Another PoA review, this time longer!

[Morlock 11]

Well, I finaly saw it.

I was flabbergasted. I loved it. Amazing. IMO- vastly, VASTLY superior to the first two films. And, IMO, one of the best book adaptations I've ever seen.

Here are my detailed, jumbled up impressions of the movie:

The Main Titles were very good, had the classic feel to them, together with the so well established theme. I'm glad that they've settled on that theme to open it with, gives it an identifying mark from the get go, like Star Wars.

I think the movie gets off to an excellent start, I like the look of the opening scenes, Radcliffe looks very good, very confident.

I thought everything regarding the look of the film was a huge improvement on the first two. The cinematography was beautiful. The sets were absolutely phenominal, so many well realized sets. The geography was changed around, yes, most notably with Hagrid's hut, but I think also that was a huge improvement. I think that, like a lot of the movie, gave the movie a life of it's own, and one that worked with the book, not simply a filming of the book. The movie has an independant life, yet IMO retains everything that was important from the books. I totaly disagree that this wasn't a good adaptation, I think it is actualy as good as a book adaptation gets.

I loved how the movies used a LOT more space than the first two. So much happened out doors, and, fitting my imagination of it, the grounds were huge and expansive. In the first film, I always felt the camera was looking in on this small, enclosed, castle and the quissitch field. In this one, it was huge, the camera wasn't looking only at the castle, but all the way around. This expansion is also one of the best thing about the movie.

About the out doors, it made the film breath more. I felt the first two films focused almost too much on people, on objects, the wideness of the third film made it about the people, the objects, and the magical setting of the place. The whole geography of the castle and it's area was always one of my favorite things about the books.

Also, one of my favorite things about the movie is how much the kids all seemed alot more independant, their lines didn't seem dictated by the book. They actually seemed like teenagers, not characters from a book. Their joking around in the room at night was especialy great, I identified with that very much.

And IMO the clothes were a big improvement too. I liked them all much more in everyday clothes than in the robes all the time. I mean neither of thiese things were bad in the book, they were perfect in the book. But the movie was all the more freer for letting the kids act and dress like real teenagers. Enhanced the magic of it IMO, made me identify with the characters and have a lot more sympathy.

The school itself, the shuffling between classes, the attitude of the kids, striked me as very true to a modern school, and again, I think this is a great thing. I was watching real characters there, and the characters left me cold a lot of the time in the first two films.

More specific comments:

Loved the leaky Cauldron, loved the set. Very authentic feeling. I loved the short scene where Mr. Weasely is explaining Serious Black to Harry, Mark Williams was very good, and I loved how they kept on moving through that set.

The Boggart scene was fantastic.

I liked the shot of the gate closing and sealing itself. The magical mechanism at work was great.

I got so much enjoyment out of the drawing of the werewolf as the Vitruvian man.

One tiny moment I cracked up about- when the Whomping Willow shook off the snow, some of it as if plopped on the camera. Great moment.

I agree that the Maradaur's map back ground was missing. I hope that they'll be in the deleted scenes, the parts dealing with the map are some of my favorite parts of the book.

And yes, I also agree that it is out of place that only one of Crabbe & Goyle were with Malfoy.

About the actors:

I like Radcliffe much better than in the first two movies, he really held his own from the very first scene, and wasn't upstaged by all the adults (generaly even to the contrary).

I loved Gambon, he was a very different Dumbledore, but he just sunk into the role. For me, Harris will always be Dumbledore, but Gambon is a very good replacement.

Emma Thompson was perfect for the role, she sank her fangs into it. Before the scene, I thought I might not be able to buy her, but I was sold from the first instant.

Thewlis was absolutely phenominal, my favorite performance of the movie. I loved him in every single scene. I loved the scene in the corrider at night, with Snape, Harry and Lupin (I loved Cuaron's cameo, though I was a bit confused since his voice was dubbed I think)

Oldman was great, if a bit underused. He needed more screen time IMO.

Spall I didn't like. Too rat-like, nothing likable about his performance. Also, too little screen time to make any real impact.

Although I would've loved Jim Broadbent for the role, the man playing the minister of magic was very good, looked the part. He had a different costume than the second film, but I think the black formal attire is very good for him.

And IMO, all the adult cast from the first two movies really inhibited their roles, despite the rather trunkated screen time.

I think it took the first two movies for the characters to be fully drawn out, and nto just be actors who look like the descripsions in the book. They were all great in the first two movies, but this was the first time that I felt I was seeing Hagrid, and not Robbie Coltraine.

Now, saving the most mixed comments for near the end, here it goes.

The only big problems I had with the movie revolved around the first part of the climax.

Really, the whole sequence in between Hagrid's hut (the first time) and the hospital room (the first time) didn't work for me.

First of all, the back side of the wideness of the rest of the movie- I felt the sequence was too big. From the book, I imagined it MUCH more claustrephbic.

As I said, I wanted more of Oldman, and more of Spall, so that he could get past the rat like quality.

I hated the look of Lupin the werewolf. Really ugly and unattractive, the SFX were the only ones in the movie that were entirely unconvincing IMO.

So, I really disliked that sequence. However.....

...I loved the second half of the climax. The whole time travel thing was done very well, very satisfying.

The patronus scene I was underwhelmed with the first time, but the one after the time travel, I loved. Visualy stunning, and the music overpowering.

Now, the score.

First of all, obviously, the score was 100% amazing. But a bit beyond that....

Although I didn't like it used so much on the album originaly, I love the movie's reliance (in the first half) on Double Trouble. A great theme, very well used. Of the versions not on the CD, I loved the one used when the kids were going to the fat lady's protrait, and waiting outside.

And as I expected, I did finaly get and fall in love with the Past theme. Beautiful stuff.

I loved the charming snowball music.

Forward Time to past was also fantastic, both time it was used.

And, as expected, the best musical part of the movie was Buckbeak's Flight. I love the pounding percussion at the begining, and that as much as anything told me Williams was still with it (not that I had any doubts). I doubt most people would use that pounding percussion, I would've expected some fast rising strings, a bit nervous in the begining than developing into the magestic theme. The theme itself is beautiful, breath taking. Definite highlight.

IMO, the score was generaly mixed too low. Aunt Marge's Waltz IMO should've been the main, overpowering element in that scene. The Knight bus could've been louder too. IMO, Forward Time to Past ais the only scenes that the music level was absolutely perfect.

And IMO, at the end it should've been a bit lower, more conventional version of the Nimbus 2000 theme as Harry lifts off, than break into the huge version, at great volume, as the end credits appear, Thus also cementing more of an end credits form to the series.

IMO (As if this isn't all IMO), this movie is a fantastic, glorious achievment. Cuaron has proven again that he is a truely great director. Now, seeing the first two films again, I am far less critical of Columbus. I think he might do very well on one of the future movies, and think both him and Cuaron should have a place directing one of the future movies.

I think that this movie has finaly let the true potential of the HP series of movies shine, and really transfered the wnromity and greatness of the third book to the screen. And it may have lost me for 15 minutes, the hour and a half before that was amazing, and it wowed me in the end.

Now, for my own star rating, I am very conflicted. This movie is as good or (usualy) far better than most movies I've seen in a long time. This movie filled me with happiness.

BUT, it didn't give me the fantastic character of Serius to the extent I wanted to, as I said, also totaly missed the mark for me on Pettigew, and messed up a fantastic moody climax for me, after the whole movie promised me it was gonna be great for the duration. But also, those two charactes are gonna have their real moments in the next two films, and the second climax made up for a lot of the first one.

So, I give this ****, because the not good parts were, as the saying goes, few and far between, they either were remedied or will be in the deleted scenes and future movies. And that at least 80% of the movie was absolutely phenominal, way outweighing the bad.

[King Mark 3,631]

Glad you liked it.I Saw it twice now.Liked it even better the second time.The first time I was concentrating too much on the score.I agree the second climax outdoes the first one,but i'm sure that's the way they wanted it.

K.M.,

[Henry B 50]

Spall I didn't like. Too rat-like, nothing likable about his performance. Also, too little screen time to make any real impact.

Yeah, I agree. Pettigrew's supposed to be a pathetic little man, not a ****ing rat monster.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

you blew your credibility by saying best adaption.

couldn't bother to read the rest since that part was factually untrue.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

How unfortunate for you, Joe.

Excellent review, Morlock. And I'm glad you finally "got" the Past theme!

Ray Barnsbury

[JoeinAR 1,949]

you do know that most of the sets were the same as used in the first two films.

[Morlock 11]

you blew your credibility by saying best adaption.

couldn't bother to read the rest since that part was factually untrue.

No, it is not. It created a film that expanded on the book in some ways, while staying entirely, 100%, true to the story and spirit. That is what the best film adaptations do.

The first two I think only expanded on the books in one way, and that was the necessarily added element of music. That's filming a book.

you do know that most of the sets were the same as used in the first two films.

If it's most, than it's not by far. And, anyway, all the sets from all three movies were by Stuart Craig. About the sets specificaly, the new ones were a great addition, and I guess I liked the old ones more as people seemed to fit into them better.

[A24 4,362]

Joe, you yourself said that we should listen to the fans and to the fans only. Morlock has now become a true fan. Why don't you listen to what he has to say?

----------------

Alex Cremers

[fommes 154]

Joe, if you think that a good adaptation is one that remains as loyal as possible to the film, then (and only then) I'm afraid that you are wrong. Adapting has two facets to it: transfer (elements that can be adapted) and adaptation proper (elements that cannot). It's called semiotic rupture. In my opinion, the director should leave his mark on the adaptation. Look at the Wellesian interpretation of The Trial for example...

[fommes 154]

And Morlock, I often find my opinions differ from yours, but great review. Ebert's is nothing compared to it (what happened with him on this one by the way, I normally tend to strongly agree with the man).

[A24 4,362]

Joe, if you think that a good adaptation is one that remains as loyal as possible to the film, then (and only then) I'm afraid that you are wrong. Adapting has two facets to it: transfer (elements that can be adapted) and adaptation proper (elements that cannot). It's called semiotic rupture. In my opinion, the director should leave his mark on the adaptation. Look at the Wellesian interpretation of The Trial for example...

[shorty]You don't call him Sir, you call him Doctor Lotman![/shorty]

[A24 4,362]

And Morlock, I often find my opinions differ from yours, but great review. Ebert's is nothing compared to it (what happened with him on this one by the way, I normally tend to strongly agree with the man).

I can guarantee you that Ebert thinks this is the best Potter yet. Why do you need the Ebert when you got Morlock?

[fommes 154]

I can guarantee you that Ebert thinks this is the best Potter yet. Why do you need the Ebert when you got Morlock?

But he gave this film half a star less than the other two, and I think that in his review he indicates the superiority of the other two films?

[Morlock 11]

And Morlock, I often find my opinions differ from yours, but great review. Ebert's is nothing compared to it (what happened with him on this one by the way, I normally tend to strongly agree with the man).

I can guarantee you that Ebert thinks this is the best Potter yet. Why do you need the Ebert when you got Morlock?

Ebert thinks this is the least of the 3. He gave the first two 4 stars, and this one 3 1/2 stars, and a much more reserved review.

So, there's one of Alex's theory's debunked, I don't agree with him on everything.

[A24 4,362]

Well, I guess Morlock needs a second viewing to come to the same conclusion as Ebert. But at the end of the road their stars will be in perfect alignment.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 11]

No, I'm afraid your theory will not work this time. I would not give the first two movies 4 stars, and I wouldn't give them something in the vicinity as the glowing reviews he wrote.

[A24 4,362]

Just give it some time, Morlock.

[Morlock 11]

I've seen the first two movies several times each. They ain't gettin' any higher rating after seeing this film.

[Justin 2]

I agree 100% Morlock! Even about the parts I didn't like! That's awesome!

Justin -Who'll see it a second time this weekend. Die Chronicles of Riddick.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

sorry but any of you who say its the most true adaption, are 100% wrong. It might be the best film of the three(not in my opinion), but its definately not the most true adaption.

Huge portions of the book is missing. Foundations through out the series are broken.

Faithful to the spirit, perhaps

faithful to the book, no way.

Its idiotic to believe that it is. Sorry.

Joe.

[Ollie 1,064]

Sometimes you have to stray from the book when you make the film. Some of the better films taken from books have made major adjustments that probably wouldn't have worked on screen.

Yes I know true Potter fans would like it to follow the book exactly but remember you can't make the films just for them, you need to have a broader audience.

I kinda like the slight changes in scenery and the placement of Hogwarts and Hagrid's hut in this film.

[Morlock 11]

sorry but any of you who say its the most true adaption, are 100% wrong.  It might be the best film of the three(not in my opinion), but its definately not the most true adaption.

Huge portions of the book is missing.  Foundations through out the series are broken.  

Faithful to the spirit, perhaps

faithful to the book, no way.

Its idiotic to believe that it is.  Sorry.

No it's not, you just happen to forcefully disagree.

[HPFAN_2 0]

Joe you may not care but i agree with you, out of the three this is THE worst adaptation. So many great elements in the book that could have made this movie a masterpiece were left out. Things like the relationship betweeen Prongs, Monney, Padfoot and Womrtail were gone. The fact that they treated Snape like crap which could have given Snape a bit more depth now that we know why he has a unrelenting hate for harry. The scene with Sirius in harry's room was important and entertaining i have no idea why it was cut. kloves did a bad job and Rowling made a mistake approving it.

[John Crichton 4]

Gotta go with Joe on this one. The MWPP history is important to future events in the series. People complain about how putting too much from the books makes movies too long, but it would have taken no time at all to put in a few extra lines of dialogue to get the history in there.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Joe you may not care but i agree with you, out of the three this is THE worst adaptation.  

actually I feel like as you do in many ways.

There are pieces of the book that were important that are missing.

Even our great moderator Neil mentions that the quidditch scene basically has no meaning within the context of the film, and he is right.

It set up the other quidditch matches that are not shown.

Harry quickly masters the expecto patronas charm all in one scene, in reality he had a very difficult time doing so. A subplot that Harry doesn't want to master the charm. So desperately does he want to hear his mom and dad, that it is better to hear them scream than not to hear them at all.

The film as a whole has a very rushed feeling as if the director doesn't really trust the material.

the truncation of the shrieking shack scene is unnecessary. The film never seemed long, and it could have easily been longer by mere minutes, but the whole texture of the film would have be solidified. After a subsequent viewing,

I've downgraded my rating from ***1/2 to **1/2.

the second half of the film is much better than the first, but the whole film could have been lightyears better with about 8 minutes of defining moments, either left unfilmed or left on the cutting room floor.

should have know the 3rd film of a series is often the least of the 3 as this film is.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Shouldn't you people rate these as MOVIES and review them as seperate entities from the books.

You people claim "well they are missing BLAH BLAH". Well duh!

Folks come on be fair here! You simply cannot tell the entire story of such a LONG book in the course of 1 movie.

[HPFAN_2 0]

Shouldn't you people rate these as MOVIES and review them as seperate entities from the books.  

I don't know about JoenAr but i've done that. However all adaptations should be sized up to the book, we all no it will never be as good as the books but we have to rate how close it comes.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Well OK HPFan I believe you stated you didn't like the movie much. I am still confused why though. In the comments I've read you seemd to be angry about changes from the book. However, I am curious why you wouldn't like it as a stand alone entity.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

By the way, Morlock called it "BEST ADAPTATION", not "MOST FAITHFUL ADAPTATION". In this sense, I completely agree with him. I saw the movie last night and I absolutely loved it, and considering my views on the first two movies it's quite surprising. I was expecting it to be better than the first two, but it was phenomenal. I'll write up my complete analysis soon.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Yeah magic is correct. Just because a movie isn't 100% faithful doesn't mean it cannot be a great adaptation. Stuff needs to be condensed, changed, or removed when stuff goes from books to movies.

[King Mark 3,631]

I'm sure the Expanded Edition DVD will meet everyone's expectations.

K.M.

[Justin 2]

Harry Potter doesn't seem to have caught on to that idea yet.

Justin

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

The harassment Harry receives from the dementors during the Quidditch match is the catalyst that motivates him to finally learn how to take action against them. Plus the scene is visually thrilling. Anyway, the only qualm I agree with that is mentioned in this thread is the omission of some important and easy-to-include information. HOWEVER, this does not hurt the film significantly, and the positives vastly outweigh this. You say the film feels rushed? This is the first Potter film not to sag in the middle, particularly for "normal people" (those not obsessed with the books), and to me it flowed perfectly. And though Joe and I typically agree on all things Potter, I find it shocking and incredible that he finds this film to be the least of the three. As a page-by-page copy of the book to the screen, this film is certainly, and thankfully, the least. As a work that captures the spirit of the books and stands as an independent entity, this film is by far the greatest.

Ray Barnsbury

[King Mark 3,631]

Harry Potter doesn't seem to have caught on to that idea yet.

Justin

Oh sorry,the deleted scenes on the bonus disk,for the 3 mugglenet fanatics that can manage to complete the code to get to them

[diskobolus 3]

Harry Potter doesn't seem to have caught on to that idea yet.

Justin

Oh sorry,the deleted scenes on the bonus disk,for the 3 mugglenet fanatics that can manage to complete the code to get to them

That was only HPSS. CoS had easy-to-find deleted scenes.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Yeah. Turns out it was just on the other CD.

This is the first Potter film not to sag in the middle

Completely agree with you on this one. The changes in the plot (not that they were big) prevented the movie from coming to a grinding stop and slowly moving for the next half hour, like the first two movies.

[jamesie 1]

I wanna say something about Morlock's "best adaptation". I agree with him strongly. Then many pounced on him, saying how much they left out and how much worse it is than the books. Well look at LotR. They left MANY large parts out of the movies... MANY MANY MANY! Many said how bad they were because of that but then turned around loved them. Well look at all of the awards and recognition the movies have gotten. PoA is every bit as good of an adaptation as LotR ever was. Pretty much. :? This is at the least a 4 star movie. An amazing adaptation, IMO.

[HPFAN_2 0]

The harassment Harry receives from the dementors during the Quidditch match is the catalyst that motivates him to finally learn how to take action against them.  

Ray Barnsbury

This something else that was different from the book. In the book harry never receives harrasment from the Dementors until the end, they never chase him around or single him out on the train.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Yes, yes it was different.

Ray Barnsbury-who has no problem with this

[Morlock 11]

Yes, it was different, and I too have no problem with that.

Contemplating it again, I will say that the whole background of the Marauder's Map is indeed one serious aspect missing, but since Rowling signed off on it, and Kloves was writing it with the next films in mind, I'm not worried about it's future in the series.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

A lot could very well be sitting on the cutting room floor, destined to never even make it to the Deleted Scenes section. Such as more on the Marauders and (this was confirmed) Sirius attack in the dormitory.

Apparently Columbus is contemplating a LotR-style Director's Cut for the first movie in which not only the deleted scenes on the DVD appear, but Peeves as well. It was filmed but never made it to the final cut - or deleted scenes menu. If this were to be successful we could very well have one for CoS and (hopefully) PoA. I'm sure my distaste for the first two films would decrease with these added scenes.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

Apparently Columbus is contemplating a LotR-style Director's Cut for the first movie in which not only the deleted scenes on the DVD appear, but Peeves as well. It was filmed but never made it to the final cut - or deleted scenes menu. If this were to be successful we could very well have one for CoS and (hopefully) PoA. I'm sure my distaste for the first two films would decrease with these added scenes.

That would really be great. Where did you hear this?

Ray Barnsbury

[Lurker 5]

If true, remember those scenes were cut for a reason.

Neil

[diskobolus 3]

If true, remember those scenes were cut for a reason.

Neil

Yeah, most of the deleted scenes on HPSS and several from CoS are cringe-inducing, horribly acted scenes.

[Justin 2]

I didn't find them all that diffrent from the film.

Justin -Who thinks the acting in all the HP films isn't perfect. (Depends on the character)

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Let's see, I read it in a transcript of an interview with Chris Rankin, who plays Percy Weasley in the films:

What's the longest time you've ever spent shooting a scene?

CR: The longest scene I've ever shot was on this first film. It was the scene with Peeves the Poltergeist. We shot it in Gloucester Cathedral cloisters.

Sadly it never made it to the final take although I hear Chris Columbus is going to be making a director's cut. In which it will be reinstated.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/kids/harry_po..._20040610.shtml

[King Mark 3,631]

Yes, yes it was different.

Ray Barnsbury-who has no problem with this

Yeah,me neither,in fact Rowlings should re-write her books now.

K.M.

[Henry B 50]

My main gripes with the film are the numerous plot holes (who are the Marauders...?) and Dan Radcliffe's poor acting around the Dementors (otherwise the acting was great). Whenever they show up, he just kind of stares at them and then faints, he doesn't seem terrified at all.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

It's laughable isn't it. It's worse than the Basilisk venom in CoS (every now and again he'd flinch or something). I laughed out loud when he called Hedwig to his arm and flinched when she landed. Granted, it would be scary having a full grown owl fly at your arm, but it's still funny.

I really love the Dementors though. Scary as hell, especially in the Quidditch match (won't spoil it).

[JoeinAR 1,949]

you just have it in for Radcliffe, you just won't give him a break.