PoA-What do you think about the film??

[Hagger 9003]

part of the reason that bit is the climax is that it is a summing up of hte plot, and the fact that harry hates sirius, but changes. its harder to put that in a film. action is alot easier, and that is a reasonably important bit. its like a second climax. still, it does rush it a bit.

[hermione_granger_1993]

well umm i really liked the movie, it was great but for one thing it does rush things compared to the book.

well i like the first movie because it was giving details more than the second and third movies. they do stuff just as the books tell them


........................................................................................................

HARRY POTTER ROCKS

Double post edited by Phinea Rogue, March 9, 2005

[Tanuki]

Don't double post, especially not intentionally

[thestral]

hmmmm just how do i sum up how bad the 3rd film was....

oh i know hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah(big breath) hahahahahahahah. haha. (hem,hem)

really bad. come on, i thought i was actually i joke. i couldn't believe how bad and not in a it's was so bad, it was almost good way, it went past good and went straight back to bad. i watched it a while ago so i i can't really remember paticualr scenes, but i remember thinking dear god someone explain to daniel radcliffe the concept of moving your facial muscles to express emotion. it was really very funny though if you wanted a good laugh at a how not to act masterclass.

this post probably won't make me popular, but it was just.... bad.

[Tanuki]

It was bad, and the fourth film isn't looking too good either. Someone please explain how dress robes turn into tuxedo's

Should've gone animated

[Nightcrawler]

Tuxedo's? Huh? Is this in the next film?

[Tanuki]

yeppers. I've seen pics. Ron looks like Flabber from this old fox kids show called big bad beetleborgs

[Cedric]

The 3rd film was good in that it brought in new locations for us to see around the castle. The introduction was good but after that yeah, it went down. It left so many good details out which is why I miss the old director.

The new movie yeah, tuxedoes, I can't say how much that pisses me off that they would use modern clothes when in the book it says wizard robes. Ron looks like some guy from the 1700s.

[Mint]

picks? where?

wow, if its true than they are really going away from the book

[Cedric]

this is a picture of both harry and ron. hope it works for you.

http://www.mugglenet.com/viewer/?image_ ... nrobes.jpg

[thestral]

i never thought any of them were good, i just thought the acting was an abominable joke the whole way through. i didn't watch the 2nd one i admit, but that's cos i found the 1st one so painful to watch. i thought the perhaps with a different director and stuff the 3rd would be better and the trailors looked better but alas no. i don't really blame the film-makers i just don't think that it translates well onto film and you need a really good,convincing,charismatic actor to play harry and daniel radcliffe is not that. sure he improved but he's not harry. don't know how many daniel radcliffe fans there are out there.... but hey

[Cedric]

Yeah, I must agree the acting sucks. I'm a film major and one thing that I've learned is that the acting, no matter how bad always reflects the directing of the movie seeing that the director is the one the actors look for guidence in.

I heard that they were going to get a new Harry Potter in the future films because Daniel is getting too old now. I wouldn't mind that but changing actors in the middle of filming episodes (unless they are the spitting image) is really annoying. unless death comes into play with the exception of Dumbledore's new actor.

[Phoenix in the Ashes]

Hmm, I think the only reason Daniel Radcliffe will stop playing Harry, is if his contract runs out and he doesn't want to play him anymore. Remember, in sitcoms they have 23 years olds playing 17 year olds. And if Daniel is 19 by the time HBP movie comes out, that's only a three year difference, albeit a large one due to teen maturity, but still, they would do it if he had a contract. I think if they're going to make all 7 HP books into movies, Radcliffe will be acting every one.
And yes, HP3 wasn't fantastic, but the actors may have more experience, by say, the 7th movie!

[thestral]

yes but how much can someone inmprove? either you have the talent or you don't. and the one thing a film actor needs is some sort of stage presence, a charisma or pull. and even if their acting isn't quite perfect you can still see the potential and natural presence of the actor, even if they are a bit rough round the edges. but i don't think that either harry, ron or hermione have that in the film and to me that's why they fail so badly. besides if you're going to star in a majjor film, gain experience elsewhere, not during your film. that's like going into an exam without revising saying you'll get experience of the questions in the exam. not a very good idea you practise the style of question before the exam and perfect it in the exam. apply that to acting in a film and you sort of get what i mean?

[Cedric]

Well, I hate to admit but he has improved somewhat since the first video. I just re-watched all three and the first one is just funny with the way Daniel R. tries to act scared. But if any movie is going to be better then all of them its going to have to be GoF. I think the only thing keeping these movies afloat is the wonderful acting done my the Professors and outside actors. The Weasly twins are also two actors that I think have made the movies more enjoyable. So here's to the success of GoF. May it be better then the rest.