More on HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS
Hey folks, Harry here... Yesterday we posted a review from a fellow that seemed to feel that he hated HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS... This struck many of us as odd, as thus far, save for a few quibbles here and there, the word on the film has been sterling. Plus the review was written in what felt like a very rushed and non-thought out manner. Well that writer is back to clarify his disdain for the film in a couple of clearly stated points. HOWEVER, and I must stress this, that at this point this seems to be an EXTREME minority. We've got two over reviews after this one that just sing the song of Harry Potter and it sounds like an Ode to Joy. To each their own, eh?
Wrote in last night with a review of Harry Potter 2 (the very negative review). If you post this it would be appreciated, if not no harm no foul. I have no excuse for my bad grammar, spelling, ability to review and inform, except for being in that zone where your just moaning about anything and everything because you just need to get it off your chest. To all my appolgies, I've learnt my lesson and will proof read my work from now on.
I have no intention of changing my opinion of the film, it made my skin crawl, but I would like the opportunity to somewhat reclaim an ounce of my respected with a couple of clear points.
Firstly the 'Potter' novels are not kids books just as many adults buy and read them as do kids so anyone calling the films 'kids films' is way off base, and because of this you would expect a film with wide appeal. As I stated before I have not read the books so I cannot say if anything has been lost in its translation from page to screen. All I can comment on is the feel and flow of film on screen, or more plainly the lack of it. Example: there are too many scenes where the dialogue between characters just doesn't feel right, as if one actor filmed part of the scene one day and another has done their lines a few weeks later the tone and flow isn't there. For me it is this basic flow of dialogue between characters which keeps me hooked to what's happening no matter what type of film I'm watching.
Secondly, I do watch a lot of movies, I love watching films, I loving being apart of the industry (the final part in fact, I show the films to all who enjoy to watch), and more often than not I enjoy most of the films I see, but every now and then films which alot of people adore, I find seem to lack something and vice a versa. Example: Star Wars Ep2, I loved it, it gave me exactly what I wanted and what I was expecting, where as Spider-Man just left me feeling disappointed, whether too much hype affected my judgement as to what to expect I'll never know. Back to Potter, I wasn't expecting much from it, I'm not a fan I didn't think much of the first, yet I still came out criticising it because of basic flaws in script, acting, editing and direction that a film with this sort of budget shouldn't have. It came across very half hearted in the effort put in by those involved.
Finally, this film will make mega-bucks, millions will love it, millions will feel the same as I and curse it, millions couldn't care less and won't even watch it. I am however eager to see the next purely because of the director, whose last film I saw 'Tu Mama Tambien' I found very entertaining.
Db1animal, Signing Out
P.S. - 28 Days Later rocks, finally got round to watching it tonight and I
was very impressed, zombie fans will enjoy.
Ok, so you've just read a more reasoned and thoughtful look at why the fellow from yesterday hated this new Harry Potter film. He admits that it'll delight and thrill millions and anger others. Typical. Well, below you'll find two people that really loved the film. The first says it is better than the first film. The second declares it their favorite film of all time! Here ya go...
I saw the new Potter on November 3, London premiere and I absolutely loved what they did with the second movie. I`m a fan of the books and I was disappointed with rather unimaginative first movie which failed to capture the spirit of the books which made them so popular. I didn`t mind bad effects as much as bad direction, lead actor`s wooden acting (Radcliffe seemed so stunned by set pieces that he forgot to breathe let alone act) and horrible, horrible final showdown among many other things.
Since the second book is the least favorite with fans I as worried how it was going to turn out. You see, it is still a very good book which could`ve been great if Rowling had had the right focus. There`s this incredible plot about pre-teen Nazis and racial bigotry, however, Rowling created this horrible character Gilderoy Lockhart and got so carried away with him that intriguing plot I mentioned above plays second banana to Lockhart show. Fortunately, someone in WB realized what the book`s biggest shortcoming is so the movie is much more about Harry vs Draco Malfoy, Gryffindor vs Slytherin, Mudbloods vs purebloods than Lockhart`s antics.
Another thing that makes COS a better movie than book are characters. While annoying to tears in the books, the likes of Ginny, Colin and Lockhart are anything but in the movie thanks to well-cast actors. Branagh makes stuck-up Lockhart watchable, the boy who plays paparazzo Colin is a quirky addition to the cast, his camera immortalizing every embarrassing moment until getting dusted off by resident monster`s fell stare and Bonnie Wright who plays Ginny makes the character tougher and spookier than she`s supposed to be in the books. Oh, and flashing her knees didn`t hurt either.
But standouts among newcomers are Jason Isaacs` Lucious Malfoy and the teenager who plays Tom Riddle. Isaacs` Malfoy is different Malfoy from the one in the books and this is magnificent change. This new Malfoy is creepy, dangerous and powerful, something you couldn`t feel about his book incarnation who is mostly a snob. But in Isaacs` interpretation Mr Malfoy oozes power and jeopardy, you can feel that this guy could just raise his finger and erase little Potty if the timing was right. Also, his nasty son Draco shits his pants when his dad`s around which is an edgier interpretation of their relationship. And the nasty guy gets some quotable new lines which I wish were in the book. BTW, his name pronounces Lou-sea-ous, not Lou-shoe-ss as I thought but I like this Latin, ancient pronunciation more.
Tom Riddle rocks too. In the books, Harry`s nemesis strikes a slight physical resemblance to Harry but the boy who plays Riddle looks more Potter (as described in the books) than Potter himself - malnourished, paper-white, green-eyed, bad hair day - if he had been 11 he would`ve cut it as Potter hands down. And the boy has obvious acting range so kudos to casting managers for hiring such a talented "Dark Potter".
Which doesn`t mean that Daniel Radcliffe didn`t begin to deliver goods, finally. Last year I was convinced he was so wrong for the role but after COS I must admit he is Potter, albeit handsome one. I don`t know where all this toughness comes from but something happened with the young actor between 2 movies and this is awesome change. He gained so much confidence and leading man attitude and at times you can see that Dark Lord is lurking inside Harry...but I shouldn`t have said that, shouldn`t have said that! He`ll be magnificent when Cuaron takes him in his capable hands. The kid pulls off tough, sword-wielding hero despite glasses, no small feat.
I hated child actor`s acting(or lack there of) in the first movie but even than the kids had great chemistry. It shines in this movie and kids were obviously sent back to acting school so their interacting is believable. Giving Draco Malfoy almost as much screen time as leading trio`s is excellent and some of the best scenes are trio`s bitching with the Nazi boy who looks so much like mini Eminem.
Rupert Grint (Ron) excels at physical comedy, his comic timing is perfect, while beautiful Emma Watson(hermione) oozes butt-kicking mojo.
Philosopher`s Stone lacked of charactererisation and character develpement, COS is character-driven. The lead and other characters get more meat too - Ron`s family members (poor yet good-hearted wizards as opposed to rich and evil Malfoys), Neville and Seamus, above mentioned newcomers, Dobby the House Elf, Moaning Myrtle.
Alright, the plot or what trailers didn`t tell you (kudos to WB for keeping the best surprises under the wraps instead of flaunting them in trailers). Some evil stalker attacks Hogwarts students who aren`t 100% wizards. Kids wind up petrified so it`s up to Harry&co to find the attacker who calls himself Heir of Slytherin.Slytherin is, BTW, big bad founder of Hogwarts who believed in racial purity and wanted Hogwarts "ethnically cleansed" from Muggle-born students. Now his heir conducts "ethnical cleansing" much to delight of young Malfoy, his goons and other student from Slytherin House named after the Big Bad. Turns out the Big Bad was parsletongue and, surprise, so is Potter! The kids get freaked out thinking he`s the Heir of Slytherin and begin to avoid him. Harry, on the other hand, does have some doubts about his connection with Slytherin and ...I`ll stop right here cause things get too cool to be spoiled.
I mentioned the awful showdown of the original movie, bad execution, atrocious Mummy-like effect. This time around the climax is outstanding. I can`t decide what`s better, action or wordy part of the Chamber showdown, both are awesome with some changes for the better (like most of the battle taking place on top of Slytherin statue which is more appropriate given the Slytherin-themed plot) but what send chills down my spine is what`s written in the air (you`ll know when you see the movie, book readers know what I`m talking about). Despite the fact that I knew what was coming it`s done so well that it gave me goosebumps. The climax mixes horror and beauty in equal measure, it`s trully a must-see.
Some Potter fans will hate me for saying this but I think that COS turned out great thanks to FOTR. Simply, WB suits realized that the competition did much better job when it comes to book adaptation and decided to follow their cue and deliver a good movie. Without LOTR Potter wouldn`t have had a strong fantasy movie to compare to and I think that comparission in favor of LOTR made after their release helped COS shape up into a great flick. You can see LOTR influences throughout the movie especially during the Duelling Club where kids pull Gandalf/Saruman-like wizarding duel with stunning mid-air twists and turns (in the books they are supposed to be more gimmicky). Also, Columbus improved his directing and took some liberties among which is cutting out some really unnecessary scenes such as Deathday party, a real pain in the ass to read. And shippers will spend months discussing the ending where Hermione hugs Harry but not Ron!
Conclusion: great little flick mixing genuine creeps and darkness with fun (including gross comedy such as Ron vomitting slugs, Moaning Myrtle`s toilet antics, Harry`s boneless hand), action and lots of heart. That`s right. Heart. First movie didn`t have it, this one has found it, let hope the third one will keep it.
Here's a review from an absolute lover of all thing Harry Potter:
Hey, Harry. I just saw the CoS film and figured I'd send in my review.
First, I'm one of the biggest HP fans around. So this will be somewhat biased...but ah well.
In short: My favourite movie ever!!!!! I LOVED it!!!!
It opens hilariously, and you soon meet Dobby the House-elf, a funny but slightly irritating...well...house elf...who warns Harry not to go back to school.
Of course, he does anyways. And it's all okay at first. Harry and his classmates repot Mandrakes (plants whose roots are small, ugly babies), transform animals into water goblets, and face a cage full of Pixies.
Soon, however, they discover that something is Petrifying the students (amoung other things), and, of course, it's Harry's job to stop it.
The cast does wonderful. Harry gives a much more satisfactory performance (I found his performance in PS to be a tad unconvincing), and Rupert and Emma have grown into their roles, as well. Rupert is hysterical, and Emma is so believable, it's scary. The new cast members, particularly Jason Issacs and Kenneth Branagh, are fantastic. Jason gives a chilling performance as Lucius Malfoy, father of Harry's arch-nemesis (aside from Snape and Voldemort). He is pure evil. And Mr. Branagh plays Professor Gilderoy Lockhart, a world renowned wizard, "Order of Merlin, Third Class, Honorary Member of the Dark Force Defense League, and 5 times winner of 'Witch Weeklys' Most-Charming-Smile Award." Lockhart is exceedingly arrogant and narccistic, and completley full of himself. But of course, everyone already knows that...
The CGI was much better. There are no troll-looking scenes in it. Dobby looks stunningly real at points. Fawkes the Phoenix (also a puppet) looks fairly good. And the Quidditch match...I never had a problem with the Quidditch Match in PS. It was fine to me. This is even better. It looks much more realistic, and it's faster paced. And the basilisk...Wow. Amazing. The basilisk is probably one of the most realistic CGI monsters ever. It even rivals the Jurrasic Park dinosaurs. This scene is truly scary. And the dialouge between Harry and Tom Riddle (a former student at Hogwarts), is chilling. Much better than the final scene of the first film. Very scary.
So anyways...the ending is good. I won't give anything away, I'll just say it's good.
Conclusion: Amazing. The Flying Car scene will entertain you, the Quidditch match will excite you, Aragog (a gigantic spider) will scare you (I have a minor form of arachnaphobia, so this was horrifying for me...I closed my eyes at parts), and the final sequences will chill you. In all, you're in for one amazing ride.
~ C.D. Nose ;) ~
Readers Talkbackcomments powered by Disqus
+ Expand All
Nov. 7, 2002, 8:02 a.m. CST
I guess a lot of people (including me) really did not dig the review yesterday, but the above seems legible, and actually seems more sensible. I'll give him his dues, he accepts that people'll love it, just that he didn't. All cool. Have a pat on the back.
Nov. 7, 2002, 8:02 a.m. CST
by Monkey Lover
She may well grow up to flourish into a beauty, but what was funny the other day was The Sun putting a picture of her on the front page and saying how gorgeous she looks. These are the same tabloid papers that launched those hypocritical campaigns about paedophiles, saying how they are evil sex beasts and that lynch mobs should get them and stuff like that. Whipping the lower dumbass classes into a frenzy. Then the next minute they are printing photos of way underage girls on the front page and pointing out how stunning she is! The tabloids can suck my arse, they need to be burned and outlawed for making people stupid.
Nov. 7, 2002, 8:06 a.m. CST
You'd think she could at least TRY to talk up the film version of one of her own stories. This film MUST be bad! Yeesh.......
Nov. 7, 2002, 8:07 a.m. CST
I am soooo sick of reading reviews praising the Potter series! It is clearly a ripoff of the whole genre! Columbus will NEVER achieve the film-making status of Jackson IMHO. Jackson is in it for the passion of it all ... Columbus is just trying to rake in big bucks.
Nov. 7, 2002, 8:31 a.m. CST
The Harry Potter films are an exercise in relatively undemanding entertainment, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Go expecting to have a fun time, no more no less, and you will be rewarded. All this "it's a rip off" nonsense is a waste of time - there's nothing new under the sun - wasn't LOTR Tolkein's rip off of a dozen old Norse/Germanic legends? If LOTR is your bag, then fine, but why diss HP? At least the HP films don't take themselves ludicrously seriously like the po-faced FOTR. Look in the mirror, sonny, you're wearing obvious false ears and joke feet, and you want me to take you seriously? And at least HP is less than three hours long, and some of it even doesn't involve a lot of shouting and running away, unlike FOTR
Nov. 7, 2002, 8:39 a.m. CST
Proofread by aliens who learned to speak English through reruns of The Jerry Springer Show perhaps. Please people, you only make yourselves look stupid when you can't even write a few paragraphs in YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE without screwing it up. Go back to school and learn to read and write. Maybe you'll get a job outside of McDonald's.
Nov. 7, 2002, 8:45 a.m. CST
Why is it that on every HP talkback some asshole inevitably brings up how it sucks compared to LOTR? What does one movie have to do with the other? Potter is an entertaining piece of fantasy. So it's not totally cutting edge. Does that make it a bad movie? No. And also, I don't know, Daniel Radcliffe is no Larry Olivier, but I really didn't think he was bad in Sorcerer's Stone. I thought he was pretty good, actually.
Nov. 7, 2002, 8:49 a.m. CST
by Dr. Eddie Jessup
I can't decide which sounds more eloquent, "To all my appolgies, I've learnt my lesson," or "I would like the opportunity to somewhat reclaim an ounce of my respected". Geez. Is it too much to ask for an even semi-sober review? Now that I've done griping about the review given, I will say this- the books have been astounding in their ability to appeal to so many age groups. The first film was a bit disappointing due to its paint-by-numbers approach, although I really didn't expect genius from Columbus. It's nice to hear so many positives about COS, but I'm especially looking forward to seeing how Cuaron (sp?) handles things come the third installment. I'm also all geeked up to hear Chaffro's proposed role for Hulk Hogan ;^)
Nov. 7, 2002, 9:23 a.m. CST
Say Something nice or fun or intelligent here. Anything you like just don't complain. With all this talk of great Harrises passing away it made me worry that Harry might be next. Take care of yourself big guy. We all think you're great! P.S> I thought Harry Potter was fun and I agree with Harry about how the ending should have been in his review..http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=10742
Nov. 7, 2002, 9:33 a.m. CST
The story is ok, structurally it's pretty much the first one all over again with some new cute jokes and characters, of which the CGI-elf, Doddy, manages to be the most impressive and annoying character at the same time. The biggest improvement over the first one is the FX (though the Quidditch thingy still looks cheap and pod racey) and the child actors, except for the Ron-kid, who's starting to get the hang of it but is not quite there yet. The film is scarier than the first one with a lot more creepy scenes and scary monsters so you should probably keep the toddlers away. All in all i thought it was ok. Better than the first one which didn't impress me much - but i'm not twelve anymore and haven't read the books so what do i know. (though i have read Neil Gaiman and other folks that Rowling ripped off). I do have a serious problem with it. It's too fucking long. I mean really. It's like 2.30 and stuffed with so many unnecessary bits and scenes that even i could trim it by at least 30 minutes before you could say Thelma Schoonmaker.
Nov. 7, 2002, 9:35 a.m. CST
I think this is one of those rare films where if you are going to buy a ticket, your likely going to like the movie. Its predetermined by your insistence on seeing the film. Like wrestling - you either like it and consume it, or you don't. Or like post-graduate college programs, where getting in is hard - but if your selected, your likely going to do well. I think my point is, this is hardly a film and an audience that is critical of the material. HP fans (the books, not the anal penchanter) are typically zealotous and protective. Like LotR fans. Or AotC fans. Little consumer cults - or large ones, given the billions these things generate. Oh well, discuss.
Nov. 7, 2002, 9:38 a.m. CST
by John Maddening
Heh, um, what? Son, I'm a projectionist. I've managed a couple theaters. I'm not "part of the [film] industry". My creativity has nothing to do with what's onscreen, and neither does yours.
Nov. 7, 2002, 9:45 a.m. CST
by John Maddening
Both are epic, multi-part fantasy stories. Both have been thought of as "unfilmable". Both have casts filled with character actors rather than movie stars. The difference is that HP is trying to be as close to the book as possible and as such is dry and plodding - LOTR is markedly different from the book, but the spirit of the book is still pure.
Nov. 7, 2002, 10:08 a.m. CST
I realize that my question is semi-stupid, because there are obvious similarities between the two stories. What I was trying to say was that I simply cannot accept the opinion that the Potter series sucks. I'm a reader. I'm a film guy. I consider myself fairly knowledgable about these things, as I'm sure are you. I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing bad literature from good literature, and I can say with total sincerity that Harry Potter is a well-written, creative, funny bit of hard-copy, and to say otherwise denotes an inability to accept the fact that SOMETIMES, just sometimes, the majority is correct. I understand some people's desire to stray from the norm and even reject it at all costs, because, let's face it, in general the human race is annoying and stupid and ignorant. But sometimes one has to put aside one's tendency to reject all things popular and recognize that a person is genuinely talented and that a film/movie is genuinely estimable. Eminem is a good example of a performer who suffered this kind of predjudice. Only now is he generating the deserved praise he should have had all along. Even still, some squares and dorks are afraid to admit that they like him b/c they are afraid he's in the realm of Backstreet Boys and N Sync and that they'll sound "uncool" if they say he's fucking awesome, proving that they have no idea what they are talking about and should rot in hell. Sorry for the rant.
Nov. 7, 2002, 10:13 a.m. CST
By the way, I'm not frothing at the mouth because people criticize the film. I don't think Sorcerer's Stone is the best movie of all time. I think it loses steam in the last hour. I'm not so crazy about the series that I think no one deserves to give an intelligent opinion. The key word, though, is intelligent. It seems to me that most of the people who spit out vitriol regarding Potter (and I'm referring mostly to the people in these talkbacks, not to the reviewers themselves) are those who hate it simply for being popular and similar to LOTR. Which is assinine. Completely assinine.
Nov. 7, 2002, 10:18 a.m. CST
Or possibly Lou-chee-us. Even though we have no actual record of how Latin was pronounced, historical linguists believe that Latin probably didn't use soft consonant sounds. But that's okay, because most Brits and 'Mericans wouldn't know ancient Latin if it crapped in their mouths.
Nov. 7, 2002, 10:22 a.m. CST
Is Harry Potter the N'Sync/ Backstreet boys of the fantasy film set? I think there's an argument to make there.
Nov. 7, 2002, 10:27 a.m. CST
Oh, the barrage of letters didn't scare you? Darn. Anyway... My problems with HP stem from the fact that I have been a big fan of fantasy for a long time. Just as anyone who adores the great works of a genre, I have large problems with watered down pretenders to the throne. Take another genre, for example: Sci-Fi. You have good classic sci-fi: Old Lucas, Asimov, Heinlein, Roddenberry (cheesy at times, but still interestingly original), etc, vs. bad cheesy sci-fi: New Lucas, Lost in Space (movie), Berman & Braga (the T&A guys of sci-fi), etc. One set of names denotes originality, intelligence, and creativity, the other names, sadly do not. This is mainly because, like much of the music people listen to today, the final product has been filtered through marketing, pop-culture watering down, the lack of interesting originality on the part of the writer, and the exceedingly notable fact that, as Christian Slater said in
Nov. 7, 2002, 10:31 a.m. CST
Why is it that everytime there is a negative review defenders start accusing the person of being a fanboy of another franchise. Just accept some people find Harry Potter dull with "kiddyfied" elements from other books, not just LOTR.
Nov. 7, 2002, 10:38 a.m. CST
One reviewer praises "the teenager who plays Tom Riddle" for having real acting chops. The reason he has real acting chops is that he's actually in his early 20's and plays young.
Nov. 7, 2002, 10:56 a.m. CST
Harry potter id a direct ripoff of the vertigo comic "The books of Magic" down from the look of the charecters to the plot.. im suprised dc hasnt sued yet.
Nov. 7, 2002, 11:13 a.m. CST
I've read some reviews that make me think they've actually seen the movie. I clarify that these movies are based on books read by millions so there really is no way of telling unless the review mentions something that you wont have read or heard anywhere. I wont know for sure till I see the film myself though. PS: That negative review still needs some proof reading though...
Nov. 7, 2002, 11:15 a.m. CST
also hated Spiderman but loved Episode II? Good god, now I know that he's not a reliable reviewer & will now squelch everything from him.
Nov. 7, 2002, 11:16 a.m. CST
all the reviews need some proof reading. For gods sake this is going up on the Internet the least you could do is check the grammar and spelling. Actually that never stopped anyone else so forget it...
Nov. 7, 2002, 11:21 a.m. CST
I haven;t really bothered to proof read my own posts so it's ok if you want to critisise. I'm doing a degree by the way.
Nov. 7, 2002, 11:21 a.m. CST
Okay, I can respect the updated review more. But the second review was great. I never thought of the Nazi and racial ovetones of the book/movie but it's definitely there. And I'm glad the Deathday Party is out. That was really the part that would take me out of CoS.
Nov. 7, 2002, 11:29 a.m. CST
by Yojimbo Jones
I have to say straight up that I have not read any HP books, nor do I care to. However, as a children's movie, I thought The Philsophers Stone was quite entertaining, and worth a second look. Having said that, comparisons to FOTR are futile. I haven't read Tolkien's epic either, but comparing the movies it is fairly transparent that one is aimed at children, the other at adults. That FOTR is a much better film is beyond debate. Comparing HPPS to FOTR is like comparing Peter Frampton to Jimi Hendrix -- believe me kids, in 1976, that's what some people did. If you enjoy one, it's possible to enjoy it without bringing the other into the equation.
Nov. 7, 2002, 11:35 a.m. CST
by Magical Me
Of course it does, dear. After my glorious introduction, the rest of the triflings in the story have to take a back seat to my constant change of wardrobe (with its accompanying sense of style) & brilliant mentoring to the young overachieving Potter boy. His accomplishments are only possible after a full year of my tutelage. And to the third reviewer - you forgot to mention "Best Selling Author". Thank you very much. Anyone for an autographed picture? / Sincerely, Gilderoy Lockhart
Nov. 7, 2002, noon CST
And I quote "but I would like the opportunity to somewhat reclaim an ounce of my respected" He has channelled Gollum!! And he's still after that darn ring!
Nov. 7, 2002, 12:02 p.m. CST
Everyone is praising this film for being "darker" than the first, which just translates as being laden with imagery and ideas that embrace Satanism. When are you all going to realize that the world of children's entertainment now belongs to the Devil? Well, I for one and going to fight back. I have succesfully lobbied to have a number of inappropriate books banned in our schools, and our congregation is campaigning to force a video store owner out of business because he refused to remove "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings," among others, from his shelves.
Nov. 7, 2002, 12:08 p.m. CST
Your comedy deserves notice. Funny shit.
Nov. 7, 2002, 12:09 p.m. CST
Thanks, babycakes. Nice to hear from you again - you soulful sweet smut-stomper, you. When you get all righteous like that I can't help but get a tingle down under my hairshirt and chastity belt. Oh, but I want to be good... So goooooood...
Nov. 7, 2002, 12:13 p.m. CST
by Alpha Zebra
Tolkien wrote The Hobbit with his own ten-year-old child in mind. Obviously The Lord of the Rings is a bit deeper, but Tolkien's motivation remains the same -- to tell interesting and morally instructive stories to young people. Rowling's work certainly lack's Tolkien's richness and depth, but her purpose is no different. She wants her books to be accessible to children, tweens and teens. That adults enjoy the books as well is really just gravy. Okay, in Rowling's case, a LOT of gravy. Still, my point stands. -- Alpha Zebra
Nov. 7, 2002, 12:19 p.m. CST
by The Hawk
Last year, after seeing "The Sorcerer's (Philosopher's) Stone" with my brothers, Rusty Rat said that one of the things he liked about the film was Emma Watson, who plays Hermione. Essentially, he said that she is a hottie. Now the worst part. Rusty is now 18, so do the math. I'm hoping, Dino, that your comments on Ms. Watson and the actress playing Ginny Weasley in "The Chamber of Secrets", aren't taken by some as perversion. Then again, I may be the pervert for thinking that! But I also think that more could be made of how Malfoy and his pals in the book were being so prejudiced with the Heir of Slytherin plot, so maybe that will be given more attention in the final version of the film. But I seriously think that this second Harry Potter film is gonna ROCK IN STEREO! It might even be better than "Attack of the Clones". So on November 15, we'll see you there. And raise your drinks in a toast to the late, great, Sir Richard Harris, the great Professor Albus Dumbledore.
Nov. 7, 2002, 12:28 p.m. CST
by The Hawk
To the person who supports censorship, No one is making you or your family or your friends see these movies or read these books, so why force people to not have that chance? I am a chruch-going person myself, but I also know how to separate fact and fiction. "Harry Potter", "Lord of the Rings," et al., are just that, fictional stories. Maybe some things that seem satanic get into their fantasy workings, but the real evil in them is the antagonists, who are themselves portrayed as very evil, while the heroes are usually good people, but they are not perfect as well. In fact, these works are sometimes seen allegories of Christianity, but that is just their opinion, like you see them as promoting Satanism. You may have that opinion, but don't make the rest of us agree with you. As Jesus himself said, you should often turn the other cheek. And also, learn to live and let live.
Nov. 7, 2002, 12:46 p.m. CST
Jesus. When Harry loves a movie -- especially when he hasn't even seen it yet -- nothing can deter him. It's the greatest! Shut up, I don't care what you have to say! And when he doesn't like a movie, again that he hasn't seen, no audience raves will stop him from trashing it. He has to be the most unabashedly biased and unreliable movie reviewer in the history of film. And that includes Gene Shalit!! Hmm. I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and say that Harry will love the film when he finally sees it. He won't allow himself to feel anything else. Shades of a certain "Godzilla" movie...
Nov. 7, 2002, 12:55 p.m. CST
by Alpha Zebra
That's telling. Keep getting reviews from this guy. He's perfect. Whatever he says, we just go with the opposite.
Nov. 7, 2002, 1:17 p.m. CST
to start, I haven't seen chamber of secrets yet, so i cannot comment on that film, but i was disapointed with the first film, being a big potter fan myself, and having read all the books multiple times. you've taken a lot of heat for your views on the second film, which may be baseless. you claim to be a movie buff, and say some of your biggest problems with potter 2 was the script and acting. but you loved star wars episode 2. anyone who loved episode 2 cant be taken seriously on their opinions of acting and script because ep2 had some horrendous acting and lucas couldn't write good dialogue if saddam hussein was holding a gun to his head.
Nov. 7, 2002, 1:18 p.m. CST
I so agree with you on that tabloid thing. Although I must admit, Emma Watson IS pretty stunning, so you can't blame them there. What you CAN blame them is crappy writing, starting witch-hunts and generally BEING EEEEEVIL (ironically, I think of them as more evil than pretty much most paedophiles who actually don't hurt little kids and try to cope with what they are; remember who killed Lady Di?). Anyway, this movie will be some great entertainment. Like the first one, absolutely nothing groundbreaking, but me and my family will have our share of fun.
Nov. 7, 2002, 1:26 p.m. CST
I can't be sure, but I think you're giving away too much in your post. Anyone care to make a citizen's arrest?
Nov. 7, 2002, 1:28 p.m. CST
And if so, who would do such a thing? Could it be.... SATAN?!?!
Nov. 7, 2002, 1:32 p.m. CST
Well first off, I have read and enjoyed all four books, and I really enjoyed the first film. To say that it didn't have any heart is astounding. I was very moved by the film even by the third or fourth viewing. The characters were all well played, especially Ron. I can't wait to see how they've developed in Chamber of Secrets. Also to say that the actor playing Harry looked stunned by the big sets...Harry himself was placed in a strange and new world and was very much stunned by the new friends, surrounding and experiences, so whether it was bad acting or not, it worked perfectly. Can't wait til next week !
Nov. 7, 2002, 1:47 p.m. CST
I am actually looking forward to this, with moderate expectations of enjoying myself. It sounds better than the last one, which was pretty oddly structured and ponderous, but I liked the kids and the cast. And I liked the books. So, go figure. Though I am pretty much more jazzed for Prisoner of Azkaban.
Nov. 7, 2002, 1:55 p.m. CST
by Pink Witch
Ok, First of all, to the person who said that J.K. Rowling can't write...well I'm sorry to point this out to you and burst your bubble but obviously she can write....SHE'S HAD FOUR BOOKS PUBLISHED!!! How many have u had published?! I rest my case. Next (and I know that someone else has already made this point) but I really thinki it's about time that people stopped comparing HP to LOTR and vise versa. They are different films, they aren't supposed to be alike and neither is copying the other. They are aimed at different audiences. HP is favoured by children (although I know it appeals to older people to...I'm 16 and my mum's 40, and we both lLOVE HP!!!) LOTR however is aimed (mainly) at over 8s. There is no basis on which to base a comparison apart from they are both (good) adaptations of well loved books, they use special effects and they were released at similar times. I love both the films. They are both two of my all time ever favourites, but for different reasons. Thanx, Pink Witch =o) xxx
Nov. 7, 2002, 2:50 p.m. CST
Am i the only one here who found Lord of the Rings to be, dare I say it, mindnumbingly boring! You can stick moordor(however you spell it) up your stupid asses.
Nov. 7, 2002, 3:06 p.m. CST
So censorship on all things Satanic? Sorry, but if there was no Devil, hell or evil there would be no God, heaven & goodness. It's that simple, one must exist for the other to exist. How would you know what was good if you didn't have something evil to compare it too & strive against? Any story that an auther would write about would be about 2 opposing good forces? Wouldn't that make one of them less good then the other, or more evil then the other.. oh no, here we are back at the start. :)
Nov. 7, 2002, 3:22 p.m. CST
I am really looking forward to the third movie more. I liked that book better. They better get a good Lupin! If the movies are entertaining, that's all I ask. I don't want to nit pick it to death. I love the LOTR books as well as the HP books, but there is NO point comparing the two in my opinion, either. I can't believe people are still going on about he Satanism thing. When has HP even mentioned Satan? Are these people complaining every year when they show the Wizard of Oz? And you not only have witches there you have a kid passing out in a poppy field, too. Shame! Shame!
Nov. 7, 2002, 3:50 p.m. CST
Sure, JKR's stuff isn't necessarily Great Writing, but it's a hell of a lot of fun. What's so bad about engrossing, swashbuckling fun? Sure, Tolkien may be Good Writing, but like Shakespeare (and a number of other Good Writers), it can be deadly boring at times. That said, stop being such insecure whiners, it just makes LOTR fans look bad. And don't forget, both of these series are borderline unfilmable, it's amazing what we've ended up with...
Nov. 7, 2002, 4:03 p.m. CST
Nice to see you're back. Can't wait to have you tickle my prostate in that magical way that only you can. What book should we read this time? I'm all about Acts, baby. Those filthy Acts.
Nov. 7, 2002, 4:47 p.m. CST
by Alpha Zebra
Now that I have your attention.... Figures a brain-addled bully like you would go after a vulnerable local video store and threaten a boycott to force them to pull two of the most popular titles off their shelves. Why don't you walk down their aisles and make a list of the other videos that offend your narrow sensibilities? Force them to pull Tarantino's movies off the shelf, and Robert Rodgriguez. And how about that homosexuality promoter Alfonse Cuaron, who directed Y Tu Mama Tambien? Oh wait, he also directed that family-friendly film, "A Little Princess", which is probably sitting near your VCR as you read this. Maybe you should have the Leprechaun movies pulled off the shelf. Those movies involve a mythical malevolent fantasy being. But oh my, the same guy who directed a couple of those, Brian Trenchard-Smith, also directed that movie that's likely sitting IN your VCR: Omega Code II: Megiddo. I could go on. But how about instead you go after your local Blockbuster??? After all, they stock more copies of the titles you find offensive. Or are you afraid the $7/hr employees there just wouldn't care about your righteous indignation?
Nov. 7, 2002, 6:36 p.m. CST
englishvoodoo, "haven't read the books so what do i know. (though i have read Neil Gaiman and other folks that Rowling ripped off)." I don't care that you haven't read the books, but then how do you know what was "ripped off"? The books are more fully realized than the films.
Nov. 7, 2002, 7:41 p.m. CST
by LT Weezie
I am anxiously awaiting this film, although I will admit I am a late-comer to the HP universe. I read all the books just recently, and saw the first film when I purchased it on DVD. I am thrilled that these excellent books have been well received by readers of all ages. I do agree with the aforementioned negative critic on one point...the tomes should not be marketed as KID books. It thrills me no end that the "religious-WRONG" (boy are they!) are trying to make the books and the films something they are not...warning that they promote "witchcraft" and "spirits"--they ignore the fact that their so-called "Christian" principles are so evident in the works...friendship, love, loyalty, to name just a few. As a proud pagan, I know they only confirm what I always knew! It is truly sad how some individuals and groups can cast aspersions on such a fine literary work and film. (But then that has been the case throughout history). They are unable to enjoy themselves..so as a personal protest for us, the good guys, READ THE BOOKS AND SEE THE FILM! I am sure it will be a very satisfying experience!
Nov. 7, 2002, 11:12 p.m. CST
...oh Hermione, oh HermioneohHermioneohHer--oh! Sorry, where was I?--how's 'bout Dobby vs. Binks vs. Gollum! Think of the frenzied clumsiness and gibberish! Think of the fights in the crowd! Maybe have Yoda parachute into the ring in the middle rounds (real obscure AOTC-real world reference there). Not that I'm Flea or Anthony, but "by the way", the Hermione thing was a j-o-k-e. At least until "Goblet of Fire". Consider this film the appetizer to you-know-what.
Nov. 8, 2002, 1:30 a.m. CST
by Qwerty Uiop
Upon reading Dblanimal's carefully reworked version of his review, it really doesn't surprise me that he liked EP2. Like I said last time, pal, its time to quit the multi-plex and focus on getting that GED.
Nov. 8, 2002, 1:33 a.m. CST
by Hoof Hearted
"Firstly the 'Potter' novels are not kids books just as many adults buy and read them as do kids so anyone calling the films 'kids films' is way off base, and because of this you would expect a film with wide appeal." Nice run on, my man.
Nov. 8, 2002, 1:36 a.m. CST
by Qwerty Uiop
Maybe he meant: "I love being apart from the industry" or "I'm loving the fact that I'm a tiny cog in the industry" or maybe he simply meant: "Duuuuuuuuuuurrrr!"
Nov. 8, 2002, 4:18 a.m. CST
by a goonie
"Attack of the Clones" remains one of the worst pictures of the year (in a year with many terrible pictures). "Spider-man" is, for me, one of the greatest action blockbusters ever. ingeniusly paced, intelligently shot, and imaginatively profound, Spidey is a wonderful depiction of a comic book world.
Nov. 8, 2002, 5:30 a.m. CST
Yeah, good point, i guess i should have written "supposedly ripped off". I was referring to the fact that Rowling has been accused of using quite a few elements from the genre without acknowledging her predecessors in the field. The most talked about example being Neil Gaimans "Books of Magic" (DC/Vertigo), as someone else here pointed out.
Nov. 8, 2002, 5:36 a.m. CST
And it is so intensely fucking boring. A common defence of the movie is 'hey but it's not for you it's for kids' but so many truly good kids movies are 10o% entertaining for adults - Toy Story, Star Wars, Classic Disney. Roll on 'Two Towers'.
Nov. 8, 2002, 12:15 p.m. CST
Emma Watson IS gorgeous, and I can appreciate that, but if I were in a room alone with her, I wouldn
Nov. 8, 2002, 1:03 p.m. CST
Why is it that any time a movie doesn't have Haley Joel Osmand in it no matter how good the child actors are, they are not good enough? The kids in the first Harry Potter film were great considering it was their first film, and more importantly, they sold the characters. I can live without a huge emotional range and big dramatics if the actor can convince me that they are who they say they are. Granted, I saw the first film before reading the book, so this may have helped me to not be disappointed, but I think the films were perfectly cast. And I agree with the fact that you can acknowledge that an underage girl is "going to be hot" without being a perv. Emma is definately "going to be hot" and so are the Olsen twins while we are on the subject...damn..Bad Steepdog BAD! However, I did read the second book, and someone else help me out here...wouldn't Cary Elwes (Princess Bride, Robin Hood:Men in Tights) made an awesome Gilderoy Lockheart? Even though I know Branaugh is playing him, I kept picturing Elwes when reading the book. Actually wasn't it originally Hugh Grant? I can even see that more than Branaugh, and I'm a Branaugh fan. And finally, maybe the Satan Lady up there is just screwing with people, but all I can say to those who run around pointing a finger at "The Devil" is that you always have four fingers pointing back at you. Hate and spite are the devils tools, not fantasy and whimsy. That being said, I need to get back to sacrificing virgins...
Nov. 8, 2002, 1:12 p.m. CST
LOTR was beautifully shot, well acted and visually stunning, but for an action/adventure movie it was drawn out and BORING! and the most common response from fans when I say that is "but that's how the book is..." So I guess the book being boring makes it ok... HP, books and movie, unfold effortlessly and are what books and movies are supposed to be...entertaining.
Nov. 8, 2002, 1:24 p.m. CST
I want to clarify that the Potter books are written for adults to READ to kids who can't read for themselves (and for anyone else who CAN read and wants to partake). So, in essence, the books are not kids books, per se, but rather books for adults to enjoy reading to kids.
Nov. 8, 2002, 2:21 p.m. CST
There's supposed to be some kind of twist in one of the character's subplots or something that gets wrapped up after the credits.
Nov. 8, 2002, 4:21 p.m. CST
There is a certain type of crap like The Phanton Menace or HP where if you don
Nov. 8, 2002, 10:49 p.m. CST
I work on movies myself, and of the millions of movies that have been made, I only hate about three. Every movie (or film, whatever, I don't feel the need to classify art in order to heighten my own ego) that I have seen has at least two things that I can commend. Even "Mom and Dad Save the World" had some funny moments.
Nov. 9, 2002, 1:14 a.m. CST
God, what a pointless debate. And yet, I am participating...irony? I think, perhaps. In the immortal words of Rock Hudson, "would you please get your dick out of my ass?" If you don't dig Potter, nobody blames you, and, more importantly, no one cares. OBVIOUSLY, this is a fanboy site...and trying to change a fanboy's opinion about ANYTHING is like trying to take a pork chop from Horatio Sanz. Potter and LOTR can really only be compared in an apples and oranges analogy. Allow me to expound: 1. Both apples and oranges are round, both are fruit, and both are harvested by hopelessly underpaid migrant workers. Both Potter and LOTR are fantasy stories, based off of literary works, and (this will be the hardest for fanboys to swallow) both were made for the express purpose of wringing veritable shitloads of cash from degenerate losers like us. For Rings lovers, don't even try that "Jackson did it for the love of the material" crap. Jackson did it for the same reason any director makes a movie...sure, there's some artistic expression in there somewhere, but the bottom line is the bottom line. If the SE DVD doesn't calcify that arguement, I don't know what will... 2. Now the differences...apples are easy to eat, reasonably unremarkable taste-wise, and are generally meant to be demolished and enjoyed. Oranges, now they take a bit more effort. There's a process, a ritual...and the payoff is great. Same thing with our movies here...Potter is popcorn entertainment. It's meant to be enjoyed, not dissected. If you look for problems, you'll find them, but generally, no super-intricate plot, no grossly ulterior motives...just fun. Nothing more or less. Rings, well, that's another story. Rings takes time, and discussion to appreciate. It is layered and more complicated plot-wise...an emotional journey. Honestly, I fail to even see the source of this debate. Comparing a professor of linguistics to a welfare mom in terms of writing ability is moot. It's a Poe vs. King arguement. Obviously, there won't be any graduate level courses on Harry Potter (except maybe for socialogy majors)...it's not literature. They are books. Rings...that's literature. Why not just enjoy them both, bite your tongue and spend some time reflecting on how cool the sequels will or won't be?
Nov. 9, 2002, 2:20 a.m. CST
Don't get me wrong, I agree that its dumb to compare the two on a literary level...you can't without saying something really stupid as the posters above have proven. All I'm saying, however, is that if I were strapped to a chair and had to watch "Fellowship of the Rings" or "Sorcerer's Stone" repeatedly for twelve hours straight, I would watch the Potter flick becaus LOTR was good but PAINFUL to sit through. Potter was just fun, and popcorn flick or not, I'll take that over profound and migraine inducing.
Nov. 10, 2002, 11:28 a.m. CST
And do you know what? I really liked it. It kicks the arse out of the first one. It was like "Attack of the Clones" compared to "The Phantom Menace", and that said, in truth I think I liked it better than AOTC. Everything was tighter and better, and darker and funnier. It involved me. It looked good, it sounded good, and Branagh and Rickman were fantastic. They actually did a bit of twisting and adaptation this time out of the gate - loved their take on Moaning Myrtle, who was actually quite the flirtatious little wallflower in the movie, and I remember her as being much more tedious in the book. Though it does still have the problem of containing scenes in the book that don't serve the movie particularly - like Harry in Knockturn Alley (if he doesn't hear the conversation with the Malfoys, why was it even in the script?) and Hagrid's plight in being sent to Azkaban was played down (as will be seen in the next installment, this was quite heavy shit to be dismissed in the way it was). Also thought that the final villain was acutely powerless, basilisk or no. But I really enjoyed it. I kept my legs crossed until the inevitable Dumbledore giving end of term speech scene, so I must have been traumatising my bladder for some reason. It does remind me that I should maybe look into getting a catheter or some Depends or something for TTT (or not drinking beforehand, possibly - no screw that, it's a midnight showing, I'm going to turn up with a buzz on regardless)...
Nov. 25, 2002, 8:11 a.m. CST
How can you dumb schmucks even compare the two? Ok, they both say "magic" a bunch and have wizards with beards, but that's about it. Why do you people feel threatened when someone voices an opinion contrary to your own? I enjoyed Potter, enjoyed it just as much as I hated LOTR. At least you can watch HP without feeling embarrased for the actors (come on, that scene between Stridex and Arwyen or whatever her name is is one of the most hackneyed self-important strutting pieces of nonsense ever. Especially the elvish. Face it geeks, they sound like a couple of drunken tourettes cases.)HP is goofy and fun because it hasn't accumulated half a century of trekker-like loonatics bent on knowing every obscure detail. LOTR acted like it had a heavy burden to carry (im talking about the film making, not the jewelry, duh) so much so that it just sucked the joy out of what should have been a shwashbuckling romp thru mid-earth. Ok, i went off on a tangent, but just cause LOTR sucked. Face it, there is little to no correlation between the two sets of films, and outside of this board, no one cares anyway. Find something else to kick sand in each others faces over. Even though the LOTR books sucked. (dammit, now I'm a bastard too. Look what you've done)
- Hold off, Aaron Cross: Matt Damon's back as Jason Bourne! -- 136 total posts 22 posts
- Check out this MASSIVE new HOBBIT: BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES banner!! -- 174 total posts 19 posts
- SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Hires 20-Year-Old Cast Member!! -- 48 total posts 17 posts
- Copernicus is really pissed about the Stephen Hawking biopic THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING that he saw at TIFF -- 123 total posts 13 posts
- Scott Glenn Joins Charlie Cox, Vincent D’Onofrio, Rosario Dawson, Elden Henson and Deborah Ann Woll For Netflix’s DAREDEVIL Series!! -- 55 total posts 12 posts
- New Poster for V/H/S: VIRAL!!! -- 23 total posts 6 posts
- Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett to take on I SAW THE DEVIL REMAKE!!!!!!!! -- 48 total posts 4 posts
- Look Upon The Bizarre, Horrible, And Possibly Awesome Insanity Of This DEAD SNOW 2 Trailer!! -- 53 total posts 4 posts
- Kelvington Says Tonight’s DOCTOR WHO Is A Perfect Episode – Were It Not For The Episode’s Foreshadowing!! -- 155 total posts 4 posts
- Looks like they got the right Mann to play Audrey Griswald in the VACATION update! -- 86 total posts 4 posts