Well, that's how I saw it, anyway. Having never read any of the books, nor seen either of the previous movies, I was not too excited about seeing the third Harry Potter movie, which I suspected would be comprised mostly of charmingly/annoyingly "magical" scenes of teenage witchcraft and wizardry. I was right, but it was very entertaining anyway. Alfonso Cuarón, a curious choice to direct the movie considering his previous film was Y Tu Mamá También, manages not to indulge the obvious urge to get Harry, Ron, and Hermione into a threesome and instead focuses on a pretty tight story, so it's not so much like reading. The cast is great, the performances surprisingly natural, and the visual imagination is impressive. Gary Oldman even manages a return to form as the mysterious madman whose shadow lurks over the events. It takes itself a bit too seriously, as many people who love Harry Potter do, at times treating the story like it's the fucking Bible. But it's so much fun throughout that I might even be tempted to convert to whatever this new religion is, 'cause it's a lot better than the real Bible. Besides, I've been saying Richard Harris is God all along. Yes, I know he's not in this movie; I'm just speaking for effect.
Review by –SECOND OPINION– Ah, Harry Potter. Such a wonderful world of incredible magic and amazing creatures. That was until Alfonso Cuarón came along. I know he brought cinematic respectability to the series. I know he brought artistic license to the movie. But damn it, I don't go to Harry Potter movies to see a brilliantly conceived film, I go to see the movie version of a great book. So what if the first two movies were extremely similar to the books? Did it ever occur to the movies' detractors that maybe a huge international best seller might have a good enough story already, even when adapted as a movie? I mean, sure, the first two weren't excellent movies, but they didn't have to be. They satisfied the Potter audience's enormous appetite for more. I walked out of them thinking, "Wow, that was precisely how this great story and its rich world should be conveyed on the silver screen." After this movie, it was more like, "Hm, that was cool, I guess." I believe Cuarón did an excellent job on improving the acting of the three young stars (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson). I also liked what he did with the sets of Hogwarts Castle. This was one of the few aspects of the movie where I believe he understood J.K. Rowling's vision. The castle looks more eccentric, more unique. But, again, I would have liked if he had included more of life at Hogwarts. Rowling's invented world has so many great details ripe to be depicted visually, but Cuarón seemed more intent on delivering the shortest Potter flick than the best. Of course, it would take more than a single director, even one as deliberately artistic as Cuarón to really fuck this franchise up … after all, it is still a Harry Potter movie and I'm sure the studio wanted to make sure it at least hit all the major bases. There are plenty of cool effects and memorable sequences; it's just that so much more could (and should) have been included. Of course, I haven't ruled out the distinct possibility that everything good was happing on the right half of the screen, which was blocked from my view by the fat-ass sitting next to me. But human lard-tubs aside, I can't say I'm sorry to hear that Cuarón won't be directing the next film.
Review by King One-Eye |