Harry Potter, Harry Potter!

Heather had to stop at a Walmart in Detroit to pick up her copy; we were on the way to her cousin's kid's graduation party. This is better than last year, when we hung around a B&N until midnight, then realized the whole thing was waaaaay too strange and packed with kids. Then, we went to Meijer and picked it up - in and out in 10 minutes.

Personally, I don't "get" the whole Harry Potter thing. It vaguely reminds me of the Chronicles of Narnia, which was DOPE when I was 8.

Whatever gets kids to read, though, is fine by me.

I read (past tense) nonstop from about the age of 4-5 until I hit college. I found my leisure reading time cut down to nothing, and with the exception of a book here and there, I just wasn't interested. The act of reading is kind of like exercise; once you get started on a book it's easy to finish, but it's the "getting started" part that is difficult.

Then, there is the whole "Silence of the Lambs" thing. I saw the movie before reading the book, and realized that I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie NEARLY as much if I'd had the book spoil it for me. I read the whole thing afterwards, and realized that the book served to flesh the backstory out, and I enjoyed both equally. I try to explain this to people who tell me that they always read the book first, but usually most people have to have an epiphany, like I did, to appreciate the proper book-to-movie viewing order.

Since the book is a superset of story compared to the movie, you would be ruining every twist, turn, and plot point by reading the story first. Yes, the book is usually better; but, since you've seen the movie first, you can enjoy it on its own merits without constantly comparing the two as you sit in the theater.

IS the written word a higher art form than a movie? I could argue convincingly either way, so I'll have to settle on "it depends on the material". A book more easily captures the imagination, since you're creating the action in your head by default. However, and this is a BIG however, a book does not contain a score, sound, f/x, direction, cinematography, or sight gags.

I read the book "Jurassic Park", and it was ok. The MOVIE, on the other hand - seeing actors interacting with bigass dinosaurs brought to life - was a neat experience. The exact opposite (might as well stick with Mike Crichton) is "Timeline". I borked my "movie THAN book" rule for this one, because I was on some trip and needed a book. So I picked that one up, then learned they were making a movie of it afterward and got excited because the book was pretty good. Holy hell, did they pull off a botch job. It was neat to see certain setpieces brought to life on the big screen, but it was typical "cinema by committee" garbage.

A similar experience was Stephen King's "Needful Things". The book itself was actually pretty boring, up until the end. The entire town riots, the Baptists and Catholics ("Bab-tist Rat Fucks!") try killing each other, and the lead character goes berzerk and takes a dump on his mother-in-law's picture. It's all really demented, but hilarious, it was like something John Waters would write. Then, they announced they were making a movie of it, and I thought to myself, "how in the *hell* are they going to do that? Are they actually going to have characters insulting major religions, and show a dude taking a shit on his mother-in-law's picture?". Well, they didn't, and it was pretty obvious the movie was made just so they could have another "Stephen King, Inc." product to sell.

That said, his book "The Stand" remains as my favorite book of all time. I've never been a HUGE King fan (of the major horror writers, Clive Barker is worlds better), but that book took my 13 year old imagination and taught it a powerful lesson: never, ever, judge a story by its genre. It's a lesson I'm still trying to impart to Heather, with limited success. :)

At any rate, I might as well come full circle and give my opinion on the "Harry Potter" movies. The first one was OK; the kids were cute, but I felt like I was about 25 years too old to be in the theater. The second one was a bit better; the high point of the movie was the fact that the student bathroom was the entryway to a huge cave. If I were a kid, that would be really cool to me; I remember looking in the drains in my school bathroom, wondering what mysterious area all these drains led to. So, it sort of brought me back to my childhood in that respect. The third movie was actually pretty good. As an adult, there was nothing in it that really drove my imagination into overdrive, but if I were a child I would have LOVED it.

The part that I most enjoyed of the Harry Potter movies is Alan Rickman, who I have to tell non-movie freak people was the "head terrorist in Die Hard". He's always fun to watch.