2/7 in a massive Catch-Up post that must be broken down in Seven like Voldemort's Soul.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
Before I say anything more about this interview, I would like to confess, yes, I am a Potter fan. A bit of a Joanna-Come-Lately, (I've only seen the three most recent films in theatres, and didn't begin reading them until shortly before Half-Blood Prince was released).
Also, I saw this film in IMAX 3-D and if you can do so as well, I highly recommend it.
I will do my best to keep it as spoiler-free as possible.
I was never a fan of Order. Goblet was one of my favorites (of the books), and despite my love for Mike Newell as well, I felt the entire thing was mishandled; especially after Cuaron's refreshing change in Prisoner after two Chris Columbus films that felt like xeroxes of the books.
As soon as the film started I was sucked in. The tone of the latter three books was caught perfectly from the beginning: a strange sense of absolute horror and and a weird bit of silliness. This is best executed in Harry's arrival at 12 Grimmauld Place, there's something very cloak-and-dagger going on, nothing looks quite right, but Gary Oldman seems pretty happy and as soon as the twins show up and start apparating, there's a (very very creepy!) sense of levity about the place.
And then I realized something wonderful; the reason why this film had such a better (pardon the hippie jargon, folks) vibe compared to the four films preceding it. It was not adapted by Steve Kloves, but by Michael Goldberg. In the other films, I would often picture Mr. Kloves skimming the tome in question, highlighting scenes that were MAJOR PLOT POINTS or THINGS PEOPLE WANT TO SEE and making a point to get those in for the fans. Mr. Goldberg, however, allowed us to take our time (I'm not saying things weren't cut out, I was a little miffed that the fireside chat with Sirius and Lupin RE: abusing Snape as teens was omitted) and feel like the characters were part of a story, that they were active participants and not being shoved into these things that had to happen. For those who disagree with me, have no fear, Mr. Kloves will return for the final two films.
I'm also sure many of you will argue that I'm placing too much weight on the role of the screenwriter. (I admit, I'm biased.) David Yates, the director, also brought much to this film. I'm sure it wasn't Goldberg's idea to make sure that any time Ginny and Harry were in a scene together she was standing directly behind him. His repetition of images (explosions!) was a pattern I came to really enjoy (and makes me want to see it again) and he brought out great scenes I could see being lost in less capable hands.
The "emotional range of a teaspoon" is completely superfluous, and not that long, but that time could have been saved for a longer Death Eater battle royale. But the way that Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint play off each other in that scene feels so natural (yes, I know, five films together, got it) and simple. The DA montage is interesting, and unusual in that I found myself kicking my feet with delight and saying silly things under my breath; I cheered when Neville mastered "expelliarmus!" and found Ron's puppy patronus completely adorable. By the time the aforementioned smackdown was going on, I was amazed that I wholeheartedly was rooting for the good guys. It's always so tempting to want the bad guys to get just a little bit (anyone else remember Lucius' attempt to Avada Kedavra Harry outside Dumbledore's office in Chamber? Awesome!) but here I could care less about them.
Which brings us to the inevitable spoiler. I heard Brad Pitt say once (I believe on the "Fight Club" commentary), "No one dies like Gary Oldman." As for his death itself, I was a little underwhelmed. But his last words made everything so worth it.
I feel like I'm leaving out a ton, but I still have five movies to review.
GRADE: A+
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
if i were drinking when i read this, i'd do a spit-take. courtney, what can you possibly be thinking giving this piece of shit an a+? are you sure you're a harry potter fan?
hrm. i realize that the previous comment will definitely be read as total a-hole material, so, i want to write to clarify 'please read it in the most light-hearted ...light'
AND
to possibly give reasons. maybe.
i'm not a review writer. i like discussions. so you can call for one, BUT,
unlike previous harry potter movies, the cuts for this one were enormous. big fat book, therefore big fat cuts. so that was partially to-be-expected. yet, not only did they cut much of the material that leads to future depth, in future volumes [making for more vapid future movies], but they butchered and utterly dropped parts of the book that make it so unbelievably excruciating, gripping, or moving. i partially blame Azkaban [movie] for not establishing the concept of the secret keeper when it was first introduced in the books, but there are very simple, world-creation things that would not have been hard to show instead of the cop-out they came up with. Grimmauld pl. SHOULD'VE been so much cooler--Dumbledor as secret keeper? needing to read the address before it pops out of nowhere? the movie made it seem like any old wizard could get to it. and Kreacher needed more attention. and quidditch needed more attention cause, for goodness' sake, isn't that one of the most heartbreaking things in the book, when Harry isn't allowed to play quidditch? also, Ron as quidditch player is a just a really enjoyable aspect to the book.
ooh god, and don't get me started on how much better the department of mysteries should have been!!!
anway, i could go on and on because they cut tons and tons, but you get the idea. so much of what was cut robbed the story of the most pleasurable parts. on other fundamental levels the movie really fails, too.
the pacing is awful. particularly in the first 10 minutes..
terrible editing, so choppy, and leaves non-readers of potter in the dark. i went with a friend of that ilk, and had to explain the whole thing afterwards, practically.
unnecessary changes made to aesthetics established by previous potter movies [i.e. the dementors, which looked awful this time around]
terrible, goddamn terrible, acting out of Emma Watson, and, at times, effing Daniel Radcliffe.
anyway, what i mostly meant by my jerky comment is that... i feel as though, to non-readers, the movie might've been passable. it's hard for me to believe that you're a reader and yet didn't just die wanting more out of it than you got.
Post a Comment