Latest Harry Potter Movie

[AceHBK]

Has anyone seen it yet? Your thoughts on it?


I just got done listening to the audiobook again to refresh my memory. That may have been a bad thing cause I know I will be pissed if I feel they left something important out but that is how it goes with books made into movies.
I am going to see it tonight in IMAX 3D, I hope it is worth the $15.

 

[arnisador]

We liked it! My brother saw the 3D and said it wasn't really worth it for the short section that was in 3D.

 

[MA-Caver]

Haven't seen it but plan to after the furor over it has died down... which probably has by now since it fell rapidly from it's #1 spot to #2 in less than two weeks... and this is a cgi movie about hamsters who are secret agents.

To me 3-D movies are over-rated. Probably because I've yet to find a pair of specs that will fit comfortably inside or over my own glasses and thus making it really hard to enjoy the effects. Also usually the 3D effects are for specified things in the movie and not throughout which should give one the impression that they are actually in the movie or watching it as an outsider in real life. Guess technology hasn't gotten there yet... it'll probably will .... someday.

I finished reading the book to update myself on what's what and who's who. Yet I've learned since POA (the 3rd movie) not to expect EVERYTHING to be shown.
I'm still of the opinion that they should've taken a cue from Peter Jackson's LOTR's and gone back to reshoot and add in scenes ... at least for the DVD release to help fill in the blanks. Seems that nobody who hasn't read the books realizes that Rita Skinner (from GOF... #4) was a mid-level character that got regulated to a minor one for the sake of screen time.

Anyway, still looking forward to it. Madly disappointed that one has to wait 3 more years for the final movie (in two parts no less) to come out. Sheesh.

 

[AceHBK]

Ok I just saw it. The theater had a total of about 15 people in it which shocked me.

The 3D part wasn't worth it at all. There was better 3D in the previews than in the 15 minutes of the beginning of the movie. Waiting all this time I should have just seen it in a regular theatre.

This book is LOOSELY BASED upon the novel. I was sooo disappointed I almost got up and walked out of the film. I know everything can't be taken from the book and put into the movie but this was down right appalling. I can't believe WB allows David Yates to continue to direct the series. I am upset JK Rowling gave her blessing on this film.

Again I am a HP fan and have the audiobooks and have listened to them 4x from book 1 to book 7 and just got done refreshing myself on Book 6 just to remind myself. I of course will be a hard critic but this movie is plain.....garbage.

I have so many gripes I can't figure out where to begin. I don't want to give out spoilers so I will stay quite. I will say Yates changed a lot of key things in the movie and at one point just made up a whole scene that was flat out NOT in the book.

 

[stickarts]

my wife and I enjoyed it. Thought it was one of the best in the series.

 

[punisher73]

Movie wise it is a good movie and fits in with the rest of the movie series.

BUT, if you are a big fan of the HP books, then like almost all of them you will be disappointed because there is SOOO much that is in the books that wasn't in the movie.

 

[girlbug2]

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm taking the attitude that it's a movie and it should stand alone as such. I've learned the hard way that going into a movie based on a book, not to expect it to conform. That's just Hollywood's way. Best not to read the book first if you can't mentally separate it from the movie.

Of course if Peter Jackson hadn't done such a wonderful job with LOTR I probably would've ranted about it nonstop for a week .

 

[AceHBK]

Of course if Peter Jackson hadn't done such a wonderful job with LOTR I probably would've ranted about it nonstop for a week .

I never read LOTR but I heard people who read the books say that he did a pretty good job converting it to the big screen.

You know it takes a director who is a fan of the book or even comic book to do it justice when they put it on the big screen. Peter Jackson was a huge LOTR fan and therefore wanted to give it justice. Sam Raimi is a huge Spider-Man fan and has been pretty damn good with his Spider Man movies.

David Yates cannot be a serious fan with this chop job of a movie. And is it me or has the acting gotten worse???

 

[AceHBK]

BUT, if you are a big fan of the HP books, then like almost all of them you will be disappointed because there is SOOO much that is in the books that wasn't in the movie.

I agree. I understand things will be left out and they have to shorten it BUT when you put things in the movie that NEVER happened and you start retelling the story different from the book in which could change the whole thing, I have a huge problem.

Last...

when the hell did everyone start flying without broomsticks!?!?!?!?

Thos had me irate. Found this on imdb.com It takes all my strength not to get up and find David Yates and choke him myself.

The original script included all of Dumbledore's memories about Voldemort as outlined in the source novel, but the director insisted on trimming them down as, according to Steve Kloves, "..he wanted to showcase Voldemort's rise without getting overly involved with his past as Riddle."

 

[zDom]

I agree. I understand things will be left out and they have to shorten it BUT when you put things in the movie that NEVER happened and you start retelling the story different from the book in which could change the whole thing, I have a huge problem.

Jackson did the same thing with LoTR, but it still gets rave reviews.

Raimi did the same thing with Spidey, same rave reviews.

I don't like it when directors/script writers think THEIR "vision" is better for a movie that what was originally written (other than trimming down to fit into a motion picture length) but what can we do about?

Definitely disgruntles me, though

 

[CoryKS]

It was one of my least favorite movies of the series. I can accept making some changes if it makes for a stronger movie, but there were a lot of changes and some of them made no sense. Also, there were editing problems. It's a shame because it had a lot of potential, and the kids are becoming pretty good actors. The kid who played Malfoy did a great job. Overall, it was just meh.

 

[Empty Hands]

It was pretty and well shot, but kind of boring. As noted above, the 3D was disappointing. I was expecting a big 3D battle scene at the end like OotP.

 

[Omar B]

Jackson did the same thing with LoTR, but it still gets rave reviews.
Raimi did the same thing with Spidey, same rave reviews.
I don't like it when directors/script writers think THEIR "vision" is better for a movie that what was originally written (other than trimming down to fit into a motion picture length) but what can we do about?
Definitely disgruntles me, though

I am no Harry Potter fan but I must comment on the Peter Jackson as well as Raimi thing.

Firstly, LOTR was a good adaptation, but it is nowhere near the books. Huge swaths of story just done away with, characters gone and their lines given to other people (Tom Bombadil anyone?), events moved out of sequence. Heck, my favorite chapter, The Sacking Of The Shire was just not in the movie at all! Decent movies but in no way as good an adaptation as people would like to belive.

As for Raimi, I love and respect his work as a director but he did things with Spider-Man that went completely counter to who Peter is and showed he has little udnerstanding of his characterization further than nerd with powers. Giving Peter organic web shooters? The whole point of Pete inventing his web shooters and the disolving web was to set up early in the story what a great genius the kid was. A genius never even fully capitalized upon in any of the stories. Pete's a guy who's genius is right up there with Reed Richards and Tony Stark, he invents a stronger than steel liquid in his aunt's basement!

As for Raimi's work adapting Terry Goodkind's Sword Of Truth series into a TV series it clearly shows that he has little care for source material since he's runnign roughshod over such great works. Leads me to belive Sam likes huge properties rather than doing faithful adaptations.

 

[arnisador]

Also, there were editing problems.

Yeah, that was pretty obvious.

 

[MA-Caver]

As best as they may have or COULD have been LOTR, HP, Spiderman, and all the other adaptations have been pretty good. Even the Hulk which was yet another re-telling of the story of Dr. Banner's plight. Same with the X-men and so on.
Jackson's LOTR has to be watched in the expanded version to get an appreciation for what the entire CREW of the films did. They all agreed to come and shoot additonal scenes and this was from fans outcrying the lack the original versions were showing. So Jackson being the consumate fan that he was asked the crew if they wouldn't mind staying on in Oz to shoot additonal and re-do other scenes... thankfully they all agreed. Not to mention the additonal CGI work that had to be done. So even a die-hard fan like myself (who has read the entire series ... including the Hobbit once a year for the last 20 sumpthin years) can be pleased with what's given.
Yes I bemoan the lack of Bombadil, and the Scourging of the Shire (which was shown actually in Gladadriel's mirror for a few moments by Frodo instead of Samwise... but the quality of the film and the story-telling allowed for such forgiving errors. They could've skipped the long trek by Sam and Frodo to Mt. Doom by jumping from the Morgoth tower to the base of the volcano but he didn't. The man (Jackson AND the entire crew) deserves highest praise for their monumental work.

Anyway this is about HP... Granted that the films could only condense into two hours a week or two worth of reading of the books. After POA the books grew into monsterous proportions of story telling. Trying to squeeze that much into just barely over 2 hours was hard enough. Which is why (again) I wished the cast and crew followed Jackson's example.

 

[seasoned]

I can take it or leave it.

 

[Omar B]

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, books are better served as mini-series or full series. One of the best book to screen adaptations to date is still Sci-Fi's Dune.

 

[zDom]

Squeezing a novel into a movie is something filmmakers have struggled with since, well, films were invented!

So do so marvelously, others.. not so much.

My objection is, specifically, where the filmmaker pretty much rewrites the story.

I'm re-reading the book right now and there are a long list of decisions (I won't do the spoiler thing) where basic plot tentpoles were handled completely differently in the movie than the book — and for no apparent reason!!

Brevity was CLEARLY not the reason as hitting those same plot tentpoles could have been achieved in the same amount of time that was dedicated to hitting alternate plot tentpoles.

So WHY?? The ONLY answer that presents itself is: filmmaker EGO. They think THEIR story is BETTER than the book as written. And I almost always disagree, almost always preferring the original storyline.

 

[AceHBK]

Omar...you are correct about the Peter Parker thing. He doesn't come off as the genius that he is in the comics. I wasn't upset over the web thing cause I saw that as something minor. They could have made him seem more smarter than he is. I am able to live with it though.

I have never read any of the Lord of the Rings books. I wonder how different they are. I did watch the movies and made sure to watch the collectors edition which had all of the extra scenes and all..

Never read or saw Dune....

 

[AceHBK]

Squeezing a novel into a movie is something filmmakers have struggled with since, well, films were invented!

So do so marvelously, others.. not so much.

My objection is, specifically, where the filmmaker pretty much rewrites the story.

I'm re-reading the book right now and there are a long list of decisions (I won't do the spoiler thing) where basic plot tentpoles were handled completely differently in the movie than the book — and for no apparent reason!!

Brevity was CLEARLY not the reason as hitting those same plot tentpoles could have been achieved in the same amount of time that was dedicated to hitting alternate plot tentpoles.

So WHY?? The ONLY answer that presents itself is: filmmaker EGO. They think THEIR story is BETTER than the book as written. And I almost always disagree, almost always preferring the original storyline.

Yeah brother...once you go back and read the book and compare it to the movie you see my gripe.

It's not them cutting things out per se. It is totally rewriting the whole movie is what kills me. Harry looked like such a scared little boy. A stark contrast to how he is in the book.

Yeah Yates ego ran wild and it showed in how this movie was made.

I forgave him for using the spell "levicorpus" in Order of the Phoenix despite the spell not being learned until the Half Blood Prince.....I let it go!! lol (It isn't a hoovering charm either Yates...read the book!!!)


But this movie irked me every minute I sat through it. With so much changed in it, I don't see how in the world they can try and explain everything in the last movie. Too much has been re-written or flat out taken out.