|
Ok, so maybe not, maybe not totally. But it seemed to me like maybe he does, a little..... I liked this film.
Yes, it's the darkest so far, the least happy, the least funny, the most bleak, but isn't that the way the book is? Yes it
is. The films are following the same pattern that the books did: starting off cute and happy and then fading to black, something
dark and grim. Just the same. Book 5 is the darkest compared to the previous four, so shouldn't the film be the same way?
I think so, and so did the director (David Yates). I applaude him. Be warned, though. The book went through some
serious editing to get to the screen. I would expect it to; have you read it? It's unbelievably long and there's so much
extra stuff there. Without editing you would have a four hour movie, give or take. But a lot of the editing done on screen
is not chopping to make the story shorter, but simply changed. There are blatant changes here compared to the book. And
I'm not sure I like the changes. For example: in the book the Weasley twins create a huge swamp in the middle of Hogwarts
and are subsequently expelled from school by Professor Umbridge (which is what they wanted). But in the film there is no
swamp; they set off fireworks (the sequence of which seemed silly and a little cheesy to me) and then simply leave. I miss
my swamp. It isn't a matter of not having technology to do a swamp thing (look at what they did with 'Pirates'....); they
just didn't do it. Also, a huge fight scene between Harry and friends and the Death Eaters was left out after they reach
the Ministry of Magic. And Harry fights Voldemort, not Dumbledore (it was cool, but wrong. That's not how it happened).
But this isn't about the differences between book and film; although why they made these changes I don't know. I'm all for
editing, if it's done right. But it wasn't really done right in this film, and it was more changing the story than actual
editing. And I didn't agree with that. The atmosphere is good, which I mentioned before. And if David Yates can't
properly get a book to a movie screen, he can make his actors act. EVERYONE is excellent, even those who weren't before.
Michael Gambon (Dumbledore) and Gary Oldman (Sirius Black) are especially superb. They're always good, but they were particularly
best in this film. It seems as if Mr. Gambon has finally captured the essence of Dumbledore, which Richard Harris (RIP) was
able to do right from the start (which is what made him so good). Mr. Oldman is so good he almost doesn't seem to be acting;
he's so natural here. The main people (ie Harry, Ron, Hermione/Daniel, Rupert, Emma) have branched out as well and have gotten
better, but they're still not great, just better than before. The girl who plays Luna Lovegood is of particular note; she
seems as if Luna were lifted right out of the pages of the book. Directing wise this film is good (I mentioned the atmosphere
and the tone); I liked how they handled the set design and used every set to their advantage. But the writing was sloppy
(note the changes....) and some lines seemed so out of place and hokey that compared to the otherwise great script they stuck
out painfully (example: Harry to Voldemort: 'You have no friends and I feel sorry for you'. Ruined the moment.). I also
felt that the film was preachy at times; we have again the 'good will always overcome evil' thing and the 'Harry it's your
destiny, and you can do it; I believe in you' lines that we've had before, especially in film four. Enough. I also don't
like the way these films seem to be ending on happy notes even though the film is not happy! I noticed this particularly
in this film (I suppose the books end this way somewhat as well, but it's not as obvious to me); everyone was HAPPY at the
end! Black is dead, Voldemort is back, the world is going to hell, and people are HAPPY! Going back to the directing thing,
in regards to editing, I liked how newspapers were used to explain some things going on and to tell some of the stories that
were cut due to editing. It was a good way to get a lot of information to the audience fast and not take up time. Good work. The
musical score is really good in some parts and just good in others. It's nothing special, but it's a way for a seemingly
unknown composer to get known. I also liked how some of the things happening on screen were in time to the music (Luna skipping
at one point). Nice touch. I also must say one thing about the special effects. They were very good. VERY good.
But did anyone else feel a little bit of Jerry Bruckheimer coming through at points? It felt that Dumbledore and Voldemort
got to fight because it would be cool, not because it's in the book (it's not....). The fight scene was cool, but a little
loud and tedious. And it's obvious that they're just pointing sticks and it's all computer; I felt at times as if Mr. Yates
were taking a leaf or two out of the 'Pirates' book, especially with regards to Voldemort-did you notice his mannerisms and
quirks? Seems to me as if he's spent some time around my favorite octopus pirate lately (the beauty of 'Pirates'-I digress-
is that the effects there are so real, seem so real, that is blurs the line between reality and fantasy. Here it was all
fantasy, but it tried too hard to be reality). I do expect a Special Effects Oscar nod to this film, though. But I expect
one for 'Pirates 3' as well, and while this film is very cool and has great style, 'Pirates' wins in my book. Clearly,
Mr. Yates expects everyone to have read book five before seeing this film (and honestly, is there anyone who hasn't?). Which
might or might not be a problem, depending on who you are (it seems to me as if it might be a problem). There's nothing really
wrong with this film; it's very well done, and a great film, and fun to watch. But what is wrong with it is obvious and sticks
out horribly. I wonder how the next one will look; more influence from Mr. Bruckheimer? Mr. Yates is directing 'Potter 6',
so probably. Ok, I'm done, time to read book 7 and see how it all ends. Cheers, mate.
|
