Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I know there is an entire HP sub-forum but lets leave the movie discussion to the real movie fans

    Just saw this and I was very disappointed. Its easily the worst HP film IMO and generally a very poor film.

    The best description I can give it is that its just a filler film, almost nothing of interest happens (that will affect the entire story) and its full of long and pointless scenes - with a couple of decent scenes.

    The 'humour' (i put it in ' ' because I am not even sure if much of it was intentionally done to be funny) is terrible and I couldnt understand why the cinema were laughing every 5 minutes and silly little things, jeesh...I laughed a few times..but no one else did at those times :rolleyes:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It certainly wasn't the best one! It wasn't completely awful but probably needed another 20-30 minutes slapped onto it. There was just too much done in such a short space of time that most of the time someone who hasn't read the books wouldn't know what the hell was going on. Also I found it difficult to feel any emotion during the pathetic Sirius death scene, probably for the same reason.

    Another thing, can someone explain to me how they managed to ride the invisible thestrals (spelling?)? I thought only those who've experienced death could see them? Me thinks it would be kinda tricky riding an invisible creature :rolleyes:. I haven't read the books (just for the record, I do read, they're just not the kind of thing i'm into) although I enjoy the films very much. Maybe they explain this in the book but they shouldn't assume everyone reads them, what the **** is padfoot (spelling?) for example? There were characters missing, poor character development, still hate Emma Watson's acting. Some things just needed to be explained better for those who aren't super HP fanboys. I'm kind of tempted to read them all now just in case there are alot of gaps in 6 and 7 too.

    Overall, a bit disappointing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I have loved the other Harry Potter films i have seen, but have read some reviews on this on other sites, and they don't look good. Most saying it is a 'very dark film' (although most of them have been quite dark), and it's not as impressive as the others.

    I don't often believe these reviews until i have actually seen it for myself, so won't really bother me what the critics say.

    Looks good, so i will probably go and see it when all the kiddies have calmed down a bit and it's a bit quieter.

    Looking forward to it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i completely disagree...i also checked reviews and many gave it 4/5 stars and richard and judy movie previewers gave it 9/10

    it is easily and by far the best movie of them all...by miles

    this one actually captured the essence of the books. it stayed true to the book and captured the relationships between the different characters extremely well.

    this one was much more like the book than any of the others! this one felt much more realistic e.g. dressing dudley in nike because it is set in modern day england, and also the scenes in the tube and london etc. making it more believable just like the books.

    the script was much much better and more funnier and the direction was superb (the screen shots and angles and camera pans etc.)

    i have never been much of a fan of the other potter movies but this one was different (which is a good thing).

    lastly this one actually felt like a movie unlike the others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    it's not true that ppl who have never read the books didn't understand....they actually liked this one the most and understood it!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clubber Lang)
    I know there is an entire HP sub-forum but lets leave the movie discussion to the real movie fans

    Just saw this and I was very disappointed. Its easily the worst HP film IMO and generally a very poor film.

    The best description I can give it is that its just a filler film, almost nothing of interest happens (that will affect the entire story) and its full of long and pointless scenes - with a couple of decent scenes.
    Have you read the books? Because I've heard people use those exact words about the fifth book.

    I am a big fan of the books and consider the movies to be a sort of appetizer for the books. I thought this movie was good and on the same level as the previous films.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I havent read the books, but I might beofre the last film

    BUT, a poor film cannot be excused because it was originally backed up by a book (no matter how/good or bad it was) - they shoudl knwo the majority of people seeing the film wouldnt have read all of the books.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i actually enjoyed ootp more than the ootp book...it was a very well done movie

    from the direction (camera pans) to the script, editing and action scenes
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i agree with this review:

    "The first 2007 mega-budget summer blockbuster that's actually worth a damn... four sequels into this saga, it finally feels like we're watching a bona fide, honest to God movie."

    http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/articles/15024

    ^ written by a guy who has never read the books
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It's basically impossible to appreciate it if you haven't read it, tbh. If I was looking at it as a film, having never read the book, I'd say it was dreadful, but when you put it into context, I thought it was a reasonably good film. Alan Rickman gave the best performance, of course, but Gambon wasn't bad either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ^ that's not true, ppl who i know who never read any of the books loved it!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I saw it today and I loved it! I thought the special effects were one of the best and its pretty funny, and Ive read the books but I really can't grasp the Prophecy bit at the end. I thought the Thestrals were actually quite cute, specially the baby one I've always thought the Goblet of Fire was the pointless one, since its based around the tournament and doesnt really add much.

    In the cinema there were loads of wolf whistles at the kiss, and everyone laughed at "What did it feel like?" "Wet". When Kreacher came on I heard this man say "He's got a nose and a half, hasn't he?" and when Fudge said "He's back" the man said "No ***** sherlock!"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Its so not funny and the effects were not groundbreaking or anything IMO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeesKnees)
    Another thing, can someone explain to me how they managed to ride the invisible thestrals (spelling?)? I thought only those who've experienced death could see them? Me thinks it would be kinda tricky riding an invisible creature :rolleyes:.
    In the fifth book, Rowling makes the point of describing how the people (Ron, Hermione, Neville) are terrified because they're riding on creatures they can't see

    (Original post by BeesKnees)
    what the **** is padfoot (spelling?)
    It's the codeword they use for Sirius (as he can turn into a dog) so people don't know who they're talking about when they discuss him - it was his nickname with his friends in school - i.e. james (harry's dad), lupin and peter pettigrew

    (Original post by BeesKnees)
    still hate Emma Watson's acting.
    Same here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i like Emma Watson's acting. She sounds like a proper posh girl..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I hate the fact that they are noticeably older - Ron for exmaple is just way less funny.

    Have they shot the next film? The one after that - they will all be freakin 20 years old or somehting, lol
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    They begin shooting the next film in September.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    they're supposed to be older.

    wouldn't it be weird having harry looking 11 and kissing cho chang?

    the queen bee regina george in the movie mean girls was 28 and she played a 17/18 year old and no one batted an eye lid.

    imo none of the other films were funny at all. this one was the only one which made me laugh.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loprida)
    they're supposed to be older.

    wouldn't it be weird having harry looking 11 and kissing cho chang?

    the queen bee regina george in the movie mean girls was 28 and she played a 17/18 year old and no one batted an eye lid.
    imo none of the other films were funny at all. this one was the only one which made me laugh.
    maybe because Rachel McAdams really didnt look 28, i thought she was 20 when i saw Mean Girls
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I thought she was around 22/23
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.