comment #1

Joe B. says ...

Here we go again.

These movies have managed to get better with each installment (and I agree that Cuaron's was a standout), are suitably faithful to the books while still creating "cinema" stories, and are the LEAST soul-sucking, insulting CGI epics around. (While I liked the LOTR trilogy, I enjoy these far more).

And it's not just lock-step teens. I'm 36 and look forward to each movie (and book) more than 95% of others being released. My friends, parents, etc. agree.

Wells' obvious attraction to Hermione is a little creepy though. Less now that she's NEARLY an adult (quite creepy with the last movie), but still...

comment #2

Joe B. says ...

And I don't think Cuaron's was the pinnacle of the "zeitgeist-connectivity factor." If you're talking about connecting with the public, wasn't it the lowest grossing of the first four?

(possibly since it was the only summer release, until the upcoming Order of the Phoenix)

comment #3

jeffmcm says ...

I think Wells's usual knee-jerk "I hate summer tentpole/CGI movies" thing is getting old. Not that he shouldn't be expressing his opinion, but that he needs to take his argument somewhere new rather than rehashing the same stale phrases over and over again.

Come on Wells, be the exacting film critic that you sort of think of yourself as, and step it up a notch! It's going to be a long summer if every week all we hear is "Pirates sucks, Transformers sucks, Harry Potter sucks" etc.

comment #4

storymark says ...

I'm going to start regarding anything Jeff says about popcorn movies the same way I do a DZ post about Tarantino - ignore it.

Been there, done that indeed.

comment #5

storymark says ...

"I think Wells's usual knee-jerk "I hate summer tentpole/CGI movies" thing is getting old. Not that he shouldn't be expressing his opinion, but that he needs to take his argument somewhere new rather than rehashing the same stale phrases over and over again."

He might even consider the drastic, almost unthinkable strategy of actually seeing a movie before spending weeks on end pissing on it.

It's gotten soooo old. And I don't even particularly enjoy the Potter movies.

comment #6

Edward says ...

I have enjoyed the Potter films and I'm a 59 year-old male. That being said the last film was one of the weakest, Cuaron's being the best so far. I do find that there is a formulaic similarity to every film and I hate the game of Quidditch. I'll probably wait for the DVD.

comment #7

Rich S. says ...

Interesting about the height. I noticed in the last film that Rupert Grint (Ron) towered over both Harry and Hermoine. He seems to be legitimately 6 feet or taller.

But in the promo shots for this film, he looks about the same height as Radcliffe. Are they doing an Alan Ladd here? (Notice how I neatly tied this post back to the earlier Shane thread?)

comment #8

nemo says ...

I've seen all the Harry Potter films -- my wife and niece are long-time fans of the novels. I've enjoyed them all, despite their frequent tedious stretches. Cuaron's was by far the best.

But come on -- the Harry Potter movies have NEVER mattered.

comment #9

jeffmcm says ...

I thought the second film was the weakest, in that it was very Columbus-y, but movie 4 was very crammed in - having not read the book, I felt like there were huge chunks of narrative that had been condensed or expurgated, which was awkward.

comment #10

Rich S. says ...

IMDB has Radcliffe listed at 5'6", Watson at 5'5" and Grint at 5'10". Those could be old figures, though.

comment #11

Filthy Rich says ...

Harry Potter does suck.

These movies are so dull and lifeless. They have no soul, no fun and no energy. The 'humour' is so heavy handed and overblown and obvious I can't sit through another one of these movies.

The action scenes are boring and clunky. All of the films are so formulaic I can't believe anybody would defend them.

comment #12

Geoff says ...

The third one, Cuaron's, is EASILY THE BEST ONE. And will probably remain that way.

comment #13

christian says ...

jeff is dead on about these HP studio products lacking in wit soul and magic...much like the overrated disposable books...bring it!

comment #14

Pelham123 says ...

The last two Harry Potter's were quite good, with Cuaron's being exceptional. They were fun. What more can you ask? I couldn't bear the first installment and since Columbus returned for part II I still haven't seen that one.

comment #15

nemo says ...

"IMDB has Radcliffe listed at 5'6", Watson at 5'5" and Grint at 5'10". Those could be old figures, though."

Really tall is the blonde kid Tom Felton who plays the child villain Draco Malfoy. IMDB lists that kid at 6'1".

comment #16

Noah says ...

I've been a real big fan of this series of movies and I never read the books. I think they are just a lot of fun to watch and I never fail to get invested in the story because I care about these kids and have watched them grow up. I think they've gotten better with each installment and I eagerly await the new one, which is more than I can say for Pirates or Spiderman.

comment #17

dre says ...

I'm shocked (SHOCKED!) at Jeff's reaction to the new trailer. "It looks good but it's not going to be". Holy Heyzeus.

comment #18

nemo says ...

The thing that really struck me about the Harry Potter movies was how much the whole Hogwarts experience resembled being a undergraduate at Yale. Partly it's all the Gothic architecture and atmosphere drenched with phony baloney tradition. But the main resemblance is in those huge feasts the school authorities throw in the great hall several times a semester.

Like Yale, Hogwarts spends most of the semester pushing the students hard and grinding them down. But several times a semester both Yale and Hogwarts throw a great feast where they tell the students how special and wonderful they are. You're not like those Muggles out there. You're special! After all you're at Hogwarts! (Or Yale. Or Harvard, or Stanford, or Oxford, or Cambridge.)

It's those scenes of self-congratulatory, institutionalized ego burnishing that send a frisson of memory through me. It's one of the reasons people come out places like that feeling as if they're ready and entitled to run the world.

comment #19

Joe B. says ...

"This time there's a conventional bald ogre baddie without a nose, Imelda Staunton as a new Hogwarts bureaucrat baddie, and Katie Leung as Cho Chang, Harry's (Daniel Radcliffe's) new love interest."

Two of those three were in the last film/book.

comment #20

chmoye says ...

I guess it's too cool of you to spell "Phoenix" correctly...

comment #21

MarkVH says ...

I flat-out can't understand all the Cuaron fellating that goes on when people refer to the Potter films - yeah, it was better than the first two, but not THAT much better. As a fan of the books who hasn't loved the movies all that much, I feel like Newell's film (Goblet) came the closest to realizing the spirit of the source material, despite having to do a considerable amount of condensing. It's the best in a series that continues to improve with each film.

comment #22

MarkVH says ...

Just watched the trailer - looks badass. This actually has the potential to be better than the book, which is the least of the series as far as I'm concerned (too bloated, badly-written major character death, etc.). Helena Bohnam Carter looks awesome.

And while we're at it, I still say that there's no way in hell that Book 6 is a movie. 50% exposition/flashbacks, 40% 90210-like teen angst, with 10% action all packed in at the end. I actually liked the book a lot, but it's gonna need a hell of a director to adapt effectively.

comment #23

Craig Kennedy says ...

I don't mind Wells' grumpiness about the whole thing - not being part of the target audience I share his ennui - but his misreading of the situation is completely laughable.

"It's an old tune about how the Harry Potter movies have stopped mattering." Stopped mattering to who exactly? They never mattered to you Jeff, so how could they have stopped? They still matter to those "school kids marching into that gothic Orwellian factory" - hence the marching.

Most of those who think the series peaked with the Cauron entry are snobs who sneer at the whole thing to begin with. I number myself in that category, but at least I can admit I'm in the minority and not in tune with some kind of perceived "zeitgeist-connectivity factor". What is that anyway? Is that the thing with the fumes?

comment #24

Craig Kennedy says ...

And now I'm sitting here like a dope, unable to properly spell Cuaron.

comment #25

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Chmoye: Thanks for the spelling heads-up. Spelling errors are the bane of my existence.

comment #26

Craig Kennedy says ...

Hey, correct mine while you're at it...or feel free to let me dangle here looking like the tool I am.

comment #27

le corbeau says ...

Quite right, MarkVH. At best Cuaron is the Lewis Gilbert to Columbus' Guy Hamilton. It may have been a little more atmospheric, but it was still a studio exec-dictated theme park ride.

comment #28

christian says ...

"At best Cuaron is the Lewis Gilbert to Columbus' Guy Hamilton."

ouch!

comment #29

cobhome says ...

oh come on Jeff - it is fantasy - for kids and adults who are not steeped in their own hubris - its fun - it doesn't have to be meaningful - the issue is - are the characters well developed - is the narrative coherent and interesting - etc etc -

comment #30

SpinDozer says ...

'I flat-out can't understand all the Cuaron fellating that goes on when people refer to the Potter films - yeah, it was better than the first two'

And there has only been one other, last years' Goblet which was in many people's opinion, inferior to Cuaron's effort (I do believe this had as much to do with the number and type of plot points...simply too much in Goblet and maybe OOTP as well). What JW (and others) do not get (apparently) is that these films are largely faithful to the books. 'Emma Watson ..., so why not a little romantic subplot for her also?' Well, there was...in Goblet, she was 'involved' with Krum. There will be quite a bit more romantic action for Emma in the film following OOTP.
I think it will be interesting to see how these films age over the years relative to the reputation of the novels (which I think will only grow in stature).

comment #31

MovieBob says ...

jeffmcm:
"I think Wells's usual knee-jerk "I hate summer tentpole/CGI movies" thing is getting old. Not that he shouldn't be expressing his opinion, but that he needs to take his argument somewhere new rather than rehashing the same stale phrases over and over again."

You're missin' the larger theme here. It's not the tentpole thing, and it's only incidentally the CGI thing. It's all about the genre. If you're a scifi/fantasy film, you can pretty much count on Wells discounting you right off the bat. You're guilty until proven innocent, and if you're based on something culturally "low" like a comic book, animated series or whatnot.. just forget about it.

If there was some alternate-universe version of "Spider-Man" that was written, acted and directed (and CGI-ed) at the exact same "level" as the 'real' ones... but instead of dealing with the angst and issues of being a costumed superhero Peter Parker was all-tore-up over general daddy issues, sexuality or some generic Cameron Crowe/Zach Braff "mid-life-crisis-but-I'm-BARELY-30" routine I could virtually garauntee you he'd bend over backwards to love it, and if Michael Mann was responsible it'd already be in the Balloon sight-unseen ;)

comment #32

Rich S. says ...

I've read all the books and enjoyed the movies, but I'm in no way obsessive about it. They're an interesting way to pass the time, no more.

But I discovered something interesting the other day. While surfing through my cable guide looking for something to watch, I came across one of the Harry Potter movies. The title was too long to fit in the little guide box so it said "Harry Potter and the..." The description below it was something along the lines of, "Harry and his friends defend against a dark force threatening their school." And then I realized: Those two generic pieces of information describe every single film (and book) in the series. If I were J.K. Rowling, I'd be extremely depressed. (But then I'd throw myself down on my 500-foot-deep pile of money and be somewhat consoled.)

comment #33

alan says ...

Almost completely unrelated, but having read this and the Ebert story this morning reminds me of how both Ebert and Roeper went ga-ga over the first film in this series (4 stars from Ebert, "the new Wizard of Oz" quote from Roeper), and then a month later both casually dismissed the first LOTR film. Oops...

comment #34

Rich S. says ...

To be fair, though, Ebert did go back in his review of Return of the King and admit that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

Regardless of how you feel about either series, Harry Potter can only be considered a coherent "whole" to the extent that Rowling has signed off on each installment. As Ebert acknowledged, LOTR was the complete "vision" of Peter Jackson and has to be considered as such.

comment #35

SpinDozer says ...

'The title was too long to fit in the little guide box so it said "Harry Potter and the..." The description below it was something along the lines of, "Harry and his friends defend against a dark force threatening their school." And then I realized: Those two generic pieces of information describe every single film (and book) in the series.'

and the same could be just as accurately said about Lord Of The Rings or Star Wars and many other serials...Frodo and his friends try to destroy a ring wanted by a dark force threatening Middle Earth