[HPFGU-Movie] Reviews: isn't it odd...

[patientx3 at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/3/2004 7:06:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
hp at plum.cream.org writes:
>>For instance, unlike (seemingly) most of the 
cinema-going population, I was never particularly impressed with Haley 
Osment in "The Sixth Sense". I was, on the other hand, very pleasantly 
surprised by his turn in "A.I.", for which he was generally derided. <<

I adored the Sixth Sense, but felt the same way about his performance. There 
was nothing at all lacking in it, but it wasn't *amazing* in any respect. I 
always thought it could have just been good casting-all they needed was a sullen 
kid and he would give a "sullen-kid" performance without having to act that 
much. However, when I saw A.I., I was amazed, that was a fantastic perfomance, 
but since that movie got mixed reviews and didn't do so well at the box 
office, it was ignored.

>>As far as the HP movies go, Dan's movement in the first two 
struck me as particularly fake, and as I said elsewhere, he has a problem 
with his line delivery in that he strives to enunciate every single word 
perfectly which gives the impression that the words are studied rather than 
spontaneous.<<
I've more noticed that with Emma's acting. I can see why they cast her, 
over-acting works for Hermione at first. For half of the first movie her 
personality is supposed to come off a little pushy and bossy, but as soon as she 
*wasn't* the 'are-you-sure-that's-a-real-spell' Hermione, her acting didn't change 
that much, she was still overactng. Looking back on the first two movies, I go 
back and forth on Dan, sometimes I think he's doing a wonderful job, and in 
other scenes he's too bland, almost like he's underacting a little (which *sort 
of* works for Harry). The only one out of the three who comes off natural is 
Rupert, and that's the character that's getting downplayed (of course).
I'm happy to hear that Emma has improved with the new directer (and age, I 
assume). As for Dan and his fake-crying, crying is one thing, but *sobbing* 
would be quite difficult to fake and make it look real, especially for a teenage 
boy.

>>I suppose I 
can understand those critics who might prefer the first two movies, as they 
*are* simplistic kids' movies and leave very little to the imagination and 
even less for the viewer to put together in their own head. If one goes 
into PoA with that expectation, one is going to be disappointed. <<

Yes, but *why* would you, especially as a critic, go to a movie 
hoping/expecting it to be simplistic? (not saying that I don't agree with you, I just don't 
understand the mentality of some of the critics). I'm sure most adults would 
prefer a less "kiddie" movie, as would most kids come to that (children are 
smarter than people give them credit for). I think the only audience that will 
be lost at a much thicker plot are very small children (like 3-6) who wouldn't 
be getting that much out of it either way, and the small percentage of s
lightly older children who haven't read the books. I find it sort of silly that a 
critic would be upset that the movie gave more than they expected, that's 
supposed to be a good thing.

-Rebecca (who will be seeing it tomorrow!)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]