Harry Potter

[gdl96]

Has anyone been reading Foxtrot this week? Hilarious and classic.

"I'm dressing up for the fantasy movie that comes out this week"
"LOTR comes out next week, doofus"

[Darth Tater]

That's next month doofus

I especially liked the Gandalf/Dumbledore hat one.

[gdl96]

LOL

oops

[ryan]

The only good witch, is a dead witch! Throw him in the river!

Did anyone catch that episode of the simpsons where flanders was reading harry potter to his kids, and all he says is "And Harry Potter.... and all his friends went to hell for practicing witchcraft" and threw the book in the fire? Those books are awful

[Darth Tater]

We went to see Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's (Americans aren't stoopid, publishers are) Stone today. After a bit of a mix up involving the teenagers who get minimum wage to forget where movies are showing, we found our way into the theater, and sat down in front of the biggest movie screen I have ever seen.

Everybody knows that (unless you went to a theater chain with a grudge against somebody in Hollywood) the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars trailers were played before this movie, as well as the trailer for the underhyped Majestic. After seeing trailers of films by some of the greatest visual storytellers the world has ever known, I was hoping to be drawn into the world of Harry Potter in a way that tingled all the senses. Alas, this was not to be.

Now, please understand, I truely enjoyed this film; I thought it was loads of fun, and in many places captured the spirit of mystery, magic, and excitement that JK Rowling infused every scene of her books with. Yet there were some major problems that stuck out like a sore thumb, and caused what could have been a brilliant fantasy film to be another enjoyable Hollywood product.

The three things that really hurt this film were all visible from the very beginning. The film begins with Professor Dumbledore coming through the woods towards 14 Privet Drive. These first moments of the film contained everything I had trouble with.

Let's start with the musical score. We've all had John Williams' music for Harry Potter drilled into our minds before seeing the movie, thanks to a roothless advertising campaign. I've always thought that the music, though not brilliant, conveyed that sense of wonder that fills this story. But alas, a soundtrack may work well on its own, that doesn't mean it belongs with the film.

Music came in at all the wrong times, almost always showing the wrong emotions. The only part of the film that I thought was expressed even decently through the music was the Christmas scenes. Williams obviously gave us a glimpse there of the talent at film scoring that he has, sadly, lost.

On to problem number two: the cinematography. The world of magic is so full of wonder, yeah yeah, we all know that, but things don't all have to feel the same. Chris Columbus gives one the impression that he showed up every day at filming, said "Oh, ok we're filming such and such a scene today, so I'll just point the camera over there and everyone can see what's going on."

That's not cinematography. Point and shoot film making is all we see in this Harry Potter though, and what a shame too, because there are so many chances for exciting work.

Gringotts, in the books, has a feeling of weightiness. It's also a bit creepy, because it's Harry's first glimpse at some of the strange creatures that inhabit the world of magic. The camerawork here should start out very, very wide, and pull in immediately to all the strange things that surround Harry, always looking up at them, giving the feeling that they are just waiting to crush the viewer. Columbus obviously doesn't agree with this.

The Forest outside of Hogwarts should be frightening, very, very frightening. When we first get our glimpse of Voldamort we don't want to just look straight at him, we want to see him through the shadows. A big black cloak does not secrecy make. And then, when he approaches Harry (through who's eyes we see the story unfold) there should certainly be plenty of shaky, unclear POV camerawork, along with some foreshadowing close ups of the two characters faces, establishing visually for the first time these two mortal enemies.

And with that I segue into the climactic battle and the revealing of Voldamort. Columbus obviously doesn't know how to do horror. When you reveal for the first time your true villain, especially in a story where he's been hidden to the very end, everything around him doesn't matter. All our attention, like Harry's, should be focused on Quirrel's turban, wondering what's under there. Because of this, you don't want to shoot this scene wide, you want extreme close ups. Quirrel removing his turban should seem like a slow, endless thing. The anticipation should kill you. I've always known exactly how this shot should look. You put the camera on Quirrel's hand and follow it as it slowly brings the last wrap of the turban away from the head, revealing in a panning motion, extreme close up, the hideous, sinister face (which looked perfect by the way) of he who must not be named (oh what the heck): Voldamort!

Then follows a battle that is almost completely psychological, and, therefore, should be full of extreme closeups of the characters faces, focusing mainly on the eyes, through which the actors show the emotions. When Voldamorts spirit passed through Harry, first Voldamort's POV, then Harry's, would have made us all feel like we were part of this conflict, and not just watching from a distance.

And then there's my third problem, not as big as the other two, for sure, but definately dissapointing. Most of the casting was great, but Richard Harris, though a brilliant actor, proved all wrong for Dumbledore. Also, the script obviously didn't understand this character. The spewing of nonesense words at the beginning of his speech in the hall at Hogwarts is a key moment in establishing the light-hearted fellow that must often be supressed by the need for very serious thought in the face of grave danger. Cutting this simple line threw the character off completely, and made him seem almost like a coward.

I really did like the delivery of the jelly beans line towards the end of the film, but, other then that, Richard Harris seemed too weak to play the old, yet powerful Dumbledore.

I know this review makes it sound like I hated Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I thought it was a thuroughly enjoyable film. However, JK Rowling's novel is full of the kind of storytelling that could make for brilliant film making. Chris Columbus, being the mediocre director that he is, made a good film out of what could have been a great film.

[HOBBIT]

Uh that's nice tater , Lets see you make a better film then. I really had no problems with the casting. I had no problems with the music, either. It did fit in well with the movie...so well that my mom didn't even notice it! It came in at all the right times. Yes, the musical score was not as good as Star Wars, but it was still good. I could (and have at home) pick apart the movie and point out the dozens of little details and such that were cut from the movie, but I won't. You would really have to have read the book to truly understand and appreciate the movie; otherwise it will be a little fuzzy. Yes some lines were cut (it is just your opinion that that Dumbledore one was important. I feel that others were equally important that were cut, too bad), some scenes were taken out, and some characters were not mentioned, but the movie still over all was great. 2 1/2 hours is long enough for a movie. Don't get me wrong though, I thought there were important scenes, characters, and lines left out too, but what, you want a 4 or 5 hr movie? No one would go to see that. Other than the few(although ppl like us make it seem like many) things left out, the movie strictly followed the book. Be happy Plus, save all this for when the Fellowship of the rings comes out....I'm sure everyone here will be delighted to point out every last thing that was left out of the movie. p.s. nice spelling errors tater.

[Bregalad]

Well Darth Tater, it seems we are often going to disagree. But I love you anyway, my fellow Buffy fan!
None of the things that bothered you bothered me. I do wish that there had been more time spent on Harry being taken aback by Gringotts, but I'm sure that was done because of time constraints, as was the shortening of the part with Hagrid's "pet", and I missed that more. As for the soundtrack, I agree with Hobbit. The best soundtracks are unobtrusive, I felt this sound track went with the feel of what was going on without making me go "hey listen to that!" Of course, John Williams is no Danny Elfman, but we can't all be perfect!
I loved the movie! I think it did something that films like this rarely acheive; every single young actor in this film did a terrific job! Harry was so sweet he made me cry, and Ron was sweet, mischievious, outgoing and insecure all at once. I loved Richard Harris, he may not have been as amusing as the books Dumbledoor, but I thought that helped show Harry's awe of him. And of course, Alan Rickman is a god! Only he could be so sexy in that bad wig! And who but he could play that charachter so well, which has to walk the edge between seeming like a bad guy and really be on the right side all along. In case you havn't noticed I have a huge crush on Alan Rickman.
I thought the film was beautiful. I though it had beautiful effects without being heavy handed with them. I thought it was well cast and well written. I just saw it yesterday, and I'm going back to see it tomorrow! This film just broke my heart, because I want to be there in that place and I can't! <giggle>

And I want to add something that was being talked about earlier in this thread. I am 36 years old and I am proud to say I have read all the Harry Potter books. "reading level" don't mean diddly squat to me. A good book, is a good book. I hope that I will never be to old to read a good children's book. And I'd let my kids read them at any age, I'd read them to them myself before they could read if they wanted me to. Because I see no harm in these books. It seemed implyed earlier in this thread that these books were somehow bad for small children because they had "magic" in them. That seemed a very odd thing to come across in a Tolkien bulletin board. There is nothing "satanic" about the Harry Potter books, in fact I think they are an excellent example for our children. It is a story about kids who sometimes get into scrapes but who also try very hard to be brave, be good, and do the right thing. What in the world could possibly be harmful in that?

[HOBBIT]

I just wanted to add one BIG thing left out. There wasn't enough of Draco Malfoy. They cut out the scene where Harry first met him while getting his school robes. Practically all the conflict between Malfoy and Potter were taken completely out of the movie!

[IronParrot]

Thought I'd drop by with the IP review...

SUMMARY

You mean you don't know?

RECOMMENDED FOR:

Fans of the novel.

REVIEW

Whenever I see a movie adapted from another source, I try to see it simply as a film in its own right, so whether or not I am familiar with the source is irrelevant. This way, I can look at the quality of the film itself rather than the quality of the adaptation process, as the two are neither synonymous nor proportional. However, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a difficult film to approach with any objectivity regarding its status as a film. On many levels, it is such an incredibly faithful adaptation that it is no easy task to analyze the film as an independent unit.

The way the film is structured, it would be safe to say that much like the eerily similar The Phantom Menace, it was designed with some degree of prior knowledge as little short of a prerequisite. Despite the film's extraordinary running time of almost three hours, and the tremendous visual loyalty to the novel, a lot of details were trimmed and not patched up. As every student who has sat through a mind-numbingly boring Shakespeare production that sacrifices all viability as a film for the sake of including as many lines as possible knows, paring down of the details is necessary to maintain the flow of a movie. Cinematic storytelling naturally follows more constraints of convention in pacing and narrative, but a strong adaptation maintains a very unified flow within the film itself, allowing it to exist as a stand-alone unit. Potter's greatest success and greatest failure both lie in the fact that this unity of storytelling appears to be a secondary priority behind the faithfulness of the adaptation.

First, let us look at the successes. The aforementioned precision of the visuals in depicting not only J.K. Rowling's imagination, but that of the legions of fans as well, is commendable. Key locales such as Platform Nine-and-Three-Quarters, Diagon Alley, the nooks and crannies of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry are immersive and totally believable environments that follow the quasi-medieval design paradigm implied in the book. The moving paintings of the wizarding world are unobtrusive, each detailed with an authentic fresco look that makes it actually look like a painting instead of an overly three-dimensional bluescreen gimmick. The vastness of the Great Hall is superbly rendered, hovering candles and all. In contrast, the familiar world around us - the Muggle world, in Potter lingo - is appropriately boring. In addition to the environments are the spectacular enactment of the Quidditch match, the remarkable depiction of the Invisibility Cloak and the thundering magnificence of the giant living chess pieces.

Thankfully, the visuals are not alone in supporting the movie's integrity. The true quality of the adaptation lies in the fact that the three leads - Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, Rupert Grint as Ron and Emma Watson as Hermione - blend into the personalities of their respective characters so flawlessly. The supporting roles, notably that of Professor Snape (Alan Rickman), also fit in without trouble. Combined with the visuals, these convincing performances permit the film to maintain an overall tone similar to the novel in many ways, in that the audience is not restricted to the kids alone.

These factors contribute to Potter's success as an enjoyable experience for fans of the source material, and cement the film as the definitive rendering of the book, never to be replicated again. But at the same time, the film has its limitations.

These limitations lie primarily in the editing process. Trimming is, as mentioned earlier, necessary. Some very good choices were made in what to leave out - for example, Potter annoyances numbers one and two: Peeves the Poltergeist, who is a rather expendable distraction, though his omission leaves the question of whether or not he will appear in the following films; and Lee Jordan's Qudditch game commentary, which is of course expendable given the fact that the film can portray the game directly. However, this film appears to be made with such an intense desire to replicate the novel that it tries to include at least a bit of everything else. The result is a film with somewhat imbalanced pacing.

It never bores, despite its running time; in fact, the problem is the opposite. Some scenes simply zip by far too quickly. By trying not to sacrifice quantity, depth is lost instead. The first act, before Harry leaves for Hogwarts, is hardly even there. His relationship with the Dursleys, and in turn, their relationship with the wizarding world are almost completely omitted. This omission is quite conspicuous because the first part of the movie chugs along at a frantic pace that makes no attempt at establishing the context of the story for the uninitiated. Many other characters and elements seem to be in the movie just for the sake of being in the movie; for example, Harry's classes are given very little screen time, and the total omissions (i.e. History of Magic) are actually less obvious than the extraordinarily truncated ones (i.e. Transfiguration).

Other general notes: The score by John Williams presents an original and memorable recurring main theme, which is a necessity for a film of this scope, especially when further installments are in store. Sometimes the music is overused, and at times it reeks of the score to The Phantom Menace, but generally it works rather well. The computer graphics occasionally border on being too cartoony, especially in the case of the various magical creatures, but that fits the tone of the story. Director Chris Columbus handled the visualization on the whole better than expected (see aforementioned Invisibility Cloak), though some decisions - actually showing Voldemort attacking Harry and his mother, for example - are highly questionable.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone may seem uncannily familiar to someone who knows what everything on screen is, but upon careful examination, does not stand alone with a whole lot of stability. Still, even to those who have not read the novel, the film should succeed in entertaining. At best, it would spark continued interest in the books in years to come (as if they needed any). The real question is whether or not the next six films - three based on material that hasn't even been written yet - will be produced to similar effect.

[Darth Tater]

Tristan, your response to my review makes it sound like I complained about every scene that got cut. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Aside from the one line that threw Dumbledore off, I thought that everything that was cut should have been, and, in fact, a few more things could have been left out to make the film flow smoother (as Iron Parrot stated above.)

A little clarification on my Gringotts comments. I left out that Harry should be shot from above just like his POV shots are looking up. Since we project ourselves into his character that would give us the feeling of how Gringotts is almost oppresive. But you don't really care, do you?

Also, I thought Alan Rickman as Snape was absolutely perfect, the best casting in the film. Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane were brilliant, as well. Emma Watson as Hermione was my favorite of the children, followed by Daniel Ratcliffe, with Ruper Grint as Ron at a distant third (he was a bit too over the top for my liking).

[Comic Book Guy]

I saw Harry Potter last night, my view of it was mediocre. I thought it was rather long for a childrens movie, that seems to be the most common fault mentioned by audiences. The Quiditch scene was rather impressive, except for the cartoonish human CG. There were plot faults in the movie, the story with the baby dragon didn't seem have any real point to it and it was a very waste of running time, the outcome of the ending baffled me also, it didn't make much sense

[Darth Tater]

I don't think the running time was a real problem. However, I would have also cut the dragon plot completely. It had no bearing on the plot of the film, and the only reason I can imagine it was there at all was to foreshadow events that doen't take place TILL BOOK NUMBER FOUR, which is rediculous IMO.

[HOBBIT]

Actually, that whole Dragon thing had much more to it in the book. Yeah, they already cut so much of it out, why not all of it? Like in the book they had to go to so much trouble of keeping it a secret. They contacted Ron's brother in Romania to come get it or something.... the dragon also almost got harry, ron, hermione, and hagrid in trouble... there was also some other stuff about that dragon in the book. In the movie, Hagrid gets the Dragon, and Dumbledore sends it to Romania; whats the point of that? Comic Book Guy, did you read the book? If you had, you would not be saying that there were plot holes, or that the ending made no sense. Like I said, if you have not read the book, you will understand the movie but it will be a little fuzzy. You don't get the ending? Harry, Ron, and Hermione go down the trap door to try to stop 'snape' from stealing the sorcerer's stone. As it turns out, the stone was actually in NO danger of getting caught what so ever. Only someone who wanted to find the stone but not use it could get it (Harry). So what did Harry accomplish besides almost getting his friends killed? 1. He exposed Prof. Quir'il (sp?). 2. He vanquished Voldemort (didn't kill him though. he always seems to show up in every book. that pesky voldemort ). So basically Harry got rid of all the evil in Hogwarts. Are you also confused about the house cup? Its pretty self-explanitory. Basically every good thing they do (correct spell, good deed, etc) they get awarded points. Minor or Major points depending on what it is. As you could also see from the movie, points are taken away if rules are broken, etc. Points are also awarded to whoever wins the quiditch game. Slytheryn (sp?) had the most points, so the room was decorated with their colors and symbol. But tehn Dumbledore awarded Gryffindor with 170 last minute points, making Gryffindor the winner. get it? That should cover all of the end. You should understand it now. As for what Tater said....yes a lot of it was foreshadowing the movies (and books) to come. That is not stupid. Looking back from other books you see how it all makes sense now and ties together. I ddin't see, but did anyone reply to my saying that there was almost no Draco Malfoy in the movie? They are big rivals in the books, but you can't really tell that from the movie. I won't mention all teh other stuff left out if you guys don't....

[HOBBIT]

Ah, looking back on the thread, you haven't read the books, Comic Book Guy. So I guess you would say mediocre. You really had to have read the book to understand it. Like you would never have understood quiditch rules without reading the book (or Quiditch Through the Ages, really good book btw). They only showed one quiditch game, in the book Gryffindor played in several. A lot of Harry's friends were cut from the movie...or atleast not given names. You see all of their names listed in the credits, but are not once said in the movies. The Weasley brothers are almost not mentioned. George and Fred (right names?) Weasley play a much greater role in the book. As does Percy Weasley, head boy of Gryffindor. And also like I've said a million times, but no one seems to agree with me on, but the most important cut was Malfoy. Sure he was there, and it was obvious that they disliked eachother, but that was it. In the book, they are rivals at EVERYTHING. And Malfoy was constantly challenging Harry to duels, or always getting him in trouble (not just that one time in the movie). In the movie, we all don't meet Malfoy's side kicks, Crab and Goyle (who are also in the credits). Hmm what else was left out that was important?
-A lot of Diagon Alley was cut.
-A lot of the profs. and classes were cut.
-Hermione's cat Crookshanks was cut. Plays important role late.
-Ron's rat, Scabbers is only showed once...in the book he plays a more important role....and later in the books becomes an extremely vital important character
-Hedwig the owl is cut out! Hedwig was my favorite character in the book! Sure in the movie it shows Hagrid giving Harry Hedwig, but that is it. Harry never ONCE says her name. I'm not sure, but Hedgwig may have brought harry his broom, which would mean that Hedwig was only in 1 maybe 2 scenes. Obviously even John Williams thought that Hedwig would be given a better roles int the movie, because there is an entire long track devoted to her on the soundtrack.
-thats it for now.

[Darth Tater]

If a film adaptation of a book doesn't work for those who haven't read the books, then it's not a good film adaptation. My dad enjoyed it, and will likely never pick up a Harry Potter book, but Comic Book Guy is the other extreme of those who haven't read the books.

I think there was plenty of Malfoy, but not enough of the Gryffindor versus Slytherin rivalry. This could have been established better if Snape had taken points away from Harry for not knowing that stuff he asked about in the Potions class (another small thing that would have really helped the mood).

Hermione's cat is important, and I agree we should have at least glimpsed her. Hedwig really has nothing to do with much of anything, and there was plenty of her. There was also enough Scabbers to establish him.

[Darth Tater]

I've been talkign to Tristan, and it seems the explanasion of some of my camera ideas may be a bit confusing, so I made these very very rough sketches in photoshop to try to illustrate them. They're just to give you an idea of movement, placement, etc. Black lines leading to a smaller black box mean zoom in. black boxes with an arrow are pan, and if the second box is smaller it's a pan with a zoom in. I hope this makes some sense

http://www.geocities.com/dtater99/gringotts.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/dtater99/oldforest.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/dtater99/finalbattle.jpg

[Comic Book Guy]

What I mean by the ending was the whole 'Love' protects you thing, it didn't make much sense, even though, the house cup ending was straight out of a corny sports movie. I haven't read the books, so of course I don't know the plot, but that doesn't mean that I should be left in the dark about everything, it was just bad story telling.

Someone told me you would react like this.

[Darth Tater]

Gotta agree with you, they totally screwed up the ending. Richard Harris was all wrong for Dumbledore, as I've said before, and his terrible delivery of the love conquers all lines was clear evidence of that.

BTW, cut and paste those links i posted, clicking them doesn't work

[HOBBIT]

No! Think what you want Read the book, it explains this clearly and in detail. Even with the movie by itself, it makes perfect sense...think about it. In later books, they touch upon that more though. Tater says that this post makes no sense...how so? I would give an explanation, but why was my time typing it up for you guys? j/k....or am i?

[Zark Ekan]

I didn't read this topic, a friend asked me to post here. I thought HP was okay...not as good as Fellowship of the Ring will be, but, good. Well, as good as a childrens movie can get. Now I know some of you may argue, Harry Potter isn't just for kids! Well, I know, the books are for all ages, but yes, the movie was intended for children.