Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Review: Harry Potter 546

Posted by CmdrTaco from the aol-time-warner-demands-you-watch-this-film dept.
It's been impossible to avoid the hype on this film. Even if you avoid TV, the whole web has been bursting with bits, ranging from eBay to CNN.com. The AOL Time Warner conglomerate demands that you watch this movie. And you know what? So do I. Just watch out for all the strange people at the theater wearing cloaks and pointy hats. I thought Star Wars had freaky fans.

I'm a latecomer to the Harry Potter phenomenon. A few friends recommended the books to me, but it wasn't until the local town of Zeeland, Michigan decided to push to have the book banned from school libraries and local book stores that I decided I had to read it. I read the first book and was just amazed. Here was a story that was fun, easy to read, had involving characters and a simply wonderful imagination. Quite simply, "The Hype" was warranted. In this era of the Internet, and playstations and old fashioned TV, this was just the book to get kids reading again. Hell, this was just the book to get me reading again. My schedule doesn't give me much free time to enjoy a book, but I made time, and read the first 3 Harry Potter books on my next 3 flights (I'm saving the 4th book for next time I fly ;) I don't read much. But I'm glad I read these books. They were great.

Of course by this time, the movie was already under construction so I kept a stray eyeball on it to see what would come of it. I wept when I heard Chris Columbus was directing (Home Alone? Mrs. Doubtfire? Stab me please). Why not Terry Gilliam? I thought he would have been perfect, except that I have no clue if the man could direct swarms of kids. Columbus could. And I'm glad to say that he did.

I won't belabor the plot. You know already unless you live in a coffin that Harry Potter is the witch hero brought from the world of Muggles to his true destiny at Hogwarts, a traditional English boarding school ... for witches. He meets up with a variety of friends including the giant Hagrid, the little-miss-perfect Hermione, the Headmaster Dumbledore, his best friend Ron. He also meets some bad guys, Professor Snape (played by Alan Rickman, who I always dig), Draco Malfoy. If you've read the book, you know the characters. If you haven't, you either don't care, or haven't been paying attention to every AOL Time Warner media outlet which has been relentless hyping the film for weeks.

The story is simply epic. Orphan Boy learns of true powers. Boy goes to train to master his powers. Boy fights monsters, comes face to face with true evil, and defeats it. Think Star Wars, but with broom sports instead of x-wing battles.

The kids are dead on. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are almost exactly what I'd expect. They are convincing actors and do an excellent job. And they actually act. Not like Phantom Menace where Jake Lloyd brings every scene featuring his dialog to a crashing halt with his wooden delivery, or The 6th Sense's Haley Joel Osment who just has to make that look at the camera half the time and this is somehow interpreted as being a great child actor. The grownups are good too. Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid is really excellent. Likewise the Dursley's are spot on. I would have liked to get a bit more of the teachers. Especially Dumbledore and Snape, but this is the story of the kids, not the grown-ups.

Since this is a special FX blockbuster kind of movie, I'll go into it a bit. The look of the whole movie is dazzling. The casting is right on the money. The architecture is skewed and bent, just like it should be. Hogwarts itself is dark, but the grounds are beautiful and colorful. Everybody visualizes books differently, but I gotta say they did a fine job creating a convincing world for our magical trio to get into mischief.

Many of the effects are subtle and seemlessly integrated. Keep an eye on the paintings and watch them move in the background. Where the effects really collapse is the people during action sequences. The troll battle. Kids falling off brooms. They cut back and forth between real kids and CGI kids. And the CG kids just don't cut it. They just look wooden and their skin has no flesh texture to it. Most of the shots are short, but at least for me they really pulled me out of the fun. Especially during the Quiditch match. I wanted to cheer and be excited, and certainly the seen as a whole was brilliant. But every couple shots it would be so obvious that the child on the broom was animated that I kept having the illusion spoiled. I kept thinking I was watching a Playstation 2 cut sequence instead of a feature film.

What got sacrificed from the book to make this a 2:30 movie? Well not much. The biggest thing is the details in classes. The books love to have little anecdotal stories in classes that often tie together at the end. A spell. Some child doing something that seems irrelevant, but later matters. But the kids are almost never shown in class. But thats ok. Things also seemed a little more slapsticky, but I guess Mr Home Alone couldn't pass up on that. And I'll forgive him. This is a kids movie. A few sub plots are axed. Many plots are narrowed down (notably the dragon sub plot which is reduced to one short scene)

In short, this the best for-all-ages movie I've seen since perhaps Toy Story 2. And I'll be there opening night for The Chamber of Secrets too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review: Harry Potter More

Review: Harry Potter

Comments Filter:

  • Disney movies and Harry Potter... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sarcasmooo! ( 267601 ) on Saturday November 17, 2001 @12:14PM (#2578391)
    I have come to the conclusion that Commander Taco is a 12 year old boy trapped in the body of one high-ranking mexican cuisine.
    • Ah, you may titter, you may titter, but CmdrTaco's no freak outlier for liking HP at his age. I hadn't realised till today just how popular HP is with adults. My unscientific observations: I'm a 22-year old male, and at the packed 8pm screening here last night about 90% of the cinemagoers were 14 or over (some even over 60), and although HP is particularly popular with girls and women, there were plenty of males, although maybe not a majority. I saw similar proportions standing outside in the queue at the 5pm screening today. Obviously the kids will tend to go to earlier screenings, but still...

  • i got dragged to the theater at 12:01am Friday morning by my girlfriend. They did an awesome job at the special effects and who they selected as actors.

    but the story was slow to develop, IMO. I actually fell asleep for about a half hour of the movie and when I woke up, the only stuff I had mised was the introduction of peoples names, and the plot hadnt been intro'd yet. so it felt like i didnt miss anything. i think maybe the reason i fell asleep is because i havent read teh books.

    • Re:my story - (Score:2, Informative)

      by 91degrees ( 207121 )
      I think a lot of that is down to JK Rowling's insistence that a lot of this will matter in later years.

      The first half hour is pretty much Harry finding out whats in the wizarding world.
    • Another thing to remember about the movie is that even though it was 2 and a half hours long, they still had to cut out an awful lot of details and quite a few subplots. That was my biggest gripe about the movie - even though I can't really blame them because it was unavoidable. I guess I shouldn't have been so naive as to take Chris Columbus literally when he said "You don't change Shakespeare and you don't change this." Er, well, they did actually. Still, compared against other movie adaptations, it apparently stuck very closely to the book.

      The book itself is much richer and the plot elements connect much better than in the movie - although, as someone else already said, some of the stuff might only fall into place when you read the later books. Believe me, if you'd read the book and then the movie, you'd really see the pacing differently - so much was taken out that the movie is like 3 times faster than the book! (That doesn't mean the book is boring, it means a lot more goes on in the book.)

    • Fluffy (the giant three-headed dog) was quite fuzzy, typical of bad special effects. The background and arena of the Quidditch match was not well-done (though the Quidditch players themselves were great). The troll was terrible - Shrek-style animation in a live-action movie? Bad move. It's kinda strange - it looks as if part of the was done by a team that didn't have anywhere near as much experience as stuff done in the rest of the movie. Makes me wonder...

  • He's right about the books and the movie. I just wish the kid target demographic hadn't limited the length of the movie so. Another half hour would have done wonders. Oh well, maybe a "director's cut".

    1Alpha7

  • Why not Terry Gilliam? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by VA Software ( 533136 ) on Saturday November 17, 2001 @12:17PM (#2578402) Homepage
    Because Terry Gilliam has imagination and originality.

    The publisher and/or the studio wanted the film of the book to be a word-for-word replica.
    • Hunter S. Thompson and Oscar Ascosta running around in an drug frenzy trashing Vegas hotel rooms to Harry Potter and Hogwarts. That would be a rather broad recent career arc for Mr. Gilliam wouldn't it? Though I suppose whatshisname of LoTR fame (Pete Jackson?) did 'Meet the Feebles' so I suppose its not without preceedent that directors can do both very 'ugly' works and mass marketable blockbuster fantasy style material. However if Jackson did upleasant works it was more to do a self parodying exploitation type film - there really wasn't much creative or thought provoking in that movie, it was just the new path down exploitation film making that you probably weren't expecting.

      I think there is maybe the impression that because Gilliam did well known 'fantasy' films like Munchausen and Time Bandits that he is a superb fantasist. However despite those accomplishments I think the type of movies he tends to gravitate towards are generally too dark and unsettling and overly cerebral to be commercial grade fantasy. Though he nearly exclusively deals with fantastic subjects the flow of his movies generally don't follow an escapist mold at all, rather they tend to dwell on the absurdity of escapism and the plots tend emphasis how unromantic and far from the 'fantastic' mold actual life can be. For instance, look at how much trouble he went to showing how arbitrary and upoetic most of the deaths in Time Bandits were, and Munchausen only stayed afloat by constantly emphasising its own absurdity and the complete unreality of the events it described - the fact that the story of Munchausen was not real but nonetheless emotionally appealing was one of the main thrusts of that movie. In fact in every one of his films it is the psychology of fantasy and how it is used to get along in life rather than an exploration of the actually fantastic that is of primary thematic importance. Most of Gilliam's work is more about dealing with the fact that people's dreams and fantastic notions are by nature almost always contrary to what will actually happen in their lives rather than just reiterating the rather trite stereotypes of escapism. There is a reason that Brazil is considered his cornerstone work, and its not because his baroque visual style was first fully realized in a movie with that film, rather it was because the movie was about the nightmare of being psychologically dependant on fantasy that will never come true.

      So I agree that Gilliam would not be a good director for this film any more than he would be a good director for Star Wars and LoTR even though Harry Potter is a little more self consciously surrealistic in nature. The simple fact is that Gilliam does not do fantasy for its own sake, rather what he does tends to usually gravitates more towards drama where the primary tension resides in the disparity between character's fantastic notions and the more unromantic situations of their actual lives.

      i honestly I think if there was a major director who would be good on this project it would be Tim Burton. He is much adept at doing atmospheric fantasy while staying much more true to mainstream entertainment values than Gilliam.

    • Re:Why not Terry Gilliam? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by matthew.thompson ( 44814 ) <matt@acERDOStuality.co.uk minus math_god> on Saturday November 17, 2001 @02:39PM (#2578842) Journal
      Actually it was the author who held out, as with a lot of savvy authoers she retained veto over the filming rights and passed up many offers until this one.

      One of the key things was that she didn't want the film to become an Americanised version of the book - about the only concession made is the title of the film in the US - Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone (It's the Philospher's Stone in the UK)

      And I for one am glad that it stuck true to the book, which I've started reading after seeing the film, it didn't seem as fake as a lot of Hollywood produced films have been recently and for once it was nice to see places I know. The streets of London, Kings Cross station were all immediately recognisable - although I'm left wondering how many children will attempt to get to platform 9 and 3 quarters ;o)

      I don't think that the film called for Terry Gilliam's originality - if it had then there would have been alot of upset children, probably frightened out of their wits, leaving cinemas in droves. Lets not forget that although there are an awful lot of adults going to see this film it is, first and foremost, a childrens story.
    • Because all of Terry Gilliam's films (with the exception of the short film at the beginning of Monty Python's Meaning of Life) center around one theme:

      Did what you saw on the screen just now really happen, or was it in the imagination of one of the characters?

      Harry Potter has none of that. There comes a point where people bandy about names because they like that person's previous works, without taking into consideration the fact that there is a contiguous thread in them. _Time Bandits_, _Brazil_, and _Baron Munchausen_ are considered to be a trilogy: Kevin, Sam Lowry, and the Baron are thematically the same character.

      In short, having Terry Gilliam direct _Harry Potter_ would be like having Roger Waters score Looney Tunes cartoons. Stranger than it needs to be, and overall not what the artist wants to do.

      Then again, this is the world that had George Carlin as Mr. Conductor.
    • But every couple shots it would be so obvious that the child on the broom was animated that I kept having the illusion spoiled. I kept thinking I was watching a Playstation 2 cut sequence instead of a feature film.

    *cough* Pod Racing *cough*. Those sequences in SW:E1:TPM looked so cartoony and game-like that it couldn't have been an accident. I wonder if there's something of the same going on in HP:TPS (The Philospher's Stone, damn it). "Don't make it look too good, it'll just make the game spins off look like a pile of pants, and that's where the big bucks are."

  • did anyone else see dave letterman wednesday night? The kid who played harry was on, but I was too busy on other things to pay attention. but the djs on the radio the next morning were saying he was completely nervous and everything. anyone else see it? what was he like up there?
    • Letterman's "10 signs your son is a wizard" (found on the excellent HP fansite darkmark.com):

      10. When he enters a room there is a burst of purple smoke
      9. You say, "Do you think that lawn is gonna mow itself?" But then it does
      8. Your child gets busted shoplifting a newt
      7. Can turn lead into gold, but he can't remember to take out the trash -- am I right, parents?
      6. He wears shiny red satin robes -- and you're just praying he's a wizard
      5. Favorite discount electronics chain: The Wiz
      4. Refers to Halloween as "amateur night"
      3. He's only 12, but somehow he's dating Gwyneth Paltrow
      2. His homework ate the dog
      1. You catch him in the bathroom polishing his wand

  • Haley Joel Osment (Score:4, Funny)

    by OblongPlatypus ( 233746 ) on Saturday November 17, 2001 @12:21PM (#2578417)
    I'm surprised CmdrTaco saw fit to put down Haley Joel Osment's acting skills up there. I mean, did you see AI? That kid *is* a great actor.
    • For some reason this got rated Funny; I guess my comment works both ways. I actually meant what I said, but you can pretend I was being sarcastic if you want :) (Anything for Karma, right? Oh wait, I'm capped, darn.)

  • The truly impressed. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by keefebert ( 535583 ) on Saturday November 17, 2001 @12:23PM (#2578425) Homepage
    I have found that only by reading these books can one fully understand what the hype is. I have yet to meet a person who has not loved Harry Potter. I have, however, met numerous people who have not read them commenting on how the hype is uncalled for.

    But until Harry Potter is on your completed reading list, it is impossible to truly understand. While maybe they are not the best written books ever, there is something else about them that takes children into this magical world, and then can take adults back to being children. I urge everyone, if its your thing or not, to try reading these books, and then the movie will really be impressive.

      • I have yet to meet a person who has not loved Harry Potter.

      You've met one now. The Potter books are derivative (some say plagiarised, and with good reason) and lazily written. The excuse that this is acceptable because they are aimed at children is bunk: Susan Cooper and Dianne Wynn Jones among others produce truly imaginative and challenging fiction aimed at that market. Potter is Muzak in print.

      The Cult of JK Rowling is pretty funny by itself, considering that she's consistenly misrepresented herself (the "struggling single mother" wrote the first book on the back of a literary grant, a luxury most authors can only dream of), and is using Potter as a vehicle for self promotion even though she has sold all rights to the Beast and no longer has any voice in the use of her (ex) property.

      No, I don't like the books, and I don't like the hype, and I don't like the Cult. It's well packaged mediocrity triumphing over substance. Granted, that makes me a subversive, but it's also the reason why I prefer GNU/Linux to Microsoft.

      • Re:The truly impressed. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by garcia ( 6573 ) on Saturday November 17, 2001 @02:29PM (#2578809)
        GNU/Linux. And you are talking about "cults"?

      • Re:The truly impressed. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Maryck ( 84 )
        You kinda have to view the Potter books like a gateway drug. Even if the books themselves are just middle of the road, they do get kids to read and given the right guidance, those same kids may then decide to try something else.

        As for the commercialism, yes, it is fairly rampant, but that is to be expected. Any book that reaches this level of popularity is going to be scooped up by the media/toy companies. The same is true for cartoons and numerous other forms of media (just take a look at the recent blitz of Gundam toys and models). At least in this case there is a reasonably positive side effect.

        My only concern is that now that the movie is out, many of the kids who might have read the book will just settle for the movie. Unfortunately, I don't know that there is much that can be done about that.

      • Re:The truly impressed. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee AT ringofsaturn DOT com> on Saturday November 17, 2001 @09:00PM (#2579893) Homepage
        OK, so you choose your OS based on what makes you look "subversive" and your literature based on what makes you look "smart".

        Call me crazy, but I pick my OS based on what gets the job done, and my literature based on what amuses me to read. I liked all four Harry Potter books. I think they're about the best young-adult fantasy series since The Chronicles of Narnia. They're interesting, and imaginative, and well told, and fun to read. Are they derivative? Sure! What isn't? I could give a fuck about the hype, or about Ms. Rowling's financial or social situation.

    • I have, however, met numerous people who have not read them commenting on how the hype is uncalled for.

      Well, I've never read them and I don't consider the hype uncalled for. It doesn't do any harm and it can be safely ignored. I personally had absolutely no clue what Harry Potter was until this article on Slashdot. For all I knew it could have been a brand of cutlery or something.

      As for "urging everyone" to read the books, thanks but no thanks. I have too many *really* important books on my read list to have time for children's "literature".

      • Thank you! I get the feeling a lot of the adults who rave about the book don't really read that much themselves. I have plenty of reading material to get through, I'm not going to waste time reading kids books.

  • In-flight reading? (Score:3, Funny)

    by TomatoMan ( 93630 ) on Saturday November 17, 2001 @12:28PM (#2578442) Homepage Journal
    (I'm saving the 4th book for next time I fly ;)

    Hope you're flying around the world.

  • "Sorcerer's Stone" vs. "Philosopher's Stone" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ami Ganguli ( 921 ) on Saturday November 17, 2001 @12:29PM (#2578443) Homepage

    Does anybody know why they changed the name (of both the book and movie) for the U.S.? Did they dub the movie as well to change the name of the stone?

    I'm just curious because I can't imagine why they would go to so much trouble to eliminate the word "philosopher".

    • According to one site, they shot the scenes twice. I think this is something to do with the media corporations aiming at the lowest common denominator. They probably felt that there might be someone put off with a film about philosophers or something stupid like that - Do remember these are marketing people.

      • Wow! So they figured the cost of having the word 'philosopher' in the title was greater than the cost of shooting all those scenes twice?!

        So philosopher mean something different in the U.S. that I don't know about? I've never been aware of any kind of negative connotation attached to the word.

    • apparently (according to news sources in the uk), it's because american audiences (of the book and the film) wouldn't understand who/what a philosopher is. so they simplified it.
    • Different meaning mostly. Philosopher's Stone will paint a different mental image for Europeans than Americans. Sorcerer's Stone doesn't paint the same image for us, but it brings us closer at least.

    • Re:"Sorcerer's Stone" vs. "Philosopher's Stone" (Score:4, Informative)

      by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Saturday November 17, 2001 @04:24PM (#2579131) Homepage Journal
      To answer that question, you sort of have to go back to why they renamed the book Sorcerer's Stone when they brought it over to America. Because I expect that in the end, they renamed the film simply to rhyme with the title of the book, so as not to confuse all the people who didn't know what's going on.

      When the book was being brought over for America, they changed a lot of British slang terms. For instance, "bogeys" became "boogers" (though I noticed they kept the uses of the word "bogey" in the film--probably too expensive to reshoot _all_ those scenes). (Interestingly enough, both "bogey" and "booger" have another Harry Potter connection--they come from the same root word as "Boggart," a monster Harry deals with in book 3!) "Jumpers" became "sweaters," and the new word Dudley learned in Chapter 1 was "shan't" over there in England and "won't" over here in the USA! Dumbledore's favorite candy, the sherbet lemon, became the lemon drop (though when Harry goes to Dumbledore's office in a later book, the password is sherbet lemon, with a reference back to Dumbledore liking them!). The list goes on and on.

      Anyway, the revisions included the word "Philosopher" to "Sorcerer". I have no idea why; I can only assume it's because they thought American kids might not be familiar enough with alchemy-lore to recognize the Philosopher's Stone, and would end up wondering, "But where's the philosopher?"

  • DVD and franchise (Score:2, Interesting)

    by effer ( 155937 )
    This movie is likely going to be the first successfully designed DVD movie. The theatrical release, by nature, is assured success from the start which allows for ample planning to release a vastly expanded version on DVD.
    Not just deleted scenes, but fully composed add-ons that needed to be deleted to bring the film within a reasonable length for theater goers.
    I hope to see this used more. Many adaptations fail due to the 2-2.5 hour length the average movie goers will endure at a cinema. DVD and what ever replaces it allow directoers to utilize their immediate resources to film full adaptations/stories that can have all the backstory added later to fully realize their vision of the story.
    I admit, I have no concrete knowledge on HP, but given the trim and the quality that Columbas (surprisingly) pulled off here, I'm confident the DVD will be excellent.
    • There's a persistent rumor going around about a four hour director's cut--despite the fact that Columbus himself has flatly said those rumors are false. I've written a bit about it in my LiveJournal [livejournal.com], with links to the pertinent articles.

      I am looking forward to the DVD, though.

  • Won't see it. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Vegeta99 ( 219501 )
    The one reason I wont see the movie is i doubt it has those "adult jokes" like all of Pixar's movies have. You know, the sruff for the older crowd in the movie, thew stuff that flies over the kid's head.
    • The one reason I wont see the movie is i doubt it has those "adult jokes" like all of Pixar's movies have. You know, the sruff for the older crowd in the movie, thew stuff that flies over the kid's head.

      Worse still, a lot of funny lines from the book - the kind that would make adults laugh - have been omitted from the film. I've no idea why, it seems crazy.

      Despite this, I'd still recommend that you watch it before judging it. I thought that it was fantastic, despite several minor flaws.

      HH
      --

  • Oh dear (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by fobbman ( 131816 )
    Well, I certainly hope that you snuck into the theater to avoid paying money to the eeeeeeevil Warner Bros. I'd hate to see your money going to the ongoing hassles from the MPAA.

    • Thank god we have you here representing the hypocrisy police. I mean, I'm certain you've done so much more than CmdrTaco to raise awareness of the dickheaded things the MPAA and RIAA are doing.

      You don't have to be a monk to oppose the RIAA/MPAA. In fact, when they occasionally get things right (investing in fantasy movies with *gasp* plots), maybe it makes sense to invest in them.
      • Good points both. There ain't a lot of large corporations that don't do something shady or unethical or disagreeable (carpet shops sourcing from factories employing slaves; food companies making tobacco or selling armaments to repressive regimes; computer and cellphone manufacturers sourcing raw materials indirectly from slaves, etc. etc.), but it's not really practicable for many of us to avoid paying our "tithe" to all of them all the time - and those who do manage wouldn't have computers and wouldn't be here on Slashdot to debate the issue!

        Personally I do my bit by being a vegan, trying to avoid needless consumerism, and "stealing" music instead of buying it (just kidding on that last one ;).

        RMS, for once, makes a reasonable halfway-house suggestion, as regards the MPAA at least: only go to movies which you have a credible prior reason to believe are worth going to. That, in his opinion, would cut into the MPAA's profits a lot, because Hollywood produces so much pap. :)

  • The most amazing thing about the Harry Potter phenomenon to me is the burst of censorship associated with it. This thing is just a plain good old children's fantasy and the fundamentalist Christians down South where I live have just gone rabid about it. If you believe in the First Amendment, then you've got to fight for kids to have the right to see / read Harry Potter. Check out this website [mugglesfor...potter.org] for more on the Harry / censorship angle...

  • Harry not cool in 7th grade... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DaoudaW ( 533025 ) on Saturday November 17, 2001 @12:41PM (#2578490)
    I substituted in a 7th grade classroom yesterday. I thought it would be interesting to ask them about Harry Potter.
    The results surprised me. Only 4 or 5 of 27 were planning to see the movie this weekend, and only 3 or 4 more expressed any interest in ever seeing it.

    I'm guessing its been over-hyped, so that cool twelve-year-olds are no longer interested.
  • It's the box office [lostbrain.com] I'm worrried about!

    tcd004

  • Harry Potter danger. (Score:3, Funny)

    by dinotrac ( 18304 ) on Saturday November 17, 2001 @12:42PM (#2578500) Journal
    I knew that Harry Potter was a phenomenon. After all, the author was on Oprah.
    Heck, the NY Times changed the criteria for its bestseller list because Harry was creaming the competition.

    but...

    Until a friend gave Goblet of Fire to my teenaged daughter, I didn't realize that Harry Potter was a PHENOMENON!

    She now has 1-4 on her shelf with the Harry Potter bookends and assorted other Potterabilia.

    She has made sure that even an uncool old muggle like Dad has a vague comprehension of the sorting hat.

    And...

    We are all excited about my mother coming up for a visit this week.

    Why?

    She'll babysit the little ones while Teenager and the two old fogies she lives with go to see the movie.

    Guess it could be worse.
    The littlest one likes TeleTubbies.
  • I went to a screening last night, and although my friends who hadn't read the book came out with completely enthusiastic reviews, I was somewhat disappointed.

    The writers did an incredible job sticking to the true story - but maybe they did too much. The characters were fantastic (especially the kids), but I knew exactly what each child was going to do from minute one. The problem is that I never got completely engaged - there wasn't any mystery or spontaneity to the story. Now some people would support a movie true to its book, but I need some other compelling reasons to see a movie.

    The CGI was pretty awful for the entirety of the movie. But watching the character portrayals made this movie worth my money. Everyone from Harry's awful aunt and uncle, to the other kids at Hogwarts, to the teachers was done magnificently. And a couple of those really surprising, frightful moments were nice (but I think younger kids would be quite scared).

    My final suggestion: If you haven't read the books or seen the movie, put your money into reading the books! They are truly fabulous, and your imagination will create a more engaging and wondrous story than any director can portray. Now if that doesn't convince you, fine, go see the movie, you'll like it, you'll laugh, it's a fine time.

    And if you have read the books, I don't know. You can pay to see the movie, but don't expect incredible things. I found myself thinking about other things during the movie (like how hot my feet were) because I was expecting everything. It's still fun, and good acting is always a nice change.

    Final unrelated note: The new Star Wars trailer was AWFUL. Scooby Doo trailer was hilarious.
    • >The writers did an incredible job sticking to
      >the true story

      Oh! I hadn't realized it's a TRUE story!
      NOW I'm interested!
    • I think one issue that may turn off reviewers is that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is written more like a setup book to create the world that Harry Potter lives in. That means more descriptions and somewhat less emphasis on storytelling, something that flummoxed some reviewers.

      I think the second novel, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, will be a much better movie since there is far more emphasis on good storytelling. I can't wait for Kenneth Branagh to ham it up as Gilderoy Lockhart, a character that really "chews the scenery." :-)

  • Can Jake Lloyd act? (Score:3, Funny)

    by roystgnr ( 4015 ) <roy&stogners,org> on Saturday November 17, 2001 @12:46PM (#2578512) Homepage
    We don't really know; he's never been given the chance. Anyone who knocks his performance in Star Wars should first be required to do a convincing "Yippee!" themselves...
  • After reading the books, and then watching the movie last night, one major flaw made itself apparent. The movie shifts scenes too quickly. You can never settle down and simply enjoy all the little subtleties that made the books great. This goes on for 2:20, so it became a problem for me.

    I do realize, however, that this is because of the very fact the movie is based off a book. They *had* to remain faithful to the story and at the same time keep a child's attention for that length of time. These two goals together contradict the ability to go indepth into character development or a particular plot scene. For example, I wanted Draco's goons to come out of the woodwork, and not just sit there and look dumb as they did in the movie.

    All in all though, I enjoyed the movie. I wonder when the second one is due to be released. For some reason, I bet that this series will eventually become as big as "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", or even perhaps "Wizard of OZ".

  • One Ring to rule them all,

    One Ring to find them,

    One Ring to bring them all,

    and in the darkness bind them

  • Gah. (Score:4, Funny)

    by quartz ( 64169 ) <shadowman@mylaptop.com> on Saturday November 17, 2001 @12:47PM (#2578520) Homepage

    It's been impossible to avoid the hype on this film.

    I did manage to completely avoid the hype on this film, until some bozo wrote an article about it on Slashdot.

  • The casting was almost dead-on as to how I envisioned it... With ONE exception.

    McGonagall is not supposed to be an old lady (see the books!). I had envisioned someone who looked kind of like Bebe Neuwirth in full Lilith Sternin mode.
  • I've seen the luke warm response of many critics, saying that they do not see the magic in the movies.

    I wonder if the Sept 11 events have thrown some people off so much that they no longer see magic where they would have seen it before.

    • I wonder if the Sept 11 events have thrown people off so much that they see problems where they would not have seen them before.
      • I wonder if the Sept 11 events have thrown people off so much that they see problems where they would not have seen them before.

        Well, that opens the door to places like the guerilla news network [guerrillanews.com], where they are expert at that sort of thing.

        but otherwise, no impact whatsoever.

        [smile]

  • I read all four books and liked them. I did not think they were earth-shattering, but they were good, especially the fourth book.

    I decided to go opening day just to get caught up in it. Trying to avoid children, I decided on the 1:30pm showing, before school got out. As it turns out, it was a 1:20 showing, so I arrived halfway through the previews.

    There were about fiftenn people in the theatre, including two children. One of the kids sat right behind me. He must have been about five, but acted very well the entire time, better than a lot of adults I have sat in front of.

    The movie was good. I would say that it was better than Mosters, Inc., which I saw last weekend.

    The major problems I had with it was that it did not seem to "flow" very well. This, I think, is a result of my next complaint - the movie seemed to follow the book too closely. It is difficult to floow a book that closely when the books, as with most any books, involve a lot of characters thinking to themselves.

    One good example was the Sorting Hat. In the book, Harry and the hat have an internal dialog. In the movie, this conversation takes place aloud, and completely changes the idea of it.

    I was impressed at how closely came, image-wise, to my thoughts on what everything looked like. Hagrid's cabin was almost dead-on, as was the Gryffindor commons room could not have been more exact to the image in my head.

    I also did not like the toning down of a lot of the adult characters. Dumbledore was apparently re-written as a very minor character, despite the role he plays in the book.

    In all, I was impressed with the movie and will probably end up buying it on DVD. One of the better movies made this year, but, given the competition, that does not mean much.
  • " and read the first 3 Harry Potter books on my next 3 flights (I'm saving the 4th book for next time I fly ;)


    I wonder if Taco has seen the size of the 4th book? All I can say is I hope its a very long flight. Rumours are that the 5th book come complete with a wheel barrow and the 6th with a shopping cart.

  • If magic was reliable and repeatable ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Saturday November 17, 2001 @01:58PM (#2578729) Journal
    ... it would be science.

    And given that, in this series, magic IS reliable and repeatable (and thus is really a science and its asscoiated technology), the rest of the story becomes:

    - Child from broken home is abused.
    - Child escapes from broken home through institutional opportunity for children like him to enter higher learning institution.
    - Child enrolls in a "science/technology" degree program, in a "science" for which he has a talent (and which is thus fun).
    - Child grows up, learning about good and evil, human relations, etc., making friends (and enemies) and having a good time along the way.
    - Child breaks rules (as adolescents must do at least once), getting in an appropriate amount of trouble and finding an appropriate amount of opportunity as a result.
    - Child learns more family history.
    - Child and friends solve serious adult-world problem.
    - Child and friends make progress exposing and combatting the plans of evil/psychopathic persons.
    etc.

    Substitute "science" for "magic", and the whole thing turns into a real-world growing-up success story, with lots of useful lessons about attitudes and behaviors useful for achieving success, morals, and social standing. But using the technology of magic allows the young reader to easily transfer these lessons to the real-world without the distraction of technical particulars from the author's understanding of a PARTICULAR technology's CURRENT state-of-the-art.

    Meanwhile it's a very fun read, keeping the reader engaged and encouraged to continue.

    So in addition to teaching kids to read, this series seems likely to teach a lot of good stuff, all the while making it LOADS of fun (as learning SHOULD be).

    I'm glad to hear it made it to the silver screen with its guts intact.
  • Yesterday a coworker went to www.netscape.com to check the news. Right there on the home page, a GIANT Harry Potter ad came sliding down from the top of the window and covered 75% or so of the screen real estate. Clicking on the close button made it slide back away.

    And you thought Pop-ups and pop-unders were bad...

    Mark my words: this is going to be the next wave in annoying advertisements.

    What bugs me the most is that you'd pretty much have to be living under a rock to not know about the movie coming out. Yes, hype is hype and Harry Potter has had more than the usual, but this just seems excessive.

Slashdot Top Deals

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Close