MrMacphisto said:
I take it that you didn't like POA.
Not really. I'm far too much of a purist and of all the films it's the one that was shafted the most in all the important explanatory places.
MrMacphisto said:
They did leave out a lot, but it still made sense to me. I watched the movie before I read the book. The ending was a bit rushed though, but then again, Rowling has a bad tendency to do that. She spends too much time on buildup and not enough on the ends of each book. Prisoner of Azkaban is still one of my favorite books of the series, but the rushed ending is one of my few gripes with it....
Well unlike the other five books, it doesn't really have an ending. The confrontation it was building towards (Harry Vs. Sirius Black) turned out to be a paper tiger. Seeing Harry knocking Snape on his oily arse was far more satisfying.
MrMacphisto said:
I thought the special effects were great, personally. Figuring out Harry's Patronus was actually not that difficult. If I remember correctly, Lupin makes a subtle remark referring to James and his connection to the stag. The thing that I liked about POA is that it didn't beat you over the head with its plot points the way that all the other movies have. It was also the only movie in the series (so far) that didn't totally feel like a kid's movie. Even the grim ending of Goblet of Fire was tame compared to the overall ominous feel of POA.
Unless that was something in the US version ommitted from ours, I don't think so. Being the sad tosser that I am I own all three and have watched them multiple times.
Personally I have to say the Shrieking Shack scene is a total mystery if you haven't read the book. I can only assume you're psychic mate.
And what was that with the Patronus? Apart from a brief appearance all it was was an expanding pulse of light. Not even remotely like it was described in the book apart from the colour.
MrMacphisto said:
Cuaron, to me, just seemed like a far superior director when it came to his style. He brought so much visual depth to the movie that I've yet to see any of the other directors bring. Newell was close, but he still has room for improvement.
No accounting for taste.
Seriously though, Cuaron's darkness was good, even though the Dementors were pathetic beyond words. Newell could have been less grey and more "CG" darkness. The Great Hall doesn't look good at all when it's got neither light nor artificial darkness in it.
MrMacphisto said:
Gambon is definitely no Harris. His character is definitely more strung out than the Dumbledore of the books, but in a way, that does make him feel more human. By contrast, Rickman's Snape is far more likable than the Snape of the books....
Hmmm, yeah. Rickman's Snape is quite funny in some ways. And you can bet if Rickman wasn't playing him he wouldn't be such a sex symbol!
The role of Dumbledore was always going to take an horrendous ass-fucking once Richard Harris died. There are probably only half a dozen other actors in all of cinematic history who can compare to Harris, and sadly Gambon isn't one of them. I find his Dumbledore way too much of a departure from the book. Indeed I still picture Dumbledore as Harris when I read the books.
MrMacphisto said:
Good point on Voldemort. As for Moody, I actually wasn't that impressed with Brendan Gleeson. His portrayal of Moody was a lot goofier than I pictured the character. His magical eye looked less like an artifact and more like something you'd pick up at Toys R Us.
He looked nothing like I pictured him. I thought of him as a slightly less stocky version of Rhyno from the WWF, with a seriously scarred fizzog. The magical eye was a horrendous piece of trash as you say.
MrMacphisto said:
Because quite frankly, that part of the book was boring.
Philistine. All action and no brain teasers. I ask you...
MrMacphisto said:
I agree. Rita Skeeter was an annoying character anyway. They should have left her out altogether. The same thing goes for Moaning Myrtle.
MM was a little bit necessary for the sake of exposition. RS could have been beefed up a bit.
MrMacphisto said:
This was another boring part that was rightfully shortened.
You either love quiddich or you hate it.
MrMacphisto said:
I think we can assume that his death will be referred to near the beginning of the next movie. It was a brief off-stage event in the book anyway.
But a significant one, because it showed the Dementors were already doing Voldie-arse's business.
MrMacphisto said:
I thought that effect was great. It was subtle and clean all the same. Nothing too flashy, but not too low-tech either.... Oh yeah, and he's credited because Oldman is the man!
He certainly is! Da dude! I'm just feeling bitter and twisted that's all he got used for I guess. They spend an utterly pointless ten minutes extending the dragon scene into a ridiculous chase across the rooftops of the school when they could have been putting in some decent exposition that actually arseing, buggering, sporking meant something.
MrMacphisto said:
Half-Blood Prince was my fave, since Snape is my favorite character. Hopefully, Cuaron will do that movie. I also hope the last book of the series ups the body count, but I suppose Rowling has to keep things somewhat tame for the younger audience... heh heh...
Her latest word is the body count will continue to go up significantly.
MrMacphisto said:
I do hope that the next movie is 3 hours long though.
Actually, I don't think it will be. Although OOTP is the biggest book, I reckon it's also the one that could be cut the most in the making of the movie, because nine tenths of it is filler. They could cut shed loads from it and still not lose the central arc. POA and GOF could both be longer films than OOTP.
it's wrong but jeez he gets me hot 
