kingtrio9
Joined Jun 2001
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews7
kingtrio9's rating
For the avid Harry Potter reader the whole suspense leading up to HP Order of the Phoenix can be summed up in the word "how". How are they going to translate a nearly 900 page book to the screen, how are they going to tie together a storyline that in the 5th book breaks into dozens of streams like a mighty river coming to its delta.
This seemingly impossible task is well accomplished by astute summation of plot and concentration of action. Also, the heart and soul of the book, i.e. the thematic spirit of the story and Rowling's shining gift for characterization are given the fullest support in this film more so than in any previous HP movie.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix basically involves Harry being persecuted by the government for telling a truth they refuse to believe all while dealing with the same feelings of teen angst and emerging love that any ordinary teen finds stressful and consuming. Only through the love and dedication of family and especially friends does Harry come across the means to fight back against the government, elude his enemies and make some sense of his emotional turmoil.
Most reader's will come out of the theater saying "I wish they had shown this or that." However, all will leave satisfied that they have been treated to a faithful rendering brilliantly acted and directed. All the HP movies are a "good watch" but in this one we get a great movie.
We have the advantage of going to our HP movies with a non-reader and she was, to say the least, blown away and pronounced it a near classic. My daughter and myself have read and reread the books many times over and came out limp from exhilaration, our keen anticipation very much fulfilled.
A few highlights: The acting is best ever. The three principles push themselves to a new level. My favorite new characters were Imelda Staunton as Delores Umbridge, excellent (you'll love to hate her) and Natalia Tena as Tonks. Natalia is sheer delight. She is the penultimate punk rock witch girl(think Dead Milkmen here). And Helena Bonham Carter is in her medium (she played the witch Morganna in the movie Merlin) as the dangerous and demented Bellatrix LeStrange.
Battle scenes: breathtaking. Commraderie: The only HP that actually caused me to get teary so heartfelt are the portrayals of friendship and family.
See the film knowing that unless you want a 10hour movie some things are going to have to go. Leave having enjoyed a film that takes the beans and water and instead of a nice large coffee treats one to a perfectly concentrated, most artfully brewed and extremely tasty espresso. It has been said before but truth is truth: BEST YET!
This seemingly impossible task is well accomplished by astute summation of plot and concentration of action. Also, the heart and soul of the book, i.e. the thematic spirit of the story and Rowling's shining gift for characterization are given the fullest support in this film more so than in any previous HP movie.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix basically involves Harry being persecuted by the government for telling a truth they refuse to believe all while dealing with the same feelings of teen angst and emerging love that any ordinary teen finds stressful and consuming. Only through the love and dedication of family and especially friends does Harry come across the means to fight back against the government, elude his enemies and make some sense of his emotional turmoil.
Most reader's will come out of the theater saying "I wish they had shown this or that." However, all will leave satisfied that they have been treated to a faithful rendering brilliantly acted and directed. All the HP movies are a "good watch" but in this one we get a great movie.
We have the advantage of going to our HP movies with a non-reader and she was, to say the least, blown away and pronounced it a near classic. My daughter and myself have read and reread the books many times over and came out limp from exhilaration, our keen anticipation very much fulfilled.
A few highlights: The acting is best ever. The three principles push themselves to a new level. My favorite new characters were Imelda Staunton as Delores Umbridge, excellent (you'll love to hate her) and Natalia Tena as Tonks. Natalia is sheer delight. She is the penultimate punk rock witch girl(think Dead Milkmen here). And Helena Bonham Carter is in her medium (she played the witch Morganna in the movie Merlin) as the dangerous and demented Bellatrix LeStrange.
Battle scenes: breathtaking. Commraderie: The only HP that actually caused me to get teary so heartfelt are the portrayals of friendship and family.
See the film knowing that unless you want a 10hour movie some things are going to have to go. Leave having enjoyed a film that takes the beans and water and instead of a nice large coffee treats one to a perfectly concentrated, most artfully brewed and extremely tasty espresso. It has been said before but truth is truth: BEST YET!
The Secret Garden is a rare treat where in the screenwriter and director actually understand their source, The Secret Garden by Frances Hogsden Burnett, and make a translation to the screen that not only captures the essence of the book but enhances the story as well. Too often directors spoil the story with their own self-interested spin (Little Big Man and Chocolat come immediately to mind)but here is a jewel that leaves the viewer saying "That was as good as the book." A genuine triumph.
The cast is outstanding, the children in particular, Kate Maberly as Mary Lennox above all. Even to the most minor extra everyone brings a smooth and compelling reality to the story.
However, the real star is director Agnieszka Holland. Against a challenging climate ( a rainy location) she manages to create a movie with a touching commentary on how children can literally change the world. Her insightful grasp of the themes of isolation, growth and rejuvenation, the need for a balance between nurture and allowable risk are all managed through the controlling metaphor of a garden. The artful rendering of these literary themes are what many directors apparently find most challenging ( I'm looking at you Arthur Penn)and generally blissfully ignore them compensating by glib insertions, extra action or clumsy sentiment. Not so here.
Not only is her focus exemplary but the photography is amazing. The interplay of light and dark, the time elapse photos of clouds rolling and flowers emerging all set to beautiful music captivate the viewer. The rainy weather was not shunned but used to fullest effect. I can only imagine the discipline it must have taken to wait for the sun to peep out from the clouds and then roll film hoping that the cast can pull off the shot before the light changed and a second take became a long wait. Fortunately all are up to the task and the film, the final scene in particular, results in a brilliant piece of motion picture art.
The 1993 version of The Secret Garden is a must for every family film collection, one the parents and kids can enjoy for its sophistication or simply for the great way in which this timeless classic is retold.
The cast is outstanding, the children in particular, Kate Maberly as Mary Lennox above all. Even to the most minor extra everyone brings a smooth and compelling reality to the story.
However, the real star is director Agnieszka Holland. Against a challenging climate ( a rainy location) she manages to create a movie with a touching commentary on how children can literally change the world. Her insightful grasp of the themes of isolation, growth and rejuvenation, the need for a balance between nurture and allowable risk are all managed through the controlling metaphor of a garden. The artful rendering of these literary themes are what many directors apparently find most challenging ( I'm looking at you Arthur Penn)and generally blissfully ignore them compensating by glib insertions, extra action or clumsy sentiment. Not so here.
Not only is her focus exemplary but the photography is amazing. The interplay of light and dark, the time elapse photos of clouds rolling and flowers emerging all set to beautiful music captivate the viewer. The rainy weather was not shunned but used to fullest effect. I can only imagine the discipline it must have taken to wait for the sun to peep out from the clouds and then roll film hoping that the cast can pull off the shot before the light changed and a second take became a long wait. Fortunately all are up to the task and the film, the final scene in particular, results in a brilliant piece of motion picture art.
The 1993 version of The Secret Garden is a must for every family film collection, one the parents and kids can enjoy for its sophistication or simply for the great way in which this timeless classic is retold.
In a word TERRIFIC as far as special effects go but in a word Disappointing in terms of direction. The best to date as far as big screen wow-wow and while that may leave the non-reader pleased the real fan may find the film lacking in certain areas.
There are lots of changes as is to be expected when a nearly 700 page novel is transformed into film, some secondary characters are even left out, however, for the most part the changes are sensitive to the book and in the spirit of the story. The real difficulties lie in the handling of certain characters, Dumbledore in particular and the pacing of certain scenes.
The acting has come a long way, improving as it does in every movie but Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe have reached a greater level of maturation as actors are giving us the "real deal" in this one.
Most of the new characters do an adequate job in support, particularly the adults (Mirand Richardson as Rita Skeeter stands out). Stanislav Ivaneski as Krum and Predrag Bjelac as Karkaroff bring life to their stock characters. Roger Lloyd Pack is good as Barty Crouch, more nervous and weird than in the book book but a lot of fun never the less.
However, Clemence Poesey is miscast as Fleur Delacour. While Poesy is a beautiful girl and fine actress she just does not generate the necessary heat for a part Veela who is supposed to be able to stop men in their tracks and cause them to act the fool with a bat of her lashes. Clemence seems a bit too serious an actress for this comic relief role. A young lady of talent but a bit more curvy and with a young Angelina Jolie type facial feature would have been a better choice.
The massive speculation as to "What is Voldemort going to look like?" is resolved and there is absolutely no room for disappointment here, his transformed self is PERFECT!!! Fiennes is brilliant and an inspired choice for the player. However, the pacing of the final scene and the blocking does not leave Fiennes much to work with, it is almost as if he is dancing about at times. The whole thing seems rushed.
To the writers credit the horror aspect is given fullest reign, more so than in any other movie and true to the book because JK is bringing the reader into a time of torture, murder and doubt with a villain that will go down in history with Dracula as one of the most evil of all time, brought to life in a classic set piece of terror.
Where the film runs into trouble is in the way certain characters are portrayed. As happens with so many projects, director Mike Newell seems more concerned with big screen bombast than showing a keen understanding of his material, especially the characters within. Which is rather glaring since characterization is Rowling's strongest aspect as a writer.
Nowhere is this more apparent than with Dumbledore. In the film, calm, controlled, wise and confident Dumbledore comes across as a shrill, panicky, cantankerous old fart which is a shame because Michael Gambon did a more than adequate job replacing Richard Harris (who is still, however, the better Dumbledore) in the third film. Therefore I feel it is the direction more than the actor that has to be blamed for the lack of a consistent Dumbledore performance in Goblet.
Frances De La Tour is OK as Madame Maxime although she is neither very comely or olive skinned as she is described in the book. Frances delivers a very motivated performance and things are fine until she eats the bug (or whatever it is) that she picks off the front of Hagrid's shirt. Hagrid and Madame Maxime are supposed to be misunderstood outsiders, not revolting freaks! The dealing with outsiders, their place in the world and their struggles to fit in is a main point of HP and to fall down in this area is something a good director/writer should strive to avoid when rendering this type of fiction for the screen.
And this tongue thing they had David Tennent doing as Barty Jr., what was up with that??? Yes, I get it that they needed a recognizable facial tick to provide a give away so that Barty Sr. can see through his son's disguise. But the snake tongue thing almost made me laugh. An eye gesture or any number of other things would have served the plot better. This father-son conflict is supposed to be tragic but came across as rather silly and was wholly underdeveloped.
One last thing and it is a small point but in a film where the special effects are particularly excellent for the most part it grated. What was the deal with the sleeping kids in the underwater scene??!!? Totally fake looking or what??!!? Next time Newell needs to pick out a better rubber dummy supplier. One really expected Harry to start stretching Ron or Hermione's face, jabbing Cho's cheeks or whatever. I am wondering if any of the actors had a good time punching these silly things between takes.
My daughter and myself are huge fans and have read the books many times and find the film a worth while experience. Our Mom/Wife has not read the books but thought the movie outstanding. Those who want to quibble about changes and cannot accept that to turn an hours long reading experience into a movie some things must change/go will be left out. Which is unfortunate because it is a worthy watch even with some of its more rankling aspects.
There are lots of changes as is to be expected when a nearly 700 page novel is transformed into film, some secondary characters are even left out, however, for the most part the changes are sensitive to the book and in the spirit of the story. The real difficulties lie in the handling of certain characters, Dumbledore in particular and the pacing of certain scenes.
The acting has come a long way, improving as it does in every movie but Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe have reached a greater level of maturation as actors are giving us the "real deal" in this one.
Most of the new characters do an adequate job in support, particularly the adults (Mirand Richardson as Rita Skeeter stands out). Stanislav Ivaneski as Krum and Predrag Bjelac as Karkaroff bring life to their stock characters. Roger Lloyd Pack is good as Barty Crouch, more nervous and weird than in the book book but a lot of fun never the less.
However, Clemence Poesey is miscast as Fleur Delacour. While Poesy is a beautiful girl and fine actress she just does not generate the necessary heat for a part Veela who is supposed to be able to stop men in their tracks and cause them to act the fool with a bat of her lashes. Clemence seems a bit too serious an actress for this comic relief role. A young lady of talent but a bit more curvy and with a young Angelina Jolie type facial feature would have been a better choice.
The massive speculation as to "What is Voldemort going to look like?" is resolved and there is absolutely no room for disappointment here, his transformed self is PERFECT!!! Fiennes is brilliant and an inspired choice for the player. However, the pacing of the final scene and the blocking does not leave Fiennes much to work with, it is almost as if he is dancing about at times. The whole thing seems rushed.
To the writers credit the horror aspect is given fullest reign, more so than in any other movie and true to the book because JK is bringing the reader into a time of torture, murder and doubt with a villain that will go down in history with Dracula as one of the most evil of all time, brought to life in a classic set piece of terror.
Where the film runs into trouble is in the way certain characters are portrayed. As happens with so many projects, director Mike Newell seems more concerned with big screen bombast than showing a keen understanding of his material, especially the characters within. Which is rather glaring since characterization is Rowling's strongest aspect as a writer.
Nowhere is this more apparent than with Dumbledore. In the film, calm, controlled, wise and confident Dumbledore comes across as a shrill, panicky, cantankerous old fart which is a shame because Michael Gambon did a more than adequate job replacing Richard Harris (who is still, however, the better Dumbledore) in the third film. Therefore I feel it is the direction more than the actor that has to be blamed for the lack of a consistent Dumbledore performance in Goblet.
Frances De La Tour is OK as Madame Maxime although she is neither very comely or olive skinned as she is described in the book. Frances delivers a very motivated performance and things are fine until she eats the bug (or whatever it is) that she picks off the front of Hagrid's shirt. Hagrid and Madame Maxime are supposed to be misunderstood outsiders, not revolting freaks! The dealing with outsiders, their place in the world and their struggles to fit in is a main point of HP and to fall down in this area is something a good director/writer should strive to avoid when rendering this type of fiction for the screen.
And this tongue thing they had David Tennent doing as Barty Jr., what was up with that??? Yes, I get it that they needed a recognizable facial tick to provide a give away so that Barty Sr. can see through his son's disguise. But the snake tongue thing almost made me laugh. An eye gesture or any number of other things would have served the plot better. This father-son conflict is supposed to be tragic but came across as rather silly and was wholly underdeveloped.
One last thing and it is a small point but in a film where the special effects are particularly excellent for the most part it grated. What was the deal with the sleeping kids in the underwater scene??!!? Totally fake looking or what??!!? Next time Newell needs to pick out a better rubber dummy supplier. One really expected Harry to start stretching Ron or Hermione's face, jabbing Cho's cheeks or whatever. I am wondering if any of the actors had a good time punching these silly things between takes.
My daughter and myself are huge fans and have read the books many times and find the film a worth while experience. Our Mom/Wife has not read the books but thought the movie outstanding. Those who want to quibble about changes and cannot accept that to turn an hours long reading experience into a movie some things must change/go will be left out. Which is unfortunate because it is a worthy watch even with some of its more rankling aspects.