Something about Harry
Yup, I went to see "Harry Potter" this weekend. I bought my ticket early and then went to the nail salon right across the street for a manicure. I had plenty of time, even with a short wait, but about 30 minutes before showtime a line started to form on the sidewalk. Yikes! I didn't quite make it through one 5 minute cycle under the hand dryer, and I was out the door. To stand in the cold for fifteen minutes, yes. But that's part of the fun! As a guy standing behind me said, "This is the most eclectic Harry Potter line I've ever seen." He wasn't from the neighborhood.
I read an interview with the director, Mike "Four Weddings & A Funeral" Newell, who said that he felt he could add a British schoolboy sensibility that the first two films lacked. The reality is messier, not the clean bright Hollywood shine that Chris Columbus gave Hogwarts in movies one and two. And then, of course, Alfonso "Y Tu Mama Tambien" Cuaron directs #3, and his is gritty, so it's already been done.
So I don't know that's why Newell decided to make his film look - I want to say dark, but it was more, I'd say, dim. Like scenes weren't lit quite enough, or at least were in more natural lighting. It might just be the fault of the equipment in the theater I was in. I don't know. But, for example, in one scene Neville is standing in the shallow water of a lake (harvesting plants, I think) and you can't make out that it's him because the water is so bright and white and he is a shadow. I don't think it's supposed to be ominous - just realistic looking. An entire other scene takes place outside on the lawn, where the students aren't sitting in the sunshine, but under a canopy of trees. You can see glimpses of bright sky through the dark leaves above them, but they are in the shade.
I sorta liked the look of it, but also thought that this thing is going to look like shit on a small tv like mine.
What more can I say? "Goblet of Fire" was my favorite of the books, and it makes a great movie. I loved it.
Note: I overheard two people at work making the old tired comment that the actors are getting old, will they have to recast? I didn't say anything, because I don't really know them, nor do I want all of my early interaction at work to be correcting people, but I am assuming that they haven't read the books. Because each is one year at school - so Harry & the gang are one year older. So as long as they keep making a movie a year, how exactly is that going to be an issue? Yes, the actors are starting to look adolescently gawky, but the characters are starting to act adolescently gawky. It's not like the actor who plays poor Walt on "Lost," who is now a year older than when his character landed on the island 48 days ago. Yeah, that will be a hard one.
I read an interview with the director, Mike "Four Weddings & A Funeral" Newell, who said that he felt he could add a British schoolboy sensibility that the first two films lacked. The reality is messier, not the clean bright Hollywood shine that Chris Columbus gave Hogwarts in movies one and two. And then, of course, Alfonso "Y Tu Mama Tambien" Cuaron directs #3, and his is gritty, so it's already been done.
So I don't know that's why Newell decided to make his film look - I want to say dark, but it was more, I'd say, dim. Like scenes weren't lit quite enough, or at least were in more natural lighting. It might just be the fault of the equipment in the theater I was in. I don't know. But, for example, in one scene Neville is standing in the shallow water of a lake (harvesting plants, I think) and you can't make out that it's him because the water is so bright and white and he is a shadow. I don't think it's supposed to be ominous - just realistic looking. An entire other scene takes place outside on the lawn, where the students aren't sitting in the sunshine, but under a canopy of trees. You can see glimpses of bright sky through the dark leaves above them, but they are in the shade.
I sorta liked the look of it, but also thought that this thing is going to look like shit on a small tv like mine.
What more can I say? "Goblet of Fire" was my favorite of the books, and it makes a great movie. I loved it.
Note: I overheard two people at work making the old tired comment that the actors are getting old, will they have to recast? I didn't say anything, because I don't really know them, nor do I want all of my early interaction at work to be correcting people, but I am assuming that they haven't read the books. Because each is one year at school - so Harry & the gang are one year older. So as long as they keep making a movie a year, how exactly is that going to be an issue? Yes, the actors are starting to look adolescently gawky, but the characters are starting to act adolescently gawky. It's not like the actor who plays poor Walt on "Lost," who is now a year older than when his character landed on the island 48 days ago. Yeah, that will be a hard one.
posted by medusa at 9:15 PM
2 Comments:
There was an interview in a British magazine, over the weekend, in which the producer of the "Harry Potter" films expressed the opinion that he hopes the stars will all sign up for the remaining 3 movies. He" doesn't seem to think that it will be a problem.
Me, neither - I don't think the actors are doing much else! Plus Daniel Radcliffe hasn't exactly been getting rave reviews for his acting...
Anyway, I just hate when people talk crap about something they don't know enough about. Like when people who never watch "Lost" criticize it, saying, how can those people look so relatively normal? Why don't the women all have hairy legs and the men beards?
Well, duh, they crashed with all of their luggage - and the luggage of everyone that died. Surely Sawyer's got a stash of razors and personal supplies somewhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home