eye candy is not enough

Rating: 1/10 (16 November 2002)

I hated this movie. I'm sorry if that bothers anyone, but that is my opinion. No, I have not read any of the books, nor will I ever, but that should have no bearing on the quality of the movie; in other words, if I have to like the book to like the movie, then this is simply a movie for fans, nothing more.
The movie was extremely slow, the plot incredibly predictable, and, overall, the main problem with the movie was its emphasis on visuals... well, that and the fact that all of the peripheral material that was pretty much left in for showmanship could have been cut out completely and wouldn't have been missed (I will not mention such scenes here since I don't want to spoil anything)... but I am a firm believer that before you can have a good movie, you MUST have a good script.
This movie did not. And I think Chris Columbus realized this as he was directing it... the characters talk the whole time about the plot, explaining what's happened as if we missed it, and seem to have little thoughts of their own... so, rather than leave his camera still, which would have been even more unbearable, he places as much emphasis on showing things as he possibly can, to the point that the script is pretty much useless. What's the point to all of the out-of-place tilts or all of the effects shots? Nothing really, other than to keep interest. Yes, I realize film is a visual medium, but there's a difference between using visuals to add to the story and using visuals for the sake of using them because they're the only thing worth while... this film falls into the latter of the two (admitted, the effects are good for the most part, but when the effects are the best part of a movie, it's not a very good movie).
Anyway, I'm sure my criticisms will only be criticized and cut down, or possibly thrown away as being worthless, but this is my opinion nonetheless - just because some of you may agree or disagree does not necessarily make any of us right.