Chen G.

Well, JWFan attracts people of a certain taste in cinema. The kind of cosy, lighthearted fare, which accounts for some of the films that merited Williams’ most iconic scores. Harry Potter is an unusual case where the series started very much in that mould and developed into something...well, more mature. So naturally it wouldn’t sit well with those who grew attached to the feel of the early entries. And it doesn’t get much more, ummm, mature, than The Half-Blood Prince, does it now?

I don’t recall each individual film that well to brandish a rigorous list. I also believe, like @Disco Stu that the merit of such lists only goes so far. I should preface that I’ve only read the first few books, having given up on them early. As such, I’m coming at this from a purely cinematic viewpoint. I would say I find Prisoner of Azkaban the best. It pulls the trick ending thing ,which so many movies use to a numbing effect, brilliantly; it’s wonderfully stylized and inventive with ample use of practical long takes. Other films I like are The Order of the Phoenix: it’s grown on me in retrospect. It inspects Harry’s anxiety and his connection to Voldemort very well. I’m also partial to The Half Blood Prince And the first Deathly Hallows. I couldn’t care less for the Columbus entries. They’re bland and lethargic. A lot has been said for the child actors being over-the-top, to which I answer that the performance is as dependant on the director as it is the cast. And indeed, in spite of the talented adult cast, they aren’t giving us anything of note, either. I give a big pass for the first of the two, because I’m always lenient with the establishing film of a series. It’s at least charming in its own way, to no small extent due to John’s score. I can’t extent the same to Chamber of Secrets, unfortunately. To my mind, it’s a BAD movie. Goblet of Fire is a significant improvement, but some of the directorial choices don’t work for me.

No. But it does have a palpable sense of danger, which is paramount for the stakes.

Yeah, if one was so inclined to look at Harry Potter as a single cohesive story (to me, it’s not quite there, but whatever) than Goblet of Fire would be the end of Act I. However, I’m not the biggest fan of the film. It’s one of the better screenplays, streamlining the written work quite wonderfully, but the way it’s directed leaves something to be desired: I like Gambon’s Dumbeldore but the way his role is directed has him far too intense throughout this film; the maze at the end is just decidedly not intimidating, the grading is off, etc... Prisoner of Azkaban is brilliant. Hardly the best thing since sliced bread or anything but it’s delightful.

True, but at least Luke and Leia are safe. In that very specific regard, Empire’s cliffhanger is quite tame. It’s not like it cuts at the reveal or when Luke jumps to his presumed death.

What was that thing they used to say in officer school? "Always strive for excellence..." Well, that's @Chen G. in a nutshell for you! That and humble, that is. 😉

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Meh. There are similarities, sure, but they're mostly superficial, and are largely the result of the starting point to this film, as laid down by Abrams. a lack of originality isn't the issue here.

It is and it isn't. While the film clearly doesn't approve of Ren's communist-like ideology of killing the past, it does seek to go against the "Star Wars formula" at just about every single turn, to the point that it becomes infuriating to ardent fans, or just tiresome for the average viewer. Johnson even subverted the "I have a bad feeling about this" line by not using it, and later cheekily said that BB-8 beeped it during the opening sequence. *sigh...*

That.

That. That, and "esque". Y'know the ones: "Walton-esque", etc...

That's the issue: I never cared for any of those questions.

I thought his astral projection in The Last Jedi was supposed to be just that. He's older sure, but he looks like Luke Skywalker again.

Some of these films, however, namely Dunkirk and Arrival, really are big-screen films. I think paramount to the longevity of a "classic" is its ability to remain captivating regardless of format. I can watch the Dark Knight on my iPhone and be engaged. Dunkirk, however?

Indeed. They're the most subjective of genres, and the former more than the latter.

There's really no point in reviewing comedies, such as Ant Man and the Wasp: its the most subjective genre, by a mile.

Oh, sure. My issue is with the concept that to romanticise a heroine is anathema, as if it degrades the character in some esoteric way. Not that I'm a huge fan, but Wonder Woman was a good film (by a woman director), with a good female lead, who was played by a model, and walked around in a mini-skirt and corset and had a romantic relationship in the film. Rey, on the other hand...

Its not bad, just misguided.

Nah. That falls on the shoulders of the current screenwriting convention that :a strong female character ought not be defined by her relationship to a man."

I believe they did have a coach and that the pronounciations are mostly correct. One of the few pronounciation mishaps I can recall is actually Sir Christopher Lee pronouncing "Khazad Dum" literally, with the kh functioning as a voiceless velar fricative. While Khuzdul is modelled after semitic languages which prominently feature such a fricative (e.g. my first name), I seem to recall this being inaccurate to the pronounciation guide produced by Tolkien. But than, later in the film, McKellen pronounces it correctly.

The stuff you're talking about are written works, are they not? Well, if that's the case than there's no point comparing them to a visual work in the first place, for better or for worst. But yeah, the sequel trilogy this far has been fine. I'm by no means enamored with it, but they're decent films.

The Shark ostinato isn't just any two notes that just happen to play one after the other. When you're dealing with motivic units this small (two notes) its always tricky to distinguish which are thematic and which aren't. Its like not every recurring phrase of exclamation in a script is a deliberate callback.

The Hebrew translations have a great index with succint explanations, but than they were translated by a Tolkien scholar rather than just any common translator.

Isn't there an index at the end of each book? That's one of my favorite things about Tolkien: while he wrote narrative works, they're supported by so much scholary background. Even with no prior knowledge, you just feel that the man who wrote this was a professor. That's perhaps the aspect of his work that distinguishes it from the works of other writers in the field.

Orgol (which "coincides", as many Tolkien names are wont to do, with old English for "vanity") is Tolkien's intended name for the character of Saeros from The Children of Hurin. By the time Christopher uncovered the fact that his father intended to rewrite Saeros as Orgol, it was too late to retcon the entire Silmarillion.