First up, the Chris Columbus pictures, Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets. Of the four directors that helmed the Potter films (assuming nothing happens to David Yates on the next two), Columbus is the only one to capture Potter in an innocent, wondrous world where danger lurks around every bend, yet everything still seems exciting. Columbus' films are the only ones to see Hogwarts as a place of magical discovery, and regards everything with a childlike view (appropriate, considering the protagonist's age).
Both films clock in well over 150 minutes and are still the longest in the series. They try and pack as much content from the book as possible while shaving off as much material as necessary and in reviewing what I remember from the books, I think they did a pretty good job. Yes certain elements have completely done away with (Peeves the Poltergeist), but at least Columbus explains everything and makes sure there are no loose ends (except for the ones that will be answered at the end). I'll discuss more in my reviews of the later films how the directors and screenwriters overlooked some elements of the plot, major or minor.
Maybe the biggest complaint I have with Columbus' films is also one that can be easily dismissed: his films move at a breakneck pace, mainly in the beginning. Either you get used to the pace or it slows down by the middle, because the rest of the film feels right, but the first 30 minutes or so leading up to Hogwarts in both films feel rushed in every aspect. Characters come on, say lines, move on. Take the first film: Harry receives his dozen of letters from Hogwarts, and Uncle Vernon is finally so fed up that he exclaims they are leaving, and BAM! they end up on an island on a stormy sea. To the reader, this makes sense because we know the events that lead up to this, but to a virgin viewer, this moment probably feels random.
Of course these films have so much information to pack into their running times that you can forgive the odd pacing at the beginnings, but I wish the screenwriters had found more creative ways to restructure the happenings of the plot to fit the movie format. The script is basically the book with a lot of scenes cut out, and end up feeling more like chronicles of what Harry is up to then having a dramatic arc of film. True both end with a climax (well executed ones too), but the events leading up to it feel somewhat empty to me, plot wise. Granted I know the plots of these two very well, but it has been at least two years since I have read or watched these chapters, and I found little thrill in my revisit.
And what of the three actors, Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and Emma Watson (Hermione Granger)? They are alright, as far as child actors go, but there have been better (the kids in Let the Right One In, or Sixth Sense). I could pick out a dozen scenes where Radcliffe and Grint sound like they are just reciting the lines without truly comprehending what they are saying, and some of Radcliffe's glares during Quidditch matches and such are laughable. Emma Watson nails Hermione's annoying manner fairly well in the first picture, but then is relegated to reciting her lines with maybe slightly more emotion then her male counterparts.
To be completely honest, though, I did like these films more now then I remember liking them. Maybe because it has been awhile since I've read the books, and I've forgotten really what they cut out: that was my big annoyance when I was younger, not appreciating what they had done but bashing it for what they had left out.
I firmly believe that you should never compare a book to a movie, until of course I am reviewing a movie based on a book I read. It is damn near impossible for me to objectively view these movies, unlike my dad who has no knowledge of the original source material. Prisoner of Azkaban, which I will review next, was the first to remain true to the source but not to a fault, unlike these two.
Huge kudos, though, to the art department for the fantastic costume and set designs in these films. Hogwarts is beautifully realized, and while some of the special effects are pretty awful (the centaur), most of it retains a spirit of awe and fascination before we plunge into the doom and gloom that fills the rest of the stories.
Of course the most interesting aspect of these films is watching the three young stars grow up. In the first film Radcliffe and Grint have young, high voices, and in the second you can hear their voices cracking. I'm sure they hate looking back on these films (I know I would), and I wouldn't be surprised if all three try to extricate themselves from the HP universe as much as possible when it is all said and done (Radcliffe is already breaking away, after starring in Equus, in which he was excellent).
As much as I nitpick at the first two films, they are what we have, and I appreciate them for getting the series off their feet. I remember in 1999 when I heard the movie was going to be made, and 2001 felt like an eternity to wait for the first movie to come out. They are magical adventures: the only two film as of current to feature full Quidditch matches (I don't count the World Cup), both brilliantly realized, and what is probably most fun is seeing everything that is happening and knowing the significance of it in the final book (for instance, Harry's invisibility cloak). They are, ultimately, good adaptations of the books that define my childhood.
No comments:
Post a Comment