Maybe 1 and 2 were, maybe I just did not like them because they were more childish. 5 was the first one that was a little darker and mature, maybe that is why I liked it more.
Some of you in this thread seem to be treating the movies as alternatives to the books and saying that the movies are not as good as the books. I think if you treat them as more as a complement to the books you'd enjoy them much more.
Couldn't agree more. I think a lot of people have problems separating the books from the film. You have to look at the films on their own merit. I only started reading the books from five on, so I was curious to see if my feelings for the film franchise would change having read OotP. I must admit I was disappointed in it at first (they glossed over Oclumency and the Dept of Mysteries) but having watched it numerous times since, it has become perhaps one of my favorites of the series. Purists look to the first two movies as the pinnacle in the franchise, but they seem to forget those films (as is reflected in the critical reviews) lack any type of soul; they are perhaps too literal. Only when they got to three and Alfonso Cuaron took over did they start to take on their own style, while still staying faithful to the books. Now I'll admit they are not without fault. It's clear they cut out a lot of Harry and Sirius' relationship in Azkaban. But it doesn't ruin the film for me. I didn't read Goblet of Fire, but I've heard they cut a lot out...but as a film, it's incredibly good. It has a lot of action, some nice humor and the final scenes are gut wrenching. Honestly, if I wanted to see the film exactly as I see it in the books, page for page, well then I could just read the books. Why can't we just enjoy the films...as films.
It's got a whopping 98% fresh rating on rottentomatoes. But interestingly, and rather not surprisingly, a 66% from fans. I think I'll trust the critics on this one...instead of the people giving it bad reviews because it's not page for page like the book.
I agree with you guys on that. I think the books just further my perception of the books. I have liked them all.
Look at you old people ooooing and ahhhing about some kids book. What a bunch of lames. A ****ing Wizard? yeah, how does that taste?
I was going to go to the midnight showing at the Marq*E, but they are all sold out and are now starting at 3:25 AM and 3 AM for Grand Palace. I did the 3 AM for The Dark Knight, but decided not to do it for this movie. I'll just see it during the day.
Was a great movie... I loved it.. not really a true harry potter fan but I had to say they did a good job on this one.. they didn't force anything (what I mean by that is... they didn't try to put something there that wasn't meant to be... well I should be saying J.K. Rowling didn't..) but yeah overall.. great movie... glad I went to the premier. This will probably break the transformers 2 records for overnight viewings.... Spoiler I think some fans were crying when Dumbledore died... lmao
The woman next to me did exactly what you just described. I thought it was pretty odd and I faithfully read all of the books as they came out. I've understood tears for film. It was the best movie in the series and I hope it gets better. Alan Rickman plays Snape so well. I would have liked a bit more back-story on Voldemort, but they'll save that for the next movies. I'm skeptical about splitting Deathly Hallows into two, but we'll see how that goes. The lake scene was a little too tame for my imagination; I was expecting full-fledged zombies, not Gollum from The Lord of the Rings. And it goes without saying that Emma Watson was smoking in this movie.
I'm glad that they aren't rushing into things... I especially like how they are going to make two parts of the Deathly Hallows one.
First of all let me start out by saying I haven't read the books but loved all the movies. All of the other movies were easy to follow for me and made a lot of sense. I wish I could say the same about this one. I had no idea what the hell was going on half the time.
Problem is you can't really compare Lord of the Rings to Harry Potter. LoTR had a fairly simple aim, with some side quests here and there (the Three Hunters, Merry and Pippen with the Ents, Gandalf), but the Harry Potter books have tons of things going on at once (SPOILER: I mean, in the 6th film, you have the Half blood prince plot, the 'getting memories' plot, the Malfoy plot [which I thought was the most well done], and of course all the teenage love). And you have to cram all of that into 2 and a half hours, whereas Lord of the Rings is 'Ok, Frodo has to get to Crack of doom, right, let's get going'. The HP series is more complex and thus more difficult to make.
Really? I knew that nugget from a thread on here a few years ago where it showed a guy yelling it (the spoiler) in front of a bookstore and watching their reaction. It was quite hilarious.
I'm sorry eve... I think everyone knew that fact anyways... it hit the news a couple of days after the book came out... I tried to hide it with the spoiler... gotta give me some credit for that.
Saw the film last night. Several changes from the book, but as I said, 6 was my least favorite of the books. So I didnt mind so much. I think the casual fan will be kind of disappointed in it, as there isnt very much action at all. I wont get into detail of the changes from the source until the movie has been out a couple of days. My opinion? Good. But not as good as the last movie was.
I think I'd disagree with that. Forget that LotR are intended for an older audience (and much more difficult to read) and HP began as a children's book. Both films deal with good conquering evil (destroying the ring and killing Voldemort). In addition to that, each film has it's own subplots and themes, and plenty of them. But in terms of sheer scope, LotR is so much more vast; much more epic. I love HP, but I would consider it a damn good appetizer to the main course....if you had to compare them.
