posted
Who's seen this one? Did you like it? OSC did a review in Meridian Magazine and apparently liked this one a lot better than the first two. Here's the link, if you're interested:
As usual, I will wait for the DVD. I'm not into movie theaters, as a rule.
I have really enjoyed the Harry Potter books and liked the first two movies. Anyway, I was just wondering what you all thought. I'm not a film critic and I'm easily entertained!
posted
Went and saw it today. My mom and I always go together, I guess because we're both librarians and feel that we should see them, even though we're not big HP fans. (I like fantasy, but Rowling is not IMO a huge great fantasy author. Others put her in the shade.)
It was OK, pretty much like the other two. Great casting, sets, effects--but not a great movie. [minor spoilers] It was mercifully light on Quidditch, Snape, and screaming boys. The Dementors succeeded in not looking exactly like Ringwraiths, an accomplishment in the Hooded Phantom category. Draco Malfoy has become more obviously cowardly and sniveling, which strikes me as wrong, but I haven't read the book since it was new, so I don't know. [/minor spoilers]
The map was a nice effect in the credits, but the credits are about half an hour long, so don't bother to stay for all of them if you're not really interested.
Posts: 562 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Upon our return from Utah my oldest son (7) and I saw the movie. It turned out we were the only ones in the whole theater so we were able to "speak freely". It was the first movie we had seen in which we had read the book (or at least I read it to him).
I don't want to give away spoilers yet so I'll be pretty brief. It is definitely not the same as the first two and some of those differences bothered me. It was too fast paced and left out critical details. Some of the scene portrayals that clearly departed from the book were puzzling as to why they departed from the book. I felt some scenes would have been so much better if they followed the book more faithfully. In a sense those scenes seemed to be different for the sake of being different.
I can understand the necessary cuts that must be made when going from a book to a movie and some good and understood choices were made (and well done). However, some cuts, some additions and some changes just didn't make sense to me. I'd truly hate to see this guy do Goblets of Fire (which I am currently reading with my son). And, so far, thank goodness Cuarón has not signed on for the next movies.
POSSIBLE SPOILER.... Why on earth is it necessary to change Hogwarts itself to the point much of it is not recognizeable? I do not think it would have creatively handicapped the director to provide some consistency in the structure and position of important parts of Hogwarts that appeared in previous movies.
The more I think about this movie the more I dislike the directors treatment of the story. Some will complain the first two followed the books too faithfully and that this newest one is a good movie with a brilliant director. I agree, there is a lot about what the director did that I found quite pleasing besides the actual content of the movie (especially the camera work). To me, however, the movie was much more a Cuarón Harry Potter movie than it was a movie of Rowling's Harry Potter.
I wish I could go back and watch the movie not having read the book so I could see how in the world it could make sense with some of the material that was in the book left out and/or altered such as it was in the movie. Oh, well.
It is a good movie. My son did notice some of the parts that were missing but still prefers movies over books . I was glad to see he noticed what was missing and he even commented on one thing he imagined differently than how it was shown in the movie. It shows he was actually paying attention when I often thought he wasn't (I've been known to add a little as I read for attention testing purposes - mostly putting my son in the scene to see if he notices).
Posts: 5602 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really liked the movie. It felt more magical than the first two, more real. I noticed some of the stuff that got left out, but the movie still felt complete. When I first heard Emma Thompson was going to play Prof Trelawney, I thought she couldn't possibly be convincing because Thompson is such a beautiful dignified actress. But she was a scream as Trelawney. Can't wait to see her reprise the role.
Posts: 4767 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wife and I just saw the movie on Saturday. We both feel similar to TheOne. The movie lacked too many of the details that make the books so much fun. The book was full of details that set up future events in the story and the movie glossed over pretty much all of them.
Visually the movie was quite impressive and if it had been the first it would have been great. However, since most of the visuals had already been established (The castle, grounds, Hagrids house), it seemed unnecessary to redo it all at the expense of the story.
Everything in the movie seemed too rushed.
That being said, the acting was very well done. The kids have improved so much and Emma Thompson was great as Trelawney. I liked Sirius, but my wife wasn't too impressed. We both thought Lupin was well acted but didn't think he looked the part (Something that could have been addressed in makeup/costumes - we really liked the actor). We didn't really like what the werewolf looked like and I really thought that Peter Pettigrew looked too cartoonish.
Overall I thought the movie was OK. It didn't impress me as much as the first two, but I still enjoyed it. My wife was less fond of it than I was though. We probably will buy it, but only previously viewed so we don't have to pay full price.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In college I took a lit to film class where we were required to read books, watch the films (and since mine was graduate level I had to watch movies that had more than one version and compare). That was very interesting and since then I have been very forgiving of films based on books. You simply CAN'T put everything in. A&E did a marvelous of Pride and Prejudice (the 6 hour mini-series) and it left quite a few things out.
So, when I saw the first two HP movies and the third I understand why they were/are so fast paced and leave many details out. I think that the movies are to cater to those readers who love the books. My mind fills in the details.
I agree the third was so fast I can't believe I had been in the theater for over 2 hours. However, the changes made in the third were brilliant! I think the Whomping Willow is in the wrong place, but the other changes made to the castle were perfect. The books talk about the trek to Hagrids cabin and how they are often out of breath. It looks much more mysterious and magical and OLD.
Sirius: I did NOT care for the way he was depicted in his "wanted" photos. He wasn't a screaming lunitic. But, his characterization in the rest of the film is good.
I could tell there was finally a director who knows how to work with kids. Plus the fact that the kids are just getting better with age is really helping the productions.
New Dumbledore: Good job. Richard Harris was beloved by many, but he didn't bring out Dumbledore's strong side. He just sounded raspy and old. (Harris was dying for pity's sake and didn't want the role to begin with. They talked him into it.) I would like to see more of Dumbledore's goofiness in the movies.
I WANT MORE NEVILLE! I guess that will come later when Neville plays a bigger role in the story.
Just as Kenneth B. (I have no idea how to spell his last name) was perfect for Professor Lockhart, Emma Thompson was perfect for Trelawney. I agree.
There should have been more explanation of the Map, the friendship between the 3 animagi and Lupin. Did they cover why Harry's Patronus is a Stag? I don't remember.
Anyhow, those are some preliminary thoughts. I've only seen it once and I missed the beginning. I didn't see any of the Dursleys. Posts: 20 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They didn't explain the map, and didn't explain The time turning very well. But overall, enjoyable.
Oh, I also missed the bumping of Snapes nose on the tunnel from the house to the castle. That was a good image in the book.
Dursleys were cool again.
They also didn't really explain too well why Harry wasn't in trouble for doing magic and running away from the Dursleys. I agree that if you hadn't read the book, you might have a hard time knowing what was going on. But the movie was probably made knowing that EVERYONE will have read the book.
posted
For reasons of full disclosure, I have to preface my remarks thusly; nobody screws up a good story better than Hollywood. Look at the last two fiascos that were "based on" the Three Musketeers. "Based on" should have been "We use the same character names and they use swords, but don't expect anything else from the book.". The comic book movies have gotten better, but the only changes they should make to the story are those related to the change of milieu.
That having been said, I think the best adaptation from book to movie is Lord of the Rings. But the Harry Potter movies do a good job as well. I think the first two translated to movies better, but the last one skipped out on too many explanations. If you've read the book it's a good movie, if you haven't then it isn't so good. What would be perfect would be a TV series based on HP. Each book could be chopped up into one season, and they could explore the numerous sub-plots much better as well as the diverse characters. Plus, think of the viewing that last episode would have! Not to mention the Quidditch matches! That would be justification to spend the money on cable.
But for that to happen, Hollywood would have to realize that people actually want to see character development in addition to action and intrigue. My hopes aren't high.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OH! Another think I forgot about to mention about the third movie: Harry's hair is FINALLY messy. Hermione's is finally frizzy. I also liked that they weren't wearing brand-new school uniforms under their robes. They wear regular clothes under their robes in the books because Harry is always wearing Dudley's hand-me-downs.
Oh, and whoever did the casting for Lucius Malfoy was brilliant.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why were there big ripe pumpkins in Hagrid's garden at the end of the school year (late spring)?
Posts: 4767 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
And why have Hermione throw rocks (I think they were rocks) through the window and all that? Did it further or improve the plot of the movie? IMO it just distracted from the story.
Posts: 5602 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?" Oops, wrong movie.
Sorry, I thought Janey was asking why the pumpkins were growing out of season, not why did he grow pumpkins. Sorry. Hagred likes pumpkin pie at times other than Thanksgiving. And everyone knows that pumpkin pies made from real pumpkins are better than congered ones...
Posts: 11603 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me the werewolf was all wrong. Why teach kids how to distinguish a werewolf from a real wolf when they two are so starkly different? My visualization of the werewolf in the book was something that would be tough to distinguish from a real wolf. Just the thought of a wolf with a human level (if temporarily insane) intelligence behind it is frightening enough for me without making it look like it did in the film. That said, I did like the movie. I'm not sure if I'll like the goblet of fire movie when that comes out - there's too much in the book for the movie to be able to include even a quarter of it.
Posts: 1677 | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO, I HATED the dementors. They were completely wrong and couldn't have been worse. I reread the books and there is no mention of them flying around the air, gliding across the floor was what was called for. Also, they were skeletons! And the Kiss!?! That was all wrong. I wanted to see rotten scabby flesh, not skeleton hands and wispy smoke as they flew by!
The Werewolf, was also terrible. arbilad had it right.
Everything else I was able to forgive. Overall, I really like the movie. And the books I think are great. I have never read a book that held my attention as much as the Harry Potter Series.
posted
I also disliked the dementors flying around, especially the quidditch match scene. I would be curious as to what Rowling thought of the changes in this movie over the other two.
Posts: 5602 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the dementors were more wispy because they were trying NOT to have them look like LOTR's Nazgul riders in black people. I liked the way things froze when they showed up. Very eerie.
Posts: 4767 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's fine, but it didn't match what was written about them in the book. Considering we haven't got the whole series to relate to, we don't know if having them flying will affect something later on in the series.
For the record; the Nazgul were very well done. I think the Dementors could have been more faithful to JK Rowling's descriptions without looking like Nazgul wannabes. With the Nazgul, I was thinking warriors hidden in voluminous robes, with the Dementors I was thinking Death without the large scythe or hourglass.
The movie captured the darker spirit better. I've noticed that the world gets darker the further into the series we get. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the last two books.
Tidbits from the author about future books; 1) Rowling has made a point to say that she never said Harry survives the series. 2) Hermione becomes a Prefect. 3) Yes, Hermione and Ron do finally get their feelings for each other out in the open.
Two more books to go (maybe - she's also said she never promised to write seven books) so I hope she gets cranking on the writing!
Posts: 55 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than the director messing up, I don't think there was anyway the Nazgul and the Dementors could have looked alike.
The Nazgul were all in black, yes, but they were wearing armour, tall, thin and the only time you saw thier faces was when Frodo had the ring on and then the faces were skeletal with skin pulled tightly over the skull.
The Dementors were supposed to be broad and tall, had green scabby skin, and their faces had no features other than a mouth, which was the same green scabby skin.
I don't see how they compare. To me I see two completely different creatures.
BTW Cousi- we found out that Hermonie became a prefect the same time Ron did in book 5 which we have already read. That's ones not news. If she kills Harry the out cry will be enormous.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
WARNING – POSSIBLE SPOILERS – (not for the movie, for the 5th book – if you haven’t read it, you may not want to read this).
I very much enjoyed this movie. I was prepared to not like it, because so far it’s my favorite of the books, and I was sure they would mess it up. But I really have no major complaints.
It was a bit disconcerting at times to see such a change in the castle and it’s surroundings from the first two movies, but taken by itself it was spot on to set the mood and convey the proper atmosphere. The castle in the first two movies was nice, a fun place to visit, but too perfect, too disneyesque.
It doesn’t bother me a bit that some of the details were altered or left out entirely. The story got told, it moved along without dragging, it successfully portrayed a time and place that fit the story, and left me anxious for the next movie. So what if the dementors didn’t look exactly as they did in the book? The movie isn’t a video version of the book. It’s the same story, but told through different eyes, by someone with a different vision, and in an entirely different medium.
In an article in my local paper this past week, Rowling seems to be pretty explicit that she’ll write seven HP novels, plus an HP encyclopedia, then retire. I might try to find a link to the article, but it was a wire service story that probably appeared in a lot of papers.
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Harry gets killed off eventually. The possibility seemed to be alluded to in the 5th book. Plus, it’s not even clear that it’s Harry who eventually defeats Voldemort. Could be Neville.
Posts: 5996 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hated the fifth book. Too bad we aready own books 1-5 in hardback. That means we will have to get the other ones too.
Posts: 5053 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm shocked that you didn't like the 5th book Zeta! What was it you didn't like? I have noticed a few mistakes, but only one or two.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it wasn't the mistakes. It was the capitalization. Capital this, and capital that. Entire sentences should rarely, if ever, be capitalized.
Posts: 5053 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
You Disliked An Entire Book Because Of A Few Random Capital Letters? You Are Picky. Me, I'm Way More Easy-Going. Once I Like Something, I Forgive All Annoying Quirks And Mistakes. I Like All The Movies (Even The First One Which Everyone Says Is The Worst), And I Like All The Books. Down With NitPickIng!
posted
And I wisH It was LoNgEr because it's fun to read about people and places you like even if it isn't strictly necessary to moving the plot forward. I mean, I read Jane Austen and Nathaniel Hawthorne, too, and they can go on for *chapters* without anything happening. Once I even read the first two pages of Moby Dick. Talk about pages where nothing happens!
Posts: 4767 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I DIDN'T SAY RANDOM CAPITALS. I SAID ENTIRE SENTENCES! MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY IT SOMETIME! YOU'D FEEL BETTER AFTERWARDS! AND THEN YOU COULD JUST USE LOWER-CASE LETTERS FOR A WHILE UNTIL YOUR CAPITALIZER GOT FIXED!
Posts: 5053 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I am a bit worried about the darker turn of events in the HP books. Not that I am skittish about raw ikky things in fairly tales. I read all the originals before Disney and the prim sanitized versions showed up. I am worried because HP is not that distanced from the real. Harry wears sneakers and glasses. Hermoine is worried about how her hair looks from the back (now that she even combs it.)
HP was a bit of English language fun for my chickies. Now it is not quite fun anymore.
However, even with the closer lurch to reality and the slowly approaching darkness (JKR does not promise HP survives) I am liking the books and not stultified by the movies, yet.
And I am still appalled at the parents around here who ban HP and all HP product from the home (witchcraft) but let their Dutch darlings have much too exposure to conspicuous consumerism and zip responsibility for their behaviors and choices.
Which is the worse spell? TV run choices or a well written yarn about good and evil?
I am so old-fashioned! Jana
Posts: 5496 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally I bought into all the anti-Harry Potter hysteria. And I still think that it's an area where you need to be careful. But I realize in retrospect that I was judging based on what others had told me, not on what I myself had seen. When I finally saw the first harry potter movie, at the urging of my wife and son, and then read the books, I realized that there's nothing inherently bad, it's what you take away. Just like my Dungeons and Dragons playing was for me in my youth (I simply don't have time to play D&D more than once every two weeks anymore). If you're the type to obsess, or if you have other problems in your life, you might take D&D or Harry Potter too far. Indeed, you have merely to look at a usenet group like alt.fan.harry-potter to see examples of people who really, truly believe that the Harry Potter world is the real world. However, if you have a firm base in reality to start with, and loved ones to keep you there, Harry Potter is not going to lead you astray. It's going to be an entertaining bit of fiction.
Posts: 1677 | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
