| |
saw the film last night and words fail me in a family newsgroup like this to
adequately describe how dire it was. If it was indeed as close to the book
as some say I'm suprised its only Neil Gaiman who is (apparently) suing.
There wasn't one original concept in the entire thing. Harry was wooden, the
girl overacted terribly and needed to condition her hair badly, the guy
playing Ron appeared to be the only convincing one there. The effects while
well done (appart from the Quiddich match which looed bloe screened to hell
and back) had no 'Wow' factor and although the story moved happily along
there was no real tension build up, and (not to spoil the ending) the final
scene was over in like 5 seconds with no real struggle or sence of
achivement.
OK must say some nice things. Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrain were
predictably very good, far better than the story deserved, and err oh yes
the popcorn was nice and its worth going to see for the Lord of the Rings
trailer
Oh and it was nice to see how accurate the Lego Hagrids Hut is to the film
version
And (getting his flame proof undies on) I know its a childrens book/film but
thats no excuse. There are fantastic childrens books/films out there. This
was just not very good and terribly unoriginal to boot. Harry Potter and the
abject pile of plagiarised rubbish more like :)
--
James Stacey
---------
www.minifig.co.uk
#925 - I'm a citizen of Legoland travelling Incommunicado
"Huw Millington" <hmillington@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GMLIK2.CHz@lugnet.com...
> I'm glad to say it does live up to all the hype. Everything shown is • exactly
> as I imagined it to be, having read the books. My only reservation is • that,
> understandably, the story has been abbreviated, so consequently some of • the
> characters or scenes do not have the significance they do in the book. I
> won't say too much in order not so spoil it for you.
>
> I'd be interested to hear from people who have not read the book what they
> think of it...
>
> Go and see it ASAP!
>
> Huw
>
>
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
| "James Stacey" <james@minifig.co.uk> wrote in message news:GntA1M.2HD@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) <snip> The same Neil gaiman of "Sandman" fame? Why's he suing? I for one will not be seeing the Harry Potter movie or reading the books. Why (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
| | | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
| (...) to (...) Never mind the film itself, what about the SW part 2 trailer? That was worse. SW has clearly drifted into the mainstream Hollywood bracket, with all those earth-bound shots of scenic beauty and lovey-dovey romantic diversions. Pah! (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
| | | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
| (...) Show me any book that is totally original. As a childrens book, which as you point out it is, I have to say that the series is building up to be an impressive set of books with the prisoner of Azkaban being my favourite so far. Yes of course, (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Saw the movie today!
|
| I'm glad to say it does live up to all the hype. Everything shown is exactly as I imagined it to be, having read the books. My only reservation is that, understandably, the story has been abbreviated, so consequently some of the characters or scenes (...) (23 years ago, 10-Nov-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
