31 July 2011

Harry Potter and the Franchise That Made A Lot Of Money

When I first watched Harry Potter I was eleven years old. That means that I've been watching Harry Potter movies for a longer period of time than I've been driving, ejaculating, and drinking for (not always at the same time, either. And that’s drinking alcohol, for the crude reader). For the last decade, I have grown up watching the moaning specky twonk and now finally it's all over. Since the fourth film, they seemed to stop being self contained movies and started to become more and more episodic. Going to see the latest Harry Potter film was more like going to watch the next episode of a really expensive television show than anything else. Sort of like Grange Hill on crack. If you haven't seen The Order of The Phoenix, then don't bother going to see The Half Blood Prince because it won't mean a bloody thing to you.

With this in mind, there is therefore a lot of pressure on the final instalment; The Deathly Hallows Part 2, or to give it its full title; Harry Potter and the Last Chance To Get Some Money Out Of You: Part 2. We've been waiting since 2001 to see this conclusion, and sat through what may as well be an 18 hour or so movie. If this ending is shite, then I think we might have riots on our hands. I'm not investing that much of my life into something only to find out that it was all a dream or that Voldemort is actually Harry's gay lover and this has all been about a particularly magical hissy fit.

Thankfully though, we don't need to get our shoulder pads and pitchforks out just yet as it just so happens that this last film is fucking good- and in a British kind of way.

Starting at the beginning, the first two Harry Potter films were shit. They're basically the same movie, the kids can't act and they're well too long. The first two stuck too closely to the books and so dragged on much longer than they should have. They kind of feel like The Goonies set in a castle and they have absolutely no sense of style. The direction is pretty lazy with a kind of “just point the camera at what’s going on” feel to it and John Williams’ score sounds like it has been jizzed straight out of a big ball sack of his musical clich├ęs. Watching them, it can only be concluded that Chris Columbus either has no identifiable directorial style or he has failed to imprint it onto either of these films.

Having said that though, the first two did do several things right which laid the ground work for future films to improve upon. The sets and locations are iconic with everything from Hagrids hut to the Gryffindor common room being as recognisable now as Frankenstein’s castle or the Death Star... but it's the cast that really stand out. Whoever decided to fill out every adult role with an iconic British actor was a genius. When every great actor shows up, I like to think of it as a big fuck you to America. It's as though we're showing them that we have people like Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman and Helena Bonham Carter and all they get is Adam Sandler and a washed up De Niro.

When it comes to Harry, Ron and Hermione, what I think happened was something I call ‘Ken Barlow Syndrome’. Ken has been playing that character for almost 400 years, which means that the actor has been ‘Ken’ for about as long as he has been whoever he is in real life. He's at a point now where being Ken is not a job but a depressing state of life. The three Potter actors weren't great when they started but seems as they've spent entirely half their lives being them, they've kind of grown into them quite well. By the end of the last film they aren't playing those characters well, they're living them beautifully.

Thankfully, by film three, Columbus saw sense and fucked off leaving a director’s fold-out-chair to fill. Instead of hiring somebody similar to him though, the producers replaced him with a man who is in every way the exact opposite. Alfonso Curran who has style, imagination, credibility and respect, was a perfect choice to take over the reigns of that style-less dullard. Having at this point seen all Potter films, it can now be officially confirmed that Curran can claim to have directed the best Harry Potter film in the series with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azakaban.

Beyond the better story with a much tighter narrative, this film really changed the direction of the franchise by grounding itself in our world. Unlike the first two, this movie was not set within a movie land but rather ours giving it a much more gritty, recognisable and impressive setting. By feeling a little more documentary-like, the magic simply felt more magical as it now had our mundane world of businesses, busses and cafes to contrast with. It also made the whole thing more relatable by emphasising that perhaps where we live too might be in danger, and that these children fighting actual evil genuinely were putting themselves into mortal jeopardy.

This film is also where the Harry Potter style really came into effect… If you were to get rid of all of the humans and just focus on the sets and character designs, you’d not think this was a kid’s film. It would look like the most expensive, coolest, gothic Hammer horror movie ever made. In my humble opinion, the moment that the Dementors left the Hogwarts Express until the introduction of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore is not only the greatest sequence in the Harry Potter franchise but also one of the greatest in film history. A bold claim this may be, but if you compare it to shite like the montage in Rocky where missing link, human/ape Stallone manages to run up some stairs and then pisses his pants with joy, then I'm sure you'll agree.

Unfortunately though, Curran couldn't stay long and so left straight away to selfishly make another masterpiece with his next film Children of Men. For the fourth film, he was replaced with Mike Newall who'd made his name with the overrated vomit inducing classic Four weddings and Funeral and the forgotten mafia classic Donnie Brasco. To his entry in the franchise, he brought a more boarding school like feel to the mood around Hogwarts. We heard the kids, for some reason, listening to the very real but very shit Ordinary Boys and we saw them dicking about in their rooms making animal noises. Basically rather than worrying about dying, we saw them being normal, fun-loving school kids.

The Goblet of Fire is a big book- probably the second most common cause of upper body strength in young boys, after chronic masturbation. It was therefore a necessary but great decision by the writer, to chop most of the non-Harry focused chapters out and leave them on the floor. By focusing only on Potter, we got a tight, North by North West like conspiracy thriller which concludes with the appearance of the big bad wolf we've heard so much about.

Kid’s movie or not, when Voldemort turns up, things get quite scary. What we see is not two equals doing battle, but rather a fully grown man tormenting and abusing a young boy. This is less like Luke versus Vader and more like Charles Manson versus Anne Frank. It also concludes with one of the more heartbreaking scenes in which Cedric “Sparkles In Sunlight” Diggory is murdered and then mourned by his less than chuffed father. Twishite aside, I have no issue with Robert Pattinson, and actually really like the arc that Cedric Diggory goes on. He starts off as a smug looking twat who thinks he's better looking than he is. He heavily implies he wants to fuck Harry in the sixth form bathroom and then finally turns out to be a fairly decent kind of guy- then he dies.

Again though, like Curran, Newall for whatever reason only stuck about for one movie. It was therefore at this point that David Yates took the reigns. At the time, this seemed like such a strange but genius move because back then, Yates was best known to the world as a television man who was probably most famous for directing the Paul Abbot scripted mini-series State of Play. And when I say famous, I mean that maybe his parents, neighbours and wife had heard of him. Maybe.

At this point, the Harry Potter films were becoming all the more interesting due to the succession of directors they were managing to get through. Each of them managed to do something new with their film whilst still playing within the continuity of what had gone before. Something happened with Yates however, and despite only being up to the fifth film, they decided to keep him. From The Order of the Pheonix until Deathly Hallows Part 2, Yates was the man with the plan, tasked with keeping each film fresh and original despite only being controlled by his one imagination. Thankfully though, it seems his imagination is quite extensive.

With each director focusing in on a different aspect, it seems that what Yates chose to concentrate on was character. Relationships, emotions and performances were what impressed in the last few films. Amazingly though, this wasn't at the expense of spectacle. Bank heists, ogres, and the attack of Hogwarts all take place, but the most memorable scenes are the quiet ones such as Harry and Hermione dancing alone in the woods together to Nick Cave, the flash back revelations of Snape's real motivations and Ginny being a ginger little prick-tease by pretending as though she's going to give Harry a blow-job and then only tying up his shoe laces.

By the time we get to the last film however, a few criticisms start to sneak up. There aren't too many and it is, to a small degree, nit picking, however the plot does tend to get a little complicated in terms of bullshit words that mean nothing except to confuse people. You could call them ‘horcruxes’, or you could just call them ‘macguffins’ and just get on with finding them. Personally, this didn't cause too much of a problem for me seems as I'd read the books which have more time to explain things, but I'd be interested to know if any non-readers struggled to keep up.

Also particularly in Deathly Hallows Part 2, the death count is pretty high. With so many characters and so much threat, it would be slightly stupid not to murder a few people to add a little sense of peril or loss. However it seems that a lot of these deaths are just skimmed over. One of the twins, Lupin, and Tonks are all revealed to be dead simply by us seeing them lying on the floor with their eyes closed. It's such a brief shot for what should be a pretty emotional moment that part of your brain goes into denial and just assumes that the useless bastards must have just developed narcolepsy and decided to have a quick snooze mid battle.

It was the same as well, when Gary Oldman died if you ask me. He stood in some smoke and we never saw him properly again. Snape’s moment was vaguely touching, I suppose, but not compared to Dobby’s. Dobby is basically what the child would look like if Yoda fucked a rat and it farted out some squalid form of life. Despite this though, he manages to be oddly quite cute. I think it's his Forrest Gump like simple-ness, and the fact that despite his Big Brother contestant level of intelligence, he has a good heart. So what happens to him? He gets a fucking knife thrown into him and has a nice old slow death on the beach in Harry’s arms. I mean, fucking Hell that's horrible. The Elephant Man wasn't even that sad, and that was a true story about some poor bastard who was so happy that people had finally been nice to him that he just lay down where he was and died. Never got up again…

Within eight movies though, it really is impressive, that the biggest criticisms are the ones aforementioned, and a series which is destined to go into the books as one of the most impressive, and important in film history. It was a series in which heart and imagination was clearly prioritised over special effects and a desire for money. At the beginning of all this, I mentioned that this was fucking good and in a British kind of way and I think, that is one of its greatest features.

The end of the franchise had a lot resting on it and so it was up to Yates not to fuck it up. It is in this end that its British-ness is once again revealed in just how quiet and underplayed the last five minutes are. It doesn't go out on an explosion or punch line but a brief look into the future. We see that all is well, and that like Harry before them, a new batch of Potter kids are about to embark on a journey to Hogwarts. It is sweet, reflective and in a way… perfect.

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.

5 July 2011

Which Is Better?

... “It wasn't as good as the book” ...

...One simple phrase that causes me nothing but grievance.
 There's a reason why people say it, as well. What they really mean is: 'having read the book, my version of the film would be different'. Well, fuck you! Climb the Hollywood ladder and go make your own fucking version, if that's what you want to see. A thousand people will read the same book and all have a different, full length film for it in their individually stupid, annoying heads. When you go to the movies, you're not paying to see the book version on screen in a word for word literal translation. What you're doing is paying to see that directors specific interpretation of the original source material.

Back in 2006, a film came out which suffered the same unjust abuse as the sort mentioned above. Unlike above however, this film was not based on a book but rather a television series; the unrecognised masterpiece that is Miami Vice was released into cinemas and The Morons were not happy. Who gives a fuck if it doesn't star Don “Pissing” Johnson and is not set in the tacky fucking 80's (officialy the worst decade of all time not to be involved in a world war). Instead, what the morons got was a masterfully crafted, beautifully shot, and well judged adult thriller which stupidly aimed itself at an audience with half a brain.

I guess what the retarded fans wanted was a buddy movie like Starsky and Hutch. Two cops who have never met each other, but have differing opinions, are partnered up and forced to solve some drug case which they bicker their way through. What a jolly time we'd have had watching that kind of film again, and how we would have wept when at the end, the two men realise that they have a mutual respect for each other and, bless 'em, become friends. I imagine in that craptastic version, one of them would have been a little 'uptight' and the other a bit of a 'loose wire'.

What the film actually is, is something that (shock! Horror!) dares to be different, and breaks that above formula in pretty much every way possible. When we meet the now much-more-interesting Crockett and Tubbs, they've been working with each other for years. In fact, the whole point in their relationship is that they trust each other implicitly. They believe in each other one-hundred percent and even if they don't entirely agree with a decision one might want to make, the pair know they need to keep the faith that everything is under control. I imagine that's how things would have to be when working so closely undercover with someone, as opposed to the pair arguing like a married couple who can't agree on whether to try out anal sex or fisting.

It was also pointed out that in this version, Crockett and Tubbs were played in a less charismatic way; I fail to see the criticism. This is a realistic film; it might take us slightly out of the moment if half way through a drugs bust, Colin Farrell turned and gave the camera a knowing, shit-eating grin. Rather than camping it up like a couple of gimps, what Farrell and Fox do instead is exude an air of pure coolness. They think their situation through and converse with each other almost telepathically rather than think out loud their every thought like some sort of buttfucking farmboy simpletons.

And whilst we're on the subject of charisma, the original two were hardly a pair of Jack Nicholsons. The fact that in the series, each episode had to have some sort of 'special guest' like Gene Simmons and Phil Collins to stop you slipping into a coma is surely enough to invalidate their argument against the film. What did they want?! Did the fans really want this realistic version to include a drug deal scene between Elton John and a re-animated Jade Goody? If Phil Collins is referred to as a “special” guest, I can only assume that it means he's retarded or that the shows regulars are pretty fucking dull.

I'm not saying the television series is bad, mainly because I've never seen a complete episode of it. What I am saying though, is that maybe the close minded pricks should go into a film and take it for what it is. Don't judge what you're about to see until you've seen it and then don't judge it for not being the film you wanted it to be. As an impartial audience member who couldn't give a toss about the series, I thought the film is great and deserves to be mentioned in the same vein as similarly themed films such as Donnie Brasco and The Departed.

What director Michael Mann chose to do was update the story to a more contemporary period making it more in-keeping with the tones of most of the other films in his back catalogue. Perhaps Mann didn't give the fans the film they wanted, but who cares? He still gave them an amazing, original genre movie that tried its hardest (and succeeded) in being as far from cliched as possible. It also contains a few action scenes which class as the best shoot-outs since Heat, which means that Miami Vice has arguably the second best shoot-out scene of all time. The Morons still have their show if that's what they want- meanwhile the rest of us can enjoy this as well. The two can exist in the same universe and it doesn't have to be a competition as to which is better.

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.