Harry and friends find themselves up against a stalinist teacher who takes over the entire school.
More of the same. I missed the previous instalment, so there are probably a few things that went under my radar (not many though, since I read the summary for that film). Some viewers who read the novel criticized the film for being rushed. I don't know, it felt nice, this rushedness. I am not one to require character development in a Harry Potter movie (in fact, I am getting to wish it didn't exist in many other movies). Although I am not exactly an expert cinema viewer, I think this film was flawlessly directed, and sports at least two jaw-dropping performances (Staunton and Bonham-Carter, the latter in a small role). But the text is not strong, and that is the weak link. It's a mystery to me what these people actually do, what they stand for. For instance, what exactly are the villain's goals? What exactly sets him apart from the good guys? The whole ideology of the series is disturbingly superficial and consumeristic. Kids are atracted by this kind of thing in exactly the same way that they drool over the next technological gadget. Having fun, here, is all about the incessant stimuli of new forms of 'magical' devices which translate as power and further alienation from a natural life. Anyway, no one can blame the filmmakers for not being in tune with today's youth's aspirations.
Rating: 41
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment