Leave a comment

Comments 12

tealady July 16 2007, 00:36:42 UTC
I was skimming through Laura's friend's page and I totally agree you with you on this. My boyfriend, who's never read the books, watched the movie with me and was confused as to what was occurring, who was who, and if that person was on the good side or bad side.

Harry didn't even show much emotion when Sirius died. I cried in the book when it happened and on screen, it didn't move me as much.

It was choppy and dull. I'm afraid for the sixth movie since I believe they're using the same director.

Reply

lastandleast July 16 2007, 01:11:58 UTC
I was wondering what non-initiates would think--the movie was sort of frantic and hard to follow, even for someone who's read the book. (Especially the part about Harry and Cho and how she gave away the DA. They showed her for like .00021 seconds next to Umbridge outside the room of requirement, which seemed pretty subtle if you didn't already know what was going on.)

I worry about the next movie, too. That book is even less sequential than OOTP, and it has even less of a central theme. What sort of mess will this director make with that? And it's too late for him to get the axe...they're already filming, I think. :b

Reply


handgun July 16 2007, 01:08:47 UTC
i agree with this entire entry.

such a big let down.

Reply


cervrok July 16 2007, 01:29:17 UTC
just saw it today and i completely disagree with your assessment. ;) i actually was kinda choked up at the end.

i did not like the fourth movie at all. the third movie took a couple of viewings, but now it's my favorite. but with this one, i really think they hit on the most important plot points and excised the nonessential (although that did cut out some humorous escapades). i particularly thought the use of flashbacks was right on the nose for helping to show character development throughout the series.

i dunno, i'm not as eloquent as you, amanda, but i really thought the director and writer made the right choices for the movie. let's face it, there's no way they can put all 800-odd pages into a movie unless it was 8 hours long and they had an unlimited budget at their disposal. but they did what they had to do and gave us a heck of a ride in the bargain.

at least for me, my boyfriend, and my folks. :)

Reply

lastandleast July 16 2007, 23:25:48 UTC
I'm with you on the third movie--the first time I saw it, I thought it was sort of eh. But upon further viewing I realized that every minute of it was full of tiny, fabulous things to notice and appreciate, as if the people who made the movie loved the book and the world just as much as I did. I didn't see that in this movie at all--it felt like a route recitation of the book. Sure it covered all the plot points, which is important and all, but it didn't have anything to add. There was no texture, no density, no richness. And after all, books and movies are different things. In an attempt to honor the book, I think OOTP sacrificed the movie.

Maybe my opinion will change after seeing it again (which, of course, I will), but as of now this is my least favorite of the movies by leaps and bounds.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

lastandleast July 16 2007, 23:38:00 UTC
It's funny--we have totally different views of the movies. I loved the third one, which to me captured the spirit of the books better than the other movies. Sure those stupid shrunken heads were annoying, but the rest of fabulous, and it deftly did things in 30 seconds that OOTP failed to do in 20 minutes.

To me, covering plot points from the book is not enough to make a good movie. I expect more of Harry Potter films--to be worthy of the series, they should have something to add to the conversation, not just parrot it.

I was also glad they left out the quidditch; it's stupid and boring in the books, and it's stupid and boring in the movies, too. (FYI: In the fifth book Ron became goalie for gryffindor and sucked, prompting Draco to write "Weasley is My King," which would have been an most excellent addition to the movie.)

I think a lot of people actually liked OOTP, so you're not alone--in fact, a couple of reviews at rottentomatoes.com say it's the best of the series so far. Of course, I think they're crazy. But whatever ;)

Reply

handgun July 19 2007, 04:06:35 UTC
I think Chris Columbus said that the movies wouldn't contain any more quidditch scenes because there's only so many times you can make them.

Reply


saffronlie July 16 2007, 02:31:51 UTC
I really didn't like the OotP book, and for me the film is like the book as it should have been, with all the crap gone, and only the good stuff remaining. I loved it. I guess it's true that you can't please all of the fandom all of the time. ;)

Reply

lastandleast July 16 2007, 23:40:16 UTC
That's exactly how I feel about the Lord of the Rings movies--they gave the big, annoyingly bloated book an enema and ended up with just the good stuff. I think the OOTP movie did the exact opposite, but you're right: there's no pleasing all of us.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up