I dont understand why Harry Potter is such a big hit (watched the movie ACCIDENTALLY yesterday night with the guys during our weekly meetings)
Yes, I agree that the visual effects are absolutely works of art and realistic to the sense that there was actual depth perception and accurate physics (fluttering of masts is a good example), though the operators that were in the projection room in yishun GV didnt do a good job in calibrating the projector; slightly off-focus, dark and the volume of the speakers was turned up way beyond the recommended level - explosions became a mix of high treble and static.
There were many suppposedly funny moments in the film (the little girls behind us were laughing ever so contentedly, with me basically "huh-ing" at what the joke is all about.) Maybe the English accent just turns me off or that i wasnt quick enough to catch what they were saying onscreen.
Sets were very elaborate with plenty of low-key lighting. Overall, the color pallete consisted of blue, brown, black, marroon and other similar colours. The grass even loooked a bit dull and gray on sunny scenes. Cinematography was done quite nicely, really. I saw some very basic special effects shots like a canted shot, dolly up to object shot, zoom in shots... but were used in good effect. No need for fancy transitions. All was straight cuts. No fades. The editor was skillful in his work as well, cutting at the exact moments where things would make an impact.
However, story-wise, it left me a lot to be desired. basically Harry does nothing to achieve his goal, being turned into nothing more than a mindless scapegoat of very very impressive figures, like the professor and the other old bearded wizards. I like the diversity of the characters, really. Though the "final boss" (term borrowed from games, duh) had a very short appearance, not something expected; it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Goblet of Fire was very draggy at times. Lots of dialogue. But i understand, because it somehwat follows the system of stage acting, which required quite a load of poetry and fluffy words in its dialgoues.... and i stil have no idea who the hell the bad guy was, and what was the struggle about.
and Mr. Potter is not 17?!?!?!? He's 14?!?!?! oh dear.. i feel so under-developed; he has more pit hairs than me.
Obviously, this is not a proper review. I wonder why people liek the story. Is it because of the effects? the characters? the story? or are they simply Potter-nerds? Tharik seems to know every single "system code" of Harry Potter; i couldnt shut him up as he went on and on with Potter trivia and the famous question,"Is this CG or real?"
80% of the film is probably CG, IMO.
But very impressive, really. The seaweeds unraveled my long forgotten fear: underwater.
*not another Potter or LOTR movie for me, again. Fantasy = outta the window.
Yes, I agree that the visual effects are absolutely works of art and realistic to the sense that there was actual depth perception and accurate physics (fluttering of masts is a good example), though the operators that were in the projection room in yishun GV didnt do a good job in calibrating the projector; slightly off-focus, dark and the volume of the speakers was turned up way beyond the recommended level - explosions became a mix of high treble and static.
There were many suppposedly funny moments in the film (the little girls behind us were laughing ever so contentedly, with me basically "huh-ing" at what the joke is all about.) Maybe the English accent just turns me off or that i wasnt quick enough to catch what they were saying onscreen.
Sets were very elaborate with plenty of low-key lighting. Overall, the color pallete consisted of blue, brown, black, marroon and other similar colours. The grass even loooked a bit dull and gray on sunny scenes. Cinematography was done quite nicely, really. I saw some very basic special effects shots like a canted shot, dolly up to object shot, zoom in shots... but were used in good effect. No need for fancy transitions. All was straight cuts. No fades. The editor was skillful in his work as well, cutting at the exact moments where things would make an impact.
However, story-wise, it left me a lot to be desired. basically Harry does nothing to achieve his goal, being turned into nothing more than a mindless scapegoat of very very impressive figures, like the professor and the other old bearded wizards. I like the diversity of the characters, really. Though the "final boss" (term borrowed from games, duh) had a very short appearance, not something expected; it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Goblet of Fire was very draggy at times. Lots of dialogue. But i understand, because it somehwat follows the system of stage acting, which required quite a load of poetry and fluffy words in its dialgoues.... and i stil have no idea who the hell the bad guy was, and what was the struggle about.
and Mr. Potter is not 17?!?!?!? He's 14?!?!?! oh dear.. i feel so under-developed; he has more pit hairs than me.
Obviously, this is not a proper review. I wonder why people liek the story. Is it because of the effects? the characters? the story? or are they simply Potter-nerds? Tharik seems to know every single "system code" of Harry Potter; i couldnt shut him up as he went on and on with Potter trivia and the famous question,"Is this CG or real?"
80% of the film is probably CG, IMO.
But very impressive, really. The seaweeds unraveled my long forgotten fear: underwater.
*not another Potter or LOTR movie for me, again. Fantasy = outta the window.
Posted by
Audi
RSS
