criterionforum.org

since we're all posting orders, here's mine...

1. Prisoner of Azkaban
2. Philosopher's Stone
3. Order of the Phoenix
4. Chamber of Secrets
5. Goblet of Fire

FYI: I already have Book 7 and I'm on Chapter Two. LOL.

malcolm1980 wrote:FYI: I already have Book 7 and I'm on Chapter Two. LOL.

Avada kedavra!

1. Goblet of Fire
2. Prisoner of Azkaban
3. Chamber of Secrets
4. Sorcerer's Stone
5. Order of the Phoenix

I was very disappointed with David Yates and startled by how many basic problems he had with continuity, eyeline, camerwork and montage. Goldernberg cut too many crucial elements to the book and introduced a number of characters who now served no purpose, lacked a resolution or even a basic explanation as to who they were. I'm glad Steve Kloves is coming back for Half-Blood Prince, but I'll be counting the days until Yates is replaced.

I got back from this a few hours ago. It was good. Not amazing (then again, none of them are), but very good.

1) Prisoner of Azkaban
2) Goblet of Fire
3) Order of the Phoenix
4) Sorcerer's Stone
5) Chamber of Secrets

The main issue I have with the films is that they tend to be very unstylized. The movies don't have a lot of really great shots, and consists mostly of dolly backwards/forwards to the characters, pull away into the air, so on and so forth. A nice little salad of safe cinematography, with a few stand-out moments, but for the most part they're lacking a good whiz-bang.

Chris Columbus is a really dull director. Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, Harry Potter, and Rent are all his, and honestly, they're all terrible. Alfonso Cuaron is fairly good, even if his actual film endings just grate the hell out of me (Harry Potter, a freeze-frame, and Children of Men, a really unnecessarily abrupt cut to black and jangly John Lennon song). I liked his take on Hogwarts, actually, which really added an element of style to the movie (the clock, Stonehenge, etc). Goblet of Fire added the bridge, and was also very good.

The acting was really very good in Phoenix. Umbrige was spot-on (and the kitten plates, too). The sets were all very impressive, bringing back the moving stairs and whatnot, but I'll agree with everyone that too many things that were cut out shouldn't have been, and the editing was crap, etc.

I just finished The Deathly Hallows.

It is the best Harry Potter book by far.

Magic Hate Ball, are you seriously criticizing kids movies for not having an aesthetic bent?

And, I happen to like Chris Columbus quite a bit. Home Alone, Mrs Doubtfire, and Adventures in Babysitting are quality films for what they are. If they have flaws, it isn't because they are insincere.

Yeah, I like Home Alone a lot. It's a shame it wasn't give a 15th Anniversary release or anything. Do you think Terry Gilliam will have a chance of directing the last installment?

justeleblanc wrote:Magic Hate Ball, are you seriously criticizing kids movies for not having an aesthetic bent?

Sure, why the hell not?

exte wrote:Do you think Terry Gilliam will have a chance of directing the last installment?

Oh, god I hope so.

I would much rather see Gilliam create his own films than see him try to fit his imagination into the rigid template of an established series, especially one whose success hardly requires the guidance of well known auteurs (who could otherwise be doing better things).

Magic Hate Ball wrote:

justeleblanc wrote:Magic Hate Ball, are you seriously criticizing kids movies for not having an aesthetic bent?

Sure, why the hell not?

But aren't these camera choices that you want, aren't they aimed more for the older teenage hipster audience? Do they really improve sales for younger audiences?

exte wrote:Do you think Terry Gilliam will have a chance of directing the last installment?

Terry Gilliam has already vowed never to direct a Harry Potter movie. He was pretty pissed when Warner refused to hire him for the first one despite the fact that he was J.K. Rowling's first choice. After Brothers Grimm and Tideland, I don't think Warner is going to be knocking on his door anyway.

justeleblanc wrote:

Magic Hate Ball wrote:

justeleblanc wrote:Magic Hate Ball, are you seriously criticizing kids movies for not having an aesthetic bent?

Sure, why the hell not?

But aren't these camera choices that you want, aren't they aimed more for the older teenage hipster audience? Do they really improve sales for younger audiences?

I don't know where you live, but here, older teenagers don't see movies for the aesthetics. Damn kids and their drag-racing and their hip-hop and their jukeboxes.

The college crowd is who you might be talking about.

I think what the series needs, at least for the last two, is really top-notch directors. "You made Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire? Sure, here's the reins for what's possibly the most popular multi-million dollar franchise of the decade."

Also, end discussion, this can't go well either way.

malcolm1980 wrote:I just finished The Deathly Hallows.

It is the best Harry Potter book by far.

Agreed. I'm starting to wonder how they will keep a pg-13 rating on the seventh movie what with

Spoiler

Bellatrix throwing a knife into Dobby's heart and Snape being mauled by the snake.

Jeff wrote:

exte wrote:Do you think Terry Gilliam will have a chance of directing the last installment?

Terry Gilliam has already vowed never to direct a Harry Potter movie. He was pretty pissed when Warner refused to hire him for the first one despite the fact that he was J.K. Rowling's first choice. After Brothers Grimm and Tideland, I don't think Warner is going to be knocking on his door anyway.

The sad part is that Sorcerer's Stone would've really suited Gilliam's sensibilities. It would give it a kind of whimsical and mad quality that he has demonstrated in films like Brazil and Time Bandits.

His reputation for fighting the studios, demanding final cut and the fear that he would produce a film that's too artsy for it's target audience pretty much quashed Gilliam's chances (that and the fact he hasn't made a hit film since 12 Monkeys).

I think the success of Lord of the Rings in the hands of an indie director (Peter Jackson) caused them to hire Alfonso Cuaron to direct the third one.

malcolm1980 wrote:I think the success of Lord of the Rings in the hands of an indie director (Peter Jackson) caused them to hire Alfonso Cuaron to direct the third one.

Cuarón's work on A Little Princess probably helped too. Anyone who hasn't seen that should check it out, for Lubezki's cinematography if nothing else.

lord_clyde wrote:

malcolm1980 wrote:I just finished The Deathly Hallows.

It is the best Harry Potter book by far.

Agreed. I'm starting to wonder how they will keep a pg-13 rating on the seventh movie what with

Spoiler

Bellatrix throwing a knife into Dobby's heart and Snape being mauled by the snake.

I think we've all seen worse from a PG-13 movie. Heck, Fellowship of the Ring has a decapitation! Let's not also forget though:

Spoiler

A snake bursts out of an old woman's neck!

Jeff wrote:

malcolm1980 wrote:I think the success of Lord of the Rings in the hands of an indie director (Peter Jackson) caused them to hire Alfonso Cuaron to direct the third one.

Cuarón's work on A Little Princess probably helped too. Anyone who hasn't seen that should check it out, for Lubezki's cinematography if nothing else.

A Little Princess is what made Rowling grant the film rights to Warner Bros. in the first place. She loved A Little Princess.

justeleblanc wrote:Magic Hate Ball, are you seriously criticizing kids movies for not having an aesthetic bent?

A strong, distinct aesthetic bent is not out-of-place in the best children's literature (Lewis Carroll, Edward Lear, A.A. Milne, Dr. Seuss, Lemony Snicket, Jon Scieszka/Lane Smith, etc.) so I don't see why children's cinema should be any different. I think it's good to encourage high standards of quality in children's products. And in any case, relegating the Harry Potter films to the general umbrella of "kids movies" is a significant underestimation of the audience's range.

New trailer, and I have to say the grey/brown filter that appears to have been thrown over everything looks truly hideous. What an ugly and amateurish way of telling the audience "Harry Potter's all grown up! This is serious!".

So is this the last one then?

No, three more films. This one and Deathly Hallows which they will milk into two films.

Antoine Doinel wrote:No, three more films. This one and Deathly Hallows which they will milk into two films.

Are you joking, or are they actually going to make two films out the last book?

imdb has part one and part two showing, a year apart. "At first, this was meant to be only one film, but due to the size of the book, and the decision that nothing could be left out to squeeze into one movie, the producers decided to split it into Part I and Part II."
An interview with producer David Heyman

Could they at least get a more interesting director? These Yates movies have been snore fests, which is sad since the writings finally found a ground between faithfulness and the need to be cinematic.