|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
this is far too entertaining (Reply to this comment)
by pazzie
and by "this", i mean not only your review, which is high-quality as usual, but also reading all these comments from other alleged grownups discussing actors' height in movie vs. character's height in book, and comparisons between quidditch and muggle sports. heheheeeee!
I also enjoyed Dobby, although I must disagree about Dumbledore - he's got so much spark and facetiousness in the books, and in the movies, I feel like offering him tea and recommending some good nursing homes (no offense to the late Richard Harris).
and while Goblet of Fire is definitely up there and Chamber of secrets is definitely the weakest (how the hell does Harry know he should stab the diary with the fang which conveniently ends up in his arm?), I have to give the blue ribbon to Prisoner of Azkaban as well. I can't wait to see who they cast as Sirius Black - in a perfect world, I'd go for either Ralph Fiennes or a really skinny Liam Neeson.
cheers,
pazzie
|
Feb 17 '03
8:43 am PST
|
|
Re: hmmmm (Reply to this comment)
by d_fienberg
Rupert Grint growing faster than his castmates isn't "accuracy" it's biology. It's not like the casting director knew three years ago that he would grow faster than his two co-stars and therefore become the tall and gangly Ron of the books. It just happened. While that aids in the accuracy of the book, nobody slipped him growth hormones so that he would live up to the images of fans of the book. And my problem isn't that he's grown physically larger than his co-stars, it's that he can't act and that fact as been accentuated by his increased size.
Dan
|
Nov 25 '02
1:27 pm PST
|
|
hmmmm (Reply to this comment)
by penguinpup
Since your review breakdown makes a point of mentioning the physical changes in the younger members of the cast, I just wanted to comment on what you said. You made the point that the young kid playing Ron is getting a lot taller a lot faster than his co-workers. Well, to be accurate, so is the character. Ron is constantly described as being very tall and gangling in the books. Though you don't seem to approve of accuracy, many of the people going to see the movie look for it.
|
Nov 25 '02
1:21 pm PST
|
|
"I'm a funny man, aren't I?" (Reply to this comment)
by youngchinq
Yes you are. Gets me wanting to write movie reviews again... but I doubt something about this one in particular :)
|
Nov 17 '02
7:32 pm PST
|
|
I have often . . . (Reply to this comment)
by gungian
. . . found it strange that some viewers expect more from a commercial film than simply an entertaining couple of hours.
Thanks for a fine posting.
Write On!
|
Nov 17 '02
6:15 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: About the Books (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket,  in Movies
Thanks for your take - he'll probably love it and I'll be too scared! Great review and thanks for the extra info!!
sfe
|
Nov 16 '02
9:03 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: About the Books (Reply to this comment)
by d_fienberg
It seemed to be a loud movie and I could see where children might have been scared. On the other hand, I was surrounded by several groups of young children (younger than your son, I'd guess) and none of them seemed scared during the movie. Knowing what's coming helps, I reckon...
Dan
|
Nov 16 '02
8:55 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: About the Books (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
I'm with D on this one, Goblet of Fire is my favorite so far. I liked the idea of the other wizarding schools as well as the definition of the story arc that Goblet gives you. Now 1 question - have now read several reviews of the movie and I am on the fence about taking my 9 year old. He loved the book, but does not particularly enjoy the theater (it's too loud, and this makes things scarier). He is, however, begging to see this. Is it too scary for a scared type of kid, even though he's plenty old and knows the story?
sfe
|
Nov 16 '02
8:36 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: About the Books (Reply to this comment)
by anderclayton
I suspect that the closest equivilent would be football with the quarterback (but the other players are very necessary) or certain basketball teams:) I think that it is kinda geared to put Harry in the spotlight rather than be a legitimate game...
I would say that a case could be made for the first book being the weakest in some ways but I kinda agree that this one probably is... Too much exposition of characters that don't relate to the rest of the plotline (or at least so far) and not that much for the main characters (we do catch a bit more of the Weaslys though I suppose). Personally I think Rowling is becoming a better writer as she writes more. The first book got through on the freshness of ideas and the strong mental picture of the characters but the second fell into the inexperience trap and became encumbered with a bit too much superfluous junk (which kinda obscures the 'mystery' a bit but a good deal of the book is white elephant sorts of things--fun but they don't really advance the plot/storyline).
Ander
Ander
|
Nov 16 '02
4:41 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: About the Books (Reply to this comment)
by GravityGirl
I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who has not read the books, but the situation we have been discussing actually happened in Book 4. As I recall, it was really a big deal-- so it seems that while the situation is theoretically possible, it is a rare occurance.
I liked Book 4, but I didn't like that they involved the other wizarding schools. I know there is a whole wizarding *world* out there, but I would have wanted them to keep things at Hogwarts.
I can't wait until book 5. I know exactly what Becky is talking about. I am quite the obsessed fan.
|
Nov 16 '02
2:29 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: About the Books (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
You're right about getting the snitch. It would be the equivalent of a baseball game ending the first time someone hits a home run (though we might want to move the fences back a ways with how many home runs are hit these days), and that home run being worth 50 'points'.
Sure, it would still be possible to win if the other team got the home run, but it wouldn't ever (I should think) actually happen.
|
Nov 16 '02
11:12 am PST
|
|
Re: About the Books (Reply to this comment)
by d_fienberg
I liked Goblet of Fire the most, myself. I couldn't put it down for the last 400 pages and stayed up nearly all night reading it. I don't do that so much these days...
And I guess I knew it was *possible* to win without getting the Snitch, but what are the odds of your team being behind by 160 and your seeker still being good enough to get the Snitch? Basically the other people are out on the pitch messing about until the seeker does their job. I can't think of any American team sport that's quite so single-performer-oriented.
Dan
|
Nov 16 '02
10:57 am PST
|
|
some adults... (Reply to this comment)
by beckytcy
...are just as obsessed with keeping the film faithful to the book as children are. Obsessive fans are like milder versions of the "Rain Man."
Also, thanks for pointing out other things that Chris Columbus directed. My friends laughed at me when I said, "What else did he do? That name sounds really familiar..."
|
Nov 16 '02
9:45 am PST
|
|
.......... (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
Just to jump in here and agree, this is, absolutely without the slightest room for question, the weakest of the books, at least of the four. Who knows what will happen with the next three.
Great review.
Cheers!
|
Nov 16 '02
9:09 am PST
|
|
About the Books (Reply to this comment)
by GravityGirl
You think that Chamber is the weakest of the books? I have to disagree. In my opinion, Sorcerer's Stone is the weakest. It is an essential part of the series, but so much of it is devoted to setup. So it's important, just not very exciting.
My favorite is Prisoner of Azkaban. What's your favorite?
Great review. I'm going to see Emperor's Club next Friday and I should have a review of that up right away.
PS- You asked if a team ever won without winning the Snitch. I don't want to ruin anything for people who might not have read the books, but yes, it is possible to win the match and not catch the Snitch. The Snitch is only worth 150 points, so as long as a team is 160 points up, they cannot lose if the other team catches the Snitch. (I am such a Harry Potter geek).
|
Nov 16 '02
8:44 am PST
|
|
Oh, pooh! (Reply to this comment)
by mfunk75
Dan, I'm just hanging out in the comments section for a bit, waiting for the image of J.K. Rowling sitting on toilet (of pure ivory, natch) to dissipate, before I go on to read the rest of your review.
There, it's gone. Please don't do that again...
... okay, so now I've made it to the end without further interruption. Even though I have no plans on seeing Harry, in theatres or otherwise, I'm glad I got a chance to read your as-always entertaining and informative review. Just skip the toilet humour next time, m'kay?
-mike
|
Nov 16 '02
5:58 am PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.