Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone: 2 hrs 32 minutes
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: 2 hrs 41 minutes (the last 10 of which was applause)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: 2 hrs 22 minutes
So 10 minutes shorter than the first one, which had TONS of exposition
19 minutes shorter than the second, which had way too many sappy character shots, and that last scene was way too long & annoying
Instead we get Prisoner of Azkaban which didn't spend ANY time doing character introduction shots and I can't really remember any really sappy, pointless moments. To me it seemed that it was far more focused on the story than the other two. The characters didn't really acknowledge the ghosts (which were actually cool).
As to the moving of the Whomping Willow, heck, the entire grounds of Hogwarts looked completely different. Much hillier, lots of standing stones, Hagrid's cabin is in a different place, we haven't seen that bridge or the courtyard before, not to mention the big clock or the altered Quidditch stadium... None of that was explained either. I think the changes were for the better, myself -- gave Hogwarts a lot more character and made it seem more "magical" somehow.
Harry's patronus was a stag, not a horse, but they could still explain that in a later movie. No need to fill out this one with everything.
I'm not sure how important it would have been to explain the origin of the Maurader's Map -- I think that Lupin made it clear he'd seen it before, and that Snape hadn't, and that's probably enough.
Shrieking Shack? They mentioned it was haunted. That it got its name because of Lupin's transformations -- how important is that to the story, really? It's a detail, but is it crucial to the story?
Anyway, you said those were minor gripes, so I won't give you too hard a time about it
Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone: 2 hrs 32 minutes
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: 2 hrs 41 minutes (the last 10 of which was applause)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: 2 hrs 22 minutes
So 10 minutes shorter than the first one, which had TONS of exposition
19 minutes shorter than the second, which had way too many sappy character shots, and that last scene was way too long & annoying
Instead we get Prisoner of Azkaban which didn't spend ANY time doing character introduction shots and I can't really remember any really sappy, pointless moments. To me it seemed that it was far more focused on the story than the other two. The characters didn't really acknowledge the ghosts (which were actually cool).
As to the moving of the Whomping Willow, heck, the entire grounds of Hogwarts looked completely different. Much hillier, lots of standing stones, Hagrid's cabin is in a different place, we haven't seen that bridge or the courtyard before, not to mention the big clock or the altered Quidditch stadium... None of that was explained either. I think the changes were for the better, myself -- gave Hogwarts a lot more character and made it seem more "magical" somehow.
Harry's patronus was a stag, not a horse, but they could still explain that in a later movie. No need to fill out this one with everything.
I'm not sure how important it would have been to explain the origin of the Maurader's Map -- I think that Lupin made it clear he'd seen it before, and that Snape hadn't, and that's probably enough.
Shrieking Shack? They mentioned it was haunted. That it got its name because of Lupin's transformations -- how important is that to the story, really? It's a detail, but is it crucial to the story?
Anyway, you said those were minor gripes, so I won't give you too hard a time about it
Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone: 2 hrs 32 minutes
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: 2 hrs 41 minutes (the last 10 of which was applause)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: 2 hrs 22 minutes
So 10 minutes shorter than the first one, which had TONS of exposition
19 minutes shorter than the second, which had way too many sappy character shots, and that last scene was way too long & annoying
Instead we get Prisoner of Azkaban which didn't spend ANY time doing character introduction shots and I can't really remember any really sappy, pointless moments. To me it seemed that it was far more focused on the story than the other two. The characters didn't really acknowledge the ghosts (which were actually cool).
As to the moving of the Whomping Willow, heck, the entire grounds of Hogwarts looked completely different. Much hillier, lots of standing stones, Hagrid's cabin is in a different place, we haven't seen that bridge or the courtyard before, not to mention the big clock or the altered Quidditch stadium... None of that was explained either. I think the changes were for the better, myself -- gave Hogwarts a lot more character and made it seem more "magical" somehow.
Harry's patronus was a stag, not a horse, but they could still explain that in a later movie. No need to fill out this one with everything.
I'm not sure how important it would have been to explain the origin of the Maurader's Map -- I think that Lupin made it clear he'd seen it before, and that Snape hadn't, and that's probably enough.
Shrieking Shack? They mentioned it was haunted. That it got its name because of Lupin's transformations -- how important is that to the story, really? It's a detail, but is it crucial to the story?
Anyway, you said those were minor gripes, so I won't give you too hard a time about it
I liked it but because Ive read the book, the movie felt a little bland. It wasn't so much the pacing, this one was a lot more focused and had more flow compared to the other two. It was more I kept waiting for certain things to come up, and they never did. What I did like was the hand held shots, and the deeper, darker hues of the movie. The setting was a lot older and weathered looking; things looked lived in. Because of that the movie is more mysterious and in a sense more magical. I prefer it to the brighter look of the past two films. I got a better sense of how lonely and isolated Potter can get even though he wasn't shown being alone much.
Most of my problems with the movie are just the usual 'book to movie' issues.
I liked it but because Ive read the book, the movie felt a little bland. It wasn't so much the pacing, this one was a lot more focused and had more flow compared to the other two. It was more I kept waiting for certain things to come up, and they never did. What I did like was the hand held shots, and the deeper, darker hues of the movie. The setting was a lot older and weathered looking; things looked lived in. Because of that the movie is more mysterious and in a sense more magical. I prefer it to the brighter look of the past two films. I got a better sense of how lonely and isolated Potter can get even though he wasn't shown being alone much.
Most of my problems with the movie are just the usual 'book to movie' issues.
I have to say that u nailed exactly what I was trying to say about the movie. I read the book, and I too was waiting for the inevitable book to movie scene, and although most were there, most werent. I remember hearing something about them changing locations because something happened with the land they were using. Something like there were too many fans hanging out and the owners didnt like it. Its on the various HP sites, if u want to know why exactly.
For one, the whomping willow is not moved in the books. The books tell why it was planted, but it was never moved around the grounds. The reason it is in a different place is because, as mentioned before, they filmed in an entirely different location, which I think suits the series much better. It's such a beautiful place.
For those of you even mildly disappointed, see the movie again! I read a lot of comments that said the movie was a lot, lot better the second time around, and I found that to be true also. The problem is, the first time you see it, you are too busy thinking about what's coming up, what's changed, what's been added, what's been taken away, etc. But the second time around you know what to expect and it flows much better. This is a beautifully shot movie with a lot of cool little details thrown in, like:
For those of you that have read book five, remember Dumbledore's name? He has like five of them. In Hagrid's hut, the Minister of Magic tells Dumbledore he should sign the statement too, and Dumbledore says "But it's such a very long name." It's little details like this that make this such a fun film.
One of my favorite parts was
Lupin's transformation into the werewolf. The way the camera zoomed so close onto his face all you could see was his eye, and the moon reflecting in it, then his eye goes bloodshot and the camera zooms back out and the biggest part of the transformation takes place and you hear a heartbeat was totally awesome, IMO.
I know there are a lot of fans who are a little disappointed about the lack of explanation, and I'll agree it could have used some more, but like I said earlier, the good more than makes up for those things, in my opinion.
BTW, I think the old castle they were using was vandalized, but that actually happened after they had changed filming locations IIRC.
Well said Flaming Duck.. haven't seen it twice but I will as soon as midterms are over.. another little detail that I loved was
when Lupin stepped in front of the dementor you see it change into a full moon can't remember if that was in the books but it was awesome to see.. The entire last sequence with the time turner was done unbelievably well, and the scene where Harry is waiting for his Dad to come and finally realising that he wasn't coming was done better than in the books imo..
I really enjoyed it on the whole, it was a much better if much less faithful adaptation of the book then the first 2. The first 2 films just felt like exact replicas of the books, scene for scene, with filler chapters skipped and important bits shoved into allready rushed scenes.
This whole film felt super rushed but I still enjoyed it more. It was simply a better movie. With that said though, I really do wish that they had left just a few bits and peices in the movie from the book. Basically what was mentioned in most of the above complaints.
This is a small positive though, I think they hacked the 3rd book up so much to train themselves for the daunting task of editing down book 4 and book 5 into less then 3 hours. I really don't know how they'll pull those ones off. There is just so much filler but random bits of it are important enough they should be kept in......
I've seen this movie twice and I have loved it both times.
I think the new design of Hogwarts and the surrounding area was much better. Hagrid's cabin in the book is described as at the bottom of a slope, which it was in this movie. Plus, it was actually next to the lake, unlike Columbus's movies. The weeping willow's location also made more sense to me. The tree is extremely dangerous, but for what ever reason in the first two movies it is right in the middle of the school grounds. Doesn't seem like the smartest of locations.
I also liked the musical score. John Williams was really on the ball with this one. I especially like the music when Harry casts the patronus at the end of the movie.
The only real complaint I had with the movie is that it did feel a bit rushed. I wish there was going to be an extended editon DVD like LotR, but from what I understand most of the scenes were cut before they were filmed.
Also, isn't it suppose to be "Moony" not "Mooney?" That was kind of annoying (although not in a way that hurt the film).
Now that I think about it, book 4 shouldn't be TOO hard to squeeze under 3 hours with the way they compacted book 3 into a movie. The beginning of book 4 is the Dursley's and the World Cup thing. Since they're already cutting the Dursley's out, I'm sure they can just start the movie with Harry in the Weasely's house just about to go to the World Cup. I assume a maximum of 15-20 minutes will be needed to finish that part of the story and move on to Hogwart. The movie will focus mainly about the Tri-Wizard Tournement which will probably take about 1.5 hours to 2 hours max. The end part of the story when Harry got sent to the graveyard will probably take 30 minutes to finish. The movie will have a maximum of 30 hour to fit in the character-development and stuff including Hagrid and the half-giant headmastress, Rita and the Daily Prophet in the movie as seen fitted.
So all in all, book 4 of Harry Potter is very do-able under 3 hours. In fact, I would like to see the movie just a little bit over 3 hours for maximum character development and stuff. Yup... the 4th movie will be a blast to watch.
I would have prefered book 4 have been made into 2 movies. Still surprised they didn't. it's not a risk as far as getting money back, and you get twice the ticket and DVD sales.
I'll probably love movie 4 so long as they do 2 things. Get Jason issacs back for Lucious, and cut out all mention of the house elf liberation.
The only thing they cut that detracted from the movie at all was not explaining how Lupin knew the map but Snape didn't. Everything else made it actually a movie instead of the Nancy Drew Becomes A Wizzerd (OR HOW TO PAHY ATTENTION TO MEANINGLYS DETAILS) tripe that makes up the books.
I enjoyed Prisoner of Azkaban, and felt it was the best Harry Potter film. I didn't like Chamber of Secrets because the first 2/3rds of that film was boring. The last 1/3rd of it is really where anything interesting and relevant took place.
The darker and moodier look of POA was captivating to see and feel. The cinematography (the outskirts of Hogwarts, et. al) and Hippogriff flight scenes were awesome to behold. I liked the fact POA was much more story-driven, and the CG was used to propel the plot......not just an overabundant use of CG just for eye-candy and fluff.
Lots of characters to keep track of here, but not that confusing if you just pay attention. Some scenes could have been fleshed out more, and some added to explain things more, but all-in-all Cuaron did a fabulous job taking over from Columbus.
Now that I think about it a bit more, I do think of all "minor" details they really should have left in, these are the ones:
1. Explaining Lupin's torment created the illusion of a haunted house.
2. Revealing Harry's father was an animagus thus indicating the phantom stag's connection.
While these two points were not "vital" to the nuts and bolts of the story, I think they add something important to the characters - 1> creates a more epic and tragic feel for Lupin (visualizing him spending long nights in agony in the wretched house) and 2> it creates a profound connection between Harry and his father. After all - consciously, Harry didn't hardly know his parents and certainly didn't know his father was an animagus. The fact that Harry's mind still made the connection is something a bit profound and just like revelations regarding his mother in later books, to me seems to create a connection between his father and the present tense.
I really think there should be like a short 5-10 minutes flash back of Lupin, Sirius, Peter, James, Lily, and Snape's relationship back when they were still in Hogwart. It could explain everything from Harry's patronus to Lupin's understanding of the magic map.
I saw it this weekend and meh...It felt very rushed.
First let me say I'm talking about the movie and don't care about the book. So please no responses like "Well if you read the book". I didn't pay $10 to see cliffnotes.
A lot of scenes felt like "Hey wehere in a classroom oh now where rushing through the courtyard for no apprent reason." Alos stuff like the shreaking shack untill I read some of the spoilers I had no idea why it was called that. Probally cause they mention once something like. "Look the shreking shack" then immedatly on to relationship building.
The new characters were very forgetable.
Too many dramtic pauses not enough character building. I really didn't care when the Griffon looking thing (Keep saying Hypocrit...which I know is wrong) was going to die even found the dramtic pause at the end of the scene when Hagrid finds out annoying. It was a shallow character who wouldn't be missed if killed off. Like the red shirt in Star Trek.
What happened to hogwarts? Was school funding cut back forcing them to do a drastic remodling was needed? The womping williow looks smaller and has moved. Yeah they moved location but not even trying to keep some consitancy in the films is just bad. Imagine if Mt Doom in the first 2 movies was this ominus dark place, but when sam and frodo get there it's a 2 ft tall mond of dirt, witha monkey flinging poo.
Aside from the ending reminding me A LOT of Princess Mononke
In the begining of the movie they make a point to tell you that the demetors are after Syruis Black and will kill anyone or thing that gets in thier way. Well we get to the end and the Dementos are killing Black harry is trying to stop them. They start killing him. Before future Harry stops them they stop killing harry...!?
I left the movie feeling like there was no bad guy and...well so what? A problem with all 3 movies is harry doesn't seem to be getting stornger, there no connection between the movies aside from the location and characters. The map and CT like time necklace would have been a lot more helpful in the last 2 movies then this one. Espcially seeing Rons sister went missing in the second one and his brothers had that map...well...
As much as I'm kinda disapponted with the movie, I do agree with Flaming Duck. I can see being distrated by how much as changed instead of enjoying the movie.
I enjoyed the movie. I liked it much more than the 2nd one, which as a near disaster, imho. But it was no where near as faithful or enjoyable as the first one, imho. It did have the best special effects and soundtrack of the three, and though I found the change in scenery jarring, the new location looks better.
I did NOT like the new Dumbledore, at all. I've got a rather huge list of gripes, most of them already listed. I didn't enjoy the stripping down of McGonackal's role, or Malfoy's. I hated how they pretty much destroyed the whole Potter/Pettigrew/Lupin/Black/Snape backstory (including the significance of the map, and the stag-shaped Patronus.) I also question their decision to almost unilaterally ignore the Time Turner, especially given the fact that it's such an integral part of the story. I also didn't dig that they completely fail to properly explain or represent Azkaban, desipte it showing up in the freakin' movie's name.
Lots of problems, and most of them, admittedly, can only be resolved by making this into a longer movie. Even an extra 15 minutes could have gone a LONG way to resolving some of the more important issues.
And as previously mentioned, the Whomping Willow was NOT replanted for book/movie 3. It's just that the entire film was shot in a different location. Book 3 finally explains WHY the Whomping Willow was finally planted. It never was moved. Also, as previously mentioned, the stag patronus as the end was NOT James Potter. James is dead and gone. Harry having a stag-shaped Patronus was more of a character development thing in the book, just another thing to tie James and Harry together, besides hair color and form, that is.
I don't have much hope for the 4th movie, which was almost twice the length as the third (in book form.)
About the stripping down of McGonnogall's role: There really wasn't much they could do there, considering she doesn't have that big of a role in the book.
They filmed the scene where they explain all about the Mauraders, but decided to cut it out of this one because they felt it would fit better in the fourth or fifth movie.
The one thing I would have to agree with is not enough hype about the prisoner. In the book they make a big point about how he killed all these innocent muggles just trying to get at Pettigrew. You do get the sense that Black is slightly off his rocker (I loved the "COME OUT AND PLAY!!!" lines), but I would have liked them to tell how he escaped and all that good stuff.
You actually thought the whomping willow looked smaller? I thought it looked a lot more bad ass, but I was disappointed with how it looked in the second movie and thought its placement in the grounds was strange also.
Oh yeah, I actually loved the new Dumbledore. I wasn't sure how I would like him, and hearing some of his lines in the promo material got me pretty worried, but I thought he pulled it off wonderfully. He had some weird lines that probably should have been cut, though, but ah well.
And I can't agree with anyone who says the movie felt rushed. I can see where you're coming from, since I felt the exact same way after seeing it the first time, and as a result didn't really have clear opinions on the film, but after seeing it a second time it seemed to be paced just fine and flowed very smoothly. But that's just my opinion
But like I've said before, there was some stuff that was cut that probably should have been there, but I think the positive far outweighs the negative.
New Dumbledore is alot better. As bad as it sounds, the other dude sounded like he was about to die.
Also, the time turner was emphasised to all hell. The movie focused alot more on the Harry Potter part of Harry Potter. Do you think he had any idea what the hell was going on with the time turner? Both Ron and him had WTF moments when Hermione showed up like 5 times throughout the movie, so I don't get see you more you could want.
There was a lot of good Harry/Ron/Hermione content that was pulled. If you hadn't read the book, you'd have no idea that their frienship almost fully came apart.
Saw it last night...thoroughly enjoyed it, but can see many of the concerns you guys have had.
A few general comments:
- Far and away, it is my belief the new Dumbledore is far superior...and, I know it's a horrible pun, but he's more ALIVE...he has a zest, and a true feeling of this brilliant man. I viewed Richard Harris' Dumbledore as very much a wise old man. The lines that Harris always stated with a wink needed the wink...Gambon does not need that. Later in the books, he has to become less of a role model and more of a compadre to them, and Gambon has that. While he also keeps the headmaster qualities, I think it's a more human Dumbledore.
- Of the new characters, definitely enjoyed both Thewlis' Lupin and Oldman's Sirius, especially Thewlis. I, as did others, saw Lupin as more of a young man, but Thewlis was able to play the role with such compassion for Harry that it made him as much of a pal as he needed to be. It had to be shown that Lupin's connection to Harry's father made them close, and I think Thewlis did a tremendous job with the role.
- On the whole, the rest of the acting was good. The Three Kids were not bad in any way, felt Radcliffe did well enough, and Watson/Grint did fine as well. The thing with the movies is that there is little development in Ron/Hermione as characters, and this is largely because of the title, "Harry Potter...". The major split between the friends over the Cruikshanks/Scabbers conflict is something that, like the constant badgering about the House Elves in Goblet, is going to get cut because it isn't important to Harry's overall story. And, it's disappointing, but it retains a flow in the film that is relatively important; one of the central story.
- Of the change of scenery for Hogwarts...absolutely love it. What Cuaron has done is create not just a fantasy world, but instead created one that you can live in. The movement of the Whomping Willow is picture perfect, in my view, because it moves it to a location more picturesque, not literally right next to the castle. Really, who in the hell would plant a deadly tree less than a hundred feet away from an entrance to the castle. The bridge across the river at Hogwarts is perfectly crooked, and the stones and the courtyard are aged, not perfectly constructed. Even the constantly revolving stairwells seem less pure and more organic. These changes are all in the artistic design of the film, and are one of the reasons it is by far the best film visually.
- Best Soundtrack of the Three, and very simply an eclectic, entertaining mix. I had listened to it online before I saw it, and would hear the pieces pop up and realize how much they fit the film.
- Thank goodness for less Quidditch, but it was damn cool Quidditch. The Quidditch matches have the problem of being the same all the time...putting it in the rain with the goggles and all made it stand out among the three in the series.
- While the lack of explanation regarding the Marauder's Map is definitely frustrating, I think that they may have felt it bordered on super-exposition. I mean, that is the type of thing that it will be just as easy for Harry to learn at some point, maybe from Sirius, in an attempt to strengthen their relatationship...those who haven't read the books (Up to and including Five) STAY AWAY FROM THE SPOILERS.
Considering Sirius' death at the end of Order of the Phoenix (I cannot spell it today) it is important that, even in the short amount of time they have in the movies that they fully develop their relationship. Perhaps shifting the onus of learning of the map to Sirius instead will further that process. Just a thought.
- Thought the climax was handled effectively, and the denouement was handled with great strength. Reliving those moments worked for me, and the way everything worked together and made sense in the end was truly well done; the entire sequence worked much better on screen than in the book, where the visual of them seeing themselves was absent. With that visual, the scene packed a punch, and allowed it to carry the film to climax.
- The problem with the adaptations after this point is that normal school life is going to get lost. This is why small interactions (McGonagall, Malfoy) are lost in the process, simply because they become unnecessary. The longer the books become, it seems that the plots aren't exactly growing at the same rate, and especially in Goblet a problem will definitely exist. The plots are short enough to fit into 3 hours, but the small events (Individual Quidditch matches, Malfoy interactions, McGonagall, the House Cup) are getting lost in the shuffle. It's a slight disappointment, indeed, but the need is there to focus on the plot. It'd be nice to get a straight adaptation...I take that back.
I think both of the first two films were too direct in their adaptations. Especially the first; it struggled to create a film, instead focuses on focusing on Rowling's work. I love the books, but she did not become a great short book writer until Azkaban, and didn't become a good long book writer until Phoenix (She's yet to become great at it, we'll see how 6 turns out). The first two were not, in my opinion, able to be adapted directly to create great filmmaking. The third did, but by no the plots have thickened and there is no time to adapt them directly. Cloves has a tough job ahead on Goblet, and it should be interesting to see what gets the axe.
Curious to see how Goblet turns out, but was definitely into this one. The best pure filmmaking of the three combined with the best story give it the edge over Philosopher's Stone (Damn you Warner Bros. USA; if we Canadians are smart enough to know what a Philosopher is, so are the Americans).
Just saw it and loved it. Saw the first one in theaters, and wasn't really amused at all. Saw the second one on HBO, and I was bored out of my wits. Though when I saw this one, I felt like someone had taken the book, and translated it perfectly into a movie. It cut out unimportant minor details, and kept the pace flowing pretty well. Very enjoyable. I'd love to watch it with the entire family some time in the future.
I saw it this weekend as well. I won't go into extensive detail (since I've been talking about this movie all day today), but as far as creating visually interesting fantasy worlds goes, Cuaron mopped the floor with Chris Columbus and, dare I say it, Peter Jackson.
I saw the first two films under duress, tolerated the first, and hated the second. The only reason I wanted to see this one is to see what the director of Y Tu Mama Tambien would do with a big budget. My God. Sure, the plot was a little rushed, but it was so nice to look at that I didn't care.
What I liked most about it was the amazing amount of detail in every frame, and how much care went into the design. The way the Warner Brothers logo was a huge, three-dimensional metallic object, and that you could see hundreds of nicks and scars in its surface once you got close to it. The way that some of the gears in the giant clock were covered with rust, and others weren't. The slide projector during the scene where Snape is teching the kids about werewolves. I could go on and on.
It's worth noting that Dave McKean was a conceptual artist for this (he illustrated one of Stephen King's Dark Tower novels, and has worked with Neil Gaiman as well).
I'm going to see it this sunday... and all I've heard are nothing but good things about the movie...
Alfonso Cuaron =
The one thing I didn't like about the book (and I'm pretty damn sure I wont like it in the movie either) is the Time Travel... I don't know... it just felt so... out of place... I didn't like it at all...
The one thing I didn't like about the book (and I'm pretty damn sure I wont like it in the movie either) is the Time Travel... I don't know... it just felt so... out of place... I didn't like it at all...
If you found it out of place, you'll likely feel the same, but the entire sequences packs an awesome, awesome visual punch that is really quite good. It works for me, seeing and hearing what occurs rather than just reading it.
Best one yet. I'm a big Cuaron fan, and he really did a good job with this one. I didn't mind the grounds change, but I don't know how well it will fly in GoF.
Speaking of GoF... Very afraid that this is going to get messed up. From interviews with him, he seems like he is already getting lost. There's a lot of important subject matter. I wish Cuaron would have just done both of them. Though he's said he might return to the series, GoF would have been perfect for his directing.
I didn't mind the grounds change, but I don't know how well it will fly in GoF...Speaking of GoF... Very afraid that this is going to get messed up. From interviews with him, he seems like he is already getting lost. There's a lot of important subject matter. I wish Cuaron would have just done both of them. Though he's said he might return to the series, GoF would have been perfect for his directing.
I can definitely see your concern, regarding the grounds change, because we have to realize that they have to build a pretty damn large maze, and house some Dragons. I think, though, that Cuaron and crew may have left enough of the area unseen in order to create the suspension of reality needed in which to construct these mazes. I mean, we were never really even given the exact location of the Quidditch Stadium, so perhaps there's so unused grounds lying around.
"Ive watched all three films and never been impressed by the dialog, i dont really criticise the films for it though, they are aimed at a younger audience after all. I thought this had the best base story of the 3, i liked harry getting mad but i really didnt think it flowed very well...spoilers ahead, hope the spoiler tag still works.."
The Harry Potter series as a whole is not intended for kids. The first two, perhaps and the third is sort of borderline. The movie kind of censored the first dementor scene. You were supposed to hear Harry's parents screaming as they were getting murdered by Voldemort, but instead you hear "Harry!"
The 4th movie, if adapted properly, is definitely PG13 material. There's racism, gore, murder, and Harry gets more pissed. This is part of the main plot, so it has to be in the movie.
I'm interested in how the public is going to respond to the 4th movie if they do it right.
Fantastic film and the only one of the three that I actually want to see again (as opposed to the first two which just made me want to read the books again).
i loved this movie
different director
different feel to the movie
derfinately a move for the better i think
although they should have explained the maruaders a little bit more
Out of all of the Potter films, this felt the most cinematic in that it felt the most concerned about being directional, and being more of a film rather than a supplement to the books. Yes, details were cut out in the translation such as the backstory of the map and such, but if these necesitate explanations in the future, they'll be done. This also was the first Potter movie where I got a sense of adventure, and was purely awed by the cinematography. Harry riding the Hippogriff over the lake was really well done.
The first two Potter films by Columbus were not that good. For me, the books were magical because of all the little details that Rowling put into it, that enabled us all to use our imaginations without ever slowing down the pacing of the story. This was also true of the Lord of the Rings books. Tolkien had pages upon pages of pure description. Jackson used these and put all that detail into his world, BUT (and this is the important point) did not FOCUS on these details. They existed to make the world more real. When you see the armies of Gondor fighting, you see that they have full armor crafted individually, and weapons that were created by an industry in NZ, but they're always doing something; fighting an enemy, running to protect their city, etc. Columbus's approach in the first two Potter movies was to take ALL the details of the first two books, and point them out so that these descriptions that existed to supplement a story were focused upon. This dragged it out, and made the story seem almost secondary.
Cuaron is always focused about the story, and uses details like Jackson does, as a supplement to the story-telling.
