Imran!

[Zkribbler]

I'll probably have to wait until next weekend to see it.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
been busy with the Song of Ice and Fire series.. just finished "A Clash of Kings"

I'm sorry ... though at least you didn't wait THREE YEARS for the $#%#$%@$#$!# book to come out ...

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I saw it!

It was MORE than good. The movie freaking rocked! YI can't believe they fit it in the timeframe. Though they did take out a bunch (had to). Newell was brilliant in the director's chair.

You've got to be kidding me!?! It was okay I suppose, but I wouldn't hesitate to put it at the bottom of the list compared to others so far.

Truth be told, there was just too much in that book to do in one movie. Regardless, the choices made were horrible, the directing stunk, yes, stunk.

Also, I truly feel those kids are too old (and maturing beyond their age due to their fame) for the roles now and it makes them rather unbelievable.

[Verto]

Originally posted by dejon


You've got to be kidding me!?! It was okay I suppose, but I wouldn't hesitate to put it at the bottom of the list compared to others so far.

Truth be told, there was just too much in that book to do in one movie. Regardless, the choices made were horrible, the directing stunk, yes, stunk.

Also, I truly feel those kids are too old (and maturing beyond their age due to their fame) for the roles now and it makes them rather unbelievable.

I was under the impression that the actors were all still the same age as in the book.

I did feel, after leaving the theater, that the movie was...I don't know, like there was 30 minutes of film that I missed. There was just something different from it and the previous ones, which seemed so much more thorough. I will just have to go watch it again

[snoopy369]

The actors have aged more, because the movies haven't been filmed 1 a year (not quite, i think 4 in 5 or 6 years?), iirc ... and I think they started a year or two older anyway. Harry was supposed to be like 8 in the first one, wasn't he?

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Verto


I was under the impression that the actors were all still the same age as in the book.

I did feel, after leaving the theater, that the movie was...I don't know, like there was 30 minutes of film that I missed. There was just something different from it and the previous ones, which seemed so much more thorough. I will just have to go watch it again

Well, let's see, Radcliff was born in 1989, and the 1st film was in 2001, so he was already a year older than Harry at the start (Harry was 11 in the first book.) Now he's 16, when Harry is supposed to be 14 - and those are formative years we're talking about. The 5th film is due 2007, and the difference will be 18-15 - it's only going to get worse. If the last two get made, the final one could be 22-17 difference - a very big stretch for the imagination.

It won't matter how many times you see it - there's only maybe 1/3 of the book in that film. It's as though they decided, "Let's make the whole film about the tournament and Moody." Everything else was either cut of got extremely short shrift. The world of Harry Potter enthralls us (well, me anyway) because of it's completeness, and without that context, this movie felt like just another Hollywood action flick, with no heart and disappointing acting.

[Immortal Wombat]

Things don't look good for book five and six either. Both are longer than book four, and both have relatively little action and more character development - which is not the strength of the films.

[GePap]

I thought the movie did a fair job of going throught the plot, and a OK job at making it more sinister, which is what should happen. The lead has never been that good an actor, ever, and it shows more and more. That said, the supporting cast is always up to the task.

I would rate it well under Azkhaban, but better than the first two.

Oh, and go see walk the line, incredible acting

[Dinner]

Saw it yesterday afternoon. My father and I took my sister's kids to go see it. The two eldest love Harry Potter while the youngest was left at home since he's to young for monsters and scary movies where people die.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm sorry ... though at least you didn't wait THREE YEARS for the $#%#$%@$#$!# book to come out ...

I'm a Rowling fan... I believe we waited about 3 years for OotP . I mean what do expect with highly complicated worlds that have to prevent continuity errors (or else everyone will be on them).

Btw, I really did love this movie. Frankly, I'd put it above PoA, and definetly above the first two. Most of the complaints I see are they didn't include X, Y, or Z. The movie was already mega long! How much longer did you expect them to make it?

[Hot Mustard]

My movie ranking:
Philosopher's Stone (slavish recreation yes, but that what was needed and it was masterfully done)
Prisoner of Az (bloody brilliant)
Chamber of Secrets (also slavish)
Goblet of Fire (cut to ribbons, horrible directing)

Sure, the story cuts and script may have limited the director, but I still put the blame on his shoulders for not fighting for the proper setting and context to put the chosen events in. And in the rare instances where we got to see someone other than Harry or Moody, it was insufferable - makes me wonder if all the other actors were not trying since they had so few moments and lines.

[Imran Siddiqui]

UGH?! Philosopher's Stone as your favorite? WTF? That was the worst one!

[Immortal Wombat]

At least in PS they managed to get the story told with enough screen time left over to fill out some detail and convey the sense of wonder that entering this new world would have had on Harry.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And PS was oh, 300 pages, while GoF was 700 pages. I'd think a movie more than twice as long as PS would make little money.

[Immortal Wombat]

Yeah I agree. But squeezing in twice as many pages into the same amount of film time doesn't necessarily make it a better film.