Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1: Trailer

[John Johnson]

[mkaroly]

If I see "in 3D" one more time for a movie I think I'm going to puke...enough with the 3D already!! Lol...geez!

[AndyDursin]

Michael, I'm waiting for Woody Allen's next movie to be in 3-D. Then hell will freeze over!

As far as Potter goes, I wish I could get excited...but I could care less. I'll see them, but my enthusiasm has waned over the last few, workmanlike entries in the series.

Too bad Williams isn't coming back. What a shame.

[Paul MacLean]

Michael, I'm waiting for Woody Allen's next movie to be in 3-D. Then hell will freeze over!

3-D and scored by Alexandre Desplat (who seems to be the new flavor of the month).

As far as Potter goes, I wish I could get excited...but I could care less. I'll see them, but my enthusiasm has waned over the last few, workmanlike entries in the series.

I think they're extraordinary stories -- arguably among the best in their genre. And Deathly Hallows is the best book in the series. It is far more epic (taking place in numerous settings around the UK, with very few scenes at the school).

I hope the final two films will be an improvement on David Yates' previous outings. At least this time they won't be eviscerating a massive book to fit it into two and a half hours. I just hope Yates is able to pump some "heart" into this one.

Too bad Williams isn't coming back. What a shame.

Well, there's always the possibility of him doing part 2.

But truly, I'm endlessly baffled by the composer choices that have been made since Williams' departure. I hated Patrick Doyle's score, which added nothing to the film. Nicholas Hooper's were better, but much too dispassionate (I get the sense Warner's permitted his hiring because they wanted to cut corners). And now there's Desplat, who I find an enormously boring composer.

[AndyDursin]

They may indeed be great stories, but IMO they've done an incredibly mediocre job adapting them to the screen if that's the case -- especially over the last two, arguably three installments. The last entry in particular was just so boring. Maybe if you've read the books the films are representative of the source material, but Yates' failure as a director is that for anyone who hasn't read the books, he injects nothing at all of interest from a sheer filmmaking perspective. Too long, poorly paced, not interesting visually -- I fell asleep, twice, while trying to watch the last film. I'm sure he's trying to be slavish to the audience who loves the books, but as a viewer, not a reader, he has not convinced me why I should care about how the series plays itself out -- and I directly blame him for that, because I cared when Columbus directed the first two films. The Cauron movie was decent, but not on the same level, and it's been a case of diminishing returns since then.

I will go and see these, but I'm expecting a "workmanlike" finish just like the last two movies simply because it's all the same creative talent -- just Desplat instead of Hooper, though if he uses Williams' themes more, that's at least a plus. Wouldn't even surprise me that they've given him marching orders to incorporate them more after the last batch of scores. There ought to be a thematic connectiveness to the soundtracks and they've lost that since Williams left, for whatever, inexplicable reason.

[mkaroly]

Maybe it'll be better in 3-D!

"They may indeed be great stories, but IMO they've done an incredibly mediocre job adapting them to the screen if that's the case -- especially over the last two, arguably three installments. The last entry in particular was just so boring."

Andy, I agree with this. One of the Potter fans I work with was so disgusted by the last movie that she wrote to the author and told her that they are ruining her books and that the movie was awful.

I think the first three were the best the series has to offer, especially since Williams' music really added to my enjoyment of the films. The first film especially was amazingly fun. The last film was so anti-climactic, and watching the trailer I thought the end of the filmic series would be the same: anti-climactic. I would hope that if they are going to spread this adaptation out over two films that they be really faithful to the details of the book.

[Paul MacLean]

I think the first three were the best the series has to offer, especially since Williams' music really added to my enjoyment of the films. The first film especially was amazingly fun.

I thought that the forth film was actually better-executed than the third. The third had the better story (and of course John Williams' music) but despite some striking visuals I didn't care for a lot of Alfonso Cuarron's choices. For me Mike Newell struck a fine balance between the "heart" Columbus' invested into his films, and the visual panache of Cuarron (without going quite so over-the-top) plus some nice touches of his own. A pity Memoirs of a Geisha kept Williams off this one.

[AndyDursin]

I think the first three were the best the series has to offer, especially since Williams' music really added to my enjoyment of the films. The first film especially was amazingly fun.

I thought that the forth film was actually better-executed than the third. The third had the better story (and of course John Williams' music) but despite some striking visuals I didn't care for a lot of Alfonso Cuarron's choices. For me Mike Newell struck a fine balance between the "heart" Columbus' invested into his films, and the visual panache of Cuarron (without going quite so over-the-top) plus some nice touches of his own. A pity Memoirs of a Geisha kept Williams off this one.

I agree, the fourth movie was superior to the third. It would have been better if Williams had been there to score it, though I still think it wasn't nearly as inspired as the first two movies. As good as it was (though I still didn't think it was great), it's when I started feeling that they were less interested in making a strong artistic, filmmaking statement than in "cranking them out" to meet enormous commercial demand.

It's why I think these films work best with readers of the books. They've made lots of money, but it helps when you've got millions of readers who can connect the dots with what's missing or cover for their deficiencies by them having experienced the story already. Granted I realize it's a double-edged sword because those readers can have expectations that aren't being met, but the excitement among these films seems strongest with the pre-established HP book fanbase than anyone else.

As a "first-time" Potter viewer, what every one of these films -- sans the first two pictures -- has failed to do for me is make me care about what's going on. They throw all these plot elements at you, some of them really pretty insignificant, but the narrative has been like a "flatline," especially in the Yates films. I sit there needing a friend of mine to explain this or that to me, because what ought to be a clear dramatic statement, cinematically, of the narrative isn't being articulated properly. It's like a "books on film" kind of adaptation, these function more on that level as opposed to a clear movie-going experience by directors with a stylistic point of view that's compelling.

And, sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I think the whole series has been on a downward track since Columbus departed, and indeed, on a sharp decline with the last two movies. But it's kind of like "Twilight" in that the series fans go crazy for these films even if they're not great movies (or even good ones, in the case of the last two).

I realize the cast is wonderful and there's something to be said for a series that runs through all these installments with the same kids and such, but as a series, very little of it is what I call "great filmmaking." Perhaps if Williams had stayed on and had more to do, or if Columbus had remained involved as a producer to give some consistency to the action, the movies would feel more "cohesive" to me.

[Jedbu]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with some of the posts here. I, for one, thought that Cuaron did the best job as far as direction is concerned, and I have always thought that Columbus is at best a talented hack who had the great good fortune of having great material to work with, both the original books and Kloves' adaptations.

I have read none-I repeat, none-of the books and I have had not one bit of trouble following any of the films in the series. My wife, who has read every one of the books (I think I bought the last four as either birthday or Xmas presents for her) had only filled me in on gaps or things left out AFTER we have watched them, and aside from some things she felt vital left out of HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, she has been delighted with the adaptations.

I also beg to differ with some opinions about no emotional connections in these films. I have never been a fan of Gary Oldman (I know he is a great actor, his work in SID & NANCY and THE CONTENDER prove that; I just have never been one of his admirers.), but his portrayal of Sirius Black has been one of his most vulnerable and warm performances, and when he was murdered towards the end of ORDER OF THE PHOENIX it hit me hard, and has there ever been someone as purely hateful as Bonham-Carter's Bellatrix, so that you not only wanted to see that character perish, but in the most painful way possible (cannot WAIT to see that scene in the movie!)?

I have truly enjoyed all the films in the Potter series, and so I probably will finally read the first six books this summer (which my wife has been bugging me to do), watch my Blu-Rays, and prep for DEATHLY HALLOWS I this fall. Yes, I wish Williams was doing the scores, too-is it possible they asked him and he turned them down? Just a guess, but...

[AndyDursin]

I,I have read none-I repeat, none-of the books and I have had not one bit of trouble following any of the films in the series

Hey Jeff, I'm glad you're into these movies. I used to be, I'm not now, and it's not entirely because I "can't follow them." My point is that over the course of the last two movies, I honestly could care less about what happens in them. It's not my bag, but obviously there are millions of people who love them. Same with the TWILIGHT books and movies. I don't care about them either (though obviously I still plan on watching the last two HP films, I could care less about "Twilight").

I do take issue though with a couple of your comments. Saying Columbus is "at best a talented hack" -- come on, the guy did more than just show up to direct the first two movies. At least he deserves credit for visually establishing this series, starting it, assist in casting it -- you're just totally diminishing the work he did, laying the groundwork for the entire FILM series that's followed. There's a lot more to crafting this series in terms of its physical production, casting the kids, etc. that go beyond the mere words on the printed page and Columbus deserves recognition for that. He wasn't just a "hired hand," that assertion is just totally untrue. And are you actually going to say you think David Yates is a more capable filmmaker? If anyone is a hack in this series it's Yates.

And give Columbus some credit for some of his past work. He's actually written original screenplays like GREMLINS and the like. Was Joe Dante a "hack" because he inherited Columbus' script there? Was Richard Donner a "hack" because he inherited Columbus' GOONIES script? It works both ways.

If nothing else, John Williams would likely have never been involved with HP to begin with if it weren't for Columbus. You can trash the guy all you want, but Columbus has better taste in music than any of these other guys!

I also don't believe for a second that Williams turned them down. By all indications he wanted to come back, but the fact they've made obvious cost-cutting moves over the last group of movies -- from threatening to shoot the movies in Prague to bringing in British TV people like Yates and Nicholas Hooper -- is likely the reason they didn't bring Williams back.

[Jedbu]

By "hack," I define that as a director who is talented, can get performances out of their actors, knows how to compose a shot and can keep a film moving, but leaves very little of a deep, permanent impression as far as contributing some form of a personal "world view"-a sense of how they see things through their films that when you watch them you see themes, characters and ideas on a consistent yet interesting basis. In other words, when you see a film by Kurosawa or Wilder or Truffaut, you know whose film you are watching.

With the exception of ONLY THE LONELY, which I consider his best film for many reasons (one of which being it feels like a story that hits close to home for him), I have never really felt that about Columbus' films. His POTTER films are certainly well-crafted and he did lay the groundwork for the other directors to follow, but with the exception of Cuaron's film, all the films sort of feel like the same movie, albeit like a director who seems to feel that claustrophobia is the way to go as the series progresses.

I do have criticisms of the films in the series-the feeling of being "cooped up" inside of sets instead of feeling in the setting as the films have progressed; the scores since Williams have been the equivalent of a fast-food meal; and how I wish the desaturization of color in movies would just stop (if you want to make a film with hardly any color, make it in black-and-white and have occasional hints of color for effect!). Perhaps after I read the books I might find more to criticize in how the films are structured or, as some have pointed out, the "over literalization" of the adapting (whatever the hell that means), but for all the flaws, I do find them entertaining and in many ways, very exciting films even after repeated viewings.

Now one thing about "hacks," I personally have enjoyed the work of many directors I would describe that way: George Roy Hill, Arthur Hiller, Richard Donner, W. S. Van Dyke, Allan Dwan, Sam Wood, John McTiernan, Henry Hathaway, Andrew McLaglen, David Butler-all directors who were terrific at the fundamentals and who, on occasion or more often turned out something that really got you, but they also never put enough of a personal stamp on their films (themes, characters, certain kinds of shots) to make you say "Oh, I know who made this film," without having to see their credit on the screen. Their consistency as far as quality is concerned is uneven (sometimes it is hard to believe that the director who made DIE HARD also made LAST ACTION HERO, or who made INSIDE MOVES and SUPERMAN also made SCROOGED and RADIO FLYER), and in some cases it appears that the script was dropped off on Friday night and they did not read it until the morning of the first shot (remember TEACHERS?). Back in the studio system the latter often happened, but quite a number of craftsmen and even auteurs were able to make something personal out of something that was just handed to them, while others just composed the shots and told the actors what to do and that was it. Stanley Kubrick probably considered his work on SPARTACUS to be "hack work," even though it is still a great film to so many, but since he did/could not invest anything personally into it, he wrote it off later in his career.

We do need the hacks making movies-they have the potential to move up to something better, but many times they end up making the films that make Scorseses and Spielbergs possible.

[Jedbu]

And Andy, I heartily agree with you about the TWILIGHT films, and I will gladly sign a petition that bans ANY mention or use of vampires in movies for at least ten years.

[AndyDursin]

Jeff I understand a bit more clearly now, I think my issue is "hack" has taken on so much of a negative meaning that when I often see it used in context it does not have any sort of positive connotation now.

[Jedbu]

Thank you, Andy-I appreciate it. As for someone "below" hack amongst movie directors, you need look no further than the director of the TRANSFORMER films and almost everything else Bruckheimer has done (although I do like THE ROCK and the first PIRATES movie).

[Paul MacLean]

By "hack," I define that as a director who is talented, can get performances out of their actors, knows how to compose a shot and can keep a film moving, but leaves very little of a deep, permanent impression as far as contributing some form of a personal "world view"-a sense of how they see things through their films that when you watch them you see themes, characters and ideas on a consistent yet interesting basis.

I don't see that this is missing from Sorcerer's Stone or Chamber of Secrets. There is definitely an aesthetic point of view at work in Columbus' films -- one I more or less describe as "Dickens meets Indiana Jones". There's a wonderfully warm "Victorian" quality to the look and feel of much of the first two films, while the influence of Columbus' mentor Spielberg informs the action scenes and scary/fantastical sequences. It was a fitting compliment to Rowling's stories (for me at least).

Now David Yates is someone who might fit your description of "hack" -- a talented "traffic cop" who keeps things moving and gets the job done on time and on budget, but brings no point of view or passion to the project.

I do agree Cuaron definitely brings a "world view" to Harry Potter; unfortunately it is often wrong-headed and inappropriate to the subject matter. I objected to the masturbation reference in the film's opening scene (Uncle Vernon trying to catch Harry "playing with his wand" in bed), and making Professor Lupin's condition a metaphor for AIDS. He also made arbitrary changes that violated continuity -- transforming Professor Flitwick into some kind Toulouse-Lautrec lookalike, changing the exterior of the Dursley's home from a middle class neighborhood to an urban slum, and dressing the kids in street clothes (which they didn't wear in the first two films, and which compromised the sense of Hogwarts being in a magical world). He also changed Tom (the Leaky Cauldron's proprietor) from a classic, believable English pub owner to a half-witted hunchback (ala Marty Feldman).

Richard Harris' family begged Cuaron to cast Peter O'Toole as Dumbledore -- but Cuarron wanted Michael Gambon. I love Michael Gambon as an actor, but Peter O'Toole (apart from being a legend) was the best possible choice to take over the role, since he has a similar acting style to Harris and could project the same regal, all-knowing demeanor (and under that long beard most kids wouldn't have even realized it was a different actor).

Artistically, I also think the first half hour of Prisoner of Askaban is a mess. Cuaron's attempts at humor are contrived (and unfunny) -- Aunt Marge's "inflation" (which takes twice the amount of screen time as it needs to), and the embarrassing "Knight Bus" sequence. The monster book scene also fails to generate a laugh.

I agree Cuaron made some lovely touches -- the "change of season" transitions, the headless hunt, and the dementors are very well realized. Cuaron's visual style is arguably more striking than Columbus' (albeit very Tim Burton-influenced), and the film is beautifully shot (but I mainly credit Miachel Sereisn with this) but Cuarron went too far in making it "his film" if you ask me.

In other words, when you see a film by Kurosawa or Wilder or Truffaut, you know whose film you are watching.

On the other hand, The Wizard of Oz is not the work of an "auteur" director expressing a world view -- yet it is still a great film.