“Harry Potter” star Daniel Radcliffe “opened” his first post-boy wizard film over the weekend with “The Woman in Black.” The horror movie hauled in a very respectable $21 million, not bad for a project without built-in brand recognition or sequel pizazz.

Now, Radcliffe is opening his mouth on politics and likely losing a few admirers along the way.

First, the actor slammed the GOP presidential candidates for their stances on gay rights. Next, he applauded President Barack Obama on the issue even though Obama holds the very same position on gay marriage as his ideological opponents. He’s against it.

[Radcliffe] went on to say that he has been “disgusted, amazed, stunned” by candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination, such as Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, who have been openly hostile to gay rights.

“But they disgusted me less than candidates like Rick Perry, who made that ridiculous advert wearing ‘the Brokeback jacket’, and I think pretend to be homophobic just to win votes.”

(more…)

The new horror film “The Woman in Black” does just about everything right.

The setting is true-blue gothic down to the creaky mansion at the heart of the story. Star Daniel Radcliffe looks appropriately 19th century as the film’s worried lead. And director James Watkins, who previously gave us the terrific shocker “Eden Lake,” knows how to tease out every quivering shadow in the house.

But frankly we’ve seen it all before. The haunted house genre desperately needs a rest.

Let’s break down the shocks in “Woman” to better see what the problem is. Radcliffe’s character spends one very long sequence in the ghostly house in question. He sees shadows moving out of the corner of his eye, hears children’s toys whir into life even though no one is there to wind them up and catches glimpses of ghostly faces in window panes.

Seasoned horror fans will see just about every “scare” coming our way. And that’s because movie ghosts act in such predictable fashion.

(more…)

“The Woman in Black” reaches back into the horror-movie past, long before mad slashers and crazed gore frenzies infested the genre, to present us with an unapologetically old-fashioned haunted-house exercise.

The picture pays vivid tribute to the fog-choked byways and richly decorated interiors of the old Hammer horror films (and is in fact the first release by that newly resurrected studio after some 30 years of commercial hibernation). But it also partakes of the narcoleptic pacing that hobbled some of those old pictures, and so despite this movie’s stylish design and agreeably vintage frights, it is also, sad to report, kind of boring.

The story is derived from a 1983 novel by Susan Hill that was previously adapted for British TV and radio, and has been running in a London stage version for more than 20 years. Clearly there’s an audience for this time-tested material; it only remains to be seen whether it’s an audience that also goes to the movies.

The setting is vaguely Victorian (although a briefly glimpsed newspaper story about Arthur Conan Doyle’s conversion to spiritualism would place it closer to the 1920s). Daniel Radcliffe, in his first post-”Potter” film role, plays Arthur Kipps, a morose young lawyer still shattered by the death of his wife in childbirth four years earlier. He is dispatched by his London office to the faraway village of Crythin Gifford, there to organize the estate of a recently deceased old woman. Arriving by train in the grim, unwelcoming village, he makes his way to her even grimmer residence—a dismal stone mansion situated in nearby marshlands at the end of a long road that’s submerged by high tides for many hours of each day.

Read the full review at Reason.com

Audiences have no idea whether Daniel Radcliffe will forever be known as Harry Potter, or if the British actor’s career has only just begun.

Either way, his first major post-”Potter” screen assignment looks like a step in the right direction. “The Woman in Black,” hitting theaters Feb. 3, 2012, casts Radcliffe as a lawyer who runs into one very persistent ghost.

Radcliffe already proved he could stretch with his Broadway run in “Equus” as well as a more recent turn in “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.”

He doffed his clothes in the former, flashing the kind of abs that could find him a gig in a “Twilight” sequel. But just like that franchise’s star players, a lengthy film career is hardly guaranteed for Radcliffe. That’s why his first few films in the wake of the outstanding “Potter” finale are so crucial.

“Black’s” first trailer was out and out creepy, and the second snippet above is just as satisfying if a bit recycled from prior haunted house affairs. As for Radcliffe, he’s clearly benefiting from those sculpted sideburns and period garb that chases away thoughts of the boy wizard.

(more…)

After seven books, eight movies, and millions of satisfied fans, the long battle between Harry Potter and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has finally ended. “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” is the last installment in the “Harry Potter” film series that has entertained readers and viewers alike for over a decade. Fortunately, this spectacular conclusion exceeds expectations and ends the story on a high note, fulfilling the promise of this magical world.

—–

The installment begins moments after “Part 1” ended. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are mourning the loss of Dobby, their beloved friend who died at the conclusion of “Part 1.” The trio know that more bloodshed awaits them as Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), the monster who killed Potter’s parents, has been gaining strength while Potter has worked to find and destroy the Horcruxes that contain his enemy’s soul. In the meantime, Professor Snape (Alan Rickman), Potter’s despised former teacher at Hogwarts, and his allies have taken control of the wizarding school that Potter grew up in.

It’s not surprising that “Deathly Hallows: Part 2” is far superior to “Part 1” but it is surprising how high this story towers over its underwhelming predecessor.  Both films were adapted from the same book that was reportedly too long to make into one film. While “Part 1″ disappointed, “Part 2″ ranks up there with the best films in this series and could be one of the best films of 2011. (more…)

Regardless of its quality, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I” will likely become a huge blockbuster. It’s the seventh film chronicling the long-running book series about a wizard named Harry Potter and his two best friends. The final book of the series was split into two films and the second part will be released in July 2011. As a long time fan of the series, I was excited to see the penultimate movie in the franchise but ”Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” lacks the magic and the imagination of its exciting prequels.  

—–

“The Deathly Hallows” begins as panic continues to brew in the wizarding world. Voldermort (Ralph Fiennes), the story’s villian, is leading an army that plans to ambush and kill Harry Potter, the young and powerful wizard. Voldermort tried to kill Potter as an infant after killing his parents but his plan failed. At long last, he’s now trying to finish the job.

As the story begins, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) reunites with his wizard friends, who know what is at stake in the battle between Potter and Voldermort. In the earlier films, Harry and his best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) spent much of their time at Hogwarts, a school for young wizards. However, after Harry’s mentor Professor Dumbledore was killed at the end of the sixth film, Hogwarts is no longer a safe haven for any of them. (more…)

Modulated performances, exceptional production values and convincing special effects give “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” the sixth installment of this money-printing franchise, the impressive look and feel of a mature and serious work worthy of respect.  There’s no arguing this is a film crafted and performed by experienced professionals striving to create something top-notch and timeless, not just another throwaway, popcorn kiddie fantasy. There is one drawback, however. Just like the previous five, this chapter’s boring as hell. In fact, the dullest of them all … which is saying a lot.

Maybe you need to be familiar with author J.K. Rowling’s source material in order to truly appreciate plodding, virtually plotless, episodic stories, but without the benefit of having cracked open one of those wildly successful novels, you’re only able to admire the cinematography and poise of the young performers so long before the thuddingly dull 155 minutes becomes punishing.

Directed by David Yates (who helmed the previous chapter), things open on an intriguing note, with a sense of style and even purpose picking up where the fifth film left off. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is bruised, battered and swarmed by the paparazzi.  He’s now the Chosen One and with that comes a heavy burden of responsibility and level of unwelcome fame. Overwhelmed by it all, Harry hides out in a small café enjoying the solitude and anonymity found behind a newspaper when he’s recognized by a lovely young waitress. The chemistry is immediate and her shift ends at eleven. But this is not to be. Once again, Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) requires Harry’s services. (more…)

In what is becoming an annual rite of self-destruction, Broadway has once again chosen to snub many of the big-name stars who have put their film careers on hold to trudge onto the boards eight times a week, take a significant pay cut, and run the risk of being ridiculed for being unable to cut the mustard as a theatre actor  (As Alan Swan famously said before having to appear on live television in “My Favorite Year”:  ‘I’m not an actor, damn you, I’m a movie star!’).  This week’s announcement of nominees for Broadway’s top prize, the Tony Award, was more newsworthy for the names left off the list than for the relatively unfamiliar names singled out for the honor. 

Nathan Lane and John Goodman are selling tickets hand over fist for their revival of “Waiting for Godot” but neither received the honor of a nomination.  Same with David Hyde Pierce, Frank Langella, Mary Louise Parker and Matthew Broderick. 

It was no surprise that Jeremy Piven was included out of the Best Actor category after his famous sushi defense for missing performances in David Mamet’s “Speed-the-Plow,” but not honoring John Lithgow’s brilliant turn in “All My Sons” in the same category is a crime against humanity!  It ranks up there with the snub of Dustin Hoffman as Willy Loman in the 1984 revival of “Death of a Salesman.” Brian Dennehy was honored with the Best Actor award when he did Willy Loman in 2000, but that goodwill did not anoint him worthy of a nomination this year for his turn in “Desire Under the Elms.”  (more…)