rush of two new faces behind the camera in such a short period of time, maybe the challenge of adapting the second-longest book caught up with everyone involved as well as the strenuous filming-schedule, or perhaps that the beloved book's path to cinema was almost certainly going to be burdened with a few shortcomings.
Screenwriter Steve Kloves, who penned the first three Potter films, remarked how he himself envisioned the film as comprised of two-parts, but found no smooth way or point in the story where they could be the narrative could break. As a result, the film continues on a very different route from the book (from what I'm told) in terms of story, where the lofty material is boiled down to two distinct halves - the Triwizard Tournament and Lord Voldemort's awakening.
The Triwizard Tournament begins controversially, when the "Goblet of Fire" - a large vase that swallows a wealth of names selects "champions" to partake in the competition - selects Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) despite him not meeting the age requirement. Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) is furious, assuming Harry's disobedience to the rules, but has no choice but to permit Harry to go up against troubling and harmful creatures in the form of a towering demon dragon and a dizzying labyrinth that can swallow him whole. All of this leads to some tension between him and his best friend Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint).
Also bestowed upon the students of Hogwarts is a Yule Ball dance that encourages young wizards to ask witches to attend the ball with them for a night of lavish dancing. Despite their ever-increasing popularity, Harry and Ron find it difficult to get dates; Ron asks Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) in hopes she'll say yes, but not only does she not appreciate being a last resort, but she also has a date with a lovely, older gentleman. Harry also finds himself getting close to Hufflepuff member Cedric Diggory (Robert Pattinson) as both partake in the aforementioned tournament, the presence of Azkaban prisoner Barty Crouch, Jr. lurks over Hogwarts like a bad odor, and Harry has a showdown with the vicious Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) upon realizing the dark wizard is still alive.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is admittedly overstuffed, with a myriad of plot-points crowding the narrative as well as undertones revolving around Ron's lustful tension of Hermione, Harry's push-pull relationship with dark wizardry, and Severus Snape's (Alan Rickman) shadiness when it comes to running the House of Slytherin. It's also shocking to note how even Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) takes a backseat to much of the action after being turned into a ferret by Moody (the always welcome Brendan Gleeson), a new professor teaching defense against the dark arts. Kloves handles things the best he can, making sure to include everything, but this is the first film of the franchise to lack the directorial grace and chronological smoothness of the first. Think back to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. While it's a film with a different tone and lower stakes, director Chris Columbus' directorial craft is on full display, even more in the followup effort.
Goblet of Fire director Mike Newell's (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Donnie Brasco) doesn't have that kind of identifiable weight, nor does it have that kind of attractive camerawork that made Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban such a treat. Kloves' ability to transition from scene-to-scene is also noticeably marred by how dense the story is, hurting the strength that was so prominent in the first three installments. It's not that the film leapfrogs enough to become disjointed, but it's enough to where it goes beyond being a few instances. Compared to the previous installment, which featured no epic battles, Goblet of Fire's reliance on spectacle winds up showing exactly why this series worked best when it shied away from excessive sound and lights.
The most interesting inclusions in the film come in the form of, yet again, watching Harry, Ron, and Hermione mature and conduct themselves. A John Hughes-esque moment in the character study of the common teenager comes at the Yule Ball, when Ron's jealously comes out when he not only discards his date's feelings, but also that of Hermione, telling her that her boyfriend is far older than her and she's corrupting the sanctity of herself and Gryffindor. Hermione is next seen holding back tears she lets out on the stairs of the ball, a scene that many young people can relate to if they've experienced a bad high school dance. Not only does this moment further the humanity of the characters and how they're not far-removed from the target audience of the material, but it also shows the subtle romantic developments between two characters who are in for a potentially messy realization about the feelings they harbor for one another - a realization that will certainly be rough for them to deal with as individuals alone.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire proves that its predecessor wasn't a fluke. Like the PG-13 rating that accompanies this installment (the first one of the franchise), Harry Potter is growing up and tangible and intangible things are at stake at Hogwarts, especially with Lord Voldemort in the picture now clearer than ever. Through its handful of narrative fumblings, Goblet of Fire nonetheless struck an emotional core with me and fans who have read the 700-page book more than once and connect with the characters on levels equivalent to that of people they know and talk to in their own lives. All things considering, you'd be hardpressed to find an average film harbor that kind of climactic and very fatalistic moment with such density.
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robert Pattinson, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, Maggie Smith, and Tom Felton. Directed by: Mike Newell. |
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Sept 14, 2017 22:38:30 GMT -5
Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix (2007)
Directed by: David Yates  Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and all of his wizardly capabilities are put to an even greater test in Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix. Rating: ★★
Harry Potter is officially a grown-up, not only because the story and narrative has progressed that far, but so has Daniel Radcliffe's capability as a person and an actor. He's no longer the pint-sized, wide-eyed wizard we witnessed back when he was discovering the Sorcerer's Stone, and no longer is being a wizard about unearthing those enchanting discoveries. Although he still attends Hogwarts with his pals Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), who are desperately under-utilized in this film, the stakes have gotten higher since his first formal encounter with Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) in the previous installment.
In light of dark magic not only beginning its captivation over Hogwarts but looking to cripple its institution, the Defence Against the Dark Arts sector of the school has gotten a makeover, with new professor Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) instructing students on how to handle opposing forces. The problem with Umbridge's approach is she harshly discourages the use of magic as a response, contradicting the very principles of Hogwarts and leaving young wizards vulnerable to endlessly bullet-points of theory that won't be useful to them in a hostile confrontation. This motivates Harry, Ron, and Hermione to set up their own underground division to teach students how to fend off the dark arts.
Also in the mix is Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter), the demented cousin of Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), who escapes Azkaban along with several other Death Eaters, and Harry finally realizes the depth of his connection with Voldemort on top of why Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) despises the Potter name so fervently.
Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix is the first book of the series I distinctly recall being a major event when it released back in 2003. I remember it being covered on the news, and I remember the United States' blue-drenched hardcover being a staple scene in Barnes & Noble for a good several months after its release. It was an attractive cover, but I never thought that cinematographer Sławomir Idziak would aim to utilize the same color-scheme in the film adaptation. Quite a bit of Order of Phoenix is drenched in blue-scale photography, as if the color of the water in chlorine-laden swimming pools suddenly bleached the environments that contained them and made everything look like an inky snapshot of cool hues. Not only does it wash out almost every other color, but it also seems to drain the expression and charisma of everyone involved. For the first time of the series, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) seem to carry less weight and occupy less space as fleshed-out characters.
A common critique of the Harry Potter franchise, as I'm beginning to learn, is that nothing is done nor performed in the film that doesn't meaningfully service the plot. Harry and company are allegedly never given freedom to be themselves unless, in doing so, some element of the story is revealed. I can more-or-less agree, but never did I feel that detail effectively submarined a film from the very start. In the opening moments of Order of Phoenix, something felt off that I couldn't quite explain, and it wasn't until about halfway through the film did I realize it was screenwriter Michael Goldenberg's attention to the plot rather than to the characters that particularly disturbed me. Yes, he writes Umbridge and Bellatrix in ways that make them transcend the strength of villains at least in the Potter-universe, but he also sacrifices the recognizably human aspects of Harry and friends as a result.
This is the only Harry Potter film not to be written by Steve Kloves, and that shows by the film's primary attention revolving around A-to-B-to-C plot-points and mindless wand-fights rather than the growth and development of our favorite wizards. In another sense, Order of Phoenix is also the turning point for the franchise. Ever since this installment, the series has been helmed with David Yates in the director's chair, who would even commit to directing the film adaptations of J. K. Rowling's other series, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Before I can even begin to consider those films, I must cross my fingers and hope the strengths of the vast Harry Potter world haven't been squandered by the mediocrity of this fifth installment.
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Imelda Staunton, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Gary Oldman, and Tom Felton. Directed by: David Yates. |
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Sept 23, 2017 11:15:34 GMT -5
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Directed by: David Yates  Rating: ★★★
On top of that, while people still mock the linearity of Columbus' direction, they forget the way he was able to tantalize and inspire wonder in a visual sense. In many ways, it beats David Yates, who took over the series at Order of Phoenix, and his depressing lack of flagrant style in the face of unambiguous visual predictability.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is something of a return-to-form after the stumble that was Order of Phoenix, but it still cements that this is a far different film-series than what was brewed five films ago. Rather than a series fixated around humanistic elements of growing up and adapting to hostile environments with peers as a source of hope and solace, the Harry Potter franchise has now become about two things - Lord Voldemort and his whereabouts as well as conquering the dark arts. We get some urgency and a sense of immensity, but gone is the visible connection of Harry, Ron, and Hermione that I can only hope returns in the two-part endeavor that awaits me before this series poofs into thin air like the smoke from a hot wand.
Following the events of the last film, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) continues to cope with the fact that he might indeed be "the chosen one" that was summoned to bring down Lord Voldemort - a notion only more confirmed after his first run-in with the dark lord two years ago. He links up with Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) to travel to visit Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), a professor of potions, in efforts to recruit him to teach at Hogwarts following the failure of the last professor who taught defense against the dark arts. Much is learned about Draco Malfoy's (Tom Felton) continued ascension in Slytherin, as well, with the realizations that he's operating as a mole for the Order of Phoenix and Voldemort in addition to the possibility he is indeed a Death Eater, growing more powerful alongside his confidant and teacher Severus Snape (Alan Rickman).
Harry also finds himself at the mercy of his most romantic emotions, showing feelings for Ron's younger sister Ginny (Bonnie Wright) and even Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch), initially alienating longtime friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson). This age-appropriate angst is essentially the similar plot-device found in previous installments in the form of a game of Quidditch or the three characters bonding off in their own rooms. It's a bit of a shame that Goblet of Fire was the last film where Harry, Ron, and Hermione felt like three a really close, connected group; now their motivations have spawned them off in alternate directions.
Despite bearing some very good scenes of battle - far better than the mindless wand-waving seen in Order of Phoenix - the murkiness of the series has finally caught up with itself in Half-Blood Prince. The gloomy cinematography and the dark and moody ambience of the film weighs the film down and distracts from what it does best, which is illustrate a great portrait of adolescent uncertainty and the bond young people form with their peers.
But with increasing the coolness of the black and blue visuals, Half-Blood Prince recognizes how far beyond that kind of safety and security we are, and how Hogwarts isn't the same sanctity it once was. Death is a real concern now, Harry's life is at stake, and the collection of wide-eyed, optimistic wizards could find themselves in a perilous situation no textbook or class can prepare them for if they're not careful. The franchise raising the stakes is the epitome of a give-and-take situation, and while I miss all that came before in Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets (back when the franchise had significantly less characters and the titular objects, locations, or proper nouns were much easier to identify and discern), it's no question the franchise needed to advance in the sense of stakes.
On a final note, there are indeed quite a few things Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince does get right. For one, it shows just how much of a pansy Draco Malfoy really is, dictated by Snape and his aunt (Helena Bonham Carter), rarely acting on a move or plan he himself has outlined, as well as how much Harry has grown as an individual. The tradeoff of him not so much relying on Ron and Hermione as backup comes out in his desire to almost punish himself by taking on tasks that are too large for him; there's a distinct element of bravery and maturity in the character that manifests at just the right time in a film that comes off one of the most questionably relevant installments in the franchise to make way for the two part finale. With a solid, emotionally potent third act and screenwriter Steve Kloves back after a one-film hiatus, I'm not sure how Deathly Hallows can stumble, even if it proves not as complete as the earlier installments.
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Tom Felton, Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, Jim Broadbent, Bonnie Wright, and Evanna Lynch. Directed by: David Yates. |
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Sept 27, 2017 22:42:14 GMT -5
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 (2010)
Directed by: David Yates  Rating: ★★★
While I obviously didn't, it doesn't take much to understand why the millennial generation has latched onto these stories. About the time Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone came out, myself and many of my friends were around Harry's age, and the films followed in such a neatly sequential order, they more-or-less synced up with the way their youngest fans aged as well. This offers a perceived empathy to the perils of growing up, although I doubt many could relate to the circumstances of Harry, Ron, and Hermione during the first-half of this conclusion.
The film revolves around our favorite wizardly trio scrounging God's green Earth to find pieces of Lord Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) soul, known as "horcruxes." To do so, they follow the clues of their late leader Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), but they'd rather be on high peaks and in vast stretches of wilderness dealing with respective hazards than back at Hogwarts, where the Death Eaters have gained considerable traction in the wake of the school's loss. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) also accept items in Dumbledore's will, which leads to one of the film's many emotional moments, and Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) has continued her reign as the peddler of Dark Arts propaganda in the wake of Voldemort's reawakening.
In a move that's both predictable and unpredictable, Deathly Hallows – Part 1 is indeed one of the most emotional and harrowing films of the franchise. The finality of the circumstances catches up with you, as well as the maturity and realization of the characters that comes through during more than a few hostile conversations between the three wizards. Ron grows upset at the dangerous journey to gather the horcruxes, which soon proves to be a thankless parade of meandering around, eventually ditching Harry and Hermione where they are left to indulge in some softly romantic gestures tailor-made for fans' giggles.
But who would've ultimately thought the reemergence of one of the most quirky characters from Chamber of Secrets would return and provide the franchise with one of its most singularly emotional monologues and sequences?
The beauty of the Harry Potter franchise is although things happen almost exclusively to service the plot, the attachment and relationships you make with the characters or their respective performers can sometimes catch you by surprise. Even though he is not in the film as much as you might assume, Alan Rickman still commands as Severus Snape, the unruly leader of the Slytherin house, Brendan Gleeson continues to provide the wit we expect him to throughout the film, and Ralph Fiennes, as infrequently as he does appear as Voldemort, knows how to slip into such a slimy, grotesque character with such odious features, his personality notwithstanding.
Watching the film, I also got a pleasant flashback to the first three films, the three I'd still ultimately consider the best, most complete works of the franchise. Although the first hour focuses on the Death Eaters and the beginning of Harry, Ron, and Hermione's quest to find the many missing horcruxes, Deathly Hallows – Part 1 is the first film since Prisoner of Azkaban to focus on the emotions of the three main protagonist. Much of that, for better or for worse, has gotten lost in a shuffle of Harry being "the chosen one," the inception of the Order of Phoenix, and Voldemort's increasingly visible role and looming involvement in the series climax.
For the most part, the film works, at least as well as its previous installment, only with more emotional weight. I find David Yates a far less exciting director than Chris Columbus and Alfonso Cuarón, far more interested in neutral style than anything resembling aesthetic noteworthiness (even Mike Newell, director of Goblet of Fire, showed some promise stylistically speaking). With Deathly Hallows – Part 1, he shows he's more than capable of directing a fitting conclusion adequately, but maybe not entirely up to par with what the series demands at this juncture. I put more of my faith in screenwriter Steve Kloves, cinematographer Eduardo Serra, and the capable cast who has proven since 2001 they've been more than ready to embrace their roles.
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Robbie Coltrane, and Bill Nighy. Directed by: David Yates. |
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Oct 2, 2017 13:42:37 GMT -5
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011)
Directed by: David Yates  Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger come together one last time in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Rating: ★★★
It should also be noted that even with four directors dipping their hands into the franchise, one of the most remarkable aspects of this series is its consistency. For the most part, each film has been as good as its predecessor, the outliers being the first three, which I feel form a solid trilogy on their own. Only two screenwriters have been privileged to work on all the Harry Potter films and the primary one, Steve Kloves, returns to provide the tireless fans the engaging finale they deserve. The pressure must've been insurmountable at times, and the speed at which he worked to churn out such quality films is nothing short of commendable.
In Deathly Hallows - Part 2, the final showdown between Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) finally takes place. The setting is an apocalyptic one, as Hogwarts looks all but destroyed in a pile of ruins and a haze of thick, black smoke. It's an ugly sight that compliments the hideousness of Voldemort quite nicely, and during the film, Harry learns what his place as "the chosen one" actually means and finishes off finding the remaining "horcruxes" with Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson).
For someone who lingered on in the background, and sometimes in the foreground, watching Harry garner all the love while he remained dictated by the Slytherin house, particularly headmaster Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), it's surprising to see how little Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) is yet again involved with the events. Perhaps this is consistent with the extent of the book's representation of him and even J. K. Rowling herself wrote him as a contemptible pansy who was more passive when things got tough and demanded strict action. At one point, he is at the center of total danger when a large auditorium catches fire by the his - and a few other punks' - doings, yet Harry, Ron, and Hermione still make it a duty of theirs to rescue the ungrateful brats.
To, yet again, stress the total change and look and feel when compared to the earlier, Chris Columbus-directed installments, one look into Harry's worn eyes that go with the stubble on his chin and you get the feeling this isn't the same Harry that entered Hogwarts smitten and beside himself at the display of magic before his eyes. This is a more gifted, aware Harry Potter, with more experience, naturally, but also more attentiveness to his surroundings. Fighting Voldemort is no easy feat, even if, to us simpletons, all we see are long strands of glowing forces being carelessly wagged before the characters' faces. The immensity is communicated by just how lethal the magic appears.
Voldemort is mostly the same grotesque creature Kloves and Fiennes positioned him at the end of Goblet of Fire, but strangely enough, I found him more effective in the previous installments. Perhaps the disservice came in the way the antagonist and his deathly forces were constantly wagged in my face in the mix of other expository details. I grew too accustomed to eventually meeting the Dark Lord, who for the longest time, couldn't even have his name uttered (even during a moment in this film, a character avoids his name until rightfully being reprimanded and corrected by Maggie Smith's Professor McGonagall). But the villain still possesses the gravity that doesn't lead us to question why a wizard would be afraid to speak his name, but his effectiveness as a villain is diluted due to the fact that we've seen him so much before this, his presence prolifically looming over us and the film.
Deathly Hallows - Part 2 justifies its existence by devoting much of the film to leading up to the battle and commencing without having us wait much longer. This could've easily been another two and a half hour affair, but Kloves tightens it to just under two hours, blessed so, for I have a lot of other things going on in my life to devote time to even one more Harry Potter film. The time-investment alone one brings into most of these films is reason enough to develop feelings for these characters, but it isn't hard when Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson, three of the most successful and committed child actors of this or any generation, have been this three-dimensional and charismatic throughout their entire involvement with the series. Even the memorable supporting cast, composed of Smith, Felton, Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid, Alan Rickman's Snape, Gary Oldman's Sirius Black, Warwick Davis' Filius Flitwick, and even Michael Gambon's Albus Dumbledore all return one last time, most complete with their charm or lack thereof that has defined their characters since their humble, happier beginnings.
The Harry Potter franchise is an undertaking that's largely enchanting and emotional. It's a journey that, I feel, serves just as well as a coming of age story about growing up and tackling what you must in order to further yourself just as well as it does as a fantasy series. Even the weakest installments, in my mind, are buoyed even in the slightest respect by the admirable, diverse performing cast, and they find ways to steal scenes and enter your heart even if the main prerogative of the franchise has always been to address the plot-points and build up to this ecstatic climax and heartwarming, literal sendoff. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 succeeds at being a satisfying ending to the beloved franchise as well as a showcase of what we've enjoyed about the Harry Potter films distilled into a brief, compelling film.
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Warwick Davis, Gary Oldman, and Michael Gambon. Directed by: David Yates. |
|
