Slashdot Mirror
Review: Harry Potter
I'm a latecomer to the Harry Potter phenomenon. A few friends recommended the books to me, but it wasn't until the local town of Zeeland, Michigan decided to push to have the book banned from school libraries and local book stores that I decided I had to read it. I read the first book and was just amazed. Here was a story that was fun, easy to read, had involving characters and a simply wonderful imagination. Quite simply, "The Hype" was warranted. In this era of the Internet, and playstations and old fashioned TV, this was just the book to get kids reading again. Hell, this was just the book to get me reading again. My schedule doesn't give me much free time to enjoy a book, but I made time, and read the first 3 Harry Potter books on my next 3 flights (I'm saving the 4th book for next time I fly ;) I don't read much. But I'm glad I read these books. They were great.
Of course by this time, the movie was already under construction so I kept a stray eyeball on it to see what would come of it. I wept when I heard Chris Columbus was directing (Home Alone? Mrs. Doubtfire? Stab me please). Why not Terry Gilliam? I thought he would have been perfect, except that I have no clue if the man could direct swarms of kids. Columbus could. And I'm glad to say that he did.
I won't belabor the plot. You know already unless you live in a coffin that Harry Potter is the witch hero brought from the world of Muggles to his true destiny at Hogwarts, a traditional English boarding school ... for witches. He meets up with a variety of friends including the giant Hagrid, the little-miss-perfect Hermione, the Headmaster Dumbledore, his best friend Ron. He also meets some bad guys, Professor Snape (played by Alan Rickman, who I always dig), Draco Malfoy. If you've read the book, you know the characters. If you haven't, you either don't care, or haven't been paying attention to every AOL Time Warner media outlet which has been relentless hyping the film for weeks.
The story is simply epic. Orphan Boy learns of true powers. Boy goes to train to master his powers. Boy fights monsters, comes face to face with true evil, and defeats it. Think Star Wars, but with broom sports instead of x-wing battles.
The kids are dead on. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are almost exactly what I'd expect. They are convincing actors and do an excellent job. And they actually act. Not like Phantom Menace where Jake Lloyd brings every scene featuring his dialog to a crashing halt with his wooden delivery, or The 6th Sense's Haley Joel Osment who just has to make that look at the camera half the time and this is somehow interpreted as being a great child actor. The grownups are good too. Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid is really excellent. Likewise the Dursley's are spot on. I would have liked to get a bit more of the teachers. Especially Dumbledore and Snape, but this is the story of the kids, not the grown-ups.
Since this is a special FX blockbuster kind of movie, I'll go into it a bit. The look of the whole movie is dazzling. The casting is right on the money. The architecture is skewed and bent, just like it should be. Hogwarts itself is dark, but the grounds are beautiful and colorful. Everybody visualizes books differently, but I gotta say they did a fine job creating a convincing world for our magical trio to get into mischief.
Many of the effects are subtle and seemlessly integrated. Keep an eye on the paintings and watch them move in the background. Where the effects really collapse is the people during action sequences. The troll battle. Kids falling off brooms. They cut back and forth between real kids and CGI kids. And the CG kids just don't cut it. They just look wooden and their skin has no flesh texture to it. Most of the shots are short, but at least for me they really pulled me out of the fun. Especially during the Quiditch match. I wanted to cheer and be excited, and certainly the seen as a whole was brilliant. But every couple shots it would be so obvious that the child on the broom was animated that I kept having the illusion spoiled. I kept thinking I was watching a Playstation 2 cut sequence instead of a feature film.
What got sacrificed from the book to make this a 2:30 movie? Well not much. The biggest thing is the details in classes. The books love to have little anecdotal stories in classes that often tie together at the end. A spell. Some child doing something that seems irrelevant, but later matters. But the kids are almost never shown in class. But thats ok. Things also seemed a little more slapsticky, but I guess Mr Home Alone couldn't pass up on that. And I'll forgive him. This is a kids movie. A few sub plots are axed. Many plots are narrowed down (notably the dragon sub plot which is reduced to one short scene)
In short, this the best for-all-ages movie I've seen since perhaps Toy Story 2. And I'll be there opening night for The Chamber of Secrets too.
I'm surprised CmdrTaco saw fit to put down Haley Joel Osment's acting skills up there. I mean, did you see AI? That kid *is* a great actor.
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
But until Harry Potter is on your completed reading list, it is impossible to truly understand. While maybe they are not the best written books ever, there is something else about them that takes children into this magical world, and then can take adults back to being children. I urge everyone, if its your thing or not, to try reading these books, and then the movie will really be impressive.
If witches practice witchcraft, do warlocks practice Warcraft?
"the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron with a phone attached to it." - Grandpa Simpson
I substituted in a 7th grade classroom yesterday. I thought it would be interesting to ask them about Harry Potter.
The results surprised me. Only 4 or 5 of 27 were planning to see the movie this weekend, and only 3 or 4 more expressed any interest in ever seeing it.
I'm guessing its been over-hyped, so that cool twelve-year-olds are no longer interested.
Then why don't you do what I did and buy the third one in paperback?
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
It's been impossible to avoid the hype on this film.
I did manage to completely avoid the hype on this film, until some bozo wrote an article about it on Slashdot.
As someone who works with high school kids, I am glad for Harry Potter for one reason - they are getting kids to read.
Are the Harry Potter books getting kids to read books or are they getting kids to read Harry Potter? One is great, the other is a fad. One will last them a lifetime, one will die shortly after the last book comes out. (I also submit that it is probably too early to tell the long lasting effects.)
I would recommend that everyone read them, even if you pick them up from a library.
I find it very disheartening that someone who 'works with kids' speaks of the library as if it's a distant second choice. You express gratitude that the books are getting kids to read, then slam the greatest reading resource a child or adult can have barely a paragraph later.
I read the first two books (I refuse to buy the third and fourth in hardback), and they are a good read. Not the best ever (I have a difficult time comparing Ender's Game with Harry Potter), but a good read.
It's unsurprising you have a hard time comparing them. Despite the superficial points in common, (mistreated child Makes Good and Saves The World), they are very different books, aimed at very different audiences. It's comparing apples and oranges.
Warlock is etymologically "oath breaker" implying one who broke his holy oaths to God to make pacts with demons for unnatural power. As such it's considered offensive. References to "good warlocks" are rare, and essentially self-contradictory.
Witch, on the other hand, comes etymologically from wikken, meaning "to predict". So, despite any negative connotations that have grown on it, it was salvagable. References to "good witches" are common, and the word connotes strangeness, but not necessarily evil.
Witch has only gradually changed to referring primarily to women, most likely because women have been accused of witchcraft far more often than men. While most men went out into the world each day to work, women often stayed in the home and worked in secret, where they had no responsible witnesses and were naturally vulnerable to accusations of private crime (it should be noted that the vast majority of accusers were historically also women; witchburning was largely a woman-on-woman crime).
The gender-neutral applicability of witch has weakened, but never gone entirely away. Consider "witch doctor." Do you picture a man or woman?
Fantasy literature is particularly prone to using (and in some cases reviving) archaic meanings and choosing etymologically appropriate words rather than the most standard and well-understood words. So are fruitcakes who like to play at old religions. Don't try to apply normal language standards to either, it's frustrating and pointless.
Nice to see one of my comments get a 5 rating *WHEN SOMEONE ELSE POSTS IT*.
1 226 is my original comment.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=2248277&sid=2
I am guess that is what you mean by "Reminds me of this classic prose"?
If you notice, my signature says that I claim a copyright on each post (in addition to the disclaimer at the bottom of each Slashdot page which says that comments are property of the poster).
You did not give me any credit for the post, nor ask my permission.
To follow-up *to my own post*, I purchased the third book in paperback and read it, along with a borrowed fourth book, and saw the movie yesterday. I will post another original comment elsewhere on the thread.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
... it would be science.
And given that, in this series, magic IS reliable and repeatable (and thus is really a science and its asscoiated technology), the rest of the story becomes:
- Child from broken home is abused.
- Child escapes from broken home through institutional opportunity for children like him to enter higher learning institution.
- Child enrolls in a "science/technology" degree program, in a "science" for which he has a talent (and which is thus fun).
- Child grows up, learning about good and evil, human relations, etc., making friends (and enemies) and having a good time along the way.
- Child breaks rules (as adolescents must do at least once), getting in an appropriate amount of trouble and finding an appropriate amount of opportunity as a result.
- Child learns more family history.
- Child and friends solve serious adult-world problem.
- Child and friends make progress exposing and combatting the plans of evil/psychopathic persons.
etc.
Substitute "science" for "magic", and the whole thing turns into a real-world growing-up success story, with lots of useful lessons about attitudes and behaviors useful for achieving success, morals, and social standing. But using the technology of magic allows the young reader to easily transfer these lessons to the real-world without the distraction of technical particulars from the author's understanding of a PARTICULAR technology's CURRENT state-of-the-art.
Meanwhile it's a very fun read, keeping the reader engaged and encouraged to continue.
So in addition to teaching kids to read, this series seems likely to teach a lot of good stuff, all the while making it LOADS of fun (as learning SHOULD be).
I'm glad to hear it made it to the silver screen with its guts intact.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Actually it was the author who held out, as with a lot of savvy authoers she retained veto over the filming rights and passed up many offers until this one.
;o)
One of the key things was that she didn't want the film to become an Americanised version of the book - about the only concession made is the title of the film in the US - Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone (It's the Philospher's Stone in the UK)
And I for one am glad that it stuck true to the book, which I've started reading after seeing the film, it didn't seem as fake as a lot of Hollywood produced films have been recently and for once it was nice to see places I know. The streets of London, Kings Cross station were all immediately recognisable - although I'm left wondering how many children will attempt to get to platform 9 and 3 quarters
I don't think that the film called for Terry Gilliam's originality - if it had then there would have been alot of upset children, probably frightened out of their wits, leaving cinemas in droves. Lets not forget that although there are an awful lot of adults going to see this film it is, first and foremost, a childrens story.
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
To answer that question, you sort of have to go back to why they renamed the book Sorcerer's Stone when they brought it over to America. Because I expect that in the end, they renamed the film simply to rhyme with the title of the book, so as not to confuse all the people who didn't know what's going on.
When the book was being brought over for America, they changed a lot of British slang terms. For instance, "bogeys" became "boogers" (though I noticed they kept the uses of the word "bogey" in the film--probably too expensive to reshoot _all_ those scenes). (Interestingly enough, both "bogey" and "booger" have another Harry Potter connection--they come from the same root word as "Boggart," a monster Harry deals with in book 3!) "Jumpers" became "sweaters," and the new word Dudley learned in Chapter 1 was "shan't" over there in England and "won't" over here in the USA! Dumbledore's favorite candy, the sherbet lemon, became the lemon drop (though when Harry goes to Dumbledore's office in a later book, the password is sherbet lemon, with a reference back to Dumbledore liking them!). The list goes on and on.
Anyway, the revisions included the word "Philosopher" to "Sorcerer". I have no idea why; I can only assume it's because they thought American kids might not be familiar enough with alchemy-lore to recognize the Philosopher's Stone, and would end up wondering, "But where's the philosopher?"
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
j00 r rit3 d00d. I learned to r34d & rit3 on the net, and I 0wn3d 4ll my b00ks 0nlin3 t00. 3v3r r34d th3 h4ck3r's c00kb00k? Frickin' A, man, frickin' A!!
... I'm getting shivers just thinking about it..
:-P
The advantage of the written word is that it is generally spell and grammar checked, and that the stuff that gets printed is usually half-decent. On the internet, you get a lot of stuff, and it's hard to filter out the crack.
..er, I mean crap.
That having been said, anyone who thinks "Harry Potter'll bring kids back to books!" is a complete twit. "But kids like it!" They like porn too; I say that if you really want to reel the kids back in, give 'em porno novels.
No, the Harry Potter books don't suck; I'm with all you rabid fans on this one. They're fairly decent. From the first one, which I've read, I think they're well written, have some involving characters and a reasonably deep plot. But that's no reason to force kids to read the books. Or to make it a core novel for a grade-school level course.
The last thing we want is teachers teaching kids how they should think about these characters. It's only a matter of time, parents, before your kids are being taught that Harry's uncle was obviously abused as a child, or that Ron was an Irish immigrant whose parents should learn to use birth control. Your teachers will have invaded yet another fun place where your child's imigination used to reside, and mold it to match their own. I'm all for molding youths into upstanding citizens, but leave their frickin' imaginations alone, willya?
Teachers love this kind of book because it "gives them something new to work with."
Children hate this kind of textbook because it's "arbitrary."
And it is. "What does the owl represent? How about Harry's scar? What is the signifigance of the flash of green Harry remembers from his childhood?" *shudder*
So please, don't make it a required read, with questions and the like. Let kids enjoy a book for a change, without having to be taught the prejudices of their forefathers as fact.
I've also heard this "making reading fun again!" poppycock so many times, and it's really starting to wear thin. I doubt this'll put any respectable dent whatsoever in illiteracy in America. People who want to read will continue to read. People who don't, won't. And any parent who can't get their kids to read has bigger problems than finding a book like Harry Potter to hold their attention.
Although.. now that I think about it, it kinda makes sense. Assume for a moment that you are an illiterate parent. Your kid doesn't want to read either. You really don't know what to force them to read because you keep giving them crap, or whatever, because you have no experience to base your reading selections for them on. And you don't want to ask for help, because you're too proud. (..or you ran your phone bill too high and it was disconnected.)
Then Harry Potter shows up, and all your troubles are solved. You buy your kid some books, and spend the rest of the month watching Jerry Springer re-runs on television.
Amazing. Harry Potter will solve the problem of white trash. Whoo. I'm sold.
I'm afraid you've revealed more about your vocabulary level than that of the book.
Please pardon my low education for not having a mastery of the intricaces of ancient British farm slang. Damn my english teachers for trying to instruct me in the ways of modern spoken english! Damn them!