Johnny Simmons

I ranked my favourite adults of Potter-world a few weeks ago. That was easy. The children? Not so much.
                  

I had planned to rank them, but that seemed unfair. Only three, possibly four, of them get the chance to have constant yearly character development. They’re listed in order of importance – ascending. The five last ones had to be assessed; the other three were just for my interest in them, good or bad. I still graded them, even though there’s a possibility that the grades are a little too arbitrary. It’s difficult to judge performances…I do love Harry Potter, hopelessly, but I’m trying to be as objective as possible.
        

It’s amazing what some hair (and lack of whitening makeup, I presume) can do. I have to squint to find any relation between Pattinson’s Diggory and Edward Cullen. It’s not a sizeable role and he appears in only one instalment, but he’s on point as the morally upright Diggory. He is as anti-Harry as one can get without being, well, evil. And since so many of the children are at their worst in this particularly film he comes out looking even better. I even wished that Diggory (the cinematic one, at least) had won the tournament. (Highpoint: The Goblet of Fire, duh: B)

             

I’m never sure what to make of Neville, on screen or on the page. Certainly, his cinematic equivalent could do with a little more of that back-story (okay, a lot of the back-story), but I don’t care either way; I’m not that interested. The supporting children of Potter-world, especially those not playing someone’s love interest, are dolefully marginalised, especially on the screen, and Neville just seems truncated. I still find his musings on dance in The Goblet of Fire hilarious, though. (Highpoint: The Order of the Phoenix: C+)

Luna is…well and loony. (Really, sometimes Rowling is just a bit too literal when naming her characters.) It’s a tough task to pull off a spaced out but likeable, and still lucid…mostly, character. I suppose it’s even more difficult pulling of a spaced out child. Still, I’m always pleasantly surprised at where she decided to take the character. She has the musicality in the voice down and manages to never come off as ingratiating. Kudos, I say. (Highpoint: The Half Blood Prince: B)

               

The characterisation of the majority of Slytherins is not Rowling’s strongpoint (it’s just a little too EVIL: end of story). When you have thespians like HBC and Rickman alleviating the issues on screen it works. Alas, Felton is neither. The Malfoy of the first three films was woefully cringe-worthy, every time he would sputter out “Potter!” I would roll my eyes. The older he got, the more he learned to tone it down and it is obvious that the sixth instalment was something of a coming-of-age for him. Granted the role is what it is (hollow, for the most part) but he does some credible things in his brightest moments. (Highpoint: The Half Blood Prince: B-/B)

           

The bad thing about reading the Harry Potter books while the films are in production is that the actors become the image you see of the characters. I have no problem with the Ginny of Rowling’s imagination, but Wright is hopeless bland. I wish they’d recast the role (Juno Temple, anyone) or drop the character. Neither will happen, but I am fanciful. It doesn’t help that she and Radcliffe are painfully uncomfortable around each other, from where I sit. (Highpoint: The Half Blood Prince: D+)

                

I think I’ve mad it clear here and elsewhere that I’m most interested in the aftermath of Grint’s career than any other non-adult to have graced the screen, Potter-wise. I’d like to think that it’s more than my general appreciation of the character spilling over. Granted, the Ron of the Potter-cinema is not the same as the Ron of the Potter-books, not absolutely at least. Ron, in the film, comes off as a decided third-wheel, not thanks to the number of Ron’s lines that keep on going to Hermione and others (and that ending in the last film, not a line of dialogue? Bloody Hell!). Nonetheless, Grint continues to be entertaining and sincere. (Highpoint: The Prisoner of Azkaban / The Half Blood Prince: B+)

               

At her worst Emma can be nauseatingly shrill, luckily that’s not too often. At her best she is the epitome of what Hermione should be (but for the occasional stilted readings). Even in the first instalment she has a knack for the snooty side of Hermione. Not surprisingly she’s at her best when flanked by Grint and Radcliffe. She has the sensibilities of the character, but sometimes she’s too on-the-nose with the line-readings (or is the dialogue?). It’s as if Hermione was acting as Hermione, it’s not natural anymore just…tense. She needs to loosen up. (Highpoint: The Goblet of Fire: B)

         

I know Emma loathes him, I’m less antagonistic. He has the look of Potter down – but that doesn’t say much. Sometimes, though, he seems laughably off in his “characterisation” (this is me going loud: angry, this is me contorting my face: sad, etc). He’s no dramatician (not a real word), it’s simply not his forte; well that’s the conclusion I came to watching the last film. He has never had my attention as much as the few moments where he drinks Felix Felices. His comedic timing, for me, was a marvel. It all occurs as we know the inevitable climax is to come, but he still manages to be humorous – easily so – I really do think comey could be his thing. Sadly, there is no comedy in the next instalment, so I hope that he’s improved. (Highpoint: The Half Blood Prince: B-/B)
       

What do you think of the Potter children? Who outranks whom?

Confession: I don't like watching movie trailers. I have no real reason, I just don't. The only trailer from last year I saw before I saw the film was Nine and Bright Star...other than that, no. If I must watch, I watch without sound - so the first trailer for any 2010 release I anticipated was a silent Never Let Me Go Trailer...of course the trailer that the internet has recently been abuzz with was that of Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows. In case you didn't know, I love these books. I know it's literary suicide to admit that (and from a Literature student, no less) but I do. I'm always saying that I'm looking forward to great things from the cast, none of them more than Rupert Grint, who I continue to maintain has a promising career ahead of him.

And I'm not the only touting Grint apparently, my favourite director Martin Scorsese has only recently pimped him HERE*. I feel validated...I mean, that probably made my month (yes the month has been going that horribly).

I almost screamed when I saw the shot above. If you read the book you know what's going on, if you haven't (what's wrong with you?) I won't spoil it. I will say, I'm so glad that that my darling HBC will get to have some fun. Yippee.

            

Perhaps it's because I too am sporting a beard, but I feel a sense of validation in seeing that the disheveled look is in. Though teen romance is not particularly poignant Grint and Watson do have great chemistry...so I'm interested to see what comes of their "romance".

           

Anyways, last night I finally saw Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince, the latest film installment. The film wastes no time in letting us know that all is not right with both the Wizarding and Muggle World as black Wraith like creatures traverse the city wreaking havoc on mortals. The Muggle Newspapers even report these extremities that have the population worried. Meanwhile Dumbledore [Michael Gambon] and Harry [Daniel Radcliffe] go on a seemingly pointless journey to meet a wizard - Horace Slughorn, played by the delightful Jim Broadbent. Soon we realise that Slughorn is to be a prospective teacher at Horgwarts. Interesting? Maybe...maybe not. But this is just in the first twenty minutes. What is interesting in the first twenty minutes is the visit that Bellatrix [the luminous Helena Bonham Carter] and Narcissa [the bland Helen McCrory] pay to Severus, the excessively macabre Alan Rickman. Snape makes a binding vow to protect Draco Malfoy while he plots to perform the orders of the Dark Lord. Yes, that Dark Lord - Voldermort. Even if you read the book and know the outcome there is still a feeling of anxiety as Bellatrix essentially binds Snape to Voldermort's will.

The year passes with the usual occurences of teen angst -broken hearts, loquacious teenage girls etc, but it all culmintates in Dumbledore's quest to unearth Voldermort's secret of Horcruxes. This entails a thrilling exposition in a sinister cave where we Dumbledore surrounded by a ring of fire where he seems to be a biblical figure almost - a modern Moses of sort, paving the way for Joshua - Harry.

Of all the installments before, this films seems to be the most complete. It doesn't start at the beginning and there is no decisive ending but as far as film-making it seems to be a complete film. For example, I was very conscious of the score througout the two hours. One of the technical triumphs of the movie. Visually, too, the film is a success. From the aforementioned fire sequence to the entire of the Horcrux expedition, the crazy Death Eaters in the air led by the marvelously demonic Helena Bonham Carter and the memories Dumbledore has of Tom Riddle. All make use of some good visual effects, that are not over the top or used just for their own sake. And after six tries, it's about time. The cinematography too, seems good. Although this is coming from my decidedly layman opinion.

Then there's the acting. I have never been comfortable with Michael Gambon's interepretation of Dumbledore. There are times during the first half hour where I cringed at his obvious acting, but he had better moments too...and his final scene with Harry is very gripping, if somewhat sentimental. Most of the other adults don't really have much to work with. Alan Rickman continues to be effortless as Snape and Julie Walters is still undervalued as Mrs. Weasely and Maggie Smith has little more than a cameo as does Helena Bonham Carter - but that was expected. There is a scene where she runs through the woods screaming that is just freakishly awesome. As I mentioned earlier I was unimpressed with Helene McRory and I was right in thinking Kristin Scott Thomas would have been much more effective as Mrs. Malfoy. Jim Broadbent is the only other grownup who has a chance to impress...and that he does, reminding me how wonderful he was in Moulin Rouge! There's a scene where he tells Harry about his mother near the end of the film that on paper seems so pedestrian in its sentimentality, but Broadbent is so sincere you can't help being drawn in my his emotion.

But don't think I forgot the children. Not much has changed with them though. Bonnie Wright continues to be inadequate as Ginny lacking any chemistry with Radcliffe. And speaking of Radcliffe, I've never been particularly bowled over by him, sometimes he exudes the personality of a plastic bag but he as a few strong scenes, and he's not horrible. He seems more comfortable playing loud and angry than quiet and brooding and seeing that Harry is more of the latter that seems rather odd. I suppose Emma Watson is not that better than him, but I'm biased. She does lack subtlety quite often, but she can be good at times. Still none of them can hold a candle to my boy, Rupert Grint. It's possible that my appreciation for the character Ron has transferred to my appreciation of Grint, but I doubt. Although he continues to have the least screentime of the three leads he still outshines them. The scene where he consumes some edibles meant for Harry is obvious, but it's still funny and that's because of Grint's candour and expressiveness. Tom Felton, does his best work yet as Malfoy and Frank Dillane is haunting as a young Voldermort, in his one scene he acts as if the film is about him.


Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is not without it's fault, in case my raving has annoyed you. There were some things that struck me as odd afterward. But that's what makes it good. Unlike the last films where the inconsistencies struck me as I watched, the faults of this film were only retrospective. I was that caught up. For instance, why does the potions book seem so unimportant, why aren't we privy to more of Dumbledore's memories and Voldermort's young life, why is there so little of Snape, why does the revelation of the Half Blood Prince not interest me at all, what about Dumbledore's funeral and most importantly what about the big battle after Dumbeldore's death. But all that's secondary. The fact that the movie was good made me appreciate it. It can't have everything, I have the book for that. Anyways, I f**cking loved this movie. And you can quote me.

B+

I may be back with another post. I can't help it.