|
|
Post by misshickerson on Feb 24, 2009 13:11:06 GMT -5
I voted for POA as my favorite and the best. I felt that it was the first movie to really move into the adult themes. It looked gorgeous and the wizarding world seemed more real and immediate. It was slightly dangerous and gritty, not just a sanitized fairytale.
It did have its share of bad moments. The werewolf could have looked better. The Marauders were absent. Hermione's eyebrows went into overdrive and haven't been curtailed yet. And poor canon!Ron was largely absent from the film.
Every new film that comes out becomes my favorite, but I always default back to POA. I've got high hopes for HBP, though!
|
|
|
|
Post by starsea on Feb 24, 2009 14:08:12 GMT -5
God, yes, I forgot the ridiculous chihuahua!werewolf. They would all have been killed long ago if you could identify them that easily!  (For werewolf scenes of real power, watch The Company of Wolves.) |
|
nundu
Second Year
Posts: 25
|
Post by nundu on Feb 24, 2009 18:10:56 GMT -5
As an actor, I like POA the most, followed by OotP. The cinematography and artist direction for both were fabulous.
As a reader, I like OotP best and you can throw the rest in the bin.
|
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Feb 25, 2009 2:21:18 GMT -5
I absolutely hate what Cuaron did to PoA.
I was looking forward to quidditch, instead I get dorky artistic shots of an umbrella blowing away in a storm.
I wanted a Padfoot that was at least marginally like the one JKR created, a Newfie the size of a VW Bug, instead I get some ratty-looking deerhound.
I wanted Ralph Fiennes cast as Remus (he does tortured SO WELL!), instead I get David Thewlis in a bad wig with Barty Crouch's moustache.
I wanted the story JKR wrote, instead I get shrunken heads starring in the Knight Bus, and over-acting in a private chamber in The Three Broomsticks...
There is so much more.... wasting film on artsy interior shots while leaving out major parts of the plotline.... Beating us over the head with Scabbers, just in case we were too retarded to get it when he shows up in the Egypt pic, Molly running beside the train, etc.... Taking ALL the mystery out of what Lupin's boggart is ... Turning elegant and respected wizard Dumbledore into some filthy-fingernailed, degenerate with yellowed hair, shabby robes, and a stupid rubberband in the middle of his supposed-to-be-flowing silver beard that is suddenly dirty gray/yellowed ... and on and on and on... GRRRR!!!
I wanted a Director who understands European Magic, not Harry Potter and the Dia Del Murte.
I think Cuaron should never be allowed within 400 yards of any movie/book I care about ever again. He botched PoA SOOOOO badly! [But at least I have softened a bit. I used to want him hung by his privates from the top of a flagpole in the town square.]
.
|
|
nundu
Second Year
Posts: 25
|
Post by nundu on Feb 25, 2009 7:03:18 GMT -5
But at least I have softened a bit. I used to want him hung by his privates from the top of a flagpole in the town square. You're getting mellow in your old age! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by starsea on Feb 25, 2009 11:39:57 GMT -5
I wanted Ralph Fiennes cast as Remus (he does tortured SO WELL!), instead I get David Thewlis in a bad wig with Barty Crouch's moustache. Maybe, but Fiennes always makes a better villain than a goodie, that's what they cast him as Voldemort. I think that they do well with the casting (yes, even Michael Gambon), so I liked David Thwelis. I wasn't at all bothered by his moustache. I don't understand why so many people hate it. |
|
|
|
Post by pigwithhair on Feb 25, 2009 12:13:56 GMT -5
I agree: the casting in these films has been brilliant. I thought Thewliss was spot on as Lupin and Gary Oldman the same as Sirius. Rickman isn't Snape from the book, but he's actually done a lot for the character, I think. And Robbie Coltraine - there could never be another Hagrid.  |
|
|
|
Post by siriusgirl on Feb 25, 2009 14:33:26 GMT -5
I loved Thewlis as Lupin he was perfect, and Oldman was great as Sirius, it ticks me off they didn't keep Sirius in the GOF movie. Oldman didn't get a chance to shine like me might ahve otherwise.
Fiennes plays a great villain and was perfect as Voldemort
|
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Feb 25, 2009 21:25:47 GMT -5
I have to disagree with the casting Cuaron did.
Gambon comes off as a drunk homeless guy who lives in a '73 Buick under a bridge. He lacks the class and comanding assurance that Dumbledore exudes. I wanted Patrick Stewart. He would have picked up the role and probably have even surpassed Richard Harris' excellent portrayal. Gambon is just now almost approaching acceptable.
The one who does villians well is Gary Oldman. He's almost type-cast as one. In all the books Sirius is exceptionally good-looking, even reasonably good-looking after Azkaban, and taller than any of the other Marauders, which Oldman isn't. He would have made a great DE though, especially MacNair. Sirius should have been Oded Fehr (the leader of the black-clad guard from The Mummy), or any Bettany brother. Possibly a few others that aren't coming to mind at the moment.
David Thewlis just isn't good enough at tortured to be Remus. He lacks the subtlety to not turn RJL into a mellodrama character. Fiennes in The Constant Gardener was perfect for the part. Even in The English Patient he exhibited most of Remus' characteristics, except the anger is outer-directed rather than internalized as Lupin would have done. Even in Bernard and Doris he was Lupinesque. Anyhow, I still vote for Ralph Fiennes as a better Remus than Voldemort (Oldman would even have been better as Voldy. I keep wanting to hand Fienne's Voldy a Kleenex for his sinus condition. *snorf* And ask that he have less prostetic fingers so that he could actually close his hand around his wand instead of hold it so gay-ly.)
The problem with the "pencil thin" moustache is that a hairy person with scars would either not have any moustache at all (as in the books) or have a bushy/hirsute one to cover some scar. Barty Crouch, on the other hand, would have a precisely groomed, almost measured 'stache. How can someone look "shabby" if they trim their moustache with a micrometer? It is just entirely wrong for Remus.
Anyhow, PoA was my faourite book until the last 2 (which I can also pick apart for a thousand flaws each), so I was severely disappointed at how the film was ruined. I so wanted PoA to be as delightful as both of Chris Columbus'... and it sooo missed the mark.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by pigwithhair on Feb 25, 2009 23:28:30 GMT -5
Well, I wouldn't be too fussed about whether he's tall enough or not. Ron Weasley is, aside from Hagrid, about the tallest character in the books - his wand is the longest second only to Hagrid's - and there are constant reminders in the books of his height, yet Rupert Grint, while average height for a man, isn't tall like I picture Ron being. That said, I wouldnt' want to see any other actor in the role.
I loved Richard Harris as Dumbledore, and I confess to always being disappointed with actors who don't read the books (such as Gambon), but I'm not sure anyone could live up to my expectations of that role. And I was very disappointed the film didn't have Dumbledore saying "a few words," such as flubber, bubblemint and tweak. I'm paraphrasing there, obviously.
The actors are never going to be perfect matches for their fictional counterparts. Dan's eyes are blue, not green and so on. But overall, yeah, I think they've done an outstanding job. Surely much better than would have been done had the films been made here in the States where casting often comes down to who will draw the public in instead of who is right for the role.
|
|
|
|
Post by starsea on Feb 26, 2009 11:31:39 GMT -5
Gambon comes off as a drunk homeless guy who lives in a '73 Buick under a bridge. He lacks the class and comanding assurance that Dumbledore exudes. I wanted Patrick Stewart. He would have picked up the role and probably have even surpassed Richard Harris' excellent portrayal. Gambon is just now almost approaching acceptable. I don't know many drunk homeless guys who could speak like Dumbledore. I feel quite sorry for Gambon coming after Richard Harris. He couldn't act or dress like Richard Harris or he would have been accused of copying his performance. As an actor, he wants to make the role his own. I agree Patrick Stewart would have been good but I still think that Gambon does well. I believe his Dumbledore as the head of the Order of the Phoenix. I don't think I would have believed in Harris's. Even in his moment in GoF when he's crouched by the Pensieve, I can see shades of the cave and what happens in there. I know that when that moment in the HBP movie arrives, I will be squirming. Oldman does make a good villain, but he's normally cast as that in American films and this is a British film. Even though he's not classically good-looking, I still believe him as Sirius. The only time I would ever describe Remus as tortured in the books is the end of HBP and in DH, not PoA. In PoA, he's restrained and matter of fact. We haven't seen Thewlis do tortured yet, so we can't judge him on that. I fail to see how he was melodramatic in PoA or OotP... No, I'm sorry, I can't agree. Ralph Fiennes has the height and the presence to play Voldemort. Given that Voldemort speaks in a permanent hiss, no wonder he sounds strange; and given that he's reborn as "less than human", and Jo continously goes on about his 'preternaturally long' fingers... (Besides, Gary Oldman's already played Dracula.) The scars are a movie invention! The books never mention anything about Remus being scarred all over. Pretty d*mn easily if their clothes are patched and worn and everything they own is old or second-hand. HIs moustache is one of the few things Remus can control. Well, it wasn't aiming for that mark in the first place, so it can't exactly miss. ^^; Cuaron tried to make it as different as possible from those two and he succeeded. I dislike the inaccuracies as much as anyone but it isn't a complete waste of space. |
|
|
|
Post by magikcat on Feb 26, 2009 16:21:37 GMT -5
I try not to think about the books too much while I'm watching the movies, to be honest. Even after I've seen them a million times, I still think of them as two different things. I know that's a bit sacrilegious, but it's easy for me to do so partly because of my personality and partly because it seems moot to complain about it walking out of the theater.
That said, I have always been happy with the movies. I LOVE the adults that were cast (Dame Maggie Smith as McGonagall is pure genius ;D) as well as the students. From a reader's perspective, I know they aren't exactly like their book counterparts, but in bringing their characters alive, they do an excellent job.
The only one I've kind of been somewhat disappointed with is Emma Watson. She started out so strong in the first movie -- arguably the best of the trio. But as they years have gone on I think Dan and Rupert have surpassed her in the acting range -- and I don't know if it's her or the script. However, I'm not one of those people who hate seeing her on screen, and from what I've heard she does better in the 6th movie. I will be cheering for her if she does so.
|
|
|
|
Post by misshickerson on Feb 27, 2009 14:11:27 GMT -5
I try not to think about the books too much while I'm watching the movies, to be honest. Even after I've seen them a million times, I still think of them as two different things. I know that's a bit sacrilegious, but it's easy for me to do so partly because of my personality and partly because it seems moot to complain about it walking out of the theater. I agree. I'd love for the movies to be exact, faithful adaptations of the books, but I realize that this is a very rare phenomenon. LOTR was obsessively detailed and canon-based and even that wasn't 100% faithful. I'm able to compartmentalize very well. I think that is why I prefer the movies from POA on. I can enjoy them on their own merits whereas SS and CoS wouldn't normally be movies that I would watch had they not been books first. I did think she was best as Hermione in the first two. Her hair was bushy, she didn't embody girl power quite so forcefully, and her eyebrows weren't out of control. |
|
|
|
Post by starsea on Feb 27, 2009 17:08:16 GMT -5
I thought Hermione was always about girl power! I was so disappointed when the film people decided that, in order to show her as a strong independent female, she had to punch someone. Even if it was Draco! What, the slap wasn't enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by pigwithhair on Feb 27, 2009 17:57:35 GMT -5
SuperTomBoy Hermione in the films has bugged me. Even Emma Watson has referred to Hermione this way. Given that Hermione's the last when they're running and had a stitch in her side and came up last as they climbed Stoatshead Hill, I've never thought of Hermione as SuperTomBoy the way she was portrayed there for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by starsea on Feb 28, 2009 21:46:39 GMT -5
Exactly. Ginny're more of a tomboy than Hermione!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mirabelle on Feb 28, 2009 23:21:37 GMT -5
I've never wanted the films to be a faithful recreation of the books. If I want to experience the books, I'll read them.
I also like Gambon as Dumbledore. He's vigorous in the role in a way that Harris couldn't be considering his health issues. Gambon's Dumbledore I can picture taking on Grindlewald. I have trouble picturing Harris' Dumbledore taking on CoS era Ginny (when Bonnie Wright was like four feet tall) in a physical fight, much less dueling with Voldemort. I also don't think it should be necessary for an actor to have to read the book a movie is based on in order to play the role--if he does then there's something wrong with the script.
To this day, I have trouble sitting through the first two films. The acting is poor, the pacing is horrible, and I'm just impatient for them to end.
|
|
|
|
Post by birdg on Feb 28, 2009 23:56:21 GMT -5
I agree with you, mirabelle, about Gambon as Dumbledore. I just can't see Harris pulling off the fight against Voldemort in the DoM or the battle against the Inferi that I've seen in HBP as well as Gambon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chocolatepot on Mar 3, 2009 21:48:12 GMT -5
And to me, that's why it's so enjoyable! (Aside from a few bits.) The first two felt so boring, and all of the parts that were changed or added seemed really, really aimed at small kids. I think the reason Emma Watson seemed so much better in them is that the whole feel was more kiddish (understandably), and her acting in the series - but not in Ballet Shoes, for some reason - is very kid-movie.
I think it depends how you use "girl power". To me, and I think to misshickerson, the phrase means perkiness plus always being right plus being able to do anything physically. I associate it with elementary school. Hermione's much cooler than that.
My problems are always related to the writing - I like the way each director makes the universe a little different. OotP is my favorite, just because each new one is my favorite until the next. I've had a hard time getting too worked up about changes since a book I loved to pieces got turned into a movie with everything I loved dropped.
Re: Oldman and Thewlis - I thought they and Rickman were ten years too old for the parts, but they still did it really well. I would have liked Sirius to be better-looking, but it's more important for the actor to get the part down than to look it. Anyone who can hug a fake werewolf and go on about hearts without sounding like he's rolling his eyes is doing pretty well, although it was too bad we didn't get to see more calm scenes with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mirabelle on Mar 3, 2009 22:02:32 GMT -5
I think Emma Watson is the type of actress who is very dependent on the director. Maybe she was able to understand and connect more with the the character of Pauline than she is able to with Hermione--Pauline isn't really all that different from Watson herself--but I think Watson needs a director who is able to give her specific directions to tame her tendency to overact. Look at what happened to her in GoF. From what I gather Newell tried something different in terms of direction--less specific instruction and more reliance on instinct--and she was all over the place.
|
|
