[Spook E]

Saw the latest Harry Potter movie last night, and boy o boy did it suck!

The thing was pretty long, over two hours but seem to drag on for eternity at a monotone pace. There was little variance in colour or style through the whole thing, little change in tempo, and some of the special effects (Gwarp) just looked cheap and nasty.

It just never seemed to get out of first gear, the dialogue between the characters (where the was any) was awkward, and the main points of the book were just glossed over, or completelly changed. I realise it was a long book, but come on! There were some great moments in that book and they weren't even in the film!

In one of the other movies Harry Potter says something like "I love magic", and at the time I had to agree with him, but in this film, there was no real moment for me where I found myself agreeing with him on this point, it was almost like there was no 'wow', or gee thats cool, magic moments. It was more a film about repression and rebellion, except that the rebellion was so glossed over it, you got a sense you were just going threw the motions, rather than going along for the ride and being caught up in a rebelious movement.

Luna Lovegood was well cast, Dolorious Umbridge was not. The best character in the whole damn story is still Snape.

[Eug]

Best movie of the series so far. 3/5.

It was much more non-kid-oriented than the first few movies.

[Art Vandelay]

I liked it. It's silly to expect it to be like the book. There were parts of the book cut in the first movie. This book is more than three times longer while the movie is shorter. If you go into it with the knowledge that it has to be different than the book, you'll enjoy it much more.

[Eug]

P.S. I think Dolores was one of the best things about the movie.

[Spook E]

I went into the movie with the expectation that a lot of things wouldn't make the cut, but i was still dissapointed to see so many things underdone or not there at all.

 

As a point, the scene where the Weasley twins leave the school, is a very key point in the story. It's the point where (supposedly) the two biggest trouble makers at the school rebel and leave. They have been some of the major characters in the series, and in particular the last two books, yet there leaving was almost a non event. The special effects and impact of the moment just felt tired and jaded, done with just enough effort to push it through and get into the next part of the film (the trip to the ministry).

In terms of it trying to be dark, forboding and claustraphobic, which i assume the point of all this repression by the Ministry of Magic, falls well short of what was portrayed in the Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire.

The fella that produced this, has signed on for the next one, i just hope it gets better treatement than this.

[Eug]

^^^ You might want to put some of that in a spoiler tag.

[design219]

My wife and I saw it last night. I think it should have been two movies, as the book covered so much more than previous books. I did feel way too much was left out or glossed over. Of course, the books are always better than the movie.

[Spook E]

Will do, but as pretty much everyone on the planet has read the book is there a need?

[design219]

Some people do just watch the movies. Sad. They miss so much.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Spook E 

Will do, but as pretty much everyone on the planet has read the book is there a need?

I've never read any of the books.

[MacinTommy]

I'm seeing it in IMAX 3D in Nyc this weekend... Im pretty excited.

[MacinTommy]

if you want to know the end of the new book.......
read below

 

Hermione Dies

[invisibleX]

I liked it. It wasn't the book but it covered the crucial points. I miss the swamp and the final fight was way too short. Dumbledore came off a bit wimpy but I guess it doesn't matter much.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I've never read any of the books.

I would HIGHLY recommend listening to the audio books read by Jim Dale. They are nothing short of amazing. He does different voices for all of the characters. I must say it's far superior to the movies.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Eug 

P.S. I think Dolores was one of the best things about the movie.

Just goes to show how differently people can interpret words. I haven’t actually seen the movie yet (I think it opened here about three hours ago, at midnight, but it might not be till tomorrow), but from the trailers and ads I’ve seen for it, she looks horribly unlike the Umbridge I’d imagined. I’d always imagined Umbridge to look more like the way Sprout looks in the movies, but more evil and kitteny, obviously.

I’ve always thought casting Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid was nothing short of a stroke of genius. He’s the absolute epitome of Hagridness and plays the part perfectly. Wikipedia has just now told me that Rowling was actually thinking of Coltrane when she wrote the first book, so it’s no wonder, if the role’s actually tailor-written for him!


(By the way, I assume you mean Grawp, not Gwarp )

[bstone]

Needed more Elves.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

she looks horribly unlike the Umbridge I’d imagined.

I agree, I think they could have looked for an actress closer to the image painted by the book. It almost doesn't seem she was in the movie that much. Come to think of it, it seems like all the characters except Harry were hardly there. There wasn't even that much of Ron and Hermione. Not enough Hagrid.

Geez, I sound like "needs more cow bell."

[Atheist]

I have yet to see Order of the Phoenix as it doesn't open here in Trinidad until next Wednesday, but from I've seen so far, I think Imelda Staunton works well for how I had envisioned her. Sugary sweet appearance betraying a bitter scheming witch on the inside.

I've never been happy with the casting of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. I found Richard Harris' avuncular portrayal to be spot-on. I find Gambon reads his lines too fast and makes Dumbledore come off as menacing and at times petulant. That's not how I read the character at all.

Just me 2¢

[Chuckit]

Gambon was better in this one, partly because Dumbledore is supposed to seem like an ass this time around. I enjoyed it overall. I was glad they got Luna right — she was my favorite part of that book. I liked this Umbrage too, though she wasn't anything like I pictured her. I think you kind of have to take the movie on its own terms, because it simply couldn't be what the book was.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I would HIGHLY recommend listening to the audio books read by Jim Dale. They are nothing short of amazing. He does different voices for all of the characters. I must say it's far superior to the movies.

I'll have to check that out. Thanks.

[Jawbone54]

Go sign up at Audible.com, and you'll get a free audiobook.

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Go sign up at Audible.com, and you'll get a free audiobook.

If you are in the US.

[Oisín]

I've never been happy with the casting of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. I found Richard Harris' avuncular portrayal to be spot-on. I find Gambon reads his lines too fast and makes Dumbledore come off as menacing and at times petulant. That's not how I read the character at all.

Agreed 100%. Uvuncular is, somehow, the perfect word to describe it. Richard Harris was avuncular in the good way, like the quirky, but wise, intelligent, and funny, uncle everyone loves to visit; Michael Gambon seems more like the petulant and embarrassing uncle that always drinks too much at family gatherings, leading to awkward attempts at fondling the nieces.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I was glad they got Luna right

The weird part is she is kinda like that in real life. Or else at least in her interviews.