Like pretty much everybody else in the world (relatively speaking), I saw the latest chapter in the ever-expanding Harry Potter saga this evening. I've been a huge fan of the book series since about 1999, so have always taken in the movies when they come out. This time, though, things were a little different, as my wife and I decided to check out a new theater that opened in Scottsdale, the UltraStar Scottsdale 11. We live about 45 minutes away, so what drew us to this particular theater was its Star Class Cinemas. Five of the screens at the multiplex were for people age 21 or over. No kids. Bliss, right? And, hey, you can also food and beverages--including beer and wine--at your seat in the theater, and a waiter will bring it to you. For those of us who've been unlucky to not go to the Arclight in Hollywood or the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, it's heaven, yes?
Well, it should be. I still want to go to the Arclight and the Alamo Drafthouse, because they're purportedly awesome. But I'm very wary about going to the Star Class again; while I understand that the opening weekend of any movie theater, especially one with such a unique selling point, is going to have its fair share of kinks, there's something fundamentally wrong about the layout of the theater as it stands. Whatever issues I had, mind you, had nothing to do with the quality of the food. Though we didn't order any of the paninis that were offered, my wife and I shared a plate of loaded nachos that were very good. But a lot of the aesthetic and physical design choices just don't make sense.
Apparently, a couple of the Star Class screens are called VIP lounges, as they only have about 40 seats. We were not in one of those screens. At first blush, the theater we saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 in was no different than any stadium-seating theater in just about every cinema in the country: about six or seven rows closest to the screen that aren't stadium-seating, and about 12 rows of stadium-seating behind them. Each of the rows were marked by letter and the amount of seats; as an example, we sat in row F,though I didn't get our seat numbers. Our show was at 5, and we were ready to go into the theater at around 4:40. We figured that the movie was just finishing up, seeing as the movie is 150 minutes long and had started previously at 2. With what I figured were a load of previews, the credits were probably still rolling. However, a few minutes later, a couple went in with a supervisor to check and see if they could sit down. We found out that, well, no one had cleaned the theater after the previous show. By the time we sat down, it was getting close to 4:55, and the sole waitress was just beginning to take orders from the first few rows. What's more, when she addressed us, she addressed us in her big-girl voice, and never lowered it.
I wanted to make sure I ordered something, because that was the point, right? Sure, on the one hand, I can be glad that I'm seeing a movie without any kids in the audience, but if you're serving food during a movie--something that seems potentially very convenient--I want to know how disruptive you're going to be. While she could have been worse, I don't know how much worse the waitress could have been. She was, on the one hand, exceedingly friendly and polite. I would imagine that the theater is, at the present time, understaffed; as one of our friends who joined us pointed out, had the theater been full (there were only about 40 people in the audience), ordering and getting food without leaving would have been impossible. However, the waitress was out a flashlight, as it had died on her; she spilled, loudly, a plate of food; she would often mix orders up; and, as I said already, she was loud.
I've heard enough stories about the Alamo Drafthouse to know, or assume, that the people serving know exactly how to do it without being distracting. I hope that, with proper training, the staff at UltraStar are going to do the same. For now, I felt like a guinea pig. It's for that reason that, I'll be honest, I want to see this new Harry Potter film again and not just because I liked it a lot. I did like it a lot, and I'm tempted to call it the best in the series, at least since 2004's Prisoner of Azkaban. But the first 30 minutes of this movie were in and out for me. Every time I'd begin to get sucked in, or want to get sucked in, I'd have to take that plate of nachos, or give my order, or pay (though, being fair, the waitress was jumping around so much that I probably didn't pay for nearly an hour after the film began).
What was immediate in this first viewing is that David Yates, with a whole lot of help from superlative cinematography from Eduardo Serra, has provided the most strikingly beautiful film of the series. For reasons that are clear simply because of the books by J.K. Rowling, but for some directorial choices, this is the first Harry Potter film where...hey, it looks like it was shot in England! Much of the second half of this part takes place completely outside of the world of magic as we know it, and all it does is give Yates reasons to layer in shot after shot after shot of the rolling hills, valleys, and countrysides of England. As always, of course, the technical aspects of the film are beyond reproach (though an early car chase does look a bit too fake). A few critics have pointed out the true change between this film and the preceding six: not only is Hogwarts never seen--though that will change in the final part--but this is the first time the movie's about acting. Whether it's good or not, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 depends very much on Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint.
Harry, Ron, and Hermione have to find the remaining pieces of Voldemort's soul--called Horcruxes--and destroy them so they can kill him for once and for all. Voldemort has grown more and more powerful after Dumbledore was killed at the end of the sixth book/film, and has taken over the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts, but still wants more to top off his insane quest for dominance. As you may have noted by the Part 1 in the title, Voldemort's doing just fine at the end of this movie, and the Horcrux destruction is not complete. But the characters grow a lot closer, and there are truly compelling setpieces and scenes here, from the book and otherwise. Of the three young performers, while none are slouches (and all have grown immensely from the first film, which is really embarrassing to watch these days), Grint is most impressive here.
In the first few films, Ron Weasley was around to pull stupid faces and look silly. In Deathly Hallows, he's jealous and for good reason; the movie does an even better job than the book of making him actively and sensibly get paranoid about how close Harry and Hermione are. Conversely, Radcliffe and Watson have an easy, believable chemistry as friends who could easily be much closer; Ron abandons the group as they're stranded in various forests throughout the country in hiding from Voldemort, and when he does, it gives Harry and Hermione time to bond. The book tells this part of the story slightly differently, but I think the movie makes enough right moves to draw the two together without hammering the point home. Some of the dialogue, again by Steve Kloves, is a bit ham-fisted or overly explanatory, but in general, I think that this film continues the streak of improving on the predecessor. But I want to see it again. I want to get sucked back into this world again.
No comments:
Post a Comment