Rupert/Dylan/dancing movies/Blues Brothers

[naamagatus]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> wrote:
> So, then...Naama, yes, I agree completely with you.  I happen to 
not 
> think very highly of the movie, but I adored Grint's performance.  
He 
> was an island of true hilarity and characterization in an ocean of 
> wretchedness, particularly Emma Watson...I'd like to meet the girl 
> who could play Hermione less as I envisioned her.  She seemed more 
of 
> a whiny little prat than a somewhat uptight girl who was really 
very 
> nice underneath that part of herself.  Long live Hermione from the 
> books, down with Watson's portrayal!  Rupert was great, though.  
Made 
> some really great faces, managed to seem really BRAVE in his chess 
> scene, and was just the right kind of goofy-looking-but-cute that I 
> pictured as Ron (if not distinctly tall and long-nosed enough).  He 
> was great, outshone many of the adults, actually.  I particularly 
was 
> disappointed in Richard Harris.  He completely lost the twinkle of 
> Dumbledore, that really sweet bit ("Nitwit!  Blubber!  Oddment!  
> Tweak!").  He just struck me as sage and grandfatherly without the 
> spriteliness I see in Rowling's Dumbledore...and don't get me 
started 
> on Williams's score.  Star Wars, Superman, Jaws, (Back to the 
> Future?  was that Williams?  that theme is really good whoever it 
> was) and Close Encounters were great musically.  What happened?
> 

Well, there you are! It seems impossible to evaluate Rupert's 
performance without taking into account the background, that is the 
poor performance of the other actors, the uninspired direction, etc. 

What I'm trying to do is to decide whether Rupert is good compared to 
other GOOD actors. Could he compete with child actors such as Elijah 
Wood or what's-his-name Osmond? I'm not sure. Maybe he seemd so cute 
(and like he actually knows how to act) because Emma was so awful and 
Dan was so.. boring. 
I agree about Harris, btw. No twinkle at all. 
What did you think of Robby Coltrane? Hagrid was only right on the 
outside, wasn't he? For me, the whole point of Hagrid is that he's 
even bigger inside than outside. They put a lot of effort into making 
Hagrid physically big, but that was it. As far as personality goes, 
he was reduced to being slightly comical and completely flat 
otherwise. 

I guess that's really what I feel about the movie - that it's all 
outside and no inside. Good scenery, good props, an impressive list 
of actors, fine visual effects, famous director.. but Dumbledore has 
no twinkle, Hagrid is without his big heart,  Harry is without 
character, Hermione is almost diametrically not herself.. and in 
general nothing is left of the specifically HP-ish humor and spirit.


Naama