They are older, but than children do grow and change when they are attending high school. The teachers are relatively the same. Hogworts, the school that the young wizards attend still rests sternly on the hill side overlooking the river that flows... Well, we aren't sure where it flows but the it evokes a promise of a future.
The Harry Potter Series both book and film is about the future. It is in essence a coming of age tale that includes a compelling facet of magic. I ask you who hasn't wished that they couldn't solve their problems with a little bit of magic. Harry Potter, like Star Wars Luke Skywalker, is living with the memory and legacy of his father. Harry is the reluctant hero in the battle of forces that have been warring for power for all time. It is, as all good stories are, a battle between good and evil.
In this edition of the saga, Harry is inducted into the The Order of the Phoenix, a group that supports the good Wizards, the organization that refuses to go the dark side. Complicating this situation is in intractable bureaucracy that doesn't want to admit that Lord Voldemort, the leader of those on the dark side has indeed returned to overthrow the good wizards.
Pretty predictable stuff, Eh!
No one will ever argue that J K Rowling can't write a good story. She can indeed. Her books have reintroduced reading to millions of TV, Nintendo, and You Tube addicted teenagers. While the author has strung along her readers through six novels and is releasing the final one in close proximity to the release of this film, she has successfully established a Disney like franchise that will no doubt hook future generations. It's easy to see today's readers introducing their children to Harry just like my folks wanted me to read the "Black Stallion" books and my sister was urged to read Nancy Drew.
But what I'm suppose to write about here is my opinion of the movie. The Harry Potter films have always suffered from poor casting and it starts with Daniel Radcliffe. Radcliffe's range is insufficient to play the morose and brooding Potter. Even as a young Potter, Radcliffe couldn't portray the innocent and vulnerable Harry. As a now enlightened and supposedly wiser young wizard, Radcliffe can't pull it off.
Emma Watson didn't have enough of a role in this film to judge her worth to the effort and the same must be said of the usually reliable Rupert Grint, in the role of Ron Weasley. The star studded cast does make the film notable in it's performance, but you can't build a strong performance on a star that gets as much screen time as Radcliffe does and who can't shoulder the load. I've always wondered how the film's would fare if Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Weasley was cast as Potter and the limited Radcliffe was playing the buddy role. It couldn't be worse and it would have a chance of being better, Grint can act.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment