|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
All right, so he doesn't take off his glasses .... (Reply to this comment)
by wordwalker
But Harry will make men in glasses into the great sex symbols they deserve to be, before he's done -- mark my words!
Enjoyed your analysis, and agree completely.
|
Jan 06 '02
9:44 am PST
|
|
I'm going to check... (Reply to this comment)
by reviewer12
I think that we call it ... and the Philosopher's Stone here in Canada, but now I'm going to have to go and make sure.
Great review, btw
Dee
|
Jan 07 '02
7:56 pm PST
|
|
Re: All right, so he doesn't take off his glasses .... (Reply to this comment)
by grimjack2
Hmmmm. I don't think we're ready to consider Harry a sex symbol yet, glasses or not, but we'll see by the time the 4th movie comes out, and he's sixteen.
Now that you mention it, a lot of wizards did wear glasses. One would assume that there might be some sort of spell they could cast to improve their vision, don't you think?
|
Jan 08 '02
12:45 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: All right, so he doesn't take off his glasses .... (Reply to this comment)
by wordwalker
Funny!
And yes, Harry's got several more years ahead of him. Give him time ....
|
Jan 08 '02
6:29 pm PST
|
|
Harry Potter (Reply to this comment)
by shadow8
Grimjack,
While reading your review, I cannot help but think of this quote:
"Living well is the best revenge." -F. Scott Fitzgerald
With that said, I thoroughly enjoyed your comprehensive analysis of this movie. I for one was one of the few on this planet who probably wasn't at all that interested in seeing this movie. However--and I mean this in a sincere fashion--yours is probably one of the first reviews to actually convince me that Harry Potter might be worth my time. Heck, I'm a 20 year old college student, and after reading your analysis on what makes Harry Potter tick, I can still relate to him.
I liked your style and how you analyze the film's content and intent--and without giving away too many details, which is a rare feat. But firstly though, would you recommend I read the book before seeing this movie?
Thanks again for a stupendous review.
-shadow8
|
Jan 11 '02
3:28 pm PST
|
|
Re: Harry Potter (Reply to this comment)
by grimjack2
First off, thanks for your kind comments Shadow8. As for reading the book first, or seeing the movie first, one of the interesting things about this is that it truly doesn't matter. The book feels like a movie, and the movie is very close to the book. I think they will both compliment one another very well. I might suggest to read the book first only because there is more in the book than in the film, and it is often nice to have the images formed from your imagination rather than just what the film had just given you. All though, you have probably seen enough ads and clips of the film that you already have an idea of the 'look' of the story.
|
Jan 12 '02
4:10 pm PST
|
|
philosophers stone? (Reply to this comment)
by GreenSpleen
The book I read was entitled, "Harry potter and the sorcerors stone"
|
Jan 12 '02
10:37 pm PST
|
|
Apparently... (Reply to this comment)
by cripper
...the original title, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, was changed because marketers in the U.S. thought that children who haven't read the book would not understand the title, as much as J.K. Rowling wanted to keep the original title. Since children would not understand the title, they would be put off by it.
Anyway, that's what I heard and I find it hard to believe that that was the reason.
Great review.
cripper
|
Jan 15 '02
6:16 am PST
|
|
........ (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
Very good review.
Two points.
The name wasn't really changed for the film. The name of the book was changed in America, and naturally the movie has the same title as the book where the movie is shown. The name was changed (or so I hear) because marketers didn't think American children had sufficient exposure to the idea of a philosopher's stone, and basically 'sorceror' was really cool sounding. But, it was for the book, not the movie.
Two, not everyone, myself included, considers a movie being virtually exactly the same as the book to be a virtue in itself. As you said, you don't see how any director could screw up the thing, and this is even more true if the movie is just going to be exactly the book. But is this a good thing? If Bob from the cafeteria can direct the movie and achieve the same result, what do we need a director for? And, what good does it say about who did direct it?
|
Mar 06 '02
7:53 am PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.