 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
And I was quite disappointed. The new style of direction was quite inferior to that of the previous two. Felt more like watching a kid's version of 28 days after. Speaking of which, was this movie even shot on film? It looked like crappy digital. The content of this movie was profoundly comprimised. Yes I know this was a longer book but so what? The movie made huge and important ommissions from the book and it felt more like an outline than an actual fleshed out narative. Also, this was the first time story changes were made in relation to the book. The first two movies were amazingly true to the books both in feel and in content. This one was off base in just about every way. When I saw the first two I kept thinking that it was pulled right out of my head because they were so close to what I had visualized. For this one my reaction was completely the opposite. Too bad. Prisoner of Azkaban was the Harry Potter book I liked the most.
Follow Ups:
Thought is was a very mature turn for direction. More of an adult movie than kids' fantasy. Radcliffe seems to be out maturing his cast mates--they'd better hustle up on number four.
It's been a few years since I read the book, though. The main stuff is there. Some of the minor stuff would have been welcomed by true buffs.The main things are the expecto patronum and hermione's resourcefulness. Also the revelation about Sirius Black. Gary Oldham, btw, was great in this role. Wasn't he the black dog seen in the first part of the movie? And Lupin, he was also excellent.
Harry and his motley crew. Quite a colorful bunch. We do care what happens to them, no?
I was glad that they cut Emma Thompson's stuff a bit. The last movie with Branagh quite overdid that schtick.
And I strongly disagree. This film was vastly superior to the others. I can't speak to its fidelity to the book, and generally I think that's an unfair standard to hold any film adaptation to (with some exceptions or qualifications). The direction and visual style has been sorely missed from this genre of film and, in my opinion, would have served The Lord of the Rings well: much more naturalistic and perspectival; relatively free of cinematic fx bombast; full of clever visual touches (for example, Harry's view of the tree when his glasses had been knocked from his head; the spattering of the camera-lense by snow when the tree shook off winter for spring); the acting was more human, less stilted, and evinced a much better chemistry between the main characters (though I'll admit that Ron got short-changed).... It did feel a bit rushed, a bit compressed at times--probably a casualty of adaptation. But it's the one entry in the series I'd go out of my way to see again.And the three movies do not take place over a single school term. It was clearly stated in this film that they were beginning a new term--hardly a necessity, since the growth and, ahem, development of the cast pretty well suggests it by itself.
I appreciated the masturbation jokes and the budding adolescent affections as well.
I hope they stick with this director to the end.
I don't know about the books, but is that really true of the films? The first, which is fresher in my mind, seems pretty clearly to end with the completion of a school term. Doesn't the second begin with his having to leave his muggle parents again for yet another term? Doesn't the third?
and thought it was the best of the 3 movies. My 13 year old daughter (who's read all the books) agreed. Darker both in cinematography and tone. Fairly accurate in capturing the teenage mood and angst. Also more suspenseful and frightening.
Regards,
Mike
If the mark on his Harry's forehead was on the wrong side, it was probably seen in a reflection (train window, etc.).
and let me preface my comments by stating that I've never read the books.I saw it Friday and didn't read anything about it until I got home with Friday's W/E section and the review by Miami's film critic Rene Rodriguez.
First off, when compared to the first two, it's a shorter movie. Secondly, it's filmed during the cold winter months and hence it is a darker, less cheery movie from a visual POV. Finally, some of the plot twists were a bit confusing for me, just keeping track of who was who. I did notice, that the second quarter seemed to drag a bit too, but then it sped up.
All in all, I thought on the way home, 3 out of 4.
When I did get home, I read the review that explained the new director, the book and the fact that this wasn't visually/energetically as entertaining as the first two. RR went on to imply that the HP book series is short on plot twists, but deep on characterizations, much like Anne Rice's IWAV...that is to say one gets five pages describing the dress of a particular character at a particular moment in the story. So...even dispensing with some of the major set pieces of the first two films, this guy just couldn't cram all of the stuff that you seem to miss, into this film. He had carte blanche to get to the meat and bones.
RR mentioned that this new director didn't have to go and replay the cribbich matches in their entirety because we've already seen them in toto once before. This left room to address other things and to even shorten the movie somewhat, but at the sake of familiarity.
Anyhow, I take it for what it is and it was different from the first two. If people have seen the first two then they'll obviously have to see this one, making up their own minds.
The one thing that I thought strange, was seeing how the three main characters have physically matured as they have gotten older over the past three or four years. I also thought that I saw the lightning bolt on Harry's forehead switch locations from one scene to the next. I could have sworn that it was on the left side in the train car, but for the rest of the movie it's on his right. I guess that I'll just have to wait for the DVD to hit the stores?
Chris
"and let me preface my comments by stating that I've never read the books.
I saw it Friday and didn't read anything about it until I got home with Friday's W/E section and the review by Miami's film critic Rene Rodriguez.First off, when compared to the first two, it's a shorter movie."
An obvious problem in light of the fact that when compared to the first two, it is a substantially longer book.
" Secondly, it's filmed during the cold winter months and hence it is a darker, less cheery movie from a visual POV."
Actually all three books in question *and* all three movies in question take place over an entire school term. There should be no difference due to seasons.
" Finally, some of the plot twists were a bit confusing for me, just keeping track of who was who."
This is the fault of the film makers. Not you. The plot was simply too complicated to squeeze into a shorter time. I thought it was bound to be confusing to most who did not read the book. The plot had serious ommissions and was not very well fleashed out in the movie. The first two did not suffer from this problem.
" I did notice, that the second quarter seemed to drag a bit too, but then it sped up."
Maybe right about where huge ommissions were made it sped up.
"All in all, I thought on the way home, 3 out of 4."
If they did this one as well as they did the first two it could have easily taken another star.
"When I did get home, I read the review that explained the new director, the book and the fact that this wasn't visually/energetically as entertaining as the first two. RR went on to imply that the HP book series is short on plot twists, but deep on characterizations, much like Anne Rice's IWAV...that is to say one gets five pages describing the dress of a particular character at a particular moment in the story."
RR is quite mistaken if RR believes that Prisoner of Azkaban, the book is short on plot twists.
" So...even dispensing with some of the major set pieces of the first two films, this guy just couldn't cram all of the stuff that you seem to miss, into this film."
I understand the problem and was concerned about it going in. I hoped for a brilliant solution. It didn't happen.
" He had carte blanche to get to the meat and bones."
He got most of the bones and little of the meat.
"RR mentioned that this new director didn't have to go and replay the cribbich matches in their entirety because we've already seen them in toto once before."
A big mistake IMO. Not only are they fun, they were integral parts of the original plot.
" This left room to address other things and to even shorten the movie somewhat, but at the sake of familiarity."
And yet a lot of people left a bit confused about who did what to whom. Not good. No such problem with the first two.
"Anyhow, I take it for what it is and it was different from the first two."
We certainly agree on that. I thought the first two sucessfully and faithfully transcribed excellent books into excellent movies, both in letter and in spirit.
" If people have seen the first two then they'll obviously have to see this one, making up their own minds."
It seems that many have. The box office was quite impressive for the first weekend.
"The one thing that I thought strange, was seeing how the three main characters have physically matured as they have gotten older over the past three or four years. I also thought that I saw the lightning bolt on Harry's forehead switch locations from one scene to the next. I could have sworn that it was on the left side in the train car, but for the rest of the movie it's on his right. I guess that I'll just have to wait for the DVD to hit the stores?"
Yeah that's a tough one. It is a lot easier to cast people who are right for the first book. It is not so easy to predict what they will be like years later. The books make their own calls on how they grow up.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
