Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
uknortherner2000
Anyway, a little more about myself: Male, 27 (eek!), single and an unhealthy interest in video gaming, TV, football and the pub (ever heard of Fab Caf� in Manchester? <--- My second home!).
Occasionally, I play pool or go bowling and love chicken korma, though I don't really eat that much of it these days... Oh, and in case my nick didn't give it away - I'm from the UK. North Manchester to be exact!
I'm hoping to be going travelling around Australia towards the end of the year when I'm made redundant from my current job - If I find the guts to do it, though :(
Reviews
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
A truly entertaining movie, but some ropey acting and appalling dialogue disappoints in places
We're now into the fourth year at Hogwarts, and of course Harry Potter is in mortal danger. Well, isn't he always? We are introduced to the Death Eaters, he finds himself being put forward for the Tri-Wizard Tournament, and to round it all off, he comes face-to-face with his old pal, Lord Voldemort. So at the very least, the core storyline makes it across from the book. And that's about it.
What we get is a two-and-a-half hour roller-coaster of action scenes, melodramatic situations and suffering, all uncomfortably compacted with little room to spare for the side-plots that the book puts in place for Order of the Phoenix. In fact, there are many questions left unanswered, even if you just stuck to the films. For instance, why is Sirius in hiding, and how will Rita Skeeter's much reduced on-screen presence affect the plot development in the next film? There isn't a lot of effort made in tying up the loose ends, to link Goblet of Fire to Prisoner of Azkaban, or even to set the stage for Order of the Phoenix, but I think a lot of this comes down to the fact the franchise seems to run through as many directors as Hogwarts runs through Defence Against the Dark Arts teachers. The lack of consistency from one film to the next is starting to show, and the risk is that the later films will simply become standalone 'episodes' rather than a series as it should be.
The dialogue can be weak in places. There didn't really seem to be a need for Ron to swear at Harry at all, especially after ten seconds of deafening silence, and for some inexplicable reason, Emma Watson (Hermione) seems to have developed the urge to overact again, in a similar fashion to Philosopher's Stone. We know she can turn on the waterworks at will, but there are times when you hope she can portray Hermione being happy, just for once and without a forced accent.
With the absence of many key characters from the book, several elements of the Tri-Wizard Tournament are left to the main characters to pick up. Dobby the House Elf, who featured heavily in the book, is absent altogether, even though he plays an important role in the second challenge. Instead, it's Neville Longbottom who has to pick up the slack there.
Yet despite all these problems, the film is actually pretty good. The dialogue though weak in parts is genuinely funny, as is some of the on-screen antics of the characters, with several instances seemingly more ad-libbed than what had been written in the script.
If there was one major gripe I had, then it would be with Michael Gambon. I thought he played a good Dumbledore in Prisoner of Azkaban, but I'm less convinced this time around. Dumbledore is rarely aggressive in the books and there's no reason why he should be in the films either. I feel it is pretty bad form not to carry out some research before reprising a role. In this case, Gambon should've been reading the books in his spare time.
A minor gripe to coincide with what I've written above is the general atmosphere of the film. The book was extremely dark, and there were moments where I really felt emotionally strained reading it. Sadly, this isn't so for the film. The dark atmosphere has been toned down considerably which removed some of the heightened sense of fear that was supposed to permeate throughout not just Hogwarts, but the wizarding world as a whole.
The Yule Ball, a fairly minor event in the book it has to be said, also seemed to water down the moody atmosphere, although the set-to moments between Ron and Hermione were as good as I could've hoped. In those rare moments you actually see Hermione being happy, you could almost guarantee Ron would find some way to scupper it. In fact, the funniest moment came during one such argument, when Harry turns up out of nowhere only for Hermione to order both him and Ron to bed, like she was their mother. If there was one moment when the on screen character had been a virtual copy to that of the book, this was it.
Overall, it's still worth seeing. It may lack the tension and atmosphere of the book, but in no way does that make it a bad film. I'm still curious why the content earned it a 12 rating here in the UK, when it was far less scary than Prisoner of Azkaban, but that's the censors for you. It's not necessarily worth owning on DVD (although I do), but it is worth seeing at least once. Truly entertaining, but technically not the best Harry Potter offering to date.
2DTV (2001)
Spitting Image for the 21st Century
2DTV. This, and the Champions League were probably the only reasons why I wasted any time watching ITV.
Funny dialogue, a warped sense of humour and the ability of the 2DTV team to knock these episodes out the same day as major events unfolded is the reason why I made the effort to watch it.
Nothing, it seemed was out of bounds: The US, Iraq War, the British Government, the royal family, The Osbournes, Harry Potter, football, soaps, reality TV, celebrities, Al Qaeda, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... Basically anything that hit the headlines, made it into the show and to hilarious effect.
Although the episodes tended to be only 15 minutes long (and as such, could be easily lost amongst the dreary reality shows ITV usually churned out at 10pm), there was usually never a moment when the show lost it's pace.
The animation was more functional rather than polished, and some of the voices were sometimes off the mark, but neither of these things really detracted from the script itself. The political bias may put some people off, but it's worth persevering even if it's only to see the celebrity gags.
Certainly one to rent/buy on DVD.
Ong-Bak (2003)
Tony Jaa's performance speaks for itself
What is there to be said? This film was recommended to me on a UK-based message board and with some apprehension, I rented it from Blockbuster, sat back and watched it.
To say I spent most of the film with my mouth wide open, gawping at the amazingly fast, yet perfectly choreographed fighting scenes would be an understatement. I was simply blown away by the masterpiece that never let up.
As with many "kung-fu" films, the background plot is a little thin, but it doesn't matter one bit. The story follows a young orphan by the name of Ting (Tony Jaa), who awaiting his chance to be ordained as a monk, volunteers his finely-honed Muay Thai fighting abilities when the head of the village's revered Bhudda statue, "Ong-Bak" is stolen by a thief with strong links to the Bangkok criminal underworld and heads off to retrieve it. In Bangkok, it soon becomes clear that there are few people he can trust, even his own cousin who had assumed a new identity, a penchant for gambling but who had found himself at the mercy of criminals over unpaid debts.
Whilst the story is weak, the action on-screen certainly is not. You certainly pay little attention to the story as a whole, because much of it is somewhat disjointed but it's provided as a backdrop to what this film's really about. This is a proper raw blood-and-guts martial arts film. The injuries seem real (they probably are), the fighting moves are pulled off flawlessly in what seems to be a single take and the atmospheric setting of Bangkok's criminal underworld is matched by some seriously gritty and seedy locations that continue throughout to give Ong-Bak it's dark edge. The action happens so fast at times that slow-motion replays are shown from different angles to show off Tony Jaa's skills to full effect, and there are no stunt doubles.
This is definitely a film to watch. If you're a big fan of Jackie Chan or Jet Li, you owe it to yourself to watch this too. Tony Jaa's abilities are right up there with the best of them, and it's a shame that Ong-Bak received virtually no coverage at all here in the UK. If there was one criticism I had with Ong-Bak, then it was because at 108 minutes, it simply felt too short.
Strongly recommended.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
The screenplay writer's one-page summary...
It has been said that the new director, Alfonso Cuaron asked the young stars to go away and write an essay on their characters. Emma Watson came back with a 16-page(!) essay on Hermione, Daniel Radcliffe, a 1-page summary on Harry and Rupert Grint didn't even bother handing his in. The point of mentioning this? Well, the film feels as though Cuaron had also asked the screenplay writer to do the same thing with the book and this film is his 1-page summary.
Firstly, I need to point out that I have not yet finished reading Prisoner of Azkaban I'm only half-way through it, but from what I have managed to read, around 80% of it has been omitted from the film. With that in mind, I will try not draw too many comparisons between the two, but will try to focus mainly on the film itself.
The locations are atmospheric although changes to the layout of Hogwarts seem to confuse rather than enhance the viewing experience. Daniel, Emma and Rupert seem completely comfortable in their roles as Harry, Hermione and Ron, and once again are backed by an extremely talented cast comprising of regulars, Robbie Coltraine (Hagrid), Alan Rickman (Snape), Maggie Smith (McGonagall), Richard Griffiths (Uncle Vernon) and Fiona Shaw (Aunt Petunia), as well as newcomers to the series Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), David Thewlis (Remus Lupin) and one I probably should've easily recognised were it not for those thick glasses, Emma Thompson (Professor Trelawney). Contrary to what a few commentators have said, Michael Gambon made a fine Dumbledore given the circumstances.
Sadly, despite the strong cast, the screenplay is somewhat weak. The film seems to jump back and forth to events with no consistency (Quidditch, for instance was a major event in the book this time around because it was to be Oliver Wood's last attempt to take the Gryffindor team to the top before he left Hogwarts for good, but it's just about squeezed in with little purpose in the film, except to show Harry coming face to face with the Dementors again); Lupin is asked if he's been taking his potion before turning into a werewolf (this would make no sense to viewers of the film as there were no other references to the potion), and the time-travel sequence at the end of the film feels more complicated and pointless than it needed to be. Characters that played an important role in the previous film (i.e. Ginny) are reduced to just brief appearances and often without saying anything at all, and entire events once again find themselves left on the cutting room floor. Also, there are moments that just seem to drag on, for no reason at all.
Perhaps the most immediate thing any follower of the Harry Potter series will have noticed is how dark this film is. Harry, although more mature is a lot more confrontational and rebellious; the Dementors really can send a shiver down your spine at times; Buckbeak's execution, Trelawney's spirit possession and immediately near the start of the film, the presence of the dark and mysterious Grim who Harry sees immediately before the Knight Bus turns up adds to a film that tries to portray a sense of growing maturity and the realisation that the wider world really is full of danger. It's no Batman Begins, but the darkness the film portrays is a pretty welcome direction that drags the viewer from the safer and more pleasant worlds of the previous two films.
It's the whole coming of age theme that Cuaron had probably pushed most though the growing maturity of the three main characters. Harry, as we already know is a lot more confrontational. Hermione, too exhibits moments where she can certainly defend herself from the likes of Draco Malfoy (with a painful reminder he won't forget in a hurry!), and Ron finally becomes less of a sidekick and more of an equal in the "team". There are moments where it seems that Ron and Hermione actually find themselves being attracted to each other, but Ron's awkward approach to these things tend to be comical and work to good effect.
Having said that, some of the humour that we would expect to find in a Harry Potter film just isn't there. Without doubt, much of the dialogue has been re-written for the film, and some of the in-jokes lost along the way. Some of the jokes that remained had no meaning because the corresponding event or conversation had been omitted earlier on in the screenplay.
It's difficult to say how future films will turn out. It would be a bold statement to say that Prisoner of Azkaban marks the point where the films and books go their separate ways because I have not finished reading Prisoner of Azkaban, nor have I seen Goblet of Fire, but certainly reading around IMDb, it would appear that this was becoming the case.
Considering how much has been stripped out of the first half of the book (against the first 20 minutes of the film it seems), it would probably be a safe bet that fans of the books will continue to be disappointed with the big screen offerings, whilst newcomers to the Harry Potter films will continue to be mesmerised.
Sadly, Prisoner of Azkaban has probably been the weakest Harry Potter film offering so far. Not because of the performances given by the cast, and not because of the special effects and atmospheric setting that are used to good effect, but simply because the screenplay omits too much.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
A strong sequel, but elements get lost in transition from book to film...
Chamber of Secrets is the sequel to the widely received Philospher's Stone and a marked improvement over it's prequel in terms of plot and character depth and acting skill by the film's young actors. A lot of this is down to the fact that the book itself is very well written though sadly some elements of it aren't portrayed quite as well in the film.
Like Philosopher's Stone, the line-up is strong, with many well-known names here in the UK (Robbie Coltraine, Alan Rickman to name a couple) that gives this film an air of greatness, and even the film's young stars - Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron) and Emma Watson (Hermione) exude far greater confidence in their roles this time around and appear to be more at home with their surroundings. Some of this is down to better scripting, some to better acting ability (or training) but a lot of it is simply down to the actors returning to familiar territory.
Many book-to-film transfers usually end up omitting large parts of the plot, or lend themselves to grandiose special effects designed to prop up a weak, or butchered plot. Chamber of Secrets manages not to fall into either trap, although sacrifices were made to the plot to keep everything together in a short time frame.
For instance, seasons pass incredibly quickly in the film. So quickly, in fact that if you blinked, you've probably just skipped a couple of months. This isn't an exaggeration: The book manages to cover several main festivals and holidays that the film simply omits - i.e. Halloween. Moaning Myrtle is introduced in the film for the first time in a girls' toilet. In the book, she is actually introduced to Harry, Ron and Hermione during a Deathday Party hosted by Nearly-Headless Nick on Halloween. Incidentally, the girls toilets are 'out of order' in the book.
Another change between book and film is the introduction of the wizardry version of racism. Although it was a theme touched upon in the first book, here it is the main undercurrent and sits well at home with Harry's arch-nemesis, Draco Malfoy. He almost looks like an advert for the Hitler Youth in the film, and the comments about "Mudbloods" - a phrase to describe, in derogatory terms a witch or wizard born from non-magical parents, certainly sit at home with his appearance... Had it been explored further. In the film however, it seems to be reserved for just a couple of scenes, and one of those - the scene following Malfoy's verbal assault on Hermione in the schoolyard, had been re-written so that it seemed Hermione herself took personal offence (being almost reduced to tears), rather than Ron and Harry (and just about everyone else on the Gryffindor Quidditch team).
A few new characters are introduced into the film too, including Ron's sister Ginny, and my personal favourite, Dobby - a house elf, not too dissimilar in appearance to Gollum from Lord of the Rings. He became my personal favourite character simply because of the way he's in constant conflict with himself - ironing his hands or smashing his head against a wall when he lets secrets slip. He provides a lot of laughs in the short time he appears in the film.
An ominous new character is Lucius Malfoy, Draco's father and a holder of many dark secrets, some exposed in the film, but many more left behind in the book. In the book, he shares the same "racist" attitude as his son Draco, but is more aware of who he can share this view with, and when it's best to keep his mouth closed. Again, only a part of this is carried into the film. It's not essential, but it certainly adds an extremely dark element to the Harry Potter universe.
Finally, there is Gilderoy Lockhart, an opportunistic fraud whose character carries extremely well from book to the big screen. In the book, Hermione (along with all the other girls) is besotted with him, whilst Harry and Ron quickly see through his paper-thin veneer. This, sadly isn't apparent in the film, which is a shame because it provides for many hilarious moments when he's running scared, with Ron and Harry seeing him for what he is, but Hermione, with having a massive crush on him, seeing something completely different - Bravery, when he was incapable of showing it! One thing that becomes apparent is that Hogwarts seems to go through a lot of Defence Against The Dark Arts teachers...
As a standalone film, it fares pretty well. The characters are strong, and the acting somewhat more believable this time around. The humour's there, and the Harry Potter universe is faithfully recreated, but darker elements have been watered down, possibly to make the film more accessible to children (though it's a children's book in the first place?), or possibly because it was felt that certain elements just weren't needed.
I feel that if you have read the book first, you will be disappointed with the big screen equivalent. I discovered that although I read the book long after seeing the film, it wasn't difficult to see what had been omitted, and I would've felt disappointed with the end result had I know beforehand. But I didn't, and as a standalone film, it's very good.
What does become apparent however, is that as the books continue to grow bigger and bigger, a lot more sacrifices will have to be made in future to try and squeeze a 700-page book (like Half Blood Prince) down to a three-hour film, and I wouldn't envy the person who ends up with the task of doing it! Apparently, Goblet of Fire makes some major omissions (I've not seen it, or read the book yet to draw a comparison, but the book is only a fraction of the size of Half Blood Prince, though it is double that of Chamber of Secrets.