Harry's latest cinematic outing is likely to be the biggest children's movie of the Summer. After Shrek the Third proved to be such a washout and FF4 proving to be rather less than fantastic it's left to the boy Wizard to take up the slack in the family movies department. He does it pretty well.
The Weasley brothers all steal the show, with the twins doing rather better out of it this time around than Rupert Grint. Imelda Staunton is perfection as Dolores Umbridge and shows Helena Bonham Carter how to do character without descending to caricature. Speaking of which, you'd think that Emma Watson could have developed some degree of subtlety by now. The girl seems only able to act with her, nonetheless impressive, eyebrows. When you see this count how many scenes she does before she manages not to look like she's trying to audition for a one of those period bodice-rippers. Here's a wee acting tip for you, hen; stop top-breathing.
Daniel Radcliffe does seem to have benefitted from his time in the West End and has settled into a much stronger performer, albeit still saddled with a dull character. The problem with being the hero is that you're usually just no fun. Normally there's a side-kick who has to have everything explained to him so the audience can get a handle on the situation. Ms Rowling decided to make the hero the outsider who has to have everything in the Wizardly world explained to him. Therefore he's not only dull, but stupid-seeming, too. You'd think by his fourth term he'd have got a better handle on the place by now.
The script, despite the tone of the book, is not as dark as the last installment and has pared the flabby text down considrably. This time around perhaps a little too much. The direction is competent and pacey, if not exactly inspired.
Then we come to the effects. Despite being done by ILM this film has been smitten with some of the shoddiest CGI I've seen in recent years. Hagrid's brother and the Centaurs being particularly poor. In the scene where Dolores Umbridge is carried off by the latter, her model looks like a doll, although, in fairness, that kind of movement is still very hard to depict believably.
In short, a fine, entertaining film which manages to rise above both its own failings and those of its source material.
The Weasley brothers all steal the show, with the twins doing rather better out of it this time around than Rupert Grint. Imelda Staunton is perfection as Dolores Umbridge and shows Helena Bonham Carter how to do character without descending to caricature. Speaking of which, you'd think that Emma Watson could have developed some degree of subtlety by now. The girl seems only able to act with her, nonetheless impressive, eyebrows. When you see this count how many scenes she does before she manages not to look like she's trying to audition for a one of those period bodice-rippers. Here's a wee acting tip for you, hen; stop top-breathing.
Daniel Radcliffe does seem to have benefitted from his time in the West End and has settled into a much stronger performer, albeit still saddled with a dull character. The problem with being the hero is that you're usually just no fun. Normally there's a side-kick who has to have everything explained to him so the audience can get a handle on the situation. Ms Rowling decided to make the hero the outsider who has to have everything in the Wizardly world explained to him. Therefore he's not only dull, but stupid-seeming, too. You'd think by his fourth term he'd have got a better handle on the place by now.
The script, despite the tone of the book, is not as dark as the last installment and has pared the flabby text down considrably. This time around perhaps a little too much. The direction is competent and pacey, if not exactly inspired.
Then we come to the effects. Despite being done by ILM this film has been smitten with some of the shoddiest CGI I've seen in recent years. Hagrid's brother and the Centaurs being particularly poor. In the scene where Dolores Umbridge is carried off by the latter, her model looks like a doll, although, in fairness, that kind of movement is still very hard to depict believably.
In short, a fine, entertaining film which manages to rise above both its own failings and those of its source material.
No comments:
Post a Comment