Kevin's Watch

Don't know if I was supposed to post in the general thread, but I thought that this deserved to be in the right places, so I'll start this one up for people who have seen the movie and can post here. Cheers.

I just saw it myself. I loved it, better than the first two but this one takes into accoutn taht youv'e seen the others or have read the books, chapters just whiz by in seconds, and certain things are moved around and edited obviously to make the movie better. Might piss off some of the hard-core people who insist on the movies being exactly like the books, but I loved it. The companionship between the three friends is as good and humorous as ever, and the graphics hvae improved in different ways.

Final Verdict: Updated, Changed, Edited, but BLOODY BRILLIANT!!!

it wasnt very good at all


not everythings going to be there, granted...movie would be too long...it was starting off good, till they got to school...then, like you said, everything started whizzing by...the actual hogwarts part, ya know, the school which they attend...maybe counted for about 15 minutes of the actual movie...which means it had basically no part in the movie whatsoever...meaning nobody worrying about classes, no house cup, no back story or anything...

its like everything that happened was merely an afterthought..."oh, by the way, ron and hermione have been fighting this whole time because of their pets, and heres the culmination of that" or "oh yeah, sirius is real scary, better watch out for him", and "oh yeah, we forgot, the dementors are still here, better be scared"


everything went by TOO fast...the other movies were at least 2 hours and 40 minutes long...this one is only 2 hours and 20 minutes long..they could have taken the extra 20 minutes to EXPLAIN some things, to build UP to some things...not everybody has read the books, so not everybody knows why everything is happening...i have read them, and i DO know why everything was happening...but that doesnt mean that everybody else has... yeah, it was more realistic, the filming and acting was better, but...WHY did certain things happen...they didnt explain anything...its like all the director had the actors do was act out key scenes, and throw em all together...without the faintest hint as to why people did certain things...




"professor lupin, i trusted you"...WHY?! where in the movie did you EVER converse with Professor Lupin?! and the whole buckbeak thing took about 5 minutes of the movie...basically it was hagrid sayin "hey, heres buckbeak...theyre gonna kill him...he got away, yay!!" no buildup, no drama, no nothin



anyway...it was alright..ill get it on dvd, but the first two were better, save for the acting...


i am not a "hardcore fan" who cries whenver a movie based on a book doesnt follow books exactly....for one, movies would be way too long, and 2, who would want exactly the same thing they read in the books? a little change here and there is needed, both for the flow and the story...


but...they could have, SHOULD have done a better job...im glad theyre going with a different director for the next one

Took the kids tonight and all three of us liked it a great deal better than the first two Potter movies. We've read the books, though, so pretty much knew what was going on.

see, thats the thing...when you take a series of books and turn them into movies, you cant just go from the perspective that everybody automatically knows whats going on..you have to EXPLAIN things; if youre going to take things out from the book because of time constraints, fine...but put something in there to fill the gap, and explain the story so it flows AROUND what you took out...


like i said, i read the books...im on the second go around...thats fine..i knew what was goin on, i knew what was taken out...i knew the explanations..but i didnt go to the movie thinking id have to take the book with me to fill in the gaps in the movies narration...movies are not just an extension of the books theyre taken from, they are seperate entities, seperate stories that follow the same lines, but are still different...


you're right...i was anticipating this movie a great deal, and it was a great let down...it had so much potential, it just fell short


and of course kids are going to like it, all they want to see are the characters mover around and talk act out some scenes from the book...what do they care about WHY things happened, or HOW things happened, or anything unimportant like that...


dont get me wrong, i still liked it enough...but..it could have been so much better

Despiser is right on target, there was alot missing from this movie. I still like it in terms of the scenery and imagery. But the story was sorely lacking.

By far the best Potter movie yet, with plenty of emotional depth to match the technical wizardry. The first Harry Potter movie that actually qualifies as cinema. Too bad they're changing directors.

I guess my sons and I are in a minority, in that we felt the movie was much better than the previous two because it stuck to the main plot line of the novel instead of trying to cram all of the subplots in...

Wasn't Buckbeak the Hippogriff very well done?

And the kid actors did a much better job this time around, too. And Emma Thompson was a hoot.

I enjoyed it a lot, and Buckbeak was awesome, though I agree with Despiser--I really felt like they left out a lot of the backstory that prevented the climax from being quite as powerful as it might have been if they'd spent more time building it up.

I thought the Aunt Marge situation was a perfect example. I mean, it was obvious that she was hateful, but we didn't get any sense of how hateful she was, so Harry's uncontrollable magic response didn't have the potentcy it could have.

At the same time, I took my boyfriend to see it, and he's only ever seen the films, not read the books (how I ended up with someone who doesn't read is an utter mystery to me, but there it is), and he said he didn't have any problem understanding what was going on or who was supposed to be feeling what.

I loved the new geography of Hogwarts, though--I thought it was much more realistic, less glossy & shiny. And I thought that the film itself did a much better job of showing the emotional side of the story than the Chris Columbus movies did. Which is appropriate, really, since Azkaban is really the first 'emotional' book in the series. It's just a shame that Cuaron wasn't able to tell the whole story as well.

Altogether, I think it was a better film aesthetically than the other two, but I still came away feeling a little disappointed. Buckbeak alone is worth the price of admission, though. And Gary Oldman and David Thewlis give me hope for the future. (Except, of course, that as far as Gary Oldman goes, the future only lasts for two years.)

heh...

yeah, stuff happened with little or no build up...i liked the new geography too, but...given that it was already established in the first two movies...i dunno...

and yes duchess, you and your kids ARE in the minority!!!




















well, maybe not...movie grossed 92 million this weekend...heh

Saw it today. Thought it was much better than the first two. The actual art craft was much better than that offered my Columbus, who is an esoteric, paint by numbers type. I am saddened to find that Cuaron is not directing the next flick.

My biggest gripe was Dumbledore. Richard Harris exuded the sort of pure kindness that marks the essence of Dumbledore. The new actor, while resembling the prior Dumbledore, isn't even close to capturing this fundamental necessity of D's character.

even though he may be kinda tired of bein a wizard by now, Sir Ian McKellan would be a really good dumbledore..cept id probably keep think of him as Gandalf...heheh

Myste wrote:I thought the Aunt Marge situation was a perfect example. I mean, it was obvious that she was hateful, but we didn't get any sense of how hateful she was, so Harry's uncontrollable magic response didn't have the potentcy it could have

I forgot about that bit, but I totally agree. She seemed a bit nasty, but not the utterly venomous monster she was in the book.

I also think Despiser made a good point. If you don't already know the plot from the book, you really wouldn't understand the Crookshanks/Scabbers situation, the Grim/Sirius wouldn't seem that unnerving... Also, the Dementors suffer from the same problem I thought the Ringwraiths had in Fellowship of the Ring - there wasn't the sense of their constant lurking that you get from the respective books.

CovenantJr wrote: If you don't already know the plot from the book, you really wouldn't understand the Crookshanks/Scabbers situation, the Grim/Sirius wouldn't seem that unnerving....

I agree here--and did anyone else think that Sirius-as-Padfoot/Grim was just too small? I pictured him much larger, much less of a mutt. I guess I was thinking more of a boarhound, like Fang. Instead, he looked like a rip-off of The Gmork from The Never-Ending Story.

He was the same shape as I imagined, but about half the size. Bah!

sorry, that "Guest" was me. I was using a diff compooter.

Myste wrote: sorry, that "Guest" was me. I was using a diff compooter.

Don't worry! It's (as the lame hepcats say) all good.

I just saw the movie the other day. It was ok, but it seemed very rushed (as many of you have already said).
Buckbeak was good. I liked Sirius' animagus/dog. I imagined it a bit bigger, but I liked it. emma thompson was really good.
I didn't like the Dementors much, they were flying! I mean, I know they hover, but the flying wrecked the atmosphere, IMO. Didn't like Sirius at first, but I got used to him. I was very disappointed with Lupin. The actor was ok, but i just didn't think he looked like Lupin (as I imagined him). The werewolf was appalling! It had no fur! It was just disturbing.
I liked this Dumbledore much better than the last Dumbledore, he had so much more energy and presence. That was an improvement!
I was a bit disappointed that Crookshanks wasn't in it very much I liked Crookshanks.

Haruchai wrote:I didn't like the Dementors much, they were flying! I mean, I know they hover, but the flying wrecked the atmosphere, IMO.

Yes.

I can't compete with you for briefness and to-the-pointedness Bob, so I won't even try a single word reply...

I liked this movie a lot more than it's predesessors! It had the most important part of Hp wich the others hadn't, the right feeling, ambience whatever you call it!
So it didn't follow the book perfecly, so it didn't portray all of the things as exactly as I had them figured out in my head. So it could have explained some important things a bit more thorougly, but overall I liked it! A lot!

I especially liked Gary Oldman as Sirius! He has that kind of nervous "I'm gonna crack any minute" energy that I always pictured Sirius having.
I also liked Buckbeak! (please mummy I want my very own Hippogriff for christmas, no not a stupid pony, a HIPPOGRIFF!, I'll feed it the ferrets myself, honestly! )
And Snape...I just love Alan Rickman as Snape, the perfect casting!

Now for the "details I didn't like" part

Why for the love of little green apples can't wherewolves on the silver screen turn into WOLVES! They always turn into wolfman Jack! A real wolf is so much cooler than that!

The scene in the shrieking shack: I just waited for the line on who had really made the marauders map, and it never came... Overall I think that scene could have been put to better use!

Lupin... well in my head he don't look like that, in my opinion Ralph Fiennes would have made a good Lupin.

And finally why can't the twins get more screentime! I love Gred and Forge!