(no subject)

[heidi]

The Daily Telegraph sent two reviewers to GoF, and the 14 year old writer who did one of the reviews liked it well enough, so that's not really what I'm just flaberghasted by today. here's the review by some 20something chick, which began:

I thought I knew what to expect. A couple of hours of child wizards casting spells, some japery involving flying broomsticks, a few owls and maybe some humorous interludes with a green elf. What I got was a two-and-a-half hour monster and death fest.

Now, with a first paragraph like that, do you think that woman has read the book? Or five? Or six?
[Poll #606777]
So then the rest of the review

Even before the opening credits, some poor old caretaker has been murdered by an enormous man-eating snake in what looks like the corridor of the Bates' Motel. Soon, a gang of men wearing Ku Klux Klan hoods are throwing flames about and making huge skulls appear from nowhere.

If Harry isn't sprouting giant gills and webbed feet to save himself from drowning, then he's being chased to the death by a winged dragon or speared by pitchfork-wielding mermaids.

In the final scenes, Timothy Spall cuts off his own hand for no particular reason, lobs it into a steaming cauldron and watches nonchalantly as a slime-covered foetal figure unfurls in the form of Lord Voldemort.

It turns out to be Ralph Fiennes, made up to look like a cross between Keith Flint in The Prodigy videos and Edvard Munch's The Scream.

It was unutterably terrifying. And there wasn't a green elf in sight.

I'll ask the question again, slightly differently this time:
[Poll #606778]
So, should this be used as a textbook example of How Not To Review?


* and yes, that was supposed to be BBQ in the last line of the second poll. Damn you, LJ, and your bar on editing polls!

ETA: You know, I think I found something the whole fandom can come together about. Elizabeth Day is galactically stupid!

Comments

[ceilidh]

Um, if she'd actually READ THE BOOKS she'd have the sense to know it's NOT FOR LITTLE KIDS. I'm not taking my five year old; she won't be able to deal. When it comes on DVD we can quickly skip through parts that bother her; until then, no.

[moony]

You'll see, like, ten minutes of film!

[akahannah.livejournal.com]

current mood: Enraged

Why couldn't they have sent this twentysomething chick instead, huh?

Green elves, indeed!

I'd be inclined to think it was a piss-take, except it's not funny.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I know! Or maybe she did read the book and was waiting for green-around-the-gills-from-butterbeer Winky?

Here, Pansy has a drinkie for you.

[didi75.livejournal.com]

For no apparent reason, Wormtail cuts off his hand? Yeah, she has a clue.

[musikologie.livejournal.com]

That's my favorite part. "Yeah, Pettigrew just cut off his hand because he felt like it, and it went downhill from there..."

[junesrose.livejournal.com]

Ok, you know what? I'm gonna do a Trelawny and predict that this review ends up on some WACKO-Rightwinged Bible Touting Anti-HP Christian site. They can tally up another one for their cause. And, I'm Catholic. I'm just saying...

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

You know, I don't really get all jealous (well, a little jealous, but not psychotically) when other die-hard fans get to go to these things, but the people who could care less and get to go? How is that fair? Grar.

[aidenfire]

Exactly.

[ignipes.livejournal.com]

That woman is obviously an idiot. But, dude, "a two-and-a-half hour monster and death fest"? That's awesome. Bring it on.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Oh good, I'm not the only one who thought that.

Icarus

[terig.livejournal.com]

*headdesks*

Some people shouldn't be allowed to see movies.

Instead they should be forced to read something other than Cosmo or Flare.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

The great thing is that it really doesn't matter if she was clueless going in, why did she think a review consisted of everybody hearing about how it wasn't the movie she expected? I mean, wouldn't you assume that plenty of other people actually do know the story?

It would be like a review of Brokeback Mountain saying, "Well, I thought I knew what to expect. A hanging, a man with no name, a shootout at the OK-corral. Instead I get two men kissing for no particularly reason, and then they have sex with each other. Eventually they're in love with each other. It was utterly romantic and there wasn't a shootout in sight!"

Like, maybe she should have waited to write her review until after she got over her shock that she wasn't going to see Santa Claus vs. the Martian Elves?

[leiabelle.livejournal.com]

It would be like a review of Brokeback Mountain saying, "Well, I thought I knew what to expect. A hanging, a man with no name, a shootout at the OK-corral. Instead I get two men kissing for no particularly reason, and then they have sex with each other. Eventually they're in love with each other. It was utterly romantic and there wasn't a shootout in sight!"

Spoilers OMG! ;)

[laverinth.livejournal.com]

What is this? That's not a review. That's a crappy summary is what that is. The people who've read the books are going to wonder what the hell she's whining about, and those that haven't have just had several scenes from the movie spoiled for them just so the writer could babble about how she obviously didn't catch the PG-13 rating.

Good gravy.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

I think I found something the whole fandom can come together about. Elizabeth Day is galactically stupid!

So. True.

We definitely need some icons with that on it: ELIZABETH DAY IS GALACTICALLY STUPID.

With Dan's image. In the green Oz suit. :D (Did she think HARRY was going to turn out to be an elf?)

[telepwen.livejournal.com]

I would tout an icon with that phrase, no matter WHAT the image.

[zorb]

Clearly, she had some of whatever Robert Pattinson was having.

[lanamariah.livejournal.com]

I think I'm the only one who thinks her review is funny. Not in a "Haha, you made a joke!" way, but in a "Haha, you're crazy, woman!" way, without bitterness or anger or eye-rolling. It's just funny.

I don't think it's so bad that a non-fan got to see the film before everyone else. We'll all be seeing the film eventually, after all.

[verstehen.livejournal.com]

I'm not so sure you could even call that a "review." It reads more like a summary to me. One that gives AWAY A LOT OF PLOT POINTS, FOOL. (The reviewer, not you for linking it, Heidi!) The movie plots are demonstratively NOT the book plots.

[isiscolo.livejournal.com]

Wow. Just...wow. Can I have some of whatever she's smoking, please?

[ginsu.livejournal.com]

I'm not even in the fandom, and I can still come together over that.

I don't think she's read any of the books. Even the first one opens with the murder of two young parents and goes on to deliver a black wraith sucking blood out of a unicorn corpse.

[viola-dreamwalk.livejournal.com]

Well, in the name of equal time... I've got to say, most reviewers aren't going to be anywhere near passionate or knowledgeable as the hardcore fans of a given outlet, and often reviewers go in completely cold to a movie or series. It's hard to write a good substantive review, especially for something with as much pop culture baggage and cult status as Harry Potter. The reviewer may easily not have read the books, or seen the first three films. So, yeah, if the movie is dark, it may have surprised her. Reviewers don't always (or even often) get to choose their assignments or have the time to bone up on context. It's great when you do, but sometimes you find yourself at a screening without any idea what the big fuss is all about. I'm just saying.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I googled her when I posted this. She's not a critic, she's the junior reporter who covered things like the HBP release this summer. And like I've bene saying for years, the problem in marketing the first few to the ickles is going to be problematic from this point on. My Harry wants to go and I haven't decided yet if he should...

WTF?

[asli.livejournal.com]

Wow, that was horrific. I hope the daily telegraph sack her.

[moony]

She was right in that it was a terrifying film, but dude - the book was worse.

What a maroon.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Maroon... PINK!

:)

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Like, OMG, I went to see this new Star Wars movie, and it wasn't what I expected at ALL. I thought it would be all about fuzzy muppets, but actually it turns out there's this evil guy who is Luke's FATHER. I mean, what's that about?

[priscellie.livejournal.com]

And then he gets his hand chopped off for no reason, slaughters hundreds of children, and falls into a lake of FIRE. Dude, WTF?

[telepwen.livejournal.com]

What gets me more is that they printed it.

I mean, sure. I can see some galactically supid chick writing it, that ain't surprising in this day and age. But for the paper to print it? That boggles my mind.

It's not 'cause it was a bad review. I can deal with bad reviews. It's because it wasn't a review at all. It was a display of ignorance and spoilers. I mean, WTF.

[telepwen.livejournal.com]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/06/npotter06.xml

*dies* We're not the only ones.

"Is the latest boy wizard epic, which premieres tonight, the scariest yet? Emma Urquhart, 14, author of the bestselling Dragon Tamers, was unfazed, but Elizabeth Day, 26, couldn't stand the 'unutterable' terror"

[mahoni.livejournal.com]

Not everyone who may see the movie has read the books, or even seen the other movies. This movie need to stand on its own apart from the books and apart from the other movies, and as a part of that, it will crash up against the expectations of a strictly movie-going and/or strictly one-Potter-movie audience. I think it's great that at least one of the reviewers they chose is not a fan; her review will be a good gauge of the potential reactions of other non-fans.

The previews so far have had a somewhat dark tone, but beyond that, they haven't given the non-fans I know any clue that this movie will be as violent and frightening as the reviewer points out. I've had to tell people "no, you probably DON'T want to take your five year old to this one, no matter how well he dealt with the werewolf business in the last one." And once I give them details, they agree.

And as far as a person seeing this movie without fits seeing the others. the first Star Wars movie I saw way back when was The Return of the Jedi, and it was not what I was expecting. This was not because I am galactically stupid. This was because I hadn't been old enough to be interested in the others when they came out, and because all I wanted was to SEE A MOVIE, not immerse myself in a mythology.

Elizabeth Day is galactically stupid!

That is a very snobby statement. In my opinion.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Why is it snobby? I've done journalism, and I've done a smattering of reviewing, and to go into something with no clue about what you're covering is unprofessional and yes, galactically stupid. I would guess that she was given the assignment because she covered the release of HBP for the Telegraph this past summer, and it's fine that she's not a fan or that she didn't love the film - the writer for the Times didn't either - but the thing is, she wrote this:

The consensus was that the latest offering from Rowling is a vast improvement on the two preceding books. The overall tone is darker and more mature: Harry Potter is now 16 and preparing for adulthood.

But she wrote that, I guess, without having any knowledge of the contents of the two preceeding books? She also did the first write-up on Accio last spring, and wrote their report on OOTP back in 2003. I guess I fail to understand why the Telegraph keeps assigning HP coverage to someone who has clearly never read one of the books, or seen one of the movies. Perhaps she's not stupid; perhaps they are? Perhaps they think that books and films are best covered by someone who doesn't actually read or watch them?
Really, I think that the rating itself should give people a clue as to the fact that this will be scarier than the ones beforehand. This is on the level of Spiderman 2 or ROTS, not Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, and the rating says so.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

Criswell predicts:

The movie of Half-Blood Prince will be rated R.

I've seen worse.

[royalmidnight.livejournal.com]

No, really.
Florence Fong of 8Days Mag reviewed April Snow: "I had to go to the bathroom, I went and got popcorn, Bae Yong Joon took his shirt off."

Moron.