Dude, the actress is 21.Meg wrote:
She looks just like I pictured her in the books. Only problem is she looks like a nine-year old.
Harry Potter and the Wizarding World
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6689
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25648
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Well...(no spoilers)
IT'S FANTASTIC!!
Seriously, The Goblet Of Fire is easily the best of the Potter films (and ya'know I haven't been that keen so far). What's good is that they have made A FILM rather than just translated the book over, which is what I felt the first three were little more than.
Like all good sequels, it says to heck to the people that haven't seen the first ones, and it launches right in to the sory with no characters set up - we all know this stuff already, right?
The effects are awesome - my BIGGEST gripe with all three earlier films, especially Imageworks' contributions to the first - with ILM pushing the boundaries again, even if their dragon was very reminiscent of DragonHeart.
At 2hrs 40 mins, the film certainly has its time to go through the motions, though what is good is that they have cut all the chaff from the book and concentrated on STORY, and this is pretty much plot driven all the way. Of course there are things that had to go (there are no Dursley bookends for a start, or mentions of any elves or Hermione’s SPEW movement), but it's all in the interests of scaling down an over the top book into a just about managable film length. We get less of Harry, Ron and Hermione's personal lives and their schooling, and concentrate on the mechanics of getting from A to B to C and fitting all the highlights in.
Patrick Doyle, filling in for John Williams who is off doing "Munich" for Spielberg, does a wonderful job on the score, liberally using Williams' main themes (though strangely Williams doesn't get much credit other than a footnote at the end of the film). Indeed, I wasn't sure who was doing the music on this and the sheer use of the themes (nicely discordant here) led me to believe that it was Williams. There was the odd touch of "hmmm, he doesn't usually do that kind of thing", or "that's a rather flat or obvious way to end a music cue" that did make me suspect, but overall one wouldn't really know and the new stuff fits in and expands the Potter music range nicely.
New characters are great - Brendan Gleeson's Mad Eye Moody looks MUCH better in live-action than he does in the publicity shots we saw earlier this year, and the roving eye is almost a character in his own right. Of the others, all the old favorites are here, and the new ones fit right in with more of the sure touch that Potter's casting directors have.
The kids are much better too. Grint's Ron is smashing and he's really developed a sure comic touch, while Hermione is as intense as ever and trying a little too hard in delivering something resembling an emotional performance. Radcliffe as Potter is pretty much down as usual, though with a bright spark this time that means he's not just reacting to things. He's finally slipping into the role and relaxing, while looking good in it too.
But this is Mike Newell's film all the way. The director of Four Weddings And A Funeral surprises with his firm hand at the action scenes - something I always worry about when a director mostly know for "dialogue pictures" is assigned an action film (Apted on The World Is Not Enough provided great value with the Brosnan/Dench scenes but knocked the action flat). Here Newell is also at home with the actors and I'm sure it his helming that helps the film become more than just a Potter franchise extension and almost crosses over into mainstream acceptance. In short, if they had been like this from the start, the Potter series could have been even bigger in box office due to the fact that Newell makes things more accessible and one needn't feel like we should have read the book first (though the paradox is that you need to see the previous films of course).
A couple of nitpicks - there's the use of an offensive word when Ron and Harry aren't speaking to each other and it seemed VERY out of place. It had the required "ooh" squirm from the packed audience I saw it with, but I feel that the filmmakers should have had some respect for the parents who will no doubt be subjected to the phrase when they tell their kids to do something back home. Another word or phrase could have gotten the required result withougt seeming an odd inclusion, and potentially inflamaroty.
There's also a finger motion that Ron almost offers Harry, but it's quickly and intentionally thwarted. I didn't have a problem with this one, as its almost not there, it doesn't really happen, and is done for comic effect, which Rupert Grint is able to play well to.
Finally, the opening Quidditch match is...short. The best effects of the film are here, and the stadium looks stunning, but apart from the set up and the intro of new characters, we don't see much, which was a disappointment. On the other hand, it means that we skip a great deal of the first half of the book and get to Hogwarts earlier, and thus getting the real story into action.
A great film which I may - gasp - even go and see again, you'll notice I haven't made any mention of Voldemort and Ralph Fiennes. That's because I'm still undecided, and though he makes a scary villain, the climatic showdown didn't really build the way the book did, and after Cedric's moment, it kind of petered out.
BUT...minor quibbles for what is easily the best of the series so far, and good all round family entertainment that is sure to be another box office bonanza and possibly the biggest of the lot.
BTW…There was no “Superman Returns” trailer attached to the print I saw, which annoyed me no end, so I was in no mood to sit and watch another lame Potter movie, so you can see that I really liked it!!
IT'S FANTASTIC!!
Seriously, The Goblet Of Fire is easily the best of the Potter films (and ya'know I haven't been that keen so far). What's good is that they have made A FILM rather than just translated the book over, which is what I felt the first three were little more than.
Like all good sequels, it says to heck to the people that haven't seen the first ones, and it launches right in to the sory with no characters set up - we all know this stuff already, right?
The effects are awesome - my BIGGEST gripe with all three earlier films, especially Imageworks' contributions to the first - with ILM pushing the boundaries again, even if their dragon was very reminiscent of DragonHeart.
At 2hrs 40 mins, the film certainly has its time to go through the motions, though what is good is that they have cut all the chaff from the book and concentrated on STORY, and this is pretty much plot driven all the way. Of course there are things that had to go (there are no Dursley bookends for a start, or mentions of any elves or Hermione’s SPEW movement), but it's all in the interests of scaling down an over the top book into a just about managable film length. We get less of Harry, Ron and Hermione's personal lives and their schooling, and concentrate on the mechanics of getting from A to B to C and fitting all the highlights in.
Patrick Doyle, filling in for John Williams who is off doing "Munich" for Spielberg, does a wonderful job on the score, liberally using Williams' main themes (though strangely Williams doesn't get much credit other than a footnote at the end of the film). Indeed, I wasn't sure who was doing the music on this and the sheer use of the themes (nicely discordant here) led me to believe that it was Williams. There was the odd touch of "hmmm, he doesn't usually do that kind of thing", or "that's a rather flat or obvious way to end a music cue" that did make me suspect, but overall one wouldn't really know and the new stuff fits in and expands the Potter music range nicely.
New characters are great - Brendan Gleeson's Mad Eye Moody looks MUCH better in live-action than he does in the publicity shots we saw earlier this year, and the roving eye is almost a character in his own right. Of the others, all the old favorites are here, and the new ones fit right in with more of the sure touch that Potter's casting directors have.
The kids are much better too. Grint's Ron is smashing and he's really developed a sure comic touch, while Hermione is as intense as ever and trying a little too hard in delivering something resembling an emotional performance. Radcliffe as Potter is pretty much down as usual, though with a bright spark this time that means he's not just reacting to things. He's finally slipping into the role and relaxing, while looking good in it too.
But this is Mike Newell's film all the way. The director of Four Weddings And A Funeral surprises with his firm hand at the action scenes - something I always worry about when a director mostly know for "dialogue pictures" is assigned an action film (Apted on The World Is Not Enough provided great value with the Brosnan/Dench scenes but knocked the action flat). Here Newell is also at home with the actors and I'm sure it his helming that helps the film become more than just a Potter franchise extension and almost crosses over into mainstream acceptance. In short, if they had been like this from the start, the Potter series could have been even bigger in box office due to the fact that Newell makes things more accessible and one needn't feel like we should have read the book first (though the paradox is that you need to see the previous films of course).
A couple of nitpicks - there's the use of an offensive word when Ron and Harry aren't speaking to each other and it seemed VERY out of place. It had the required "ooh" squirm from the packed audience I saw it with, but I feel that the filmmakers should have had some respect for the parents who will no doubt be subjected to the phrase when they tell their kids to do something back home. Another word or phrase could have gotten the required result withougt seeming an odd inclusion, and potentially inflamaroty.
There's also a finger motion that Ron almost offers Harry, but it's quickly and intentionally thwarted. I didn't have a problem with this one, as its almost not there, it doesn't really happen, and is done for comic effect, which Rupert Grint is able to play well to.
Finally, the opening Quidditch match is...short. The best effects of the film are here, and the stadium looks stunning, but apart from the set up and the intro of new characters, we don't see much, which was a disappointment. On the other hand, it means that we skip a great deal of the first half of the book and get to Hogwarts earlier, and thus getting the real story into action.
A great film which I may - gasp - even go and see again, you'll notice I haven't made any mention of Voldemort and Ralph Fiennes. That's because I'm still undecided, and though he makes a scary villain, the climatic showdown didn't really build the way the book did, and after Cedric's moment, it kind of petered out.
BUT...minor quibbles for what is easily the best of the series so far, and good all round family entertainment that is sure to be another box office bonanza and possibly the biggest of the lot.
BTW…There was no “Superman Returns” trailer attached to the print I saw, which annoyed me no end, so I was in no mood to sit and watch another lame Potter movie, so you can see that I really liked it!!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 261
- Joined: November 15th, 2005
- Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
The superman trailer is downloadable here:
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/trailer.html
You didn't miss much.
Williams' theme. Brando's voice, the flying chandelier and the man in tights are all there.
I was there opening day in 1978. At Mann's Chinese in Hollywood.
"You've got me..... Who's got YOU?!!!"
The audience erupted. I've never seen an audience respond to a movie like that before or since.
Really looking forward to Potter. Glad it's great. The last one sure was.
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/trailer.html
You didn't miss much.
Williams' theme. Brando's voice, the flying chandelier and the man in tights are all there.
I was there opening day in 1978. At Mann's Chinese in Hollywood.
"You've got me..... Who's got YOU?!!!"
The audience erupted. I've never seen an audience respond to a movie like that before or since.
Really looking forward to Potter. Glad it's great. The last one sure was.
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6689
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
Sorry, sorry. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not in love with a nine-year old.Meg wrote:Dudette. And I know she's older than nine. Just sayin' she looks young.Wendy's Jane wrote:Dude, the actress is 21.Meg wrote:
She looks just like I pictured her in the books. Only problem is she looks like a nine-year old.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1419
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
I just got back from seeing it.
This was BY FAR the best of the four movies. Not my favorite of the books, but definitally so far of the movies.
I only had two problems. one, the dumbledore sucks. hard. Obviously, since the original died, there's no way to get past that but still. The new dumbledore doesn't know how to be dumbledore in the slightest.
Second, the quidditch at the beginning... there WASN'T a quidditch match. That really disapointed me. It would have been really fun to see.
The final scene was AMAZING. It pretty much had EXACTLY what I pictured. It was fantastic.
Oh yeah one more thing: hot DAMN Hermione. She's my favorite character in the books and movies, and now she's getting hotter and hotter with each film. sweet.
This was BY FAR the best of the four movies. Not my favorite of the books, but definitally so far of the movies.
I only had two problems. one, the dumbledore sucks. hard. Obviously, since the original died, there's no way to get past that but still. The new dumbledore doesn't know how to be dumbledore in the slightest.
Second, the quidditch at the beginning... there WASN'T a quidditch match. That really disapointed me. It would have been really fun to see.
The final
Oh yeah one more thing: hot DAMN Hermione. She's my favorite character in the books and movies, and now she's getting hotter and hotter with each film. sweet.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1934
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
I saw it in 1978. Loved it. Absolutely loved it. I'm going to see this one just to hear some more of John Williams' wonderful Superman theme. Interesting how this one is not the start of a new series but a resumption (or interruption?) of the first movie series. But wouldn't Courteney Cox have been perfect to carry the Margot Kidder/Lois Lane torch? Kate Bosworth is fine and all but she's not the Lois Lane type.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 3845
- Joined: May 31st, 2005
- Location: Maryland
Never mind - she doesn't look that young. She just d like a little kid in the trailers and pics for some reason...anyway.Wendy's Jane wrote:Sorry, sorry. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not in love with a nine-year old.
Got back from seeing it last night. My parents dropped me off at the theater about forty-five minutes early (I was seeing the 7:00 show, they were seeing the 7:40). Unfortunately, the line was already running to the doors. Not unfortunately, my friends had come an hour early and were at the front of the line (I lucked out!).
Anyway, after suffering through The Twenty (twenty minutes of commercials....UGH.), they played about a bazillion trailers. Mind you, they were all the best - Kong, Narnia, Monster House (which looks awful but I haven't been able to get it on my comp), Superman, Cheaper by the Dozen 2(ew), Lady in the Water (wtf?), and Happy Feet, which, strangely enough, got the best reaction out of the audience. It felt like we were waiting forever for the actual film to start, and we applauded when it finally did...yeah, we're nerds.
SO - This was amazing. Hands down, the best Potter flick yet. Went a bit too fast in the beginning, but other than that it was awesome. The SFX were pretty good, and the acting was excellent - I thought Daniel Radcliff was a horrible actor in the first two or so but he's been getting much better, same with Emma Watson. And that scene in the bathroom...talk about scaring someone for life...
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 3845
- Joined: May 31st, 2005
- Location: Maryland
Never mind - she doesn't look that young. She just d like a little kid in the trailers and pics for some reason...anyway.Wendy's Jane wrote:Sorry, sorry. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not in love with a nine-year old.
Got back from seeing it last night. My parents dropped me off at the theater about forty-five minutes early (I was seeing the 7:00 show, they were seeing the 7:40). Unfortunately, the line was already running to the doors. Not unfortunately, my friends had come an hour early and were at the front of the line (I lucked out!).
Anyway, after suffering through The Twenty (twenty minutes of commercials....UGH.), they played about a bazillion trailers. Mind you, they were all the best - Kong, Narnia, Monster House (which looks awful but I haven't been able to get it on my comp), Superman, Cheaper by the Dozen 2(ew), Lady in the Water (wtf?), and Happy Feet, which, strangely enough, got the best reaction out of the audience. It felt like we were waiting forever for the actual film to start, and we applauded when it finally did...yeah, we're nerds.
SO - This was amazing. Hands down, the best Potter flick yet. Went a bit too fast in the beginning, but other than that it was awesome. The SFX were pretty good, and the acting was excellent - I thought Daniel Radcliff was a horrible actor in the first two or so but he's been getting much better, same with Emma Watson. And I'll agree with Mac about Dumbledore...I thought he was going to strangle Harry in one scene.
As for that scene in the bathroom...talk about scaring someone for life... -
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
I loved the film, easily the best of the film series. I am not going to list everything i liked about the film because there are to many things (and frankly i am just lazy), but i will list some of the things i didnt like. And i am going to put it in spoiler tags (or whatever you have here) just in case.
And on the positive side i think Daniel Radcliffe's acting skills improved a lot in this one.
9/10
And on the positive side i think Daniel Radcliffe's acting skills improved a lot in this one.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25648
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
You see what I meant by the Quidditch match now, huh?
But glad you all seem to be enjoying it as much as I did. For once, we all seem to be mostly in agreement!
BTW, I caught the Supes trailer online last night and wasn't impressed - I actually thought the fan cut trailer did a better job two months ago! Let's keep this thread on topic, but I just had to say that as it had been mentioned - a third of it were the three company logos on the front! And yeah, I saw "The Movie" in theaters in '78 and it remains my favorite film ever. I am, however, probably looking more forward to the Donner re-cut of Supes II rather than the new one, though I'll be "first in line" to see it come release day.
But glad you all seem to be enjoying it as much as I did. For once, we all seem to be mostly in agreement!
BTW, I caught the Supes trailer online last night and wasn't impressed - I actually thought the fan cut trailer did a better job two months ago! Let's keep this thread on topic, but I just had to say that as it had been mentioned - a third of it were the three company logos on the front! And yeah, I saw "The Movie" in theaters in '78 and it remains my favorite film ever. I am, however, probably looking more forward to the Donner re-cut of Supes II rather than the new one, though I'll be "first in line" to see it come release day.