Comparing them all, mixed feelings.

Rating: Null/10 (9 June 2004)

Rule1 : If the film (or theatre play) comes first the book will in fact be awful. Rule2: If the book comes first the film will only be good if the book was already awful (cf starship troopers). As a result filmmakers have a hard time to meet expectations when the books are superb. The films can only be "not as bad as expected". They will only be good if the film makers are bold enough to simply scrap parts of the book and/or introduce something new. So where are we now with the Harry Potter films? HP I: not as bad as expected. Indeed, people who don't know the book are rightfully impressed. HP II: Outrageous because the house elf Dobby(in the way he is portrayed) is something new. The film is not a film for children any more but more in the Gothic genre. This makes the film outrageous, but very good indeed. HP III: Good cutting down to the essential plot. This makes it giving a somewhat breath-taking rushing impression while it leaves facts and scenes which are very impressing in the book look somewhat flat. People who don't know the book find this a very speedy movie. My rating: better than expected indeed. The only true disappointment is the prophecy teacher, she is not just very different from the book but outright ridiculous.