Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Quint trades jinxes and charms with HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX!!!

First by messi	Jul 9th, 2007 12:30:20 AM
Fuckers
Damn you Michael Bay Denis by messi	Jul 9th, 2007 12:31:01 AM
Damn you Michael Bay Denis.
Pom with a wand vs Optimus Prime by messi	Jul 9th, 2007 12:32:50 AM
Optimus Prime in the long run. I guess it's girls vs boys at the box office. And that's little and big girls and boys. I just can't see how a young boy will go to the theatre and look at Harry Potter and Transformers and not choose the badass giant robots with big guns.
Chamber of Secrets by Tolkoto	Jul 9th, 2007 12:38:14 AM
Am I the only one who liked that one best? It had the only pacing of any of the films that I found tolerable. Speaking of pacing, how did the longest book end up becoming the shortest movie?
the brad neely movie is still my favorite by bouncing1	Jul 9th, 2007 12:44:18 AM
but hagar im broke!!!!! classic.
my first talkback by the great gonzo	Jul 9th, 2007 12:49:03 AM
just had to pop my talkback cherry. carry on, folks..
Needed to be shorter by lost.rules	Jul 9th, 2007 12:53:41 AM
The fifth book was disappointing, and too long. But Half Blood Prince better be long, and done right! That might be my favorite book of the series.
Oh , and all the movies are good by lost.rules	Jul 9th, 2007 12:55:24 AM
Including the first ones. You're not alone Tolkoto
fucking AAAAAAAAAAA by Turd Furgeson	Jul 9th, 2007 01:21:37 AM
I've been waiting for your review for WEEKS quint! I am so pumped for this movie. Thanks Quint. Can you confirm reports that the kids finally figure out how to act really well in this one? I am hearing that it finally a movie and not children trying to act....
OotP book better after reading HBP by Horace Cox	Jul 9th, 2007 01:22:22 AM
I just finished re-reading the books in anticipation of the final book 7 being released. The first time I read OotP I shared Quint's misgivings (for lack of a better word) completely. However, after re-reading it knowing what happens in HBP, I enjoyed it and appreciated it MUCH more the second time around. Having that added context in mind really adds to the events in OotP. Anyway, I hope the movie stands on its own merits. Sounds like they did a good job considering these books are probably a nightmare to adapt into a screenplay due to their length. Hell, the first 5 minutes of the GoF movie encompasses over 200 pages of the book, so it is inevitable that lots of material will be left out and that some plotlines will get shafted irking some fans. Anyway, looking forward to seeing this Tuesday night at the midnight screening. And Peeves had better make an appearance to salute the twins!
I have loved all the movies by Turd Furgeson	Jul 9th, 2007 01:23:52 AM
I was dissapointed with 4, but that was a lot to do in 2.5 hours... plus i thought the direction and editing were way too choppy and didnt flow artistically like 3.. POA is the benchmark of the series so far for me...
Temple of Doom by kwisatzhaderach	Jul 9th, 2007 01:32:29 AM
Glad we're in agreement that Temple of Doom is better than Last Crusade Quint. And this movie is worse than Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets? Wow. That be bad.
It's been hard for me to enjoy the movies by AllPowerfulWizardOfOz	Jul 9th, 2007 01:32:58 AM
And honestly that may be because I've never read the books so I my investment is limited. I've honestly tried to get into this series via the films and I still have yet to walk away from any of them with any real sense of excitement the way I felt when I watched the LOTR series. I will see this installment because I have seen the others but I guess I should have started with the books first and that in there is where the problem lies with me that I started with the films. Being that I have to find a connection to the series via the films I've been reluctant to pick up any of the books. Now I know I've been told by many that the books are obviously so much better and I would enjoy the films much more if I read the books but I just have not gotten around to it yet. Now the series is coming to a close though I may hit up Amazon and pick them up used. I am hoping this movie is the one to really bring me in though because as I said I have yet to feel the magic of Harry Potter. :-(
ok I read it wrong by kwisatzhaderach	Jul 9th, 2007 01:34:15 AM
you meant the book is the weakest
Temple of Doom by Quint	Jul 9th, 2007 01:44:03 AM
Is vastly, vastly underrated. Sure, the effects have aged considerably, probably more than any of the other films, but there's just something to that dark tone and iconic imagery... There's nothing as cool as that shot slowly revealing Indy, beaten and fuckin' pissed, in the light of the mine cart in Last Crusade. Just my opinion, though.
alright by Quint	Jul 9th, 2007 01:47:18 AM
That line "There's nothing as cool as that shot slowly revealing Indy, beaten and fuckin' pissed, in the light of the mine cart in Last Crusade" reads horribly. I mean that Last Crusade, while a movie I really enjoy, doesn't a moment like that mine-cart headlamp reveal in Temple of Doom. Okay, I feel better now.
I loved Temple of Doom... by Happyfat73	Jul 9th, 2007 01:58:44 AM
When I was 11 years old. However, as a 33 year old, I found it to be really quite shit. Nostalgia couldn't save this one for me,. I wish I'd never watched it as an adult. Raiders, on the other hand, stands the test of time very well.
Nice review Quint by jimmy_009	Jul 9th, 2007 02:11:10 AM
You had the same problems I did with the story. This was my least favorite one as well; it depresses the hell out of you, there's no central 'McGuffin' type device like in the previous books, and the ultimate prize is completely useless. This felt like a 'filler' book to me, even though it was still a Harry Potter book, it was probably the least of a good bunch.
"Temple of Doom" is my favorite of the series. by Mike_D	Jul 9th, 2007 02:17:38 AM
From the score to the plot and dark themes in the movie mixed with the humor...god, I need to buy the boxed set. Lucas better not Jar-Jar the new movie.
No Neville in prohecy...? by MrSandwich	Jul 9th, 2007 02:25:07 AM
That's a pretty big change. I've always thought Neville was the wild card in all of this, and might end up actually killing Voldemort. I wonder if Rowling allowing him to be cut from the movie prophecy means he won't be that involved in the endgame.
Neville prophecy removing is huge! by spectrebeeyatch	Jul 9th, 2007 02:35:18 AM
Either means two things: Rowling told them it wasn't a big deal to cut for the end game. Or the studio just messed up big time! I personally thought POSSIBLE SPOILERS that Harry would actually need to die and Neville would kill Voldemort, if his story isn't that important or huge then I have no idea what will happen.
Editor please! by zer05um	Jul 9th, 2007 02:50:29 AM
I'm looking forward to this, but gods above, does Rowling need an editor. OotP and HBP are far FAR longer and woolier than they need to be and tDH I suspect will be the same. She's almost as bad as Stephen King and Anne Rice. Great stories; need editing. Hard.
NAT TENA AS TONKS IS THE SEX by DOGSOUP	Jul 9th, 2007 03:32:26 AM
What the FUCK is up with cutting "Wotchjer Harry!"?! 2 Minutes of the sex is never enough.
Weak by Shoegeezer	Jul 9th, 2007 03:54:40 AM
I've never read any of the books but I've managed to attend preview screenings of all the movies, including the new one. This is only marginally better to the Chris Columbus ones. The acting by the kids is absolutely wretched, it runs the gamut from standing around with an open mouth to standing around with a closed mouth. Yates is clearly good with actors judging from his CV, and the grown ups are quite excellent - Staunton delivers perhaps the best turn of the series and Oldman and Rickman just had me wishing they had more to do. Some of the sets are good - the tiled magic office and Black's family tree are really well designed. The effects are pretty poor. It's just not a big deal at all. Oh, the girl who plays Luna is tons better than all of her more experienced peers.
Alfonso Cuaron by ARKHAM-MADNESS	Jul 9th, 2007 04:06:54 AM
I wish they would bring Cuaron back. He made the best film and id love to see him back. I wouldnt be durprised if the producers ask him to do the last film. If not Cuaron id love to seeanother big name director like terry gilliam or baz lurhman take a stab at it. just dont get andrew adamson
Quint, is there a St. Mungo's scene??? by Evil Hobbit	Jul 9th, 2007 04:15:51 AM
St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries is one of those scenes I've been dying to see on the screen. If there is one place in the Potter universe to realy show how the Magical world lives in hiding right under the nose of muggles it is the place for magical injuries. From the entrance to the place itself. I just love all those floors for special injuries. Their visit there is hilarious, I know they cut the Gilderoy Lockheart stuff but god would it have made a perfect scene!! Also for the sake of continuity, and of course, the dark reveal in that comic situation, the reveal of Neville's parents. A shrill contrast to show the pure evilness of Voldemort's actions. But hearing they've cut the Neville stuff realy makes me wonder if there even is a St Mungo's to begin with. Is there?
Goblet of Fire is my Temple of Doom by bender7	Jul 9th, 2007 04:24:33 AM
in the Harry Potter movies. It's my favourite book of the series but I love the film as well. but a lot of people think of it as one of the lesser films. POA is defintely a great film and wonderfully directed but GOF wins out for me. I love a lot of the scens, the lake challenge, the dragon fight, the maze at the climax. I felt it was solid
Films are too attached to the novels by Darth Fart	Jul 9th, 2007 04:57:34 AM
That's my impression of the series so far. The third film's title doesn't reflect the script, which is more about death-eaters than Sirius. There's a stark difference between novels and screenplays.
brace yourself, evil hobbit by Quint	Jul 9th, 2007 04:59:41 AM
If it doesn't directly effect Harry, it's out. So, no... St. Mungos doesn't happen. You get to know Neville's parent's history, but you never see them (apart from a photo). That's one of the reasons I'm excited to see what Yates does with HBP, telling a story he feels doesn't have to follow Harry 100%. We'll get a little more of the interesting characters and detail of the world.
Order of the Phoenix is underrated as a book: by newc0253	Jul 9th, 2007 05:12:01 AM
it's dark and angry, mirroring the mood of a world that has just seen the return of the darkest of wizards. That said, good review Quint - especially good to have a review from a fan of the books. Also, props to you for ranking Temple of Doom higher than Crusade. I completely agree.
Shitting on stuff by doonae	Jul 9th, 2007 05:55:20 AM
For someone who doesn't like to "shit on" stuff you mention not doing it an awful lot Harry. Lets mention other stuff we don't like to shit on, apart from movie adaptions of childrens books.
Great film but by no means perfect by the matman	Jul 9th, 2007 07:09:44 AM
I just saw the movie at an advance screening and the interesting thing to me is that its the episode that has strayed the most from the books in terms of content. All of the movies have had to cut stuff out but OOTF has the most invented content. Despite that I think it succeeds well in capturing the 'essence' of the book. Unlike some of Peter Jackson's additions to LOTR, the 'new' content generally works and finds ways to still provide exposition while advancing the plot - though it will be the movie that is most likely to annoy hardcore readers. The kids all turn in their best performances to date (including Emma Watson who is streets ahead of how she was in GOF) and the casting of umbridge, tonks, and Luna is 100% perfect. Its always hard to know how these movies will play to non-reader audiences. I'm never completely able to step back and consider how many of the gaps I'm mentally filling from my knowledge of the books. It is a bit choppy (though less so than GOF)and i agree with Quint that it could have done with an extra 20 minutes or so. As quint stated anything that doesn't follow Harry is out and even then there are some threads that JKR left hanging in that book that they could regret not including in the movie if they prove to be important in book 7 (Regulus, Sirius' mirror, Snape and Lily etc.) I guess that's what flashbacks are for! I think its my favourite so far but then its the 1st I've seen on the big screen since #1 so that might be a factor. Definitely better than GOF, Philosopher's Stone (calling it 'Sorcerer's Stone' is just wrong), and COS. I think I will need to see it again before I can rate it against POA but given that my son is a huge HP fan and watches at least 1 of the movies everyday I guess I'll have plenty of time to compare when the dvd hits.
doesnt sound that great... by the crucible	Jul 9th, 2007 07:18:48 AM
The Weasley is the King bit is one of the high points of the novel and gives Ron a bit more depth, in fact I don't recall him coming off that good in HBP. Guess that'll make anyone who doesn't read the books wonder why Hermione chooses him over Harry... I have to reread HBP, but doesn't that focus on Harry more, and seperated from his friends plotlines even more than the other books? And I'm kind of miffed the statues don't get involved and all, I found that a nice part. Also getting rid of the Neville parts take away that angst that Harry feels that his parents could have survived, he could have had a normal life, and makes the prophecy more important. Also, I think the first two movies are severely hard done by, especially because although their tone isn't as adult or complicated as the further movies, neither are the books... those movies reflect the childish, magical tones of Harry coming into this world and seeing everything with a childs eyes before he grows up in the world in Azkaban. In a perfect world, that second movie would have started in that innocent world though and gotten darker along the way.
Quint Chose. . . . Poorly by skydog	Jul 9th, 2007 07:23:27 AM
Temple sucks by Indy standards- short-round anyone? Crusade has Connery for fucks sake! Ah, Venice.
Connery is in tons of shit movies. by Frijole	Jul 9th, 2007 07:33:53 AM
Though he IS the best part of Last Crusade. All in all though (aside from Indy's dad), the movie is a weak carbon copy of Raiders. Played for laughs (Sallah and Brody made into buffoons). Pacing and plotting and some set pieces are nearly identical. For all its flaws, at least Temple attempted something different.
"Wotcher, Harry" by Frijole	Jul 9th, 2007 07:37:16 AM
I am no stickler when it comes to translating these books to the movies. I love all the books to varying degrees and like or love all the movies as well and on their own terms, despite changes from the books. My roommate, on the other hand, is a fucking NAZI when it comes to stuff left out from the books... and he freaks out at the slightest thing. That in mind, we were having a conversation about this last week and I specifically told him that one minor thing I would be pissed about them ommiting is "Wotcher, Harry". For whatever reason, I was just DYING to hear Tonks say that. Oh well. Now I don't get that line... and due to everyone saying this movie strays the furthest from the book... I'm go-nna be hearing his bitching for the next month- no matter how good it is. Bah!
long book but shortish film... uh oh by cyrent	Jul 9th, 2007 07:45:47 AM
The reason I liked the film version of GoF so much was that I felt the pace and the length fit what the story merited-- it cut a lot of the extraenous bull I didn't like about that book. OotP, on the other hand, is much more justifiable in its length... so hearing that it's the shortest film yet makes me worry that important things are indeed going to be shortchanged.
Skydog by spud mcspud	Jul 9th, 2007 07:53:47 AM
"Crusade has Connery for fucks sake!" So did LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN. And THE AVENGERS. And (God help us) HIGHLANDER 2: THE QUICKENING. Great in his prime - but these days Connery's name is NO indication of quality in a movie.
Why no Extended Editions?? by spud mcspud	Jul 9th, 2007 07:57:29 AM
And I don't mean "here's 9 deleted scenes of about 3 minutes each that actually mean Fuck All", I mean full on, four hour edits of these movies where, in GOBLET OF FIRE, we ACTUALLY see the incredible spectacle of the Quidditch World Cup! The best part of the book - completely GONE!!! St Mungo's would've added some well-needed gravitas to this series too. As someone said earlier in this thread, we need to see the danger that people in the wizarding world are in when Voldemort is around - and these scenes were perfect for that. Seeing Neville's parents in St Mungo's and knowing that Neville is a part of the prophecy were absolutely vital to this story - don't leave 'em out! We want faithful, four or five hour Extended Editions of these movies with the cool stuff left in, please!!! That is all. Fiennes rules these movies.
http://tinyurl.com/ 2srwyg by spud mcspud	Jul 9th, 2007 08:00:07 AM
http://tinyurl.com/ 2srwyg I think some of you may appreciate this. Others, not so much.
Nevelle is no longer the Game Changer??? by jimbojones123	Jul 9th, 2007 08:08:40 AM
Or is Yates saving it for part 6? Will the 5/6 become a series like LOTR where stuff can change movies a bit? Why such a buildup over the past 2 books if Rowling is just going to throw the whole thing away? I think the Nevelle chages may be a red herring. That was the topic of most interest so far in the series. Well, second to Snape.
Neville is the surrogate Dobby... by James_O'Nasty	Jul 9th, 2007 08:39:34 AM
He gives Harry gillyweed, he finds the Room of Requirement... WTF?
Quint! Do we get the flashback?? by TopHat	Jul 9th, 2007 08:39:51 AM
...do we get to see young Lilly and James duking it out? Do we get to see young Sirius impressing the girls?? James being a dick to Snape??? ...if we don't, I have to admit, my excitement will be greatly diminished.
WOW I LOVE THE NEW BANNERS, SCREAMING AT ME CONSTANTLY by Lour Reed luvs Frank Zappa	Jul 9th, 2007 08:41:27 AM
FUCK OFF
Great Review by Baltimoron	Jul 9th, 2007 08:45:10 AM
But you didn't mention how you liked the Ministry scene. Was the wand battle as good as it seemed when you were on set? Curious of how an all-out adult wand battle would turn out.
This sounds a little apologetic, like other reviews.. by Lour Reed luvs Frank Zappa	Jul 9th, 2007 08:46:40 AM
Considering how summer films have gone so far, apologetic usually means it is mediocre. I wish people would come out and say that! Remember how much trash we've had to sit through so far. If it's this wishy-washy I don't think people are going to enjoy it that much. And I wish some critics would notice that.
Sounds like the best stuff is gone by CherryValance	Jul 9th, 2007 08:55:38 AM
Neville is my favorite character and if they were able to cut out the prophecy stuff, it's ruination for all my theories. I hoped he'd be the one. And taking out the occlumency lessons? In my best English accent -----> That's bullocks! I actually thought Order of the Phoenix was the best book. And I hated some of the changes Rowling made to the characters in Half-Blood Prince so it's weird for me to even watch the previews with all that knowledge. The clips have looked amazing though. I don't know David Yates' work so I'll just have to see I guess. If I'm reading between the lines correctly it sounds like the explanation after the tragic event could be missing or very brief? Because I had problems with the tragic event too since you read it and then don't really know what just happened. I can't see how they would have gotten around the abrupt and retarded tragedy in the movie because that's how it was in the book. Loyalists would freak if they added something to make it obvious. I just hope it is explained somewhat.
Temple Of Doom has the worst F/X of the Indy movies? by Osmosis Jones	Jul 9th, 2007 08:58:58 AM
Worse than the painfully CG saw blades and poor greenscreen in Last Crusade? TOD's effects actually hold up the best of the Indy trilogy, with astounding matte paintings and spot-on miniatures.
the matman by Nice Marmot	Jul 9th, 2007 09:05:37 AM
Which of Jackson's additions to LOTR didn't work for you? Just curious. Wow, I have a bad feeling about this short run time of Phoenix. That, the omitions I'm reading about, and the casting of Umbridge (she has all the acting chops in the world, but half of what makes us hate Umbridge is the squatty, frog-like appearance) are making me less and less excited. There's always Book 7!!!
ok, that Neville stuff irks me... by keyserSOZE	Jul 9th, 2007 09:07:31 AM
i thought i'd be pissed when i read that The Weaz is almost entirely cut, but the whole "no Neville in the prophecy" bit just pisses me off. not just because of what it means for Harry in terms of additional angst, as pointed out above, but also it sheds an ENTIRELY new light on Neville. i know i certainly could not look at that character in the same fashion after reading his part in the prophecy. if anything, it only made me care about his character even more. when you think about it, the supporting players really get the shaft, BIG TIME, in the movie adaptations. that sucks, because i dunno about anyone else, but in the world of Harry Potter, Harry himself is just about my LEAST favorite character. i'd love to see more of the people around him, but i guess that's not in the cards.
I'm dumbstruck by the Neville news by Evil Hobbit	Jul 9th, 2007 09:32:52 AM
I totally agree on the 4 hour extended cuts.
Agree with this, on the whole by Latauro	Jul 9th, 2007 09:43:08 AM
Fantastic film that, as you say, could have used another twenty minutes in the third act. Imelda Staunton is 100% spot on. Possibly the most inspired bit of casting from the entire series.
Baltimoron.... by Kentucky Colonel	Jul 9th, 2007 09:56:24 AM
Did they close the SENATOR theater? There was an article on this site, but no follow-up, on that remarkable theater. Have you ever been to BENGIES? I drive up there occasionally.....from Waldorf, MD. This is going to rock!
I love Temple of Doom too by photoboy	Jul 9th, 2007 10:02:44 AM
I don't understand why it gets hated on so much, it's classic '80s Spielberg, back when he knew how to make a good film and not let hacks like Michael Bay near the camera.
Minecart reveal? by Silverglade	Jul 9th, 2007 10:23:49 AM
"a moment like that mine-cart headlamp reveal in Temple of Doom." When is this? I saw the movie recently but cannot for the life of me vision when this happens? What reveal? You mean when the voodoo doll stops and he grabs that saw all pissed off while on the conveyor belt? Back on topic, I am really looking forward to this new Potter movie. I recently watched all the previous films for the first time in preparation for this new movie. I would have to say my favorite has to be the first film. I have never read the books. But I will!
RE: Why does EACH film feel the same? by Mr. Nice Gaius	Jul 9th, 2007 10:30:37 AM
knowthyself - I couldn't agree more. Potter is one pop-culture phenom that I'm thankful is lost on me. Unfortunately, I have a "MUST SEE EVERY FILM THAT HAS GARY OLDMAN RULE". So, at some point, I will be subject to this series' torture once again.
cuaron is a master in the making by occula	Jul 9th, 2007 10:31:22 AM
wow, azkaban 'dull'? he's the only director to even approach the film as a filmmaker, instead of just making a film. like, the camerawork that intimates sirius is watching harry? how brilliant was that? he infused a dark energy into the series that everybody else is just piggybacking on.
keyserSOZE by jimbojones123	Jul 9th, 2007 11:03:30 AM
I'm with you on being down on Harry as a character. He's a whiny baby. He doesn't listen when he should and causes more problems for himself and his supposed friends than he actually prevents. DOWN W/POTTER!!!!
Holy Mackeral, Batman. by Frijole	Jul 9th, 2007 11:16:44 AM
Get a grip.
Bullshit by Dr Dischord	Jul 9th, 2007 11:27:34 AM
1) Temple of Doom isn't about fighting Nazis. I only want to see Indy fighting Nazis. 2) If Movie 5 sucks, its because Movie 4 changed the rules. The tweaked so many little things (Neville's parents' deaths, the fate of Harry's reward money, the family dynamics of the Weasleys, Rita Skeeter's bug-self, etc.) that it tied everybody's hands for films 5-7. Fuck you, Mike Newell.
Also... by Dr Dischord	Jul 9th, 2007 11:30:04 AM
It sounds like the scene in book 5, where Mrs. Weasley watches the boggart turn into people she loves dead, isn't in the movie. Which sucks, because its really the biggest emotional payoff in Book 5. Also, didn't see any mention of centaurs. Goddammit.
It's obvious what he means by that. by Life101	Jul 9th, 2007 11:32:13 AM
If it doesn't involve Harry Potter, or The Half-Blood Prince... It won't be in the next movie.
i agree about the nazis by occula	Jul 9th, 2007 11:36:18 AM
it's only good when indy's fighting them. anything else is junior varsity.
Billy Crudup has been cast as Dr. Manhattan by DOGSOUP	Jul 9th, 2007 11:58:00 AM
Speaking of movies being watered down cliff notes of the source material....
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO by messi	Jul 9th, 2007 12:11:31 PM
NOT BILLY CRUDUP!!!!!
Quint! by BadMrWonka	Jul 9th, 2007 12:21:14 PM
what about the shot of Indy in Last Crusade where he's on the tank, looks up and realizes the cliff is coming. looks legitimately scared (one of the only times we see him truly terrified), and HIS HAT BLOWS OFF!!! I'll always remember that shot in Last Crusade. also it has such great action sequences, the motorcycle chase, the tank, the GREAT opening with river phoenix. the boat chase. last crusade just seems too silly for me, I like it as a movie, but between 2 better films, it seems a bit out of place. not for being darker, but for being a bit too much like "Indy goes to India!" and I've never read or seen any Harry Potter at all, but I have a copy of a first print of the first Harry Potter book, signed by Rowling. ain't that ironic? maybe not really ironic, but at least Alanis ironic...
Kentucky Colonel - The Senator by Jergy	Jul 9th, 2007 12:29:59 PM
The Senator has been saved! (again) A lot of people give the owner crap for pulling this all the time (not paying his mortgage and then asking people to save his butt). But anyone who thinks he's rolling in the dough with a single movie house with multiplexes all around is smokin' something. They are getting Potter after Die Hard finishes its run on the 11th. http://www.senator.com/ (went to TinyUrl and it ended up making it longer, imagine that)
No St. Mungos? But.... by Randall Flagg	Jul 9th, 2007 12:33:59 PM
Does that mean no Nagini attack on Arthur? Because that directly affects Harry, Quint! It's one of the reasons he needs Occlumency... do they at least reference it? I hate having to explain all this stuff to my friends who haven't read the books (POA was the worst in that regard. Pettigrew gets transformed, and five faces in the dark turn to me and say "What the hell just happened??")
Child abusing Dumbledore? by Frijole	Jul 9th, 2007 12:46:36 PM
What the hell are you talking about? And the identity of the Marauders is NOT an essential aspect of the storyline. Remus and Sirius being James' friends was... and that was definitely portrayed. And Peter Pettigrew WAS singled out as being a part of their group. Specifically by McGonagal in the scene in Rosemerta's living quarters that Harry eavesdropped on under the invisibility cloak.
Im all for 4 hr dvd versions by rdsxfan8	Jul 9th, 2007 01:57:10 PM
but unless they planned ahead and shot some of that footage when the movies were originally made, it might be impossible to go back and redo or add extra footage in for the first 3 movies. the kids dont exactly look the same age anymore. it would've been nice though, huh?
The first two are hard to like . . . by Despacio	Jul 9th, 2007 02:07:58 PM
I had absolutely no interest in this series until I saw Prisoner of Azkaban. The first two film are so lackluster compared to the last two it's hard for me to convince family and friends to give this series a shot because of the impression the first movie gave them. I t's pretty amazing to have a franchise that keeps getting better with the sequels as opposed to worse.
OOTP by Bloo	Jul 9th, 2007 02:11:43 PM
I thought was a great book so I'm a little nervous about this shorter movie and I'm still not sold on David yates as a director. I still say that Joe Johnston would make a great directior for these movies or for narnia when Adamson leaves oh and the reason I love POA so much as a movie is the little things that make that movie work. Little magical touches, like the way Lupin packs his bags, etc. That was the one movie where I got a sense of MAGIC in Potter's world Finally I know that Rowling has said that after book 7 there won't be any more Potter books, but I have a hard time believing that, I can see her taking a break and coming back in a couple of years witheither secondary char perspective (echos of Ender's Shadow), or new adventures in that world, or adult verisons of our char. and new adventures. I'll be impressed if she is able to stop writing in Potter's world all togather
OOTP by Bloo	Jul 9th, 2007 02:11:44 PM
I thought was a great book so I'm a little nervous about this shorter movie and I'm still not sold on David yates as a director. I still say that Joe Johnston would make a great directior for these movies or for narnia when Adamson leaves oh and the reason I love POA so much as a movie is the little things that make that movie work. Little magical touches, like the way Lupin packs his bags, etc. That was the one movie where I got a sense of MAGIC in Potter's world Finally I know that Rowling has said that after book 7 there won't be any more Potter books, but I have a hard time believing that, I can see her taking a break and coming back in a couple of years witheither secondary char perspective (echos of Ender's Shadow), or new adventures in that world, or adult verisons of our char. and new adventures. I'll be impressed if she is able to stop writing in Potter's world all togather
Temple of Doom is my favorite by Jaka	Jul 9th, 2007 02:12:23 PM
Empire strikes back is my favorite. Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite. Seeing a trend there? Anyway, I really don't see there being a problem for most of the kids in these films (at least those in the lead and secondary parts) continuing their acting careers because they'll be in the British system, which is much different than ours. There seems to be much more nurturing of the young actors overseas. They're definitely given more chances than child actors in the states. Also, most of the actors in these films were already national recognized, if not heroes. I believe the younger will have be headed down the same path by the time the 7 films are completed. These films have remained staunchly British - and the British people love that. Emma, unfortunately is the only one I don't feel strongly about. Because honestly, though I've gotten used to her in the part, I just don't think her acting skills have advanced at the same pace as the others. Not trying to start another hateful talkback thread, that's just one persons opinion. But in general I bet we'll be seeing/hearing from these actors for a very long time. Regarding extra footage, it would be wonderful to have versions of the films that included more of the books, similar to what was done with the LOTR trilogy. But PJ planned that from very early on, and from what I remember reading, there is very little footage that could be cut back into the HP movies. Only the deleted scenes that have been included on the DVDs. So I guess we'll just have to live with the reality that the books and movies are two different things. They relate to each other, but they ARE different. I've not really had a problem excepting that since the 2nd film. In fact, I'd think, if you can learn to unbunch the panties in regards to your favorite parts being, sometimes, left out, that the two formats actually compliment each other nicely.
Bloo, a few quick things by Jaka	Jul 9th, 2007 02:25:46 PM
First, even though, as I just posted, I've accepted the books and movies as two different entities, I'm still worried about this one. I didn't care about all the Quidditch cut out of GOF, because honestly, it was half the damn book and it was just too much. CLEARLY there will be large pieces missing from OOTP - but they've done alright with the edits so far, so I'm hoping for the best. Second, I believe wholeheartedly that JK will not write another HP book. I mean, she could of course. She's not young, but she has some years left, one would assume, to go back to that world if she chooses to. But... Lastly, Harry is going to die. This has become more and more clear to me as of late. Reading the littles snippets and tidbits of info that she has let slip herself, added to the fact that she has been saying FOREVER that there would not be another "HARRY POTTER" book after the 7th, well, what else could it all mean? She could write as many books as she wanted set in the world she's created. But it Harry is dead, they wouldn't be "Harry Potter" books. That's where my head is at with it right now. We'll see in a couple weeks! :)
Oh, and what the heck... by Jaka	Jul 9th, 2007 02:31:34 PM
This hasn't changed in a while, my order of preference in regards to the books is: 5, 3, 6, 2, 1, 4 (there is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much Quidditch in the 4th book, and the TWT could have been 50 pages shorter as well).
Nice Marmot & Randall Flagg by the matman	Jul 9th, 2007 02:33:16 PM
Nice Marmot: The Jackson additions that didn't work for me were mainly Arwen's mysterious connection to the fate of middle earth "she is dying", and the Faramir/Frodo meeting. Most of the Faramir changes actually Randall Flagg: Nagini's attack on Arthur is in there but the visit to St. Mungo's isn't. It chops from Dumbledore's office to Christmas at Grimmauld place. Things I liked: The whole feel and colours are a lot more earthy and gritty and it works (though it does emphasize how much older everyone looks). The actors' performances are the best of all of the movies so far. Dueling wizards were really well done (though it seems as though they powered Voldemort up and Dumbledore down in the final duel - in the book it seemed as though Dumbledore was more powerful). Weasly twins exit from Hogwarts. Not so sure: There was always going to have to be a lot cut from this one but maybe not as much as they did. Like I said before there are a lot of threads that they dropped that you wonder if they might come back to bite them. If anything, Yates draws a line in the sand and says Harry Potter filmworld is not the same as Harry Potter bookworld - to a much greater degree than any of the previous directors have dared to do. The film stays true to the essence of the book and the characters but there are some fairly big deviations.
Jaka, there was no Quidditch in GoF by thejwac	Jul 9th, 2007 02:41:17 PM
Quidditch was cancelled that year in light of Hogwarts hosting the Triwizard Tournament.
Hope it's better than Order of the Phoenix by rfox	Jul 9th, 2007 02:54:45 PM
Cool web site. The books in the HP series are excellent, but you just can't capture the whole book in a 2 hour movie. That's why I didn't like the Order of the Phoenix movie - it left way to much out. I gather from your review this movies is going to be abreviated too. Oh well, they are still good movies - but the books are phenominal!
Harry's age by rfox	Jul 9th, 2007 02:56:34 PM
One more thing. The time between books and movies is LONG. I'm pretty sure that Harry will be a 42 year old 11th grader by the time this movie hits the US
Crusade Sucks Ass! by lost.rules	Jul 9th, 2007 03:10:00 PM
No it doesn't, but it's the weakest Indy film. So far.
Gilliam should direct last book... by tendermelon	Jul 9th, 2007 03:12:37 PM
...IT'S NOT TOO LATE!
thejwac, good catch! by Jaka	Jul 9th, 2007 03:14:29 PM
But I was just referring to the Quidditch World Cup at the beginning of the book, where Victr Krumm is introduced as a character. The entire first portion of that book is just painfully long and boring. I know she needed another way to make clear that Voldy and the Death Eaters were back, but damn! I literally hate that portion of the book. It's the absolute low point of her storytelling, in my opinion.
rfox, regarding the actors ages by Jaka	Jul 9th, 2007 03:16:53 PM
I said that once here, and somebody pointed out to me that they're actually still very close to the characters ages. Sure, they'll be early to mid twenties when the 7th film is released. But they're really not that much older than their characters. How this happened, I don't know.... it just did. lol
An old man grabs a teenage boy by the shoulders. by Frijole	Jul 9th, 2007 03:18:18 PM
Hardly manhandling. Hardly "child abuse". And there are frequent mentions in the book of Dumbledore acting out of sorts and more worried and tense than he's ever been (according to Hagrid at one point)- so I don't see it as out of character at all. He is freaked out, someone is f-ing about with the tournament and Harry's life... he grabs him by the shoulders and loudly repeats his query of whether or not Harry put his name in the cup somehow... Harry trips backwards, Dumbledore pulls him back up. The end. Everyone points this scene out as some sort of flaw in Gambon's portrayal and it's blwon WAY out of proportion.
lol by Jaka	Jul 9th, 2007 03:18:48 PM
I sure hope I don't have my books confused.... that would be a serious geek point deduction.... even with my +2 Ring of Geek Power.
Yes ages. by Frijole	Jul 9th, 2007 03:20:24 PM
People in their mid 20s and even into their 30s regularly portray high school students. What is the big deal? By the end of it, the actors will still be closer to the ages they are playing than in most "teen" movies.
Erm... by Jaka	Jul 9th, 2007 03:21:32 PM
Dumbledore V.1 was a little bit too relaxed. Dumbledore V.2, I think, has gone a little bit past what I pictured in the books, from time to time. But they're dealing with high-tension, life and death situations. In the movies, I think, there needs to be a bit more "action" from the characters to get some of these ideas across. Where as in the books you've had a couple thousand pages to build up your own ideas of what's happening in your mind.
Jaka by Bloo	Jul 9th, 2007 03:23:03 PM
I'm able to look past the cutting things in a movie because I understand there are things to be cut out of a book that just either can't work or whatnot in the movie. But man, there just seems to be a lot cut out of OotP that I don't know, I can't comment till I've seen it. And I agree that Harry is going to die. How I've looked at this story is classic "hero" or "myth" telling where even thappens to shake a boy, he lives a drab existence, till he discovers he's special, then he embarks on the hero's journey to discover who he is then sacrafices himself for the greater good. It's the story of jesus (or Spock). I think that is something we all agree on. Haryr is so dead, but I really see the fans demanding more, and we'll see an increase in fanfiction and conventions and blah blah blah blah and she'll go back and either continue the adventures of ron and hermonie or Ginny(if she doesn't bite it too) or something. Or maybe Harry is a horocrux and when he is killed it shatters his soul and he lives in a weakened form, nah that would just be silly
Whoa... by Jaka	Jul 9th, 2007 03:27:09 PM
...I thought this TB was still the DR interview. lol That's why I commented on the actors being able to work after the HP films. Well cool! Now I get to read Quint's review.
Does Nagini attack Mr. Weasly? by PirateEmery	Jul 9th, 2007 03:28:52 PM
Read this above, but I just thought I'd put in the subject line to attract ol' Quint.
Temple of Doom was offensive by iwontwin	Jul 9th, 2007 03:37:48 PM
Just kidding, but my uncle wouldn't let me get that movie because of how it portrayed my peoples. Amrish Puri Rest in peace. Kali ma is a reminder for everyone not to lose their anger, because she almost killed shankar (shiva) and destroyed the universe. She wears demon hands as a dress. Remember there would be no INDIAna with out India so take that Dr.Jones.
Henry Jones, Sr. & Nazis > Willie Scott & Thugees by SpyGuy	Jul 9th, 2007 03:52:22 PM
THE LAST CRUSADE is easily superior to TEMPLE OF DOOM, at least in the eyes of those of us who actually watched the movies in the theaters. TOD is watchable primarily for Short Round, but TLC brings back Sallah and Marcus as well as great exchanges between Ford and Connery.
Just saw this... by Jaka	Jul 9th, 2007 03:52:32 PM
..on the front page of Yahoo. Potter fans beg Rowling to "Save Harry!" By Peter Griffiths Mon Jul 9, 8:40 AM ET LONDON (Reuters) - Thousands of Harry Potter fans have signed a petition urging J.K. Rowling to keep writing novels about the boy wizard after she admitted she could "never say never" to more books. ADVERTISEMENT The "Save Harry!" petition calls on Rowling to reverse her decision to end the bestselling series with the seventh and final installment, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." "Millions, perhaps billions of us, love reading his adventures and we never want them to end," says the online petition, launched on Monday at www.saveharrypotter.co.uk. After spending 17 years writing the books, Rowling said she was both "euphoric" and "devastated" that it's finally over. But in a television interview, she left fans with the tantalizing, if remote, possibility that she may one day return to the magical world of Hogwarts. "I think that Harry's story comes to quite a clear end in book seven," she told the BBC at the weekend. "But I have always said that I wouldn't say never. "I can't say I will never write another book about that world, just because I think: 'What do I know, in 10 years' time I might want to return to it'. But I think it is unlikely." Even if she does write another book, it is unclear whether some of the main characters, including Harry, would play a part. Rowling said some characters will die in the last book, but wouldn't say if the boy wizard is among them: "It's not a bloodbath, but it's more than two," she said. Book retailer Waterstone's, which set up the petition, said Rowling could still write more Harry Potter books even if the title character is killed. "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle famously killed off Sherlock Holmes, yet brought him back after years of demand from his fans and publishers," said Waterstone's Wayne Winstone. "Couldn't the same happen for Harry Potter?" Rowling's publicist could not be reached for comment. More than 325 million copies of the first six books have been sold worldwide, helping to make Rowling the first dollar-billionaire author. The final book is out on July 21.
Nagini by Quint	Jul 9th, 2007 03:55:07 PM
Yes, Mr. Weasely gets attacked by the snake. PirateEmery can now say he attracted me... but he didn't put out, so I'm left frustrated. Tease.
Dr Dischord - Here Be Centaurs by Scar Gordon	Jul 9th, 2007 03:59:49 PM
Saw the HBO First Look and they showed a quick snippet of the centaur herd running through the Forbidden Forest, and another with Umbridge and Harry out there alone - presumably the two are connected in the same way they are in the book - but who knows these days. Quint - want to weigh in on that part?
SpyGuy by Frijole	Jul 9th, 2007 04:08:54 PM
The problem is that Crusade SHIT on Sallah and Brody. And that aside from Connery (and the gorgeous Alison Doody) it is a weak carbon copy of Raiders, played for laughs.
Neville's role in the prophecy by Scar Gordon	Jul 9th, 2007 04:24:03 PM
Even if the connection between Neville and the prophecy isn't explained in this movie they can always shoehorn it in later. It doesn't directly affect any action in OOtP or HBP although as mentioned it does remove a rather large angst factor for Harry. The real question is - QUINT!! - have they also messed with the wording of the prophecy? Isn't it funny that none of us seem to be able to just wait a couple of weeks and find out from Book 7?
Neville's role cont. by Scar Gordon	Jul 9th, 2007 04:33:47 PM
That is, wait a couple of weeks and find out from Book 7 how much the choices the filmakers have painted themselves into tough corners.
What Matters by brermike	Jul 9th, 2007 04:37:04 PM
I believe the filmaker knows what needs to be in the films since they get notes from JK Rowling as to what matters and what doesn't. I read an article last week at theleakycaulron that said they had planned to not include Kreacher in this movie. JK Rowling told them that they should include him as he becomes very important come Book 7.
Neville is just not that important to the end by DreadPirateRoberts	Jul 9th, 2007 04:45:37 PM
The point with Neville and the prophecy was mainly to introduce the angst to Harry that he did not HAVE to be the chosen one. He could have had a normal life with live parents and not grown up with the jerks that raised him. But Voldemort interpreted the prophecy as relating to Harry, so it is Harry. But that is it. Neville is not more important than that to the end. We know this because Rowling apparently did not object to them dropping the Neville stuff, but DID react when she was informed that they were going to cut Creature and specifically told them to put him back. So apparantly even Creature is more important than Neville to the final story.
Well, brermike beat me to the same point... by DreadPirateRoberts	Jul 9th, 2007 04:48:42 PM
Except that he pays more attention and spells Kreacher properly.
So STILL no Snape and James Potter stuff?!?! by Drath	Jul 9th, 2007 05:20:00 PM
They've managed to completely leave out that thread from the books, and I can't help but think it's a huge failure. Snape isn't being built up very well at all, they're coasting all on Alan Rickman's presence--which is great but still robbing him of so much material. And who doesn't want more of Rickman in these movies? Aparently the shitheads in charge! Also, no mention of Neville in the prophecy sounds like a mistake, as I would think that's going to play a part in book 7. I could be wrong, but I don't see much point for Rowling to bring it up in the first place if it doesn't have a pay off. I wonder if it doesn't now. Also, and this is just me, I agree with you a lot about the books, Quint. Yes, Book 5 was the weakest for me too, it's the one where I felt that things were going off track. I still think she was setting Ron up to do something bad and she changed her mind because of his popularity. He envied Harry, and I think that was going to cause him to do something bad against his friends just as Peter Pettigrew had done to his friends (and by coincidence, who was Ron's pet all those years?). So all that got thrown out in the over long fifth book, and Harry become too selfish and annoying. He's not a typical 15-year-old, why make him act like a shit "because that's what 15-year-old boys are like"? And yeah, there wasn't nearly enough pay off at the end of such a long book. Even the suggestion that Umbridge was raped by Centaurs wasn't enough for me. As for the movies, I would rank Chamber of Secrets above Sorcerer's Stone because I just enjoyed it more. It was paced better, it had more things I liked, and just felt more cinematic than the first movie. The effects on the Quidditch game were ten times better--and if we're going to be forced to endure a Quidditch game, it should look good. Also, Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy was terrific. I know Dobby wasn't popular, but I thought he was handled better than most others do. I did not miss him later when he never showed up again though.
Drath by Quint	Jul 9th, 2007 05:39:14 PM
You do get it, don't worry. It's just that the lessons with Snape are significantly less than the book.
DreadPirateRoberts: to belabor a point.... by Scar Gordon	Jul 9th, 2007 05:49:04 PM
It is fun to speculate, even if the answer is only 11:05:15:49 away according theleakycauldron's countdown clock. I don't think we can draw the conclusion that Neville isn't important to the end game - but that Harry learning the prophecy could have been about Neville before the end of the movie isn't. As I mentioned earlier, no action (as opposed to character development) in HBP requires that Harry knows it could have been Neville all along. IF Book 7 reveals that Neville is the Chosen One of prophecy as opposed to Voldemort's action, they could still do that reveal in either of the next two movies - Harry realizes it or DD tells him before...you know. Leaving it out is something that JKR could have allowed precisely because it WOULDN'T be important until the last book and therefore, the last movie. All is mere speculation, of course, until 11:05:12:33 from now.
8th Harry Potter book!!!! by ghostwatcher	Jul 9th, 2007 05:51:44 PM
It's official, there WILL be an 8th and, possibly, 9th Harry Potter book. Here is the press release from Scholastic.com: Due to the overwhelming popularity of Harry Potter and the dedication of legions of fans from around the globe, author J.K. Rowling has just announced that there will indeed be an 8th Harry Potter novel. In a bold move, Rowling has decided to include herself as a character in the next book, currently titled "Harry Potter Licks My Big Fat Humongoid Ginormous English Titties." If this move proves to be unpopular with fans, plans for Rowling's proposed 9th book "Harry Potter Drinks Earl Grey Tea From My Twat While Eating Krumpets Spawned From My British Asshole" will, of course, be scrapped. Hurray! I, for one, will pray that these books are hits because the movie versions would rock.
Indiana Jones by hegele	Jul 9th, 2007 06:24:32 PM
The Last Crusade's Tank scene is vastly superior in both adventure and suspense to the mine car chase in Temple. Not to mention general character development, plot, pace and William's score made The Last Crusade just as if not better than Raiders.
There was no good character development in Crusade by Frijole	Jul 9th, 2007 06:39:44 PM
Sure the River Phoenix opening was cool. But It was a paint by numbers slap-job that ruined the mystique of the character. He got his whip, hat, scar and fear of snakes in one afternoon??? Come on, that sort of thing actually SHITS on real character development. It's a cartoon. Fun, but totally pointless and contrived. His realtionship with his dad was played completely for laughs. There is no development nor anything substantial there. Just two acotrs of badass charisma having a good time together. And Brody and Sallah's characters were ANTI-developed. So, where again is this good character development? And as others of us have mentioned, the plot and pace are near identical to Raiders... only with TV-Movie quality cinematography, dodgy effects and ridiculous attempts at humor. And Doom had all three of those things as well, but it also had a dark, mean streak running through it to counter the humor... and a genuine attempt at something different. Hell, just the opening scene alone gives you a "Wow, same character... TOTALLY different movie!" Oh and though Indy's main theme will always reign supreme, the themes written specifically for Doom blow those specifically for Crusade out of the water. (And yet, I still somehow enjoy Crusade, for all its weaknesses... because it is, after all, and Indiana Jones movie).
I hate these movies.. by WALKNDED	Jul 9th, 2007 06:54:01 PM
And will be glad when they die.
We're impressed WALKNDED. by Frijole	Jul 9th, 2007 07:00:26 PM
Was that all you had to say or did you have more insight to shine upon us? The readers of AICN wait in silence for your answer.
How much of the Pensieve scene is in the movie? by PirateEmery	Jul 9th, 2007 07:12:45 PM
I feel like I'm dangling a line into Great White infested waters, hoping Quint will take the bait.
Gambon is alright by lost.rules	Jul 9th, 2007 08:26:45 PM
But he's no Richard Harris.
I'm on the losing end of an argument simply by Frijole	Jul 9th, 2007 09:04:34 PM
because I don't agree with you? Nice. Until you can go into more depth than "I'm right, you're wrong" then I will consider myself on (at least) the more THOROUGH side of the argument. The argument, as I saw it initially, was that he manhandled or "abused" Harry. Which he does not. At all. If you were sitting right here watching it with me (I turned it on just now, though I've seen the scene at least a half dozen times) there would be no way you could make the same claim with a straight face. Gambon detractors completely blow his actions (in the scene we're discussing) out of proportion when trying to make their points. Saying that he threw Harry, that he pushed Harry, that he hit Harry, that he screamed at Harry etc... And I'm sorry, but if people need to make shit up (or at the least distort it) to support their opinions, well then their own argument's validity is immediately shot (this is why I can't stand Michael Moore... or Michael Savage for that matter). Dumbledore is (magical or not) a human being who cares about Harry and is understandbly upset at an insane turn of events. The book specifically calls notice to him not always being the calm, soothing picture of queit nobility that he normally is anymore. So... he gets upset and raises his voice to Harry and grabs him by the shoulders. One time. Over the course of two movies. One time. One time where to the basic workings of the caring, normal, human mind it is totally appropriate. Where is the break in characterization? How is he far too physical? Where is the lack of character intution? Unless you can explain further how (with all that in mind) it is NOT appropriate, then we'll move on. Now in having this discussion with others, many have pointed out that the passages in the book describing Dumbledore as being out of sorts and edgy are NOT during the goblet scene. Noted. However, due to the movie being streamlined from the novel (and this scene being one of only a few that Dumbledore is at the center of) this change in his demeanor had to be put in SOMEWHERE... and given the gravity of what is transpiring, I can't think of a more appropriate scene. Now as for Gambn's Dumbledore being a dirty hippie. Don't see it. Gambon has an air of feistiness and mystery and "there is more to me than this frail old shell" that is TOTALLY in line with the Dumbledore of the books. And something that Harris could never have achieved (unless he'd been healthy and a few years younger when playing the role). And I don't see the beads and bands in his beard or the not quite "formal" robes he wears as being hippie-ish, so much as eccentric. Something that Dumbledore most certainly is. So... with ALL that in mind, I will not be surprised if you still don't agree with me. But that doesn't mean that I'm on the "losing" side of any argument. This is AICN... we aren't playing with the tantrum spewing nitwits on the IMDB boards. Let's try and keep it on a higher plain, okay?
Not a big fan of the books by IronSpidey	Jul 9th, 2007 09:27:15 PM
But I've read them all so far out of curiosity. The movies seem to be getting worse and losing the interesting side plots that semi-redeem the books. I'll probably get dragged into seeing this. At least Emma Watson/Hermione is in it. I'm not sure if it's the actress or the character I have a crush on...
I'm impressed by dtpena	Jul 9th, 2007 09:28:04 PM
no hermione sexual innuendos yet?
Frijole... Doom/Crusade arguement by hegele	Jul 9th, 2007 09:49:04 PM
how can you say that his relationship with his dad is just for laughs? Have you seen the last twenty minutes? If thats for laughs what the hell is Indy's relationship with Willie? and on the subject of that leading lady, if being slapstick and goofy is an anti-development tool for Marcus and Sallah, then Willie is the most underdeveloped character in the series. The fact that you say there is no substance between Henry and Junior tells me you just have a grudge against Crusade. Its not a valid argument. I'm not sure why you think the cinematography is tv like. There are some beautiful lighting set ups in this film. Dougy Slocombe has a wonderful lighting continuity throughout the series. I find it funny that you think the ridiculous humor found in Temple (much less subtle than Crusade IMO) is balanced out with the dark tones. Thats as arbitrary as saying the Star Wars prequels balance out the heavy political settings with their childish characters like Jar Jar. The score for Temple is fun, Short Rounds theme is cute, the Doom chant is dark, the Willie theme is lovely. Crusade's knight theme is truly haunting, the new nazi theme is right up there with the Empire's theme that started with ESB and the Belly of the Steal Beast track alone is one of the most adventurous pieces of music i've ever heard. We might not think this adds much, and im not using it as basis for the argument but both Spielberg and Ford have been quoted as saying that Crusade is the one they are most proud of, even more so than Raiders and Doom is their least favorite.
Good review Quint by clockpolitiks	Jul 9th, 2007 10:52:51 PM
I just got back from seeing it in IMAX 3D, and I basically had the same problems as you. The ending had no payoff at all really. It just kind of stopped. A lot of the characters got shafted in this one. I personally like Azkaban the least, with this film being just a little better than that.
Order is by far the best book in the series! by johnnysunshine	Jul 9th, 2007 11:21:11 PM
OoTP is the biggest and best Potter story we've gotten so far, so I imagine this flick could also be the best in the film series. Also, each film in the series has been better than the last, which is shockingly rare in movies. I guess we should credit the great source material for the reason the film series didn't pitter out by the third installment like so many franchises.
No pensieve scene by the matman	Jul 10th, 2007 12:12:33 AM
Pirate Emery - there is no pensieve but they cover snape/james very very briefly during Harry's occlumency lesson with Snape.
Interesting that they left the Neville stuff out in the by superninja	Jul 10th, 2007 01:02:07 AM
movies when people were speculating his involvement in the last book as it relates to the prophecy. Guess not.
dtpena - Hermione innuendo by spud mcspud	Jul 10th, 2007 04:41:27 AM
Oh yes there is! http://tinyurl.com/ 2srwyg Enjoy.
First is usually the best. by ROBE	Jul 10th, 2007 06:42:26 AM
In my opinion Raiders and A New Hope were the best and all the others while having good bits never reached their heights. Same with the Potter movies, I watched the 1st seven times at the cinema, 2nd six times at the cinema, 3rd twice at the cinema and the 4th three times at the cinema. Who knows Phoenix could be even worse.
Dumbledore by Turd Furgeson	Jul 10th, 2007 10:15:59 AM
Am I the only person in the world who thinks that Patrick Stewart would have been the PERFECT Dumbledore? Strong, brave and powerful presence with that soft, gentle side that always made the character so cool.... Maybe its just me.. I like Gambon and I think he was a victim of poor direction in 4 because I thought he was good in 3...
I specifically pointed out by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 12:03:11 PM
that he does not act out of sorts in this scene in the book. But that he is described as acting that way ELSEWHERE in the book and that emotional response was simply moved to a different scene in the movie version (one where it still remained appropriate). And I still debate whether he loses his temper in the movie version. He is not mad at Harry, ESPECIALLY after Harry assures him that he is innocent of any wrongdoing. He is upset at the situation and briefly (after which he returns to his normal quiet, stoic self)loses his COOL. Losing your cool and losing your temper are two different things. What I don't think is up for debate (especially after watching and rewatching that one moment last night about 6 times) is whether or not Gambon's Dumbledore shook or pushed Harry around. He didn't. Clear as day. He grabs Harry by the shoulders. Harry trips backwards. He pulls Harry back upright (while saying "Are you sure???") and that is it. No pushing, no shoving, no shaking, no abusing. Simple as that.
And Gambon never raises his voices any moreso by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 12:10:47 PM
than Harris did when Dumbledore was annoyed at the chatter in the very first Great Hall scene and he bellowed "SILENCE!!!".
Well we are just going to have to disagree by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 12:41:32 PM
on what constitutes "brutish physicality" because we are obviously never going to see eye to eye. Next time I read OOTP (last time was about a month ago), I'll bookmark any pages that describe him acting out of his normal character so I can point them out if this argument comes up again in the future. For the time being, you think I'm wrong... I think you're wrong... Over and out.
That isn't where I'm talking about... by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 12:57:51 PM
There is at least one instance of (I believe Hagrid) describing Dumbledore's overall demeanor to have changed (and no, I'm also not referring to parts of OOTP where he is giving Harry the cold shoulder). Also, I made a mistake... I meant that this description of Dumbledore was in Goblet of Fire (not OOTP)- the book version of the movie in which the scene we're discussing takes place. Dunno why I said OOTP. But yeah, when I come across it again, we'll talk. For now... On with the show.
I think anchorite is right about Gambon's portrayal. by superninja	Jul 10th, 2007 01:05:45 PM
I watched GOF the other day and the performance is off, however, I still prefer it to Harris's cookie cutter Dumbledore. Nothing against Harris, moreso the director. Dumbledore should be like Gandalf.
I like Stewart, but he gets on my nerves slightly. by superninja	Jul 10th, 2007 01:06:57 PM
Especially when playing more serious parts. He has a bag of tricks and he's kind of a ham. Great stage presence, though.
More to the point by SUPERJIM	Jul 10th, 2007 01:27:45 PM
Where are the OOTP reviews? The BBC website has some already so surely AICN can? Theirs are full of tripe like "Order of the Phoenix is Orwellian. The palette is grainy and dank, the faces dour, the hero's alienation beginning to fester." Can AICN provide us with a decent one yet?
And to be clear, anchorite. by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 01:30:59 PM
I actually love Richard Harris. He was one of my favorites (especially in Mutiny on the Bounty and Orca... yes, Orca). And I think he was near perfect for the Dumbledore of the first two movies- but even at the time had reservations that in his age and frailty that he'd be able to pull off the more openly powerful and proactive Dumbledore of the later books. On the other side of that, I do NOT think that Gambon is perfect, but I think he's fine and just don't get the vitriol often hurled at his performace.
Azkaban still the best film by oisin5199	Jul 10th, 2007 01:31:38 PM
Out of any of the series, I agree that Cuaron's film is still the best film that stands on its own. You could see it without reading the books or the other films, and it exists as a great fantasy film. It doesn't hurt that Cuaron's a genius. People complain that it took liberties with the book. I say, it's about time. Azkaban was the only film where I actually believed in this world. The only film where a clear theme is introduced and developed. Where you can tell the director is an auteur and actually has a vision that's not slavishly tied to the books, even though it's inspired by them. The only film where the characters were really any fun (I especially love his surreal take on Fred and George). Gambon's Dumbledore was perfect for Azkaban. No longer the grandfatherly protector, he's more of a wise trickster, someone with a lot of mischievous mystery going on. Yeah, he wasn't that great in Goblet. But neither was anyone! GoF was poorly scripted and directed and the actors were obviously at sea. Gambon is a fantastic actor, so you know he could have done better (though if recasting could be done again for the final books, I wish it could be Bill Nighy). There was just too much going on as usual with the only clear direction being the video game story of getting the goblet. It's not a surprise that the most cohesive film - Azkaban - departs the most from the book. In the universe of 'duh,' books are different from movies, in many other things besides length. You can afford to have tangents in novels because you're setting up the world and exploring characters. In many ways a single camera shot can capture a whole chapter's worth of material. I'm seeing the Imax on Thursday, but I do have confidence that Yates will probably be the best at nailing the characters and their emotional moments, since it seems he does that well (from watching 'Girl in the Cafe' and from what the actors have said). If it works as an overall film, don't know yet. We'll see.
Yes... Much as I enjoyed Goblet by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 01:42:17 PM
Several performances were a bit "off". Nothing to get worked up over, but not as good as in Azkaban. However, I think the twins are at their best in Goblet, performance-wise. And Gleeson was dead-on.
Oh come now by McClane_Corleone	Jul 10th, 2007 02:06:58 PM
Sean Connery is in Last Crusade. Nazis are in Last Crusade. A Nazi gets crushed by a tank in Last Crusade. All Temple of Doom had was a Chinese kid. And that guy getting his heart ripped out...I guess that was pretty cool.
Doom has... by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 02:18:19 PM
A spectacular (and very Bond-eque) opening scene at Club Obi-Wan. A big snake. Giant bugs. I life raft escape from a flying plane. Rope bridge-Fu. A crocodile feeding frenzy. A truly frightening adversary. Monkey brains. Indy getting drugged and going bad. Another great fistfight with Pat Roach. A flaming pit. Oh yeah... and a chinese kid and a guy getting his heart ripped out.
Doom also has Dan Akroyd in it! by pokadoo	Jul 10th, 2007 02:42:10 PM
Nobody from Ghostbusters in Crusade!
Where is Dan Akroyd??? by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 02:52:57 PM
I've seen the movie 100 times and can't recall ever seeing him in it at all. John Ratzenberger in Superman and Empire... yes. Akroyd in Doom??? Not so sure.
anchorite... you are right! by spud mcspud	Jul 10th, 2007 03:21:45 PM
Sorry Frijole - I agree with anchorite about the way Gambon has been directed as Dumbledore. Harris roaring "Silence!" in PHILOSOPHER'S STONE is a standard headmaster's trick that they all do to get kids' attention... whereas the whole Harry-shaking scandal in GoF was completely out of character for Dumbledore. He IS the rock that anchors the book, which is why the end of HALF-BLOOD PRINCE is so necessary. Dumbledore is the tower of strength that Harry draws HIS strength from - the father figure he needs but never had. Gambon seems disinterested in Harry (especially in that "See what?" scene after they have saved Sirius in AZKABAN) rather than keeping a careful eye on him, and as for having a kind presence... Gambon is a fine actor, but where is there any trace of a kind presence in these movies? I don't see it. And I think he was PERFECT in SLEEPY HOLLOW. He isn't perfect as Dumbledore - far from it. Loving the Patrick Stewart idea though. That man has the most amazing presence onscreen, he'd be awesome.
These movies are too short by spud mcspud	Jul 10th, 2007 03:26:37 PM
Rather than cut out stuff that CAN be cut without missing it (eg the house-elf liberation shit), now we're seeing important subplots cut (Neville's connection to the prophecy, the whole St Mungo's/Neville's parents storyline, Ron Weasley "Weasley is our King", which importantly explains why Ron gets to be more supportive of Harry through books five and six, and ALL of the Quidditch World Cup, which would've been an awesome introduction to the whole of the wizarding world's larger scope). By the DEATHLY HALLOWS movie we'll just have two hours of Harry vs Voldemort. Will the makers of this series please reailse that characters who AREN'T Haryy are also interesting, and also the reason why we read these books? Ron and Hermione really are getting a bad shake, as are all of the Weasley family. One more thing. How the FUCK did Doctor Who get in the GOBLET OF FIRE movie? In Gallifrey's name, HOW?
rdsxfan8 - 4 hour versions by spud mcspud	Jul 10th, 2007 03:32:38 PM
I really can't believe no-one thought to do this back in the day. Did the producers REALLY think we wouldn't mind missing the ENTIRE Quidditch World Cup in Goblet? Bastards! It is a shame they never did it, because they could've done what Peter Jackson did with the LOTR trilogy, and I would have happily bought them all. Unlike a lot of TBers in this thread, I LOVE the first movie - the perfect visual introduction to the wizarding world, and strangely a very Christmassy film - and I think only the second movie, though still full of excellent moments, was what you could call a weak movie. GOBLET was still a good movie - but the stuff they left out could've made it awesome. We REALLY don't mind long cuts on DVD - film extra footage PLEASE?
For the last time, he does not SHAKE Harry by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 03:49:52 PM
If you want to say he was too aggressive, fine. But he does NOT shake him or push him or anything like that. He grabs him by the shoulders, Harry trips backwards, Dumbledore steadies him from falling and then takes his hands off of him.
As for "See What?" It's actually "Did What?" by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 03:58:08 PM
"We did it!" "Did what?" That is not disinterst in Harry. Dumbledore has a gleam of pride in his eyes knowing that Harry and Hermione have accomplished the task he set them on. He says "Did what?" as a joke... Implying that he'll deny any knowlege of their actions or that anything untoward has even taken place. If asked by Fudge or someone else-"What? I didn't see anything... what are you talking about?". It's that gleam of pride that you see at that moment that actually hooked me on Gambon being a good (if not perfect) choice for the role. That and the whole "Let him sleep. In dreams, we enter a world that is our own. Let him swim in the deepest ocean or glide over the clouds." speech. That is just a great, great Gambon/ Dumbledore moment.
I see what Gambon did... by spud mcspud	Jul 10th, 2007 04:16:55 PM
...with the "Did what?" line - I just don't see that he did it with more warmth than Richard Harris would, who was far superior. Or than Patrick Stewart would, who would be awesome in the role. It's the lack of warmth he brought to the role that turned me off him as Dumbledore. Maybe if he smiled more often, I dunno...
Where is Dan Akroyd by Borabora	Jul 10th, 2007 04:26:13 PM
He is indeed in there, he put Indy on the plane- after the street chase at the beginning. Check it out, he recognizes Kate Capshaw's character...
Does he have a line? by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 04:37:14 PM
Akroyd, I mean. I see it now on IMDB... I just can't believe in all these years and all these viewings that I have NEVER noticed that before!
bill nighy by oisin5199	Jul 10th, 2007 05:25:18 PM
it was me. Sometimes we agree.
Yes, he has a few lines... by Borabora	Jul 10th, 2007 05:30:59 PM
"Aren't you Willie Scott"...and that all he could get for them was a cargo plane on such short notice. It's something along those lines, but you barely see his face.
Bill Nighy I love but he doesn't strike me as by superninja	Jul 10th, 2007 05:41:50 PM
loveable or an emotional bedrock.
Just seen it literally an hour ago........ by Alyssa Jones	Jul 10th, 2007 07:23:56 PM
I would have love to sent a review but I couldn't be arsed (forgive the spelling usually I'm very good but I'm very drunk with not spell check), anyway back to the review, the beginning is visually stunning (if somewhat lacking in content, just realised as a massive fan of the the books the films always lack sonething) (just watching Election which is another good film)...ok....just realised I'm very drunk (hope I can delete this in the morning) but I really did love the film, the acting has got better, the effects are superb....I love Harry Potter (the character) for the first time ever.....
Sweet! Alyssa is drunk... by Frijole	Jul 10th, 2007 07:29:13 PM
Let's all hit on her! Hope she didn't have the fried oyster and strawberry daquiri mix! kidding... go on with with your bad, drunk self... We'll see you in the locker room.
Just saw it and WOW by Evil Hobbit	Jul 10th, 2007 08:31:28 PM
I love it! Never thought that I would love it this much. Yes there is a LOT missing from the books and some MAJOR things are changed but it all benefits the way the film is created. And in doing so it still captures the tone and mood of the book itself and tells the story at it's very core and a little more. There is a lot of focus on the political aspect and I like that. If I have one major criticsm on the film is that at some points it moves a little tiny bit to fast. Specially near the ending where it basicly puts all final plotpoints in the newspaper headlines and concludes with a very, very, very short and bad execution of the Dumbledore and Harry dialogue. Once again they shuv it down your throat while they should have just extended that scene to lets say, 5 minutes. Allow the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore to breeth and to set up all the emotional bond that follows in part 6. I also still don't get why a stealth flight to Grimmauld Place is executed by flying straight trough Londen, past passenger ships and other highly muggle populated area's. The stealth approach from the book works much much better and is far more appropriate. All in all I think this is one of the best Potter films to date. Even Hooper's score works wonders, of course it's still not nearly as great as William's work but it's a realy good attempt. Very restrained and ominous. Much better then Doyle's score for the 4th one, which was a descent score on it's own but just didn't fit the franchise. I rate this one a solid 8.5/10 resulting in the following favorite list: 1) Prisoner of Azkaban - 9 2) Order of the Phoenix - 8.5 3) Chamber of Secrets - 8.5 4) Philosopher's Stone - 8 5) Goblet of Fire - 7
Bring back Cuaron! by B Arthur	Jul 10th, 2007 09:33:34 PM
So, I have read a couple reviews and I must tell the critics that OoTP is not roundly rejected as the worst of the Potter books! Its actually currently my favorite. I am disappointed to hear that the dialoge between Harry and Dumbledore is cut, as in my opinion that is the single most important dialog between Harry and Dumbledore there is, we waited a whole book for it after all. I was personally hoping they would cut out the scenes with the giant, but apparently he is still in it. I have yet to see it, but all I can really say is that I hope they bring back Cuaron for the final installment, even though I think Half Blood Prince would have been perfect for him.
The Marauders? by PirateEmery	Jul 10th, 2007 10:05:05 PM
Do they have the scene with Snivvelus?
The only things I'm mad about.. by Jaka	Jul 10th, 2007 10:35:09 PM
...are, seriously, no “Wotcher, Harry!” from Tonks, and no fighting statues. If the film is a good as it sounds otherwise, I can deal with everything else that's missing, or different.
Bring back Joel Schumacher for Batman! by ROBE	Jul 11th, 2007 02:47:32 AM
Well if we are going to bring back Alfonso Cuaron to Harry Potter Warner Bros might as well go completely mad B Arthur.
BETTER THAN AZKABAN. by Rearden	Jul 11th, 2007 03:56:37 AM
there. I said it. I just saw it. And, in my educated opinion, it is by far the best of the series. In almost every respect.
Man Rearden, you must be Retarden... by Mort Meyers	Jul 11th, 2007 04:02:19 AM
Jay Kay!
PirateEmery by Evil Hobbit	Jul 11th, 2007 04:45:49 AM
Yes there is, it's brief and very very very short, but it's there.
Natalia Tena as Nymphadora Tonks by Barrymore Yorke	Jul 11th, 2007 05:30:57 AM
PHOAARRRRRRRR!!!! Homina homina homina!!! Best-looking woman in the whole film series. Yowza!!!
big fan of the books, not the movies by TAF	Jul 11th, 2007 09:01:46 AM
my family and i are huge fans of the books but have been increasingly disappointed by the movies. i like the actors and think they capture the characters, except for the two men who have played dumbledore. richard harris was pretty good, but the new guy (don't know his name) has been really bad. just does not caputure dumbledore. so if i like the actors, what do i dislike about the movies? the magic is missing. it shows up occasionally, like the scene in the first movie when we first see diagon alley. that is a magical scene. but, yes, i'm going to the movie this afternoon and i will see the final two movies when they are released. we own each of the previous movies on vhs or dvd. my involvement witht he movies, though, is because of being a fan of the books. i'm glad to read the generally positive reviews of this movie and am looking forward to seeing it, but with very low expectations.
Gary Oldman by deadshot07	Jul 11th, 2007 12:41:42 PM
Was worth the price of admission and waiting in line alone. God damn brilliant.
Loony Luna (whatever her name) by HornOrSilk	Jul 11th, 2007 03:38:02 PM
Is she -- Harry's mom? Was she the character Rawling said had to be in it? Her line at the end, "Sometimes people come back, but not as expected" and all seems to imply something. Who is she? Am I reading too much here? But she reminded me sort of something like Chamber of Secrets...
I thought this was the worst movie by far by Defiant	Jul 11th, 2007 03:45:51 PM
I am not a hater, I loved all the other films. I must say that I have never read any of the books so I do not know what was cut out or what is coming next but to me this movie was plain and simply boring. It felt like virtually half of this movie is watching this new villan be a bitch over and over and over and over again. There is little of the excitement, magic, wonder, or humor, that the other films had which are what made them great to me. I was mainly sitting bored through the first 2/3rds of the movie where hardly anything entertaining happens. I was just hoping that there would be a HUGE pay off in the finale and there just wasn't. The death of Black was extremely anticlimactic and the showdown with the death eaters just did not seem as cool as it could have been. The very worst part of the film for me is that this was the only one where I knew virtually the whole movie just from watching the trailer. Watching the trailer you know Harry trains an army with a new woman at the school giving him a hard time. That is pretty much 2/3rds of the film.
gary oldman is a fucking PIMP. by occula	Jul 11th, 2007 03:47:50 PM
he WAS worth the price of admission. that scene where he's leaning against the doorframe looking like he's wondering whether to hug harry or give him a 'true romance'-style beatdown? his posture says all. i quite liked the film - WAY better than the last one. flawed, but still much more intriguing and involving that i expected. and, for the ladies, dan radcliffe is looking hot. and for the guys, jailbait granger also looking fit!
bizarre revelation by occula	Jul 11th, 2007 04:00:31 PM
that the woman who's tonks (who got WAY too little screen time IMHO) was the punker from 'about a boy.' wow!
The Neville Prophecy by tphile2	Jul 11th, 2007 04:25:26 PM
Quint, I think you are mistaken about Neville being left out of the prophecy. Remember the movie states that a prophecy globe is only activated by the person(s) it concerns. iirc after seeing the movie The globe first glowed when Neville was next to it. and Neville called Harry over to see it. So its implied (to subtle perhaps) that the prophecy concerns them both. We heard enough of the prophecy to get the idea of it and to misdirect Voldy. The next movie and Professor Dumbledore will deal with the full prophecy. but yes I was frustrated that there was no attacking brains or harryhausened statues.
Easily the worst of the film series by Bramton1	Jul 11th, 2007 05:12:37 PM
First off, I've read and re-read and re-re-read all the books. I got each of the last two books at midnight and am planning to do live blogging from my local Borders at this book's release. I own all four movies, love them all, but clearly place 3 and 4 ahead of 1 and 2. But...I...just...did...not...l ike...this...one. How do you manage to take the longer book and turn it into the shortest movie? The entire movie just felt rushed as hell. I felt that one minute in, when Dudley is taunting Harry while Dudley's gang is taunting. Dudley isn't brave enough to taunt Harry. It said so in the book. He only did because Harry kept egging him on. Meanwhile Uncle Vernon looked like he was constipated in his brief appearance. The rest of the movie was "let's see how fast we can fly through this stuff in order to keep the runtime down." It was just rush, rush, rush for almost the whole movie. When the story was allowed to slow down, it was great. Loved the Ministry of Magic sequence at the end, especially the battle for Harry's mind. Fortunately, not as much really happens in Half-Blood Prince, so Yates shouldn't have to rush through that one. I'm going to need to watch Azkaban or Goblet to make up for this one. My rankings are Azkaban, Goblet, Sorcerer's, Chamber, Order.
Oldman scenes by deadshot07	Jul 11th, 2007 05:45:10 PM
that got me the most is where he was talking to Harry in front of the family tree and when they are both fighting the death eaters and he says "Good shot James." Good stuff.
Extneded cuts? by Judge Briggs	Jul 11th, 2007 07:59:45 PM
Why wouldn't WB go the route of New Line and release 2 versions... the theatrical and the extended cuts? I would eat em up as would other fans! Stupids.
I really enjoy Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore... by FuzzyWhisper	Jul 11th, 2007 08:55:18 PM
...because of the incredible physicality he brings to the role. Richard Harris is pitch perfect in the first two films, but as masterful as his performance is, I've always felt it lacked the vigor that's so apparent in the Dumbledore of the books. Harris seems to play a classical wizard whose wisdom compensates for his evident frailty. Though this is by no means disloyal to the source material, the original character has at least one additional dimension. Michael Gambon as Dumbledore moves like a man less than a third his age, as though senescence hasn't affected him in the least. He makes me believe he could wield devastating power, and in the finale of this movie he proves it. He is, as Rowling wrote him, a legend brought to life: keen of mind, as only someone of great experience can be, yet spry and capable as practically any younger rival. It's a true pity we'll never have the opportunity to see Richard Harris' performance evolve (I'm sure it would have grown more brilliant with each new cinematic episode), but as it stands I'm more than satisfied with Gambon. He may lack the rapport that Harris' Dumbledore so readily established with Harry, but I'm certain that in Half-Blood Prince he will make up for it.
i agree by occula	Jul 11th, 2007 10:14:20 PM
the moment when dumbledore comes leaping out into the schoolyard, i thought, 'man this guy has this character down.' harris was a beautiful actor but his frailty would have been his undoing.
Get Andrew Davies to write the screenplay for 6 by Sepulchrave	Jul 12th, 2007 01:19:13 AM
Now THERE'S someone who can construct a plot arc, short or long, and load meaning into a syllable for actors to play with. Yates has done brilliant work with him before and he's the KING of the adult literary adaptation.
these thought match mine (Harry sucks) by future help	Jul 12th, 2007 08:43:31 AM
Truth be told, I’ve had to really sit and think about why films like “Potter” series haven’t won 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

Talkbacks

Quint trades jinxes and charms with HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX!!!