I read recently that the famous movie website Rotten Tomatoes has rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, the "best reviewed" film of 2011.
That means that Part 2 was rated by professional film reviewers more positively than any other film last year.
I have to admit it: I find that amazing. Surprising. Disturbing. And perhaps a bit eye-opening, to be honest.
As anyone who has been reading this blog will know, I was not positively disposed to Part 2, which I thought butchered J.K.'s subtle and elegant final novel for the sake of filmic flashiness.
So why do all of these professional reviewers seem to like it so much?
It's possible that the reviewers like it because it is a good movie. Maybe even a great movie. Divorced from its source material, it probably stands very strongly on its own merits. It's exciting, well-written, and well-filmed. The acting is good, the story is strong and the technical work on it is exceptional.
I guess I can see all that. But it's difficult for me because, in my opinion, it could have been SO MUCH BETTER. Had they stuck more closely to J.K.'s plot, themes and character development, then added the same high level of technical, acting and writing work, they could have had a masterpiece.
Yes, I'm biased. Yes, I feel a huge amount of loyalty to Rowling's original novel (more, I fear, than even J.K. herself seemed to feel). And yes, I am completely incapable of seeing the film for what it is.
So I'll give them their props. Congrats to David Yates and Steven Kloves and all of the cast and crew on making an exceptional film. The accolades appear to be well-deserved.
Now, how long do we have to wait until someone is allowed to try again?
No comments:
Post a Comment