Hardened critics love having a pop at Harry Potter. They prance around, nose in the air, clutching their copy of whatever obscure flawed masterpiece is in vogue at the time, claiming the Potter films to be quite rubbish – a two-star at best.
Well, Potter fans don’t give a stuff about them. And so they shouldn’t. No one expects these films to be artistic triumphs. They are entertainment.
We pick up where the last film left off. Dumbledore is dead, Voldemort has retaken control and Harry and his pals are forced on the run. Knowing that the key to Voldemort’s defeat is the destruction of his horcruxes (bits of his soul he left in various objects in order to become near-immortal) the trio head off on a mission to track them down. There’s no cosy Hogwarts, no cutesy school classes or Quidditch games. Potter has grown up.
The first two films, when the characters were 11 and 12, were, as you may expect, mostly just good kids’ films. Once Alfonso Cuar?n got his hands on The Prisoner of Azkaban they turned a corner.
This seventh is largely a set up for the final climax. This is not a criticism. It is one half of the final book after all. It was never going to stand alone as a single work of art. Occasionally it plods, sometimes it sputters ? an awkwardly peculiar dance sequence with Harry and Hermione being a case in point. Similarly watching Harry give Ginny a snog is like watching two siblings get it on – there’s been better chemistry between two tins of baked beans.
However, there is plenty of good to cling to.
Hermione’s telling of a wizarding fairy tale is performed in an excellent shadow play animation. A frenetic sequence where the trio are being chased through the woods is breathtaking. There’s an amusing early scene where many of the Order of the Phoenix take polyjuice potion to turn into multiple Harry Potter look-a-likes before being caught in an exhilarating broom-based ambush in the sky.
And Rupert Grint’s newly broadened shoulders are a delight to the eyes.
None of the three young stars are natural actors. They were cast at a young age and regardless of their talents it’s a testament to the franchise that they’ve stayed the full course. However, their performances have improved over the years and this latest offering is their best (read: least wooden) yet.
And they remain flanked by one of the strongest ensemble casts (Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Bill Nighy, Jason Isaacs, John Hurt, Robbie Coltrane etc etc etc) ever seen in a British film, even if they are largely pushed to the sidelines.
What we’re gearing up for is an explosive showdown at Hogwarts, which will arrive in July. For what it is, it’s been an entertaining ride ? and, for Warner Bros and JK Rowling, an overwhelmingly lucrative one.
Potter is what it is: familiar escapism.
This guest review was by the ultra-cool Catherine Gee
Follow hecklerspray on Twitter or join our Facebook group or BUY ONE OF OUR STUPID T-SHIRTS!
Rena says
Am I reading a POSITIVE review about a movie that has been on the see-saw by COUNTLESS critics all over the world on HECKLERSPRAY?
My mind is blown. This might entice me to drop by the cinemas… maybe.
Jim says
“And Rupert Grint
ValdaDeDieu says
I make it a point NOT to read the reviews of any movie I intend to see –the good reviews sometimes hold spoilers– certainly NEVER the bad ones.
But something in the tone of your review had me curious. A positive review on Hecklerspray, with all the characteristic snarkiness, but well-done?
I’m glad I did. Your review shows that y0u GET the movie. I’ll certainly keep an eye out for more of your perspective…
Daniel says
Fantastic review; I appreciate you not embracing the stance that most critics take and accepting the film for what it is. I actually did a review of the film as well and I would super appreciate you checking it out!
http://bit.ly/93dNJV
Cookie Monster says
That line did stick-out a bit, didn’t it? I suppose that it’s a nice change from “Emma’s become a lovely young woman,” and “Daniel’s winky wiggled during Equus”, etc, etc.
I’ve found the series an enjoyable read, and passable on-screen. Yeah, a bit wooden (Ron/Hermione are a tad better than Harry) but compared to ‘that other massive success’, it’s outright animated. I will enjoy seeing my children read the series. Twilight, on the other hand; were it burned from our collective memories, the world would be a slightly better place. And it is quite true that the wider cast carries the Harry Potter movie. Who can deny that Allan Rickman is a joy to watch? Twilight has, at best, a poor talent pool beyond the two lead numbnuts.
Cookie Monster says
You reveal your merkin-ness, not that there’s anything wrong with that. The first book, and movie, are called “The Philosopher’s Stone”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher%27s_stone. Otherwise, you created a nice review. I applaud your bravery, twice over, for revealing that, “I have listened to all seven audiobooks twice”.
I have never been able to understand why the title of the book and movie were changed for the merkin market. As someone who sits in the middle of the the Brit-Merkin culteral divide, it just doesn’t add-up. I suppose that an executive somewhere figured that “Sorcerer” would make more money than “Philosopher”. Everyone hug an executive today, for everyday they make our world better by making us a tiny bit dumber!