Harry Potter
28 Nov 2001 01:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
karohemdSaw Harry Potter tonight and it was good.
I'm usually quite sceptic about book adaptation but this is one of the better ones.
The cast is brilliant throughout (with one or two minor exceptions) but Alan Rickman as Snape clearly stands out. Give that man an Oscar!
If you liked the books, you will like this one. If you haven't read the books yet, watch it and you will want to read them to get all the missing bits.
I can only recommend it.
As I said, it was good. Obviously, there were missing bits and other bits were changed.
The production value wasn't really state of the art. Lots of obvious blue screen bits and CGI. The snake in the zoo was not bad. I had to restrain myself not to hiss "Parseltongue!" when Harry talked to it ;o)
The owls were pretty dodgy but the Quidditch match was surprisingly well done. Not too cheesy, although lots of obvious blue screening.
Quite a number of scenes were a lot less dramatic than in the book, e.g. the beginning and the first flying lesson.
McGonagall's cat form didn't have the eyeglass pattern, although it was a CGI cat. Strange.
The Dark Forest bit was good, especially Filch's comments.
The troll looked like one from Warhammer ;o)
I was rather suprised about the fight with Quirrel. Quite graphic with the burning of the face and all that.
I think there were more hints at the future, or rather, things from the past that will become clear in later books than in the book. I could be wrong, though. I think I need to read it again ;o)
Comments about the cast:
First place as best cast clearly goes to Alan Rickman as Snape. Brilliant. Only he can be so miserable and scary at the same time.
Harry was good, Ron was better and Hermione was wonderful. Malfoy kicked ass as well. Too bad the enmity between Harry and Malfoy didn't really come out that well.
McGonagall was good but I somehow always imagined her a bit younger.
Coltrane as Hagrid was brilliant but his hut looked completely different to what I always imagined. Fang was also kind of lame.
I think I was the least impressed with Dumbledore. It was just a grumpy old wizard with lots of hair and beard. The kindness and the feeling of power around him, the feeling that nothing will ever be able to hurt that man, no matter how evil, was missing.
Of the Dursleys, only Aunt Petunia was good. Uncle Vernon wasn't quite right (he looked to kindly) and Dudley wasn't fat enough.
What's next? Lord of the Rings (sorry, Andy and Rikk, but I'm a fan) but I'll wait til the new year.
Attack of the Clones (out in May) looked good as well. I just hope it won't get too cheesy with the love situation between Anakin and Amidala and there will actually be some action and some of that old SW feeling. We will see...
Oh, and one more reason for me to see LotR and Ep II. Both have Christopher Lee in ;o)
I'm usually quite sceptic about book adaptation but this is one of the better ones.
The cast is brilliant throughout (with one or two minor exceptions) but Alan Rickman as Snape clearly stands out. Give that man an Oscar!
If you liked the books, you will like this one. If you haven't read the books yet, watch it and you will want to read them to get all the missing bits.
I can only recommend it.
As I said, it was good. Obviously, there were missing bits and other bits were changed.
The production value wasn't really state of the art. Lots of obvious blue screen bits and CGI. The snake in the zoo was not bad. I had to restrain myself not to hiss "Parseltongue!" when Harry talked to it ;o)
The owls were pretty dodgy but the Quidditch match was surprisingly well done. Not too cheesy, although lots of obvious blue screening.
Quite a number of scenes were a lot less dramatic than in the book, e.g. the beginning and the first flying lesson.
McGonagall's cat form didn't have the eyeglass pattern, although it was a CGI cat. Strange.
The Dark Forest bit was good, especially Filch's comments.
The troll looked like one from Warhammer ;o)
I was rather suprised about the fight with Quirrel. Quite graphic with the burning of the face and all that.
I think there were more hints at the future, or rather, things from the past that will become clear in later books than in the book. I could be wrong, though. I think I need to read it again ;o)
Comments about the cast:
First place as best cast clearly goes to Alan Rickman as Snape. Brilliant. Only he can be so miserable and scary at the same time.
Harry was good, Ron was better and Hermione was wonderful. Malfoy kicked ass as well. Too bad the enmity between Harry and Malfoy didn't really come out that well.
McGonagall was good but I somehow always imagined her a bit younger.
Coltrane as Hagrid was brilliant but his hut looked completely different to what I always imagined. Fang was also kind of lame.
I think I was the least impressed with Dumbledore. It was just a grumpy old wizard with lots of hair and beard. The kindness and the feeling of power around him, the feeling that nothing will ever be able to hurt that man, no matter how evil, was missing.
Of the Dursleys, only Aunt Petunia was good. Uncle Vernon wasn't quite right (he looked to kindly) and Dudley wasn't fat enough.
What's next? Lord of the Rings (sorry, Andy and Rikk, but I'm a fan) but I'll wait til the new year.
Attack of the Clones (out in May) looked good as well. I just hope it won't get too cheesy with the love situation between Anakin and Amidala and there will actually be some action and some of that old SW feeling. We will see...
Oh, and one more reason for me to see LotR and Ep II. Both have Christopher Lee in ;o)
