Weak.
I guess this is what happens when you place Mike "Mona Lisa Smile" Newell at the helm and rush production. The acting is wooden. Breenden Gleeson is the best as Mad Eye, Daniel Radcliffe is back to gunting while clutching his scar, and all the charm that Michael Gambon had as Dumbledore in Prisioner of Azkaban is lost. The editing is sloppy and makes some scenes a confusion to what is going on. I suspect that Mick Audsley was doing his best to make the scenes work, but that is little justfication. The effects arn't improved over Prisioner, and they're used to little effect. They're all pomp and no substance. Also, if you hatted the omisions in Prisioner, you're going to loath this movie. The cuts from the plot were made only to trim the story down and do nothing to add to the movie. They only create confusion and introduce unnessassary characters (Rita Skitter for example).
I feel that both Chris Columbus and now Mike Newell are just regergatating the books on screen. These were best selling books so of course there must be a film adaptation. It's the American way. They're is no art to their adaptations. It's the book's content litteraly on screen, without any of the charm or nuance. I feel that Alfonso Cuarón had his own artistic interpratition of how the world looked and felt. He understood what makes the books good and on the same time he understood that makes a movie good. He was able to merge the two. He showed me that a good Harry Potter film could be made. Mike Newell showed me that not everyone can do it, and probilibly shouldn't try.
I guess this is what happens when you place Mike "Mona Lisa Smile" Newell at the helm and rush production. The acting is wooden. Breenden Gleeson is the best as Mad Eye, Daniel Radcliffe is back to gunting while clutching his scar, and all the charm that Michael Gambon had as Dumbledore in Prisioner of Azkaban is lost. The editing is sloppy and makes some scenes a confusion to what is going on. I suspect that Mick Audsley was doing his best to make the scenes work, but that is little justfication. The effects arn't improved over Prisioner, and they're used to little effect. They're all pomp and no substance. Also, if you hatted the omisions in Prisioner, you're going to loath this movie. The cuts from the plot were made only to trim the story down and do nothing to add to the movie. They only create confusion and introduce unnessassary characters (Rita Skitter for example).
I feel that both Chris Columbus and now Mike Newell are just regergatating the books on screen. These were best selling books so of course there must be a film adaptation. It's the American way. They're is no art to their adaptations. It's the book's content litteraly on screen, without any of the charm or nuance. I feel that Alfonso Cuarón had his own artistic interpratition of how the world looked and felt. He understood what makes the books good and on the same time he understood that makes a movie good. He was able to merge the two. He showed me that a good Harry Potter film could be made. Mike Newell showed me that not everyone can do it, and probilibly shouldn't try.
Comment