Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, etc
I believe the definition of synergy is something along the lines of, ‘the interaction of two or more agents to produce a combined effect that is greater than the sum of their individual effects’. In which case the only positive-sounding word I can use to describe this film is… well, ‘synergistic’. I suppose it is rather like one of the miraculous potions brewed up by Professor Slughorn at Hogwarts: a drop of this, a rat’s tail, and the juices of a crushed beetle can produce a wondrous concoction.
This film takes the narrative of a half-hour episode of Beverly Hills 90210 (teeny heartbreak, the ‘bad kid’, the ‘cool kid’, sports, etc.), drops in an odd story about a magic cupboard, allows it to simmer for a while… and voila! A two and a half hour epic that does absolutely nothing except stupefy!
I have to confess to not having watched the fourth of fifth films in the Potter franchise (or should I be confessing to actually having watched the first three?) and as I sat down in the cinema I did actually have a momentary pang of dread that I wasn’t going to understand the plot! Firm slap on the hand for me for thinking that this franchise had managed to offer up a shred of valid intrigue or suspense over the past three years.
I appreciate that this is the ‘build-up’ film for the final, two-part climax, ‘The Deathly Hollows’; but surely something dramatic or interesting should happen over such an inexcusable time span? This is becoming something of a habit for studio blockbusters: Transformers 2 came in at about 150 minutes as well, and James Cameron’s Avatar is looking set to do the same. Why?! Ingmar Bergman gave us ‘The Seventh Seal’ in 97 minutes!
The film sees Potter returning to Hogwarts for his penultimate year of study. Once again he has in the inside scoop on the latest addition to the faculty; and once again Dumbledore needs his help in staving off the forces of evil from the gates of the school. Thrown into the mix are a few parties, some drunkenness, some tears, and some Quidditch. There are a few things that I still don’t understand about this whole sorry debacle: why do the forces of evil want so badly to get into a school? And why is the fact that Harry’s parents sacrificed their lives for him supposed to make him special? If I met somebody who jumped out of the way when their own child was in danger I would spit on them.
But the thing that I really don’t understand is the pride with which the film’s makers declare, “this is the film where the children really grow up”. They are correct, of course. The children have ‘grown up’ from 16yrs to 17yrs; and now there is snogging, beer-drinking, hanging out on stairwells, and everything else 17-year-olds do that 16-year-olds would never dream of.
But why is that an attractive publicity ploy? I appreciate that every male above the age of 18 is longing for the day when they can announce their lustful desire for Emma Watson without getting entered onto the public offender’s register; but apart from that who cares whether they are 15 or 18? They still can’t act, they will never be adults, and they exist in an imaginary realm where a global battle between good and evil is being waged. Did you ever here Peter Jackson announcing with glee that this was the film where Frodo and Sam really grow up? Nonsense!
Of the absolutely inexplicable two and a half hours, I would estimate that approximately half an hour of the film is taken up with the attempt to save the world and defeat Voldemort (we’re allowed to say his name now by the way); the other two hours is taken up with the bittersweet romances of our overwhelmingly mature and awe-inspiringly adult-like starring trio.
Imagine ‘Star Wars’ if Darth Vader had ten minutes of screen time, the Death Star was never even glimpsed, and the entire film was played out onboard the Millennium Falcon where Luke and Hans whine and argue about their love for Leia… disappointed by the prospect? You should be.
As you might have guessed, I didn’t really like this film. But what did you expect? I am a staunch supporter of narrative integrity and emotional character arcs; and these are not important in a multi-billion dollar franchise adaptation of a children’s book (I know they say it is for adults too… but adults usually use that argument with a distinct lack of conviction and a melancholy glimmer of shame in their eyes.)
It is evident that the filmmakers have made no effort to appeal to anyone outside the early-teen age bracket with this film. The only evidence of any emotional involvement from my fellow audience members was a squeal from the 12-year-old girl behind me when Harry and Ginny finally kissed. The thing that reaches out to a wider audience and justifies the eye-watering budget is the ‘look’ of the film; and there is no denying the fact that this film actually ‘looks’ quite good.
The CGI is mostly impressive, but you can’t help but worry about its longevity. At times like this I always remember the first time I saw ‘Air Force One’ and thought the CGI ‘plane-crashing-into-the-ocean’ scene was mind-boggling: now it is laughable.
The thing that really stands out about this film is not the CGI but just the general aesthetics of it: the darkness; the quality of the imagery; the scenic backgrounds; the fact that Hogwarts manages to look inviting in its grandeur and yet terrifying in its cold detachment at the same time. Bruno Delbonnel was the cinematographer on this picture, and I hope that David Heyman and Warner Bros are thanking him in their dreams for creating a visually stunning and alluring film to distract any discerning viewers from the dull and uninspiring plot.
In short… oh hell, go and watch it! It’s quite fun. Daniel Radcliffe is still so bad its funny. And Emma Watson is lovely.
I believe the definition of synergy is something along the lines of, ‘the interaction of two or more agents to produce a combined effect that is greater than the sum of their individual effects’. In which case the only positive-sounding word I can use to describe this film is… well, ‘synergistic’. I suppose it is rather like one of the miraculous potions brewed up by Professor Slughorn at Hogwarts: a drop of this, a rat’s tail, and the juices of a crushed beetle can produce a wondrous concoction.
This film takes the narrative of a half-hour episode of Beverly Hills 90210 (teeny heartbreak, the ‘bad kid’, the ‘cool kid’, sports, etc.), drops in an odd story about a magic cupboard, allows it to simmer for a while… and voila! A two and a half hour epic that does absolutely nothing except stupefy!
I have to confess to not having watched the fourth of fifth films in the Potter franchise (or should I be confessing to actually having watched the first three?) and as I sat down in the cinema I did actually have a momentary pang of dread that I wasn’t going to understand the plot! Firm slap on the hand for me for thinking that this franchise had managed to offer up a shred of valid intrigue or suspense over the past three years.
I appreciate that this is the ‘build-up’ film for the final, two-part climax, ‘The Deathly Hollows’; but surely something dramatic or interesting should happen over such an inexcusable time span? This is becoming something of a habit for studio blockbusters: Transformers 2 came in at about 150 minutes as well, and James Cameron’s Avatar is looking set to do the same. Why?! Ingmar Bergman gave us ‘The Seventh Seal’ in 97 minutes!
The film sees Potter returning to Hogwarts for his penultimate year of study. Once again he has in the inside scoop on the latest addition to the faculty; and once again Dumbledore needs his help in staving off the forces of evil from the gates of the school. Thrown into the mix are a few parties, some drunkenness, some tears, and some Quidditch. There are a few things that I still don’t understand about this whole sorry debacle: why do the forces of evil want so badly to get into a school? And why is the fact that Harry’s parents sacrificed their lives for him supposed to make him special? If I met somebody who jumped out of the way when their own child was in danger I would spit on them.
But the thing that I really don’t understand is the pride with which the film’s makers declare, “this is the film where the children really grow up”. They are correct, of course. The children have ‘grown up’ from 16yrs to 17yrs; and now there is snogging, beer-drinking, hanging out on stairwells, and everything else 17-year-olds do that 16-year-olds would never dream of.
But why is that an attractive publicity ploy? I appreciate that every male above the age of 18 is longing for the day when they can announce their lustful desire for Emma Watson without getting entered onto the public offender’s register; but apart from that who cares whether they are 15 or 18? They still can’t act, they will never be adults, and they exist in an imaginary realm where a global battle between good and evil is being waged. Did you ever here Peter Jackson announcing with glee that this was the film where Frodo and Sam really grow up? Nonsense!
Of the absolutely inexplicable two and a half hours, I would estimate that approximately half an hour of the film is taken up with the attempt to save the world and defeat Voldemort (we’re allowed to say his name now by the way); the other two hours is taken up with the bittersweet romances of our overwhelmingly mature and awe-inspiringly adult-like starring trio.
Imagine ‘Star Wars’ if Darth Vader had ten minutes of screen time, the Death Star was never even glimpsed, and the entire film was played out onboard the Millennium Falcon where Luke and Hans whine and argue about their love for Leia… disappointed by the prospect? You should be.
As you might have guessed, I didn’t really like this film. But what did you expect? I am a staunch supporter of narrative integrity and emotional character arcs; and these are not important in a multi-billion dollar franchise adaptation of a children’s book (I know they say it is for adults too… but adults usually use that argument with a distinct lack of conviction and a melancholy glimmer of shame in their eyes.)
It is evident that the filmmakers have made no effort to appeal to anyone outside the early-teen age bracket with this film. The only evidence of any emotional involvement from my fellow audience members was a squeal from the 12-year-old girl behind me when Harry and Ginny finally kissed. The thing that reaches out to a wider audience and justifies the eye-watering budget is the ‘look’ of the film; and there is no denying the fact that this film actually ‘looks’ quite good.
The CGI is mostly impressive, but you can’t help but worry about its longevity. At times like this I always remember the first time I saw ‘Air Force One’ and thought the CGI ‘plane-crashing-into-the-ocean’ scene was mind-boggling: now it is laughable.
The thing that really stands out about this film is not the CGI but just the general aesthetics of it: the darkness; the quality of the imagery; the scenic backgrounds; the fact that Hogwarts manages to look inviting in its grandeur and yet terrifying in its cold detachment at the same time. Bruno Delbonnel was the cinematographer on this picture, and I hope that David Heyman and Warner Bros are thanking him in their dreams for creating a visually stunning and alluring film to distract any discerning viewers from the dull and uninspiring plot.
In short… oh hell, go and watch it! It’s quite fun. Daniel Radcliffe is still so bad its funny. And Emma Watson is lovely.
Posts
No comments :
Post a Comment