Features
Headlines
Search
Loading ...
Archives
I must admit upfront that I don’t really get the Harry Potter franchise. I don’t dislike it — not having exposed myself enough to its components to justify such a response — but I’ve never felt remotely compelled to deepen my acquaintance with the material. I’ve tackled one of my J.K. Rowling’s novels, but the lumpen functionality of her prose didn’t tempt me further.
As for the films, I’ve sat through two of them — and yes, one of them was Alfonso Cuaron’s expertly crafted but still personality-deficient effort — and found them both painless yet unengaging watches. I understand that they please millions of viewers, and I commend them for that. But for fear of breeding actual resentment, I think it’s better that I no longer watch them. The Potter films and I have reached an entente cordiale, if you will, and it works for both of us.
All of which is to say that the more enthusiastic reviews emerging for the sixth (!) installment, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” (am I the only one who always has to look the full titles up?), don’t really move me one way or the other. It would appear that director David Yates and writer Steve Kloves (are we ever getting another “Wonder Boys” from him?) have maintained their general success in streamlining the unwieldy novels with equal attention paid to character and craftsmanship, which is a significant achievement this far into a franchise. But I remain thoroughly untempted to get in line.
Among the film’s champions,Variety’s Todd McCarthy is generally swept up by the proceedings:
Dazzlingly well made and perhaps deliberately less fanciful than the previous entries, this one is played in a mode closer to palpable life-or-death drama than any of the others and is quite effective as such … Director David Yates, after a prosaic series debut on the prior film, displays noticeably increased confidence here, injecting more real-world grit into what began eight years ago as purest child’s fantasy.
It’s hard to imagine watching “Half-Blood Prince” as a “Potter” virgin without a clue as to what’s come before, but it’s a formidable entry with a heft and cinematic texture compromised only by a certain lack of dramatic modulation … Among the always outstanding production values and top-drawer visual effects, special note should be made of series newcomer Bruno Delbonnel’s exceptionally atmospheric cinematography and Nicholas Hooper’s emotionally churning score, which contains only the slightest trace of John Williams’ original themes.
Kirk Honeycutt’s Hollywood Reporter isn’t quite as keen, citing numerous structural problems, but finally echoing McCarthy’s praise of the technical contributions that make for “a singularly muscular and vigorous chapter.” The Guardian deems it “ungainly (but) solidly constructed” business as usual, while Screen International’s Fionnuala Halligan declares the film a narrative step back and a technical step forward:
While individual sequences are undoubtedly the most exciting of this summer’s blockbuster season – a dizzying opening, for example, shot from an aerial perspective in which Death Eaters rain their havoc down on London, collapsing the Millennium Bridge – Prince never quite connects the dots into a ripping ride, playing out instead in a series of gentle interludes. Fans will adore it, needless to say; Prince is as well-made as any of the Harry Potter films, if not technically superior.
Stunningly shot by Bruno Delbonnel in metallic hues leavened by buttery tones – his unique vision even brings a fresh perspective to the inevitable Quidditch scenes – this Harry is certainly a technical wizard of a film … The thumping beats of Nicholas Hooper’s score bear little resemblance to the original and the overall effect is much less twee, much more grown-up.
Of course there will be (and already have been) certain excitable folks who ignore these notices and build major Oscar hopes upon the film’s stronger reviews and inevitable box-office glory, as if an extra five nominees in the Best Picture category suddenly overrides their longstanding resistance to children’s films, fantasy and franchise entries, however kindly received. (I can already tell that the media’s search for a blockbuster redeemer for last year’s “The Dark Knight” snub is going to be one of the award’s seasons more tedious narratives.)
With a scant 6 nominations between the previous 5 films, we probably shouldn’t count on a notably improved Oscar performance for “Half-Blood Prince,” but Stuart Craig’s production design (twice nominated before) and the visual effects team (only once) are obviously solid contenders, though I doubt the score has much of shot with the music branch without John Williams’ twice-nominated name attached.
The most intriguing possibility to chalk up, however, is a Best Cinematography nod. Though the franchise has always had distinguished DPs on board (most recently Slawomir Idziak), they’ve never had an especially distinctive visual palette or texture. However, Bruno Delbonnel (twice Oscar-checked for his collaborations with Jean-Pierre Jeunet) is an idiosyncratic stylist and the critics are clearly picking up on his work. Can the franchise finally break through in this category?
25 responses so far
1 7-06-2009 at 10:22 am
The Dude said...
I’m most interested to see what critics say about the performances. The central 3 characters have been…well, uneven for me. Radcliffe still doesn’t seem like he’s settled into the role, and Emma Watson is wildly inconsistent (I thought she nailed the third movie, but was laughable in the 4th and 5th movies). Rupert Grint started off as the weak link but he’s the only one who I think has really settled into his role, but they seem to be taking less and less advantage of his skills as the films progress.
But the SUPPORTING cast is one to behold. This will prove to be a big movie for Gambon and Rickman, who have been standouts of the series already, and Bonham-Carter has a juicy role much like in the last movie (say what you will about her acting in Burton movies…she was a highlight of the last movie). Tech nods are a given for this movie (at least based on the trailers and the early reviews), but I’m wondering if this movie can squeeze out a supporting nomination for someone like LOTR did for McKellan. It’s a stretch, but I’m wondering…
2 7-06-2009 at 10:57 am
david said...
Harry who??
3 7-06-2009 at 11:04 am
Matt said...
Glad to see HP getting some love for its cinematography.
Alfonso Cuaron and his DP Michael Seresin should be given credit for darkening the palette which has continually darkened throughout the series. Its a far cry from the cheerful Disney-esque photography that Chris Columbus was rightfully derided for.
A few critics aren’t really understanding the whole darkened mood, especially Roger Ebert who loved the first four films but lambasted Order of the Phoenix for losing the cheerfulness. I for one love the darkened tone and think its fits with the increasingly dramatic plots.
As for Oscars, Batman Begins (and TDK) got a nod for cinematography, why not Potter?
4 7-06-2009 at 11:06 am
Diego(uruguay) said...
Great reviews!! Go harry! jajaja
5 7-06-2009 at 11:15 am
Matt said...
What I admire about the Potter films is that they are made better than they actually have to be.
As like any kids fantasy flick, they are a cash cow, especially with JK Rowling in the credits. They could have easily thrown a beard on Brendan Fraser and a robe onto Jim Carrey, but the Potter producers seem intent on making solid cinema. Credit is due to the producers for churning out consistently entertaining films for the past seven years, as seen with the RT scores, where none of the first five films have received a score lower than 78%.
6 7-06-2009 at 11:27 am
Jonathan Spuij said...
I never cared for the film, I did see them all though. It’s too much childish subplots and the best delights come from the supporting cast.Which are always magnificent.
It was only the last film that struck me as finally being no-nonsense and getting to the story and it was the most hated one by the fans. I guess there’s never gonna be consensus over these films.
7 7-06-2009 at 11:28 am
Isaac Richter said...
Guy, I think it depends on how invested you are in the story. I became glued to0 the franchise since I read the first book in 2001 (I read the first four books in a little over a month, and the remaining as they came out). I was 13, and only focused on the quality of the story and the adventures, but the great thing about the series is that as with every book, the characters grow up, and as such, the style of the writing matured, so with each book you reach a new target audience, and I think that’s one thing people love about the Harry Potter series (apart from the fact that it inexplicably got kids reading again, which is a reason why my mom is thankful to the series).
As for the movies, I think the films are also maturing as the actors grow up and the stories get darker, even though they are definitely not as good as the book. The first two movies are somewhat limited by the fact that they are so faithful to the books (and they have a very childish look to them, which is fine, because the characters were still children), but as the series goes on, and the films start to veer slightly from the books, filmmakers such as Alfonso Cuaron start finding new layers to the stories, and you also see the actors taking in new challenges with their roles (even though they’re not always consistent). I’ve been impressed by other young actors, such as Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom), Tom Felton (Malfoy, I really want to see what he does in the next one), Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood, just how I pictured her in the book) and I’m giving a wait-and-see status to Bonnie Wright (Ginny, she’ll have a larger role in this movie).
Also, the adult cast has always been amazing. I loved Gary Oldman, Brendan Gleeson, Imelda Staunton, Richard Harris (and Michael Gambon), Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson (in two brief, hilarious cameos as Trelawney), David Thewlis, Robbie Coltrane, and my favorite one (since he plays my favorite character in the series) Alan Rickman as Severus Snape. I really want to see what he does in the coming movie.
8 7-06-2009 at 12:19 pm
Guy Lodge said...
“I think it depends on how invested you are in the story.”
Agreed. Which is why I absolutely get the excitement and the hype over the films — I just don’t get the films. It can’t be helped.
Give me “His Dark Materials” any day.
9 7-06-2009 at 12:35 pm
Isaac Richter said...
Wow, I’m surprised you mentioned “His Dark Materials”, because those are my all-time favorite books (I read the entire trilogy in three weeks, I just could not put it down). In that case, though, the movie was a total let-down, since it got rid of everything that made the book exciting and interesting, and not just the last few chapters, they screwed up the part where they find the kid who couldn’t find his daemon. At least we still have that amazing book (I re-read the last few chapters of The Amber Spyglass many times).
The Harry Potter films are at least true to the spirit of the books, and develops its characters accordingly (I still think you should give the later books a try, Guy, because you might enjoy them). Still, I’m so glad we could agree on His Dark Materials, since those are books that seriously deserved a better movie.
10 7-06-2009 at 12:52 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Actually, I quite liked “The Golden Compass.” Awkward in places, but I still don’t get the vitriol for it.
11 7-06-2009 at 1:30 pm
Georgie said...
Not that I have any doubts, but I hope that Alan Rickman does amazingly…
And I love Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange. Possible my favorite casting ever. Unless they manage to cast Kate Winslet or Judi Dench in the last one…
I really hope Harry Potter can manage to get back its 5-day record from Transformers… that’s just ridiculous to me.
Alfonso Cuaron has been my favorite director of the series so far, and I think he captured the tone best.
I don’t like what David Yates has done with this movie on paper, he seems to be taking the ‘make it more interesting’ route what with his bridge collapsing and Burrow burning… not to mention cutting out Scrimgeour.
And I hope little Voldemort does amazingly, he looked good in the previews and the stills make him look perfect.
12 7-06-2009 at 2:52 pm
JC said...
I like the design of Hogwarts (well, in all but the first film, anyways), and am obviously fond of the many British thesps in supporting, scenery-chewing roles. The three lines, are likeable, though a bit bland, but that could be directed at the franchise in general. Still, this one looks more epic than those previous films, so I’ll give it a look.
13 7-06-2009 at 2:56 pm
JC said...
That should be “three leads”…
At any rate, the franchise is equal parts imagination and gimmickry, but it’s been leaning a bit more towards the former in recent installments, so I’m rather looking forward to seeing it — once, in theatres — then I’ll just buy my nieces the DVD for Christmas.
14 7-06-2009 at 4:46 pm
A.J said...
They are definitely made better than they could be. The films have a massive built-in audience but this is what happens when artists involved care about what they’re doing. I can only wish the same about Transformers 3…
15 7-06-2009 at 4:57 pm
John said...
Ebert loved the 1st 4 films but did not like the 5th because it lacked cheer.
I loved the 1st 4 films and disliked the 5th, not only for it’s lack of cheer, but because it was way too truncated.
The densest book (to that point) became the lightest film (narratively). Ugh.
16 7-06-2009 at 6:06 pm
Adrianna said...
I think Steve Kloves deserves an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay for his work on the HP series. Considering that an an audience has to be satisfied who want to see EVERYTHING from the LONG books, and that (muted unpopular opinion here) some of the books are lumpy, uneven, and not that well-structured, he’s done a terrific job of streamlining and structuring the narrative and making it make more sense – while still satisfying the audience.
17 7-06-2009 at 8:09 pm
John said...
Adrianna, I mostly agree. I love the other films; how they were written. I just think the 5th installment, in particular, was poor.
18 7-06-2009 at 9:04 pm
Georgie said...
I’ll respectfully disagree with anyone who thinks Kloves is doing a good job, at least with 4 and 5 and now 6… 6 especially is fresh in my mind because they cut out important parts like Scrimgeour for the sake of adding more explosions and battles.
Whether or not this was his or Yates’ decision to cut out so much for the sake of pleasing the masses, I don’t know.
And I don’t think Kloves has made HP make more sense to anyone who has read the books … and I can’t imagine wanting to see HP without having read the books.
And I have an issue with any of the HP movies, let alone this one [6], being rated PG. The content of this one alone should merit a PG-13 rating.
This rant aside I think they’re fabulous movies, I just think that some of the creative choices Yates/Kloves make sacrifice part of Rowling’s style.
19 7-07-2009 at 6:47 am
G1000 said...
Between this and “500 Days of Summer”, July should be a solid month for movies.
20 7-07-2009 at 7:27 am
PJ said...
It really is something you anticipate if you liked the books; I have loved them ever since I first read them in 2000, and have pretty much grown up with it. The appeal of the movies is mainly the visualisation of what you imagine whilst reading, and the world of magic thing lends itself to film pretty well, particularly in a special effects sense. I’m quite glad that they’ve gone beyond that though; the books have been condensed fairly well, the young actors are solid, and the supporting cast is impeccable. And they’ve managed to capture the growing up process, perhaps nearly as well as Rowling. Like the films though Guy, the books slowly grow on you, and the writing does become noticeably better (especially around the fourth book mark), so another attempt may perhaps be enough to break your entente cordiale.
21 7-07-2009 at 7:52 am
The Dude said...
I agree with PJ, Guy, I think you should give the books another chance. For me, the first two seemed long and boring (and childish…although, let’s face it, it was written for children!). But by the time I got to the 3rd things picked up dramatically.
And while I’m probably in a very small minority on this, the 6th book is actually my favorite of the series, so (of the series) this is the one I’m most anticipating.
22 7-07-2009 at 8:08 am
John H. Foote said...
Guy, love you man, but I have to agree with PJ — I love the films, perhaps because I have been able to enjoy them with my girls through the years, but the movies made me interested in the books, which I went back and read one after the other — the films are terrific, and in fact have a major spot in my upcoming book The American New Millenium Cinema, 2000-2009, because one, they are so incredibly well made, and two, they are among the top franchises in the business, with the qulaity never diminishing as some franchises do (Superman after 1981, and Batman after Burton) — this alternate world of wizards and magic that lives so close to real life is beautiuflly created on the screen, and the characters are simply sublime witht he actors doing extraordinary work — seriously Guy give them another chance, just fall in.
23 7-07-2009 at 9:39 am
Guy Lodge said...
Well, John, when you ask that nicely, how can I say no? I’ll give the new film a shot.
24 7-07-2009 at 9:30 pm
slayton said...
Guy, you should try to read the books – they get a lot more interesting as they go on, and the writing gets better, too. But then again the thing that impresses me most about the series isn’t the quality of her writing (which, as you said, is functional, but not particularly artful) but the intricacy and complexity of the world she’s developed. They’re worth a read, even if it is just to see what all the fuss is about.
25 7-07-2009 at 9:37 pm
slayton said...
For the record, my favorite books are the third – which has the tightest plotting, the most suspense and some of the series’ best character development – and the fifth, which is the longest but which seems like the shortest for me, because it gives us more insight into the wizarding world outside of all the Voldemort drama, and the climax of the fifth is the most satisfying of the series (not to mention Luna Lovegood is a great character – she provides a very affecting moment at the book’s end and she’s great for laughs throughout, as well). The seventh is definitely the clumsiest, however, and one wishes she had ended the series with a bit more grace.
The third movie is my favorite of the series, too – although I haven’t seen the fifth (the fourth film was awful and totally butchered the book, too).