Finding the Magic in the Harry Potter Movies

I love the Harry Potter movies.  Love, love, love.  It's one of those situations where as a blogger I know that I cannot remain even the remotest bit objective, and so I figured on this totally arbitrary day (I'm going to be honest-I didn't get a chance to write the larger post I was expecting because I was out too late last night), I decided to randomly finish a giant Harry Potter post I did a while back but for a different site but has never seen the light of day here.  Enjoy (and obviously spoilers abound, but if you haven't seen the Harry Potter films yet, you are the biggest of muggles)!

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Review: It’s a bit odd, all-things-considered, to revisit the very beginnings of Hogwarts. Even if you are just stumbling across it for the first time, entering the magical world of Harry Potter seems utterly familiar-you would have had to been locked in Azkaban prison for the last decade to not know the tale of the Boy Who Lived. And yet, there are still wonderful things to uncover in this slightly by-the-numbers, but ultimately rewarding first outing. The actors may be mere children (try being born before 1987 and not feeling dauntingly older by watching this movie), but they have the moxie and charm that would become their trademarks, and not even Chris Columbus’s limp direction can stifle the creative magic of Jo Rowling’s best moments-the streets of Diagon Alley, Hogwarts letters sprouting out of thin air, and a Sorting Hat who knows a thing or two about the future.
Best Moment: Ollivander’s, by a country mile-John Hurt gives a giddy and just a teensy bit wicked performance as the wandmaster who helps Harry choose his destiny.
Worst Moment: Ron’s heavy-handed speech before being blown off a horse during chess-so out of character.
Film MVP: Daniel Radcliffe, who manages to bring a wonderful and celebrated literary character to life, despite being unable to drive a car.
Totally Arbitrary Harry Potter-themed Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d give it a Nimbus 2001-it’s faster than other models, but you know there’s something better ahead.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Review: The second, and thankfully last film from Chris Columbus, who didn’t find an emotionally cloying moment he didn’t spread across ten minutes of film. This is the least of the Harry Potter films, which is like saying it’s your worst visit to Disneyland-you may not get to ride the Matterhorn, but you can still enjoy the ambience. There are, however, moments to love about this film-primarily, Jason Isaacs and Kenneth Branagh delivering their characters of Lucius and Gilderoy (sneering malevolence and pompous certitude, respectively) with eleven shades of scenery-chewing (that doesn’t sound great, but it works in a film this shoot-for-the-moon). And of course, Jo Rowling gives us a strong showdown between Tom Riddle and Harry Potter that will overshadow the film’s weaker moments.
Best Moment: Moaning Myrtle-such a snide and spoiled ghost she turned out to be, and it gives the Hogwarts Trio all of their best lines.
Worst Moment: The ending-Hagrid getting a standing ovation? Ludicrously out-of-character for all but the Gryffindor house.
Film MVP: Jason Isaacs, who on second viewing is obviously making a completely different film than the rest of the cast (he would be even better in 2003’s Peter Pan-rent it now, for the love of hippogriffs!)
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d say it’s the film equivalent of Gilderoy Lockhart’s Magical Me-obviously entertaining and sometimes engaging, but clearly there’s some falsity below the surface.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Review: Ahh, now this is more like it. Alfonso Cuaron is the best director to ever cast his spell over Rowling’s universe, and this is perhaps the best (though, amongst the don't-stray-from-the-books fans, the most controversial) film of the series. It certainly captures the transition between childhood and adolescence with a clearer picture than almost any film out there. From the choir of singing students (and toads) to the Lewis Carroll acid trip of the Knight Bus to the delicious sarcasm that rings from every line that Emma Watson utters, this is the only film in the series that would stand on its own-if there were no other tales of Hogwarts, Azkaban would ensure it were a clever legend. Mischief managed, indeed.
Best Moment: I’ve always had a strong fondness for the scene where Harry fights the Boggarts with Professor Lupin. It may not be the flashiest in the flick, but it’s quiet wonder and the sheer joy of overcoming a small obstacle is perhaps the closest any of the movies came to capturing the tiny moments that made us love the novels.
Worst Moment: Daniel Radcliffe is many things, but a decent crier (at least in this movie) he is not.
Film MVP: I’d give it a tie between David Thewlis, whose reserved Professor Lupin gets better on repeat viewing, and Watson, who comes into her own with the help of some delicious dialogue.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a Patronus-light but strong, and it creates a sort of spell that only a few special people can muster-movie magic.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Review: If HP directors were James Bond actors (go with me here), Alfonso Cuaron would obviously be the suave Sean Connery, David Yates would be the dependable Roger Moore, Chris Columbus would be the miscast Timothy Dalton, which may leave poor Mike Newell as George Lazenby-solid, perhaps even worthy on occasion, but only given one chance to shine and then be replaced. Goblet is Newell’s only film in the series, and he is given the rather difficult task of making sense of Rowling’s most “jumbled” (I say that with love) book. He mostly succeeds, particularly in capturing teen angst and its sheer awkwardness and unfairness (come on, it must have been REALLY difficult growing up looking like Robert Pattinson) in the best moments of the film, even if he sometimes loses us in the bog of too-many-new-characters plotline. In particular, though, he gives David Yates a much freer palette to paint the final four films from-a nice transition from the traditionalism of Columbus and the out-there, could only make it through one film brilliance of Cuaron. By letting Harry grow up, he allows Yates to shake and stir the characters.
Best Moment: The Yule Ball-didn’t you want a song called “Dance Like a Hippogriff” at your Prom?
Worst Moment: The plot transitions-for those not familiar with the books, this is the jumpiest and probably most confusing editing in the series.
Film MVP: Brendan Gleeson gets all the good lines and steals all his scenes, but I have to go with Gambon, all wisdom and worry.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: I’d say it’s a bag of Bertie Bott’s-some sweet, some bitter, but overall an experience worth the galleons you shelled out to see it.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Review: I’m going to be honest-there are times when the last three books seem to blend. And there are moments when I’m a little floored that they cut perhaps my favorite moment in this book, when Petunia gets her howler (never, in all seven books of reading, have I ever been so intrigued by one moment in the book). But that doesn’t mean that this isn’t a wickedly wild ride. We begin the first of the four David Yates films with the creepiest moment at the Dursleys, and are scuttled into the world of a doubting Ministry and character assassinations for political gain. Harry and the gang are truly excellent in this film, as Yates takes the time to flesh out characters like Neville and the daffy Luna Lovegood. Of course, Yates can’t take credit for the single best performance in any of the HP films thusfar, that of the pink sadist Delores Unbridge, ably played by Academy Award nominee (sadly not for this movie) Imelda Staunton (I say with much certainty that even in 2007’s cinematic excellence, she should have won the Oscar). With her, Harry finally gets a villain worth fighting against, and we get a straight-forward blast of a blockbuster.
Best Moment: Umbridge & Harry in detention-the film wouldn’t have worked if we didn’t hate Umbridge so fiercely.
Worst Moment: The Snape Occlumency lessons-so crucial and important in the book, and yet too glossed over in the movie.
Film MVP: Staunton, who gives every little “hmm” and “ahem” a cruel undertone that few other actors could have managed.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a nice pint of Butterbeer-warm and refreshing, with just enough of a kick to know it’s working.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Review: The even numbered books in the series were always, in my opinion, slightly less than the odd numbered ones that preceded them. So it is a little odd to say that this film is better than the one before it. Even without the cruel Delores Umbridge, we are still given a wild ride, and perhaps even a little peak into some of the characters who have until now been just “versions” of themselves from the books. Michael Gambon gives Albus Dumbledore a stronger and more fleshed out personality, and Jim Broadbent is absolutely brilliant as the status-minded Horace Slughorn. As this is the Hogwarts Trio’s final year at Hogwarts, it is fitting that we get a bit more teenage angst (though Yates doesn’t quite understand it as well as Mike Newell), and we also get a tear-inducing ending. The film also gives one of the most terrifying moments of the series thusfar (though HP7 would equal it with the snake-eating teacher) with Tom Riddle asking about horcruxes. All-in-all, this is perhaps the only film in the series that, while not the equal of the book, sewed together some of the pieces of where the book lagged. 

Best Moment: I kind of want to go with anything Broadbent did (seriously, between Thewlis, Staunton, and Broadbent, this series should have three acting Oscar nominations), but I have settle on his devastating monoluge about fish.
Worst Moment: Not to be cruel, but who was the casting director who hired the Lavender Brown actress?
Film MVP: Broadbent, such a weary traveler in the world of magic.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s a veela-you know there’s something about it that you justifiably love, if at times you’re being too kind to its flaws.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 (2010)

Review: I’ll never be 100% certain that they made the right decision splitting this movie into two. I mean, they used to make 4 hour movies-and wouldn’t that have been seismically epic? However, I shouldn’t let that stymie this admirable production. As the film series goes along, the movies become more polished, a bit more manufactured, and while they are consistently strong, they sometimes lose the childlike wonder of something like Azkaban. That said, this film has three distinctly perfect scenes-the opening, particularly Hermione erasing her parents memories, the hearing (the final stand of Delores), and finally the tale of the three brothers, an indy touch to a highly mainstream movie. These three scenes together make it one of the best films in the series, and the fact that we have now made the leap to three capable, competent actors proves that the casting director a decade ago knew exactly what they were doing when they called the names Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson off the call list.

Best Moment: As I mentioned above, I have three, but if I had to pick, it’s those opening scenes, where all of them slowly cast their spells and ward away childhood.
Worst Moment: The Oscars totally ruined “the tiny ball of light” moment for me.
Film MVP: With no teachers to steal the scenes, and Rickman/Fiennes sadly relegated to the backburner, I’d say it’s a threeway tie between the Hogwarts Trio, who all use their big moments in the film to shine hard.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s an invisibility cloak-not too flashy, but substantive when it needs to be and it hits just the right balance.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 (2011)

Review: And so it all ends, not with a bang, but with the most iconic castle outside the Magic Kingdom being blown to smithereens. That’s right people-if you were hoping that there’d be some top notch special effects in this film, you’ll be in for a treat. Then again, if you’re like me, hoping for the quiet moments throughout the film, you’ll get them, particularly in the first half. Yates was kind enough to give us some of the brilliant moments with Maggie Smith (one of two times I think I may have cheered in the movie) and Kelly McDonald (the gloriously melancholy Grey Lady). And of course, this film wouldn’t have been complete without Julie Walters taking out Helena Bonham Carter in pure style. I am glad, however, that Yates stuck most closely with the Hogwarts Trio in this one-all three of them had grown into young adults before the eyes of the world, and as this film proves, they’ve grown into fine actors as well. A fitting close to a wild ride of a series.

Best Moment: A tough one for me-the obvious choice would be Julie Walters taking down HBC (seriously-when I read that in the book, I knew that was going to be one of my favorite moments in the movie), but I really loved the walk in white with Dumbledore and (my ultimate choice for best scene in the picture) Maggie Smith’s taking charge.
Worst Moment: If I cheat, it would be that I didn’t see Dan take out the Carows in defense of Professor McGonagall. However, I’d probably go with the choppy transition at the beginning of the film.
Film MVP: Radcliffe or Smith-both of them made every moment they had onscreen count, and still added levels to their characters.
Totally Arbitrary Rating Since I Can’t Objectively Review the Harry Potter Movies: It’s the first ride on the Hogwarts Express-thrilling, new while still familiar, a bit mysterious, and full of wonder.

Kill Your Darlings (2013)

Film: Kill Your Darlings (2013)
Stars: Daniel Radcliffe, Dane DeHaan, Jack Huston, Ben Foster, Michael C. Hall, Elizabeth Olsen
Director: Jack Krokidas
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

For some reason Hollywood doesn't seem to coordinate as well as it should.  Remember that summer of two asteroid movies?  Or the back-to-back year of Truman Capote biopics?  Hollywood tends to do something multiple times if they are going to do it at all, and we as an audience don't protest too vociferously for some reason (for all of the complaining, both of those asteroid movies were massive hits).

So it is currently with independent cinema's fascination with the Beat Generation.  In recent years, arguably the two most significant books from the Beat Generation (Howl and On the Road) have been adapted into films, and now we have Kill Your Darlings, a biopic about the very early Beat Generation, once again channelling Allen Ginsberg (for some reason Ginsberg seems to be at the forefront of all of these stories rather than some of the other authors of the movement) and telling of the Lucien Carr trial in 1944.

(Real life has no spoilers...but here's your alert anyway) The film, told in the way that the Beats would have been proud, is a combination of both a slam piece and a celebration of the Beat Generation.  We get all of the principle players from the early Beat Generation: Ginsberg (Radcliffe), Jack Kerouac (Huston), William S. Burroughs (Foster), and the far lesser known Lucian Carr (DeHaan).  The film unfolds at first as if this is simply an origin story about Ginsberg.  We see his struggles with his mother, mentally insane, and his complicated relationship with his poet father.  We then see him go to Columbia, where he meets Carr, an older student, and falls in love with him.  Carr invites him into the world of the Beat Generation, and he also becomes acquainted with Carr's older mentor David Kammerer (Hall), who is romantically obsessed with Carr.

The film continues on with a celebration of the Beat Generation's provocative push to redefine moral standards, particularly regarding sex and sexuality.  There's a prank involving breaking into a university library and putting all of the sexual and "obscene" literature in a glass case at the front of the library.  There's frequent discussions of sex, and the physical objectification of Carr and Kerouac in particular.  And then the mystery starts to unfold.  Carr decides to leave behind Ginsberg and Kammerer, following perhaps the only man in his orbit that is not completely taken with him (Kerouac), and join the merchant marines.  On his way there, he is stopped by Kammerer, and then in a park Carr kills Kammerer, making the entire second half of the film about his trial.

The trial goes roughly how you would expect, particularly if you were familiar with this piece of the Beat history.  Carr is given a very light sentence, using the defense that he was a straight man being pursued by the older, predatory homosexual Kammerer.  The film leaves a large amount of doubt around Carr's sexuality, as has been the rumor for a number of years, and ends with Ginsberg trying to tell the "real" story of what happened that night, only to be shut down by the press and his university.

The film's message is partially what makes it interesting, and also where it falls a bit flat.  The film wants to present an ambiguous ending to the story, but it doesn't quite get there.  As presented, the film doesn't give us enough balance with Carr's character to really have us doubt that he was in fact "playing the heterosexual."  Carr's character is too sexually open and flirtatious with everything that moves to convincingly state that he is in fact wholly straight, and if that's what the director is trying to make us believe, he is unsuccessful.  The director also clearly is trying to sell the fact that Carr's self-defense against Kammerer is murky at best, and his vision is that more likely the man committed cold-blood murder and got away with it.  That's blatantly what the film is selling, though it never has the guts to say it (perhaps for legal reasons, admittedly), and as a result the ending seems not to jive with what we have just seen.

The film is saved by the central performance of Dane DeHaan.  While Radcliffe is a bit out of his element (while a competent actor, he has yet to show the ability that Emma Watson has to morph away from his most noted role into that of an actor who can transform, though I do admire his willingness to tinker around in independent cinema rather than just take blockbuster roles), DeHaan is magnificent to the core.  Lucien Carr as written has to be both dangerous and incredibly alluring, and DeHaan finds that tricky balance.  Much in the same way that Garrett Hedlund in On the Road could combine sexual allure (everybody wants him) with a laissez-faire attitude toward life and in particular responsibility, DeHaan strikes that chord, being the sexual desire of almost everyone onscreen (and that's with an actor playing Jack Kerouac nearby), and both lusting the attention and dismissing it.  I've seen DeHaan in a few things now (including The Place Beyond the Pines, which he was also terrific in), and I have to say that he seems like one of those actors ready to explode.

Those were about all my thoughts on Kill Your Darlings, a strong attempt that gets lost in delivery (with a very strong central performance from DeHaan to recommend it).  What were your thoughts?  Did you enjoy the film?  Do you find DeHaan to be as intoxicating as I?  And what piece of Beat literature do you hope is transferred to the screen next?  Share in the comments!

79. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter Series)

79. One might assume anyone who adopted the Hogwarts logo would be gliding, Nimbus 2000 on hand, onto this list. After all, there are few things I receive more joy out of then a new tidbit of Harry Potter wonder and adventure. However, when you have a young actor like Daniel Radcliffe, who manages to make me not long for the boy wizard, but instead start imagining him in the stead of my literary mind's snapshot of him, you know that you've got someone with a future beyond Hogwarts.

The Harry Potter movies, for me, are filled with flaws that I can stomach. Perhaps because I love the series so much that any output will make me happy and I'll end up waxing soliloques about how perfectly Alfonso Cuaron's replication of Professor Lupin was or how wonderfully Chris Columbus recreated Diagon Alley. And while I acknowledge that there are some flaws in all of the movies, I'm going to defend Dan Radcliffe in his role-I mean, anyone who has the guts to take on one of literature's most beloved children's adventurers has to have some respect. Radcliffe takes the rather naive creation of J.K. Rowling and moves it onto the screen with pluck, but also some internal self-conflict. Radcliffe is obviously a student of the books: how else could he have so well shown the awkwardness of talking to Cedric about the dragons? Or shown such determination in the scene fighting the Boggarts (probably my favorite scene in the entire cinematic series)? Radcliffe makes you believe in magic, and more importantly in he as the boy wizard, and that is why he ranks Number 79 on the countdown.

All right, buckle down for this one, since the film festival is going to be a long one: start out with the childhood pluck and simplicity of Sorcerer's Stone, move into the darker tones of Dobby, Basilisks, and Kenneth Branagh in Chamber of Secrets, reach the pinnacle of magic in the whispy Prisoner of Azkaban, and end up counting on Ralph Fiennes in Goblet of Fire. Enjoy some Bertie Bott's and chocolate frogs, and afterwards call up your favorite mate for a nice game of chess.