Daily Archives: July 12, 2007

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Standard

Directed by David Yates. Screenplay by Michael Goldenberg. Released by Warner Bros. Pictures.

For me, the biggest letdown with the new Potter film has little to do with the film itself – I had somehow convinced myself that a teaser trailer for The Dark Knight was going to debut with the film. Yeah, I know it doesn’t come out for another year still, but a year isn’t an uncommon lead time for a highly anticipated movie these days. After all, there’s already a web site. Instead, I was treated to a teaser for Roland Emmerich’s upcoming 10,000 B.C., which seems likely to be a considerably less thrilling event.

Anyway, on to Potter. I’ll state for the record that I haven’t read any of the books, so if any of the Potter Internet Monkey-People (PIMPs) happen across this review, feel free to flame away on that basis. That said, I walked out of the movie feeling about the same way that I didn after walking out of the last two; I’m pretty sure I understood what all happened, but I have no idea why any of it happened. You’d think that a movie that runs almost two and a half hours would find more room to flesh out basic character motivations, but, not so much.  Why is everyone unwilling to acknowledge He Who Must Not Be Named’s (if you’re unfamiliar, that’s code for ‘Voldemort’) return?  This point is hammered away at throughout the film, but I didn’t get why.

It’s becoming more obvious with each film that there’s not seven movies worth of stuff there without bogging the story down in minutiae. This was especially a problem in The Goblet of Fire, which seemed endlessly intrigued with junior high school politics that took up so much runtime yet were less complex than a typical episode of ”Saved by the Bell”. Phoenix jettisons most of that, and I was thankful for it, but I still can’t help but wonder where those 138 minutes or so went. As has long since become the custom for these films, all of the story advancement occurs in the last half hour, and the first two hours or so are spent watching Potter and friends mostly chasing their tails.  Although I did think that making Potter a teacher was a compelling development, perhaps the first real advancement of the Potter character in the whole series.

Overall, I think it’s a better movie than the last two. It also mostly jettisons another convention of the series that had grown tiresome, which I like to call the Magic Magic Device. So often, the magic in the series has been used like Batman’s utility belt in the 1960s “Batman” series: whenever you need something, it just happens to be there (anyone else remember the Bat Shark Repellant?). Need to breathe underwater? You’re in luck, there just so happens to be a plant that will let you do that which no one else seems to be aware of! Need to go back in time? Why, I just learned a spell that lets me do just that! Need to sneak around undetected? Here’s a magic cloak that you’d think would be commonplace in a school full of wizards but is not! You get the idea. I know magic is the whole point, but it’a always seemed so arbitrary. There’s only one instance of this in Phoenix that I remember, although the climactic battle seems to be operating under similar principles.

And the movie does provide more screen time to my two favorite characters in the series to date, Gary Oldman’s Sirius Black and Ralph Fiennes’ He Who Must Not Be Named (i.e., Voldemort). Oldman makes for one of the more interesting good guys around (see also, Batman Begins), because he has such a natural sinister edge and doesn’t get caught up with trying to sanctify his character. Fiennes lets his makeup do his scenery chewing for him, and plays HWMNBN (again, that’s Voldemort) fairly straight. This lets him have it both ways at once – he’s over the top without resorting to histrionics, and he’s funny while still effectively dark and menacing.

At the end of the day, though, I’m getting ready for the series to end. I actually respect the various filmmakers involved for managing to make five films so far without me tuning out entirely, but it is starting to feel like a long journey with a questionable payoff. Two more to go.

A Pixar Retrospective: A Bug’s Life

Standard

Directed by John Lasseter. Screenplay by Andrew Stanton and Donald McEnery & Bob Shaw. DVD released by Walt Disney Home Video.

Released in the fall of 1998, after a three-year wait that would be unthinkable today, A Bug’s Life was released with very high expectations as Pixar’s follow up to the hugely successful Toy Story. Its success would cement the company’s standing as a new force in feature animation.

Watching the movie again, I was sad to find that it doesn’t really hold up as well as Toy Story does. I never liked it as much in the first place, but now the gap is much wider than I remember. The premise, while as ingenious as the Toy Story premise, is a clever twist on the old story of “The Ant and the Grasshopper”; this time, in addition to being lazy, the grasshopper is a tyrannical bully, and the leader of a gang.

Perhaps part of the problem is that, unlike Toy Story, the filmmakers fall into the common trap of over-anthropomorphizing the characters. These ants walk on two legs, have four limbs, and generally behave in an indistinguishable way from how humans in similar situations might behave. Despite some neat art design, it’s hard to believe that we’re dealing with ants – they’re just humans in ant form. Contrast this to the just released Ratatouille, and the way that film is able to retain the essential rat-like nature of its characters, even if they are rats that can read and cook and do other crazy not-rat-like things.

I think that the story suffers because of this. Toy Story invigorated the buddy picture genre by staying true to the nature of its toy characters, giving a new spin on an established formula. The characters in A Bug’s Life, though, feel familiar: familiar personalities, familiar thought processes, and familiar actions. This makes the formula much easier to see, and the story can’t help but feel somewhat stale as a result.

I also think that A Bug’s Life is missing the thematic pull of the more accomplished Pixar features. The film doesn’t seem to have a very clear philosophy at work. At times, it feels like collectivism is the primary virtue in the film; Flik is reprimanded for putting himself above the colony, and the scenes during the construction of the bird are among the most cheerful in the film. At other times, though, Flik’s individualism is held in high regard. These are seemingly conflicting themes that I don’t feel the movie resolves. And, of course, when the grasshoppers do attack, both themes are dropped in favor of simply beating the bad guys.

A Bug’s Life also features the weakest animation in the Pixar canon. Frankly, I was surprised how drab a lot of it looked when watching again over the past weekend. There’s very little shading or texture in any of the environments, and only the rain-soaked climax feels like it’s pushing the limits beyond what we saw in Toy Story. It doesn’t help that the character design is unfortunately cartoonish, as if it was decided that insects couldn’t possibly appeal to the kids in the audience (again, the comparison in this regard to Ratatouille is instructive).

I don’t want to make it sound like a bad film, because it’s not. It’s snappy and funny (although not as witty as the other Pixars), and it’s never hard to sit through. But in every category I can think of – story, theme, animation, voice acting – it’s a cut below what I’ve since come to expect from Pixar.

Other entries in this series:
Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Monsters, Inc.