![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
In this episode: Fahrenheit 9/11 | Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban |
![]() |
||
![]() |
I have been reading the Harry Potter books as they come out in paperback because spending that money on a hardcover seems a little extravagant. Said the man with the $99 white goose down pillows. Okay, so I choose my luxuries. And I had coupons. Anyway, when the fourth book came out, I enjoyed it so much that I could not wait another few years for the fifth book to move to paperback. With my Disney discount, I employed some bit of spendthriftiness and semi-splurged on the hardcover of The Order of the Phoenix. And it rocked my world. The Harry Potter series has moved from the realm of satisfying if less-than-brilliant to very creative and excitingly concocted. J.K. Rowling has improved as an author, though she's not a Yukio Mishima by any means. (Yukio HUH?) The books are what they are, and they have become excellently entertaining. So now it's time for the movies to catch up. The second Harry Potter book is commonly considered the least good. (I don't want to say "the worst.") The Prisoner of Azkaban, book number three, started to bump things up a notch. Bam. Subtleties of character and history began to coalesce. Interesting threads came out of the shadows. Now, the movie. It mostly works as an adaptation of the book, though it definitely leaves out some important background information and details on character motivation. Movie #3, thankfully, was not directed by Chris Columbus. Okay, so the other movies were fine (reviews here and here). They were enjoyable, especially the second one. But he's just too unpredictable, and the tone of darkness that's creeping into the story needed to be handled by someone else. Though Alfonso Cuarón, director of Y Tu Mamá También, would seem an odd choice to direct, it turns out he is well-suited to the task. He has a felling for the darkness and the grimness. More importantly, he has a feeling for the actors, especially the young heroes, from which he has to extract more meaningful performances. More than ever, I am hoping Warner Bros. keeps the three main actors in the roles throughout the Harry Potter movies. Not only is it becoming comfortable to see the same people on screen, they are improving, if by small steps, as actors. Daniel Radcliffe, as Harry, is still a little stiff, but there's a presence about him, and an honest teen angst, that make him more than welcome in my mind as Harry. Emma Watson is still wonderful as Hermione, and Rupert Grint, while still most enjoyable in the first movie, is growing into Ron perfectly. I think it is invaluable to the movie that these three kids have been in it from the start, and I have no idea what their off-screen chemistry is like, but on-screen, they are a pleasure to watch. This sounds sad and pathetic, but they are kinda like friends now. Welcome, friends, back into my movie-watching life! While the story expunctions are worrisomemy friend Carol had to point them out to me since I'd read the book so long agomore distracting to me was the complete change of setting for Hogwarts. I have to say that it was a spectacular location, and the mountainous terrain added plenty o' drama to the movie, but it was not Hogwarts, either as described in the books or as shown in the last two movies. If it was one way in the first two films, to change things up so drastically is not really such a great idea. The whomping willow is now nowhere near the courtyard like it was but is instead on a mountainside somewhere. The lake looks more like a fjord that goes all the way out to the sea. And the Forbidden Forest is literally all around the castle. It threw me. I'm willing to go with it because it looked great, but because another director is coming on board for the next movie, I'm sure Hogwarts will morph yet again. To protect my fragile little mind from such unwholesome changes, I shall pretend that it's all part of the protection of Hogwarts' location from prying Muggle eyes. If Hogwarts moves about the countryside every year, it'd be harder to notice! Whatever. Like in the last movie, the adults get very little to do here. I am very glad they have remained to play their same roles, and I'm sure it will all pay off if the movies remain true to the books, but it's weird to see someone like Maggie Smith relegated to a few small scenes. Luckily, we have a great new addition in Madame Trelawney, played hilariously by Emma Thompson. I can't wait to see more of her. And Michael Gambon fills the role of Dumbledore quite well. His take is different from the late Richard Harris's, but it works. This Dumbledore is more spry, more mischievous, and more twinkly-eyed. Also like the last movie, this film just speeds along like mad. There are some nice dramatic scenes to give some needed pauses, but again, there is so much to fit into the film that it felt a bit rushed at times. And from here on out, the books get even gigantic-er, so I have no idea how the next movies will fare in the pace department. Finally, the effects are fine but not brilliant, the music is good but not purchasable, and the... the... I need a third thing here, but don't have one. Oh well! I liked this movie. Damning with faint praise? Not really. I recommend it, especially if you're a fan. Though if you're a fan, you've surely seen it by now and this whole review was pointless. Okay. Go see Fahrenheit 9/11, then!
Steve |
|
6/28/04 |
|
|
|
©2004 Steven Lekowicz except |