Jump to content

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 5-film series


His Royal Noelness
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dreary and pretentious are good adjectives for his Potter films.

 

He clearly isn't a director naturally gifted to imbue humour or levity into his films. Perfectly fitting for Deathly Hallows but leaves a sour taste in my mouth for... whatever this property is meant to be. A strange creative choice if that's what they're going for. :sarcasm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yates understood more the the other directors that Harry Potter wasnt about whimsy and magic, It was about being shouldered the responsibility of being The Chosen One. Being expected to excel academically while there's a mass murderer out to get you. To try and maintain friendships even though you arent truly one of them.

 

Anyone who had a shit time in high school can relate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think his work was really good at the end of the long Potter series, when the situation was darker.  There was a kind of logical progression of tone, color, and imagery in the Harry Potter books as Voldemort rose to power and things started getting dire for the heroes.  However, he was building on the visuals, casting, and worldbuilding of Chris Columbus.  To see Magical USA built as dreary from the ground up is kind of a bummer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deathly Hallows still leaves a sour taste in my mouth, especially the ending of part 2. My time at high school was shit, but I still hate Yates's take on HP. Reading HBP is ten times more fun than watching the movie. He seems to be in a constant kind of depression mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, POA is undoubtedly the best but I am also a big fan of Goblet of Fire (my 2nd favorite, then probably HBP).  Plus, Doyle's is my favorite non-Williams Potter score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised it took so many years for the general internet fandom to realise POA was head and shoulders the best film of the series, but it was obvious to me the moment I saw it. I was forced to watch the first two films as a school excursion before Christmas (probably because the teachers were too lazy to plan classes in late December). When I saw Azkaban, however, I was blown away. The cinematography was stunning and moody, the acting superb, the storyline dark and tense,  and the score... well, say no more. 

 

What impresses most is the film's structure, almost most notable for its divergence from the saccharine Columbus entries. Cuaron turned the entire series into darkness but still balanced the film's tone with moments of sadness, betrayal, angst, humour, warmth and compassion. We relate to these characters despite their unrelatable situation. We feel something for Harry. Remember how Sirius asks Harry to come stay with him? Remember Dumbledore playing dumb about the time-travel charm? House-keeping? Try remembering any charming moments from Yates' soup of perpetual misery.

 

Literally the only criticism I can muster for Azkaban is the uninspired shrieking shack set, which is screaming for some CGI enhancement alongside that dramatic reveal of Sirius (but credit to them for going practical).

 

Ultimately, Yates is seemingly incapable of achieving a diversity of textures in his films. It's the Snyder Superman effect: just because you want to go darker doesn't mean your entire film has to be depressing and miserable. You still need to provide a diversity of visuals, scenes and characters to keep your audience engaged, otherwise it all feels static and lethargic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CGI enhancements to the Shrieking Shack set?  Like what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Same here. Azkaban remeans the best film without a doubt.

Sorry, still have to voice some doubt there. I said it before and I'll say it again:

If it truly IS the best of them all, it is because the others are even worse; not because Azkaban is actually all that good.

For all the good parts about that film, it is still deeply flawed.

 

I truly wished it was better than it is. Or that I could see what you guys see in it.

But I can't, because the flaws are just so darn obvious that every time I watch it, they keep shouting out how noticeable they are.

A shame if ever there was one, because the source book is awesome and I was hoping really hard that the film adaption would do it justice.

It didn't. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's certainly Williams' best score for the franchise which I know is inarguable and that no one on this board would possibly disagree because we're all unanimous on that point I'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

Sorry, still have to voice some doubt there. I said it before and I'll say it again:

If it truly IS the best of them all, it is because the others are even worse; not because Azkaban is actually all that good.

For all the good parts about that film, it is still deeply flawed.

 

I truly wished it was better than it is. Or that I could see what you guys see in it.

But I can't, because the flaws are just so darn obvious that every time I watch it, they keep shouting out how noticeable they are.

A shame if ever there was one, because the source book is awesome and I was hoping really hard that the film adaption would do it justice.

It didn't. :(

 

 

I wonder if that's a commonly held belief of people who read the books first.  I had mildly enjoyed the first two movies, and the third won me over enough to read the books.  While I would have loved more from the book to make it into the movie (origin of the Marauder's Map, off the top of my head), the movie worked great for me as a piece of cinema and worked well enough as an adaptation to actually interest me in the source material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually read the books first. For me, POA always... felt differently, but I think it works very well as a standalone film. It's my second favourite, HP4 being the first. But as has been pointed out, the Marauders storyline really is a problem and it has nothing to do with having read the books or not. And as I recalll, there are an amazing number of visual mistakes (was it 250?), like Pettigrew with one finger with tape over it that they should have removed digitally, the sun shining in Lupin's office at night etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

I actually read the books first. For me, POA always... felt differently,

 

It's the only one where Voldemort isnt the main baddie.

It's like the Goldfinger of the Connery Bond films, all the other ones had SPECTRE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Visit parks with multiple PokéStops and hunt in pairs.

 

EDIT: Oh sorry, wrong thread!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it comes to BIG mistakes with Prisoner of Azkaban, I think it doesn't come much bigger than the phrase "A werewolf only responds to the call of its own kind."

Since the werewolf responds to the call of Hermione shortly after, that logically means she is a werewolf.

Except that she isn't. And that phrase wasn't in the book and therefore didn't need to be in the film.

 

That does not just make it a pointless addition if ever there was one, it specifically should be not there.

In other words: While that movie is already needlessly the shortest in the series, it could have made at least internal sense by being even shorter.

Except that it wasn't.

 

That is quite indicative of the general "whatever were the filmmakers thinking?!?" atmosphere that permeates much of that movie.

This is an egregious example that honestly cannot be defended and it is wrong, plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is from a text book, it is one made up for the film that contains wrong information and is also never mentioned.

Nothing indicates that it is intentional though and nothing is ever made of it. So what you suggest is pure conjecture.

 

This certainly goes beyond "simple nitpicking of slight mistakes" as it is part of the story itself.

In truth, it makes absolutely zero sense and the film would be better if that pointless addition were removed.

The fact that it is there anyway is a baffling flaw indeed as there is no valid reason for it to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Not Mr. Big said:

It sort of makes sense to me.  Hermione (being the know-it-all she is) immediately thinks up a solution to the problem and explains it to Harry without thinking about the immediate consequences.

And the werewolf only responds to the call of its own kind (which can be replicated), not "only its own kind".  

 

That's how I saw it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Hermione werewolf thing is one of those nit picky things from people who absolutely do not want to like the books. Same as Gambon shouting at Harry in Goblet of Fire. I much prefer Harris but I think Gambon did a fine job. Him being angry can simply be explained by saying Dumbledore was so angry because he was worried about Harry. 

 

The he new film looks good. The trailers have made me curious, I'm looking forward to it because I trust Rowling in her own universe. Same reason I'm not freaking out about Cursed Child until I've actually read the thing .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pieter_Boelen said:

If it comes to BIG mistakes with Prisoner of Azkaban, I think it doesn't come much bigger than the phrase "A werewolf only responds to the call of its own kind."

Since the werewolf responds to the call of Hermione shortly after, that logically means she is a werewolf.

Except that she isn't. And that phrase wasn't in the book and therefore didn't need to be in the film.

 

That does not just make it a pointless addition if ever there was one, it specifically should be not there.

In other words: While that movie is already needlessly the shortest in the series, it could have made at least internal sense by being even shorter.

Except that it wasn't.

 

That is quite indicative of the general "whatever were the filmmakers thinking?!?" atmosphere that permeates much of that movie.

This is an egregious example that honestly cannot be defended and it is wrong, plain and simple.

opinions are great, but man to end yours with, 'this is a fact that cannot be refuted and if you disagree you are wrong!'.

whether I agree with it being a mistake or not is besides the point. your enjoyment of a film is subjective because there's aspects of it that some people will have issues with, some will like it, and others won't even notice it. as far as criticisms go that's pretty nitpicky and certainly not making me re-think my appreciation of PoA in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mstrox said:

Dumbledore's role is smallest in the earlier books, but Harris never did anything for me as Dumbledore.  He didn't have the energy.  Gambon made the character come alive for me.

 

Yes.  I thought Gambon captured the character as written in the books, the mischievous but dangerous but also a bit silly man that Rowling wrote.  Harris just played a wizened wizard cliche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really fascinating to see how differently we interpret the books, because I hated Gambon's Dumbledore. Richard Harris will always be Dumbledore to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, alextrombone94 said:

 I hated Gambon's Dumbledore. Richard Harris will always be Dumbledore to me

 

Ditto

 

23 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

But Richard Harris couldn't possibly have been the Dumbledore who sent H and H back in time.

 

Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard Harris is certainly capable of expressing a multitudinous range of emotions, including those not used in the first two films.

 

 

That's like saying John Williams couldn't have scored the later films because his Voldemort theme was too kiddy.  Well guess what, John Williams can adapt his sound to fit the needs of any film!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also just generally a huge fan of Gambon, he elevates even the crappy movies he's sometimes in.  Outside of Potter, I only saw Harris in Unforgiven and Gladiator and I wasn't bowled over by either performance.  Much like in Potter he was just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bollemanneke said:

Yes, Gambon is great! I loved him in Gosford Park and The Casual Vacancy.

 

I love Gosford Park!  He's also so great showing up in smaller roles in Sleepy Hollow, Fantastic Mr. Fox, King's Speech, Layer Cake, etc.  And his guest starring role in Doctor Who a few years back was a classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I'm also just generally a huge fan of Gambon, he elevates even the crappy movies he's sometimes in.  Outside of Potter, I only saw Harris in Unforgiven and Gladiator and I wasn't bowled over by either performance.  Much like in Potter he was just fine.

 

The Field. 

 

Drop what you're doing and watch it now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

Oooh, with John Hurt and Sean Bean costarring.  I'm definitely intrigued!

 

The play is better but the film is definitely worth watching. 

 

Showed it to an American friend recently and they really enjoyed it. 

 

The Bull is THE Irish theatre role and Harriss is excellent in it. Possibly even the definitive portrayal of the character. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

HP5 is needlessly the shortest one, not HP3.

Ah, you're right. Apparently 4 minutes shorter still. Must have misremembered.

 

HP5's length didn't bother me though as it seems to me they at least managed to tell those parts of the story that needed to be there.

 

8 hours ago, Not Mr. Big said:

It sort of makes sense to me.  Hermione (being the know-it-all she is) immediately thinks up a solution to the problem and explains it to Harry without thinking about the immediate consequences.

And the werewolf only responds to the call of its own kind (which can be replicated), not "only its own kind".  

You know, that almost makes sense.

Though Hermione isn't one to "make up" explanations, is she? Or am I misunderstanding you there?

 

Anyway, if I'm being really nitpicky, if Hermione is calling, then it isn't a "call of its own kind", is it? It's a human call that kind-of sounds like a werewolf call.

For it to be a true werewolf call, it would need to be recorded and played back. Or she could have used a spell to "play such a recording".

That would have made sense and would fit into the Harry Potter world too.

 

8 hours ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

I think the Hermione werewolf thing is one of those nit picky things from people who absolutely do not want to like the books.

"Do not want to like the books"? Uh, wha? That part isn't IN the book; that's my point.

I like the books very much, especially PoA which is probably my favourite.

That is also the most likely reason why the film was such a tremendous disappointment to me.

It isn't bad per se; but it could and should have been so darn much better!

 

I know it is very hard to please people who like the book whenever a book adaption is made.

But to me, at least the first two films did manage to do justice to my imagination, proving that it IS possible.

And all Horatio Hornblower film adaptions are completely on par with their original books as well and I like them all nearly equally.

I really wished that were the case for Harry Potter too.

 

6 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

opinions are great, but man to end yours with, 'this is a fact that cannot be refuted and if you disagree you are wrong!'.

I personally find it very bothersome as to me it indicates a larger problem with that film,

which is that I cannot understand what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish there.

 

There are a lot more examples of that in the PoA film which completely baffle me,

but most of those are more debatable and I can understand if different people have different opinions on that.

For example, "the werewolf looks stupid", "for whatever reason can dementors suddenly fly?", "Lupin seems like a creep",

"Dumbledore's annoyingly preachy speech that sounds tremendously out-of-character to me", "why does the Patronus not ALWAYS look like a stag?" and so on.

 

But this isn't one of them. The fact is that it was invented for the film, but served no purpose as it added nothing.

It would be better if it weren't there, as it suggests something that objectively is untrue.

Whether this flaw detracts from your enjoyment of film, is personal of course. But that doesn't stop it from being a flaw.

 

All in all, I commend people for liking Prisoner of Azkaban. I really wished I could do the same.

I've tried very hard and if ever there was a movie in existence that I wanted to like as much as other people do, it is that one.

It seems to be commonly accepted as being "the best", but it seems I am unable to see its glory.

I honestly don't even know why and I find it truly very unfortunate. :(

 

3 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

Because he's way too solemn for that, I think. As someone wrote before, Gambon made him seem slightly more mental, more like Rowling's character.

Dumbledore in the first two films also seemed to be quite good humoured and a bit mischievous to me.

Not excessively so, but I quite like the "Alas, earwax" bit.

 

Gambon can be quite a good actor and there are a fair few roles where I quite liked him, such as in Longitude and, as mentioned before, his role in Doctor Who.

But as Dumbledore, his shouting, anger and needless preaching managed to annoy me on more than one occasion.

He seemed better in Order of the Phoenix though and I thought he did quite fine in The Half-Blood Prince.

 

I think the Harry Potter film series to me can be summed up like this:

1. Faithful adaption that is everything I would expect that movie to be. Music is incredible.

2. Similar, though perhaps a bit TOO similar. I could have done without the "trench run" during the Quidditch Match. Good music, though shame about the condensed schedule.

3. Extremely uneven. Good parts are quite good, the bad parts are unbelievably annoying to me. Film was rescued by John Williams.

4. Bit more even, but only slightly so. Not as good as it could have been and the music was a distinct step down as well.

Also, this was the start of the "puffs of smoke" for flying wizards, which did a massive disservice to the entire remainder of the series.

5. Quite a reasonable adaption, which made me hopeful for Yates' remaining films. Music did not bother me, though admittedly was nothing brilliant either.

Fight in the Ministry of Magic ended up being "black puffs of smoke" circling "white puffs of smoke", which was boooring to say the least.

6. Rather gloomy, but tastefully so. Generally well-done film that fits with the source material. Slughorn was great. Music was.... serviceable.

7-1. Not too bad, actually. Bit more "modern" than I'd like myself, but that's not a deal-breaker. Music was a step up again; probably on par with #4.

7-2. Was that supposed to be the finale? I couldn't even see what was going on during the "epic fights" at the end, because it was so darn dark.

And then it continued after it should have already ended. The "falling fight with Voldemort" was stupid indeed. Music? Dunno, didn't leave so much of an impression.

 

All in all, I like the book series very much, but after a strong start (for me), the films went quite downhill.

Average, but extremely uneven. There is a lot to like about them, but they're not actually good films nor good adaptions.

Missed opportunity and I wished I knew what happened to cause such a weird situation. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.