Showing posts with label J.K. Rowling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label J.K. Rowling. Show all posts

Sunday, November 2, 2025

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Well, that’s that. As Marge Simpson once said, “It’s an ending,” and I suppose there’s little more to say beyond that. One has to assume that every single person who has ever watched this movie—or indeed any outing of the series—knew before sitting down how things would play out, so there were no points to be scored through surprises or reveals. So this project had to stand mostly on feeling, on how well it captured the vibe of the publishing phenomenon. And I think it did a good job at that. But I remain touched by the sense that the overarching story’s turn from fun to dark, not to mention vaguely tragic, ultimately represents a kind of literary—and by extension cinematic—stumble, if not an outright failure. The latter term seems too harsh, so I guess it’s best to declare that the author painted herself early on into a narrative corner, and simply had to carry it through to the end. Fortunately, there remain further dimensions of the film to appreciate, most prominent being the fact that you get to spend one last time with characters (and actors) you’ve come to like and admire, maybe even love—though this sort of finality always brings a touch of the bittersweet with it. We must go on without Harry, Hermione and Ron, plus certain others (I'm partial to Luna). At least we can always pick up a book and give it another reading, if the separation proves unendurable. Thanks, kids, not for making magic, but for being it. Farewell. 

Wednesday, October 29, 2025

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

It occurs to me, only at this ridiculously late stage, just how dark and ominous and at times downright sad this story is. Shouldn’t really be a surprise, that; after all, the saga begins with a double murder. But that through line is buried much deeper in the first few episodes. Here, it rises up to become substantially more prominent, with the result that this outing is a lot more effecting (at least for those who remain capable of honest emotions anymore). Most encouraging in all this is that the lead performers show improvement with age here, despite my having besmirched them in the original reviews; the kids are really quite good. Notable, too, is the work of the supporting players; British acting has a remarkably deep bench, as it were. Lastly, I wish to note one aspect of these flicks that should never be overlooked: the visuals are wonderful. The scenery—both the real and the fake—looks fantastic all the way through, and represents a note perfect representation of Rowling’s vision. (Not that she invented Britain’s gothic landscape—she just put it to very good use.) Going forward, it becomes more and more apparent that this series was done about as well as it could have been. A neat trick, when it comes down to it. 

Tuesday, October 28, 2025

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

I was probably too harsh when I reviewed the first two movies in this series. Of course, that was some twenty years ago, and I was much younger then, and must have had some sort of bee in my bonnet. Ironically, now that I’m old I find it easier to be forgiving toward a film intended for children. That’s not to say I think this is a masterpiece, by any means. There still are some issues with the presentation here, particularly around certain characters being too predictably themselves, which is to say, too one dimensional—but that really traces back to the source material (the books). The plain fact is, this flick serves its purpose, which is to bring to life a much loved story with as much fidelity as fans could possibly expect. It’s watchable and does its job. Maybe not a work of wizardry, but hardly cause for damnation, either. 

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

This may be further evidence that, incredibly, the whole Harry Potter thing was built upon a flash in the pan. J.K. Rowling gets a writer credit on this film, which means she's to blame for the fact that the movie has way too much plot and not nearly enough story. As with her books, this work starts out OK, then bogs down into too much complexity as it goes forward--not to mention that certain story elements wind up just not making much sense. The suspicion has to set in, at a certain point, that she's just not a very good writer, and had the good fortune--and fortune is the right word--to put out her one decent book, in just the right style with just the right vibe, at just the right time. Of course, it's hardly Rowling's fault that the film relies way too much on visual effects versus actual story or, indeed, moviemaking. There's a certain sense that the producers (she's one of them, too) cynically figured that they could just toss an orgy of visual effects in front of the rubes and get away with their lesser efforts, and perhaps they did, in most viewers' eyes. But the Bad Cat, while giving a MEOW, is doing so in a whisper, largely because the cast acquit themselves quite well in a movie that otherwise lacks conviction. Otherwise, this is a HISS.