Weekend Showdown: Harry Potter Movies

For all my non-Harry Potter fan readers, this is the last Harry Potter post, for The Deathly Hallows has arrived! I will not be seeing it until tomorrow afternoon... babysitters are hard to come by. Boo.

First, we start with the Sorcerer's Stone- or, for my non-US readers, the Philosopher's Stone. This first movie keeps very close to the book. The book is short, the shortest of the series, so there isn't much to cut. We lose a few minor details, but just about everybody and everything is in there. Story authenticity: 9/10

The worst thing I can think of about this movie is the inevitable: they're just kids, and they're in every scene. Kids are... well, kids. They aren't Oscar winning geniuses (the adults in the movie are though... 13 Oscar nominations between them. Yowza.), heck none of them were even professionals when they started. They were 10, 11 and 12 years old. If you have kids anywhere near that age, think about their ability to focus and take direction every day for months at a time... yeaaahhhh... that's what I thought. Acting: 5/10

I should also mention the CGI in this film is horrendous. It's ridiculous, really. I know this came out before HDTVs, before HD cameras, and before BluRay had even been imagined, but, yikes. There are some scenes where they (particularly Neville and Harry) look just like their Lego-video-game counterparts. Special Effects: 4/10

Total for SS/PS: 18/30

teens.aol.com*

Next up, we have the Chamber of Secrets. For all of you who are not entirely obsessed, this book is the book J.K. Rowling suggested readers should scour if they wanted clues as to Snape's true character and intentions, and if you haven't read it with that frame of mind, I suggest you do; that little exercise cemented my correct assumptions about Snape ;)

Again, the movie stays pretty close to the book, the only thing I can think of that got cut is the subplot about Filch being a squib (non-magical person born to magical parents), and that's not really all that important; in the films he's just a jerkwagon, and we all hate him an appropriate amount as a result. Story Authenticity: 8/10

The kids are better in this one, and we see a lot more of the adults, particularly Snape, and Gilderoy Lockhart, the only character to be based on a real person. Acting: 6/10

The CGI is measurably improved, mostly because they had to make Dobby. The first movie made money, so Warner Brothers was willing to shell out a little bit more, but more importantly, Lord of the Rings had been released. The public had seen Gollum and knew what was possible in the world of fully-CGI characters (Gollum was done differently, yes, but the standard was set- nobody was going to settle for Lego-men anymore). Special Effects: 7/10

Total for CoS: 21/30

harrypotterwallpaper.org

 

Next, we have the Prisoner of Azkaban. People were finally starting to realize that these were not just kids books, and adults were falling love too, and this is where I was actually introduced to Harry, when this movie came out. Which is a shame, really, because I think this movie is the worst of the bunch. The book is considerably longer, and much more of it gets cut. By the time you get to the end, there is a litany of questions unanswered, so many that I felt the film didn't even make sense. Story Authenticity: 3/10

The kids are better, but still not great. Plus, they started tying their ties really, really stupidly in this film. Acting: 7/10

The special effects backslid tremendously, in my opinion, too. The tilting camera stuff in the Shrieking Shack? Nauseating. The "werewolf?" More like a stretched out prairie dog. Maybe they just put all their time and money into the dementors, which were truly terrifying. Special Effects: 5/10

Total for PoA: 15/30

reelingreviews.com

For the Goblet of Fire, we move into what has undoubtedly become darker territory. The villainy is more dangerous than ever and we see the death of a character for the first time. The kids are unquestionably much better in this one. Harry especially turns it on, and the kid who plays Ron has entirely perfected the "I'm so scared/upset I might vomit" face. Acting: 7/10

This book is much longer, and thus more of it needed to be cut. Aside from the death of S.P.E.W. and the houselves altogether, I don't think they cut anything necessary to the main story. The screenwriting/editing team did a better job of paring down the story while staying true to the intent and the overall story arch. Story Authenticity: 7/10

The special effects are also improved. The dragon? Totally awesome. The mermaids? Vicious and completely scary. Special Effects: 9/10

Total for GoF: 25/30

allmoviephoto.com

Order of the Phoenix is the most condensed of the series. First off, it is the longest book with the US hardcover version boasting over 850 pages. But, it is the shortest film to date, at only 138 minutes, nearly 20 minutes shorter than the first film (based on the shortest book). As such, there is a huge amount of stuff cut from the story. Subplots, almost all of the romance and lots of nearly overwhelming tension got dropped. They stuck to the theme and the overall arch, but a lot of the complex details and relationships are missing. Story Authenticity: 6/10

The acting is better yet again, considering the fact that most of this film is more understated. The tension comes not from violence but from political oppression, and we see real personal loss for the first time. But Hermione's nostril flares have got to go. Acting: 7/10

The special effects are more subtle, simpler, to fit the feel of the movie. They're spot on, but not too technically impressive. Special Effects: 8/10


Total for OotP: 21/30

reviewstl.com

 

And, lastly we come to the Half Blood Prince. This is the Snape-iest book of them all, and therefor my favorite. It's shorter than the other "later" books, and is barely longer than Prisoner of Azkaban. This one actually serves as a launching pad for number seven, and is the only book that I don't feel can stand on its own two feet; the end is completely untied-up and leaves you literally scrabbling over a cliff's edge. The movie adapted most of this very well, and actually did a good job lightening the mood and playing up the relationships, both romantic and otherwise, that we hadn't seen previously. Story Authenticity: 8/10

The acting is yet again better, and since we see even more of the amazing adults in this one, we get even more support. Cormac McLaggen is the douchiest kid ever, and the creep factor is exquisitely painful all through this movie. Acting: 9/10

The special effects are stunning. The inferi (animated corpses... zombies dedicated to a master, I guess) are terrifying. The whole "feel" of the film is brilliant, right from the get go. This one is perfectly nailed, right on the head. Special Effects: 10/10


Total for HBP: 27/30

moviematics.com

Final Tally: 
PS/SS 18
CoS 21
PoA 15
GoF 25
OotP 21
HBP 27

Half Blood Prince, number 6, wins this weekend showdown!

Enjoy your Harry Potter weekend, and we will return to regularly scheduled posts on Monday, folks!
Please post your ideas in the comments- whether you agree with me or not!
*Was anybody else surprised to see that AOL.com still existed? Just me? 

Severus Snape

I've talked once before about how Alan Rickman was brilliantly cast as Severus Snape. According to JK Rowling's timelines, Snape should be about 20 years younger than Rickman, but honestly who could possibly play Snape better than Rickman?

Snape is, in case you don't know, one of the most complex and satisfying characters ever put to paper. By this time, even if you have not read the books, I will be assuming that you have at least seen through the sixth movie- since it came out almost a year and a half ago. Snape starts off the story as a mean, mean man. He's a teacher who obviously favors his own students, and hates Harry in particular.


By the middle of the story, we realize the reasons for his hatred; Harry's father tormented Snape when they were in school together. Lupin, Sirius Black and Harry's father were also part of a plan that likely would have killed Snape had Harry's dad not had a change of mind. We learn that while he is not a nice guy, he at least has a reason for his mistreatment of Harry.



By the end of the fourth and fifth books, we know that Snape was a Death Eater and something happened to cause him to become a spy for Dumbledore. Dumbledore simply says, over and over, "I Trust Severus Snape." By this time, fans are entirely divided. How could a Death Eater really reform? If you're not a super HP nerd, and are still reading by this time, you should know that Rowling's Death Eaters are loosely based on the Nazis; how many high-ranking Nazis really defected? How many lived to tell the tale? Especially if they were playing both sides equally... that's how duplicitous Snape is: he's either fooling Adolf Hiter or Winston Churchill... or something to that effect, either way, it's dangerous and impressive.



But, now, here we are at the end of Half Blood Prince. Snape has not only professed himself to be the Half Blood Prince, and therefor revealing himself as violent and angry and capable of creating horrifically gruesome spells and curses, but has also murdered Dumbledore. After killing the embodiment of the anti-Voldemort movement, he fights his way through a crowd of students and flees the school with Malfoy (who had been trying to kill Dumbledore for more than a year) and Bellatrix Lestrange (who killed Sirius Black and tortured several other innocent people) and other loyal Death Eaters.


How could a man in this position still have loyal followers? After publication of this book, a website was started for fans to show their unswerving loyalty to Severus Snape. The fact that this man could kill the second most important protagonist in the story and still have a chance of being "good" in the eyes of the readers speaks to the skill and mastery behind his character profile. Rowling laid down an immensely complex character, with foreshadowing so light and almost imperceptible throughout the story.


Rickman's interpretation of the character undoubtedly adds to the core mystery of Severus Snape.

Here's to the most perfectly cast literary character of all time!

You missed one

In honor of the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows this week, I'll be doing some Harry Potter posts. Obviously, the movies have been cast, and there's never going to be a do-over (at least not in my lifetime). I feel like they've been cast perfectly... at least the characters who were cast. Because the books are so large, cuts had to be made to the story, and several characters got left by the wayside.

Today I'm talking about the shoulda-woulda-couldas of the Harry Potter world. Those characters who would have been outstanding to see on screen, but basically got cut for time.

Starting in book one, we meet Peeves the Poltergeist, a recurring character who is really one of the funniest, and undoubtedly the most annoying character in the whole series. He's not really a ghost, but is semi-corporeal (Lupin is able to jam gum up Peeve's nose; had Peeves been a ghost, it would have shot right through him). I would love to have seen one of the other Monty Python guys, Eric Idle, take this on.

rutles.org

 

By the way, for a good laugh, I strongly suggest you go Google images of Eric Idle. Good times.

Fast forward to book four, and Ludo Bagman gets cut from the story. This was a sad one to me, because Bagman is one of the more likable characters in the story. He's an old quidditch player who ended up in the Department of Magical Games, and he spends a bunch of time trying to help Harry cheat at the Triwizard tournament. Because of his quidditch playing days, he's something of a celebrity, and laps up the attention he gets everywhere he goes. I know Bagman is described as being a bit wide around the middle, but there's something boyish about him. And that boyishness, the smiling, not-a-care-in-the-world charm and irresponsible nature keeps me coming back to Hugh Grant. Is that terrible? But he just seems like the "I'm too famous and cool to worry about the rules" sort of guy, right?

blogvedete.com

Now, in book six there's a whole bunch of characters cut, most notably the Gaunt family. The Gaunt family are actually Voldemort's mother's family, a  family of pureblooded wizards who live in what can only be described as squalor, insisting that their pure blood and heritage of Salazar Slytherin are all they really need. The first in the family is Marvolo, the patriarch as it were. He's an angry little man; proud and prone to violence. He's been abusing his kids, but particularly his daughter. He should have been played by somebody able to take on the dichotomy of the role; proud family heritage, disgusting current circumstances. Could there be anybody better than Bob Hoskins?

art.allayers.com

 

Next, we have Merope Gaunt, Marvolo's daughter and Lord Voldemort's mother. She's been emotionally and physically abused by her father and likely her brother. She's a bedraggled, wet rat of a girl, and in my head I saw the girl in overalls from that cheerleading/ bank robbery movie Sugar and Spice. I couldn't find a picture of her, and she's too American anyway. So instead, my shoulda-woulda-coulda vote goes to Emilia Fox. She has a sort of haunted look about her eyes that I think could pull it off.

bbc.co.uk

 

Lastly, we see Morfin Gaunt, the completely crazed, psychotically violent older brother. He ends up with a pretty long list of violent crimes towards innocent people to his name, so I think the more disgusting and creepy this guy looks, the better, eh? How about Darren Morfitt? Any guy whose most famous work according to IMDb is Dog Soldiers ("Jaws, Alien and Predator with a werewolf twist!") has got to have the psychotic-factor down, right?

bbc.co.uk

 

Who else is so excited for this weekend?!?

Weekend Showdown: Dumbledore

 I am SO excited about this weekend's showdown! Seriously, why did I not think of this as my very first showdown? This is probably one of the most debated points in our house: Who was the best Dumbledore?


Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore is, as you probably know, one of the main characters in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. He is the Headmaster of Hogwarts, Harry's greatest mentor and the premier fighter against evil and the Dark Arts.


Dumbledore has been played by two men:

Richard Harris (left) in Sorcerer's Stone (2001) and Chamber of Secrets (2002) and Michael GambonPrisoner of Azkaban (2004), Goblet of Fire (2005), Order of the Phoenix (2007), Half-Blood Prince (2009) and Deathly Hallows (2010 and 2011) in


I am going to say right up front, I think Richard Harris was better. And for several reasons:


1- Michael Gambon did not read the books. He doesn't know this character's backstory, and he doesn't know where everything is going. In his defense, he points out that Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort) and Alan Rickman (Snape) didn't read the books either. However, both of those actors have spoken directly with the author about their characters and have taken her opinion into account. Gambon has not. That means that he is interpreting the direction given to him by a man who is interpreting what he sees in a script which was interpreted by a man reading a children's book. That is a lot of steps from the original character to where Gambon sits. If an eight year old can read these, why can't he?


(side note- Richard Harris took the part originally because his granddaughter wanted him to, I think that says something about how and why he played this character)


2- Dumbledore is cool. Not cool as in "totally rad", but cool as in calm and collected and serene. Even when things get heavy, he keeps a level head. Gambon's interpretation of the character has lost his cool more than once. In The Goblet of Fire, he yelled at Harry when his name came out of the cup. Dumbledore never yells at a student. Never. In The Half-Blood Prince, Gambon's Dumbledore seems frustrated and confused and angry at the world as he sifts through his pensieve. Neither of these episodes jive with the man who has been orchestrating events up to this point so as to ensure the outcome.


3- Dumbledore cares. I just can't believe that Michael Gambon cares about these kids, even Harry. He's gruff. He's curt. He's like the crotchety old grandpa that you don't want to go hug, but your mom makes you. Richard Harris is like the grandpa that sneaks you candy and tells the best bedtime stories in the world. He's also the grandpa that shows you how to save the world by using your head.


4- Dumbledore is wise. And not just because he's old, but because he has set about on a lifelong journey of learning, exploring and discovering. Richard Harris is so much more believable as a truly wise man. You get the sense that he's seen it all, done it all and would write the book about it all if he ever had the time. Michael Gambon just doesn't convey that to me.


5- Dumbledore is content and happy. Dumbledore's name means "bumblebee" and JK Rowling has been known to say that she named him as such because she imagines him wandering around the castle humming to himself like a bumblebee. I could totally see Richard Harris walking around with his hands in the opposite sleeve, humming a delightful tune. I see Michael Gambon pacing around quickly muttering to himself in angst.


6- Dumbledore is a little bit nuts. And he is really a big kid at heart. His eyes twinkle when he speaks of the shenanigans that the Weasley twins get into. Ron mentions repeatedly how mental Dumbledore is; he's in fact extremely proud of how loony his hero is. In Socerer's Stone, Dumbledore opens the feast by saying "a few words: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!"  Gambon would never be able to pull off something like this. Harris all the way.

Eh, what can you do? You win some, you lose some. This time, I win.



Now, don't get all bent out of shape, I know that Richard Harris was replaced because he died. I'm not totally insensitive, it is very sad that a well respected father and grandfather passed away. I can still mourn the death of my Dumbledore, can I not? Er... not that death, the death of the actor.


And I am not going to address which actor is more believable as a gay man, because to me, I just don't think it affects the character. The fact that this was not revealed until after the seventh book was written says something about how little it matters. Upon re-reading the series, I can't find any evidence in the story that this factoid mattered even one little bit. If you want to talk about it, fine, but I'm not going to.


So, let's hear it. Which actor was the best version of Dumbledore? Do you like Harris, Gambon or some impossible mix of the two?


Agree? Disagree? Post your thoughts in the comments?


Images: Google Images