A Flaming Cup of Potter’s Vodka.
Most people were pretty excited about the latest from the boy wizard franchise, myself included, but did it live up to all the hype? No. Not really.
There are elements of the film that are really great. The Hungarian Horntail dragon fight particularly, Ron dancing with professor Mcgonagall, the silly dress robes, and Michael Gambon being the scariest most awesome Dumbledore imaginable.
I think the big flaw here though was really Mike Newell, the films director. Azkaban was a great film in any regards, Harry Potter aside. It was so magical and just seethed with blue-tinted grime, authentic creepiness, and it had an excellent ensemble cast, including David Thewlis and Gary Oldman, which never seemed sporadic or disconnected.
The Goblet of Fire, however, seems so incoherent and rushed. Granted there was a lot of plot to be covered, but a film is not a book, and if you’re looking for a faithful adaptation perhaps you should read the book again. They cut some plot elements that seemed crucial, while adding or spending extra time on others that seem uncecessary. Also the mood and general aesthetic of the film was no where near as good as that of The Prisoner of Azkaban’s. The graveyard at the end of the film felt like something out of Scooby-Doo or Batman and Robin, and shouldn’t have been green lit with purple highlights on rounded cartoon shaped headstones with perfectly cut grass. It should have used dirty shades of blue and grey, the grass should have been over-run with moldy leaves, and the headstones should have been chipped, sharp, and menacing. Also there is a scene when a character dies, but the film never gives us the proper set up to actually care about the loss. It’s not a bad movie, I like it better than the first film, less than the third, and would say it about ties with The Chamber of Secrets. It’s only a disappointment because I had high (Harry Pothead) expectations.
On a really positive note, I feel that the ethnicity issue mentioned earlier was properly solved. Even though there were random minorities in the backgrounds and foregrounds, they were adequately mixed and were given characters and speaking parts that didn’t feel contrived. 8/10.
3 Comments:
You forgot to mention the Dutch angles. My God Newell, can't you figure out a different way to show us something's strange? Hey-zeus Cris-tos.
Brendan Gleeson was enjoyable, but wasn't enough to fill in the gap left by Thewlis and Oldman. Their performances in 3 is probably what made the movie for me. They are much too good. On a side note, see Naked soonly. Thewlis has this one little speech that I simply must practice and use in the proper situations.
Naked = done and done, quite excellent, nothing like starting off a movie with the protagonist raping someone.
Indeed. One of the benefits of having the DVD is the little "how did you get here?" part in type. I can just sit around and memorize. Sad yes, but awesome. Bloody awesome.
Post a Comment
<< Home