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.”

Asked if he wished that Barack Obama would publicly back gay marriage, he replied: “Yes, I do, but can he really? Of course he’s in favour of it, but he has to be careful about saying so. I’d rather have someone like him in the White House than the alternative.

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.

If an all-powerful ghost really wanted to scare a guest to death – or simply chase him out of the house – couldn’t it do a better job than slowly moving a rocking chair back and forth? Haunted house movies defy all logic even by horror film standards. And there’s simply a limited number of times you can move a household object or make a loud noise and expect us to jump in our seats.

Last year’s surprise hit “Insidious” was the exception that proved the new rule. The movie featured a haunted kid, not a haunted house. That, plus a dollop of imagination, set the film far apart from its peers. But for every “Insidious” we suffer dreck like “A Haunting in Connecticut,” “The Uninvited,” or the recent “Amityville Horror” remake.

The “Paranormal Activity” films do squeeze fresh scares out of the haunted house concept thanks to expert use of the “found footage” technique. But the most recent installment showed the franchise is wearing thin, even though the profitable film series will likely stretch to “Saw” like proportions before someone wisely puts it down.

Eddie Murphy might have said it best nearly 30 years ago when, during his hilarious stand-up special “Delirious,” he mocked the very core of the haunted house movie.

“Y’all stay in the house too [expletive] long,” he cracked about the protagonists in “Poltergeist.” [Warning: Adult language]

Today’s haunted house movies still feature characters who stay in the house too [expletive] long. But the bigger problem remains the genre itself. We’ve seen too many fluttering curtains and creeping shadows to cringe in our seats.

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

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.

Best of all, “Black” director James Watkins is a real talent, having written a credible sequel to the great horror film “The Descent” and directing one of the more chilling horror sleepers in recent years, the 2008 shocker “Eden Lake.”

Young Radcliffe appears to be in very capable hands.

—–

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.

Even in this eighth film about Potter and his quest to vanquish Voldemort, the story’s magic still feels fresh. The film features several awe-inspiring scenes as statues come alive, characters rise up and an elegant battle is waged at Hogwarts. Several times throughout the story I was reminded of the excitement I felt when watching the original so many years ago; that wonder and beauty is displayed elegantly in this last installment. These stories have captured audiences’ attention for good reason. The visuals are magical, the characters are wonderful and the story is well-told.

Even the battle and destruction sequences are masterfully orchestrated. At times, the music accompanying the fight scenes is enough to engage audiences and keep them enthralled. There’s a lot of story to cover here but the film pauses long enough to highlight some of the most important plot developments and the inevitable losses that are a result of Potter’s quest to kill Voldemort.

Steve Kloves, who wrote the screenplay based on the book by J.K Rowling, deserves a lot of credit for this film. The story’s pacing is masterful and never stumbles. It moves quickly from scene to scene while still letting audiences enjoy the characters that they grew up with. The screenplay leaves out any unnecessary plot developments or characters that could have slowed it down.

“Part 2” is everything that “Part 1” wasn’t.  It never falls into a rut and it doesn’t focus on adolescent angst like its predecessor did. Some may argue that the long book needed to be divided into two films but I contend that with the right amount of editing, both films could have been condensed into one longer film.

Regardless, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” fulfills the promise of this wonderfully-crafted series and shows once again that magic is possible for wizards and Muggles alike.

—–

“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.

In “Deathly Hallows,” Potter’s magical friends must disguise themselves as Harry in order to move him to a safe location. Their trip is interrupted by a fierce attack of Voldermort’s minions.  Even when he reaches the “safe” location, Voldermort is still close behind and his army attacks Harry and his friends. Harry, Hermione and Ron quickly escape. They begin a search for the Horcruxes that contain Voldermort’s soul. Each of them must be destroyed before Voldermort can be killed.

The trio’s journey eventually leads them to the Ministry of Magic, where a former Hogwarts professor wears one of the Horcruxes around her neck. Harry, Ron and Hermione must take on the identities of three Ministry of Magic employees to sneak into the office without getting caught. Potter is wanted by the Ministry so the three must be careful to escape suspicion. After an incident at the Ministry, the trio must go into seclusion to figure out how to destroy the Horcruxes they possess and how to find the remaining ones.

Much of the movie is spent with these three characters as they try to figure out how to destroy the Horcruxes. They seem clueless about the location of the other Horcruxes and they spend to much time moping and arguing. Ron, for one, takes on the look of a deranged serial killer as he becomes jealous of Harry’s relationship with Hermione. Teen angst becomes the main focus of the story during this long and boring lull. When the plot finally picks up speed in the latter half of the third act, the momentum of the story is nonexistent.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One” is a rare misstep in this strong series. It lacks nearly all of the magic that its predecessors arrived in theaters with. The earlier Potter films were laced with strong action sequences, a memorable sense of imagination and childlike splendor. Even in its two and a half hour run time, ”Deathly Hallows” only has a few action scenes. It lacks a sense of imagination. Nothing about this story seems fresh.

Aside from the excitement and the imagination of the earlier films, many of the best characters in the series are barely featured here. Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), only appears in a few scenes, Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) shows up but only for a few seconds and Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith) doesn’t appear at all. These characters added to the joy of this series and they are sorely missed.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1″ lacks some of the best ingredients in this series and is a disappointing entry in an otherwise well-done series of films.

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.

After the promise of this tender and aching opening sequence, I couldn’t begin to tell you what the rest of the story’s about. Rowling’s imagination never ceases to impress in the bits and pieces showcased, but the narrative is monochrome and a climax completely non-existent.

There’s also never any tension or sense of peril. One of the pitfalls of the Potter Publicity Machine is that even those of us who rank among the indifferent can’t escape the knowledge that Harry & Company will return. This means that any “danger” involving the three main characters – who I have never once felt anything for – can never be anything more than going through the motions because their safety’s assured.

And what a waste of a marvelous adult cast. Julie Walters, Maggie Smith and Helena Bonham Carter are three actresses who bring verve and energy by merely showing up and yet they’re given nothing to do. Gambon, Jim Broadbent and Alan Rickman each have their considerable personalities blunted by a hyper-serious, mumbo-jumbo script aiming for Great Thematic Things but lacking charm, or even a moment of wonder, adventure or fun.  

Harry’s beloved cohorts, Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), have never generated much warmth or chemistry, but here there’s absolutely none. Regardless, both have almost nothing to do with the main story and are instead relegated to silly subplots involving love potions and assorted teen aged jealousies that feel frivolous and out of place with the heavy, brooding tone of the overall story.

There’s one truly odd moment worth mentioning. Recently, a ton of publicity surrounded Rowling’s announcement that her literary creation, Head Master Dumbledore, is gay. And yet in one of the film’s early scenes Dumbledore asks to borrow a girlie magazine using the pretense (or not) that he loves to look at the knitting patterns.  

What’s that supposed to be about?

But that of course is the pitfall you set up for your creation when, in a fit of self-importance, you choose to politicize it. What might have been an otherwise funny, human character bit turns into something bigger and now we’re taken out of the moment trying to figure out where it all fits in the culture war.

Fans of the novel might be enthralled seeing “Prince” come to life, but anyone hanging in there hoping for a climatic, supernatural, special-effects, showdown-spectacular between dueling wizards is in for a terrible letdown. “Half-Blood Prince” might be the most anti-climatic franchise film in history.

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.” 

Add to the list of the egregiously overlooked: Diane Wiest, Kristin Scott Thomas, Daniel Radcliffe, Tovah Feldshuh, Joan Allen, Jeremy Irons, Rupert Everett, Christine Ebersol, Patrick Wilson, Susan Sarandon and Katie Holmes. 

As an industry, Broadway seems to take an odd pride in the moniker “The Fabulous Invalid” and I have lamented this mindset on these pages before.  Broadway’s ability to eat its young and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory has become legendary and not a little bit annoying. 

Here we are at the end of a season where the biggest headline was about how horrible things are on Broadway and how every show is closing and how there are nothing but empty theatres, and right when the industry has a chance to turn that story around and promote the fact that not only has every theatre been occupied but incredibly high-wattage stars have come out to perform live in intimate, beautiful theatres, they turn around and kill their own lead. 

Wouldn’t it have been great to have a nationally televised theatre awards show with ratings better than an NHL playoff game? 

Now, I understand the argument that everyone can’t be nominated, and I recognize that some pretty big names were honored like Jeff Daniels, Geoffery Rush, Marcia Gay Harden, Jane Fonda, Stockard Channing, John Glover and Angela Lansbury.  But, really, if the industry is in the trouble they say it’s in, and you have a chance to showcase Daniel Radcliffe, Katie Holmes (and maybe Mr. Holmes?) and Rupert Everett on national television as honored performers from the prior season, shouldn’t you figure out a way to do it? 

Here’s a modest proposal:  Expand the acting categories!  Where is it written in stone that there should only be five nominees for each category?  In some pretty thin years in the not-too-distant past they have nominated LESS than five in some categories.  (I know that the doom-sayers on Broadway all think that this is the worst it’s ever been, but seriously, in 1989 the THREE nominees for Best Musical were “Jerome Robbins’ Broadway”, “Black and Blue” and “Starmites”!).  So in a crappy year, they change the rules and only nominate three, but in a year packed with stars, they hold to the arbitrary five nominee rule and the story becomes “Who Got Snubbed”.  It makes no sense at all. 

I know that none of this seems to follow a “Right versus Left” storyline that many of you may be used to here at Big Hollywood, but hang in there with me for a few more thoughts.  The fact is, the left on Broadway (meaning the vast majority of actors, designers and staffers in the production offices) relish the fact that they give a big “up yours” to the Hollywood types who dare to come to Broadway.  In this context, the Hollywood actors are “rich” and the New York theatre people are the poor, starving artists giving up riches for their craft.  They want to see the Hollywood star fail.  It’s classic class warfare, just like it is played out in the political world of America. 

The same mentality that celebrates the increased taxes on “The Rich” and rails against “Big Pharma” and “Big Oil” yet fails to recognize the damage done to our society when these productive members of our economy are punished by ever-burdensome taxes and regulations is at play when they watch in bitchy glee as Hollywood movie stars are snubbed in favor of a “real” actor from their ranks.  But they fail to realize that those Hollywood hacks are the ones who are selling the tickets and keeping the “Theatre Community” employed.  If Hollywood actors ever get the message and stop risking rejection and embarrassment by performing on Broadway, it will just mean more unemployment for the theatre purists. 

But, that’s OK, they’ll just blame Middle America for not being smart or cultured enough to truly appreciate Thomas Sadoski in “Reasons to be Pretty” instead of wanting to see Tom Cruise’s wife or that guy from “3rd Rock From the Sun.” 

Stage Right is on Facebook.