In the 60s and the 70s we had this insatiable desire to look beyond in the future. To explore the promises of science. To explore the possibility of another world -- up above in the stars.
In the later years of the 20th centuary and in the beginning of the 21st, we have seen us with an insatiable desire to look back into the past. To explore the lost promises. To explore the possibiltiy of another world -- down below the ground.
Ther earlier era gave a generation Star Wars to munch on -- to live with, to hang on to -- for hope and to have at hand this perfect dichotomy of good and evil that would help us wade through the mundane gray of life.
This era has given us the phenomenon of Harry Potter. Probably as a subconscious cultural response to the failed promises of science, to the broken arrow of tomorrow.
Harry Potter stories are a brilliant assemblage of commercial sugar puffs that would succeed by default -- in an age fedup with intellect and increasingly desiring miracles.
*
The much awaited movie is, as New York Times's Elvis Mitchell points out, a 'Video book'. A picture that slaps images and sound to the imagination of J.K. Rowling, the writer.
The movie has sufferred a lot from being pretty much just that -- what Rowling wanted. Mr. Columbus seems like just a delivery vehicle -- using practically no input from himself.
Harry Potter is a longish movie that is slow and at the same time running through to cover as much as it can. It is a constant priority shift. A jerky motion at the least.
Daniel Radcliffe as Harry is too pretty to be a character that the world fell in love with. He is really not upto it. He is more an observer than a participant. However, this is not tru about most other actors that have done a good job. Emma Watson as strong minded Hermione is utterly likeable. Alan Rickman as Snape is brilliant too. Tom Felton's Draco Malfoy is a very promising character. We can expect a lot of good things from him in the future installments.
No special effects extravaganza here. Routine computer generated animation that hollywood uses as butter over its clearly mouldy bread.
The music is one of the biggest failures, I feel. Sounding similar to Star Wars and not sounding identifiable. Does not seem to gel well with the movie.
But of course Harry Potter is a good movie. Based on a popular story, made by a populer director and supported by an able cast. It is a McDonald's double cheese burger -- full of meat and utterly predictable.
In the later years of the 20th centuary and in the beginning of the 21st, we have seen us with an insatiable desire to look back into the past. To explore the lost promises. To explore the possibiltiy of another world -- down below the ground.
Ther earlier era gave a generation Star Wars to munch on -- to live with, to hang on to -- for hope and to have at hand this perfect dichotomy of good and evil that would help us wade through the mundane gray of life.
This era has given us the phenomenon of Harry Potter. Probably as a subconscious cultural response to the failed promises of science, to the broken arrow of tomorrow.
Harry Potter stories are a brilliant assemblage of commercial sugar puffs that would succeed by default -- in an age fedup with intellect and increasingly desiring miracles.
*
The much awaited movie is, as New York Times's Elvis Mitchell points out, a 'Video book'. A picture that slaps images and sound to the imagination of J.K. Rowling, the writer.
The movie has sufferred a lot from being pretty much just that -- what Rowling wanted. Mr. Columbus seems like just a delivery vehicle -- using practically no input from himself.
Harry Potter is a longish movie that is slow and at the same time running through to cover as much as it can. It is a constant priority shift. A jerky motion at the least.
Daniel Radcliffe as Harry is too pretty to be a character that the world fell in love with. He is really not upto it. He is more an observer than a participant. However, this is not tru about most other actors that have done a good job. Emma Watson as strong minded Hermione is utterly likeable. Alan Rickman as Snape is brilliant too. Tom Felton's Draco Malfoy is a very promising character. We can expect a lot of good things from him in the future installments.
No special effects extravaganza here. Routine computer generated animation that hollywood uses as butter over its clearly mouldy bread.
The music is one of the biggest failures, I feel. Sounding similar to Star Wars and not sounding identifiable. Does not seem to gel well with the movie.
But of course Harry Potter is a good movie. Based on a popular story, made by a populer director and supported by an able cast. It is a McDonald's double cheese burger -- full of meat and utterly predictable.