Cool News
Casting is complete on HARRY POTTER & THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE -- and wait till you see who the cinematographer is!
Hey folks, Harry here... Just got sent this Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince press release that was meant to tout the new actors joining the cast - it's fantastic casting as usual... but what excites me is who the Director of Photography is. It is once again proof of just how well put together this series is, that they know to evolve and mature the look, the emotions and the story at each stage - and having Bruno Delbonnel shoot this thing - is just going to be stunning. You know his work from AMELIE, THE CAT'S MEOW, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE and A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT. This could be the most visually lush production of young Potter's education, yet!
CASTING IS COMPLETE ON
“HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”
BURBANK, CA, November 16, 2007 – Casting has been completed on the much-anticipated sixth installment of the Warner Bros. Pictures Harry Potter film franchise, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.” The announcement was made by Jeff Robinov, President of Production, Warner Bros. Pictures.
David Yates, who directed this year’s summer blockbuster “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” returns to direct “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.” David Heyman, the producer of all of the Harry Potter films, is producing the film, together with David Barron. Screenwriter Steve Kloves, who scripted the first four installments of the film franchise, is adapting the screenplay based on the book by J.K. Rowling.
David Heyman said, “I am really excited that David Yates and all our cast are back for the sixth film and welcome some wonderful new additions to our ensemble. We all share a commitment to Jo Rowling and to Harry Potter fans around the world to keep making these films the best they can be and, as we head into the final installments, I can promise that this level of commitment will not waver.”
Once again heading the cast, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are reprising their roles as young wizards Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, who are facing new challenges and dangers in the wake of Lord Voldemort’s return. They will be reunited with returning Harry Potter cast members, including Helena Bonham Carter, David Bradley, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Tom Felton, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Natalia Tena, Julie Walters and David Thewlis, as well as Evanna Lynch, Matthew Lewis and Bonnie Wright.
Two award-winning actors are joining the film’s all-star cast in their first Harry Potter film. Academy Award winner Jim Broadbent (“Iris,” “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”) has been set to play Potions Professor Horace Slughorn, who gives Harry an old Potions textbook that had once belonged to the Half-Blood Prince, which proves invaluable to the young wizard. Award-winning actress Helen McCrory (“Becoming Jane,” “The Queen”) will play Narcissa Malfoy, mother to Draco Malfoy and sister to the evil Bellatrix Lestrange.
Additionally, several young newcomers will be making their feature film debuts in “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.” Jessie Cave has won the role of Lavender Brown, who has eyes for Ron Weasley. Nine-year-old Hero Fiennes Tiffin is playing the role of the young Tom Riddle at age 11, while 16-year-old Frank Dillane is playing the teenage Riddle, who is already on the path to becoming the evil Lord Voldemort.
In “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” Lord Voldemort is tightening his grip on both the Muggle and Wizard worlds and Hogwarts is no longer the safe haven it once was. Harry suspects that dangers may even lie within the castle, but Dumbledore is more intent upon preparing him for the final battle that he knows is fast approaching.
Two-time Oscar nominee Bruno Delbonnel (“A Very Long Engagement,” “Amelie”) will serve as the director of photography, marking his first Harry Potter film. He will be joined by returning Harry Potter veterans, including production designer Stuart Craig, editor Mark Day, costume designer Jany Temime, creature & make-up effects designer Nick Dudman, special effects supervisor John Richardson, visual effects supervisor Tim Burke and composer Nicholas Hooper.
“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” will be released on November 21, 2008, by Warner Bros. Pictures, a Warner Bros. Entertainment Company.
-
+ Expand All
-
someone just got fired in the press department...
-
Not that the others looked bad, but can't they go back and re-shoot them with him? The things I would do to with a time-turner...
-
Forget the extra "to" in there. Busy getting ready to go see "B.R. Final Cut"...
-
Oh boy.
-
Hahahahahahahahahaha. No.
-
dumbledore is gay. JK says so. I am not lying. she outed him herself in a question and answer session three months ago.
-
is clearly the best
-
Glad to see that they are keeping the ship on an even keel. I'll give them a pass in giving Nicholas Hooper the musical reins again...as long as they bring back Williams for the finale. His Potter themes are classic and he DESERVES the final movie as the send-off.
I love all the Potter movies and hope they continue the quality. -
delbonnel is certainly one of the best living cinematographers
-
(Wow, I'm beginning to think that doesn't get old)
-
is definitely the best. Having one Harry Potter film by Alfonso Cuarón is like if one of the James Bond films would have been directed by Kubrick.
-
Harry Potter is for snooty British kids. And even if I'm wrong, the movies still suck ass.
-
Ah, Harry Potter, an epic tale of wizards, creatures, kids, and homosexual principals. Just what the kids need.
-
I loved the first four films, but nearly fell asleep during OoTP. It's the weakest book in the series, and did not translate well to the big screen. Even the "big death" was anticlimactic. Compare the emotions of that scene with that of the distraught father at the end of Goblet. Here's hoping Yates can recapture the magic (no pun intended).
-
What's your point?
-
He got some parts right but overall we were severely short-changed for the first time since...probably ever. I got more enjoyment out of the Chris Columbus-directed first two. Order is the longest book but they made the shortest movie. Chamber Of Secrets is like 5 times smaller and the movie was at least 20 minutes longer! Absolutely pathetic. Whether the suits had anything to do with that I don't know, but it should have been 2hr30min at least, DEFINITELY. Order was a wasted opportunity. For me the book is the pinnacle of the series. Because they shortened the movie they couldn't do the proper character arcs, especially Harry who totally loses it at the end of the book smashing up Dumbledore's office and screaming 'I don't want to be human!' and all that. This stuff should have been in the movie.
-
Not that Nicholas Hooper didn't do a good job with 'OotP,' but this is really a "theme" type of series, and nobody does it better than Williams. The soundtrack to 'Prisoner of Azkaban' remains the series' high point.
-
Hot damn, I'm buying my ticket now.
-
Bummer. This was actually my least favorite of the series, though. Pretty much just a warm-up to the Deathly Hallows (the last 100 pages were cool, though).
-
I thought Scorekeeper or someone had scooped that...
-
Although, come to think of it, Harry Potter movies are pretty goddamned boring.
-
Nooooo...you bitch!
-
Fucking killed the book... how you going to make the longest book of the series the shortest of the movies? MAKES NO SENSE... Shit, WB, HAVEN'T YOU SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU MAKE LONGER CUTS AND THEN RELEASE THEM LATER... Cough, LOTR, COUGH... Fucking Yates...
-
He's mcinfecting Harry Potter now!Mceek! Now he's mcinfecting AICN Mctalkback posts mncnow!
-
Steve Kloves basically photocopied the books for his scripts. They're all genuinely terrible. While Cuaron made the 3rd film at least watchable, it still had an absolute mess of a script. The 5th film was infinitely better - even though it's the longest book, it's the shortest film, and yet still feels more like a self-contained, complete film than any of the other four. Having Kloves back is not a good thing.
And to whoever noted that Scrimgeour hasn't been cast: the films have all had a stupid habit of not introducing characters as early as they should. Although Scrimgeour's not necessary to the story of film 6 (well, he is, but I guess they're not going the 'political' road with the story) it would add a lot to the sense of continuity in the series if he was there. And how's his fate gonna be paid off in the final film if he's only introduced then? -
"most visually lush production of young Potter's education" is if Maggie Smith forgets to wear underwear.
-
can't wait
-
OotP is an AMAZING movie that I will always be in love with. It's the one that finally got me to sit down and read the book series.
-
I thought she was set to play Narcissa Malfoy?
-
Whoever said it was the pinnacle has issues. It was the longest yes, but the most repetitive and infuriating. I kept thinking, JK needs an editor that isn't afraid of her cuz she really wrote too much here that ain't worthwhile. I love that it ended up being the shortest film, it was a footnote story that got the time it deserved on the screen. I hope Guillermo Del Toro gets the last one.
-
Son of Ralph Fiennes, perhaps?
OOtP was an overly short and rushed film from an overly slow and plodding book. Doesn't boost my optimism for HBP since Yates is still directing. And yes, PLEASE bring Williams back. The music to that broom flight over London was God-awful. Azkerban's soundtrack was Williams' best of the series (and probably why he decided to take a break). -
but I'd really like to see each HP book turned into a 3-5 episode mini series. The movies are generally well made but you just can't bring out all the richness the books offer in a theatrical release. It's sort of like reading the Cliff's Notes to a really good book... sure you get the overall plot and themes but it's not even close to the experience of reading the real thing.
-
I don't see anyone cast as the Gaunts. I know that the movies have tended to cut out a lot of material from the books, but cutting out the scenes involving them seem like a big mistake, especially considering how important Marvolo's ring is in the last book.
-
Will someone else play him in the flashback where he applied for a job at Hogwarts then? I know it's Voldemort's briefest participation since Prisoner of Azkaban, but still, it applies to stuff in Deathly Hallows and it completes the whole "rise of Voldemort" origin story that is finally told.
-
the books are childrens books but it seems adults get just as much out of them as the kids.
the movies are made for children and it seems adults don't get as much out of them as the kids.
this is not a bad thing, but should be kept in mind when viewing the films.
otherwise I think the best score was for Azkaban (lovely themes and flow). I think the book is widely regarded as the best of the series too.
as for best movie, well, it all depends on what you want. I feel all the films are a bit all over the place, with probably Goblet Of Fire the most straight-forward (it deals mainly with the tournament and doesn't veer off this story except at the start and end). Does that make it the best film? Does Harry Potter make for best films?
where in the books the main stories of the struggle against Voldemort and the struggle of high school make the books charming, it makes the films schizophrenic even though they're well made. Perhaps one day they'll remake Harry Potter like the books - a story for kids and adults alike.
-
This is pathetic.
-
...that asslick, shuttlepod posts here now too.
-
Coming off the utterly fogettable Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix was the first Harry Potter film to really make me feel like the stories actually matter. There is a sense of impending dread and anger simmering in Phoenix that the franchise was sorely lacking. The first two were whimsical, but starkly lacking in substance, the third, as wonderfully directed as it was, was too episodic, and the fourth--well, if seeing the teenage awkwardness of blooming wizards at the most nauseatingly banal and painful human experiences accustomed to the age is something you find entertaining, it's a rolicking success, but otherwise, it has little to do with anything, and makes the only important part of the movie, the third act, seem so out of place it's like someone switched reels with a bad Disney teen-market flick for the first 2 hours and then realized it just in time to replace it with a movie that isn't a complete waste of time.
-
Brilliant choice for photography. Obviously someone has noticed the problems with the last two. Now they just need to ditch Hooper and Potter will be restored to it's original glory. Go Yates!
-
Bill Gaines called - he wants you to stop using circa 1962 MAD Magazine puns - and please clean up the language! Thank you.
-
was poorly handled in the 4th film, the father wasn't very convincing 'that's my son, thats my booooyyyyyyyyyyy' erm, no
I hope they keep the best line in the whole series, after Dumbledore drinks the potion harry helps him says he's going to be ok to which Dumbledore replies "I know, I am with you, Harry" I hope all the gay dumbledore jokes don't taint that scene in the film. -
Between the "fuck this shit, it's pathetic" comments and the "Dumbledore's a fag" comments, I am embarrassed to be a long-standing member of this community.
I may rag on the Whedonites a bit, but I never used Willow's sexuality as a reason to pick on the show. People who let the unmentioned sexual preference of a fictional character bring out the inner juvenile homophobe in them are truly pathetic.
Seriously-- Fuck you, guys. You're like bigots in the old south making jokes about Black people. Your backwards, closed, bigoted minds aren't welcome here. Fuck off.
If you only *knew* how many of the things you love were created by homosexuals... You're such losers. Grow up, or shut up and stop interacting with the rest of the world, because you're not going to find a corner of Earth without homosexuals. -
If they can't get back Williams, at LEAST get back Patrick Doyle.
-
...to the negotiating table; unfortunately, not until November 26th, although that makes sense with the holiday. But it would be a great Christmas present for them to work out a deal and get our damn shows started again!
-
Save it. I think nobody is shocked by now at anything they read on a talkback. But people still like to pretend for effect!!!
-
...Darius Khonji! Yay! Seriously though, it has to be a step up from the awful television/commercial lighting employed in the last entry. Although, to be fair, that was generally only during the "muggle" scenes. Still I was taken aback at how budget the production looked, which sucked because it definately had the strongest performances of the series so far.
-
The others are eminently watchbale and entertaining, four and five more than one and two, but the third one is the only one I thought was worth buying. This stuff should be done by art-minded guys with good history in independent film, like Cuaron. The books are already structured as blockbusters--it's part of why they're so successful. So put the blockbuster stories in the hands of guys who clearly are capable of making really really good movies.
-
They've always erred on the side of predictability when casting these films.
Picking Gambon for Dumbledore when they should have got Peter O'Toole. Picking Gleeson for Moody when the character could have been written for Billy Connolly. Going with Broadbent for Slughorn when Brian Blessed would have knocked it out of the park.
Fine actors though they may be, there's just no spark there. Thought they might have been on the verge of turning it around with the Watts/Narcissa rumours, but apparently not. -
Keep wriggling that worm around; someone's bound to take the bait sooner or later.
-
HOW do you get Billy Connolly for Moody? Sis you see him in A Series of Unfortunate Events? or The Boondock Saints: horrible performances and I've never thought of Moody as a Scot for one minute. Staunton was impeccable as Umbridge, even if you think she was too impish and not fat enough, she got the sadism and girlish slavishness down absolutely pat. The casting on these films has been exemplary; haven't we been faced with an army of the greatest acting talent in the world, all lining up to do so little? Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Ralph Fiennes, Robert Hardy, Julie Christie, Miriam Margoyles: pretty much the entire RSC and virtually everyone who ever worked for Mike Leigh. Each one of them is worth every actor who appeared on MSNBC this year. Peter O Toole is TOO OLD; get that through your head; he can't get the insurance to play any role that might tax him physically. It's not 1970 and Richard Burton is dead.
On a positive side; Broadbent has never but a foot wrong when it comes to unctuous pomposity and the woman they got for Narcissa, if she's the one who played Cherie Blair in The Queen, is super. My only real castong gripe has been Helena Bonham Carter, for laziness and doing Bellatrix as a scraggy punk rather than a female lieutenant, Lady Macbeth strategist worthy to be Voldemort's wife. I always wanted Harriet Walter. -
Nobody wants to hear you flaunting your sexual insecurities online.
-
the films are blandly made and churned out. Pass.
-
Wasn't Lavender already cast as a black girl in one of the previous movies? Though I think I've disliked her since the last book where she and one of the Patil twins were just mean to Luna. If they should've done any recasting, it should've been Natalia Tena with Sophia Myles. Hell, they're going to cancel "Moonlight" one of these days...
-
the only question is have the books that made this incredibly ordinary writer filthy rich actually inspired their maturing audience to actually seek out any real literature instead of this drivel about preppies in gowns on broomsticks.
-
It was all about her...and those eyebrows. Let's get Harry back as the star of the films...and please don't change his love interest from Ginny to Hermione. We want more of the red headed spitfire, not the girl with the thespic eyebrows.
-
what's the problem with peopleliking her books? why are so many people so bitter.
we're screwed here really: some people don't like the books, but those who like the books hate the films.
simple message: DON'T READ THEM or DON'T WATCH THEM. Grow up, peasants. -
He should return to action movies AS CINEMATOGRAPHER.About Potter movies, i like them, but i´m far from being a fan. Part 3 was pretty good.
-
i've tossed my potter books and dvds into a bonfire. what the hell was i thinking? what should i do now, master? i'll scour those nasty potter sites and disparage til my hands bleed! all in the name of shittlepod! er, sorry, i meant LONG LIVE SHUTTLEPOD!
-
That man is a fucking P-I-M-P! He better be back. He is the reason I watch Brotherhood. Badassssssssssssssssssss
-
and obviously a queer. I'm never watching another Potter movie again knowing Dumbledore prefers mud on his shovel.
-
Strange how none of the sequels have managed to top the original movie at the box office? Now which movie cam bottom?
-
I agree with Jimmay, Order was definitely one of the best, way better than the flat Goblet and the utterly forgettable Columbus films. From the first shot in broad daylight on a rundown playground, I knew this was going to be a different HP film. It wasn't all about fantasy, but starting to explore the angry young man territory. And for once, it actually felt, well, British. Though I would have liked it if they had gone as far as the book went with Harry trashing Dumbledore's office. I'm glad they got Yates back. Still think it would awesome if Del Toro came in for the last one. My favorite is still Azkaban because it was different and strange, and unlike the other ones, actually had a coherent theme.
And annoying troll homophobes have no place in a Harry Potter talkback. Did you think the Harry Potter series was all manly or something? -
I was a wee bit disappointed in the Narcisa Malfoy casting. I was hoping she'd be a little more Wilfy (Witch I'd like to...)
-
with p.o.a the goblet is RIGHT behind those then chamber of secrets(great movie) but the first one is the worst. its not terrible, but the cg is bad now, and i didnt buy harrys reaction when he found out he was a wizard lol
-
out of all of them. 291 mil in us and 937 mil all together. holy shit.
-
"Mud on his shovel" - that's a new one on me - don't know if you are bashing for real or for bait or for satirical purposes, but I always appreciate learning a new metaphor. (And I am not a homophobe - GO Dumbledore!)
-
Ignoring all the stupid shit being posted, I really wasn't that thrilled with ootp. I thought Gambon's Dumbledore was out of character in some of the scenes and I thought the whole film felt rushed. I liked some of Columbus' detail work, but like Cuaron's direction the best.
-
...I guess you could say he was a little out of character, relative to the books, but compared to his performance in 'Goblet,' he was better than I would have even dared to hope for. I'd say the Dumbledore in 'Phoenix' is sort of a marriage of the two.
-
Believe me, it's coming.
-
It's not that simple. A lot of these morons (like bacci40), who were suckled on the teat of J.R.R. Tolkien, treat watching movies like a spectator sport, and they feel like it's their "duty" to defend the primacy of his work.
-
he is a intense dumbledore and it works in the fight scenes (him vs voldemort). in gof he was to rude at times (SILENCE!!!!!!!!!!) didnt have the warmth at times that dumbledore is supposed to have but in ootp his performance improved.
-
True. But as aicndoesnt... said he was lacking in the warmth and humor of the character. I didn't even think Richard Harris captured it. I still say the best casting choice for Dumbledore would have been Peter O'Toole. The voice alone would have rocked.
-
He plays a signifcant in the last story and they should have introduced him in OOTP, but he should be in HBP as well. Scrimjaw should be in the film as well. Bob Hoskins would be a good scrimjaw and hows about Richard E. Grant and the Dungman.
-
edit
-
Yeah, to be honest I'm pretty shocked that Scrimgeour, Mundungus, Aberforth Dumbledore, Regulus Black, and Fenrir Greyback (!) won't be introduced until the last movie, if ever. Although I think Yates's debut effort was the closest thing to a genuinely great entry since 'Azkaban,' it seems like he tends to whittle the story down to the "bare essentials" a little too enthusiastically. Kreacher wasn't even going to be in 'Phoenix' until Rowling intervened.
-
Was it the awesome hardcover jackets, that make each book look like a magical christmas present from Jesus, that caused this overly cutesy, oh-so precious, semi-decent book series to sell so well, or did those come later? at any rate, the HP movies all run together into a boring torch-lit CGI blur in my mind.
As a kid, the Star Wars movies were clearly delineated, there was the one with the garbage chute , the one with the snow monster, and the one with the catfish commander guy. These, not so much, like the SW prequels, which are, in my mind, the one with sand, the one with more sand, and the one with even more sand and a crappy vader impersonator. -
I'd phone in my performance too if I'd been reduced to being Richard Harris' understudy after giving The Best Performance Ever © in The Singing Detective (series).
-
I agree completely with every point. Excellent. The interesting thing to follow with the films is how directors get into the idea that each film/book is an episode in a kid's development. I'm too lazy to identify each one, but Goblet was definitely the 'puberty' episode, and Order was the 'angry young man' episode. I also really missed Harry trashing Dumbledore's office, it was a cathartic scene and classic angry-young-man behavior. I think it felt more British because the Brits do angry young man films better than anyone. Happy to hear the same director is doing the Half-Blood Prince. What is that one incidentally, the get-over-yourself episode? The self-identifying epsiode?
-
According to David Yates it's the "sexual politics" episode.
-
Actually, I was pretty sure that one was Azkaban, what with all the wand play under the covers, and all that Patronum being Expectoed. Goblet feels more transitional, like an initiation. Although pretty much every book is a new level of initiation.
-
Ron's rubbery face and Miss Eyebrows, it will still be quite an achievement if they pull off all seven films. And as for the first film; if you'd started Star Wars with The Phantom Menace, you'd never have stayed interested long enough to see Darth Vader.
-
They'll probably just have Neville Longbottom explain all their plot points as usual!
-
...how to make the same damn film seven times and still have 'em coming back for more. Excellent. Well done. Moving right along...
-
I read your back-and-forth in the other TalkBack where you insisted your arguments weren't fanboy-ish, but from where I'm standing, methinks you doth protest too much. The reason there was so much continuity (or "love and respect," tomato/tomahto) throughout the Lord of the Rings movies is because they were all written and filmed at the same time, by the same people. You're probably never going to see that kind of creative synchronicity ever again. And there were plenty of humorous moments in "Half-Blood Prince." The chapter where Harry drinks the Felix Felicis was practically an extended visual gag. Just because Yates pared away some of your favorite moments from the book or failed to account for several significant moments of relationship/plot foreshadowing doesn't mean he sucks at everything, or he raped your childhood, or he's got no intuitive storytelling skills at all. If you're genuinely concerned that anyone who's read the book (or even the SparkNotes version of the book) doesn't realize there's some dark shit going on there, might I recommend a prescription for Paxil? I'm sorry if I'm coming off as harsh, but when you say stuff like "Where was there any comedy when Harry and Dumbledore are surrounded by hordes of zombies?" and "This guy is a non-reader, and that's all his movie was: a film by non-readers FOR non-readers!", it's kind of hard to take your argument seriously.
-
...you're right that I sort of put words in your mouth there. Sorry about that. What I mean to say is that I don't think any of the particular moments you're worried about (Tom Riddle's transformation into Voldemort, the weakening and subsequent death of Dumbledore) will be shortchanged because Yates intends to make some of the movie funny. There were several interludes in the book that were clearly supposed to be humorous and it didn't shortchange any of the dramatic moments at all (of course the books are much longer). Believe me when I say I understand how frustrating it is when several simple tweaks could be made to the movies that would help the series in the long run; Snape, especially, has gotten the shaft (there was a lot of suspicion over his loyalties in Book 4 that were almost completely ignored by Kloves and Newell as well). Several characters aren't introduced in advance because the filmmakers see the attention they get as episodic and extraneous, which is going to put whoever's responsible for 'Deathly Hallows' in a pretty sticky wicket. At the same time, they've managed to be pretty good movies, 'Order' and 'Azkaban' especially, so I'm not too worried about what Yates might forget to include. Is that an irresponsible attitude? Possibly. I just don't think it's that big of a deal, although I would be pleasantly surprised if any of these films managed to set one another up.
-
Emotionally speaking I feel like the movie got it right, unless you're referring to the scene Harry makes in Dumbledore's office afterwards. You get the impression throughout the movie that Sirius is Harry's rock (he chills him out when he's afraid of his similarities to Voldemort, he comes to his rescue, etc.) and that when he's ripped away from him he becomes confused and enraged (and the scene where Voldemort tries to "possess" Harry is arguably reiterating the same themes as the scene in the book where Harry says "I don't want to be human!", although with a slightly more pat outcome). The actual moment where he dies was a little bit awkwardly staged, but then, that's what I thought about Sirius's death in the book, too.
-
...people equate homophobia with racism. "Oh, you should not call me a fag, coz that's like saying the N-word to Black people." One is a struggle based on "sexual preference", (in other words, "choice.") and the other is based on race, (color of skin), therefore "racism"
Get it right people. -
In the sense that it was a more non-reader novel IMHO. I felt that it understood how it should approach the adaptation from a movie perspective as opposed to a novel perspective because it certainly added things in the film that were never present such as montages and other filmmy goodness. The problem I find is those things make it VERY tiresome very quickly. It's a gimmick that worked very well but is still a gimmick.
On the talk about OoTP as a potentially great film, I think Yates did the best job that he had with this weakest book in the series. Seriously there were a LOT of problems with OoTP the novel due to it being, 1) The first new book in a Post-GoF less than happy setting, 2) A novel that reflects on the past however doesn't necessarily mirror it. Point #2 is interesting because Voldemort approaches things very differently this time; hiding out and mudslinging rather than all out war. The problem I find with the novel is that it was in such a different tone from the rest of the series up until then, that it was only it's sequel HBP that managed to bring it back into perspective and support it's shortcomings. It's like HBP confirms this is how the rest of the storyline is going to be which allows for better acceptance of OoTP.
I think Yates did a good job in not falling into that trap and just went balls to the walls into making this film basically Part 0.5 to Parts 1 and 2 of HBP and DH respectively. He forced OoTP to have homages, hints and scenes from the previous 4 films in order to make OoTP much like how HBP and DH dealt with the themes of the past and history. In other words, OoTP feels more a part of the final 3 installments rather than some sort of odd child out in the series at a bad time of transition. -
Indeed, although it can be said this series wants for more continuity in general, there were a couple of references Yates made to previous entries that made for a nice surprise. The scene from 'Sorcerer's Stone' where Harry is looking at his parents in the Mirror of Erised and then Snape walks up behind him and says "feeling sentimental?" before dragging his ass back into the present was hella cool.
-
half the fist one which was piss and the one that the spanish guy directed with the griffin thing in it which was quite watchable for an in flight movie. Really bores the shit out of me!I don't see the fascination of watching 3 kids going back to school each year and poncing around on brooms chasing Squid itches or what not while more and more thesps act like twats in fancy dress!?
-
Well I'm not gonna lie, most of the series's appeal probably has to do with the fact that I'm a fan of the books. As for what the attraction of the books are, well, that's a little harder to explain. But I don't think you can isolate a specific element of the story that you don't like, for example Quidditch, where the kids ponce around on brooms, as you say in an attempt to figure it out. I know my friend tried to get me into the series by having me read his favorite chapter of the first (and at the time only) book, which was the one called "Quidditch," and I put the thing down after two pages because I thought all of the ridiculous names and rules amounted to a bunch of goofy, impenetrable gobbledygook. But when I went back and read from the beginning about two years later, I was hooked. I just think the series is really well-written, and it juggles a lot of elements and comes out with a perfect balance of all of them. Not a lot of help if you're not interested in reading the books, I know, but I do recommend at least the third film to the uninitiated, because it's a pretty good standalone story that concerns a kid coming to terms with his shitty background, which is a pretty universal theme, and Cuaron knows how to deliver the goods visually. Plus it begins with a metaphor for masturbation!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts