dh1989
09-27-2002, 04:22 PM
First, Daniel Radcliffe got big. Real big. But I want to send a message very loudly and clearly to the usually thickskulled boltheads over at Warners: FANS DON'T CARE. You must keep Radcliffe as Potter! I know 12-year old's who are bigger than him with more hair on their chests than Sophia Coppolla (that's a lot), so I don't want to hear any more BS about fans not "believing" in him for movies 3 & 4. Give the kid a year off and then bring him back for the other films.
But at first, the transformation that Radcliffe has undergone since the first film is a bit startling. He's taller, his voice is almost baritone, and his posture is more assured and... well, "adult" than before. Smartly, director Chris Columbus (whose non-Potter work I hate) uses this maturity to enhance the theme of the second book: that Potter is older now, no longer a Hogwarts newbie, but a seasoned (if still curious) wizarding student. Another director might have had Radcliffe play the part in one of two opposite extremes, as jaded, sullen teen or awkwardly bright-eyed neophyte. Both directions would have been wrong, and the Potter/Radcliffe/Columbus combination proves itself more startling natural than even the first film.
Likewise, Rupert Grint as Harry's pal Ron Weasly is "all growed up", but dammit if this kid isn't still hilarious. Unlike so many child actors out there who play to the camera in a mugging, "hey, Mom look at me!" way, Grint is completely natural even when he is clowning around in the fantastical setting of Hogwarts.
Emma Watson as Hermione Granger, the third of our heroic triptych, was somewhat given short shrift in film 1, with her final scene cut and forced to wear an abominable wig. Not so here. Hermione is a big player, and she gets to goo and gush over Kenneth Branagh's Professor Lockhart, tug on the heart strings when recovering from a basilisk attack, and show her mettle when defending her mixed "Mudblood" heritage to the Hogwarts bullies. Her range is fantastic, and I am certain a promising film career is guaranteed for Watson.
At the opposite end of the spectrum we have the annoying little Tom Felton as chief bully Draco Malfoy, who apparently hasn't dropped his set yet, and squeaks noticeably beside the other actors. Felton is more of the child actor school I mentioned previously, very aware of his performance and completely unconvincing. Since you're supposed to hate him, I suppose one could say "who cares?" but I'd like to see a better actor take up the role of the menacing and smarmy Malfoy some day.
Richard Harris sleepwalks yet again through his performance as headmaster Albus Dumbledore, looking more like a constipated Alzheimer's patient than the charming, winky-eyed grandfather-figure of the books. There is about as much chemistry between Radcliffe and Harris, or Harris and (Hagrid actor) Robbie Coltrane as there is when mixing argon and xenon (that's not a lot.) Recast this old fart already!
Hagrid isn't used to much effect in this film, and I don't recall if that's because of the source material or if it was a script choice. Either way, I found myself wondering "where's Hagrid?" during a number of points. Maybe that will be tightened up a bit in the final cut? Anyway, Coltrane is great, and his performance surpasses the previous film, if that were possible.
Newcomer Bonnie Wright, who plays Ginny Weasly (pay attention to her in this film!), does a great job as the lovestruck First Year, and pulls off her pivotal role like a seasoned pro. Again, Columbus has cast a great child actress who doesn't act like a child actress.
Other quick summaries. Alan Rickman as Snape: excellent, but underutilized. John Cleese as Nearly Headless Nick: annoying; someone finish the decapitation already. Maggie Smith as MacGonagall: she looks confused, as if she's not sure how she got on the set. Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy (Draco's dad): does a good impression of Snape, but I'd rather see Snape do Snape. Do we really need two of them? Kenneth Branagh as Lockhart: good, and not as hammy as Loveless in Wild, Wild West or the doctor in Frankenstein. A little too much screen time, I think. (Branagh's a lot like fellow Shakespearean actor Patrick Stewart: when they do humorous genre work, they tend to go overboard. I much preferred Branagh in Conspiracy.)
All right, on with the film itself. There's been a lot of hype about the effects. With some exceptions that I will point out later, they are about on par with the first film, although there are certainly more of them. The quidditch match is more rough-and-tumble, and Columbus pulls out all his Speilberg mimickry, using such annoying tricks as "edit the hero out of danger" (remember Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom?) Still, it's great to see this very unique sport played out on the big screen, and watching irritating Draco get swatted around a bit is always fun, fancy new broom notwithstanding.
The quidditch match, along with the flying car sequence that opens the film, are nonetheless still very obvious greenscreen effects. Critics of the first film's quidditch game, who said it looked like Harry was flying in front of a movie screen, will repeat their gripe this time around. I'm not sure who did the effects, but perhaps instead of increasing the effects budget they should shop around for a new F/X house?
There are some wire effects here, nicely done and which don't invoke either Matrix or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Harry is more physical this time, and by all accounts he did his own stunts (but with CGI-added faces all the rage, who knows?) The best F/X by far are those used for Aragog, the giant half-spider, and Slytherin's basilisk. Much improved over the goofy troll in Film 1, but still not as advanced as, say, the Balrog from Lord of the Rings. However, the effects also have a more cartoonish look to them, which makes the film much more accessible to youngsters, and let's remember that the film is technically a kid's film.
A scene where Lockhart, an inept magician, turns Harry's harm to rubber by accidentally removing the bones in it is unsettling, but dashed with a sense of humor. I don't know why, but it grossed me out a bit. Still, a good effect and a nice combination of CGI and prosthetics.
More in a post below........
But at first, the transformation that Radcliffe has undergone since the first film is a bit startling. He's taller, his voice is almost baritone, and his posture is more assured and... well, "adult" than before. Smartly, director Chris Columbus (whose non-Potter work I hate) uses this maturity to enhance the theme of the second book: that Potter is older now, no longer a Hogwarts newbie, but a seasoned (if still curious) wizarding student. Another director might have had Radcliffe play the part in one of two opposite extremes, as jaded, sullen teen or awkwardly bright-eyed neophyte. Both directions would have been wrong, and the Potter/Radcliffe/Columbus combination proves itself more startling natural than even the first film.
Likewise, Rupert Grint as Harry's pal Ron Weasly is "all growed up", but dammit if this kid isn't still hilarious. Unlike so many child actors out there who play to the camera in a mugging, "hey, Mom look at me!" way, Grint is completely natural even when he is clowning around in the fantastical setting of Hogwarts.
Emma Watson as Hermione Granger, the third of our heroic triptych, was somewhat given short shrift in film 1, with her final scene cut and forced to wear an abominable wig. Not so here. Hermione is a big player, and she gets to goo and gush over Kenneth Branagh's Professor Lockhart, tug on the heart strings when recovering from a basilisk attack, and show her mettle when defending her mixed "Mudblood" heritage to the Hogwarts bullies. Her range is fantastic, and I am certain a promising film career is guaranteed for Watson.
At the opposite end of the spectrum we have the annoying little Tom Felton as chief bully Draco Malfoy, who apparently hasn't dropped his set yet, and squeaks noticeably beside the other actors. Felton is more of the child actor school I mentioned previously, very aware of his performance and completely unconvincing. Since you're supposed to hate him, I suppose one could say "who cares?" but I'd like to see a better actor take up the role of the menacing and smarmy Malfoy some day.
Richard Harris sleepwalks yet again through his performance as headmaster Albus Dumbledore, looking more like a constipated Alzheimer's patient than the charming, winky-eyed grandfather-figure of the books. There is about as much chemistry between Radcliffe and Harris, or Harris and (Hagrid actor) Robbie Coltrane as there is when mixing argon and xenon (that's not a lot.) Recast this old fart already!
Hagrid isn't used to much effect in this film, and I don't recall if that's because of the source material or if it was a script choice. Either way, I found myself wondering "where's Hagrid?" during a number of points. Maybe that will be tightened up a bit in the final cut? Anyway, Coltrane is great, and his performance surpasses the previous film, if that were possible.
Newcomer Bonnie Wright, who plays Ginny Weasly (pay attention to her in this film!), does a great job as the lovestruck First Year, and pulls off her pivotal role like a seasoned pro. Again, Columbus has cast a great child actress who doesn't act like a child actress.
Other quick summaries. Alan Rickman as Snape: excellent, but underutilized. John Cleese as Nearly Headless Nick: annoying; someone finish the decapitation already. Maggie Smith as MacGonagall: she looks confused, as if she's not sure how she got on the set. Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy (Draco's dad): does a good impression of Snape, but I'd rather see Snape do Snape. Do we really need two of them? Kenneth Branagh as Lockhart: good, and not as hammy as Loveless in Wild, Wild West or the doctor in Frankenstein. A little too much screen time, I think. (Branagh's a lot like fellow Shakespearean actor Patrick Stewart: when they do humorous genre work, they tend to go overboard. I much preferred Branagh in Conspiracy.)
All right, on with the film itself. There's been a lot of hype about the effects. With some exceptions that I will point out later, they are about on par with the first film, although there are certainly more of them. The quidditch match is more rough-and-tumble, and Columbus pulls out all his Speilberg mimickry, using such annoying tricks as "edit the hero out of danger" (remember Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom?) Still, it's great to see this very unique sport played out on the big screen, and watching irritating Draco get swatted around a bit is always fun, fancy new broom notwithstanding.
The quidditch match, along with the flying car sequence that opens the film, are nonetheless still very obvious greenscreen effects. Critics of the first film's quidditch game, who said it looked like Harry was flying in front of a movie screen, will repeat their gripe this time around. I'm not sure who did the effects, but perhaps instead of increasing the effects budget they should shop around for a new F/X house?
There are some wire effects here, nicely done and which don't invoke either Matrix or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Harry is more physical this time, and by all accounts he did his own stunts (but with CGI-added faces all the rage, who knows?) The best F/X by far are those used for Aragog, the giant half-spider, and Slytherin's basilisk. Much improved over the goofy troll in Film 1, but still not as advanced as, say, the Balrog from Lord of the Rings. However, the effects also have a more cartoonish look to them, which makes the film much more accessible to youngsters, and let's remember that the film is technically a kid's film.
A scene where Lockhart, an inept magician, turns Harry's harm to rubber by accidentally removing the bones in it is unsettling, but dashed with a sense of humor. I don't know why, but it grossed me out a bit. Still, a good effect and a nice combination of CGI and prosthetics.
More in a post below........