2009 wizard movieRating: 14/20
Plot: Black sketchy things are swooping from the gray skies of England and killing folks dead. Yes, it's a dangerous place for wizards and witches. Harry Potter, a boy who's recently learned that he's the chosen one, returns to Hogwarts School of Wizardry for his sixth year. Hogwarts has become a den of sin, the wizards and witches retreating to isolated nooks and crannies to drop trou or raise the robes and make the magic happen. Sometimes it's even witch on witch action! Dumbledore's wand twitches perversely.
This sure is a good looking movie. I'd still like to know--do these movies, especially the ones for the lengthier novels, make complete sense to somebody who hasn't read the books? The action still seems jumpy. I almost expect the characters to all be out of breath as they rush from scene to scene, location to location. Rowlings' characters are great, and the actors who portray them do a terrific job bringing them to life. I still don't like the new Dumbledore though. There are some pretty intense moments, one featuring zombies and one featuring a chase through some tall grasses, that are filmed in this jerky style that, appropriately, made me a little uncomfortable. The climactic scene wasn't nearly as emotional as it was in the book, but it's possible that's only because I read the book and knew what was going to happen. This chapter in the Potter heptalogy (or are they making eight of these movies?) has a nice visual flair with great, mostly dark imagery and some flawless special effects. I really like these Potter movies as a whole series even if I don't love them all individually. This one is in the upper echelon of them though.
28 comments:
A 14 (7/10... C+/B-) once again applied to a great or very good movie. A 17.
Not as good as "Convoy", huh?
I enjoyed the first two the most. I thought they did a great job of framing the world.
From the third on, it seemed they kept finding reasons to be outside. Nothing happened indoors.
Having read them all, the movies cannot possibly contain all the pieces of the plot, and they do feel jumpy.
11/20
If only this were a movie vs books blog.
It is totally unfair to judge a 2 1/2 hour movie against a 700 page book. This film does a great job covering as much ground as it does.
Acting: very good
Cinamatography: terrific
Pace and tone: very exciting and involving
Dramatic tension: check
Creativity and originality: credit the books, but I'm not sure how you can make a better film version
Are you saying judged against all other movies this "jumpy" film gets an 11?!!! To me, that is ridiculous, or completely lacking in taste, take your choice. What are some of your favorite films, Kairow? Just so I can have an idea where you're coming from?
OK Kairow, I clearly forgot to count to ten. Please ignore the ridiculous/ taste line that went a little far. These are all just opinions, not science.
First off, I'll vouch for Kairow. He's got excellent taste in most things, a possible exception being roommates.
Yes, Cory...a 14. It's a pretty average blockbuster. Calling this "great" is stretching things a bit, isn't it? This is definitely not a movie without flaws. As already mentioned, it's got a jumpy plot. Seriously, I'm surprised it didn't end with some of these characters suffering from wrynecks or vertigo or something. Surely they were at least a little dizzy. And even though I agree with you about the general tone and the look of the movie (fantastic cinematography!), I don't agree about the tension and its ability to involve. There's something that annoys me about these movies, and I can't quite place my finger on what that is. There's just something, I don't know...plastic about them. It all seems so artificial. It's almost like they make these movies with high fructose corn syrup instead of the real stuff. And the pacing? I think it substitutes action and adventure and special effects (at times, really clunky in these movies...not so much this one) for any chance to really get emotionally invested. Take Dumbeldore's death for example...you didn't think that was sort of glossed over? I really expected a bang there and got more of a whimper.
You don't think 'Convoy' is better? Have you seen Kris Kristofferson's nipples?
Doesn't seem like I agree on you with your Potter rankings, Kairow...I've only seen them each once, so I'm not completely confident in any ratings. But I thought the first one was adequate (probably a 14) but I really hated the second one. That was the one with all the snakes, right? Probably an 11. The third one was easily my favorite of the bunch. I liked the flamboyant style and I liked the story the most. A 16. The fourth and fifth were ok (13's) and I thought this newest one was slightly better.
So there ya go...
When I said great or very good I meant this is in the very good catagory. I don't think it is flawless (I gave it a 17), but it is certainly better than the "average" blockbuster. Name better ones from the last several years.
I have never liked the new Dumbledore as much as Harris', but he does his best job in this installment. Dumbledore's death could have been more moving, but the rest of the film has emotional weight. I give credit to a very ambitious film that hits almost all the right notes. I agree it is the second best Potter (also after the third), and I find your "vertigo"/"jumpy" arguments nitpicky and unconvincing. This film does the two things I would ask of it; it does justice to the source material, and it is damned entertaining.
Ehh...it's mildly entertaining. Me giving this a 17 would be like me telling somebody they should see the movie instead of reading the book. Like for the Malcovich/Sinise version of 'Of Mice and Men'...the book is easily better here.
The jumpiness is a HUGE problem, not a nitpick. I don't want to watch a movie (and I find it really difficult to be emotionally invested) when I feel like I'm being jerked violently from one scene or setting to the next.
One blockbuster that is just as good--Crystal Skull!
That's right, Cory. That just happened.
The Pixar movies are blockbusters, right? With the exception of 'Cars', they're all better. How recent are we talking here? That first pirates movie is better. 'Spiderman 2' is better. At least one of the Star Wars prequels is better.
Pixars were not included... apples and oranges. "S2" was better (many years ago). Saying "...Skull" is as good is ludicrous, in my opinion. You give me "jumpy"... I swear I could name 20 flaws from that movie, if only someone would put a REALLY big gun to my head to make me watch it again. I officially give up on you.
Give up on me?
I'd need to see a list of blockbusters. I'm sure I can find a handful that are better than Half Blood.
Crystal Skull? Flawed?
(brushing off ashes from the flames)
The 11 was in reference to the other Potter movies.
Half Blood Prince would not be in the top half of them.
My Ratings:
Stone 17/20
Secrets 16/20
Azkaban 13/20
Goblet 16/20
Phoenix 14/20
Prince 11/20
Better 'blockbusters' in the past few years? I'll even make the field more narrow and not include anything over PG-13, since we are comparing a movie more or less for kids. Also, movies grossing over 100 million.
Iron Man 18/20
Avatar 16/20
Dark Knight 18/20
Casino Royale 16/20
Pirates 2 16/20
These movies covered as much plot and kept the pacing intact.
Nice, Kairow.
My Potter order is very different:
1. Azkaban -17 best acting and visual style
2. Half-Blood Prince- 17
3. Phoenix -16 began slow but ended big
4. Secrets -15 solid but by the numbers
5. Stone -15 a beatiful imagining, but finding it's feet, very by the numbers, mediocre child acting, a little clunky
6. Goblet of Fire -13 greatest overall book- most disappointing movie, SERIOUS flaws in logic and visual style... why did the dragon keep walking around the tower instead of just flying over and eating him
Great job on the blockbusters where our grades are amazingly similar (all within one or two). My point would be that there are 3-5 tentpole blockbusters per year and this is above average (well above for me). An 11 means it pretty much sucks... I would give "2012" an 11, for instance (great CGI action, but ssttttuuuuuuupid). I had an issue with 14, but an 11 is really harsh and very unwarranted. Do you really think an 11 is fair?
One more thing. Could being outside of the castle be a metaphor for growing up and having to interact more and more with the big, bad, world? They explored the castle very thoroughly in the first two.
Yes, I think an 11 is fair. On a 5 point scale, I would have given it a 2.5. It's a C. The movie was not a failure, just not exceptional. It was a passing grade. If you think 2012 was failure, give it a 5.
If I am going to be watching it for 1.5-2.5 hours, keep me interested! I don't need fight scenes or stuff blowing up, but give me development and humor.
The darkening of the plot kept Prince from being able to be something I could enjoy more.
The reason for being outside? I either marked it up to the directors not being fully comfortable in using a lot of FX, or they blew the budget on the FX they did use.
As far as tentpoles go, I could care less. Was Prince better than 2012? It better be. With a giant, honking novel by a pretty good writer as source material, how could it not? Disaster movies are not know for good plotting, just stuff goes kablooie.
The last disaster movie I enjoyed was Deep Impact, and that was only because Tea Leoni died and I can't stand her.
You know what, if Armageddon counts as a disaster film, I enjoyed that too. I would even go so far as to say it was a more enjoyable film than Prince. I would give Armageddon a 15/20. Which I would call a B+.
Rating our enjoyment is quite different than rating the films artistic merit. Some films can do both, most cannot. A great film can be hard to enjoy. Precious was a great film, but hard to enjoy. It had greater artist merit than enjoyablity. Grandma's Boy had the artistic merit of writing your name in the snow without your hands, but I enjoyed that movie a lot.
I rate on my enjoyment.
I also rate according to enjoyment, though sometimes that means appreciating the power and quality of a downer film. It doesn't mean "fun".
Your Leoni comment cracked me up (she is very annoying)... but even "Deep Impact" is a helluva lot better than "Armageddon"!! Did you really like that manipulative, smarmy, COMPLETELY unbelievable, over-the-top corn? "Armageddon" is Bruckheimer at his worst, and that's saying something (please don't tell me you also liked "Con Air"). I didn't like that as a whole at all, but I would give it an 8 because it had an occasional good moment or quality, or funny line. For me, when you get down below 4,5,6, you are dealing with horrible movies with no redeeming qualities. I save those grades for movies I really hate, and should never have been made, and require some form of retribution against the filmmaker. If you think this is a straight C film then give it your 11, but I think there was a lot to like, and even if it was skating on Rowling's talent, it's still Potter. There is still a lot more to it than the "average" drek out there ("2012").
I don't think a was clear on numbers and big picture. Say there were 250 movies released in 2009. Considering the wide range of quality and how much crap gets made, do you think that there were 100+ that were better made entertainent than Potter? If so, I would like a LOT of examples, please.
I didn't understand Pirates 2. Or Pirates 3.
"Pirates 2" would get a 15 from me. It was whimsical.
Whimsical!
If 250 movies were southbound on a train going 25.4 mph, while the cast of Harry Potter and Tea Leoni are traveling northbound at 25.4 kilometers per hour, in a semi driven by Kris Kristofferson's nipples, in which train would arrive at the end of this topic of discussion first? (P.S. Nipples are unshaven. You must show your work to get credit.)
Lets clear this up.
Here are the Potter film rankings.
1-Prisoner of Azkaban---18
2-Goblet of Fire----17
3-Half Blood Prince----16
4-Sorcerers Stone----15
5-Chamber of Secrets----14
6-Order of the Phoenix----10 (Blech)
Prisoner has the best acting, the best casting and the most true to the book screenplay.
Now on to some other things.
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Its just plain bad guys. Its a waste of the last moments of Harrison Fords life as an action hero. The ENTIRE and I mean ENTIRE premise of aliens in South America is just dumb. Yes dumb, coming from a guy that readily accepted Arks of the Covenent, and Holy Grails. (The stone that gave the village life in the second movie was pretty dumb too.) Karen Allen looked like she had eaten Short Round right before filming. The villains were pretty much faceless mobs....Cate Blanchett was wasted because there was very little real evil there.
Indiana Jones is an ARCHEOLOGIST....not freaking Fox Mulder. Have him find the gold city of El Dorado, or the Fountain of Youth or anything else in human history....but finding the aliens was not interesting or compelling or romantic. It was just plain weird. And it certainly did not fit in with the character or the feel of the films. Indy four gets a 12 from me.
Oh and finally...most important of all. The second and third Pirate movies are painful garbage, and swill of the most vile tasting pablum given to movie audiences. The second one gets a ten...the third one gets a four.
Glad I could help guys.
That didn't clear things up at all... well it was mostly very good. The Karen Allen/ Short Round comment was the funniest thing I have read in a while. Please read Shane's review and comments on "...Skull", and I would love Kairow to read "The Dark Knight" battle since he gave it the perfect grade.
The only thing I have a huge problem with is giving "Goblet of Fire" a 17. Are you kidding me? have you read the books? "...Fire" is the best overall Potter book and therefore gave the filmmakers the most material to fuck up. The cinematography is awful and fake looking. The sets are cheesy, and why in the hell doesn't that dragon just fly around and EAT HIM!. Being Potter automatically helps, but "...Fire" is the worst made, worst looking, and by far the biggest disappointment.
Oh, and "Phoenix" is way too low for a good adaptation of a mid-level book. Much better looking, more imaginative, great dramatic finish.
Does that help? I didn't think so.
I'm officially nominating "Karen Allen looked like she ate Short Round" for comment of the year.
I thought the aliens was a logical addition to the Indiana Jones story, only because it takes place in the 50s. Nuclear fears and sci-fi B-movies was what the 50s where all about, right?
Just because there were alien movies in the 1950's doesnt mean that Indiana Jones has to run into them.
Rear Window, Bridge on the River Kwai and Sunset Boulevard all came from the 1950's, but you dont need to see Indy meeting Norma Desmond do you?
Oh and I also think that Michael Gambon has done a HORRIBLE job as Dumbledore.....he has absolutely no grasp of the character, and his Dumbledore does not act or seem like the ones from the books at all.
Oh and Cory? Goblet of Fire was great. Its the second best filmed movie of the series. I cant believe you are letting a dragon with very bad hunting skills affect your ranking of that movie.
And I really enjoyed the book Order of the Phoenix....but I defy you to watch that movie again and honestly say they do a good job getting that book brought to the screen. Here, I will ruin it for you....there are at least three scenes of Harry having Voldemort nightmares...and for some reason the director decides to focus in on Harrys neck when he sleeps....every single time. Go ahead and look if you dont believe me.
The only good part of that movie is the final fight scene and Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix.
Its also interesting that Order of the Phoenix was, by a decent margin, the longest book in the series....it was made into the shortest movie in the series. You know why? Cause they left most of the plot out, and instead just ran through it. Its a badly done adaptation with little substance.
I was fearing the worst when I went to go see Half Blood Prince, and was very surprised to find such a well done movie. Amazingly enough it comes from my least favorite book in the series.
No, Indy didn't have to run into the aliens. But everybody thinks that's completely illogical or such an incongruence with the other Indy films. Fact is, this takes place twenty years later. The world is a different place, and there are new obsessions and fears. I'll admit that it's not easy to argue with somebody who finds it silly, but I thought it was a nifty twist.
I'd see a fifth Indy movie, probably even in the theater. Would you see another one?
I completely agree re: Dumbledore.
I also agree about Dumbledore. With HBP Gambon is passable. He doesn't damage the movie in the way he blatantly does in the other three. I'd like to have a word with the casting director that thought Gambon could carry Richard Harris' jock.
I would go see a fifth Indy, simply because of the good will of the first and third movies. I would rationalize it out that they cant make even numbered Indy films that are any good.
Tea Leoni is hottt. Flirting with disaster baby!
I like napping to Harry Potter movies as much as I like napping through Buffy episodes.
I never read the books and I find the films pretty damn abstract (the big as Valdemort plot points at least) and confusing but enjoyable enough in the theatre.
Post a Comment