| | |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| |

06-03-2004, 07:24 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. |
06-04-2004, 05:02 AM
|
#51 (permalink)
| | Guest |
ANYTHING COLUMBUS CAN DO CUARON CAN DO BETTER, CUARON CAN DO EVERYTHING BETTER THEN COLUMBUS. NO HE CAN'T YES HE _CAN- :unsure:  :flowersmile: :sorcerer:  THAT'S WAHT THIS CONVERSATION FEELS LIKE
| |
| |
06-04-2004, 05:16 AM
|
#52 (permalink)
| | Plimpy
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,184
| Quote: Originally posted by angels-in-my-heart@Jun 3 2004, 05:58 PM '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. Did you not read the First 2 books?
Yeah, it was Hermione who defeated the Basilisk, not that
four-eyed "wuss".
And forget everything about Harry defeating Vold- You-Know Who...
Let's Kill Harry and Crown Hermione?
That's Funny!
^Note: I don't have anything against Hermione, Just this Article :ermsmile: ^
__________________   [~Call Me Caroline~][Ron/Hermione Forever] [*Proud Hufflepuff//Quidditch Player*] |
| |
06-04-2004, 05:17 AM
|
#53 (permalink)
| | Flobberworm
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 21
| I have to put my two cents:
1) Hermione’s roll is so define in the books, she is suppose to be bossy, very secure in school materials, and especially in the 3rd one, she is more active and more secure of who she is even defiant. Emma play that roll very good
2) Ron is supposed to be layback, crushes with Hermione all the time, and has the comedy sent. Rupert plays this role good; actually this time around I didn’t see him bring anything new to the character, but still good. 3) Now HARRY, he still insecure even thou he confronted his uncle and ran away from home, he is scare of been banned from the wizard world. He still insecure about his past about his own power, he is not suppose to be goofy or make faces all the time. Actually every time that I read the book I imagine Harry even a bit slow in catching things, I think Dan portrays Harry perfectly, not too much not too little, that is the right attitude for Harry. Actually this time around he is getting better and better, his emotion are stronger than before. I believe whoever wrote this review has not read the books at all, the kids pay they character very good. I hate when people speculate without having basis of exactly what they are talking about. Oh another thing that I have is the comparison of LOTR, by the way all the Oscars where because special effect, LOTR never won anything for performance.
And if JKR (The Queen) love the movie, well what else is to say, by the way there are so far 61 positive reviews against 7 so, so or bad reviews. |
| |
06-04-2004, 05:24 AM
|
#54 (permalink)
| | Gnome
Join Date: May 2004 Location: west palm beach , FL
Posts: 99
|
very good point. fanatic
__________________
On July 21st the final adventure arrives.
|
| |
06-04-2004, 07:09 AM
|
#55 (permalink)
| | Guest |
I think that Columbus did a fine job on the first 2 films. Other wise so many people wouldn't have gotten so into it. :sorcerer:
| |
| |
06-04-2004, 07:16 AM
|
#56 (permalink)
| | Guest |
I think that people who hate Harry Potter should keep it to themselves. Especially if they've never read the books. That really bothers me. Does anyone on this site collect the cards?
| |
| |
06-04-2004, 09:16 AM
|
#57 (permalink)
| | Poltergeist
Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cardiff, Wales, UK
Posts: 17,097
Hogwarts RPG Name: Marcella Riddle Graduated | Kaplinski Rival Sorting Hat Machine Quote: Originally posted by lxs234+Jun 3 2004, 07:13 PM--> | QUOTE (lxs234 @ Jun 3 2004, 07:13 PM) | 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. [/b][/quote]
I completley agree. I mean "girl-power" (Someone should tell her she isn't one of the Spice Girls) - I didn't think I could read the book wrong after 20 times but I must've because not once did I see her being "rock and roll". Total wreckage of character.
|
| |
06-04-2004, 11:35 AM
|
#58 (permalink)
| | Horklump
Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: england
Posts: 67
|
I think that people who hate Harry Potter should keep it to themselves. Especially if they've never read the books. That really bothers me. Does anyone on this site collect the cards?
i agree what is the point of making comment on something u know nothing about off_topic off_topic off_topic off_topic off_topic off_topic off_topic
|
| |
06-04-2004, 11:44 AM
|
#59 (permalink)
| | Bicorn
Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Romania
Posts: 1,708
Hogwarts RPG Name: Daciana Tudor First |  ok ok...i know all of us re big fans of Harry Potter. i get that. heck im a big fan too!i love the books ever since i read them after seeing the 1st movie!!but i am rather disappointed about the 3rd movie...therefore I agree 97% of the review
>it felt too short!!!!i dont know y but it does!
>it seems that this movie is focusing on Hermione's triumph rather than Harry’s.
>the only part that scares me is when the book of monsters chomped on harry.
>the movie likes to focus on Hermione’s ‘girlish’ moments. She holds Ron’s hand,she hugs Ron, she comes up to Harry when harry was crying.im sure they might have made her hug him at that time if they could…and then she cuddling up with harry in the forest,but unfortunately harry didn’t reply to it.
> the Quidditch match was too short!!!!not as thrilling as the 1st two movies. One of the reasons I love HP movies are because of the Quidditch match…I know harry was supposed to faint when dementors came at him, but I wished there was more interesting event before and during that moment!
>the only thrilling moment in this movie is when Hermione takes out her wand and points it at Draco.and then she punches him!!!oh what a gal!
>Remember in the book when Harry read a letter from Sirius when he got out of the train station and uncle Vernon got scared after harry told him about Sirius being his godfather…I was hopping to see that moment when he looked pale…it was not in the movie?!!!
If I compared to the previous ones,I’d still like them more.im sowi,but its true
HP1: its kinda cutesy-kiddy. That makes it so cool. Every moment was soo cool!
HP2: slightly more towards the young teen. It had the thrilling essence.
These two movies, I don’t mind wanting over and over…
im not dissing Harry Potter...im just dissing how the movie turned out...sowi k :unsure:
I think the director of HP3 doesn’t have the Harry Potter magic that we all experience…
Am I right?
:sorcerer: By the way, I think Neville is kinda cute now… ;P really!
__________________ |
| |
06-04-2004, 05:18 PM
|
#60 (permalink)
| | Plimpy
Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Godric's Hollow
Posts: 1,077
| Quote: 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.
OMG! What a perverted reviewer's mind! Sick!
I think that they are giving Emma Watson too much praise on her acting skills, b/c even though she does a remarkable job as hermione, I think Rupert Grint ( :wub: ) fits most well with his character of Ron and he, in my opinion, is the best actor of the 3. Dan, he'll improve as time goes by. :sorcerer:
__________________ JKR: Well I think anyone who is still shipping Harry/Hermione after this book - ES: [whispered] Delusional! JKR: Uh - no! But they need to go back and reread, I think. ES: Thank you. JKR: Yeah. |
| |
06-05-2004, 03:58 AM
|
#61 (permalink)
| | Doxy
Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Kannnsasssss
Posts: 418
|
One of the things that i agree with the most is that the dementors could have been better. That was some pretty weak special effects. I imagined them much more freaky and scary than a basketball with a black scarf over it. I was very upset with the Partonous. it was just a wall. we only saw the stag once and it just stood there. Also, i dont know if anyone else noticed but in DADA after Lupin jumped in front of harry and made the boggart go back in the wardrobe. Harry's scar is one the wrong side of his head. I dont know if anyone noticed but i did, so yeah. the dementors is the only thing that i actually agree with in this review.
|
| |
06-05-2004, 04:11 AM
|
#62 (permalink)
| *stalking you... and you* *and you*meana picassoPEE-O-NEE Chimaera
Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hiding from you. *ga
Posts: 7,135
Hogwarts RPG Name: Morbidda Lucretia Morwenna Sabine Valencia DeValdemar LeDeaux T'Humperdink. |
People who hate Harry Potter should keep it to themselves?
What kind of statement is that?
How about, people who hate racism should keep it to themselves?
Everyone is allowed an opinion, and just because someone dislikes Harry Potter is no reason to act as if they're the next generation's Adolf Hitler.
Admittedly, Daniel Radcliffe is horrible as Harry, but Emma Watson, the next big thing?
BWAAHHHAAHAHAHA.
The only person I think is good in the Trio is Rupert Grint. But he is NEVER mentioned, whereas Hermione/Watson always gets the kudos for being Harry's 'girlfriend'.
And seriously, what thirteen year old (even one like our pristine Mr. Potter) doesn't think of sex?
But this is a children's movie! So, yeah, there is a (good) reason. Imagine all the gasp-shock-horrors there would be if Harry - ahem -
I bet that if the film DID show that, then this reviewer would just go on about it tainting sweet, innocent babies.
__________________  Graphics made by: Miss Lissy Lou |
| |
06-12-2004, 05:17 PM
|
#63 (permalink)
| | Bowtruckle
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 231
|
i think this whole review is cockand bull because i have seen the movie and i think it is the best of the three that person who wrote that review has never read an hp book i am 16 and i love the books and the movies. i think dan is a great actor he is only 14 the has just stated acting bone head so get yo facts straght and read the books |
| |
06-16-2004, 03:36 AM
|
#64 (permalink)
| | Doxy
Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Out of my mind back in 5 minutes. Maybe.
Posts: 421
Hogwarts RPG Name: Azzariah Graduated |
Personally I wasn't thrilled with the movie myself and not because any ones acting was lacking in any way. I thought everyone did brillantly. Though I wish more of the book was in it and less of Cauron's Hollywood additions. I believe that there was more important pieces of the book that should have merited a spot in the movie.
__________________ In loving memory 7/26/35-6/7/04 love you Daddy |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is On | | | All times are GMT. The time now is 03:38 AM. | |