Hey folks, well as there seems to be on most everything, there had to be the flip side to the coin of cool on HARRY POTTER. It seems that for these first two reviewers... The first knows the book... the second does not, both had problems with length, the cgi, undeveloped characters and aspects which just went unexplained. They don't bomb the film, they were just a bit disappointed in the film. And our third reviewer today loves it. Where will you be on it? Where will I be on it? I have no idea, but I'll find out this Sunday afternoon. Curiousity is killing me.
Hiya. I went to a press preview of the film in London last night and just wanted to give you a quick review, touching on some points that no one else has raised - namely, how Daniel Radcliffe really deals with his impossible role, and why Columbus was NOT a good choice for the job
First - despite everything I'm going to say, the film is really, really good fun. You can't possibly compare it in quality to the book, but it does do the job of putting the book on screen. However, although the film is directed competently, this also means it's directed woodenly. Chris Columbus was definitely the wrong choice for the film if we wanted more than just a 'fun' two hours at the cinema. You can see this most in the first fifteen minutes, up until Hagrid takes Harry away (easily the worst part of the film); the Dursleys are horribly miscast (Uncle Vernon should be quite frightening - instead he just comes across as an old duffer) the script is confusing for those who don't know the books, and the direction, as I said, is totally wooden - point the camera and shoot school of filmmaking, not a single interesting shot. Columbus's crappy direction doesn't matter so much once the magic starts happening, at Diagon Alley/ Hogwarts, because the material and the production design is so strong that there's always something to interest you in the story and the visual background. But BECAUSE the source material was so strong, it makes it a shame that they couldn't have hired someone else - like, someone who actually knows how far from a camera to stand an actor (!). There's an extraordianary carelessness about the direction that's at odds with the care put into designing the film - you get the impression that the director saw the set for the first time when he turned up on the day to shoot, instead of creating it as a totally controlled enviroment, like Spielberg, to tell a visual story alongside the story that's in the screenplay. There's great visuals - but no visual language underlying the magical surface.
Most of the acting was great - Ron IS the film, he's brilliant - 'bloody brilliant' - Hermione was pretty good too. Snape is fantastic, funny, hammy and deliciously evil. McGonagall was too old and failed to make much of an impression - I think the actress just thought that 'playing a witch' would be enough rather than this particular character. Hagrid was excellent, and one of the script's few original accomplishments was to give him a catchphrase - 'I shouldn't have told you that'. In fact, all the kids are great, with one important exception...
People have said that Daniel Radcliffe isn't very good, and it's true that he's outshined by Rupert Grint. HOWEVER, he's got an impossible role to play - the books are told through Harry's eyes, and he just is less of a character outwardly than the others. Harry's character in the books is mainly action and inner turmoil, he's just not such a good laugh as Ron. So apart from the sheer weight of expectation, this kid had an impossible job. In fact, his performance isn't bad, it's just very understated - and if you think about it, since every kid going to the theatre will identify most with Harry, this is just how it should be. Kids will see him as a blank canvas on which to project their fantasies, even if his performance is unsatisfying for adults.
What else? Quidditch is the one thing where Columbus's direction does shine, but unfortunately the sequence, although exciting - like 'Rollerball' on broomsticks - is marred by some cartoony CGI and fake looking backgrounds. It's still great to watch, though. Some of the effects at the end are a bit 'Mummy Returns' too, especially Voldemort (and by the way, they wrongly pronounce the 't'!). I would have liked to see more care go into creating a new visual style for these effects.
But on the whole - bloody brilliant good fun for a first shot at this series, which is, after all, a 'phenomenon' as well as a series of books. Let's just hope Columbus gets taken off the franchise before the really dark and interesting material kicks in - he should be okay for CoS, but would ruin Azkaban.
regards,
'Parselforce'
And here's another that feels the CGI was dreadful and that it went on far too long. We'll see...
Hey Harry!
How are you big guy?
Saw the infamous Potter movie yesterday at the Odeon Leicester Square in London, and thought you might like to hear the opinion of a guy who has little knowledge of the phenomenon!
As said I've never read the book, but saw the movie with my buddy who's a big fan, despite the fact that we're both nearly 25!
Anyhoo, first thing that surprised me was how the movie seemed to totally captivate the audience. I was real nervous before seeing the movie, as we were surounded by kids. I was expecting a mass riot after the first half hour, but I was amazed at how I seemed more fidgety than the kids!
I found the movie a fairly enjoyable romp. Sadly I felt it way too long at nearly two and a half hours. I found this slightly jarring, especially considering that only the last 45mins had any realy plot development. Pleasently surprised by the performances of the kids. Ron, Harrys best buddy was by far the best, exhibiting a far wider range of emotions than the star himself. Don't get me wrong, Daniel gives a decent performance, and he certainly looks the part. His recation shots are smart, but his acting wasn't up to the standard of Ron. The girl that plays Imanie was also pretty good, but came off as unaturally false, and the product of many years of stage school. Good but very wooden.
Naturally Alan Rickman, and Robbie Coltrane steal the show. Alan Rickmans Snape displays just the right amount of Pantomime nastyness which wont fail to raise a smile. I put it right up there with his Die HArd performance! Robbie is just perfect, bringing light relief but never stepping over the line in to the realms of the buffoon. Maggie Smith, and Richard Harris are also noteworthy, and are perfectly cast as senior witches and wizards. Leslie Phillips will also raise a smile as the voice of a nicely animated CGI hat!
A real shame that the fantastic Julie Walters and John Cleese both had such small parts. My friend is convincing me that both characters have far larger parts in the sequals, but even so, one can't help but feel dissapointed.
the CGI was for the most part dreadful. I genuinly feel that Hollywood is forgetting that effects can be achieved by a variety of methods. People like Cammeron, and Speilberg merge various techniques to achieve effects, but Chris Collumbus seems to love the computer WAY too much! The CGI Giant Troll, Three Headed Dog, and (Worst of all) the Centaur all look just terrible. VERY obviously CGI and very offputting. I also found the famous Quiditch scene a CGI dissapointment. Hard to put ones finger on it, but it all looked very 'Digital', and way too processed. It used obvious CGI actors to achieve various shots, which I for one found jarring.
I felt the film was also WAY too long. Sorry to dissapoint the fans, but Chris Collumbus is far too self indulgent for my liking. I also found sub plots went unexplained. Robbie had a subplot concerning a romanian dragon, that simply went nowhere, and was unexplained. I was told that this subplot was much more fleshed out in the book, but as I've never read it, it just left me needlessly confused. Things of such nature, should have never made it to the final cut.
The ending was also too abrupt and 'Scooby Doo' like for my taste. It was all too convienient and made little sense dispite it being refresingly scary for a so called kids movie.
All in all a worthy film, and one which I have little doubt will rule the world. Fans and kids will love it, but the uninitiated may find it a little long, dull, and dare I say unoriginal.
Still, the sequal should be fun!...
The Tubby Titan, Triple B.
And now for the Gooner who loved it!
Hey Harry,
Went to a screening last night and loved it.
Bit of a long review I know but what the hay....
Back in 1997, a little-known author named Joanne Kathleen Rowling had a book published about a young boy who finds out he's a wizard and is packed-off to a remote boarding school, to learn his magical trade. Four years, four (of seven) books and several million pounds later, Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone comes to the screen. This mega-budget adaptation of Rowling's first novel, which is already being touted as one of the biggest films ever released, has a lot riding on it, including the hopes and dreams of millions of Potter fans (not to mention a considerable amount of money).
Will it live up to hype, can it justify the unprecedented attention and does director Chris Columbus do justice to Rowling's imaginative creation? All will be revealed. Orphaned as a baby, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is sent to live with his horrible muggle (non-magic folk) aunt and uncle, until he's old enough to attend Hogwart's School Of Witchcraft And Wizardry. It comes as a bit of a shock to the 11-year-old when the immense Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) bursts through the door, to whisk him away to a world Harry couldn't have imagined in his wildest dreams. Goblins, dragons, powerful wands, Quidditch and an indescribable evil all await Harry, as he embarks on the biggest adventure of his young life. Columbus's stunning film remains remarkably faithful to the original text. Rowling's world is bought to life beautifully, from the gothic grounds of Hogwarts (complete with moving paintings), to the Dickensian Diagon Alley, through the atmospheric Dark Forest and down to Harry's cupboard under the stairs in the Dursley household. A veritable Who's Who of British stars (Maggie Smith as Prof MacGonagall, Alan Rickman as Snape and John Hurt as Mr Ollivander) keep the film close to its UK roots, the three child stars (Rupert Grint and Emma Watson join Radcliffe as Ron and Hermoine) all hold their own and Richard Harris is superb as Hogwarts' wise headmaster, Albus Dumbledore. The effects, especially during the Quidditch match, are of the high-standard that one would expect and John Williams' score serves as a perfect accompaniment to mystic realm in which Harry finds himself. Some will undoubtedly moan about the inevitable cuts made to the plot - Norbert the dragon only makes a brief cameo, while Peeves the poltergeist is cut altogether - but these are minor gripes. Columbus has done a fantastic job, given the pressure he was under to deliver the 'perfect' children's film.
Whether Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone will achieve the kind of status enjoyed by such seminal family classics as The Wizard Of Oz or Mary Poppins remains to be seen but it stands more than a fighting chance.
The Gooner
