By my count, it has now been more than three years since the second part of The Deathly Hallows film hit the theatres.
I have one question: is it still too early to hope that they are finally going to start work on a remake? One that's better than the first? One that actually stays true to the book and doesn't undermine everything J.K. Rowling's awesome original stood for?
Actually, I am only partly kidding. As anyone who has read this blog with any regularity will know, I really detest the last two (and perhaps three) of the films made of Rowling's works.
I have no issues with the actors -- I thought Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint were excellent choices for the major child roles. It's just the decisions made by the screen writers that I abhor.
So, what do you think? Can we start hoping to hear an announcement that work has begun on the remakes soon? And can we ask for veto rights on the script?
Showing posts with label Daniel Radcliffe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daniel Radcliffe. Show all posts
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Monday, June 16, 2014
From 500 to five-hundred-million
While I love the Harry Potter books and, to a lesser extent, the Harry Potter movies, I am not one of those fans who wants to find out everything there is to know about the author, the actors, or the other people involved in the creation of the Harry Potter world.
I don't spend my time online, searching for the latest tidbit that has fallen from the lips of J.R. Rowling or Daniel Radcliffe or anyone else. Sure, if I encounter a piece of news related to the magical world, the books, the movies or the people of Harry Potter, I won't turn away but I don't spend my time actively seeking such nuggets.
That explains why it is entirely possible that something I write about on this blog that seems like a remarkable revelation to me might just be old hat to the more dedicated Potter fans who have stumbled across my humble offerings. Things that are new and exciting to me, I often discover, have already been recognized and talked over in the more public fandom.
Oh well...
That being said, I still feel a bit of a thrill when, in the course of my meanders through life, I run across an interesting bit of information about the Harry Potter books.
And exactly that happened to me today.
As a Father's Day gift, my dog bought me a trade paperback copy of Allison Hoover Bartlett's 2009 book The Man Who Loved Books Too Much (Penguin). Hoover Bartlett's book is a perfect gift for me (Marlee Marie knows me well!) and I'm very much enjoying the opportunity to read it.
On page 22, however, I came across the piece of Potter-data that has me quite interested.
Hoover Bartlett, in setting out a brief list of some of the rare books collectors look for at book fairs, identifies the first edition of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as one of them.
Cool.
She also states that there were only 500 copies of The Philosopher's Stone printed in that first edition. I was stunned, to be honest. That was a piece of Potter-data that was completely new to me. 500 copies. That was it.
Unbelievable. That's why a copy of that first edition is now worth, according to Hoover Bartlett, $30,000 in American money. Wowweeee.
I'm a bit of a book collector myself. I don't go to book fairs or buy expensive copies from dealers but I do like to browse garage sales and used book shops and charity book sales, looking for books of interest to me. I've picked up several autographed volumes along the way, as well as a volume of poems by John Milton from 1674 and a first edition Ian Fleming, which is apparently worth a bit.
I guess I'll have to keep an eye out for that Harry Potter first edition as well. Not that I expect to find one here in my remote little corner of Canada but you never now.
And wouldn't it be great to own one of those rare 500, the books that represented in and of themselves a triumph for J.K. Rowling when she first saw them delivered from the publisher, the advanced guard, so to speak, of what would eventually become the Harry Potter empire.
And spawn adoring blogs like this one.
I don't spend my time online, searching for the latest tidbit that has fallen from the lips of J.R. Rowling or Daniel Radcliffe or anyone else. Sure, if I encounter a piece of news related to the magical world, the books, the movies or the people of Harry Potter, I won't turn away but I don't spend my time actively seeking such nuggets.
That explains why it is entirely possible that something I write about on this blog that seems like a remarkable revelation to me might just be old hat to the more dedicated Potter fans who have stumbled across my humble offerings. Things that are new and exciting to me, I often discover, have already been recognized and talked over in the more public fandom.
Oh well...
That being said, I still feel a bit of a thrill when, in the course of my meanders through life, I run across an interesting bit of information about the Harry Potter books.
And exactly that happened to me today.
As a Father's Day gift, my dog bought me a trade paperback copy of Allison Hoover Bartlett's 2009 book The Man Who Loved Books Too Much (Penguin). Hoover Bartlett's book is a perfect gift for me (Marlee Marie knows me well!) and I'm very much enjoying the opportunity to read it.
On page 22, however, I came across the piece of Potter-data that has me quite interested.
Hoover Bartlett, in setting out a brief list of some of the rare books collectors look for at book fairs, identifies the first edition of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as one of them.
Cool.
She also states that there were only 500 copies of The Philosopher's Stone printed in that first edition. I was stunned, to be honest. That was a piece of Potter-data that was completely new to me. 500 copies. That was it.
Unbelievable. That's why a copy of that first edition is now worth, according to Hoover Bartlett, $30,000 in American money. Wowweeee.
I'm a bit of a book collector myself. I don't go to book fairs or buy expensive copies from dealers but I do like to browse garage sales and used book shops and charity book sales, looking for books of interest to me. I've picked up several autographed volumes along the way, as well as a volume of poems by John Milton from 1674 and a first edition Ian Fleming, which is apparently worth a bit.
I guess I'll have to keep an eye out for that Harry Potter first edition as well. Not that I expect to find one here in my remote little corner of Canada but you never now.
And wouldn't it be great to own one of those rare 500, the books that represented in and of themselves a triumph for J.K. Rowling when she first saw them delivered from the publisher, the advanced guard, so to speak, of what would eventually become the Harry Potter empire.
And spawn adoring blogs like this one.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Who's right for Hermione? Don't ask Rowling
If we ever needed proof that author J.K. Rowling has lost track of her own Harry Potter books and gotten caught up, instead, in the often mediocre movies that have been made of them, her recent interview with actress Emma Watson provides it.
Rowling told Watson that, upon further reflection, she now realises that Hermione should have married Harry, not Ron. The announcement has sent the entire Potter fandom into a collective tizzy.
To state it bluntly, Rowling appears to be losing her mind. Or at least her grip on the books she wrote and that we all love.
That is not to say that I ever really liked the idea that Hermione ended up married to Ron. As far as I'm concerned, Hermione, brilliant, hard-working and moral, was too good for any of the young male characters she met at Hogwarts.
Ron, intellectually limited, lacking in simple courage and morally questionable, certainly didn't deserve her.
In fact, I still believe that Hermione's destiny was either to become a renowned magical researcher, developing new spells and potions, exploring the limits of magic, or to teach at Hogwarts (probably while conducting the research I mention above). If she eventually settled down into a relationship, it would be with a person we have never yet met in the books, someone as smart and moral as she is.
Marrying and settling down into a traditional family unit just doesn't seem right for her.
That being said, if Hermione were to marry and have children, I don't buy Harry as a better choice than Ron. Harry is not particularly bright and, as he explains in The Order of the Phoenix, most of his successes were based on luck, timing and the help of others.
All of that aside, however, I am more troubled by the fact that Rowling seems to be so caught up in the Harry Potter movies that she has lost track of her own books.
Her suggestion that Hermione should have ended up with Harry ignores so much textual evidence from the books that I can't even start to explain it here. It appears to be based almost entirely on the belief that Harry and Hermione, as they are portrayed in the films, look well together.
Daniel Ratcliffe and Emma Watson were wonderful choices to play the roles of Harry and Hermione but, as Rowling herself has already admitted, they turned out to be much more attractive than the characters they were chosen to portray. So, if they look well together on screen, that has no meaning when it comes to their fitness as potential life partners.
It is also true that the movies expunged most of the back-story for the Harry-Hermione friendship, making it possible to read much more into their relationship than is actually there in the stories.
Anyway, my simple point is that the suggestion that Hermione should have married Harry instead of Ron holds a lot more water if you are thinking about the movies alone than if you consider the books themselves.
It amazes me that J.K. Rowling, of all people, lost sight of that fact
Rowling told Watson that, upon further reflection, she now realises that Hermione should have married Harry, not Ron. The announcement has sent the entire Potter fandom into a collective tizzy.
To state it bluntly, Rowling appears to be losing her mind. Or at least her grip on the books she wrote and that we all love.
That is not to say that I ever really liked the idea that Hermione ended up married to Ron. As far as I'm concerned, Hermione, brilliant, hard-working and moral, was too good for any of the young male characters she met at Hogwarts.
Ron, intellectually limited, lacking in simple courage and morally questionable, certainly didn't deserve her.
In fact, I still believe that Hermione's destiny was either to become a renowned magical researcher, developing new spells and potions, exploring the limits of magic, or to teach at Hogwarts (probably while conducting the research I mention above). If she eventually settled down into a relationship, it would be with a person we have never yet met in the books, someone as smart and moral as she is.
Marrying and settling down into a traditional family unit just doesn't seem right for her.
That being said, if Hermione were to marry and have children, I don't buy Harry as a better choice than Ron. Harry is not particularly bright and, as he explains in The Order of the Phoenix, most of his successes were based on luck, timing and the help of others.
All of that aside, however, I am more troubled by the fact that Rowling seems to be so caught up in the Harry Potter movies that she has lost track of her own books.
Her suggestion that Hermione should have ended up with Harry ignores so much textual evidence from the books that I can't even start to explain it here. It appears to be based almost entirely on the belief that Harry and Hermione, as they are portrayed in the films, look well together.
Daniel Ratcliffe and Emma Watson were wonderful choices to play the roles of Harry and Hermione but, as Rowling herself has already admitted, they turned out to be much more attractive than the characters they were chosen to portray. So, if they look well together on screen, that has no meaning when it comes to their fitness as potential life partners.
It is also true that the movies expunged most of the back-story for the Harry-Hermione friendship, making it possible to read much more into their relationship than is actually there in the stories.
Anyway, my simple point is that the suggestion that Hermione should have married Harry instead of Ron holds a lot more water if you are thinking about the movies alone than if you consider the books themselves.
It amazes me that J.K. Rowling, of all people, lost sight of that fact
Monday, February 25, 2013
The voice of the Dark Duke
What a strange feeling!
The other day, I found myself flipping through the television channels and I came across a film called The Duchess, starring Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes.
Yes, that Ralph Fiennes. The Voldemort Ralph Fiennes.
I think it's the first time I've seen a film with Fiennes in it since The Deathly Hallows Part 2 came out. And how strange it was to hear that voice again! Scary.
Fiennes plays the Duke, controlling and emotionally inaccessible husband to Knightley's title character. In some ways, his character here is almost as evil as the Dark Lord, using and abusing the people around him for his own purposes, never caring what they might want out of their lives.
But it was the voice that got me. That was Voldemort's voice Fiennes was using in the worst of the scenes and it sent a shiver through me. No, not the ridiculous voice of the cavorting Dark Lord in Part 2; the evil whisper of the earlier Voldemort, from The Goblet of Fire and The Order of the Phoenix.
As strange as it was, however, it was a lot more welcome than seeing Daniel "Harry Potter" Radcliffe doing a soft shoe on last night's Oscar telecast. Ugh.
The other day, I found myself flipping through the television channels and I came across a film called The Duchess, starring Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes.
Yes, that Ralph Fiennes. The Voldemort Ralph Fiennes.
I think it's the first time I've seen a film with Fiennes in it since The Deathly Hallows Part 2 came out. And how strange it was to hear that voice again! Scary.
Fiennes plays the Duke, controlling and emotionally inaccessible husband to Knightley's title character. In some ways, his character here is almost as evil as the Dark Lord, using and abusing the people around him for his own purposes, never caring what they might want out of their lives.
But it was the voice that got me. That was Voldemort's voice Fiennes was using in the worst of the scenes and it sent a shiver through me. No, not the ridiculous voice of the cavorting Dark Lord in Part 2; the evil whisper of the earlier Voldemort, from The Goblet of Fire and The Order of the Phoenix.
As strange as it was, however, it was a lot more welcome than seeing Daniel "Harry Potter" Radcliffe doing a soft shoe on last night's Oscar telecast. Ugh.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Revisiting the disappointment of the last movie
Every time I watch the last movie in the Harry Potter series, I feel like I need to take a long, hot shower to clean the ickiness off me.
I don't even know why I try to watch it anymore.
I made the mistake of giving it another shot yesterday, when an extremely hot, humid Sunday afternoon drove me into the coolness of our basement rec room. I watched Part 1 first (not bad, great in some places, a little yucky in others) and then, encouraged, slid Part 2 into the Blu-Ray disc player.
My my, what a mistake.
And what upsets me the most is that, because they made this monstrosity, there is no way anyone is going to come along anytime soon to remake Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as a film.And, even if they do, the stars of these movies (Radcliffe, Watson, Grint et al) will be be too old to play their roles and, to be honest, those three have become the hero trio for most of us around the world.
It's such a huge loss, in my opinion, because I think that Rowling's seventh novel would make a great movie (or series of movies) if done properly.
What do I hate most about the eighth movie as it currently exists? Good question:
1. I hate the fact that the screenwriter and director decided they were entitled to rewrite the story completely, keeping only brief signposts and glimpses of J.K.'s fantastic book;
2. I hate the fact that they removed Harry's internal debate between pursuing the Hallows and destroying the Horcruxes that plays such a key motivational role in the book;
3. I hate that they changed the circumstances and motivations for the first kiss between Ron and Hermione;
4. I hate that they felt compelled to change the balance of the final battle so that it became Harry and a small band of Hogwarts people against Voldemort's massive army rather than a pitched battle, the tide of which turned when the people of Hogsmeade and the rest of the magical community, the Centaurs and the House Elves all united to help the Hogwarts people defeat the Death Eaters;
5. I hate the fact that they made the final two very public duels (Molly Weasley versus Bellatrix Lestrange and Harry versus Voldemort) take place in relative obscurity;
6. I hate the fact that they have Voldemort mock Neville rather than attempt to recruit him into his army;
7. I hate that Hagrid's half-brother Grawp has no role in the final scenes;
8. I hate that the film version has significant internal inconsistencies: how does Luna end up back at Hogwarts as a student after the hero trio helps her escape from Malfoy Manor, why are the Hogwarts students who are hidden in the Room of Requirement when Harry, Hermione and Ron arrive safe to join the rest of the students at Snape's school meeting?;
9. I hate the fact that it wasn't good enough for the filmmakers to have Tom Riddle simply fall down dead at the end;
10. I hate the fact that Harry doesn't mend his own wand with the Elder Wand before breaking it and that he doesn't return to the headmaster's office to explain to Dumbledore's portrait what he's done with the Hallows.
I could go on.
Sure, there are some really good parts of this last film that I'd like to save. I like the escape from Gringott's, which was very well done. I think they did a nice job with the actual duel between Molly and Bellatrix (I just don't like the way they placed it in the greater scene). I thought the scene were Harry brings back his loved ones using the Resurrection Stone was very good as was the scene with Dumbledore in the mystical King's Cross Station after Harry appears to have been killed by Voldemort in the Forest.
So it's not a total loss. But I still think that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is such a stinging disappointment that I have to limit my exposure to it.
I don't even know why I try to watch it anymore.
I made the mistake of giving it another shot yesterday, when an extremely hot, humid Sunday afternoon drove me into the coolness of our basement rec room. I watched Part 1 first (not bad, great in some places, a little yucky in others) and then, encouraged, slid Part 2 into the Blu-Ray disc player.
My my, what a mistake.
And what upsets me the most is that, because they made this monstrosity, there is no way anyone is going to come along anytime soon to remake Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as a film.And, even if they do, the stars of these movies (Radcliffe, Watson, Grint et al) will be be too old to play their roles and, to be honest, those three have become the hero trio for most of us around the world.
It's such a huge loss, in my opinion, because I think that Rowling's seventh novel would make a great movie (or series of movies) if done properly.
What do I hate most about the eighth movie as it currently exists? Good question:
1. I hate the fact that the screenwriter and director decided they were entitled to rewrite the story completely, keeping only brief signposts and glimpses of J.K.'s fantastic book;
2. I hate the fact that they removed Harry's internal debate between pursuing the Hallows and destroying the Horcruxes that plays such a key motivational role in the book;
3. I hate that they changed the circumstances and motivations for the first kiss between Ron and Hermione;
4. I hate that they felt compelled to change the balance of the final battle so that it became Harry and a small band of Hogwarts people against Voldemort's massive army rather than a pitched battle, the tide of which turned when the people of Hogsmeade and the rest of the magical community, the Centaurs and the House Elves all united to help the Hogwarts people defeat the Death Eaters;
5. I hate the fact that they made the final two very public duels (Molly Weasley versus Bellatrix Lestrange and Harry versus Voldemort) take place in relative obscurity;
6. I hate the fact that they have Voldemort mock Neville rather than attempt to recruit him into his army;
7. I hate that Hagrid's half-brother Grawp has no role in the final scenes;
8. I hate that the film version has significant internal inconsistencies: how does Luna end up back at Hogwarts as a student after the hero trio helps her escape from Malfoy Manor, why are the Hogwarts students who are hidden in the Room of Requirement when Harry, Hermione and Ron arrive safe to join the rest of the students at Snape's school meeting?;
9. I hate the fact that it wasn't good enough for the filmmakers to have Tom Riddle simply fall down dead at the end;
10. I hate the fact that Harry doesn't mend his own wand with the Elder Wand before breaking it and that he doesn't return to the headmaster's office to explain to Dumbledore's portrait what he's done with the Hallows.
I could go on.
Sure, there are some really good parts of this last film that I'd like to save. I like the escape from Gringott's, which was very well done. I think they did a nice job with the actual duel between Molly and Bellatrix (I just don't like the way they placed it in the greater scene). I thought the scene were Harry brings back his loved ones using the Resurrection Stone was very good as was the scene with Dumbledore in the mystical King's Cross Station after Harry appears to have been killed by Voldemort in the Forest.
So it's not a total loss. But I still think that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is such a stinging disappointment that I have to limit my exposure to it.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Mourning what we lost with the last film
Okay, so I watched The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 again yesterday on Blu Ray. This is the first time I've had the chance to watch it alone, in the privacy of my own den, without interruption or disruption.
I could watch every scene carefully, appreciate the nuances of the performances, the majesty of the sets and costumes, the rhythm of the editing.
What I still could not appreciate was what these filmmakers did to my beloved novel. They butchered it. They made the egregious assumption that they knew better than J.K. Rowling how to craft the end to her fantastic story.
I know. I know. You've read this all before. But it strikes me harder and harder each time I watch that last film.
And the thing that started to seep into my anger as I watched that ridiculous last battle was a deep sadness.
For all their flaws, the first seven movies were enjoyable adaptations of the Harry Potter world. Though not always faithful to the source, they at least provided us with a vision of Rowling's world and characters brought to life.
And Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have come to inhabit our conceptions of the Hero Trio, no matter how we've tried to fight it.
So my sadness, I think, comes from the fact that this abomination of an eighth film cannot be made again. It will not be made again. We will never have the chance to see all of these actors inhabit these roles and do them well.
No one is going to go back any time soon and say, "Well, they messed that up pretty badly. Let's go back and do it right."
So I will never see some of the great scenes from the seventh book brought to life on the screen by these actors:
- I will never see Chris Rankin as Percy Weasley topple out into the Room of Requirement from the passage linking the Hogshead with Hogwarts, right into his gathered family to deliver his fumbling apology and be welcomed back into the brotherhood;
- I will never see Grint as Ron express his concern for the wellbeing of the Hogwarts House Elves as the battle is set to begin and, therefore, earn his first true embrace from Watson as Hermione;
- I will never hear Simon McBurney exclaim, as the form of Kreacher bursts from the Hogwarts kitchens to enter the fray, "Fight! Fight! Fight for my master..."
- I will never see the tide in the battle turn when the Centaurs and the rest of the wizarding world enters the fight as Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid holds Harry's apparently dead body;
- I will never get the chance to watch and listen as Radcliffe (as Harry) and Ralph Fiennes (as Voldemort) circle each other carefully, with Harry explaining to his arch enemy (and the gathered crowd), why the Elder Wand will never properly work for Voldemort and how Snape had fooled him for so long; and, worst of all,
- I will never get the chance to see that final moment when Voldemort's curse rebounds on himself and, as Rowling writes, "Tom Riddle hit the floor with a mundane finality, his body feeble and shrunken, the white hands empty, the snake-like face vacant and unknowing."
I feel sadness because, in choosing their own ideas over J.K's, in substituting their sense of drama for hers, the filmmakers have wasted this one golden opportunity to do it right, to capture the beauty of Rowling's final novel on film.
I could watch every scene carefully, appreciate the nuances of the performances, the majesty of the sets and costumes, the rhythm of the editing.
What I still could not appreciate was what these filmmakers did to my beloved novel. They butchered it. They made the egregious assumption that they knew better than J.K. Rowling how to craft the end to her fantastic story.
I know. I know. You've read this all before. But it strikes me harder and harder each time I watch that last film.
And the thing that started to seep into my anger as I watched that ridiculous last battle was a deep sadness.
For all their flaws, the first seven movies were enjoyable adaptations of the Harry Potter world. Though not always faithful to the source, they at least provided us with a vision of Rowling's world and characters brought to life.
And Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have come to inhabit our conceptions of the Hero Trio, no matter how we've tried to fight it.
So my sadness, I think, comes from the fact that this abomination of an eighth film cannot be made again. It will not be made again. We will never have the chance to see all of these actors inhabit these roles and do them well.
No one is going to go back any time soon and say, "Well, they messed that up pretty badly. Let's go back and do it right."
So I will never see some of the great scenes from the seventh book brought to life on the screen by these actors:
- I will never see Chris Rankin as Percy Weasley topple out into the Room of Requirement from the passage linking the Hogshead with Hogwarts, right into his gathered family to deliver his fumbling apology and be welcomed back into the brotherhood;
- I will never see Grint as Ron express his concern for the wellbeing of the Hogwarts House Elves as the battle is set to begin and, therefore, earn his first true embrace from Watson as Hermione;
- I will never hear Simon McBurney exclaim, as the form of Kreacher bursts from the Hogwarts kitchens to enter the fray, "Fight! Fight! Fight for my master..."
- I will never see the tide in the battle turn when the Centaurs and the rest of the wizarding world enters the fight as Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid holds Harry's apparently dead body;
- I will never get the chance to watch and listen as Radcliffe (as Harry) and Ralph Fiennes (as Voldemort) circle each other carefully, with Harry explaining to his arch enemy (and the gathered crowd), why the Elder Wand will never properly work for Voldemort and how Snape had fooled him for so long; and, worst of all,
- I will never get the chance to see that final moment when Voldemort's curse rebounds on himself and, as Rowling writes, "Tom Riddle hit the floor with a mundane finality, his body feeble and shrunken, the white hands empty, the snake-like face vacant and unknowing."
I feel sadness because, in choosing their own ideas over J.K's, in substituting their sense of drama for hers, the filmmakers have wasted this one golden opportunity to do it right, to capture the beauty of Rowling's final novel on film.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Harry Potter and the Deathly Sketch-Com Show
Is it just me (and maybe that I'm old) or is Saturday Night Live simply not funny any more?
Daniel Radcliffe was the guest host on SNL this past weekend, something I didn't know until a colleague told me yesterday. She also told me that he was in, not surprisingly, a Harry Potter sketch on the show and that it wasn't too bad.
So I found it on the web and watched it. She was right, it wasn't bad. It was a single joke played over and over again but it wasn't bad.
I thought the Snape impersonation was pretty good, in fact, especially the voice, and I liked the Draco Malfoy dude too. And the idea that Harry might find life after Voldemort a bit boring had occured to me too in the past so I didn't mind that the whole four-minute sketch was taken up with character after character confronting the 28-year-old Harry about being unable to move on with his life.
Then I tried to watch the other sketches from the show that featured Radcliffe. I used the term "tried" on purpose. I tried to watch them but I just couldn't force myself to see any of them through to the end. Terrible. Poorly written, poorly acted. Not funny.
Maybe I'm just too old for it now but I seem to recall the Ackroyd, Belushi, Radner years as being a heck of lot funnier, and a great deal clever and more intelligent, than the current version.
Funny, I'm still young enough to appreciate Harry Potter but I'm too old for the modern SNL.
Daniel Radcliffe was the guest host on SNL this past weekend, something I didn't know until a colleague told me yesterday. She also told me that he was in, not surprisingly, a Harry Potter sketch on the show and that it wasn't too bad.
So I found it on the web and watched it. She was right, it wasn't bad. It was a single joke played over and over again but it wasn't bad.
I thought the Snape impersonation was pretty good, in fact, especially the voice, and I liked the Draco Malfoy dude too. And the idea that Harry might find life after Voldemort a bit boring had occured to me too in the past so I didn't mind that the whole four-minute sketch was taken up with character after character confronting the 28-year-old Harry about being unable to move on with his life.
Then I tried to watch the other sketches from the show that featured Radcliffe. I used the term "tried" on purpose. I tried to watch them but I just couldn't force myself to see any of them through to the end. Terrible. Poorly written, poorly acted. Not funny.
Maybe I'm just too old for it now but I seem to recall the Ackroyd, Belushi, Radner years as being a heck of lot funnier, and a great deal clever and more intelligent, than the current version.
Funny, I'm still young enough to appreciate Harry Potter but I'm too old for the modern SNL.
Monday, December 26, 2011
A glorious Gryffindor surprise waiting under my tree
This photo was taken this afternoon as we began a walk through the woods with our dog. I guess, considering the popularity of the Harry Potter books and films, I shouldn't be surprised that the first person we encountered on our walk looked me up and down and said, "Gryffindor, huh? I consider myself more of a Ravenclaw".
A great response that made my day. The fact that I also found another Harry Potter surprise under the tree (the Blu Ray of The Deathly Hallows, Part 2) made this an even better day. I sat down this afternoon and evening with some friends who are visiting from out of town to watch both Part 1 and Part 2. They're huge Potter fans too so it was a pleasure to get the chance to watch the movies with them and then hear their thoughts on them as well.
I'm excited to get the chance to watch the special features on the discs too -- I watched part of the Daniel Radcliffe - J.K. Rowling conversation and was delighted with the quality of the discussion. I'm looking forward to watching that soon too. More on my recent conversations and the Blu Ray experience in upcoming posts.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Evanna is the question mark for me
I've been wondering lately if any of the young actors from the Harry Potter films will be able to continue with successful acting careers.
I know that Daniel Radcliffe has made some much-talked-about appearances on the stage and Tom Felton is currently playing a supporting role in the film Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which is getting a lot of positive reviews. Will they be able to make it last? Once the Harry Potter luster has worn off, will they and their young colleagues still be getting good parts in big films, plays or television shows?
Much to my chagrin, the actor I think has the best shot at making a lasting career out of acting, Emma Watson, seems to be the least interested in doing so. I read somewhere that she's returning to University to complete her degree with no immediate plans to accept new roles. It's too bad. I thought Watson was by far the best of the younger set of actors in the films and would have been interested to see her continue to grow as an actor.
I think Felton has a future, especially if he's willing to continue to play villains. I'm not so sure about Radcliffe: as you already know, I think he was the weak acting link in the Potter films so, unless he gets better quickly, I can't see him doing much.
And what of Rupert Grint, Evanna Lynch, Matthew Lewis and Bonnie Wright, who played Ron Weasley, Luna Lovegood, Neville Longbottom and Gina Weasley respectively?
I like Grint and I think the entertainment business will always have room for the big, lunky, lovable guy with the easy smile. Lewis seems to have attracted a big female fan following, which should help him to land roles, at least for a while.
I can see Wright doing well too. She has a classic English beauty in both her physical appearance and her demeanour. I can see her keeping very active in the busy British film industry.
Evanna Lynch is the big question mark for me. I'm not sure what will happen with her. I think she's fantastic in the Potter films but I'm not sure if the Luna character is really that great a representation of Lynch the actor as she is today. Casting directors will want to place her in roles that are similar to Luna but I'm don't think Lynch will be able to pull of mystically bewildered innocence any more.
I know that Daniel Radcliffe has made some much-talked-about appearances on the stage and Tom Felton is currently playing a supporting role in the film Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which is getting a lot of positive reviews. Will they be able to make it last? Once the Harry Potter luster has worn off, will they and their young colleagues still be getting good parts in big films, plays or television shows?
Much to my chagrin, the actor I think has the best shot at making a lasting career out of acting, Emma Watson, seems to be the least interested in doing so. I read somewhere that she's returning to University to complete her degree with no immediate plans to accept new roles. It's too bad. I thought Watson was by far the best of the younger set of actors in the films and would have been interested to see her continue to grow as an actor.
I think Felton has a future, especially if he's willing to continue to play villains. I'm not so sure about Radcliffe: as you already know, I think he was the weak acting link in the Potter films so, unless he gets better quickly, I can't see him doing much.
And what of Rupert Grint, Evanna Lynch, Matthew Lewis and Bonnie Wright, who played Ron Weasley, Luna Lovegood, Neville Longbottom and Gina Weasley respectively?
I like Grint and I think the entertainment business will always have room for the big, lunky, lovable guy with the easy smile. Lewis seems to have attracted a big female fan following, which should help him to land roles, at least for a while.
I can see Wright doing well too. She has a classic English beauty in both her physical appearance and her demeanour. I can see her keeping very active in the busy British film industry.
Evanna Lynch is the big question mark for me. I'm not sure what will happen with her. I think she's fantastic in the Potter films but I'm not sure if the Luna character is really that great a representation of Lynch the actor as she is today. Casting directors will want to place her in roles that are similar to Luna but I'm don't think Lynch will be able to pull of mystically bewildered innocence any more.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Kloves' Harry-Hermione hug scene is a nice addition
Stephen Kloves invented much of the film's final act, straying quite far from J.K.'s original version in the novels. I have to admit, I'm not altogether happy with much of what Kloves did but I do like one scene: the one where Harry tells Hermione and Ron that he's going into the Forbidden Forest to die.
That's not in the book. Rowling is very careful to make this a personal, lonely decision for Harry. In fact, he admits in the novel that, if he were to stop to tell them, he probably could never gather the will to leave them again. He encounters Neville on his way out of Hogwarts and tells Neville that, whatever happens, the snake (Nagini) must die. He also sees Ginny but chooses not to stop for her. Again, he likely would not be able to go on with what he must do.
It's a moving passage in the book and beautifully written.
Although I don't thank Kloves for straying so far from J.K.'s terrific original, I do think the screenwriter does a nice job in that little scene on the stairs of Hogwarts between Harry and his two best friends.
I can't recall the dialogue word for word but Harry tells them that he has learned he carries of piece of Voldemort's soul. "I guess I've known for quite a while," he says, then turns to Hermione, "and I think you have too." They both finally acknowledge what they each had figured out on their own: that Harry must die.
It's a lovely moment. A true moment between three good friends.
Daniel Radcliffe plays it very well. He's calm, reserved, almost non-chalant when he says it, which is exactly how I think Harry should be. And Emma Watson responds perfectly. As the calm, fairly rational Hermione, she allows her emotions to flare briefly in the hug but makes no effort to talk him out of doing what she knows he must do.
I'm not sure what instructions Rupert Grint got on how to play his part but he tends to drop into the background in this scene. I'm not sure if we're supposed to read that as to mean that Ron doesn't know what they're talking about, doesn't understand what Harry must do, or that he's working hard to contain his emotions by standing back and watching.
Ron does eventually join the other two but not until after the hug is coming to a close.
I think it's a really nice scene. I think it gives us, the viewers, a much needed moment to take part in the emotional relationships of our hero trio, to see in front of us the devastation that Harry's fate causes for them.
Of course, I still think that Rowling's choice (not to have any such scene for the sake of realism and to put the focus on Harry's personal journey) is the more elegant, subtle one.
But I understand why Klove's added this scene. And I enjoyed watching it.
That's not in the book. Rowling is very careful to make this a personal, lonely decision for Harry. In fact, he admits in the novel that, if he were to stop to tell them, he probably could never gather the will to leave them again. He encounters Neville on his way out of Hogwarts and tells Neville that, whatever happens, the snake (Nagini) must die. He also sees Ginny but chooses not to stop for her. Again, he likely would not be able to go on with what he must do.
It's a moving passage in the book and beautifully written.
Although I don't thank Kloves for straying so far from J.K.'s terrific original, I do think the screenwriter does a nice job in that little scene on the stairs of Hogwarts between Harry and his two best friends.
I can't recall the dialogue word for word but Harry tells them that he has learned he carries of piece of Voldemort's soul. "I guess I've known for quite a while," he says, then turns to Hermione, "and I think you have too." They both finally acknowledge what they each had figured out on their own: that Harry must die.
It's a lovely moment. A true moment between three good friends.
Daniel Radcliffe plays it very well. He's calm, reserved, almost non-chalant when he says it, which is exactly how I think Harry should be. And Emma Watson responds perfectly. As the calm, fairly rational Hermione, she allows her emotions to flare briefly in the hug but makes no effort to talk him out of doing what she knows he must do.
I'm not sure what instructions Rupert Grint got on how to play his part but he tends to drop into the background in this scene. I'm not sure if we're supposed to read that as to mean that Ron doesn't know what they're talking about, doesn't understand what Harry must do, or that he's working hard to contain his emotions by standing back and watching.
Ron does eventually join the other two but not until after the hug is coming to a close.
I think it's a really nice scene. I think it gives us, the viewers, a much needed moment to take part in the emotional relationships of our hero trio, to see in front of us the devastation that Harry's fate causes for them.
Of course, I still think that Rowling's choice (not to have any such scene for the sake of realism and to put the focus on Harry's personal journey) is the more elegant, subtle one.
But I understand why Klove's added this scene. And I enjoyed watching it.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Kingsley Shacklebolt impresses in my second viewing
I'm just back from my second viewing of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2. This time, I caught the 2D version and, frankly, I think it was a big improvement.
I'm still not entirely sold on the revisions to the ending but I came away feeling better about the film. I just loved Helena Bonham Carter channeling Emma Watson in the Gringott's scene and I thought the more emotional passages (especially Snape's memory montage and the Resurrection Stone scene just as Harry enters the Forbidden Forest on his way to his own death) were exceptionally well done.
I have to admit, I was also impressed with Daniel Radcliffe's performance in this film. I have often been critical of his acting in the earlier movies but I think he does a pretty good job here.
Kingsley Shacklebolt is rapidly rising in my estimation as a character in the films and I think George Harris brings him vividly to life every time he gets a chance. I just love the way he emerges from the white swirl in the battle scene of The Order of the Phoenix (a tough, proud man at the top of his form) and I think he provides that same sense of strength in the final film. Too bad Harris wasn't given more to do.
I also noticed this time through (something I missed the first time around) that, when Pansy Parkinson screams for people to grab Harry and turn him over to Voldemort at the beginning of the Battle of Hogwarts, the first four characters to step in front of Harry to protect him are female: Ginny, Hermione, Luna and I think Cho Chang. I am not often impressed with the roles given to female characters in the novels or the movies so this was a really nice moment for me.
I have to think more about this film, both its really great points and the stuff that still bothers me. And, I have to admit, midway through the movie when a guy near me decided he just had to rattle his popcorn bag for about five straight minutes, I found myself thinking: boy, I can't wait to get this on Blu Ray!
I'm still not entirely sold on the revisions to the ending but I came away feeling better about the film. I just loved Helena Bonham Carter channeling Emma Watson in the Gringott's scene and I thought the more emotional passages (especially Snape's memory montage and the Resurrection Stone scene just as Harry enters the Forbidden Forest on his way to his own death) were exceptionally well done.
I have to admit, I was also impressed with Daniel Radcliffe's performance in this film. I have often been critical of his acting in the earlier movies but I think he does a pretty good job here.
Kingsley Shacklebolt is rapidly rising in my estimation as a character in the films and I think George Harris brings him vividly to life every time he gets a chance. I just love the way he emerges from the white swirl in the battle scene of The Order of the Phoenix (a tough, proud man at the top of his form) and I think he provides that same sense of strength in the final film. Too bad Harris wasn't given more to do.
I also noticed this time through (something I missed the first time around) that, when Pansy Parkinson screams for people to grab Harry and turn him over to Voldemort at the beginning of the Battle of Hogwarts, the first four characters to step in front of Harry to protect him are female: Ginny, Hermione, Luna and I think Cho Chang. I am not often impressed with the roles given to female characters in the novels or the movies so this was a really nice moment for me.
I have to think more about this film, both its really great points and the stuff that still bothers me. And, I have to admit, midway through the movie when a guy near me decided he just had to rattle his popcorn bag for about five straight minutes, I found myself thinking: boy, I can't wait to get this on Blu Ray!
Sunday, July 24, 2011
The Chamber of Secrets is one of the weaker films
I am slowly working my way through the first seven Harry Potter movies in preparation for seeing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, for a second time in the cinema.
To my surprise, I found that the second film, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, is starting to lose its luster for me. It lacks the charm of the first film and, but for a scintillating climax, it also comes across as slightly self-indulgent. Whereas the first film offered us the wonder of a first-time look at the magical world, this second movie tries but fails to recapture that magic. And I think the acting, particularly of Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint, is definitely not as good.
One of its biggest drawbacks is the overbearing presence of Gilderoy Lockhart, played by Kenneth Brannagh. I'm not saying Brannagh doesn't do well with the part; I'm just saying that the silliness of the Lockhart character in the film is too much and detracts from the effectiveness of the entire movie.
Now, as I said, I do think the ending of the film is powerful, perhaps even powerful enough to save the entire movie. Harry's encounter with Tom Riddle and the Basilisk, over Ginny Weasley's dying body, is gripping. In particular, I think Fawkes, the Phoenix, is beautifully created, so fantastic that you wish the bird had a bigger role in later films.
I also like Harry's final encounter with Mr. Malfoy at the end of the movie. I still can't believe that Lucius actually intended to use the killing curse on Harry before Dobby intervened. What a great way to tell us all that the stakes are getting higher awfully quickly.
And it's also a nice reminder of just how powerful Malfoy was in the beginning. I've gotten used to him as the fallen Death Eater he becomes in the later books.
To my surprise, I found that the second film, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, is starting to lose its luster for me. It lacks the charm of the first film and, but for a scintillating climax, it also comes across as slightly self-indulgent. Whereas the first film offered us the wonder of a first-time look at the magical world, this second movie tries but fails to recapture that magic. And I think the acting, particularly of Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint, is definitely not as good.
One of its biggest drawbacks is the overbearing presence of Gilderoy Lockhart, played by Kenneth Brannagh. I'm not saying Brannagh doesn't do well with the part; I'm just saying that the silliness of the Lockhart character in the film is too much and detracts from the effectiveness of the entire movie.
Now, as I said, I do think the ending of the film is powerful, perhaps even powerful enough to save the entire movie. Harry's encounter with Tom Riddle and the Basilisk, over Ginny Weasley's dying body, is gripping. In particular, I think Fawkes, the Phoenix, is beautifully created, so fantastic that you wish the bird had a bigger role in later films.
I also like Harry's final encounter with Mr. Malfoy at the end of the movie. I still can't believe that Lucius actually intended to use the killing curse on Harry before Dobby intervened. What a great way to tell us all that the stakes are getting higher awfully quickly.
And it's also a nice reminder of just how powerful Malfoy was in the beginning. I've gotten used to him as the fallen Death Eater he becomes in the later books.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
In defence of our hero trio's performances in early films
I'm sitting at home, not feeling well, watching the Harry Potter movies through from the beginning. It's not just fun: it's also educational.
I have just finished watching The Philosopher's Stone and now have The Chamber of Secrets in the Blu Ray player.
And I'm checking out the acting. Several people have said to me recently that they feel the acting of the three young stars in the early movies is really bad.
From what I can tell (not having studied their acting careers), Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone represented the first real movie roles for Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. They were all around 11 years old at the time so that's not really surprising.
Are they bad in this movie? I'm not so sure. First, it is their first real acting experience. Second, they were acting in a huge-budget film, for which expectations were extremely high. Third, they were acting alongside some of the greatest actors and actresses of their age, beside whom they couldn't help but come across poorly.
But those simple answers are not, I think, the only reasons. Think about it. You're 11, you're in your first major role and you have to do much of your acting in front of green screens, imagining the scenes and magical characters that will be created by computer graphic imagery later.
That's not easy for anyone, even the most experienced of actors.
On top of that, if you watch the performances of people like Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris and Alan Rickman in that first film (consummate actors all), you'll notice that even they are hamming things up a bit.
This first film was made specifically for children. Most movies aimed at a younger audiences involve broader acting performances, over-emphasized voices and movements, and all that. It's a regular part of these films.
If you were to compare the performances of Coltrane, Smith and Rickman in the last couple of movies with their performances in the first film, you'd probably see a significant difference. As the target audiences of the films matured, so did the performances of all the actors, not just the youngsters.
The later films were made for adults, so the performances were quieter, more subtle, more realistic than those in the earlier entries in the series.
I'm not saying Radcliffe, Watson, Grint and the other "first years" are deserving of acting awards for their work in The Philosopher's Stone. I'm just saying that, for a variety of reasons, I don't think we should judge them too harshly.
I have just finished watching The Philosopher's Stone and now have The Chamber of Secrets in the Blu Ray player.
And I'm checking out the acting. Several people have said to me recently that they feel the acting of the three young stars in the early movies is really bad.
From what I can tell (not having studied their acting careers), Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone represented the first real movie roles for Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. They were all around 11 years old at the time so that's not really surprising.
Are they bad in this movie? I'm not so sure. First, it is their first real acting experience. Second, they were acting in a huge-budget film, for which expectations were extremely high. Third, they were acting alongside some of the greatest actors and actresses of their age, beside whom they couldn't help but come across poorly.
But those simple answers are not, I think, the only reasons. Think about it. You're 11, you're in your first major role and you have to do much of your acting in front of green screens, imagining the scenes and magical characters that will be created by computer graphic imagery later.
That's not easy for anyone, even the most experienced of actors.
On top of that, if you watch the performances of people like Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris and Alan Rickman in that first film (consummate actors all), you'll notice that even they are hamming things up a bit.
This first film was made specifically for children. Most movies aimed at a younger audiences involve broader acting performances, over-emphasized voices and movements, and all that. It's a regular part of these films.
If you were to compare the performances of Coltrane, Smith and Rickman in the last couple of movies with their performances in the first film, you'd probably see a significant difference. As the target audiences of the films matured, so did the performances of all the actors, not just the youngsters.
The later films were made for adults, so the performances were quieter, more subtle, more realistic than those in the earlier entries in the series.
I'm not saying Radcliffe, Watson, Grint and the other "first years" are deserving of acting awards for their work in The Philosopher's Stone. I'm just saying that, for a variety of reasons, I don't think we should judge them too harshly.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Rewriting Remus really works, and other positives from Part 2
Before I move on to more criticisms of the new movie, I want to talk about some of the things I really liked about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2.
Because, overall, I really liked this film. Almost as much as I liked Part 1.
For example, I was really happy when the filmmakers included the scene where Harry, Hermione and Ron emerge into the Room of Requirement to be greeted with cheers from the students gathered there. I love that moment in the book and I think they did a nice job of presenting it in the film.
I liked the fact that they rewrote Remus Lupin's answer to Harry when the young wizard tells the returned-from-the-dead Lupin how sorry he is that Lupin has died so soon after the birth of his son. In the book, Lupin speaks only of himself. In the movie, he says something about how both he and "Dora" (Tonks) were sorry they won't be able to see Teddy grow up but trust he will know the important reason for which they died. I like the fact that Lupin, in the film, recognizes his wife's sacrifice as well, something he doesn't do in the book.
In fact, I think that whole scene with the resurrection stone is beautifully done. Well acted, well filmed, very touching and heart warming.
I was surprised and pleased that screenwriter Stephen Kloves added the scene where Hermione and Ron go down to the Chamber of Secrets to fetch the Basilisk fangs and destroy the Cup Horcrux. In the novel, H&R only tell Harry later what they've done: it was nice to see them get a chance for some screen time. The kiss... well, I'm trying to be positive here.
I thought Snape's death and the montage of his memories were really quite wonderful. It was an edited version of the chapter in the book but I thought it captured all the really necessary points. Again, the acting is great and the scene heart-wrenching.
I was also pleased and impressed with the scene between Harry and the Grey Lady. The editing was particularly good there and the scene comes off well.
As I said at the start, overall I was really happy with this film. I think it is a strong addition to the series and a particularly good way to end. The acting is improved over earlier films, especially that of Daniel Radcliffe, and I think the technical aspects of the film are great.
Remember that as you read later posts because, to be honest, I have always found it easier and more interesting to talk about the negatives than to glorify the positives. I don't want you to think I hated the movie as you read your way forward in this blog.
Because, overall, I really liked this film. Almost as much as I liked Part 1.
For example, I was really happy when the filmmakers included the scene where Harry, Hermione and Ron emerge into the Room of Requirement to be greeted with cheers from the students gathered there. I love that moment in the book and I think they did a nice job of presenting it in the film.
I liked the fact that they rewrote Remus Lupin's answer to Harry when the young wizard tells the returned-from-the-dead Lupin how sorry he is that Lupin has died so soon after the birth of his son. In the book, Lupin speaks only of himself. In the movie, he says something about how both he and "Dora" (Tonks) were sorry they won't be able to see Teddy grow up but trust he will know the important reason for which they died. I like the fact that Lupin, in the film, recognizes his wife's sacrifice as well, something he doesn't do in the book.
In fact, I think that whole scene with the resurrection stone is beautifully done. Well acted, well filmed, very touching and heart warming.
I was surprised and pleased that screenwriter Stephen Kloves added the scene where Hermione and Ron go down to the Chamber of Secrets to fetch the Basilisk fangs and destroy the Cup Horcrux. In the novel, H&R only tell Harry later what they've done: it was nice to see them get a chance for some screen time. The kiss... well, I'm trying to be positive here.
I thought Snape's death and the montage of his memories were really quite wonderful. It was an edited version of the chapter in the book but I thought it captured all the really necessary points. Again, the acting is great and the scene heart-wrenching.
I was also pleased and impressed with the scene between Harry and the Grey Lady. The editing was particularly good there and the scene comes off well.
As I said at the start, overall I was really happy with this film. I think it is a strong addition to the series and a particularly good way to end. The acting is improved over earlier films, especially that of Daniel Radcliffe, and I think the technical aspects of the film are great.
Remember that as you read later posts because, to be honest, I have always found it easier and more interesting to talk about the negatives than to glorify the positives. I don't want you to think I hated the movie as you read your way forward in this blog.
Friday, July 15, 2011
I just love the way Emma Watson whips out the Sword of Gryffindor
By now, many of you have seen the final film. How was it? Was it great? Did it meet your expectations, fulfill your hopes?
As you might have guessed, I have not seen it yet. My life just isn't allowing me time to go to see it. And it's killing me.
I watched the trailers and excerpts again on Rotten Tomatoes. And there were two more today. Both were little documentaries on aspects of the movie: one on Snape's life and the other on Gringott's and Goblins. Great stuff.
The second one gave me a chance to get a preview of Helena Bonham Carter channelling Emma Watson in the scene where Hermione has taken polyjuice potion to pose as Bellatrix for the break-in to the Lestrange vault. Bonham Carter is hilarious in the scene and it's fun to hear Watson's voice trying to sound Lestrange.
My favourite single moment so far, though, has got to be in the Lestrange vault itself when Emma Watson as Hermione whips the Sword of Gryffindor out of her little bag and tosses it to Daniel Radcliffe as Harry. Watson does it with such panache, such style. It's a cool moment.
Once I see the movie, I'll probably have more "cool moments" to talk about but, until then, I think I'll enjoy this one a few more times.
As you might have guessed, I have not seen it yet. My life just isn't allowing me time to go to see it. And it's killing me.
I watched the trailers and excerpts again on Rotten Tomatoes. And there were two more today. Both were little documentaries on aspects of the movie: one on Snape's life and the other on Gringott's and Goblins. Great stuff.
The second one gave me a chance to get a preview of Helena Bonham Carter channelling Emma Watson in the scene where Hermione has taken polyjuice potion to pose as Bellatrix for the break-in to the Lestrange vault. Bonham Carter is hilarious in the scene and it's fun to hear Watson's voice trying to sound Lestrange.
My favourite single moment so far, though, has got to be in the Lestrange vault itself when Emma Watson as Hermione whips the Sword of Gryffindor out of her little bag and tosses it to Daniel Radcliffe as Harry. Watson does it with such panache, such style. It's a cool moment.
Once I see the movie, I'll probably have more "cool moments" to talk about but, until then, I think I'll enjoy this one a few more times.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
15 Days and Counting!!!!
Fifteen days until Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, opens in theatres, in both 3d and regular format, imax and normal screen.
That's 360 hours. 21,600 minutes. 1,296,000 seconds.
Give or take.
Not that I'm excited or anything.
That's 360 hours. 21,600 minutes. 1,296,000 seconds.
Give or take.
Not that I'm excited or anything.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Daniel Radcliffe is the weak acting link
The last couple of posts to this blog have got me to thinking about a couple of things: first, how lucky (or amazingly prescient) the casting people for the first Harry Potter movie were to have chosen so many very young actors who would turn out to be so talented and grow up to be so attractive; and second, how Daniel Radcliffe is clearly the very worst of the actors in continuing roles in the films.
I don't think anyone can deny that Emma Watson, Bonnie Wright and Evanna Lynch have all proven themselves to be very strong actors. And my review of the worldwide web tells me that all three are generally considered to be very attractive young women at this point. On the other side, Rupert Grint, Matthew Lewis and Tom Felton are all accomplished performers and, from what I've read, considered to be fairly easy on the eyes as well.
But what of Daniel Radcliffe? He plays the title role and he's on screen more than any other single performer. Does his performance stand up?
I don't think so. In fact, I find scenes where he's asked to show any kind of emotional depth to be particularly cringeworthy. I mean, any time the guy has to hug someone you want just to cover your eyes until it's over.
Go ahead. Watch the scene on the street in Hogsmeade in The Prisoner of Azkaban, just after Harry has overheard that Sirius Black is widely believed to have betrayed his supposed best friend James Potter to Voldemort. "He was their friend," Radcliffe barks, his eyes wide, his voice hoarse. It's a pivotal, emotionally charged scene and Radcliffe, for all his histrionics, flatlines through it.
Okay, so maybe he was still young then. It was, after all, only the second movie. He's learned, he's grown, you tell me.
Now watch the scene in The Deathly Hallows, Part 1, where Harry finds out from Hermione that his wand has been broken in the escape from Godric's Hollow. "Where's my wand, Hermione?" Radcliffe, now a mature, supposedly accomplished actor, barks. This is a scene where Harry loses his most trusted friend in the magical world, the implement that has saved him time and again from Voldemort, and all Radcliffe can muster is a couple of grunts and a hard stare.
I think Emma Watson is the best young actor by far in the films, the one most worthy to appear beside the who's who of British acting that populates the adult roles. On the other end of the spectrum, Daniel Radcliffe is pretty awful. He's just lucky the material is so strong it can carry him (and the movies) through his flat, emotionally vacant performances.
I don't think anyone can deny that Emma Watson, Bonnie Wright and Evanna Lynch have all proven themselves to be very strong actors. And my review of the worldwide web tells me that all three are generally considered to be very attractive young women at this point. On the other side, Rupert Grint, Matthew Lewis and Tom Felton are all accomplished performers and, from what I've read, considered to be fairly easy on the eyes as well.
But what of Daniel Radcliffe? He plays the title role and he's on screen more than any other single performer. Does his performance stand up?
I don't think so. In fact, I find scenes where he's asked to show any kind of emotional depth to be particularly cringeworthy. I mean, any time the guy has to hug someone you want just to cover your eyes until it's over.
Go ahead. Watch the scene on the street in Hogsmeade in The Prisoner of Azkaban, just after Harry has overheard that Sirius Black is widely believed to have betrayed his supposed best friend James Potter to Voldemort. "He was their friend," Radcliffe barks, his eyes wide, his voice hoarse. It's a pivotal, emotionally charged scene and Radcliffe, for all his histrionics, flatlines through it.
Okay, so maybe he was still young then. It was, after all, only the second movie. He's learned, he's grown, you tell me.
Now watch the scene in The Deathly Hallows, Part 1, where Harry finds out from Hermione that his wand has been broken in the escape from Godric's Hollow. "Where's my wand, Hermione?" Radcliffe, now a mature, supposedly accomplished actor, barks. This is a scene where Harry loses his most trusted friend in the magical world, the implement that has saved him time and again from Voldemort, and all Radcliffe can muster is a couple of grunts and a hard stare.
I think Emma Watson is the best young actor by far in the films, the one most worthy to appear beside the who's who of British acting that populates the adult roles. On the other end of the spectrum, Daniel Radcliffe is pretty awful. He's just lucky the material is so strong it can carry him (and the movies) through his flat, emotionally vacant performances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)