PDA

View Full Version : Harry Potter



Magnolia-Fan
11-17-2001, 03:48 PM
LISTEN UP!

All of you need to go to a THX certified theater and see " Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."

It was the best movie I have seen in a while.

And don't give me any of this "kids movie" garbage because we all come to these forums to discuss a series of "kids movies".

REMEMBER: Go to a THX certified theater. The sound was fantastic!

master jedi
11-17-2001, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Magnolia-Fan
And don't give me any of this "kids movie" garbage because we all come to these forums to discuss a series of "kids movies".


So you're saying Star Wars is a kids movie?
I'll have to disagrre with that because it's more of a type of film that would attract a teenage group.(At least the original trilogy is.)

Magnolia-Fan
11-17-2001, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by master jedi
So you're saying Star Wars is a kids movie?

Not necessarily, but I wouldn't say that about Harry Potter either.

I'd call them a "family picture".

By the way, when did Star Wars first appeal to you? When you were a kid or when you were a teen?

bigbarada
11-17-2001, 06:12 PM
I plan to check out Harry Potter this weekend, I actually prefer kids' movies to anything else. Good kids' movies appeal to everyone, and by definition Star Wars is a kids' series of films.

BTW, cool icon Magnolia Fan. I remember that guy when he was just a hard working stiff doing Coca-Cola commercials then he got a big head and starred in that crappy futuristic TV show. Ahhhhh, memories.:cool:

Magnolia-Fan
11-17-2001, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by bigbarada
BTW, cool icon Magnolia Fan. I remember that guy when he was just a hard working stiff doing Coca-Cola commercials then he got a big head and starred in that crappy futuristic TV show. Ahhhhh, memories.:cool:

I was "lucky" enough to get a used video tape of the pilot episode for $2 awhile back, and yes, it was crap.

Max rocks though...

master jedi
11-17-2001, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Magnolia-Fan
By the way, when did Star Wars first appeal to you? When you were a kid or when you were a teen?

It first appealed to me as a teen.

Magnolia-Fan
11-17-2001, 06:37 PM
That's surprising.

Most of us started this path to hell when we were kids.

LTBasker
11-17-2001, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Magnolia-Fan
By the way, when did Star Wars first appeal to you? When you were a kid or when you were a teen?

I was corrupted at age 4. :D

bigbarada
11-17-2001, 09:47 PM
Star Wars first corrupted me at age 5. By the time I was a teenager the trilogy and the phenomenon it started were a distant memory; the legendary "Dark Years."

TeeEye7
11-18-2001, 06:02 AM
*Shakes head....mumbles "These kids...."*

Try being 23 when the OT started.......:eek:

Obi-Don
11-18-2001, 06:05 AM
Got me when I was 12 and has never let me go.

SWAFMAN
11-18-2001, 11:35 AM
Not having to work Thursday or Friday, I waited 2 hours in line on Thurs to receive 4 wristbands guaranteeing my family admission to the 4:00 PM first-showing on Friday at our local independently owned & operated movie theatre - a beautifully restored opera house from the early 1800's. It has only been open less than a year as a theatre, and being a very small town has managed to help keep the rocking back seats and floor and whole place in clean and like-new condition.

I had the kids walk directly to the theatre instead of walking home after school on Friday. They were SOOOOO excited. The 10 year old has read all 4 books multiple times, and my girlfriend has read them all once. Neither I, nor my daughter have ever read any of them, so I was going in cold with no expectations.

The only thing I was thinking about going into the show was that Chris Columbus's past work as a director didn't leave me thinking of him as a first choice to make what seemed to be the most anticipated family movie of all time. I mean, OK, Bicentennial Man was pretty good, and I thought Stepmom was really well done, but for a film of this hype and expectations, I would have thought a studio would reflexively go for a AAA+ list name like Zemekis, Lucas or Spielberg.

Maybe it was just case of timing. Zemekis was making 13 ghosts, and obviously Lucas is just a little busy right now. :) I don't know when production started for Potter or AI, but there may have been some conflict there in Spielberg's schedule. From what I've heard, the only other film he was involved in after AI was Minority Report. From what I've read, I can't believe he would have passed on Potter to do that!

Even if none of the Three Gods of Modern Family Film could be had, I'd have thought, with so much riding on this film, a studio would have gone with maybe Ridley Scott or even recent movie-Midas Steven Soderbergh. Even though neither has made a family film, at least they are recent award-winning, proven, and very well-respected in the industry.

So that was my one reservation about seeing Potter.

Man, was I ever WRONG!!!!!

Having seen the movie, I can now say that I'm very glad no one else directed it, because although no one can ever know how it may have turned out under a different director, in my humble opinion, Harry Potter turned out pretty much PERFECT.

The only downside, again in my opinion, to a AAA+ list director making a movie is that they are usually the biggest star "in" the film. It would seem that there would be a greater potential for a smothering of external creative inputs by these directors, whereas a different director - albeit also one of great talent - may not have the ego-baggage to prevent him/herself from allowing the creativity of the entire team of the production to contribute to the project.

Regardless of how this film was creatively managed by Columbus, the result speaks for itself.

The richness of imagery was unparalleled. The performances were practically tactile as you experienced them with more than just your eyes and ears - you could virtually feel them in every way. The effects were so well-balanced that they managed to do something increasingly difficult in this digital age - that is to be used in the movie, without becoming the star of the movie.

Maybe that's something where past experience did benefit Columbus. I also found that in Bicentennial Man, he did an admirable job reigned-in potentially overpowering special effects, preferring instead to highlight the underlying "humanity" of Williams's automaton.

This movie delivers on ALL levels. Production values, performances, plot and character development, and something more films ought to be striving towards these days - positive messages to our kids.

The bar has been raised for film entertainment.

The "Three Gods of Modern Family Film" are now "Four."

Bel-Cam Jos
11-18-2001, 07:39 PM
As much as I hate to say it, John Williams' musical score was overpowering. Normally, his style to to blend into the film, but HPATSS had too much, too loud.

As far as the film goes, if you haven't read the book yet, you'll get bored (2.5 hours long) or think of it as an "effects film." Knowing the plot from the book makes it that much better.

Bests:
Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane is dead on!)
Snape (same for Richard Atchins [is that his name?])
Quidditch match (faster than the pod race sequence!)
Chess game

Awesome film!

Fixer
11-18-2001, 08:15 PM
Snape was played by Alan Rickman, who has done a number of great villain roles (and a few good guys to boot). You may remember him as the head bad guy in the original 'Die Hard'.

The movie was well done, but did drag a bit. Sometimes you can be too faithfull to a book.

Magnolia-Fan
11-18-2001, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Bel-Cam Jos
As far as the film goes, if you haven't read the book yet, you'll get bored (2.5 hours long) or think of it as an "effects film."

I have not read the book yet and neither of your two concerns apply to me.

I genuinely believe EVERYBODY could enjoy this movie.

Magnolia-Fan
11-18-2001, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Fixer
Sometimes you can be too faithfull to a book.

I beg to differ. Two of my favorite movies, Psycho and Fight Club were incredibly faithful to the books they were based on.

Then take Jurassic Park 2 . It was not faithfull to it's book at all and, although a big money maker, the movie itself stunk.

Brave Sir Robin
11-19-2001, 10:33 AM
Incrediblly good movies that are just like the books:

Harry Potter
Angela's Ashes
To Kill A Mockingbird
James and the Giant Peach

Crappy movies based on good books

The Lost World
The Island of Dr. Moreau
Lord of the Flies (newer one)
Matilda
The Hobbit cartoon
Batman Forever and Batman and Robin (if you think of comic books as books)

Movies based on books that were changed heavily, but still rocked

Sleepy Hollow
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
Batman and Batman Returns (if you think of comic books as books)

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
11-19-2001, 12:32 PM
I was observing in a school last Thursday and basically Harry Potter was on at leat half of the classroom's mind. It was the hot topic of the day (in this case it will be more than a day). The students wrote about Harry Potter during journal time, during class discussions, when they were asked to write about an imaginary train ride, and during lunch time. They were very enthralled by Harry and excited to see the movie.

Personally, I don't know who and when I will be able to see the movie with, but I will try like the dickens to go. Old people aren't excluded either. My 60 year old mother has read all of the books and can't wait to see the movie. I wonder if this movie is going to knock Titanic out of the record books? Sure looks like it so far. ;)

SWAFMAN
11-19-2001, 03:16 PM
I agree, but I also thought the book (lost world) sucked. It seemed a classic example of someone "phoning-in" a lousy artistic effort - in this case probably only to satisfy a legal/contractual obligation with the publishers, and/or to secure the inevitible film sequel.

Other horrible book-to-film translations:
Dune
Casino
Sleepers
Hannibal (already cited, but I totally agree!)
Every Tom Clancy Book Ever Made Into a Film
The Last Don

(and on and on for hours.....)

derek
11-19-2001, 08:38 PM
did the new episode 2 trailer play before harry potter? i went to see "shallow hal" but being the honest guy i am, bought a ticket for harry potter to see the trailer. after sitting thru about 30 minutes of previews, no star wars. i got a refund for the ticket, and asked the manager,"why no star wars trailer?" she said she was told not to play it on any film. this was an AMC theatre.
wierd.

Magnolia-Fan
11-19-2001, 09:37 PM
The trailer did not play before the movie in my theater either. However, since that is not the reason I went to see Harry Potter, and since I had already gotten the trailer off of the internet, I didnt really care.

SWAFMAN
11-19-2001, 10:22 PM
I was also surprised to not see the EP2 trailer run when I went to see Potter. I thought I'd read that it had been printed directly on to the front of the first reel of Potter.

Mandalorian Candidat
11-20-2001, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Bel-Cam Jos
As far as the film goes, if you haven't read the book yet, you'll get bored (2.5 hours long) or think of it as an "effects film." Knowing the plot from the book makes it that much better.


No, I think I'll see it before reading the book. I can't think of a single movie that was better or maybe even as good as the book it was originally based on. I tend to dislike movies I've seen after reading the book. If I see the movie then read the book, I tend to like the movie more then the other way around.

Jurassic Park is the prime example for me. Loved the book, the movie stunk to high heaven.