Harry Potter?

I just came from seeing the movie and I was surprised at what they left out from the book. I also just finished rereading the book before I went. I enjoyed it, but my husband fell asleep! I can't wait for Saturday.
Ellen
 
I haven't seen it yet but it was all my 3 daughters have talked about this week. They loved it but talked a lot about what wasn't in it and how if you haven't read the book then much of it isn't in the proper context (but who could sit through a 5 hour movie if they wanted to get it all in). The biggest critisism was, as my 18 year old said, there took out a lot of the 'Harry Potterness':+ Who could imagine a Harry Potter movie with NO QUIDDICH!!! I'll see it this week...can't wait!

Take Care
Laurie
 
Well, I saw it on Saturday and while I enjoyed it as a movie, I felt that they changed SO MUCH from the book, and left so much out. It was a bit disappointing, really. And the whole movie felt very rushed. I feel like they could've done a better job if they had made the movie just half an hour longer. The first movie was 3 hours long, and no matter how many times I watch it, the time just flies by. I think they could've gone to 3 hours with this movie, and taken the time to expand on certain things - especially the Department of Mysteries scene. There was a lot left out of that scene - namely the "mysteries" of the Department of Mysteries: the revolving room with all the doors, the room with all of the clocks and timepieces, the room with the tank full of brains, etc. I feel like it was vastly oversimplified in the movie.

With that said, I think the acting was very good in this movie. All of the child actors have come a very long way since Sorcere's Stone. Imelda Staunton as Umbridge, and Helena Bonham-Carter as Bellatrix - they were both wonderful in their roles. I have never cared much for Michael Gambon as Dumbledore - and this movie did not change my opinion.

All in all, it was a good movie, but it deviates greatly from the book. If you're a Harry Potter purist, like I am, you may find this disappointing. But you'll probably still be entertained. :)
 
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm wondering if they're going to start filming the next one soon (or have already started), and the last one soon after that. All the 'young' actors aren't quite so young anymore, and if they let too much time go by, it might be hard to believe the actors are the age they are supposed to be.
 
>I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm wondering if they're
>going to start filming the next one soon (or have already
>started), and the last one soon after that. All the 'young'
>actors aren't quite so young anymore, and if they let too much
>time go by, it might be hard to believe the actors are the age
>they are supposed to be.

Well, in the last 2 movies, the characters will be 16 and 17 years old - I don't think it will be too far of a stretch for actors who are in their late teens or early 20's to play 16-year-olds. It's done all the time. Just my $0.02.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is in pre-production right now, with a tentative release of November 2008.
 
Emma Watson, who plays Hermione, just turned 17, and I don't think many of the others are far off that. I don't see that it will be a problem for them to play 17 year olds.
 
I too thought it was very good, but I kept trying to explain to my husband (during the movie) what all was left out and changed. The books are sooooooo much better. I'm reading through them for the first time this summer. I started book 6 today and even though this is a busy week and I probably will be in and out and leaving town on Thursday, I hope to have a lot of it read. I preordered book 7 but I'm afraid of accidentally finding out what happens to Harry before I have a chance to read it.
Angela:7
 
So would you say it's better to see the movie first then read the book? I have read all through 4 and started 5 but never finished it. I loved the first one, it was exactly how I pictured it from the book. Can't wait to see this one!
 
I saw it on Saturday and loved it but I agree it could have been longer and included more details from the book. I loved the casting of Luna Lovegood. Thought they'd show more on Tonks though and they didn't.

Sue
 
we went to see it yesterday and both the kids and i really enjoyed it. i have never actually read the books, and i feel like i am not a true fan until i do, lol. so i am starting this summer with the sorcerer's stone.
 
We saw the movie on Saturday. While we enjoyed it, DD was disappointed because of how different the book and movie were. I expected it to be different, but was surprised at some of the changes that were made. I really wish that they would have explained the part about Harry's aunt's role in keeping him safe and why he has to return home to his aunt and uncle's each summer.

I agree that the movie could have been longer without boring its audience in the least, and it would have allowed more time for us to see some of the other parts of the Dept. of Mysteries.

That said, the special effects were great and I felt that this movie did a better job at explaining what was going on for the non-reader of Harry Potter books than did some of the previous movies. DD's boyfriend did not need anything explained to him after we left the theater, although DD told him 100 times that the book was better and he should read more.
 
I'm with you I have never liked Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Richard Harris really played that part well. I was sad to hear he died of cancer. However, he was a great actor. I love his soft voice as dumbledore. Oh well... Book 7 only 23hr and counting....:7
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top