July 11, 2007, 5:43 a.m. CST
Can't wait to see this.
July 11, 2007, 5:50 a.m. CST
well, what would happen if they assimilated everyone at Hogwarts?
July 11, 2007, 5:51 a.m. CST
A Potter review, now where is Quint's....?
July 11, 2007, 5:52 a.m. CST
...Daniel Radcliffe & Co. will have guest appereances in which they poke fun at themself as the Potter kids. Hey, it happened to the Star Trek Crew, Adam West, Mark Hamill, so why not to them?
July 11, 2007, 5:52 a.m. CST
Someone should write about that.
July 11, 2007, 6:01 a.m. CST
As I (and a lot of other people) do not have access to an IMAX cinema. How does it rank alongside the last 2 movies? Goblet has been my favorite so far, but probably because I am a huge fan of the books and it was the the best cross of a big screen spectacle and faithful adaptation out of the bunch. I understand that Azkaban was yours? Wheredoes this one stand?
July 11, 2007, 6:08 a.m. CST
by the scream
The first two were boring. The third one was ok. Goblet was the only one that had an interesting plot.
July 11, 2007, 6:13 a.m. CST
...and posted my freview to the site on Monday, but they didn't pick it up. I thought the IMAX scenes were good, but not too sure if they added a great deal to the experience. I've not seen it on a normal screen yet so I should reserve judgement. This is by far the best in the series so far though.
July 11, 2007, 6:16 a.m. CST
I know the new Die Hard film isn't all that great, but is there any chance Harry and Moriarty can give their analysis on the Hairspray film opening this week and also on Die Hard 4, saying what they liked / disliked about DH4 and / or what it should've done a lot better about it, as I don't think their DH4 reviews for it have been posted yet.
July 11, 2007, 6:24 a.m. CST
The Imax scenes are about 20 minutes close to the end of the film
July 11, 2007, 6:26 a.m. CST
Amps everything up. Hope #7 can live up to the hype that's been created by interest.
July 11, 2007, 6:32 a.m. CST
by Barry Egan
Thanks Mori, I will see this in IMAX at Universal tomorrow.
July 11, 2007, 6:32 a.m. CST
by Barry Egan
Thanks Mori, I will see this in IMAX at Universal tomorrow.
July 11, 2007, 6:34 a.m. CST
by just pillow talk
since he's hooked up for the next one as well.
July 11, 2007, 6:34 a.m. CST
Moriarty again shows why he's the best writer on this site. Great review. Looking forward to this.
July 11, 2007, 6:40 a.m. CST
by Leopold Scotch
It's definitely one of the books I enjoyed least, mainly because of three things (SPOILERS): <br><br>1)The revelation of the prophesy. I think the sequence was well written and it finally gave the series the absolute purpose, the objective of its resolution (plus the subsequent philosophical points regarding how Harry and Voldemort deal with the prophesy are pretty cool), but we'd been waiting for five books to discover why Voldemort killed Harry's parents and tried to kill Harry, and I thought the answer could have been better.<br><br>2)When Rowling killed off Sirius, I was pissed off because he was one of the most interesting characters and didn't get enough time in the series (the third book was entirely about him, then the fourth book almost entirely ignored him, then the fifth book makes him a whiney brat. I mean fair enough, we're meant to feel the untimeliness of his departure, but it was a waste of a great character who could have been used much better.<br><br>3)Just how seemingly pointless the bulk of the book actually was. You could strip down the book to the parts that were essential to the series and get nothing more than a short story. I think there could have been six books, and she could have inserted the prophesy into one of the other books (and even allowed Sirius to live until the seventh book).<br><br>I think on of the main problems is that there have only been a couple of chapters in the entire series where Harry isn't present. It would have been pretty cool, I think, to have read a few chapters through Sirius before he got killed off, just to make his character stronger and, just as importantly, relevant. Same goes for Dumbledore: just a couple of chapters to show what he actually does when he's not sitting in his office, and to establish how goddamn kick ass he actually is.
July 11, 2007, 6:48 a.m. CST
by Leopold Scotch
4)Umbrige is a strong character, (and this is a testament to how well written she was) but I was actually gettin extremely pissed off by her in every chapter she was in. On a positive note, it means Rowling knew what she was doing in creating such an effective character, but I just felt she never got the payoff she deserved. It would have been cool to see Dumbledore given full licence to act in retaliation to what she did to McGonagall and Hagrid (and the school in general) and just absolutely let rip on her. So her character was so fucking effective that it almost ruined the whole book for me.
July 11, 2007, 7:19 a.m. CST
I completely agree btw about Goblet of Fire's 'lack of chemistry'. I've never been as disappointed in a Mike Newell film as i was with Goblet of Fire, especially after what Cuaron acheived with Prisoner of Azkaban.
July 11, 2007, 7:21 a.m. CST
by The Rondo Hatton Blues Explosion
Best one yet. Yep.
July 11, 2007, 7:29 a.m. CST
by The Rondo Hatton Blues Explosion
Imelda Staunton was brilliant casting. As much as I disliked Umbridge in the book, the sadistic, power-mad psychopath on the screen seriously creeped me the fuck out on film.
July 11, 2007, 7:32 a.m. CST
I agree with most of your comments. However, I think that Rowling shows a lot of characters, such as Dumbledore, without leaving the point of view of Harry. For example at the end of 5 and all the way through 6, she shows just how clever and kick ass he actually is. <P> Also, Umbridge is still kicking about isn't she? I'm hoping that Harry gets to jinx her to death in book 7. Bring on book 7!
July 11, 2007, 7:36 a.m. CST
Sorry, Barney's quote just had to be used after reading that review.
July 11, 2007, 7:40 a.m. CST
She showed up at *uh, Spoiler?* Dumbledore's funeral at the end of HBP. She's got a serious hurt coming to her still...
July 11, 2007, 7:41 a.m. CST
by Leopold Scotch
I can think of some cool moments, but I get the impression that Dumbledore is written as this character who Harry doesn't actually know that much about, and that there's so much cool stuff in his past and when he's not in Harry's presence which is deliberately left unsaid. I'd maybe just have preferred a couple of examples somewhere in the seven books, where the reader is present at some kind of major moment which defines him as the most powerful wizard in the world (duelling with Voldemort is one of very few examples which already exist).<br><br>SPOILERS One thing I forgot to say about Sirius, is that there appears to be no real consequence of his death. Sure Harry is a bit more sad and stuff, but where is the impact on the plot? I hope in book seven, we get some kind of contribution to the plot regarding his death.
July 11, 2007, 7:52 a.m. CST
I'll agree with the first thing you said. I'm glad that I think the next movie is going to be so awesome... but I'm bothered that the most exciting thing about this movie is the prospect of the next one, and that nothing in this movie clicked well enough to actually supercede that. This film could have gone from ok to great with 30 or 40 more minutes of screentime to flesh out everything that they flew right on by.
July 11, 2007, 7:55 a.m. CST
This is hands-down the best Potter film since 'Azkaban'. makes 'Goblet' a distant memory (though I thoroughly enjoyed the last 20 minutes of that film, thanks to Fiennes). Also, Hooper's score for 'Order' is on par, if not better than Williams' 'Azkaban' soundtrack. Well done. Great review, Drew.
July 11, 2007, 7:55 a.m. CST
The only point I agree with was the length. They don't get to Hogwarts until 250 pages in. The whole thing seems like a test in patience. Besides that your arguements are kinda dumb. I guess Rowling got exactly what she wanted out of you with each point. She WANTED you to want more Sirius. She WANTED you to have a payoff for Umbridge. Punishment??? really wouldn't fit the theme of the series. The prophecy is one of the KEY POINTS in the series. Sorry if it wasn't good enough for you -- whatever that means. Who needs an oaf of a mentor in Hagrid who seems to bumble his way into doing everything wrong?? Why isn't Dumbledore PERFECT?? Why does the school have the Triwizard Tourney w/a school who's top guy is a Death Eater NOT ON DUMBLEDORE'S SIDE?? Sometimes plots don't go the way YOU think they should. Go find out what happens to Anakin Solo in the NJO series -- then tell me how characters in SOMEBODY ELSES creation should be handled. Sorry if Rowling didn't CATER TO YOU -- but each of those decisions (except length of book) were very calculated. They each got an emotional response from you -- thus successful. If you think you can write it better -- have fun posting you fanfic on your own website. Bet it won't make too much money though -- stupid copyright laws huh.
July 11, 2007, 8:16 a.m. CST
by Dwide Shrewd
They pay him well. We almost got a review of the film mixed in around the shilling. How refreshing.
July 11, 2007, 8:19 a.m. CST
July 11, 2007, 8:20 a.m. CST
I said it.
July 11, 2007, 8:27 a.m. CST
If Mori's referring to the Dursleys, no way are they upper class. Lower middle, in fact. Not that this is an issue any more, of course.
July 11, 2007, 8:31 a.m. CST
Moriarty has too much fucking time on his hands.
July 11, 2007, 8:33 a.m. CST
i've seen each harry potter movie twice in theaters but this time i was only going to see it once. we already have out tickets for this afternoon but after this review, i know i'll need to see it a second time in imax 3-d. thanks for the recommendation.
July 11, 2007, 8:37 a.m. CST
by Col. Tigh-Fighter
I want me some Pottah!! When I finished readong book 5, I instantly re-read the last 150 pages again because it was soooo exciting. Right from the Thestral journey!! Just as Mori said!! :) <P> "Never said an Unforgivable curse before, have you Potter? You've got to really mean it. Really want to cause the other person pain. CRUCIO!"
July 11, 2007, 9:08 a.m. CST
he is referring to the death eaters/ Voldemort's supporters like the Malfoys and the Blacks.
July 11, 2007, 9:12 a.m. CST
by Osmosis Jones
...because IMAX can't show movies longer than two hours...?
July 11, 2007, 9:22 a.m. CST
It hasn't been for some time. The 3D was actually done as an afterthought, like SUPERMAN RETURNS. The scenes weren't shot in 3D. They were digitally converted after the fact. It works, sort of, but is still a pimple on the ass of true 3D. AVATAR, however, is being shot in 3D.
July 11, 2007, 9:34 a.m. CST
From the Heavy Hitting franchises like Spider-Man, Shrek or Tranformers to shift to fully 3-D sequels, much like this.
July 11, 2007, 9:34 a.m. CST
for Moriarty to review "Live Free Or Die Hard" and for him to tell me that's not REALLY Bruce Willis on the screen. To trust him..that he would know if that was REALLY Bruce Willis.
July 11, 2007, 9:35 a.m. CST
by Automaton Overlord
..and have not yet decided whether to see this or not; Keep in mind the first book was written for 11 year olds and each following book is written for a audience 1 year older than the previous. This is the one where the series' balls finaly drop!
July 11, 2007, 9:38 a.m. CST
The Sex. I'm telling you. All two Minutes. I'll say something different when I finally see the movie tonight.
July 11, 2007, 10:12 a.m. CST
Because that was mostly blurry and crappy. Also, my girlfriend is epilleptic so I don't want her to get mad at me for dragging her to the goofy 3D version. DETAILS PLZ.
July 11, 2007, 10:13 a.m. CST
July 11, 2007, 10:36 a.m. CST
by El Scorcho
Just Mori splooging on 3D and David Yates, neither of which excite me in the least. So, how was the actual movie?
July 11, 2007, 10:41 a.m. CST
by Turd Furgeson
Oh yeah!!!!!!!!! Saw the midnight show, and loved it! The acting chemistry was second to none for this series.. See it, it's very good.
July 11, 2007, 11:22 a.m. CST
Potter is in his shitty normal life. He goes to that magic school for British dorks. New teacher. Alan Rickman gives him shit. Oldie in the pointy hat is wise. Potter plays that lame broom-basketball game. Something wacky is afoot. Potter and his shit disturbing friends investigate and outsmart every adult there. The friends prove useless in the final battle against the main bad guy whose punk ass name no one says but the rebelious Potter kid. The end. Rowling makes another truckload of money and I never see $9.50 again.
July 11, 2007, 11:44 a.m. CST
Somebody has the balls to say that the Harry Potter stories are ridiculously repetitive. It's like JK Rowling ate a bunch of better ideas, shat them out onto two pieces of buttered sourdough and fed it to you. Naturally, you vomit after the meal, but then she scoops the vomit up and feeds it to you six more times. Oh yeah, and you're paying to have her feed this to you and she's laughing all the way to the bank.
July 11, 2007, noon CST
by And Nicolas Cage as Fu Manchu
Voldemort didn't show up in Azkaban.
July 11, 2007, 12:06 p.m. CST
For two people who summarily dismiss Rowling's work, it sure sounds like you've either read all the books or seen all the movies. Either way you seem to be complaining about something you participate in. If you didn't like the first book or film, why on Earth would you read or watch any of the others?
July 11, 2007, 12:12 p.m. CST
But I've seen the movies (and I'm assuming the films follow the same formula as the books). Why, you ask? Well, family from out of state was visiting and forced me to see the first flick in theatres, I saw the second flick at school (and on TV afterward), I've only seen bits and pieces of the third, which I understand is regarded as the best (the ending, which I've seen, is positively God-awful, though), and I work at a video store where I've seen the fourth film.
July 11, 2007, 12:14 p.m. CST
Because I will not be duped again by another Viewmaster 2.5D experience like Superman Returns.
July 11, 2007, 12:22 p.m. CST
...is try as you might to avoid these films, you keep "accidentally" watching them? I feel for you, man, if you really dislike them that much.
July 11, 2007, 12:23 p.m. CST
is the basis of most episodic story-telling. And while there ARE similarities to the structures of each of the books/ movies, the details are what keeps bringing the people back. The grand sweeps may remain somewhat consistent, but the characters themselves change and evolve drastically with each installment. In addition new mysteries are introuduced, some solved in a single installment... some building and building upon their layers to whatever will be the big climax of it all come next week. Basically what I'm saying is that although each book/ movie DOES share structural elements with its siblings (even as part of a larger story, each one still needs to have a self contained beginning, middle and end)they are all actually VERY different from one another in tone, characterization, maturity, introductions/deaths, main plots, sub-plots etc...
July 11, 2007, 12:27 p.m. CST
the same... because they almost all 1)start out with the climax of an often unrelated mission 2) have him meet a new good girl, a new bad girl and nail them both 3) introduce a megalomaniac with visions of world domination (with the same one popping up a few times) 4) have bond captured, then he escapes and then finally overcomes the villain 5) and end with him about to poke another woman. Yes, there are some major similarities in each one, but the differences are what makes each one unique.
July 11, 2007, 12:31 p.m. CST
As if I´m not excited enough with all the possiblities of the 3d technlogy, now your review left me no doubt. Plane ticket to London booked for Imax show next month.
July 11, 2007, 12:32 p.m. CST
by Kid Vorpal
...if you'd said you'd never seen the movies or read the books, they'd just get on you for criticizing them without having seen them. You just can't win sometimes.
July 11, 2007, 12:42 p.m. CST
So what you're saying, Kid Vorpal, is that Matty SHOULD criticize something that he's never read or watched? Of course we'd "get on him for that" if that were the case. That's like those idiot religious nuts who protested the Da Vinci Code without seeing it.
July 11, 2007, 12:45 p.m. CST
... You've convinced me to see this one again in 3D much earlier than I had intended.
July 11, 2007, 12:46 p.m. CST
by Leopold Scotch
I was only commenting on why I thought the fifth book was my least favourite. So the fact that I'm not a professional writer means that I'm not allowed to comment on what I thought was wrong with it? So what's the point of these talkbacks again?<br><br>The fact is that we left book three uplifted by the coolness and the prospects of this character, Sirius, and I don't give two shits if Rowling MEANT it when Harry's anger at not getting to know/see more of him is paralleled with ours. She could have also MEANT it if we read in the seventh book that it was all a friggin dream, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea and that, furthermore, just because her fans don't enjoy the same success as her that she is exempt from their criticisms.<br><br>Dumbledore and Sirius are two examples of characters who are often referred to as brilliant and powerful by other characters, but there are only a tiny handful of moments in the entire series which testify to such statements (every other example is just someone SAYING that they're powerful and brilliant). That is my main problem as we go into the final book (which I'm really looking forward to) without the two characters who could have potentially kicked more ass than we ever got to see.<br><br>Incidentally, you began your post with a book five criticism of your own before shooting me down for the arguments I made. I don't think it's me who's being unreasonable.
July 11, 2007, 12:49 p.m. CST
Or was it pay-per-view, i.e., "you watch it, we pay you"? Then I might consider watching Harry Pooper, too.
July 11, 2007, 12:51 p.m. CST
Every Bond movie practically is the same. You almost always never leave a Bond movie with James a changed person (Casino Royale thankfully being a step in the right direction). And Trazadone, trust me, I haven't sought out these films. I mean, isn't it ironic that the one film in the series I might like to see is the one I haven't seen? That should be enough proof that I'm not some closet Potter fan or something. But yeah, I have no distaste for Potter on any moral levels (the religious folks who think the books are satanic are idiotic); one of my favorite books/films is The Last Temptation of Christ and we all know how that went over in the Christian community. But at any rate, my problem with the Potter series is mainly that I think the films aren't any good. I've never read the books so I can't comment on them with certainty, but the films (to me, anyway) are almost uniformly bland (especially the first two, though I thought Branagh was great in the second flick). Goblet of Fire seemed a sort of shapeless film to me; nothing ever really built up in the film, it was just one scene on top of another (not to mention the TERRIBLE dance scene and the Stomp: Wizards in Training Edition bit).
July 11, 2007, 12:52 p.m. CST
The final chapter will take place in the future, Hermione will be the new Headmaster and Harry will be the Defense of the Dark Arts teacher.
July 11, 2007, 12:56 p.m. CST
We're not that far apart on our opinions of the film series. All the movies are too long and although there are glimmers of the magic that Rowling captures in her novels, they don't come close to being as good as the original source material. I would never have read a single Potter book if an old bitty relative hadn't given them to me for X-Mas one year and I felt like I had to read at least one to get her off my back. I was completely addicted after finishing it. Give them a shot some time, you might be surprised too.
July 11, 2007, 1:16 p.m. CST
I thought it was easily the worst installment in the series. Despite the changing of certain important events and the omission of others (which really are petty charges for a 2.10hr movie based on a 900 page book) This movie lacked any sort of flow. It was primarily a series of 30 second to 1min scenes that never really amounted to any sort of emotional substance. The plot was driven by the non contiguous pieces of exposition. Often regarding something that just happened in the previous scene however as there lacked any sort of continuity between the scenes the audience needs a rather staunch pep talk as to why the current scene is taking place and perhaps what was missed from the last uninteresting interaction between the characters. "oh harry my parents were killed by beatrix lestrange....we will make them proud of us...” honestly like a 30second scene that has absolutely zero bearing on the scene prior or after. The fireplace scene where the children sit around and laugh like jackasses after discussing the kiss with cho…Even the scene where uh Padfoot looks behind the veil has the emotional weight of you killed kenny, you bastard!"
July 11, 2007, 1:27 p.m. CST
Thanks for the review Mori. This will be the only great movie of Summer 07, next to SICKO.
July 11, 2007, 1:29 p.m. CST
and it really shows. As other posters have noted, this installment is disjointed and lacks cohesion. As someone wrote above, they don't even get to the damn school until 250 pages in! The last 150 pages or so are excellent but I was disappointed in the rest of it. Book 6 was fantastic though and I'm certain it'll make a great film.
July 11, 2007, 1:34 p.m. CST
I have to say that the Disney digital 3d process is much better than IMAX. I've seen a few IMAX 3d movies and even though they were impressive, they still brought about some eye strain. Even that crappy Superman movie, which only had a few minutes of 3D, put a major strain on the brain. The Disney process, which is totally different, works perfectly. Even with a whole movie in 3d you never get tired eyes or a headache. It also does a better job of conveying depth perception than IMAX. I'm not bashing IMAX, which is a great format, but I acutually prefer IMAX not in 3d. If you have missed it, make sure to see Nightmare Before Christmas 3D, and you will see the movie that Burton always imagined. Even though the film was not shot in 3D, the sets were always three dimensional, and it works great. Meet The Robinsons (which I actually liked as a movie) had the 3D process in mind from the start, and it is absolutely amazing how good the technology is. For some other great 3D, go to Disney World and see Mickey's Philharmagic. It is sort of a compendium of many great Disney moments and is projected on a GIANT screen with amazing surround sound and other immersive effects. There is a scene where Ariel reaches out of the screen that has to be seen to be believed, as well as a stunning flying carpet trip from Aladin. Looking back I remember watching Captain Eo (with Michael Jackson) directed by Coppola. The very opening was a meteor which just fucking floated in front of your face. It seemed like it was inches away, and then got blasted by a laser. Wow, that was great. In a much lesser way, the arrow sequence in Friday the 13th 3D was awesome. Also, before Meet the Robinsons, they showed a 3d Donald Duck short that was fucking great. I think it was an old movie that they adapted to three dimensions, but it felt like that is how cartoons were always meant to be seen. And no, I don't work for Disney. The Real D process is just better than IMAX
July 11, 2007, 2:18 p.m. CST
"Idiot religious nuts" are not the only ones who attack things without seeing them. The liberal establishment attacks "right wing" movies and books just like the conservatives do. The conservative Christians might be better at it, because they seem to have excellent organizational skills. The liberals are to busy smoking pot and praising the devil to be bothered with actually writing the letter to the studio complaining about something. There was a movie this year, can't remember the name, about a basketball coach who prayed before each game, and that movie was basically attacked out of existence by God hating liberal dogs. Remember, the Da Vinci code had a huge release, nobody went to see it because it sucked. It was even worst than the book, which sucked. Check Netflix for movies against the war in Iraq. There has to be fifty documentaries about how much Bush sucks. The point being that the media is not controlled by right wing religious nut jobs. It is controlled by left wing nut jobs. Even Fox News, the supposed bastion of conservatism, has 80% of its employees giving money to only Democratic candidates. Anybody who thinks that Republicans control the media has their head up their ass.
July 11, 2007, 2:27 p.m. CST
And that's a bad thing? Shut the fuck up.
July 11, 2007, 2:34 p.m. CST
I've tried to read every Harry Potter book and can not get past the first 50 pages, and I read at least a novel a week. The books have a huge audience, but I'm not one of them. On the other hand I've enjoyed every film and think the series does a splendid job of navigating several intertwining plotlines.
July 11, 2007, 2:35 p.m. CST
I waited in line for 3 hours in front of the Zigfield theatre to see the first showing of Last Temptation of Christ. Those of us waiting to see the film were a mellow group, and there we no fights with the protesters, though we did have some animated discussions. I agree that Last Temptation was a great film, which was unfortunately maligned as being anti-Christian when it was one of the most reverent films ever made about Jesus. Never once does that film question the divinity of Christ, or that he was the son of God, come to be sacrificed for our sins. Da Vinci Code, on the other hand, was a full out attack on the Catholic Church and on Christianity. I also don't agree that you necessarily have to read a book or see a movie to be against it. If Dreamworks announced that it was making a film that took the position that Hitler was right when he decided to kill six million Jews I wouldn't have to see the film to know that it was wrong. And it would my my right as an American to protest the making of the film, and to try to convince others not to put money in the pockets of the studio that made it. When the religious right attacks a movie and tries to convince a studio not to make it, or people not to see it, it is not censorship, it is the opposite of censorship. It is people exercising their right as Americans to express their own opinion.
July 11, 2007, 2:38 p.m. CST
And at their core they are very much alike. I suppose if you dig that formula then you are more prone to hang on the tertiary plot elements to see a bigger difference between movies. Each film takes you down a few small trails but the main Potter Yellow Brick Road always ends in Oz.
July 11, 2007, 2:39 p.m. CST
Easily the smartest and best of the big summer flicks. I LOVE that Yates is doing HBP! Give him Hallows too! Gary Oldman owns this. I am obviously a gigantic nerd.
July 11, 2007, 2:39 p.m. CST
"Bringingsexyback" is a acne ridden obese loser, thirty years old, sitting in his mamma's basement eating candy bars and masturbating to the sex scenes from Grand Theft Auto? BTW, I've got nothing against smoking pot, which should be legal. I've been to over 200 Dead concerts, and I guarantee you, I didn't spend them reading my bible (I read it when I got home, stoned to the bone.)
July 11, 2007, 2:47 p.m. CST
Not trying to save face by justifying the 'why' or 'how' I checked these movies. Suffice to say between HBO, girlfriends and a buddy's kids, I've seen all these movies. Doesn't mean I have my wand at the ready to sprint and check this new one. To be honest, I'm sure I'll end up seeing it down the line. Doesn't matter though because I already know the plot (see above).
July 11, 2007, 3:09 p.m. CST
you call it, made only and purely for the money. i wouldnt know, but i hear from people this latest movie misses a lot of what the book was about. oh, and i dont like the movies. they all seem the same
July 11, 2007, 3:30 p.m. CST
honestly is the knee jerk potter defense saving this movie critically? Imo let Guillermo del Toro do the next one.
July 11, 2007, 3:36 p.m. CST
Is there any big-budget Hollywood movie that ISN'T made for the money? Movies are a BUSINESS. That doesn't mean that art cannot come out of commerce and despite what you or others think of the movies. They are surefire moneymakers and as such could be spit out with FAR less care and heart than they are and still make boatloads of money. You sound like an Anti-Flag fan. Are you an Anti-Flag fan?
July 11, 2007, 3:39 p.m. CST
The fact that the movie made money is just more proof that the "religious right" doesn't control anything. BTW, this started with a post referring to the "idiot religious nuts". I hate the Potter books, but have enjoyed all the films, particularly the last one, was it "Goblet of Fire"? I can't wait to see the new one. Now if I can just find time to fit in the new Scott Baio reality series about his newfound sexual abstinence.
July 11, 2007, 3:45 p.m. CST
I thought this was the best book, and it might be the worst film. I think the problem has to be David Yates although I haven't seen anything else he's done, who else could it have been? I don't get why everyone else loves it. I thought Hogwarts looked grimy and nasty. It was so dark you could barely see anything. The music was intrusive. Most of the characters were kicked to the curb. And the only great part was when Ralph showed up, which was incredibly brief. I even thought Gary Oldman phoned it in and it was a quick call too. I think this movie is poor. Utter disappointment.
July 11, 2007, 4:12 p.m. CST
Then he must have done a great job with this movie because "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is far and away the worst book of the series. VERY predictable riddle on who is the Half-Blood Prince, VERY little Hogwarts action, VERY boring Voldemort flashbacks, VERY disappointing ending... but I won't ruin it for people who only want to watch the movies. Of course, that moment won't have nearly as much drama since they cast the wrong actor for the part.
July 11, 2007, 4:17 p.m. CST
I thought the Voldemort pensieve scenes were fascinating. Slughorn is a great character. Harry shunning the new Minister and all the students getting horny. Plus from the moment Harry and Dumbledore walk into that cave until what we all know happens... err... happens... just non-stop drama, horror and action. Sure who the HBP was was easy to spot early on, but even with that in mind. I think it stands up next to Azkaban as the leanest, meanest one of the books.
July 11, 2007, 4:19 p.m. CST
Hard to cram such huge pile of Potter plots into a 2 - 2/12 hour movie. On a side note, what the fuck doesn't make it into these books? Is there an editor involved at all? Hate to see what doesn't make the final cut. At the very least it seems better than that greasy turd about some dragon queeer battling Malkovich and an original story.
July 11, 2007, 4:20 p.m. CST
by Kentucky Colonel
And the best part? Hermionie's caterpillar eyebrows in check. There were a few times they were itchin to fly free, but aces on your restraint, Emma. The worst part? Grawp's animation. Jeeze, the MCP from TRON was more life-like! I'd like to see a 10 hour cut of this flick on DVD. Bye for now!
July 11, 2007, 4:22 p.m. CST
Omitting a a new Teacher and changing the individual responsible for giving up the room is inexcusable (in terms of of content issues)
July 11, 2007, 4:27 p.m. CST
NOW PLAYING! JOHN HOLMES: THAT SILENT KILLER: IN 3D.
July 11, 2007, 4:35 p.m. CST
I know Harry Potter fans will defend book six, and I guess I would consider myself one of them, but that was the first Rowling novel to disappoint me. Hey, we all have our own opinions, but I have yet to read a fictional series that goes beyond books 3-4 that doesn't lose some of its original brilliance. Just like many popular TV shows, sometimes authors just need to wrap it up.
July 11, 2007, 4:46 p.m. CST
To each his own. I do think there is some fat in the book (but I love it all, so Rowling could add a whole chapter about visiting a Butterbeer distillery and I'd read it and re-read it again) so I think, much like OOTP, that HBP will actually benefit from the cuts needed in its adaptation to movie. I also think that the last third of the book is probably the most cinematic of the whole series to date. I've read the full novel 3 or 4 time, but I've read that last third at least twice that.
July 11, 2007, 5:04 p.m. CST
They had a life of their own in one of the films I saw and really began to piss me off whenever she appeared and started acting with her forehead!<P>still wont watch this though even on IMAX.
July 11, 2007, 5:09 p.m. CST
July 11, 2007, 6:15 p.m. CST
You should copyright it before it spreads to worldwide popularity.
July 11, 2007, 7:07 p.m. CST
by J Skell
Really. It's awful, and I can't understand it. I really wish I could watch movies in 3D.
July 11, 2007, 7:12 p.m. CST
This movie is better than the source material. Order of the Phoenix is, on the surface, a great idea for a novel. Potter gets to finally get involved in the events that shape every moment of his life. But Rowling decides to prolong the anger and holding pattern in the book and offers up several threads that really don't seem to have a payoff. Moreover, Potter is a bit of a little bitch in the book. I have to say I like Movie Potter better than Book Potter. In the book he's a dummy. In the movies, he's canny and prescient. <p>Christ, I understand that as her fans who read the orginial books grow, they might feel the same way these kids do in the books, and in that way, it's very cool for her to do that. This flick does justice to a kid's book, and cuts out all of the stuff that makes Order of the Phoenix a tough read for even the most die hard Potter fan. <p> In short, bravo! Saw it last night, and it's worth your money to go see it. My favorite of the series, because of how badass the Order is at the end. Mad Eye Moody got applause at our theater both times he's featured on screen, and the Grawp scenes were well done, and I find it interesting that the tone of this guy is much different than the character in the book, and that's a good thing. This came out like a Danny Boyle version of a kid's movie basically. The camera moves are verite, and not disorienting. Moriarty is very correct on this one. Kicked ass.
July 11, 2007, 9:30 p.m. CST
by Gheorghe Zamfir
Cause everyone's so excited to rally around Cuaron. Which isn't to say its good, it's miles above the first two films, visually the best looking of the series but plot wise its a little murky and exposition heavy, which makes it a little stale on repeat viewings. Surprised by the lukewarmness t Goblet of Fire though, the first two were watchable, Cuaron's I liked, Goblet was the first film of the series I really loved though, it wasn't until that one that I became really excited for these movies and where they're going.
July 11, 2007, 9:34 p.m. CST
by Gheorghe Zamfir
Meant to say "Which isn't to say it ISN'T good," not trying to imply Azkaban was a bad film.
July 11, 2007, 10:13 p.m. CST
Appreciate the technique, but Order was kinda of a let down. I'm surprised Yates turned it into a good movie. Really good.
July 11, 2007, 10:33 p.m. CST
Harry kills Voldemort
July 11, 2007, 10:50 p.m. CST
I would say David Yates has completely failed at understanding what this book was all about. He literally ignored the emotional core of the story, and gave us the high-speed chase version. How can the longest book equal the shortest movie? I would say that's some extremely lazy and disrespectful filmmaking. There are some details he gets so incredibly wrong that I wonder if he read the book at all. Sorry, Mori, I love ya, but the knowledge that Yates is signed up for Half-blood Prince is nothing short of terrifying.
July 11, 2007, 11:16 p.m. CST
I don't think casual viewers will understand a bit of the movie, and would even daresay people that have seen the other four but haven't read the book would "get it" completely, there's too much left out and unexplained, mainly the "Lilly Potter's love saved Harry" plot. Seems like a mess to explain all in movie 6. On the other hand, the whole ministry of magic sequence was probably the best single action scene I've seen this year and in the series so far. Great to see wizards fighting and looking real, not guys playing with wands.
July 11, 2007, 11:45 p.m. CST
I have a 7 year old boy who is only now able to read to the point of being able to start these books, my 10 year old has read them as have my wife and I. The films have allowed us all to be able to enjoy Harry Potter as a family and for that alone they should be praised
July 12, 2007, 12:01 a.m. CST
I thought reading was dead in this country, before Harry Potter. Now, it seems like there's book stores everywhere. Love this franchise! So sad to see it go in a couple weeks. :(
July 12, 2007, 12:08 a.m. CST
And David Yates edited it. Good. Best movie of the series, and ORDER is easily the weakest book - a largely overwritten filler installment that gives us an unwelcome break from the wonderment. No mystery, no sports, most of the plot revolves around the Ministry basically acting stupid and illogical (aka dramatic busywork), and nothing at all new is introduced. It's a filler book, a middle child, and Yates cut out the crap and played up the action, the conflict, and the horror. This is a dark, taut movie and, like Mori, I can't wait for Yates' next kick at the cat.
July 12, 2007, 12:25 a.m. CST
You got it exactly correct. My sentiments almost word for word.
July 12, 2007, 12:29 a.m. CST
...was easily my least favorite book. Emo-Harry beats out Emo-Spidey by a thousand light years: the book was awful to read. And there were bits in it that mortal minds cannot comprehend.<p> I don't want to give anything away, but there was a part in end of the book that was a "what the fuck just happened?" from the readers. But the movie cements it.<p> I was not struck with the same sadness when I read the book, because I didn't understand what just happened. Yates nailed the scene in question, and made it much more clear. So-and-so is DEAD. Now we best be getting over it. No possible way of coming back, as the opposite was thought by many readers.
July 12, 2007, 1:08 a.m. CST
Well, if you won't imply it, then I will:<p> Prisoner of Azkaban was a horrible movie.
July 12, 2007, 1:13 a.m. CST
at the end was excellent. Major improvement over the last.
July 12, 2007, 1:19 a.m. CST
towards the source material, go be cinematic about it! Of course this film got the emotional core right, it just did not plod along with the hand-wringing. In fact it upped the ante in terms of making the danger seem more immediate. It was clear Harry was in emotional turmoil and conflicted throughout the entire film. This movie will bear out repeat viewings.
July 12, 2007, 2 a.m. CST
Yes I did indeed cream my pants when she was on screen. Rather embarrassing moment actually. The movie was Ok for the movies. I found the lack of Tonk disturbing though. Whatever reviewr wrote about hw they held book 5 upside down, shook it, and Luna Lovegood came out was right on the money. I actually missed the Asshole Harry fromt he book. I REALLY missed Greif-Stricken-Rage-Induced Harry in Dumbledore's Office at the end. It really seemed like cliff notes. And yes, Neville is the new Dobby. COME OUT NEVILLE!!! Oh, wrong book....
July 12, 2007, 2:01 a.m. CST
Because that seems to be the only thing these kid wizards can do. Wave the wand, cause a blast and knock over their target. Wow. Of course, not having read the books, every Potter film has put me to sleep, but that's my cross to bear. Now go hump a ronto, geeks.
July 12, 2007, 2:13 a.m. CST
Probably because I'm a fan of the novels and they follow the books the closest. Also in Chris Columbus' films, you really believed these characters were experiencing this magical world right in front of them, while in the others the magic felt arbitrary. They also benefited greatly from the brilliant John Williams score that has been lacking since he left. That said, Order of the Phoenix is my favorite book, I love how dark it is, and how pissed off Harry is at his lot in life, and how much you love to hate Umbridge...not to mention the wizard-dueling finale. But as long as they don't use Goblet of Fire's "lets take out all the story, and make the action scenes go on far too long" formula, I'll be happy. Were the kids even in school during GoF? I forget. Who cares! on to the next tedious task!
July 12, 2007, 2:38 a.m. CST
or just watch the movie? No sports? I suppose "Weasley is King" means nothing to you. No mystery? I suppose the mysterious prophecy and the Voldemort using Sirius to set Harry up doesn't count? I thought stuff with the Ministry expanded the world quite a bit and Luna Lovegood, Firenze becomes a teacher, and Grawp introduced.
July 12, 2007, 8:38 a.m. CST
by future help
Truth be told, I’ve had to really sit and think about why films like “Potter” and the “Rings” series haven’t one me over. I think it’s due to numerous things… 1. I’m a fan of the old school blockbuster. The type of blockbuster that uses practical effects – like the “Indiana Jones” series – not something that’s 2 hours of special effects. I tend to tune out after watching back to back CGI after about twenty minutes. Personally, I find too much of that stuff takes you out of the movie. Granted, I know you probably couldn’t do a “Potter” movie without special effects… so it’s a bit of a catch-22…. But that’s just how I feel. 2. They’re too long. Nobody went and saw “Grindhouse” because it was too long? Fuck that, “Potter” is too long. The blockbusters I grew up with – sans “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” – were about 90 mins to two hours long… and that was plenty. Imagine sitting through a two-and-a-half hour “Ghostbusters” or a three-hour cut of “Young Sherlock Holmes”!? 3. There are too many dull bits. What the fuck was with that sequence where they play the sport? That stupid flying sport!? It went for about the length of a “Police Academy” movie! I could’ve ducked down to Target to buy socks and jocks for an hour and then returned to the movie and I would’ve missed nothing – Potter would still be flying around hitting that ball… or whatever the heck he was doing. 4. They’re so self-important. A little like the “Star Wars” prequels I guess. Their world is THE SHIT. The students at the school are THE SHIT. The old white-bearded professor is THE SHIT. Heck, Harry Potter probably rubs it to a picture of himself every night in the bathroom… the whole universe seems determined to remind you that it’s the smartest, most intellectual, most imaginative, most intriguing place to be. If the universe is so good and all you little magicians have so many powers…. Why catch a fuckin’ train to school every semester! I’d be teleporting my ass to school. Or maybe I just feel like a rejected member of the club. I dunno. One thing’s for sure, I don’t think I can fit in in this club. The ‘I hate Harry Potter’ Website may have nailed it on the head. They say they despise the series – though admit they’re good films – because they’ve seduced kids into thinking it’s the only fantasy book/film worth bothering with, and as a consequence, other goodies (like “Bridge to Terabithia”) get overlooked. “Okay, I don't really hate Harry, but I hate what Harry has become to the genre”, says the webmaster. “I've been an avid fantasy fan for as long as I can remember, having read literally hundreds of fantasy books. So, naturally when I first heard about a new book called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, I eagerly picked it up. I cracked it open and was prepared to be mesmerized. Unfortunately, that was not the case. The book was merely a knockoff of so many other, BETTER, fantasy novels. I can conceive how people might feel attachment to Harry Potter, supposing they have never read the quality fantasy novels that permeate the literary world. It's like loving McDonalds because you've never had lobster.” The site also noted, as I have, that the stories seem to not only get weaker as they go along - - - but they follow the same formula. “I have begrudgingly finished all six books and I have to say I disliked it more as the books went on. I started to notice a pattern in all the books: all the same lazy formulas, the same regurgitated plot points in every book, and the same useless tangents that don't relate to the rest of the book. People claim that these droll repetitions are part of the charm but it's just evidence that JK Rowling is out of touch with the roots she claims to have in the fantasy genre. After finishing the 6th book I felt lost in a sea of mediocrity, fueled by the Harry Potter craze that never seems to wane.”
July 12, 2007, 9:01 a.m. CST
Its interesting, I don't remember ever referring to "Jews" in any of my posts. I guess you just added that in to inject anti-semitism into the discussion. My response was to someone who referred to the evil specter known as "idiot religious freaks". My point was that despite liberal mythology it is not the right that controls the media, but the left. I didn't even say it was bad. I did like your thing about my supposedly trying to escape the stereotype about Christians. Liberal ideology abhors stereotypes, unless it is the stereotypes they themselves promote. It is also interesting that when you pointed out my mistake about how much Da Vinci made, I immediately posted back and accepted the correction. I would disagree that Da Vinci is not a "liberal" book. True, it is just popcorn crap, but the hatred of religion, the desire to deny the divinity of Christ, to bring him down to our level, is a liberal ideology. Anyway, because I hate to disagree with a Halfbreed queen, I note that we agree that Da Vinci was both a poor book and worse film, and that Last Temptation of Christ was brilliant.
July 12, 2007, 9:38 a.m. CST
Would have been a good scene too. Instead of you know, just assuming all the way until they get caught. Fuck it the last book comes out soon and that's where the REAL story is anyway.
July 12, 2007, 9:45 a.m. CST
I completely agree with you and I'm really surprised by the number of people who've read the book and don't see the movie as a quick collage of the action sequences. The book was very moody and really about Harry and Sirius and the Order and fleshed out what happened in the past. This movie was the adventures of Harry, Ron amd Hermione again. Even if you hadn't read the books I would think it would be for action junkies and people who couldn't give a rat's ass about the plot. Because the plot of this was 'Harry has nightmares about Voldemort so let's all make bunny patronuses'. I don't think the real menace of Voldemort infiltrating Harry's mind was shown properly. It had nothing to do with their connection, and just seemed like Voldie was a good mindreader. And the only reason anyone would know what was happening at all was because Snape flat out said so. So much of the the plot was explained by one line from one of the characters. Like Neville telling Harry what happened to his parents. That's what flashbacks should have been used for. Stuff we haven't already seen like Snape's memory of James but much longer. At the end of this movie viewers who aren't readers have no idea what things were like when Voldemort was thriving. Again they missed opportunities to make him as scary as he really is. He's just the bad guy who shows up at the end and waves his wand unsuccessfully.
July 12, 2007, 10:57 a.m. CST
Dumbledore says the exact same line in the book and he does not fight. He casts a spell that knocks everyone down and disappears in a flash of light. Aside from adding Fawkes into the mix, this moment was near verbatim from the book.
July 12, 2007, 11:01 a.m. CST
is the movie Dumbledore. Michael Gambon may have one of the best voices ever, but the book Dumbledore only yelled once or twice in the series thus far and had a calm, God-inspired degree of empathy. He was always calm, goofy, and a genius in the wizarding world. When DD barked at the students about hurrying off to study when Trelawny was getting sacked, it pissed me right off. That's the antithesis of the real DD.
July 12, 2007, 11:09 a.m. CST
But the pain you could read on his face immediately afterwards when Harry was calling to him and he had to pretend not to hear him was PURE DD.
July 12, 2007, 11:17 a.m. CST
yeah...except the part where HE CASTS A FUCKING SPELL. If thats not fighting then what the hell is?
July 12, 2007, 11:18 a.m. CST
As many (if not more) people on here actually do agree with y'all. I'm just not one of them. Not entirely at least. As I said way earlier, I don't think Gambon is perfect. But I think he gets more right than he gets wrong- at least in line with MY interpretation of the character. If you could somehow meld his intensity and power with Harris' warmth... well then THAT would be the perfect Dumbledore.
July 12, 2007, 11:18 a.m. CST
Precisely. You worded it in a much better way than I did, but we agree. This is, unfortunately, a huge mistake on the part of Cuaron, Gambon and co. Dumbledore was always my favorite character and his book-ending wisdom proved, at least to me, that he was the most important person in Harry's life.
July 12, 2007, 11:21 a.m. CST
i think if ian mckellen hadnt been used in lotr he would have been good i think.
July 12, 2007, 11:25 a.m. CST
Is that they never really explained what the Order of the Phoenix was. I believe it was Roger Ebert who said this is the Harry Potter movie that most depends on the audience having read the book. They don't even explain who Kingsley Shacklebot or Tonks are do they? It's just sort of assumed we know who they are. In fact, one of the things that's always bothered me about all the movies is that they don't use their running time properly. How f'ing long was Azkaban? And yet they couldn't take 30 f'ing seconds to explain what the Marauders Map was? That seems like a relatively important thing. Same goes for Sirius' relation to the Malfoys. Still though, I really enjoy the movies because I've read the books so it's not that big of a deal to me.
July 12, 2007, 11:30 a.m. CST
but is seems to me from that passage that the only difference is that in the book DD uses one spell to knock everyone out/ down and then another to take off… and in the movie, a single spell accomplishes both at the same time. I’m sorry, I just don’t see a big problem here. As for Fawkes… is he mentioned again after the above passage? Because in the movie DD grabs onto Fawkes while performing the spell and the power of the spell (as it knocks everyone down) takes on a vaguely phoenix-shaped, bright red form… implying a little more with Fawkes than him simply screeching. That is what I meant by “adding Fawkes to the mix” not that the bird was never a part of the scene in the book.
July 12, 2007, 11:46 a.m. CST
Alright. Even so. The movie DD does with one spell what it took book DD to do with two. I still don't see the big deal.
July 12, 2007, 12:32 p.m. CST
I was prepared to take your post seriously (especially about real effects being better than digital ones) if you hadn't started your rant with a sentence that ends with "one me over". I'm not a spelling nazi but that's got nothing to do with spelling. <br><br>Here's my counter to your argument though...<br><br> 1. I’m a fan of the old school blockbuster. The type of blockbuster that uses practical effects – like the “Indiana Jones” series... <br><br> I love in camera effects and real action sequences a lot as well but CGI has it's place when done well i.e. LOTR. There is no way you could do HP, LOTR or any fantasy film without CGI. I agree that CGI can go too far (SW prequels) but at the time Star Wars was the most effects heavy film ever made. You seem to like that one. Maybe it's more that you just don't certain types of fantasy. <br><br> 2. They’re too long. Nobody went and saw “Grindhouse” because it was too long? Fuck that, “Potter” is too long. The blockbusters I grew up with – sans “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” – were about 90 mins to two hours long… and that was plenty... <br><br> How many of those "shorter" blockbusters were based on books though? You can't compare a film based on a character written for the screen with a film based on a character adapted from books. The films based on books will always be longer because there are moments that the fans want to see. There's no way around it. LOTR:FOTR was 3+ hours long and tons of people still complained that PJ butchered it by leaving out Tom Bombadil. Blockbusters adapted from beloved books or real life characters are gonna be long, even the older ones - Gone With the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia - long, long great films. <br><br> 3. There are too many dull bits. What the fuck was with that sequence where they play the sport? That stupid flying sport!? It went for about the length of a “Police Academy” movie!... <br><br> I agree that they put way too much emphasis on quidditch in some of the HP movies. Again, the inclusion of it in most of the films was mainly to appease the fans of the books. They want to see everything in the books on the screen. Quidditch really adds nothing to the real story arc of HP but until Phoenix the directors felt obilgated to leave it in to please the book fans. There's no mention of it in this latest installment. Good riddance I say. <br><br> 4. They’re so self-important. A little like the “Star Wars” prequels I guess. Their world is THE SHIT. The students at the school are THE SHIT. The old white-bearded professor is THE SHIT. <br><br> I couldn't disagree with you more here. All action blockbusters treat their heroes and worlds like THE SHIT. If you didn't care about the world you wouldn't watch the films. Luke, Han, Indi, John McClane, Harry Potter, Hoth, Tatooine, Nakatomi Towers were all THE SHIT. It's the formula. <br><br> Oh and the kids don't teleport to school because they aren't allowed to. Only adults are allowed to use magic in the real worldd. The kids aren't allowed to until they are trained to properly control it. It's mentioned very early on in this latest film.
July 12, 2007, 12:36 p.m. CST
My life almost had no meaning.
July 12, 2007, 12:45 p.m. CST
I don't know...Dumbledore does lose his temper in the book as well with the children gawking at Trelawney and Umbridge. The book has flaws, this film buffs most of them out. I'm not a purist, one of the people who demand that a movie be the book, mainly because I understand that it's hard for one medium to ape the other.<p>This book was my favorite, because of its promise. This movie was my favorite because it streamlined the salient points necessary to further the story of Harry Potter, without delving into all the minor stuff...<p>I'm also not a purist because I'm a gigantic Stephen King fan, and understand that once the script is out of the hands of the author, even if they have final say, it becomes its own thing. With King flicks either the director gets it right: Romero's 'The Dark Half'...Cronenberg's 'The Dead Zone'...Darabont's 'Mile' or 'Shawshank'...Different from the novels, but made better because of it...
July 12, 2007, 1:27 p.m. CST
...that I walked out enjoying very much (speaking only of the blockbuster movies). Spiderman 3 had too many legs for its own good. Pirates backstabbed itself repeatedly. Ocean's 13 broke into the same vault as before. Transformers transformed PG-13 action into G-Rated humor. <p> Then came Potter 5. To me, this one flowed as good as the 3rd movie. I'd even go to say that it ties with the 3rd movie. There's magic mixed with muggles, emotional relationships like never before, some great scenes relived from the book, and a fantasitic final act. Favorite moments are definitely Harry and Siris in the tapestry room, Luna and Harry in the forest, O.W.L.S. vs. the twins, and the whole final act. The Voldamort scene was better than I pictured in the book. Overall, a great movie, beginning to end. <p> Note that I still haven't seen Ratatouiee, so I can't say it is the best summer movie, but it is the best I've seen thus far of the blockbusters.
July 12, 2007, 1:42 p.m. CST
new WIZARDING WORLD OF HARRY POTTER island being built at Universal's Islands of Adventure. I still can't believe it never got an article on here, but whatever. I personally can't wait and plan to book tickets as soon as "opening day" is annouced.
July 12, 2007, 3:47 p.m. CST
If he checks out in DH then the theme park might as well be a gravesite... That said, the plans look great, the new KUKA ride technology they've been saving for the new "big ticket" ride is SICK (might finally put Spider-Man off its now 7 year run as "Best Theme Park Ride In The World"). Oh- and that fact that they have Stuart Craig (production designer for all the HP movies as well as a laundry list of other visually stunning movies from The Elephant Man to Dangerous Liasions to Memphis Belle on board to oversee the look of everything is just the icing on the cake. (I'm also glad that it is becoming an Island at IOA. A full theme park would be total overkill, but a single ride/show would be a tease. Now it looks like we'll get at least 3 rides, 1 show and heavily themed play areas, shops and restaurants... which is just perfect!)
July 12, 2007, 3:48 p.m. CST
by Ray Gamma
99% of your readers don't live anywhere near an IMAX cinema.
July 12, 2007, 4:16 p.m. CST
I just got back from 3days/nights there and even with the oppresive heat and even more oppresive crowds, it was still a geek's wet dream. Especially IOA. Orlando's has all the best aspects of the Hollywood park, but amped up a notch. IOA has Spider-Man (which is pretty much indescribable, there's nothing like it in the world) and 2 of the best coasters in the US, hands down.
July 12, 2007, 4:18 p.m. CST
Some of us seem to be having differences in memory here. I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong- having only seen it once... but in MY mind, he knocked everyone out/ down with the Fawkes-blast and apparated the fuck outta there at the same time. Others say no one was even knocked down. I'll have to wait til I see it again to say for sure.
July 12, 2007, 4:26 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
I dunno how thrilled I am about Yates taking the reins of Half-Blood Prince. I mean, I liked OoTP...but definitely didn't love it. I was so terribly disappointed just 3 minutes in by both the Dementors (why were they wrapped in burlap?) and the bizarre performances of the Dursleys, and then the fact that a certain something failed to happen with Petunia. That seemed to be a repetitive reaction with this film for me. It would rocket ahead, not really bothering to explain anything and I would admire the darkness, the tone that he did manage to nail, and then cringe at how badly a subject was being manhandled. It reminded me of a director's reel. Just a series of clips and montages set to music, rather than a cohesive, well thought out story. I totally understand that Book 5 was, content-wise, the hardest to adapt, but seriously; If you didn't walk into that theater knowing what to expect, how much new information did you gain by the time you finally walked out? That Harry would have to kill Voldemort in the end? Well, big fucking surprise. Did you have any clue why it was so important for Harry to be lured there to pick up the Prophecy? Why Voldemort wanted it so badly? Who made the prophecy to begin with and the events surrounding it? What the "weapon" was? Why Trelawney was rescued from eviction? How the Order knew to come to the rescue in the first place? What Snape's new role is? Because, see, if you don't fully understand that when you leave, then the filmmakers have failed to tell the full story. This particular story isn't supposed to focus on flashy wizard battles, but about Harry's internal struggle to understand and combat the connection between himself and Voldy and how he ultimately fails at that until it's too late. For that, I didn't mind that many of the characters were shunted to the side a bit because it's not really about them this time, but no characters seemed to develop at all. Draco is still more comical than menacing and I have to wonder when we're going to be allowed to take him seriously, You have no idea why Percy Weasley is wandering around with the Minister, Kreacher seems to be an afterthought and Grawp is unrecognizable. At times, I did have to stop and wonder if Yates had even read the books. And now it sounds like I absolutely despised this installment, but I didn't! I thought Yates really captured the spirit and feel of the book and did get some things really right...he just also lost me on things that seemed really wrong. So, yeah, as someone who loved Book 6, I am fairly terrified to see how he handles it.
July 12, 2007, 4:27 p.m. CST
http://tinyurl.com/2aqnzb It seems with this technology that the ride will be able to seamlessly combine elements of regular animatronic dark rides (like POTC, Haunted Mansion, ET, Indiana Jones etc..), simulators (like Back to the Future, Star Tours etc...) and full on, high speed steel (even with inversions) roller coasters... all into the same ride. And though they're still a bit mum on it, word on the street is that ALL of these elements will be on the flagship Harry Potter ride- (based around Ford Anglia ride cars, Harry Potter-style 3-D glasses and flights around the Hogwarts grounds, through the Dark Forest, into an in progress Quidditch game and possibly even underwater into the lake. The Mummy coaster was one of the first to combine animatronic/ dark ride elements with a full-on coaster. Spider-Man was the first to- combine 3-D/simulator with animatronic/ dark ride elements. And to make a long story short (TOO LATE!) HP will be able to combine ALL that into one ride. Even if I hated Harry Potter, I'd be stoked just for that alone.
July 12, 2007, 4:30 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
And I'm definitely one of the few who loves Gambon as Dumbledore. He's sprightly and quirky and flawed. I never warmed to Richard Harris. Watching him was like emptying my vacuum bag...dusty and wheezy.
July 12, 2007, 4:32 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
Dumbledore knocked out everyone, excluding McGonagall and Harry, spoke with them briefly and then disappeared using Fawkes. This much I know.
July 12, 2007, 4:33 p.m. CST
You've echoed many of my gut-reaction sentiments about the movie. I actually had no problem with the new design on the Dementors though- and I can understand moving away from a design that was so very RingWraith-ish. I agree on Grawp's design though. Just not a fan. There were moments for the first time that I actually felt were missing (I even got swept up in what actually WAS presented in the Goblet movie without missing much at all)- many of the same ones you did. Overall though, I thought the look of the film was fantastic. He did capture the tone of the book (if not the details) and roundly got MUCH better performances out of everyone than last time out. Wow, I have had too much coffee and am blabbering. I <3 Evana Lynch's Luna though (and no, not in a creepy way).
July 12, 2007, 4:35 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
sorry, Frijole, I thought you were asking about the book events. Yeah, in the movie he doesn't knock out anyone, just disappears with Fawkes.
July 12, 2007, 4:35 p.m. CST
The last thing I was saying is that I <3 Evana Lynch's Luna (and not in a creepy way). And pervy, I know that is how it happens in the book... but some of us are disagreeing about how it goes down in the movie.
July 12, 2007, 4:36 p.m. CST
OK, No more posting. I keep getting cut off for some reason.
July 12, 2007, 4:40 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
The performances were fucking stellar all around.
July 12, 2007, 5:16 p.m. CST
Please. Cars is cute, but very by the numbers.
July 12, 2007, 5:19 p.m. CST
from Azkaban were much better. Still, this film is great.
July 12, 2007, 5:20 p.m. CST
almost get the feeling that there isn't anything going on between Ron and Hermione (even though it's suggested otherwise in the books). I like the kid playing Ron, but Harry and Hermione have more chemistry.
July 12, 2007, 5:29 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
I felt that Ron and Hermione's relationship was definitely moving forward, it was just very subtle and more mature. I did miss Ron as he's one of my favorite characters, and I'm really sorry they took the Quidditch and Prefect status away from him, but I get why he and Hermione weren't focused on.
July 12, 2007, 5:31 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
Harry first finds them both closed up in a bedroom at Grimmauld Place:)
July 12, 2007, 6:12 p.m. CST
Harry Potter's latest film brought in 44 million, with MIDNIGHT showings. Michael Bay's shitfest couldn't do that even with screenings that were accepting tickets four hours longer. I'm not a HP fan, won't go see this one since I haven't seen the others, but I hope this movie makes 150 mil over the next few days and another 100 mil this weekend. After the turd Bay dropped, and the retarded masses who cheered his raping of cinema, we need a return to sanity and a strong refutation of Bayformers.
July 12, 2007, 6:33 p.m. CST
heaps of metal crap they designed those robots to be ('cept Prime worked kinda okay. Kinda).
July 12, 2007, 6:44 p.m. CST
Worst film of the year. Does not deserve its own thread. HOLY FUCKING SHIT is this film awful. Words cannot describe the pain of having to sit through this piece of shit. And I really like the Potter films! (Especially Cuaron's masterpiece) This film is the longest 2 hour introduction to a mediocre 25 minute film that I have ever witnessed. How can you take established characters we have come to love and bring absolutley NO FUCKING CHEMISTRY to a 2 hour beyond trite never-entertaining never at all funny (ok I laughed once) bloat of an introduction where literally NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENS FOR 2 HOURS!!!! I am still in shock. Not having read the book I could only look in awe, dumbfounded by the sheer uninterestingness of it all. Its like Harry Potter 90210, but not that good. When things finally DO seem to amp up about one hour in, it simply sags on its own flabby script again and again. SPOILERS: a) Nobody believes Voldemort is back and they think Harry and Dumbledor are liars. b) A stupid annoying lady who has more screen time than everyone except potter takes over the school because she is fucking dumb - there is no twist - she is just a dumb cow and we have to watch her for TWO FUCKING HOURS be a dumbass. c) Voldemort is back, as we already know from the fucking last film - the end. That is all this film is - I cant BELIEVE the book was this much of a big wet fart (Mrs McKrakalaka, who was almost as disgusted as I was with this film, was sad for other reasons, because apparantly, there is an actual story with some meat in the fucking book). Seriously an hour in the kids do magic in secret - this is the first time it gets interesting- and then they show this scene for literally 15 minutes - kids, just doing the same spells in a room for 15 minutes, while Harry tells them "good job, believe in yourself!" - WTF have you done to this franchise? Now after all this horror - this super stretched nothingness the ending suddenly goes full steam and we get 25 minutes of really good old school potterishness - that is totally rushed and makes almost no sense. Rons brothers fly off into the sky - where did Hagrid go - who knows - and who cares? Huge nonsequiter after nonsequiter bukake your face as we progress into "Wrap it up after all that first 2 hours of nothing" mode. Then Potter and his gang to the dept of mysteries - and they just show up on the secret floor in a huge Ministry building - wtf - how did they get in? What is going on. Then The kids spar off against voldemorts stupid bad guys - who are totally infeebling and do nothing to the kids - and just take it up the arse. Then - wait for it - this was the best! - The order of the phoenix shows up - a bunch of good guys that we saw for a moment at the begining but were never introduced to - one chick can change hair colors - weehoo - but i dont know her name or care who she is because we have spent 2 hours focusing on nothing. Then good guys and bad guys fight and it is quite possibly the FUCKING STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN. They dont ever hurt each other - they just turn into white and black clouds and mist each other ever so lightly in their faces with their mistyness. My god - i was like walk up anf FUCKING PUNCH THE GUY IN THE FUCKING FACE if your magic is this inefectual. The who knows why - Serious is killed. I guess his cousin used a different spell this time that can hurt people (Mrs Mckrakalaka said he actually was just pushed into a totally unexplained doorway in the movie that is much clearer in the book). Whatever - no emotion is created by this new HORRIBLE DIRECTOR who has ruined the Potter films for good. Then something amazing happens - VOLDEMORT finally fucking shows up and the movie gets really good for about 10 minutes. An incredible all out wizard battle ensues that starts lame with obi vs darth but then gets really good as it goes straight up AVATAR - the last airbender and they attack with fire, water, and wind. Then its over and I left with one positive thought - that 10 minutes was so cool that I dont even think M Night could fuck up the upcoming 3 Avatar films. Ohh and then I was depressed because I remembered - the same HORRIBLE DIRECTOR that did this film is doing the next one. COUNT ME OUT. Ohh and the CGI Giant looked like ASS. ILM shoudl be fucking ashamed. Why the fuck wouldnt you just film a guy and green screen him in as bigger - idiots are now helming this franchise - and boy did they make it dumb.
July 12, 2007, 7:19 p.m. CST
by Mr. Nice Gaius
Did you really think Potter wasn't going to do big business?! You speak about it like it's a fucking surprise. Besides, Box Office performance is no indication of a worthwhile film. Remember?
July 12, 2007, 8:21 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
Did you notice the people they left OFF the family tree and relationships that weren't referenced? Does this mean that certain events are being altered for the sixth? Horrifying. And did anyone else notice that by not explaining that it was a group of people that were convicted of torturing the Longbottoms, that their pronouncement of Bellatrix Lestrange as the sole assailant makes Barty Crouch Jr (from GoF) an innocent man? Continuity, Yatesy, continuity. Alright, I'm done geeking out.
July 12, 2007, 10:25 p.m. CST
that's almost exactly what I thought, and Mrs Mckrakalaka is spot on too. The only difference is that I liket the order fight with all the mistyness and that shit.
July 12, 2007, 10:29 p.m. CST
For the poster that said Trelawny's role with the prophecy was missing from the movie, it was pretty evident in the movie I saw. When the prophecy spoke to Harry, it was Trelawny's image and voice. The movie showed this to us without Dumbledore having to explain it. I thought that was pretty cool. Also, I don't think Snape's role with the prophecy occured in the fifth book, but rather the sixth. I could be wrong though.
July 12, 2007, 10:43 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
The Potters, Weasleys, Malfoys, Blacks, basically all pure-blood families are related in varying degrees, but the tree left off a few key members of the Black family that (are supposed to) play pretty big roles in the next one. And for brermike, I'm glad that you recognized who she was, but many people didn't remember her "trance" voice from PoA, and I personally couldn't see any recognizable Trelawney facial features in the ball. Thus, I still really think that it's not explained very well.
July 12, 2007, 11:27 p.m. CST
by B Arthur
I will put this up their with Azkaban. Overall very well done. Just about everything was top notch. I have one major complaint however... Snape getting mind raped by Harry was way off the plotline of the books, so much so that I wonder if they have created a real problem for themselves in the future. Snape was supposed to be one of the best if not THE best at Occlumency - it is after all how he has been a double agent this whole time. After all,how could be work for the two greatest wizards of all time simultaneously. It didnt have to be that way either. Buffing up Snapes plotline would have added 2-3 minutes to the movie. I realize reshoots are expensive and not always feasible, but that was the one major tarnish to an otherwise superb film.
July 12, 2007, 11:47 p.m. CST
by B Arthur
Ive read a couple of the posts here and I think some good criticisms of the film were made. They left many many pieces of this book out that directly relate to the next book. I also felt Sirius' death fell a little flat. One thing Mike Newell did well in Goblet was Cedrics death, which still gets me a bit teary with his father screaming and all. This one did feel a little flat, lost amid all the action. OK< and why didnt they put in the scene with Voldemorts shield, and the loud gong noise? I thought that was cool in the books. Dumbledore seemed very in control of the duel, but in the books he really isnt, and in fact may have been mortally wounded in the duel. Most of these complaints seem to be script related, or possibly editing. OTherwise I thought this was a very well done film, which gets my hopes up for HalfBlood Prince.
July 13, 2007, 12:47 a.m. CST
I don't know what film that McKrakalaka saw, but I just got back from the IMAX and the film was excellent. Probably my favorite HP movie so far. I loved Azkaban, but it still felt a bit incomplete. This is what I've been waiting for in an HP film. For the first time, I felt the children were real, actually cared about each other and DID have good chemistry. I loved the character moments, the subtle touches, some of the best performances so far. It was actually structured well, with the montages and Daily Prophet transitions all working well without too heavy a hand. All this stuff that was left out I don't really care about, because it works without it. We can't judge most of that (whether they've shot themselves in the foot for the future films) until we see how they adapt the other books. From what I understand, when that would happen, J.K. corrected them. I greatly prefer this new screenwriter and David Yates as a director. This worked in all the ways that GoF fell flat. I'm actually glad they didn't do the scene with Harry trashing Dumbledore's office. In the book, I felt he was just too whiny and over the top with the anger. It just came off as petulant and bratty, whereas in the film, it WORKS. And I don't understand how anyone can see that Radcliffe was emotionless. There's a lot going on with that young man, and I think we're finally seeing the actor come out. (well, not in the gay sense). So far this is my favorite movie this summer (I've only seen Spiderman3 and FF:ROTSS, so the bar's not that high). Anyway, I really, really enjoyed it.
July 13, 2007, 1:02 a.m. CST
I also saw Pirates 3. See, I forgot already. Not memorable films, that series.
July 13, 2007, 1:18 a.m. CST
He has Harry find it for him and they explain why only he can find it and when you hear it you know why Voldemort wanted it. Sheesh!
July 13, 2007, 1:36 a.m. CST
Now my vote officially counts because I've seen it - right? It was vile through and through and Vern was not exaggerating a bit. The vitriol directed at this film based on the script and the director and production team was 100% justified. I could go on, but it's all been said. Pull the plug on He-Man and Thundercats now.
July 13, 2007, 1:57 a.m. CST
Snapes's talent for Occulmency (which I had forgotten about having not read the book in some time) made me consider that he has been compromised in the last book released, so maybe that is what this film is hinting at - if Harry can do it, so can Voldemort.
July 13, 2007, 2:06 a.m. CST
would top HP3, but they did. Not fair to compare them really, such different films, but this was great!
July 13, 2007, 4:06 a.m. CST
by B Arthur
Since Rowling did go over the script, and apparently make sure Kreacher was in the film, perhaps she was OK with this change as well? The Elf really only said he was a servant of the Black family and that was it. If Rowling was OK with the Snape change, then you may be right. Snape isnt playing Voldemort, but its the other way around. I find it hard to believe though because Snape has been really built up as a great but underrated wizard, one who is highly disliked. But a wizard who was trusted by Dumbledore... I guess we have a couple more weeks to find out if this change in Snapes story was a mistake or not.
July 13, 2007, 4:24 a.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
make it clear that I did like this movie. I didn't walk out and retch on the sidewalk immediately afterwards. There were moments that really meant something, things that were really well done. I thought that there were some brave choices made, it was beautiful and I was thrilled to see the HP movies finally transition to the realm of mature filmmaking and out of the kiddie world, but it was just lacking any sense of flow or real purpose for me. So Potter's having dreams again, well he had those in the last movie too, big deal. Why is it more menacing and important this time around? The Daily Prophet transitions (which I had forgotten about) were well done and informative, but aside from the political story thread, everything else just fell flat in comparison. I'm not particularly fussed about the way the big death was handled, because it really wasn't much better in the book, but what I don't want to see next installment is Yates trying to cram exposition upon exposition into two hours because he neglected to do it this time around. And if the prophecy reasoning was explained in the Dept Of Mysteries, then I really must have checked out, cause I didn't catch that at all. But yeah, I saw an interview with JKR and she claims that she loved the film, so if she has faith, I won't give up hope.
July 13, 2007, 4:27 a.m. CST
by B Arthur
With very little setup for the next film included in OoTP, perhaps we might see some of these gaps placed in HBP? If you think about it, HBP is a pretty simple book... perhaps possibly even slightly boring. There were numerous flashbacks to Voldemorts past to expose the Horcrux thing. Those scenes could be very tedious, so why not make them shorter and include some of the elements from OoTP. Such as Ron, who really was taken out of this film. HBP's 3 main characters are Snape, Harry and Dumbledore, and maybe Malfoy. I just think there is plenty of time to venture into the other characters, whereas in this film obviuosly much was cut.
July 13, 2007, 4:43 a.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
for them to introduce some of the stuff they neglected in HBP but it does seem like a bit of a cop-out. I agree on the flashback sequences, they are pretty tiresome after a while so I guess that'll be one time I won't mind Yates's jump cuts anyway. I heard there'll be Quidditch next time around, so I'm looking forward to seeing Ron regain some usefulness. That being said, I'm still really nervous about this duo taking another crack at the Potterverse, but whatever, at least I've got the book to look forward to! On a side note, I really liked the score, though I loved Patrick Doyle's as well and was interested to read some pretty violent reactions to that one on here.
July 13, 2007, 4:55 a.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
There actually was a moment in the books that Harry threw up a shield spell during Occlumency lessons and rebounded the spell back to him, granting him a quick look into Snape's mind. Remember the little boy watching his parents fight and other various painful moments? (yeah, I'm a Potter geek) I'm guessing they just decided it would be easier to combine that and the Pensieve moment. I don't know what it means anything significant, I mean, you still got the gist; Sanpe's life sucked, James was kind of an asshole, having the physical Pensieve wasn't really neccesary...though it would have been amazing to see more of James and the Marauders.
July 13, 2007, 5:08 a.m. CST
by B Arthur
Ah, youre right, I think I remember that now. OK, well, maybe Snape isnt that great of an Occlumens... Also in the books Harry becomes slightly obsessed with this situation and feeling some sympathy for Snape. He talks with Lupin (?) and who confirms that his father was kinda a prick but always hated dark magic. Anyways, just yet another scene that was dropped that would have taken an extra minute to tell. Harry wanted to desperately blame someone for everything going wrong and in the books he tried to blame Snape, but everyone was defending Snape. Dont get the wrong impression though, this was a great movie IMO. The music fit very well with the scenes, the look was great, the acting was the best thus far. I'm just not sure how people who dont read the book could really follow this movie or understand why certain moments were important. Maybe it will encourage those last holdouts to go out and buy the books.
July 13, 2007, 8:02 a.m. CST
I have watched the movie and enjoyed it, but again like the last two movies it leaves out too many things that need explaining. They sort of expect you to have read the book. I have to really laugh about the complaints about the Dementors being changed from the 3rd movie. HARD LUCK! When people like me complained about Alfonso Cuaron being allowed to mess about with movie continuity, we were accused of being picky. However what supporters of POA failed to realise is that once you allow one director to ignore series continuity, you allow every new director to do the same. Surely the Dementor change is less dramatic that the Fat Lady, Tom the Innkeeper and Flitwick changes AC did? Anyway back to OotP. About 10 extra minutes could have added all the additional plot points left out. Even the computer game includes the mysterious locket. Still as long as WB are making their money they will be happy.
July 13, 2007, 11:25 a.m. CST
Many posting to this thread seem to misunderstand the process of adapting a book to the screen. Frankly, I think the Potter books are way overwritten and in need of a good editor. That being said, when a film adapts a book it is usually impossible to just "put everything in". Instead, the writer must look for the important themes and ideas that the book has, and adapt them to the screen, using cinematic techniques instead of novelistic ones. A very good example is "Door in the Floor" which takes only a small fraction of the book "Widow for one year", and not even the primary one. The film works perfectly on its own merits, even though the protagonist of the book hardly makes an appearance. Did I miss what wansn't there? Sure, but what was there was just perfect. See also Catch 22 which eliminates more than half the characters and incidents from the book, or the underappreciated "Hearts in Atlantis". Another good example is "Clear and Present Danger", a mere sliver of the book it adapted. A bad example is "Patriot Games" which is a pretty good, taut, two hour movie, but which loses too much of the source material. There is not a single Potter book that I did not think was improved by the movie. I mean, are you really that concerned whether someone pushed someone in the movie but not the book? In adapting a novel the filmmakers must concentrate on one thing, the movie, and making the movie work. Concerns about fanboys and the specifics of the work being adapted must be entirely jettisoned, and a single minded focus on making the film work as a film must be the order of the day.
July 13, 2007, 11:48 a.m. CST
that take FAR more liberties with their source material than any of the HP movies include: Jurassic Park, Gone With The Wind, LOTR, The Shining, Wizard of OZ, Todd Browning's Dracula & James Whale's Frankenstein, JAWS... and on and on and on and...
July 13, 2007, 11:50 a.m. CST
I have the feeling Snape will end up being redeemed when it's all said and done. I will have to back and read the passage now to see if there is anything to suggest Snape was not in control.
July 13, 2007, 11:52 a.m. CST
number 5. Surely you can't expect the filmmakers to go on reexplaining the concept.
July 13, 2007, 11:58 a.m. CST
This is a series that is just too long and involved to keep re-explaining things to new audience members over and over again. This was the first installment that used significant flashbacks to the previous movies- and I think it should be the last. Not that I had a problem with the flashbacks at this point. Kind of a midway reminder of where we've been before the final act.
July 13, 2007, 12:48 p.m. CST
in this film that was left out without it breaking up the spine of the movie. You can only spin off so many subplots. I can't recall completely but some of the subplots in this book do not interweave with the main plot as well as they did in some of the previous ones.
July 13, 2007, 1:31 p.m. CST
No, I don't think you can, because Clancy's books are better than any of the Potter books. Other than that, the comparisons are pretty clear. None of these books are "literature". They are popular novels which lack even rudimentary interest as important novels. They are there to entertain, not to spend endless hours thinking about. For that, put your Potter books down for a while and read Mailer, Pynchon, Irving, Elroy, etc. If Dickens can be freely adapted for great films, Oliver, Oliver Twist, Tale of Two Cities, then surely a little tinkering with the crappy Potter books is entirely appropriate.
July 13, 2007, 1:35 p.m. CST
how much money they make or how many sheep read them. I like popcorn movies and books, but you have to branch out a bit and look for art of true value and beauty. As far as the worth of a work goes, you can almost determine the value of a book by how few people read them, at least when they are first written.
July 13, 2007, 1:38 p.m. CST
Just saying....<p> If you are blind in one eye, 3-D is a moot point. I hope the film holds up without it.
July 13, 2007, 1:55 p.m. CST
Or Washington Irving? Or another Irving. If it's John Irving, which I'm assuming it is since "Door In the Floor" has been mentioned... John Irving is in my top 5 favorite authors ever. With "The World According To Garp" being in my top 3 (along with "Mother Night" and "A Confederacy of Dunces"). TWATGARP is another movie that I (if not most people) consider a classic- and it takes major liberties with the source material too. And that's fine. The movie and novel work on different levels seperately and different levels as companions to one another. While I don't agree that popular reading is automatically fluff and not "real literature", I do agree that if liberties can be taken with more heady fair (with little squawking from the peanut gallery) that certainly more traditional escapist fare (even the best of it)should be allowed licence as well. On that note. John Irving is, quite openly, a HUUUUUUUUGE Harry Potter fan.
July 13, 2007, 2 p.m. CST
A line of dialogue to explain an important part is risky for two reasons. One, a line of dialogue can go unheard, or ignored by the Audience. Never should one put important detail in only one line of dialogue unless there is some sort of follow up. Now I am not saying the audience is stupid, but there is always a lot of information to be absorbed Two, it doesn't lend to any enhanced dramatic quality.
July 13, 2007, 2:08 p.m. CST
And I'm not really attacking Potter, though I don't like it very much as literature, I have enjoyed all the films. I also left out Don DeLillo, whose new novel "Falling Man" is great, and whose "Underworld" is one of the great American novels. I also loved Garp as a film. To me there are two Garps, the film, and the novel. Even the horribly truncated adaptation of Hotel New Hampshire worked as a film, though to be sufficiently translated it would have had to be two full length movies, which is what the director always wanted.
July 13, 2007, 2:14 p.m. CST
Kurt Vonnegut? And Hunter Thompson? Talk about a great adaptation, Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, though not entirely faithful, beautifully captures the spirit of the book, especially in the heartbreaking scene where Hunter is looking out the window talking about the moment when the wave crested, and began to roll back. Though he was talking about the sixties, and the counterculture, he could just as easily have been discussing the great period of the sixties and seventies in film, before that one brief shining moment of individualism and art gave way to pure commercialism.
July 13, 2007, 2:18 p.m. CST
Seriously, when you have to cut out half or two third's of a book due to time constraints, don't call attention to it by having every scene transition be as awkward and jarring as possible. I don't think it's the result of trimming, either, because there are awkward cuts IN-SCENE when switching from one camera to another. It's as if the director wanted to give you the impression that things were as disjointed as possible. I still enjoyed the film, and I think that some of the story problems people are complaining about are the fault of the book itself [Harry is pretty unlikeable for most of the book, and nothing really happens for most of the book] but I think the way the film was shot and cut made the story choices look weaker than they had to be.
July 13, 2007, 2:19 p.m. CST
by Leopold Scotch
It's almost as popular as ripping on Christianity. Please find something more original and less fashionable to slag off. I've got a degree in English literature and my friends who attack the Potter novels are either threatened by them as writers (God, my amateur writer friends can drive me nuts), trying to promote their intellectual superiority, or close to illiterate, having never read a single novel of their own accord. But it's never a case of live and let live, because it feels good to distance yousrelf from that great unwashed, doesn't it? And as for literature and "art", Rowling herself promotes the novels as a plot-based series, and leaves any literature talk up in the air. Just because she makes it look easy and made millions in the process, she is more open to flavour of the day critics, and if you must go there, make sure your arguments are original.<br><br>Oh yeah, and D. Vader, Dumbledore did knock over the Minister and Shacklebolt et al. Also, Azkaban, as good as it was, had much more cut out of it in the adaptation process that was integral to the success of the book than this movie did. It's still one of my top two Potter films (along with this one).
July 13, 2007, 2:23 p.m. CST
"Fear and Loathing..." It was one of the few great novels that I thought that no one should even attempt. I am actually not a big fan of the movie. I can't figure it out, but something just rubs me the wrong way- though Depp and the visuals are all great. That said, it is as close an approxamation of the novel as I could imagine on the screen. Wish I enjoyed it more. Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions" is another that I thought to be unfilmable- and we all know how THAT adaptation turned out. Eek!
July 13, 2007, 2:32 p.m. CST
by Leopold Scotch
As far as I can remember, it was the closest book to screen adaptation I've ever seen. The book isn't that long, afterall.
July 13, 2007, 2:36 p.m. CST
are probably The Outsiders and To Kill A Mockingbird. Sure there are some difference, but VERY minor ones.
July 13, 2007, 2:45 p.m. CST
the harry potter cast on cement thing. What do you think?
July 13, 2007, 2:58 p.m. CST
Attacking the artistic merits of the Potter series is tantamount to attacking Christianity? You gotta be kidding me. "Harry Potter is more popular than Jesus!" I am neither an illiterate nor an aspiring writer trying to build myself up by knocking Potter down. This is just my opinion, after all. I read crap and watch crap movies all the time, just because I enjoy them doesn't make them good. I've been watching some fifties monster movies on MonsterHD and I enjoy the hell out of them, but if someone was to remake "Tarantula" I wouldn't be complaining that the fire sequence was changed because the professor fell down in the first version but not the second. I am glad for Rowling's success, she seems like a nice person. I can't understand why a reader would take it personally when somebody doesn't like a book that they do. By the way, I actually enjoyed "Breakfast of Champions" as a film. Alan Rudolph is one of the unsung greats. Speaking of Vonnegut adaptations, both "Mother Night" and "Slaughterhouse Five" were excellent, and differed greatly from the novels.
July 13, 2007, 2:59 p.m. CST
I think that it was more to honor that characters than the actors. And like the movies or not, like the books or not... the characters are easily the most celebrated new faces of popular culture/ fiction of the last decade. That being the case, I think it was warranted. If Martin Lawrence can have his handprints out there, I think the Potter kids certainly can too.
July 13, 2007, 3:48 p.m. CST
by mike allegretto
Damn she has some nice legs! BTW did anyone notice anything *FAMILIAR* about the end battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore?
July 13, 2007, 4:14 p.m. CST
adapted from Vonnegut's work, though it's still flawed- mainly due to its inability to believably convey jumping through time the way the book does. It comes off hokey... I still love it though. As for the movie of MOTHER NIGHT, while divergent from the book in many ways, I think it's the closest adaptation to its source material- since doing so was much easier to achieve given the pretty standard narrative and lack of the fantastic (in comparison to Vonnegut's other movies)- plus Arkin and Nolte are both great in it!
July 13, 2007, 4:39 p.m. CST
by Leopold Scotch
I didn't mean that Potter is bigger than Jesus, but that it's just as fashionable to attack it. And yeah, I agree that it probably isn't literature, but I'd still argue that that isn't an important factor. Dickens was just about as commercial as writers got in his period too, as was Byron etc, and I'm not comparing Rowling to them, but in terms was what is and what isn't literature, I would regard that as an argument more relevant to late nineteenth to mid-twentieth century than today, which is more concerned with what is or isn't commercialist pap, and the two aren't always the antithesis of each other.<br><br>I certainly wouldn't take it personal if someone attacks the books (I'm not a completely die-hard fan, and the fact that I like them makes me a minority in my group of friends), I just get annoyed when people attack the series for reasons other than the quality of the books.
July 13, 2007, 6:06 p.m. CST
by B Arthur
While Goblet was not one of the better movies IMO, he did hit the Voldemort scene in the graveyard head on. It was probably one of the better scenes in the series thus far including OoTP. He also got Cedrics death really well, I think its probably the saddest part of the series. That 10 minute stretch of Goblet couldn't have been better really.
July 13, 2007, 7:12 p.m. CST
by Leopold Scotch
You're right! Funnily enough, it wasn't until last night when I was sitting watching the film for the first time, that I realised how incredibly Orwellian the magic world is in Harry Potter: the minute he casts a spell in front of a muggle (or even on his own as a minor), they know about it, and they're on his ass. Strangely enough, this equivalent of CCTV in every room doesn't seem to be directly criticised much in the series. It just seems to be a device to get Harry into some kind of trouble and to cap his progress, but damn, the more you think about it, the less appealing it is in terms of privacy and freedom.
July 13, 2007, 7:35 p.m. CST
around which she wrote the first book?" HEY MORIARTY LISTEN UP!!!!!!!!!!!! SHE WAS FUCKING POOR AND SHE WAS WRITING THE FIRST BOOK TO GET OUT OF HER WELFARE HOLE SHE LANDED IN...... YES SHE WROTE THIS SHIT FOR A CASH GRAB... FORTUNATELY IT PAID OFF! THAT NOT ONLY WAS HER FIRST PRIORITY (A CASH GRAB) WORK, HER SECONDARY CONCERN (IT BEING A GOOD BOOK) WORKED OUT AS WELL... SO STFU UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT...... for god's sake everyone knows she wrote the books to get out of her welfare hole.
July 14, 2007, 12:15 a.m. CST
So AICN gets a free press junket and the good reviews for a mediocre movie pour in.
July 14, 2007, 12:49 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... go fuck yourself. I didn't go to any "free junket," a phrase which doesn't even make sense, and I didn't get anything for liking the film. One day, when you're an adult, you'll comprehend that people have different opinions than you, and whereas I can articulate why I like something, you seem so insecure with your own opinion that you have to accuse others of wrongdoing if they don't parrot you. <P>And did I mention go fuck yourself?
July 14, 2007, 1:14 a.m. CST
I was going to go with "I love the smell of flame war in the morning, it smells like victory" but, aw heck, I love the smell of flame war and f bombs and such. Some forums are so tight assed they get wound up if they think you're a little off topic. Here the full expression of freedom and freedom to be an idiot or brilliant are right there for you. Moriarty says what he thinks and wouldn't turn into a fawning suck up for a movie studio or a movie. Why should he? His opinions are his credibility and why would he want to lose that for some Harry Potter key chains or a plane trip? That's just a retarded opinion.
July 14, 2007, 5:09 a.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
no matter how small a detail, was the biggest problem of the movie for me. I could nitpick for days about the stuff that they left out and whether certain knowledge is important or not, but I remember actually groaning out loud when they made her out to be a victim instead of the snitch. They had already set up that she was under pressure from her mother who worked at the Ministry, so she could have caved, big deal. At least Harry and his friends wouldn't look like assholes and he'd be left emotionally available with no regrets, because if they ever made up, we didn't see it. I actually felt bad for Cho, the way this was handled, whereas I should have fucking hated her, as I do her character in the books. Make changes, as you must, but make them changes for the better.
July 14, 2007, 6:04 a.m. CST
Although seein the film in an Imax-Theatre is great by itself, the 3D-Part did not work too well. There is a pause before it and sometimes it just seems just awkward, especially when many things are happening at once. You often loose your sense of disbelief, realizing that you are sitting in a cinema with hurting eyes, desperately trying to focus waht is intended to be focussed. IMAX yes, 3D no.
July 14, 2007, 6:33 a.m. CST
not "sense of disbelief"...
July 14, 2007, 7:31 a.m. CST
Shouldn't your nick more accurately be "pwned by Stallpne"?
July 14, 2007, 8:31 a.m. CST
Some new character who was a friend of Cho's did. Cho's only guilt in the book was trusting her blabber-mouth friend. Soooo, to get rid of yet ANOTHER new character, the movie makes Cho be the snitch, but make her have given up the info unwillingly... And have the kids realize she's "innocent" in the end. You've cut out and extraneous character and ended up with basically the same result. How is this a problem? I agree that had Cho been the one to open her yap in the book that it would be a rose-coloring to let her off the hook in the end. But since she wasn't... then it's not.
July 14, 2007, 10:18 a.m. CST
I don't read the books. I didn't care for the first 2. I liked the darker tone of the third. I thought the fourth was impressive.... but this film was akin to sitting in on Empire strikes back or Star Trek first contact. It was just a pure delight from start to finish. look forward to the next one.
July 14, 2007, 2:23 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
You really didn't end up with the same result. The friend was taken out, that's fine, didn't miss her, But the way events play out (in canon) make it clear that there is no real chance that Harry and Cho will ever make it up since she'd much rather defend her friend's actions than admit any kind of regret or responsibility over what happened. By handling that story point the way they did in the film, I felt as though I needed to sympathize with poor Cho who was now a victim who's plight no one understood. All I'm saying is, they'd already set her up to be the snitch, follow it through and make her be a snitch.
July 14, 2007, 2:23 p.m. CST
by Screw Loose
Be real, this was such a poor transfer to film that it's almost crazy.. and I have only read this one and the first I find the whole franchhise sooo over hyped. Don't get me wrong they are okay to watch on screen but definately not worth that overlong review which was almost as overrated as the movie...
July 14, 2007, 2:46 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
not one who gets released from all responsibility in the end.
July 14, 2007, 2:54 p.m. CST
First of all I completly understand, that in order to tackle a serious theme like bullying. JK rowling had to put in Ron's humiliatiion and his increasing frustration with Harry, in that harry is a much better Quidditch player than ron will ever be. But that all had to go. It is the most repetitive part of the book and it got boring. I am glad that they cut down on all the shouty/angry bits. I also understand why thy had to cut down on those bits with POtter and snape. That was the most revealing part of the book and you understood why Snape hated James potter so much. They hired a great director David yates and he has made the best Potter film so far. Helena bonham Carter seemed to be channeling Elsa Lancaster. At least Gary oldman gets to tell his kids that he was in one of the greatest modern Franchise of all time. His journey ends here. I dont like Gambon's dumbledore but at least in this film he is toned down. The sets look great and locales are stunning. and the actress who plays tonks is smoking. The reason to watch this film is IMEDLA STANUNTON. One of the great british stage actresses of our time. Order is the best adapted Potter book so far i am very glad they got yates to do it. As a former Actor he understands actors and backs them up as racliffe has stated in the movies very quiet publicity. Gambon is less iritating here since he took the role over from Harris. Gleeson was been sidelined as Mad eye moody. Rickman gets his moment of glory of course in the sixth book. I aint saying why. You will just have to watch the movie and find out. Movie siz is where everything clicks together. Finally can someone please get Watson, radcliffe and Grint to stop mugging. They may all look like their creations. But i am sorry none of them can act. Evanna Lynch was perfect casting as a Luna Lovegood. I have seen her being interviewed. I really think she a has a great career ahead of her. But then she is from Louth. They are some of toughest people in Ireland.
July 14, 2007, 5 p.m. CST
get up? The book is better although it needed an edit.
July 14, 2007, 5:33 p.m. CST
things I didnt. Imelda Stauton was superb in this movie. but in the book, They way she bullied Trelawney into a breakdown was Rowling at very best. I also loved the intro where Dudley gets the life sucked out of him and Harry turns him into a pig, really dark stuff. As i Said Rons' humiliation at quidditch was overdone to the point of repetition and Rowlings decision to use capital letters when ron and harry and hermoine were shouting at each other, grated quickly.
July 14, 2007, 9:11 p.m. CST
Glad you dug it as much as I did. Also glad you hated Transformers as much as I did. *laughs* Saw OotP for the second time today. Just as fantastic the second time. Maybe even better, because I noticed a few things I missed before, like the pained expression on Dumbledore's face when he pretends not to hear Harry calling for him. And Luna gets more awesome every time I see her. Trelawney's sacking is just as heartbreaking in the movie as it is in the book, if much more streamlined. Obviously there are tons of things I would have liked to have seen in the movie, but I am very happy with what I got. Some of the most efficient adapting I have seen in long time. Much better than GoF. On par with PoA. Really looking forward to the next one.
July 14, 2007, 9:12 p.m. CST
You had me with Empire...then lost me with First Contact. How could you even put those two in the same sentence??? <br><br> The core storyline of Contact was nearly a SCENE for SCENE rehash of Aliens. :(
July 15, 2007, 2:26 a.m. CST
we finally get a chance to see some real wizard dueling and what do we get? we get the kids running around while the death eaters turn into smoke. the whole glass sphere maze was confusing as hell. I couldn't tell where they were, I couldn't distinguish one death eater from another, and I couldn't tell what the spells that anyone was using were supposed to be doing. then there's the anti-climatic death of sirius black followed by the showdown between dumbledore and voldemort, which just turns out to be one elemental spell after the other like clockwork, alot of the bright flashes and then it's over. man I hope they improve this and don't mess up half-blood prince's amazing finale.
July 15, 2007, 3:58 a.m. CST
I absolutely LOVE the whole finale. I get the same kind of goosebumps from watching it that I got during Nightcrawler's White House run at the beginning of X2. It looked exactly like what I always imagined two groups of expert wizards truly trying to kill each other would really look like. Absolutely no complaints. Yes, it was wild, chaotic, and confusing. That was exactly the right note to strike, in my opinion. You really felt how far out of their league the kids were. Man, I get goosebumps thinking about that fight. I've already seen it twice in two days, and I am sure I will see it again.
July 15, 2007, 5:35 a.m. CST
Why is it that people expect these movies to basically hold your hand.. walk you threw the action one step at a time so you know every little tidbit thats going on? <p> Does it really make a sequence poorly conceived if the camera or a narrator isn't basically disecting a scene and showing you points A, B, C, D etc in order? <p> Yes, story and the ability to understand it is very important. Also important, though, is immersion and I think you start to lose that in a big battle sequence if you make it look like only one thing is going on at a time. <p> Chaotic and confusing is exactly what that scene should be.. its exactly how it felt in the book. Theres a reason those guys wear masks, and I'm pretty sure its not to help you understand who each of the Death Eaters are :P
July 15, 2007, 8:20 a.m. CST
My understanding is that IMAX movies have a maximum running length of 2 hours--OotP is 2:18. What was cut to get it under two hours? (If somebody has already posted about this, I didn't see it, so please direct me to that post. Thanks.)
July 15, 2007, 8:34 a.m. CST
movie and I do agree with him that the only actor that looked ummm, shall we say uncomfortable was Gary Oldman. Even though he is an integral part of the story because he is harry last surviving family member. But still and all he did look as if he didnt want to be there. Odd....
July 15, 2007, 1:09 p.m. CST
I think it is absolutely necessary for directors to guide you through the action, it is even more exciting when you have a sense of geography and you know what's going on, so you know exactly what's at stake and what kind of danger these characters are actually in. This allows the director to build tension in the scene. For example, Cauron's brilliant time shifting finale to PoA is probably the best directed scene in any of the films yet. By clevely setting up what's going to happen, then showing you exactly why it happened by guiding you through it one twist and turn at a time, it makes it more fun for the viewer and keeps you on the edge of your seat. don't get blinded by a barrage of disorienting cgi fireworks and smoke and call it exciting.
July 15, 2007, 1:23 p.m. CST
Is the exact opposite. Singer guides you through each room of the white house following Nightcrawler, until we cut to the oval office room. We hear some noises outside the door, alerting us that he's coming. Then he appears and kicks every last secret service guys ass in SLOW MOTION. It's choatic without ever being confusing.
July 15, 2007, 1:37 p.m. CST
July 15, 2007, 3:45 p.m. CST
Well, I guess it's silly to keep arguing about it, since your emotional reaction to it is just that; an emotional reaction. It's not like I can say "your emotional reaction is incorrect" or anything. Personally, for me, I did find the action hard to follow, but that helped the mood of the scene. Watching it, I really got that sense of "oh my god what the hell is happening we're going to die" that the kids must have been feeling. Like I said, it was the right note to strike, in my opinion. I didn't mean to compare the structure of the Nightcrawler fight to the OotP duel. I just meant that it was the only other time I can remember feeling an equal sense of sheer awe and wonder at what I was seeing on screen.
July 15, 2007, 5:40 p.m. CST
exactly what I was trying to say, and I haven't heard anyone talking about it, which concerns me that they will make the same mistakes for the secret cave sequence in the upcoming HBP movie. HBP being one of my favorites, I only hope it's done correctly.
July 16, 2007, 6:04 a.m. CST
This movie was kind of boring me, really. Lots of exposition, with little action for long periods of time. The beginning was very nice indeed, with Angry Young Potter and Young Fat Dursley and the Dementors. But then lots of talking ensues. And ensues. Sure lots of stuff is revealed, and there's a tragic ending that really hit me in the gut hard, but really, it's a LOT of talking. Then, when the signal comes, you put on your 3D glasses, and EVERYTHING changes. There were several "ooohs" and "aaahs" from the crowd during some REALLY phenomenal 3D shots: it just looked like another huge room you could step into, so very real. (and yes, lots of people stupidly trying to grasp the images on the screen!) The Battle scenes were truly immersive and chaotic and awesome! Brilliant! Go see it in Imax 3D, or don't see it at all! Oh, and it's the exact same run-time as normal theaters. IMAX doesn't have the 2 hour time restriction anymore; it hasn't had it for a long time now, like several years. I can't wait for The Dark Knight and Beowulf and Avatar! (and with portions of Dark Knight actually shot in IMAX? WHOA!)
July 16, 2007, 1:20 p.m. CST
Just a nitpick, really, but in the film the DA were practicing Levicorpus and used it in the final battle, and in the books Harry doesn't learn the non-standard spell Levicorpus until he gets his hands on the Half Blood Prince's book... And Hermione refuses to use any spells from it, BTW. <p> SO much cut out of the story in this one. I'm torn. It was technically good, but I'm missing things like the Black house being explained (and the shrieking portrait of mother), the Weasley twins getting Harry's money to start their shop, Lupin arriving at Harry's to pick him up, Tonks having more than two lines in the whole story, the brains, the group getting severely injured in the final battle, Ron & Hermione being prefects, quidditch, the Weasley twins' swamp trick, Firenze, and SOOOO much more. This was like the Cliff's Notes version of the story.
July 16, 2007, 5:42 p.m. CST
there is a great scene where ron gets attacked by voldermorts brain, its is excting, it puts ron in real danger, while around him is just chaos. In book 5 there is a great insite as to why Snape and James potter hated each other. That just got a scene and that was all. The best scene in book six by far is the scene where Harry and Dumbledore are on a boat they sail to the lake of death. That is a masterpiece. but i worry that will be dumped from the movie. Shame.
July 16, 2007, 9:37 p.m. CST
by B Arthur
It gets better! I just let go of the disappointment that many parts of the book were left out, and I had a great time! I did see it on a regular screen, and while the IMAX screen is better I didnt really miss the 3D part. This is definatly the best Potter since Azkaban, though I will rate Azkabvan slightly higher that OoTP.
July 17, 2007, 8:14 a.m. CST
What are you talking about scene for scene re-hash of aliens? I recall no time travel in aliens, nor do i remember the alien queen taking newt and having sex with her. The comparison was that it was the only star trek (next gen) film that i didn't find myself looking around the cinema saying to myself "damn, they screwed the pooch on this one"
July 17, 2007, 8:26 a.m. CST
by half vader
'Cause that was shit. Viewmaster-like flat planes in 3d space. The retrofitting technique they used was so blatantly obvious it took you out of the picture rather than enhanced it. <p> Hopefully the 3d in this went the Nightmare b4 Christmas route, which was infinitely better, Imax or not. At least they modelled the characters before projecting them back on themselves for that one. I'm wary of this, because of A) Supes Returns Shit Imax 3d, and B) I did see this at a normal cinema and thought it another 'inbetween' movie like the last. Yes, probably the best since 3, but 4, 1 and 2 were pretty awful. Still, I give 'em the benefit of the doubt 'cause that's only fair as so many love them. Actually, that backfired on me with Shrek, too. <p> Sorry, don't mean to sound like a hater but geez. Watson is such an awful actress, with her amazing dancing eyebrows telegraphing everything and making her lines redundant. Can someone pay Oldman a few more bucks to stick around and give lessons? The way he owned the screen in this and made it look so damn easy was something to behold. Too bad Rickman was saddled with that clichéd crap (spoilers) about the bullying too. I'm really hoping there's more to that. Ah well. I'll stop now
July 17, 2007, 9:31 a.m. CST
by half vader
missed you post, and yours too Homer
July 17, 2007, 4:47 p.m. CST
is hard to see some good actors just to fill some runtime in the film. With no dialog at all. But they must be feel pleased of being part of this franchise anyway. Oh and Emma Watson is so insanely beautiful. There are few, very few actresses out there that i could say without a doubt they are beautiful and she is one of them. And i'm 18 btw if someone thinks this a post written by a perv.
July 17, 2007, 5:42 p.m. CST
God help us. This guy totally sucks. McKrakalaka's post was right on the money.
July 18, 2007, 2:22 a.m. CST
Voldemort's brain? How the heck did you arrive at that conclusion? They never explain what the brains are, and they are actually my least favorite part of the book's climax, so I didn't miss them at all. And I don't think you should worry about that scene being dumped from book six. It's kind of integral to the plot. That would be like worrying they would cut the time turner from the third movie.
July 18, 2007, 1:16 p.m. CST
by Ye Olde Gravy Leg
Burbage dies on pg.12 Hedwig dies on pg. 56 Mad-Eye dies on page 78 Scrimgeour dies on page 15 Wormtail dies on pg.471 DOBBY DIES ON PG.476 SNAPE DIES ON PAGE 658 FRED WEASLEY DIES ON PAGE 637 RON MARRIES HERMIONE AND HARRY MARRIES GINNY. Your welcome.
July 18, 2007, 1:17 p.m. CST
by Ye Olde Gravy Leg
Burbage dies on pg.12 Hedwig dies on pg. 56 Mad-Eye dies on page 78 Scrimgeour dies on page 15 Wormtail dies on pg.471 DOBBY DIES ON PG.476 SNAPE DIES ON PAGE 658 FRED WEASLEY DIES ON PAGE 637 RON MARRIES HERMIONE AND HARRY MARRIES GINNY. Your welcome.
July 18, 2007, 2:53 p.m. CST
HARRY DOESN'T DIE!! * Burbage dies on pg. 12 * Hedwig dies on pg. 56 * Mad-Eye dies on pg. 78 * Scrimgeour dies on pg. 159 * Wormtail dies on pg. 471 * Dobby dies on pg. 476 * Snape dies on pg. 658 * Fred Weasley dies on pg. 637 * Harry gets fucked up by Voldemort on pg. 704 o Comes back to life on pg. 724 * Tonks, Lupin, and Colin Creevy have their deaths confirmed on pg. 743 * Voldemort kills himself on pg. 743 19 years after the events in the book: * Ron has married Hermione, their two children are named Rose and Hugo * Harry has married Ginny, their three children are named Lily, James, and Albus Severus. * Draco Malfoy has a son named Scorpius The epilogue shows all of the children boarding the train for Hogwarts together. The final lines of the book are: * "The scar had not pained Harry for nineteen years. All was well." * Also: Draco Malfoy is balding by the end of the book. Thats "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" for ya
July 18, 2007, 3:02 p.m. CST
I guess P.T. Barnum was right about the sucker born every minute thing.
July 18, 2007, 6:05 p.m. CST
ban anyone who gives away ending or story thread of Deathly Hallows.
July 18, 2007, 8:21 p.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
Maybe by "playful" and "witty" he's referring to the romance/teen soap opera parts of the story. I know that he's said that it will focus on more of the ensemble, which is good, but I assume he means those bits as they actually can be pretty funny...the other stuff, I don't think you have to worry about him dumbing that down. Just pray to sweet baby jeebus for better flashback sequences than this one had.
July 18, 2007, 10:44 p.m. CST
by B Arthur
At least I think they are. I was exposed to one of them over myspace, and I relented and looked for more. They are contradictory, so who knows? One of the sites had pictures from some of the chapter headings, but within spoilers they contradicted themselves multiple times. Some characters were supposedly dead, but appear in subsequent chapters. The beginning of the supposed spoilers do not match the publicized inside cover summary of the Deathly Hallows book available on the publishers website.
July 18, 2007, 10:54 p.m. CST
by all your base
http://harrypotter7spoilers.blogspot.com/ These explanations are too good to be fan fiction.
July 20, 2007, 12:18 a.m. CST
Was Michael Sheen playing the part of Frank Longbottom in the old Order picture? Does that mean the character is going to be present in book 7?
July 21, 2007, 3:30 a.m. CST
in this installment if Potter marries her!
July 21, 2007, 11:07 a.m. CST
the spoiler fairies have flitted by this thread as well... goddammit, give us a review/talkback so all this shit can be contained!!
July 21, 2007, 12:51 p.m. CST
July 21, 2007, 8:41 p.m. CST
over on the aicn books thread, mori promises a review and talkback tomorrow!!thanks again, mori!!
July 22, 2007, 4:52 p.m. CST
This weekend. Sandler is back on top of the box. Maybe if enough people go and see HP5, it can swell its numbers and boot that unfunny idiot off the no slot and send him and his no 1 fan Jonathan Ross a message. sigh.....
July 22, 2007, 7:07 p.m. CST
and its a kind of a cop-out.
July 22, 2007, 7:16 p.m. CST
is that neither she nor they demanded an editor. oh and speaking of books. There is a very good book apprantly out about the net. Called cult of amateur. Andrew Keenan used to work in silicon valley in the 1980's and was dot com millionaire. He worked on Web 1.0. but read what he says about web 2.0 especially its lack of editorial controls and fat, newly married Texan called Harry Knowles. comes to mind. Keenan has no time for Youtube or wikipedia either. Either way read the book
July 23, 2007, 12:23 a.m. CST
by Wed Vid Guy
Hey Mori, Get that book review up ASAP. We need a place on AICN to discuss the book!
July 23, 2007, 1:36 a.m. CST
by pervy elf fancier
to play Narcissa Malfoy? Am I late with this news? That would be kind of amazing. I also just got a fright reading that Yates was considering Bill Nighy for Scrimgeour but wasn't sure yet that THE CHARACTER WAS GOING TO MAKE IT INTO THE SCRIPT??? I didn't realize that was an option. *pulls out chunks of hair*