Thursday, November 25, 2010

New Harry Potter Movie is Bad, Really Bad. Sorry, but someone had to say it.

[Warning: If you love Harry Potter movies, you're about to hate me.]

Harry Potter movie number 7a. No idea. Not even a hint of a clue what it is captivating people by this flick. Been holding back on this (saw the movie last Thursday night, a pre-screening; it was free) because:

1.  A friend got me the free tickets so thought this might offend;
2. Other  friends that came with to watch thoroughly enjoyed so didn't want to rain on their parade;
3. I prefer recommending movies to ragging on them.

But.

I'll make an exception. Cause when a movie makes this much money and garners 79% positive reviews from the aggregators over at rottentomatoes.com, I have to put up my hand and interrupt the class and say, Sorry sensei but,

What the hell?

The kid who plays Ron Weasley is the only remotely decent actor of the three leads. The girl who plays Hermoine may be pretty enough to sell purses and rain coats, but a great actress she ain't. And Harry. Sorry buddy but you neither. Cause when you don't have a line to deliver you're like some amateur actor (takes one to know...) who doesn't know what to do with his hands let alone the rest of his self.

How? How with a budget that big and British character actors (the adults in the movie) that good could you make such a boring flick? David Yates. The movie's director. Heard of him? Me neither. Know why? All's he ever did before making the last few Harry Potter movies was make TV movies no one's ever heard of.

Sorry but with a budget this big, and a built-in audience this fierce, how do you choose such a hack to helm the thing?  The movie's one long string of gorgeous locations smooshed one on top of the other with nothing to connect them or have us feel them as real in any way.

Bad acting, worse directing and sorry JK, but the storytelling - there are more coincidences in this story than a b-grade Van Damme picture (was there any other kind?). 'Oh, Harry, you need a wand. I just happen to have one in my racksack.' I'm not even making that up. It's that bad. That bad! All that was missing was a, You killed my brother! line.

Tell me I'm not the only one. Tell me, if you had to endure the hours of boredom that were Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, you saw how lame it was.

My pic for worst movie of the year.

Ouch! Or ouchie, as they say in Australia.

6 comments:

  1. I love the Harry Potter books (yeah, read them and collected them) and I really liked all the previous Harry Potter films.

    However, I didn't like film no. 7a that much because 1) it's ridiculous to drag one book into two films - the result is that we have a dull and laboured first instalment; 2) all those great British actors/actresses do not have enough on-screen time - in previous films, the wooden acting of the primaries is 'saved' by the adults who appear more frequently; 3) Radcliffe and Watson are not too good at acting and it's almost a pain to watch them - I agree with you Grint as Ron is the best of the trio.

    That all having been said, there are still things to admire. Hermione's erasing herself from all family portraits was touching to watch, the retelling of "The Tale of the Three Brothers" is well done, I was glad to see Dobby again, and finally, all those beautiful nature shots.

    I have extremely strong faith in film no. 7b. I read the book and know that SO MUCH will be happening in it. They are in for a big big big finale.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ooooooo controversial ouchie indeed! Trust a Canadian to go against the grain, damn hippies! ;)
    Although I have to say, Harry Potter annoys the hell out of me in the movies, I want to take the wand that seems to be shoved up his arse, out.
    The movies have never been anything on the books for me, but then again, I've never seen a movie that was better than it's book... Any recommendations?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tammy, will admit that Dobby was cute. Best part of the movie. And wooden acting indeed. You're right, now that I think of it. This film paid so much attention to those wooden leads we didn't get enough of the actually talented adult actors doing the good stuff.

    Corrine, hmm.. (damn dirty-mouthed Aussies!) movies better than (or worth rivaling) the books they were based on:

    The Shining
    The Godfather I and II
    Never Let Me Go
    The Constant Gardner

    (To be fair though never read any of these books but loved the movies enough not to feel the need to.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought the movie adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's The Road was pretty good. The film version of Ian McEwan's Enduring Love was not bad too. Highly recommend David Lean's take on Dickens's Great Expectations. I am sure there are adequately competent filmic translations of books out there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't know the Dickens or the McEwan, but have to say though I've heard The Road was good as a movie, the book was so good I may just give that a pass. Also, you gotta be fair, T, there are oh so many examples of movies that pale in comparison to their book counterparts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, The Road (book) was sooo good.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Follow mendelsohnjon on Twitter