Harry Potter

Jim Garten wrote: jetson wrote: you can have a great time reading HP books, and an awful time watching HP movies Have to disagree I'm afraid; OK, Radcliffe/Watson/Grint aren't the greatest of acting talent the UK's ever seen, but so far the films have had the advantage of good directors, screenwriters who know what to cut or keep & a supporting cast of A-List actors more than able to raise what could have been sub-standard adaptations to good films in their own right.

I have to take the flip side, Jim. I believe the casting has been superb (not only the A-list of Isaacs, Rickman, Thompson, etc.), but the kids as well. Everyone cast is exactly how I pictured them. I blame the weak points on the directors and screenwriters. If Watson and Grint look weak, it's because all of their character growth is cut from the film. Daniel Radcliffe is shaping up to be a great actor IMO (go back and watch Phoenix, and from what I hear Equus was quite good). The only great director was Cuaron, and he made Prisoner the best HP film despite the fact that it is so far the worst in terms of book adaptation. OOTP was far too streamlined for its own good (how the f**k did Yates think it was a good idea to make the longest book nearly the shortest film?), but it was highly enjoyable and that fight between Dumbledore and Voldemort was what I've wanted since the first film.

.

Vompatti wrote: I read the first chapter of the first book and that was enough for me.

Harry potter?