So, Mr. Potter...
Nov. 15th, 2002 08:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bluelovesorangeFind a spoiler-laden, mostly objective review of Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets inside.
The Chamber of Secrets is a great improvement over Harry Potter and the Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone, and currently, is the best Christopher Columbus film. Alright, I've only seen/endured the first Home Alone, and Mrs. Doubtfire, but the Chamber of Secrets is head over shoulders better than both of those films. As a director, Chris Columbus tends to pour on the smarm with a side of ham, and it shows particularly glaringly with the younger actors. However, the lead triumvirate of Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint are much more accomplished and more comfortable this time out, and their chemistry is evident.
Daniel Radcliffe is less open-mouthed innocent gawking at the scenery around him-this performance, and brings a quiet assurance to the Boy-who-lived. Harry does have some menacing moments in the film, particularly in regards to two of his elders - Kenneth Branagh's foppish Gilderoy Lockhart, and Jason Isaacs' wonderfully sneering Lucius Malfoy. Radcliffe's intensity in these scenes hints at something greater, given time and better scripts. He's not all boy-wonder in the film, thankfully, as he slips into a reassuring 12/13 year old guise from time to time - the hero/martyr mask coexists with a mischevious side, and reminds me that both Harry *and* Daniel are still only 12/13 years old.
The only major problem I had with Daniel's performance is that he has the problem of being so subtle in some key scenes - or rather..underacting, that the reactions shots for Harry just seem off. In the film's climax, (after reading the EW cover article about CoS and CC's directions - I can only conclude this was more Chris Columbus' misstep than Daniel's) he substitutes a blank stare where there should be pathos and a resigned air. He has lovely eyes, but extreme closeups on them do not make for empathetic reactions.
Whereas Daniel underacts in some scenes, I'm moving on the to more....exuberant and over-actions of one Rupert Grint and Tom Felton. Now, I admit that in the books, Ron isn't my favorite character. Neither is Draco. And in the film version, (for CoS anyway) Ron suffers the problematic trouble of being the sidekick. Generally, the sidekicks steal the scene. Rupert did a superb job of that in the Dark Forest/Aragog, but elsewhere, it was very much a case of 'hold the smarm, cos here comes the ham!'. Rupert's horrified/hangdog/smirk rubbery glare became a running gag into itself, and I can see Rupert being a very good comic/character actor in the future - but in some cases, it was just All Too Much. Steve Kloves' interpretation of Ron has reduced him into a gag/facial quirk joke, the humor and mischief that his brothers inspire seem to have been poured into Ron, only without the obvious cheeky cleverness. When Ron's not being terrified, he's being the butt of a sight gag, and his voice (of all the child actors) is audibly the one that swoops and changes the most on screen. Even his wizardry history has been stolen, as Hermione informs the audience why being called a Mudblood is a Very Bad Thing, instead of Ron. Ron is not a brainless buffoon, but Kloves seems to have lost the memo, and Rupert doesn't help matters by channelling Pre Oscar Contender Jim Carrey. When he's genuinely funny though, Grint absolutely shines on screen. His stunned 'Ginny!' during the latter half of the film (leading to the climax) is moving.
Now...Draco. From where I lurk in the HP online-fandom, I already know that there's overwhelming fetishization and idolization of fanon/canon Draco. How he's really just a misunderstood aristocrat, who's forced into his bullyhood much as Harry is forced into his heroics. Maybe that's true, but regarding the interpretation (I'll be using the word interpretation in this review several times, because the film is exactly that. It's Christopher Columbus and Steve Kloves and David Heyman's and the entire cast and crew's interpretation of J.K. Rowling's work. It's not the definitive guide. It's just a film eye view of a panoramic universe -- and that's mostly surface layers. It's not meant to be perfect.) of Draco Malfoy in Chamber of Secrets, Tom Felton plays him as a mostly satisfactory mix of petulance and snarl, an ill tempered little brat with a flair for the dramatic (see the aftermath of the Quidditch scene in the hospital wing). He spits out bile and disdain with nearly every line delivery, and it's all a bit, "Your cape should be more swirly, and you're missing a curly mustache!" Felton's Draco sneers a little too much and is terribly obvious in nearly every speaking scene he's in. When it comes to physical acting and quiet still scenes, however, he's vastly better - the glance between father and son in Flourish and Botts is telling, as is the cool calcuated once-over from the balcony. His lounging in the Slytherin common room says more about his character than anything else. Felton's fifty thousand stare serves him well, as he seems to be doing quite a bit of glaring throughout the film - at Harry, at Hermione, at Ron, even at Percy. Other people act with their hair, Felton acts with his eyebrows. I still am wondering if the eyebrow archings are a joke I'm not aware of (or repressing), or if that was his version of menacing. The added flourishes to his character - vandalism and nicking random objects are interesting, if only to inspire a whole crowd of fanficcers to run with the Draco as tragic misunderstood antihero in scores of really horrible fanfiction. With some gems, of course.
Now that the Draco fans have added my name to their death list, moving on...
the double duo of Hermione and Ginny - both under-utilized in the film, I'm sorry to say. Ginny is a shadowy presence at best in the books, but Chamber of Secrets's secondary plot is supposed to involve her character a great deal -- and the film interpretation outlines Ginny Weasley, but never quite fills something resembling a character in. Bonnie Wright made the most of the screen time she was given, but at the climax of the film, Ginny is still something of a questionmark. Harry saves her because well, 1) she's Ron's sister, 2) that's what heroes do. The chemistry and supposed comrade-ship between them is missing though, and in a tiring flashback sequence, only paints Ginny exactly as Tom Riddle describes her - 'a silly little girl' who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There's no real angst or understanding of Ginny's motivations as detailed in the book, and that's a definite loss.
Emma Watson turns in the nearly perfect performance (from the three leads) as Hermione Granger - she's channelled Hermione, with all the correct notes on exasperating know-it-all to caring friend. There are nice moments between her and Daniel and Rupert, and while a bit has been made of the infamous Hollywood Ending of CoS, the film doesn't really stay too long on a truly romantic angle between Hermione and Ron. There are flitting moments of Harry and Hermione, Draco and Hermione (if you want to pull out the Pride and Prejudice excuse and Xander and Cordy) and Harry and Ron, and Harry and Draco, if you want to stretch your particular ship/subtext to its full potential. But, disregarding all that -- Emma's Hermione is just right, and the scenes where she's mooning over Gilderoy Lockhart are priceless. Little flashes of detail, such as Hermione's parents, and the quiet comfortable feel of Hermione's first reunion with Harry (flashback to the first film's Oculus Reparo spell) are great. Her teary expression after the Mudblood incident is particularly moving -- Hermione is more than a book on legs, she's a person with feelings. This sadspell is muchly improved from the first film's forced 'cry for the camera' scenes.
the other young actors - Seamus is less of a joke this time around, Dean is only a visible presence, the wit has been completely erased from Lee Jordan, Sean Biggerstaff's Oliver Wood is more likeable than the book's version, but sadly has about the same amount of screen time as from the first film, the Katie Bell/Angelina Johnson from the dueling club scene is a small present, Justin Finch-Fetchley doesn't look as I pictured him, but kudos to Edward Randell for giving everything he had for his one line. The Phelps twins are less visible as Fred and George Weasley, which is another definite loss. Chris Rankin's Percy Wesley is amusing for the minutes he appears, (Percy's part in the Ginny fiasco has also been cut. Much loss on the secondary character front.) and Neville is just darling. His "It's always me" line is pitch perfect.
The young actors who portray Crabbe and Goyle are particularly impressive, and like Tom Felton, excel in physical acting - what they don't say but do, says volumes. The Polyjuice scene is one of my favorites from the film.
On to the adult actors, who anchor the scenes they're in reliably, and often help the younger actors along - they're all brilliant, if some tragically underused (Alan Rickman's Snape, an amusing mix of foreboding and camp flounciness), Jason Isaacs who just...*is* Lucius Malfoy, and Kenneth Branagh's Gilderoy Lockhart. The little innuendos, the paintings moving and winkwinknudgenudge to Lockhart's vanity...the film makers did a wonderful job of casting and creating Lockhart's onscreen visual persona, and Kenneth brought it all to gleeful life. The late Richard Harris was a bit flat in the first film, but in the second, that issue has been addressed and the twinkle to Dumbledore's personality is finally there. The Weasley patriarch and matriarch are just wonderful, and I wished I could have seen more of them (running theme here: more of the secondary characters.).
Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid - Thank God they stopped with the tired 'I shouldn't have told you that' joke for Hagrid - RC is as warm and lovable and odd as he was in the first film.
Gemma Jones and Miriam Margolyes as Madame Pomfrey and Sprout - good for what time they had on screen.
the Dursleys - caricatures in the fine Roald Dahl tradition
Filch. Man, he rocks.
Christian Coulson as Tom Riddle - wow. I sense an Orlando Bloom like wave of exposure hovering around Mr. Coulson. That is all.
now to the film itself - it's more enjoyable, better paced, and more action oriented than the first one. Definite improvements on the visual affects and CGI animation, particularly Quidditch and Dobby was much more enjoyable than Jar Jar Binks (this from a person who's only seen Star Wars, Episode II. of the new films). The photography of the film is darker and lush in areas, and of course, the ridiculously photogenic cast help. Visually, it's a winner, and I won't be surprised if CoS gets more nods in the Oscars for technical ingenuity.
But, there is a problem with transitions and exposition, and an overly ...'redundant' script in areas that cripples Chamber of Secrets as an effective fairytale/adventure film. Kloves and Columbus seem to be more of the 'telling' not 'showing' school of thought, and often exposition is clunkily introduced by characters (often a different character from the book), and when it's not someone telling so and so about some remote historical wizard fact, the film sweeps from scene to scene with little rational transitions. It's a collection of scenes, sometimes - and if the viewer hasn't read the book, it is very likely that they will be confused by what's going on.
The audience is very quickly dropped into the thick of Harry's wizarding world, and while this does pace the film faster, cuts could still be arguably made in the film's nearly 3 hour running time. Also, a lot of character studies and just plain characters could have been inserted in place of the action scenes (exciting as they are, they're more a nod to the adrenaline crowd, than anything important to the story.)
However, staying past the credits reveals one last surprise for the audience - the fate of Gilderoy Lockhart in C & K's Potterverse. I typed it in white, for those of you willing to stay past the credits, just highlight, for those of you who are waiting for the DVD. As the last of the credits plays, we flash back to Diagon Alley, and to the store window of Flourish and Botts. Gilderoy Lockhart is on a cover of yet another book..only the title is, "Who am I?" and the moving grinning picture is of Lockhart in a strait jacket. Damn funny, really.
But bottom line? Chamber of secrets is a better film than it's predecessor, and it can only get better with the infusion of new blood, director Alfonso Cuaron overseeing the world.
I want to see it again, just to catch the details I missed the first go around.
and in a completely non objective, turn around - there's something magical happening over at![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fearlessdiva's LJ. It's going under the name Tissue of Silver, and it's quite fabulous. A believable and extremely lustable Draco Malfoy, and Harry Potter....but really. I'm just wibbling. Go over there and read. Now.
Now I have Daredevil (OhMyGOD, Jennifer Garner) and The Two Towers to look forward to. Wheee!
The Chamber of Secrets is a great improvement over Harry Potter and the Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone, and currently, is the best Christopher Columbus film. Alright, I've only seen/endured the first Home Alone, and Mrs. Doubtfire, but the Chamber of Secrets is head over shoulders better than both of those films. As a director, Chris Columbus tends to pour on the smarm with a side of ham, and it shows particularly glaringly with the younger actors. However, the lead triumvirate of Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint are much more accomplished and more comfortable this time out, and their chemistry is evident.
Daniel Radcliffe is less open-mouthed innocent gawking at the scenery around him-this performance, and brings a quiet assurance to the Boy-who-lived. Harry does have some menacing moments in the film, particularly in regards to two of his elders - Kenneth Branagh's foppish Gilderoy Lockhart, and Jason Isaacs' wonderfully sneering Lucius Malfoy. Radcliffe's intensity in these scenes hints at something greater, given time and better scripts. He's not all boy-wonder in the film, thankfully, as he slips into a reassuring 12/13 year old guise from time to time - the hero/martyr mask coexists with a mischevious side, and reminds me that both Harry *and* Daniel are still only 12/13 years old.
The only major problem I had with Daniel's performance is that he has the problem of being so subtle in some key scenes - or rather..underacting, that the reactions shots for Harry just seem off. In the film's climax, (after reading the EW cover article about CoS and CC's directions - I can only conclude this was more Chris Columbus' misstep than Daniel's) he substitutes a blank stare where there should be pathos and a resigned air. He has lovely eyes, but extreme closeups on them do not make for empathetic reactions.
Whereas Daniel underacts in some scenes, I'm moving on the to more....exuberant and over-actions of one Rupert Grint and Tom Felton. Now, I admit that in the books, Ron isn't my favorite character. Neither is Draco. And in the film version, (for CoS anyway) Ron suffers the problematic trouble of being the sidekick. Generally, the sidekicks steal the scene. Rupert did a superb job of that in the Dark Forest/Aragog, but elsewhere, it was very much a case of 'hold the smarm, cos here comes the ham!'. Rupert's horrified/hangdog/smirk rubbery glare became a running gag into itself, and I can see Rupert being a very good comic/character actor in the future - but in some cases, it was just All Too Much. Steve Kloves' interpretation of Ron has reduced him into a gag/facial quirk joke, the humor and mischief that his brothers inspire seem to have been poured into Ron, only without the obvious cheeky cleverness. When Ron's not being terrified, he's being the butt of a sight gag, and his voice (of all the child actors) is audibly the one that swoops and changes the most on screen. Even his wizardry history has been stolen, as Hermione informs the audience why being called a Mudblood is a Very Bad Thing, instead of Ron. Ron is not a brainless buffoon, but Kloves seems to have lost the memo, and Rupert doesn't help matters by channelling Pre Oscar Contender Jim Carrey. When he's genuinely funny though, Grint absolutely shines on screen. His stunned 'Ginny!' during the latter half of the film (leading to the climax) is moving.
Now...Draco. From where I lurk in the HP online-fandom, I already know that there's overwhelming fetishization and idolization of fanon/canon Draco. How he's really just a misunderstood aristocrat, who's forced into his bullyhood much as Harry is forced into his heroics. Maybe that's true, but regarding the interpretation (I'll be using the word interpretation in this review several times, because the film is exactly that. It's Christopher Columbus and Steve Kloves and David Heyman's and the entire cast and crew's interpretation of J.K. Rowling's work. It's not the definitive guide. It's just a film eye view of a panoramic universe -- and that's mostly surface layers. It's not meant to be perfect.) of Draco Malfoy in Chamber of Secrets, Tom Felton plays him as a mostly satisfactory mix of petulance and snarl, an ill tempered little brat with a flair for the dramatic (see the aftermath of the Quidditch scene in the hospital wing). He spits out bile and disdain with nearly every line delivery, and it's all a bit, "Your cape should be more swirly, and you're missing a curly mustache!" Felton's Draco sneers a little too much and is terribly obvious in nearly every speaking scene he's in. When it comes to physical acting and quiet still scenes, however, he's vastly better - the glance between father and son in Flourish and Botts is telling, as is the cool calcuated once-over from the balcony. His lounging in the Slytherin common room says more about his character than anything else. Felton's fifty thousand stare serves him well, as he seems to be doing quite a bit of glaring throughout the film - at Harry, at Hermione, at Ron, even at Percy. Other people act with their hair, Felton acts with his eyebrows. I still am wondering if the eyebrow archings are a joke I'm not aware of (or repressing), or if that was his version of menacing. The added flourishes to his character - vandalism and nicking random objects are interesting, if only to inspire a whole crowd of fanficcers to run with the Draco as tragic misunderstood antihero in scores of really horrible fanfiction. With some gems, of course.
Now that the Draco fans have added my name to their death list, moving on...
the double duo of Hermione and Ginny - both under-utilized in the film, I'm sorry to say. Ginny is a shadowy presence at best in the books, but Chamber of Secrets's secondary plot is supposed to involve her character a great deal -- and the film interpretation outlines Ginny Weasley, but never quite fills something resembling a character in. Bonnie Wright made the most of the screen time she was given, but at the climax of the film, Ginny is still something of a questionmark. Harry saves her because well, 1) she's Ron's sister, 2) that's what heroes do. The chemistry and supposed comrade-ship between them is missing though, and in a tiring flashback sequence, only paints Ginny exactly as Tom Riddle describes her - 'a silly little girl' who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There's no real angst or understanding of Ginny's motivations as detailed in the book, and that's a definite loss.
Emma Watson turns in the nearly perfect performance (from the three leads) as Hermione Granger - she's channelled Hermione, with all the correct notes on exasperating know-it-all to caring friend. There are nice moments between her and Daniel and Rupert, and while a bit has been made of the infamous Hollywood Ending of CoS, the film doesn't really stay too long on a truly romantic angle between Hermione and Ron. There are flitting moments of Harry and Hermione, Draco and Hermione (if you want to pull out the Pride and Prejudice excuse and Xander and Cordy) and Harry and Ron, and Harry and Draco, if you want to stretch your particular ship/subtext to its full potential. But, disregarding all that -- Emma's Hermione is just right, and the scenes where she's mooning over Gilderoy Lockhart are priceless. Little flashes of detail, such as Hermione's parents, and the quiet comfortable feel of Hermione's first reunion with Harry (flashback to the first film's Oculus Reparo spell) are great. Her teary expression after the Mudblood incident is particularly moving -- Hermione is more than a book on legs, she's a person with feelings. This sadspell is muchly improved from the first film's forced 'cry for the camera' scenes.
the other young actors - Seamus is less of a joke this time around, Dean is only a visible presence, the wit has been completely erased from Lee Jordan, Sean Biggerstaff's Oliver Wood is more likeable than the book's version, but sadly has about the same amount of screen time as from the first film, the Katie Bell/Angelina Johnson from the dueling club scene is a small present, Justin Finch-Fetchley doesn't look as I pictured him, but kudos to Edward Randell for giving everything he had for his one line. The Phelps twins are less visible as Fred and George Weasley, which is another definite loss. Chris Rankin's Percy Wesley is amusing for the minutes he appears, (Percy's part in the Ginny fiasco has also been cut. Much loss on the secondary character front.) and Neville is just darling. His "It's always me" line is pitch perfect.
The young actors who portray Crabbe and Goyle are particularly impressive, and like Tom Felton, excel in physical acting - what they don't say but do, says volumes. The Polyjuice scene is one of my favorites from the film.
On to the adult actors, who anchor the scenes they're in reliably, and often help the younger actors along - they're all brilliant, if some tragically underused (Alan Rickman's Snape, an amusing mix of foreboding and camp flounciness), Jason Isaacs who just...*is* Lucius Malfoy, and Kenneth Branagh's Gilderoy Lockhart. The little innuendos, the paintings moving and winkwinknudgenudge to Lockhart's vanity...the film makers did a wonderful job of casting and creating Lockhart's onscreen visual persona, and Kenneth brought it all to gleeful life. The late Richard Harris was a bit flat in the first film, but in the second, that issue has been addressed and the twinkle to Dumbledore's personality is finally there. The Weasley patriarch and matriarch are just wonderful, and I wished I could have seen more of them (running theme here: more of the secondary characters.).
Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid - Thank God they stopped with the tired 'I shouldn't have told you that' joke for Hagrid - RC is as warm and lovable and odd as he was in the first film.
Gemma Jones and Miriam Margolyes as Madame Pomfrey and Sprout - good for what time they had on screen.
the Dursleys - caricatures in the fine Roald Dahl tradition
Filch. Man, he rocks.
Christian Coulson as Tom Riddle - wow. I sense an Orlando Bloom like wave of exposure hovering around Mr. Coulson. That is all.
now to the film itself - it's more enjoyable, better paced, and more action oriented than the first one. Definite improvements on the visual affects and CGI animation, particularly Quidditch and Dobby was much more enjoyable than Jar Jar Binks (this from a person who's only seen Star Wars, Episode II. of the new films). The photography of the film is darker and lush in areas, and of course, the ridiculously photogenic cast help. Visually, it's a winner, and I won't be surprised if CoS gets more nods in the Oscars for technical ingenuity.
But, there is a problem with transitions and exposition, and an overly ...'redundant' script in areas that cripples Chamber of Secrets as an effective fairytale/adventure film. Kloves and Columbus seem to be more of the 'telling' not 'showing' school of thought, and often exposition is clunkily introduced by characters (often a different character from the book), and when it's not someone telling so and so about some remote historical wizard fact, the film sweeps from scene to scene with little rational transitions. It's a collection of scenes, sometimes - and if the viewer hasn't read the book, it is very likely that they will be confused by what's going on.
The audience is very quickly dropped into the thick of Harry's wizarding world, and while this does pace the film faster, cuts could still be arguably made in the film's nearly 3 hour running time. Also, a lot of character studies and just plain characters could have been inserted in place of the action scenes (exciting as they are, they're more a nod to the adrenaline crowd, than anything important to the story.)
However, staying past the credits reveals one last surprise for the audience - the fate of Gilderoy Lockhart in C & K's Potterverse. I typed it in white, for those of you willing to stay past the credits, just highlight, for those of you who are waiting for the DVD. As the last of the credits plays, we flash back to Diagon Alley, and to the store window of Flourish and Botts. Gilderoy Lockhart is on a cover of yet another book..only the title is, "Who am I?" and the moving grinning picture is of Lockhart in a strait jacket. Damn funny, really.
But bottom line? Chamber of secrets is a better film than it's predecessor, and it can only get better with the infusion of new blood, director Alfonso Cuaron overseeing the world.
I want to see it again, just to catch the details I missed the first go around.
and in a completely non objective, turn around - there's something magical happening over at
fearlessdiva's LJ. It's going under the name Tissue of Silver, and it's quite fabulous. A believable and extremely lustable Draco Malfoy, and Harry Potter....but really. I'm just wibbling. Go over there and read. Now.Now I have Daredevil (OhMyGOD, Jennifer Garner) and The Two Towers to look forward to. Wheee!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-11-16 12:33 am (UTC)=r
no subject
Date: 2002-11-16 06:28 am (UTC)Juliet
no subject
Date: 2002-11-19 11:13 am (UTC)In the first HP, it annoyed me that all Harry seemed to do was stare at the world in wonder. . . I thought Daniel Radcliffe did a much better job this time around -- they all did. Hmm, I'm trying to think of something I didn't agree with you about. . .
You didn't mention Moaning Myrtle! She was my favorite part of the film; I really thought she stole every scene she was in. But at the same time, she got a lot of screentime, relatively speaking. Although I wouldn't really have wanted to see less of her, there are other characters we needed to see more of (like Ginny).
I definitely agree that it felt like a bunch of scenes strung together, and we're plopped in Harry's world pretty abruptly. I was thinking about this last night, though, and I think it was a calculated risk. There's a lot of story to tell, and the odds that someone's going to see Chamber of Secrets without having read the book or at least having seen the first movie are very slim.
He spits out bile and disdain with nearly every line delivery, and it's all a bit, "Your cape should be more swirly, and you're missing a curly mustache!"
Are you sure Draco didn't actually have a twirly mustache and a cape? Because I could have sworn. . . Honestly, he's not all that great. I don't see what the fuss is about.
I found myself disappointed on Angie's behalf that there was so little Snape in this film, but I guess he'll be all over the next one. . . Lucius Malfoy was perfectly cast and creepy as hell. And Kenneth Branagh was brilliant -- made me want to go rewatch as many of his other movies as possible. . . He's just sooo good.
So yeah. I think that's enough for now until I catch you again on AIM.
Did you know that Rick James was the original super freak?
Date: 2002-11-19 12:34 pm (UTC)And Felton is coasting on the online-fiefdom's (ha) adoration of Draco...he is for the most part, very over-rated as an actor. However, I'm willing to give all of the younger actors the benefit of the doubt and chalk about 90% of their performances on the way they were directed. Also, Felton hasn't read the HP books at all, so he doesn't have any real idea of what Draco is like, other than what Christopher Columbus and Steve Kloves have mentioned. But Daniel? More time, experience and a better director (Oh, Alfonso Cuaron, can you make Harry and the Prisoner of Azkaban truly magical?) - and that promise he has could totally blossom into something worthwhile. Mala and I were discussing the fact that he does have more Presence this time around - he's much more Harry, and his subtlety is mostly enjoyable to watch.
But! wheee! still going to see it again on Friday with M - and then I'll be saving up for the DVD (which shockingly has 18 minutes of extra footage, including a cut scene with more Lucius. The cheekiness of CC. Telling the fandom world about this now after the film's released. Because really, 18 minutes is going to make that much more of a difference in the film. *rolls eyes*)
I'm so glad you liked the film too, though. Squee-tastic.
;)
/back to work.