[King Bob On The Cob]

I was going to write a long spiel but I found a Yahoo movie review that fits how I feel on the movie to the T.

http://movies.yahoo.com/mvc/dfrv?mid...h8RuvW1nsCpg--

Did anyone else leave the movie thinking "Was this script written by a 10 year old?"

[Weezer]

Just saw it, I enjoyed myself.

[Kilbey]

I expected so little out the the first one that when I saw it and it wasn't simply a blank screen for 2 hours I was mildly not disappointed.

I expect about he same from all of the rest of the series.

[Sod Off Sadr]

It's very thin. Not much to the plot or action. Nothing was well-developed and the ending was anticlimactic.

[wdlove]

I haven't seen it yet. The Boston Globe's review of the movie was very favorable.

[Randman]

Much better than the other 2.

[gorickey]

It was decent.

[Ghoser777]

I think it depends if you've read the books or not. I haven't, so it was an enjoyable movie for me (saw it last night). I would have liked to see the relationship between Harry and Black developed a little more (seeing as that was in the book from what other people have posted and what a friend told me), but it could have been a lot worse.

Matt Fahrenbacher

[nredman]

i will buy it when it comes out on dvd, because my wife reads the books and likes the movies. i really don't want to watch it, i mean do and i don't. i have this fascination with Emma Watson...and she is only 14....kind of freaks me out. i'll just say i think she is going to be hot when she is legal.

[vprp]

it's also tough when there's so much anticipation for a movie. you really have to come up with something great like shrek 2. i haven't personally seen harry potter but it's tough to live up to two good movies.

[off/lang]

Originally posted by vprp:
it's also tough when there's so much anticipation for a movie. you really have to come up with something great like shrek 2. i haven't personally seen harry potter but it's tough to live up to two good movies.

It is tough to live up to a good book. The movie was fine on its own, but was far from the book. Each novel is noticeably better than the one before it; it is sad the same cannot be said of the movies.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by vprp:
it's also tough when there's so much anticipation for a movie. you really have to come up with something great like shrek 2. i haven't personally seen harry potter but it's tough to live up to two good movies.

Both movies were absolutely horrible. Fawkes looking like a friggin sock puppet.

[OwlBoy]

It has little in plot due to that being missing in all the details and parts that were in the book that were not in the movie.

I enjoyed it and thought it was much better than the last two in style, look, presentation, and over-all feel. Every scene was packed with detail and things going on.

I thought it did a good job with what it used from the books. Though, so much is missing still.

The CG was also notably better (in my Opinion).

Over-all I liked it as a portrail of a book I *have* read.

I can see how lacking it would be for those who have not read it. I enjoyed it in the sense of loving the editing, style, and look. Along with the "ohhh that part is coming up, I wonder what it will look like" thing.

This movie felt more like a coninuation of a bigger story than something on its own (and rightfully so, this is only year three of eight). Though that "Part of a big story, in one movie" thing did not feel as good as say, Lord of the Rings...

-Owl

Edit: (I re-read all the comments thus-far...) Did any of you read the books? what do people who read the books think!?

[edit 2:] I guess what I am doing is; Defending the book, and saying that I like the Directors style. And the movie was missing so much.

[Edit 3:] #4000

[fireside]

as a stand alone movie, it would have been rather good

as a movie based on a book it wasn't so good. they missed out on all the good parts, then added really really stupid things to it that had nothing to do with the book. it was absurd. like the shrunken heads thing in the Knight Bus and the part where Fudge and Mcgonagolizinasdgkz were talking in the three broomsticks, alone. i mean, harry was there, but where were Ron and Hermione? it didn't compare to the feel of the book.

as the books get longer, i feel the movies are going to get worse because of cutting things out.

[Dex13]

yeah I would have to agree w. Owlboy, I mean if someone hasn't read the books, they shouldn't be totally ****ing lost, as my friend ryan was � I had to spend 1/2 the time explaining to him what and why things were occuring even though he had seen the first two � aren't they getting a new director for the next movie � oh and I caught an imbecile cam the ****ing movie, I got up and moved around as much as possible.

[bstone]

Saw it. Loved it. I am not a fan of Harry Potter and I prefer fantasy which isn't entirely regurgitated and unorigional. But the 3rd movie was funny and entertaining.

[mitchell_pgh]

While not a big fan, I think they were all rather good.

Mitchell's Level of Movies
- Would watch on Cable
- Would netflix
- Would see in movie theater
- Would buy DVD

These movies fall somewhere in the "would netflix range" but the previous two movies I watched on HBO.

[DeathToWindows]

Originally posted by Tulkas:
Both movies were absolutely horrible. Fawkes looking like a friggin sock puppet.

Agreed. Dear lord the "creatures" in movies one and two sucked!

[DeathToWindows]

Originally posted by vprp:
i haven't personally seen harry potter but it's tough to live up to two good movies.

Are you out of your bloody mind? The first two movies were dreadful - "Harry Potter out of a bloody shopping cart at walmart" comes to mind. I am glad they sacked the director - idiot. A GOOD hp movie would need to be done by someone who respected the books - not just someone who was out to sell merch. Get WETA to do it, and you'll get a movie worthy of fantasy canonization - Warner Brothers has created ~4.5hrs of a criminal waste of film.

Hopefully the 3rd one will not manke me want to vomit on the director.

[phillryu]

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
Are you out of your bloody mind? The first two movies were dreadful - "Harry Potter out of a bloody shopping cart at walmart" comes to mind. I am glad they sacked the director - idiot. A GOOD hp movie would need to be done by someone who respected the books - not just someone who was out to sell merch. Get WETA to do it, and you'll get a movie worthy of fantasy canonization - Warner Brothers has created ~4.5hrs of a criminal waste of film.

Hopefully the 3rd one will not manke me want to vomit on the director.

Yeah? WETA? That's like telling Industrial Light and Magic to do it. WETA's a special effects house, not a film production studio, right? And IMO, movie 2 wasn't that bad... it was a little slow, but it was enjoyable. Probably held up by the British Shakespearean actors. (I thought Gileroy Lockhart was awesome!)

[Millennium]

Methinks certain people here haven't read the books.

Granted, I haven't read the third book yet (I only recently finished the first, though I've had most of the subsequent series spoiled). The movie, however, was awesome for what it was. No, it's not a high-PPLQ movie (though I'm beginning to be concerned about the beginnings of Hermione fanservice that popped up this time; Harry Potter Fanservice Isn't Cool, folks).

But anyway, to continue with the apparent ignorance of that writer's review:

Ok, first of all. This movie was depressing. It left with no warm feeling at all, unlike the first 2.

Good. The same is true of the book; they get darker each time. If it was depressing then it was a good adaptation.

But none of that makes up for the very poor story. Almost half the movie was spent on the end of the book.

So, the last half of the movie was spent on the last half of the book... forgive me if I fail to see anything wrong with this.

No time was given to develop any interest in the storyline between the connection with Sirius and Harry. The first half was instead filled with stupid gags sure to excite the kiddies.

Ah, here we go; the dreaded K-Word. This is a PPLQ-monger.

Keep in mind, Prisoner of Azkaban is still technically a children's book, albeit borderline (each book is targeted towards readers the same age that Harry is -13 in this case- and he ages one year for each book). There were supposed to be stupid gags, particularly towards the beginning. The first two movies were full of them too, and you don't seem to be bothered by them.

And yet, you're a very strange case, apparently being not only a PPLQ-monger but also a Slash-Fiend. That's a very strange combination of fan-vices; indeed, almost a logical contradiction. More than adequate time was spent developing the connection as per the books. Indeed, a few new lines (note Snape's "old married couple") were used to show more connection between Sirius and other cast members; in particular, Remus.

And all of the retarded fade-to-blacks were pissing me off. The new Dumbledore was crappy too, he didn't elude wisdom like Harris did.

We're talking about Dumbledore, not Obi-Wan Kenobi. Dumbledore's not supposed to elude all that much wisdom anyway; the man is totally off his rocker. In the books he's portrayed more or less as a harmless-but-only-because-he-wants-to-be lunatic. The new Dumbledore captured this quite well. This is not to belittle the old Dumbledore, who had virtues of his own, but the new one is a closer adaptation.

If they expect to fit any actual plot into the 4th film they better split it into 2 because it's just not possible.

They said that of the third movie as well, and yet the blot advanced quite nicely.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

I just want to say GoF is an excellent book in it's own right. Forget about HP, children's book �_this book is a great page turner.

I hope they make a great adaption for this one � because it deserves it.

And PoA was by far the best of the 3 � stop playa-hatin'.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
Are you out of your bloody mind? The first two movies were dreadful - "Harry Potter out of a bloody shopping cart at walmart" comes to mind.

Um... I'm not sure I follow.

I am glad they sacked the director - idiot.

They didn't sack him. He's now the producer.

A GOOD hp movie would need to be done by someone who respected the books - not just someone who was out to sell merch.

Both directors have shown great respect for the books. Right down to the fact that in case you've forgotten, there's a reason that only British actors were considered for the first two movies: every attempt was made to capture the feel of the books, right down to the feel.

In case that doesn't convince you, need I remind you of the rather extraordinary amount of power that J.K. Rowling herself has over the script and directing? If the author doesn't consider it a faithful adaptation, it does not get released.

Get WETA to do it, and you'll get a movie worthy of fantasy canonization - Warner Brothers has created ~4.5hrs of a criminal waste of film.

If WETA made a movie, it would be full of special effects and nothing else.

No, I mean that literally. WETA is a special-effects house, not a movie studio. They aren't equipped to do complete film; studios come to them for special effects. But frankly, your insistence on having WETA "do it", shows your true colors: this is just LoTR fanboyism. Not to knock that series, either; those movies were also excellent. But Lord of the Rings was not the be-all and end-all of the fantasy genre; quite the opposite, actually.

Besides which, LotR is being much more heavily-merchandised than HP can ever hope to be. Or have you forgotten the whole extended-version spiel?

[fireside]

Originally posted by Millennium:
In case that doesn't convince you, need I remind you of the rather extraordinary amount of power that J.K. Rowling herself has over the script and directing? If the author doesn't consider it a faithful adaptation, it does not get released.

if JK Rowling doesn't like it, it don't happen. right now i'm worried about GoF. Francis de la Tour for Madam Maxine? isn't she supposed to be half-giant or something.

[Jansar]

I liked this movie way better than the other two.

It cast aside its brighter side and portrayed a much darker picture this time (it could also be because of the new director - same guy who wrote and directed "Y Tu Mama Tambien" - didn't see that one coming).

I don't know about you guys, but I thought Hermione's time device was way cool!

[Tulkas]

I didn't like the fact dementors flew, thought Sirius's dog-form would be bigger,and a few other things. Alot of the story was missed out on and I understand why. I really don't like it when they change things to suit the medium, for instance the scene at the end at the lake. The spell wasn't quite what I was expecting. Overall it was the best so far and a huge improvement over the last two. Not nearly as good as the book and if you haven't read it you're missing alot.

[rezonate]

The movie was actually really good, and does credit to the book. The tone of the films are progressing nicely too, just as the books do. The 3rd book is really when it all kicks off and the story begins to take shape.

I'm biased though since I worked on the effects in this one, and the other 2 HP films.

[lil'babykitten]

I've read all the books so far, Azkaban was actually my favourite book. On the whole I think the movie was pretty good. I was a little disappointed to not see the movie properly explain the background of Sirius and his relationship with Harry. The Dumbledore character wasn't as good as the previous two either.

Nevertheless, an enjoyable watch and a nice continuation from the two previous well done movies.

I think people who expect movies to be exactly like the book should not watch movies.

Kids won't sit through four hour movies. It can't be done. There's going to be a lot more cut out of the future movies and we'll just have to live with it.

[zen jihad]

There was talk of book 3 being two films, and they are considering making book 4 two movies. They'd probably have to, or at least lengthen the film by an extra hour. The issues with that would be considering if childen would sit through such a long movie, but LOTR proved that studios would consider it. The other problem would be the ageing characters in real life, but that can be dealt with.

[fireside]

Originally posted by Tulkas:
The spell wasn't quite what I was expecting.

that pissed me off to. it was supposed to be a stag running around ramming into the dementors, not a little "shield" thing.

[fireside]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
There was talk of book 3 being two films, and they are considering making book 4 two movies. They'd probably have to, or at least lengthen the film by an extra hour. The issues with that would be considering if childen would sit through such a long movie, but LOTR proved that studios would consider it. The other problem would be the ageing characters in real life, but that can be dealt with.

if they do slice it into two movies, i hope they don't do a Kill Bill or LoTR and release it months apart.

or how 'bout they do a 4 hour long movie with a 20 minute intermission inbetween.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
There was talk of book 3 being two films, and they are considering making book 4 two movies. They'd probably have to, or at least lengthen the film by an extra hour. The issues with that would be considering if childen would sit through such a long movie, but LOTR proved that studios would consider it. The other problem would be the ageing characters in real life, but that can be dealt with.

Since the subject matter and some of the events in books 4 and 5 are too scary for kids anyway (murder, fingers chopped off), maybe lengthening the movies and a PG or PG-13 rating so that younger kids don't attend is the way to go.

[zen jihad]

The studio won't want the certificate to be raised higher than what it is just now, but... the new director might just go for it and try his luck. They could make it 4 hours long and have an interval, keep let people, even adults, go for a walkabout and grab some food.

Thing is, this isn't really hard to do, even the last few films had many hours of film shot, but edited down to cinema friendly times. Personaly, I hope they do make it 2 films, or one long one, but not try to cram it into 2 hours. There's a lot of story in book 4 too, and book 5.

[mdc]

Originally posted by fireside:
that pissed me off to. it was supposed to be a stag running around ramming into the dementors, not a little "shield" thing.

i watched the movie today, and have read all of the books so far.

the one thing that got to me was harry's patronum thing. like fireside said is that it was supposed to be a stag running around. you can see it sort of, if you are looking for it, when you see it from harry's (the one with sirius) viewpoint.

minor spoiler from here. i can not remember if this is from this book or the 4th.

if this was from the 3rd book, the movie did not go into it.

 

i did warn you.
the big deal about harry's stag patronum is that his father was an animagus too, and his shape that he took was a stag. the people that created the maurader's map were lupin, sirius, harry's father, and i can not remember who the 4th person was (the rat guy maybe?).
but the thing is about a book to movie is that a lot of it gets left out due to time constraints, this is acceptable. but i just felt like they left out really interesting things.

but hey, it was enjoyable. i do suggest you read the book before or after you watch it though. you will appreciate and understand it so much more.

now bring on the next book and movie

.edit.
i just read a write up of this movie and these rather interesting sentences where at the end.

Fans of the books should watch carefully and if possible take notes. Rowling promised that clues to the plots of books six and seven (the only novels of what will be a seven-book series that have not been published) are contained in the movie.

excuse me? i seem to have missed out on said clues to books six and seven?
anyone?


thank god for tinyurl.com

[phillryu]

And I was a bit disappointed that they didn't explain the moony, wormtongue, prongs thing with the Marauder's map, or the corporeal patronuses... they show up again in Book 5, maybe they'll be explained there.

And I wouldn't fret too much about the length. Book 3 was longer than the first two, but Cuaron managed to shrink the movie down to be shorter than the first two movies I believe. And there's a lot in book 4 that can be shrunk or cut. The whole quidditch world cup thing in the beginning can probably be shrunk down to five, ten minutes.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by phillryu:
And I was a bit disappointed that they didn't explain the moony, wormtongue, prongs thing with the Marauder's map, or the corporeal patronuses... they show up again in Book 5, maybe they'll be explained there.

OK, I'll admit, these should have been explained better. Especially the corporeal Patronus, but the identities of the Marauders would have been fun too.

[fireside]

Originally posted by phillryu:
The whole quidditch world cup thing in the beginning can probably be shrunk down to five, ten minutes.

NO! thats one of the best parts of book 4.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by mdc:


.edit.
i just read a write up of this movie and these rather interesting sentences where at the end.


excuse me? i seem to have missed out on said clues to books six and seven?
anyone?


thank god for tinyurl.com

Hmm, I'll have to think about that. I can't really recall anything in particular thats not in the book that seems to be a clue.

[RGB]

Originally posted by nredman:
i will buy it when it comes out on dvd, because my wife reads the books and likes the movies. i really don't want to watch it, i mean do and i don't. i have this fascination with Emma Watson...and she is only 14....kind of freaks me out. i'll just say i think she is going to be hot when she is legal.

As soon as I began watching the first movie, my immediate thought when I saw her was "When she's older, she's gonna be hot."

She's well on her way.

And the British accent on top of that, I won't be able to resist!

[jorgem4]

I liked it!

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by nredman:
i will buy it when it comes out on dvd, because my wife reads the books and likes the movies. i really don't want to watch it, i mean do and i don't. i have this fascination with Emma Watson...and she is only 14....kind of freaks me out. i'll just say i think she is going to be hot when she is legal.

Uh huh, very strange. Maybe someone should inform your wife of this "fascination"

[storer]

Ok, I'm bumpinating this thread.

I just bought this on DVD for $30. $30. I hadn't seen it yet. $30. And I watched it. $30. first 5 minutes in i was already pissed off. it made the best book in the series so far a complete joke. made things funny. I am totally... $30... pissed off$30. What the hell?! GRRR!!! I love those books and some mexican retard has come in and gone all wacko on it! It is so bad.... just.... $30. ...... GRRRR!!! ARRGGGHHHGH!!!!

[Dex13]

Hey Storer Your the retard for paying $30, where you could have rented it.

And he's an idiot.

Not a Mexican Idiot.

[storer]

Originally posted by Dex13:
Hey Storer Your the retard for paying $30, where you could have rented it.

And he's an idiot.

Not a Mexican Idiot.

yes i suppose... but i am a fan and probably would have bought it anyway. I was just disappointed. He is from mexico right? That is his nationality?