HP3: Now, that’s a film!
Crikey — this is a whole new ballgame! The core characters — Harry, Ron, and Hermione — aren’t ciphers. And I’m finally engaged by a film that goes beyond the rules laid out in Steven Spielberg’s Guide to Blockbusters (and not beyond). I can see why Rowling herself loved this one.
1) Boorman’s Excaibur? I mean, I remember wandering around my hometown in emerald, late-night summer light thinking that magical artifacts would be f***ing awesome….
2) Has Hogwarts suddenly moved? To Scotland? Seriously — in the books (and in Columbus’ films), I’d assumed it was in Wales. Now, it seems inarguably to be North of the Border.
3) The camera seems to move relentlessly, like an adolescent.
Bottom line: Best — by a longshot — so far: confronts the source material without bowing down before it.
Bonus question: What does my friend Rufus Blooter think that the great Gambon — after whom TopGear’s final corner is named — is bad? I mean, even in the books he turns a bit … odd … at this point. Harris was dead — no one could reproduce that whisper. Gambon is, IMO, brilliant.
HP2: sophomore year
1) Why, compared to the first, does this film feel more like a film and less like Cliff’s Notes?
2) Branagh is outstanding.
3) Rickman is better.
Bottom line: Better than the first, ’cause it’s starting to feel like a real film, as opposed to a gloss.
Bonus question: Why is Hogwarts’ architecture gothic?
HP1: My virgin Harry Potter film experience
It boils down to a few things:
1) Britain is pretty!
2) If you haven’t read the book, you’re f***ed!
3) Which is to say, it all feels like throat-clearing for fans of the printed word.
Bottom line: Enjoyable, but I can’t imagine wanting to see more had I not read the books beforehand.
Bonus question: Why did an American direct this film?
I know I’m supposed to be blogging the Potter films — and I will — but –
When you try to craft a story — an analysis — and this is what you get in response (see comments), it’s just sad.
Blogging the Harry Potter films
I read — and greatly enjoyed — the HP books earlier this year. But I haven’t seen a single film.
I want to see the new one. But I feel I need to see the others first.
So: I have them here at home. And I plan to watch each and blog each.
Forwarded with minimal comment
From my in-box at Channel Thirteen:
Sent: Mon 6/29/2009 4:06 PM
To: Karr, Rick
Subject: The anti-MJ tribute commentary
A very much opposing view of the Michael Jackson tributes….from Republican strategist Jack Burkman…to schedule please use media contacts below:
1. The celebration of Jackson’s death — which is what the cable shows are doing — is a shocking indictment of American culture. Jackson was a drug addict, a nut, a person who tried through plastic surgery to turn himself into a transvestite, and a cross dresser. This, of course, leaves aside charges of child molestation but he was found innocent.
A transvestite … AND a crossdresser!