I beg to differ! 
(Had to get that in. Am seeing the movie later this week, once I finish that paper I’m supposed to be working on. Actually, Branagh’s presence is one of its great selling points as far as I’m concerned… ;))
Branagh wasn’t dashingly handsome, but can you imagine if Hugh Grant had gotten the role, as someone suggested? gag barf Sorry but that guy looks like he has a birth defect.
Well, I certainly didn’t expect him to look like an extra from Lord of the Rings, but certainly not ugly. I did see him as a rather imposing figure, but more muscular than anything. (And a loud second for the “Sexy evil men, hurrah!” :D)
I decline to comment on Kenneth Branagh’s attractiveness, but I think Lockhart’s appeal was really more in his charisma than his appearance. After all, once he was exposed as a fraud and he wasn’t constantly blasting his charm, he didn’t look quite as handsome. And Branagh pulled that off fantastically.
The movie representation was pretty accurate, but more handsome, than what I’d imagined.
I liked the movie a lot, but I think the series is definitely one of those “know what you’re getting into” type of things. In a sense, it’s like the James Bond movies – you go for the spectacle of seeing scenes from the books played out on-screen. You shouldn’t expect the movies to stand out completely on their own merits.
It’s pretty much what makes the books so successful. I love the books and have read them all, but they’re not great works of literature by any means. They’re engrossing stories filled with lots of fantastic scenes and characters, held together by the barest of plots. It was funny watching Chamber of Secrets; I remembered the climax of the book as being pretty cheesy and implausible, but seeing it played out on the screen just made it seem sillier. Especially when
“Tom Marvolo Riddle” spells out “I am Lord Voldemort”.
In all it was a much better adaptation than the first movie, since they actually made an adaptation this time instead of trying to film the book scene-by-scene. And I’m glad that they kept all the creepy and dark stuff in; I think people assume that kids are a lot more fragile than they really are.
It’s been said before several times, but it bears repeating: the ending with Hagrid’s return was just plain bad. They put it in because it had so much weight in the book, but they never established why it was such a big deal in the movie.
Alan Rickman is brilliant, probably the best-cast character in the series. Snape is such a significant character in the books, but he gets next to zero screen time in the movies. And still, Rickman manages to make the character creepy and memorable.
The child actors all seem to have gone to the same acting school as the kids from the Jurassic Park movies. I picture a big Stephen Spielberg-run training camp where they’re drilled on how to do the wide-eyed-surprise look when seeing a CGI effect. I agree with the others who said that Emma Watson as Hermione is the best of the kids.
Kenneth Brannagh did a perfect job with his character; he “got” the whole point of the movie and the books exactly. (And all the paintings and photographs were hilarious.) But it’s another case of bad adaptation – in the movie he just comes across as pompous and self-obsessed but basically harmless, which makes Ron and Harry’s treatment of him at the end just seem cruel. I remember the book’s making him out to be more of a threat.
The scene with the mandrake roots was extremely well-done, but I wish they’d left in my favorite joke from the books (how the mandrakes have gotten sullen and uncommunicative, which means they’re entering adolescence and will soon be mature enough to use).
And I’m curious whether kids will start talking in Parseltongue after seeing the movie; it seemed to be the kind of thing I would’ve fixated on when I was younger.
Yes, I pictured Lucius Malfoy as much more skeletal and with a face more sharply-featured… the guy in the movie looked like the kids from my school years who loved heavy metal and D&D. Who were earnest and friendly people, not evil.
Also, you are all completely mad. Moaning Myrtle was perfect in every possible way. A million times better than she was in the book.
-fh
A bit off topic, but does anyone else think Moaning Myrtle has been treated terribly by the wizarding community? Apparently everyone was sad when she died, but after that, no one besides Harry and Ron even seemed to make the connection that the bathroom ghost was the basilisk victim! Did her family ever visit her? Did anyone ever visit her for any other purpose than to throw books through her head?! For 50 years, poor Myrtle has been left to rot alone in a bathroom to the point where, in the book, she got depressed enough to try to kill herself even though she was already dead! For God’s sake, why don’t the wizards exorcise her and send her to her eternal reward in the afterlife? Of course, I’ve come up with an even better solution. I’m writing a story where a party of D&D adventurers visit’s Harry’s world and the cleric resurrects Myrtle and Harry’s parents! The only problem is, the spell seems to require undead creatures to be slain before they can be brought back. So I imagine the scene going something like this:
Cleric: Well, Myrtle, we’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is, we can bring you back to life. The bad news is, we have to kill you first.
Wizard (casting Mordenkainen’s Sword): Don’t worry. This won’t hurt… much.
Wow! Seems like it’s all covered above. I enjoyed both Potter movies. Fun and light entertainment. Loved reading all the books. If I had to compare Lord of the Rings with Potter, to me LOTR is superior.
Fortunately I stayed through the credits and saw the funny supplement. 
The problem with Moaning Myrtle was the voice. It was such a parody that it took the suspension of disbelief and chucked it right out.
I kinda liked it; I thought it was okay but less than it could have been. I’m not gonna judge the acting, since I am the world’s worst acting critic, but I really really really like Percy (Chris Rankin) and Oliver (Biggerstaff). giggle Though they shoulda put more of Percy’s stuff in there. This is the book where he’s revealed to be having that romance with another prefect, right?
Anyway, I liked the way Dobby was portrayed, but I didn’t like the way the Whomping Willow and Fawkes were shown. Neither of them looked “right” to me. Both, IMHO, should have looked more graceful. And Moaning Myrtle didn’t really annoy me at all, though I wouldn’t exactly want to share a bathroom with her. ricksummon, I agree about it being odd that no one cared about her even though she was killed by the basilisk.
Spiders: not creepy. Basilisk: not creepy. I just wasn’t freaked out by them at all (though my younger brother, aged 12, was).
Quidditch through the stands’ support: really freaky. I didn’t recall that part from reading the books and I was thinking the stands would definitely collapse. Also, Harry being chased by that stupid blugger was really really freaky for some reason. I mean every time he turned around it was RIGHT THERE!
I didn’t like the ending much. They should have stuck with the book rather than the silly, cheesy “welcome back Hagrid”. Though if they had, Hagrid wouldn’t have gotten any more screen time than he did in the first place, which is sad.
Branagh as Lockhart was good, and while I really like Hugh Grant I can’t imagine him in the role. He just doesn’t look like I imagined Lockhart to be.
I must agree with SolGrundy about Tom Riddle’s revelation. It seemed much more cheesy in the movie than in the book. It was a classic cliche: the villain has the hero right where he wants him and then takes the time to (literally, in this case) spell everything out for him.
I thought it was more enjoyable that the first film (I’ve read the books) the comic timing of the actor who plays ron is amazing, the Richard Harris scenes were depressing but musnt dwell on it.
Sorry to hijack but whats happening with the next book??
Well, Squirebob, if you really want to know, check out this website: major spoilers
**Heloise ** interesting site.
House elves are supposed to be EXTREMELY POWERFUL magical creatures. They are conditioned/wired to serve their master and are restrained by this servitude. In GOF Dobby rather handily snatches something from inside a magically locked cabinet in Snape’s office.
Thanks, Shirley. I found it pretty fascinating, myself, although I hope, for the sake of surprises, that not all of it is true!
Drachillix, you’re about three days too late. 
I posted an answer already! Although, you did expound on what I said.
OOC, how would one GET a house elf? One would think that families with house elves would be breeding them like rabbits for sale to other families.
Wow, I really did not need that mental image.
Perhaps a plot point in HP 5 or 6?
And Riddle needs to have the Evil Overlord list written on his ink-stained papery corpse as punishment. The exposition, the pointing out of the “hearing” of the basilisk (snake == mostly deaf), and the idiotic pointing out of the book.
[q]OOC, how would one GET a house elf?[/q]
I assume rich wizards can buy a few from House Elf breeding grounds? 
And I was suprised when Dobby knocked Malfoy on his ass, though I went back to the book and found that it was right there. Though in the book, Malfoy falls down three stairs :D.
That makes me feel a little better 
It feels wrong finding a boy the same age as my baby brother attractive, but I am only six years older than the actor. The guy who played “Tom” was rather attractive as well (and 24, which causes me no guilt ), so it’s too bad he won’t be in the next movie.
I liked this movie. I don’t think it was better than the first one, but it was pretty good; which says a lot since book 2 is my least favorite of the four. I wish Hermione had more screen time, since she is a promising actress for someone that young. I also wish they’d made more of her crush on the oaf Lockhart. I look forward to the next movie, although I’m sorely disappointed that they aren’t releasing it for two years. Oh well.
Oh, one detail I really like about the movies: all the Weasleys really have red hair (by “really” I mean that they’re at least shown to, not that they’re necessarily all natural redheads). The only other movie I can think of that was supposed to, according to the book it was based on, have a nearly entirely red-haired family is The Thorn Birds which didn’t keep that aspect in the mini-series. That really bothered me for some reason…It should be interesting in the 4th book to see if the two oldest boys are red-heads too.
What’s with Daniel Radcliffe’s “Wow, magic” expression of amazement every time someone performs the slightest bit of magic?
He’s been familiar with the whole magic bit for a year now - is he really going to be that awestruck every Hermione waves her wand around?
Same with the Weasleys and the floo powder - did anyone notice how they all stepped back and looked a bit - frightened - when ever someone used the stuff? They’re a wizarding family - wouldn’t they be familiar with the stuff? I don’t look amazed every time a bus pulls up to the bus stop.
Good Lord, I am a dirty old woman. Radcliffe IS cute, as is Biggerstaff (what a name…)
I’m looking forward to the fifth or sixth movie just to see how Daniel Radcliffe turns out. Mmmmmm…
(sick, I know, sick, sick sick.)