Entering a magical land through the closet

 THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: 

THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Viewed on January 27th, 2006

I have only a faint recollection of C.S. Lewis's book of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" but I do recall a sense of wonder and magic when I read it. Those qualities are missing in the short-shrifted adaptation called "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe."

The film takes place in the English countryside outside of London during World War II where four siblings, Peter (William Moseley), Lucy (Georgie Henley), Susan (Anna Popplewell) and Edmund

Pevensie (Skandar Keynes), are living in a spacious manor of sorts with Professor Kirke (Jim Broadbent). It is so spacious that it makes for an ideal game of hide and seek. While trying to hide,

Lucy, the youngest, enters a room where an inviting closet exists and nothing else. As she opens the closet door and gets past the fur coats, she enters the world of snow-covered Narnia. At first, Lucy notices a strange lamp post and then she finds a faun named Mr. Tumnus (James McAvoy) who invites her for tea at his gray cavernous home. He reveals that he is not supposed to be talking to a human since humans have never been seen in Narnia and if one is spotted, they are to be kidnapped and sent

to the White Witch (Tilda Swinton). The White Witch controls Narnia and had abolished Christmas for almost a century, condemning the place to endless winter (a timely idea considering the ozone layer nowadays).

Lucy goes back to the house and tells her siblings about her adventures but they don't believe her. One night, Edmund follows Lucy to the wardrobe closet and, presto, we are back in Narnia. Edmund encounters the White Witch who temps him with Turkish Delights in exchange for meeting the other humans. Before you know it, Peter and Susan soon join the fantasy land and we encounter talking beavers, a majestic lion named Aslan (voiced by Liam Neeson), fierce Minotaurs, angry wolves, more

fauns, cyclopses, centaurs, dwarves, etc. For effects, there are fiery spells, clashes with swords that emit lightning sparks and multiple arrows fired into the sky.

But something pervades through this live-action version of Lewis's much admired text - a feeling of emptiness. The movie has everything money can buy for a cherished fable (including a lavish battle sequence) but no sense of wonder or adventure. Excepting little Lucy, the other kids find nothing to be awed by. Once they are in Narnia, they are befuddled but not amazed. Wouldn't you be amazed if you saw a faun, a unicorn or an icy castle? When a beaver approaches them and talks to them, the kids react as if they've seen talking beavers before (maybe if you have had one had too many drinks at an English pub).

Then there is Peter, the eldest sibling, who can't bring himself to kill a salivating wolf (though he does succeed later on), and suddenly he is knighted! He actually leads the army to fight the vaster White Witch's army! The transition is nonexistent and the seams show through the truncated storyline - the movie compresses many events from the book but it has no sweep or grandeur. That is fine since it doesn't need to, but there is a disturbing lack of intimacy with the characters. They exist more in a void than in the real, fantastical world.

I wish I could admire "Chronicles of Narnia" on the level that the critics have, but the kids never convinced me that they were have an amazing adventure. The movie is strictly conservative

moviemaking - far lighter fare than "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter." For some, this may be a blessing to have a family fantasy tale without blood and gore (and complete with a Christian

subtext unintended by C.S. Lewis). I am all for that but "Narnia" is more of a fairy tale and though it has the occasional confidence of one, it doesn't act like one.

More wizardry and malevolent forces at Hogwarts

 HARRY POTTER 

AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" is a vast improvement over the awkward, toothless first "Harry Potter" film. This one is livelier, more focused and has a little charm but it still suffers due
to a fairly bland leading hero. 

Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), the little wizard that could, is back at the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry for his sophomore year with his old schoolmates, the smart Hermione (Emma Watson) and the red-haired Ron (Rupert Grint), who manages to carry a faulty wand. We still have the crusty old Professor Dumbledore (Richard Harris, in his last role), the absolute Professor McGonogall (Maggie Smith), and the stern Professor Snape (Alan Rickman). A newbie arrives at Hogwarts as one of the most memorable characters in the film, the allegedly droll, conceited Gilderoy Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh), who spends more time promoting his book "Magical Me" than teaching his students the dark arts.

Something wicked is happening at Hogwarts, however. There is a chamber of secrets in the school's corridors, a chamber that can't be easily opened. A malevolent spirit exists that puts some students in a "petrified" state, a state of frozen shock. Something dark and mysterious resides in the school but who's behind it? Any of the professors? Perhaps Harry's nemesis, Draco (Tom Felton) or his father, Lucius (a superb Jason Issacs)? Or does the house elf, Dobby, know more than he's letting on? Can Harry Potter save the day and arrive at the truth with Hermione and Ron? Naturally.

For scenes of incredible effects and magic, there is a flying car, a slaying giant snake, animated portraits and newspapers, nasty spiders, another Quidditch match that is as spellbinding as the original, cloaks that make one invisible, giants, malicious trees, and much more.

What the film lacks is a distinctive personality. As directed by Christopher Columbus, the movie still has an air of indifference, though it is darker and richer than what we have seen before. The problem may be linked to Daniel Radcliffe who doesn't have much in the way of charisma to hook us in as Harry Potter - he is appropriately wild-eyed but not much more (he seems more alive when in jeopardy). The supporting cast is far more animated, including Branagh's scene-stealing role and the quirky Dobby,
who is the most agitated elf I've seen in some time.

I liked what I saw in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" and I enjoyed it (though be warned that the movie is two hours and forty minutes long). I am just hoping that in future installments (we have at least five more to go), Harry grows up a little and develops an interest in things besides magic. After all, he may be a wizard but he is only human.

The young wizard's debut needed more magic

HARRY POTTER 

AND THE SORCERER'S STONE (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Original review from December 8th, 2001

Harry Potter has become a hero for children and adults alike in the last couple of years. I suppose this is a good thing considering that Potter's origins stem from books and if young kids are reading books, then that is always cause for celebration. I have not read any of the books but I am considering reading the
first book, just to get a taste of what is delighting kids so much nowadays. The movie version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" gives me little enthusiasm though, a loud, frenetic comic book movie that has plenty of good ideas but has no idea how to orchestrate them into a whole movie.

In the opening scene, Harry Potter is an abandoned baby found by wizards from the Hogwarts school who is given to a good family to be taken care of. Good family? I should think not. The next scene shows an 11-year-old Harry Potter (played by Daniel Radcliffe), as we learn that his parents were killed by an evil wizard named Voldemort who left Harry with a scar on his forehead. Potter lives with his mother's sister and her family, which includes her mail-hating husband and their son. They are all mean to Harry and keep him in a closet staircase as if he was an animal. Letters are sent everyday to Harry from owls. It turns out the letters are from the Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft
and they want Harry to attend. Thanks to a hulking man named Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), Harry is sent off to the school, picking up an appropriate wand and other magic devices for his training (there is even a bank for wizards!) He arrives at the school and becomes friends with Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), though Granger seems to be the one who actually reads the assigned books. So we see floating candles above the dining room, snappy
professors, goblins, rampaging giant trolls, mirrors that may tell information about the past and future, invisible cloaks, and a dangerous game called Quidditch. Oh, and how can one omit the use of magic brooms! I have heard complaints from real witches that brooms are to be ridden with the bundle of
straw on the front, not the back, and am still waiting for a movie to get that detail right.

Most of this sounds like great fun but doesn't appear to be much fun. But I felt curiously uninvolved throughout "Harry Potter," as well as detached from the characters, including the beaming Mr. Potter himself. He is always smiling and almost always triumphant but he possesses no individual personality. It is not Radcliffe's fault but one wishes director Columbus and writer Steven Kloves ("The Fabulous Baker Boys") instilled some dimension in this brave tyke. Same with most of the other young wizards except for the clever Hermione, a girl who spends her time telling Potter and Weasley secrets of wizardry and the inner secrets of the teachers at Hogwarts. She is strong and determined and educated, qualities that Potter seems to lack.

"Harry Potter" never quite feels magical or joyous. There is no actual sense of fun or adventure either. Part of the problem is the film has too many close-ups which cramp the screen - there are too few exterior shots to convey a mood or sense of place. The entrance to the Hogwarts school is mystical and magical but what takes place inside is not. Columbus's use of close-ups in movies like "Mrs.
Doubtfire" and "Home Alone" worked but a magical adventure like this needs some spaciousness, some sense of mysticism. After all, this world in "Harry Potter" is entirely fictional. The special-effects are well-done but are too frenzied and cramped, as if the editor lost patience and kept cutting away too fast before the next scene took place. The Quidditch sequence is a highlight as it depicts a game where an orb has to be caught and thrown through a hoop by the players riding on brooms - sort of a high-flying hockey game. But as soon as the sequence begins, there is discoloration in the scene, as if it was overcast considering it takes place outdoors. The beginning of the scene shows vibrant colors but then the special effects take over and desaturate whatever color there was. This is one more example why CGI effects do not always work, and one of the reasons why similar outdoor shots in "Gladiator," specifically the arena, also looked faded and colorless. Other effects involving the giant troll and a centaur are wondrous to watch but the three-headed dog leaves something to be desired.

On the plus side, the performances by titanic actors like Alan Rickman (my favorite in this cast) as Professor Snape, the teacher of the dark arts, Maggie Smith as the stern Headmistress Mistress McGonagall (who can turn into a cat), and Richard Harris, the serene Albus Dumbledore who looks like Merlin, are all terrific and filled with wit and energy. Unfortunately, they do not occupy much
screen time, leaving it all to the tykes who did not exactly rouse me or get me in the mood for their adventures. Yes, "Harry Potter" might please kids and readers of the best-selling books no matter what I have to say. But consider "Young Sherlock Holmes," written by Mr. Columbus himself, an imagined look at Holmes in his youth solving a case in London. It was involving and exciting and had a definite sense of adventure and some magic. Also worth seeing is "The Witches," which is about tykes that change into rats under the spell of a mean witch (Anjelica Huston). Both of these films involved kids or teens caught in a dangerous world of supernatural circumstances, some seen and others unseen. The elements of a great adventure about a young wizard in training had lots of potential. Columbus turns it into a harmless, impersonal film. Maybe he just needed a magic wand.

Detention if you use magic outside the school!

 HARRY POTTER 

AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (2007)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Mr. Harry Potter continues to wield his magic wand, and has yet to cross into "American Pie" territory. This is good news because the films could have easily focused more on romance than magic, witchcraft
and the forbidden. The fifth adaptation of the highly popular J.K. Rowling books has matriculated nicely into a new cinematic, richer chapter. I wouldn't say it is better than "Prisoner of Azkaban" but it
is almost on par with the dreary look of "Goblet of Fire."

When we last saw our bespectacled Harry, he survived the death grip of the evil lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), though it did cost the life of one other wizard. Harry is also prone to using his magic outside of his Hogwarts school in defense of other evil spirits, especially the faceless Dementors (first seen in "Prisoner of Azkaban"). Unfortunately, the Ministry of Magic has threatened to expel Harry for
using magic outside school grounds (Time for detention, Mr. Potter!) However, with Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) at his side, Harry explains that Voldemort is back. No one from the faculty believes him, but he is allowed to stay in school.

More havoc ensues when a new Defense of the Dark Arts teacher, the always beaming and severely critical disciplinarian Dolores Umbridge (superbly played by Imelda Staunton), begins to taunt students, proclaiming new rules left and right, and essentially destroying everyone's spirit - as if Voldemort didn't do enough to crush spirits. Meanwhile, Harry builds an army of Hogwarts students to help defeat Ms. Umbridge, harnessing their abilities to think of good, pleasant thoughts. There is enough dreariness in the dank world of Hogwarts. 

Adapted from the longest novel in the series, "Order of the Phoenix" is actually the shortest in the film series. It contains just about everything you would expect from Harry Potter. There are angry
centaurs, magic spells, a dimwitted giant who looks like Alfred E. Newman, the shrieking Dementors, animated portraitures, newspapers with animated pictures, flying brooms, angrier house elves, etc. More crucially successful than all the impressive special-effects (which are kept to a minimum) is the emphasis on Harry Potter's mental condition. He stands up to everyone, including Professor Dumbledore. He has constant nightmares about the evil Voldemort and fears that he may share the dark lord's powers. Harry also gets his first romantic kiss with fellow student, Cho Chang (Katie Leung), but wizardry takes precedence over romance.

As much as I like this entry in the "Harry Potter" series, I can't say I like it as much as "Goblet of Fire" ("Prisoner of Azkaban" still stands head and tails above the rest). This adaptation curtails too many characters and motivations. It is nice to see the giant Hagrid back (once again played by Robbie Coltrane) but his character is short-shrifted, as is his half-brother Grawp, a far bigger giant (and a
wonderful cinematic creation to behold). Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) appears but all too briefly, though I sense his presence will grow in the next chapter. We get the new female student for Harry, the lovely
Katie Leung as the aforementioned Cho Chang, but her character also seems to have been left on the cutting room floor (especially when she is central to a major plot development). Even Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), Harry Potter's most trustworthy allies, seem to drift in the background - their only purpose is to help Harry confront his demons.

We do see a brief, chilling flashback that lends unexpected new depth to the Potions Master teacher, Snape (Alan Rickman). There is also much more time devoted to Harry's godfather, Sirius Black (Gary
Oldman), who has a distinctive fighting style for a wizard. And we get a new character, the deeply mad, wraithlike Death-Eater, Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter), who breaks out of the Azkaban Prison and is Sirius Black's cousin.

Given how difficult it is to keep track of all the characters (and many of which I have excluded), "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is still magical, heartfelt and deeply effective, though noticeably and understandably darker in tone. Now that Harry Potter and friends are seen flying in their brooms over the city of London, I wonder if anyone from the outside will ever wonder what kind of
bureaucratic and nonsensical spell has been cast at the Hogwarts school.

Youthful Wizard's hormones are raging

 HARRY POTTER 

AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I dismissed the original "Harry Potter" film as devoid of magic and a sense of adventure. Now, after seeing "Chamber of Secrets" and "Prisoner of Azkaban," I find the stories are more gripping and have

a sense of fun and a twinkle of glee. "Goblet of Fire" is the fourth entry in the "Harry Potter" series and it is a startling, scary and atmospheric ride, as stirring as the "Prisoner of Azkaban" (though not

as smoothly directed).

Those of you who are devotees of J.K. Rowling's literary series are well aware of what is in store for "Goblet of Fire." This time, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), the teen wizard, is now the tender age of 14 and his hormones are raging. A ball, known as the Yule Ball, is scheduled for all the students at Hogwarts, though getting a date is harder for Harry and especially Ron (Rupert Grint), the red-headed colleague who certainly has a thing for Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), the know-it-all who

is still smarter than anyone else. An upcoming Tri-Wizard tournament is also scheduled for students around the world, specifically four champions. One of them is a Bulgarian wizard named Vikton Krum

(Stanislav Ianevski), a Quidditch expert, and the other is a blue-clad French girl from the Beauxbaton school. The catch is that the competing wizard has to be aged 17 or older yet Harry Potter's name inadvertently ends up in the goblet of fire, to the dismay of all students and the jealousy of his trusted friend, Ron. Who slipped Harry's name in the goblet? I won't say.

If you want plots and subplots and character details, then you can't find anything better nowadays than Harry Potter. There is so much to keep track of that it is like remembering the names of all the members of the Bush administration since Bush took office. Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) is still the illustrated speaker for all Hogwarts students. Ron wants Hermione yet she has her eye on Krum. A new teacher of the Dark Arts is the seemingly alcoholic Alastor "Mad Eye" Moody (Brendan Gleeson), who has a false, swiveling eye that comes equipped with a zoom lens! Miranda Richardson appears as a gossip columnist, Rita Skeeter, who's too full of herself as she gathers for the next scoop (she

and Gilderoy Lockhart would make a nice pair). The giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), the gamekeeper, finally finds love with Madame Maxine (Frances de la Tour), the headmistress of Beauxbaton.

The evil force known as Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) still presides over the school and Harry wants his revenge since Voldemort killed his parents once upon a time. Along the way, harried Harry has to come against the Death-Eaters, a fearsome dragon (the most convincing I've seen thus far on film), tough underwater trials with monstrous mermaids, an endless maze with unseen forces, the return of Harry's godfather Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) in ember form, and much more.

There is so much to take in that you'll be left bewildered and befuddled (it helps to familiarize oneself with the films or the books). "Goblet of Fire," like the last entry, is not overstuffed though it is supremely detailed. The story still works and moves along briskly enough, and it is getting progressively darker. Brit director Mike Newell infuses the fantasy with touches of whimsy and pure magic, not to mention the feeling of puberty breaking out of these wizards.

Since "Prisoner of Azkaban," Daniel Radcliffe has finally proven to develop a personality that brings the urgency out of Rowling's textual hero, including his doubts, his shyness about girls and the lack of ego about being a celebrity after having defeated a dragon. It is Radcliffe's humanity that makes us care for his plight. The trials and tribulations of our favorite youthful wizard continue.

Harry and company, time to prescribe some antidepressants!

 HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (2004)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I must say that I am slowly becoming a Harry Potter fan. "Chamber of Secrets" was far superior to the original film but "Prisoner of Azkaban," helmed by Mexican director Alfonso Cuaron, is an
unpredictable, odd and extremely sinister new film in the series - it won me over tenfold.

This time, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), our intrepid wizard, can't wait to begin a new semester at Hogwarts because his stepparents, the Dursleys, are driving him nuts. He is so incensed with them that he literally changes one of his aunts into a flying balloon! Before you know it, Harry's school friends whisk him away in a flying car back to the prospective school of learning wizardry.

It is business as usual although something wicked this way comes (a choir even sings the words to make sure we get the point). Something far darker and more sinister than Harry has ever confronted before is making its way. A convicted murderer named Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) is on the loose and purportedly after Harry since he allegedly killed Harry's parents. There is also a rat-faced human named Peter Pettigrew (Timothy Spall), who can change into a rat and who may not appear to be what he first seems. Added to the mix is the unseen, evil force known as Lord Voldemort and a host of ghostly manifestations known as the Dementors, who emit negative energy and can make you feel depressed (It is high time for Potter and company to start prescribing anti-depressants). The Dementors are after Sirius Black and are attempting to protect the school from Black, though they seem to do more harm than good.

So let's see: who are the new members of the teaching faculty? We have the creepy Professor Lupin (David Thewlis), who may be trying to protect our youthful wizard with no pimples. There is also
newcomer Professor Sybil Trelawney (Emma Thompson, almost unrecognizable), who sees death in Harry's future thanks to tea leaves in tea cups. Everyone seems standoffish, including the usual
members of the faculty such as the sneering Professor Snape (Alan Rickman), Professor Dumbledore (reliable Michael Gambon replacing the late Richard Harris), the sagest of all and, if you are
alert, you'll note the all too brief appearance of Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall. And if you are real quick, you'll spot Julie Christie in a cameo as someone who knows the truth regarding
Harry's real parents.

"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is certainly chock full of characters and situations that require a little note-taking to keep track (post-its might help for the DVD viewer). What is of special
note in this film is the glumness and darker tone. Director Alfonso Cuaron (who helmed the underwhelming "Y Tu Mama Tambien") brings a level of playfulness to it, as should be required of all fantasies, but there is also a sense of unease. Thanks to stunning art-direction and fluid camerawork, the film is just as uninviting as it is inviting. Cuaron sweeps us away into a world of time travel, ominous
incantations uttered before an ominous mirror, werewolves, misty fog by the moonlight, wraiths (Dementors) that resemble the Ring-Wraiths from "Lord of the Rings," flying cars, magic wands,
a little more Quidditch play with flying brooms, a spectral bus, a talking shrunken head, need I say more?

"Prisoner of Azkaban" remains the oddest Harry Potter film by far, evoking more dread than whimsy (which is not a bad thing). Its look and feel resembles Nicholas Roeg's equally dark and foreboding
"The Witches." "Azkaban" is the one film in this series that makes me feel rather uncomfortable, despite how entertaining and dazzling it often is. Everyone in this grand cast performs up to expectations but it is Daniel Radcliffe who surprises me the most. Radcliffe has brought
a sense of urgency and empathy to his role as Potter - this is not some effects-filled bombast with characterless ciphers. In "Sorcerer's Stone," Radcliffe was a bland, undefined little tyke. Now he has
consumed the role and made it his own and I am proud to say it is the best performance in the film.

"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is unique, inventive, and tantalizing. Its sense of dread may scare away the tykes, though they probably have the read the book and know what to expect.
Knowing that the books encourage kids to read makes me like this film even more.

Martians' vested interest in some kid's backyard

 INVADERS FROM MARS (1986)

A Lack of Appreciation by Jerry Saravia

Originally seen in theaters in 1986

Catching "Invaders from Mars" on the Svengoolie channel (apparently, there are issues with rights to showing the more appropriate original 1953 film) reminded me why I truly disliked it when I first saw it in theaters in 1986. It was a birthday present and I saw it in a little theater in Forest Hills, New York (the same theater where I saw the similarly misguided "Short Circuit"). The remake of "Invaders from Mars" is more than just slipshod and monotonous - it has no real imagination and hardly updates the original despite being set in the 1980's.

Oh, sure, we got bigger, more monstrous aliens (Martians, sorry to all aliens out there) who walk around the inside of the spaceship like spilled leftovers from "Little Shop of Horrors" (courtesy of creature whiz Stan Winston). We do have the always reliable and thrilling Karen Black as a nurse who believes the little 12-year-old kid (Hunter Carson, Karen's actual son) and his incredible story about a UFO landing in his backyard. Yes, yes, dear child, the Martians exist because Karen Black's character is willing to listen to you first, ask questions later like any good school nurse. There's also legendary grade-Z movie actress Louise Fletcher as a biology teacher who gets her class to pay attention by yelling, "One, two, three, four five!" Oh, yeah, that ought to do it. 

But beyond that, this Tobe Hooper-directed film doesn't have much going for it. There are disgusting-looking aliens, like the Martian brain on legs known as the Supreme Being (who looks like a giant toad with slightly menacing eyes), but none of them have much personality - they are just puppets that don't seem threatening enough (all apologies to Stan Winston's craft). There is no real sense of urgency at work here. And how on earth can you waste the talents of James Karen as a military commander and Bud Cort as a NASA scientist who is foolish enough to think he can reason with these Martians! Let me repeat those names: James freakin' Karen and Bud freakin' Cort!!!

The real problem is that there is no clear narrative consistency. The screenplay by Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby and clumsy direction by Hooper suggest something more tongue-in-cheek - how can anyone take Laraine Newman seriously as a mother who does impressions of the Coneheads? This ill-advised remake's tone wavers between tongue-in-cheek and gross-out humor like watching Louise Fletcher eating a frog! The original 1953 film felt like a nightmare (more so in the U.S. version) and took itself seriously enough. This stinker just makes you want to vomit, a feeling I never shook since seeing it in 1986.