View Full Version : Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
bigvalbowski
11-12-01, 07:31 AM
Sunday morning, I packed into a car with 7 cousins of mine, ages stretching from 11 to 16, to see the movie I've been waiting months to see, Harry Potter.
Was I impressed? Yes. Is it a good movie? Yes, sir. Is it an all time classic that kids seventy years from now will be wanting to see? No.
To all fans of the Harry Potter books, I think the film is a very successful adaptation. It leaves very little out. It has very few additions. The production details are spot on, from Diagon Alley, to the magnificent Hogwarts to the complexities of Quidditch (which is a marvel of special effects wizardry). And thankfully, there isn't a note of complaint from me about the casting. Radcliffe has the toughest role, but he is Harry Potter. I couldn't visualise anyone else in the role. His co-stars Ron Weasley and Hermione ("Harmynee", my prononciation of that name was all wrong) are perfect. Hermione is bossy and over-confident, so it's a tribute to the young actress that she makes her sympathetic. Ron has all the best lines. He was easily the audience's favourite. And the adult parts? They're played by the cream of British talent and British actors are the best in the world, no question. Robbie Coltrane, as Hagrid, has the largest role and he's very cuddly.
What was bad? Well, for me, the direction was played a bit safe. I campaigned for Columbus because I wanted a director who wouldn't mess with it but the script was so good that it could have been a bit fancier.
spudracer
11-12-01, 10:00 AM
SORCEROR'S STONE!!!!!!!!
NOT PHILOSOPHER...:laugh:
Holden Pike
11-12-01, 10:19 AM
Actually, Spud, both J.K. Rowlings' book and the movie are titled Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Stone in the U.K. For some dumb reason, Scholastic (the American publisher) decided to change the title for the North American edition. To keep proper identification with audiences, the title switch will remain in place for the film.
So technically, Philosopher's Stone is the original title, and blokes in the U.K. are probably laughing at you for 'correcting' them.
:yup:
spudracer
11-12-01, 10:21 AM
:laugh::laugh:
*Spud tips his hat to those he corrected and apologizes*
I dunno, I wouldn't call the decision dumb. It wasn't completely necessary, but "Philosopher" doesn't make as much sense to us Yanks. "Sorcerer" is a better fit. I doubt it would have made a huge difference either way, though. Anyway, congrats, bigval, on getting into an advanced screening! I'm green with envy. Can't wait to see it.
Holden Pike
11-12-01, 11:31 AM
"Philosopher" doesn't make as much sense to us Yanks? OK, speak for yourself and the folks you know. Like I said, it was some dumb reason.
Anywho, most of us will get our chance in a matter of days now. My family is all gathering on Friday and already have our tickets. I haven't read the books and don't care about the movie one way or another, but I'm open to checking it out and seeing what all the hubub is, Bub.
Dude, read the first book...seriously. It's an incredibly light read...and it'll make the movie so much more enjoyable...and enjoyable movies are a good thing. :) Anyway, "Philosopher" still makes sense, but it's not a appropriate as "Sorcerer," given it's supernatural nature. When I think "Philosopher," I think theology and logic, etc...nothing to do with magic. Like I said, though, I doubt it would make much difference either way.
Saw this flick. Gonna write an "official" review fer the site this weekend.
spudracer
11-17-01, 10:45 AM
Saw this last night and must say, I loved it. Was done very well, the sets, the cast, everything. Since I have never read any of the books, I felt a little lost, but for the most part, I pretty much understood the differences between muggles and wizards.
If the movie wasn't enough 3 count em, THREE wonderful teaser/trailers. First off, LOTR, I had a moment of silence while that trailer was playing..:D Second, Scooby Doo teaser. Although this movie looks to suck, the teaser was quite hilarious. A Batman-esque type teaser, then scooby turns to reveal himself. Third, Monsters Inc., actually this was more of a go see our movie instead type of thing. Which was hilarious none the less.
Don't have much to say, because the movie just took my breath away. Everything about it made you believe in this other world out there. Hagrid's character gave me a few good laughs as well as Weasley's character.
I really hope even if you're not a fan of Harry Potter that you go and check this out. Well worth the admission price to go see it. Lengthy it may be, but well worth it.
TWT, I'm with Holden on the fact that Philosopher's Stone makes more sense. You don't seem to realize that the "philosopher's stone" is a real mythological object. J. K. Rowling didn't come up with the idea. It's been in legends for hundreds of years. It's degrading to Americans to assume that we don't know this. And that's why they should have kept the original title.
Actually I did know that...but if you ask me, it's a poor title. "Sorcerer" is much more appropriate. When I think of a philosopher, I do no think of magic, or the occult, or anything supernatual. I think of theology, I think of Socrates, etc. Is it insulting? I don't know. I'm not insulted at all. I do think, however, that "Sorcerer" makes a lot more sense.
Originally posted by TWTCommish
Actually I did know that...
My apologies. :)
None necessary...but it is sort of funny that people think it might be insulting, when in fact most people do not know what it's based on a real legend. I dunno how insulting it can be if it's true! :) Anyway, I didn't give it much thought. I just started at the screen like a googly-eyed idiot the whole time. :)
Holden Pike
11-17-01, 12:34 PM
Would it have been so horrible if people's first thoughts when picking up that book (or seeing the movie) were of Socrates, Plato and Kierkegaard? How many people probably thought Raiders of the Lost Ark was going to be about searching for Noah's Ark and Mt. Ararat? Do you think they were disappointed or dismayed to learn about the Ark of the Covenant instead?
American's are generally treated as stupid, and rightly so most of the time. I'm just insulted every so often to be lumped in with the "Jerry Springer" and WWF watchers, dig? Phil Osofee? Who dat?
Horrible? Don't be so dramatic. No, it wouldn't have been horrible: but it would've been incorrect...A POOR TITLE. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" makes a lot of sense: people are trying to raid the Lost Ark. It's not misleading. Now, no one living on this planet picked up Harry Potter expecting a book on theology, either, but let's face it: some words convey certain things, and "Sorcerer" more accurately conveys the subject matter than a word like "Philosopher."
I tried to get tickets for yesterday, but I couldn't. So I tried to get tickets for saturday, but I couldn't. So I tried to get tickets for sunday, and I couldn't get them until a 10:30 showing. I'm bummed.
That's a bummer. Out here we didn't have too much trouble. We got them the day before for a fairly crowdered theatre...but it was only about 70-80% full anyway, so we probably could've gotten in without purchasing any in advance. There were a few people in robes there...not sure if they were meant to be Quidditch robes, or just plain old Hogwarts robes...doesn't matter much either way. The whole thing was a great experience, and highly amusing. There were two teenage girls walking behind me as I entered the theatre. One of them, in a shrilly, overly-excited voice said "Harry Potterrrrrrr!" Geez, and I thought I was one of the few teenage losers who loves the books. I learned otherwise yesterday.
FYI: just wrote a review of the movie, sort of on the fly (I rarely take a lot of time when writing things like this...if I do, it might not get done at all). You can check it out here:
http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/index.html?id=19
You can disagree with it by replying. :D
sadesdrk
11-17-01, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Holden Pike
American's are generally treated as stupid, and rightly so most of the time. I'm just insulted every so often to be lumped in with the "Jerry Springer" and WWF watchers, dig? Phil Osofee? Who dat? It's amazing the stereotypes people will create. I'm from California, so obviously, that means I'm blonde, live by the beach, and say things like," Cowabunga, dude!" The reality couldn't be further from the truth. Just like most people don't even watch WWF or Springer. I'm not gonna say that Americans should " rightly" be thought of as stupid. Neither should you, Holden. I hate it when people get all anti-American-culture. If it was so retarded, why do whole bunch of other countries copy us? Ever been to Japan?
spudracer
11-17-01, 03:48 PM
TWT...regarding your review.
The Quidditch arena had a lot of seats actually...the towers, then below that was area for more seating. So if there was 1,000 kids attending Hogwart's, they were probably all there.
Are they planning on releasing another Potter movie before long???
Hmmm, you sure? I didn't see those. Kinda funky. I might've just missed them...it's a possibility, though either way they must've been obscured quite a bit. Anyway, to answer your question: yes. The second movie has already begun production (even some photography already), and is due out in less than a year, I believe, seeing as how they got started a little while before the first one was released. I think the TENTATIVE date is November 14th of 2002, but we'll see...I almost hope they push it back a month or so, simply because they need to improve on this one significantly for me to be REALLY happy with it all, and I don't think they can do that in one year alone, even though the second movie will have less pressure on it to perform.
Anyway, Kenneth Brannagh has signed on for the second, and all the other major actors are apparently returning. They have to do these things quickly because the child actors are growing up, as children tend to do, and each book represents one year, so they can't really take any longer than, realistically, 12-15 months per movie, unless they decide to find new actors at some point, which would be a shame, because the kids they have now are great.
spudracer
11-17-01, 07:21 PM
Yeah, I thought that the boy who played Harry did very well. Even had the look of Potter down. Everyone else also did a good job, as well.
As for the arena, they weren't obscured TWT, I saw them plainly, I mean even when the girl gets sandwiched by the two slitherin boys, she falls down the tower, and you see the lower sections quite clearly(you must have been in the bathroom..;) )
Hi! Hi! (Jumping up and down & waving) We saw it last night and it was EXcellent!
Chris I like your movie review. It is much longer than my sisinlaw's altho she liked it too. We went the first day it was here and we got the last of the last tickets four days before! (what, no italics in this new site!!!!)
I've only read 2/4 of all the books, but I do really like them. I read somewhere that Harry's last scenes were all dubbed because his voice changed before they finished shooting. He did not look that old, tho. Maybe he's the Michael J Fox of England?
Love to all,
Jozie
P.S. if you want to read my sisinlaw's review, it is on the E-Zine at http://www.freelookbookstore.com
xxxxxxx
j
Oh! Kennith Brannoch. I can't wait!
xxx
j
LordCrank
11-19-01, 11:51 AM
didnt see the movie, but the philosopher's stone was one of the (many) things alchemists were trying to create back in the way back when. it was supposed to be able to help with turning lead into gold [as i recall, could be mistaken] and grant immortality. of course, if the stone in the books didnt do that [didnt read em], changing its name makes sense.
The stone did the same thing...it turned lead into gold, and created the Elixir of Life...I still think changing the name was good, though. Philosopher just doesn't make as much sense, to be perfectly honest.
Holden Pike
11-19-01, 11:56 AM
Again, Philosopher's Stone doesn't make as much sense to YOU, Commish...or of course the folks at Scholastic Books.
It's not just me; a simple look at the words confirms this. You can't tell me someone involved in supernatural doings and with magic objects is more accurately described as a Philoshoper, than as a Sorcerer. Considering the context, "sorcerer" is more specific, and more appropriate.
Holden Pike
11-19-01, 12:11 PM
For me it's only a couple steps away from some of the translated movie titles you see in Japan and other places. One of my favorites that I memorized is Leaving Las Vegas, the film that won Nic Coppola his Oscar as a screnwriter literally drinking himself to death, and a nomination for Elisabeth Shue as the hooker who starts to care for him. The title used in Japan translates as I'm Drunk and You're a Prostitute. That's a tad on the nose, don't you think?
A title doesn't HAVE to explicitly tell you exactly what the movie/book is going to be about. The best titles rarely do. If you can't tell what it's generally about when picking up a book called Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Stone by looking at the other information on the cover - such as a boy riding a flying broom with a castle and a unicorn in the background, simply because the big word "philosopher" throws you off, then personally I'd be content to lose that sale.
What happened to the joy of discovery?
bigvalbowski
11-19-01, 12:13 PM
All Americans should be embarassed that the name was changed.
JK Rowling wrote a book called Harry Potter and the philosopher's stone. It was dumbed down for US release because of what TWTCommish said. The American publisher's felt that Americans would be put off if the book had the word "philosopher" on it. Sorcerer may be more closely related to a world of witches and wizards but Rowling chose philosopher for whatever reason and Americans should have stuck to it.
What if Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was renamed Charlie and the Candy Factory?
People understand "chocoloate" just as well as "candy," even in the US. :) I'm not arguing that it should have been changed for the US, people...I'm not saying we can't handle it. I'm saying that it didn't make much sense at all, either in country. It's not exactly a big deal, and as I've already said (in this thread, I believe), no one is going to pick it up expecting a book on philosophy, but that's not the issue. I think the American title is a superior title. I think both versions would be better with that title.
Do I give much of a crap? Uh, no. I just think it's a better title...more descriptive and appropriate. You would not think of Gandalf as a Philosopher more than a Wizard/Sorcerer, and I would not call Socrates a Socerer either...Philosopher does not fit well at all, IMO.
Let me make it clear, though, that I'm not defending the discrepancy: it should have the same title in both places in this case...I just think that matching title should be what is currently the US title. :)
spudracer
11-19-01, 12:36 PM
Maybe a seperate thread should be created in the differences words have between countries. :D
mecurdius
11-20-01, 02:30 AM
I liked this movie, i thought its biggest accomplishment was it wasnt boring for three whole hours. I liked the giant a lot. but i think the ending was a little bit bad, sure it was a cliff hange and everything i just didnt like it.
bigvalbowski
11-20-01, 08:27 AM
I think the greatest compliment that can be paid to Harry Potter is that it is currently on the IMDB's top 250 films of all time. Very few films can live up to the hype that surrounds it but this one did.
But hurry if you want to catch it because it is ranked no. 250 out of 250 so it mightn't be there long.
I for one am embarrassed that they changed it to sorcerer because I still have no idea what a philosopher is. I'm also a little annoyed that they didn't change stone to rock. What the hell's a stone anyway? :rolleyes:
I just saw this again, and it's even better now. I hate to do this, but I *HAVE* to go re-work my review of the movie...I've been pondering that for a few days now anyway...I haven't felt comfortable with my review since I put it up, and this seals it...time to revamp. :)
Austruck
11-20-01, 07:35 PM
bigval,
They did change "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" when it hit the movies, to "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory."
My guess is that they purposely wanted the focus to be on Wonka's character and not Charlie, who is just a device for us to get in on the wonderful world of Wonka.
Linda (who adores Gene Wilder and didn't mind the title change a bit) :)
Ok, not that anyone is all that interested, but I completely revised my review of this movie. From the moment I first posted the original review, I didn't feel happy with it...I went back and made a few semi-significant edits. I saw the movie again today, and decided to re-write the whole thing, change the score (upped it by half a popcorn box), and gave it a new title. I think it's a much more accurate review...and more fair to the movie overall.
Harry Potter: How Well Did It Switch to Cinema? (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/index.html?id=19)
spudracer
11-20-01, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Timing
I for one am embarrassed that they changed it to sorcerer because I still have no idea what a philosopher is. I'm also a little annoyed that they didn't change stone to rock. What the hell's a stone anyway? :rolleyes:
A stone is bigger than a pebble but smaller than a rock...a rock is smaller than a boulder. Make any sense???
Holden Pike
11-20-01, 11:29 PM
Mick, Keith, Ronnie Woods, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman...they're all Stones. Brian Jones is a dead Stone. Sly and his whole family were Stones. The Temptations, they claimed their Poppa was a rollin' Stone, wherever he layed his hat was his home. Judge Harry Stone, he presided over "Night Court". Stone Phillips, he works with Jane Pauley and Tom Brokaw over at NBC News.
Lots and lots of Stones out there, I'm just skimming the surface.
Originally posted by spudracer
A stone is bigger than a pebble but smaller than a rock...a rock is smaller than a boulder. Make any sense???
It's all just so confusing... ;)
bigvalbowski
11-21-01, 07:22 AM
T, that looks like the exact same review. Try it again.
I hope you've changed your opinion on Richard Harris's performance. He was wise, noble and very eccentric - exactly like Dumbledore.
"Hmmm... earwax flavour"
bigval: you'll probably have to hit refresh. It looks perfectly normal to me. Anyway, I still don't like him much...I did notice that he delivered one or two lines well, but the rest was a shame. Anyway, he just said "Earwax," not "flavour." :)
bigvalbowski
11-21-01, 04:37 PM
"Hmmm... alas... earwax!"
That was the line. Just after seeing it for the second time. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is officially one of the best films of the year and a certain children' classic for years to become. Why? Because I said so.
I had built up the film so much that the first watching was a bit of a letdown. I was expecting something wonderful, something thrilling but I knew the story so well and Colombus and Kloves stick to it so perfectly that there were no surprises.
At tonight's second viewing, I was able to look at the film much more objectively. This is a wonderful movie for kids of all ages, that includes 20-year old me. It has such wonderful imagination, thrilling spectacle and loveable characters. And there is magic at work especially in the details. Did anyone else notice the floating candles? Always on the edge of the screen, but barely noticeable. Anyone notice that Seamus' face was still singed the scene after his levitation accident? These tiny details that very few will spot show the love that the makers had for JK Rowling's creation. This special film is a homage to a special book.
My favourite line comes from Filch the caretaker:
(paraphrased)
"I used to like the old detention better. We used to hang the children by their thumbs. God, I miss the screamin' "
Yes, easily one of the best lines in the film. Filch was played to perfection by whoever that actor was. :) My brother loved that line, too...and he hates Harry Potter.
I did not read the book. But I know people who did. So I was expecting a great story. This movie did a terrible job of developing the themes of a great story.
In the beginning, Harry Potter is a special child living in a extremely mediocre setting. While he is living in this enviornment, he begins to discover his abilities and in doing so discovers how to get the better of his tormentors. The viewers then get to witness his redemption. This theme is very well developed in the movie, "Matilda". But in HP, it just doesn't happen.
Another really valuable theme that should have been developed was the idea of learning by exploring your enviornment and questioning things that it takes a lot of courage to question.
I never understood why HP kept exploring and searching for answers. What motivated his quest? Why was he so interested in that mystery object? It seems to me that the first thing most people do when they enter a totally new enviornment is to figure out how to survive there. But we find that HP very quickly becomes very confident in his new enviornment. He is totally comfortable and even takes for granted his magical powers. This should have been a process!
And finally, along the same lines; Why was the house competition so important? They seemed to be move emotionally charged by the victory of the house than the victory of good over evil. What gives here?
And don't just say, that's the way English prep school are. Take a movie like "The Little Giants". Every American knows how important winning is in little league football. But that doesn't mean that the writers shouldn't develop a good story so that more is at stake than just a football victory.
HP readers accept my verdict but say that its not relavant because this movie is just the begining of the story. And the great literary themes will be developed in the sequels.
Fine. So this movie was not really a movie at all. It was a setting for a movie.
Andy
Yes, it should have been a process. I admit that they did not illustrate that transition from wonderment to comfort (well, even in book four he's still in amazement, and sort of naive about it all) very well. However, people who have read the books, it seems (I should know, I'm among them), just fill in those gaps, seeing as how they read them already. :)
What gives? They're kids! Kids want to win. Kids love that kind of stuff. In the book, Slytherin is played up more as the most despised house. In the movie, you get one line to hint at it: "There wasn't a bad witch or wizard that didn't come from Slytherin." In the book, this is expanded upon: they're very ambitious, but, as a result, more of them go astray. They've also won the House Cup many years running...in the book, when Gryffindor finally wins it, it almost makes a new era. They have a famous, talented student on board now, and are, in a way, starting a dynasty of their own. This is minor stuff for the movie, though, and I don't blame them for cutting it out.
And yes, that is the way they are...no, it does not make up a story...the story stood on it's own without it.
What motivated his quest? Wouldn't YOU be curious about that object? I sure as hell would...and I'm not 11...when those kinds of things are at their most interesting. Anyway, another note: in the books, they're off doing other things in the background, which is really more realistic. Real kids would get into all kinds of trouble, or have other "things" going on...in the movie, there isn't time for more than one or two of those subplots.
I thought it was an amazing movie. It has some great lines, some great symbolism, and is based on a great story. It's not perfect...but then again, you can't expect it to be. I think the majority of negative reviews are the result of expecting it to live up to unreasonable hype.
Yes. The hype creates an expectation that the movie will have the qualities of a god movie or even a great movie. But I judge all movies by the same standards.
Are the characters interesting and likable Is the development of those characters and their personalities interesting, exciting, suspensefull?
The giant was the only character that I "liked" alittle. But not much.
HP just looked a lot like Bill Gates. Other than that, I didn't see anything particularly interesting there.
Does the movie have an a new way to emotionally charge great philosophical issues? On this score I compare it with Toy Story, which had a superb approach to the question of "What is man? - Just flesh and blood or the idealized allmost alpowerfull beings we are made out to be?" I don't expect every movie to reach the level of toy story on this point. But every good movie has to have some meaning. Otherwise its just an action flick.
Nothing personal, but I didn't see anything at all resembling "What is man?" in "Toy Story." These are movies primarily targetted at children...they have to be judged on that scale. Expecting a movie aimed at children to have deep, profound philosophical undertones makes about as much sense as me going to "Fried Green Tomatoes" and complaining about the lack of action and special effects. :)
Anyway, I LOVED the undertones that I did see. The Mirror, for example, was handled well...a great concept from the book, nearly perfectly adapted to cinema. "It does not do to dwell on dreams, if we forget to live." That mirror is a symbol of many things: drugs, sex, or just daydreaming in general...wasting away with fantasies and desires and ignoring the real world right in front of you. Great messages. It's not highly profound and life-altering, but then again, it's not supposed to be. :) It's supposed to be interesting, and it's supposed to encourage children to keep their feet on the ground, and keep them down to earth.
Bill Gates? He looked nothing like him...only similarity was some round glasses. I've got round glasses...doesn't mean I look like Harry Potter. :) Anyway, I thought the cast was, on the whole, fantastic. Hermione is likeable, but still gets on your nerves. Ron is sort of embarassing at times, but still someone you'd be glad to know. Harry is just flat out interesting to me...but that's partially because I've read the books, and therefore know what's supposed to be going through his head and such.
I liked this movie well enough, I guess. It certainly isn't everything it could have been, but that's not what I was expecting, so...here are my complaints:
- The kid who played Harry was very poor in comparison to Hermione and Ron. Those two kids were excellent, but I didn't think Harry was on their level.
-Not enough scenes of them in class. I thought the classes were really well put-together, and we only saw each of them like, once. Still, I can see where they're coming from, they didn't want a three hour movie.
-The scene on the chess board when Hermione says "you're a great wizard" and talks about she's only "clever", felt unbelievably false to me. I was amazed something that corny made it into the flick, but, alas.
I did like this movie. I can't wait for the next installments. I would most definitely recommend it to all, and especially those who haven't read the book. I wish I hadn't read it before seeing it.
I dunno...I can't really wish, under any circumstances, that I hadn't read the books. They're a part of me now. :) And yes, that little exchange was indeed corny. The line about being a great wizard could have meant more if they'd gone into their grades...Harry is not a fabulous student there, but he's obviously talented. That could have been her way of saying that. Anyway, I'm not ready to declare natural talent like his as unequivocally better than a studious nature, like hers.
And yes, Radcliffe did seem dry at times...although there were some lines that I think he truly nailed. A few expressions that he had down pat. The look of wonderment he had was good...but he didn't get many chances to use it.
Sir Toose
11-27-01, 10:58 AM
I really can't say anything negative about this film. I read all 4 books to my kids so I am very familiar with the stories and the film hit the first book dead on. If I had any complaint at all it would be that the movie tried too hard to conform to the book making the show go a bit slow.
As for the actors... I found them all to be great. I thought Radcliffe was spot on as Harry. I think he should be dry at times... I mean if we're buying into the story as we watch this is a kid that's been forced to live under the stairs for 12 years. I'd be dry too. I thought Emma Watson was outstanding as Hermione. She displayed great talent and poise... she's a natural. She'll be a big star one day.
I can say one thing negative about the film...even though I said I couldn't. Some of the CG was ruinous. I liked the troll, quidditch etc. but the scene where Harry is chasing keys on a broomstick...yuck. You could tell it was just an undefined nurb and the movement was way too fast. But that's being picky.
I give Harry Potter 9 out of 10 stars.
Originally posted by TWTCommish
[B]Nothing personal, but I didn't see anything at all resembling "What is man?" in "Toy Story." These are movies primarily targetted at children...they have to be judged on that scale. Expecting a movie aimed at children to have deep, profound philosophical undertones makes about as much sense as me going to "Fried Green Tomatoes" and complaining about the lack of action and special effects. :)
A great movie is a great movie for all ages. If a movie succeeds in drawing attention to an important issue and shedding new light on it, then it really enriched the viewers. That's the scale I use to judge all movies.
This is not a thread about toy story. But I suggest that you watch them again. And maybe sometime we'll have a toy story thread on this website, (or another one, if you've already had one.)
Of course there are other elements that can make a movie entertaining, like action, humor, unusual scenery, emotion, ect...
But a great movie has to make the viewer feel something, think about something, want something.
Anyway, I LOVED the undertones that I did see. The Mirror, for example, was handled well...a great concept from the book, nearly perfectly adapted to cinema. "It does not do to dwell on dreams, if we forget to live."
Fine, he read those lines.
Again a great concept that could have been developed, and wasn't. The viewer has to be in tears over how emothionally damaged HP is by the loss of his parents and how terribly he yearns to be with them for the pulling away from the mirror to be really meaningful.
Take a look at the movie "Artificial Intelligence". The kid 's devotion to his mother is played out for the whole movie before the big day at the end when he meets her and then looses her again.
Its no good for an actor to just read the lines: "It does not do to dwell on dreams, if we forget to live." The movie has to show someone's dreams, show someone dwelling on them, show the cost of dwelling on those dreams, and finally, show the courage it takes to let them go.
Andy:confused:
bigvalbowski
12-05-01, 05:12 PM
Interesting points Akohl.
Toy Story 1 & 2 are much more thought-provoking than ordinary children's entertainment. Toy Story 1 has to do with jealousy and rejection while Toy Story 2 is concerned with forgetting about your past, growing up and moving on. The movies are so witty and fast paced that children don't pick up on the themes. If they did Toy Story 1, especially, would be a pretty harrowing experience.
Now onto your main point:
But a great movie has to make the viewer feel something, think about something, want something.
Harry Potter I won't dare call a great movie until at least a few years have passed. But I think it's got a pretty good chance to make to make that grade.
There's a lot of emotion in Harry Potter. When Harry succeeds at Quidditch, we rejoice with him. When Harry sits alone in front of his dead parents, we can feel his longing. When Ron sacrifices himself so that Harry can go on, our feelings are torn between sadness and happiness. Harry Potter rings us through quite a few emotions during its runtime.
It's themes aren't as adult as Toy Story but they are there for us to think about. Harry rarely, if ever, uses his magic wand in the movie, instead he combats evil with cunning, bravery and friendship. Three themes I admit, that wouldn't be out of place in Sesame Street but the film isn't embarassed of them and actually makes them seem fresh and genuine.
What do we want from the movie? Well, I want to see the next installment but I know that's not what you're getting at. This, I fear is where the film was lacking. There was never a real sense of urgency in the film. We never really felt that Harry was in any danger. We were never desperate for him to succeed because he never really was under serious threat. But this will pick up in its sequels.
I see Harry Potter more as a Wizard of Oz type movie than a Toy Story. The Wizard of Oz is an undoubted classic. It survives well 60 years later. Its themes, like Potter's, are ordinary - "There's no place like home", but they're done with such warmth and innocence that they can usually get through to the most stone-hearted adult.
There is a very fine line between emotion and relation to a character, and, as many people put it, "schmaltz." This movie did what it could to avoid cheesy tear-jerking moments. Now, personally, I think that it would have been very appropriate to have Harry tear up a little upon viewing the photo album at the end...I think most kids in that situation would. I do not think, however, that such things should have been commonplace. Harry is tough...hardened from a childhood around people who despise him. I think it's appropriate that he would be blunt, and not highly emotional.
The mirror scene, I think, was handled to near perfection, personally. The shot of him sitting indian-style with his chin resting upon his hands, just staring, motionless, is picture-perfect.
I would not say that a movie needs to emotionally movie you to be great. Make you want something? Sure: more movies like it. :) I don't think a great movie is required to ask some kind of deep philosophical question, however, and I REALLY don't think that either of the "Toy Story" movies are meant to be taken in the way that you may have taken them. I think they deal with very basic, standard plotlines. Clever and subtle in many ways, surely, but I don't think there are many deep, underlying tones there.
With Potter, though, there most definitely are. Many references to history and literature can be found throughout...and many parallels to great stories of the past, as well. Things like King Arthur, mythology, and even Star Wars come to mind. This stems, naturally, from the fact that it started off as a book...reading the books, the movie's underlying themes and messages because much more obvious, and appropriate.
This movie was pretty darn good 4 a children's film
Peace,
Interesting tidbit: Daniel Radcliffe, the actor who plays Harry Potter (for now, at least), has the same birthday as the fictional character: July 31st. What're the odds? 1 in 365, I suppose? :D
spudracer
12-11-01, 11:16 PM
When I first saw the young Radcliffe as Potter, I couldn't believe how much he looked like the character. I mean he has two things in common with Potter that make me wonder if Rowling didn't base this character on Radcliffe in the hopes a movie would be made.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.