OT: HP movie

christian nutt ferricide at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 19 02:23:15 EST 2001




>From: Bill Edminster <bedminst at mc.net>
>Reply-To: dwj at suberic.net
>To: dwj at suberic.net
>Subject: Re: OT: HP movie
>Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 18:56:44 -0600
>
>Rebecca Ganetzky wrote:
>
> > SPOILER (says the girl, who hasn't seen the movie yet, but deperately
> > wanted to know opinions anyway)
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > I think it's terrible that they left it out, quite seriously, now, 
>because
> > it's the thing that's supposed to prove that being a wizard sin't just
> > about _flash_ and it's also Snape's puzzle, which I think is necessary
> > because you realise that Snape is helping, too.
> >
> > Rebecca D. Ganetzky
>   I believe that the writers tried to demonstrate Hermione's heroic 
>qualities,
>if not the quality of logic, in the first test with the plant so that they
>could cut something uncinematic from the movie.  I don't believe that 
>Hermione
>was slighted.

i also suspect that they probably filmed it and then cut it because it was 
boring and that section of the movie is pretty long anyway. the chess match 
is more action-packed thanks to all of the smashing, so it got left in. and 
they figured they could get away with letting people link the devil's root 
thingy to hermione's point award and the narrative would work.

>   For all the things they included in the movie I still missed things that 
>were
>cut.  It would have been better in the end to be faithful to the spirit of 
>the
>book rather than be faithful to the text of the book.

the book had a spirit? seriously, the first HP book bored me stiff. i'm 
going to read it again whenever i get time and money (i don't own either at 
the moment!) because i liked the movie and have retroactively become a 
potter fan after the fourth book. but imo the first book is pretty dull. the 
movie did a good job of communicating what's there to be communicated and 
still be interesting.

>
>   I was disappointed by the performances because I was comparing them to 
>Jim
>Dale's reading in the American books on tape and CD.  His Professor 
>McGonicle
>and Hagrid were especially good and were better than what I consider were 
>the
>two best performances in the movie.

i think the performances were mostly good. daniel radcliffe overacts a bit, 
but i suspect that the director had the kids overact, based on the 
performances and something i read in entertainment weekly. emma (forgot her 
last name) that plays hermione too. only rupert grint (is that right?) 
really 100% nailed the role. and i don't even like ron that much in the 
books.

i think the casting is basically great, the acting pretty good, and the 
characters are basically nailed by all of the actors (large or small roles.) 
i really liked the movie; it's not my new super favorite, but i definitely 
enjoyed it. since the series doesn't really start cooking till the third 
book, imo, my expectations just aren't that high.

[ christian nutt - ferricide at hotmail.com ]




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/



More information about the Dwj mailing list