Truepenny goes to the movies.
Jan. 30th, 2003 03:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
truepennyJust back from seeing Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets with an RL friend.
Alan Rickman is a god. He is the Goth King of Glower, and I am giddy with Snape-love.
More and definitely spoilery thoughts behind the curtain.
These are not in any kind of linear or logical order. Just so as you know.
--Insufficient Snape, goddammit. Want. More. Snape. Want. More. Snape. NOW!
--Especially in that last scene, which was CRYING OUT for somebody to be snarking. At one point in that long horrible drawn-out mushy silence as Harry hugs Hagrid, I actually said under my breath, "Draco! Say something!" The lack of irony was absolutely nauseating.
--Ergo, my opinion is, they booted the ending. Badly. This is even more annoying because Rowling's version of that party would have filmed really well.
--Miriam Margoyles, whom I adored in Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, makes a lousy Sprout.
--And why, why why WHY, are they hiding Warwick Davis under that hideous makeup for Flitwick? He's supposed to be oldish, and I suppose it's questionable whether he's human or not, but it is so not necessary that he be vaguely repulsive and kind of scaly. Ick. Warwick Davis deserves better than that.
--I loved the opening shot, that pan down over Little Whinging and all the exactly identical houses.
--Daniel Radcliffe has a great voice, now that it's broken. And he's maturing into a really good actor.
--Dobby's not as good as Gollum, 'cause, well, duh. But he's way better than the stupid troll from the first movie. I like his ears. And I like their compromise on his language, so that he sounds like a servant but not like a retarded child.
--Nil nisi and all that, but Richard Harris just didn't do it for me as Dumbledore. Not in the first movie, and not in this one. He had his moments--staring down Lucius Malfoy, for one--but he was never Dumbledore for me. Wonder who they're gonna get now.
--Mostly, I think they streamline well; the catastrophe with the cake carries us so smoothly and beautifully through a scene that would otherwise be complicated, awkward, and full of unnecessary ramifications. I've learned to appreciate movies that can do this well from watching LotR.
--There are some things, though, that needed more actual, you know, existence. Like Ginny Weasley. And it wouldn't have been the least bit difficult to continue Harry, Hermione, and Ron's conversation in the courtyard until Hermione has her blinding epiphany and goes racing off to the library. So that the damn movie would actually have a plot.
--I totally heart Kenneth Branagh in this movie. Totally.
--Best scene, bar none: the duelling club.
--Want. More. Snape! Especially considering the chemistry Rickman, Branagh, Radcliffe, and Felton were managing. (Snape picking Malfoy up and shoving him back at Harry? Loved it.)
--And I was disappointed in the way they underplayed the scene where the other teachers turn on Lockhart. Oh, it was there, but they didn't DWELL on it, and it should have been dwelt on. Lovingly. Lingeringly.
--Emma Watson and Tom Felton both need to spend some time with a dialogue coach. Felton's great physically--that thing he does with his eyebrow! perfect!--and he's got the intonation, but he doesn't have the diction. Draco needs a perfect, smooth, purring upper-class accent, and Felton sounds like a chimney-sweep trying to pass. Watson just needs to learn to deliver her lines. Yes, I know, Hermione has to be Exposition Girl all the time, but could you not sound like you're reading your lines out of a book?
--And for fuck's sake, people, the poor child is drowning in that wig.
--Props to the kids playing Crabbe and Goyle, both for acting Crabbe and Goyle and for doing a superb job with Harry-as-Goyle and Ron-as-Crabbe.
--Spiders! Ewwwwwwwww!
--For a movie that forgot to mention so many details of the plot, this sure was exposition-heavy.
--Rupert Grint's got some serious comic talent for a kid his age. But I think the director needs to be giving him a little more guidance. WHY do people say Chris Columbus is good with kids?
--Love McGonagall's tartan pointy hat.
--Hagrid bursting into Dumbledore's office to defend Harry makes NO SENSE if you don't have the bit where Hagrid sees Harry mere moments before Harry discovers Justin and Nearly Headless Nick. NO FUCKING SENSE.
--I like their choice for Fudge.
--Also Lucius Malfoy, although that kind of goes without saying.
--And can I just say, the movie's throughline for Harry getting Mr. Malfoy to give Dobby a sock was SO MUCH BETTER than Rowling's. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I never quite believe it in the book, but I totally believed it here.
--Their Tom Riddle was quite convincing. Charming and creepy and quite quite mad.
--I especially liked the filming technique for the diary-flashback.
--What, no double-Potions with the Slytherins? The movie almost totally ignores the fact that Harry's AT SCHOOL, which I understand but still don't like [ETA: the ignoring, I mean], and besides, that's Snape screen-time I'm not getting. Wah.
--This movie was edited by a wall-eyed child with garden shears. Scene transitions are not crisp, and they too frequently hold past the punchline. The worst one--or at least the one that's most memorable--is the end of the Ron-hexes-himself scene, where Hermione and Harry help Ron off, and then we cut back to the Slytherins for a pointless and awkward snigger before we get to Hagrid's. Wtf?
--Okay, and, hello, WASTING John Cleese. WASTING him in a big big way. I mean, I don't like the Death Day Party, but Cleese needs screen-time, dammit. (Not as much as Rickman, but still.)
--They are much better with the small details in this one than they were in the first movie. I liked the Weasleys' clock and all the portrait Lockharts--ooh and Fawkes! Fawkes was awesome.
--The basilisk, on the other hand, was lame. Lame like a seriously lame thing.
--I did appreciate the fact that Harry uses that sword exactly as a teenage boy with no fencing experience would, i.e., badly.
--I'm so crushed that they didn't use the way Harry and Ron get caught in the book. I was seriously looking forward to Alan Rickman saying, "Or maybe he's waiting to hear why you two didn't arrive on the school train." Yes, I know, establish Filch plus cat, yada yada, but it wasn't nearly as much fun.
--Moaning Myrtle's bathroom was much posher than I had expected.
--Hagrid so has a thing for Hermione.
Chamber of Secrets was definitely a better movie than Sorcerer's Stone, although that isn't saying very much. I'd like to know if people who haven't read Chamber of Secrets were even remotely able to follow what was going on, because this movie (like Sorcerer's Stone) seems to be relying far too heavily on its audience's familiarity with its source text. But I genuinely enjoyed it, much more than I expected to.
I'm curious to see what Alfonso Cuaron does with Prisoner of Azkaban. I would quite like to see a different sensibility take a crack at Hogwarts.
Alan Rickman is a god. He is the Goth King of Glower, and I am giddy with Snape-love.
More and definitely spoilery thoughts behind the curtain.
These are not in any kind of linear or logical order. Just so as you know.
--Insufficient Snape, goddammit. Want. More. Snape. Want. More. Snape. NOW!
--Especially in that last scene, which was CRYING OUT for somebody to be snarking. At one point in that long horrible drawn-out mushy silence as Harry hugs Hagrid, I actually said under my breath, "Draco! Say something!" The lack of irony was absolutely nauseating.
--Ergo, my opinion is, they booted the ending. Badly. This is even more annoying because Rowling's version of that party would have filmed really well.
--Miriam Margoyles, whom I adored in Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, makes a lousy Sprout.
--And why, why why WHY, are they hiding Warwick Davis under that hideous makeup for Flitwick? He's supposed to be oldish, and I suppose it's questionable whether he's human or not, but it is so not necessary that he be vaguely repulsive and kind of scaly. Ick. Warwick Davis deserves better than that.
--I loved the opening shot, that pan down over Little Whinging and all the exactly identical houses.
--Daniel Radcliffe has a great voice, now that it's broken. And he's maturing into a really good actor.
--Dobby's not as good as Gollum, 'cause, well, duh. But he's way better than the stupid troll from the first movie. I like his ears. And I like their compromise on his language, so that he sounds like a servant but not like a retarded child.
--Nil nisi and all that, but Richard Harris just didn't do it for me as Dumbledore. Not in the first movie, and not in this one. He had his moments--staring down Lucius Malfoy, for one--but he was never Dumbledore for me. Wonder who they're gonna get now.
--Mostly, I think they streamline well; the catastrophe with the cake carries us so smoothly and beautifully through a scene that would otherwise be complicated, awkward, and full of unnecessary ramifications. I've learned to appreciate movies that can do this well from watching LotR.
--There are some things, though, that needed more actual, you know, existence. Like Ginny Weasley. And it wouldn't have been the least bit difficult to continue Harry, Hermione, and Ron's conversation in the courtyard until Hermione has her blinding epiphany and goes racing off to the library. So that the damn movie would actually have a plot.
--I totally heart Kenneth Branagh in this movie. Totally.
--Best scene, bar none: the duelling club.
--Want. More. Snape! Especially considering the chemistry Rickman, Branagh, Radcliffe, and Felton were managing. (Snape picking Malfoy up and shoving him back at Harry? Loved it.)
--And I was disappointed in the way they underplayed the scene where the other teachers turn on Lockhart. Oh, it was there, but they didn't DWELL on it, and it should have been dwelt on. Lovingly. Lingeringly.
--Emma Watson and Tom Felton both need to spend some time with a dialogue coach. Felton's great physically--that thing he does with his eyebrow! perfect!--and he's got the intonation, but he doesn't have the diction. Draco needs a perfect, smooth, purring upper-class accent, and Felton sounds like a chimney-sweep trying to pass. Watson just needs to learn to deliver her lines. Yes, I know, Hermione has to be Exposition Girl all the time, but could you not sound like you're reading your lines out of a book?
--And for fuck's sake, people, the poor child is drowning in that wig.
--Props to the kids playing Crabbe and Goyle, both for acting Crabbe and Goyle and for doing a superb job with Harry-as-Goyle and Ron-as-Crabbe.
--Spiders! Ewwwwwwwww!
--For a movie that forgot to mention so many details of the plot, this sure was exposition-heavy.
--Rupert Grint's got some serious comic talent for a kid his age. But I think the director needs to be giving him a little more guidance. WHY do people say Chris Columbus is good with kids?
--Love McGonagall's tartan pointy hat.
--Hagrid bursting into Dumbledore's office to defend Harry makes NO SENSE if you don't have the bit where Hagrid sees Harry mere moments before Harry discovers Justin and Nearly Headless Nick. NO FUCKING SENSE.
--I like their choice for Fudge.
--Also Lucius Malfoy, although that kind of goes without saying.
--And can I just say, the movie's throughline for Harry getting Mr. Malfoy to give Dobby a sock was SO MUCH BETTER than Rowling's. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I never quite believe it in the book, but I totally believed it here.
--Their Tom Riddle was quite convincing. Charming and creepy and quite quite mad.
--I especially liked the filming technique for the diary-flashback.
--What, no double-Potions with the Slytherins? The movie almost totally ignores the fact that Harry's AT SCHOOL, which I understand but still don't like [ETA: the ignoring, I mean], and besides, that's Snape screen-time I'm not getting. Wah.
--This movie was edited by a wall-eyed child with garden shears. Scene transitions are not crisp, and they too frequently hold past the punchline. The worst one--or at least the one that's most memorable--is the end of the Ron-hexes-himself scene, where Hermione and Harry help Ron off, and then we cut back to the Slytherins for a pointless and awkward snigger before we get to Hagrid's. Wtf?
--Okay, and, hello, WASTING John Cleese. WASTING him in a big big way. I mean, I don't like the Death Day Party, but Cleese needs screen-time, dammit. (Not as much as Rickman, but still.)
--They are much better with the small details in this one than they were in the first movie. I liked the Weasleys' clock and all the portrait Lockharts--ooh and Fawkes! Fawkes was awesome.
--The basilisk, on the other hand, was lame. Lame like a seriously lame thing.
--I did appreciate the fact that Harry uses that sword exactly as a teenage boy with no fencing experience would, i.e., badly.
--I'm so crushed that they didn't use the way Harry and Ron get caught in the book. I was seriously looking forward to Alan Rickman saying, "Or maybe he's waiting to hear why you two didn't arrive on the school train." Yes, I know, establish Filch plus cat, yada yada, but it wasn't nearly as much fun.
--Moaning Myrtle's bathroom was much posher than I had expected.
--Hagrid so has a thing for Hermione.
Chamber of Secrets was definitely a better movie than Sorcerer's Stone, although that isn't saying very much. I'd like to know if people who haven't read Chamber of Secrets were even remotely able to follow what was going on, because this movie (like Sorcerer's Stone) seems to be relying far too heavily on its audience's familiarity with its source text. But I genuinely enjoyed it, much more than I expected to.
I'm curious to see what Alfonso Cuaron does with Prisoner of Azkaban. I would quite like to see a different sensibility take a crack at Hogwarts.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-30 03:03 pm (UTC)Peter O'Toole?
Azkaban in 2004!
philosopher philosopher philosopher
Date: 2003-01-30 03:24 pm (UTC)Peter O'Toole is a definite thought. My friend suggested Sean Connery--whom I'd quite like to see in the role, although I'm not convinced he's the right choice for it. And Ian McKellan has said he's tired of playing wizards with beards and pointy hats, for which I do not blame him.
Re: philosopher philosopher philosopher
Date: 2003-01-30 05:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-30 09:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-31 05:39 am (UTC)Since I don't even know who Michael Gambon is, I guess that'd be a no.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-01 11:17 am (UTC)As best I can piece it together. E!Online announced the casting (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,11044,00.html) at the end of December, and other entertainment news places ran with the story, attributing it to E! Then some places (maybe TV Guide and Entertainment Tonight?) pointed out that the studio wouldn't confirm and
no subject
Date: 2003-02-01 11:23 am (UTC)Anyway, studio won't confirm, so there's been the whole "is he or isn't he?" wait and see game, but no other names have popped up yet to replace his serious rumor-wise. Plus, the Flick Chick columnist at tvguide.com is saying as recently as this week's column (http://www.tvguide.com/movies/flickchick/) that it's going to be Gambon. Rumors, rumors, rumors... I've never even seen the Harry Potter films or read beyond the first book, but I do love me some Hollywood casting rumors.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-01 11:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-01 12:42 pm (UTC)And I appreciate all the links with great appreciating.