Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

The Book:

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, 1999, by J. K. Rowling.

One of my favorite books in the series, and one of the best film adaptations as well. So many creatures in this book! Dementors, Werewolves, Animaguses, and Hippogriffs? They made for a lovely story, my favorite parts were these. I won't touch the bit about time-turning, although it's quite a vital piece to the narrative. But in terms of polite criticisms, (I very much consider myself a huge fan, so don't get mad, I'm just bein' real) there comes a bit of exasperation in this novel, and onward through to the end, that everything, ever in existence at Hogwarts that will ever happen, must happen to Harry. No wonder Ron gets a bit moody in the next book. I mean, Harry has been through a lot, granted, and his life with the Dursley's was very unpleasant, but Harry gets to see the mirror of Erised, gets the Invisibility Cloak, finds the diary, gets to ride Buckbeak, gets to learn to make Patronuses, etc., etc., etc. Doesn't anyone else at Hogwarts ever do anything, EVER? Or are they just a bunch of clueless gits? I'd be feeling very cast aside if I was a student there. True some of these things could only have happened to Harry because of his history, but really. It seems as if he's favored quite a bit by all of the professors and exceedingly in the wrong place at the wrong time, every time. And don't get me wrong, I like the stories, but sometimes everything seems a little slanted, as if we, the reader, are just reading about a Harry Potter game that Harry alone is playing, everyone else is background.

But I do think it was written well, and the writing is much improved even from the first two. Maybe Rowling allowed herself to get a little more British with her verbiage after she'd gained herself a solid enough following, or the characters just took a while to get comfortable in their lines, but some of my favorite dialogues in this novel are these (British) utterances, rhetorical question asked as statement followed with affirmation question (there is probably a much nicer, more literary way to describe that):

Harry: What if I accidentally let something slip?
Uncle Vernon: You'll get the stuffing knocked out of you, won't you? She does this a few times, this phrasing, and I loved it.


Something else I liked: "It was Professor Trelawney, gliding toward them as though on wheels. She had put on a green sequined dress in honor of the occasion, making her look more than ever like a glittering, oversized dragonfly."

The Film:


Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, 2004.

Very much a favorite. The kids are getting older and are much less McGoo, and the events are getting darker. The actors are comfortable enough in their roles, new Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) = aces, and Snape is really killer in this one (storming into DADA class, slamming the window hangings closed, "PAGE THREE-HUNDRED-AND-NINETY-FOUR!")

The filmmaking in this one is probably the best of any due to the imagery and sound. The opening scene where Marge gets inflated is funny subject matter on its own, but the constant cuts from her to Dudley getting pelted in the face with her beads as they pop to the random cuckoo clock opening and closing with a jaunty little orchestral score going? These things added so much; very, very well done. There is more of this technique-lending-a-hand-to-narrative when Lupin shows the class the boggert in the closet and Pavarti's clown bends back and forth, slowing down (slow motion) from a low POV into Harry's dementor; it's creepy and it's effective. We are jarred and taken aback just like Harry. Great scene on the Quidditch field as Harry falls from hundreds of feet up; Dumbledore rises in the stands, "ARRESTO MOMENTUM!" the voice sounds as if inside an echo chamber and everything goes black (my favorite scene from this film).

The coldness (ice, breath) that comes with the Dementors. And the close up on Lupin's eye and magnified heartbeat thumping when he sees the full moon. And Snape holding his arms out to shield Ron, Harry, and Hermione. And Gary Oldman as Sirius Black. Bravo, everyone.

One final note: I went last night, to The Deathly Hallows, and honestly loved every blasted minute of it. Cried for much of it. Wished it wouldn't end. Am considering going again. Will write it up in its proper slot in the chronology.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

The Book:

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, 1998, by J.K. Rowling.

I can't sugar-coat this at all; this one is my least favorite of the all the books and all the films. There are some good things about it, but I think in the novel, Dobby and Gilderoy Lockhart just take up too many pages. If you're going to write annoying characters, don't get carried away with them, because who wants to read about DOBBY AND LOCKHART?

That said, I think it's made quite clear early on, in this book, especially, that Harry is no ordinary wizard. I mean, yes, he's a bit dense about things, and seems to always make the wrong decisions, but most of the other wizards seem to have a bit of a superiority complex when it comes to other magical beings such as house elves, the Hogwart's ghosts, centaurs, goblins, etc. Harry seems to always take everyone at their word, and to extend the old golden rule, as it were. Good work, and good alliance-building for later, too! Isn't it Dobby that throws himself in front of Bellatrix's golden knife to save Harry in the last novel?

Some nice passages:

"When Filch wasn't guarding the scene of the crime, he was skulking red-eyed through the corridors, lunging out at unsuspecting students and trying to put them in detention for things like 'breathing loudly,' and 'looking happy.'"

"But Lockhart's disgusting cheeriness, his hints that he had always thought Hagrid was no good, his confidence that the whole business was not at an end, irritated Harry so much that he yearned to throw Gadding With Ghouls right into Lockhart's stupid face."

"The sides of the car were scratched and smeared with mud. Apparently it had taken to trundling around the forest on its own."


The Film:

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, 2002, directed by Chris Columbus.

161 minutes is way too long. What I said above about Dobby and Lockhart applies here, too. Cut every one of their scenes by at least half and this film is right back on track. They got it right by giving us more Weasleys, more Snape, and (hello, delicious) Lucius Malfoy. Wonderful, just wonderful. Dueling scene, good (close up on Snape when Harry reveals he's a parsel-mouth?!). The chamber scenes and Tom Riddle, good. Ron's contorted grimace all the time got a little tired, but still love him.

I debated going to the midnight showing of Deathly Hallows tonight but seriously cannot justify it, especially considering it'd probably be sold out, and it's a bit on the chilly side. I'm heading over to SLP tomorrow night. Anyone in?

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

The Book:

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, 1997, by J.K. Rowling.

As a book, especially a debut novel, I think it's quite good. It's quick, funny, and despite being classified as young adult fiction, clever enough to entertain most adult readers. I think it's a story well worth reading, or at least reading to your kids. Mine love these books, and the random details they remember from all of them is downright shocking. It's a fun time.

Most of my favorite passages are the slightly snappy-attitude bits:
". . . for Neville had been tugging on the sleeve of Harry's bathrobe for the last minute. 'What?'
Harry turned around--and saw quite clearly, what."

"Chess was the only thing Hermione ever lost at, something Harry and Ron thought was very good for her."

Something I think you really need the book to explain is how Ron's wand keeps misfiring and making all kinds of mistakes; I don't think they come right out and say in the film that it's second-hand, but the book does, it had belonged to one of his brothers. Useful information. The little poems and chants are funny enough but get a little long in a story like this where everyone really just wants to read what happens next. The only complaint I have is about the ending; I wanted a little more than "it was one of my more genius ideas," from Dumbledore about Harry being able to majestically "get" the stone simply because he wanted to obtain it but not use it. But it made a little more sense to me in the book than in the film, and the mirror of Erised seemed a lot less random considering what it ultimately got used for; so I'm easy, I can dig it.

Look how little and squeaky they were!

The Film:


Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, 2001, directed by Chris Columbus.
152 minutes.

I mention the time only because I think it got a bit too long. As I run through the Potter series, I've learned one thing and it's the shorter the film, the better. My favorites have been the shortest in minutes, with no room for a lot of filler. This had a bit of filler, and was definitely McGoo, but the kids were pretty young yet, there's only so much darkness the target audience (or their parents) was going to be able to handle, although the ending probably made a few kids wet their pants a little.

Well done:
1. The Gringott's Bank scenes, especially the key system in the vaults.
2. Hogwarts as a structure and the mise en scene inside the castle.
3. The broom-flying.
4. Casting.

Bothersome:
1. Clunky scenes between Harry and Hagrid in Diagon Alley showing their differences in size.
2. The randomness of the Sorting Hat's list.
3. The scene with McGonagal and Neville on the stairs.
4. The bit about Seamus needing another feather in Flitwick's charms class.
Speed it up; these scenes were duds and just ate up the clock. This is one of those films that was definitely better at having the events show what was going on rather than having the actors try to discuss or describe things, with one exception, of course, and that's Snape. Alan Rickman is spectacular in everything he does, but quite honestly, he's the main reason I like these films. Rule #2 in Harry Potter? The more Snape, the better. He's aces, all the way.

There's Hope for Nerds Yet: Christine

I have about a million things to say about this film but will try to let the images do the talking. Lotta history; lotta nostalgia. It's one of my favorites. It was definitely my dad's favorite film. I think Charlie and I probably watched this (and The Blues Brothers) about once daily for an entire summer when we first got our Beta; they were the only two films we had, of course, but we didn't mind. I'll never forget rewinding (and rewinding and rewinding) the scene where the newly rebuilt-after-the-trashing Christine charges Moochie; the close up on the back right tire seemed to really amuse Charlie; we laughed at it, a lot.  My dad had a 1957 Chevy in aqua green that he restored, I have a feeling it was his  Christine. We once very nearly got the tar beaten from us when he thought we had flung drops of black spray paint onto the driver's side door--my mother saved us by showing him it was some sort of excrement, NOT spray paint. . .

Anyway, my own personal feelings aside, this film (story) is in a way a very pertinent tale about bullying. True, Arnie takes things a little too far and is sucked into the Stephen King world of bizarre evil that happens to good people, but let's face it, Arnie wouldn't have been vulnerable to any of it if he didn't start out the story as a genuine nerd. I'm not saying nerds should all go out and seek revenge upon their attackers, (I have a few rotten bitches I'd like to see squirm a bit from my junior high years) but Arnie got even, oh boy did he! Like I said, I'm not advocating bully-murder at all, I'm just saying, this story probably carries a lot of resonance for anyone who's ever dealt with a Buddy Reparton. The book and the film are quite different in this respect as the novel deals much, much more with Roland LeBay (Christine's previous owner), his obsession with the car, and the way his ghost physically comes back and begins to take over Arnie and his actions; the film just kind of alludes to that by changes in Arnie (physically he becomes more attractive, eventually chooses the car over Leigh, the use of the word "shitter," etc.) but never really portrays LeBay's ghost as a factor.

Speaking of LeBay: That brother, George, who sells Arnie the car? This is probably the most digusting image of an old person I've ever seen in my life. That back brace? And cigar? And in the following scene he has, the back brace UNDER A BLAZER? ("I'm gonna sell this shit-hole and buy me a condo") Ewwww. I can almost smell him from here. The film itself does not scare me but if I had to choose between Christine and LeBay, I'd choose Christine.

Already I'm saying too much. The film is a beautiful collection of images, many of the actors are quite attractive (I thought Dennis was smokin' hot back in the day), and John Carpenter, in addition to being able to roll out a reel of film, has a fine, fine musical sense. The scene after the Reparton Gang trashes the car where Arnie is diddling around at the counter is one of my favorites; the music (a cross between the Halloween theme and the instrumental used in the credits of The Exorcist) together with the little mechanical noises as Christine "fixes" herself really, really thrill me. I also love the scene prior to the trashing where Arnie embraces the steering wheel as Christine plays "I'll Forever Love You" on the radio. Come to think of it, any time there is some link to events happening and songs on Christine's radio, it's awesome (Christine won't start outside of Leigh's house; "It's all right, baby, everything is the same."--"I LOVE YOU LIKE I DO!")

I really, really love this film. Aces, all the way.