Harry Potter Week Day #6: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

At my local cinema they are screening each of the previous seven Harry Potter films one day after the other in the build up to the series finale 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2'.  Your intrepid blogger has taken the plunge and will watch each of these films and write about his observations...

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Studio: Warner Brothers Pictures
Director: David Yates
Screenplay: Steve Kloves
Main Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Tom Felton, Jim Broadbent

Grade: B-

The most difficult film to write about has been The Half-Blood Prince.  Maybe that's because it's such a thankless task of a film.  It's the penultimate chapter of a story where by now everyone's desperate to reach the end and it's the middle part of a trilogy within the said arc.  There's nothing to make this film individually special and as such it's the hardest to assess as a stand-alone film.

That isn't helped by the incessant funereal march that the film takes as a mood and pace.  Everything has a grim inevitability.  The characters know they are spinning the wheels for the clashes now confirmed as destined and doom-laden.  Harry's whole feeling is that of a sportsman milling around before the evening kick-off, or to put it more grimly a soldier preparing for the final big push.

The attempts to lighten the mood as a result feel more strained and raise at best a grim chuckle like an observation on incongruous catering at a wake.  Ron's romance with groupie Lavender is nothing new as teenage romance had been covered so well in Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix and whilst this can't be entirely blamed on Jessie Cave her performance is so broad it feels like she'd been dropped in from the first two films.

The film itself feels like it's drained of life as the predominent colours are grey and muted blue.  The title also never feels particularly vital - because it's based on Harry reading notes in a textbook it is a lot harder to portray on the film than previous titular people or objects.  The final reveal of just who the Half-Blood Prince is feels unimportant compared the latest death.

That's not to say this is a bad film.  The quality of production and performance is so ingrained that the people involved in the making of the fiml can do a decent job with their eyes closed.  Jim Broadbent is a welcome late addition and the background provided to Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort is well executed - the young Riddle has a working class accent is been replaced by refined speech as a teenager.  Despite becoming increasingly farcical as a panto villain in the early films Tom Felton provides Draco with necessary edge and fear required as his character goes from simple school bully to overwhelmed emotional wreck.  Alan Rickman also brings about subtle complications although choices in revealing his apparent alleigances early on prevent further shocks towards the end.

All in all there's a real sense of keeping the wheels in motion.

Coming up: Land of Confusion and The Final Countdown.

Harry Potter Week Day #5: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

At my local cinema they are screening each of the previous seven Harry Potter films one day after the other in the build up to the series finale 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2'.  Your intrepid blogger has taken the plunge and will watch each of these films and write about his observations...

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2005)
Studio: Warner Brothers Pictures
Director: David Yates
Screenplay: Michael Goldenberg
Main Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, Imelda Staunton, Gary Oldman, Helena Bonham Carter, David Thewlis, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Jason Isaacs, Brendan Gleeson, Tom Felton

Grade: B+

If Goblet of Fire is the funniest of the Harry Potter films then Order of the Phoenix is the angriest.  Fifteen is possibly the age where we're at our most 'teenage' as far as the cliché of frustration, confusion, horniness and disdain for elders reach their apex and form a swirling cocktail of grouchiness.  Harry is no different in this regard - he answers back to teachers, snaps at his friends and even yells at Dumbledore.  The fact that the fate of the entire wizarding and Muggle world rests on his shoulders may make it a more reasonable reaction than most of his peers but there are still moments when you feel the need to belt him over the head with a rolled up newspaper and tell him to count his blessings, go outside and get some fresh air.

It's not just Harry that's angry.  JK Rowling seems to be furious.  I always wondered if I read too much into this but a lot of Order of the Phoenix seemed to me to be about the fears of a mother observing their children being put through the education system.  Though she contributed a million pounds to the party there seems to be a physical incarnation of everything that was wrong with the Blair New Labour government and it's manifested in human pink marshmallow Delores Umbridge played by Imelda Staunton.

If any performance in all the Harry Potter films warranted an awards nomination I think a Best Supporting nod somewhere should have gone to Staunton.  Ralph Fiennes' Voldemort is still the big baddie and Staunton's Umbridge is dispatched as a precusor for the final conflict to take place but it's her performance that will induce hisses from a pantomime audience - Voldemort mere fearful silence.  It's a lot easier to convey evil with a sneer than a smile but a smile is all that Umbridge displays through most of the film - coupled with a self-satisfied squeak similar to a cartoon mouse finding the stash of cheese.

Umbridge is every interfering cabinet secretary imposing their will on a department they know nothing about through sheer arrogance of their knowledge as a politician of what is right and denial to acknowledge any dissent through dismissal, passive agression, bullying to outright violence.  Her villainy is never anarchic and cool like a Joker nor unapologetic evil like Voldemort - she believes what she does is warranted and everyone who disagrees just doesn't know better.  When she finally snaps, the smile evaporates and the physical punishment is no longer 'self inflicted' scarring of writing/carving lines into their hands but a slap across the face is a sign that she has ultimately lost.  The resolution of her being carried away by the centaurs is weak but the pay-off line 'I really hate children' almost entirely makes up for it.

As well as the start of the 'Wizard War II' (my trademark!) trilogy this is the point where the series stayed under the directorial control of David Yates.  For a cinematic debut from someone who'd previously only worked in television it is quite remarkable.  There is an ingenuity and energy to this film that has only previously been matched by Alfonso Cuaron's work in Prisoner of Azkaban.  As well as Yates this was the only film not to be scripted by Steve Kloves with Michael Goldenberg stepping into the breach.  These fresh eyes and lack of reverence to both the books and the previous films is probably what leads to the longest book being the shortest film so far.  There are wonderfully creative moments such as a montage of Umbridge's increasing control of Hogwarts being punctuated by more and more decrees being nailed to the walls by happy-to-participate caretaker Filch (a consistently fun performance through all films by David Bradley) and the use of the moving Daily Prophet as a visually interesting way to convey exposition and jumps in time.

Yates' greatest achivement comes in the final fight scene in the Ministry of Magic.  The ratcheting of tension and excitement first at the battle between Harry's makeshift Dumbledore's Army and the Death Eaters followed by the titular Order acting as the cavalry really marks this as the most blood-pumping final action set-piece yet.  The ultimate reveal of a 'prophecy' is weak but that's in the source material.  The only interesting reveal within the book was the intertwining fates of Harry and Neville Longbottom which are unfortunately not kept and don't allow for a more emotional connection in the previous and future films.  If I wished to see any additional scene not adapted from the book it was the sight of Neville's parents struck dumb through torture by Bellatrix LeStrange.  Helena Bonham Carter's gleeful performance as LeStrange does convey most of what be known, though, and her deranged demeanour is a great addition to the rest of the series as she essentially becomes Voldemort's second-in-command.  Her child-like taunts and gleeful destruction are again a great contrast against the other villains in the series.

Another daring decision in the fight scenes are the sparse use of music.  The ominous silences, echoing footsteps and sudden jolts of lightning from wands keep thngs exciting.  Particular praise should go to Voldemort's clash of the elements with Dumbledore.  There is a great sense of the two great powers colliding with everything at stake - a vast improvement on the Yoda-Palpatine and Anakin-Obi-Wan clashes at the end of Revenge of the Sith.

Would the series have been better off if they had hired different directors for the future two films?  There's strength in both arguments - I can't have been the only one to have been interested in what Guillermo Del Toro could have done but his innovative designs are probably best suited to his own project that he can work on from the start.  Coming in on the fifth series it's more the job of a craftsman telling a rollicking yarn than an artist interested in conveying emotional resonance and some sort of personal auterial vision.  In Order of the Phoenix Yates certainly proved himself to be a master craftsman.

Coming up: Dilemmas, dating and disasters!

Harry Potter Week Day #4: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

At my local cinema they are screening each of the previous seven Harry Potter films one day after the other in the build up to the series finale 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2'.  Your intrepid blogger has taken the plunge and will watch each of these films and write about his observations...

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2004)
Studio: Warner Brothers Pictures
Director: Mike Newell
Screenplay: Steve Kloves
Main Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michel Gambon, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, Robert Pattinson, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Tom Felton, David Tennant

Grade: B

The publication of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was the first real indication that the stories of a bespectacled school-going wizard had blown up to a global phenomenon.  The build-up to the event was greeted with JK Rowling taking a Hogwarts Express train tour around the country, exclusive interviews on 24-hour news channels and midnight openings also came with what must have been intimidating sight for many young readers as the book was more than twice the length of the previous Prisoner of Azkaban.  Children were undaunted and the sales climbed steadily higher.  The film was picking up pace and it really seemed like this was more than a literary flash-in-the-pan.  There was a growing sense that for many members of a generation Harry Potter and his friends and enemies will mean as much to them as Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Darth Vader meant to a previous generation and He-Man and Transformers meant to the one after that.  That it was rooted in books to begin with should have made the cultural commentators happy - but already the backlash was coming.

All three films had been long for childrens' movies and most blockbusters too, but the audience seemed undaunted by the length.  The question came at the time of splitting the film for Goblet of Fire into two parts was raised but quickly dashed as too risky and potentially damaging to the quality of the whole story being told.  Whether the box office success that two-parter Deathly Hallows has had left them kicking themselves is something only the Warner Brothers executives and their chiropractors will ever know.

I'm relieved that Goblet of Fire wasn't split in two and I'm also relieved that there weren't major re-casting decision made.  Rumours at the time had suggested that Prisoner of Azkaban could have been the final film for the young cast who were now perhaps outgrowing their characters in maturity as the gap between films became a year-and-a-half at least each time.  Thankfully this never came to pass, all of the actors stayed on board and a sense of continuity was retained.  Also watching these films back-to-back really allows you the rare opportunity to see growing up before your eyes - the puppy fat vanishing, the voices dropping, the pimples occassionally showing through the make up.

Goblet of Fire is the bridge between two very separate trilogies.  The first three films were about uncovering hidden truths, understanding this world that runs in parallel to our own and having adventures fuelled by youthful inquiry, energy and just not knowing better.  The fifth to seventh films are all build-up and execution of the final battle - the legend and ghostly spectre of Voldemort in the first three has become a brutal, physical presence once more, battle lines are drawn and lives are lost.  Goblet of Fire is the film where the overriding mood switches from innocence and the unknown to a grim reality and the need to mature and face literal demons head on.

That said this is also the funniest of all the Potter movies. Whether this is Mike Newell's doing given his past with Four Weddings and a Funeral and the sense that the first British director brought a more wry, ironic sensibilty or perhaps is just that since this is the first film to address the romantic entanglements that the teenage years provide there was an understanding that there was something inherently silly and amusing about young kids who can transport themselves to distant places, summon fire and light and dart around in the air on broomsticks but when required to ask a girl to dance they become as flustered and frightened as a little mouse.  One wonders if the increasing British influence of the film may also explain the representation of all the visiting French students as beautiful ballet dancing charmers and the Eastern Europeans as stern, cropped haired, wild dancing warriors.  The Bulgarian Quidditch hero Krum is clearly at least twenty-five which makes his entering a contest for school students unfair and his intentions with Hermione more than a little bit wrong.  But I suppose as a Brit I'm supposed to think 'Well that's them foreigners for you...'

This is probably the most 'teenage' of all the films.  You sense that if he'd been directing still it might have been a good idea to float the idea of giving John Hughes a crack of the whip.  Harry and Ron's hair is at their longest and scruffiest, they are quick to fall out, loaded with jealousy and quick to snap at each other and the presence of a changing Hermione starts to stir up unusual feelings for both characters - Ron is a slightly more befuddled way than Harry but Radcliffe plays it very well when he sees Watson walking down the stairs dressed for the gala ball with a genuine tension of Harry thinking 'Well I've never seen you like this before'.  The shared glances of Hermione and Ginny and other girls at the mere presence of Robert Pattinson's Hogwarts heart-throb of course have a whole other layer of meaning when he became the new supernatural pin-up of choice but it's clear from this film on that Radcliffe can firmly be placed in the 'hunk' category as well - quick glances at his torso in the Hogwarts bath as he fends off the advances of Moaning Myrtle (played by the 40-year-old Shirley Henderson) suggest an awareness that Potter and Radcliffe's physical appeal is something they can harness but are unsure morally how far they can go considering he's still technically playing a forteen year old.

Yet again a debuting adult character steals many of the best lines.  Brendan Gleeson's Mad Eye Moody has a Churchillian warrior spirit to him.  He's a man of many battle scars and a quick temper, but there's a clear fierce loyalty in him and a playful humour with those that he favours.  The revelation that he's been David Tennant in disguise all along is not much of a twist I would imagine, but the most clear reveal is a really nice moment that I'm not sure I caught the first time around in 2005.

Forgive me for being snarky online writter #42953 for saying this but Quidditch has always annoyed me.  Even from reading the first book nearly fifteen years ago I found it hard to believe that no one at any point said 'this snitch malarky equalling 150 points - surely this will make nearly every game a redundant exercise for the other six participants on each time.  And are we REALLY going to bludgeon them?!'  There was a moment in Philosopher's Stone where a youngster gets knocked hard by a ball reminiscent of the leather medicine balls used in pre-war football and falls all the way to the ground knocked unconscious and we have a short close-up of Professor McGonagall.  You can in her face she's thinking 'How can we have this game in the 21st century?'  The film opens at the 422nd Quidditch World Cup where Ireland (complete with Leprachaun mascot) host Bulgaria.  I like to imagine that England won the 5th or 6th World Cup, haven't won one since and still waffle on about it today with a mixture of unwarranted pride and bitter cynicism at the following centuries of failure.

When you look at the whole Triwizard Tournament you can't help but feel that a few Muggle-born youngsters must now feel like Dustin Hoffman in Straw Dogs.  This idyllic haven has actually turned out to be a barbaric, Draconian society not particularly fussed about the death of three outstanding young wizards as long as their elders are amused as they tussle with dragons, sea creatures and demented hedges whilst they sit above in the stands.


The cuts to the source material have obviously had to be vicious and thorough in this book - this is a far more streamlined story than any of the first three and it shows.  We are not afforded the annual trip to the Dursleys which is a shame - their presence always reminded me of Roald Dahl and you feel that an amusing series of short childrens books is just waiting to be made that will provide children even more unneeded ammunition against their fat classmates in the playground.

If the first film had been about the trio as brave young children, the second about Harry and Ron being resourceful and the third about Hermione using her guile and Harry trying to keep up Goblet of Fire is very much a Harry one-man-show.  This film is Radcliffe and Potter's coming out as a young action hero of the James Bond/Indiana Jones mould.  To give Radcliffe and the crew their due for the most part you buy it.  Harry has already had to prove his bravery and ability to just keep going regardless of the situation and all Hermione and Ron (when he's not moping at the gradual realisation he is the Penfold to his best mate's Danger Mouse).

This film doesn't work as well as Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban on the whole.  The action can be fairly dull at times in the first two fights and Newell has no visual touches to match the likes of the whomping willow flailing snow directly onto the camera but the dialogue and acting in the thirty or so minutes dedicated to the tentative young romances blossoming and the final set-piece first in the hedge maze suggests a fearful dementia and dread of the unknown forces at work that clearly seem indebted to Sam Raimi's first two Evil Dead movies.

The best is saved for the finale, though, as Voldemort's return to human form is a great tour-de-force.  I'd argue it's the best set-piece of the saga to date and that is a lot to do with Ralph Fiennes imbuing so much energy and malice and odd humour to his performance.  His Voldemort is evil, arrogant but also jubilant - you get a sense of him getting as much out of his regenerated body as possible with every flourish and step.  His performance in front of the Death Eaters is almost playful as he believes his return and swift execution of Harry will be all that is needed.  Here is where I also believe that Radcliffe completely steps up.  It's the pivotal point in Potter's arc in that he knows now is the time to fight and be a man as he leaves his hiding place and they clash spells.  The clashing lightning bolts of red and green are wonderful special effects, but I can't be the only one to be a bit too bothered by the obvious lightsabre similarities in those duels.  The lack of physical closeness by the two combatants is also a problem for filming reasons but both actors and the sound and visual effects as well as the effective storytelling means that this is still a momentous moment.  As an inner-city Baltimore wizard might say - 'This shit just got real.'

Coming up: Tantrums, torture and tongues

Harry Potter Week Day #3: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

At my local cinema they are screening each of the previous seven Harry Potter films one day after the other in the build up to the series finale 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2'.  Your intrepid blogger has taken the plunge and will watch each of these films and write about his observations...

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Studio: Warner Brothers Pictures
Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Screenplay: Steve Kloves
Main Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, David Thewlis, Gary Oldman, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Tom Felton, Richard Griffiths

Grade: B+

Now we're moving.  From the opening percussive glow and owl hooting zooming in and out of Harry's bedroom there is more emphasis on creating a mood and mysticism.  This seems a clear declaration of intent that wherever possible this third Harry Potter film will not be filmed in a flat conventional way that Chris Columbus was guilty throughout most of The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets.

When making the hilariously bad Batman and Robin (easily my second favourite Batman film to watch but for all the wrong reasons) director Joel Schumacher referred to Warner Brothers requesting that everything be more 'toyrific' to maximise all potential revenue streams.  The Philosopher's Stone and to a lesser extent Chamber of Secrets were very toyrific.  The kids staring longingly at the Nimbus 2000 broom was a clear pitch for being the 'must have' Christmas gift of 2001 and the Quidditch games seemed like extended adverts for the inevitable computer games - the shoddy CGI in many of those shots would even suggest they advertised in-game footage.

Of course Harry Potter remained a global branding phenomenon and of course there are plenty of cool gizmos and gadgets on display in subsequent post-Columbus films in the 'franchise' (a phrase I am loathe to use at the most appropriate of times) but there is an increasing sense of a hands-off approach from Warners and the small UK studio of Heyday by now seems to have control over every major aspect of what is seen on screen.  The choice of director is the first indication of more autonomy.


I fear I may have been too harsh on Chris Columbus.  I watched Home Alone countless times and anyone who had a major hand in Gremlins' creation is always going to stay in my good books but Alfonso Cuaron is in a completely different league.  Look at what both directors have on either side of their CVs before and after their forays into Hogwarts.  Cuaron made Y Tu Mama Tambien and Children of Men.  Columbus made Bicentennial Man and Rent.

Yet again we're in 'darker' territory but the dimmer has been moved a fair few more degrees further than it was in Chamber of Secrets.  Both of the previous films had a joys of spring and summer feel to them even during the Christmas time scenes.  Prisoner of Azkaban is very much a winter film.  The journey on the Hogwarts Express has rain lashing down on the windows and everyone's breath hangs in the air even without the Dementors around.

My first impression when seeing Prisoner of Azkaban during its first release was it seemed to zip along at a fast pace - almost too fast.  I seemed to have remembered the dialogue being spoken so quickly that even Dan Ackroyd would struggle to keep the pace.  On watching it now it doesn't feel too quick other than a very thorough and to-the-point scene in which an invisibilty cloaked Harry listens in as Professor McGonagall recites to innkeeper Mrs. Exposition every key bit of information our hero and us as the audience needs to know for all the character conflicts and mysteries to be resolved.  You get a sense that all the events of Prisoner of Azkaban are tied up within the first term and a half whereas all other films cover the entire school year and maybe that change of seasons is what leads to a greater sense of the film dragging.

There really is a wonderful sense of grown-up actors being liberated in these films.  The fun parts are always the supporting ones.  All the child actors bar Harry have a clear sense of who they are - the snarky one, the comic relief, the brains, the oaf and the adults all know that the pressures off.  This is a guaranteed payday and not a Mike Leigh-style test of mettle.  That's not to say they don't show full dedication but there's no sense of worry in their performances.

With this film I'll champion David Thewlis as a fairly straight-laced Professor Lupin with a secret as dark and mysterious as your rudementary knowledge of Latin.  Lupin is a warm but slightly distant figure for Harry.  There's a caring and love for a boy he's never met but still knows so well.  The need to feel protective to Radcliffe is shared by many of the cast and by now there's a natural likeability in his performance that we as an audience genuinely react with concern when he and his friends are in peril.

Michael Gambon took the tricky step of replacing the now deceased Richard Harris as top wizard headmaster Professor Dumbledore.  Whilst it's sad to see Harris gone it would seem that Gambon was a more appropriate age and physical state to take the reins from here on anyway as the increased physical presence meant that there needed to be a more sprightly body ready for action.  There's also a sense the hippie in Gambon's groovier interpretation.  Harris had a twinkle in his eye that says he sympathises with a child's sense of mischief and adventure.  Gambon has one that suggests he still gets up to it himself whenever possible.

Prisoner of Azkaban is oft cited as the best of the films and even more commonly listed as the best of the books.  I would agree that it seemed the best of the reads, but I would have to re-assess them all one after the other to be confident in my convictions and whilst this film marathon has been fun I'm not about to do this for a much lengthier period of time.  Especially when I have four published books of A Song of Ice and Fire to get on with.

Perhaps one of the reasons Prisoner of Azkaban is often cited as the high artistic watermark of the series is that it's also the most unimportant as far as pushing the overall narrative forward.  This is the only Voldemort-less story, there are no major deaths and not that many mysteries of Harry's origin are unravelled.  That freedom and a source novel that - in number of pages at least - would indicate someone in editing was still willing to provide negative feedback to a draft handed in by JK Rowling means that the only key job here is to tell a rip-roaring story and that's what is achieved.

The gap between releases and filming has now widened.  Whilst Chamber of Secrets came out exactly one year after Philosopher's Stone the gap is now eighteen months and Prisoner of Azkaban sees all our young cast members seeming to have aged a heck of a lot in the six weeks since Chamber of Secrets took place.  Matthew Lewis' Neville Longbottom in particular has gone from short and tubby to looking like he's an eight foot tall beanpole.

Hogwarts itself has undergone some changes.  Instead of feeling more like a cathedral near a town there's more of a distant, rural feel to it.  The school now really seems to be in some sort of hinterland of high hills and vast forests.  Hagrid's home has certainly relocated a fair way away from the main school for a start.  The increasingly teenage atmosphere is reflected in the wardrobe as gone are the long flowing gowns and perfectly kept school uniforms - there's now a more comprehensive school untucked shirt and loosened tie look to a typical Hogwarts student.  The final act of the film sees Harry, Ron and Hermione all running about in the jeans and jackets and the haircuts now suggest not so much a mother's touch than a thorough work over by the top staff of Toni & Guy.

The improvement in acting continues with the main cast.  Radclife seems to constantly be playing catch-up with the demands of a lead actor.  You now feel he has the confidence to know he can be a presence and is charismatic enough to hold an audience for a full film where he is in nearly every scene but his technical abilities still leave something to be desired.  If the Radcliffe of Prisoner of Azkaban were given the requirements of the first two films he would have been completely successful, but the increasing doubt Harry has about his own history and the growing number of names and faces that he should believe are for or against him or neither or both is still a bit too much.  One scene in particular requiring him to weep is quite hard to watch just because you know no tears were ever going to come out of those myopic eyes.

This review is already far more cumbersome than the film itself so I'll try to wrap it all up.  Continuing on from the haunted house genre of Chamber of Secrets this is almost straight forward horror in many places.  The final conflict especially suggesting more than a touch of inspiration from the classic Universal monster movie.

This film may also be Hermione's finest hour.  Whilst Chamber of Secrets saw Harry and Ron having to fit the final pieces of the puzzle without the brains to back them up this story is all about Hermione knowing what's what and Harry and Ron struggling to keep up as she races from one part of Hogwarts to another.  Emma Watson has always had it hardest - both in how she is expected to look in the media and in playing one of the hardest to like character archetypes (the know-it-all) and making her not just likeable but loveable.  Rowling clearly wants Hermione to be a feminist icon and Watson just about hits the right balance of brains, bravery and anxiety ("is that really what the back of my hair looks like?") that most smart young girls, I would imagine, can relate to.

Coming up: Dancing, dating and derring do!...

Harry Potter Week Day #2: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

At my local cinema they are screening each of the previous seven Harry Potter films one day after the other in the build up to the series finale 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2'.  Your intrepid blogger has taken the plunge and will watch each of these films and write about his observations...

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Studio: Warner Brothers Pictures
Director: Chris Columbus
Screenplay: Steve Kloves
Main Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Felton, Richard Griffiths, Jason Isaacs

Grade: C

So at this point Harry Potter is a confirmed film phenomenon.  It made more money than Fellowship of the Ring and The Phantom Menace.  Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint's face plastered corporate items around the globe and Warner Brother's licked their lips at the idea of (at the time) six more films set to come over the course of the next decade.

  

In my list of the many, many things that annoy me in the world I think around #2493 is 'a darker sequel'.  There seems to be a ctach-all statement that everyone publicising a sequel is to throw the 'D' word around to try to get some of that sweet sweet Empire Strikes Back kudos.  This always surprises me in a way because Empire Strikes Back is the least successful of all the Star Wars movies.  The summer blockbuster crowd rarely goes to see a sequel because that jubilation they felt the first time they left the cinema has been replaced by a desire to feel an overriding sense of ennui on the journey home after the follow-up.

Fortunately we needn't worry about the 'darker' path too much with Chamber of Secrets because Chris Columbus' talents were retained and of all the Harry Potter films the first two feel closest to companion.  Chamber of Secrets is very much a continuation of a kid-friendly vision.  There are a few more scares, there are a few more jumps, there's a bit more blood but the general feel of this is still a PG story with PG sensibilities.

If Philosopher's Stone is a 'kids strike out' film along the lines of Home Alone or The Goonies then Chamber of Secrets is closer to a 'haunted house' story.  Hogwarts is the key character of this film and it's secrets are what Harry, Ron and Hermione are uncovering and ultimately fighting against. Whilst Philosopher's Stone saw the viewer learn everything that takes place in this world as Harry is learning this one already has little time for stragglers.  Frankly when Harry still enquires naively on certain aspects of wizardry in the next few films you can't help but wonder how a naturally gifted wizard can be so slow on the uptake.

Along with a sequel comes a self-awareness.  The actors, the writers and the producers have heard what people like and what they don't and try to improve wherever they can.  Radcliffe is already trying to put more energy into his performance but his lack of an expressive face still hampers him.  His broken voice does allow a greater sense of Harry's natural heroism to shine through.  The brave actions in Quidditch and questing for the Philosopher's Stone in the first film seem to be more due to pig ignorance of the possible consequences but as he stands up to the ghostly spectre of Voldemort in his 16-year-old incarnation anagram friendly named Tom Marvoleo Riddle it seems more as a sense of duty and knowing what was right.  Watson has kept the same consistency of voice that made her stand out in the first film and that has been coupled with a greater sense of being part of an unbreakable friendship triangle rather than a late addition to the Harry-Ron double act.  Grint continues to increase his comical mugging pallet from scrunched up face to wide mouthed panic.  It's a thankless task at times to be the cowardly comical foil but he takes it all in his stride and never slips into annoyance which is more than can be said for CGI addition Dobby.  Whilst not as egregious an offender as Jar Jar Binks there is still little to enjoy about the house elf that sets much of the film's plot in motion.

There is still an innocence about the film that reflect the innocence of the characters but the lack of complexity doesn't allow for a streamlined film.  The story is cumbersome and plodding in many places and the fact that the shortest book adapted has the longest running time of the whole series indicates that Columbus and Kloves were still too bogged down in being reverential to as much of the books as possible.

That said I think Chamer of Secrets is a little bit better.  The central mystery is more interesting and there is a confidence from all involved and continuing evolving of all the young cast members' comfort in front of the camera and confidence in each other.

One of the joys of re-watching these films has been seeing how much fun the grown up actors have.  The strain and stresses of being the lead actors not on their shoulders a veritable who's who of the best British talent have appeared in the Harry Potter films.  The show is stolen in Chamber of Secrets by Kenneth Branagh.  Whilst perhaps not handsome enough to pull off the heart-throb aspect of Gilderoy Lockhart - the rumoured first-choice of Hugh Grant would have probably been the best choice - he still displays the necessary level of ego and barely concealed cowardice required from one of Rowling's best realised minor characters.

Richard Harris unfortunately died soon after the making of this one and so this would be his swansong as Dumbledore.  He provided a very mysterious quality with his headmaster, a sense of great age and great wisdom and true warmth felt towards Harry and the other students of Hogwarts.  Whether he would have been able to convince in the later films' requirement of a more active participant in the major conflicts is a moot point of course but he imbued Dumbledore with a great-grandfatherly grace that is almost entirely against the Harris of early works and career legend which just goes to show the great variety in his range.

I'll save praise for the other cast members to keep them evenly scattered around the rest of the reviews but will not end this review without adding praise to Jason Isaacs as the most explicitly villainous character so far in his portrayl of Lucius Malfoy - father to Harry's nemesis Draco and former Death Eater.  The long flowing barely subtle in its metaphor whtie-blond hair could look ridiculous but the in-bred aristocratic nature of the Malfoys is made clear - you get the sense he studied Tom Felton's performance as his son in the first film and added adult intellect to an in-bred sense of superiority.

Chamber of Secrets is a treading water picture.  You would fear that if Warner Brothers had continued down this safely-safely path the film may have lost any lustre and excitement in later films but a combination of more left-field director choices and Rowling's own deepening of the mythos means that the series continues to improve and with the first two still the weakest in the whole series I am greatly relieved to see that the film does not have a true duffer in the entire run.

Coming up: Werewolves, auteurs and jeans!...

Harry Potter Week Day #1: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)

At my local cinema they are screening each of the previous seven Harry Potter films one day after the other in the build up to the series finale 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2'.  Your intrepid blogger has taken the plunge and will watch each of these films and write about his observations...

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Studio: Warner Brothers Pictures
Director: Chris Columbus
Screenplay: Steve Kloves
Main Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Tom Felton, Ian Hart, Richard Griffiths


Grade: C

We're reaching the end of the largest grossing film franchise of all time.  And we're starting from the beginning.

I was in close to the ground floor with Harry Potter.  We had a copy of The Philosopher's Stone before Chamer of Secrets came out.  The sign of how early an edition of Philosopher's Stone you had was down to which character was ont he back cover.  If you have Dumbledore you've got a later edition - we had one with a short brown beard which I've never been entirely sure who he was meant to be - I thought Quirrell but if he lacked the purple turban with the big secret.

I enjoyed Philosopher's Stone.  I enjoyed all of the Potter books.  I remember reading Chamber of Secrets through to the early morning sunrise because I couldn't put it down.  But I was already a little bit older than the target audience when the first book came out and as the gap between publications increased I came further detached.  JK Rowling is a good writer but not a great writer.  I'm sure her legions of fans and massive bank account means me writing that is hardly going to make reappraise her approach to her craft but it became increasingly obvious that with the growing stature of the franchise she created the more fearful any editor at the publishers were to even suggest trimming the fat.

It was everyone's fear when the first film adaptation became an inevitability that we'd be condemned to Haley Joel Osment worrying he won't get a date in time for the prom at Hogwarts High.  At least it was the fear of every self-important British snob.  At the premiere of Deathly Hallows Part II Rowling noted how proud she was that it was a 'ninety-nine percet British' production from start to finish.  Sure the box office billions went Stateside but at least people around the globe got to see the acting of Roger Lloyd-Pack at least once in their miserable lives.

In fact so fearful were Warner Brothers of angering fans either side of the Atlantic that they made sure to release two versions of the first film with characters referring to the Philosopher's Stone for the Brits and the Sorcerer's Stone for the Yanks.  The only other American influence was in the choice of writer and director.  Rowling's choice had been American-born Anglophile - and Monty Python member - Terry Gilliam but he was not the studio's choice as the safe option was made for Chris Columbus.

Columbus was a proven commodity with the early 90s successes of Home Alone, Home Alone 2 and Mrs. Doubtfire.  That he followed that up with Nine Months, Stepmom and Bicentennial Man certainly was not cause for hope of a film that would match the Spielbergian wonder that Rowling's work had created in children's imagination.

In truth Philosopher's Stone is not particularly well directed.  There isn't a creative shot and it's slavish devotion to putting as much of the book on screen as possible leaves an uneven feel to the pacing.  However, given the more unusual and darker avenues the series travels in later films the relative lightness of touch The Philosopher's Stone in particular gives allows a real sense of 'how things change' when you watch the whole story from start-to-finish.

The Philosopher's Stone also has a definitive start to it.  Only Deathly Hallows: Part 2 also has a definitive point at the end.  All other six films are the middle.  As such there's a certain responsibilty of scene-setting and character introduction that none of the other films need.

Rowling's greatest strength is her creativity.  Individual ideas such as moving photos and paintings or every flavour sweets really capture a child's imagination and is something they can really hook themselves into the action.  Rowling can also lay out a mystery and clues at a steady pace before hitting you with the surprise twist at the end.  Unfortunately much like an M. Night Shyamalan film you soon find yourself spending the entire story trying to second guess what each revelation actually means which will obviously prevent you enjoying the present moment.

When first seeing The Philosopher's Stone I came to the conclusion that I'd seen the most expensive school play to ever be produced and I stand by that assessment.  Radcliffe, Grint and Watson are all actors with little range at this point.  Watson is all posh-girl enunciations, Grint relies on scrunching his face up to portray all sense of confusion, embarassment, anger or amusement and Radcliffe barely shifts facial expression outside of slight wonder.  That's not meant as a knock - these are young actors and in the heightened world of fantasy even fine actors can struggle to sound or look as if they're in anything other than a special effects showcase.  Look at how much Ewan MacGregor and Liam Neeson struggled throughout The Phantom Menace to make it clear that an inexperienced pre-teen had no chance of being anything better than passable.  Watson is probably the most defined in her character as her cut-glass words and affected bookish manner is in-line with the standard elocution class acting of English stage schoolers.  One thing that is clear though is that a chemistry between Harry, Ron and Hermione is already there and it is perhaps that came across in the audition and led to the casting choices made.

Philosopher's Stone is about the wonder of magic.  Everything is through Harry's eyes and everything is a new lesson.  All rooms, adults and older-year students seem huge and the magic itself is all a first-time experience.  Even the final fight scene with Quirrell and a semi-spectral Voldemort doesn't seem particularly perilous compared to future final-act conflicts.  Harry's victory does not come through wits or abilities

As a children's film Philosopher's Stone is the equal to Home Alone and I'm sure I were nine seeing this for the first time as I would hold Harry, Ron and Hermione's first year adventures as much as I do when I remember first watching Macaulay Culkin fend off Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern with nothing to rely on other than paint cans, Christmas decorations and a young boy's natural tendency towards extreme sadism.

Philosopher's Stone is almost certainly going to be the weakest of all the films in this series - it is from memory of watching them all when they were first released - but it has an innocence and charm that makes it hard to hate.  It's a gateway drug of sorts to the world of fantasy for both Harry and the reader.  On that level it pretty much succeeds.  The question was do they keep this up?

Coming up: Yes, they keep it up.  Just about...

FILM REVIEW: THOR

Thor

Studio:                   Paramount/Marvel

Director:               Kenneth Branagh

Screenplay:          Ashley Miller, Zack Stenz & Don Payne

Main Cast:             Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Tom Hiddleston, Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba

SCORE:               6.3

 Thor could so easily have gone wrong in so many different ways that for it to have been merely adequate should be considered a great achievement.  That is more than adequate makes this one of the more impressive feats in a decade of comic book adaptations that have increasingly dominated Hollywood’s summer output since Bryan Singer’s first X-Men (2000).

These next few months could be the truest test yet of the mettle of superhero films – are they part of a trend that is due a decrease in numbers and prominence as the likes of disaster movies and teen sex comedies have before them?  Or, since technology has allowed all these decades of fantastical locations and battles featured in multi-panel adventures to become fully realised and animated are these the films we’ve always wanted and now we have them we’re not about to stop demanding them?

I think it would be a shame for all those involved in Thor – from Marvel Studios who had the ambition to give this hard-to-adapt character the full big-budget treatment, Chris Hemsworth who has had to get into tremendous physical shape and also stretch his bombastic acting chops to their furthest reaches when bellowing such lines as ‘How dare you attack the son of Odin!’ to a hospital orderly all the way through to the left-field appointment of Kenneth Branagh – usually seen in films with a separate but just as clichéd predilection for tights and dress up.

Don’t get the wrong idea – this is not a great film.  It will never rank alongside the likes of Richard Donner’s Superman (1978) or either of Christopher Nolan’s two Batman movies produced so far but it doesn’t embarrass itself when compared to its fellow ‘Marvel Studio Universe’ pictures Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008) or Iron Man 2 (2010).  Indeed if we were to rank Thor against those three it would definitely chart higher than Louis Letterier’s plodding reboot for the angry Green Giant and Jon Faverau’s clustered sequel to his successful (although still overrated in my own opinion) origin story.

Thor is an entirely different beast and has already raised scepticism from Iron Man's star Robert Downey Jr. since this story of Gods and magic is set in a world where our previous heroes had come from slightly exaggerated versions of science we recognise as part of our world and modern military warfare.  Indeed, one of the more laughable lines in the film as far as 'don't worry it all makes sense' dismissals of these concerns is to simply have Hemsworth explain to scientist Portman that magic and science are really exactly the same.  I suppose Derren Brown might agree with that but I remain sceptical

The epic scale of this film is far greater than any previous superhero film has attempted with it's traversing of planets and use of myths and stories more similar to the exploits of Thesus and the Minotaur rather than Batman and the Joker.  However, the tone remains suitable and faithful to its source and never feels too stupid like either of Michael Bay’s awful Transformers films (2007, 2009) or the kitsch Masters of the Universe (1987) which are much more obviously comparable than the canon to which Thor is now added.

Another enjoyable aspect of Thor is that for an origin story it’s less of a hard slog than many others, Spider-Man (2002) and Fantastic Four (2005) were two of the worst culprits that immediately spring to mind.  A whole half of a film can be wasted with scenes about our hero realising and learning what powers they are capable on top of crafting a villain from scratch.  Thor is fully aware of his own abilities as a magical super warrior and has already been mistaken for a deity by us primitive Earthlings after his previous battles fought in 10^th century Norway.

If anything Thor discovers the powers of his hubris and the damage that can be inflicted when he instigates a resumption of the on-off battles with the Frost Kings that his weary, ageing father Odin (Hopkins) has tried to avoid since his son was an infant.  The film's villain, and Thor's step-brother, Loki (Hiddleston) has been plotting his master plan since before the majority of the action in the film takes place and we come in as it starts to reach fruition.  Loki’s motivations are more complex and understandable than mere evil for evil’s sake that the Lex Luthor-types usually display – the Greek (or should that be Norse?) tragedy that is his own life actually allows sympathy for a villain rarely seen outside of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy.  Unfortunately this means that despite being a God of mischief Loki mopes more than quips so don’t expect a deified version of The Joker.  Perhaps a sequel will allow a more anarchic streak to run through Loki’s actions as it would be a shame for Hiddleston – who avoided the risk of being lost in the mass of characters – to be dispatched in one film.  I imagine that this won’t be the last we see of him barring disastrous box office returns.

Despite Thor, Odin and Loki’s familial woes this doesn't mean the film is all drab and serious.  There is chuckles to be had – if not the hearty guffaws to match Ray Stevenson’s bellowing Volstagg.  Thor’s bafflement at the New Mexico town he has been banished to, and the reactions of the locals themselves, supply a few fun moments - in particular during a trip to the local pet store.  His main Earth contacts, though, are left with little to work with other than to be puzzled by the blonde hunk that literally fell from the sky during on of their nights of stargazing.  Skarsgard makes occasional observations about the Nordic tales he was told as a boy but is given no chance to tell a story or explain these childhood legends brought to life to his American accomplices.  Dennings is fine with what she’s given, although one wonders if her ‘I’ve got to get this on Facebook’ line won’t sound as dated as Robert Downey Jr.’s MySpace line at the start of the first Iron Man.  You do wish that some of her more flirtatious lines had been given to Portman, though, since she has little with which to work.  Her character has no depth nor strength of will.  Her attraction to Thor seems less finding a soulmate from beyond the stars than swooning over the high school football captain.   In truth her romance with Danny McBride in Your Highness has more interesting twists and turns and better sparkling chemistry.

The fight scenes are fairly unremarkable except for the final collision between Thor and Loki and for that praise must be handed in equal measure to Hemsworth, Hiddleston (who convinces as his meaty brother’s equal despite his far leaner frame) and Branagh.  An unusual choice on first inspection, but Branagh really has the best pedigree possible in taking legends, folklore and unusual speech patterns and fitting them into both exotic and conventional settings at the same time.  His eye for action beyond a simple one-on-one conflict may not be particularly thrilling (one dreads to imagine how the already dark visuals of the big battle in the frost kingdom of Jotenheim will look in the 3D shades of yet another annoying and artistically pointless post-converted cash grab) but his time given to the actors and the vastness of the setting is admirable.  Though given little to work with at times Branagh clearly has respect for characters such as Elba's Heimdall and Jamie Alexander's Sif to allow them little moments to shine.  Although Rene Russo clearly was left largely on the cutting room floor.

There is no clever-clever superior smirking all the jokes (except the usual Stan Lee cameo) seem to come naturally from within the story, plot and characters.  This has the same necessary dedication and respect for its original creators as Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings adaptations.

So, as far as quality goes the first hurdle of this tricky year has been passed.  If the public are on board for the more mystical or overblown universes proffered this year by Thor and DC’s first serious non-World’s Finest offering Green Lantern perhaps this will open superhero movies to try for a more operatic scale befitting the special effects at their disposal.  Couple this with X-Men: First Class and Captain America: The First Avenger both being period pieces (following in the footsteps of 2009’s Watchmen) placing their heroes in a time period usually only seen in Indiana Jones and Connery-era Bond and the fact that Thor and Captain America are the final pieces in The Avengers jigsaw puzzle that I expect will only do about as well financially as the least successful of all the four set-up movies.

I hope that Thor does well.  The key job with this film was to be faithful and reverent to its source material whilst also being rollicking good fun.  You may think this is little more than doing its job but with recent mega-blockbusters like Tron Legacy and Superman Returns it seems sometimes being simply enjoyable and having the audience leave smiling is the last thing these filmmakers are concerned about.  Everything needs to be marketed as ‘darker’; everything needs to have moral uncertainties.  Alan Moore has said it before but it really does seem that a slight grump he had in the mid-80s has negatively affected a lot of the work in the superhero/comic/action genre and that has now spread into summer films.  Jon Faverau’s Iron Man seemed to be going in the right direction but it still had its cod serious moments.  Thor, for all its faults, for the most part has done away with the indulgences of many of its contemporaries and for that alone we should be grateful for small mercies.

If this year’s comic offerings fail on more than one count, either critically or commercially, then expect many more grounded, tough, gritty superhero films.  Perhaps a Green Arrow film will be released in 2013 where our hero spends his time lecturing drug addicts and foils a few gang rapes before being locked up for excessive verbal abuse of bankers at a G8 summit demonstration.  And if all this happens because the movie-going public is too snooty to see a film about a Nordic God who fights Frost Giants and a creature made of fire and metal called The Destroyer with a hammer that allows him to fly in self-made hurricanes in order to prevent the Casket of Ancient Winters falling into the wrong hands then surely we only have ourselves to blame.