TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared
Member
I've been regoing over the Harry Potter films recently, since I feel like I judged them too harshly at initial release, and it was possible they weren't quite as awful as I thought they were. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is indeed, not as awful as I imagined. Not sure I could I love it, or have eny emotion stronger than liking it a bit mind.
On the one hand, these films have their own visual style and aesthetics that are way different from either the very vague visuals given from say, the book covers, or of course, from my own imagination, which isn't a flaw in itself, I just still don't like the overly dark visuals. Can't fault the music or musical/sound effects though, they have and always have been on point in these films.
The acting is up and down. Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, but I dislike his interpretation of voldemort. Jason Isaacs (Hello to Jason Isaacs!) has a small role as Lucius Malfoy I wish was expanded a little. It's also a small role in the book but its gosh darn Jason Isaac's. The central three characters don't work for me, particularly Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe do nothing for me and feel wooden and stiff. Helena Bonham Carter really irritates me in these films as Bellatrix Lestrange, but then David Thewlis as Lupin, Brendan Gleeson as Moody, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, really are great casting decisions and tend to make me think more positively of the rest.
The stuff they cut or leave out from the book is really what makes or breaks it though. There's 5 hours of film here between part 1 and 2 which would ideally make me think they wouldn't cut too much, but they sure do. On the one hand they're able to leave out any boring exposition plot dumps, on the other they leave stuff out that would fill in crucial details, or give relationships much needed emotional weight that makes stuff that happens mean something. This impacts the main trio for me specially, since I have never felt over these 8 films that enough time and effort was given to fleshing out the main friendship/relationship between Harry/Ron/Hermione to make it mean anything. Or say, the Tonks/Lupin relationship, which is barely mentioned over either film, or the value Harry learns to put in other people, like Luna Lovegood, who ends up being vague comic relief. I also detest what they did to spells, both with glossing over non verbal spells, and changing what they did with spells like how a lot of distinct spells in the book seems to do the same things in the films.
Oh, but the breaking into the ministry set piece is really good. I hate the way some of its done, but its the best part of the film, and its quite funny.
Gah, this sounds much more negative than I intended. I liked it kinda, and I started off hating it. But the little niggles and stuff that annoys me as a fan really does gnaw at me. I like it, I don't love it.
Also Spectre is great.
On the one hand, these films have their own visual style and aesthetics that are way different from either the very vague visuals given from say, the book covers, or of course, from my own imagination, which isn't a flaw in itself, I just still don't like the overly dark visuals. Can't fault the music or musical/sound effects though, they have and always have been on point in these films.
The acting is up and down. Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, but I dislike his interpretation of voldemort. Jason Isaacs (Hello to Jason Isaacs!) has a small role as Lucius Malfoy I wish was expanded a little. It's also a small role in the book but its gosh darn Jason Isaac's. The central three characters don't work for me, particularly Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe do nothing for me and feel wooden and stiff. Helena Bonham Carter really irritates me in these films as Bellatrix Lestrange, but then David Thewlis as Lupin, Brendan Gleeson as Moody, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, really are great casting decisions and tend to make me think more positively of the rest.
The stuff they cut or leave out from the book is really what makes or breaks it though. There's 5 hours of film here between part 1 and 2 which would ideally make me think they wouldn't cut too much, but they sure do. On the one hand they're able to leave out any boring exposition plot dumps, on the other they leave stuff out that would fill in crucial details, or give relationships much needed emotional weight that makes stuff that happens mean something. This impacts the main trio for me specially, since I have never felt over these 8 films that enough time and effort was given to fleshing out the main friendship/relationship between Harry/Ron/Hermione to make it mean anything. Or say, the Tonks/Lupin relationship, which is barely mentioned over either film, or the value Harry learns to put in other people, like Luna Lovegood, who ends up being vague comic relief. I also detest what they did to spells, both with glossing over non verbal spells, and changing what they did with spells like how a lot of distinct spells in the book seems to do the same things in the films.
Oh, but the breaking into the ministry set piece is really good. I hate the way some of its done, but its the best part of the film, and its quite funny.
Gah, this sounds much more negative than I intended. I liked it kinda, and I started off hating it. But the little niggles and stuff that annoys me as a fan really does gnaw at me. I like it, I don't love it.
Also Spectre is great.
