| Posted by Lou | The time is 4.30pm here in London UK |

Let me get the most important thing out of the way upfront:

OhmygodHermione'sreddressarghgetmeoneimmediately! SeriouslywherecanIgetoneIwanttoweariteveryday!


Okay, please assume that I agree with Bel that their acting had improved, the tardis handbag was AWESOME, and that I appreciate that the films have grown with the audience.

But...

I just didn't dig it.

I thought the director made some really odd choices - like Ron's vision of Harry and Hermione that looked like it was inspired by an interweb search of scary fan art from the erotic realm.

I wasn't quite game to google "erotic harry potter fan art" at work

Or the dance sequence - sorry but I just found it weird and uncomfortable in the context of the film, the characters, and the audience. (Even Ruth, who loved the movie, was nervously giggling like "is this meant to be funny, or moving, or...?")

Or the deathly hallows sequence which, while beautiful, didn't seem like it belonged in a Harry Potter film. I guess these complaints add up to a general dissatisfaction with the lack of a really cohesive and distinctive style to this film - Lord of the Rings it is not.

Most of all though, I didn't feel a sense of urgency or suspense, even within the individual action sequences. I know it is extremely difficult to make a film that is essentially just foreplay... but foreplay should be better than this.

I thought the action passed by too quickly without having been woven for full clarity and effect (which made me think they had run out of time in post-production). And - crucially - I didn't get a sense of the looming menace of Voldemort.

But I'm still really excited about the last film...

| Posted by Bel | The time is 12.33pm here in Wellington NZ |


First up, has anyone else been saying "Deadly" Hallows this whole time, or was it just me? How embarrassment.

Second up, preemptive SPOILER ALERT. If you haven't finishing reading all of the last book yet, then what are you doing wasting your time here??

Me and three other adults excitedly went along with our token 10 year old to Wellington's best cinema (yes, The Embassy) on a sunny Saturday afternoon to see Harry Potter and the Deadly Deathly Hallows.

The films have definitely gotten bigger and better as they've gone along. Just as the storylines have darkened and the characters grown older, the films have managed to balance keeping pace with the fact that their audience is predominantly children who need to be able to actually view the content. However I do think this film was a bit much for the 7 year old sitting next to me, who was more interested in distracting herself by swinging her feet during the scary bits than being careful about not kicking the nice lady in the chair right by her.

The biggest joy is that the lead trio seem to actually be able to act this time round. Hermione was so painful in those early films, and Ron only enjoyable because you assume he is supposed to be a complete ham. But the kids have all grown up and so has their talent. The dialogue of the script lets them down frequently, but the chemistry is natural and perhaps what we're seeing is their real friendships shining through.

Freed from the confines of Hogwarts, this installment is much more action-packed. The chapters which dragged in the book, where our intrepid heroes do some camping, some bickering, some more camping and then a bit more annoying teenaged bickering, are dealt with in a decidedly better way in the film. I.e. Nick Cave dance sequence.


Though it does suffer from a touch of the LOTRs (jewellery that gives you the grumps? ummm deja vu, anyone?), it's the wonderful magic tricks that makes us love the Harry Potter franchise that makes up for it. People disapperate at a rapid rate, everything and anything is accio-ed, potions are flung over wounds for instant healing. Oh and my favourite, the TARDIS-like tent. I could actually get into camping if that thing was real.

My big disappointment was in not seeing enough of the characters that we've grown to love thanks to the film adaptations. Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood has been gold, and we barely got a glimpse of her and her perfectly on-trend jumpsuit, while the stunt casting of Rhys Ifans as her father seemed to be on the screen for hours. (Does anyone else recall the book stating that Xenophilius Lovegood was known for being weirdly over tanned? No? Me neither. Harrrumphf.)

The biggest scandal even than Neville Longbottom turning out pretty hot in real life or Emma Watson's post-shoot cropping of her previously contractually protected locks has been the ripping off of an Alexander McQueen design for the wedding scene.

Perhaps Fleur Delacour (or rather, costume designer Jany Temime) couldn't magic up herself any originality?

And scandalous also was the deviation from the sacred tome itself, which states that Hermione wore lilac to Fleur and Bill's wedding. Instead in the film she shows up in this number:

Shocking hot red colour? Gorgeous detailing? A-line skirt? Flattering length? Sexy neckline? Sensible shoulder straps? Yep, Lou and I will have one each, thanks. Plus that nifty clutch purse with the Undectable Extension Charm wouldn't go amiss either. Hand it over and all is forgiven for not following the book letter and line!!

Posted by Lou. The time is 4.08pm here in London, UK.

A note on my subject line: an American guy at work has insistently been saying "do you want to come to my Harry Potter dress-up party?" in imitation of a line from Rhys Darby (assumedly in FotC, but who knows) - everyone was like "ha ha - great accent!"... until we found out he was trying to do Kiwi, not British. I've tried to teach him to drop the correctly pronounced T's in Potter but he just. doesn't. geddit. (Yes, I refer to the Banal De Jeebus himself.) Anyhoo...

I'd like to commence this review by giving a round of applause to Rupert Grint - he continues to be the shining star of the young portion of the cast of the HP films, bringing humour and warmth to every scene he's in. I'd then like to give Daniel Radcliffe a bit of a pat on the arm for having improved a bit, and definitely developed a bit of a talent for comedy. Emma... oh Emma... you seem so sweet, so lovely, such a great role model - I like you, I really do... but dear god... you really can't act, can you? I mean, I'd probably give you a standing ovation for just managing to develop a second facial expression by the final scene of the final film. How about becoming a writer/ director/ producer of strong female-centric films for younger generations, or something? Wouldn't that be a wonderful use of your money/ power/ facial-expressions? (I'd also like to do a quick shout-out to Alan Rickman - I love you.)

The HP films have been growing on me - each one seemed to get better, develop more of a unique style and look, and feel more authentically like a real, proper film. This one certainly continued the upward trek - I enjoyed it immensely and only had a couple of moments of criiiiinge (oh Emma... Emma Emma Emma...). I thought it looked great, moved along nicely thanks to Grint's comedy genius, and as ever they have brought in a Proper Serious Award-winning Actor to magnificently portray the role of the new, eccentric character (this time Jim Broadbent). Being a river-dwelling Londoner, it was great seeing Millennium Bridge get a starring role in the opening sequence. The emotional element was also well-played - though our frickin' cinema did a good job of trying to spoil it with G.I. Joe from the neighbouring cinema blaring through the walls during the climactic you-know-what occurred.

Obviously only one for HP fans, but a good one indeed.

Posted by Bel. The time is 3.50pm here in Wellington, NZ.

All 7 books in 70 minutes, with only 2 actors. But it's only going to Auckland. Where's a flying car when I really need it!?