spoilers... sorta....
The public needs to separate their movie experiences from their literary ones.
While one might inspire the other, and vice versa, a movie should not be judged against what was experienced in the literary work which inspired it. They are two completely different animals, and in some ways, this dichotomy is unravelling the authenticity of storytelling in general. (If you haven't enjoyed some human to human oral storytelling, please give it a shot, whether it is folklore, fiction, fantasy, reading bedtime stories to you kids, or going to your house of worship.) In many cultures traditions are passed down orally and this was the main method of communication (and entertainment) prior to the development of written text. yadda yadda -
Having said this, I just watched HP&tSorcerer's Stone on television (and i have not read the books, maybe someday I will?) As for the film. It seems many people are just overall fans of the Harry Potter phenomenon. No different from anyone who posts 10/10 comments on any other movie which happens to be their favorites. Sometimes I wish IMDb would create a sort of tag which allows people to categorize their comments. (this would save me time having to read through a whole bunch of comments which are basically fans saying yes I really like this movie too...) There is definitely a time and place for that, and room too, but as I said,and I would imagine I am not alone, in that there are those of us who are interested in reading more unbiased critiques rather than either blatantly positive or overtly negative views.
That said, I found a few very enjoyable moments and images in HPATSS, I can see for sure why children are drawn to it. Maybe it is in some ways a "gateway" narrative to the more dense Tolkein works. My impression is that this movie is geared toward kids in elementary school and through junior high.
The issue of the CGI is highly debatable, some reviewers propose that the movie should be somehow shot with lower-tech (Jim Henson) techniques. I agree with this but I am also aware of the nostalgic factor and I wonder if somehow since many of us grew up on the original Star Wars and (Henson) styled Sesame Street, we link his work with our youth and then interpret that style to be superior. This could be. Will our children, once fully grown, interpret CGI to be superior since they will associate it with their youth? And what will replace CGI? - this is the stuff of science fiction. But to thwart that whole debate, personally I really find an affinity toward the more analog (puppets) and Disney's hand drawn animation, rather than a mesh of CGI and digital film. - note - such films as Toy Story and Sharks Tale, and the (to be seen) Polar Express, which are completely CGI are better views.
Compare Potter with another children's protagonist - Fievel Mousekewitz, from An American Tale. While both are "special," and stumble through their stories almost destined like trains on rails to their climax and endings, it is Fievel who comes across as the better developed character. Potter on the other hand is constantly told almost from the beginning of the movie that he is famous, that he is special, so he must live up to this. It is somewhat surprising how this is done.
Unlike Luke Skywalker, or Fievel, or the majority of major motion picture protagonists, Potter is somewhat blase', and is guided along though the whole film by a giant, the heads of the school, and his smart female and comic relief honcho sidekicks. The surprise is of course that what this is all building to is a "fight scene" which ends in a most bizarre manner, the villain crumbling at the
mere touch of Harry Potter, to which he cries in agony, "what magic is this?" This is a most unusual confrontation and defeat. What is even more awkward is, (and m aybe i missed this), but I didn't really know why this happen. To which the very next scene explains. The fact that they needed to tell us why it happened ill ustrates that there is something major wrong with the narrative. In a good mov ie we would have known why this villain is crumbling. Did I miss that part, please fill me in, was there any foreshadowing there?
Oh, one more thing that was kind of annoying was the portrayal of the chess match near the end. Now understood, that it is difficult (extremely difficult) to communicate the complexities of ches s to the age group this movie is gear toward, but cutting from shot to shot of random chess pieces being destroyed was rather pointless, and it came across t o me as rather hollow. There could have been an attempt to maybe at least demons trate some of the very basic moves in chess. And I also didn't understand exac tly why Potter's buddy HAD to hold tight to the knight, how come Harry was able to walk on the chess board? It lost me.
However as positives, there are bunch, such as the presentation of the villain in the climax scene, the whole thing about unicorns blood and drinking unicorns blood, that resonated with me somehow, and how it was all silvery and such, this seemed very 2001, yeah, and what else. Harry Potter looks a lot like my friend David Fishel, so that made me feel good, (even though Dave is like 6'8") - maybe it's those Gandhi / Lennon spectacles, who knows... It was also refreshing to see the presentation of all the witchcraft and "magic" in such a matter of fact way, I think that is actually the motivating charisma of the venture is that it's a relatively subdued presentation of the eccentric, bizarre, and out and out balderdash. Somehow in the vein of the Reiner's Princess Bride, (sorta, maybe a stretch) - but what i am trying to say is that i appreciated the frankness with which the cast displayed in their performances. For what it's worth.
Overall some what enjoyable, not on any top tens at this writing in my book, i give it a 6.5/10 mostly for the chess blunder and questions concerning story and character development.
The public needs to separate their movie experiences from their literary ones.
While one might inspire the other, and vice versa, a movie should not be judged against what was experienced in the literary work which inspired it. They are two completely different animals, and in some ways, this dichotomy is unravelling the authenticity of storytelling in general. (If you haven't enjoyed some human to human oral storytelling, please give it a shot, whether it is folklore, fiction, fantasy, reading bedtime stories to you kids, or going to your house of worship.) In many cultures traditions are passed down orally and this was the main method of communication (and entertainment) prior to the development of written text. yadda yadda -
Having said this, I just watched HP&tSorcerer's Stone on television (and i have not read the books, maybe someday I will?) As for the film. It seems many people are just overall fans of the Harry Potter phenomenon. No different from anyone who posts 10/10 comments on any other movie which happens to be their favorites. Sometimes I wish IMDb would create a sort of tag which allows people to categorize their comments. (this would save me time having to read through a whole bunch of comments which are basically fans saying yes I really like this movie too...) There is definitely a time and place for that, and room too, but as I said,and I would imagine I am not alone, in that there are those of us who are interested in reading more unbiased critiques rather than either blatantly positive or overtly negative views.
That said, I found a few very enjoyable moments and images in HPATSS, I can see for sure why children are drawn to it. Maybe it is in some ways a "gateway" narrative to the more dense Tolkein works. My impression is that this movie is geared toward kids in elementary school and through junior high.
The issue of the CGI is highly debatable, some reviewers propose that the movie should be somehow shot with lower-tech (Jim Henson) techniques. I agree with this but I am also aware of the nostalgic factor and I wonder if somehow since many of us grew up on the original Star Wars and (Henson) styled Sesame Street, we link his work with our youth and then interpret that style to be superior. This could be. Will our children, once fully grown, interpret CGI to be superior since they will associate it with their youth? And what will replace CGI? - this is the stuff of science fiction. But to thwart that whole debate, personally I really find an affinity toward the more analog (puppets) and Disney's hand drawn animation, rather than a mesh of CGI and digital film. - note - such films as Toy Story and Sharks Tale, and the (to be seen) Polar Express, which are completely CGI are better views.
Compare Potter with another children's protagonist - Fievel Mousekewitz, from An American Tale. While both are "special," and stumble through their stories almost destined like trains on rails to their climax and endings, it is Fievel who comes across as the better developed character. Potter on the other hand is constantly told almost from the beginning of the movie that he is famous, that he is special, so he must live up to this. It is somewhat surprising how this is done.
Unlike Luke Skywalker, or Fievel, or the majority of major motion picture protagonists, Potter is somewhat blase', and is guided along though the whole film by a giant, the heads of the school, and his smart female and comic relief honcho sidekicks. The surprise is of course that what this is all building to is a "fight scene" which ends in a most bizarre manner, the villain crumbling at the
mere touch of Harry Potter, to which he cries in agony, "what magic is this?" This is a most unusual confrontation and defeat. What is even more awkward is, (and m aybe i missed this), but I didn't really know why this happen. To which the very next scene explains. The fact that they needed to tell us why it happened ill ustrates that there is something major wrong with the narrative. In a good mov ie we would have known why this villain is crumbling. Did I miss that part, please fill me in, was there any foreshadowing there?
Oh, one more thing that was kind of annoying was the portrayal of the chess match near the end. Now understood, that it is difficult (extremely difficult) to communicate the complexities of ches s to the age group this movie is gear toward, but cutting from shot to shot of random chess pieces being destroyed was rather pointless, and it came across t o me as rather hollow. There could have been an attempt to maybe at least demons trate some of the very basic moves in chess. And I also didn't understand exac tly why Potter's buddy HAD to hold tight to the knight, how come Harry was able to walk on the chess board? It lost me.
However as positives, there are bunch, such as the presentation of the villain in the climax scene, the whole thing about unicorns blood and drinking unicorns blood, that resonated with me somehow, and how it was all silvery and such, this seemed very 2001, yeah, and what else. Harry Potter looks a lot like my friend David Fishel, so that made me feel good, (even though Dave is like 6'8") - maybe it's those Gandhi / Lennon spectacles, who knows... It was also refreshing to see the presentation of all the witchcraft and "magic" in such a matter of fact way, I think that is actually the motivating charisma of the venture is that it's a relatively subdued presentation of the eccentric, bizarre, and out and out balderdash. Somehow in the vein of the Reiner's Princess Bride, (sorta, maybe a stretch) - but what i am trying to say is that i appreciated the frankness with which the cast displayed in their performances. For what it's worth.
Overall some what enjoyable, not on any top tens at this writing in my book, i give it a 6.5/10 mostly for the chess blunder and questions concerning story and character development.