Don't get me wrong - I'm trying not to look too negatively at it, but my biggest problem with the previous two movies has mainly been the Mary Sue version of Hermione they created - and it's totally addressed here. A guy who never read the books and didn't like the first two movies sees that they put too much importance on her (I'm betting this movie will be worse than the other two in this matter because Cuaron seems to have a perverted "thing" for her):
HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN
RATING: 5/10
Review Date: May 29, 2004
Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Writer: Steven Kloves
Producers: Chris Columbus, David Heyman, Mark Radcliffe
Actors: Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter
Emma Watson as Hermione
Rupert Gint as Ron
Genre: Fantasy
Year of Release: 2004
PLOT:
Harry Potter is put in jeopardy when a vicious murderer by the name of Sirius Black escapes Azkaban prison and is apparently on the lookout for all things Potter. Hermione topless...ensues! Just kidding, of course. The film essentially follows Potter and his two friends as they attempt to stay one step ahead of the baddie and try to figure out why the man wants Harry dead (other than the fact that the little wizard-kid's a billionaire, of course). The third installment of the obscenely popular Potter series ensues...
CRITIQUE:
As a laymen who has not read any of the Harry Potter novels, as someone who didn't particularly care for either of the two previous movies, I can safely say that the third part of this children's series is certainly the most accomplished in terms of its look and atmosphere, but also the lamest in terms of its story, development and conclusion. How any film with Gary Oldman in it can go wrong is a mystery to me (although having him on-screen for about 10 minutes is a start), but the main idea with any film, in my opinion, would be to actually develop a plotline that gives the audience at least three different acts, as opposed to a one-line synopsis that can describe the entire movie: "Sirius Black escapes from prison and is out to get Harry". That's basically what we get from the film from scene one, and a long 140 minutes later, we are given an extremely anti-climactic and tepid resolution, that doesn't only let down any sort of basic build-up that had come before it, but left me feeling very little closure. At this point, I'll be glad to admit that these films might simply be for "fans" of the books, because to be honest...I just don't get the appeal. Sure, the whole "wizard" angle is an interesting one, most of the effects in this film are particularly accomplished and the continuity of the characters from film to film is semi-engaging, but does anybody really care about the one-note storyline? Where are the obstacles? Where are the memorable sequences? Where are the situations of peril, the action scenes, the powers used by Harry the mighty wizard? (this kid might just be Gandalf's illegitimate son, according to the number of times he actually uses his powers...)
To top things off, much like its predecessors, this movie just goes on for way too long. An easy half and hour of supposed "plot" could have been cut from this thing in order to snap things up, including extraneous sequences featuring an eagle-horse thingie, the rain-drenched game of Quiddish, any scenes with Emma Thompson's over-the-top new teacher character and anything having to do with that lame-ass, one-dimensional "bad kid" Malfoy, who is nothing more than a thorn in everyone's side...but not for any other reason than because, well...I guess the film needs to have a thorn in everyone's side. Furthermore, if the film is called HARRY POTTER, how come Hermione is the character who ultimately seems to have the greater chops? Bah. The ending also felt a tad repetitive with certain "time-referential" elements not helping matters and the werewolf CGI not providing the film which its greatest effects. The things I did appreciate about the film included its many cute, small wizardy special effects, the continued great work by Alan Rickman as Professor Snape, the welcome addition of David Thewliss and his character of Professor Lupin, the "dementors" roaming the skies, as well as the zippy sequence with the double-decker bus. Other than that, there is very little about this bloated package that delivered anything of great impact, particularly its story-line, which as previously mentioned, is basically one-tone in nature, and ultimately, not altogether interesting, surprising, entertaining or fulfilling (that enough "ing" words for you?) Even Daniel Radcliffe comes off badly in a couple of scenes where the now-teen actor is asked to convey actual emotion-I guess he doesn't possess the wizardry prowess to make himself a good actor just yet. Overall, the film was gorgeous to look at (the snow scenes were brilliant), but bored me for most of its runtime and didn't inject any of the so-called magical appeal that everyone else seems to be getting from these flicks into me. Oh well, to each his own, as I always say...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I could picture me writing this...although I have read the books. I just don't think Cuaron delivered what the books embodied. PoA was an incredible book. There is absolutely no way to actually capture its essence on screen, and Cuaron certainly doesn't seem like the man to do it.
And from the previews, I would think Hermione is the main character...definitely wrong...terribly wrong...makes me cringe wrong.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Just went to see it. It was really confusing and everything seemed rushed. For example, the beginning was very - different. Everything happened so fast that I couldn't keep up. Thank God I had read the books... phew
Also, Lupin did look TERRIBLE. Wolf or not, he just wasn't how I imagined him...
''
Muahahaha...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The guy said the movie isn't surprising?! Either they did the movie wrong or this guy is lying (I hope its the second option). Book 3 is the most surprising besides book 4! These movies have people thinking Harry is a stupid childrens book series. The movies are so much worse than the books!!! But what I find from most reviews is that how I think the movies going to be is more accurate. Most of the time. Also please tell me they have the Firebolt in this movie?! I'm seeing it tommorow and I expect dissapointment.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
This guy has written that the movie was too long and that it was pretty basic... not that I've seen it myself, but from what I've read so far, it seems that they've taken relevant parts of the book out and inserted Bulls*** that shouldnt be in there taking up the time. classic Hollywood butchering.....
"Now Now Draco... Play nicely"
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
What annoys me, is that he's sitting there waffling on about the lack of storey, without even having read the books. And he seems to think he's insulting someone other than JKR when saying it. I don't like all the negativity about these movies. Im a harry potter fan, and im going to embrace it all, whether it's up to the book standard or not, no matter what the directors did it would never be. There would always be something wrong with it, plainly because a book like Harry Potter cannot be suitibly adapted to a movie. But I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the movie for what it is, and if it's bad think 'oh well, i still have the book'.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I don't think the movies are really HP. They take a wonderful book and do it a grave injustice.
With PoA, it doesn't surprise me that this guy thought the end was not so surprising or that the movie was a bit primitive. If you go through PoA, it's not the dialogue that sets the mood of the movie. It's mostly the thoughts and surroundings. It's hard to capture that in a film, nearly impossible.
And I do like seeing a review from someone other than an HP fan. This is a guy who CAN see it objectively. People who read the books infuse what they know of the stories into what they're seeing. They can't see the movie objectively. When they leave, all they do is compare the images to what they have read. A person who has never read the books can make comments and see the movie from a pure standpoint that a book fan simply cannot achieve, so what we're seeing is what the movie looks like to a neutral audience, which is refreshing.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I saw the movie.I tried to stay objective through out.I sat next to a woman in her early 20’s who was a big HP fan.We found ourselves groaning or sighing at the exact same times.Once we both turned to each other and shook our heads in disbelief.So, I would say that the Potterites will be, at least, a bit disappointed.
I agree that the atmosphere is much better.It’s darker and more gritty.The CGI is… well… just plain bad. The Patronus, werewolf, Snuffles, all sad. Buckbeak, however, is the exception.I thought he was actually quite good.The Marauders Map was very good, I thought, and was large enough, when unfolded to be believable.Fred and George were perfect.Oldman was actually quite good, and I agree they should have given him more screen time.His fake tattoos, however, were dismal. Trelawney was ok, not how I picture her, but quirky enough.The apparent age differences in the Marauders are troublesome.
(I’m trying to avoid spoilers here)
By the end of the film, you get the impression that a windstorm blew the script pages around and they were re-assembled in the wrong order, with characters failing to explain important points and characters speaking lines, not theirs, and scenes completely out of place.
Having vented, I did like some things about the film, and you all will too, I think.Don’t go looking for a film that is set up to completely support the story in the book, or even as a bridge from one book to the next.There are too many connections missing and explanations dropped.
(Ok here comes a spoiler)
You will cringe when Snape throws himself in from of the kids to protect them.You will be aghast when Lupin walks off and never explains the map, and you will throw things at the screen when Hermione and Harry return to the hospital wing after saving Sirius, and the Shrieking Shack…..well you’ll see.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
chill out. watch every movie that's made from a book/little story: they're nothing like the book/little story. Let's take 2 movies that are completely different from the book:
STUART LITTLE: OMG!!!!!!!!!!! I liked the movie when I was younger (like 7 or 8) and I liked it but I didn't read the book. THen my mom bought the book and I read it: Boy was THAT a surprise. Both Stuart Little movies have nothing to do with books. Bleh.
LITTLE MERMAID: All I have to say is: does anyone know what actually happens in the Brothers Grimm "Little Mermaid?" Do you know the plot? Moral: DON'T HAVE PREMARITAL.
To make my point: no movie from a book is or every will be an exact copy of the book. Chill out. Get used to Hollywood. <br><br></a>http://Godric'sHollow.conforums1.com/
When life gives you lemons, make orange juice.
"Go ahead, bash me. It only makes me stronger and more likely to bash back."
-my sister after reading a rather rude comment on her xanga...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The thing you have to becareful about with these, are that alot of them are mythical fairy-tale type myths that originated a long LONG time ago, and have been appropriated to suit audience and culture. Grimm version of Little Mermaid (and others including snow white) differ greatly, as do other versions of said story. Disney just took an extremely well known myth and made it, well, disney. This is different as HP has been specifically adapted from this one version of HP (as there is only one) and it doesn't need to particularly change to suit audience or culture as both in those cases are fairly broad, and this is a purely original text written recently.
You can't argue it is the same, they are completely different circumstances.
And i think you should stop telling people to chill because no one is going to listen to you.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Becs, you must be pretty young. You were only a young kid when Stuart Little came out? So you're telling everyone in a very mature way to chill out? (note sarcasm). Yeah, let me rush NOT to take your advice.
At least all the other younger people here have something called respect for everyone else, no matter what the age.
I heard that Lupin looks rather odd. I don't know why all these directors try to put their own "vision" of what a werewolf is supposed to look like. The book says Lupin looks like a wolf, yet both my sisters thought Cuaron royally f*cked up that.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Lupin is entirely different in the film than how I imagined him. What on earth is up with the mustasche? He reminds me of a french waiter or something... And they ruined most of the plot as it was all in different order and many times I said to my friend 'Hey, thats not like in the book!'
Anyway, if you are gonna do a film based on the book at least STICK TO THE PLOT! Honestly, most of it seemed to appear out of no where.
It does not matter if it is Hollywood or not - they screwed up a perfectly good book and THATS what matters!
''
Muahahaha...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I've complained about the movie so much that I'm getting tired of it. I just wanted to say that The Little Mermaid is not by the Grimm brothers, but by Hans Christian Andersen. Just to clear that up...
'
