You know, as good as the actors are, I think the films were pretty badly miscast. While I can respect that these are adaptations and thus aren't strictly the same as the books, many of the characters—especially Dumbledore and Snape—were remarkably different than their written counterparts. Alan Rickman is great, but he plays a Snape with no emotional range. No sneering, no anger, no favoritism towards his own students...he's stern, but that's not the kind of character Snape was. I know this is technically out-of-bounds for this review, but this really affected the end of Half Blood Prince and "The Prince's Tale" scene in Deathly Hallows Part 2. They greatly lacked a lot of the impact, emotion, and ultimately meaning they had to the story because Rickman always wears a composed mask and displays little more than slight irritation. Similarly, Harris' Dumbledore is aloof, rather than the kindly twinkling-eyed, whimsical man that is described in the novels. (I do think that Michael Gambon was better, but still didn't quite get it right.) Maggie Smith was pretty much spot-on, however, I'll agree with you there.
Aside from that, I think you've summarized the movie pretty well. It captures the wonderment, but due to the inexperience of the child cast it comes off as pretty cheesy. As a kid I would have been drawn right into this, but re-watching it as an adult reveals the flaws beneath a decent veneer. Thankfully the movies improved greatly from here.
Snape was partially cast by JK Rowling right? I think I read on TV Tropes that he was the one actor she found infiltrating her writing, apparently if you look for it the physical descriptions of Snape get far less ugly as the series go on.
I thought he was good at his role, his entire attitude seemed to be a sneer towards everyone and he came over as someone who basically hates pretty much everyone. I always figured he partially prized Draco just to piss everyone else off
I know I'm one of few who thinks Alan Rickman was poor casting. Snape's emotions are always described pretty vividly in the novels, like his face twisting with fury, or having nasty expressions and sneers when addressing Harry, Neville, etc, or his looking "like a man who had lived a hundred years of misery." Snape was a very emotive character, and Rickman is just...not. I find the movie Snape to me more of a stern teacher type, which is fine in that it's an adaptation. It's nothing against Rickman's skill as an actor, I just found that he acted a different character than the one I'm familiar with, and that makes the movies somewhat jarring for me. Even if Rowling drew inspiration from Alan Rickman...I don't know, it's not really clear in her writing, aside from as you mentioned the less unflattering physical descriptions as the series progressed.
Book Snape did get VERY angry at times. I liked Rickman's depiction, but his Snape is usually more annoyed than angry.
Maybe I like the movie Snape more because it was the first one I was exposed to?
"What's out there? What's waiting for me?"
Movie Snape lost his temper a couple of times, like in the beginning of Chamber where he yelled at Harry and Ron for the flying car thing. But it wasn't anything like what book Snape did.
The thing is, once it is revealed to what extent Snape has to hide his emotions to fool Voldemort it makes a lot more sense for him not to have so little control over his temper. So I have an easier time believing Rickman's character could pull off that deception than the version Rowling wrote.
I liked the 1st two films the best along with the last two. Personally i don't think it stumbles; it pretty much is good from the get go.
Personally phoenix (book and film) is the worst part. And contrary to what everyone else thinks, prisoner isn't THAT great to me. Philosopher is TBH hardly the "weakest". 3 and 5 are worse. Never cared for Sirius at all, maybe that's why.
- equips flame shield*
- junctions 100x firaga to elem def*
I haven't watched the first films in a while (although I do want to marathon it sometime) and I can imagine the acting being really dodgy if I looked back (and even at the time I remember the 'wonder at this!' music cues being a bit annoying, moreso when it happened again in Percy Jackson) but on memory alone I'd say that Prisoner is actually probably my least favourite. Sirius was interesting, but I feel like it go caught in the awkward-teenager stage of the series' growth and it feels a bit out of place and pointless. The Chamber of Secrets had some purity of just being a good adventure and it's story points end up tying well with the last few entries of the franchise
The problem with PoA is that there are plot holes that only make sense if you've read the book. Most notably, where the map comes from.
"What's out there? What's waiting for me?"
That's not fair,it's incredibly hard to get a performance out of children and frankly I'd say considering most fall under Dull Surprise all the time,Columbus did good.
Felton as Malfoy was actually quite delicious,and same with Lewis as Neville. And if you hated Watson as Hermione,you clearly never read the first book,I'm sorry but Hermione was absolutely uninteresting and annoying that book and kinda dull. So it worked.
So that leaves Radcliffe and Grint,who I'll admit stumble here and there,but for the most part,they actually pull it off great. Especially when they need to be excited.
And anyway it's better than 4,3,or 6 which were overwrought with overreacting,disrespect to the material, and often way too fast-paced (the 5th one had that too,but it mostly just cut Wangsty Harry)
Also Williams score may have been overused,but it also rings nicely,the other scores are just not memorable and kinda generic or like everything else in the Goblet of Fire,just wrong.
Oh yeah, because there are 10-year-olds so well-known for acting. At least it mostly avoided Dawson Casting. And it\'s far more faithful o the books than the movies were after they switched directors.
If you're going to put up a review of something, MAKE SURE IT HAS A PAGE FIRST!Leave a Comment:
Movie Review-Stumbles out of the gate
Harry Potter and the Philosophers/Sorcerers Stone is the first of 8 adaptations of JK Rowling's best-selling series about a boy who discovers a truly magical world and his destiny in it. This first movie establishes the world, the characters, and the conflict, and does so effectively.
The most important thing the movie had to accomplish was to establish a sense of wonder regarding the world, and in that respect it succeeds. Despite the dangers Hogwarts and Diagon Alley capture the imagination and make the audience wish they were real.
Another strength of the movie is its casting of the adult characters. It is almost as if they went through a list of the greatest living British actors. Characters like Alan Rickman's Snape and Maggie Smith's Mc Gonagall add a gravitas and an authenticity to the world that was sorely needed.
There are two major problems that bring the film down, however. One is the use of the musical score. Though it is a fantastic score in its own right, as should be expected considering that it was composed by John Williams, the main theme is overused and abused in scenes where it is not only not necessary, but detracts from the wonder the scenes are trying to convey. We did not need to hear it every time there were owls flying around, for instance. Later movies would use the same music much more effectively.
The other major problem is even more serious. The child actors were not good. Though they would improve tremendously in the following movies, in the first one they struggled with being convincing. The movie is badly hurt by the inability of the actors with the most screentime to actually act at this early stage in their career.
Because it fell to the all star cast of side characters rather than the main characters to carry the film, it ended up being the weakest of the 8 Harry Potter movies. Despite this, it is still a must watch for any Harry Potter fan, and is still a decent introduction to the world of Hogwarts.