Harry Potter Movies

[Pixiedragon]

I don't like the movies very much, though I've seen them all.
And when I saw PoA, I hated it, but I think that will be less when I see it again...
But they've made some changes in there, which shouldn't have been made.  

[Allerisse]

I liked the second one the best, coz I thought Harry looked the best in it. sweatdrop  

[tukikagami]

laksa88

Ugh. the third movie was just horrible...
There were so many holes in the movie I could fill the Dead Sea into those holes.. stare
The acting was super crappy, this Dumbledore was wayyy to emotional to be like the cool, composed Dumbledore in the books >_>

This is the man for me!! heart heart I agree with all he says!  

[joyinfree]

None of the movies was really good, but the "best" one was the third one in my opinion. The first one was told in a too slow, and too boring way. The second one was a little bit better, but compared to the book... just crap! Well, the third one was the one with the worsest skript, I think, but this time, the director and some of the actors were brilliant. The story was told very fast and so the movie at least wasn´t THAT boring.
Anyway, A. C. was the better director (I don´t know how to spell the name...) but none of the movies is good, and of course not as good as the books.
Well, about the actors...
first movie: Everybody was horrible, but the woman who acted McGonagall and the one who acted Snape.
second movie: Almost the same, but Ron was good, too
third: quite good...  

[Pares]

I have to say that I like the third movie by a long shot. When I watch the movies I'm in the mind set that it's based on the books. A.C. (I'm cheating too!) is by far a superior director. I came there to be entertained and I was entertained.

Whoever wrote the script should be shot though.

In general, the movies are awful. The purely British cast rule kills it and the fact that many of the castings are based on the appearance. My mom saw the first one with us at the theater and didn't understand it at all. The movie should flow with some sort of plot, not try to smash everything in.

And just as a general rule of mine, unless the actors are noted for their skill (A Series of Unfortunate Events- Jim Carry) avoid any movie that puts child actors in major roles. 3nodding  

[FayeKasumiValentine1]

Okay you guys are getting way too nitpicky here on the films. While I agree they needed to explain the Maureder's Map, not everything can fit into the span they wanted to create the movies in. I liked all three films, POA being my favorite. No two films will look the same, the actors are maturing, and I don't believe their acting is that terrible. The films will never be the same as the books, they are two entirely different genres. Books have much more space in which to explain things, probe intermost thoughts etc. Movies are more about visuals, so yes certain things are going to be left out. To have the movies exactly as we wanted them they'd have to span six hours or more, more considering the length of GoF and OotP. Now, I try to keep this in mind when watching the films as opposed to the books, the directors may have read the books but there are by now way HP fanatics. If you don't like the HP films (which I happen to love, I like seeing the images JK has created brought to life upon the screen) then don't buy a ticket don't see the movie. No one is forcing you to go. Chris Columbus has a more documentarian style to making his films, whilst Curaon brought the more gothic dark type element to it. Which I believe is an improvement, because by the time that OotP rolls around, we are surrounded by angst. Now, I vouched for GoF to be a four hour film with an interlude in between. But ultimately, and yes unfourtuantly WB is not going to listen to the complaining of the devoted fans, they dont' want to waste money. Which yes, considering the lenght of GoF is a tragedy. But, I can see why they cut many of the things out of PoA for time, for example the Cadogan scene, the trio searching through the library for things to help Hagrid with Buckbeak's trail. Some small things have to be sacrificied for movie making, look at LOTR how much do you think Peter Jackson had to cut out of those films? We'd have one heck of a long epic if he included everything Tolkien wrote in his works. A director picks out the parts of the books he sees fit to be a major impact and of importance to he film. I don't agree with everything that was left out, but I still love the films regardless. I stand by them no matter what anyone else thinks.  

[queeneb]

Prisoner of Azkaban so far it is my favorite movie and book! 3nodding  

[non642]

Ok here are my thoughts on the movies and some of the issues that have been brought up:

I think the movies are alright, but they definately do not get on my list of favourite movies overall. As far as recent fantasy movies are concerned, I enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies much more than the Harry Potter films even though there is not a huge gap in my liking of the two different book series.

The acting in them is alright. The child actors were quite bad in the first one, but they have been rapidly improving. They get better in each film and look much more comfortable. The adult cast is generally excellent.
I have no problem with the British casting rule so long as they are finding decent actors. The characters are British and faked accents are generally poor. (I am not saying all actors who fake accents do a bad job, but many do and even those who do a good job tend to have little slips here and there)

I have no problem with them cutting bits out of the story. You cannot film every little itty bitty scene from the book and expect to have a watchable, reasonably lengthed movie. The one thing that should not have been cut out though was the explanation of the Map because it is a rather large plot hole. And it made Harry's stag patronus at the end have no significance. It didn't have to be a long explanation. Even just saying who the authors were and why they had those nicknames in a sentence or two would have been enough.

So basically, I find the movies to be enjoyable. I like to go and see them. But I generally have no wish to own them or watch them repeatedly.  

[RubyRays]

I've watched the PoA movie 11 time stressed  

[Magenta Platypus]

RubyRays

I've watched the PoA movie 11 time stressed

Lucky! I've only seen it once, and that was back in June! gonk I must go buy it! domokun  

[Kekepania]

FayeKasumiValentine1

Okay you guys are getting way too nitpicky here on the films. While I agree they needed to explain the Maureder's Map, not everything can fit into the span they wanted to create the movies in. I liked all three films, POA being my favorite. No two films will look the same, the actors are maturing, and I don't believe their acting is that terrible. The films will never be the same as the books, they are two entirely different genres. Books have much more space in which to explain things, probe intermost thoughts etc. Movies are more about visuals, so yes certain things are going to be left out. To have the movies exactly as we wanted them they'd have to span six hours or more, more considering the length of GoF and OotP. Now, I try to keep this in mind when watching the films as opposed to the books, the directors may have read the books but there are by now way HP fanatics. If you don't like the HP films (which I happen to love, I like seeing the images JK has created brought to life upon the screen) then don't buy a ticket don't see the movie. No one is forcing you to go. Chris Columbus has a more documentarian style to making his films, whilst Curaon brought the more gothic dark type element to it. Which I believe is an improvement, because by the time that OotP rolls around, we are surrounded by angst. Now, I vouched for GoF to be a four hour film with an interlude in between. But ultimately, and yes unfourtuantly WB is not going to listen to the complaining of the devoted fans, they dont' want to waste money. Which yes, considering the lenght of GoF is a tragedy. But, I can see why they cut many of the things out of PoA for time, for example the Cadogan scene, the trio searching through the library for things to help Hagrid with Buckbeak's trail. Some small things have to be sacrificied for movie making, look at LOTR how much do you think Peter Jackson had to cut out of those films? We'd have one heck of a long epic if he included everything Tolkien wrote in his works. A director picks out the parts of the books he sees fit to be a major impact and of importance to he film. I don't agree with everything that was left out, but I still love the films regardless. I stand by them no matter what anyone else thinks.

I completely agree with everything you said!! Brilliant biggrin
POA was my favorite movie by far. As the actors mature and get more comfortable with who they are as actors and people and how their charecters relate and change, they're gotten a lot better. I think that most of the cast is really good and well-chosen and as much as I wish I could be in one of the movies, I think the british only rule is a good idea.
Also, A.A. (cheating too lol) was a really good choice for the POA. Tt's a lot darker of a book and I thought his style fit the movie perfectly. I also like how they're changing directors- each one brings his/her own spice and their own fantasy. I don't mind some of the changes- i think they're for the better. Also, it seems like the director is picked depending on how dark the book is about and what topics they explore. All in all i agree with everything Fayekasumi said and I think they've done a pretty good job on the movies.  

[SincerityAnn]

well, here's my two cents!!! I hated the third movie. I loved the first two. i think the new director ruined it. i hated the talking head in the knight bus, even though J.k.r. said she liked it and wished she had written it. i think the casting choice for lupin was awful. all the others are fine. dumbledore was definitely different than the original but what were they supposed to do?...bring the other guy back from the dead?!!! i do, however, think that the costume and makeup people should have altered his hair and beard to look more like the original. it was too yellow and not straight enough. i also felt he should have spoken slower and more collected like the original dumbledore did. i absolutely hated the way they ended the movie. ...with harry's big face plastered across the screen. it wasn't emotional enough...and just seemed stupid. i love the books. i would rather read those again any day. ..can't seem to find enough time in the day to do so though. I'll probably read them again before the next one comes out in july. oh, did anyone hear that they decided to cut the dursley's out of the beginning of the 4th movie..the whole thing with dudley and the candy and fred and george in the fire place. that reaaaaaaaaaally disappointed me!!! i guess they did it for time. i couldn't care less. i'd rather sit there for four hours than have them chop it all to hell. i also heard that they're thinking about going ahead and making one of the movies really long (can't remember which one)...and just having an intermission in the middle. ...now that idea, i like!!!  

[EmsMercury]

CoS was my favorite movie so far. PoA just didn't do it for me. I understand they can't put in every little detail, I'm not that stupid. I just wish they'd added on at least another five-ten minutes to explain what needed to be explained.

My choice of director, Christopher Columbus. Alfonso did a great job with characterization, and the imagery was good, but I found the first two movies to be much more enjoyable throughout. Though, PoA did have points where I liked it. It had some humor, and I actually did like the Knight Bus scene.

The actors are getting much better. I adore Alan Rickman, and Dan, Rupert, and Emma do an alright job. I think they're just growing up too quickly for the movies. Tom is teh seks. I really like how he's been able to bring out more in Draco. He's finally more able to expand the character... now if some of the others would do that a bit more... I liked Michael Gambon. To me, he was more Dumbledorish. Maggie Smith is a wonderful McGonagall, and Emma Thompson did well as Trelawney.

Oh, I'd definately take the books over the movies any day. It leaves more room for my imagination, and I won't be disappointed in what I see because it's my head!  

[dragons375]

SincerityAnn

Well, here's my two cents. I hated the third movie. I loved the first two, I think the new director ruined it. I hated the talking head in the knight bus, even though J.K. said she liked it and wished she had written it. I think the casting choice for Lupin was awful. all the others are fine. Dumbledore was definitely different than the original but what were they supposed to do...bring the other guy back from the dead? I do, however, think that the costume and makeup people should have altered his hair and beard to look more like the original. It was too yellow and not straight enough.I also felt he should have spoken slower and more collected like the original dumbledore did. I absolutely hated the way they ended the movie. With Harry's big face plastered across the screen. It wasn't emotional enough...and just seemed stupid. I love the books. I would rather read those again any day. Can't seem to find enough time in the day to do so though. I'll probably read them again before the next one comes out in july. Oh, did anyone hear that they decided to cut the Dursley's out of the beginning of the 4th movie... the whole thing with Dudley and the candy and Fred and George in the fire place That really dissappointed me. I guess they did it for time. I couldn't care less. I'd rather sit there for four hours than have them chop it up. I also heard that they're thinking about going ahead and making one of the movies really long (Can't remember which one) and just having an intermission in the middle. Now that idea, I like

(( OMG I edited your message you didn't capitalize any I's and made 2 spaces between sentences...))

I agree with you, but David Thewlis, I though was a great actor for Lupin gonk  

[rosawill]

Which movie was better? Prisoner of Azkaban

Which director do you think did a better job with them? The guy who directed the 3rd movie.

Would you rather sit down and read the books or watch the movies? Sit and read the books, because they give more detail and plus, the movies leave things out.

What do you think about the choices in actors? I think they choose really well, if they ever changed them, I probably wouldn't watch the movies.