timepiececlock (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timepiececlock) wrote2003-04-18 01:26 pm
timepiececlock) wrote2003-04-18 01:26 pm
Harry Potter has floppy arms.
WhAt the hell?! There's a pic of Angel contaminating my Spike pic at the top of WeBoB? Devils, devils and tarnation!
Actually, the forum won't so I can't go check it out further. :pout:
Finally watched Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Once again, I am unmoved.
Someone, please, send Harry to acting school. Ron to, though he needs only a third of the classes Harry does; he at least can deliver most of his lines, though he could have used better ones. Draco’s best when he’s not sneering on cue, and his little moment with his un!friends was better acted than any one scene of Harry’s. Herimone’s charming and talented; too bad she was frozen for most of this movie. She’s animated and seems to actually put some passion into her performance.
I’m not surprised I didn’t care for this, as I remember thinking that the second was the weakest of the books. The plot was inconsistent, and while it was more thoroughly handled in the book, in the movie it just lost all seriousness.
What’s the point of the Basilisk, in the here & now? If Valdemort just wanted to come back, why did he have Ginny running around painting walls & freezing people and shit? Why didn’t he just lure her down there, suck out her energy like a good energy stealing Nega-monster, and rise again without a chance of being stopped? And if his true target was Harry--- why? What did he want from Harry? And if he wanted something, why didn’t he just tell Harry how to get inside, or have Ginny take him there, and once he was there kill him or whatever, by surprise?
The whole plot with the fraud professor was cute enough in the book, but pointless in the movie. He contributed nothing. In books characters like that exist because they add to atmosphere/setting and through contrast highlight the desired qualities of the main characters, but he did none of this in the film. He was just sort of… there. Uselessly. Wasted talent of a man who can scream "I LOVED OPHELIA!" with the best of them.
These movies are so loyal to the text, they miss the overall point.
Ron said it best after confronting the spider lair. What did they learn there? What was the point?
Well, they learned that Hagrid was innocent. Ok, fine. A fun mini-adventure in a novel. However, for the film’s purposes, Hagrid’s innocence could have been established from just one line from Dumbledoor or Snape or Moaning Myrtle or even Hagrid himself. That’d cut ten minutes right there.
And the Crab& Goyle disguise plot. Totally utterly, unnecessary. A good minute’s worth of traditional eavesdropping could have done as well as that.
My major riff with this movie, was that it lacked character development. Did we learn anything of usefulness about the new characters introduced?
Lucius: No. We saw he’s petty, but we got no hint of why he wants to hurt Potter, what reason he has to have a grudge against Dumbledoor, what reason he would have to conspire with Valdemort’s teenage manifested spirit, or indeed why he even mattered. He was the Snape of movie 2, but he lacked even Snape’s questionable loyalty, which is what makes Snape interesting in the first place. Snape represents the question most kids have about that one unpopular teacher they had growing up--is he truly evil, or just a jerk who picks on kids? When the chips fall, can he be trusted? But we know Malfoy’s bad from the outset, no angst or interest there. What’s more, they don’t even hint why. We’re left with a character we don’t like and don’t care about, who just arrives, sneers, does nothing, and leaves.
His actor was interesting though. I’m banging my forehead trying to place him.
Dobby? Go away and die. You’re everything irritating about Jar Jar Binks and your patheticness doesn’t have of the murderous undertone of Smeagol. I hope Hagrid steps on you.
I felt like I was watching a TV movie for most of this. And not one of the tasty HBO films, I’m talking ABC mediocre 4 hour stuff, or one of the weaker Sci-Fi Channel specials. Lots of flash, little substance.
Mostly, I was bored.
Why couldn’t I get engaged in the film? Was it the directing? Maybe. The acting? Well, the Harry was drab and measured and flat, but the scattered strong actors in support could have made it better. Was it the screenwriter? I think so. The person who wrote the script has got to realize that the movie doesn’t have to replicate the book perfectly, it just has to capture that attitude and atmosphere. And it didn’t, again. Worse this time than last time.
No, actually, thinking about it, I’ve changed my mind. It is Harry’s actor. Daniel whatever. You were wrongly cast, and before you do the next one, take some fucking lessons. And try theater; it’s an experience you need badly. Lack of charisma, lack of passion, lack of anything that particularly inspires me the audience to feel fear or anxiety on your behalf. And if we don’t feel the risk you face, we don’t feel anything when you’re happy either. Unmoved.
Regarding Harry’s character arc, this movie had the same chance that Star Wars Episode II had, it failed just as badly. This was the book when we question Harry’s loyalty—could Harry’s power be rooted in the same darkness as Valdemort’s? How much, truly, do they have in common, and does Harry have the same inherent desire for power that Valdemort had?
The duel snake thing wasn’t as good in movie as it was in the book (except Snape; he was good.) And we had that moment with Dumbledoor in the end, but it felt tacked on, as was brushed away too easily.
C’mon, I watch freaking Buffy, and it handles this kind of thing a hundred times better. Everything’s not ok just because someone tells you it is. Harry’s possibly dark powers haven’t gone away, and this "Don’t worry, you’re different than he" approach that Dumbledoor takes fails to acknowledge that Harry’s fucking TWELVE YEARS OLD. There’s lots and lots of time left for him to be corrupted, and it’s better to be aware of his own self than to just assure the kid that he possesses none of Valdemort’s faults (because he apparently has a LOT of his other qualities, doesn’t he?)
I’m not really into HP fandom, so I don’t know much about how other people read into the books or the movies. But I’ve read all four books, and in my opinion Snape’s absolutely right in one thing—Harry Potter is the most dangerous kid at the school. Dumbledoor’s obviously grooming him like a distant protégé, hoping to set the kid’s loyalties to the good guys early on. The whole thing smacks of Skywalker Syndrome.
Harry has the heart of Luke Skywalker, but his early resistance of Valdemort says he’s got all the power and potential of Darth Vader. J. K. Rowling set that up from the very beginning of the first book with the way everyone was alternately awed of Harry and afraid of him as well as the suspicious/unexplained circumstances surrounding his survivial, and if she’s any good at storytelling, that will be a major part of the concluding book. As it is, the second book planted more of the Potential!Evil seeds, with the snake speaking and the parallel of young Valdemort, and we ought to see more of it with every book. But the second movie... it missed. Its little arc of "Everyone’s afraid of Harry Potter" lacked the proper tense suspicion, reduced to a common schoolyard case of "ostracize the freak."
I’ve made a list, summarizing my opinions on the casting of the HP movies.
Good acting:
-Hermione
-Snape
-Maggie Smith’s professor character
-Hagrid
-The boy who looked Potter in the eye after the snake thing, and said "What are yuo playing at?"
-Ron’s father (where have I seen him recen—OMG! I got it! Shakespeare! He was in ‘Shakespeare In Love’! The stammerer!)
-Crab & Goyle (the kids who did the physical acting, not the voice over, which managed to be almost as boringly delivered as when they were in their own bodies)
Bad or boring acting:
-Harry Potter (Emote, kid, emote. Pretend you’re Haley Osment or a young Elijah Wood)
-Lucius Malfoy (you sort of tried, I’ll give you that.)
-Dumbledoor (good actor, utterly wrong role)
-Kenneth B. (Fuck man, I saw you do Hamlet, and you were beautiful. This is beneath you, in so many, many ways. At least you were subtle, but oh did you get shafted with your part.)
Wait and see:
-Draco Malfoy (They need to give you better lines and better direction, and you’ll be stealing every scene)
- Ron Weasely (Better the second time around. You made Harry’s acting look dull. You have Potential.)
I’m waiting for movie 3. I liked book 3 best of them all, and I hope that the movie is better too. Plus, it has that guy as Sirius, the funny/sneaky/evil/charming guy. If they give him good lines, he’ll be fun to watch. Maybe he can give Harry Potter a few acting tips.
Actually, the forum won't so I can't go check it out further. :pout:
Finally watched Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Once again, I am unmoved.
Someone, please, send Harry to acting school. Ron to, though he needs only a third of the classes Harry does; he at least can deliver most of his lines, though he could have used better ones. Draco’s best when he’s not sneering on cue, and his little moment with his un!friends was better acted than any one scene of Harry’s. Herimone’s charming and talented; too bad she was frozen for most of this movie. She’s animated and seems to actually put some passion into her performance.
I’m not surprised I didn’t care for this, as I remember thinking that the second was the weakest of the books. The plot was inconsistent, and while it was more thoroughly handled in the book, in the movie it just lost all seriousness.
What’s the point of the Basilisk, in the here & now? If Valdemort just wanted to come back, why did he have Ginny running around painting walls & freezing people and shit? Why didn’t he just lure her down there, suck out her energy like a good energy stealing Nega-monster, and rise again without a chance of being stopped? And if his true target was Harry--- why? What did he want from Harry? And if he wanted something, why didn’t he just tell Harry how to get inside, or have Ginny take him there, and once he was there kill him or whatever, by surprise?
The whole plot with the fraud professor was cute enough in the book, but pointless in the movie. He contributed nothing. In books characters like that exist because they add to atmosphere/setting and through contrast highlight the desired qualities of the main characters, but he did none of this in the film. He was just sort of… there. Uselessly. Wasted talent of a man who can scream "I LOVED OPHELIA!" with the best of them.
These movies are so loyal to the text, they miss the overall point.
Ron said it best after confronting the spider lair. What did they learn there? What was the point?
Well, they learned that Hagrid was innocent. Ok, fine. A fun mini-adventure in a novel. However, for the film’s purposes, Hagrid’s innocence could have been established from just one line from Dumbledoor or Snape or Moaning Myrtle or even Hagrid himself. That’d cut ten minutes right there.
And the Crab& Goyle disguise plot. Totally utterly, unnecessary. A good minute’s worth of traditional eavesdropping could have done as well as that.
My major riff with this movie, was that it lacked character development. Did we learn anything of usefulness about the new characters introduced?
Lucius: No. We saw he’s petty, but we got no hint of why he wants to hurt Potter, what reason he has to have a grudge against Dumbledoor, what reason he would have to conspire with Valdemort’s teenage manifested spirit, or indeed why he even mattered. He was the Snape of movie 2, but he lacked even Snape’s questionable loyalty, which is what makes Snape interesting in the first place. Snape represents the question most kids have about that one unpopular teacher they had growing up--is he truly evil, or just a jerk who picks on kids? When the chips fall, can he be trusted? But we know Malfoy’s bad from the outset, no angst or interest there. What’s more, they don’t even hint why. We’re left with a character we don’t like and don’t care about, who just arrives, sneers, does nothing, and leaves.
His actor was interesting though. I’m banging my forehead trying to place him.
Dobby? Go away and die. You’re everything irritating about Jar Jar Binks and your patheticness doesn’t have of the murderous undertone of Smeagol. I hope Hagrid steps on you.
I felt like I was watching a TV movie for most of this. And not one of the tasty HBO films, I’m talking ABC mediocre 4 hour stuff, or one of the weaker Sci-Fi Channel specials. Lots of flash, little substance.
Mostly, I was bored.
Why couldn’t I get engaged in the film? Was it the directing? Maybe. The acting? Well, the Harry was drab and measured and flat, but the scattered strong actors in support could have made it better. Was it the screenwriter? I think so. The person who wrote the script has got to realize that the movie doesn’t have to replicate the book perfectly, it just has to capture that attitude and atmosphere. And it didn’t, again. Worse this time than last time.
No, actually, thinking about it, I’ve changed my mind. It is Harry’s actor. Daniel whatever. You were wrongly cast, and before you do the next one, take some fucking lessons. And try theater; it’s an experience you need badly. Lack of charisma, lack of passion, lack of anything that particularly inspires me the audience to feel fear or anxiety on your behalf. And if we don’t feel the risk you face, we don’t feel anything when you’re happy either. Unmoved.
Regarding Harry’s character arc, this movie had the same chance that Star Wars Episode II had, it failed just as badly. This was the book when we question Harry’s loyalty—could Harry’s power be rooted in the same darkness as Valdemort’s? How much, truly, do they have in common, and does Harry have the same inherent desire for power that Valdemort had?
The duel snake thing wasn’t as good in movie as it was in the book (except Snape; he was good.) And we had that moment with Dumbledoor in the end, but it felt tacked on, as was brushed away too easily.
C’mon, I watch freaking Buffy, and it handles this kind of thing a hundred times better. Everything’s not ok just because someone tells you it is. Harry’s possibly dark powers haven’t gone away, and this "Don’t worry, you’re different than he" approach that Dumbledoor takes fails to acknowledge that Harry’s fucking TWELVE YEARS OLD. There’s lots and lots of time left for him to be corrupted, and it’s better to be aware of his own self than to just assure the kid that he possesses none of Valdemort’s faults (because he apparently has a LOT of his other qualities, doesn’t he?)
I’m not really into HP fandom, so I don’t know much about how other people read into the books or the movies. But I’ve read all four books, and in my opinion Snape’s absolutely right in one thing—Harry Potter is the most dangerous kid at the school. Dumbledoor’s obviously grooming him like a distant protégé, hoping to set the kid’s loyalties to the good guys early on. The whole thing smacks of Skywalker Syndrome.
Harry has the heart of Luke Skywalker, but his early resistance of Valdemort says he’s got all the power and potential of Darth Vader. J. K. Rowling set that up from the very beginning of the first book with the way everyone was alternately awed of Harry and afraid of him as well as the suspicious/unexplained circumstances surrounding his survivial, and if she’s any good at storytelling, that will be a major part of the concluding book. As it is, the second book planted more of the Potential!Evil seeds, with the snake speaking and the parallel of young Valdemort, and we ought to see more of it with every book. But the second movie... it missed. Its little arc of "Everyone’s afraid of Harry Potter" lacked the proper tense suspicion, reduced to a common schoolyard case of "ostracize the freak."
I’ve made a list, summarizing my opinions on the casting of the HP movies.
Good acting:
-Hermione
-Snape
-Maggie Smith’s professor character
-Hagrid
-The boy who looked Potter in the eye after the snake thing, and said "What are yuo playing at?"
-Ron’s father (where have I seen him recen—OMG! I got it! Shakespeare! He was in ‘Shakespeare In Love’! The stammerer!)
-Crab & Goyle (the kids who did the physical acting, not the voice over, which managed to be almost as boringly delivered as when they were in their own bodies)
Bad or boring acting:
-Harry Potter (Emote, kid, emote. Pretend you’re Haley Osment or a young Elijah Wood)
-Lucius Malfoy (you sort of tried, I’ll give you that.)
-Dumbledoor (good actor, utterly wrong role)
-Kenneth B. (Fuck man, I saw you do Hamlet, and you were beautiful. This is beneath you, in so many, many ways. At least you were subtle, but oh did you get shafted with your part.)
Wait and see:
-Draco Malfoy (They need to give you better lines and better direction, and you’ll be stealing every scene)
- Ron Weasely (Better the second time around. You made Harry’s acting look dull. You have Potential.)
I’m waiting for movie 3. I liked book 3 best of them all, and I hope that the movie is better too. Plus, it has that guy as Sirius, the funny/sneaky/evil/charming guy. If they give him good lines, he’ll be fun to watch. Maybe he can give Harry Potter a few acting tips.
no subject
YES! I was watching Shakespeare In Love yesterday and I'm staring at him going... "I know you... I know you..." lol thank you so much! That was driving me bug-shagging-crazy :)
Re:
no subject
I adore the books, and I could a cheerfully ignore the movies but for two words: Alan. Rickman. *gives him a loooooooong hug*
Re:
no subject
no subject
no subject
And for what it's worth - I totally agree that they chose poorly for Harry. I don't like Daniel Ratcliff in the role, I don't *feel* him as Harry. He's blank. Harry should not be blank.
Re:
yes, exactly. Blah, Blank, Boring. no passion.
no subject
Re:
Seriously?
:giggles:
:laughs:
God, there's a level of fandom I can appreciate. You know you're in with the really cool, really obsessed fans when they offer you Spike/Angel or Spike-only forum views, and you set time aside to give the issue as much careful consideration as I'm giving this right now.
Thanks for the tip, I'll decide when the forum's back up. :)
no subject
That said, I do like the movies, quite a bit. I especially love Alan Rickman. When I heard he was playing Snape I danced a jig. Really. I knew he'd be perfect. And after that, I thought most everything was casted well.
I may be in the minority here, but I actually do like Daniel Radcliffe. He's better in this movie than he was in the first. All three of the kids are. They've all grown alot and I'm looking forward to seeing what they'll do in the next movie. I adore Rupert Grint. His faces are absolutely priceless. And I'd agree with you on Emma. She has an enthusiasm and pizaaz that certainly makes Hermione shine.
Lockhart isn't the deepest role and yes, Kenneth Branagh has the talent to do really deep roles, but I loved him in this movie. My favourite scene in the movie is the duel scene when Snape knocks Lockhart across the room. But then I love Snape.
I liked Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy as well.
Really, I don't have alot of complaints. They couldn't keep everything, but I like the cast, and they manage to stay fairly true to the main thrust of the books. I like the kids they've got playing Harry, Ron, and Hermione. They're not a substitute for the books, but I think watching the movies tends to bring out certain plot points that you may miss in the books because in the movie they must strip everything down to the barest essentials. I was rereading the end of Goblet of Fire the other night and certain elements stuck out at me after my re-viewing of Chamber of Secrets.
Oh well... I guess you love LotR which I just didn't care for, and I appear to love HP which you didn't care for!
Re:
What else has he been in? He looks so freakin' familiar.
Oh well... I guess you love LotR which I just didn't care for, and I appear to love HP which you didn't care for!
Yeah. We best just leave it at that. No need for things to get... dangerous.
::cackle::
Heh heh
On the brightside, we don't have to worry about stealing each other's favourite movies. ;)
What else has he been in? He looks so freakin' familiar.
The one thing that I know of is in The Patriot. He plays the nasty English captain guy. He plays hate-able characters very well. I'd like to see him in a role where he's the good guy, I may have to look up a filmography and see if I can find one!
Re: Heh heh
I didn't like that movie much. Just as historically inaccurate as Braveheart, but not half as good.