The Movie Review Thread

Akarui Kibuno · Post by **Akarui Kibuno** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:21 am

Bleh, I know what they should have done with HP3: film the whole book exactly (LOL... 10 hours.... dun dun dun... lol) and then, edit for space in theatres, and then, "super duper hyper" collectors edition...

I'm so evil

XD

Ni-ban Neko · Post by **Ni-ban Neko** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:41 am

I don't think it's necessary to film the entire book, but I do wish they were given the LOTR treatment - 3-ish hours theatrically, and then an extended version on DVD later. I'm sure there's a fanbase for that kind of thing.

yamijounouchi · Post by **yamijounouchi** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:55 am

rather than quoting ni-ban neko's extremely long post, i'll just refer to it. i agree completely with what you said. the movie had great potential, and it was easy to see. what they did right, they did right:

[spoiler]acting daniel radcliffe definately feels like he's finally in character, he's no longer akward at all. he even pulled off some very fine acting. rupert grint is hilarious and like you said, it seems like he gets more into the role every time. yes, it's true: hermoine actually had funny scenes

, even better than that, emma watson played the scenes very well. the new dumbledore didn't bother me at all, he felt right for the part, and made it his own. the only problem i had is that he looked like a homeless guy for god sakes! wardrobe! sirius was well-played, he made the transition for phsycopath to normal guy very well.

writing the script was a lot funnier in this movie than it was in the last two, the dialogue also felt a lot realer (is that a word?) in this film. there was still alot of cheese to speak of in this one, but they did a good job of cutting out extra cheese the first two had.

the set it was absolutely beautiful this time around. it felt so much more like i'd pictured it. the nature sets (were they sets?) were absolutely amazing and breath-taking.[/spoiler]

of course there was plenty of bad to speak of as well:

[spoiler]damn it! they rushed through so much in fact, i think it was shorter than the other two. all the things that were kept were altered. it just felt to much like they weren't making a movie based on a book rather, just a movie. hadn't i read it (and this seems to be what everyone said) i would have enjoyed it thoughly (my girlfriend was surprised as hell when i told her all the stuff cut out).

they cut out the fact that sirius eledgedly killed several muggles as well

! they cut out the explanation with the firebolt, snape's hatred, the friendship between the marauders, muggles knowlege of black (hell, they left that out all together), they didn't even explain who aunt marge was! cedric diggery, cho chang? where the hell were they?! with all the stuff they cut out, it makes me nervous for the rest of the movies, hell they pretty much screwed the plot for goblet of fire. thank god for books, man![/spoiler]

Artemis · Post by **Artemis** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:47 pm

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Times seen: Once
When: June 6th

I saw this movie for the first time yesterday, and I absolutely loved it myself.

MASSIVE SPOILERS

The trio seem to be growing into their roles, Dan especially. They all did a great job. ^^

At first, I didn't like David Thewlis' portrayal of Lupin (the mustache annoyed me for some reason ^^;; ) but eventually he kind of grew on me.

Michael Gambon did a pretty good job as Dumbledore. Nobody could do it as well as Richard Harris, IMO, but he still did well.

The animation. Oh, my god. The hippogriff was AWESOME!! It was exactly how I had imagined it, and
[spoiler]the scene where Harry flies around Hogwarts with him[/spoiler] is breathtaking. Sirius [spoiler]as a dog[/spoiler] was really well-done too, and [spoiler]the werewolf was so incredibly hideous-it was great!! [/spoiler]

Macnair (the executioner) just scared the hell out of me. I saw him sharpening his axe and I was like, "HOLY SHIT!!" I wish that they had mentioned his name, though, since

Book 5 spoiler

[spoiler]In book 5, he's one of the Death Eaters sent to talk to the giants.[/spoiler]

The dementors were really creepy and well-done, too. I really got the shivers [spoiler]when they attacked the train.[/spoiler]

And Sirius. OH MY GOD. Gary Oldman as Sirius was AMAZING, IMO. When he was [spoiler]telling Peter about how he would have died to save Lily and James, and when Harry was talking about how they could move to a place in the country where he could see the sky,[/spoiler] I was in tears.

The disappointing parts of the movie:

They didn't explain who Aunt Marge was, which annoyed me.

They also didn't explain the nicknames on the Marauder's Map. I bet that the poor, deprived people who haven't read the book were thinking, "Who the hell are Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs?

They didn't keep the Quidditch final!!

That was one of my favorite parts of the book.

Harry didn't get the Firebolt until the end of the movie,

[spoiler]although they did explain (rather vaguely), that Sirius had sent it to him.[/spoiler]

Overall: Go see it. Especially if you are as big of a Sirius fan as me. ^^[/spoiler]

Sailorasteroid · Post by **Sailorasteroid** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:11 pm

The annoying irony is that I've read some reviews in the newspapers and online, and with one voice they're all saying how much better Prisoner of Azkaban is than the previous two movies because it wasn't slavishly faithful to the book. This tells me that A: none of the reviewers are fans of the books and B: they have no clue how to do their jobs. The people who are going to the movies are either reading the books, or need to. That's what the reviewers should be selling.

Here's what I think about book adaptations: every time I go back and reread the book, I'm going to ask myself, "How would these scenes look filmed?" When a movie doesn't answer that question, there's no point. My worst example of this was "The Sum of All Fears." Every time I read that book, I say, "This would be good if someone made it into a movie. . .oh, wait."

(Yes, I'm a compulsive reader who will go through books 10-20 times)

Sailor Wind · Post by **Sailor Wind** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:38 pm

Troy was more boring than i thought, I expected there to be more action than talking and conversations, for a 2 1/2 - 3 hour film i felt that it was too long and maybe could have been shortened.

The Day After Tomorrow was okay, and was very dramatic which i liked about the film. Some bits were boring, some parts where interesting to see and had the action scenes displayed very well.

Jusenkyo no Pikachu · Post by **Jusenkyo no Pikachu** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:18 am

Sailor Wind wrote:Troy was more boring than i thought, I expected there to be more action than talking and conversations, for a 2 1/2 - 3 hour film i felt that it was too long and maybe could have been shortened.

Sorry. That would lose the "epic" feel. Besides, Lord of the Rings was also rather wordy.

Neo Dead Moon · Post by **Neo Dead Moon** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:46 pm

Sailorasteroid wrote:The annoying irony is that I've read some reviews in the newspapers and online, and with one voice they're all saying how much better Prisoner of Azkaban is than the previous two movies because it wasn't slavishly faithful to the book. This tells me that A: none of the reviewers are fans of the books and B: they have no clue how to do their jobs. The people who are going to the movies are either reading the books, or need to. That's what the reviewers should be selling.

A movie reviewer's job is to REVIEW movies, and whether or not the movie reviewers read the Harry Potter books prior to seeing the movies is their decision. They might be too busy to read 300+ paged children's books, considering that in that amount of time, they could see 1 or 2 movies they have to review. You shouldn't put it against them if they didn't read the original books or not: it's NOT their job to read the books, then review the movies they're based off of afterwards. This is the same complaints I hear from Lord of the Rings fans/elitists, and I'm annoyed by them, too.

Just ENJOY the movies, especially when people such as yourself are their target audience. Just because Prisoner of Azkaban wasn't 100% faithful to the book doesn't mean you should take it out on the filmmakers. The books are very long (each longer than the last), so of course a lot of things are going to be cut out.

yamijounouchi · Post by **yamijounouchi** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:14 pm

that is true, but i will forever miss the original director. he may have been a little cheesy but, with him it always made sense. alot of things that went unmentioned made the movie make a lot less sense. not to mention, it definately took away from the emotional effect that the book had.

Sailorasteroid · Post by **Sailorasteroid** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:15 pm

Neo Dead Moon wrote:A movie reviewer's job is to REVIEW movies, and whether or not the movie reviewers read the Harry Potter books prior to seeing the movies is their decision. They might be too busy to read 300+ paged children's books, considering that in that amount of time, they could see 1 or 2 movies they have to review. You shouldn't put it against them if they didn't read the original books or not: it's NOT their job to read the books, then review the movies they're based off of afterwards. This is the same complaints I hear from Lord of the Rings fans/elitists, and I'm annoyed by them, too.

I'm a LOTR elitist too. ^_^ No, they don't have to read the books as part of their jobs. But it would be nice if some fans of the book happened to be reviewers also. And it is part of their job to know what went into a movie, whether its an original screenplay or an adaptation. Whether they imbue that context in their reviews is up to the reviewer.

Just ENJOY the movies, especially when people such as yourself are their target audience.

Thank you, no. I do have the ability to enjoy movies without actually thinking about them, and I use that ability for action movies, or slapstick comedies. When it's something I care about, something I have an intellectual invenstment in, like HP or LOTR (or Sailormoon, for that matter), my enjoyment is going to be proportional to the faithfulness of the movie to the idea.

Just because Prisoner of Azkaban wasn't 100% faithful to the book doesn't mean you should take it out on the filmmakers. The books are very long (each longer than the last), so of course a lot of things are going to be cut out.

And, you know, I'd go with you and say, "let them film it however they want," if it weren't for the issue of rights. There's going to be one Harry Potter 3 movie, and that's it. The only way someone could make another is if they bought the rights from the film company, which is costed prohibitively on the premise that only a for-profit enterprise should be able to hold the rights. Maybe ninety-odd years from now, someone will remake HP3 in 5-D Omni-feel Intenso-vision or something. But I won't get to see it. And it means I'll *never* get to see the cut scenes played out.

My premise here is that the movie is a sub-work, based on the book. I think your premise is that it's a work in itself, but that's a premise with which I can't agree.

Jusenkyo no Pikachu · Post by **Jusenkyo no Pikachu** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 10:14 pm

Neo Dead Moon wrote:
Sailorasteroid wrote:The annoying irony is that I've read some reviews in the newspapers and online, and with one voice they're all saying how much better Prisoner of Azkaban is than the previous two movies because it wasn't slavishly faithful to the book. This tells me that A: none of the reviewers are fans of the books and B: they have no clue how to do their jobs. The people who are going to the movies are either reading the books, or need to. That's what the reviewers should be selling.
A movie reviewer's job is to REVIEW movies, and whether or not the movie reviewers read the Harry Potter books prior to seeing the movies is their decision. They might be too busy to read 300+ paged children's books, considering that in that amount of time, they could see 1 or 2 movies they have to review. You shouldn't put it against them if they didn't read the original books or not: it's NOT their job to read the books, then review the movies they're based off of afterwards. This is the same complaints I hear from Lord of the Rings fans/elitists, and I'm annoyed by them, too.

Just ENJOY the movies, especially when people such as yourself are their target audience. Just because Prisoner of Azkaban wasn't 100% faithful to the book doesn't mean you should take it out on the filmmakers. The books are very long (each longer than the last), so of course a lot of things are going to be cut out.

Careful there. There are still some cases where the filmmakers are deserving of every black mark they get. Take Ella Enchanted. I just read that book and I think I'm setting myself up for disappointment because the movie has a Claudius character. Then again, the aforementioned character is played by Cary Elwes...

Plus my mother tells me that Casino Royale was an absolutely horrid movie that had nothing to do with the book.

Sailorasteroid · Post by **Sailorasteroid** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:16 am

Jusenkyo no Pikachu wrote:Plus my mother tells me that Casino Royale was an absolutely horrid movie that had nothing to do with the book.

It was. . . not good. The book was just basically James Bond versus Le Chiffre, and the movie brought in all sorts of wacky characters and plotlines. But the difference there is that Casino Royale didn't really *try* to be an adaptation; it was a comedy film. It left room, if not legally, then culturally, for a serious adaptation. Some of the studios are trying to get one done. It would make a great movie, since there's so much description in the book, especially at the pivotal card-playing scene. You can just see Sean Connery sitting stone-faced with his cards faced down (as the book says, "kissing the green felt") staring down a Gert Frobe-type villain, who wilts and breaks down under the pressure. It's a good enough piece of material that I have hope for it if it does get made.

Jusenkyo no Pikachu · Post by **Jusenkyo no Pikachu** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 8:58 am

As do I. There's been a fan made version out for some time now. I'm looking to see what that's like...

Anthy · Post by **Anthy** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:02 pm

Neo Dead Moon wrote:Just ENJOY the movies, especially when people such as yourself are their target audience. Just because Prisoner of Azkaban wasn't 100% faithful to the book doesn't mean you should take it out on the filmmakers. The books are very long (each longer than the last), so of course a lot of things are going to be cut out.

Hey, now. People do have the right to complain about the differences between the book and the movie, or even to celebrate the differences, just as we do often here at SMU with the Sailormoon manga and anime.

Post by **Tiff** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:09 pm

Anthy wrote:
Neo Dead Moon wrote:Just ENJOY the movies, especially when people such as yourself are their target audience. Just because Prisoner of Azkaban wasn't 100% faithful to the book doesn't mean you should take it out on the filmmakers. The books are very long (each longer than the last), so of course a lot of things are going to be cut out.
Hey, now. People do have the right to complain about the differences between the book and the movie, or even to celebrate the differences, just as we do often here at SMU with the Sailormoon manga and anime.

*Nods* Precisely. I get pretty fuckin annoyed with a movie is nowhere near a book. There's a REASON movie previews say, "Based on the bestselling book". It's supposed to be SOMEWHAT like it. Not exact, no...that's unrealistic, as it's an adaptation and not a direct word-for-word copy. Scripts DO have to be written differently, after all. But it should at least be 50% like the book.

A good example is Queen of the Damned, which was so little like the book it was incredible. I absolutely hated that movie, but loved the book. Too many changes is stupid, and completely pointless if you're going to base a movie on a book. So it isn't fair to just say, "enjoy the movie for what it is". That's hypocritical. The movie is an adaptation of the book..so shouldn't I enjoy it with the expectation that it'll be somewhat like its literary counterpart?

peachvampiress · Post by **peachvampiress** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:18 pm

Unfortunately, most directors just use a popular books name to promote their crappy movie version of said book just so they can earn a profit off the hard work of the author.

-_-; it makes me sick in an avian flu kind of way.

Sailorasteroid · Post by **Sailorasteroid** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:35 pm

peachvampiress wrote:Unfortunately, most directors just use a popular books name to promote their crappy movie version of said book just so they can earn a profit off the hard work of the author.

-_-; it makes me sick in an avian flu kind of way.

I don't know that directors per se are to blame. They don't decide which books to buy or how much to budget. They don't write the scripts. They don't run the editing room which ultimately decides what gets cut. But one of their jobs is to be a liason between all those parties, as well as the public, so it seems like they have more responsibilities than they do.

peachvampiress · Post by **peachvampiress** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:40 pm

Oh 0__o I always thought it was the directors fault for a movie not being like a book. If it isn't, a retract my statement and shift the blame to those that are :points finger at some unknown person: You! You're to blame! :runs around in a circle chanting mumbled slogans:

Akarui Kibuno · Post by **Akarui Kibuno** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:53 am

Sailorasteroid wrote: The people who are going to the movies are either reading the books, or need to. That's what the reviewers should be selling.

Well, I myself would agree with this, because I guess there are many reasons why a book is made into a movie in the first place. If the HP books hadn't been so successful, do you think they'd have been made into movies ? I personnally don't think so. So, the people going to see movies made "from books" are generally the ones who have read the books. I myself, when I went to see PoA, was in the cinema two hours before, and had the book in my hands. And I'm like Tiff, I expect the movie to be like the book.

The problem with the HP books is indeed that each book is longer than the previous one. I don't even dare to imagine what they will do with the Order of the Phoenix, for example. Almost twice as big as PoA... so I think they should divide the books into "pieces" to make more movies... like, film the whole thing, and to avoid having a 10-hour movie, well... make it three 3h30 movies, released one week after another.

Sure, my idea is more silly than probable, but I wish I had been in the cinema industry to do that T_T

*Next review: Ladykillers

Sailor Sapphire · Post by **Sailor Sapphire** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:44 pm

I don't know about you guys, but has anyone ever noticed that most live action stuff (save a few exceptions) get the bad reviews, and the animated stuff (save a few exceptions) get good reviews?

My must see movie right now...Garfield: The Movie

From what I understand, it looks like a live action spin on the animated special "Here Comes Garfield"