Marvel, get your hand out of my wallet

Marvel is not doing itself any favors by releasing the same three movies every summer. Yes, they have different names — like Iron Man, Thor and now Captain America — even though the films are fuzzy clones of each other.

Oh, am I a stick in the mud? Raining on your parade? Sorry, dear reader, but I must. Last week I received an email with words I can’t reprint from a reader who was upset that I didn’t praise Transformers: Dark of the Moon — because, you know, I was the only person in the world who hated it. I imagine Captain America fans know some better words that are also unfit for publication. So before you fire off a cowardly anonymous email, let me reassure you with this: Captain America: The First Avenger was a spirited romp amid all the proto-typical comic clichés. It’s not the greatest comic adaptation, and it’s not the worst. It’s slightly and cheerfully above average.

So there.

I save most of the vitriol and frustration to the movie economy that allows films like Captain America to continue to propagate, and for Marvel, the comic company that has triggered the moral decay of creativity at the cinema. What was once a trickle of comic films has now turned into an inescapable flash-flood at the movie theater, a place that funnels audiences from one auditorium to another, all of them playing the same banal feature attraction: unlikely hero emerges with superpowers, hero fights bad guys, hero returns for sequel. I’ve oversimplified it for sure, but where am I wrong?

Captain America follows this formula like it’s pre-programmed in its DNA — because it is. We’re given fresh-faced Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), a 4F weakling who wants to enlist to fight the Nazis and their occult division HYDRA, which means stormtroopers get to say, “Heil HYDRA.” Roger’s is too short, so he steps into a machine belonging to Iron Man’s father. The machine’s purpose is to apparently make abs glisten, and to turn Rogers into super soldier Captain America, who then rips through a steampunk version of World War II to fight a villain so boring his name is flatly Red Skull. The villain's henchman look like leather fetishists with clunky respirators and they wear these sleeve guns that probably contributed to their defeat. The movie has everything the formula dictates: a girl to fall in love with, a gruff character who barks orders (a scene-stealing Tommy Lee Jones), lots of cheesy German accents, a close friend who will undoubtedly perish, explosions and gunfights, and a big climax with even more explosions and gunfights. Like a good Marvel conformist, all the pieces of the formula are in Captain America.

But I’m done pretending that I’ve not seen this movie a dozen times before. And I’m done justifying that a purely mediocre movie is somehow “pretty good for a comic movie,” as if the entire genre had a golf handicap. The bar has been raised by better comic films, like the Shakespearean drama of The Dark Knight or by the rich and fantastical Hellboy films. To best those pictures Marvel will have to change its formula, and stop presuming that audiences will tolerate clones of the same films longer than me. Besides, how many comic films can one person sustain before growing bored? My guess is we’re reaching that limit; I know I have.

There’s a bit in the film where Captain America, drenched in a layer of patriotism so thick it encumbers his movement — like the GOP, zing! — talks about defending the underdogs of the world from those big bullies who stomp around the schoolyard. It’s a chivalrous idea, but coming from a Marvel Comics creation it’s a little disingenuous. Don’t be misled: Marvel is the bully. It stomps through theaters and shoves better films out of the way, devours box office records, clones its movie formula over each of its brands, and then pretends that what it’s doing is in the best interests of the cinema. I’m sorry but the cinema needs less Captain Americas and more films like Terri, a movie you haven’t heard of because it’s more sophisticated, more thoughtful and more intelligent than anything Marvel could set on fire for 120 minutes.

Marvel’s best interests are bottom lines, which is why Spider-Man is being remade less than five years since the last one was released, and why the Incredible Hulk has been rebooted three times, and why X-Men begat only more X-Men and why Thor, Iron-Man and Captain America are all teasers for next summer’s all-star macho-fest The Avengers. Marvel wants your money really bad, and Stan Lee and his geeks are prepared to resurrect every comic in its archive all the way down to Banana Peeling Man to get you to remove cash from your wallet and deposit it in theirs. If that means making the same movie a thousand times then so be it.

Indeed, movies are supposed to make money. But they are also supposed to inspire us, make us think, touch us and empower our spirits. Marvel is fonder of thumping viewers on their skulls, red or otherwise. Captain America is a great example of that with its dumbed-down version of WWII, absurd highlight reels of action effects, that laughable costume (with boomerang shield) and its serialized ending that only teases at the real ending to come next summer after you plunk down another $9 on yet another ticket. (I did enjoy the rather brilliant war bonds sequence with Captain America funding the war via song and dance.)

So what is Captain America? It’s a decent film that is awash in Marvel’s cynical Hollywood commercialism. With its green-screened phoniness and digital superstructure it is not half the adventure of another film directed by Joe Johnston, The Rocketeer, a movie with characters and special effects that feel wholesome and pure compared to the clinical, fluorescent and germ-free world of Captain America. It also reminds me a lot of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, a wonderful film that does everything Captain America does, but with a key distinction — no man in tights.

Hackers started a revolution on dial-up

When Hackers was released in theaters in 1995 most people didn’t have Internet in their homes. Now they have Internet in their pockets, cars, on refrigerator doors, in every conceivable space in their house (ah, the joys Wi-Fi) and, yes, even in the movie theater just in case there’s a need for quick browsing before the popcorn and previews.

The world has changed a lot since 1995, although not the world within Hackers, a film about teens in cyberspace that was quickly forgotten when it was released only to re-emerge now as a prescient piece of ’90s pop culture — or maybe it never left. As it turns out Hackers wasn’t just a hokey and ridiculous computer adventure, but a cultural milestone so far ahead of it’s time — 15 years, which in computer years is more like 50 — that it still holds up in this age of wireless Internet, smart phones and 3G. Or is it 4G now?

Of course, some of the details are little screwy today — the “28.8 BPS modem,” laptops as big Oxford dictionaries and pay phones — which is expected from a movie that predates the iPhone, iPad and anything else even remotely iSimilar. Still, though, the basic premise of the film is rock solid in today’s computer-driven society. Its themes are computer hacking, Internet freedom, digital anonymity and corporate takedown. Need proof these are still relevant? Just pick up a newspaper: “Phone hacking at News of the World,” “Playstation Network hacked, data stolen,” “Citigroup customer data hacked,” “24,000 files stolen from Pentagon contractor,” “Hacker group defaces CIA home page” … the headlines could form a line around the block.

The film takes place in 1994, which inspires one of the better lines: "[George Orwell’s] 1984 was a typo, man.” It’s set in New York City within a cataclysmic crash of two subcultures: computer hackers and the ’90s Club Kid phenomenon. It’s within this soup a small group of teen hackers unite to stage elaborate pranks using their computers and dial-up modems. At one point, two characters hack a broadcaster to simply change what’s on the public access channel. We’re treated to a shot of two robotic arms fighting over a tape of The Outer Limits.

The hero here is Dade (Johnny Lee Miller), which sounds strange without “county” and “Florida” being said after it. His hacker handle is Crash Override. After a very public hacking conviction — in which he’s ordered to not use a computer or touch-tone telephone until his 18th birthday— Dade moves to Manhattan, where we see him turn 18 and once again plug into the net where his skills are unmatched as a hacker.

Later he meets other colorful hacking characters including Cereal Killer, Phantom Phreak and a spritely Acid Burn, played by a young Angelina Jolie in a pixie haircut. If nothing else, Hackers does introduce us to Angelina, which is its own kind of milestone. All of them together are framed by a more devious computer hacker, The Plague (Fisher Stevens, Oscar winning producer of The Cove), who worries they may have stumbled onto his plans for a digital theft. The Plague gets the Secret Service involved (yep, that’s Marc Anthony and The Bunk, aka Wendell Pierce) to hunt down Dade and his crew, who descend into an underground of neon-glam and wacky outfits to attack the system and clear their names.

Besides being a crisp, well-made film with strong characters and perceptive dialogue, Hackers brought a distinctive computer literacy to the screen. Much of it is oversimplified — with swirling hallucinations representing computer code and Tron-like superhighways that standing in for mainframes — yet it works because it helps tell the story visually. It’s unlikely that anyone could hack a television network and manually change the show, but it’s the idea that big things can be done via computer that Hackers should be recognized for. That and the mainstreaming of the many house, trance and electronic artists who appear on the soundtrack.

Regarding the film’s ethical authenticity, it’s notable to illuminate that Dade’s quasi-criminal actions are viewed sympathetically within the film. In some sequences, hacking is staged as downright noble, akin to delivering babies or volunteering at a soup kitchen. The film uses some misplaced justifications that many hackers probably still use today: that system vulnerabilities are there to be exploited, authority must be decentralized and the classic excuse that data should be free and accessible as opposed to locked behind firewalls. Nevermind that what they are doing amounts to theft, espionage or just regular ol' vandalism.

It’s easy to buy into the sub-sonic pop entertainment of Hackers, and even its ethical ideology, but then you read in any national newspaper how hackers are routinely using their tricks to steal bank account information or defraud a system, neither of which are noble endeavors. The film posits that hackers have principles, when in reality modern hacking seems to be as greedy as the companies they so often infiltrate. It’s not Hackers’ fault, it’s just that Hackers considers an ideal world that is simply not possible or plausible. Computer hackers are not investigative journalists, and probably never will be. (Though, I would like to admit, all ethical dilemmas aside, I'd love for a hacking group to infiltrate Rupert Murdoch's email to poke around.)

So the film was wrong about the "hackers are the voice of the voiceless" part, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t noteworthy hacker groups. Anonymous seemingly invented the word “hacktivism,” and their choice of targets and reasons for targeting them would illicit cheers from most web surfers. For instance, when WikiLeaks took flak for some of its blockbuster record releases, Anonymous made it a priority to retaliate against those who opposed the open range of information that WikiLeaks was permitting. They’ve also fought YouTube for content restrictions and Australia for policing the Internet. Such motivations don’t validate criminal mischief, but they at least frame them in a better context.

Hackers is by no means an endearing classic in the vein of Casablanca, Citizen Kane or The Godfather. But yet it survives because the future it peddled in its hyper-kinetic style is no longer the future. That future is now the present.

Harry Potter bids farewell from the screen

And so the end comes.

It’s not like we hadn’t been warned. Ten years and eight movies ago it was very clear this moment — the moment Harry Potter bid farewell to us from a movie screen — would come with a swift thrust, but it always seemed so far away. “Oh, there’s still so many more movies,” fans told themselves. And now there are no more movies left and the curtains are rapidly closing.

I must admit, in my review of the first Harry Potter film I doubted that children would still care about the boy wizard by the time the final film rolled around. Children have hyperactive attention spans, and with so many franchises vying for their little eyeballs (Twilight, for example), it seemed unlikely Harry and his friends would last. I couldn’t have been more wrong. The world loves Harry Potter. And it’ll only love him more after his final adventure in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2.

Few franchises this side of Lord of the Rings end on such a grand scale. All the pieces that have floated around in J.K. Rowling’s sprawling saga are united here in this glorious finale, which is suddenly very coherent and fluid compared to other adventures in the franchise. Each new film had grown more dense, more complex and more bewildering, but this one has a simplicity to it: villain Voldemort has risen to power, the armies of good and bad have assembled, and the battle begins. Smack dab in the middle is Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), the boy who has been prophesied to destroy Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and return peace to the magical kingdom. He must find objects called Horcruxes, common items into which Voldemort has downloaded his twisted soul. The plot is simple so we can watch, listen and experience the enormity of the war’s last battle.

Soaking it all in, though, that’s part of the fun. These are Harry’s last adventures and director David Yates — the skilled helmsman of Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince — does not waste the opportunity to show all the elements that made the franchise popular, be it the boyish heroism of Harry, the sparking love connection between Ron and Hermione, that splendid magical castle called Hogwarts, the gothic intrigue of Snape, or the perplexing strategies of the late Albus Dumbledore. Oh, and the magic, there’s more than enough to go around, which is appropriate since Harry and his friends have been going to school for seven years to learn these tricks. I especially liked the wand effects that looked like bioluminescent lava spewing from those little wooden sticks.

The action is spread out all around the film’s universe, including a dragon fight in an underground vault with multiplying Tupperware, but is mostly contained at Hogwart’s where the final battle is waged with lots of high-flying broom rides, explosive wand artillery, magical spells and death, death, death. Yes, characters die in the Deathly Hallows, so many that parents might want to reconsider taking their tiniest Potter fans. The action is for grown-ups simply because the youngsters who lined up for the first film in 2001 are now old enough to vote, or buy themselves a drink. Naturally, the violence has progressed, which is obvious when Voldemort slays a law firm, or lays waste to Hogwarts’ vaulted spaces, or sends his snake to nibble on poor Alan Rickman.

Deathly Hallows 2’s finest quality is that it understands the immensity of what is happening. The franchise has spent an agonizing amount of time building to these points: Harry returns to Hogwarts, Ron and Hermione’s kiss, the big reveal of Snape’s motivations, and the heroic last moments. The film recognizes the occasion with all the appropriate fanfare, from the swelling musical score, careful editing, precise dialogue and Yates, who removes all the clutter on the periphery so we can witness these last chapters play out without interruption. Notice the scenes when Harry returns proudly to Hogwarts. He knows he might die, but there he is walking the hallways and greeting his admirers as they prepare for what is sure to be a bloodbath. It was a moving sequence, one that drew audience members around the theater to tears.

Of course, there are some finer points that could have been cleared up, like why Voldemort’s wand’s previous owners were so important, or why Hagrid spent the entire movie as a prisoner of an army that doesn’t take prisoners. And what about that business with the disappearing/reappearing sword? Maybe the books cleared this up, but the films can be a vacuum when it comes to such information. I still don’t understand why, if Voldemort was so powerful, he wouldn’t keep the Horcruxes on him. Apparently his robes don’t have pockets.

I hold a major grudge against the franchise for turning the final installment into a 3-D extravaganza, which is what critics were forced to watch. As always the picture was dark, too dark at times to even see what was going on. Please, see the movie in 2-D so you can witness all of Harry Potter’s conclusion without having to wear those dopey 3-D sunglasses.

Aside from that, though, I have nothing but nice things to say about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2. I’m tempted to talk more about the last 25 minutes — they are perfect moments — but I fear that it will spoil your experience, which would be a Class 1 felony to a movie this wonderful. I will say this, though: it is my sincere hope that the Harry-Ron-Hermione trio —Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson — go on to have long and splendid careers in entertainment. They have done these three characters great justice. And they anchored the whole franchise. They should be proud of these films.

No doubt the world is proud of them and their contributions to Harry Potter, the boy wizard who now has a new title — retired movie star.

From the Vault: Deathly Hallows Part 1

Here are my original reviews of all the movies in the Harry Potter series. My review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 will publish here Thursday.

After six cookie-cutter films about wizardry and its many perils, Harry Potter and Co. is giving a new kind of storyline a whirl. It’s a risky — though commendable — device to change up the formula this late in the game, but Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 handles it with a degree of class, and also tedium.

The previous Potter films were full of that wide-eyed splendor that makes children’s fantasy films plucky and fun. They were just too frequently clones of the one that came before it, so much so that a watch could be set to all the plot elements: Harry catches a train, Harry gets the typical hazing at Hogwarts, Harry meets the new celebrity-cameo teacher, Harry learns a new magic spell and then has the common sense to recall that spell during the momentous finale in a dungeon/maze/forest/castle/cave. You could pretty much count on this formula like you could count on factual inaccuracies in a Sarah Palin tweet.

Certainly there are some of these elements in the new film, but J.K. Rowling also deviates very much from the formula she taxed to death in the six previous films/books. For starters, the Hogwarts school, so central to previous adventures, is never even seen. And all those pesky other students — who had to be given mandatory screen time in the other films — most of them have been jettisoned into a single all-encompassing cameo early in the film and then another one later on the Hogwarts train. And if the many character deaths in the first 30 minutes weren’t proof enough, it would seem that the franchise is really trying to ditch some weight to build speed and end it all with a bang next summer in Part 2. Altering the story structure helps to accomplish this, and it allows us a fresh plot.

Essentially, this Potter outing is about Harry (Daniel Racliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) doing their own Frodo-Sam journey as the rest of the magic kingdom quickly descends into a wand-wiggling civil war. After the shocker death of Dumbledore in the sixth film, Voldemort, He Who Is Without Nose, has uncloaked his legion of meanies and they openly hunt Harry and his many pals, which is why Harry spends the entire film on the run and sleeping in a tent that Coleman has yet to duplicate.

The three stars hold up the film and its lengthy plot, but you can see their acting — or lack thereof — shining through. It’s a testament to these three actors’ growth   that they can keep this film afloat; two films ago it would have hardly been possible for them to carry the whole show.

Harry is resolute and somewhat detached from the action. Maybe that’s how Harry was written, but he seems mildly tranquilized by Radcliffe’s wooden performance. Ron is given bigger scenes, and a hero pose, but he’s still being played far too young and too immature by Grint, who seems to think Ron is perpetually 7 years old — every look he gives is like, “Gee wiz, did I do that?” Hermione, of course, is still the most interesting character. In her first scene she must erase herself from her parents’ memories in fear they become victims of Voldemort’s wrath.

Unlike the Twilight films, which are filled with sexually ambiguous characters who apparently have never noticed their private parts before, the three leads in Harry Potter are slowly coming of age in all the ways that implies, especially Watson, who plays Hermione with a modest sexuality. Not only are they attracted to each other, there seems to be real sexual tension in the air, and in another movie they might likely tear their clothes off and rumble around. The film wisely acknowledges all this without making it awkward for families, although there is one scene of Harry and Hermione striking an Adam and Eve pose that will surely get some giggles.

When the characters aren’t making kissy faces at each other, they spend much of the movie moping around the forest trying to decide what to do next. They’re the slowest scenes in Deathly Hallows, but they’re buoyed up by three spectacular action scenes that are highwater marks for the series.

One is a chase sequence with Hagrid on a motorcycle and Harry in the sidecar, a scene that proves motorcycle sidecars can never be overused in films. Another involves Harry, Ron and Hermione assuming new identities to break into the Ministry of Magic, where they must steal a gemstone that contains part of Voldemort’s soul. The final action battle, involving that doofus Draco Malfoy, had a character in it played by John Hurt and all I could think of was, “Hey, when did John Hurt join this franchise?” (Apparently, it was back in the first movie, which is further proof that these casts are way too big.)

While these scenes are electric, the slower, more esoteric middle sequences are jarringly slow. And they only lead to missed moments, like when a real mystery develops regarding the whereabouts of a mystical sword only to have the film deliver it by an unexplained blue light, which drops it in a random pond — mystery solved … blah.

Deathly Hallows should also be chided for not preparing the viewer better for the plot. Surely diehard fans don’t need a recap, but it’s a courtesy to at least mention some of the basics. It also gives the film a beginning. Deathly Hallows begins with absolutely no explanation of anything. If you haven’t read all of Rowling’s writing then all the raised eyebrows, magical spells, budding relationships and, oh yeah the death of freakin’ Dumbledore, will be lost to you.

It sounds like I’m complaining here, but I’m sure Part 1 will play better when it’s viewed with Part 2. At that point, Part 1’s slow middle will only seem like a warm-up to Part 2’s all-out wizard Armageddon.

It’s just unfortunate that your money was desired so much that it warranted the splitting of the movie. And don’t tell me, “But there was too much in the book to make it one movie.” Maybe, but surely this movie could have been condensed and added onto its other half and released as one film. It would have been over three hours long, but if Lord of the Rings taught us anything it’s that audiences will sit through it and appreciate that the franchise wasn’t wasting their time and money.

From the Vault: Half-Blood Prince

Here are my original reviews of all the movies in the Harry Potter series. My review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 will publish here Thursday.

As confusing as all the spells and magic formulas are in these Harry Potter flicks I doubt the children who flock to them in drooling packs will be as perplexed by the Horcrux spell or dragon’s blood potions as they’ll be by all the snogging in this, the sixth Potter film. 

Yes, there’s lots of snogging in Half-Blood Prince, enough so that I can begin a review with it. Snogging is the cheeky British word for making out, although it sounds like it requires a cigarette afterward. Ginny Weasley snogs with Dean Thomas. Ron Weasley snogs with Lavender Brown. Hermione wishes to be snogging with Ron while Harry Potter longs to be snogging with Ginny, even as he makes tactical moves to snog with a cute waitress and then a batty Luna Lovegood. At one point Ron takes a love potion and nearly snogs nice and hard with Harry, who is clearly not so keen to snog back. And then there’s emo-king Severus Snape, who’s wound so tight he needs a good snog just to lighten up. 

That’s a lot of names to hit you with so soon (and a lot of snogging, too), but by now some of those names have entered into the pop-culture lexicon and need no introduction. Han Solo, Fozzie Bear, Donald Duck, Vito Corleone, Harry Potter … some names just speak for themselves. 

Aside from all the rump-slappin’ love that’s floating through the cast of characters, all the usual J.K. Rowling fantasy elements are present and accounted for: a train ride through the country to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Quidditch matches, paintings that come alive from the walls, Hagrid and his creepy pets, and a wacky new teacher, this time it’s Professor Slughorn (Jim Broadbent). Thankfully, one thing's not returrning — all the floppy homeless-looking haircuts.

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), still reeling from the calamity of the last movie,Order of the Phoenix, is taking orders directly from an increasingly worrisome Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). Voldemort and his many black-cloaked minions are still in an undeclared war with Dumbledore and Hogwarts. Many of Voldemort’s tactics are guerrilla incursions — espionage, abductions, random terrorizing, mischief. By the end of the film, war will be officially declared with a salvo that strikes at the heart of Hogwarts. I am, of course, referring to the spoiler — "______ kills ______" — those meanies (read: heroes) from the YouTube video yelled at the group of kids who had just purchased the minutes-old sixth book.

The plots, as fiendishly inventive as they are, have never really been the high points of Potter films; this one is a mystery (they all are) with Harry trying to mine the brain of Slughorn, who taught a young Voldemort at Hogwarts. What I admire over the plots are all the characters, and all the things that create the atmosphere of Potter’s world: the lavish sets, the hundreds of little magic props, those wonderful costumes and all the special effects, magic tricks of a different variety — movie magic. Many of the effects are disposable sights sprinkled into the film just because they’re so delightful, like one of a little penguin skiing in the icing on a cake. 

Really, though, Harry Potter films work because the core trio — Hermione (Emma Watson), Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Harry Potter — can carry a film all on their own. I truly hope these three young actors all find important roles in other films when the series ends in 2011 after a two-part Deathly Hollows, although I can’t imagine Grint as anything else but a Weasley. And I pray that Watson, now that her eighteenth birthday has passed, can escape the Internet perverts and skirt-invading paparazzi (one word Emma: "Panties") so she can concentrate on the acting talent she seems to have.

I draw attention to the trio, but it helps that the they are surrounded by a talented ensemble including Gambon as wizard Gandalf the Gray … er, Dumbledore the Gay, and Snape, played by Alan Rickman, who is my own personal cult-figure superhero. Even the extras are interesting; you’ll know Elarica Gallagher when you see her. And then there’s Potter friend Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch), who’s so spaced out you have to wonder if she’s naturally this silly or just stoned. I could watch a whole movie of her brushing her teeth or mowing a lawn or something even more mundane.

I must also comment on Tom Felton, the apparent long-lost son of Hulk Hogan who plays miserable little twerp Draco Malfoy. I can't remember the last time a character was so vile and venemous just by existing as a static peice of flesh in time and space. This poor kid; he'd even scowl at a wet snogging. As over-the-top as the character is — and how cruel for Felton, who perfectly delivers the same lines over and over again — I love Draco Malfoy. You gotta applaud him because his contempt for everything is refreshing.

Half-Blood Prince is not the best of the Harry Potter films, but it’s in a six-way tie with all the rest. Am I a coward for not picking a favorite? Maybe. But they’re all so fantastical and charming — and they’re all so consistently well made — that picking one favorite would betray all the other favorites.

From the Vault: Order of the Phoenix

Here are my original reviews of all the movies in the Harry Potter series. My review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 will publish here by Thursday.

In his previous films Harry Potter was growing up. Now he matures. There’s a difference, you know. And it can be seen as clear as a dragon’s sneeze in a lightless cave here in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, by far the best of the Potter film series to date.

Before Order of the Phoenix Harry Potter wasn’t really a character. He was a cause and everyone else was an effect. And even characters on the peripheral had more interesting things to do and say. Hermione was the studious nerd, Ron Weasely was the dopey well-meaning friend, dark horse Draco Malfoy was the villain-in-the-making school bully — Potter was the cup of vanilla to their chocolate-dipped rainbow sherbet. He was no leader, no expert magician, no free-thinking hero on a landscape of evil. He was just there, occupying space and riding the coattails of better magicians. 

All that ends now. In Order of the Phoenix he becomes the great magician we have been told for five movies he would become. Better yet, he performs magic. He doesn’t just recite lines from a book, either; he is a magician. And not just in theory. Yep, that’s Potter fighting side by side with Sirius Black against the forces of evil, that’s him blasting sonic waves from his wand, that’s him cauterizing some serious spells across the faces of Voldemort’s minions. And I saved the best for last: somewhere between Goblet of Fire and now, Potter found a barber and chopped off that silly do. Look, he has ears!

After Goblet’s bloodletting on poor ol’ Cedric Diggory, Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft & Wizardy with a low-pressure system hanging ominously over his head. The other students are convinced he was involved in Diggory’s death thanks to some yellow journalism at the magician rag The Daily Prophet, which also claims Lord Voldemort’s rumored return is a big hoax perpetrated by Potter and Hogwarts’ headmaster Albus Dumbledore. To top it all off, the Ministry of Magic is mounting a case against Harry for his justified use of magic in the presence of non-wizards (Muggles) after two Death-like creatures try to suck his soul from his nostrils (clinical name: soulectomy). In other words, the world is growing dark for Harry and his fellow young magicians. Fear is in the air, double-crossers are lurking in all the shadows, and word of Voldemort’s increasing power is driving everyone batty.

The mood may be oh-so-gothic, but it has its advantages: for the first time in the series, the major pieces of the Potter saga are being situated for the ultimate checkmate that will come two movies from now. The darker, tenser mood is only going to ratchet up and up through Half-Blood Prince (due next year) and Deathly Hallows (the book is due this month), but it starts here and now with Order of the Phoenix, which is a marvelously paced Potter yarn.

But this movie is more important that the sum of its moods, tones and tempos. For the first time in the series I found myself pulling for Harry, maybe because he’s given more to do. After the Ministry of Magic begins controlling Hogwarts curriculum (no magic, they say), Harry goes off on his own to teach those closest to him the magic the school refuses to teach. This provides an important image: Harry as teacher and leader. It also provides him a lot of interaction with the characters, including teaching Neville Longbottom how to disarm an opponent — “It’s all in the wrist,” Potter says. He also shares a long-overdue kiss with one of the characters. So often these on-screen kisses between teens aren’t necessary, but this one felt warranted and it was paced just right. It’s proof Harry is maturing into his role as teen, even while he comes to fully understand — in a scene set in a library of snow globes — his role as magic’s ultimate savior.

But savior comes much later. Here Harry’s still getting his feet wet, and with quite the cast of characters, too. Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) returns with a vengeance, as does Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson), who has one of those joke eyeballs as a real eye — the movie never shows how he uses binoculars or a telescope, but that image is priceless. Lucius Malfoy (Jason Isaacs) is back, his hair more blond and evil than ever. Potter staple Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) also returns darker and more gothic than ever. I’ll go out on a limb and commit this to record: surpassing Edward Scissorhands, Marilyn Manson and Jack Skellington, Snape is the new godfather of Goth. And I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Rickman needs to do more movies. Also returning, but in abbreviated performances: Michael Gambon as Dumbledore, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid (the “weirdo with the beardo”), Maggie Smith as McGonagall and Emma Thompson as an optically challenged seer. 

The one character fans will be buzzing about, though, is Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), who takes over Hogwarts with a pink-gloved fist. She does away with magic, creates bizarre rules that she frames in a great hall, turns student against student, and basically wreaks havoc on Harry’s underground wizard classes. Umbridge is so controlling, so manipulative, so inexplicably cruel that a Christmas card from Nurse Ratched would probably say, “Chill out, you’re scaring even me.” She dresses as if she was on Leave it Beaver, but in color, and her office is decorated with creepy commemorative plates of kittens. In the Harry Potter tradition, the plates are all animated as if real kittens lived in the porcelain, so when students are punished in her office, a chorus of cats meow their approval.

I haven’t really mentioned the special effects yet, and I think it’s because the story trumps them for once. Not that they’re bad, it’s just that Harry’s development as a wizard has become more interesting than the magic. The effects are wonderful, though. Centaurs, simple-minded giants, skeleton flying horses … they all collide in Phoenix’s rich tapestry of computer animation. A lesson involving the “expecto patronum” chant involves creatures that emerge from blue mist, the happy feelings of the spell’s giver. When Potter goes to visit the Ministry of Magic he shares an elevator with paper airplanes — memos on the fly. The final battle is a wizard’s duel that is surprisingly fast-paced and violent, and the fireball effects blast away everything that’s left of the screen. And there, in the sand vortex, stands Lord Voldemort in the flesh.

I’m mighty impressed with the Order of the Phoenix, so much so that I’m tempted for the first time to make a good attempt at the books. And what great timing too, because the seventh and final one is ready to drop from J.K. Rowling’s diamond-coated grill. Rowling’s fans don’t need to read these words — they’ve probably already seen the movie by now … twice — but here they are anyway: Harry Potter No. 5 is terrific.

From the Vault: Goblet of Fire

Here are my original reviews of all the movies in the Harry Potter series. My review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 will publish here by Thursday.

Harry Potter can conquer almost anything at this point: Hungarian Horntail Dragons, the Golden Snitch, Dementors of Azkaban, the Serpent Basilisk and, apparently, puberty.

No longer wide-eyed children, Harry Potter and his rightfully monopolizing actor Daniel Radcliffe have gone and grown up. When Ron Howard’s voice dropped an octave and his chin started sprouting whiskers on The Andy Griffith Show, the show’s demise was not too far off. With Harry Potter, though, his growth and maturity is only closing the gap on his ultimate showdown with Lord Voldemort, the evil wizard who killed his parents and branded a scar on his forehead. In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, we actually see the dark lord for the first time as his true self, a reptilian man with no nose and a fiery urge to exterminate the Potter name, but more on him later.

Like the previous Harry Potter films, Goblet is brimming with fascinating new beasts, magical spells, mythical curses, wizard trials and even some unexpected treats, like love — between which characters I will let you discover. The film picks up in the magic world with little-to-no introduction of the previous films or even who Potter is. The producers seem to snicker: “If you haven’t seen the other movies or read the books, then tough!”

Boy wonder Potter is beginning his fourth year at the Hogwart’s School, where young children learn wizard’s ways. This year, the school is hosting the Tri-Wizard’s Cup, which consists of three magical tasks. Harry, of course, joins three other students in the contest. Guessing who wins isn’t difficult, but the suspense comes in how this person wins. What ensues is a visual feast, one that surpasses all the other Potter films. Harry fights a fire-breathing dragon from the center of an arena to the tops of a castle, with lots of soaring in between. He descends into a lake, where trident-wielding sea crabs snap at his arms. He wanders through a hedge maze that attempts to swallow him whole.

The wizard trials all lead up to a rumble with Voldemort, who is still astonished at Potter’s strength — notice the way white-hot lava spews from their magic wands. There are still three movies to follow this one, so solid conclusions are going to be hard to find, but it plays wonderfully to its moments, one of them being Potter’s first magical confrontation with his archenemy.

Radcliffe is good, but others are great, including Emma Watson (as Hermione, who’s growing up to be a babe in the young wizards’ eyes) and Brendan Gleeson (as a googly-eyed professor). And, as wonderful Michael Gambon is as Albus Dumbledore, seeing his snapping portrayal of the school’s headmaster makes me long for the late Richard Harris even more.

It’s safe to say that Goblet of Fire is the best Harry Potter yet, and it excels at a lot: riveting action, its development of Harry, the budding romance between Harry and his friends, and the spirit of J.K. Rowling’s enchanting books. Each movie has been better than the one before it, which makes me wish more for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

From the Vault: Prisoner of Azkaban

Here are my original reviews of all the movies in the Harry Potter series. My review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 will publish here by Thursday.

Harry Potter went and got himself a gothic makeover. Teenagers!

Just when you thought he was on the straight and narrow, he goes and gets all creepy. Next thing you know, he’ll be stage diving at Marilyn Manson shows in fishnet stockings and black nail polish. Don’t blame Potter actor Daniel Radcliffe; it’s not 100 percent his fault. Blame his father figure, director Alfonso Cuarón, whose last film (Y Tu Mama También) had more unnecessary nudity than Web-streamed video from Rush Limbaugh’s showercam. I'd love to know at what point producers thought Cuarón, a fine director, would make a perfect fit for a film about youngsters. And were they drinking?

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is dark … too dark for most little children. It’s downright scary at times. Not that this is a bad thing, but be warned: the movie has matured with the stars, and your little ones might not appreciate execution scenes, child-eating werewolves, evil soul-sucking Grim Reapers and more doom and gloom (and shades of gray) than an average Tim Burton film. Like a child who overturns rocks to glance at pill bugs and scorpions, Cuarón flips the Potter series over just to see author J.K. Rowling’s darker creations squirm about and attack each other.

In this third tale, Potter returns to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to learn how to become a master magician. Of course getting there is half the journey: One of the best scenes of the movie is when Potter boards a triple-decker bus that weaves through London traffic at Mach 5. When he does return to school, the semester is interrupted early with the news of an escaped convict, Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), a madman killer who wants what all villains in these movies want — Harry Potter dead. Sirius may have been involved in the death of Harry’s parents years before, so naturally Harry takes it upon himself to do the investigating. Geez, don't they have a wizard police or something?

Of course, during his investigation, he’s befriended by a new teacher (David Thewlis), taunted by Carpathian surfboy Draco Malfoy, hassled without prejudice by Professor Snape (the great Alan Rickman) and schooled in philosophy by Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon tries to replace the late Richard Harris). There’s also new monsters: a hawk-horse combo, a shapeshifting entity that warps into onlookers’ worst fears, and the Dementors, the Grim Reaper ghouls.

This is a very different Potter film, and not so much with its story or characters. It’s Cuarón’s directing that gives it its dull edge. What was a richly filmed kids film shot with heart by Chris Columbus is now a gloomy, muddled mish-mash of depression filmed with no respect to continuity. Compared to the first two films, this one just doesn’t work. It’s the ugly duckling — a rogue with a temper.

On its own level, though, it’s different, which is a daring step to take with a series so popular. Dark or not, Azkaban may keep the series from falling into an annoying vortex of over-simplified kiddie gunk. At least with this setup, there’s room for maturing.

From the Vault: Chamber of Secrets

Here are my original reviews of all the movies in the Harry Potter series. My review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 will publish here by Thursday.

What took George Lucas four films, or one prequel, to do — drain the heart out of a story in favor of limitless special effects — Chris Columbus has done in two.

To the credit of Lucas, whose trilogy of Star Wars films were wholly complete until the dreaded Episode I came along in 1999, at least he put some years between the goodness and the badness. Columbus though, has used the momentum from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone to ram its sequel, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, head-first into a concrete wall. A wall that no amount of magic could render invisible.

Then again, that opinion comes from a muggle, a non-wizard, so take it with as much salt as needed. At least fans of author J.K. Rowling’s bespectacled young wizard like their food salty. The Chamber of Secrets isn’t bad; it’s just not great, at least not like the first one, which had the young wizard-in-training enrolling at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and beginning is saga. The sequel is flat and cold, a poor tribute to Rowling’s warm writing style.

After spending a wretched summer with his muggle relatives, including the smarmy Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia, Potter (again Daniel Radcliffe) returns for his sophomore year at Hogwarts. He’s met with some ominous foreshadowing, though: a blocked passageway on Platform 9 ¾, from where he’s supposed to board a train to Hogwarts; an attacking tree that ensnares his flying Ford and a suicidal house-elf named Dobby. Like Yoda before him, Dobby only speaks in the third-person: “Dobby like Harry Potter. Dobby don’t want to see Harry Potter hurt. Dobby thinks Harry Potter should not go to school.” It’s annoying in mere seconds.

Potter ignores the warnings though, and heads to school where he encounters the usual Potter fodder: the moving staircases, wandering ghosts (one played by John Cleese), talking oil paintings and an ornery rival tribe led by a wretched boy named after a particularly vile Carpathian. Yes, Draco Malfoy is back, this time as lecherous as ever. The movie is all business: lots of plot and expository dialogue. Even Potter’s friends seem rather bored. Ron (Rupert Grint with Greg Brady voice cracks) and Hermione (Emma Watson) often times just stand there in stunned silences like set dressing.

Someone, or some thing, at Hogwarts is petrifying students into comatose logs of flesh. They’re easily cured, but still the culprit has to be caught before someone is killed. And since everyone, including the all-star wizard team led by Albus Dumbledore (the late Richard Harris), is ignorant to the most basic sleuthing techniques, Harry Potter is the only one that can solve the Chamber of Secrets, which turns out to be a snake pit in the little girls room.

Plotwise, very little is different with the sequel as compared to the original. Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) still randomly shows up and helps the not-so-young Harry Potter and his dimwitted friends. There’s another Quidditch match (basically rugby on kitchen brooms), this time with more treachery and unsportsmanlike conduct. There’s lots of creatures and spooks, too: a whining specter in the bathroom, a snake that slithers through the ventilation system and a giant spider and its army of babies, which, in just five minutes, managed to look a thousand times better than the entire movie Eight Legged Freaks. There’s even a new character, the narcissistic new Hogwart teacher Gilderoy Lockheart, played with superb arrogance by Kenneth Branagh.

Through all this the Chamber of Secrets uses magic, yet fails to be magical on this 161-minute exhibition of visual hocus-pocus. It’s as cold and dreary as Hogwart’s castled hallways. The enchantment is gone. In it’s place are yards of emotionless special effects and digital tripe, designed to swoop in to gracefully transport Harry Potter from Rowling’s pages to the movie screen. Too bad they mangled the pages in transport.

From the Vault: Sorcerer's Stone

Here are my original reviews of all the movies in the Harry Potter series. My review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 will publish here by Thursday.

If you’re not a child or a parent of a child under 15, then just steer clear of movie theaters for the next month or so — they’re booked solid.

The long-awaited movie version of J.K. Rowling’s mega-popular children’s novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, is finally in theaters and with a fight to pick (and win) with any films that dare try to stand in its path. So rather than mince words about the voracity of young viewers, or adapted children's books, let's just get on with it: Harry Potter dazzles.

From the mesmerizing visual effects and wonderful set decorations to the huggable heroes and kickable villains, Potter holds up as not just a great film, but also as a gem for youngsters. Yes, the same youngsters who have shocked their parents into comas by actually reading books instead of watching TV, playing one through a video game or freebasing Pokémon characters (or whatever else you do with them).

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), the orphaned son of a slain wizard and a witch, is dumped off onto his rotten uncle, aunt and spoiled cousin. They’re clearly perturbed when Harry begins receiving elegantly penned letters by the thousand notifying him of his acceptance to an elite school. The postage must have been a nightmare. Admission is not without its hiccups: Mean Uncle and Auntie won’t let Harry leave his under-the-stairs room (dungeon) to go to the school, which is why Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), a gruff errand runner, shows up to whisk Harry away to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. At the school, Harry toils through a university-like institution to learn the ABCs of potions, magic, wand-waving, broom-riding and troll-slaying.

The movie is filled with wonderful visual effects and lavish fantasy sets, many of which alter mid-scene (twisting staircases, reincarnated paintings), but the internal structure — the backbone — is an intriguing plot of deception and sorcery woven into the fantasy by the mystical figure that killed Harry’s folks and now hunts him. Those who have read the book will know every twist and turn and may miss out on the surprises, but even still, Potter turns Rowling’s witty pages with a light, but brisk touch. We aren’t overburdened by the story, yet we’re given enough of the plot to make the story understandable even without reading the book.

Overall, Potter is so much grander and more delicious than anything else that has come out this year. And to think, it’s a kids’ movie!

There’s still something that’s bothering me, though. It's Harry's sudden popularity. As kids empty quiet libraries and Potter reading rooms to fill theaters to lay awe on their bespectacled hero as he clashes with villainy brandishing his magic wand and Charles Manson beauty mark (a lighting bolt scar on his forehead), I’m still left puzzled at how the young Harry Potter has pulled TV-obsessed youngsters away from the tube and into books. I can see the level of articulation that Rowling aimed at in the books — albeit a bit glossed over in the film — and I can see the fantasy elements that have made other films (Star Wars, Willow, Labyrinth) just as majestic, but I still can’t see the sudden gush of enthusiasm for Harry Potter.

In the grand scheme of things, Harry Potter’s just picking up where Pokémon, Barney and Sesame Street left off. Will it last for the other six movies? It's hard to tell now, but my guess is that the series will slowly drift away.