| Overall Grade: |
F |
|
| Story: |
N/A |
|
|
| Acting: |
N/A |
|
|
| Direction: |
N/A |
|
|
| Visuals: |
N/A |
|
|
Absolutely Horrible
by Birdy x (movies profile)
Jan 20, 2007
210
of
286 people found this review helpful
First, I completely understand that a movie is different than a book and they can't possibly be identical.
Having said that.. i am completely disappointed and thought this film was horrible. I had to convince my die hard fan friend to stay and watch the rest. he couldn't even stand to sit and watch this imposter of a movie to the harry potter series. Not only was it incredibly dreary looking but it left out enormous amount of detail. If you look at this film at a glance.. it does not look like a harry potter film. haven't directors learned from the matrix and star wars sequals? You don't abandon an already proven successful formula that an audience has already embraced and loves. You LEAVE IT ALONE! the "sudden shift of style and pacing" is hardly an improvement over the first two movies.
if i wanted to a different movie, i would have gone to see a different movie. No.. i went to see Harry Potter and I still felt like i was watching something else.
A fantasy story is just that.. a fantasy. This movie fails to take you to another place. It looks like it was filmed in my backyard in Montana. I felt like i was watching a movie from the early 80's. The look was dated as well as the "trendy" clothing that will soon be dated. My visual appetite was left hungry. Gone are the vibrant colors and beautiful scenery. It was all washed out and blah. No visual interest at all. It is so dark and dreary that i could barely distinguish character's faces or see details even on the big screen. Also, since the actors have grown so much and some are hardly recognizable and dumbledore is completely different, it was in bad judgement to change so many other elements of the movie, such as hairstyles, clothing, the lack of school uniforms, the interior of the castle, because it left out familiararity.
Hogwartz didn't look the same.. they didn't even try with dumbledore.. The pictures on the walls were far too animated. Why did they concentrate so much on the pictures? The new actor as dumbledore was a complete failure. Couldn't they even have tried to get his makeup and hair right? couldn't they have even tried to emulate dumbledore's voice or mannerisms? he didn't come close to commanding the scene or project the greatness of dumbledores character. This movie was too short to include vital parts of the book but yet made time to include stupid "comedic" parts and other nonsense. Such as a F***ing talking jamaican head on the bus! That's comparable to the ever annoying Jar Jar from star wars. The first movies used clever and timeless humor while this was a bit slapstick and dated. and might i say.. not understandable to a lot children or not appropriate.
I don't see this movie being entertaining for children. These are after all, children's books and children are the core audience. I understand that this book had a bit more mature subject matter, but this film seemed to be aimed at a much older audience at the expense of the families...again..the core audience. Was there any real need to say "bitch" in this movie? What the director failed to realize is that maybe adult fans are fans of harry potter because we enjoy fantasy just as children. We want to immmerse ourselves into another wonderful, pure, colorful, magical world. If i wanted to see something resembling real life.. i wouldn't go to the movies. i loved the first movie because it captured all of these elements and made me go back for more.. the chamber of secrets. i might be a little apprehensive for the goblet of fire.
Was it necessary to say "bitch" in the movie? Can't the stupid industry leave the kids alone? Why did they have to ruin the one movie, in a sea of movies.. that was actually appopriate for children. they took a wonderful thing and corrupted it. HELLO HOLLYWOOD!!! THIS IS A CHILDREN'S MOVIE!!! What's next? a love scene with Hermoine half naked?
There is a way to portray a deep dark tale and capture the essence of the story without alienating the kids or making it hard for them to understand. i had to sit through the whole movie listening to parents explain what happened to their children.
if warner brothers continues with this director and this trend.. these movies may still prove to be lucrative like star wars and matrix but will fail to be great movies like the failures of star wars and matrix sequels. has anyone learned from the lord of the rings? its succes is because of its consistency. granted.. not everyone can film all at the same time.. but the point is that the first was excellent and the other two were as well because it was consistent.
I wish he left it alone the way it was. It just looks like any other "grown up" movie out there. a dime a dozen. nothing special about it. nothing magical.
If you haven't read the book, you will have a hard time fully understanding what is happening. It's a bit difficult to follow.
im sure its fine for someone who doesnt really care about it like most adults dont. im sure if someone didnt truly love the first two films or read the books, that they would think this is just as good.
as for me, i am truly disappointed. |
My Public Profile 
