The Harry Potter phenomenon continues to grow, and for the life of me I cannot work out why. The books somehow found widespread appeal over all manner of race, ages and both sexes despite beginning as nothing more than glorified and highly derivative children novels, and as the rule tends to go: the books are better then the movies.
The first two movies were over-hyped, overrated vanity pieces that were afraid to actually ADAPT the story from a novel to a screenplay, which is largely due to the vice-like grip J.K. Rowling kept on her plot, and as a result it was a prosaic collection of scenes. All that said the first movie, and to a lesser extent the second, had some glimmers of charm which is exactly what the third, and supposedly edgier, movie lacks. So what works and what fails in this latest instalment?
Firstly, as has been the case with so many movies of late, the visual effects are great. There are the odd fuzzy moments, but that?s the nature of the CGI beast. The Dementors, though uninspired in look and lacking any fear factor, do look slick, so does the Hippogriff and the variety of spells that the students, and wizards cast.
Disappointing is the Werewolf, and regular wolf, especially considering that these could be given a live action counterpart instead of being keyboard created monstrosities. After all wolves have been done for years without computer effects and there was no call for it in this instance, as for the Werewolf, both ?Underworld? and ?Dog Soldiers? have shown us that Lycans can be done splendidly with animatronics and body suits. Live action should always come before CGI.
Continuing in the same vein the sets are amazing, a trend I?m sure will only continue as more instalments are added to this behemoth of a series. Between locations in the school, the Screaming Shack, and Hogsmead the surroundings are superb, basically flawless.
The performances are easily the worst of the series, this is most likely due to the increased focus placed on the lack lustre child cast and the demand for emotions in their performances which they can?t deliver. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) was reportedly picked out of a stage play? Was he the lead? No. Was he a notable speaking role? No. Was he a minor speaking role? No. He wasn?t an extra or a stage hand either? Hell, he wasn?t even the usher; he was in the audience. Doesn?t it show? He fumbles every emotional moment tending to act with his teeth (Arrg, I?m angry and I?m going to get Sirius Black? You can tell because I?m clenching my teeth) At one point it gets so bad that the director has to hide his emotional breakdown under the invisible cape, that?s subtlety for you. I?ve heard one reviewer mention that he?s fast becoming a teenage Orlando Bloom, which is an apt description because he?s good looking and can?t act either.
Thankfully Rupert Grint (Ron) tones it down, honestly if he tried any harder to be funny in ?Chamber of Secrets? he would have injured himself, however fails to regain that slight charm he had in the first movie. Grint shows more potential than Radcliffe but doesn?t have the comic timing, ability or presence that he thinks he has.
Emma Watson is a welcome surprise however, she lays of the queen-bitch attitude a little and shows signs of improvement lacking in the other leads. The other kids do more of the same in smaller doses and are a complete non event, most notably Malfoy who turns up does the nasty bully routine before being shown up and embarrassed several times. It gets more unexpected and humorous with every rendition of this ancient routine.
The adults are the true disappointments, because unlike the children we know they can act. They gather, what could be called, the cream of the British acting crop and woefully misuse them. Without fail the adults mug to the camera shamelessly, which in an ?edgier instalment? should be a complete no-no, however it goes to show how much of a farce calling ?Prisoner? edgy really is.
Michael Gambon apes Richard Harris as Dumbledore and nothing more, Maggie Smith is nothing more than a cameo. Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) turns in perhaps his worst role yet, he had me longing for his 007 days and is inexcusably there only to introduce the computer generated Hippogriff, which remarkably displayed more personality than the adult cast. Gary Oldman, a man I always associated with quality performances, does absolutely nothing but scream a lot (although he is on mute) and pour on the sugar coated sappiness.
The Minister for Magic [Insert name] plays the ?comfort-the-boy-but-don?t-tell-him-something-is-up-which-ironically-tells-him-s
omething-is-up? shtick without subtlety or originality. Alan Rickman?s Snape is a tired retread of the snide, antagonistic, villainous type person he always plays that we can see somewhere else done with more energy and accompanied by a better movie. He has turned it down a little but considering the nature of things, this is just a drop in the over-acting ocean.
Emma Thompson?s Divinity teacher is surely the most shameless mugging of them all, she?s there for only cheap gags as a hippy caricature and as a plot device. The only credible performance from the adults is David Thewlis as Remus Lupin, the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher. He shows charm, emotion and subtlety in his performance, although his dirty little secret is woefully mishandled and obvious even to those who haven?t read the book, another testament to the abandonment of subtlety.
The performances, though disappointing, aren?t the only problem; much of it comes from the script and the very story itself. Much like the lack lustre ?Van Helsing? it?s too derivative and clichéd to be original and prone to bouts of cheesiness that are presented seriously, which is inexcusable.
The Dementors were scarier and better handled as Ring Wraiths in ?Lord of the Rings? or even as Death in ?The Frighteners?. Sirius Black isn?t Harry?s father? He?s only his GODfather, no points for guessing where the inspiration for that little twist came from. This was always going to be the case with Rowling?s melting pot of fantasy which borrowed from just about every source available to modern fantasy writers.
As for the cheesy script, where do the examples stop? Between Sirius and Harry?s little ?Family is in your heart? bit, Sirius riding off into the moonlight (as opposed to the sunset), any of the supposedly coy moments between Ron and Hermione, the cheesy crows flying off moment as the Hippogriff is supposedly being decapitated and by far the cheesiest moment as Harry dreams of his new living arrangement with Sirius.
If these were embraced in all there tacky, B Grade glory and you could see that this movie was having a little fun with itself and at itself then this sort of silliness could be acceptable but in what is supposed to be the edgier and darker part of the series there is no place for cheese. The upside is that there is some great laughs in all of this, but they are unintentional.
Rest in comments
