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

Moriarty Sees POTTER Twice! Once In IMAX 3D!

Awesome Review by Chilli815	Jul 11th, 2007 05:43:22 AM
Can't wait to see this.
can The Borg assimilate Harry Potter? by Boomers_Lips	Jul 11th, 2007 05:50:48 AM
well, what would happen if they assimilated everyone at Hogwarts?
Finally! by SUPERJIM	Jul 11th, 2007 05:51:10 AM
A Potter review, now where is Quint's....?
I wonder if in sitcoms, 20 years from now... by DerLanghaarige	Jul 11th, 2007 05:52:36 AM
...Daniel Radcliffe & Co. will have guest appereances in which they poke fun at themself as the Potter kids. Hey, it happened to the Star Trek Crew, Adam West, Mark Hamill, so why not to them?
Isn't Captivity coming out on Friday? by tonagan	Jul 11th, 2007 05:52:57 AM
Someone should write about that.
Dismissing the IMAX experience Mori.. by SUPERJIM	Jul 11th, 2007 06:01:15 AM
As I (and a lot of other people) do not have access to an IMAX cinema. How does it rank alongside the last 2 movies? Goblet has been my favorite so far, but probably because I am a huge fan of the books and it was the the best cross of a big screen spectacle and faithful adaptation out of the bunch. I understand that Azkaban was yours? Wheredoes this one stand?
Goblet was the only decent Potter flick by the scream	Jul 11th, 2007 06:08:38 AM
The first two were boring. The third one was ok. Goblet was the only one that had an interesting plot.
I saw the IMAX version... by HobbesIsATiger	Jul 11th, 2007 06:13:32 AM
...and posted my freview to the site on Monday, but they didn't pick it up. I thought the IMAX scenes were good, but not too sure if they added a great deal to the experience. I've not seen it on a normal screen yet so I should reserve judgement. This is by far the best in the series so far though.
Will Harry & Mori give analysis to Die Hard & Hairspray by BDuncan	Jul 11th, 2007 06:16:02 AM
I know the new Die Hard film isn't all that great, but is there any chance Harry and Moriarty can give their analysis on the Hairspray film opening this week and also on Die Hard 4, saying what they liked / disliked about DH4 and / or what it should've done a lot better about it, as I don't think their DH4 reviews for it have been posted yet.
WeinerPenis by HobbesIsATiger	Jul 11th, 2007 06:24:04 AM
The Imax scenes are about 20 minutes close to the end of the film
Good review Mori, I think each book and subsequent film by Yeti	Jul 11th, 2007 06:26:11 AM
Amps everything up. Hope #7 can live up to the hype that's been created by interest.
IMAX 3D it is! by Barry Egan	Jul 11th, 2007 06:32:42 AM
Thanks Mori, I will see this in IMAX at Universal tomorrow.
IMAX 3D it is! by Barry Egan	Jul 11th, 2007 06:32:45 AM
Thanks Mori, I will see this in IMAX at Universal tomorrow.
Good to hear Yates apparently did a good job by just pillow talk	Jul 11th, 2007 06:34:44 AM
since he's hooked up for the next one as well.
Great review by alfiemoon	Jul 11th, 2007 06:34:54 AM
Moriarty again shows why he's the best writer on this site. Great review. Looking forward to this.
The problem with Order of the Pheonix SPOILERS by Leopold Scotch	Jul 11th, 2007 06:40:42 AM
It's definitely one of the books I enjoyed least, mainly because of three things (SPOILERS): 1)The revelation of the prophesy. I think the sequence was well written and it finally gave the series the absolute purpose, the objective of its resolution (plus the subsequent philosophical points regarding how Harry and Voldemort deal with the prophesy are pretty cool), but we'd been waiting for five books to discover why Voldemort killed Harry's parents and tried to kill Harry, and I thought the answer could have been better. 2)When Rowling killed off Sirius, I was pissed off because he was one of the most interesting characters and didn't get enough time in the series (the third book was entirely about him, then the fourth book almost entirely ignored him, then the fifth book makes him a whiney brat. I mean fair enough, we're meant to feel the untimeliness of his departure, but it was a waste of a great character who could have been used much better. 3)Just how seemingly pointless the bulk of the book actually was. You could strip down the book to the parts that were essential to the series and get nothing more than a short story. I think there could have been six books, and she could have inserted the prophesy into one of the other books (and even allowed Sirius to live until the seventh book). I think on of the main problems is that there have only been a couple of chapters in the entire series where Harry isn't present. It would have been pretty cool, I think, to have read a few chapters through Sirius before he got killed off, just to make his character stronger and, just as importantly, relevant. Same goes for Dumbledore: just a couple of chapters to show what he actually does when he's not sitting in his office, and to establish how goddamn kick ass he actually is.
Oh and a fourth problem SPOILERS by Leopold Scotch	Jul 11th, 2007 06:48:52 AM
4)Umbrige is a strong character, (and this is a testament to how well written she was) but I was actually gettin extremely pissed off by her in every chapter she was in. On a positive note, it means Rowling knew what she was doing in creating such an effective character, but I just felt she never got the payoff she deserved. It would have been cool to see Dumbledore given full licence to act in retaliation to what she did to McGonagall and Hagrid (and the school in general) and just absolutely let rip on her. So her character was so fucking effective that it almost ruined the whole book for me.
Good review, Mori by newc0253	Jul 11th, 2007 07:19:57 AM
I completely agree btw about Goblet of Fire's 'lack of chemistry'. I've never been as disappointed in a Mike Newell film as i was with Goblet of Fire, especially after what Cuaron acheived with Prisoner of Azkaban.
Saw the midnight show last night by The Rondo Hatton Blues Explosion	Jul 11th, 2007 07:21:06 AM
Best one yet. Yep.
Also... by The Rondo Hatton Blues Explosion	Jul 11th, 2007 07:29:01 AM
Imelda Staunton was brilliant casting. As much as I disliked Umbridge in the book, the sadistic, power-mad psychopath on the screen seriously creeped me the fuck out on film.
Leopold Scotch - Spoilers by SUPERJIM	Jul 11th, 2007 07:32:20 AM
I agree with most of your comments. However, I think that Rowling shows a lot of characters, such as Dumbledore, without leaving the point of view of Harry. For example at the end of 5 and all the way through 6, she shows just how clever and kick ass he actually is. Also, Umbridge is still kicking about isn't she? I'm hoping that Harry gets to jinx her to death in book 7. Bring on book 7!
JUST HOOK IT TO MY VEINS!! by Russman	Jul 11th, 2007 07:36:48 AM
Sorry, Barney's quote just had to be used after reading that review.
Oh yeah, something is gonna happen to Umbridge by Frijole	Jul 11th, 2007 07:40:01 AM
She showed up at uh, Spoiler? Dumbledore's funeral at the end of HBP. She's got a serious hurt coming to her still...
Yeah Superjim by Leopold Scotch	Jul 11th, 2007 07:41:48 AM
I can think of some cool moments, but I get the impression that Dumbledore is written as this character who Harry doesn't actually know that much about, and that there's so much cool stuff in his past and when he's not in Harry's presence which is deliberately left unsaid. I'd maybe just have preferred a couple of examples somewhere in the seven books, where the reader is present at some kind of major moment which defines him as the most powerful wizard in the world (duelling with Voldemort is one of very few examples which already exist). SPOILERS One thing I forgot to say about Sirius, is that there appears to be no real consequence of his death. Sure Harry is a bit more sad and stuff, but where is the impact on the plot? I hope in book seven, we get some kind of contribution to the plot regarding his death.
Moriarty, your first statement is the rub by cyrent	Jul 11th, 2007 07:52:53 AM
I'll agree with the first thing you said. I'm glad that I think the next movie is going to be so awesome... but I'm bothered that the most exciting thing about this movie is the prospect of the next one, and that nothing in this movie clicked well enough to actually supercede that. This film could have gone from ok to great with 30 or 40 more minutes of screentime to flesh out everything that they flew right on by.
David Yates is the man... by hallowhitch31	Jul 11th, 2007 07:55:34 AM
This is hands-down the best Potter film since 'Azkaban'. makes 'Goblet' a distant memory (though I thoroughly enjoyed the last 20 minutes of that film, thanks to Fiennes). Also, Hooper's score for 'Order' is on par, if not better than Williams' 'Azkaban' soundtrack. Well done. Great review, Drew.
Leopold Scotch by jimbojones123	Jul 11th, 2007 07:55:54 AM
The only point I agree with was the length. They don't get to Hogwarts until 250 pages in. The whole thing seems like a test in patience. Besides that your arguements are kinda dumb. I guess Rowling got exactly what she wanted out of you with each point. She WANTED you to want more Sirius. She WANTED you to have a payoff for Umbridge. Punishment??? really wouldn't fit the theme of the series. The prophecy is one of the KEY POINTS in the series. Sorry if it wasn't good enough for you -- whatever that means. Who needs an oaf of a mentor in Hagrid who seems to bumble his way into doing everything wrong?? Why isn't Dumbledore PERFECT?? Why does the school have the Triwizard Tourney w/a school who's top guy is a Death Eater NOT ON DUMBLEDORE'S SIDE?? Sometimes plots don't go the way YOU think they should. Go find out what happens to Anakin Solo in the NJO series -- then tell me how characters in SOMEBODY ELSES creation should be handled. Sorry if Rowling didn't CATER TO YOU -- but each of those decisions (except length of book) were very calculated. They each got an emotional response from you -- thus successful. If you think you can write it better -- have fun posting you fanfic on your own website. Bet it won't make too much money though -- stupid copyright laws huh.
Mori has chosen IMAX 3D, and here's why: by Dwide Shrewd	Jul 11th, 2007 08:16:24 AM
They pay him well. We almost got a review of the film mixed in around the shilling. How refreshing.
CHILDREN OF FUCKING MEN!!! by PwnedByStallone	Jul 11th, 2007 08:19:39 AM
Azkaban rules!
CHILDREN OF FUCKING MUGGLES!!! by PwnedByStallone	Jul 11th, 2007 08:20:26 AM
I said it.
Upper Class? by Sulis	Jul 11th, 2007 08:27:35 AM
If Mori's referring to the Dursleys, no way are they upper class. Lower middle, in fact. Not that this is an issue any more, of course.
"Moriarty Sees POTTER Twice!" by Trazadone	Jul 11th, 2007 08:31:49 AM
Moriarty has too much fucking time on his hands.
now i have to see it twice by TAF	Jul 11th, 2007 08:33:29 AM
i've seen each harry potter movie twice in theaters but this time i was only going to see it once. we already have out tickets for this afternoon but after this review, i know i'll need to see it a second time in imax 3-d. thanks for the recommendation.
Big,fat COOLIO by Col. Tigh-Fighter	Jul 11th, 2007 08:37:32 AM
I want me some Pottah!! When I finished readong book 5, I instantly re-read the last 150 pages again because it was soooo exciting. Right from the Thestral journey!! Just as Mori said!! :) "Never said an Unforgivable curse before, have you Potter? You've got to really mean it. Really want to cause the other person pain. CRUCIO!"
Sulis by lazy	Jul 11th, 2007 09:08:57 AM
he is referring to the death eaters/ Voldemort's supporters like the Malfoys and the Blacks.
Is the reason this movie is so short... by Osmosis Jones	Jul 11th, 2007 09:12:02 AM
...because IMAX can't show movies longer than two hours...?
IMAX length no longer a problem by geekzapoppin	Jul 11th, 2007 09:22:00 AM
It hasn't been for some time. The 3D was actually done as an afterthought, like SUPERMAN RETURNS. The scenes weren't shot in 3D. They were digitally converted after the fact. It works, sort of, but is still a pimple on the ass of true 3D. AVATAR, however, is being shot in 3D.
Only Steps Away...... by SamBlackChvrch21	Jul 11th, 2007 09:34:24 AM
From the Heavy Hitting franchises like Spider-Man, Shrek or Tranformers to shift to fully 3-D sequels, much like this.
Still Waiting... by kbass	Jul 11th, 2007 09:34:42 AM
for Moriarty to review "Live Free Or Die Hard" and for him to tell me that's not REALLY Bruce Willis on the screen. To trust him..that he would know if that was REALLY Bruce Willis.
To those who haven't read the books, by Automaton Overlord	Jul 11th, 2007 09:35:52 AM
..and have not yet decided whether to see this or not; Keep in mind the first book was written for 11 year olds and each following book is written for a audience 1 year older than the previous. This is the one where the series' balls finaly drop!
The Last Temptation of Tonks by DOGSOUP	Jul 11th, 2007 09:38:57 AM
The Sex. I'm telling you. All two Minutes. I'll say something different when I finally see the movie tonight.
Is the 3D better implemented in Superman Returns? by kiddae	Jul 11th, 2007 10:12:11 AM
Because that was mostly blurry and crappy. Also, my girlfriend is epilleptic so I don't want her to get mad at me for dragging her to the goofy 3D version. DETAILS PLZ.
better implemented THAN Superman Returns. by kiddae	Jul 11th, 2007 10:13:17 AM
Also, "epileptic".
Not really a review... by El Scorcho	Jul 11th, 2007 10:36:32 AM
Just Mori splooging on 3D and David Yates, neither of which excite me in the least. So, how was the actual movie?
I'm the reason they call her moaning mertle by Turd Furgeson	Jul 11th, 2007 10:41:04 AM
Oh yeah!!!!!!!!! Saw the midnight show, and loved it! The acting chemistry was second to none for this series.. See it, it's very good.
One review for all Potter movies by Heckles	Jul 11th, 2007 11:22:43 AM
Potter is in his shitty normal life. He goes to that magic school for British dorks. New teacher. Alan Rickman gives him shit. Oldie in the pointy hat is wise. Potter plays that lame broom-basketball game. Something wacky is afoot. Potter and his shit disturbing friends investigate and outsmart every adult there. The friends prove useless in the final battle against the main bad guy whose punk ass name no one says but the rebelious Potter kid. The end. Rowling makes another truckload of money and I never see $9.50 again.
Finally, Heckles by Mattyboy122	Jul 11th, 2007 11:44:16 AM
Somebody has the balls to say that the Harry Potter stories are ridiculously repetitive. It's like JK Rowling ate a bunch of better ideas, shat them out onto two pieces of buttered sourdough and fed it to you. Naturally, you vomit after the meal, but then she scoops the vomit up and feeds it to you six more times. Oh yeah, and you're paying to have her feed this to you and she's laughing all the way to the bank.
Hey now, they're not all the same by And Nicolas Cage as Fu Manchu	Jul 11th, 2007 12:00:06 PM
Voldemort didn't show up in Azkaban.
Quick question Heckles and Mattyboy122 by Trazadone	Jul 11th, 2007 12:06:59 PM
For two people who summarily dismiss Rowling's work, it sure sounds like you've either read all the books or seen all the movies. Either way you seem to be complaining about something you participate in. If you didn't like the first book or film, why on Earth would you read or watch any of the others?
Well Trazadone I've never read the books by Mattyboy122	Jul 11th, 2007 12:12:25 PM
But I've seen the movies (and I'm assuming the films follow the same formula as the books). Why, you ask? Well, family from out of state was visiting and forced me to see the first flick in theatres, I saw the second flick at school (and on TV afterward), I've only seen bits and pieces of the third, which I understand is regarded as the best (the ending, which I've seen, is positively God-awful, though), and I work at a video store where I've seen the fourth film.
Were These Scenes Filmed With IMAX3D Cameras by topaz4206	Jul 11th, 2007 12:14:39 PM
Because I will not be duped again by another Viewmaster 2.5D experience like Superman Returns.
So what you're saying, Mattyboy122... by Trazadone	Jul 11th, 2007 12:22:48 PM
...is try as you might to avoid these films, you keep "accidentally" watching them? I feel for you, man, if you really dislike them that much.
Sorry guys, but an element of repetition by Frijole	Jul 11th, 2007 12:23:05 PM
is the basis of most episodic story-telling. And while there ARE similarities to the structures of each of the books/ movies, the details are what keeps bringing the people back. The grand sweeps may remain somewhat consistent, but the characters themselves change and evolve drastically with each installment. In addition new mysteries are introuduced, some solved in a single installment... some building and building upon their layers to whatever will be the big climax of it all come next week. Basically what I'm saying is that although each book/ movie DOES share structural elements with its siblings (even as part of a larger story, each one still needs to have a self contained beginning, middle and end)they are all actually VERY different from one another in tone, characterization, maturity, introductions/deaths, main plots, sub-plots etc...
And that is like saying that every Bond movie is by Frijole	Jul 11th, 2007 12:27:01 PM
the same... because they almost all 1)start out with the climax of an often unrelated mission 2) have him meet a new good girl, a new bad girl and nail them both 3) introduce a megalomaniac with visions of world domination (with the same one popping up a few times) 4) have bond captured, then he escapes and then finally overcomes the villain 5) and end with him about to poke another woman. Yes, there are some major similarities in each one, but the differences are what makes each one unique.
Imax and 3d by 300spartansinhell	Jul 11th, 2007 12:31:54 PM
As if I´m not excited enough with all the possiblities of the 3d technlogy, now your review left me no doubt. Plane ticket to London booked for Imax show next month.
Don't take it personally, Matty... by Kid Vorpal	Jul 11th, 2007 12:32:07 PM
...if you'd said you'd never seen the movies or read the books, they'd just get on you for criticizing them without having seen them. You just can't win sometimes.
"You just can't win sometimes"? by Trazadone	Jul 11th, 2007 12:42:09 PM
So what you're saying, Kid Vorpal, is that Matty SHOULD criticize something that he's never read or watched? Of course we'd "get on him for that" if that were the case. That's like those idiot religious nuts who protested the Da Vinci Code without seeing it.
3D it is then... by Saluki	Jul 11th, 2007 12:45:12 PM
... You've convinced me to see this one again in 3D much earlier than I had intended.
Alright Jimbob by Leopold Scotch	Jul 11th, 2007 12:46:48 PM
I was only commenting on why I thought the fifth book was my least favourite. So the fact that I'm not a professional writer means that I'm not allowed to comment on what I thought was wrong with it? So what's the point of these talkbacks again? The fact is that we left book three uplifted by the coolness and the prospects of this character, Sirius, and I don't give two shits if Rowling MEANT it when Harry's anger at not getting to know/see more of him is paralleled with ours. She could have also MEANT it if we read in the seventh book that it was all a friggin dream, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea and that, furthermore, just because her fans don't enjoy the same success as her that she is exempt from their criticisms. Dumbledore and Sirius are two examples of characters who are often referred to as brilliant and powerful by other characters, but there are only a tiny handful of moments in the entire series which testify to such statements (every other example is just someone SAYING that they're powerful and brilliant). That is my main problem as we go into the final book (which I'm really looking forward to) without the two characters who could have potentially kicked more ass than we ever got to see. Incidentally, you began your post with a book five criticism of your own before shooting me down for the arguments I made. I don't think it's me who's being unreasonable.
Why watch it even once? by JackPumpkinhead	Jul 11th, 2007 12:49:22 PM
Or was it pay-per-view, i.e., "you watch it, we pay you"? Then I might consider watching Harry Pooper, too.
Umm by Mattyboy122	Jul 11th, 2007 12:51:19 PM
Every Bond movie practically is the same. You almost always never leave a Bond movie with James a changed person (Casino Royale thankfully being a step in the right direction). And Trazadone, trust me, I haven't sought out these films. I mean, isn't it ironic that the one film in the series I might like to see is the one I haven't seen? That should be enough proof that I'm not some closet Potter fan or something. But yeah, I have no distaste for Potter on any moral levels (the religious folks who think the books are satanic are idiotic); one of my favorite books/films is The Last Temptation of Christ and we all know how that went over in the Christian community. But at any rate, my problem with the Potter series is mainly that I think the films aren't any good. I've never read the books so I can't comment on them with certainty, but the films (to me, anyway) are almost uniformly bland (especially the first two, though I thought Branagh was great in the second flick). Goblet of Fire seemed a sort of shapeless film to me; nothing ever really built up in the film, it was just one scene on top of another (not to mention the TERRIBLE dance scene and the Stomp: Wizards in Training Edition bit).
How book 7 will end by Trazadone	Jul 11th, 2007 12:52:28 PM
The final chapter will take place in the future, Hermione will be the new Headmaster and Harry will be the Defense of the Dark Arts teacher.
Mattyboy by Trazadone	Jul 11th, 2007 12:56:33 PM
We're not that far apart on our opinions of the film series. All the movies are too long and although there are glimmers of the magic that Rowling captures in her novels, they don't come close to being as good as the original source material. I would never have read a single Potter book if an old bitty relative hadn't given them to me for X-Mas one year and I felt like I had to read at least one to get her off my back. I was completely addicted after finishing it. Give them a shot some time, you might be surprised too.
amy winehouse kills padfoot story at 11 by MrQuick	Jul 11th, 2007 01:16:28 PM
I thought it was easily the worst installment in the series. Despite the changing of certain important events and the omission of others (which really are petty charges for a 2.10hr movie based on a 900 page book) This movie lacked any sort of flow. It was primarily a series of 30 second to 1min scenes that never really amounted to any sort of emotional substance. The plot was driven by the non contiguous pieces of exposition. Often regarding something that just happened in the previous scene however as there lacked any sort of continuity between the scenes the audience needs a rather staunch pep talk as to why the current scene is taking place and perhaps what was missed from the last uninteresting interaction between the characters. "oh harry my parents were killed by beatrix lestrange....we will make them proud of us...” honestly like a 30second scene that has absolutely zero bearing on the scene prior or after. The fireplace scene where the children sit around and laugh like jackasses after discussing the kiss with cho…Even the scene where uh Padfoot looks behind the veil has the emotional weight of you killed kenny, you bastard!"
CAN'T WAIT FOR HARRY POTTER by BringingSexyBack	Jul 11th, 2007 01:27:01 PM
Thanks for the review Mori. This will be the only great movie of Summer 07, next to SICKO.
Rowlings has admitted to writer's block on book 5 by Trazadone	Jul 11th, 2007 01:29:22 PM
and it really shows. As other posters have noted, this installment is disjointed and lacks cohesion. As someone wrote above, they don't even get to the damn school until 250 pages in! The last 150 pages or so are excellent but I was disappointed in the rest of it. Book 6 was fantastic though and I'm certain it'll make a great film.
IMAX 3d vs Disney Digital 3d (Real D) by homer40	Jul 11th, 2007 01:34:58 PM
I have to say that the Disney digital 3d process is much better than IMAX. I've seen a few IMAX 3d movies and even though they were impressive, they still brought about some eye strain. Even that crappy Superman movie, which only had a few minutes of 3D, put a major strain on the brain. The Disney process, which is totally different, works perfectly. Even with a whole movie in 3d you never get tired eyes or a headache. It also does a better job of conveying depth perception than IMAX. I'm not bashing IMAX, which is a great format, but I acutually prefer IMAX not in 3d. If you have missed it, make sure to see Nightmare Before Christmas 3D, and you will see the movie that Burton always imagined. Even though the film was not shot in 3D, the sets were always three dimensional, and it works great. Meet The Robinsons (which I actually liked as a movie) had the 3D process in mind from the start, and it is absolutely amazing how good the technology is. For some other great 3D, go to Disney World and see Mickey's Philharmagic. It is sort of a compendium of many great Disney moments and is projected on a GIANT screen with amazing surround sound and other immersive effects. There is a scene where Ariel reaches out of the screen that has to be seen to be believed, as well as a stunning flying carpet trip from Aladin. Looking back I remember watching Captain Eo (with Michael Jackson) directed by Coppola. The very opening was a meteor which just fucking floated in front of your face. It seemed like it was inches away, and then got blasted by a laser. Wow, that was great. In a much lesser way, the arrow sequence in Friday the 13th 3D was awesome. Also, before Meet the Robinsons, they showed a 3d Donald Duck short that was fucking great. I think it was an old movie that they adapted to three dimensions, but it felt like that is how cartoons were always meant to be seen. And no, I don't work for Disney. The Real D process is just better than IMAX
Idiot religious nuts by homer40	Jul 11th, 2007 02:18:51 PM
"Idiot religious nuts" are not the only ones who attack things without seeing them. The liberal establishment attacks "right wing" movies and books just like the conservatives do. The conservative Christians might be better at it, because they seem to have excellent organizational skills. The liberals are to busy smoking pot and praising the devil to be bothered with actually writing the letter to the studio complaining about something. There was a movie this year, can't remember the name, about a basketball coach who prayed before each game, and that movie was basically attacked out of existence by God hating liberal dogs. Remember, the Da Vinci code had a huge release, nobody went to see it because it sucked. It was even worst than the book, which sucked. Check Netflix for movies against the war in Iraq. There has to be fifty documentaries about how much Bush sucks. The point being that the media is not controlled by right wing religious nut jobs. It is controlled by left wing nut jobs. Even Fox News, the supposed bastion of conservatism, has 80% of its employees giving money to only Democratic candidates. Anybody who thinks that Republicans control the media has their head up their ass.
"liberals too busy smoking pot and praising the devil" by BringingSexyBack	Jul 11th, 2007 02:27:55 PM
And that's a bad thing? Shut the fuck up.
the films are consistantly done well by stvnhthr	Jul 11th, 2007 02:34:38 PM
I've tried to read every Harry Potter book and can not get past the first 50 pages, and I read at least a novel a week. The books have a huge audience, but I'm not one of them. On the other hand I've enjoyed every film and think the series does a splendid job of navigating several intertwining plotlines.
Oh, and by homer40	Jul 11th, 2007 02:35:21 PM
I waited in line for 3 hours in front of the Zigfield theatre to see the first showing of Last Temptation of Christ. Those of us waiting to see the film were a mellow group, and there we no fights with the protesters, though we did have some animated discussions. I agree that Last Temptation was a great film, which was unfortunately maligned as being anti-Christian when it was one of the most reverent films ever made about Jesus. Never once does that film question the divinity of Christ, or that he was the son of God, come to be sacrificed for our sins. Da Vinci Code, on the other hand, was a full out attack on the Catholic Church and on Christianity. I also don't agree that you necessarily have to read a book or see a movie to be against it. If Dreamworks announced that it was making a film that took the position that Hitler was right when he decided to kill six million Jews I wouldn't have to see the film to know that it was wrong. And it would my my right as an American to protest the making of the film, and to try to convince others not to put money in the pockets of the studio that made it. When the religious right attacks a movie and tries to convince a studio not to make it, or people not to see it, it is not censorship, it is the opposite of censorship. It is people exercising their right as Americans to express their own opinion.
Trazadone... yes, I have seen the movies by Heckles	Jul 11th, 2007 02:38:55 PM
And at their core they are very much alike. I suppose if you dig that formula then you are more prone to hang on the tertiary plot elements to see a bigger difference between movies. Each film takes you down a few small trails but the main Potter Yellow Brick Road always ends in Oz.
this film is GREAT! by all	Jul 11th, 2007 02:39:04 PM
Easily the smartest and best of the big summer flicks. I LOVE that Yates is doing HBP! Give him Hallows too! Gary Oldman owns this. I am obviously a gigantic nerd.
Lemme Guess by homer40	Jul 11th, 2007 02:39:45 PM
"Bringingsexyback" is a acne ridden obese loser, thirty years old, sitting in his mamma's basement eating candy bars and masturbating to the sex scenes from Grand Theft Auto? BTW, I've got nothing against smoking pot, which should be legal. I've been to over 200 Dead concerts, and I guarantee you, I didn't spend them reading my bible (I read it when I got home, stoned to the bone.)
...but did watch them by Heckles	Jul 11th, 2007 02:47:54 PM
Not trying to save face by justifying the 'why' or 'how' I checked these movies. Suffice to say between HBO, girlfriends and a buddy's kids, I've seen all these movies. Doesn't mean I have my wand at the ready to sprint and check this new one. To be honest, I'm sure I'll end up seeing it down the line. Doesn't matter though because I already know the plot (see above).
PwnedByStallone by gotilk	Jul 11th, 2007 02:51:06 PM
You got that right. That was the best of 'em.
the movie series is a cash cab or cow whatever by wcoop893	Jul 11th, 2007 03:09:47 PM
you call it, made only and purely for the money. i wouldnt know, but i hear from people this latest movie misses a lot of what the book was about. oh, and i dont like the movies. they all seem the same
wow by Halfbreedqueen	Jul 11th, 2007 03:28:10 PM
dunno how the convo on Jesus started. just gotta add my two cents. One, Last Temptation was an incredible film that wasn't anti-Christian (all the stuff with the wife was a vision, it was the devil's temptation, perhaps, say, the LAST temptation, and it showed how the sacrifice was HIS choice, not something that was destined to happen and which he just went through the motions for.) and to whoever said "Remember, the Da Vinci code had a huge release, nobody went to see it because it sucked." Hahaha, I thought the movie was crap but it made a shit load of money. Like 70+ mil opening, made almost 800 mil worldwide. the movie was huge, and the book as far as money was a phenom.
Amazing by MrQuick	Jul 11th, 2007 03:30:04 PM
honestly is the knee jerk potter defense saving this movie critically? Imo let Guillermo del Toro do the next one.
WCOOP by Frijole	Jul 11th, 2007 03:36:30 PM
Is there any big-budget Hollywood movie that ISN'T made for the money? Movies are a BUSINESS. That doesn't mean that art cannot come out of commerce and despite what you or others think of the movies. They are surefire moneymakers and as such could be spit out with FAR less care and heart than they are and still make boatloads of money. You sound like an Anti-Flag fan. Are you an Anti-Flag fan?
DaVinci dollars by homer40	Jul 11th, 2007 03:39:56 PM
The fact that the movie made money is just more proof that the "religious right" doesn't control anything. BTW, this started with a post referring to the "idiot religious nuts". I hate the Potter books, but have enjoyed all the films, particularly the last one, was it "Goblet of Fire"? I can't wait to see the new one. Now if I can just find time to fit in the new Scott Baio reality series about his newfound sexual abstinence.
I really disliked this movie by CherryValance	Jul 11th, 2007 03:45:56 PM
I thought this was the best book, and it might be the worst film. I think the problem has to be David Yates although I haven't seen anything else he's done, who else could it have been? I don't get why everyone else loves it. I thought Hogwarts looked grimy and nasty. It was so dark you could barely see anything. The music was intrusive. Most of the characters were kicked to the curb. And the only great part was when Ralph showed up, which was incredibly brief. I even thought Gary Oldman phoned it in and it was a quick call too. I think this movie is poor. Utter disappointment.
Exciting to think what he'll do with Half-Blood Prince? by Jack_Crap	Jul 11th, 2007 04:12:09 PM
Then he must have done a great job with this movie because "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is far and away the worst book of the series. VERY predictable riddle on who is the Half-Blood Prince, VERY little Hogwarts action, VERY boring Voldemort flashbacks, VERY disappointing ending... but I won't ruin it for people who only want to watch the movies. Of course, that moment won't have nearly as much drama since they cast the wrong actor for the part.
Really Jack? by Frijole	Jul 11th, 2007 04:17:38 PM
I thought the Voldemort pensieve scenes were fascinating. Slughorn is a great character. Harry shunning the new Minister and all the students getting horny. Plus from the moment Harry and Dumbledore walk into that cave until what we all know happens... err... happens... just non-stop drama, horror and action. Sure who the HBP was was easy to spot early on, but even with that in mind. I think it stands up next to Azkaban as the leanest, meanest one of the books.
Wasn't this book 800 pages? by Heckles	Jul 11th, 2007 04:19:49 PM
Hard to cram such huge pile of Potter plots into a 2 - 2/12 hour movie. On a side note, what the fuck doesn't make it into these books? Is there an editor involved at all? Hate to see what doesn't make the final cut. At the very least it seems better than that greasy turd about some dragon queeer battling Malkovich and an original story.
Out of the Park Home Run! Grand Slam, even... by Kentucky Colonel	Jul 11th, 2007 04:20:39 PM
And the best part? Hermionie's caterpillar eyebrows in check. There were a few times they were itchin to fly free, but aces on your restraint, Emma. The worst part? Grawp's animation. Jeeze, the MCP from TRON was more life-like! I'd like to see a 10 hour cut of this flick on DVD. Bye for now!
cramming things to make room is one thing.. by MrQuick	Jul 11th, 2007 04:22:23 PM
Omitting a a new Teacher and changing the individual responsible for giving up the room is inexcusable (in terms of of content issues)
IMAX PORNO THEATRES! by tibbr08	Jul 11th, 2007 04:27:08 PM
NOW PLAYING! JOHN HOLMES: THAT SILENT KILLER: IN 3D.
Frijole by Jack_Crap	Jul 11th, 2007 04:35:48 PM
I know Harry Potter fans will defend book six, and I guess I would consider myself one of them, but that was the first Rowling novel to disappoint me. Hey, we all have our own opinions, but I have yet to read a fictional series that goes beyond books 3-4 that doesn't lose some of its original brilliance. Just like many popular TV shows, sometimes authors just need to wrap it up.
Right on, Jack. by Frijole	Jul 11th, 2007 04:46:47 PM
To each his own. I do think there is some fat in the book (but I love it all, so Rowling could add a whole chapter about visiting a Butterbeer distillery and I'd read it and re-read it again) so I think, much like OOTP, that HBP will actually benefit from the cuts needed in its adaptation to movie. I also think that the last third of the book is probably the most cinematic of the whole series to date. I've read the full novel 3 or 4 time, but I've read that last third at least twice that.
Glad to hear Hermionies eyebrows are more mellow. by FILMFUNK	Jul 11th, 2007 05:04:11 PM
They had a life of their own in one of the films I saw and really began to piss me off whenever she appeared and started acting with her forehead! still wont watch this though even on IMAX.
Emma Watsons English Muffin... by conspiracy	Jul 11th, 2007 05:08:17 PM
and wonderful 17yr old, barely legal nublins....are THEY in 3D? Also, is the 3D so good you can almost reach out and lick her eyebrows?
Hmmmm.... by superninja	Jul 11th, 2007 05:09:09 PM
Sounds good.
homer40 - what an original comeback by BringingSexyBack	Jul 11th, 2007 06:15:30 PM
You should copyright it before it spreads to worldwide popularity.
3D gives me a massive Headache by J Skell	Jul 11th, 2007 07:07:12 PM
Really. It's awful, and I can't understand it. I really wish I could watch movies in 3D.
Potter... by micturatingbenjamin	Jul 11th, 2007 07:12:51 PM
This movie is better than the source material. Order of the Phoenix is, on the surface, a great idea for a novel. Potter gets to finally get involved in the events that shape every moment of his life. But Rowling decides to prolong the anger and holding pattern in the book and offers up several threads that really don't seem to have a payoff. Moreover, Potter is a bit of a little bitch in the book. I have to say I like Movie Potter better than Book Potter. In the book he's a dummy. In the movies, he's canny and prescient. Christ, I understand that as her fans who read the orginial books grow, they might feel the same way these kids do in the books, and in that way, it's very cool for her to do that. This flick does justice to a kid's book, and cuts out all of the stuff that makes Order of the Phoenix a tough read for even the most die hard Potter fan. In short, bravo! Saw it last night, and it's worth your money to go see it. My favorite of the series, because of how badass the Order is at the end. Mad Eye Moody got applause at our theater both times he's featured on screen, and the Grawp scenes were well done, and I find it interesting that the tone of this guy is much different than the character in the book, and that's a good thing. This came out like a Danny Boyle version of a kid's movie basically. The camera moves are verite, and not disorienting. Moriarty is very correct on this one. Kicked ass.
homer by Halfbreedqueen	Jul 11th, 2007 07:24:32 PM
I'm confused. It sounded like earlier you were saying, it got so much press cause the evil liberal Jews were behind it and giving it exposure, but once it came out REAL people had no interest in it because liberals just control the media, not make up a major portion of the country. hmm... and it's not even a liberal book. it's just fastfood reading. anyways, you sound like somewhat of an idiot. "That stuff was offensive and liberals are evil but I smoke pot so HAHA the stereotype doesn't work for me!" ok so ur a pothead jesus freak. good job, that makes me REALLY want to listen to your intellectual brilliance. so tell me about Jesus, mannnn.
Azkaban gets more credit than it deserves by Gheorghe Zamfir	Jul 11th, 2007 09:30:44 PM
Cause everyone's so excited to rally around Cuaron. Which isn't to say its good, it's miles above the first two films, visually the best looking of the series but plot wise its a little murky and exposition heavy, which makes it a little stale on repeat viewings. Surprised by the lukewarmness t Goblet of Fire though, the first two were watchable, Cuaron's I liked, Goblet was the first film of the series I really loved though, it wasn't until that one that I became really excited for these movies and where they're going.
Oops by Gheorghe Zamfir	Jul 11th, 2007 09:34:03 PM
Meant to say "Which isn't to say it ISN'T good," not trying to imply Azkaban was a bad film.
The book by lost.rules	Jul 11th, 2007 10:13:56 PM
Appreciate the technique, but Order was kinda of a let down. I'm surprised Yates turned it into a good movie. Really good.
Spoiler for book 7 by lost.rules	Jul 11th, 2007 10:33:43 PM
Harry kills Voldemort
I'm not sue how one can think this movie succeeds... by Joel@eeriepa	Jul 11th, 2007 10:50:10 PM
I would say David Yates has completely failed at understanding what this book was all about. He literally ignored the emotional core of the story, and gave us the high-speed chase version. How can the longest book equal the shortest movie? I would say that's some extremely lazy and disrespectful filmmaking. There are some details he gets so incredibly wrong that I wonder if he read the book at all. Sorry, Mori, I love ya, but the knowledge that Yates is signed up for Half-blood Prince is nothing short of terrifying.
Saw it today, NOT for casual viewers by dtpena	Jul 11th, 2007 11:16:54 PM
I don't think casual viewers will understand a bit of the movie, and would even daresay people that have seen the other four but haven't read the book would "get it" completely, there's too much left out and unexplained, mainly the "Lilly Potter's love saved Harry" plot. Seems like a mess to explain all in movie 6. On the other hand, the whole ministry of magic sequence was probably the best single action scene I've seen this year and in the series so far. Great to see wizards fighting and looking real, not guys playing with wands.
Books VS Films by mr_moppet_1973	Jul 11th, 2007 11:45:20 PM
I have a 7 year old boy who is only now able to read to the point of being able to start these books, my 10 year old has read them as have my wife and I. The films have allowed us all to be able to enjoy Harry Potter as a family and for that alone they should be praised
Agreed by lost.rules	Jul 12th, 2007 12:01:17 AM
I thought reading was dead in this country, before Harry Potter. Now, it seems like there's book stores everywhere. Love this franchise! So sad to see it go in a couple weeks. :(
Rowling's ORDER OF THE PHOENIX needed serious editing. by JonQuixote	Jul 12th, 2007 12:08:13 AM
And David Yates edited it. Good. Best movie of the series, and ORDER is easily the weakest book - a largely overwritten filler installment that gives us an unwelcome break from the wonderment. No mystery, no sports, most of the plot revolves around the Ministry basically acting stupid and illogical (aka dramatic busywork), and nothing at all new is introduced. It's a filler book, a middle child, and Yates cut out the crap and played up the action, the conflict, and the horror. This is a dark, taut movie and, like Mori, I can't wait for Yates' next kick at the cat.
JonQuixote by PirateEmery	Jul 12th, 2007 12:25:23 AM
You got it exactly correct. My sentiments almost word for word.
Book 5... by PirateEmery	Jul 12th, 2007 12:29:07 AM
...was easily my least favorite book. Emo-Harry beats out Emo-Spidey by a thousand light years: the book was awful to read. And there were bits in it that mortal minds cannot comprehend. I don't want to give anything away, but there was a part in end of the book that was a "what the fuck just happened?" from the readers. But the movie cements it. I was not struck with the same sadness when I read the book, because I didn't understand what just happened. Yates nailed the scene in question, and made it much more clear. So-and-so is DEAD. Now we best be getting over it. No possible way of coming back, as the opposite was thought by many readers.
Gheorghe Zamfir by PirateEmery	Jul 12th, 2007 01:08:03 AM
Well, if you won't imply it, then I will: Prisoner of Azkaban was a horrible movie.
This movie was fantastic. The wizard fight by superninja	Jul 12th, 2007 01:13:09 AM
at the end was excellent. Major improvement over the last.
Yeah, they cut the fat. As long as they are respectful by superninja	Jul 12th, 2007 01:19:02 AM
towards the source material, go be cinematic about it! Of course this film got the emotional core right, it just did not plod along with the hand-wringing. In fact it upped the ante in terms of making the danger seem more immediate. It was clear Harry was in emotional turmoil and conflicted throughout the entire film. This movie will bear out repeat viewings.
NAT TENA AS TONKS IS THE SEX by DOGSOUP	Jul 12th, 2007 02:00:46 AM
Yes I did indeed cream my pants when she was on screen. Rather embarrassing moment actually. The movie was Ok for the movies. I found the lack of Tonk disturbing though. Whatever reviewr wrote about hw they held book 5 upside down, shook it, and Luna Lovegood came out was right on the money. I actually missed the Asshole Harry fromt he book. I REALLY missed Greif-Stricken-Rage-Induced Harry in Dumbledore's Office at the end. It really seemed like cliff notes. And yes, Neville is the new Dobby. COME OUT NEVILLE!!! Oh, wrong book....
Does Harry do more than push over people with his wand? by CopOnTheEdge	Jul 12th, 2007 02:01:22 AM
Because that seems to be the only thing these kid wizards can do. Wave the wand, cause a blast and knock over their target. Wow. Of course, not having read the books, every Potter film has put me to sleep, but that's my cross to bear. Now go hump a ronto, geeks.
the first two potter films are my favorite by zooch	Jul 12th, 2007 02:13:26 AM
Probably because I'm a fan of the novels and they follow the books the closest. Also in Chris Columbus' films, you really believed these characters were experiencing this magical world right in front of them, while in the others the magic felt arbitrary. They also benefited greatly from the brilliant John Williams score that has been lacking since he left. That said, Order of the Phoenix is my favorite book, I love how dark it is, and how pissed off Harry is at his lot in life, and how much you love to hate Umbridge...not to mention the wizard-dueling finale. But as long as they don't use Goblet of Fire's "lets take out all the story, and make the action scenes go on far too long" formula, I'll be happy. Were the kids even in school during GoF? I forget. Who cares! on to the next tedious task!
JonQuixote did you read book 5? by zooch	Jul 12th, 2007 02:38:23 AM
or just watch the movie? No sports? I suppose "Weasley is King" means nothing to you. No mystery? I suppose the mysterious prophecy and the Voldemort using Sirius to set Harry up doesn't count? I thought stuff with the Ministry expanded the world quite a bit and Luna Lovegood, Firenze becomes a teacher, and Grawp introduced.
my thoughts match these thoughts: (Harry sucks) by future help	Jul 12th, 2007 08:38:14 AM
Truth be told, I’ve had to really sit and think about why films like “Potter” and the “Rings” series haven’t one me over. I think it’s due to numerous things… 1. I’m a fan of the old school blockbuster. The type of blockbuster that uses practical effects – like the “Indiana Jones” series – not something that’s 2 hours of special effects. I tend to tune out after watching back to back CGI after about twenty minutes. Personally, I find too much of that stuff takes you out of the movie. Granted, I know you probably couldn’t do a “Potter” movie without special effects… so it’s a bit of a catch-22…. But that’s just how I feel. 2. They’re too long. Nobody went and saw “Grindhouse” because it was too long? Fuck that, “Potter” is too long. The blockbusters I grew up with – sans “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” – were about 90 mins to two hours long… and that was plenty. Imagine sitting through a two-and-a-half hour “Ghostbusters” or a three-hour cut of “Young Sherlock Holmes”!? 3. There are too many dull bits. What the fuck was with that sequence where they play the sport? That stupid flying sport!? It went for about the length of a “Police Academy” movie! I could’ve ducked down to Target to buy socks and jocks for an hour and then returned to the movie and I would’ve missed nothing – Potter would still be flying around hitting that ball… or whatever the heck he was doing. 4. They’re so self-important. A little like the “Star Wars” prequels I guess. Their world is THE SHIT. The students at the school are THE SHIT. The old white-bearded professor is THE SHIT. Heck, Harry Potter probably rubs it to a picture of himself every night in the bathroom… the whole universe seems determined to remind you that it’s the smartest, most intellectual, most imaginative, most intriguing place to be. If the universe is so good and all you little magicians have so many powers…. Why catch a fuckin’ train to school every semester! I’d be teleporting my ass to school. Or maybe I just feel like a rejected member of the club. I dunno. One thing’s for sure, I don’t think I can fit in in this club. The ‘I hate Harry Potter’ Website may have nailed it on the head. They say they despise the series – though admit they’re good films – because they’ve seduced kids into thinking it’s the only fantasy book/film worth bothering with, and as a consequence, other goodies (like “Bridge to Terabithia”) get overlooked. “Okay, I don't really hate Harry, but I hate what Harry has become to the genre”, says the webmaster. “I've been an avid fantasy fan for as long as I can remember, having read literally hundreds of fantasy books. So, naturally when I first heard about a new book called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, I eagerly picked it up. I cracked it open and was prepared to be mesmerized. Unfortunately, that was not the case. The book was merely a knockoff of so many other, BETTER, fantasy novels. I can conceive how people might feel attachment to Harry Potter, supposing they have never read the quality fantasy novels that permeate the literary world. It's like loving McDonalds because you've never had lobster.” The site also noted, as I have, that the stories seem to not only get weaker as they go along - - - but they follow the same formula. “I have begrudgingly finished all six books and I have to say I disliked it more as the books went on. I started to notice a pattern in all the books: all the same lazy formulas, the same regurgitated plot points in every book, and the same useless tangents that don't relate to the rest of the book. People claim that these droll repetitions are part of the charm but it's just evidence that JK Rowling is out of touch with the roots she claims to have in the fantasy genre. After finishing the 6th book I felt lost in a sea of mediocrity, fueled by the Harry Potter craze that never seems to wane.”
Halfbreed queen by homer40	Jul 12th, 2007 09:01:02 AM
Its interesting, I don't remember ever referring to "Jews" in any of my posts. I guess you just added that in to inject anti-semitism into the discussion. My response was to someone who referred to the evil specter known as "idiot religious freaks". My point was that despite liberal mythology it is not the right that controls the media, but the left. I didn't even say it was bad. I did like your thing about my supposedly trying to escape the stereotype about Christians. Liberal ideology abhors stereotypes, unless it is the stereotypes they themselves promote. It is also interesting that when you pointed out my mistake about how much Da Vinci made, I immediately posted back and accepted the correction. I would disagree that Da Vinci is not a "liberal" book. True, it is just popcorn crap, but the hatred of religion, the desire to deny the divinity of Christ, to bring him down to our level, is a liberal ideology. Anyway, because I hate to disagree with a Halfbreed queen, I note that we agree that Da Vinci was both a poor book and worse film, and that Last Temptation of Christ was brilliant.
The Naming of Dumbledore's Army by DOGSOUP	Jul 12th, 2007 09:38:20 AM
Would have been a good scene too. Instead of you know, just assuming all the way until they get caught. Fuck it the last book comes out soon and that's where the REAL story is anyway.
Joel@eeriepa by CherryValance	Jul 12th, 2007 09:45:07 AM
I completely agree with you and I'm really surprised by the number of people who've read the book and don't see the movie as a quick collage of the action sequences. The book was very moody and really about Harry and Sirius and the Order and fleshed out what happened in the past. This movie was the adventures of Harry, Ron amd Hermione again. Even if you hadn't read the books I would think it would be for action junkies and people who couldn't give a rat's ass about the plot. Because the plot of this was 'Harry has nightmares about Voldemort so let's all make bunny patronuses'. I don't think the real menace of Voldemort infiltrating Harry's mind was shown properly. It had nothing to do with their connection, and just seemed like Voldie was a good mindreader. And the only reason anyone would know what was happening at all was because Snape flat out said so. So much of the the plot was explained by one line from one of the characters. Like Neville telling Harry what happened to his parents. That's what flashbacks should have been used for. Stuff we haven't already seen like Snape's memory of James but much longer. At the end of this movie viewers who aren't readers have no idea what things were like when Voldemort was thriving. Again they missed opportunities to make him as scary as he really is. He's just the bad guy who shows up at the end and waves his wand unsuccessfully.
Vader by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 10:57:31 AM
Dumbledore says the exact same line in the book and he does not fight. He casts a spell that knocks everyone down and disappears in a flash of light. Aside from adding Fawkes into the mix, this moment was near verbatim from the book.
Worst thing the movies have produced: by TheBlackSwan	Jul 12th, 2007 11:01:01 AM
is the movie Dumbledore. Michael Gambon may have one of the best voices ever, but the book Dumbledore only yelled once or twice in the series thus far and had a calm, God-inspired degree of empathy. He was always calm, goofy, and a genius in the wizarding world. When DD barked at the students about hurrying off to study when Trelawny was getting sacked, it pissed me right off. That's the antithesis of the real DD.
Maybe... by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 11:09:15 AM
But the pain you could read on his face immediately afterwards when Harry was calling to him and he had to pretend not to hear him was PURE DD.
friole by Director17	Jul 12th, 2007 11:17:26 AM
yeah...except the part where HE CASTS A FUCKING SPELL. If thats not fighting then what the hell is?
It's not a losing battle, anchorite... by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 11:18:01 AM
As many (if not more) people on here actually do agree with y'all. I'm just not one of them. Not entirely at least. As I said way earlier, I don't think Gambon is perfect. But I think he gets more right than he gets wrong- at least in line with MY interpretation of the character. If you could somehow meld his intensity and power with Harris' warmth... well then THAT would be the perfect Dumbledore.
Anchorite by TheBlackSwan	Jul 12th, 2007 11:18:59 AM
Precisely. You worded it in a much better way than I did, but we agree. This is, unfortunately, a huge mistake on the part of Cuaron, Gambon and co. Dumbledore was always my favorite character and his book-ending wisdom proved, at least to me, that he was the most important person in Harry's life.
perhaps an animated dumbledore? by Director17	Jul 12th, 2007 11:21:51 AM
i think if ian mckellen hadnt been used in lotr he would have been good i think.
My biggest problem with the movie by Jor-El23	Jul 12th, 2007 11:25:38 AM
Is that they never really explained what the Order of the Phoenix was. I believe it was Roger Ebert who said this is the Harry Potter movie that most depends on the audience having read the book. They don't even explain who Kingsley Shacklebot or Tonks are do they? It's just sort of assumed we know who they are. In fact, one of the things that's always bothered me about all the movies is that they don't use their running time properly. How f'ing long was Azkaban? And yet they couldn't take 30 f'ing seconds to explain what the Marauders Map was? That seems like a relatively important thing. Same goes for Sirius' relation to the Malfoys. Still though, I really enjoy the movies because I've read the books so it's not that big of a deal to me.
I don't have the book in front of me, by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 11:30:38 AM
but is seems to me from that passage that the only difference is that in the book DD uses one spell to knock everyone out/ down and then another to take off… and in the movie, a single spell accomplishes both at the same time. I’m sorry, I just don’t see a big problem here. As for Fawkes… is he mentioned again after the above passage? Because in the movie DD grabs onto Fawkes while performing the spell and the power of the spell (as it knocks everyone down) takes on a vaguely phoenix-shaped, bright red form… implying a little more with Fawkes than him simply screeching. That is what I meant by “adding Fawkes to the mix” not that the bird was never a part of the scene in the book.
OK, so he DOES grab Fawkes in the book. by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 11:46:29 AM
Alright. Even so. The movie DD does with one spell what it took book DD to do with two. I still don't see the big deal.
future help by Sidius	Jul 12th, 2007 12:32:39 PM
I was prepared to take your post seriously (especially about real effects being better than digital ones) if you hadn't started your rant with a sentence that ends with "one me over". I'm not a spelling nazi but that's got nothing to do with spelling. Here's my counter to your argument though... 1. I’m a fan of the old school blockbuster. The type of blockbuster that uses practical effects – like the “Indiana Jones” series... I love in camera effects and real action sequences a lot as well but CGI has it's place when done well i.e. LOTR. There is no way you could do HP, LOTR or any fantasy film without CGI. I agree that CGI can go too far (SW prequels) but at the time Star Wars was the most effects heavy film ever made. You seem to like that one. Maybe it's more that you just don't certain types of fantasy. 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... How many of those "shorter" blockbusters were based on books though? You can't compare a film based on a character written for the screen with a film based on a character adapted from books. The films based on books will always be longer because there are moments that the fans want to see. There's no way around it. LOTR:FOTR was 3+ hours long and tons of people still complained that PJ butchered it by leaving out Tom Bombadil. Blockbusters adapted from beloved books or real life characters are gonna be long, even the older ones - Gone With the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia - long, long great films. 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 agree that they put way too much emphasis on quidditch in some of the HP movies. Again, the inclusion of it in most of the films was mainly to appease the fans of the books. They want to see everything in the books on the screen. Quidditch really adds nothing to the real story arc of HP but until Phoenix the directors felt obilgated to leave it in to please the book fans. There's no mention of it in this latest installment. Good riddance I say. 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. I couldn't disagree with you more here. All action blockbusters treat their heroes and worlds like THE SHIT. If you didn't care about the world you wouldn't watch the films. Luke, Han, Indi, John McClane, Harry Potter, Hoth, Tatooine, Nakatomi Towers were all THE SHIT. It's the formula. Oh and the kids don't teleport to school because they aren't allowed to. Only adults are allowed to use magic in the real worldd. The kids aren't allowed to until they are trained to properly control it. It's mentioned very early on in this latest film.
Thank god one good movie's coming out this summer. by kirttawesomio	Jul 12th, 2007 12:36:41 PM
My life almost had no meaning.
I like Gambon as Dumbledore by micturatingbenjamin	Jul 12th, 2007 12:45:30 PM
I don't know...Dumbledore does lose his temper in the book as well with the children gawking at Trelawney and Umbridge. The book has flaws, this film buffs most of them out. I'm not a purist, one of the people who demand that a movie be the book, mainly because I understand that it's hard for one medium to ape the other. This book was my favorite, because of its promise. This movie was my favorite because it streamlined the salient points necessary to further the story of Harry Potter, without delving into all the minor stuff... I'm also not a purist because I'm a gigantic Stephen King fan, and understand that once the script is out of the hands of the author, even if they have final say, it becomes its own thing. With King flicks either the director gets it right: Romero's 'The Dark Half'...Cronenberg's 'The Dead Zone'...Darabont's 'Mile' or 'Shawshank'...Different from the novels, but made better because of it...
This is the first movie of the summer... by Baltimoron	Jul 12th, 2007 01:27:57 PM
...that I walked out enjoying very much (speaking only of the blockbuster movies). Spiderman 3 had too many legs for its own good. Pirates backstabbed itself repeatedly. Ocean's 13 broke into the same vault as before. Transformers transformed PG-13 action into G-Rated humor. Then came Potter 5. To me, this one flowed as good as the 3rd movie. I'd even go to say that it ties with the 3rd movie. There's magic mixed with muggles, emotional relationships like never before, some great scenes relived from the book, and a fantasitic final act. Favorite moments are definitely Harry and Siris in the tapestry room, Luna and Harry in the forest, O.W.L.S. vs. the twins, and the whole final act. The Voldamort scene was better than I pictured in the book. Overall, a great movie, beginning to end. Note that I still haven't seen Ratatouiee, so I can't say it is the best summer movie, but it is the best I've seen thus far of the blockbusters.
So yeah, movie and/or novel fans... How about the by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 01:42:01 PM
new WIZARDING WORLD OF HARRY POTTER island being built at Universal's Islands of Adventure. I still can't believe it never got an article on here, but whatever. I personally can't wait and plan to book tickets as soon as "opening day" is annouced.
That was my first thought as well. by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 03:47:05 PM
If he checks out in DH then the theme park might as well be a gravesite... That said, the plans look great, the new KUKA ride technology they've been saving for the new "big ticket" ride is SICK (might finally put Spider-Man off its now 7 year run as "Best Theme Park Ride In The World"). Oh- and that fact that they have Stuart Craig (production designer for all the HP movies as well as a laundry list of other visually stunning movies from The Elephant Man to Dangerous Liasions to Memphis Belle on board to oversee the look of everything is just the icing on the cake. (I'm also glad that it is becoming an Island at IOA. A full theme park would be total overkill, but a single ride/show would be a tease. Now it looks like we'll get at least 3 rides, 1 show and heavily themed play areas, shops and restaurants... which is just perfect!)
99% of your readers don't live near an IMAX cinema by Ray Gamma	Jul 12th, 2007 03:48:50 PM
99% of your readers don't live anywhere near an IMAX cinema.
About IOA/Universal by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 04:16:50 PM
I just got back from 3days/nights there and even with the oppresive heat and even more oppresive crowds, it was still a geek's wet dream. Especially IOA. Orlando's has all the best aspects of the Hollywood park, but amped up a notch. IOA has Spider-Man (which is pretty much indescribable, there's nothing like it in the world) and 2 of the best coasters in the US, hands down.
About Dumbledore by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 04:18:44 PM
Some of us seem to be having differences in memory here. I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong- having only seen it once... but in MY mind, he knocked everyone out/ down with the Fawkes-blast and apparated the fuck outta there at the same time. Others say no one was even knocked down. I'll have to wait til I see it again to say for sure.
I dunno how thrilled I am by pervy elf fancier	Jul 12th, 2007 04:26:36 PM
I dunno how thrilled I am about Yates taking the reins of Half-Blood Prince. I mean, I liked OoTP...but definitely didn't love it. I was so terribly disappointed just 3 minutes in by both the Dementors (why were they wrapped in burlap?) and the bizarre performances of the Dursleys, and then the fact that a certain something failed to happen with Petunia. That seemed to be a repetitive reaction with this film for me. It would rocket ahead, not really bothering to explain anything and I would admire the darkness, the tone that he did manage to nail, and then cringe at how badly a subject was being manhandled. It reminded me of a director's reel. Just a series of clips and montages set to music, rather than a cohesive, well thought out story. I totally understand that Book 5 was, content-wise, the hardest to adapt, but seriously; If you didn't walk into that theater knowing what to expect, how much new information did you gain by the time you finally walked out? That Harry would have to kill Voldemort in the end? Well, big fucking surprise. Did you have any clue why it was so important for Harry to be lured there to pick up the Prophecy? Why Voldemort wanted it so badly? Who made the prophecy to begin with and the events surrounding it? What the "weapon" was? Why Trelawney was rescued from eviction? How the Order knew to come to the rescue in the first place? What Snape's new role is? Because, see, if you don't fully understand that when you leave, then the filmmakers have failed to tell the full story. This particular story isn't supposed to focus on flashy wizard battles, but about Harry's internal struggle to understand and combat the connection between himself and Voldy and how he ultimately fails at that until it's too late. For that, I didn't mind that many of the characters were shunted to the side a bit because it's not really about them this time, but no characters seemed to develop at all. Draco is still more comical than menacing and I have to wonder when we're going to be allowed to take him seriously, You have no idea why Percy Weasley is wandering around with the Minister, Kreacher seems to be an afterthought and Grawp is unrecognizable. At times, I did have to stop and wonder if Yates had even read the books. And now it sounds like I absolutely despised this installment, but I didn't! I thought Yates really captured the spirit and feel of the book and did get some things really right...he just also lost me on things that seemed really wrong. So, yeah, as someone who loved Book 6, I am fairly terrified to see how he handles it.
Anchorite by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 04:27:45 PM
http://tinyurl.com/2aqnzb It seems with this technology that the ride will be able to seamlessly combine elements of regular animatronic dark rides (like POTC, Haunted Mansion, ET, Indiana Jones etc..), simulators (like Back to the Future, Star Tours etc...) and full on, high speed steel (even with inversions) roller coasters... all into the same ride. And though they're still a bit mum on it, word on the street is that ALL of these elements will be on the flagship Harry Potter ride- (based around Ford Anglia ride cars, Harry Potter-style 3-D glasses and flights around the Hogwarts grounds, through the Dark Forest, into an in progress Quidditch game and possibly even underwater into the lake. The Mummy coaster was one of the first to combine animatronic/ dark ride elements with a full-on coaster. Spider-Man was the first to- combine 3-D/simulator with animatronic/ dark ride elements. And to make a long story short (TOO LATE!) HP will be able to combine ALL that into one ride. Even if I hated Harry Potter, I'd be stoked just for that alone.
Oh... by pervy elf fancier	Jul 12th, 2007 04:30:39 PM
And I'm definitely one of the few who loves Gambon as Dumbledore. He's sprightly and quirky and flawed. I never warmed to Richard Harris. Watching him was like emptying my vacuum bag...dusty and wheezy.
Frijole by pervy elf fancier	Jul 12th, 2007 04:32:32 PM
Dumbledore knocked out everyone, excluding McGonagall and Harry, spoke with them briefly and then disappeared using Fawkes. This much I know.
Pervy by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 04:33:20 PM
You've echoed many of my gut-reaction sentiments about the movie. I actually had no problem with the new design on the Dementors though- and I can understand moving away from a design that was so very RingWraith-ish. I agree on Grawp's design though. Just not a fan. There were moments for the first time that I actually felt were missing (I even got swept up in what actually WAS presented in the Goblet movie without missing much at all)- many of the same ones you did. Overall though, I thought the look of the film was fantastic. He did capture the tone of the book (if not the details) and roundly got MUCH better performances out of everyone than last time out. Wow, I have had too much coffee and am blabbering. I
mistake by pervy elf fancier	Jul 12th, 2007 04:35:03 PM
sorry, Frijole, I thought you were asking about the book events. Yeah, in the movie he doesn't knock out anyone, just disappears with Fawkes.
Wow, it cut off part of my post. (and pervy) by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 04:35:41 PM
The last thing I was saying is that I
WHAT THE FUCK!??! by Frijole	Jul 12th, 2007 04:36:32 PM
OK, No more posting. I keep getting cut off for some reason.
I agree Frijole by pervy elf fancier	Jul 12th, 2007 04:40:29 PM
The performances were fucking stellar all around.
Rat is much better than Cars. by superninja	Jul 12th, 2007 05:16:28 PM
Please. Cars is cute, but very by the numbers.
Dementor redesigns were off putting. The designs by superninja	Jul 12th, 2007 05:19:23 PM
from Azkaban were much better. Still, this film is great.
This movie really downplayed Ron. You really by superninja	Jul 12th, 2007 05:20:58 PM
almost get the feeling that there isn't anything going on between Ron and Hermione (even though it's suggested otherwise in the books). I like the kid playing Ron, but Harry and Hermione have more chemistry.
really ninja? by pervy elf fancier	Jul 12th, 2007 05:29:20 PM
I felt that Ron and Hermione's relationship was definitely moving forward, it was just very subtle and more mature. I did miss Ron as he's one of my favorite characters, and I'm really sorry they took the Quidditch and Prefect status away from him, but I get why he and Hermione weren't focused on.
and i love that... by pervy elf fancier	Jul 12th, 2007 05:31:37 PM
Harry first finds them both closed up in a bedroom at Grimmauld Place:)
Harry Potter Is Off To A Strong Start by JaySmack	Jul 12th, 2007 06:12:35 PM
Harry Potter's latest film brought in 44 million, with MIDNIGHT showings. Michael Bay's shitfest couldn't do that even with screenings that were accepting tickets four hours longer. I'm not a HP fan, won't go see this one since I haven't seen the others, but I hope this movie makes 150 mil over the next few days and another 100 mil this weekend. After the turd Bay dropped, and the retarded masses who cheered his raping of cinema, we need a return to sanity and a strong refutation of Bayformers.
Potter will eat Bay's TINO and shit it out like the by Puddleglum	Jul 12th, 2007 06:33:49 PM
heaps of metal crap they designed those robots to be ('cept Prime worked kinda okay. Kinda).
Worst of the 5? - no WORST OF THE YEAR by McKrakalaka	Jul 12th, 2007 06:44:54 PM
Worst film of the year. Does not deserve its own thread. HOLY FUCKING SHIT is this film awful. Words cannot describe the pain of having to sit through this piece of shit. And I really like the Potter films! (Especially Cuaron's masterpiece) This film is the longest 2 hour introduction to a mediocre 25 minute film that I have ever witnessed. How can you take established characters we have come to love and bring absolutley NO FUCKING CHEMISTRY to a 2 hour beyond trite never-entertaining never at all funny (ok I laughed once) bloat of an introduction where literally NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENS FOR 2 HOURS!!!! I am still in shock. Not having read the book I could only look in awe, dumbfounded by the sheer uninterestingness of it all. Its like Harry Potter 90210, but not that good. When things finally DO seem to amp up about one hour in, it simply sags on its own flabby script again and again. SPOILERS: a) Nobody believes Voldemort is back and they think Harry and Dumbledor are liars. b) A stupid annoying lady who has more screen time than everyone except potter takes over the school because she is fucking dumb - there is no twist - she is just a dumb cow and we have to watch her for TWO FUCKING HOURS be a dumbass. c) Voldemort is back, as we already know from the fucking last film - the end. That is all this film is - I cant BELIEVE the book was this much of a big wet fart (Mrs McKrakalaka, who was almost as disgusted as I was with this film, was sad for other reasons, because apparantly, there is an actual story with some meat in the fucking book). Seriously an hour in the kids do magic in secret - this is the first time it gets interesting- and then they show this scene for literally 15 minutes - kids, just doing the same spells in a room for 15 minutes, while Harry tells them "good job, believe in yourself!" - WTF have you done to this franchise? Now after all this horror - this super stretched nothingness the ending suddenly goes full steam and we get 25 minutes of really good old school potterishness - that is totally rushed and makes almost no sense. Rons brothers fly off into the sky - where did Hagrid go - who knows - and who cares? Huge nonsequiter after nonsequiter bukake your face as we progress into "Wrap it up after all that first 2 hours of nothing" mode. Then Potter and his gang to the dept of mysteries - and they just show up on the secret floor in a huge Ministry building - wtf - how did they get in? What is going on. Then The kids spar off against voldemorts stupid bad guys - who are totally infeebling and do nothing to the kids - and just take it up the arse. Then - wait for it - this was the best! - The order of the phoenix shows up - a bunch of good guys that we saw for a moment at the begining but were never introduced to - one chick can change hair colors - weehoo - but i dont know her name or care who she is because we have spent 2 hours focusing on nothing. Then good guys and bad guys fight and it is quite possibly the FUCKING STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN. They dont ever hurt each other - they just turn into white and black clouds and mist each other ever so lightly in their faces with their mistyness. My god - i was like walk up anf FUCKING PUNCH THE GUY IN THE FUCKING FACE if your magic is this inefectual. The who knows why - Serious is killed. I guess his cousin used a different spell this time that can hurt people (Mrs Mckrakalaka said he actually was just pushed into a totally unexplained doorway in the movie that is much clearer in the book). Whatever - no emotion is created by this new HORRIBLE DIRECTOR who has ruined the Potter films for good. Then something amazing happens - VOLDEMORT finally fucking shows up and the movie gets really good for about 10 minutes. An incredible all out wizard battle ensues that starts lame with obi vs darth but then gets really good as it goes straight up AVATAR - the last airbender and they attack with fire, water, and wind. Then its over and I left with one positive thought - that 10 minutes was so cool that I dont even think M Night could fuck up the upcoming 3 Avatar films. Ohh and then I was depressed because I remembered - the same HORRIBLE DIRECTOR that did this film is doing the next one. COUNT ME OUT. Ohh and the CGI Giant looked like ASS. ILM shoudl be fucking ashamed. Why the fuck wouldnt you just film a guy and green screen him in as bigger - idiots are now helming this franchise - and boy did they make it dumb.
JaySmack by Mr. Nice Gaius	Jul 12th, 2007 07:19:19 PM
Did you really think Potter wasn't going to do big business?! You speak about it like it's a fucking surprise. Besides, Box Office performance is no indication of a worthwhile film. Remember?
Oh, I got more Vader by pervy elf fancier	Jul 12th, 2007 08:21:52 PM
Did you notice the people they left OFF the family tree and relationships that weren't referenced? Does this mean that certain events are being altered for the sixth? Horrifying. And did anyone else notice that by not explaining that it was a group of people that were convicted of torturing the Longbottoms, that their pronouncement of Bellatrix Lestrange as the sole assailant makes Barty Crouch Jr (from GoF) an innocent man? Continuity, Yatesy, continuity. Alright, I'm done geeking out.
@McKrakalaka by dtpena	Jul 12th, 2007 10:25:47 PM
that's almost exactly what I thought, and Mrs Mckrakalaka is spot on too. The only difference is that I liket the order fight with all the mistyness and that shit.
Trelawney and Prophecy by brermike	Jul 12th, 2007 10:29:04 PM
For the poster that said Trelawny's role with the prophecy was missing from the movie, it was pretty evident in the movie I saw. When the prophecy spoke to Harry, it was Trelawny's image and voice. The movie showed this to us without Dumbledore having to explain it. I thought that was pretty cool. Also, I don't think Snape's role with the prophecy occured in the fifth book, but rather the sixth. I could be wrong though.
anchorite by pervy elf fancier	Jul 12th, 2007 10:43:41 PM
The Potters, Weasleys, Malfoys, Blacks, basically all pure-blood families are related in varying degrees, but the tree left off a few key members of the Black family that (are supposed to) play pretty big roles in the next one. And for brermike, I'm glad that you recognized who she was, but many people didn't remember her "trance" voice from PoA, and I personally couldn't see any recognizable Trelawney facial features in the ball. Thus, I still really think that it's not explained very well.
Pleasantly Surprised! by B Arthur	Jul 12th, 2007 11:27:25 PM
I will put this up their with Azkaban. Overall very well done. Just about everything was top notch. I have one major complaint however... Snape getting mind raped by Harry was way off the plotline of the books, so much so that I wonder if they have created a real problem for themselves in the future. Snape was supposed to be one of the best if not THE best at Occlumency - it is after all how he has been a double agent this whole time. After all,how could be work for the two greatest wizards of all time simultaneously. It didnt have to be that way either. Buffing up Snapes plotline would have added 2-3 minutes to the movie. I realize reshoots are expensive and not always feasible, but that was the one major tarnish to an otherwise superb film.
Good points... by B Arthur	Jul 12th, 2007 11:47:28 PM
Ive read a couple of the posts here and I think some good criticisms of the film were made. They left many many pieces of this book out that directly relate to the next book. I also felt Sirius' death fell a little flat. One thing Mike Newell did well in Goblet was Cedrics death, which still gets me a bit teary with his father screaming and all. This one did feel a little flat, lost amid all the action. OK< and why didnt they put in the scene with Voldemorts shield, and the loud gong noise? I thought that was cool in the books. Dumbledore seemed very in control of the duel, but in the books he really isnt, and in fact may have been mortally wounded in the duel. Most of these complaints seem to be script related, or possibly editing. OTherwise I thought this was a very well done film, which gets my hopes up for HalfBlood Prince.
Nailed it! by oisin5199	Jul 13th, 2007 12:47:59 AM
I don't know what film that McKrakalaka saw, but I just got back from the IMAX and the film was excellent. Probably my favorite HP movie so far. I loved Azkaban, but it still felt a bit incomplete. This is what I've been waiting for in an HP film. For the first time, I felt the children were real, actually cared about each other and DID have good chemistry. I loved the character moments, the subtle touches, some of the best performances so far. It was actually structured well, with the montages and Daily Prophet transitions all working well without too heavy a hand. All this stuff that was left out I don't really care about, because it works without it. We can't judge most of that (whether they've shot themselves in the foot for the future films) until we see how they adapt the other books. From what I understand, when that would happen, J.K. corrected them. I greatly prefer this new screenwriter and David Yates as a director. This worked in all the ways that GoF fell flat. I'm actually glad they didn't do the scene with Harry trashing Dumbledore's office. In the book, I felt he was just too whiny and over the top with the anger. It just came off as petulant and bratty, whereas in the film, it WORKS. And I don't understand how anyone can see that Radcliffe was emotionless. There's a lot going on with that young man, and I think we're finally seeing the actor come out. (well, not in the gay sense). So far this is my favorite movie this summer (I've only seen Spiderman3 and FF:ROTSS, so the bar's not that high). Anyway, I really, really enjoyed it.
oh, wait by oisin5199	Jul 13th, 2007 01:02:26 AM
I also saw Pirates 3. See, I forgot already. Not memorable films, that series.
You find out why Voldemort wants the prophecy. by superninja	Jul 13th, 2007 01:18:37 AM
He has Harry find it for him and they explain why only he can find it and when you hear it you know why Voldemort wanted it. Sheesh!
OT: Transformers is a piece of garbage. by superninja	Jul 13th, 2007 01:36:40 AM
Now my vote officially counts because I've seen it - right? It was vile through and through and Vern was not exaggerating a bit. The vitriol directed at this film based on the script and the director and production team was 100% justified. I could go on, but it's all been said. Pull the plug on He-Man and Thundercats now.
B Arthur by superninja	Jul 13th, 2007 01:57:44 AM
Snapes's talent for Occulmency (which I had forgotten about having not read the book in some time) made me consider that he has been compromised in the last book released, so maybe that is what this film is hinting at - if Harry can do it, so can Voldemort.
Oisin. Totally agree with you. Didn't think they by superninja	Jul 13th, 2007 02:06:11 AM
would top HP3, but they did. Not fair to compare them really, such different films, but this was great!
superninja on snape by B Arthur	Jul 13th, 2007 04:06:29 AM
Since Rowling did go over the script, and apparently make sure Kreacher was in the film, perhaps she was OK with this change as well? The Elf really only said he was a servant of the Black family and that was it. If Rowling was OK with the Snape change, then you may be right. Snape isnt playing Voldemort, but its the other way around. I find it hard to believe though because Snape has been really built up as a great but underrated wizard, one who is highly disliked. But a wizard who was trusted by Dumbledore... I guess we have a couple more weeks to find out if this change in Snapes story was a mistake or not.
I should firstly by pervy elf fancier	Jul 13th, 2007 04:24:05 AM
make it clear that I did like this movie. I didn't walk out and retch on the sidewalk immediately afterwards. There were moments that really meant something, things that were really well done. I thought that there were some brave choices made, it was beautiful and I was thrilled to see the HP movies finally transition to the realm of mature filmmaking and out of the kiddie world, but it was just lacking any sense of flow or real purpose for me. So Potter's having dreams again, well he had those in the last movie too, big deal. Why is it more menacing and important this time around? The Daily Prophet transitions (which I had forgotten about) were well done and informative, but aside from the political story thread, everything else just fell flat in comparison. I'm not particularly fussed about the way the big death was handled, because it really wasn't much better in the book, but what I don't want to see next installment is Yates trying to cram exposition upon exposition into two hours because he neglected to do it this time around. And if the prophecy reasoning was explained in the Dept Of Mysteries, then I really must have checked out, cause I didn't catch that at all. But yeah, I saw an interview with JKR and she claims that she loved the film, so if she has faith, I won't give up hope.
Half-Blood Prince by B Arthur	Jul 13th, 2007 04:27:29 AM
With very little setup for the next film included in OoTP, perhaps we might see some of these gaps placed in HBP? If you think about it, HBP is a pretty simple book... perhaps possibly even slightly boring. There were numerous flashbacks to Voldemorts past to expose the Horcrux thing. Those scenes could be very tedious, so why not make them shorter and include some of the elements from OoTP. Such as Ron, who really was taken out of this film. HBP's 3 main characters are Snape, Harry and Dumbledore, and maybe Malfoy. I just think there is plenty of time to venture into the other characters, whereas in this film obviuosly much was cut.
it's possible by pervy elf fancier	Jul 13th, 2007 04:43:32 AM
for them to introduce some of the stuff they neglected in HBP but it does seem like a bit of a cop-out. I agree on the flashback sequences, they are pretty tiresome after a while so I guess that'll be one time I won't mind Yates's jump cuts anyway. I heard there'll be Quidditch next time around, so I'm looking forward to seeing Ron regain some usefulness. That being said, I'm still really nervous about this duo taking another crack at the Potterverse, but whatever, at least I've got the book to look forward to! On a side note, I really liked the score, though I loved Patrick Doyle's as well and was interested to read some pretty violent reactions to that one on here.
on snape, b arthur by pervy elf fancier	Jul 13th, 2007 04:55:16 AM
There actually was a moment in the books that Harry threw up a shield spell during Occlumency lessons and rebounded the spell back to him, granting him a quick look into Snape's mind. Remember the littl

Talkbacks

Moriarty Sees POTTER Twice! Once In IMAX 3D!