Hey folks, Harry here with a ton of international feelings about Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone... Some very disappointed, some that loved it, some with minor problems. Personally other than the last 8-12 minutes I think the film was perfect. But heck, what do I know...
Hi Harry,
Stan the Man here.
I've been to the german Potter preview today. Overall, it was - unfortunately - a mixed experience.
First of all, the second act had not been delivered, we had a roll of 20 minutes of "Driven" instead. So, I can't really comment on the whole movie, but on the first 20 minutes (up to the sorting hat) and then from Flitwick's levitation lesson onward. (So, all of Mme. Hooch is missing, no Nearly Headless Nick at all, and Snape, like many others, isn't introduced at all.) This shows that many of these folks never are to be seen again, and that is not good! If the movie would have been planne dthoroughly, all of these characters would have appeared mor often.
I have read and loved the books (in English), I re-read the first one just last week, and they really, really are perfect (yes, *perfect*!), for kids as well as grown-ups. In my eyes, JKR is a genius for kid's stories. Even my 90 year-old grandma asked me to borrow her my Harry Potter books. So, I went into the screening with the high expectations and mixed emotions of someone who has already been let down with Episode One.
Well, how to start? Let me give you my opinion on the good sides of the film: The look and feel of it is good. Diagon alley looks great. Hagrid looks great. Dumbledore looks very good, and so does McGonagall. Snape, man, Alan Rickman just rocks! Ron and Hermione look great, Harry looks perfect when you get used to him being so... different than you expected. (I never could put his looks into words, and when I realized it, I found Radcliffe to be the one. Good choice, also with Ron and Hermione. Also Neville and Malfoy) The other characters are well chosen, but may have been chosen better. For example Uncle Vernon. He looks very fitting, but is not an ugly enough person to be loathed by the audience. Or the Weasley twins. They were more like little bastards ind the book. And their mother, by far not motherly enough!
The bad things about the movie are: First of all, there are many, many chances Columbus didn't take. It was clear all along that much of the book had to be removed so that the rest could fit into a movie, but in my eyes, much has been left out that could have fit in easily! Hogwarts didn't look like I imagined (and like it actually was described), the great hall was not so great at all. The sorting hat does not talk loudly, but only proclaims the decision loudly. (Never heard of soud from the off, huh?) Norbert's part was only a relic of what it had been in the book. Hermione is not a self-centered knowitall in the book, she's just a uncertain young girl who does not want to miss a chance to be a good student. Ron has speckles (in the book). Harry, oh my god, Harry... Harry Potter experiences a development in the book, just like it is necessary by the rules of drama. (See Christopher Vogler's work and others) He develops from a nobody into a young and aspiring wizard, who is discovering his talents. In the movie, He develops from a young muggle into, well nearly nothing. He becomes a murderer (Quirrell), while he is not the aggressing one in the book! My god, what have they done??? This is such a huge difference! And they cut the closing words into some goofy goin' home-crap. In the book it is Harry who says "but Dudley dosn't know that", in the film it's Hagrid. The only reason they did that was so that HP could say his corny "I'm not really going home" in the end. The side effect: In the film, he didn't develop! He did not gain any self-consciousness! In the book, he did, because he now knows to be able to stand up to Dudely!!!
And finally, the directing! Watch the looks on the kid's faces! They must have been told all the time "we'll do that in post", because they don't look into the right directions, they act like in a pupil's play, they were not given the freedom eleven-year old kids should have! They just weren't allowed to act! If I would have been the director, I'd have done a 4-week vacation with the cast in a scottish castle first, and they all would have had to read the books first! The Quidditch match is junk! Nobody would never ride a broomstick like a cowboy would in a western movie, standing on top of the saddle! I can't count all the stuff I would have directed different, (and I resally would have!) but there were so many bugs I had to dislike HP overall. What a shame. If this film would be made into a book (and not the other way around), nobody would buy it at all. Imagine HP being shot by Steven Spielberg in a time when he had no kids of his own (he got soft after that, I think), like when he shot "Raiders" or "E.T.". There would be 300% more content in the film! There would be action in the background, and there would not be any words necessary to explain the stuff that is taking place anyway! There would be ... magic! Spielberg could do that, and how well he could do it! Some other directors could it as well, but here, well, I'm sorry, this one really didn't work out.
If Joanne Rowling is reading this (who knows?), she should know that she managed to give the world a new dream, a really great achievement, and in my eyes, she is really worth every Galleon, Knut & Sickle she now calls her own. But, it is not always good to throw one's great ideas into the hamburger-grinder that the movie industry seems to have become.
Of course, HP has to be made into a film, but the choice of a director, a screenwriter and the other team members is a hard, hard, hard, hard one. And finding "routinized" (not experienced! I mean someone who claims to be able to deliver all the time) people should be a cause to become very, very sceptic. A project like the shooting of a movie never can become routine! Take Peter Jackson with LOTR for example. He was just ripe at the time, not too inexpereced, not too routinized. (I am guessing, please, PJ, don't prove me wrong!) Well, just right. Never take a routinier to do a genius's job, I'd say.
I can't really tell how much the german dubbing worsened the film's
atmosphere, and I'll definitely will watch it again in english, but what
I could see alone was not too good. Sorry to report that, I really
would've liked to bring better news. Stan
A disappointed unknownster...
Hey harry
Just a few of my thoughts on the latest contender for highest grossing movie ever.
I saw an advance screening of Harry Potter last night at the UCI cinema in the Trafford Centre and i must quote Public Enemy "DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE"
I'm sure this film will go on to make big money even get to the biggest movie of all time status, but the film itself is very, very dull. First of all i have read the books, so its not a case of someone not knowing the back story.
The one thing i was surprised with was the kids they actually sat through it without screaming or wanting to leave and stuff we have all had to put up with at some point in our cinema going experiences.
The director had this vision of the world in which potter is thrust into, but since Chris Colmbus is such a limited and dull director it just comes off as a gothic Disneyland which will dissappoint fans around the world, thats not to say there aren't good bits in the movie, the Quidditch match itself was exciting enough but the special effects weren't entirely convincing i'll get to the CGI in the rest of the movie later on. I found the most distracting thing of all the actors playing Harry and Hermione they were absolutlely terrible and for the most part very annoying Ron was the only redeeming factor for the child actors although he only has one facial expression at least its funny. The Adults on the other hand were all first rate, Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltraine standing out particularly, Maggie Smith and Richard Harris deserve an honorable mention too.
The flick itself is overlong even at 2 1/2 hours there were a lot of the little things that made the books so enjoyable left out but what can you do? the CGI is badly done to almost Mummy Returns standards the Centuar and Voldermort and the end were particularly poor, the actors also looked (badly) super-imposed on a lot of the backgrounds even the simplest shots like when they are being taught how to use their broomsticks when absolutly no effects were needed at all, my friend said "well poor effects don't make a movie bad, look at Evil Dead" fine but Evil Dead was made in the early 80's and didn't have a bugdet. Oh and the score was good too.
I was really looking forward to seeing this movie and came away very disappointed, i' m sure there'll be more less than favourable reviews but not many from the English press.
Here's Grosse Point Jack
Hi Harry and anyone else who reads this.
I saw 'Harry Potter' yesterday morning at an advance screening and i can honeslty say that i loved it. Now the thing is i have not read the books so i don't know who's missing and what has been added (if anything at all). However, i do understand that there is a lot of detail in the books and from what i can see, this attention to detail has been incorperated into the film (such as the scene with Harry and Hagrid in London as they go to buy Harry some of his equipment like wands etc...There is a scene where a sign just appears from no-where and its hardly noticable - look for it, it's the moment just before they walk into what looks like a bar).
I'm not going to bore you all with the story as i'm sure you all know it but i will say what i liked and didn't like about the film...
LIKED;
The attention to detail - It really is breathtaking at times. Such as all the scenes in Hogwarts (the moving paintings for example).
The Perfomances - I can safetly say that there is no Jake Lloyd here, but sometimes Daniel Radcliffe's Amatuer status does show, but it isn't off-putting and thankfully he plays a lot of the film understated as i understand it should be. Now, all the cast are great but it's Robbie Coltrane who does it for me, he was just a constant delight whenever he was on the screen and a joy to watch.
The Effects - Now, i did like the effects here but some of it is a little off, and one reviewer on here who didn't like the film said he didn't like the use of CGI all the time, well i sort of agree and i do say that the worst effect was of the troll but thankfully he isn't on there for too long anyway...Overall though the effects are great and they really do take you somewhere you've never been before (much like Star Wars did back in '77)
The Quidditch Match - I loved this sequence, although at times the effects looked a little dodgy but it's not that noticable. All in all the match itself was an exciting piece of cinema, and in this day and age thats rare.
DIS-LIKES;
I know it's a cop-out but i can't think of any to be honest, apart from a few little gripes about the effects, but there is one thing and thats the length. Now, i had no problem with it and im sure kids will find it easy to sit through, but the plot doesn't really go anywhere until the last hour really. However, i would rather that the film was done this way than squeezing it into an Hour and a Half movie, so for this we can be thankful and just sit back and enjoy the visuals.
Now before i go i'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Chris Columbus has done a good job here. Why? Because of the Point-and-shoot technique he uses here. Now we all know that he isn't the best director around but that isn't what this film needs, it just needs someone who is able to Point and shoot without trying to pull of snazzy camera tricks. This film isn't calling for a Aronofsky or someone like that, it just needs someone who is able to let the camera show the astounding visuals without using his tricks to take away from it...after all, a director who uses great effects and tries using great camera moves is also the same director who brought you 'Armaggedon' and 'Pearl Harbour' or even, Lord Forbid 'Tomb Raider' - and we know how those turned out. Now i know the talkbackers are gonna rip into CC when the film is released and they've all seen it (even the ones who haven't seen it will have a dig at him, bacause after all, they have seen the trailer so thats enough) but just bear that in mind, after all, what amazing camera moves did Lucas use for 'A New Hope'?
Well, theres my semi-review and i hope you all enjoyed it. Now i will defiantely be watching this again on Friday, maybe Saturday or at least when the hype has died down a bit and i can watch it without kids everywhere (oh, and the screening i was at had about 3 kids there, and the other 200 were adults - weird)
This is GrossPointeJack signing off...
On to Jerry Maguire's p.o.v.
Hey Harry,
I went to a screening of „Harry Potter‰ today at my local cinema (www.moviehouse.co.uk) because they where having a preview. My expectations going into this film were not extremely high. I had seen a few trailers and TV spots and it didn‚t get me very excited. I just thought it looked cool. As I was talking to a few people who had read the books and were telling me a little about the film my expectations began to rise.
I absolutely loved this film! After the first ten minutes I completely surrendered to this movie and just went on the fun ride that it is. The movie is so much fun and I didn‚t even realise that two and half-hours had passed. This movie always had me excited and wondering what was going to happen next. What makes it good is that it is a great story. Not something that has a few big twists and turns but a story that keeps unfolding as you watch it.
Alan Rickman is a complete god! He didn‚t have a big lot to do but when he was onscreen he just blew everyone else off it. I loved him as the sinister character. Every time he came on screen he had me scared. The way he talks, everything about him was so amazing!
Robbie Cotrane was fantastic in this film! He and Alan Rickman were my 2 favourite people in the movie. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) was fine in this film. For such a young actor he did a great job, but he wasn‚t an actor that gave a memorable performance. For me anyway. For me Rickman and Coltrane were the gods of the movie!
One problem I did have with the film was the CGI. In certain places it was totally obvious that it was CGI and needed to be developed more for it to run more smoothly.
I saw it with a few friends who were disappointed with the movie because they had read the book and were looking forward to seeing certain things that were in the book but were not in the film. It was one of the most enjoyable films I have seen all year. Other than the CGI everything else about it I loved!
This film may have a lot of flaws but it was so great that I didn‚t really mind. This film achieved everything it set out to do.
Go see it!
Call me „JERRYMAGUIRE‰
from Glasgow we get this...
Hi Harry,
Just thought I‚d write with my thoughts on ŒHarry Potter and the Philosopher‚s Stone‚, which I‚ve just seen this evening at an early preview at the UGC cinema in Glasgow.
First off I should say I haven‚t read the books, but I really enjoyed this film. It seems like we are finally getting back to decent fantasy adventure films, a genre which was so badly hurt in the 80‚s. Harry Potter is one of those all-reaching movies that appeal across the age gaps, so on that level I think it will do really will with kids and adults alike.
I‚ve read the reviews of people on your site who have read the books and say the film doesn‚t compare ˆ but what film can compare to a book? (Please LotR achieve this). There are places in the story that I wasn‚t quite sure of (the John Cleese appearance as a ghost), but I‚m sure the readers of the books will. Even having not read the book I think it probably is a reasonably faithful adaptation. The movement of the film from one scene into another almost felt like it was lifted from a novel, with all the inconsequential parts taken out.
There were only two real flaws with the picture. The first was the acting of the children. Danielle Radcliffe was pretty pathetic as Potter, always seeming overawed by the fact he is in the production. With the exception of Rupert Grint as Ron, the other children were as bad in their roles as Radcliffe was in his. I hated the way the Hermione character was played ˆ seemed like an English schoolgirl whose mother has forced her into acting. Why couldn‚t they get kids like those in the ŒThe Others‚ ˆ they were unbelievable. Columbus has easily made up for this though by placing reputable actors in the grown-up roles. Robbie Coltrane, and especially John Hurt as the wand salesman were great. Hurt‚s brief appearance really lifted the film for me ˆ he really should be in one of the Lord of the Rings movies. The second flaw is the CGI. There are parts in the movies that would look and play better had the CGI been done with more time and care ˆ especially the Quidditch match (as an aside watching the match and thinking how Spielberg might have used Star Wars ship SFX like in Indiana Jones gave me a shiver ˆ you‚ll see what I mean). It almost looked like the actors had been cut out and pasted in with very sharp edging round their bodies ˆ really tacky. In other places the CGI was perfect (the owl, the staircases and the finale). On the whole neither of these is a big deal and didn‚t affect the film too much.
The film is funny; the story is cool with some good plot twists. There are some unforgettable scenes and other little touches that work well. The especially brilliant chess match; the cool lynx cat and Haggrid‚s other dog ˆ I want one of each! I also liked the centaur ˆ his voice made up for any CGI imperfections. The whole forest scene with the unicorn was very well directed ˆ hopefully more of that in Part 2.
I think Columbus has done a really good job on this picture, and I am glad someone like Snr. Spielbergo didn‚t do the movie by adding his Œtouch‚ ˆ which would have ruined it completely. It should be remembered this is a children‚s story, and with the strange younger audience silence in the cinema it was clear the kids enjoyed it as much as I did. I would happily go and see it again.
I‚m looking forward to the sequel, as I‚m sure many others are too.
Johnny Virology
Now to the manbitch known as Reni:
Harry, afternoon. Reni here. I don't know how many more reviews you're going to use on the site, but the general mood seems to suggest that the film is really good, and it is, sort of.
As films go, it's epic, well crafted fun. A fuller, more satisfying film than your usual big screen franchises. But there's problems too and the feeling that Kloves and Columbus have pretty much painted by numbers, accurate in detail but losing some of the sparkle.
Potter always reminded me of The Worst Witch and the early Alan Garner novels, Wierdstone of Brisingamen and Moon of Gomrath. The dark forces at work in the english countryside and misbehaving young witches getting expelled from Schools built on mountainsides in the middle of nowhere.
And reading the first Potter book reminded of all that. The same scenery and the same magic.
The film starts shakily, oops bad direction so soon Chris, and only really comes to life once Harry is shown Diagon Alley and recieves a great introduction by John Hurt as to the art of wand waving.
The kids are great fun and Radcliffe himself gains confidence as the film progresses.And as for Hagrid, Robbie Coltrane is the best thing about the whole thing. Rickman has a lovely introductory speech but his screentime is short. And the rest of the cast perform just fine. But Columbus doesn't really evoke any sense of wonder or magic. It's almost as if he's satisfied showing you the details of the book visualised but forgetting to evoke any spirit. It's almost there, but not quite. There's almost nothing shown of the other kids, snippets here and there with Seamus and Neville, which was where the book really shone. And worse still it's a slow ride to the final confrontation. Blame the book I suppose....
Still I liked the way it has a kind of Railway Children vibe to it. And take away the Warner's emblem and the film feels British. But it's still painting by numbers and next time I'd like a little more of those unruly witches given free reign.
They played The Lord of The Rings trailer played before the film. Goosepimples each time I see it. I just wonder if similar problems lie instore for that one too?
Reni
On to Judge Wakefield
*SPOILER ALERT*!
Hi Harry,
Call me 'Judge Wakefield'. This morning (Sat November 10) Iran from the courthouse and saw 'Harry Potter And The PHILOSOPHERS (heh heh) Stone' at my local cinema's preview weekend here in Sheffield, England (yes, 'Full Monty' country)
Like a previous reviewer on here, I was quite worried about the number of REALLY young kids at the movie, but amazingly they stayed totally quiet throughout. Don't anyone worry about this or the running time. The tykes around me today were TRANSFIXED by this movie-and so they should be, it's a solid, fun and quite exciting family film, but certainly not a flawless one. No, I havent read any of the books, but probably will do after seeing the movie.
I totally had reservations about Chris Columbus directing this thing before I saw it. I still have many reservations afterwards, too. Columbus is totally NOT the right choice for this kind of material AT ALL. He does not choke at this style of big-budget popcorn stuff like Joel Schumacher or Roland Emmerich ended up doing, but he certainly does not come off this film smelling of roses.
He's always been a sort of 'Zemeckis-lite' to me, the kid who brings Steven and George their coffee. Columbus IS still a talent I respect though, a talent capable of quite interesting stuff that fails to draw a dime (Goonies, Only The Lonely etc) and total fluff that makes the billion$ (the Home Alones, Mrs Doubtfire). The problem that comes out with 'Potter' is the realisation that his previous movies never needed the type of scope or creativity that this one does, so he stumbles. It's unfortunate, but it's painfully obvious. They should go for a REALLY interesting franchise and have a different director doing each one-why not Burton, Gilliam or even Jeunet for example? They're true visionaries, Chris is not.
THE GOOD-
The kids-esp Rupert Grint and the kid who played Draco Malfoy (?) Dudley Dursley is a shit, jumping up and down on the stairs to piss HP off, then stealing his birthday cake later on.
The Qudditch Match-fast paced and fun, but not a patch on the pod race and let down by some poor CGI. The running loudspeaker commentary from a fellow pupil really spoils it.
Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman and Ian Hart-Rickman is amazingly wasted, sadly. Yes, he's evil, but he only has about 10 lines. Why? He's cool. His accent subtly keeps threatening to turn into his 'Dogma' one, which raised a smile. Hart is good, he reminded me of Kenneth Williams out of the 'Carry On' movies, quite camp and quietly menacing. Coltrane's very likeable as Hagrid, but his accent is hard to place-it sounded 'Westcountry' to me. That will mean fuck all if you're in the US, but hey.
The sets, the costumes, the script and the score-Williams' score occasionally evoked Scindler's List and Empire Strikes Back, but it's good overall and worked well with key scenes. The alley of shops looks great, as does Hogwarts overall and the Dursleys suburban hellhole. Steve Kloves' script explains plenty without drowning you in terms or in-jokes. I think.
THE BAD-
John Cleese- Christ, he's aged. I saw 'A Fish Called Wanda' only the other day and he now looks about 50 years older than what he did in that. It was only 1988! As a bonus, he looks like Billy Connolly's ghost here, but his character is pointless and the CGI is abysmal. And they cut that other ghost because his design was 'not right'?
Richard Harris- If Patrick McGoohan or Ian McKellen are busy, call Richard Harris. I only say that cos I spent a lot of time during the movie wandering who could look the part and also play the Dumbledore role better. I settled on McGoohan. He's the right age and appearance. The opening scene of the film where Dumbledore is walking down the Dursley's foggy street would have been so iconic with someone like McGoohan. Instead, Harris appears like he's drunk and lost. Harris is poor in this film (see also Smith, Maggie) and is an awkward old loon off screen, refusing to do press etc.
The CGI-When it's good, it's pretty good. When it sucks, it sucks. The Qudditch match is marred by it, the three-headed dog and the troll lapse into half-assedness, and the dungeon scence SO wants to be an Indiana Jones ending, but ends up being very familiar to 'Mummy Returns', just as someone else said elsewhere on the site.
THE UGLY-
There's nothing terrible about this movie, it's a solid 7/10 flick that could never had lived up to the intense hype, but still delivers laughs and some cool visuals. However, it's for kids. Over excited kids, dressed as wizards at the theatres...
