I'll confess that the books won me over. My wife slipped the first one to me and I basically locked myself up for days until I had finished the series. This was about a year ago during the furor when the fourth book was released. I have been excited about the movie and will probably see it as soon as I can get a sitter. However, I'm a little dissapointed with the early reports of it haing no soul. Has anyone seen it yet? Have plans to see it?

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058739

For the record, I love the books.

Not everyone says that it has no soul; in fact, most of the reviewers that I read like it a lot. Ebert gave it four stars, Mark Caro at the Tribune liked it (I wish Michael Wilmington had done the review, though--I value his opinion more).

Much of the criticism centers on the fact that it's too long and deviates almost not at all from the book. I have a problem with neither of those things, so I'm looking forward to it. As Ebert put it, "During "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," I was pretty sure I was watching a classic, one that will be around for a long time, and make many generations of fans. It takes the time to be good. It doesn't hammer the audience with easy thrills, but cares to tell a story, and to create its characters carefully."

Sounds good to me.

I haven't read the books. I'm not really interested in the movie.

Then again, I'm not even all that interested in the Lord of the Rings movie, though I'm sure I'll catch it.

Then why even comment, Mark? Or is this thread going to degenerate into another jaded elitist snob "if it's pop culture, then it must perforce suck" rant?

I saw the movie last night (went to one of the 12AM shows - the perks of working the night shift), and was pretty pleased. They didn't leave much out of the books, and I thought the casting was great.

It is really long, though, and I wonder how it will hold up for people who haven't read the books. Much of it seemed like they were afraid to cut anything, so it might seem meandering to those who aren't going to nitpick about the little things.

Then again, it might have just seemed long because, with trailers, it was over 3 hours in the theater.

But that's three hours of Robbie Coltrane, so it can't be all bad.

-Ron

I have read the books. I am really interested in the movie.

Then again, I am very much interested in the Lord of the Rings movie, and I'm sure I'll catch it.

"But that's three hours of Robbie Coltrane, so it can't be all bad."

Unless you're watching From Hell one and a half times.

My boss saw it this afternoon (he took a long break to go, and had his tickets like a month ago somehow), and he liked it. He said he was amazed at how faithful it was to the book, and how little they left out.

Heh, he also said that the schools around here had the day off because of report-card processing, so his attempt to dodge the kiddie crowd completely failed.

Another funny thing, I had forgotten how deadly serious kids can be when it comes to rules. One person's cell phone went off in the theater, and he apparently nearly got jeered out of the building by the kids, who became instantly irate, loud, and abusive.

Why comment? Because the thread was entitled "What does everyone think of Potter?" I thought that was an invitation to comment?

If you'll read my response I think you'll be hard put to find a slam of the books or the movie or any elitism on my part, unless a lack of interest automatically makes me an elitist, although my lack of interest in reading Proust, The New York Review of Books, etc., must make me an automatic philistine.

(I may end up taking my youngest kids to see it regardless.)

Is this one of those threads where if you don't weigh in with a ringing endorsement you're somehow anti-whatever?

I'm obviously anti-Potter, because I haven't read the books, and I'm not particularly interested in doing so (despite the good things I've heard about them) and have no desire to see the movie.

So, obviously, I hate Harry Potter, and hope he dies in the end.

**NOTE** To anyone incapable of interpreting sarcasm in its written form: I do NOT hate Harry Potter, and certainly don't hope he dies -- quite the contrary, due to the number of kids who inevitably pretend that they are him, and relate to him somehow...

Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated. Seriously though, anything that gets kids to read is probably a good thing.

- Alan

I haven't read the Potter books yet but both my wife and I are looking forward to watching the cinema release. It's a great year for quality fantasy films.

---

Quote:

It's a great year for quality fantasy films.

---

"It's a great year for quality fantasy films."

If you include Shrek and Monsters Inc.. I'd say "hell, yeah."

I've not yet been able to convince my kids to let me read Harry Potter to them, so I'm saving it for when they are a bit older. For a place with three kids, our house is remarkably Potter-free.

Despite the lack of popularity around here, I fully support any cultural phenomenon that makes straight hair and glasses hip.

When Tim asked for opinions, I assumed that he meant from people who have seen the movie already. Some people cultivate a disdainful detachment from popular culture as though it somehow sanctifies them and elevates them from the masses. That's why your rather disinterested response struck me as so much posturing. I'm sorry, Mark, that I misread the tone of your post.

(ObPotter: I've read the first two books and found them delightful; the third book is next on my reading list, just as soon as I finish a reread of Joan D. Vinge's The Summer Queen; and yes, I plan to see the movie as soon as I get the chance.)

-- Lee

I read the first book and thought it was decent. I'm sure I would love the series like my 8 year old son if I were his age. I really don't understand its appeal for adults though. It is certainly a million times more palatable than Pokemon or Bionicle stuff, but that still leaves a lot of room short of 'wonderful'.

We saw an afternoon screening yesterday - leaving school & work a little early. Our plan to avoid crowds failed miserably, but we were there early enough so that wasn't a problem.

The movie is definitely very faithful to the book. Casting was generally excellent (I thought the young girl playing Hermione posed with raised eyebrows far too often). Other than her, I thought the majority of the performances were outstanding, and the others were still very good.

If you've read the book, I think you'll enjoy the movie just as much.

I did find myself wondering how they blew a supposed $150 million on the film. While there were some obviously significant effects, there were also many 'off screen' effects (we see the shadow of a creature transform, Harry's talking to someone and we pull back to see the someone's gone). Reaching platform 9 3/4 was also on par with 1960's TV effects, I thought.

Previews included the 'new' Episode 2 trailer, but also what I thought was a typically awful (for new consoles) GameCube promo. I spent 90% of it wondering what the hell it was about. In retrospect, I see what they were going for, but it really didn't promote any games and if you looked away for 10 seconds, you'd never have known there was a Nintendo ad shown.

"I'm sure I would love the series like my 8 year old son if I were his age. I really don't understand its appeal for adults though."

This is why I haven't read any yet -- they're kids books. I've read dozens upon dozens of kids books to my kids, but they're older now and I don't really feel like reading any more children's stuff.

It's like Sesame Street. Any parent who's watched probably enjoyed it. Once your kids outgrow it, though, you don't watch it anymore.

"It's like Sesame Street. Any parent who's watched probably enjoyed it. Once your kids outgrow it, though, you don't watch it anymore."

I get your point, Mark, but this just isn't like that. I've got kids, too, and have run the gamut of kid shows, including, God help me, Telly Tubbies. Feh. These books are much more entertaining than that. It's been a while since I read it, so I can't give you an example off the top. Just trust me.

Anyhow, it's a movie now so I bet you see it when it comes to video, and I'd be interested to know how you felt about it if you did see it.

I saw Harry Potter last nite with my 7-year old and her friends. They've all read all the books more than once, and they all loved the movie. And they didn't complain about the length.

I've read the first two books and think they're great. Very Roald-Dahl-esque in the humor department. The movie? I coulda used a little more of that Roald Dahl touch. I read that Terry Gilliam was one of the early candidates for director for this, and that might have been what I was looking for---though probably not what kids would have preferred, I'd think.

I don't think it was "soulless" but just maybe a little too faithful, almost to the point of being dull. It was almost like they were too afraid to veer from the book at all. But the book is very episodic--which works in print--but on the screen there was a certain, I dunno, meandering quality that didn't keep me hooked. Some of the scenes are GREAT, and I'd agree that overall the casting was awesome. Alan Rickman--that guy rules. Every time he spoke, the entire audience was in a hush.

I'm glad I saw it but I can't imagine sitting through it again. I was comparing it in my mind to Willy Wonka, and the Wizard of Oz, both based on classic books. THOSE movies succeed completely on their own because they DID veer away from the text to create a *movie* experience--they took more chances I think. Harry Potter was super entertaining and I'm sure my kid will see it the usual 20 times but I honestly can't imagine sitting through it again. Willy Wonka and Wizard of Oz I would *still* watch over and over.

Still--if you like the H.P. books, it's totally worth seeing once, if at least just to watch the Quidditch match!

"I was comparing it in my mind to Willy Wonka, and the Wizard of Oz, both based on classic books. THOSE movies succeed completely on their own because they DID veer away from the text to create a *movie* experience--they took more chances I think."

But those movies weren't part of a series (if you don't count Disney's dismal "Return to Oz"). The problem with veering too much from the book is that you may shoot yourself in the foot when you go to adapt the later books and fine that something doesn't work because of a change you made in an earlier film. Particularly when the book series isn't even done. This should be less of a problem for future movies though as much of the episodic nature of the first book has to do with laying all of the groundwork for Harry's introduction into Hogwarts.

Of course they're really going to have a hell of a time being completely faithful when they adapt the fourth book since its over 700 pages!

Quote "Another funny thing, I had forgotten how deadly serious kids can be when it comes to rules. One person's cell phone went off in the theater, and he apparently nearly got jeered out of the building by the kids, who became instantly irate, loud, and abusive. "

uh, not turning your ringer off while in a movie theatre is incredibly rude. it breaks the suspense, it's annoying, and avoidable, cos every movie i've gone to in the past year (at least) had a "turn your phone off".

The only reason i'm not irate when a phone goes off is because it adds to the distraction.

"But those movies weren't part of a series..."

Actually, I believe L Frank Baum wrote many books in the 'Wizard of Oz' series, and I know Roald Dahl followed up with The Great Glass Elevator. I don't think any were made into movies, and I'm not positive about the chronology (if The Great Glass Elevator came after the movie, for example).

It always seemed to me that the Vermicious Knids mentioned in passing by Gene Wilder were not actually mentioned in Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, but as I recall they were prominent in The Great Glass Elevator.

Regardless, it's probably valid though that sequels were not a concern when those classics were made. The only thing that held up sequels for Harry Potter were the press junkets this week.

During the Harry Potter previews, I think Episode 2 was last, and I commented to my wife, "Well at least there's some competition for Best Original Screenplay against the Britney Spears movie". Aside from those 2, the other previews were all remakes, book adaptations, and Scooby Doo. After the lengthy Britney preview I said I thought maybe they should stick to remaking old cartoons.

To be fair to HP, I also don't think The Wizard of Oz or Charlie & the Chocolate Factory had sold hundreds of millions of copies in print before those movies were made, either.

I know my son can enumerate AT GREAT LENGTH many details that were omitted or compacted in the movie version. I think he'd have been very disappointed if there had been any real deviation from the plot of the book.

I heard somewhere that Spielberg turned down an offer to direct this movie because it was 'too easy'. All you had to do was follow the book. I think that's true (whether it happened or not is another story). And I'm not so sure how easy it was, either, but I can certainly see how it wouldn't be the kind of 'creativity' a director would choose.

"Actually, I believe L Frank Baum wrote many books in the 'Wizard of Oz' series, and I know Roald Dahl followed up with The Great Glass Elevator."

Yeah, I meant that there weren't any major plans to film all of the books in those series. On the other hand, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" starts principal photography tomorrow.

As for Spielberg turning Potter down, I read that he wanted to combine the first two books and was thinking of making some other major changes. While its hard to imagine Warners breathing a sigh of relief when he finally decided against it, it was probably in their best interest to play it safe and do a direct adapation of the first book.

...And while I'd agree that this movie did indeed "play it safe," I also really enjoyed it. More than anything else, I apprerciate how well the characters and sets matched my own visualisations from the book.

I read over at the-numbers/hsx that Potter did $93.5 million last weekend, first place all-time by a $20 million margin. Impressive.

http://www.the-numbers.com
http://www.hsx.com

"More than anything else, I apprerciate how well the characters and sets matched my own visualisations from the book."

I haven't read the books myself yet (just started the first one) but a friend of mine is a Harry Potter fanatic. About 45 minutes into the movie he seemed to be getting restless and I was thinking "Oh shit, he doesn't like it." When I asked him what was wrong he said that he was just so amazed that "everything is exactly as I imagined it."

Actually, I think that 93 mil was the projected 3 day gross (that's what today's trades ran). It didn't do that much business. I think someone at work (sony pictures) said that the official bo was something like 85. It's still a three day non-holiday record, but not by 20 million dollars!

and then when you think about it, 93...85...not that much difference to someone makes 35k a year!

---

Quote:

Actually, I think that 93 mil was the projected 3 day gross (that's what today's trades ran). It didn't do that much business. I think someone at work (sony pictures) said that the official bo was something like 85. It's still a three day non-holiday record, but not by 20 million dollars!

---

---

Quote:

and then when you think about it, 93...85...not that much difference to someone makes 35k a year!

---

"I did find myself wondering how they blew a supposed $150 million on the film."

The actual final spending of the movie was between $115 - $120 mil. They spent an addition $40 mil on marketing (!!).

The wife won't let me escape from seeing HP this weekend. Looks like Saturday morning I'll be sitting in a sea of kids watching their favorite storybook character come to life. I'm sure i'll enjoy it, but I would rather have waited for things to calm down.

On the bright side, I was able to extort a trip to Episode 2 out of her in exchange for this little trip;

"Can we see Harry Potter this weekend?"
"I'd rather not. Why don't you go with Lisa or my sister. I'm sure they'd love to see it"
"If you go, I'll go with you to that Star Wars thingy in May"
"Okie, how about Saturday morning?".

I don't know why, but she can't stand Star Wars movies...any of them. She's more of a wizards and dragons fantasy type person than a sci fi'er. That means we'll most likely be seeing LotR on opening weekend (if we can get tickets).

>we'll most likely be seeing LotR on opening weekend (if we can get tickets).

Heh, I booked a theatre for a private showing, to have a party. Can't wait for that movie.

Stefan

Can I come??

"anything that gets kids to read is probably a good thing."

That's what I tried to tell my Mom when she caught me with an issue of PENTHOUSE LETTERS.

---

Quote:

Heh, I booked a theatre for a private showing, to have a party. Can't wait for that movie.

---

Can I come? :-)