Really? I thought they got better. No offense, but the first two were the longest ones. I mean no wonder I use to hate Harry Potter, the first two movies put me to sleep! Don't get me wrong now, I LOVE ALL HARRY POTTER BOOKS AND MOVIES! But you must admit, those two were as if he was trying to put everything from the book into the movie. No one, and I mean NO ONE would sit in a movie theatre for 5 hours!
They've certainly got better, and not simply because the books become darker; the Chamber of Secrets is probably the tighest Harry Potter book plotwise, but the film done it little to no justice.
Alfonso Cuaron (Prisoner of Azkaban) is the best director to have tackled Harry Potter out of them all (most raw talent and work to back that up), shame he only done one. Albeit my favourite and in my opinion the best 👆
I'm glad Spielberg didn't do it in the end, Hayley Joel Osmond as Harry? Nah mate.
Originally posted by exanda kaneThe third movie sucks. Alfonso Quaron should have never been involved with it. Plus, I hate the fact that they changed the sets, moved the location of the whomping willow, etc. Oh, well though, to each their own. I personally think the first two were the best, the other two just seemed to move too quickly.
I'm not sure I understand your opinions though, as a film, irrelevant of its source material; the third is really a great stepping stone from a childish and unimaginitive first two films, into a film that carries it own merit.
Originally posted by exanda kaneRemember, it's still based off a childrens book. It IS a childrens movie too.
I'm not sure I understand your opinions though, as a film, irrelevant of its source material; the third is really a great stepping stone from a childish and unimaginitive first two films, into a film that carries it own merit.
I agree with DM: the third movie was awful. The third book is often cited as the favorite of many fans (but certainly not mine), whereas the third movie was rushed and less interesting than the first two.
I watched the first 4 movies, having never read any of the books, and the one that I was most impressed with was the second film. When I first saw it I realized that there was potential for a lot deeper, darker, and thicker plot/storyline in the future...I guess I just never expected JK to incorporate so much greek mythology and meanings behind the names of characters...(for the record, my favorite movie is now the first movie in hindsight, though when I first saw it I was quite bored)...
So now I've read all the books and I believe that the series gets better with each novel (with the slight exception of the sixth book). I think OotP is one of the best books I've ever read when you consider: (1) sheer entertainment, (2) all the subplots that set the stage for the final two novels (3) the prophecy, (4) Harry losing a loved one, (5) the start of the second war, (6) a 200 pg climax with the fiasco at the Ministry of Magic...and I read a LOT. JMO though.
Originally posted by NickeyYou need to learn to appreciate the art of cinema.
Really? I thought they got better. No offense, but the first two were the longest ones. I mean no wonder I use to hate Harry Potter, the first two movies put me to sleep! Don't get me wrong now, I LOVE ALL HARRY POTTER BOOKS AND MOVIES! But you must admit, those two were as if he was trying to put everything from the book into the movie. No one, and I mean NO ONE would sit in a movie theatre for 5 hours!
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
The third movie sucks. Alfonso Quaron should have never been involved with it. Plus, I hate the fact that they changed the sets, moved the location of the whomping willow, etc. Oh, well though, to each their own. I personally think the first two were the best, the other two just seemed to move too quickly.
Alfonso Cuaron is the best thing that happened to the film franchise, honestly; instead of the uneven pacing and certain cringeworthy scenes of the firt two movies, Harry Potter finally became the dark children's fantasy it is supposed to be (As someone mentioned, yes, a Children's Book, but hardly a the cute Disney story portrayed in the first two films eh?).
The first two films were simply straight (attempted) adaptations of the book, and if you like them for that reason, then I can understand. But Prisoner of Azkaban stands on its own as a film (And I'm glad they finally can be considered real films!).
Hogwarts finally looks a little menacing and not the dream school of both the Dead Poets Society and High School Musical. After all, it's not a playground, it's an ancient place with alot of dirty secrets. I must say, I enjoyed the use of the Whomping Willow in establishing the time too.
Originally posted by exanda kaneDirty secrets.... nahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Alfonso Cuaron is the best thing that happened to the film franchise, honestly; instead of the uneven pacing and certain cringeworthy scenes of the firt two movies, Harry Potter finally became the dark children's fantasy it is supposed to be (As someone mentioned, yes, a Children's Book, but hardly a the cute Disney story portrayed in the first two films eh?).The first two films were simply straight (attempted) adaptations of the book, and if you like them for that reason, then I can understand. But Prisoner of Azkaban stands on its own as a film (And I'm glad they finally can be considered real films!).
Hogwarts finally looks a little menacing and not the dream school of both the Dead Poets Society and High School Musical. After all, it's not a playground, it's an ancient place with alot of dirty secrets. I must say, I enjoyed the use of the Whomping Willow in establishing the time too.