Rupert/the movie

[uilnslcoap]

> 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. 

She was really awful, wasn't she?  And Dan really was lifeless, no 
verve, no nothing.  I think Grint probably could stand in the shoes 
of Osment and Wood (I don't know if anyone will ever replace Ron 
Howard as my favorite child actor, though--did you ever watch the 
Andy Griffith Show?  He had so much heart and talent, that kid did, 
and now he's a good director).  What convinces me of this is his "you 
have to make sacrifices to win" speech on the chess board.  He didn't 
make it all weepy, nor did he make himself steely-eyed brave.  No, he 
toed the line.  He was very frightened of what he was about to do, 
but that didn't stop him from doing it.  Really was good, that one 
little scene was (just him, though, I didn't relish the rack-em, 
smack-em, look-it's-so-cinematic chess-pieces-broken-to-pieces 
business).  So yes, I think he might be actually a good actor, and 
not just a spot of mediocrity amidst lots of below-average.

> I agree about Harris, btw. No twinkle at all.

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!  Thanks for the verification.

> 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. 

Definitely.  I miss the Hagrid that howled when he had to leave Harry 
on the doorstep with the Dursleys.  I guess, knowing Columbus's work, 
I should be grateful the howl wasn't left in as he would have made it 
into some sort of comical moment.  Still, they made Hagrid into 
nothing, and he was so gosh-darn loveable in the books.  It's too bad 
because the grown-up cast really was inspired for the most part in 
terms of the way they look (and their acting capability).  Robbie 
Coltrane is really absolutely perfect-looking for the job and he's a 
good actor as well.  I don't really know what to blame it on.  I 
guess it was the direction.  It made the whole business feel pretty 
insipid.  Speaking of which...
 
> 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.

It really just completely lacks the FUN of the books.  It feels 
awfully heavy-handed and without a light touch.  I am constantly 
amazed by Rowling's ability to handle the comic and the highly 
dramatic and keep the whole thing so well-balanced.  That was utterly 
absent here.  The funny wasn't funny (except for Grint) and the 
dramatic was usually overdone or hammy or entirely lacking (except 
for Grint).  The bad thing is, I think I felt Columbus trying to 
avoid some bad pitfalls, and he did.  He left off the sugar that's 
been customary in his movies, but he didn't put anything in instead.  
Left it rather hollow if you ask me, and he just got lucky with 
Rupert (that wonderul boy, I could hug him for making a lot of that 
movie bearable).

Lest I say nothing else good about the movie, I did get one thing out 
of it.  I really hadn't thought about the fact that Harry is playing 
Quidditch against, well, 16 and 17-year-olds.  That, in fact, did 
leave me taking one thing back to the books, but that's about it.  Ah 
well.

Devin, who's roommate liked Emma Watson...he can never look at him 
the same way again