In Reply to: I disagree... posted by Chris Garrett on June 7, 2004 at 08:37:57:
"and let me preface my comments by stating that I've never read the books.
I saw it Friday and didn't read anything about it until I got home with Friday's W/E section and the review by Miami's film critic Rene Rodriguez.First off, when compared to the first two, it's a shorter movie."
An obvious problem in light of the fact that when compared to the first two, it is a substantially longer book.
" Secondly, it's filmed during the cold winter months and hence it is a darker, less cheery movie from a visual POV."
Actually all three books in question *and* all three movies in question take place over an entire school term. There should be no difference due to seasons." Finally, some of the plot twists were a bit confusing for me, just keeping track of who was who."
This is the fault of the film makers. Not you. The plot was simply too complicated to squeeze into a shorter time. I thought it was bound to be confusing to most who did not read the book. The plot had serious ommissions and was not very well fleashed out in the movie. The first two did not suffer from this problem.
" I did notice, that the second quarter seemed to drag a bit too, but then it sped up."
Maybe right about where huge ommissions were made it sped up.
"All in all, I thought on the way home, 3 out of 4."If they did this one as well as they did the first two it could have easily taken another star.
"When I did get home, I read the review that explained the new director, the book and the fact that this wasn't visually/energetically as entertaining as the first two. RR went on to imply that the HP book series is short on plot twists, but deep on characterizations, much like Anne Rice's IWAV...that is to say one gets five pages describing the dress of a particular character at a particular moment in the story."
RR is quite mistaken if RR believes that Prisoner of Azkaban, the book is short on plot twists.
" So...even dispensing with some of the major set pieces of the first two films, this guy just couldn't cram all of the stuff that you seem to miss, into this film."
I understand the problem and was concerned about it going in. I hoped for a brilliant solution. It didn't happen." He had carte blanche to get to the meat and bones."
He got most of the bones and little of the meat."RR mentioned that this new director didn't have to go and replay the cribbich matches in their entirety because we've already seen them in toto once before."
A big mistake IMO. Not only are they fun, they were integral parts of the original plot.
" This left room to address other things and to even shorten the movie somewhat, but at the sake of familiarity."
And yet a lot of people left a bit confused about who did what to whom. Not good. No such problem with the first two.
"Anyhow, I take it for what it is and it was different from the first two."
We certainly agree on that. I thought the first two sucessfully and faithfully transcribed excellent books into excellent movies, both in letter and in spirit.
" If people have seen the first two then they'll obviously have to see this one, making up their own minds."
It seems that many have. The box office was quite impressive for the first weekend.
"The one thing that I thought strange, was seeing how the three main characters have physically matured as they have gotten older over the past three or four years. I also thought that I saw the lightning bolt on Harry's forehead switch locations from one scene to the next. I could have sworn that it was on the left side in the train car, but for the rest of the movie it's on his right. I guess that I'll just have to wait for the DVD to hit the stores?"Yeah that's a tough one. It is a lot easier to cast people who are right for the first book. It is not so easy to predict what they will be like years later. The books make their own calls on how they grow up.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: I disagree... - Analog Scott 12:36:49 06/07/04 (0)