Latest Site Notices

angels-in-my-heart · #1 (**permalink**) 06-03-2004, 08:24 PM

PoA - Bad Review! - Culture does a bad review of PoA

Summary:
Culture (a UK newspaper) has done a bad review of Prisoner of Azkaban (spoliers!!)

Article:

What follows is a bad review from Culture (a UK newspaper) about Prisoner of Azkaban, there may be spoliers ahead so don't read if you haven't seen the film! You have been warned!

'Before the release of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban we'd all seen pictures of Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron), and were surprised to see that they'd passed out of the magic kingdom of childhood into the turbulent waters of teenagedom. Indeed, that was the distinct selling point of the new film: Potter hits puberty.

'This one promised to be a touch darker and more adult than the others. And who better to handle the dramas of teen life than Alfonso Cauron, director of the classis coming-of-age road movie Y tu mama tambien? The opening scene shows Harry in bed, late at night, doing something dodgy beneath the sheets. His uncle, Vernon (Richard Griffiths), keeps popping in, trying to catch him at it. My God, I thought, Harry has turned into a proper teenage boy! Alas, Harry was only practising the solitary vice of casting spells.

'Okay, it's perhaps too much to expect a seething, pierced Potter who likes to sit in his suburban bedroom listening to Slipknot and reading Baudelaire. But does he have to stay stuck in that childish golly-gosh-you-rotter, lashings-of-ginger-beer world of his? Therein lies the trouble with this film; there's no sense that he's undergoing any change. He gets more excited new broom than a baba like Hermione.

'Without a doubt, this is the weakest of the three films. It's set up to be a story of revenge. A wicked wizard called Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) has escaped from Azkaban prison. It's believed that Black betrayed Harry's parents to Lord Voldemort and was thus responsible for their deaths. Now everyone is convinced Black is seeking revenge by killing Harry.

'Personally, I think this would be a good thing. I belong to that small group of people who say: let's kill harry and crown Hermione. She should be the star; she's the brave one with the brains, not that four-eyed wuss. Watson is a talented actress and is set to become the Hayley Mills of her generation. But throughout the film, everyone is flapping and fussing around Harry, telling him what a remarkable young wizard he is.

'Maybe reading JK Rowling, you get the sense that Harry is someone special, but Cauron doesn't transfer that quality to the screen. Harry seems like a bland and boring kid who couldn't pull a rabbit out of a hat, much less take on a villian like Black. And that's really down to Radcliffe, who has built his career on nothing more than a pair of Potter-like spectacles. The boy can barely act. (Compare him with Haley Joel Osment.) He is totally incapable of portraying fear or any kind of emotion.

'Anyway, the film never really builds up a coherent story line. It loses momentum as it meanders off into a series of set pieces that are executed with various degrees of success. The best thing is not any on-screen magic - there's hardly any here - but the film's comfy Dickensian cosiness. Outside, it's always raining, while inside, kindly old men shuffle around fire-lit rooms, quietly keeping the evil of the world at bay. And it has that Christmassy feel of seeing all those British star faces: Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Emma Thompson (In a role that would have been perfect for Eleanor Bron), Dawn French et al.

'Yet here's something so amateurish, so Ealing comedy-ish about the look of the film, especially when you compare it to The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Partly, that has to do with the weak special effects. We get a shruken talking head an a Monstrous Book of Monsters that looks like it was borrowed from a village pantomime. The best effect of the lot are the Dementors - no, not a punk bad that Harry likes, but ghoulish Azkaban guards looking for Black. But where the LotR director, Peter Jackson, sent a shiver down your backside with just a peek at his black, faceless Nazgul, Cauron never hits the spooky mark. Alan Rickman as Professor Snape oozes more menance than all of Cauron's baddies.

'There's nothing here we haven't seen before. And the film is badly edited; Cauron allows scenes to go on far too long. After two hours, Harry's fatigue sets in, and we get a travel-back-in-time sequence that means sitting through a huge chunk of the plot again. Maybe it's time Harry concentrated on his wizard skills; that old magic of his has gone missing'

I want to know what you think.

EmmaRiddle · 06-03-2004, 08:57 PM

He didn't say he cant act - he just said he wasn't the best actor - which is true. Dan has always been rather wooden and although he's improved, he's still not looking as if he's comfortable in the role. He seems tense and wooden at times, but so does Watson. Only Rupert appears to be comfortable in his character's shoes.

It'd be boring if every critic kissed Cuaron's backside; bravo to the soul brave enough to write a proper critical review rather than an appraisal. That's what film reviews are meant to be.

titansfan132004 · 06-03-2004, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by angels-in-my-heart@Jun 3 2004, 10:58 AM
My God, I thought, Harry has turned into a proper teenage boy! Alas, Harry was only practising the solitary vice of casting spells.

I just think that this is hystericall, because the movies do portray Harry to be this perfect child, which granted sometimes he is, but all of the directors have seemed to skipped past all of the trouble making he is involved in. Also I would have to agree with him that Emma Watson is a much better actress than Dan because, she doesn't have a huge problem wth showing emotion. Considering this statement yoiu also have to consider that there is a pride factor for teenage boys to be hard (believe me I know). Considering his comparison to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I don't want to make anybody truely defensive, but you have to be realistic, the Lord of the Rings are amazing books, and the Harry Potter books a good, but you can't compare them, because I think that LOTR was written to much better, and also all of their actors have had a lot of expirenced (you would be hard pressed to find a bunch of actors better than Viggo Mortenson).

EmmaRiddle · 06-03-2004, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Also I would have to agree with him that Emma Watson is a much better actress than Dan because, she doesn't have a huge problem wth showing emotion.

Just with exaggerating it to the point where it is obvious she's acting lol.

QueenMayaserana · 06-03-2004, 09:26 PM

Haylee mills(sp) wasn't that the girl who did Pollyanna? Never liked that movie, I hope emma isn't going to be a Pollyanna or whatever. Can't hope for universal popularity.

HarryPottersBabeGirly · 06-03-2004, 09:32 PM

I must agree with some of the points people made.. Dan Radcliffe isn't the best actor in the world. lol aslo the other director did leave out the trouble he had been in

bye

icicle27 · 06-03-2004, 09:35 PM

Am I the only one who thinks Emma Watson is the worst of the trio? "Talented actress" - that'll be the day.

~penelope_johnson~ · 06-03-2004, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marcella_Riddle@Jun 3 2004, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Also I would have to agree with him that Emma Watson is a much better actress than Dan because, she doesn't have a huge problem wth showing emotion.

Just with exaggerating it to the point where it is obvious she's acting lol.

THAT I must agree with. I really don't care much for Emma. She's just too....well I can't think of what exactly she is. She's just annoying as and actress and a person. ((Not that I know her personally or anything, just from the interviews and stuff.))

Alex Granger · 06-03-2004, 09:37 PM

i find this very worng all together this is probaly something to get attention for the press or something like that

walshy · 06-03-2004, 09:39 PM

that was terible how can he compere the film 2 lotr because they are two completley differt things eg hp is an all beitish cast and lotr isnt lotr is a 3 part trilogy only because the book is so big wot do they want them to just stop making them because they carnt compere them to lotr any mor its a load of rubbis i would like to c this person who wrote this to have a go at acting its not easy u no and sayind that dan radcliffe is a bad actor well thats just a joke and how can u turn the whole thing around and make hermione the star when the film book ect is called HARRY POTTER god people realy anoy me you no and the thing were it repets part of the plot well hello have u read the book thats what happens in it and its not as though it shows the whole thing again there are only clips of it drrr

goodnight and thank you for your time

Kazters · 06-03-2004, 09:40 PM

i totaly disagree with this review. i also get the impression that the writer dosent actualy like HP.

also POA is by far the best HP film so far.[/FONT]

dracolegolasobsessed · 06-03-2004, 09:42 PM

that is sooo mean harry potter is great.

walshy · 06-03-2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

i totaly disagree with this review. i also get the impression that the writer dosent actualy like HP.

also POA is by far the best HP film so far.[/FONT

i absolutley agree with you

Danz_angel2 · 06-03-2004, 09:46 PM

I was at the first showing of PoA and I thought it was much better than the first tow movies. OK, so Dan isn't the greatest actor in the world; he's still good. Alfonso has done a great job, but the dementors weren't all that.
As for the LoTR comparison, that is totally unfair. For starters, LotR cast is made up of experienced, mature actors/actresses and I don't even like the films any way lol.
This article has really annoyed me!!! I cant even put it into words to tell you so im gunna just go now...

*Vixy* · 06-03-2004, 09:46 PM

i hate to say it but alot of wat he sez was true!

basically the films are children's films and the books are universal!
but then its hard to live up to the books cos they'r so amazing...but i think it cudve been betta...LOTR definately lived up to the books so why doesn't harry potter??

Lovely_Lily_Evans · 06-03-2004, 09:53 PM

[B][COLOR=purple] Personally, I think that Cauron has done a poorly job on his behalf in creating "his style" with the 3rd installament of Harry Potter.

I do agree, however, that the editing was horrible, but the scenes seemed to be jumping from one end to another. It just felt like it was moving faster than it was s'pose to go.

I don't know what Cauron's problem is, I think it was his mistakes that took the whole cast and crew downward to a sinkable crisis.

I also think, that Cauron took this action packed thriller novel into a loosey-goosey comedy, which turned my perpective off in the film.

I do not believe that Daniel is a bad actor. If I didn't know better, it seems that Cauron takes a fond with Emma Watson and turned her character into the "superstar" if you asked me. And I felt that Cuaron avoided Rupert's character.

I think Caruon left out some pretty important scenes from the novel Such as, the whole cat-and-rat thing,he should of made it more of a "key" role. It just felt like a minor arguement when I watched it. He also flipped around the scene where Harry gets the Firebolt. It should have been during Christmas, and it gets stripped. And that's another reason why Hermione and Ron get into a fight (which is so cute).
I didn't like the ending either. :/

By the way, didn't it seem that (in the Shrieking Shack) that it jumped a lot or it went by too fast. Like one minute Harry has his wand @ Sirius saying "im gunna kill you" then the next minute he's hugging him sayin "i want to come to your place" I mean, my mind was just completely lost in that scene.

But no, Daniel isn't a bad actor, you really shouldn't compare him to Haley...acting doesn't work that way.

The only thing I liked about this movie was the credits. It seemed that the crew took all their effort in making a stunning credits rather than a stunning movie

Speaking of crew, I didn't see Chris Columbus in the credits..maybe it's just me.

Hopefully, Mike Newell (the new director for the 4th film) will save this magical journey to the Hp movie series.

Lovely_Lily_Evans · 06-03-2004, 09:56 PM

Personally, I think that Cauron has done a poorly job on his behalf in creating "his style" with the 3rd installament of Harry Potter.

I do agree, however, that the editing was horrible, but the scenes seemed to be jumping from one end to another. It just felt like it was moving faster than it was s'pose to go.

I don't know what Cauron's problem is, I think it was his mistakes that took the whole cast and crew downward to a sinkable crisis.

I also think, that Cauron took this action packed thriller novel into a loosey-goosey comedy, which turned my perpective off in the film.

I do not believe that Daniel is a bad actor. If I didn't know better, it seems that Cauron takes a fond with Emma Watson and turned her character into the "superstar" if you asked me. And I felt that Cuaron avoided Rupert's character.

I think Caruon left out some pretty important scenes from the novel Such as, the whole cat-and-rat thing,he should of made it more of a "key" role. It just felt like a minor arguement when I watched it. He also flipped around the scene where Harry gets the Firebolt. It should have been during Christmas, and it gets stripped. And that's another reason why Hermione and Ron get into a fight (which is so cute).
I didn't like the ending either. :/

By the way, didn't it seem that (in the Shrieking Shack) that it jumped a lot or it went by too fast. Like one minute Harry has his wand @ Sirius saying "im gunna kill you" then the next minute he's hugging him sayin "i want to come to your place" I mean, my mind was just completely lost in that scene.

But no, Daniel isn't a bad actor, you really shouldn't compare him to Haley...acting doesn't work that way.

The only thing I liked about this movie was the credits. It seemed that the crew took all their effort in making a stunning credits rather than a stunning movie

Speaking of crew, I didn't see Chris Columbus in the credits..maybe it's just me.

Hopefully, Mike Newell (the new director for the 4th film) will save this magical journey to the Hp movie series. :sorcerer:

r+h4ever1 · 06-03-2004, 09:58 PM

I have mixed feelings about this review. I doubt this person has even read the HP books, so some of the things are a little ridiculous. Believe it or not, but PoA is not all about Harry and co hitting puberty. Much of the story is supposed to be focused on the fact that Harry is becoming a more dynamic character (doesn't mean acuiring odd male habits) and realizing that there is more involved in his parents' deaths and his tie to Voldemort. As for Dan, so he's not the best actor in the entire world, big whoop. JKR likes him which makes him good enough for me. Radcliffe is like Harry in some ways... Harry's not the best student and Dan isn't going to be in next year's list of Oscar nominees. Life goes on. And I think people have to get over the fact that Haley wasn't picked. I do think that he is a good actor as well as Emma and Rupert. Special effects aren't everything, and I think the way the article started comparing LotR to HP was stupid. They're completely different plots as well as movies and shouldn't be compared so closely. The HP series has so much in it, and not enough time can accomidate all of it.

I think it's going to be a great movie! I'm seeing it after finals tomorrow! I think the first two movies were good, but I think the next one will be awesome! The third book is kind of a turning point. In the 1st two books, we're getting to know Harry and like him, his world. In PoA, we know him, his situation and are now digging deeper into the whole good v evil thing. Think what you want about the review and the movie, but I think people need to remember that there was something about Dan that JKR liked and decided to keep him. She created Harry, so I think she would be the one to know who would be best playing him.

sorry I wrote so much!

Lovely_Lily_Evans · 06-03-2004, 09:59 PM

oppps.....I didn't mean to post it more than once....Sorry :whisle:

ms. Rowling · 06-03-2004, 10:12 PM

It was just ridiculous that he thought that Hermione was a better character. I actually would not be surprised if he hadn't even seen the first two movies, which is pretts stupid (that would be like not watching the first two Lotr movies and critisizing it because you didn't get the plot). A lot of importance is put into the plotabout how Harry is braver and obviously more powerful. All of those "badly edited" scenes were probably time to rest off his hang over from being out all night with Hermione-loving cult. I can't actually say anything in real defense for the movie because I haven't actually seen it yet, but the majority is pointing to the fact that the movie is good and not a peice of utter crap, as this particular writer puts it. I only wish that next time that magazine hires someone to review a movie, to make sure the individual does not already have a set opinion before he goes and watches the movie!

:sorcerer:

Swizzlestick · 06-03-2004, 10:24 PM

Well, I knew someone was going to write a bad review, considering everyone else is giving it high praise - it's a publicity stunt in my opinion.

I thought Dan did a pretty good job this time around - his emotion scene wasn't great - No Tears... But Emma didn't have them either, so why is she being praised above the others? I think all three of them are great and I love the whole aspect of the movie. Some things were cut out of course they were but it has to be expected.

As for compairing it to LOTR, that is just stupid - because if they made it exactly the same, it would still get a bad review anyway because it would have been "Oh, Cueron copied Jackson" It's a load of ole coldwallop if you ask me! Also LOTR had a bigger budget!

One bad review out of hundreds of great ones is telling us something - this person who reviewed the movie has never picked up a book because they would have gone on to say what was missing, and secondly, if he/she ain't read the books, they they have no bloody idea what they're talking about!

But I give this person credit nonetheless, because its healthy to have critism at the end of the day, but it doesn't mean I have to agree.

06-03-2004, 10:37 PM

omg this critic is so mean! he compared Dan to Haley Joel Osment...ok that kid has been acting for YEARS, dan has JUST started!! and yes we know hermione is a great person and emma is a great actor, but the books are not centered around hermione, they're centered around HARRY and what HARRY does, hermione helps him out in the process which i think is great because that means he's got great friends...and he shouldn't say that HP has horrible effects compared to LOTR, this is a kid movie for god sakes, they actually had to tone DOWN the werewolf! this critic is just plain MEAN!:angry::angry::angry::angry:

lxs234 · 06-03-2004, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by icicle27@Jun 3 2004, 01:09 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Emma Watson is the worst of the trio? "Talented actress" - that'll be the day.

I completely agree with you! Being a good actress of a character based on someone from a book means not changing the character into some preppy tomboy. Emma doesn't play hermione as hermione, which means she is NOT a good actress.

Dobby_Rox · 06-03-2004, 10:49 PM

now i really have to see the movie the MINUTE it comes out. i can't believe it got a bad review

Fanatic2000 · 06-03-2004, 10:59 PM

[COLOR=blue]I totaly disagree with the review, this guy/her, seems to have an agenda to me, he/she focuse in one character, or has one favorite character in this case Hermione (Emma), there are good reviews form Reliable and credible sources that really are into the movie business, and they prize Dan for his performance.
That is why I don’t believe this review and don't take it seriously at all.[/COLOR]

Latest Site Notices

Latest Harry Potter News

Latest FanFics

Latest Forum Posts

Latest Games

Hogwarts RPG

Ministry RPG

Members