sweezely Reviews

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Almost great, but lacking explanation and continuity

[4 June 2004]

***SPOILERS***

Just saw Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Alcatraz (sorry, I meant Azkaban) and I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. The first thing I noticed was that this is a very different type of film. It's nothing like the first two, and if you hadn't read that the series had a new director, you'll spot it instantly.

Unfortunately this is my main problem - it's different. Nothing is the same as the previous two films. The kids dress differently, the whole geography of Hogwarts has changed (Hagrid's hut is now a long way from the school, at the bottom of a steep hill, rather than being right next to it), even the music is different, despite still being written by John Williams. It doesn't feel like a sequel, it feels like a completely different film. Despite what people say, I liked the first two films and would have liked Chris Columbus to have come back. The camera in this film is really lively, rather than what now seems a rather stationary, rigid affair before. But the camera never stops moving. It just keeps zooming in, through windows, through clock workings, through eyes, through that clock AGAIN, through eyes AGAIN, through yet more clocks. Honestly it never stops. At least we didn't get any of Peter Jackson's spinning camera.

But not all change is bad. The music is a lot different this time, but better for it. The previous outings never had anything as majestic as the music when Harry first rides Buckbeak. The special effects too seems somehow different, but also a lot better than the first film's cartoony CGI.

Buckbeak is incredible, as are the dementors. The SFX give a real sense of power to the magic.

The film opens immediately with Harry illegally practicing magic under his bedclothes, trying to avoid waking his uncle. Then immediately we cut to the next night when Aunt Marge comes over, whom Harry immediately takes a dislike to, and immediately turns into a giant balloon. He then immediately storms out. Notice a pattern? The film never let's up, but because of this it lacks explanation. We don't really know what the Knight Bus is, or who the other passengers are. If time travel is so dangerous, why let a 13 year old girl do it just to attend extra classes? It's never explained how come Lupin knows about the Marauder's map yet Snape doesn't. Why did Harry's patronus charm look like a stag? Who are Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs? We aren't explained anything very well. It's like bits are missing. The whole thing's got a very cyclic explanation in the book. Padfoot is Sirius Black (because he can change into a dog), Wormtail is Pettigrew (rat's tails look like worms), Lupin is Moony (changes into a werewolf on a full MOON), and Prongs is Harry's dad. Harry's dad could change into a Stag (antlers=prongs). And that's why Harry's patronus is a stag. Simple see? Why couldn't they have put that in the film? It's only a couple of lines.

Overall I've got mixed feelings. Well, actually no, I haven't. I thoroughly enjoyed the film. I want to see it again. Is it the best Harry Potter film? I don't know. I really hated the discontinuity. Time will tell.

Inbetweeners (2001)

Absolutely spot on

[10/10 · 15 January 2004]

I'm not surprised few people have seen this film, but I am surprised by the low score. Well, maybe I'm not.

You undoubtedly will not appreciate this film unless you have been to a British university. It perfectly captures the awkwardness and general stupidity of life as a "fresher" (that's "freshman" to you yanks). The first three questions you always get asked, the crap parties, the bizarre conversation and general lack of work all make this film absolutely spot on. It shows in a rather un-nostalgic kind of way what life as a fresher was like - crap, in a good and fun kind of way.

It's completely unlike any US college film like Animal House or Revenge of the Nerds, more dramatic, and more true to life. I definitely recommend seeing this film.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Despite popular opinion, this is fairly appalling

[4/10 · 27 December 2002]

I am fairly disgusted at the level of near-godly praise this film has had. While The Fellowship of The Ring was a fairly decent (even better on the extended DVD), this film is actually mostly awful. After the opening explaining more-or-less what happened to Gandalf in his battle with the Balrog, Peter Jackson treats us to 90 minutes of incomprehensible drivel. The camera swings in his trademark "sweeping" shots so much it feels like a spoof of the first film, and then randomly lurches between the three groups of protagonists. There is little congruence, and the story is not even attempted to be told in any clear fashion.

Then there is the acting, which fails to live up to the standards of the first film. And the Ents. Ah, those tree-creatures that I could not visualise when I read the book, their appearance remains a mystery still. They look terrible. Like the worst kind of stop-motion they do not look natural or tree-like, and they are not even produced very well on screen. They look appalling. As if to make matters worse, Mr Jackson has insisted on expanding the parts of the elves to give them roles in this film when they were barely even mentioned in the book. Why, I do not know.

Fortunately the film gets better as we get to the centrepiece: the battle at Helm's Deep. Yes, this does live up to what you have heard, and will undoubtedly go down as one of the finest cinematic battles to date. Shame that it is intercut with scenes of the ents.

Then, the worst thing about the film: no ending. The film just seems to stop, and it does so a full SIX chapters before the book. This is unbelievable. The Return of The King isn't THAT short a book to warrant getting a third of The Two Towers tacked on the beginning of it. I really cannot understand the reasoning behind why Peter Jackson expands some parts, but then misses out nearly a third of the book. And why were Frodo and Sam taken to Gondor? That never happened in the book either.

I really think Peter Jackson should actually read the books to the end. What's next? FOUR LOTR films?