inu-liger 05.06.2004 19:05 |
Who saw this movie? I did, and I must say it is REALLY different to the other two movies, which makes it hard for me to pick which of the three is my favourites. It's a definite must-see that I'd really recommend either way! |
wstüssyb 05.06.2004 20:24 |
Was ok. Quite different cuz of a new director. Very different from the book tho compared to the other 2. |
dragonzflame 06.06.2004 00:04 |
can't wait to see it, POA was the best of the books I thought. The trailer looks superb. |
hamsters 06.06.2004 02:07 |
really dig the new director's creepy yet humourous style. |
Banquo 06.06.2004 09:19 |
Absolutely so different to the first two. A brilliant director makes all the difference as does a great cast. I'll bang the drum now and say we British have the best actors in the world, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith its like a who's who of great British talent all in one film. Even the three youngsters have improved but can they maintain the roles as they grow older? I know Harry et al grow older in the books, but Daniel Radcliffe will probably be about 20 when the 7th film comes out. |
Queenleaf 06.06.2004 10:24 |
I really wnat to see it. I just can't wait to see how they do Sirius. THe trailer looks awesome. I haven't seen the first two, just read the books you know. I've gotta see them. |
Into La Ment 06.06.2004 14:18 |
I saw it the other day.... In my opinion, 'twas rather good. Third book is my favourite, and I prefer this film's direction. Worth seeing just for Alan Rickman in such a ridiculous outfit. But was I the only one who noticed Gary Oldman was possibly trying to pull off a Jack Sparrow-type role? |
rhapsody__87 06.06.2004 14:48 |
Can everyone (not you guys) shut up about friggin Harry Potter already? I'm soooooo sick of hearing about it... arrrrgh. |
geeksandgeeks 06.06.2004 15:11 |
Queenleaf wrote: I really wnat to see it. I just can't wait to see how they do Sirius. THe trailer looks awesome. I haven't seen the first two, just read the books you know. I've gotta see them.This was my biggest problem with the film. Gary Oldman is a fine, fine actor, but I'm not sure he looked right for this role. Those "wanted" posters that kept showing up everywhere featured the face of an aging Italian pastry chef. That was no mad mass murderer. The same goes for that Thewlis guy who played Lupin. He looked about as much like a werewolf as I look like Brian May. Alan Rickman was the man of the hour. I was not overly impressed with the new Dumbledore, and the kids were the same as ever. |
hamsters 06.06.2004 15:14 |
well we're clearly not going to shut up. Anyways, I havent heard much about it from anyone... a lot of people up here seem to have forgotten about the films. I loved seeing alan rickman in that ridiculous outfit, brought a smile to a rather dreary day...I must say I think the sirius and remus slash fangirls are probably going to gripe though.... and argh, tom felton's hair will always make me cringe, greased back or flopping around...I really liked Hermione's character for once, she just seemed more human thant before... but yeah, its interesting seeing the cast grow up, makes me feel kind of old and like a mother. I always wonder about cast changes... I think they can probably keep them till the 5th film or so, people are always cast in younger roles, you know? Speaking of which, what did you guys think of the new dumbledore? Something about him...:-/ |
~Silje~ 06.06.2004 16:34 |
rhapsody__87 wrote: Can everyone (not you guys) shut up about friggin Harry Potter already? I'm soooooo sick of hearing about it... arrrrgh.Well-ahm...You can always go for the option NOT to click a topic when the headline reads "Harry Potter". I'm sorry that you are so sick of hearing about it, and I'm sure you're not alone, but other people have their right to speak about whatever they want to speak about. One really great way to avoid reading about Harry Potter, is to refrain from clicking any link which has the word "Harry Potter" in it! Sure, it's something different when people around you, such as your friends, constantly TALK about HP, you can't always escape that. However that's not our fault, and you can vent in front of your friends rather than in front of people you obviously don't have to interefere with at all, as you easily could avoid the topic. Sorry to have a go at you, I was in the mood. |
hamsters 06.06.2004 16:46 |
sorry for this random interruption but, Gosh, Silje, your hair is beautiful! |
FriedChicken 06.06.2004 16:51 |
I loved the movie, much better and darker than the first 2. I think the first movie was just too 'Disney', And the 2nd one, I think, was aimed for the same people who would go and see Lord of the Rings. I was very pleased with the result of the 3rd movie, Saw some behind the scenes part of the 4rd movie already, looks very promising! |
S@turn 06.06.2004 16:59 |
we saw it today (sunday) for the 2nd time and it is a great movie It is almost impossible to watch it without having read the book, too many differences, but it is great Love the new directors' style, the humor and I as well am chrmed from the new player for Dumbledore Missed Malfoy a bit, and wanted more of all, but ah well, we can always read the book And no matter how you see it, sooner or later Harry Potter is going to grab you, it grab me this year and I am Potterised :) |
Virtuoso 06.06.2004 18:03 |
IMO,this one was much better than the 2 others.The casting is good and the story's darker,which is the main reason why the movie disparts itself from the first 2 Potter films. |
rhapsody__87 06.06.2004 19:28 |
Silje: "I'm sorry that you are so sick of hearing about it, and I'm sure you're not alone, but other people have their right to speak about whatever they want to speak about." Silje!! I was in a very pissy mood also... I didn't say people couldn't discuss what they wanted to because then this wouldn't be a good message board now, would it? :) Don't get me wrong -- I think the books are fantastic but it's just so much Harry Potter Mania at once that it's driving me up the wall. One day I'll see the movies. But I was running on a lack of sleep when I threw my two cents in, so forgive me! |
Banquo 07.06.2004 12:03 |
I'm with Saturn I was a Potter-Sceptic saying for ages its a kids film and book and I don't need to waste my life watching the films. I saw the first one on pirate and thought it was ok, I took my nephew to watch the second one and was well impressed. But this third one is fantastic. A perfect way to waste 2 hours of your life. I havn't read the books I don't have time to read. |
geeksandgeeks 07.06.2004 12:17 |
Banquo wrote: I'm with Saturn I was a Potter-Sceptic saying for ages its a kids film and book and I don't need to waste my life watching the films. I saw the first one on pirate and thought it was ok, I took my nephew to watch the second one and was well impressed. But this third one is fantastic. A perfect way to waste 2 hours of your life. I havn't read the books I don't have time to read.You don't need time for the books. The longer ones take about 20 minutes to read, they move really fast. |
hamsters 07.06.2004 13:57 |
some people need every minute they can get.... |
inu-liger 07.06.2004 15:40 |
What I missed most was that there wasn't enough time spent in the classrooms. And the werewolf Lupin hardly looked like a werewolf. But then again, it was something original, just as the REAAAAAALLLLYY creepy Dementors. |
Under Pressure 07.06.2004 16:36 |
Double post, la la la my computer hates me. |
Under Pressure 07.06.2004 16:36 |
I saw WP, and again on Friday, and I dug it, even though there were gaping holes. But most people will have read the books first anyway. I liked Thewlis, and Oldman. Did miss Isaacs, but he's not a big character. Alan Rickman is my hero. I still dislike the books, and refuse to read them. Eeeeck, the style is horrible, and a ripoff of Dahl, Tolkien, Beale, etc. |
Mr.Jingles 07.06.2004 18:26 |
While the first 2 movies were longer, why did Cuaron decide to cut this one shorter when the third book is longer than the first 2? Aside from that Alfonso Cuaron did an excellent job by making the film more darker and intriguing than the first 2. Unlike Chris Columbus who wasted too much time introducing useless characters like Nearly headless Nick. Still, 'Azkaban' caught pretty much the most essential parts of the movie for the 2 hours and 10 minutes of the film. It would have been better if the movie ran for 3 hours. Besides... if kids didn't mind reading a 700 pages book, it shouldn't be too hard for them to watch a movie for 3 hours. Kudos also for the 3 main characters, who have really improved their acting skills compared to the first 2 films. Good thing that Dan Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint haven't done the same as the Olsen Twins, who seem to become worse actresses as they get older. |
iron eagle 07.06.2004 18:54 |
saw it saturday quite enjoyed it i have never read the books so i cant take it apart piece by piece as to what was missing etc. it ,as many has mentioned already, has totally new feel to it, new look- the castle down to Hagrads home -- will see it again |
Black-Rose 08.06.2004 08:18 |
This is the best of the Harry Potter movies, we too saw it for the 2nd time on Sunday (winks at Saturn). I thought Oldman and Thewlis were excellent, and Timothy Spall as that rat was brilliant. Having said that they have cut loads of out of film, the book are way better. |
PieterMC 08.06.2004 15:09 |
What are the main differences between the book and the film? |
Black-Rose 08.06.2004 17:07 |
I don't think the film explains who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs actually are, a few people I know who haven't read the books had no idea that the map writers were actually there in the film. I was looking forward to the Quidditch Final as well - the film was sadly missing Sean Biggerstaff as Oliver Wood. Another fault was the Firebolt broomstick only turning up at the end instead of at Christmas - the firebolt was a big issue in the book and hardly mentioned in the film, and all the animosity between Ron and Hermione isn't there either. And dementors don't fly they glide. (Did I say I liked this film ?) Other than all that I enjoyed the film for what it was, just don't compare it to the book and you'll love it. |
Nickipee 08.06.2004 17:33 |
I reckoned that the cinematography was outstanding.... The repeating themes of dementors and water, and of circles were beautifully shot. The scene in the forbidden forest was spine chilling. Acting wise - yes the kids are better, I do beleive that Gambon is a MUCH better Dumbledore, but still not right. He is, in the book, a bumbling fool on the outside and a wizard to be reckoned with on the inside. This has not yet come across although the new one is better. David Thewlis as Lupin was perfect - he didn't go over the top to play a wizard or a werewolf, instead he played a teacher - really well done (reminded me of mr chips). Gary Oldman was a poor choice I feel... But that's probably why I am a midwife and not a film director.... N |
~Silje~ 08.06.2004 19:46 |
*Forgives Erica instantly and gives the Japanese Space Monkey a huge grin* Thanks for that comment on my hair! I was pondering about cutting it, but people seem to like it long, so it shall remain. :-) |
hamsters 08.06.2004 20:14 |
aaah, the decision of whether to cut or not! I cut my hair last august becuase it was, erm, rather long and ugly (really really curly) and I had it long since I was 3... it was definately time for a change... though im sure if i had hair as gorgeous as yours i would have never cut it <3 |