Have you seen the third film?

[Dave]

I saw this today. I liked it, but my family and friends had a great debate on whether it was the best or not. We aren't sure really.

We didn't like moving the Firebolt to the end and Harry not winning the school Quidditch Cup. (In the book he got the Firebolt at Christmas, but he didn't know if he should use it or not in case Sirius had put a hex on it.)

Also they never explained the Marauder's Map makers Mooney, Padfoot and Wormtail - I think you need to have read the book to understand the film and that is never a sign of a good film.

It was also confusing for young children. Several behind me were keep asking "why is Hermione in two places at once." If they can't understand that crucial element of the plot then it makes no sense at all.

Also what happened to Hogwarts school????

They've moved everything about... the Whomping Willow... Where did that wooden bridge appear from?... and now you have to go down steps to get to Hagred's House!! And the school itself looks different.

The special effects were good -- we liked Buckbeak, Lupin as a Werewolf and Sirius as a Dog.

The new actors and actressess were good too -- Emma Thompson, Gary Oldman and David Thewlis.

[little smaug]

I thought this one was definately the best so far. The younger actors are getting into it more, they seem a lot more comfortable with their roles.

The only problem was, they had to rush through everything so fast, and loads of stuff got left out. There was hardly any Quidditch, there was nothing about Sirius attacking Ron in the dormitories (well, Scabbers, but you know what I mean ). And I can't believe they didn't mention anything about Moony and Co! That just seems like a really important detail to me. At the end, when Lupin was leaving, I thought they would have mentioned it. Like, Harry runs after Lupin and asks

Harry: How did you know how to wipe the Marauder's Map?
Lupin: I created it. Me, Padfoot, Wormtail... and your father, Prongs
Harry(realising): My patronus - it was a stag. My father was an animagus?
Lupin: They all were. Like I said, a flair for rule-breaking. Just like you, Harry.


What do you think? Could I get a job as a script writer?
Anyway, my original point was, that would have taken all of 30 seconds. And it would have made things a lot clearer.

Other than that, I thought the film was really good. Highlights:-
Wolf-Lupin, dog-Sirius and the Dementors - very cool effects.
Buckbeak - so cute, and exactly how I'd imagined him.
Hermione punching Malfoy - LMAO, so funny!

The only other thing I think needs mentioning - Alan Rickman in a dress!!! :rolly2:

[desirecontreras]

Just saw harry potter tonight at 12:30. Can I just say the first thing out of my mouth, what about MWPP?! How can you not explain that. After Lupin knew it was a map, and how to work it?
I brought my whole family big mistake, but they wanted to come. So I sat through it messing with my sleeping daughter and my husband on one side and my father both sighing every five mins. So that put a damper on things. Liked the special effects, but Sirius was suppose to look like a normal dog except the eyes, instead he looked like well a werewolf, while Lupin looked like some alien lifeform. Draco's role scked in this movie, and to those who knew nothing of Harry potter before.....still don't.

[timdgreat]

well im having to rewrite all this cause it got erased and it had written so much.

ok so after seeing the movie 3 times yesterday, here are my veiws.

In general it was a good movie, but i did have some gripes to bring up

1st, The movie seemed to be concentrating on the darker side of the book, and lost much of the story in paying so much attention to the charecters and how things affected them. i realize that they are important, but we could have used a coupld of scenes less, like the one in the dormatory with harry ron neville and seamus. was useless. There were also several other things that were never explained that sooooo should have been, like the Marauders map, and how harrys Patronis took on the form of a stag.

2nd, i realize that Micheal Gambdon(spelling), isnt Richard Harris, but he totally changed the was that we perceize Dumbledore, he made him a quick talking idiot compared to what he was in the first two movies. i was not impressed and what happened to Flitwick? when did he dye his hair

3rd, As dave Said what happened to hogwarts? the whole school changed, since when did any common room be in an area where every other house would know where it was, it shouldnt be, and the bright wonderful school we had before is gone it seems, to be replaced by something more aking to drumstrang. And what is with this like open area outside the main gate, where did it come from and why did it get used ohhhhhhhhh so much? What happened also the Whomping willow being off the grounds or so far away from them, it seems like it was a bad idea to move it, and can someone please tell me what happened to the Forbidden forest? no mention of it was made!!!!

4th, WHAT happened to Ron, all we see of him this movie is hims cringing or yelling for help or being sad, its horrible, his charecters role was changed for the worse

5th, what happened to the house and quidditch cup? we didnt hear anything about them through the whole movie, and we only ever heard about points ONE TIME. thats it. its seems a big part of the students life at hogwarts has been omitted!!!

ok so yeah thats my ranting on the problems i had that i could think of, now on the good stuff

The actors do seem to be coming into there roles well, and they did a great job in the move in most cases, i really liked the scenes with Buckbeak, he is a very awesome animal, and i can see why hagrid loves him so. The scenes with the dementors where i good too, i relaly liked the ones with them floating around the school.

ok im done for now, cya all around my fingers hurt:rolly2:

[FeedMeTV]

The dementors were great, all swoopy and creepy but I thought they only floated not zoomed around in the sky? I could be wrong.

I really loved this film but I have to say I kind of felt that the adult actors were making it more of a pantomime, it was all very showy and "Now I'm pointing my magic wand at you! Aha you villan!"

Also felt Lupin was creepier than he should have been. If I hadn't read the book my money would have been on him being the bad guy.

And isn't Gary Oldman short? Always pictured Sirius as taller - more of a Johnny Depp IMO.

OK, now I feel like I'm moaning too much. I really did enjoy the film.

[Sinistra]

Has anyone seen the new film yet?

Hopefully gonna take dmalfoy to see it in the coming week. Anyways, I am curious as to whether or not the new dumbledore is up to scratch- or even better than richard harris' portrayl of the character?



....hi

[little smaug]

In the book, the Dementors only floated. I think they had to change it in the film so that certain scenes made more sense. Like when Harry falls off his broom - if he had just seen some Dementors on the ground it wouldn't really have had the same effect. And it makes them seem more sinister.

I forgot to mention my views on Sirius and Lupin in my original post. I thought Sirius was ok, but what was with the sudden personality change between the Shrieking Shack and the Whomping Willow? In the shack he was kinda nuts, rolling eyes, randomly shouting, etc. Then as soon as they arrived back at Hogwarts he was completely sane.
As for Lupin - definately creepy. I think maybe it was the moustache. Definately more suited to being a bad guy, he was nothing like I'd imagined.
Plus, I had imagined them both as being a lot cuter, but hey, you can't have everything.

[Hermione]

Don't get me wrong I quite liked the new film, but I think that it missed loads out and I know they couldn't put everything in because the book was too long, but its definatley going to make it harder to produce the 4th film.

They also missed loads of little parts of the film that make it more understandable and beliveable. I also think the actors such as Hermione, Ron and Harry are getting way too old for the characters. They are only supposed to be 13 but they are 17 at least. Fred and George Weasly are also supposed to be 15 (ish) but they are about 20.

[Dave]

And Ron didn't get Pidwigeon from Sirius after Sirius felt bad about him losing Scabbers.

Some elements of the third book will need to be added to the 4th and 5th films now to understand them. For instance, as little smaug said, no explanation ofwhy Harry's patronus is a stag?

We will not be as sorry if anything unfortunate might befall Sirius because we didn't really get to know him that well.

[timdgreat]

after thinking about it it seems to me that either they are gonna have to make the 4th movie as long as say one of hte LOTR movies to explain everything or they are gonna have to cut things back way to much:rolly2:

[Status]

I went to see it with my granddaughter last week and was really empressed with it. I thourally enjoyed it and didn't have it all figured out till near the end (which is quite a feat). It was full of plot twists and turns.

As I've not read the books, I can't say how well it was followed.

If you like Harry Potter this is a good one, IMHO.

[Dave]

I liked it, and the acting, special effects and directing are all better than the previous two. Being a sequel, it can jump straight into the action without building the characters, but because of that it lacks some of the mystery. Dumbledore just isn't up to scratch. Richard Harris WAS Dumbledore. I think JKR must have been thinking of him when she wrote it. Michael Gambon looks similar but just isn't the same. I don't like the way they changed the outside of Hogwarts even though it is better that way. It is completely different both to the previous films and the books.

[Highlander II]

1st impressions - (prior to reading other comments)

overall - not too bad -

However -

Dementors - they reminded me *alot* of the Gentlemen from BtVS

Lupin!wolf - OMG how lame was he? Did these effects ppl NOT see Van Helsing at all? Sorry - VH!wolf, even Velkan!wolf were oh SO much better. What was that thing? It didn't have any freakin' hair! which was scarier than it being a wolf.


It's been a while since I've read the book - but yeah - a WHOLE lot was missing. I kept waiting for them to explain the Mooney, Worlmtail, Prongs and Padfoot thing - but - nothing.

And Dumbledore spoke too fast. Whoever the new guy is needs to pattern his speech a bit more after the previous one. I mean, I understand that there will be differences, but this new guy hunched over too much and spoke too quickly. He should've stood up straight and paced his speech - slowed it down quite a bit. He didn't sound nearly as friendly


I love Gary Oldman - and he was quite good as Sirius Black. Though, I thought there was more to his story in the book - like he should have been *in* the story more. And he probably was, but since they rushed everything so much to squish it all into one movie, quite a bit was lost.

And what happened to the 'Dumbledore talks Harry's ear off at the end to explain everything'? I'm quite sure that's in the book, and it was in the first two movies - so, putting that in the third one should have also happened.

I really think it could have been much better - esp if they had broken it down into two movies instead of cramming everything into one.

I'm glad I didn't see it in the theater, b/c I think I would have been disappointed. It's not a horrible movie - it's good, but, yes, if you haven't read the books, or know nothing of the Harry Potter universe at all, you will be quite confused. Not a good way to go. New viewers should be able to come into the movie and still have an idea of who all the characters are and why they're there w/o having to have a truckload of backstory explained. The Harry Potter universe isn't nearly as complicated as some others, so 'catching on' wouldn't be that difficult w/ creatively placed tidbits here and there. (I think there are some in the books themselves) --

Anyway - like I said, enjoyable, but not the best ever. I'll have to see if my nephew (who's 3) likes it - he likes the 1st two, we'll have to see about this one.

[Highlander II]

Originally posted by timdgreat
2nd, i realize that Micheal Gambdon(spelling), isnt Richard Harris, but he totally changed the was that we perceize Dumbledore, he made him a quick talking idiot compared to what he was in the first two movies. i was not impressed and what happened to Flitwick? when did he dye his hair

I said much the same - see my post above this one.

4th, WHAT happened to Ron, all we see of him this movie is hims cringing or yelling for help or being sad, its horrible, his charecters role was changed for the worse

Yeah - he seems to be 'stuck' in a weird role of 'goofball' / 'scaredy cat' - which isn't good ---

and speaking of weird typecasting -- Is it just me, or was Peter Pettigrew WAY WAY WAY too type cast? Who was that guy? Why did they have to get a guy who actually LOOKS like a rat? That just seemed way too cheesey. I think that actually bugged me the MOST about the guy. If he'd at least looked normal, I could have handled him, but he just looked like a humanoid version of a rat, complete with really fake buck teeth.


Wow - that's a lot from only having just seen the movie one time - I don't think I picked apart Van Helsing that much until I'd seen it about 3 times...