Mr. Breathmask 624 Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Some new pictures from the fifth movie (click for high-res versions):
nightscape94 968 Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 The last one, with the statue at the MoM is cool.Tim
Docteur Qui 1,581 Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 I think I speak for everyone when I ask: what the hell's with Harry's part? Okay, I was one of those people who hated the scruffy longness of GoF, but the part is going too far.
JoeinAR 1,957 Posted February 11, 2007 Author Posted February 11, 2007 I think I speak for everyone when I ask: what the hell's with Harry's part? Okay, I was one of those people who hated the scruffy longness of GoF, but the part is going too far.well since he's going to trial it probably wouldnt hurt for him to look his best.
Docteur Qui 1,581 Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 Harry's what?The part in his hair. And I didn't think of that Joe. That makes a lot of sense.
Morlock 12 Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 I caught a few minutes of the first film over the weekend. I had to turn it off. Mr. Radcliffe and company were not very good actors in the begining. I think puberty did wonders for them.
Composer_Fan 2 Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 The Ministry of Magic isn't what I was expecting. It looks more sewer-like, and not as...fancy. What's up with those brick buildings behind the fountain?
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387 Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 I caught a few minutes of the first film over the weekend. I had to turn it off. Mr. Radcliffe and company were not very good actors in the begining. I think puberty did wonders for them.They were children, and for children they did OK.
Marian Schedenig 11,695 Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 I thought Emma Watson was very good in the first movie already. Overdone, certainly, but in a very fitting and amusing way. Rupert Grint was mostly quite good as well.
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387 Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 Radcliffe was better then that Culkin kid under the same director.
King Mark 3,975 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 The kids were good in HPPS,and sometimes unintentionally funny,which I liked.In CoS they weren't too good.K.M.
Morlock 12 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I thought they were all overacting and unconvincing in the first film. Only when they got a great director did their performances shine.
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Radcliffe was better then that Culkin kid under the same directorRadcliffe in SS and CoA better than Culkin in Home Alone?? Poppycock!Ray Barnsbury
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I was referring to The Philosophers Stone
JoeinAR 1,957 Posted February 12, 2007 Author Posted February 12, 2007 the mexican guy is not a great director, he's a f***ing idiot
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I was referring to The Philosophers Stone ...in which Radcliffe's performance is adequate at best.the mexican guy is not a great director, he's a f***ing idiotBoth films I've seen of his (PoA and Children of Men) are very good.Ray Barnsbury
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 You are a fucking idiot for thinking that.The greatest fucking idiot who ever typed a letter on this forum.Chrusher, Morn and Mirko pale in the shadow of your utter stupidity.Yet I still call you friend!
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 You misunderdtand me Rabbit.I could never be angrey with Joe, not really. I consider him a brother. Whaterver stupid thing he does, and however wrong his opinions are, I love him, unconditionally!
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Someday, you might understand. You'll have to go through some pretty rough shit though.
Red 75 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I have close friends that I would consider my brother, I just don't get that mad at them.
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 That's not very wise.
nightscape94 968 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 [the mexican guy is not a great director, he's a f***ing idiotBoth films I've seen of his (PoA and Children of Men) are very good.You should check out Y tu mamá también. It's rather adult, so make sure the parents are around!Tim
Red 75 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I don't get that mad at them, but I do get mad sometimes as we all do.
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 You should check out Y tu mamá también. It's rather adult, so make sure the parents are around!Yeah, I've heard good things about it. I'll have to have a screening sometime (parent-free)!Ray Barnsbury
JoeinAR 1,957 Posted February 12, 2007 Author Posted February 12, 2007 It is only fitting that my 10000th post be in the longest and most successfull thread on the message board.Daniel Radcliffe expects Harry to die, if you want to read more go to www.the-leaky-cauldron.orgI do not expect anyone to bow, or few to care, but on a day I prepared perfect mashed potatoes and a gravy that would make Jesus himself weep, I am now a Master.some will say only a master of evil, but I am not. Well maybe I am, I do afterall tell the pizza joke from hell.
King Mark 3,975 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Master has no meaning anymore.I'm glad I acheved it while it was still prestigious
ST-321 42 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I do not expect anyone to bow, or few to care, but on a day I prepared perfect mashed potatoes and a gravy that would make Jesus himself weep, I am now a Master.Jesus does love his mashed potatoes.
BLUMENKOHL 1,110 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 These new sets suck.That's my depthful statement of the day.
Morlock 12 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 the mexican guy is not a great director, he's a f***ing idiot You say that as if those are contradictions. Many great directors are fucking idiots. And Cuaron IS a great director, far better than Columbus. He made what is by far the best Harry Potter film, and two other exceptional films, and two other rather good films.
John Crichton 4 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I still have some real problems with PoA (Curon's overly artsy style and the backstory removal) but there's no denying it's aged much better than the previous two films.
gkgyver 1,647 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I still have some real problems with PoA (Curon's overly artsy style and the backstory removal)Since when is it bad that a director tries to give a definite look and style to his film? PoA may be the only Potter film yet that I don't just watch but feel.
John Crichton 4 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I think you're missing my point. Of course a director should do that. I just don't like the style he choose. A bit too artsy-fartsy in parts for my taste.
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I'm sorry, but define artsy-fartsy?It this about the fluent camera movements in POA?
King Mark 3,975 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I'm sorry, but define artsy-fartsy?Artsy Fartsy:Boring independant films(usually with subtitles) shown in small art house theaters to people who think they are above everyone else and who stubbornly refuse to watch bluckbuster movies
MrScratch 296 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 It is only fitting that my 10000th post be in the longest and most successfull thread on the message board.Actually Joe, my thread "What is the last film you watched?" was locked and restarted by Neil. Part II of that thread currently has 4809 posts and although the first one cannot be accessed I remember it had well over 2500 posts.Jeff
hornist 1,261 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 there's no denying it's aged much better than the previous two films. I just don't like the style he choose. A bit too artsy-fartsy in parts for my taste.That's why POA is only of the series that is great and the first quote is the proof for that fact.
John Crichton 4 Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 I'm sorry, but define artsy-fartsy?It this about the fluent camera movements in POA?No, I'm thinking more of things like the various nature shots, the cutaways to that cukoo clock in the Aunt Marge scene, and the way that there's constantly clock or the sounds of clocks all through the movie just because the ending involves time. None of which work for me.But these are more quibbles than complaints, they certainly don't ruin the film. I meant what I said about it aging the best, although I'm not particularly enamoured with any of the Potter films anymore. I'll stick to the books.
Elmo Lewis 7 Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 It is only fitting that my 10000th post be in the longest and most successfull thread on the message board.I wish Alexcremers was still around so we could congratulate him for this.
JoeinAR 1,957 Posted February 13, 2007 Author Posted February 13, 2007 yes, what ever happened to good ole Alex, miss his excellent posts.
Docteur Qui 1,581 Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 I'm sorry, but define artsy-fartsy?It this about the fluent camera movements in POA?No, I'm thinking more of things like the various nature shots, the cutaways to that cukoo clock in the Aunt Marge scene, and the way that there's constantly clock or the sounds of clocks all through the movie just because the ending involves time. None of which work for me.But these are more quibbles than complaints, they certainly don't ruin the film. I meant what I said about it aging the best, although I'm not particularly enamoured with any of the Potter films anymore. I'll stick to the books.Oh you didn't like them? I thought the time theme was great. It's more than the time travel though. A great deal of the story is about Harry's (And Sirius') past - sure, most of the books are about someone's past, but it has more of a presence. Sirius regrets his past and would change time if he could. Harry laments the lost time with his family. It's also a major plot point (the whole time travel sequence). There's more to it than just fancy takes on one idea, I reckon. It's admirable that Alfonso chose to take only a few important themes from the book and make his movie about them instead of replaying the entire story. And even more admirable that he chose a less obvious one and made some great visual motifs from it. That's my take on things, anyway.
gkgyver 1,647 Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 No, I'm thinking more of things like the various nature shots, the cutaways to that cukoo clock in the Aunt Marge scene, and the way that there's constantly clock or the sounds of clocks all through the movie just because the ending involves time. None of which work for me.Oh yes, heaven forbid a director includes subtleties into a movie! They may not improve the effect the has on you while you're watching, but it makes the film more vibrant.
John Crichton 4 Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 Oh you didn't like them? I thought the time theme was great. It's more than the time travel though. A great deal of the story is about Harry's (And Sirius') past - sure, most of the books are about someone's past, but it has more of a presence. Sirius regrets his past and would change time if he could. Harry laments the lost time with his family. It's also a major plot point (the whole time travel sequence). There's more to it than just fancy takes on one idea, I reckon. It's admirable that Alfonso chose to take only a few important themes from the book and make his movie about them instead of replaying the entire story. And even more admirable that he chose a less obvious one and made some great visual motifs from it. That's my take on things, anyway.Fair enough.Oh yes, heaven forbid a director includes subtleties into a movie! They may not improve the effect the has on you while you're watching, but it makes the film more vibrant.Once again you're over generalizing.
mcdaid72000 0 Posted February 26, 2007 Posted February 26, 2007 Hey, everybody, just wanted to see what people thought about the new composer/conductor of Harry Potter. Nicholas Hooper I do not know that well. John Williams is well know even Patrick Doyle I have heard of, but knew little about. Can anybody tell me about this musician and how you think he will approach the music of Harry Potter besides that the Theme will be in it because that theme needs to be in the movie. I think it is hard to write music myself, but I hope the soundtrack is good. Does anybody have any information on when the soundtrack might come out? Thanks.
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387 Posted February 26, 2007 Posted February 26, 2007 No one in the world has ever heard of Nicholas Hooper before he was announced as the next composer for HP.
King Mark 3,975 Posted February 26, 2007 Posted February 26, 2007 Any newcomer that can play a guitar can write a score nowadays
Dole 20 Posted February 26, 2007 Posted February 26, 2007 Any newcomer that can play a guitar can write a score nowadaysAnd the Oscar goes to...Gustave Santaollala for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince!
Panthera 1 Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 Any newcomer that can play a guitar can write a score nowadaysAnd the Oscar goes to...Gustave Santaollala for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince!At least that would have Hedwig's Theme.
Recommended Posts