Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by brewthunda (A) on December 02, 2002 at 16:09:47

In Reply to: "Harry Chamber Pot" posted by clarkjohnsen on November 29, 2002 at 08:20:34:

Except for all the Freudian stuff . . . "our now pubescent hero fumbles his way to a giant, squirming, slithering basilisk (syn., cockatrice) via a concealed orifice in the girls' lavatory". . .. give me a break. This guy probably gets aroused by watching the gophers dig up his lawn.

But yeah, it was a bad movie. My mom wanted us to take her to see Harry Potter II for her birthday . . and it was painful. Lots of intense special effects and action sequences . . for apparently no reason when taken in context of the rest of the film. Oh, and there are too many intentionally annoying sounds - the screaming of Mandrake trees which is supposed to cause instant death to whomever hears it. When reproduced through a theater sound system with 20,000 watts I can assure you they're not kidding about the instant death part.

I'm sure it's fun for kids who have just read the book . . but that doesn't make it a good movie. Literal interpretations of adventure books make for flawed movies. A book needs something fun to happen every other page . . . the joy is in a neverending adventure, not climax and resolution. In a movie, you need to achieve climax and resolution by the end of the film . . the neverending adventure just gets boring when you have to sit through 3 hours of it. Action sequences must have some greater meaning to the movie's outcome.

Anyways, I think I'm just projecting a lot of my frustration with having to sit through a 3 hour movie surrounded by little kids and obnoxious parents. This was the first time I've been to a normal theater in 3 years. When did they start showing TV commercials at the beginning of movies? I felt dirty afterwards. Back to Netflix and theater pubs for me!