Washington Post review (ouch!)

[GulPlum]

(I wrote a very different reply a few minutes ago but decided to 
delete it because I was too anrgy and strident in my language. I hope 
nobody saw it.)

Wanda Sherratt wrote:

> Yeah, well, it's the Washington Post, though, isn't it?  Sounds
> like the reviewer has been drinking since the election last week.  

> To say 
> that the HP stories are just a series of unconnected anecdotes is 
> ridiculous.  

To say that this is the thrust of his review is even more ridiculous. 
All he is saying (quite reasonably, IMO) is that *this movie* is a 
series of disjointed scenes. I challenge any adult (HP fan or 
otherwise) who has seen the movie to disagree with that assessment.

> JKR is almost obsessive about linking every single 
> little detail.  

What's that got to do with anything? JKR didn't write the script and 
believe me, it shows. As someone who clearly hasn't read the books, 
he asks the perfectly reasonable question whether the disjointed 
nature of the plot is the fault of the source material or adaptaion. 
It's a perfectly honourable position to take, unless you really, 
seriously, wish to disparage him for not having read the book?

> If he's too lazy to remember who Voldemort is, I 
> guess the ending would be a little flat, but that's hardly the 
> fault of the movie.  

Huh? It's hardly his fault that you seem to have completely 
misunderstood what he was saying (especially if, as I suspect, you've 
yet to see the movie). The ending of the movie *is* flat. What's that 
got to do with remembering who Voldemort is? 

> There's always at least one reviewer who wants to 
> show off how hard he is to impress; I haven't heard many reviewers 
> who share his poor opinion.

I must admit that I don't read the Washington Post, and I've never 
read anything this person has ever had to say. I therefore have no 
idea whether he has any kind of bone to grind or whether he is by 
nature negative. 

However, I must also admit that I agree with everything he says. I 
would have said exactly the same things had I not read the book 
before I saw the film. Not being able to understand a movie because 
one hasn't read the book on which it is based is hardly a ringing 
endorsement for that movie.  

He admits that the SFX and action sequences were well done (which 
they were) but the plot sucked. Big time. See other posts of mine for 
further elucidation. So why should he be crucifed?