http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:02:47 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/11/14/092559.php#comment-2043 Guess I gave the wrong impression. I merely meant that the books were great and the films are not. This doesn't mean a literal translation, because that's what we get, very literal. My point was such rote adhering to the books makes for movies that are uninspired. I want the feel of the books and the feeling in the books, which is what is great about them. The characters have heart, you really feel for them even as they are part of a total fantasy world. I watched the first film (most of it) again the other night and was struck by how much better it is than the second. It's a film *about* Harry Potter, his story, and his friends. It has quiet moments that allow you to see things through his eyes (and it's a sad story), and to feel for him. The actor did a fine job in the first. The second film is nothing but a series of standard action/thriller moments and has very little feel for what should be a menacing presence of evil (Voldemort). Plus, we should have gotten to see the Mandrakes again. 2043@blogcritics.org Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:02:47 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/11/14/092559.php#comment-2042 Reading your post its obvious you went into the film expecting the book, and that you enjoy books more than movies. I have to disagre with you on sevral levels. This movie is not like the first, it has more of a movie feel, opposed to the sorcerers stone which felt like a movie desperately trying to be a book. and if things seemed too cartoonish for you what did you enjoy about the wizard world? 2042@blogcritics.org Sat, 16 Nov 2002 06:32:21 EST