November 4, 2005

[sneak preview - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire] ^{1:16 PM}

It seems that most every screening held by studios in LA is at either 7 or 7:30, which is retarded because the studios know its the peak of traffic, and thus hard to get anywhere in town. Maybe they assume this is the price you pay for seeing a film early and for free. Nevertheless, we made it to the Warner Bros. lot with plenty of time to spare and spent a good 20 minutes seat hopping for the best view.

It appears, from press clippings and posting boards, that I am in the minority wherein Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is my least favorite of the books. That's not to say that it's bad or I hate it, it was still vastly entertaining, but if you were making a list Goblet of Fire and Sorcerer's Stone would be duking it out for the bottom rung. Azkaban was my favorite, and we see how Cuaron hit that out of the park. Needless to say, my expectations were low. Sure there are a lot of key moments in the book, but would it make a great movie, especially a 600+ page book slimming into 158 minutes?

So how is the movie? I loved it, there's a sense of urgency to it that isn't conveyed in book-form. Part if this is putting 200 pages into the first 15 minutes, and part of this is the actual over-whelming sense of dread.

I found the film to be enthralling (as did the children next to me), but my counterpart did not. However, he's a self-avowed "non-Harry-Potter-getter." He doesn't read the books, but is obviously compelled by the series since he pumps me for imformation after the film (and again when Imelda Staunton was cast as Umbridge).

Prison of Azkaban was an art film, and was done right by Cuaron's vision, but it's also the only book that could've really been one. It's true that Mike Newell's directing of Fire could've been better, but this film, like the book has no real identity. Sorcerer's Stone was a children's film, Chamber of Secrets was a haunted castle movie, and Azkaban was a time-travel art film. Fire is many things, but none of them completely: a thriller, a sports film, a growing-up yarn, and at certain points just a teenage soap (yes Yule Ball, I'm looking at you).

I'd read that Emma Watson was the weak link in this film, and I declare that to be wholly untrue. In fact, everyone is growing up quite nicely and seems to be getting better with each film. The kids are good, but two of the best performances belong to Brendan Gleeson as Mad Eye Moody (who brings a decidedly snarkier tone to the film) and Alan Rickman reprising his role as Snape. Snape is barely in the film until the very very end, but his scenes (where he is mostly) silent stand out (tho this could be attributed to revelations in Book 6 leaking into my head).

One notable benefit that Newell has brought in is Patrick Doyle to score the film. Let's face it, aside from writing themes and suites, the past few years John Williams has been phoning it in, and from the opening title cue, Doyle takes Williams' established themes and runs with it — giving the film a score and not background music.

Even though the film has a huge budget, it doesn't have a taskmaster like George Lucas on hand, so the effects vary greatly, but I think everyone will agree this is the best dragon that has even been put to film, and the entire squence is thrilling — all of the TriWizard sequences look quite nice, actually.

What most of you are wondering, I'm sure, is "how is Ralph Fiennes?" and "why PG-13?" Well, Ralph is covered in latex and is obviously having a ball playing pure evil, and it's PG-13 for "that's fucked up" — we're talking Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom fucked up. I mean, the movie opens with a shot of skulls with a snake crawling through them in a graveyard...not to mention the film's climax which at times is just ... icky.

My viewing-friend declared the film a giant step backward, and I disagree because it's a completely different animal, and should please Potter fans to varying degrees of greatness. It makes me anxious for the next two films, because for me they have a clear message and direction, a true driving force that could make them really powerful.

It's true Fire could've been a better film. Some director could have pulled Cuaron and made it his own, but it does it's job just fine, and exceeded this reader's expectations. Something that hasn't happened much this year in a movie theatre.

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: