According to an article I read a year ago, the universe of Harry Potter has become as real in the minds of youngsters and adults as that of a popular movie series like Star Wars. And much of what makes the Harry Potter phenomenon unique is that it is the first time in ages that a children's book, without a movie accompanying it, has generated this much popularity. But these are exceptions in my experience, most children's movies reveal their weaknesses in how they diverge from the books upon which they're based. Indeed, many classic children's movies, like "The Wizard of Oz" and "Mary Poppins," are so successful partly because they're so different from the books that inspired them. Critics talk about how incredibly faithful the movie is to the book, and perhaps I'd have had an easier time detaching the two in my mind had the movie set off on its own course. As I watched the movie, my continuing thought was "How well will the next part of the story be translated to the screen?" rather than "How entertaining is this film overall?" I have trouble answering the latter question because I was already entertained by watching a wonderful story dramatized, so I'll never know how I'd have reacted had I seen this movie without having read the books. Having read all four books in the series a few times each, I am overly familiar with the events in the story. There was so much anticipation leading up to its release, I simply enjoyed the experience of being there. But, like "The Phantom Menace," I've had a very hard time viewing it objectively.
#1st harry potter film tv#
It was first shown on TV networks (ABC in the US, several international broadcasts had the same extended showing) in 2004. There is an extended cut of the film running about 159 minutes vs the theatrical version runs 152 minutes.
0 kommentar(er)
