My review of the latest Harry Potter film...

[bassybill]

It's absolutely, irredeemably terrible. Boring overly convoluted plot, visually dreary, badly acted and scripted, characters so two-dimensional it's hard to care in the slightest what happens to any of them, incomprehensible storyline unless you're a total Potter nerd and just generally hard to find anything to actually be entertained by. Miserable, pretentious crap. The Three Stooges managed to portray a wider range of human emotions than this trio of charmless, wooden self-parodies do here while playing at being actors.

Some of the earlier films in the series have been watchable (without ever being truly great). But this one will make those harder to remember or enjoy again. It's the final triumph of the dark forces of hype and cultism over imagination and skilled storytelling. The most spellbinding thing about this whole series has been watching the magical way in which it's managed to disappear up its own arse.

[champbassist]

Thank you. You just reaffirmed my faith in my disgust for the entire franchise which was engendered due to my having read and watched the first two parts

[Phalex]

Did you read the book?

Some friends of mine saw it last week, and the wife who had read the book found it enjoyable, and said it was quite good. The husband who had not read the book said he couldn't follow the damn thing.

I haven't seen it yet, so I'm curious.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by bassybill

It's absolutely, irredeemably terrible. Boring overly convoluted plot, visually dreary, badly acted and scripted, characters so two-dimensional it's hard to care in the slightest what happens to any of them, incomprehensible storyline unless you're a total Potter nerd and just generally hard to find anything to actually be entertained by. Miserable, pretentious crap. The Three Stooges managed to portray a wider range of human emotions than this trio of charmless, wooden self-parodies do here while playing at being actors.

Some of the earlier films in the series have been watchable (without ever being truly great). But this one will make those harder to remember or enjoy again. It's the final triumph of the dark forces of hype and cultism over imagination and skilled storytelling. The most spellbinding thing about this whole series has been watching the magical way in which it's managed to disappear up its own arse.

I agree with this review. My wife and I saw it and thought the same thing. Basically, this film is made for people who have read the book. Anyone else will find it to be useless drivel with bad acting and an incomprehensible plot.

OTOH we saw "Of Gods and Men" the other night and thought it was an exceptional film. Highly recommended.

[geeza]

Originally Posted by bassybill

"Review"

^ Muggle.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Its not a great film by any stretch, but I enjoyed it (on account of having read the books).

I am curious, though, as to why Mark and Bill saw the film when, as its Oscar season, there are so many other great films out right now.

[Ziltoid]

The films ruined Harry Potter, imo, from the 5th book (heck the 4 a bit to) and up you can see she wrote them being cautious about the film that would result. I've read them all and more then once for the 4 first, once only for 5 and up. I'll loan it sometime, when I learned it was split in two parts I decided not to go to the theater for it.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

I am curious, though, as to why Mark and Bill saw the film when, as its Oscar season, there are so many other great films out right now.

Not my own choice.

[Kwesi]

The books are flat out amazing, the movies are ok. That's my take on things. Unfortunately, the most recent movie took some of the most boring and Twilight-esque bits from the book and strung them together in a manner that they hoped was suspenseful but was really just... boring, lol. I enjoy it overall but I feel like they won't be able to deliver the same impact of the book because they'd have to cram quite a bit of story into the 2nd part to do it.

However, there is one thing I can say about the Harry Potter films that makes me proud to be a fan. The acting gets better in every movie. I'm not saying it's amazing by Deathly Hallows but it's better than it was before. Take a look at the first two movies and just listen to Hermione... cringeworthy. But, not anymore .

I disagree that it was made for those people who read the book because many of the people who saw it after reading the book were disappointed by the lack of story they actually touched on in the movie. We understand that there's only so much that can go into a movie based on a book but they spent far too much time basically wandering around moping and being angsty. It is pretty unfortunate that they made the actual story in the movie as disjointed as it was. You really could only understand the whole thing if you had read the books, though I don't think that was intentional just bad scripting/storyboarding. Personally, I'm kind of upset that they omitted Harry and Dudley shaking hands near the beginning because that was pretty big in my eyes and would only been a 5 minute scene.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Kwesi

Take a look at the first two movies and just listen to Hermione... cringeworthy. But, not anymore .

I've got to disagree with that - I think that Emma Watson has taken the pretty much miniscule amount of acting potential that she apparently possessed in the early films on to its logical and very predictable conclusion. She's so wooden that if she was on TB she'd belong in Luthiers' Corner.

[MakiSupaStar]

Meh. I could never get into either the books or the movies but I dig the Lego game on the Wii.

[HEIST]

Huge Harry Potter fan here, I despised the earlier films and found this one to be watchable. But yes they aren't great actors, especially Emma Watson.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

Its not a great film by any stretch, but I enjoyed it (on account of having read the books).

I am curious, though, as to why Mark and Bill saw the film when, as its Oscar season, there are so many other great films out right now.

I saw it months ago when it came out.

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Does it have a shoot-em-up scene with magic wands?

[jmattbassplaya]

I thought it was the most enjoyable movie out of the bunch. IMO, you have to read the books to enjoy the movies, and even then you probably won't enjoy the movies because they aren't that good.

[EdHunter]

Got into the books age 6 or so with the second one, moved on to HG Wells at age 10 and the fifth book, never looked back. A summer or two ago I kinda half watched the first film with friends and it reminded me why I left the series behind.

But Emma Watson is fine...

[hbarcat]

I've read the books and I consider all of them to be rather mediocre in writing with plots that seem interesting from one point to the next but often contrived and artificial.

By far, the worst aspect of the books is the fact that the characters are all so completely one-dimensional. They are like parodies of characters from other books. No character has a genuine personality, only an exaggerated profile that makes each one act more like a character in a comic book.

Having said that, the movies aren't going to be any better than the books and by the process of having to cut material from each book to fit into a 2 1/2 hour film there's going to be some more "dumbing down" of the plot.

I don't think it's fair to say the actors are at fault in any of the films. I can't imagine actors of any caliber doing much with the material they're given. With one exception: The actor who plays Draco Malfoy does a remarkable job in this latest movie, Deathly Hallows 1 and particularly in the last one, Half Blood Prince I say it's remarkable because it's the only character that seems a genuine personality and you can see him argue internally with his own motivations and fears relating to his role in the events he's caught up in. In reading the books, such emotion and feeling is completely absent from Draco's character so either the actor invented it himself or it was created by the director. By doing so, he's become something different (and much better) than the lifeless character in the books. It's too bad the other actors couldn't do the same with their characters but if they did then they'd be different from the books and the fans would complain.

The movies are nothing more than an entertaining visual display for people who are already fans of the books.

[Pilgrim]

I don't think it's as nearly as bad as the original review suggests. I DO think that it's much too long and drags badly. I could edit at least 15 minutes - perhaps 30 minutes - out of it and improve it significantly.

For example, too much of it is wide shots of people walking through fields and other areas - scenery shots that contribute nothing and just burn up viewing time. There are also considerably too many "mood" shots that could be trimmed or eliminated.

It's not terrible, but it's terribly slow.

[Kwesi]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I don't think it's as nearly as bad as the original review suggests. I DO think that it's much too long and drags badly. I could edit at least 15 minutes - perhaps 30 minutes - out of it and improve it significantly.

For example, too much of it is wide shots of people walking through fields and other areas - scenery shots that contribute nothing and just burn up viewing time. There are also considerably too many "mood" shots that could be trimmed or eliminated.

It's not terrible, but it's terribly slow.

Agreed on all points.

[colcifer]

Originally Posted by bassybill

I've got to disagree with that - I think that Emma Watson has taken the pretty much miniscule amount of acting potential that she apparently possessed in the early films on to its logical and very predictable conclusion. She's so wooden that if she was on TB she'd belong in Luthiers' Corner.

Heh. Haven't seen it myself but I've got to figure the acting's pretty damn bad.