I like the cheeky money that comes with writing reviews. I will try to return all r/r/c. Now also on...
I like the cheeky money that comes with writing reviews. I will try to return all r/r/c. Now also on Dooyoo. Re-writing my terrible older reviews, if you'd be kind enough to re-rate. Requiem For A Dream completed
Member since:10.01.2008
Reviews:81
Members who trust:12
Intro
Most literate people in the western world have read the famous Harry Potter books, and a tremendous success they have been too, so when Warner Bros announced that 8 films would be made for this series, I can imagine there was a mixed response.
There will be those who were elated at the prospect of the films. Their favorite book, turned into a blockbuster film. Now there will be a face to each name, and Hogwarts can be developed with some great studio effects.
The magical game of Quidditch can be realized through CGI, not to mention the spectacular wand-work, and magical creatures. It was a dream come true for the many Potter-crazed fans out there.
However, on the other end of the scale, many people were disappointed at this news. There were those who thought it was saddening that a big company had to make a film for every good book, implanting character and scenery images into your mind so you don't have to think for yourself.
Many were worried that the film would not do the book justice, and make a mockery of the brilliant work that went into the book. They thought that corners would be cut in an attempt to cash in on the 'Potter-mania' , and the result would be a travesty.
I'll try and give you some idea of how I thought the films were in comparison to the books.
The Casting
Daniel
Radcliffe as Harry Potter: This lad impressed enough in the audition to secure the role that thousands had tried for, the holy grail of child acting, Harry Potter. He became the face to a character whom millions had already formulated their own ideas of in their head, and on an appearance alone, it was a good casting decision.
Despite ignoring the 'mop of jet-black hair' in favor of brown hair, Radcliffe is pretty much spot on as Potter. He is small enough to be considered fairly scrawny, and that accompanied by his crooked glasses produces a very believable Harry.
As anyone who has worked in film before will know, it is incredibly difficult to find good child actors. With Radcliffe, it was a surprising turn. First impressions of his acting lead us to believe that Radcliffe is straight out of acting school, with his enunciations and elaborations, but lacks any flair. He is mediocre in the first three films, but to be fair, as child actors go, he was pretty good.
Then, accompanied by Emma Watson as Hermione, and Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, Daniel Radcliffe begins to act well in the fourth film. I'm not sure whether it was just getting older, or a change in directors, but all three produce much finer roles in the later films than they did in the earlier ones. 7/10
Emma Watson as Hermione Granger: We first see Hermione on the Hogwarts Express, with her bossy, annoying tone of voice, and her seemingly snobbish attitude.
Emma Watson started off perhaps a little better than her male child actor counterparts, but was still a little shaky. Her biggest problem in the first couple of the films was being really annoyingly posh, which was intentional, but the viewer starts to become annoyed and tired with her.
However, she, again in the fourth film, made a dramatic transformation, and is a great supporting actor for Radcliffe, and has a lot of nice on-screen chemistry with Rupert Grint, which works nicely. 7/10
Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley: Rupert Grint was perhaps the best and the worst of the three child actors in the first three films.
By this, I mean that whilst some of his moments on the screen caused genuine humor, he seemed to have only one expression, and was a pretty dire actor.
At first I thought that he only had the one face, a shocked expression with his mouth wide open, usually exclaiming "Bloody hell!" But he too has come on in leaps and bounds from the fourth film onwards, and the three of them make a great acting trio, feeding off each other brilliantly. 7/10
The rest of the cast: Richard Harris was cast as Head of Hogwarts Albus Dumbledore, and played a sterling role, before he sadly died after the second film in 2002. The role of Dumbledore was given to Michael Gambon, who has been a worthy replacement since. 8/10
Robbie Coltrane was cast as the friendly half-giant Hagrid, and the effects used on his size to make him seem 10-foot tall, accompanied with some great acting leads to the role of Hagrid in no trouble whatsoever. 9/10
Ralph Fiennes appears in the later films as the infamous Lord Voldemort. He doesn't have too much to do in these earlier films, but what he does do, he does well. 6/10
The rest of the cast do a nice supporting job, with no particular performances standing out.
The directing
The first two films were directed by Chris Columbus, and I don't believe he did the books enough credit.
It's not that he did anything wrong particularly - but he adds nothing to the film, just plays out what happens word for word, without adding any spark or real intensity.
However, his use of CGI is good, and to be fair to any director, when your three main actors are children, it's hard to pull of a masterpiece.
Alfonso Cuaron directed the third film, and things started to get slightly better, Mike Newell stepped in for the fourth, things got even better, and then David Yates, who will most likely be directing the rest of the films, directed the fifth, and produced the best out of all the films so far.
Yates added a new darker side to Potter and the magical world, which helped to build intensity and tension in many scenes. He also brings out the best in all his actors, which adds a lot to the film.
The decision to add more action-packed scenes into the films, which would change the rating from a PG to a 12A was a good one, as it stuck more with the book, and provided a better standard of viewing for all.
The Product Pricing
This product can be bought from www.amazon.co.uk for £29.98 which is a decent price, but you may be better off waiting until all eight films are out (there will be two films for the last book) before buying a box set, to save yourself some money.
My Conclusion
As films of books go, these DVDs aren't bad at all. The acting isn't awful, neither is the directing, and every aspect of film gets about 25% better as each film goes on.They are well worth seeing, but I urge you to read the books before you watch the DVDs if you have done neither, it is a much more rewarding and valuable experience.
How helpful would this review be to a person making a buying decision? Rating guidelines
Advantages: Great characters, great actors, love the visual effects and music score Disadvantages: Some of the DVDs are more action packed and exciting than others in the collection
Advantages: Offers freedom to watch all films so you can keep a continual track of the story. Disadvantages: Although enjoyable, the later films are more compelling to view than those before.
Advantages: Great characters, great actors, love the visual effects and music score Disadvantages: Some of the DVDs are more action packed and exciting than others in the collection
Advantages: Offers freedom to watch all films so you can keep a continual track of the story. Disadvantages: Although enjoyable, the later films are more compelling to view than those before.
![Harry Potter Collection - Years 1-5 [UMD Mini for PSP] [2001]](http://picnica.ciao.com/uk/88238900.jpg "Harry Potter Collection - Years 1-5 [UMD Mini for PSP] [2001]")
Sep 8th, 2008
very helpful by (88%):
helpful by (12%):
![Harry Potter Years 1-5 [DVD] [2008] [Region 1] [US Import] [NTSC]](http://picnica.ciao.com/uk/79822710.jpg)
![Harry Potter Years 1-5 [DVD] [2008] [Region 1] [US Import] [NTSC]](http://picnicb.ciao.com/uk/116064123.jpg)
