Ranking the Harry Potter Films

As just about everyone is aware, the Harry Potter franchise, one of the most successful and entertaining in cinematic history, came to an end last week. In my review of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2," I mentioned the nostalgic and sentimental reactions most audience members have had recently, so I won't do that again. Instead, I would like to provide a simple list and explanation ranking all eight of the Harry Potter films.

8. The Sorcerer's Stone

Also known as "The Philosopher's Stone" in strange foreign lands, the initial film was rumored to be directed by Steven Spielberg, who reportedly wanted to direct it as an animated film with Haley Joel Osment to star in the title role. After those negotiations fell apart, Chris Columbus, who had worked with young actors in films like "Home Alone" and "Mrs. Doubtfire," was chosen. Columbus got together a magnificent team--art and set designers Stuart Craig and Stephanie McMillan, cinematographer John Seale, costume designer Judianna Makovsky, composer John Williams (none of whom won an Oscar that year due to tough competition from "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" and "Moulin Rouge!"), and a magnificent cast of British who's-who actors like Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane, John Hurt, Alan Rickman (after Tim Roth turned down the role of Severus Snape to be in Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes"), and three new actors named Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint.

"The Sorcerer's Stone" isn't necessarily a bad film, but there's such a long explanation of who Harry Potter is, why he's special, and what happened to his parents before there's any adventure at Hogwarts. Even though it's arguably the most wondrous because it was introducing audiences to something so novel, it's the silliest and most child-like of all the films, with effects that looked aged even then (remember Fluffy and that troll?). Still, I was at least impressed by it.

7. The Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Warner Bros. made a win-win decision by splitting up the final installment into two individual films, thereby giving the director David Yates and screenwriter Steven Kloves (who wrote all the adaptations) more breathing room to adapt Rowling's story but also making the company an even sweeter load of money. The problem is that all the slower, more talkative parts to "The Deathly Hallows" seemed to have been shoved into this one. I don't even remember most of it; I remember liking the character Rhys Ifans played, and the animated segment (maybe Spielberg's idea wasn't so bad after all). Yup, that's about all I remember.

6. The Half-Blood Prince

This is an "on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand" type of Harry Potter movie. One the one hand, I liked the gloominess of the film. I think the zenith of the darkness in the later Potter films was with "The Half-Blood Prince," and the result is that it's very stylish, earning an Oscar nomination for its cinematographer Bruce Delbonnel. But on the other hand, this is a Harry Potter film, isn't it? At times it feels more like "The Exorcist" than a Harry Potter film.

One of the things I liked most about "The Half-Blood Prince" was Voldemort. Ralph Fiennes did not appear in this film as the character, but his nephew Hero Fiennes-Tiffin did, as a young boy, alienated and angry. He's afraid, lonely, vulnerable and dislikes that he's "different." Whereas Harry knew how to put his being different to good use, young Tom Riddle never discovered how, and so the seeds of his wickedness were planted. But the young actor's portrayal of the terrible wizard is proof that Rowling's characters have so much depth to them; not even Voldemort is perfectly evil. There are reasons for his feelings, and he finds them to be just.

(There were three young actors who played pre-Voldemort Tom Riddle in the Potter films: Fiennes-Tiffin, Frank Dillane, and Christian Coulson, and they were all terrific.)

5. The Goblet of Fire

It's my understanding that the novel "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" was twice the length of its immediate predecessor "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," which itself was longer than the first two novels. The result is that a considerable portion of scenes and information were stripped from the final movie, and it shows. But what's really odd is that even with those scenes removed, the film still feels considerably slower and duller compared to the previous Potter films. Also, the death of Cedric Diggory (Robert Pattinson), changing the tone of Harry Potter films from "Oh, look, love. 'Ere we are in 'ogwarts and look at that fun thing o'er there" to "Oh, look, yet anova characta died," thereby introducing a generation of young Harry Potter fans to Prozac.

But the best part of this installment is that we finally see Voldemort in a non-teenage, non-back-of-another-guy's-head form, played by Ralph Fiennes, in what was arguably the best casting in the entire series. (Also keep in mind that rumors were spreading that John Malkovich and Rowan Atkinson were in negotiations to play the role.) Fiennes is perfectly villainous, frightening as he is funny and totally in command of his scenes.

4. The Order of the Phoenix

I never found much politics in the Harry Potter series as others did, but I did in "The Order of the Phoenix" through the character of Dolores Umbridge, played by Imelda Staunton in the films (yet another flawless casting decision). Umbridge is an education "reformer," and what that meant to me was not necessarily an attack on No Child Left Behind but an attack on education reform in general, the kind that insists politicians, with their vast education experience, legislate the classroom. Those who can, teach; those who can't, write laws about teaching.

3. The Deathly Hallows: Part 2

You can read here for my review of the final film, but I will add once again how thankful I am that it was such a terrific movie.

2. The Prisoner of Azkaban

Columbus left the series to spend more time with his family, and so Alfonso Cuaron took over (fortunately, I'm sure, for most parents, this movie was more "A Little Princess" than "Y tu mama tambien"). (I remember reading that Cuaron joked that he was going to add "sex, lots of sex" to the Potter franchise, a joke at the expense of the worry of him being the director.) Cuaron makes this film much more Brothers Grimm-like in his depiction of the wizard world, with a giant clock and large pumpkins everywhere. As with the other films, he chose wisely with his cast, adding Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, Michael Gambon to replace Richard Harris as Dumbledore, and Timothy Spall as Peter Pettigrew. This is also a terrific Potter film for its perfect balance of the youthful novelty of the first films and the darkness of the later films. It was also the final Harry Potter score by John Williams, who earned an Oscar nomination for his work.

1. The Chamber of Secrets

I am possibly the only person on the planet who considers "The Chamber of Secrets" to be the finest Harry Potter film. I can't help it. It's simply the most entertaining and enthralling of them all, with the eerie yet captivating detective situation Harry finds himself in, trying to piece together creepy spiders, a giant snake, a diary, and a bumbling professor all while exceeding academically. There's an exciting car ride and a thrilling Quidditch match and an annoying house elf (voiced by Toby Jones). It also featured the final appearance of Richard Harris as Dumbledore before Harris passed away, Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy and Kenneth Brangh as Gilderoy Lockhart were added to the cast. (For the record, I liked Michael Gambon basically just as much as Harris, especially with Gambon's powerful baritone voice.) All the actors helped demonstrate what extraordinary acting has been employed in this wonderful series.

I solemnly swear that it has been a great ten years of Harry Potter films.

Read More →

Horrible Bosses

I feel very fortunate that I have never had a horrible boss. I have worked at a fast food restaurant, as an umpire (dealing with horribly stupid people all of sorts, but alas, no bosses), an RA, a waiter, at a newspaper, as a summer camp counselor, a teacher, and a telemarketer (talking to horrible people but not being bossed by them). I have not been manhandled, verbally ripped to shreds, or been forced to fire people by my bosses. But I could perfectly empathize with the characters played by Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, and Charlie Day, as they were harassed and humiliated by their bosses played by Kevin Spacey, Colin Farrell, and Jennifer Aniston, respectively. A movie like "Horrible Bosses," which can provoke empathy even from those who cannot empathize directly with the characters and can make an audience laugh throughout its entirety, deserves a thorough endorsement.

Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day play three friends with horrible bosses in different professions. Bateman is Nick, a dedicated and loyal executive to his boss, Dave Harken (Spacey), despite Harken's frequent bullying towards him--tricking him into drinking at 8 a.m. and later accusing him of alcoholism, lecturing him for being two minutes late, forcing him to work so late that he misses saying goodbye (forever) to his grandmother, nicknamed Gam Gam (a nickname Harken mockingly finds hysterical), and despite hinting to him that he will be vice president of the company, he instead takes the role himself, even though he is already president. Nick hates his boss.

Jason Sudeikis is Kurt Buckman, an accountant who actually loves his job and his boss (Donald Sutherland). The only part of his job he dislikes is his boss's son, Bobby Pellitt (Farrill), a cocaine addict more obsessed with sex, bypassing environmental regulations and either firing the overweight girl (to "trim the fat" of the company) or "Professor Xavier," an employee in a wheelchair, than he is with matching the work ethic of his father. With the death of Kurt's boss, Bobby takes over and makes Kurt's job and life miserable. Kurt hates his boss.

Charlie Day is Dale Arbus, a dental assistant hopelessly in love with his fiancee but not his boss, the dentist, Dr. Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston). Despite his love and hard work, Julia is not necessarily madly in love with Dale but mad about having sex with him, however much Dale refuses. As Jon Stewart said, it is Aniston's raunchiest role since "Marlee and Me." Julia constantly makes crude jokes at the office, sprays his crotch with her dental squirt gun, summons him into her office where she waits topless, and blackmails him into having sex with her. Dale's two friends (and probably the majority of the males in the audience) have difficulty finding what is so difficult about his job, but nonetheless, Dale hates his boss just as much as the other two do.

Not being able to tolerate the abuse anymore and confusing "Strangers on a Train" with "Throw Momma From the Train" as the "Hitchcock movie with Danny DeVito," the three hire a hitman (Jaime Foxx; his character's name probably shouldn't be mentioned here but it's quite funny) to kill their bosses. Their plan goes awry, as expected.

"Horrible Bosses" is hysterical. It's probably as raunchy as "The Hangover" but not as stupid or overrated. The three main characters have an immediate chemistry that seems neither faked nor forced. They all have their own quirks and characteristics, with Day being the outrageous character and Bateman more subdued but just as funny; Sudeikis seems to have added the most to his character with his oneliners. Day gets a bit annoying, but while he's a bit drugged up and singing to the the Ting Tings, it makes up for it. But the bosses are really the ones who are the most entertaining to watch. Farrell is the most unrecognizable--he twitches and awkwardly struts with malice towards many. Aniston has done sexy before, but in the movies has never been allowed to be funny like this. And Spacey, who last played a jerk boss in "Glengarry Glen Ross," is the funniest, perfectly cruel, despotic and self-centered, the boss that you really, really want to see get punched. The cast, with cameos by Julie Bowen, Ioan Gruffudd, Ron White, Wendell Pierce, Isaiah Mustafa, and a certain famous TV star from the 1970s (as another unethical boss), really elevates the humor of this film, without relying on a gratuity of bathroom jokes (but there is a really funny and pretty gross scene involving a bathroom). They all work quite well together, and, as production designer Stepherd Frankel noted, play as if it's a team of three against another team of three, with Jamie Foxx as the referee.

I would not recommend resorting to what these three characters do to get rid of their bosses. They feel stuck and helpless. Regardless, movies alleviate miseries better than bullets do, so I instead propose viewing a film like this one. It's one of the very funniest movies of the year.

Read More →

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Something wicked this way has finally ended. After a period of ten years and $6.3 billion dollars, one of the world's most successful and well-made franchises has come to a conclusion. Happy I am that despite the trajectory of the recent Harry Potter films becoming less and less interesting with each movie, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" is truly exceptional, the most exciting since the second ("The Chamber of Secrets") and the third ("The Prisoner of Azkaban").

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends (Rupert Grint as Ron and Emma Watson as Hermione) are still on the run. They have not returned for another year at Hogwarts, their beloved school, now taken over by a new headmaster, Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), the puppet of the Dark Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). There were all sorts of details I should explain but I had forgotten about them from previous films. There's something about a horcrux, whatever the hell that is, that they have to gather and destroy before Voldemort finds them, but he's not really looking for them, or he's waiting, or something. Wasn't there a prisoner of Afghanistan, or somewhere? He was a bad guy, too, right? But then he became good, and all the professors who we thought were good--ah, to hell with it. Who cares? By this point, there's no need for it to be "Harry Potter and the Exposition." Harry and his friends are going to fight Voldemort and the bad guys. That's all you need to know.

This film series has never failed to look terrific. Even if the story lags or becomes too repetitive or crowded, you can still tell that the producers have found the most talented directors, composers, editors, visual effects creators, makeup artists, cinematographers, and costumer designers in town. It looks so good that even though I did not view it in 3-D, I can confidently recommend that (unless you have a bizarre attraction to hurting your eyes, insulting your brain, and lightening your wallet) you can skip viewing it in 3-D. I suppose that one of the faults is that in this film everything is so dark and morbid and depressing that I have to remind myself it's a children's story. The cinematography of John Seale and then Roger Pratt in the earlier films looked quite brighter than the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel and then Eduardo Serra in the most recent ones. One character's throat is slit, and another falls into a ball of fire. Young girls scream terrible screams. Yes, I understand that in the tradition of Brothers Grimm all children's stories should have some darkness to them, but instead of "Snow White" this film at times becomes "Harry Potter and the All Quiet on the Western Front."

Another disappointment is that yet again, because there's so many characters, some of them just sort of show up and stand there. Helena Bonham Carter just snickers a bit, while Jason Isaacs looks drunk and sleep-deprived (for a reason I'm sure explained at one point). Jim Broadbent's bumbling about in "The Half-Blood Prince" is hardly ever found in this one. But fortunately some characters are given more. Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall takes over the school, and even gets to use a spell she's been aching to give a try. And Rickman as Snape, after practically a cameo in "Part 1," is given better treatment here, allowing him to once again portray everything that is appealing about the character, the pathetic yet sympathetic flawed and deeply ambiguous witch. Finally, Fiennes, as always, looks as if he is having an absolutely terrific time as one of cinema's greatest villains.

The series has been about a school for witchcraft and wizardry, but in reality it has been an actor's studio for its young stars. They--especially Radcliffe, Grint and Watson--have acted with practically every famous British actor working today. By now the list is quite high and certainly impressive: Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, Warwick Davis, Robbie Coltrane, Kenneth Branagh, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, Emma Thompson, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Walters, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs, Timothy Spall, Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton, Richard Griffiths, John Hurt, Rhys Ifans, Toby Jones, Julian Glover. And so Radcliffe, Grint and Watson and the others have profited greatly from such education, and I'm sure the world looks forward to their next great performances.

I couldn't help but notice at the midnight showing on opening night/morning that the vast, vast majority of viewers were young people--people my age, some slightly younger and some slightly older. These young people have grown up with these books and movies. It was ten years ago that the very first Harry Potter film was released, about one month after 9/11. I was a freshman in high school then. About two months before the release of this final Harry Potter film, bin Laden was finally killed. If my generation is to be known as the "9/11 Generation" as USA Today called us, then we have known a great deal--the rise of the internet, the return of "Star Wars," social networking, Y2K. Some have called us the Peter Pan generation for obvious reason--a sense of entitlement and stubbornness, youthful idealism, and not growing up (how many of us still live with our parents?). But we in a sense grew up on 9/11. We lived through the day and its aftermath, the Great Recession, global warming and a whole host of other problems. It's nice to be able to escape from all that with films like these Harry Potter movies, perhaps the last film series to consistently capture a sense of wonderment in the escapism of movies.

Read More →

Nixon

Unlike "JFK," in which director Oliver Stone was climbing uphill to convince a public that he was presenting the truth, "Nixon" opens with a disclaimer that this is a historical interpretation. This film admits it's not completely accurate, and it is ironic that the opening footage of a self-help video concludes by telling us that "nothing sells like sincerity," for it seems that that was a trait Richard Nixon could never convince the public he had. That, and honesty.

The film opens with a rainy zoom-in of the White House at the height of the Watergate scandal, and with its operatic score by John Williams, one gets the impression that a production of "Macbeth" is taking place--there are even crazy horses. Here in this White House is Richard Nixon (Anthony Hopkins), isolated, vulnerable, and drunk. If he is the traditional archetype of a tragic hero, then he is at his downfall, not yet to his redemptive stage, but we are now to view his humble beginnings, ambitious climb, and arrogant rule.

With Hopkins is a terrific cast: James Woods (H.R. Helderman), Joan Allen (Pat Nixon), J.T. Walsh (John Ehrlichman), Bob Hoskins (J. Edgar Hoover), Powers Booth (Alexander Haig), E.G. Marshall (in his last performance as John Mitchell) and others. Nixon in the movies has been a fascinating character: a bad guy you can't help but cheer and root for, and his failure feels like our failures. "When they look at you, they see what they want to be," he says to a portrait of Kennedy. "When they look at me, they see what they are." He's arrogant, telling a campaign donor that his "friends call me Mr. President." He's humble, breaking down, not understanding why he has done what the people wanted--peace with Russia, opening China, and ending Vietnam--and yet they still hate him.

There's frequent Oliver Stone traits--black-and-white cinematography, archival footage, rapid dialogue, cursing, and controversy. He wants to cover every topic of the Nixon legacy--his dismal debate performance against JFK, his assurance that the press "won't have Nixon to kick around anymore," Vietnam and Watergate. It's as if Stone wants to cover every aspect of the Nixon mythology and then speculate some. There are even little "wink-wink" references to the Kennedy assassination and conspiracy, with Williams' military drum tap. There are too many unnecessary scenes of Nixon's childhood and his fights with the CIA (originally taken out but put back into the Director's Cut). It's too theatrical--to the point where it's hyperbolic--and Stone is having way too much fun in the editing room; this is more "Natural Born Killers" than it is "JFK," playing like an experimental college film. Stone has fallen for one of the greatest mistakes a director can make: trying too hard.

The Watergate scenes are where the silliness reaches its highest. Stone has not moderated Hopkins' rapid flapping about of his arms, and Nixon's odd grin becomes snakelike, morphing the character into Hannibal Lector. Throughout most of the film, Hopkins does not look or sound much like Nixon. But Paul Sorvino is very good, sounding and looking exactly like Kissinger.

The American public seems to view their presidents as mythological figures. Some were insecure and some were supremely confident. Some were cool, and some were a bit dorky. One was a peanut farmer, another was an actor, and another had virtually every job in Washington. And some were perfectly villainous. "Nixon" is Shakespearean, but that doesn't automatically make it good. LBJ had the Great Society, but he also had Vietnam. Nixon had Vietnam, but he also had Watergate. Stone had "JFK," but he also had "Nixon."

Read More →