December 6th, 2002

onthephone

Harry Potter 1 compared to Harry Potter 2

Last Harry Potter, the cinema was packed out for weeks, and when we eventually got into the theatre it was packed, and not just with regular cinema-goers either. There were people there blinking at the red velvet and bewildered by the adverts, alarmed at the crowds and the noise and the drink-holders, cinema virgins who'd not been to anything more lowbrow than Ibsen since their student days, if then.

No danger of that this time. We share an almost-empty cinema with a dozen effects-junkies, a few teenage couples, and some worried-looking parents wondering if their kids will be able to stay awake through their late-night treat. Even we're feeling a bit alarmed at the thought of a 3-hr film starting at 8. I've seen the book. It's slender, and probably quite slight. So why is it taking up more time than The Fellowship of the Ring?

As the company branding music playes, I enter into my compact with the screen. I do this every time I watch a movie. I promise to ignore its inconsistencies, accept its fantasies, and play along with the story for the length of the film. But some films just won't play nice.

Collapse )
  • Current Music
    slightly less relentless than last time