Harry Potter 2

Posted on 2002/11/16 07:24:00 (November 2002) by travis.

More or less, a review of the 2nd Harry Potter movie

I have just returned from the second Harry Potter flick (it premiered today in the US) and I feel that something needs be said about this...phenomena. First, some background: I have read parts of a few of the books as my kids love them. My wife has read them. I have friends who have read them. I found them a bit childish (moreso than Tolkien, for instance) but have no problem with the books. I went to see the first movie on opening day in the US. After about 5 minutes, I was complaining about how boring it was. After 45 minutes, I was sleeping. I awoke to the last 30 or so minutes which were respectable.

Now, I had heard that this second flick was to be much more fast-paced, not so much background info, and more geared towards the adult tastes. I waited in line with my wife and kids for about 45 minutes. We entered the theatre. The initial scene was fairly interesting, as I think the elf fellow is pretty cool. Then, about an hour into the movie, I am thinking, "Why am I here? This could be the worst movie ever..." I awoke some time later. As the movie came to a climax (after a total of 3+ hours) I thought, "Ahh, this ending is cool." Then the movie continued after what should have been the ending.

My points are these: The Harry Potter movies are boring. The actors (the children) are crap. The same cheesy (do you Brits use this word like this?) facial expressions and lines, "So YOU'RE Harry Potter!" sicken me. The dramatic swells of music every five minutes are trite. And finally, the deus ex machina effect becomes tired and worn. Ever notice that Harry doesn't do anything himself? There just HAPPENS to be a magical hat here...the phoenix HAPPENS to appear...and bring a sword...It's crap. I'm disgusted. I pray my children won't want to see the 3rd movie. I don't like spending $5 to sleep in a cramped theatre.

Blast away, sirs (and ladies).

Nice one Travis! I've not seen either of the films myself, but I just had the innate impression that they weren't going to be my cup of tea, and I'd only end up feeling like I'd wasted two hours of my life if I did go and see either of them. Thanks for confirming my suspicions..!

Posted by John at 2002/11/17 12:14:35.

Also, I'd like to apologise on behalf of the British Film Industry that we haven't produced anything worth watching in ages. With Film Four closing down as well, it's only going to go from bad to worse. Sorry! Still, if you look more broadly at European films, there are good things happening I guess...

Posted by John at 2002/11/17 12:27:22.

I am totally in agreement with this. Frankly, Harry Potter blows gaots through a straw with nobs on.

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/11/17 17:08:34.

Can we say Children's Film? Intended for a viewing audience aged from 3-15 years. They're also aimed at an audience that have read the books. Are there any children that haven't read them or had them read to them? This audience knows exactly why 'that hat' and 'that sword' happen to be there and actively know the entire history behind 'that phoenix'. The kids we took, all 30 of them, loved the film. Only one went to the toilet during it. Which in itself was quite amazing.

As for it being a fast paced movie... well. I've generally noticed that all films spawned from books tend to be a little on the slow side. Maybe something like XXX would be more suited? I've heard it's quite racey, only lasts for an hour an a half and is aimed at a more adult audience.

I guess that's the real issue. Children watch films differently to adults. They're happy enough to absorb the details of the film, the scenery, the locations, the background action. They don't look for mind numbing action. They're not waiting for the next big fight scene. They laugh at the jokes that the adults miss. They can hold a good story in their heads... I pray that your children will want to see the 3rd movie!

As for the actors appearing cheesy. Well, I was reading an interview in which Chris Columbus emphatically states that the acting was done that way to be 'universally appealing'. In other words easily understood by a non-UK audience... *cough*

Oh, and John. Do you live in the UK? Are you aware of current UK film releases? 0 1 2 3 4

Posted by Rusty at 2002/11/19 13:55:14.

French cinema is better.

Posted by John at 2002/11/19 14:21:51.

But we're 7-1 against the French at the moment.

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/11/19 15:01:53.

I think I prefer anything that's not mainstream. Anything that's not intended for the masses. Speaking of which, have you seen Donnie Darko yet, M. Hawkins?

Posted by Rusty at 2002/11/19 15:15:58.

No. Is it good? I'm sure there must be some good English films, I just can't think of any.

Posted by John at 2002/11/19 15:24:04.

I wrote you a fascinating piece about Donnie Darko yesterday. But I was repeatedly told that: 'some gimp has fucked up the comment posting' and so it was lost to the ether. In short: Good film. Go watch it.

Posted by Rusty at 2002/11/22 11:53:17.

Comment posting works now though doesn't it?

Posted by John at 2002/11/22 17:21:40.

That would be a yes, I presume.

Posted by John at 2002/11/22 17:21:54.

Oh, I tried to respond, Rusty. I didn't notice the comments were fragged. Donnie Darko was good...until the ending. Pretty good overall. Could have been very good.

Posted by Travis at 2002/11/22 19:29:06.

Ok. I have some things to say here, and I don't plan to come back to this message board ever again. First of all, I think that the actors were BRILLIANT, and I don't think many 11-13 year olds could have done much better. As for the length of the movie, that's expected for a book-turned movie. Look at the lord of the rings! I thought there was plenty enough action for both movies. The only time I felt bored was when I went to the first movie and knew nothing about Harry Potter, and I was getting a touch bored about halfway through, not having expected it to be so long. But after that, I came to like the series, and the second movie wasn't long enough for me. Basically, people have different tastes about different movies. GET USED TO THAT. Just because you disliked it doesn't mean you should make a long explaination as to why you think it's crap. I hate to break it to you, but a lot more people loved the movie then fell asleep during it. So, how about we use an old quote here, "If you don't have something nice to say, then don't say anything at all."

Posted by *shrugs* at 2002/11/29 18:57:40.

The whole point of owning your own website is that you can say exactly what you want on it. Therefore, I can't see any of the 'maisons usual denizens taking your point about "if you don't have something nice to say..." very seriously.

Posted by John at 2002/11/30 15:47:09.

...and another thing. Actually there's a very good reason to complain about not liking films. If nobody ever complained, and continued to sit through films they don't like, the film industry would continue to churn out the same dreary rubbish. I haven't seen either of the Harry Potter films, so I don't have an informed opinion, however, I thoroughly stand behind Travis in his quite righteous rant about the film - if he hated it, he is perfectly entitled to his opinion, and I for one quite enjoyed reading it.

Posted by John at 2002/11/30 15:51:23.

I have to say something in support of the Harry Potter movies and the kids who have blatantly worked so hard on them. When you consider the amount of hype surrounding the release of these movies then it's hardly surprising that many people find them disappointing - I felt much the same about Titanic, although I can appreciate that a lot of work went into it. My disappointment that it's not the best film I've ever seen doesn't make it a bad one. Also, as someone has already said, the child actors are very young and I think they do very well in the roles they are given. As concerns Daniel Radcliffe, he doesn't dazzle me as Harry Potter but I find it difficult to think of ways he could improve his performance that do not require experience and will come as he gets older - he is only 13. Personally, I think some of the fault lies with the lines he is given - there's not a lot in them for him to work with. Rupert Grint has a far easier job as Ron because his lines are mainly humourous. I'm sure that as they get older, all three actors and Daniel Radcliffe in particular will develop into very creditable actors and if evidence for this is sought then people need look no further than the BBC's 1999 adaptation of David Copperfield with Daniel as the eponymous hero. Finally, there is an inevitable problem with translating book to screen. The events in both make far more sense in the book because of the attention to detail Joanne Rowling has invested in her books and which, in my opinion, makes them so popular. I agree with Travis that some things just seemed too convenient but unfortunately I think this is a necessary evil because otherwise you might have spent $5 to shifting from one buttock to the other in a cramped theatre for 6+ hours, albeit watching an excellent film. My advice to anyone who wants to enjoy Harry Potter; read the books. They're not the greatest ever written but the atmosphere created by the detail and language so skillfully and carefully employed by Joanne Rowling has proved to be a winner with most people. Films seldom do justice to the books on which they are based and, as someone else has also said, not everyone enjoys the same thing. Be glad you're in the US and it was $5 instead of £5.

Posted by Rachel at 2002/12/04 13:25:09.

I've seen Harry Potter 2 and really enjoyed it.

Posted by dsp at 2002/12/05 13:56:07.

Post a comment