Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
This is what I call a cynical sumbitch. His blanket dismissal of HARRY POTTER is, to say the least, underwhelming. I've seen the same footage he has, and my reaction couldn't have been more different. I think POTTER looks like a strong, smart adaptation of what anyone who has read the books knows is not just another children's story. Still... this is one reaction to the footage shown, and you might feel the same way when you see it. Only time will tell...
I'm an DELETED at DELETED (so keep me anonymous please thanks, Just call me Watch Boy!) and this weekend I got treated to 15 minutes of Harry Potter and 3 to 4 mins of Scooby Doo and thought you might be interested (...okay maybe you're not interested in Scooby Doo)
Firstly, Harry Potter. Now, first things first, all I saw was fifteen minutes so its obviously a bit early to really to judge how the film will play in terms of building atmosphere and character development. However, I'm assuming the studio must be fairly confindent in the material to show it it the first place and would be expecting opinions back at them. Also I should point out that I have never been excited by this. I wasn't interested when the books received all that extreme hype and I wasn't moved by any of the adverts I've seem. The films I'm looking forward to this year are J&SBSB/Battle Royale/Ghost World/A.I./Mulholland (sp?) Drive and maybe Lord of the Rings (i was impressed by the second trailer but not the first). I mention this only because it may give anyone out there a clue as to my mental state and therefore, if they aren't looking forward to the above films they may get a kick out of this. I really wanted to like this footage as its always better to have been lucky enough to have seen amazing and exciting footage than to come out saying everything you saw was rrrrrrrrrrrrrubbish. Okay? well here goes...
Well, basically I was shown edited footage of what I would assume occurs during the first 3/4 of the film. It had a little Apr. 7 in the top left hand corner if that means anything to anyone and was of slightly better quality than deleted scenes you see on DVD releases (so it doesn't look quite so nice and polished as the trailers I've seen). As I said I haven't read the books and I don't know anything about it so my grasp of who the characters are and what they're doing is limited to what I saw (I got the impression that I was expected to know why Robbie Coltrane enters a room in an explosion and with a huge beard). So anyway... the clip started with Harry at home receiving a letter and the chubby guy from 'Withnail and I' says something derogatory like, "who would write to you?". Then Robbie Coltrane enters with an explosion and a huge beard and proceeds to speak unintelligibly (although this may be due to the poor sound quality) and then it cuts to a shot of Harry and Robbie on a London Underground tube and an old woman looking quizzically at Robbie (this is the beginning of what I assume is the supposed, 'comedy'). Then we cut to a nice shot of an old London street where Robbie and Harry are looking to buy an owl and a broom and a wand. Harry says he has no money and Robbie takes him to a bank filled with Goblin like creatures, all the while Danny Elfman/Magic Broom music from Fantasia is playing.. After that we see John Hurt as the guy selling wands and then Harry (warning: lame comedy alert), 'hilariously' uses a wand and lots of cabinets fly open and John Hurt says something like, "oh well, I guess it's true what they say, 'the wand finds the boy''". When Robbie and Harry get to a train station Harry wonders how he is supposed to find platform 9 and a half. Julie Walters appears with an annoying red headed child and tells him to walk into a wall to get there (we weren't shown this but I am imagining lame 'boy walking into wall' comedy would be put here, but I could be wrong). We are then shown a scene with Harry on the train with the annoying red headed child and a precocious little girl who I thought was the first interesting character shown but most will be annoyed by her enunciation of every syllable in every word (she will clearly be playing the smart, all knowing kid who will raise her eyes, 'comically' to heaven when some other kid, probably the clumsy and annoying read headed child, does something stupid ). She seems to know all about Harry Potter and asks about a scar on his forehead which Harry shows her. We then cut to a nice establishing shot of the boats travelling towards the school and we are introduced to the Maggie Smith character (who seems to be the same as every other character Maggie Smith gets lumbered with i.e. the seemingly overtly prim and proper woman who, shock horror, has a heart of gold). We then have a shot of the confusing staircase system (remember those 3D/4D posters of staircases that are physically impossible? no?). This is followed by a shot of them all at dinner and a sinister shot of Alan Rickman as Trent Reznor or whoever he's supposed to be (there was some voice over from Rickman here that I didn't understand but sounded menacing. Then we see the introduction of the bully character that sneers in a poorly acted fashion at the clumsy and annoying red headed child and the precocious girl raises her eyes to heaven and 'comically' saying, "Oh he's not very charming". Then we see a fairly big (and seemingly unnecessary) reveal of Zoë Wanamaker that is funny to me as I only know her from lame British sitcoms. Then there's more 'comedy' as Harry and his friends try to fly their brooms. We were shown an extremely early special effect footage of Harry losing control of his broom which is followed by a shot of the precocious girl raising her eyes to heaven and saying, "what an idiot". This cuts to a scene of children using their wands to raise a feather whereby the clumsy and annoying red headed child says something clumsy and annoying and then makes the feather explode, this results in more comedy gold as the girl raises her eyes to heaven and says, "Oh! what an idiot".
The rest of the footage is less memorable and was basically a collection of quick clips showing off the high production values. It was this section that seemed to include the only suggestion of any kind of darkness that has been alluded to by Chris Columbus in the press. We are shown a scene of the kids in the woods and an imposing man says that there are worse things than werewolves hiding in trees. I thought this would lead to a shot of that three headed dog thing I saw in the adverts but instead an owl just flew at me and it said, coming November 17th (maybe Chris will liven up this scene by having the clumsy and annoying child say something and then the girl can raise her eyes to heaven and say, "oh what an idiot").
Unsurprisingly, all the famous English actors were fine in the performances I saw, even if I didn't find myself intregued as to who they were. Of course, it was difficult for me as each character was presented as if it were someone you knew and loved (this may explain the big reveals which I thought seemed unnessary) and maybe the finished film with be able to build up tension and excitement and maybe even lame jokes can make you smile if you truly like the characters. However, I really have to come down on this stuff. Of all the child actors I saw (yes! all five of them) most were atrocious apart from the girl who's given lame comedy dialogue (anyone who laughed at the jokes in Bicentennial Man will know what to expect). The boy who played Harry seemed fine even though he plays it a bit flat/straight which makes the character seem a bit boring. Basically, I got the impression that this is a film for kids (is that a shock to anyone!?), they'll probably love it. If I were 8 years old I'm sure the, 'jokes' would be hilarious and I'd dream of casting spells and hanging out with my spell casting friends in a similar way that I enjoyed, "the Goonies" or "Young Sherlock homes." (I don't know how I'd react to those films if I saw them for the first time now). This had a similar feel to those movies (which I guess isn't too much of a leap as I just checked imdb and discovered Chris Columbus wrote both of them) but mostly to "Young Sherlock Holmes" with a bigger production design and more characters. Actually, I think the best way to decribe what I saw was to ask you to imagine "Young Sherlock Holmes in the Pyramid of Fear" if it was directed by the guy who directed, "Bicentennial Man" or even...."Home Alone 2: Lost in New York".....adults beware.
Now....Scooby Doo. The footage I was shown for this was a lot shorter and had no shots of Scooby, all you got was a lot of clips of the Scooby laugh and a poorly animated silouette. I have to say that I was impressed by the production design of this film (but I we're a talking production design a la, "Flintstones viva rock Vegas"). We opened with a nice shot of a fake ghost descending over a staircase (I think people have been mistaking this for a prop used to help the actors find their eyeline for Scooby but I it's got to be part of the whole Haunted House stuff) and then we are introduced to the characters. Basically, there's not much to tell you about this that you probably don't know already. We're told that the Scooby gang were famous but split up. We are then introduced to each of the characters years later. Cue a shot of Freddie (popular with the under fives) Prinze in sunglasses walking out of an airport and lame comedy involving him thinking that three teenage girls are there for him when they're there for someone else. Then we have some unmemorable dialogue spouted by the other characters. Now I after I saw "Scream" I thought Matthew Lillard was fun (talkbackers will probably have at go at me for this as well as my overuse of speech marks and breaking up sentences with crap like this) but then realised that he seems to play the same character in most films and has become highly annoying. His approximation of Casey Kasem's voice IS good but that's no subsitute for a lack of moral fibre. His, 'comedy' line goes something like, "there's nothing better that a hamburger with pickles and tomato.... apart from a hamburger with pickles and tomato......(warning: lame comedy here!) and chocolate" (anyone laughing out there? no? didn't think so). Then we see them arriving at Modavarious's island and Rowan Atkinson acting cordial and nice. The final stuff is just clips from various 'action' scenes such as the mystery machine crashing into a garage door, Sarah Michelle Gellar doing a, 'comedy' celebration dance in a haunted house before being seemingly hit (for comedy value of course) by one of those haunted house carts. Then the proceeding images are full of plugs for the soundtrack album and they even seemed proud of the fact that it was made by the same people who brought you Home Alone 3). If there's anything good to say about this production its that at least they didn't put scrappy Doo in it (although they'll probably put him in the sequel like they put the alien in the Flintstones sequel). I get the impression that anyone who enjoyed Viva rock Vegas would get off on this but everyone else should stay away...
"Man! why can't they remake good shows like, "BJ and the Bear"? Now there's a concept I can't get enough of, a man and his monkey."
Well that's it. I'm done here. I just want to thank Mysterio for all the great J&SB coverage and just wanna say that I read on your site that, "Ginger Snaps" has been sent straight to video in the US. I'm sure there are lots of reviews available by now but any self respecting horror fan should see it. It's not the best horror film ever made but it packs more power than a 100 I know what you did last summers. It's what more teen horror movies should be like. Ok talkbackers, start calling me a bitch for not liking Harry Potter...................now.
