Slant Magazine

This review is a joke. There is more weight, emotion, nuance and abstraction in a single frame of The Return of the King than in any of the Harry Potter films including this and the ballyhooed Azkaban. The best thing that can be said about Yates is that his fantasy films have a neutral effect on the genre—neither taking it to new heights nor taking it a step backward. Yates' serviceable mediocrity can't compare to jackson's and spirlberg's actual effort to make us care about people in fantasy blockbusters. The filmmaker most comparable to Yates is Michael Bay.

Wow. David Yates is "the greatest director of blockbuster cinema since Steven Spielberg?" WTF! Say it's better than Lord of the Rings if you want (at least that's a level comparison) but you're putting Yates' dull entries in this dull series on the same level as Spielberg's best, game-changing, film-efficacious outputs? Some film tastes and aesthetics are just not subjective. The way you can argue whether Marvel is better than DC but you wouldn't seriously put even their best comics on the level of say Dante's Inferno (although *you* might put JK Rowling on that level given the obvious fanboy/girl orgasm in this review).

Reviews like this one prove why Slant is no longer relevant unless Ed Gonzales pops up to write something (or occasionally Eric Henderson/Nick Schager).

Armond White isn't necessarily immune from hyperbole either, but as a scholar on Spielberg, I wish I could see his reaction to David Yates is "the greatest director of blockbuster cinema since Steven Spielberg." Oh and speaking of which, White felt exactly as I did watching this film: "Now that the Harry Potter series is over, maybe the truth can be realized: This has been the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises."

http://www.nypress.com/article-22641-franchise-overboard.html

"Some film tastes and aesthetics are just not subjective."

Can you help me understand what this means? Like, are you saying that "some film tastes and aesthetics" objective, in opposition to subjective? I guess it's possible, but what tastes, what aesthetics, and whose? Are you placing your tastes (and your aesthetics, I suppose) in a higher tier than that of others?

Regarding the statement that has given "AM" so much consternation, I do hold a few other directors (in the field of "blockbuster cinema") at an equal level, such as Robert Zemeckis, Lana and Andy Wachowski, Paul W.S. Anderson, John McTiernan, and Joe Dante. There may be others. Spielberg has long been one of my favorites, however.

Um Rob, if you'd actually read the review, you'd know that Jaime (the reviewer) is actually the one who initiated the Rings/Potter debate — and Jaime really stretched to do it too — "hey, aren't you supposed to make CGI effects dingy and hard to see, as demonstrated in Peter Jackson's movies?"

Easy binaries indeed.

Just to be clear, I have no issue with Jaime (or anyone else) comparing the Harry Potter films to the Lord of the Rings franchise and even concluding that the former is superior. But I'd be shocked by *anyone) comparing Yates in general and specifically his work on these films with Spielberg's best. That absurd conflation indicates a fanboy review.

Honestly—having seen the film with my girlfriend last night, it was pretty poor actually...

Uneven directing, very slow start, cutting from action to long slow scenes (and not in a good-way, as Jackson did this particular method to great effect in his movies), no real characterization (some of the multitude of new characters should have been cut for a film format), poorly directed battle scenes (they were ok, but with a better score and tighter direction could have been fantstic I'd think).

Some stultifying dialogue, and not particularly good acting...

It even lacked more than a couple of "ooooh-ahh!" moments...

And the moments it should have milked for emotion (key deaths, traitorous moves, etc) just 'happened', turning what should have been charged moments into...so-what..?

Should I even mention the poor soundtrack, which lacked a really compelling theme or action build-ups..??

I really wanted to love this film, but anything above 3 stars really is fanboy territory...

And comparing it to Spielberg or Jackson at their best..!????

I found myself wishing several times during the film actually—I wonder what Peter Jackson or even Guillermo del Toro (probably not my first choice) would have done with the same material..(no doubt got the kids some more acting classes, sacked the music-writer, and deleted afew of the vast unnamed class that just diffused the action for a start..), and re-edited the film much more tightly, and had a more coherent battle scene than just "explosions, running around, more explosions, fighting"...

This movie made its money as the books made theirs, and as the fantastic PR machine that team-potter is...

but it sure aint going to be winning any oscars in my books...

Sigh...

3 stars at best...

There are some very nice moments in this film, no question. But most of them, in my opinion, are effective only because of their significance to the overall storyline, and when you're talking about a storyline of eight films, that's some serious emotional cache.

Prisoner of Azkaban will always stand as the best part of this series, hands down... a clear example of how even popcorn cinema benefits from true talent at the helm.

Funny that someone brought up Spielberg. Can you imagine what he would have done with this series?

Maybe I'm too old, but I don't understand this "fanboy" concept. Is it some kind of sexual humiliation codeword?

"There are some very nice moments in this film, no question. But most of them, in my opinion, are effective only because of their significance to the overall storyline, and when you're talking about a storyline of eight films, that's some serious emotional cache."

I dunno, man, I tend to get annoyed at drama and feeling like I'm being forced to pretend as if I'm just a child who has no idea whether characters will make it out alive or not, or if specific narrative arcs will be successfully completed, etc. As has been made clear from the comments here and elsewhere, I find pleasure in aspects of this film (and almost all films) that most moviegoers aren't terribly interested in, like rhythm, composition, color, lines, etc. That's not to say I don't find films emotionally resonant—quite the opposite, I find the best films use form as a way to convey emotion.

Mark, I don't know if I can agree with you on Del Toro or Jackson, but I'd be interested to learn what you find interesting about their direction. The other day I caught about twenty minutes of CRONOS and while I can see he has certain preoccupations, I don't find his images particularly resonant. I recognize he has the ability to grab audience attention across both mainstream and "arthouse" spectrums, but that doesn't mean much to me.

Jaime you are the worst kind of movie fan. You "don't get" what's so great about the slow emotional build-up of actual works of art like LOTR, and embrace films that were shot randomly and edited together just to achieve coherence (and calling this film 'coherent' is quiet a stretch). HP fans and movie fans deserved a lot more. If Yates wants to rush production and slap together random scenes just so he isn't thought of as a crowd-pleaser, he is free to do so, but it's bad filmmaking.

I guess I just don't see any particularly special "rhythm, composition, color, lines" etc. in this film. In fact, I found many of the scenes I thought WOULD be especially wondrous or effective visually somewhat of a letdown... especially in contrast to Cuaron's Potter.

Of course, it's a complex—and very personal—argument. I do at least like that you write about the little moments and details of given films.

As an aside, I've only read the first book, so narrative tension was definitely a factor.

@Stefan1: Oh, I'm the worst kind of movie fan. Okay, I appreciate you letting me know that. You definitely know how to argue your point persuasively! Clearly I'm in over my head.

@snarpo: I did what I could with the kind of review that was appropriate, in the time that I had. If I had more time and the right resources, I would have done for HP7.2 the kind of exploration I did for a little B-western called BLACK BART, here:

http://www.unexaminedessentials.com/2011/05/black-bart-george-sherman-1948.html

Or a noir film from 1954, HELL'S HALF ACRE, here:

http://www.unexaminedessentials.com/2011/05/hells-half-acre-john-h-auer-1954.html

I suppose Stefan1 would have found these films incoherent and randomly shot, so what do I know? Clearly there's a gap of expertise between he and I, that I'm unable to find a way across.

Fortunately for Stefan1, you didn't "argue your point persuasively" in this hyperbolic review either.

And equating "fanboy" accusers of "some kind of sexual humiliation code" is tantamount to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman screaming "sexism." Please. You know exactly what we mean. You're obviously a huge fan of the Harry Potter films (hey, whatever floats your boat). How else to explain that absurd statement that Yates is the new Spielberg — and not just that, but the implication that no one else since Spielberg has directed blockbusters this well until David Yates! That's what you explicitly state in your review. So in three and a half decades of American filmmaking (since Spielberg did Jaws) NO ONE has directed blockbusters as well as David fucking Yates in Harry fucking Potter??

Also, nice try hiding behind cinephile pretension ("I tend to get annoyed at drama and feeling...I find pleasure in aspects of this film (and almost all films) that most moviegoers aren't terribly interested in, like rhythm, composition, color, lines, etc") but 1) this film has little to no artfulness in terms of "rhythm, composition, color, lines" and 2) if your stated conceit were true, you wouldn't have originally included in your review emotional reactions like, "and the unexpected welling up of longing and heartache in Alan Rickman's brilliant performance."

The best/meta part of your review is where you mention Anton Ego from Ratatouille. A not-real cartoon critic. How appropriate.

Thanks for your comments, AM! Clearly I have a lot to learn.

Okay AM, I can't let you go. Here's my response:

Using "Fanboy" as a put-down absolutely asserts masculine superiority over anyone you disagree with. It absolutely has sexual undertones. Frankly I find the hostility amusing because it's clear to me the internet hasn't changed an iota in the twenty years I've been using it. People like you still talk a load of smack and say things they wouldn't say face-to-face.

Palin and Bachman [sic; there are two n's]—when did they scream "sexism"? If you're going to quote the Republicans as cannon fodder—I have no problem with that, believe me—at least get your facts straight. Do you have an interview or a sound clip or a YouTube video where they "screamed 'sexism'"?

I'm not a fan of the HARRY POTTER films, so I hope nobody had any money riding on that. The first two are worthless in every way, Mike Newell's entry is "okay," and while I don't think very highly of Cuarón's entry, I respect that some people do. Yates's first HARRY POTTER film is pretty good but he really hit his stride with HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, the first DEATHLY HALLOWS, and this one. No HP films have made my favorite films lists for any years 2001-2010, but DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 will probably make my top 10 of 2011.

If you followed the comment thread, you'd see I allowed for a number of directors I would put in the same class (reminder: the cream of the "blockbuster director" class—not a crowded room, exactly). Go up-page for it.

Also, I absolutely am an elitist cinephile—because I'm qualified to be. Deal with it or not, it's all the same to me.

"this film has little to no artfulness in terms of "rhythm, composition, color, lines""—says you. I saw differently, and I'm not the one looking to prove a negative. I don't go around saying there's no visual interest whatsoever in Peter Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS films...oh, wait I do say that. Nevermind.

"if your stated conceit were true, you wouldn't have originally included in your review emotional reactions like...[comments about performance]"—since when is a formalist cinephile not allowed to swoon over performance? That's just arbitrary.

"Since when is a formalist cinephile not allowed to swoon over performance?"

Um, I never said they weren't, but YOU previously wrote: "I dunno, man, I tend to get annoyed at drama and feeling like I'm being forced to pretend as if I'm just a child who has no idea whether characters will make it out alive or not, or if specific narrative arcs will be successfully completed, etc. As has been made clear from the comments here and elsewhere, I find pleasure in aspects of this film (and almost all films) that most moviegoers aren't terribly interested in, like rhythm, composition, color, lines, etc."

Your words. It would be nice for the intellectual honesty of this debate if you remembered your own words. Or maybe moving the goalpost so often just makes you forget what part of the field you're on?

And you're an elitist cinephile huh? Oh sorry, a *qualified* elitist cinephile (LOL). Well good for you! This is the second (or third? I've lost count) time you've asserted pretentious film snobbery in a transparent attempt to make your point more salient and...well, I'll let you in on a secret: it doesn't. If you have to keep saying something all the time, it's probably because no one else believes it. If your review had revealed an impressive cinephile mind, you wouldn't have to keep reminding us that you're a film snob. You know like when participants on reality shows (seriously, pick any one, they all do it) say, "People always tell me I'm smart/funny/good-looking" and you know what they really means is "I wish people said this about me?" Yeah, exactly.

As for "fanboy", please. I took the same gender and sexuality class as you, mmkay? I don't see how it "asserts masculine superiority" when 1) you have no idea what my gender is and the anonymity of the internet doesn't make that obvious 2) I made a point in my first comment of writing "fanboy/fangirl" and 3) it's not like I said you were a silly girl or something like that, or derided you for liking a genre that is assumed to be a female priority (rom-coms, Twilight films etc) and therefore easily dismissed and ridiculed by the mainstream (read: white straight male) critical establishment.

Finally, it's not my job to keep you up to date on American politics. It's good that you know Bachmann's name has two "n's" but it's probably more important to know what she's saying (vile though her words are) and how she and Palin are appropriating the language of feminism to dismiss their critics, while simultaneously trying to undermine everything feminism has achieved.

BUT since you asked, here's one of the most well known examples from Palin from a few years back: http://current.com/community/89448058_sarah-palin-claims-sexism-on-clothing-budget-controversy.htm

But hey, at least you didn't claim to be a politically aware elitist. Not that anyone would believe that either.

AM, I read your recent comment a few times, but I just can't make heads or tails of it. I guess you win? Anyway, ATTACK THE BLOCK opens July 29—recommended!

I am quiet liking this thread. Much more interesting than the rather

poorly staged climax of Potter and Voldemort fighting it out.