> I like the Harry Potter books
> but I hate the films...
> they're so lifeless. Too faithful to the point of
> dragging. With a talented
> production team and direction you can establish so
> much visually that you
> don't really need to belabor the point to match the
> exact narrative of a
> novel where you need a lot more detailed description
> so that you can make it
> into a movie in your head as it were. Harry Potter
> could have been about 40
> minutes shorter and been a far superior film. But
> then I'm more of a film
> fanatic than an ardent reader so that might be why.
I personally thought the first film was lifeless
because of the changes, not because it was faithful.
They had Harry go through the movie with an expression
of wonderment, swept along by the magic of this new
world, rather than showing him as the active,
stubborn, intelligent kid he is in the books. That's
what moves the plot along in the books, and in my
opinion it would have done the same in the films.
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search