What makes a great movie?, was Re: James--Biggerstaff as Wood/Flight Scene

[Joywitch M. Curmudgeon]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Luke wrote:
> > Maybe I 
> > misinterpreted your reply and you meant that you do have a strong 
> > enough impression of Wood's personality; you just don't mind if 
> they 
> > change it a little in the movie?
> 
> Luke, I think you hit the nail right on the head.  I have read all 
of 
> the fabulous reviews, impressions and criticisms on the list, and 
one 
> idea keeps surfacing.  To the extent most listies have criticisms 
of 
> the movie, it is that their favorite lines of dialogue or scenes 
were 
> omitted.  "Are you a witch or not" is a frequently cited example.  
> This omission doesn't bother me at all, and as I've said, I wish 
more 
> had been cut to focus better on what mattered.
> 
> But why do I feel that way, and hardly anyone else does?  Your 
> observation provides the answer.  I think deep down, I was hoping 
for 
> more "new material" and changes to the book.  For me, the book 
> exists, it is static, and it is what it is, for better or worse.  
> Seeing the setting come alive in the movie was new and exciting, 
> that's true.  But seeing the actors say the very same dialogue in 
the 
> books isn't very interesting to me 

I think I know what you mean, Cindy, although I get the feeling that 
you were disappointed in the movie, while I was not.  To me, a great 
movie can be made from a great book only by adding to the vision of 
the author, not by merely repeating it.  Columbus, for the most part, 
translated SS/PS into movie form.  That was fine, for me, and what I 
expected, but as I think I previously said the movie IMO was a good 
visual depiction of a great book, but not a great movie.

A good example of what I'm talking about is the book Little Women, a 
favorite of mine and a great book of its kind, although not really a 
literary masterpiece, I suppose.  Several movies have been made from 
it (including one really horrible one with Elizabeth Taylor), and two 
of them were really great (again IMO).  The first was made in the 
1940s, with Katherine Hepburn, and the second was made in the 1990s 
with Winona Ryder.  These two movies are completely different.  The 
first is a tear-jerking, homey family-oriented story, whereas the 
second is much more of a character study/period piece.  Neither one 
is inaccurate, neither one makes things up that are inconsistant with 
the books.  Both these movies interpret and add to what the author 
created in a way that greatly increased my enjoyment of the book when 
I subsequently reread it.

I think that's why my previous post focused on the things about the 
movie, like the Hogwarts Express ticket, the keys, etc., which 
increased my understanding of the books, and why, to me, the most 
enjoyable parts of the movie where those scenes which, to me, added 
something to my vision of the Potterverse.  That's why I loved all 
the scenes with the Dursleys -- the movie added some great funny 
moments and made them even more disgustingly Dursleyish than JKR 
had.  And both Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman were more vividly 
Hagrid and Snape because they were interpreted so well.  These 
aspects of the movie were, to me, great.  But the characters and 
scenes, like Dumbledore, and the hospital scene, that simply wandered 
off the pages of the book and walked around in 3 dimensions for a few 
minutes, were simply good (and really cool when they had good FX) -- 
but not great.

--Joywitch