HARRY POTTER Shatters All-Time Midnight Opening Record

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34290
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#16 Post by AndyDursin »

Yates' efforts feel "small" and less epic than the previous directors' films -- more like a TV movies.
Paul, that is EXACTLY how I would describe the last two movies. Between the glossy CGI'd visuals and Yates' bland approach to the material the last two films have lacked a distinct cinematic point of view. They are very workmanlike without a lot of cinematic inspiration -- I might not have loved Alfonso Cauron's approach to AZKABAN but I can at least appreciate that he had his own style and brought that to the material. Yates does come off like someone who has spent his career in British TV -- there's just nothing compelling going on there, leaving the story to keep you hooked.

I agree also the Tom Riddle scenes were good -- but in a 150+ minute film there needed to be more than that. The romantic material was also not very well developed either, coming off as clumsy.

Between Yates' direction, Hooper's scores, etc., these last two films do seem to have employed somewhat of a budget-conscious approach....and they look and feel like it as well. I really couldn't wait for this one to end, and I've been a fan of the earlier films in the series. I actually felt, overall, it was even a comedown from the prior installment.
Last edited by AndyDursin on Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34290
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#17 Post by AndyDursin »

but the "big event" at the end of the film was just...unceremonious. It was a powerful moment in the book, but didn't really hit you in the gut on screen.
Wasn't well handled, to be sure. I think Williams' talents were missed there.

Frankly I didn't like Michael Gambon in the Dumbeldore role either, which might have something to do with it. He came off like an aging hippie who spent too much time at a Grateful Dead concert in the '60s. From his "earthy" approach to the role to his wardrobe, I didn't care for his performance in any of the films.

Eric W.
Posts: 7572
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#18 Post by Eric W. »

Sounds like they needed some angst ridden teenage vampires to spice this thing up.

:wink: :roll:

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7067
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#19 Post by Paul MacLean »

AndyDursin wrote:Frankly I didn't like Michael Gambon in the Dumbeldore role either, which might have something to do with it. He came off like an aging hippie who spent too much time at a Grateful Dead concert in the '60s.
Actually, Michael Gambon did in fact decide to play the role as an old hippie. No joke!

I love Gambon as an actor, but have never felt he measured-up to Richard Harris. Harris is a tough act to follow of course, but there was talk of casting Peter O'Toole (and Harris' family begged the filmmakers to do so) but Alfonso Cuarron wanted Gambon.

Apart from that, Gambon seems to have little interest in playing the kindly, benevolent wisdom of Harris' performance. I realize Gambon shouldn't be expected to be exactly like Harris, but he seems more interested in making it "his" role rather than serving the character as it has been established.

I caught part of Chamber of Secrets on TV a few nights ago, and I was struck at how different it felt compared to the Yates movies. It felt "bigger", and its whole esthetic style was so much more satisfying (to say nothing of the deft artistry of Williams score).

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34290
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#20 Post by AndyDursin »

Agreed Paul. I also think the digital appearance of the movie is probably more obvious when viewed on video as opposed to seeing it theatrically projected. I think if you watch it on Blu-Ray again you'll notice that disparity between the Columbus films, even Cauron's, with this picture even more.

As far as Gambon's performance goes, I don't quite understand where he was going with the role. As you say he doesn't project that old, kindly sage wizard that Harris did -- it's almost as if he's argumentative or indifferent. When he meets his fate in this film (which I think by now everyone who cares knows as the book and movie have both been out there now), I didn't feel the sadness or emotion I would have if it were another actor. I just never felt the connection with Gambon, who is a superb actor but just came off as miscast in the role.

O'Toole, even Connery would have been ideal in that part, but then again, I also felt Connery would've been perfectly suited for LORD OF THE RINGS.

John Johnson
Posts: 6091
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm

#21 Post by John Johnson »

AndyDursin wrote:
O'Toole, even Connery would have been ideal in that part, but then again, I also felt Connery would've been perfectly suited for LORD OF THE RINGS.
Rumour has it Tom Baker was offered the role of Gandalf but turned it down. He couldn't think of anything more depressing than spending 18 months in New Zealand.
London. Greatest City in the world.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7067
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#22 Post by Paul MacLean »

Andy Dursin wrote:I also think the digital appearance of the movie is probably more obvious when viewed on video as opposed to seeing it theatrically projected. I think if you watch it on Blu-Ray again you'll notice that disparity between the Columbus films, even Cauron's, with this picture even more.
I haven't seen the Blu-ray yet, but Order of the Phoenix actually looked BETTER on HD-DVD than it did in the theater!

I do think that both Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince actually were well-shot, technically speaking, I just didn't think the the style of photography was suited to the subject matter. Roger Pratt's work on 2 and 4 was by far the best if you ask me -- it had an alluringly fantastical quality, but was appropriately moody and spooky in scenes that called for it.

As for the final Harry Potter story, The Deathly Hallows is better than books 5 and 6, and takes place in a variety of locations (Hogwarts is hardly in it at all). I think if given the room to develop over two films -- and better yet if John Williams is on board to score them -- it will certainly yield a more satisfying film.

John Johnson
Posts: 6091
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm

#23 Post by John Johnson »

John Hurt: 'Harry Potter is a phenomenon'

John Hurt has said that nobody knew that the Harry Potter films would be so successful before the first movie became a hit.

The Alien star played Mr Ollivander in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and will reprise his role in the Deathly Hallows two-parter.

Hurt told Metro: "I was in it from the first one and it wasn't a circus then - they didn't even know if it was going to be a success.

"The books were successful, but there are plenty of precedents to say books can be successful and films aren't."

He added: "Then it took off and became the biggest film franchise in film history. You see it for what it is - it's a phenomenon."

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part I is expected in cinemas from November 19, 2010, with the second part hitting screens on July 15, 2011.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news ... menon.html
London. Greatest City in the world.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7067
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#24 Post by Paul MacLean »

John Johnson wrote: The Alien star played Mr Ollivander in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and will reprise his role in the Deathly Hallows two-parter.l
I was very pleased when I heard John Hurt had come back to play Mr. Olivander. It was a small role in the first film, but Hurt made it a memorable one. The character has a larger role in Deathly Hallows, with more significance (you may recall Mr. Olivander's revelation in Sorcerer's Stone that Harry's wand has a "twin" wand -- which belongs to Voldemort).

John Johnson
Posts: 6091
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm

#25 Post by John Johnson »

Potter named 'most entertaining creation'

Harry Potter has been named the most entertaining creation of the decade in a poll for Entertainment Weekly.

The fictional protagonist of the seven fantasy novels by JK Rowling topped a list that included popular TV shows, music videos, fashion and trends.

Played by Daniel Radcliffe in the film adaptations, Potter pipped television series The Sopranos and internet video site YouTube.

The magazine declared: "Harry Potter lives in our memories more vividly than any other character we’ve read or seen on screen this decade.

"It’s precisely because JK Rowling created him not as a mighty doer of epic deeds but as a regular kid, a teenager just trying to get by in a crazy, scary world. Who can’t relate to that?"

Other creations featured in the top ten were US TV shows Lost, The Daily Show and talent contest American Idol, films The Lord Of The Rings and Brokeback Mountain, the iPod and Kanye West's album The College Dropout.

Earlier in the year, a scene from Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone was voted the best movie moment of all time in a similar online poll

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/new ... ation.html
London. Greatest City in the world.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7067
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#26 Post by Paul MacLean »

Double post. :oops:
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7067
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#27 Post by Paul MacLean »

Earlier in the year, a scene from Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone was voted the best movie moment of all time in a similar online poll

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/new ... ation.html
The chosen scene from Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone showed Daniel Radcliffe as his big screen character embarking on his first trip to Hogwarts, as he discovered platform nine-and-three-quarters at King's Cross train station.


I agree the best movie moment of the decade was indeed in this film, but it certainly wasn't the one at the train station.

For me it was the scene where Harry and Hagrid first enter Diagon Alley. The transition from the ordinary to the extraordinary was stunningly wondrous, and truly gave one the feeling that you were being led into a magic world -- helped in no small measure by John Williams' music (even if the cue they used was, ironically, not the one he wrote for that particular scene). That was the moment when I knew I was watching a film that was destined to become a phenomenon.

It is this "sense of wonder" which pervades both of Columbus' films that I miss in the subsequent directors' efforts.

Post Reply