PoA Appreciation thread

POA is the black sheep in the HP series so far. It is perhaps the one movie so far that has divided the fans of both the book and movie series as you either really love how different it was from PS and COS, or you despise it as it chops out so much of the filler and is so drastically darker than it's previous brothers.
But POA I think should be given credit where credit is due, for without Cuaron and co taking the risks they did there would not have been enough renewed interest in the series to warrant the massive turnover for the sequel of GOF, a movie that has so far surpassed the takings of COS and is a sequel to actually do better than it's predecessor ( POA ). If POA had not given that 'spark' that brang the series to a whole new arena and gotten both old and new fans into the series that was so far going down the toilet, then GOF would have never been made because it would have deemed a too big a financial and public risk for WB to take. The reasons POA was beyond cool are -
- A darker, more forboding world that seemed not as friendly as we would like to think.
- Hogwarts actually was made to look as old as she was, and given an appearance that, while homely and welcoming to those who knew her inside and out, from the outside she looks menacing and could contain any amounts of secrets and forbidden truths about what went on behind those walls for other 1000 years.
- The students actually acted like kids for a change, not the perfect little cardboard cut outs that they were made to be in PS and COS. They actually had personality and spark that was sorely lacking in the first two.
- This was the first film where I felt Dan was Harry from the outset. His moods, body language and acting ability improved so much that it was with this movie that I think many felt ' hey, they actually were right when casting him as Harry.'
- Although the teachers were still there, I am glad the focus of the film was shifted from them to the students, as in the books they are truly the main focus point until later on in OOTP and HBP. Until then it is their story and they should be the ones telling it.
- This has been mentioned before, but again POA was the first HP film to actually make it seem that magic was an everyday occurance in the wizard world, not something wonderous and something that left you looking like a gulping goldfish everytime you saw it ( think Harry when he first sees inside the Burrow in COS ). A classic example of this is when Harry is in the Leaky Cauldron with the Weasleys. There is heaps going on in the background - tea pot floating around and pouring tea, a witch collecting plates that are nearly stacked to the ceiling, cups moving around in the background where the barkeep is while bottles of beer pour themselves, posters of sirius black moving - but it is never noticed by the main characters as it happens so naturally to them in this world.
- The SFX actually looked realistic and like they were apart of the world. From the exciting Quidditch match in the rain to the amazing Buckbeak and the bleakly cold and heartless dementors, the SFX added something to the proceedings, not distracting our attention away from it.
- Quidditch, although cut back drastically, was finally put on film the way I thought it was in my head - a fast and furious game that could land you in serious harm if you were not careful. My only regret is that it was not longer.
- The grounds became a key player, and not a flat, bleakless landscape that looked too perfect and safe for it's own good. In POA we had benacing hills, tall trees that blocked out view from what was ahead that could be dangerous, fog that shrouded all and lakes and rocks that looked like they had been there since time began. Like the SFX, the outside world matched the story and became a key player rather than a non player.

There is so much I can go on with this movie, as it is so far the fave in the HP series. It was different, daring and willing to take risks with the world and the narrativeand was all the more better for it in my opinion. When I go see a book to film movie I want to see a adaptation that will ADD to my experience and give me a different look/perspective, not something I can always read time and time again from the book. If I wanted the book I shall read the book.
POA will be like the Alien 3 in the series. It will divide fans and will always be viewed as either with love or extreme loathing, and in that effect POA has done it's job quite well in that it is a film that still caused heated debate and arguements with fans and non fans alike. But for me it was the first HP film to truly 'get' Harry Potter, his friends and the world in which they lived, and it is because of that I think it deserves more kudos than it has gotten so far.:clap:

I liked Prisoner of Askaban. However, as dark as Prisoner of Askaban is (stylistically), it still feels very childish and it does have its share of minor plot holes along with the other three. I was happy to finally see the series lose its childishness starting with Goblet of Fire.

Still the best overall movie, and the best adaptation. It told the story cinematically, it kept what was important to the plot, it retained the spirit of the books, and it's just stunning to look at. I doubt that HP movies will ever get better than this - unless Kloves and Cuaron are reunited for HBP or Film VII. PoA really is a special movie, and it'll always be one of my favourite films of all time.


POA will be like the Alien 3 in the series.

Maybe for fans, but not for the general public. The general audience thought PoA was a huge improvement over PS and CoS, which let a lot of people down after the hype. For a lot of the public, PoA will forever be known as "the first good Harry Potter film", and the one that really launched the series properly after a couple of false-starts.

By Alien 3 of the series, I suppose I was a bit bland in my opinion. WHat I meant also was that Alien 3 in the Alien series of films was, like POA in the HP series, the first one to truly shake things up and not afraid to try new things that might not have worked for some but for the most part made the film stand alone as a great piece of daring cinema.

I would have loved to have seen David Fincher direct OotP. :D

I would have loved to have seen David Fincher direct OotP.The idea of Fincher directing is kind of scary. Scary in a good way though!
POA is my favorite movie as well, even with the GoF release. I completely agree with the way there was a big difference in describing details compared to the first two movies. It was darker and not sanitized. I didn't care for some of the changes to the story but like all adaptations to film it's necessary.

PoA is the kind of movie I'll always love. I can truely be immersed in it without have anything massive bug me about it - a little slice of magic. It's not jsut a great HP movie, it's a great movie full stop, and in theory should have got oscars (in a world where the oscars were about the very best in film).

Still the best of the series and the first of the series to cut the mustard as a real film.

I believe PoA is the only Harry Potter movie (as of right now) that actually feels like a real film that embraces the material and gets it almost 100%. And no, getting it doesn't mean it has to include ever single detail and subplot.

Columbus' films were these bloated, uninspired staged readings. I enjoyed both of them because I liked seeing the events I was reading about being brought to life, but they were much more about selling the Harry Potter name than anything else, as if they were just part of the merchandising meant to fatten pockets.

Newell's film was probably the most enjoyable, and the book's material lent itself to this. It was pretty much a win-win situation due to all the action in the book that would please general audiences. But it was still lacking that "inspired" quality for me.

GOF was a win-win situation for a 'blockbuster' film as it has all the elements within the story to warrant it, with the triwizard tournament and the competition between the schools and so on. In that effect they got lucky with GOF to be one of the least character driven when compared to the later ones of OOTP and HBP that would rely on a heavil character driven plot and direction, ala POA. It will get trickier as the series goes on to incorporate many big bang SFX and show pieces like they did in GOF, as so far only that book and that movie truly warranted such spectacles. However, despite all this POA remains my fave in the HP series so far, followed close behind by GOF. I sold my original copies of PS and COS for a high price on Ebay a while back, so I got some worthwhile thing out of it despite my hatred for the two of them.

I loved PoA! It was such a relief to the first two movies and it was much better than GoF. Cuaron speaks english the worst of the 3 directors so far and he was the best one! The cinematography,the mood and atmosphere,the decent acting etc. It was such a wonderful book made into a good movie!

oh my gosh! i totally love PoA! i can watch it over and over and over and over and over again. though it wasn't very faithful with the book i think cuaron got the essence of the story. jk was even startled to see that cuaron left so many clues!

cuaron is the best! :tu: :tu:

Prior to seeing PoA, I had somehow convinced myself I would never 'get' HP.. Seeing it changed my mind and definitely made me want to know more..

The stunning and seemingly effortless naturalness with which the magical world is shown is really incredible, especially in comparison to its ham-handed portrayal in the first two films. There are so many subtle but wonderful details! Cuaron did a fine job of getting quite natural performances from all the young actors.

It's also just a pleasure to behold. The colors are beautifully pale and just, well, English, with lots of natural light. Some great camera work, even simple things like the handheld shot when the Dursleys are first arriving home give it an instant sense of immediacy which had been sorely lacking in the previous two.

The scene in the Leaky Cauldron where Arthur Weasley takes Harry aside is one of the most inspired in all of the movies so far. As a continuous, roughly two-minute long take, following Harry but keeping the background action in plain view, it really gave me the feeling of being a fly on the wall (in a surprisingly plausible alternate universe).

I think GoF did a better job with pacing and bringing the story together, but PoA remains my favorite for pure creativity and inspiration. I'd love to see Cuaron back for one of the final two. Huzzah!

Newell's film was probably the most enjoyable, and the book's material lent itself to this. It was pretty much a win-win situation due to all the action in the book that would please general audiences. But it was still lacking that "inspired" quality for me.

This was the one big reason why I didn't like GOF. It had great effects, acting, cinematography and all that jazz, but it was bland as hell.

I love POA precisely because it was a real film. Fair enough, they missed out the Marauders (which OMG!sacrilege:rolleyes:), but surely they can't play that much of an important part if JKR let them be cut out? Anyway, the whole sense of the film was original and edgy. It successfully got the darkness and the claustrophobia of a close-knit community across, and the last sequence with the Time Turner was a great piece of film. I can even forgive Cuaron for the shrunken heads, because I thought he did a brilliant job of turning the material into a dark and tense, but magical film.

I hate PoA they changed so much why didnt they keep the old hogwarts.

I love POA. Definetly the best in the series. Unlike Goblet Of Fire, POA never experienced any dramatic changes in style throughout the film and never had gaping plot holes. What was cut was cut and Cuaron never thought, well I didn't put this in so I'll put a hint of it in here and here. Cuaron kept to the plots he wanted and made sure that all of them were finished.

Cuaron made POA into what the films should have been all along. It doesn't matter if every event in the books makes it into the films, all that matters is that the essence of the story makes it into the screen. Cuaron nailed it and I am hoping he will be back for Half-Blood Prince. If not him, I want P.J. Hogan.

POA remains the best in the series.

PoA is the best! Its by far the best book in the series! And I agree with everyone who said that it was the first "real film." Ya'll took the words right out of my mouth!

I hate PoA they changed so much why didnt they keep the old hogwarts.

:rolleyes: Your reasoning is amazing. So what if they changed the location? That's not the most important thing to a movie, I didn't even notice it. It was heck of a lot better than say GoF that was as uninspiring as heck.

Goblet of Fire was pretty too. The waterfall was awesome. So was the owlery.

If moving Hogwarts bugs you, blame Columbus. If he hadn't concieved of Hogwarts as the most bland and uninspiring mysterious magical castle ever, then there would have been no reason for Cuaron to change it. But, given that he did do that, it's definiately a good thing that Cuaron changed it. Gah, that Hogwarts was dull.

Oh, sorry. This is the POA Appreciation thread, not the PSS/COS Bashing thread. Yeah, POA is great. One of my favorite movies. Every time I watch it, I see something I never noticed before, like Hermione's sad little wave to Harry when she and Ron head off for Hogsmead. Now it cracks me up every time I see it.

I also love the themes that appear in the movie. A lot of people have talked about the constant references to clocks, but how about the use of light and dark. The movie begins with Harry leaning to use the spell Lumos, and the credits end with him saying "Nox." Very neat little framing device, especially given that the movie is all about learning to see the truth.

I hate PoA they changed so much why didnt they keep the old hogwarts.

Because old Hogwarts was bland, generic, and Hollywood-ized.

I found POA to be a very good film. When I first saw it, I didn't have that much of a grasp on how filmmaking works and what exactly makes a film stupid or great, but now I know. It's tied with GOF as my favorite of the series. GOF is my favorite because of the unchildishness of it all, also the beginning of sexual tension and what have you. POA is also my favorite because of the stylistic take Alfonso took on it. Cuaron is the great filmmaker, but Newell is the best to get a great performance from everyone.

Oooh how I long to bash PSS/COS in this thread!! I agree with Solaris23 about all of her points, especially how magic is finally an everyday thing and they no longer oggle at everything magical. I mean, seriously, most of the times Dan and Rupert were actually acting in PSS/COS they were REacting. Also, I agree with Solaris23's comments about Dan, the castle and its grounds, and how the students finally have personalities.

POA is a magical film - easily the best in the HP series to date, and I can't see it being bettered. This film is even in my Top Ten of all movies.

Cuaron's direction has a seamless, sensual quality. He is truly an aesthetic auteur - I adore much of his other work too and still think his adaptation of Great Expectations is hugely underrated (kind of similar themes going on here, with the young male quest for his masculine identity/father figure).

I personally prefer the film of POA to the book (which I do like BTW, just not as much). I thought the film had a cleaner narrative line and a certain chill, enchanting atmosphere which was unique to the films so far. OK, there were a few confusions (the stag patronus etc) but nothing irredeemable as far as the overall effect was concerned.

As for GOF the film - as an adaptation of what is to be honest my least favourite novel in the series - yes, it was better worked out than PS/SS and COS, but the quality of the filmmaking itself, in comparison to Cuaron's artistry, was dull direction-by-numbers, IMO. I genuinely couldn't care less about watching it over and over as I now have done with POA. And in truth, POA had a harder 'sell' narratologically than GOF, as GOF is so incredibly action-packed in comparison - the narrative line to plot the action on screen is a no-brainer.

As for GOF the film - as an adaptation of what is to be honest my least favourite novel in the series - yes, it was better worked out than PS/SS and COS, but the quality of the filmmaking itself, in comparison to Cuaron's artistry, was dull direction-by-numbers, IMO. I genuinely couldn't care less about watching it over and over as I now have done with POA. And in truth, POA had a harder 'sell' narratologically than GOF, as GOF is so incredibly action-packed in comparison - the narrative line to plot the action on screen is a no-brainer.

I'm glad i'm not alone in my massive disappointment in GoF...and it's far worse for me, since it was my favourite book in the series and the movie just felt so completely un-inspired.

PoA may well be the film I've watched most ever. I love its minimalist focus on the story - creating alot more depth of character, I love its subtleties from the ghost knights jumping through the windows to the power of Harry looking wistful on the bridge and even just the scratch of his neck...so real, so beautiful.

I love the cinematography - it was incredible, I love that Daniel acting was by far the most convincing of the series so far (again with the character building), I loved the spot-on humour that was great for adults as well as the kids, I love the camera work, I love 'page 394' and I love that Quiddich finally looks like something thrilling and dangerous rather than a joke.

It's just inspired, and for me is directed on a level the same, if not above, Lord of the Rings. It's a gem of a movie that shames the series somewhat by its existence.

I pray that Yates is good, and that the last 3 movies (please Alfonso for one) are truely great FILMS rather than pretty good kids films.

It's just inspired, and for me is directed on a level the same, if not above, Lord of the Rings. It's a gem of a movie that shames the series somewhat by its existence.

I pray that Yates is good, and that the last 3 movies (please Alfonso for one) are truely great FILMS rather than pretty good kids films.

I'd agree with that. As an adaptation, it's right up there with the LotR movies, and it's really a beautiful piece of work. I too hope that Alfonso Cuaron comes back to the series eventually. Some of the noises coming out of the OotP production so far have been quite worrying, so if ever there was a time to reunite Alfonso with Steve Kloves, HBP would be it - they could end up saving the series, just as they did last time.

Some of the noises coming out of the OotP production so far have been quite worrying

Uh oh...such as? :shrug:

Uh oh...such as? :shrug:

The number of characters being cast, including the likes of Piers Polkiss and Mundungus Fletcher. They appear to be jamming as much of the narrative from the novel into the movie as possible.

It was my favorite film. It was nicely paced and artistically done, the characters were more comfortable in their roles and more believable (whoever said they were cardboard cutouts of perfect little schoolchildren in SS and CoS was right!), the castle and the grounds were just amazing, the soundtrack was much better (in my opinion ;)). Even though they had to bend the storyline a bit more than they did for the first two films, it worked out well in the end.

My only real complaint would be the talking heads. *laughs* Those were a little...random.

Why is there a thread about the inperticular movie? Isn't this the point of this sub-forum?

Anyway...

Prisoner of Azkaban the movie was my least favorite, but, since this is appreciation, these are the things I did like:

The actors were good

I liked the dementors even though I always pictured them to have hoods, not veils.

Hippogriffs were simply excellent.

I didn't like the clothes style, but I DID like their attitude that changed. The first two movies were alittle too "good" if you get what I am trying to say. We have the presence of comedy, sarcasm, and much more that was missing.

POA is my favorite of the movies, and of the books as well. Most of my reasoning has already been stated by everyone else, but I did like that the film was not simply a regurgitation of the book. I liked what they did differently. Everything fit together so well in the film. I was a bit disappointed that the whole Marauder thing was left out, but I completely see why it was. I can watch that movie over and over, and I can't do that with a whole lot of movies. My favorite characters are highlighted (Sirius and Lupin) so of course I love that. I loved the part when they're in the Shrieking Shack and they have that quibble with Snape...brilliant. Also, as other people have said, I think GOF was totally bland. I still enjoyed it, but I missed the quidditch in the beginning, and there was definately something missing, something that was present in POA. POA is the awesome, very beautiful, and very well done.

This is my favorite out of the films (I have yet to see GoF) I think it was 'almost' perfect. I love the darkness & fear in this one. Lovely!

Before I saw GOF, POA was definetly my favorite in the series. I loved the darker tone, acting improvements, and especially the quicker pacing. It's the type of movie I can watch over and over again and never get tired of it!:cool: The changes to the book never bothered me because the main story got across and that's whats important.

The best things about POA:

The little chats Lupin and Harry had while everyone else was off having fun at Hogsmeade. It really helped expand Harry as a character, and both Daniel and David acted perfectly throughout the film.

Sirius was another actor that they got spot-on. For the first 80% of the movie, you could Siriusly (pun intended) believe that he truly was the crazed lunatic everyone thought he was. Then, after the Shrieking Shack, he totally switches gears and becomes all fatherly towards Harry. That is a remarkable bit of acting on Gary Oldman's part.

The special effects were actually effective, not just "hey, look at me, I'm a special effect!" kind of thing they had in the first two movies *coughtrollandquidditchcough* The Quidditch game in POA was fast and furious, and it was everything the games were not in SS and COS. Buckbeak literally came alive on the screen, which immensely helped sell the idea that Harry and Hermione had to rescue him from a terrible fate. And the Dementors were also perfect. I had worried that they would merely be carbon copies of the Nazgûl from Lord of the Rings, but they took the traditional "evil shadowy black cloaked monster" cliché and put a new spin on it.

The pacing and scene transitions also blew me away. The idea of using the Whomping Willow to mark the changing seasons was an inspired idea, and also injected a bit of humor when all the birds kept getting smacked. No scene was very long, except for the Shrieking Shack (but who would want that to be any shorter?), and even though some scenes were repeated during the Time Turner sequence, they were shown from different angles to get a new spin on it.

Speaking of the Time Turner, I have to commend the editor for showing us the little hints of future Harry & Hermione affecting their past selves: throwing the rock into Hagrid's hut, Hermione stepping on a twig, Hermione's werewolf howl, and, of course, the final Patronus.

And finally, as has been mentioned before, the atmosphere of the movie felt more magical than the first two movies. Magic seemed like more of an everyday reality among the actors, something they take for granted. This is much better than the "oh wow!" factor in the first two.

The number of characters being cast, including the likes of Piers Polkiss and Mundungus Fletcher. They appear to be jamming as much of the narrative from the novel into the movie as possible.

Hmm...I'm slightly worried that I can't remember who Piers Polkiss is (then again memory is not a strong point for me) but then I believe that a director can iron out alot of a cluttered screenplay, and I've heard Yates is top class, so I've got my fingers crossed.

I just hope he really puts himself into it rather than the more paint by numbers job that Newell did...

Hmm...I'm slightly worried that I can't remember who Piers Polkiss is (then again memory is not a strong point for me) but then I believe that a director can iron out alot of a cluttered screenplay, and I've heard Yates is top class, so I've got my fingers crossed.Piers Polkiss - Dudley Dursley's best friend.

As for how the screenplay is going to be handled, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Of course if there is too much info in the movie and it becomes a jumble for the Non HP public, it may be too late to change it.
Keeping my fingers crossed about David Yates.

PoA had many good points, the humour was excellent and I'm glad that finally Harry Potter was being handled in a way that allowed the films to grow up like the books.

As for how the screenplay is going to be handled, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Of course if there is too much info in the movie and it becomes a jumble for the Non HP public, it may be too late to change it.
Keeping my fingers crossed about David Yates.

PoA had many good points, the humour was excellent and I'm glad that finally Harry Potter was being handled in a way that allowed the films to grow up like the books.

Exactly right. I hope Yates learns from PoA rather than GOF. What else has Yates done?

I'm a bit worried about the news for OOTP, but I'm confident it will turn out okay. After all, I was a bit worried about POA too, and look how that movie turned out!

I'm so glad this thread exists! I loved PoA, I think it's the best one yet, and still, such a huge part of the fandom hates it, it makes me rather sad.
It is a wonderful movie, entertaining, artistically good, great effects, they didn't chop off that much (I don't know why people keep saying that, for me the only big part that isn't there is the Maurauders' story), the performances are good...I really like it!

Exactly right. I hope Yates learns from PoA rather than GOF. What else has Yates done?

The Girl in the Café (2005) (TV)
Sex Traffic (2004) (TV)
The Young Visiters (2003) (TV)
"State of Play" (2003) TV Series (6 episodes series 1)
Rank (2002)
The Way We Live Now" (2001) (mini) TV Series
"The Sins" (2000) (mini) TV Series (3 episodes)

The Tichborne Claimant (1998)
Punch (1996)
"The Bill" (1984) TV Series (1994-1996)
Moving Pictures: J G Ballard (1990) (TV) (1994)
Good Looks (1992)
Oranges and Lemons (1991)
The Weavers Wife (1991) (TV)

# When I Was a Girl (1988)


That's what he has directing, according to imdb. I know that The Girl in the Cafe is meant to be a very good film. My dad taped it when it was on tv earlier this year, I should watch it.

Thanks Blizzard. I haven't seen any of those, I should check them out.

State of Play is a very highly rated BBC drama starring David Morrissey and Bill Nighy. I haven't seen it, but people literally talk about it as one of the best TV dramas of the last 20 years.

Oh, The Bill when it was actually good! I also watched Sex Traffic, it was a very grim but excellent mini-series on a disturbing subject.

Though Mike Newell brought some appropriately British aspects to Hogwarts in GoF, I found his vision a little bland (not Columbus bland, but especially after PoA). I hope Yates can stay true to this feeling but explore some other dynamic palettes and interpretations.

The Girl in the Café (2005) (TV)

Oh! I saw that (I think...was it the thing with Bill Nighy where he was in politics?) and it was gripping!

I found Newell really bland too. I'm sure I'll end up liking it more than I do at the moment (I didn't have a good reaction in the cinema) but let's fact it, it was far from great. the art direction made lots of it look really fake, the little touches of genius were gone, the amazing camerawork and photography in general, the lighting - all lacking.

Was I sold on Harry being the most frightened he'd ever been in the graveyard? Nope. Did I find it absolutely heart-breaking when he saw his parents? Nope. In fact when I think of it like that I just want to say 'rubbish'. The DVD will quell my disgust (I hope).

I've just watched PoA (yet again) and...wow, just wow. I don't even know if I could call it breathtaking, since it took me to a universe where breath was entirely unnecessary. So many little things that are amazing that I want to add to my list from before:

Firstly that intro with the little light getting getting brighter and the camera moving in: just incredible amounts of genius.

Next the whole Aunt Marge scene...ridiculous quality! I love how Radcliffe turns away from the table with a grin and the camera looks back on him as we listen to the conversation from his perspective almost...and then the face dropping when he hears what Marge says. Beautiful. And then seeing his power is brilliantly done, before that fantastic balletic scene where she blows up to the music rising in swirls. Finally that shot pulling back from the conservatory and Dudley just turns back to watching the TV whilst his parents are in the garden, dad wailing after his sister. A superlative I haven't already used I can't think of for the moment.

The photograph of his parents dancing as the leaves fall like snow. ... .

Harry walking into the last of the twilight - brilliant shot, followed by the further brilliance of the playground and sitting on the curb.

The train travelling through the rain then stopping and the lights flickering...CoS didn't approach that level of atmousphere at its supposedly most 'scary' moments.

Great little scene where the boys are trying out the sweets that make them sound like animals - it seems so natural. It's the first time that I've ever felt that these were real kids and not just simply wizard kids.

The whole scene with the map in the corridor and Peter Pettigrew was excellent. The atmousphere was incredible and the interaction with Snape first-class.

And there are so many other great bits too, from the adrenaline-filled flight of Buckbeak, the outstanding performance of so many actors from Radcliffe (who acted really really really well all throughout...his performance had so much subtlety in it that it was just a joy, especially that begining in the kitchen, the rock where he cries and the incandescently awesome bridge scene which may well be one of the single greatest scenes for me in moviedom. In a matter of seconds it trounced both of the first two films together in terms of acting, direction, emotional depth and empathy for the character. I finally felt the pain of Harry's past...nearest thing to it before was the mirror of Erised and that look out the window in PS as well), Rickman (Oldman and Rickman together especially is a supreme joy to watch 'is that a flicker of fear I see in your eyes, oh yes...'), all the way to Thewlis and Thompson (whose Trelawny matches Branagh for me in bringing a great character to life - in this case bettering the book).

And the final climax of the dementors at the lake STILL hasn't ceased to give me shivers down my spine when I see it.

I'm still gutted that I didn't see it for the first time in the cinema. Oh the pain...

;)

ps, if you think THAT was gushing over the film, I could quite easily create entire threads to describe what I think of thing like the Quidich match and the shot following headwig's flight as the seasons change, finding Harry in shadow and alone in the clock tower.

POA is indeed an odd sort in this series, as it is the only one thus far that has a distinct look and feel to it, so when people talk about HP as a series, when you mentioned POA, no matter whether they hated it or loved it, they know immediatly which film they are talking about. PS anc COS, and to a lesser extent GOF, look and feel like the same movie, so much so that when you try ( or in my case ) get people to talk about one particular film, they more often than not get scenes mixed up in PS and COS, simply because the two films are too similar to separate as individual films in their own right.

I've just watched PoA (yet again) and...wow, just wow. I don't even know if I could call it breathtaking, since it took me to a universe where breath was entirely unnecessary. So many little things that are amazing that I want to add to my list from before:

Firstly that intro with the little light getting getting brighter and the camera moving in: just incredible amounts of genius.

Next the whole Aunt Marge scene...ridiculous quality! I love how Radcliffe turns away from the table with a grin and the camera looks back on him as we listen to the conversation from his perspective almost...and then the face dropping when he hears what Marge says. Beautiful. And then seeing his power is brilliantly done, before that fantastic balletic scene where she blows up to the music rising in swirls. Finally that shot pulling back from the conservatory and Dudley just turns back to watching the TV whilst his parents are in the garden, dad wailing after his sister. A superlative I haven't already used I can't think of for the moment.

The photograph of his parents dancing as the leaves fall like snow. ... .

Harry walking into the last of the twilight - brilliant shot, followed by the further brilliance of the playground and sitting on the curb.

The train travelling through the rain then stopping and the lights flickering...CoS didn't approach that level of atmousphere at its supposedly most 'scary' moments.

Great little scene where the boys are trying out the sweets that make them sound like animals - it seems so natural. It's the first time that I've ever felt that these were real kids and not just simply wizard kids.

The whole scene with the map in the corridor and Peter Pettigrew was excellent. The atmousphere was incredible and the interaction with Snape first-class.

And there are so many other great bits too, from the adrenaline-filled flight of Buckbeak, the outstanding performance of so many actors from Radcliffe (who acted really really really well all throughout...his performance had so much subtlety in it that it was just a joy, especially that begining in the kitchen, the rock where he cries and incandescently awesome bridge scene which may well be one of the single greatest scenes for me in moviedom. In a matter of seconds it trounced both of the first two films together in terms of acting, direction, emotional depth and empathy for the character. I finally felt the pain of Harry's past...nearest thing to it before was the mirror of Erised and that look out the window in PS as well), Rickman (Oldman and Rickman together especially is a supreme joy to watch 'is that a flicker of fear I see in your eyes, oh yes...'), all the way to Thewlis and Thompson (whose Trelawny matches Branagh for me in bringing a great character to life - in this case bettering the book).

And the final climax of the dementors at the lake STILL hasn't ceased to give me shivers down my spine when I see it.

I'm still o gutted that I didn't see it for the first time in the cinema. Oh the pain...

;)

ps, if you think THAT was gushing over the film, I could quite easily create entire threads to describe what I think of thing like the Quidich match and the shot following headwig's flight as the seasons change, finding Harry in shadow and alone in the clock tower.

Extremely well said! I think all I can add to that is "ditto".
By the way- I find our choice of superlatives in general to be quite limited. Oftentimes, they can't quite capture the enthusiasm behind what we're trying to say (sad for us.....). But, what can you do ;-) - such is the communicative tool of language. (Sort of gives new meaning to "show, don't tell)

It's certainly distinctive! I've just finished a little Harry Potter movie week, watching all three films on DVD (I want another movie week when GoF comes out...might save PoA til last tho, I want GoF to have a chance!), and the first two films I find very likable, but PoA is the only film that has ever reached for greatness, and I think it managed to touch it.

GoF...I keep hearing fans say how they liked it because it combined the best of PoA and Columbus...ARE THEY INSANE??? That's why I dispised it, it kept some aesthetics of Cuaron and stuffed in a good amount of the visionless un-imagination of Cos and PS. That is not progress. Although to be fair there is a thread talking about how they wished Hermione's dress should be the same as it was in the book...I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

By the way- I find our choice of superlatives in general to be quite limited. Oftentimes, they can't quite capture the enthusiasm behind what we're trying to say (sad for us.....).

Interesting you should say that, because I have a real issue with superlatives and how they are used. It bugs the hell out of me when I here people use 'awesome' or 'legendry' for thins that are just slightly good...you're killing the language! 'Infinity' gets thrown around alot too, as does 'depressed', 'evil', 'furious'...we live in a world of hyperbole.

Supreme and hallowed are the only words that particularly spring to mind as still having some impact.

State of Play is a very highly rated BBC drama starring David Morrissey and Bill Nighy. I haven't seen it, but people literally talk about it as one of the best TV dramas of the last 20 years.

Oh good. We really do need a dramatic Harry Potter film.

In the GoF, if you hadn't read the books, you honestly wouldn't know what is going on. The transitioning was horrible and the action was too far overexaggerated, and just forgot about the important stuff.

I really like the fact that Alfonso Cuaron changed a lot of the settings, and made it a lot more like Hogwarts instead of a regular boarding school in England from Chris Colombus. I thought the area for Hagrid's hut was brilliant.

They portrayed Hogsmeade so well!

The shrunken heads might have gotten on my nerves, but it was pretty good anyways. It explained a lot, and you could understand what was going on in the story much more than in GoF.

The werewolf looked messed up, but that's okay. the dementors and the photography was still good.

I love that moment where the dementor is swooping down to suck Sirius's happiness for the first time. It is kind of like looking at it towards the dementor's version by charging down. One of the best parts in Harry Potter filming in my opinion.

"visionless un-imagination" is kind of a strong remark. Everything was already there; Cuaron just added a clock and told all the professionals to make it look and feel darker. A no-brainer decision that anyone (including Columbus) would have made by that point. Don't ge me wrong, PoA is still my favorite and I love Cuaron and he has been THE MOST imaginativie of the directors thus far, but it also takes a lot of imagination to create the world the way that Columbus did. He layed the foundation and did so appropriately. Anyone else would have made it too artsy and too dark too soon. Also the change to darkness was gradual--not sudden. Chamber of Secrets did exeperiment with darkness in many spots to help segue into the appropriate mood for Prisoner of Askaban.

Besides, the look and feel of the films all comes down to Stuart Craig who has worked on every one of the films, so really its his work and talent that makes the series the way it is from a superficial level.

"visionless un-imagination" is kind of a strong remark. Everything was already there; Cuaron just added a clock and told all the professionals to make it look and feel darker. A no-brainer decision that anyone (including Columbus) would have made by that point. Don't ge me wrong, PoA is still my favorite and I love Cuaron and he has been THE MOST imaginativie of the directors thus far, but it also takes a lot of imagination to create the world the way that Columbus did. He layed the foundation and did so appropriately. Anyone else would have made it too artsy and too dark too soon. Also the change to darkness was gradual--not sudden. Chamber of Secrets did exeperiment with darkness in many spots to help segue into the appropriate mood for Prisoner of Askaban.
But Columbus didn't create it. JK Rowling did. When he was in doubt he would run to Jo and she would basically tell him what something should look like. He had no unique interpretation. CoS was just as bland as PS, and I think the change between films was very sudden. It hurt the series as a whole, but considering... well, every aspect of PoA it was well worth making such a dramatic leap.

Besides, the look and feel of the films all comes down to Stuart Craig who has worked on every one of the films, so really its his work and talent that makes the series the way it is from a superficial level.
Not really, it is the director's vision. Craig brings the vision into a physical form, through concept art and models and eventually the finishing sets and miniatures. But the ideas are unmistakibly the directors. How else could you explain the dramatic shift in visuals between CoS and PS, especially if Craig remained?

But Columbus didn't create it. JK Rowling did. When he was in doubt he would run to Jo and she would basically tell him what something should look like. He had no unique interpretation. CoS was just as bland as PS, and I think the change between films was very sudden. It hurt the series as a whole, but considering... well, every aspect of PoA it was well worth making such a dramatic leap.


Not really, it is the director's vision. Craig brings the vision into a physical form, through concept art and models and eventually the finishing sets and miniatures. But the ideas are unmistakibly the directors. How else could you explain the dramatic shift in visuals between CoS and PS, especially if Craig remained?

Because even Columbus realised that the series needed to get progressivley darker and more mature. It's just a matter of saying "I want it darker" and Mr. Craig goes and does it for you. I do acknowledge that Cuaron is very creative and I'm just joking about the clock and stuff, but 50% of the "suddenly imaginitive" stuff in PoA would still have been there had Columbus directed it instead. Even Cuaron admits in the dvd interviews that it was all Craig and the visual effects guys' suggestions for a lot of the design and new location scouting that helped make the film stronger. Ofcourse the other 50% is all thanks to Alfonso. The dementors, the pacing, and the conceptual reasoning behind all the alterations.

Columbus only ran to Rowling for reassuranse that he wasn't going too far off. Alfonso also ran to Jo for things like that as well.

"visionless un-imagination" is kind of a strong remark.

It is, but I was thinking in comparison.

Everything was already there;

Except:

performances that no other director has managed to get out of the cast

incredible camera work and breath taking shots

a magical feel to every landscape

a seemless flow of narration and image

subtlety

credible real-world

realism in general

atmousphere

synergy of sound (including music) and events

symbolism that isn't cheap

fun that isn't saccarine

awesome imagination in detail.

Cuaron just added a clock and told all the professionals to make it look and feel darker.

I would view that in the same way as someone saying that Peter Jackson just took the original King Kong and added colour.

A no-brainer decision that anyone (including Columbus) would have made by that point.

a) you don't seem to appreciate how much influence a director has, and fail to notice that PoA looks like it was an entirely different kind of production in every detail other than the actors.

b) you give Comlumbus way too much credit. He's tried to do dark, he's tried to do suspense and he's tried to do ominous and not achieved in any of them. The shot of the great hall in darkness as seen through it's doors...only a second long and so simple and yet Columbus will never match the elegence of framing and intent of even that one simple thing. He's a lightweight. I've seen 2 of Cuaron's films so far (Y Tu Mama Tambien and PoA) and I'd put him down as an outstanding director. There's a world of difference.

but it also takes a lot of imagination to create the world the way that Columbus did.

JK Rowling created most of Columbus' world, it was a bog-standard regurgitation for the most part.

Chamber of Secrets did exeperiment with darkness in many spots to help segue into the appropriate mood for Prisoner of Askaban.

It didn't work for two reasons: 1) Columbus isn't very good at dark and 2) PoA is of such a different quality to CoS that by the end of the 5th minute I was wondering if there had been several movies in between that I had missed out on.

Oh and it's not the levels of darness people are criticising, it's the levels of quality. I appreciate you like the first two films, I do too, but from a filmic point of view the first two films are severely lacking compared to the third. On their own they look like generally good kids films, but add PoA and it's questionable if they can live up to the title of 'adequate'

The first two had atmosphere and all that other stuff too. It was just more child friendly because that was the approach that Columbus took. That's why they hired him; to make a kids film. And in all their childishness, they still have their dark moments. I don't disagree about the strength of a Director's abilities and how much influence they have on how a film turns out, but it's not all that simple. A lot of people these days believe blindly in auterism, not realising how much of a collaborative effort goes into creating ANY movie. Ofcourse the director told everyone that he wanted it darker, more gothic and medieval. And so they went and did that. Costume design, set design, art direction, visual effects, cinematography, scoring, sound editing and mixing, photography, lighting, location scouting. Those are all geniuses who'm without them, Cuaron would offer you nothing. And Your Mom Too was a great film, but had the artsy low budget feel, so it ca't be compared from a production standpoint (and has its own flaws, despite it's awesomeness). Look at his upcoming movies that he's done with other technical people--like The Children of Men and The History of Love--and THEN tell me if they amount to what you saw in PoA. Most likely not. They'll still be phenomenal I think, but not like that. Those people are the true creative force that drives movies and right now Hayman has some of the best. Producers have quite a lot of say in stuff like this too you know.

My point: Columbus has just as much imagination as Cuaron. It's simply their tastes that differ. Columbus has done stuff like Monkeybone, Bicentennial Man, Stepmom, and created The Goonies which is a classic. Cuaron has brought us Great Expectations, Y Tu Mama Tambien and A Little Princess and is also a genius. The films are not that far off from each other with only a colour palette being the most noticeable difference between CoS and PoA.

If you completely strip the razzle dazzle from all four of the films, the only one that stands out is Goblet of Fire which has undeniably made a GIGANTIC leap in maturity.

Ofcourse the director told everyone that he wanted it darker, more gothic and medieval.

And yet he has final say over everything (studio/producer withstanding). and the people working for him are following his vision.

Those are all geniuses who'm without them, Cuaron would offer you nothing. And Your Mom Too was a great film, but had the artsy low budget feel.

And yet was very good! Without the same amount of work from all those people you mentioned, it was still very good. A really good director (and writer too i suppose in orer to have something to shoot) can get something good out of himself, a camera and decent actors, but of course that is too much work on a huge movie. Yes these people contribute, but the director is quality control, and if you just look at the difference in quality between the first two at any point and any single scene in PoA, your idea of Columbus being able to make the same film (or one even close to it) flies straight out of the window.

Look at the upcoming movies that he's directing when they come out and are done in coolaboration with other "little people", like The Children of Men and The History of Love

Never underestimate 'little people' and what a good director can do with them.

And yet was very good! Without the same amount of work from all those people you mentioned, it was still very good. A really good director (and writer too i suppose in orer to have something to shoot) can get something good out of himself, a camera and decent actors, but of course that is too much work on a huge movie. Yes these people contribute, but the director is quality control, and if you just look at the difference in quality between the first two at any point and any single scene in PoA, your idea of Columbus being able to make the same film (or one even close to it) flies straight out of the window.

I'm not denying any of that. I'm saying that BOTH directors are imaginative in their own distinctive ways. Most people criticise Columbus's Potter films because they are adults and not children. I know so many kids who all love Chamber of Secrets the most. It's just a difference of opinion. Since when does our opinion as adults mean more than what children think? Our sense of what is "imaginative" is different from theirs. I love Alfonso but I just think its so silly and immature when people negatively criticise Chris SO harshly. They're all good movies.

They're all good movies.

That's where we disagree though. The first two were not bad kids movies (in the world of condescending kids movies) and average at best movies in general. The story carried them (or rather the raw material from JK's world), and the fans carried the box office takings.

That's where we disagree though. The first two were not bad kids movies (in the world of condescending kids movies) and average at best movies in general. The story carried them (or rather the raw material from JK's world), and the fans carried the box office takings.

I didn't find them condescedning in the least bit. I feel that none of the Potter films are patronising or condescending in the least bit. That's what got me into Potter and into reading the books. And I personally like each film feeling distinctly different.

Columbus only ran to Rowling for reassuranse that he wasn't going too far off. Alfonso also ran to Jo for things like that as well.
To which she basically said "I love it! Go away and make your film!" :p

That's where we disagree though. The first two were not bad kids movies (in the world of condescending kids movies) and average at best movies in general.

I'd go further - they're bad kids movies, and bad movies in general.

PoA is an astonishing kids movie, and a brilliant movie in general.

Oh good. We really do need a dramatic Harry Potter film.


Even better, if I remember right, State of Play is a gritty political thriller about propaganda and press censorship. Sounds familiar ...

To which she basically said "I love it! Go away and make your film!" :p

No, she said "I don't want little pixie people playing music on an organ. There are no pixie people, organs, or graveyards at Hogwarts".

Columbus has done stuff like Monkeybone, Bicentennial Man, Stepmom, and created The Goonies which is a classic.

The first three were horrible (much worse than PS or CoS) and the Goonies appeal is based largely on nostalgia. When I was growing up it was one of the top five movies amongst children, the others being Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Back to the Future & ET (Batman was a little later). Guess which one doesn't hold up today?

Most people criticise Columbus's Potter films because they are adults and not children. I know so many kids who all love Chamber of Secrets the most.

Children will see the films anyways just because it is called Harry Potter. What they like more isn't terribly important as they will still go to the next one. Adults won't. If they don't like the film, they will avoid seeing the next in the series. Simple as that.

No, she said "I don't want little pixie people playing music on an organ. There are no pixie people, organs, or graveyards at Hogwarts".
And yet, she loved the shrunken heads.

Also, the reason she didn't want a graveyard at Hogwarts was because of the White Tomb. Read the end of H-BP.
(On a side note, I would have loved to see the pixie playing the organ. It would have been a chance for another outstanding magical/musical moment in that film, not that it needed any more.)

I saw the first three Harry Potter movies before I read the books, which means that I understood about half of what was going on.

On one hand, I found PoA to be a confusing film in the sense that I didn't understand the significance of the Marauders until I read the books. I remember I felt like I was missing out on a major plot point.....and I was!

But, I do love the imagery of Time in the PoA movie. That is one of the reasons why I've watched it again and again. I love the theme of Time and what it means (another movie that does a great job with this theme is Cast Away starring Tom Hanks). Throughout the PoA movie there are great images of time - the change of the seasons, the chiming of the clocks as Harry watches the other students go to Hogsmeade, the moving planets to the science of time during the Patronus lessons....I could go on, especially with the theme of time travel. So I think the director did a great job emphasizing the theme of Time in the movie.

Another scene I like, that I think some found to be annoying, is Harry's ride on Buckbeak over the lake. It is not canon, but it is an inspiring scene. I still feel kind of jealous of Harry and the sense of freedom he expresses while flying over that lake, away from every care in the world.....if just for a moment. Flying has always meant freedom and confidence to Harry since he mounted a broom for the first time, and that is why I also like the ending with Harry and his Firebolt.

So once I read the books, I had a much greater appreciation for the film. I still think it missed out on some major plot points, but perhaps that will be fixed in the next film.

alas my siggy says it all.

Throughout the PoA movie there are great images of time - the change of the seasons, the chiming of the clocks as Harry watches the other students go to Hogsmeade, the moving planets to the science of time during the Patronus lessons....

Plus there was the cookoo clock at the Dursleys.

And another thing I noticed is that in almost every scene that takes place indoors, the ticking of the clocks in the background is more audible than usual for a film.

for me i didnt think that it was as wut i thought of it to be i thought that it just had all the main things i mean there wasnt really any outside sort of stuff. for me but i dont knoe about u

Another time image which is a little harder to spot is after Harry has heard Trelawney's prophecy about Pettigrew escaping. Harry walks down the spiral staircase, shot from above, making it look like a clock, with the tap-tap of Harry's footsteps like the ticking.

I love all the flying metaphors, too. Basically, every time Harry is happy or free, there is flying in the movie. It starts out with him pretty happy, with the Buckbeak scene across the lake. But as it goes on and things get darker, Harry is attacked by Dementors in the Quidditch match, and his broom is smashed - the Dementors now rule the sky, and Harry can't get airborn. He is being held back by them, and his depression. Only when he finally conjures a real Patronus, at the end, when he saves Sirius, can he fly again - as he does on Buckbeak, when he goes to free Sirius from the tower. To cap it all, Harry is rewarded for overcoming the Dementors and saving Sirius by being given a new broomstick, and flies off into the sunset at the end, happy again. Brilliant.

Then there's all the great light/dark imagery, which is too frequent to list.

I love all the flying metaphors, too. Basically, every time Harry is happy or free, there is flying in the movie. It starts out with him pretty happy, with the Buckbeak scene across the lake. But as it goes on and things get darker, Harry is attacked by Dementors in the Quidditch match, and his broom is smashed - the Dementors now rule the sky, and Harry can't get airborn. He is being held back by them, and his depression. Only when he finally conjures a real Patronus, at the end, when he saves Sirius, can he fly again - as he does on Buckbeak, when he goes to free Sirius from the tower. To cap it all, Harry is rewarded for overcoming the Dementors and saving Sirius by being given a new broomstick, and flies off into the sunset at the end, happy again. Brilliant.


Nice catches.

Another time image which is a little harder to spot is after Harry has heard Trelawney's prophecy about Pettigrew escaping. Harry walks down the spiral staircase, shot from above, making it look like a clock, with the tap-tap of Harry's footsteps like the ticking.

I love all the flying metaphors, too. Basically, every time Harry is happy or free, there is flying in the movie. It starts out with him pretty happy, with the Buckbeak scene across the lake. But as it goes on and things get darker, Harry is attacked by Dementors in the Quidditch match, and his broom is smashed - the Dementors now rule the sky, and Harry can't get airborn. He is being held back by them, and his depression. Only when he finally conjures a real Patronus, at the end, when he saves Sirius, can he fly again - as he does on Buckbeak, when he goes to free Sirius from the tower. To cap it all, Harry is rewarded for overcoming the Dementors and saving Sirius by being given a new broomstick, and flies off into the sunset at the end, happy again. Brilliant.

Then there's all the great light/dark imagery, which is too frequent to list.
Hey, I never really picked up on the flying thing! Nice!

Cuaron is a genius. End of story.

Another time image which is a little harder to spot is after Harry has heard Trelawney's prophecy about Pettigrew escaping. Harry walks down the spiral staircase, shot from above, making it look like a clock, with the tap-tap of Harry's footsteps like the ticking.

Was about the 15th time of seeing the movie that i thought about that one...he's just incredible. So many times after seeing that movie for the first time, I have had the same experience of being left speechless afterwards, just staring at the wandering feet on the map-like credits and just being awed in general.

I really think it's up there in quality film-making with the really big titles that get the academy recognition. It's just astounding that a real work of art can end up in the middle of the harry potter series. It would be several Christmas' all at once if he was to direct HBP...I think I might well die of squeeing in that situation.

I really think it's up there in quality film-making with the really big titles that get the academy recognition. It's just astounding that a real work of art can end up in the middle of the harry potter series. It would be several Christmas' all at once if he was to direct HBP...I think I might well die of squeeing in that situation.

I agree. Had the film not been called "Harry Potter", I think it actually would have been given Academy recognition with a nomination or two. Certainly, I think Alfonso Cuaron deserved a Best Director nomination - his work was really astonishing. To see that kind of creative, artistic work in a so-called "big Hollywood franchise" is really special, but every one of the books deserves that kind of treatment, not just one lucky one in the middle. It makes me wish we could go back and have Alfonso re-make the first two films.

I actually think Alfonso would have been great with both OotP and HBP, for different reasons. I think his visual flair would have played really well in OotP, his sense of how to put together a picture and move the camera. I'm sure he'd think up very inventive visual ways of emphasising Harry's isolation and disillusionment. For HBP, the Pensieve scenes are an opportunity for some creativity to keep the audience's interest, the teenage romance is right up his alley (though I expect Ron/Lavender to be cut, I'm sure he'd have fun with Harry's longing and jealousy over Ginny), and I shudder to think what he'd do with the cave and the funeral. I'm still hoping WB can convince him to come back.

I, too, think POA could have gotten more Oscar nods, but in my opinion 2004 was a very good year for the Oscars. I would have had a hard time choosing between the nominees that the Oscars chose and POA.

There is one thing the flying motif clears up for me. During the Quidditch sequence, I always get confused when we are shown the Grim in the clouds. Now, with the sky as a symbol of happiness for Harry, it makes sense--first we see clouds, then a visual symbol of death, then beings that devour happiness, then Harry loses the ability to fly.

I just gained a new appreciation for that scene...

I'm not sure about the 'spiral stairs = clock' metaphor, but yeah Cuaro has a very good sense of visual storytelling. I personally didn't like the warewolf in the clouds. That was overkill. And childish. But yeah, I loved that scene.

I actually think Alfonso would have been great with both OotP and HBP, for different reasons. I think his visual flair would have played really well in OotP, his sense of how to put together a picture and move the camera. I'm sure he'd think up very inventive visual ways of emphasising Harry's isolation and disillusionment.

I thought that too; he is incredibly good with 'atmousphere'...I feel his work resonate, i feel the visuals, and I certainly think that OOTP has that really dark and almost claustrophobic atmosphere that he would be able to play with and make great again.

It's why I didn't like GoF, I was immersed in PoA, whereas GoF was just a movie. Damn you PoA you've spoiled the rest for me! :)

It's why I didn't like GoF, I was immersed in PoA, whereas GoF was just a movie. Damn you PoA you've spoiled the rest for me! :)
Alas that was the problem with GoF because of the content itself. Each TriWizard Task was like a mini-movie on their own, having a beginning, middle and end. Thankfully the final task was more of a combination of Task three and the graveyard scene, but I'd say it'd be really hard to develop an atmosphere to project film wise, when what needed to be covered really disrupts the flow.

I think OoTP allows for more consistentcy since all the "events" that happens in OoTP are directly related to each other, not just adventures upon their own.

Oh I think that a much better through theme could have been created in GoF despite the content...I mean focusing on Harry and his reaction to the events rather than so much on the events themselves would have been a good start, however it would have taken a very good director (and a refocused screenplay?) to pull it off.

(For example...you know that picture that was released before the movie of Harry and Hermiona standing separated by a tent flap before the first task? That is what I wanted GoF to be more than just the big show that it turned out)

(For example...you know that picture that was released before the movie of Harry and Hermiona standing separated by a tent flap before the first task? That is what I wanted GoF to be more than just the big show that it turned out)

Err, that's what Goblet of Fire WAS. And in my opinion that's what ruined it. All of the setup and talking about how dangerous the tasks were and how to prepare for each of them I felt was completely unnecessary. Don't tell me how dangerous the tasks are, just SHOW me. The dialogue and character development was phenomenal, but it definately lacked the streamlined visual storytelling that Prisoner of Askaban had.

Err, that's what Goblet of Fire WAS.

It was nowhere near. An audience doesn't need to see something to feel it if it is done correctly. I wouldn't advocate not showing of course, but the action pieces were ultimately hollow effects romps and not real challenges.

It's like sword fighting in movies. You can have the best choreography in the world, and yet it's NEVER the actual sword fight that is the power of the scene, it is the pauses in between, the looks, the dialogue. These scenes should be character through action, not action with some character.

Look at Star Wars - highly choreographed and yet the great fights were made so by the little pauses, the journey with the characters rather than just looking at the characters. Same for Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, House of Flying Daggers, The Matrix, practically any spaghetti western - and any number of other movies.

GoF mostly failed at this. It had echos of it from the book, but on the whole the characterisation stopped, and a set piece began.

It's like sword fighting in movies. You can have the best choreography in the world, and yet it's NEVER the actual sword fight that is the power of the scene, it is the pauses in between, the looks, the dialogue. These scenes should be character through action, not action with some character.

That be true. Even though I love dragons in general, the dragon task was just a pretty one shot action sequence that doesn't really show much. I know it's pretty hard to make it how it was in the book, but I'd think if someone managed to pull it off that way, it would have been infinitely more compelling than a magical version of a car chase scene.

That's why I kinda feel that one scene when Cedric taps on his watch in the Second task made it a bit better in terms of content....not by much but still showed a smidgen of character outside of going through the motions.

It was nowhere near. An audience doesn't need to see something to feel it if it is done correctly. I wouldn't advocate not showing of course, but the action pieces were ultimately hollow effects romps and not real challenges.

It's like sword fighting in movies. You can have the best choreography in the world, and yet it's NEVER the actual sword fight that is the power of the scene, it is the pauses in between, the looks, the dialogue. These scenes should be character through action, not action with some character.

Look at Star Wars - highly choreographed and yet the great fights were made so by the little pauses, the journey with the characters rather than just looking at the characters. Same for Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, House of Flying Daggers, The Matrix, practically any spaghetti western - and any number of other movies.

GoF completely failed at this. It had echos of it from the book, but on the whole the characterisation stopped, and a set piece began.

I didn't get that impression at all. I thought the tasks were pretty well choreographed. And I sertainly wouldn't dare compare it to the likenesses of Star Wars, Crouching Tiger, and Matrix. The action sequences in those films may have LOOKED beautiful, but beyond their superficiality they felt completely detached from the narrative. I'm not quite sure what your expectations are exactly, but I thought Newell made a very wise choice in making everything--including ALL visual effects and magical spells--relevant to the story. Absolutely NOTHING was about the wow factor and he didn't dwell too long on any visual effects at all; from the flying horses to the red firecracker to the silly biting candy; it all still bared some form of metaphoric or literal relevance to the story. No floating feathers, no flying oregami, no self-cleaning frying pans, and no green witches being blown away. So I disagree. My only concern with Goblet of Fire was that the plot could have been condensed and streamlined a little more.

POA has indeed spoiled the series for me,as now I have a higher movie to which to judge all the rest following it. If POA had turned out like PS and COS ( shudders at the thought ) I would have lost complete interest in HP and indeed the series and fandom as a whole. POA actually gave back my hope that the series could be taken seriously as a new ' interpretation' of the events in the book, even be allowed to elaborate and explore plot points and characters that were sort of sidelined in the books. One of JK's key faults, and this is not truly knocking her, is that her primary character is indeed Harry, so all these great secondary characters she created in the first few books, like Percy Weasley, Marcus Flint and Oliver Wood and so on, were sort of sidelined and not truly fleshed out. Indeed, I was hoping the film versions of Percy, Marcus and Oliver would be more than 2D cut outs straight from the book, but alas, it was not to be in PS anc COS. I hold out hope for a 3D Percy in OOTP though, as his character does go through some startling changes in that book and indeed even HBP.
Regarding GOF - I too think they should have done what POA had done and steamlined the plot more, at least in the tasks departments and therefor shifted the focus to more of the different nationalities being in the school thanks to Fleur and Krum being there. I feel part of this should have been made relevent - foreign people interacting with others of another culture - to help promote tolerance and understanding to those through the HP world. It was a message I think missed the mark in COS with the whole mudblood issue and the issue of blood ties and race, which in another director's hands could have madea great thriller about ethics and code of conduct within our own world. COS I think was just a message of how to not make a movie when you have such delightful imagery and narrative to pick from, and in doing so been able to streamline an already complex plot into something that could be simple, easy, yet be a sumpuous feast for the mind and eyes - POA achieved that and more in spades.

Absolutely NOTHING was about the wow factor and he didn't dwell too long on any visual effects at all; from the flying horses to the red firecracker to the silly biting candy; it all still bared some form of metaphoric or literal relevance to the story. No floating feathers, no flying oregami, no self-cleaning frying pans, and no green witches being blown away. So I disagree. My only concern with Goblet of Fire was that the plot could have been condensed and streamlined a little more.

But the self cleaning pans and such aren't 'wow' they're detail. Harry doing a backflip is the wow kind of thing...or jumping about though fire...

I don't begrudge the action, but it was just THERE it didn't really have much greater purpose other than to tell you what is happening at any given time. You say metaphorical relevence, but I didn't see much of that at all...I saw a pretty straight telling of the plot.

You say the other movies are detached...but I really can't see how. Star Wars basically has a whole father / son relationship in between the fighting, and the birth of a real faith and hope in the great flight sequence at the end of ep4.

The Matrix introduces you to the rules of the world, shows Neo's growth and has amazing characterisation in the scene where neo fianlly stops runing from Smith. Action and characterisation at the same time.

Crouching Tiger...all of the action is based on the character of - erm - whoever Zhang Ziyi is playing, on her rebellion, growth, betrayal etc.

The action is there, but the stuff that takes place within is just as important.

In GoF I think more emphasis should have been placed on Harry's reluctance and the clash with his daring streak...and on him in general rather than what was happening to him. I didn't want to see him coming through the mist on his broom, I wanted to stay with him...and that's what the books do.

Obviously you can never translate Harry's thoughts onto the screen, but you can still focus on the character rather than what is happening to them (and again, it doesn't have to preclude seeing anything, just changing the focus).

The action did really seem to come out of nowhere in this one, but I blame it primarily on the editing, not so much the direction. I mean, it is thanks to this director ( and Alfonso before him ) that my fave fantasy, sci fi sport known as Quidditch was finally the fast paced, brutal sport on screen I always wanted it to be.

I just wanted to jump in and say that I really appriciate POA as a film. It did the best job of all four films of carrying the theme of the book over into a film-version.

Movies aren't supposed to be every detail of the book recreated on screen. They are supposed to be faithful adaptations translated into a different medium. Alfonso did that beautifully, he understood the theme of the book and he translated it, in scenes from the book, into an artistic expression on film.

POA will be one of those fantasy films where when the younger audience looks back on the series, will finally get what all the fuss was about for the older audience that got all the suble hints, feelings and charactisations that were put in there by Cuaron. Visually each thing represent time passing, a theme that is bought to a head with Hermoine using the time turner in the ending stage of the movie. So, in effect, the whole movie served as a gun shown before it was shot, the showing of time within the seasons, the castle and it's architecture used to covey time pieces and time hands, the way students were always in a rush to get from one class to another and so on and so on. That is what I love about this movie - it builds on the notion of it's central theme and expands on it while at the same time remaining loyal to the source material, but without sacrificing the artistic merits and advantages of actually showing something instead of telling it, as you would in the book.

I love reading all of these interpretations, opinions and little things I missed from the film. My appreciation of the film grows constantly as a result. I want to go watch it now!

Bump ;)

The POA movie was starting point of my Harry Potter obsession. Having only seen the first 2 movies and not reading the books, I was pleasantly suprised when I saw that the movie was darker, faster paced and the characters just seemed more alive. It made me want to know more about the Potter world. After seeing the movie in the theater, I went out and promptly read all 5 books. POA will always be special to me.

I loved POA. It was creatively presented, and I just loved the tone of the video. What on earth did they do with the camera to acieve such a beutudl effect? Daniel Radcliffe's hair almost looked black. I liked that, it made him look more harry potter like. I loved the use of clock imagery (that huge clock is my absolute favorite part of the movie!), and I also like the shrunken heads.

Plus there was the cookoo clock at the Dursleys.
I don't remember this but I'll keep a lookout for it the next time I watch the movie. :tu:
And another thing I noticed is that in almost every scene that takes place indoors, the ticking of the clocks in the background is more audible than usual for a film.
Yes! The director obviously embraced this theme of time with full enthusiasm. I haven't read any interviews with him, but I'm willing to bet that it resonated with him.

For me, the theme of time is not just important due to the time travel at the end of the story. There is also the connection between prophecies and time, where prophecies can be a possible outcome or a pre-determined result. The repetitive image of time sometimes gave me a feeling of a countdown - time is running out. Time by the planets in the movie - I'm reminded of the Centaurs who view time on a much bigger scale, where humans are not the center of the universe. The placement of the Patronus lessons within a room of time is so interesting. Harry relies on past memories to conjure a Patronus - the past fighting the present? Harry is trying so hard to find a way to control what is going on around him, yet the moving planets seems to be a reminder of all that is beyond his control.
Another time image which is a little harder to spot is after Harry has heard Trelawney's prophecy about Pettigrew escaping. Harry walks down the spiral staircase, shot from above, making it look like a clock, with the tap-tap of Harry's footsteps like the ticking.
I will definitely look for this when I watch the movie again. :tu: :tu: I think this is a real possibility of a way to communicate the idea that time is running out. A downward spiral suggests (to me) a diminishment of time remaining and eventually you run out of stairs, out of time. Thanks for posting this!
Only when he finally conjures a real Patronus, at the end, when he saves Sirius, can he fly again - as he does on Buckbeak, when he goes to free Sirius from the tower. To cap it all, Harry is rewarded for overcoming the Dementors and saving Sirius by being given a new broomstick, and flies off into the sunset at the end, happy again. Brilliant.
I think you make some really great observations about the meaning of flying to Harry. Flying has always meant something special to Harry, in the movies and in the books, and I think that PoA brought it to a new level.

*adds thread to subscribed threads list*

I loved the third book (especially since it really set off my interest in the whole HP world) and was very worried when I heard about all that was going to be done to the movie version. However, once I finally saw it I must admit that I fell in love with POA. Even after seeing GOF, POA remains my favorite film in the series so far.

POA is definitely my favorite Potter film so far.
When I first saw it at the theater, I remember feeling a bit disappointed that some things were left out (the explanation of the marauders for example...) I saw it 3 times in the theater, but it wasn't until I got the DVD that I could fully appreciated the film. I can honestly watch POA over and over and never get bored with it. At one time it was being played almost every day on the HBO channels, and I would watch it every time I saw that it was on. I even Tivoed it so I could play it anytime I wanted without having to put the DVD in. lol

Even getting and watching the GOF DVD gave me a new appreciation for POA. After watching GOF, I realized how much more enjoyable POA is. Now...don't me wrong, I like GOF, PS and COS, but I feel they are vastly inferior to POA.

I love the flow, the colors, the look, the acting, the camera angles, the little details and the overall feeling of POA. It feels and looks more magical then any of the other Potter films. Dan looked most like my vision of Harry in this movie, and Emma's acting was better then the first 2 films, and not as over acted as in GOF. Rupert is the strongest actor of the 3 IMO....The look of Hogwarts and the grounds were a lot closer to my vision of them. (real, not a fake green screen background and fake looking trees.) The secondary characters blended in with the trio much better in POA. Everyone felt comfortable and Hogwarts felt lived in and familiar.

Now, as much as I love POA, there are a few things I still cringe at (the close up of Harry's face at the end, some silly dialog here and there) but I can live with it. There is one thing I would really love to see...an added 1 to 2 minutes of dialog between Harry and Lupin, during the scene where Lupin is packing up and leaving, explaining about the map, and the marauders; just that small added dialog would make the film practically perfect in my eyes....

I really hope Cuaron comes back to direct HBP or book 7. I really wanted him back for OOTP (POA and OOTP are my favorite of the HP books) I think he would have been great for OOTP, but since that's not going to happen, I'll cross my fingers and hope he comes back for 6 or 7.

Now, as much as I love POA, there are a few things I still cringe at (the close up of Harry's face at the end, some silly dialog here and there) but I can live with it.
That was my problem with it too... well that and the result of Lupin's transformation.

That was my problem with it too... well that and the result of Lupin's transformation.

I liked the actual transformation (the acting and the CGI of him transforming), but the look of him as the werewolf was........ well, not how I pictured it to be. Again, I got use to it and now I don't mind it as much anymore.

POA is on right now on one of the cinemax stations.

I always liked the werewolf in this film. It's so unique - like no other interpretation of a werewolf in any other film or book that I've seen. And the best part is the elements of humanity that stay in the creature, twisted and ugly to represent the horror of such a transformation. I love it!

I've noticed that non-readers always pay more respect to the first two films, and not the third. Why is that?

Disney Channel played COS the other night, and they sometimes play SS/PS. I wonder if they'll ever play POA? They should, it's better than COS and PS/SS combined! But they'll never play GOF cuz it's PG-13.

POA is far superior to the other three films in the series. Not only is the film beautifully shot, Cuaron knows how to direct children. Yesterday I watched Newell's GOF and I was disappointed by Radcliffe's and Watson's acting. In POA they seemed so natural. They were Harry and Hermione. In GOF, there acting is not as believable. I believe that Radcliffe and Watson are good actors, but they need the right director to bring out the full emotions of the HP books. Newell and Columbus couldn't do it (though Newell did it much better than Columbus). Alfonso Cuaron understands children. POA was the only HP movie where I truly felt the emotions that make the series so wonderful. Newell's GOF, which is my favorite book in the series, lacked emotion. I hope Cuaron returns to direct another HP film.

Does anyone know what JKRowling's favorite movie was? I'd be willing to bet it was POA.

POA for me is second in my list. GOF is first.

I do like it, and from the point of view that it depicts the school life well and stuff. But it jumps about a bit too much for me. Which is why i like GOF more.

I also really liked the nice little touches. Like the Whomping willow and the bird.

I think Cuaron did an excellent job on PoA. It flows much nicer than SS or CoS. You really get the passage of time through the school year that GoF missed.

I've noticed that non-readers always pay more respect to the first two films, and not the third. Why is that?

Disney Channel played COS the other night, and they sometimes play SS/PS. I wonder if they'll ever play POA? They should, it's better than COS and PS/SS combined! But they'll never play GOF cuz it's PG-13.

Really? I find the opposite actually. My father, who is a none reader seems to enjoy POA and GOF the most out of the 4. While I did have to explain some things in more detail to him, he thought they were better films and more enjoyable.

I know a few people who were never interested in reading the Harry Potter books and the first two movies never never did anything for them, but seeing POA peaked their interest and they finally decided to read the books. Now they are big HP fans, thanks to the POA movie. I've heard this happening to people a lot actually...

As for why POA is never played on The Disney Channel.....I have no idea, but I'm guessing they will one day. Have they even shown POA on prime time yet? Like on ABC? I bet once POA is shown on ABC then the Disney Channel will start playing it. POA is played all the time on the movie channels like HBO, Cinemax etc...There was a time when POA was being played ever day on the movies channels, sometime more then once a day. Now it seems like it plays maybe 2-3 times a month.

So, why don't we get this thread going again. For those of us who appreciate the POA film, what are some of your favorite scenes / moments and why?

I'll answer later....

When I watched the movie for the first time in theatres, I was thrilled during the time turner sequence. That was the first time it happened for me during a Harry Potter movie and I realized that they finally got it right. It was more magical. Actually, it was better at pretty much everything.

When I watched the movie for the first time in theatres, I was thrilled during the time turner sequence. That was the first time it happened for me during a Harry Potter movie and I realized that they finally got it right. It was more magical. Actually, it was better at pretty much everything.

I agree.
From the shrieking shack scene onward to the time turner sequence until Sirius flies off on Buckbeak is definitely my favorite parts of POA, and any Harry Potter movie for that mater. For me, it feels more "Harry Potter" then anything else from any of the movies. I was so worried how that sequence would play out on the screen, but it ended up better then I expected. There are little parts I could pick apart, like wishing the shack scene was a bit longer, but it did what it had to, and I am happy with it.

Some other favorites....

The care of magical creatures class / Buckbeaks flight
I love the feel of the whole class scene. The relaxed feeling of the students, the tension between Malfoy and Harry. Buckbeak looked amazing, and although it can be a bit on the cheesy side at times, I really do love Harry flying on Buckbeak. It wasn't too long, it was beautifully shot, and I loved the shots of the Hogwarts and the scenery. I also loved the music. It's definitely one of my favorite class scenes along with......

DADA Boggart Lesson
David Thewlis as Lupin is nothing liked I pictured him (look wise) when reading the books, but that does NOT mater to me because David Thewlis completely captured the feeling and spirit of Lupin for me and it was this classroom scene that did it. I loved how he acted with the kids (especially Neville) I love the relaxed, fun environment Lupin brought to the class lesson. The background music, Snape in a dress, the spider on roller skates, Malfoy and his "ridiculous" joke......I really love this scene.

One more little moment I really like is when Harry sneaks to Hogsmeade and goes through Honeydukes. I don't know why, but I love seeing Honeydukes and I like when Harry takes the sucker from Neville.....I don't know why, I just always liked this and thought it was cute.

There are so many other things I love about the film, too many to name.....

Some people were saying hhere how after Trelawney's prophecy when Harry is walking down the spiral staircase, his footsteps match the ticking of a clock. I watched that part again recently and I noticed that that's not the case. They're just random steps. But I agree that the clocks and symbols of time are still creatively sprinkled all the way throughout the movie, beginning with the cookoo clock at the Dursleys.

One thing I love about POA is how one of the central themes, time, is seemlessly intrigated into the movie and made a major point of the plot, yet at the same time does not take away the viewers focus of the main trio and the central theme, aka Harry uncovering the truth about his past. GOF made an error I think in making the Triwizard Tournament the main focus point, when in fact it's true purpose was to show us how many different nationalities there were around the world and the other magical schools, and also to bring to the front the idea that people were starting to get nervous about the rumors growing stronger that Voldemort was starting to grow stronger.
The total focus on the action packed Triwizard tasks took away, instead of adding to, the main themes and thus Harry's personal growth and journey, while in POA Cuaron made the essense of time and how though time passes there are many secrets left behind, is made so it complements the core plot point, rather than taking away from it.

The whole lake scene with Harry summoning the corporeal patronus is one of those moments that's actually WAY better in the movie than it is in the book (something you don't get the full effect of until you actually see it). I still consider it to be my favorite scene in all of the movies just because you get to see Harry "being awesome" without any help or luck.

I was also very impressed with David Thewlis. The only other time I had seen him was in Dragonheart, playing the very, very, very evil prince/king, and so when I saw him I immediately distrusted him (I hadn't read any of the books at that point, so I didn't know who his character was), but by the end of the movie I was extremely sad to see him go.

Time to resurrect a, somewhat old thread...

A few nights ago I was having a hard time falling asleep, so I decided to pop in my DVD and watch POA. I never expected to make it through the entire movie, because even though I was having a hard time falling asleep I was still tired (This will make sense to people who have sleeping problems...) Anyway, I just expected to end up falling asleep to the movie, but instead I was sucked in. This, for me, is NOT a good movie to watch if I want to fall asleep. I truly love the POA movie, and if it's even possibly I love it more now then I use to, and I honestly think it's because I can now compare it to GOF.

I just started re-reading the books and I am currently on GOF. I was kind of shocked to see, even though different, POA still followed the book pretty well. When you compare the GOF book to the film it is really very cut up, rearranged and changed. I agree that the films should not be a cookie cuter version of the book, but they should be an addition of the book, and they them self are just another way of telling the story. I feel POA did this very well, but in GOF there was something missing.....Maybe the heart of the story....?

After watching GOF I normally feel disappointed. I can enjoy it but it never feels satisfying, and I actually find myself bored when watching it, unlike POA..... I find it odd that there are people who despise POA but are able to enjoy GOF. Some of these people can even say GOF is their favorite Potter film, but absolutely hate the changes in POA....Even though both movies used the same background and set design and both stories were changed to adapt to film.

I have yet to see another Alfonso Cuarón directed film, so I am not a Cuarón worshiper (like some people tend to think POA fans are...) but I am definitely interested in seeing his other work. I think he did a wonderful job with POA. The look, the feel, the flow....There are a few things I would change if I could, but they don't stop me from enjoying the movie. POA is one of those films that I can watch over and over and not get sick or bored. I think the acting was very good and more consistent then in the other HP films, and I think the trio acted and looked more like the book trio then in the other films. Dan looked most like Harry in POA in my opinion.

So, my point of this post.....
I'm not here trying to bash GOF (even though it may seam like it...) but I'm posting this because the one thing the GOF film does for me is make me appreciate POA that much more. From the big things to the small, I love POA!!

This, for me, is NOT a good movie to watch if I want to fall asleep. I truly love the POA movie, and if it's even possibly I love it more now then I use to, and I honestly think it's because I can now compare it to GOF.

I agree that the films should not be a cookie cuter version of the book, but they should be an addition of the book, and they them self are just another way of telling the story. I feel POA did this very well, but in GOF there was something missing.....Maybe the heart of the story....?


After watching GOF I normally feel disappointed. I can enjoy it but it never feels satisfying, and I actually find myself bored when watching it, unlike POA..... I find it odd that there are people who despise POA but are able to enjoy GOF. Some of these people can even say GOF is their favorite Potter film, but absolutely hate the changes in POA....Even though both movies used the same background and set design and both stories were changed to adapt to film.

I have yet to see another Alfonso Cuarón directed film, so I am not a Cuarón worshiper (like some people tend to think POA fans are...) but I am definitely interested in seeing his other work. I think he did a wonderful job with POA. The look, the feel, the flow....There are a few things I would change if I could, but they don't stop me from enjoying the movie. POA is one of those films that I can watch over and over and not get sick or bored. I think the acting was very good and more consistent then in the other HP films, and I think the trio acted and looked more like the book trio then in the other films. Dan looked most like Harry in POA in my opinion.

So, my point of this post.....
I'm not here trying to bash GOF (even though it may seam like it...) but I'm posting this because the one thing the GOF film does for me is make me appreciate POA that much more. From the big things to the small, I love POA!!

Can you read minds? Cuz in the depths of my mind that is what I think.

From the big things to the small.

Big!

The flow.
The Time-Turner Sequence
Trelawney (while not being bug-eyed, or her classroom not looking like how it's described, Trelawney was still hilarious and the classroom good.
The trio's acting. While most people don't think Daniel Radcliffe was actually good until GoF, they need to re-watch PoA. And just so they know, Dan's crying scene was dubbed in at the last minute. It's not the poor guy's fault.
The new look of Hogwarts and its grounds.
The Dementors
Sirius Black and Pettigrew. Lupin could have been better though.
Aunt Marge blowing up!


Small

The Bluebird sequences.
Using the Whomping Willow for season transitions.
Dan's facial expressions in the bridge-with-Lupin scene.
The way Dan looks at Stan Shunpike when he pokes him in the chest.
"Oh! Oh, yeah, I've been beaten loads of times. Mm.." You can't deny that that line was perfectly executed.

POA is definatly one of those films you do not want to watch while trying to get some shut eye, as it is a film that has a lot going for it and is the only HP film that actually does not spoon feed the audience a lot of the plot and makes them in a way work for the story. It is also the first HP film I think that truly utilised the advantages of movies over the film in that instead of having vast amounts of dialogue used to explain something, Cuaron used the visual media in order to get the point across.
- Time and it's passing was depicted by the Womping Willow changing with the seasons, as well as the landscape around the castle also changing as time went on.
- Used Quidditch just enough to get the main plot point across, and did not add it in and at an insane amound of screen time just to get the HC HP book fans on his side.
- Used visual cues that reminded the audience of time and it's passing such as the clock tower always in view in the outdoor scenes, the chiming of the bell signalling classes starting or beginning and staircases that looked like the spirals and cogs of a clock with footsteps echoing like the ticking hands of one.

Well, the whole reason I got into the the book series was because of this movie. I had watched the first two after they'd been on dvd because I was very bored and those were very childish and i wasnt very interested. But But because PoA took that next step into darkness and maturity for the characters, it really made for a good movie. But after watching it, I knew there were huge story lines missing and I hadn't even touched the book series.
For example, the backstory of the Maruader's map. I didnt get exactly where it came from and I also didnt understand why Harry thought he saw his dad and the only thing i saw was the patronus in the form of a stag. So I read PoA to see what was missing. Those were just a few things that i felt were lacking from that movie in particular. I read GoF to get the whole story before that came out and as far as the movie goes, I didnt think it was that bad. My only problem with the movie was the lack of Sirius given what happens in the next movie. People that are only fans of the movies arent going to see that coming at all after only being introduced to Sirius Black two movies ago and the little fire scene in the GoF just isnt enough.
But all in all, I am pretty partial to the PoA movie.

MarvoloG,
Heir of :slyth:

I heard a quote by a famous director lately, which I'll paraphrase here, it seems to apply,

most people, in a movie say to the audience "two plus two equals four" but I prefer to say, "here's two, and here's two," and then let the audience do the rest.

As a recent PoA convert (thanks, Neptune!) I think this makes a lot of sense- PoA makes us think. Harry's line on the Knight Bus "Yeah, him I've heard of." lets us recall Harry's past instead of having the screen show us a flashback, or have a deep voice say, "as Harry thought about his past encounters with Voldemort..."

I love movies that do this!

I heard a quote by a famous director lately, which I'll paraphrase here, it seems to apply,

most people, in a movie say to the audience "two plus two equals four" but I prefer to say, "here's two, and here's two," and then let the audience do the rest.

As a recent PoA convert (thanks, Neptune!) I think this makes a lot of sense- PoA makes us think. Harry's line on the Knight Bus "Yeah, him I've heard of." lets us recall Harry's past instead of having the screen show us a flashback, or have a deep voice say, "as Harry thought about his past encounters with Voldemort..."

I love movies that do this!

Perhaps, but for those who haven't read the books, no one could understand what the hell was going on. The "Won't the muggles see us?" line wasn't very understandable either. But I suppose by this time people should have seen the whole series if they want ot understand what's going on. Still, Goblet did away with a lot of that nonsense and just got to the point of having mostly everyone refer to Voldemort as "LORD VOLDEMORT", simply because the average viewer needs to know what the heck is going on. The fact that he's so powerful that people fear his name is very cool IN THE BOOKS, but unless you've read them or seen the previous movies, it's better to just know who you know who is. In fact, they should have made Mad Eye Moody say Voldemort too during the curses lesson.

I love PoA because you finally see evidence of the "powderkeg" that led up to that fateful Halloween night as well as the backrounds of three of the most important people in James and Lily's life.

All of my friends seem to hate PoA, they say it is the least acurate and too much important stuff was left out. I think that it is one of the most acurate so far, the movie didn't spend too much time on things that were of no importance, Lupin was wonderful, the dementor were cool, what's not to like about it?

I think the problem is that POA was a very rapid and very different beast than PS and COS was, and that people were just not expecting it to be so radically different from the first two as, a general rule really, that a movie sequel should be exactly like the movies that came before it for continuality sake.
POA shook that notion by basically taking the HP series from scratch and rebuilding the whole world and the characters, and in doing so ignored what had come before it. It took liberties with the plot but at the same time stuck to source material faithfully without being bogged down by it like PS and COS were. It is also the first HP film that actually is about Harry Potter the main character and not all the others that are around him, nor the classes or the fun stuff that, while great in the books, is just really 'filler' on the big screen and not really great unless it is adapted the right way. By getting rid of the characters that took away the attention from our hero - the teachers, the weasleys, wood and flint - we are able to actually focus on Harry, Ron and Hermoine in POA and for the first time actually get to truly know these guys and their motives, and in doing so make us care what happens to them in the story.

Just wanted to show some appreciation for PoA - I love, Love, LOVE this film. Stylistically, none of the other films come close to this one. I love the way this one was filmed; I like the darkness of it; and the scene transitions are pure artistry. When I first saw it, I wasn't happy with the adaptation, but came around upon multiple viewings. I just really like this one as a movie and now can make allowances for the adaptation (unlike GoF, but that opinion belongs in another thread).

It's got my favorite Ron/Hermione scenes, too - the near holding of hands as Harry approaches Buckbeak; and Hermione asking Ron, "Do you want to get closer?" while they're looking at the Shrieking Shack. Priceless!

Finally, you get Gary Oldman! How awesome is that?!?!?!

What i really loved about POA was Harry's short hair :D By far his best hairdo.

What i really loved about POA was Harry's short hair By far his best hairdo.

I agree. It's the only one where they follow the book on his appearance, with untidy jet-black hair. At least it's untidy. :)

I agree that the films should not be a cookie cuter version of the book, but they should be an addition of the book, and they them self are just another way of telling the story. I feel POA did this very well, but in GOF there was something missing.....Maybe the heart of the story....?


I agree. The thing that the PoA had that the rest of the movies didn't was the passion into making it. I use a lot of Lord of the Rings to compare movies to, but Pete Jackson had a passion for the story, and a vision. That's what made the Lord of the Rings such an enjoyable movie to watch. PoA is probably the only one of the four movies so far that has had it. Alfonso had a vision of what he wanted in the movie, and made it came true.

After watching GOF I normally feel disappointed. I can enjoy it but it never feels satisfying, and I actually find myself bored when watching it, unlike POA..... I find it odd that there are people who despise POA but are able to enjoy GOF. Some of these people can even say GOF is their favorite Potter film, but absolutely hate the changes in POA....Even though both movies used the same background and set design and both stories were changed to adapt to film.

I understand that feeling. The only part I particularly enjoy watching in the GoF is the climax, but other than that, I don't really enjoy watching the GoF. It has excessive amount of action that is not necessary, and in a non-reader's point of view, it is pretty close to having no story line.

I have yet to see another Alfonso Cuarón directed film, so I am not a Cuarón worshiper (like some people tend to think POA fans are...) but I am definitely interested in seeing his other work. I think he did a wonderful job with POA. The look, the feel, the flow....There are a few things I would change if I could, but they don't stop me from enjoying the movie. POA is one of those films that I can watch over and over and not get sick or bored. I think the acting was very good and more consistent then in the other HP films, and I think the trio acted and looked more like the book trio then in the other films. Dan looked most like Harry in POA in my opinion.

The acting was definitely pretty good in the film, but I cannot deny that the part where Harry is crying is not bad acting. Alfonso definitely did bring out the characters as they were in the book. The GoF was completely different to this. They changed the trio to be something they weren't, but I cannot deny again that the GoF acting was good as well.

You could feel the story, unlike in other ones, and you could feel the passion and the look and everything. It was so good, and I still don't understand why many do not like it. If you think about it, the GoF did change so much more in the movie than the PoA.

Well in all retrospect, Goblet of Fire is primarily more succesful because it's the only movie where:

a)you know what the actual plot is straight from the VERY FIRST SCENE and...
b) Stuff actually HAPPENS. Emmediately.

With the other three films, we're not introduced to the plot--i.e. the point of watching the movie--until the first half hour has gone by. 30 minutes or so go by before we discover the Philosopher's Stone in the bank with Hagrid, or that Sirius has escaped to kill Harry from Mr. Weasley, or that the Chamber of Secrets has been opened during detention with Lockhart.

I thought that PoA was the best film so far in the series. It left off from CoS and picked the series back up with a much decidedly dark tone. There were somethings about the movie I didn't like, Sirius in the fireplace, but over all, it is my favorites. It didn't have the child-like ambience that the first two films had.

You can have a film that can be dark, adult and yet still play to a wide open market that can include kids. Pirates Of The Carribean is a prime example and LOTR, although a well worn one, shows that with a deft hand and KNOWING what to cut and what serves the screenplay best is what makes a good film a better one, no matter what the source of inspiration. POA achieved it by having a steamlined plot with relatively easy to follow points from A to B to C in order to get to the ending, and characters that, for me at least, the first time I actually cared about what happened to. And this is from one who is a massive fan of the books !! I hated Harry in PS and COS and could not care less what happened to him, yet in the books I was worried sick!

I love that movie it rules!!!!

I agree that the films should not be a cookie cuter version of the book, but they should be an addition of the book, and they them self are just another way of telling the story. I feel POA did this very well, but in GOF there was something missing.....Maybe the heart of the story....?

After watching GOF I normally feel disappointed. I can enjoy it but it never feels satisfying, and I actually find myself bored when watching it, unlike POA..... I find it odd that there are people who despise POA but are able to enjoy GOF. Some of these people can even say GOF is their favorite Potter film, but absolutely hate the changes in POA....Even though both movies used the same background and set design and both stories were changed to adapt to film.

I think he [Alfonso Cuaron] did a wonderful job with POA. The look, the feel, the flow....There are a few things I would change if I could, but they don't stop me from enjoying the movie. POA is one of those films that I can watch over and over and not get sick or bored. I think the acting was very good and more consistent then in the other HP films, and I think the trio acted and looked more like the book trio then in the other films. Dan looked most like Harry in POA in my opinion.

So, my point of this post.....
I'm not here trying to bash GOF (even though it may seam like it...) but I'm posting this because the one thing the GOF film does for me is make me appreciate POA that much more. From the big things to the small, I love POA!!

I could not agree with you more on everything you said here.
The way I see it: the first two movies follow what happens in the book almost excatly the same, PoA follows the book too, but puts more heart and ethnics into it, and GoF, IMO, does follow the book, but it falls short;I see GoF as the special affects movie, because that is what they focused on more throughout the whole film.

Everytime I see PoA, I discover new things that I hadn't noticed before. Its the only HP movie that I can see over and over again without getting bored or falling asleep. Its my favorite HP movie, and in my opinion, the best of all. I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping that OotP will be better than PoA, 'cause that would just make me sooo happy!:D

I can't believe I've only justed spotted this - there is another nod to Macbeth: the sleepwalking scene.

D'oh!

I can't believe I've only justed spotted this - there is another nod to Macbeth: the sleepwalking scene.

D'oh!

Which sleepwalking scene?

When Harry meets Snape with the Marauder's map, while looking for Peter Pettigrew as a rat in the Hogwarts hallway, he says, "I was sleepwalking." Snape of course, is full of disbelief. O focurse, I assume this is what you're talking about.

After watching GOF I normally feel disappointed. I can enjoy it but it never feels satisfying, and I actually find myself bored when watching it, unlike POA..... I find it odd that there are people who despise POA but are able to enjoy GOF. Some of these people can even say GOF is their favorite Potter film, but absolutely hate the changes in POA....Even though both movies used the same background and set design and both stories were changed to adapt to film.
What I find equally bizarre about PoA haters is that how could a board filled with so many people who theorize all sorts of theories, twist and use logic and sublte hints to formulate a clear well thought out theory, and yet cannot apply that same thought process with PoA?

The whole fact that stuff was cut out, was instead alluded, referenced and even subtley introduced in other ways and formats. I dunno, it just seems incredibly weird to me, like having a chemist being able to precisely heat a chemical to the precise moments and such....but that very same chemist unable to boil an egg.

I just can't believe that fans of books could see clearly some theories that are way out there, and imagine they can fit into the series. And yet they can't formulate how things interconnect in the film without someone holding their hand and telling them how they relate.

I just find it equally weird that I have yet to encounter a PS or CoS fan with the same breadth of cinematic knowledge and cinematic tastes that PoA fans seem to have. It's like the only thing that appeals to them is accuracy and that's it. It seems entirely impossible for most of the haters of PoA and conversly the lovers of PS and CoS to be 100% devoid of cinematic tastes; yet the trend seems to be pointing that way. I mean there should be at least handful of PS or CoS fans who can actually describe the filmmaking details of what made those two films good. Even those people in the chapter a day thread could find bits of gold within those two sub-par films.

I don't know, it just seems weird to me that's all. Nothing's 100% in this world, but it's beginning to show that I might be wrong.

I think you will find that those who hate POA are those that were very much in their comfort zone with PS and COS and that ANY changes to the format would have been jarring and upset the balance they had with their versions of how a HP film should be. Someone earlier pointed out that there are many HP fans that think that in order for a HP themed film to be perfect in their eyes as an adaptation, it must be filmed word for word, scene by scene and frame by frame - basically a doumentary style film in a blockbuster vien.
Now this may have worked well with PS, as it was the introductory film to the HP world and it's charactersa and so on. The problem for me personally with this though is the way they went about this - they had all this information on the table and it did follow word for scene from book to screen, but for all intent and purposes it had no 'life' or 'pizazz' in it to make it interesting to watch. The facts were there but unless you make it interesting for those who do not know every little detail or even want to know, you have to make it so that the audience DOES TAKE NOTE of what is put in front of them. In that sense PS and COS were faithful adaptations and did put everything that was in the book that would please book fans and give those new to this world all the ground work that needed to be covered, but again there was nothing done to make it INTERESTING ENOUGH to actually warrant EVERYTHING THAT WAS PUT IN.
Take Quidditch for example ( tired and tried example I know for this ) in PS and COS. It was a great concept that would have worked great on screen, but because it was so dragged out and not VISUALLY TOLD or made exciting and appealing many, even those so called hardcore fans, were puzzled as to what all the fuss this game was to the wizard community. It just appeared as if they stuck the sport in there just to please the fans and not truly make it NOTE WORTHY or WORTHWHILE to spend the amount of money they did on the sequence.

I think you will find that those who hate POA are those that were very much in their comfort zone with PS and COS and that ANY changes to the format would have been jarring and upset the balance they had with their versions of how a HP film should be. Someone earlier pointed out that there are many HP fans that think that in order for a HP themed film to be perfect in their eyes as an adaptation, it must be filmed word for word, scene by scene and frame by frame - basically a doumentary style film in a blockbuster vien.
Now this may have worked well with PS, as it was the introductory film to the HP world and it's charactersa and so on. The problem for me personally with this though is the way they went about this - they had all this information on the table and it did follow word for scene from book to screen, but for all intent and purposes it had no 'life' or 'pizazz' in it to make it interesting to watch. The facts were there but unless you make it interesting for those who do not know every little detail or even want to know, you have to make it so that the audience DOES TAKE NOTE of what is put in front of them. In that sense PS and COS were faithful adaptations and did put everything that was in the book that would please book fans and give those new to this world all the ground work that needed to be covered, but again there was nothing done to make it INTERESTING ENOUGH to actually warrant EVERYTHING THAT WAS PUT IN.
Take Quidditch for example ( tired and tried example I know for this ) in PS and COS. It was a great concept that would have worked great on screen, but because it was so dragged out and not VISUALLY TOLD or made exciting and appealing many, even those so called hardcore fans, were puzzled as to what all the fuss this game was to the wizard community. It just appeared as if they stuck the sport in there just to please the fans and not truly make it NOTE WORTHY or WORTHWHILE to spend the amount of money they did on the sequence.

I fully agree. Quidditch should have been handled so much more carefully. If the filmakers insisted on keeping the sole thrust of the scene in PS intact, i.e that Snape/Quirrell are helping/hindering Harry, they should have centered on that, with the Quidditch in the background. this was done in POA, with a nice fast cut to an already-going Quidditch match, show some quick action, then follow Harry and the dementors (does anyone else like the nice sweeping shot past the teachers stand where Dumbledore is peering over the edge of the stand following Harry barrel roll past?), end the scene after quickly getting several points across, Harry is weak to Dementors, Dementors are attracted to Harry, the Grim has appeared again, Dumbledore saves him. All that was conveyed in a scene much shorter than in COS or PS, and was much more exciting and interesting as a result, not to mention the moody storm going on contributed, as the players were clearly having to fight to play. Columbus thought the match should have been the focus, whereas, Cuaron knew that, like any competent director, the story takes priority. All the Quidditch in PS conveyed at most one plot point, not to mention the CGI and design of the arena was dreadful. It's all so bright and cheery, and the pitch is just in the middle of a huge field. It had none of the artistry or relevance of POAs Quidditch.

I really love this movie. It is certainly as good as or better than GOF. Goblet may be more exciting and special effectsy, but this film is so well portrayed. The beautiful sets and the unique look of the film really brought something new to the blockbuster industry, and the grown-up approach was very refreshing. The one thing I didn't like was the dog being in th cloud during the quidditch match, it didn't really fit in with the story. But other than that, this film was amazing and very well-paced. Whereas GoF either feels slightly rushed, or dragged on. I just hope that OotP will be as good as this, although I hope it, once again, has a new and different style. That's the best thing about having so many different directors.

I can't emphasize enough how good this film is. I love it so much that I don't even consider it to be part of the series. There is a certain amount of leeway that people give to adaptions, especially to series adaptions. Whether it be Star Trek, or Serenity or even adaptions of superheroes, often people give a bit of leeway and let down their movie standards to accomodate the possibly less than cinematic film. But with PoA, it's just so good. In fact it's possibly one of the best films I've seen in the past decade not only because it's a great adaption, and because I'm a HP fan, but because it's just fun. It has a great atmosphere in itself.

It's a tight film, everything has a point, everything just bleeds atmosphere. The film is just dynamic and it's constantly moving. There's hardly any wasted parts and even the down time is made impeccable. The pacing is amazing and yet for a 2+ movie, it feels like it's only 90 minutes.

But what I love the most is how the film never ever panders to the audience. It just tosses people in and let's them swim. I love how Cuaron is able to subtly put in small little elements here and there without overtaking the scene yet it makes an impact. Evenmoreso he's a master between making something blend into a scene without being a focal point, and yet being a focal point at the same time. Namely the integration of magic within the movie. He never takes the audience aside, sacrafice pace and flow in order to audition magic in front of us for approval. He slips it in, unnnoticingly, but significantly.

For example the Leaky Cauldron when Harry first arrives. I just love this scene, it's amazing since the focal point is still Harry being lead and informed by Tom as he shows him up the stairs and to his room. But this part is put into the background, not so much that it's lost in the jumble, but it just uses the space appropriately.

In the same scene we get to see some magic happen, a wizard casually reading a book and stirring a cup of tea magically. The title of the book clear, but not in your face or obstructing your view. You see a busboy/waiter putting up the chairs but once again it's never just shown for the audience. As the dialogue between Harry and Tom continues in the background, you never lose track of Harry and Tom. No one shows Harry stopping to look around and see the busboy stack the chairs or stop to see the wizard stirring his tea. It's just so well composed, the balance is just right and nothing is lost.

In comparison to GoF, when they arrive at the QWC, yes you see a wizard on stilts just fooling around. But the problem is it's just muddied into the crowd. I guess it's nice to see it, it adds to the very pedestrian cinematography (almost like a documentary) feeling that Newall seemed to embody, but it's a mess.

Another wonderful scene is the Magical Creatures class. In which you actually see Malfoy talk to his cronies when you see the reaction shots of Ron and Hermione..and the class. But it's just more than that, once again Cauron manages to balance between muddying Malfoy into the background or making him too much of a focal point. It's just perfect how Malfoy continues on, which actually makes the class feel alive, like the world exists. Compared to Columbus' attempt to put in Malfoy, such as when we see a blonde indistinct student strut off the train in PS1 when the train arrives as Hogsmeade, it just gets entirely lost.

The dialogue is amazing, but what's more amazing is how Cauron was able to make the dialogue sound so natural between the trio. It never sounds forced, it never sounds like they are reciting lines or waiting for a cue. You actually feel you're in the Harry Potter world, and what's more you don't feel like you're just seeing a part in the book occur before your eyes, you actually feely that something alive is happening in the film. It doesn't feel like a fanfilm, it feels as if Harry Potter exists and someone just slapped a camera there to catch the moments.

And in defense of Dumbledore, I think it encompasses Dumbledore maginficiently. Many people felt he was too much of a hippy or too happy or just too uncharacteristically cheerful but I love it. Sure it might sound different, I tend to listen to the audio books by Jim Dale; but I love his wit his insight. Fans said that he was butchered in the film but I beg to differ. The whole point of Dumbledore in PoA was to allow the children to their devices, to not directly interfere to what they had to do and yet manipulate those who would try to disrupt the peace of his schoool into looking like fools, but more importantly doing the right thing.

I mean they did something that the previous Potter films seem to ignore, they actually involved Dumbledore into the lives the trio. They gave him a role to play in how they interact. I mean look at what he said after Sirius managed to get into the castle, what he said about Harry and whether they should have informed him about Sirius' attempts. Instead he tells him to leave them be and let them sleep and dream. Sounds quite like Dumbledore's intent to keep Harry happy as a child from OoTP doesn't it?

And finally (for this post) the time turner sequence. I just found it great how they made something that invovled a lot of waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting waiting and more waiting into something so dynamic so alive. The involvement of Dumbledore just goes to show even more how invovled Dumbldore is with the Trio and their adventures. How it even gives him the proper respect of showing that he's more intelligent and in tune to what's occuring around him than the wizarding world gives him.

I actually don't like the scene with Dumbledore in the hospital wing. It's really dumb. As are all of DD's scenes before Goblet of Fire. I love Dumbledore all throughout Goblet. The only scenes I like from the other movies is Richard Harris in the Tom Riddle diary/memory scene and Gambon when Harry and Hermione return from rescuing Sirius and Buckbeak.

POA was my favorite movie. The graphics were phenomenal, and I liked how Draco actually had more than a PARAGRAPH of acting. He's my favorite actor :) And plus, the movie gives hints to the final book. And I think I picked up on them. The Buckbeack scene and the music gets me everytime, it's absolutely amazing.

I, too, love how organic and natural the use of magic is made in the beginning stages of POA at the pub and later on at the school. Everything that happens in those beginning scenes - the cleaning lady with the broom following her, the man reading while stiring his coffee with the spoon magically, the bus boy with a flip of his hand casually making the chairs fly up onto the table, the woman later on gathering dishes from the tables in the pub that are now staked as high as the cieling - ALL this feels so natural, yet still so HP themed that we are immediatly able to suspend our disbelief and believe we are in a world of magic from the get go.
The dialogue is natural and the script tightly put together, with nothing truly going to waste and the scenes in there because they helped move the plot along, NOT because there was a need to 'fan service' the book fans by just having it in. Cuaron may have sacrificed some of the nature of what made the book version of POA great to read such as the Marauder plotline and perhaps to a lesser extent the Quidditch Cup Final where Harry's House finally won, but in doing so the FILM POA is better for it. It is the first truly well adapted book-to-film HP transition, much better even than GOF and perhaps even OOTP.
I also like how, unlike PS and COS, that the school actually looks not so kiddy friendly or safe all the time. Sure, the school does not truly come into play until HBP in the final scenes, but at least with POA there is the constant sense that something menacing is waiting around the walls and rooms of this place and that you had to keep your guard up at all times. And the school actually LOOKED OLD AND 1000 years old instead of the sanitised, coloured in look of PS and COS that to me was to me was too jarring and distracted your attention AWAY from the castle instead of inviting you in.

I, too, love how organic and natural the use of magic is made in the beginning stages of POA at the pub and later on at the school. Everything that happens in those beginning scenes - the cleaning lady with the broom following her, the man reading while stiring his coffee with the spoon magically, the bus boy with a flip of his hand casually making the chairs fly up onto the table, the woman later on gathering dishes from the tables in the pub that are now staked as high as the cieling - ALL this feels so natural, yet still so HP themed that we are immediatly able to suspend our disbelief and believe we are in a world of magic from the get go.

:agree: The presentation of magic as an actual integral part of the Hogwarts-world put the film head and shoulders above the rest, which kind of shows magic as just a nice extra to being able to go to Wizard School.

I'm so happy there are so many people here who love the film as much as I do :) It's even on my favourite films ever. I could watch it all day, just staring at the colours, the extra attention to detail.

Something that annoys me a lot is when people complain about the change in location of Hagrid's hut. Does it really matter where his hut is? Doesn't it look better than in COS & PS? It's a film, and what you see has to grab you, and look good both in terms of attractiveness and making sense. I see absolutely no problem in the changing of the location.

I just cannot stop raving on and on about how great a film POA is, both as a HP film but also as a stand alone fantasy based film. Which , of coarse, is why I started the POA Appreciation Thread myself ;). It just amazes me how such a unique film can have such polar reactions from even the most Hardcore HP fans that is akin I think to the fans of the Alien films with the third installment Alien 3 - you either love the total 180 change to the series or you absolutely hate it. There appears to be no middle ground to be found when POA and Cuarson are concerned here, and that to me is the markings of a good film in that it has no right or wrong answer and that it is open to many interpretations from the viewer.

I also like how, unlike PS and COS, that the school actually looks not so kiddy friendly or safe all the time. Sure, the school does not truly come into play until HBP in the final scenes, but at least with POA there is the constant sense that something menacing is waiting around the walls and rooms of this place and that you had to keep your guard up at all times. And the school actually LOOKED OLD AND 1000 years old instead of the sanitised, coloured in look of PS and COS that to me was to me was too jarring and distracted your attention AWAY from the castle instead of inviting you in.

I didn't get that from POA AT ALL. I got it from COS, but not POA. We never even see the Grim/Sirius Black lurking about the grounds as he was in the book. At least we got the dementors. All we get is silly ghosts and silly kid friendly paintings. *shrug*

I agree that POA should have played on the fear of Black stalking the castle and Harry a lot more than it should, but I disagree in that COS was actually more creepy and forebodding that POA. COS annoys me in this sense. It is one of the better books where a true thriller and sense of claustraphobia would have warranted a great HP film that could persue a more adult audience while at the same time bring in the readers and younger teenager and young professional audience to boost ticket sales. Instead what we got with COS was a just barely three hour sleeping pill that took forever to find that elusive 'spot' that hit the story on the head and helped it reach it's climax and be able to come of in a satisfactory way.
POA was also the first HP film IMO that actually used what was described in the books but also was able to use the themes and ideas that the author created, YET was able to make it look completely different and give us something new for even those who know and breathe these books and the characters and places contained within them. POA was the first true organic and live HP film.

I don't disagree wih the organicness but I still found the castle too be claustrophobic and creepy in COS. You never knew what Harry was going to find the next time he'd turn around the next corner when following the voice. Also, the lighting and shadow casting in COS is excellent; as well as the slithering camera movement in sertain spots. I will be pointing a lot of this out in the HP Movie "Chapter-a-Day" DVD Discussion (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=91286), you should drop by some time; we're starting COS this week, I think. POA also had spectaculare art direction but I didn't feel the castle was a spooky place at all, except for the beginning when they're riding up to it in the carriages and the crow is pecking at the sign in the heavy rain. Hogwarts was "pretty" and zen in POA. But not forboding IMO.

Eh? Since when is the castle meant to be scary? It's his home; it's warm, he loves it!

I can't emphasize enough how good this film is. I love it so much that I don't even consider it to be part of the series. There is a certain amount of leeway that people give to adaptions, especially to series adaptions. Whether it be Star Trek, or Serenity or even adaptions of superheroes, often people give a bit of leeway and let down their movie standards to accomodate the possibly less than cinematic film. But with PoA, it's just so good. In fact it's possibly one of the best films I've seen in the past decade not only because it's a great adaption, and because I'm a HP fan, but because it's just fun. It has a great atmosphere in itself.

Basically, I agree with everything that DarwinMayflower said, but instead of reposting it all, well, just scroll up a bit, and THERE IT IS!!!

I reposted this bit because I especially agree with it. I think people have got to remember that some people who go to the Harry Potter films (as hard as it may be to believe) are not rabid Harry Potter fans, who are not willing to say, "well this is an adaptation, therefore it's okay if it's not good as a film." Film is a different medium than books. It is entirely possible to create a good film out of a good book without copying the book *cough* Chris Columbus *cough*. Here is the best example I can think of.

Now here, I can bring up what people have said before: the brilliant use of time throughout the film, the subtle use of magic as if it IS apart of the world, not something that's got to be showcased to us, the tight cutting and sewing of the book plot so that it makes sense, the use of abstract themes, THE TIME TURNER SEQUENCE, tried and true ideas turned original (i.e. werewolf). Oh darn look what I just did....

Sorry I couldn't help myself. :D

Poa has definately been closest to what I pictured from the books.Your absolutely right that Gof left things out.I've always hated that about books turned into movies they usually ruin it and its never as good as the books.But they did very well on Poa.

I didn't get that from POA AT ALL. I got it from COS, but not POA. We never even see the Grim/Sirius Black lurking about the grounds as he was in the book. At least we got the dementors. All we get is silly ghosts and silly kid friendly paintings. *shrug*

I suppose I liked that about PoA. We saw the students being very comfortable in their atmosphere, lax in uniforms, etc. All this added to the fact that Hogwarts was a very homey type place. The silly ghosts and kid friendly paintings, which are normal for Hogwarts, all emphasized the fact that Hogwarts was being attacked from the outside. Everything's fine in, but the dementors come from out to in, Sirius Black comes from out to in.

In CoS, all the danger was on the inside, so it was right to have the castle itself be creepier. Hogwarts was being attacked from the inside.

POA was my favorite book. I must have read it 6-7 times. It was thrilling and exciting and such a turn of events. I have to say that I did not enjoy the movie all that much. Perhaps it was because I loved the book so much.

I thought the movie left out so much of the book and added things that were not in the book. The time could have been used better, IMO.

I loved PoA up until the Shrieking Shack scene. (!About halfway through the movie!). Then it just fell apart. I disagree with Cuaron that time was the main theme of the book, I think it was more about trust and finding out about the past. The time-turner scene (a quarter of the movie) should have been scrapped or seriously shortened. All the tension about Black is gone.

I loved PoA up until the Shrieking Shack scene. (!About halfway through the movie!). Then it just fell apart. I disagree with Cuaron that time was the main theme of the book, I think it was more about trust and finding out about the past. The time-turner scene (a quarter of the movie) should have been scrapped or seriously shortened. All the tension about Black is gone.

Time itself wasn't the main theme of the movie, but it was an important part of it. The theme of the movie is:
Wanting to change the past in hope of a better future.

I too believe PoA was a great movie. The style is had was the most potterish in my opinion and I loved the way they showed the passing of time with the whomping willow.

Time itself wasn't the main theme of the movie, but it was an important part of it. The theme of the movie is:
Trying to change the past in hope of a better future.
But you what movie had "time" as a theme?

SNAKES ON A PLANE!

I'm telling you, time is tissue man....TIME IS TISSUE!

Hahaha... ahhhh.... Time IS tissue!

my only true problem with POA is the casting of Sirius Black. Now I love Gary Oldman and think he is one of the better british actors alive today, even better than Alan Rickman, who although I respect, is the type of actor who cannot truly expand himself into different roles as his method is rather the same through everything I have seen him in. He is brilliant at what he does, but IMO he is not in the same league as Oldman. WHich makes me puzzled really as to WHY I have such a problem with him as Black IN POA - is it because he is not how I pictured the character in my mind, as I always thought Daniel Day Lewis or Johnny Depp would have been perfect in the role and are actors who can do wonders with any part, however small. Or is it because, although I admire and love POA as a film, I wish that they could have expanded the Sirius role more than what Cuaron and Co did.

My favorite movie is POA. I think this is where the movie starts getting darker. I think it starts with the dementors. We, the audience, get the taste of evil in the wizarding world. We start to see the friendship between Ron, Hermione, and Harry is getting tighter. I noticed that wizards don't use their wand to do magic. Hermione stands up for herself. I can see that Ron and Hermione are meant for each other. How Hermione loves both Harry and Ron very much. She will do anything to help them and protect them. I love the movie.

POA for me was such a different and wonderful film that it's my favorite. It was adapted differently, the actors' performances were almost completely on point with the books, the mood was what I expected (seeing as the book in itself was darker) and basically, everything matched. Obviously, I have my complaints, but this is the best, for me, so far. I left the theater after watching GOF completely disappointed. However, with POA, though at first I didn't get it because I started watching the movies before reading the books, I lost myself in the scenery, the overall story, and the mood. Even the way it started got my attention. Much more different and much better than the previous two. I love it!

But you what movie had "time" as a theme?

SNAKES ON A PLANE!

I'm telling you, time is tissue man....TIME IS TISSUE!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

OMG DARWIN *APPLAUSE* Thats EXACTLY how I feel about the movie. I just watched it today actually and I still noticed something I've never seen before. The movie is amazing.

Like everyone has said, this was the only time I've seen that everything just felt..right. The acting wasn't forced at all (Even though I remember laughing in the theater at Dans "He was there friend!" scene.) You just felt the magic in this film. Little things in the background makes this film feel right. The cienematography was amazing, the new location of the school is brilliant, and the fact that it finally felt like these kids were real teenagers. And I love the little things that go on, like Hermione talking to Buckbeak even though the scene is focusing on Harry and Sirius at the time. Students talking in the back of class and of course Dumbledore distracting Fudge (And all the strawberries.)

I instantly became a Gambon fan with his portrayel in this film. Dumbledore...in my opinion..has finally made it on screen. The Fat Lady had a personality, and once again there is SO much going on in this film. I've seen it many of times and I'm still catching new things.

I also have to comment on the soundtrack..it is AMAZING. My favorite HP soundtrack, I love what John WIlliams did. I pray that "A Window From The Past" returns in OOTP..it just HAS to because that song fits the tone of the 5th book PERFECTLY imo. Buckbeaks Flight, Quidditch Fifth Year, Lumos (Hedwigs Theme), A Window From the Past, Double Trouble, and everything else lol..it was a brilliant score that fit well with the movie.

But yeah POA is my favorite movie. I hadnt read the book in years when I first saw the movie, so I'd forgotten alot of what was gonna happen. You should've seen my face on the Time Turner Sequence, I flipped out. I reread the book and after hearing so much criticism on the boards about how much they left out, I was suprised at how accurate the movie was. Sure they left out the Mauraders explanation, but you got the fact that they were all friends and I'm sure they could easily put it in OotP if need be. Anyways thats my nice little post lol.

I instantly became a Gambon fan with his portrayel in this film. Dumbledore...in my opinion..has finally made it on screen.

I have to agree with you. I loved it when Gambon said, "Did what? Good night!" He walks away with a big smile. After Hermione said, "We did it!"

I thought that was the funniest thing ever. I thought to myself...he is going to fit the part of Dumbledore just fine. I am going to be soo sad when Dumbledore dies in movie six.
:sigh: :upset:

I love that part too, emse_grint
And this entire thread I agree with.
PoA was the best film so far; it took risks and successfully portrayed the darkness that is a part of the wizarding world. It was real and raw and I loved it for that.
Bravo, Alfonso.
Bravo.

POA is the only film so far in the series for me also where, for once, the trio actually felt like a team, rather than just three people who happened to be together when the action happened like in PS and COS. Dan, Emma and Rupert actually werein sync with each other in all the scenes they were together in POA, and I congrats to Cuaron to somehow making the main three finallyh gel together so organically in this one, while in the first two it just seemed rather forced in my opinion.
Also, just as a side note, this was the first HP film for me where they got the Quidditch right, and since it was not in GOF and will not be in OOTP,it seems POA will be the only film in the series where I think we finally see how the game should have been represented in PS and COS - a fast paced, in your face game played at break neck speed and where players where liable to come to a sticky end at any given moment. And I loved the scene afterwards when Harry wakes up and you see everyone crowded around his bed and look all worried, then smiling when he wakes up. Just a shame they did not include the infamous ' Oliver's still in the showers. We think he's trying to drown himself,' line from one of the twins. It would have worked as you never see Wood himself in this film, and since he did not appear in this scene in the book would have been a great tension reliever too. Plus, love Neville and Seamus in this scene for some reason - they both just look 'real' if you know what I mean.

I rewatched PoA and GoF on plane flights recently. (Yeah, I fly long trips a lot.) I had not seen PoA since last autumn (right after GoF!), and I was again really struck with what a very good movie it is in a number of ways.

I was particularly struck by just how effective and powerful the Shrieking Shack scene was. The speedily got through all of the important points, without the dreadful "spit-it-out!" sensation that the book gives, and without leaving you feeling like they could have avoided Lupin going Lupus.

In particular, Radcliffe's performance was really good when dealing with Snape and then demanding the "proof." Radcliffe did a great job of facially expressing making deliberate resolutions. (Oh, and "purists": Ron does not whimper once during this scene, except possibly when they are about to zap his rat.)


The other big "story" scene, Harry casting the Patronus, was equally efficacious. This was a great case of adaptation: Hermione is there so Harry can speak his thoughts to someone. Again, Radcliffe did a great job here: you see him looking forward, wishfully and hopefully, to actually seeing his father; then, in the clutch, he again chooses to see the truth for what it is: a major shift in facial expressions, and then he charges forward.


Did Elijah Wood tutor Radcliffe on set? :cool:


Now, I still enjoyed GoF more than I enjoyed PoA: but PoA was by far the better movie of the two.

I was particularly struck by just how effective and powerful the Shrieking Shack scene was. The speedily got through all of the important points, without the dreadful "spit-it-out!" sensation that the book gives, and without leaving you feeling like they could have avoided Lupin going Lupus.

I actually think I would like PoA better than GoF if they had stopped at this scene. I love the way Sirius changes from a lunatic to Harry's best friend. The powerful diolouge is great ("I did my waiting! Twelve years of it! In Azkaban!") BUT, I think there is equally powerful dialouge in the Penseve scene in GoF.

I felt the whole time-turning scene was lacking somethng, and consumed too much of the movie. I would have cut it or drastically shortened it.

I was particularly struck by just how effective and powerful the Shrieking Shack scene was. The speedily got through all of the important points, without the dreadful "spit-it-out!" sensation that the book gives, and without leaving you feeling like they could have avoided Lupin going Lupus.

:agree: I love how they use the minimal amount of music in that scene as well. It really heightens the atmosphere and rustic feel.

I felt the whole time-turning scene was lacking somethng, and consumed too much of the movie. I would have cut it or drastically shortened it.

Oh, I loved that part. I really liked how they had a ticking clock sound very softly in the background throughout. I admit that it was a little long, but I still think it was highly effective.

Again, Radcliffe did a great job here: you see him looking forward, wishfully and hopefully, to actually seeing his father; then, in the clutch, he again chooses to see the truth for what it is: a major shift in facial expressions, and then he charges forward.

Yeah but they didn't do that part very well. His emotional transition needed to be a bit more gradual than that. He sort of just jolts forward and says Expecto Patronum without a stutter or any emotion and without enough determination. Still, it wasn't terrible, but it was kinda like "Uh. Alright."

Yeah but they didn't do that part very well. His emotional transition needed to be a bit more gradual than that. He sort of just jolts forward and says Expecto Patronum without a stutter or any emotion and without enough determination. Still, it wasn't terrible, but it was kinda like "Uh. Alright."

No, no, it needed to be abrupt. It had to convey what the book did: suddenly, Harry "gets it." One second, he is honestly expecting his father: then, epiphany! and he has unraveled the ironic truth - he saw his father only in the same way that everybody sees his father when they see Harry. It not only would lose all impact if it were gradual, but it would convey something very different.

So, talking it through with Hermione, having her say what Harry has to be starting to think ("nobody's coming..... you are both dying"), and then having the "Eureka!" shift facial expressions. However, it has to be sudden: if Harry had sort of reasoned it out, then it would have worked best if he had spoken aloud to Hermione, and that would have had nowhere near the dramatic impact.


GoF did this very well again, when Radcliffe "Frodo'd" nicely while hiding behind the tombstone as Voldemort taunted him. (Great performance by Fiennes, too: it really conveyed the manic hyperactivity associated with sociopathic serial killers.)

However, humans think quickly, so facial expressions showing shifts in thought have to be done quickly. They probably have to be a bit overdone for movies, just to make sure that 75+% of the audience gets it, too.

Oh, I loved that part. I really liked how they had a ticking clock sound very softly in the background throughout. I admit that it was a little long, but I still think it was highly effective.

I feel once the main plotline is resolved (Sirius is good, Scabbers is bad), anything after it is tedious. Especially going back to the same situation they just encountered.

I was particularly struck by just how effective and powerful the Shrieking Shack scene was. The speedily got through all of the important points, without the dreadful "spit-it-out!" sensation that the book gives, and without leaving you feeling like they could have avoided Lupin going Lupus.

In particular, Radcliffe's performance was really good when dealing with Snape and then demanding the "proof." Radcliffe did a great job of facially expressing making deliberate resolutions. (Oh, and "purists": Ron does not whimper once during this scene, except possibly when they are about to zap his rat.)

The other big "story" scene, Harry casting the Patronus, was equally efficacious. This was a great case of adaptation: Hermione is there so Harry can speak his thoughts to someone. Again, Radcliffe did a great job here: you see him looking forward, wishfully and hopefully, to actually seeing his father; then, in the clutch, he again chooses to see the truth for what it is: a major shift in facial expressions, and then he charges forward.

Did Elijah Wood tutor Radcliffe on set? :cool:
Guh... I just watched this part about an hour ago because it was on HBO. I caught it right at that part and I was thinking the same thing. It might be the best scene in the movie. I was most impressed by how quickly and nicely it was done. It made complete sense and gave it a feeling of urgency which is lacking in the book but done so well in the movie.

I feel once the main plotline is resolved (Sirius is good, Scabbers is bad), anything after it is tedious. Especially going back to the same situation they just encountered.

Yeah I know what you mean. But then that's what's cool about it. You see what happened behind the scenes that helped influence the outcome. Even though we already know that Sirius is good and scabbers is bad, there's a new mystery that emerges that keeps us interested in wanting to know who saved Harry and Sirius from the dementors. I think the movie does a pretty good job at building towards that suspenseful moment and then we finally see that it was Daniel all along. Ofcourse, it creates a bit of confusion since we never heard anyone yell out Expecto Patronum the first time around, and the second time around there's no stag, but other than that and the awkward abruptness of the climax, it was still awesome.

Yeah I know what you mean. But then that's what's cool about it. You see what happened behind the scenes that helped influence the outcome. Even though we already know that Sirius is good and scabbers is bad, there's a new mystery that emerges that keeps us interested in wanting to know who saved Harry and Sirius from the dementors. I think the movie does a pretty good job at building towards that suspenseful moment and then we finally see that it was Daniel all along. Ofcourse, it creates a bit of confusion since we never heard anyone yell out Expecto Patronum the first time around, and the second time around there's no stag, but other than that and the awkward abruptness of the climax, it was still awesome.


actually I noticed (once again proof that this movie has so many hidden treasures) that if u look closely once Dan yells out "Expecto Patronum" and the patronus comes out..u see a soft image of the stag in the front of it. I thought it was really cool...u should look out for that

actually I noticed (once again proof that this movie has so many hidden treasures) that if u look closely once Dan yells out "Expecto Patronum" and the patronus comes out..u see a soft image of the stag in the front of it. I thought it was really cool...u should look out for that

It's just a ball of light. Yeah the head and antlers poke out of it a little, but it's barely noticable. Showing the stag run across the lake or something might have looked better and would have been a little more consistent. And STILL we never heard anyone shout out Expecto Patronum the first time around.

I feel once the main plotline is resolved (Sirius is good, Scabbers is bad), anything after it is tedious. Especially going back to the same situation they just encountered.

Well, this was the major criticism of the movie: not any purist comments, but that whole time-travel part. People viewed it as a plot-hole: how did Harry survive if his survival depended on him surviving to travel back in time? Of course, the same criticism applies to the book.


I am not sure how they could have adapted that, however. Now, if the viewers had read "A Brief History of Time," then they would know the possible solutions!


Also, just because the A-plot has an apparent resolution, it was not complete, and there were half a dozen Chekovian guns that needed to be fired. Moreover, the story was not complete: Harry had to understand the truth of what he saw at the lake, and he had to make the hard choice to accept that his father was not coming back. That is the story in a nutshell.



It's just a ball of light. Yeah the head and antlers poke out of it a little, but it's barely noticable. Showing the stag run across the lake or something might have looked better and would have been a little more consistent. And STILL we never heard anyone shout out Expecto Patronum the first time around.

Would we have? I don't think that Harry did in the book, either, for what it was worth: all he could hear was screams in his head. As the narrative is Harry-centric, the movie has to do the same.

It is hard to say without seeing both, but I think that the expanding torus of Patronus energy was very effective as it was. It still is the most powerful scene in the series (the graveyard scene being slightly undermined by the Deus Ex Machina aspect in both book and film).

It is hard to say without seeing both, but I think that the expanding torus of Patronus energy was very effective as it was. It still is the most powerful scene in the series

I totally Agree. Though many Potter fans disliked PoA for the holes in the plot compared to the book, stylistically and from a cinematographic point of view it was a very good film. I liked it at least.

Would we have?

Well during that scene we can hear past Harry talking to Sirius from the other side of the lake and time-turning Dan shouts REALLY loudly so uh, yeah, in this case we would have.

PoA is probably my favorite movie. I loved pretty much everything about it. I felt as though everything had a purpose, that there was a whole vision behind it all.

One of my favorite scenes: Lupin and Harry talking in the bridge about Lily and James. Great idea to take it outside, instead of in Lupin's office, the way it was in the book. And the acting was terrific. Daniel basically doesn't have any lines but you look at his face and see him reacting so perfectly to everything Lupin says. Who would guess that he could be this great, after PS and CoS :lol:

I've also been listening to the soundtrack these past few days and I'm finding I liked it much more than I thought lol "A window to the past" is definitely among my top 3 tracks from all movies and "Buckbeak's flight" is beautiful. That would be the perfect word to describe this movie I think: beautiful :)

I've been gone for a while now, so it's nice to see this thread is up and running again. It's also nice to see all of the POA lovers / appreciators on this thread as well.

POA really is one of those films where you have people that either love it or hate it. I think as more time goes by some people who hate / disliked POA at first are now learning to appreciate it and see it in a different light.

Despite the plot holes compared to the book, I love PoA. I love the artisticness of it. I've probably watched PoA the most out of the four movies. It's such a beautiful movie.

The first time I saw PoA, I was like: "Ohmygod, what is this??", "They totally ruined the book" etc. I never wanted to see it again. But then I did for some reason and I started to appreciate the style of it. The more I watched it, the more I loved it.

Movie-wise, it's my favourite one <3

....posting from a cyber cafe in Sliema... (sad or what?)...


I still don't see these plotholes people talk about.

....posting from a cyber cafe in Sliema... (sad or what?)...


I still don't see these plotholes people talk about.

I suppose people mean that the movie, unlike the book, doesn't take a lot of time to explain everything. The movie just expects the audience to pick up on things after one sentence (or less, maybe even an implication, or gesture) of dialogue. Perhaps that's what they mean by plot holes? Because they really explain everything that's needed, just some explanation is really obscure, but it is there. But if you miss a muttered sentence, or a half-made gesture, well then you're going to think that they didn't put it in there at all...?

Personally, that's one of the things that I think is so brilliant about the movie, not everything is spoon-fed to the audience, we have to think and put things together, unlike in the first two.

Obviously, in the book, she has to make sure that people get it and she could spend a lot more time making sure, so...

....posting from a cyber cafe in Sliema... (sad or what?)...


I still don't see these plotholes people talk about.

The big problem I have is with the time travel, which is a problem in the book too.

Time travel is a difficult thing to get across. Either some people get it, or some don't, and it can definitely look like a story plot hole if the understanding of time travel is confusing to the viewer / reader.

The easiest way I can explain what happens is that once time has been altered it's a forever running proses, meaning.... after saving Sirius and Buckbeak, when Harry and Hermione walk into the hospital wing and see their past selves disappearing while using the time-turner to go back to save Sirius, that time will be on a loop forever.

Either way, the POA film is not at fault for having a plot hole concerning time travel when it came straight from the book.

I had to see the PoA movie a second time in order to appreciate it. I guess I was so used to the Chris Columbus versions that I was expecting to see a similar film. But I ended up liking it the best of the 4. I thought that Cuaron did a great job with the kids. I think this is my favorite Hermione. She is intelligent and strong, not a silly teeanager like she is in GoF.

I must admit that I hated the talking Shrunken Head. And the Shrieking Shack scene seems a little frantic for me. But I thought the Time travel was well done.

I had to see the PoA movie a second time in order to appreciate it. I guess I was so used to the Chris Columbus versions that I was expecting to see a similar film.

The first time I saw POA in the theater I came out somewhat disappointed. Not so much because the style / look was different then what I was use to seeing ( I LOVED the new look from jump) but because of the way the story was told. About a week latter I went again and I already saw that this was the best made HP film yet. Once got the DVD and was able to watch it at home I was finally able to fully appreciate the film in full. It triggered my love for the film.

Even now the film is a visual feast to my eyes. The details and flow are just great. I truly do love POA and it's by far my favorite HP film to date. I really do hope OOTP will be as good, if not better since OOTP and POA are tied as my favorite HP books.

I felt the same way as you when I first saw POA. I was disappointed at first that it was stylistically different from the other 2.

However, when I got it on DVD, the movie started to grow on me, and now I think it's the best of the 4 movies.

POA is indeed possibly the one film so far in the series that you will either completely love or utterly hate, depending I think on how one views a movie being a 'faithful' adaptation of the book and also from one's view of what is important to the plot based on how much they liked it in the actual story of the book originally. For example, those who were fans of Quidditch thought that a major plot point was missing because Cuaron dropped the Quidditch Cup storyline all together in POA, with little or no connections to PS and COS ever happening. If you are a fan of the sport you would rightly feel an important plot point was dropped in the movie, but for the casual fan who might not necessarily have read the book, or was not a fan of it as many were not thanks to PS and COS, thought that indeed unneeded filler scenes were rightly cut.
Artistically and visually POA is perhaps, for me at least, what JK's world was suppost to look like to begin with in PS and COS. Yes Hogwarts is suppost to be cheery and I supposed homely to Harry and so on, but it did not have to be displayed in such a, ehem, Disney sort of way as it was in PS and COS. I always thought that, for a castle that is suppost to be kept secret even though we know it is made invisible to muggle eyes and unplottable, the last thing you would do is give it bright blue roofing and giant turrants that could be seen from miles around.

I just saw a trailer for "Children of Men", which is directed by Alfonso Cuaron. It described him as the acclaimed director (or somethings like that) of "Y Tu Mama Tambien" as well as "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". Now, to me, that sounds like a pretty clear indication of the caliber of PoA (at least in terms of direction) in the eyes of the mainstream audience and movie critics. Otherwise it would not have warranted being mentioned along with Y Tu Mama Tambien as an example of Cuaron's acclaim-worthiness.

It's also worth noting that Children of Men is by no means of film that is meant for a younger audience which means that quality of PoA is not limited to the realm of children's films. I was actually surprised (pleasantly, obviously) that it was mentioned. I guess PoA is an objectively memorable film after all ( in a good way, of course ;) )

I just saw a trailer for "Children of Men", which is directed by Alfonso Cuaron. It described him as the acclaimed director (or somethings like that) of "Y Tu Mama Tambien" as well as "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". Now, to me, that sounds like a pretty clear indication of the caliber of PoA (at least in terms of direction) in the eyes of the mainstream audience and movie critics. Otherwise it would not have warranted being mentioned along with Y Tu Mama Tambien as an example of Cuaron's acclaim-worthiness.

It's also worth noting that Children of Men is by no means of film that is meant for a younger audience which means that quality of PoA is not limited to the realm of children's films. I was actually surprised (pleasantly, obviously) that it was mentioned. I guess PoA is an objectively memorable film after all ( in a good way, of course ;) )
That is so true. I mean sometimes I look at the advertisements or whatever the summary is on the back of a DVD and I see the films that a director or actor/actress starred in previously; and it really seems uninteresting or just some sort of promotional grab at the audience to rent/buy or watch this film.

But when I saw the trailer, and realized it was RATED R; that showed a clear indication that PoA is more respected among adults than the previous two films. Sure it might be a casual marketing ploy to say "Hey...this is a movie as of recent he directed" or some way to bank on the hugeness of the HP franchise...but you didn't see Rent get advertised by From the director of HP: PS and CoS did you now? Usually films that have different genres are never referenced in an advertisement. You're not going to reference Gangs of New York in Scorsese's new film "The Departed". That was more appropriate for The Aviator.

Not really. POA is the only other movie he's done apart from Y Tu Mama Tambien that's worth mentioning. A lot of people on other boards about movies have commented on snorting or giggling when they saw the POA credit come up in the trailer. It's so random and out of place with the tone of Children of Men.

Yet over here in Australia it is always mentioned when they interview Cuaron and Co for Children OF Men that he did POA, with many saying it is perhaps the best HP movie so far that actually got the 'feel' of the books right on screen and the others have not. Including GOF.
Recently I watched all 4 films in a row and it occured to me that with PS, COS and GOF there is too much dialogue that is not actually beneficial for what the scene is trying to do in terms of moving the primary plot along, while in POA there is little or no place where this is happening. Cuaron and Co kept in what was absolutely needed in order to move the main plot and Harry as the lead along, with everything being about or revolving around Harry and not primarily the trio or the teachers or the other students at the school. POA is perhaps the only film, until OOTP when I see it, that appears to be the only film that it concerned with it's lead character and sticks with him for the majority of the film.

POA is the black sheep in the HP series so far. It is perhaps the one movie so far that has divided the fans of both the book and movie series as you either really love how different it was from PS and COS, or you despise it as it chops out so much of the filler and is so drastically darker than it's previous brothers.
But POA I think should be given credit where credit is due, for without Cuaron and co taking the risks they did there would not have been enough renewed interest in the series to warrant the massive turnover for the sequel of GOF, a movie that has so far surpassed the takings of COS and is a sequel to actually do better than it's predecessor ( POA ). If POA had not given that 'spark' that brang the series to a whole new arena and gotten both old and new fans into the series that was so far going down the toilet, then GOF would have never been made because it would have deemed a too big a financial and public risk for WB to take. The reasons POA was beyond cool are -
- A darker, more forboding world that seemed not as friendly as we would like to think.
- Hogwarts actually was made to look as old as she was, and given an appearance that, while homely and welcoming to those who knew her inside and out, from the outside she looks menacing and could contain any amounts of secrets and forbidden truths about what went on behind those walls for other 1000 years.
- The students actually acted like kids for a change, not the perfect little cardboard cut outs that they were made to be in PS and COS. They actually had personality and spark that was sorely lacking in the first two.
- This was the first film where I felt Dan was Harry from the outset. His moods, body language and acting ability improved so much that it was with this movie that I think many felt ' hey, they actually were right when casting him as Harry.'
- Although the teachers were still there, I am glad the focus of the film was shifted from them to the students, as in the books they are truly the main focus point until later on in OOTP and HBP. Until then it is their story and they should be the ones telling it.
- This has been mentioned before, but again POA was the first HP film to actually make it seem that magic was an everyday occurance in the wizard world, not something wonderous and something that left you looking like a gulping goldfish everytime you saw it ( think Harry when he first sees inside the Burrow in COS ). A classic example of this is when Harry is in the Leaky Cauldron with the Weasleys. There is heaps going on in the background - tea pot floating around and pouring tea, a witch collecting plates that are nearly stacked to the ceiling, cups moving around in the background where the barkeep is while bottles of beer pour themselves, posters of sirius black moving - but it is never noticed by the main characters as it happens so naturally to them in this world.
- The SFX actually looked realistic and like they were apart of the world. From the exciting Quidditch match in the rain to the amazing Buckbeak and the bleakly cold and heartless dementors, the SFX added something to the proceedings, not distracting our attention away from it.
- Quidditch, although cut back drastically, was finally put on film the way I thought it was in my head - a fast and furious game that could land you in serious harm if you were not careful. My only regret is that it was not longer.
- The grounds became a key player, and not a flat, bleakless landscape that looked too perfect and safe for it's own good. In POA we had benacing hills, tall trees that blocked out view from what was ahead that could be dangerous, fog that shrouded all and lakes and rocks that looked like they had been there since time began. Like the SFX, the outside world matched the story and became a key player rather than a non player.

There is so much I can go on with this movie, as it is so far the fave in the HP series. It was different, daring and willing to take risks with the world and the narrativeand was all the more better for it in my opinion. When I go see a book to film movie I want to see a adaptation that will ADD to my experience and give me a different look/perspective, not something I can always read time and time again from the book. If I wanted the book I shall read the book.
POA will be like the Alien 3 in the series. It will divide fans and will always be viewed as either with love or extreme loathing, and in that effect POA has done it's job quite well in that it is a film that still caused heated debate and arguements with fans and non fans alike. But for me it was the first HP film to truly 'get' Harry Potter, his friends and the world in which they lived, and it is because of that I think it deserves more kudos than it has gotten so far.:clap:

I agree very much with what you said.....although i think it HAS actually got a lot of praise....like when it first came out, so may be overated if anything! lol! i loved it though. well, to be honest, at first, i didn't. i was surprised because it was so different to the first two, which i loved for the magic, the linkage and the loyalty to the books. PoA was just....different. all i could think about were "where were the marauders? where was oliver and the end of quidditch? where was sirius slashing ron's bed curtains?" certain things just really bugged me. I heard so much praise for it though, that i started wondering in there really was more to a HP movie than following the book, and so i thought about it, and watched it again, and for once - i stopped looking for the main plot and subplots, but for the actual emotion...and i found it. I agree that i loved the screenshots, the medievilness, the simple moments (like harry lying down beside sirius, looking out of the window with the clock - i ALWAYS think about that when looking out my window, and the bit in the gryffindor dormitory, with them all mucking around and the dementora outside) and harry's pesonality, how it had improved. i thought that apart from the 'he was their freind' bit, his acting really had improved too. i keep struggling to decide when he acted better - PoA or GoF. I've come to the conclusion that he really HAS improved acting by GoF...it's just that his character has gone back to being almost one-dimesnsional, like the first two films. A bit annoying really.
I loved hogsmeade, the beginning to darkness, emotion, capture of harry, lessons (especially hagrid' loved that!) and the feel of the castle.

There were some major points in this movie which i didn't like though, and these are wjhat i think most HP fans have against it, mainly the character-butchering (which i also hated).
They are 1) Ron - rewatching PoA a few days ago, i've decided he was quite weak in this movie, being amusing (or not) and not as loyal or kind as hermione. big mistake....it's hard for the directors to get away from this now.
2) Hermione. this is when she became feisty, beautiful (as in they actually seemed to make her pretty insetead of make her less so) and more important than ron...they made her harry's best friend, almost like she and him might fancy each other....and they made her what people associate hermione with now..more lily potter than anything. She just seemed far too...cool, and sure of herself for my liking.
3) The plot. They really could have put more in, bits such as Lupin telling harry about the map, or a tad more quidditch, or just, well....more. i didn't want them to throw it all out like they did with the first two, but i felt they could have put in a bit more, do the actual book more justice...have a few more jokes (and not the childish stuff, but the actual wit of the books). i would have liked more of the actual story put it, although not much.....just a bit. I think some people, who weren't used to the emotion and depth of harry potter., were a bit bored and wanted some more action.
4) Ginny? Dumbledore? what were their roles in this? I think that could have been improved.... we practiacally lost a year of important characters, which is bad......because ginny, for example, becomes major in HBP...but the audience are still finding out that she exists in GoF....which could have been done a bit more in PoA. DD too.... he wasn't really there i felt, in this movie. i would have liked him to talk to harry at the end too, and the bit with snape going crazy after sirius had been let go..i found that quite a powerful and telling moment in the story, and what DD said about wormtail repaying his debt.....it's a key moment. it all is.
5) The cheesy ending? the childish humout? well ok, so it wasn't as childish as CoS (my least favourite HP movie) but there were a fw bits like the kight bus, which i didn't find funny (although the backgroiund and magic of the whoel thing did keep me occupised). I didn't like the broomstick bit at the end either, i would have preferred..i don't know...something else. i foudn that annoying. i think it was jsut one the way to improevement, though.

Apart from moments like this, I can agree that this was a beautiful movie. It really was a turning point, and without it, people may have begun to look away from harry potter. This was also the first time i started to like things better, or differently to the books. for example, the time-turner bit at the end, and buckbeak's flight...i won't look them up in the book, but i'll watch just those scenes on DVD, because i liked them so much, better then in the nowel, actually! You're right in sying that this is the one often talked about too, and created the darkness that the first 2 were lacking. (Well, they lacked the fear and emotion of it, i feel, anyway). For the first time, a HP movie made me really think. Apparently it coverted some people to the books too! :D

This is the one i've watched about a million times! Wwll, not quite, but more so than any other harry potter movie! I think i'll wait a bit until i watch it again (am going through a phase of constantly rewatching GoF - never done this with CoS though, strange).....and i do hope that OOTP will give off a similar feel (which i think it might, from what i've heard!) in the way that harry is, and all the beauty and depth. I'm looking forward to seeing more hogsmeade (finger's crossed....well they have to meet in the hog's head for DA meeting!) and more sirius and lupin too!

I think i wouldn't have minded the stuff missed out of GoF so much, if they had had the emotion like in PoA...i was quite annoyed when that movie came out. I have learned to love GoF too though...i just try and forget about the book when i watch it, and enjoy! i think it's was a great half-way line between all the films too, a great action-packed movie full of humour, darkness as well as fear! The music was great (i loved the darker slant on hedwig's theme - although i would have preffered to have some of that actual theme itself) and it was more adult, scary and, well big. you sort of wanted more from the ending too.

i wonder what hogwarts will look like for OOTP.......

Movies that have time travel are usually very difficult to get across to audiences. I think that JKR did a fantastic job, and the movie pulled it all off.

Personally I wish they'd picked someone other than Oldman for Sirius.Although I pictured someone entirely different for Lupin, David Thewlis (sp?) became my Lupin. Oldman never ever made me see Sirius.

This is one movie I can watch over and over again. It never fails to entertain.

A lot of people on other boards about movies have commented on snorting or giggling when they saw the POA credit come up in the trailer. It's so random and out of place with the tone of Children of Men.

Let them,after all isn't "Y tu mama tambien" also different from the tone of Children of men?

Let them, after all isn't "Y tu mama tambien" also different from the tone of Children of men?

No.

Poa is like the best among the books! I really love this one!

When it comes down t o it....PoA seems to be a bit or a touchy subject, and i don't know why. Sure, people seem to love it or hate it, but everyone's allowed their own view. I was given an angry reseponse after giving my (quite constructive, I thought) view on the movie.... and I wasn't even dissing it!
I guess all that we can really agree on, is that it's the topic of a lot of conversations!

I like POA. Its a great film. We get to meet Sirius and Remuis. I mean these too then become some of are favorite characters;). Then again there could have been some changes. But this is an Appreciation thread so I won't get there. I love the sene when Sirius wishes he could walk throught the doors of Hogwarts as a free man. But then again here I am only talking about the films;). I also enjoy when Harry gets really angry he starts to cry. I also enjoyed the music the music was very good.

The book was good as well. I like the suspence you get out of reading. Of course my eyes get tired but I still enjoy the reading. I like it when we first meet Sirius I guess the stuff I like the movies and the books were great:D

When it comes down t o it....PoA seems to be a bit or a touchy subject, and i don't know why. Sure, people seem to love it or hate it, but everyone's allowed their own view. I was given an angry reseponse after giving my (quite constructive, I thought) view on the movie.... and I wasn't even dissing it!
I guess all that we can really agree on, is that it's the topic of a lot of conversations!

POA is indeed a HP film that is a big topic of discussion for some, as POA the book is, judging by many polls and questionaires online at least, one of the top favourite books in the series and so the film version had a lot to live up to. It was also coming off the lacklustre reception of COS and was really the make or break film of the franchise at that point as although it was still making money, COS showed that audiences were truly wanting something 'magical' from a HP film and not just generic, photo copied working of the book on screen. POA with Cuaron at the helm blindsided many who were used to PS and COS being 'the' HP feel of a HP film as it was totally darker, adult and the HP world was not as bright or kiddy as many were lead to believe from Columbus' work.

I just finished watching all four HP films in a row, and it still amazes me how different in style and tone POA is when compared to the other 3, so much so you would swear POA is not part of HP but of another fantasy series. And I mean that in a good way. Cuaron was just able to capture that essence of what made the HP books as good as they were in the beginning - a magical world that was inhabited by children as the main characters, but still had a very adult, manevolent edge to it that made it accessable to ALL ages who wanted to read/view it.
I also read recently that POA is also credited of getting a lot more adults into HP in both the films and books thanks to Cuaron's direction, and opened up the series to a more wider market that the first two ever did when they were released. I thought this was interesting to note, and hope that OOTP can expand the world more and get more fans interested in the series in time for DH's release in July.

PoA was my favorite movie of the 4. i think it just seems more realistic to me and more magical. i love all of it. the best part is the time turner scene though

I like POA because I think that POA was the first movie to really have a definite feel[/I] to it... the first two seemed like they were what hogwarts would be like realistically, but in POA the film sort of "jumped into" a gloom. It really conveyed Harry's emotions well in that sort of sad, foggy, environment, and for that reason it is my favorite movie... even if it doesn't adhere the the book that much,

i loved the shrunken heads even though they werent really in the books. and the buckbeak scene was better than i had imagined. i loved the way they slipped some Ron and Hermione in too ;)

I watched POA the other day, and the whole film was so exceptional, so superbly acted and realized, it boggles my mind how people can say a bad word about it. All the actors were used properly, if someone had a speaking role, then they had something to do, they weren't just there for the fans (Tonks? Kreacher?), everyone had a memorabale line or scene, and every single shot was beautiful, detailed and showed you as much of the sets and costumes as possible. The set design, camera work and lighting in particular are so far ahead of GOF and OOTP that I can't understand how WB would let the technical quality of the films slide like this.

My favourite scene used to be the hosptal wing bit with Dumbledore, but now I think it might be the Patronus lesson in DDs office with Lupin. The wonderful music when Harry closes his eyes and thinks of a happy memory, or the fantastic instruments that litter the set, like the one of a solar system with a little train set on the bottom were so beautiful it made me quite angry at how amateurish the last two films have been, I can't put into words just how amazing POA is.

Even Emma Watson is great as Hermione, Cuaron is the only one to control her eyebrow acting and shrill voice effectively, and Michael Gambon as Dumbledore and David Thewlis as Lupin. One word. Perfect. Seriously, if you don't like these performances you are insane. Insane I tells ya!

Damn you WB for not using your vile corporate magicks to bind Cuaron to this franchise for ever! Damn you!

Well, this was the major criticism of the movie: not any purist comments, but that whole time-travel part. People viewed it as a plot-hole: how did Harry survive if his survival depended on him surviving to travel back in time? Of course, the same criticism applies to the book.


I've always thought it was similar to the concepts of predestination paradox and Novikov self-consistency principle applied in the Bill and Ted universe.

I watched POA the other day, and the whole film was so exceptional, so superbly acted and realized, it boggles my mind how people can say a bad word about it. All the actors were used properly, if someone had a speaking role, then they had something to do, they weren't just there for the fans (Tonks? Kreacher?), everyone had a memorabale line or scene, and every single shot was beautiful, detailed and showed you as much of the sets and costumes as possible. The set design, camera work and lighting in particular are so far ahead of GOF and OOTP that I can't understand how WB would let the technical quality of the films slide like this.

My favourite scene used to be the hosptal wing bit with Dumbledore, but now I think it might be the Patronus lesson in DDs office with Lupin. The wonderful music when Harry closes his eyes and thinks of a happy memory, or the fantastic instruments that litter the set, like the one of a solar system with a little train set on the bottom were so beautiful it made me quite angry at how amateurish the last two films have been, I can't put into words just how amazing POA is.

Even Emma Watson is great as Hermione, Cuaron is the only one to control her eyebrow acting and shrill voice effectively, and Michael Gambon as Dumbledore and David Thewlis as Lupin. One word. Perfect. Seriously, if you don't like these performances you are insane. Insane I tells ya!

Damn you WB for not using your vile corporate magicks to bind Cuaron to this franchise for ever! Damn you!

:agree:

I watched it the other day and I'm with you. Something as little as Harry playing with the fire flame in that scene makes it so real and magical. Emotions are so deep in it and yes Emma Watsons best performance is in this movie. My favorite thing about POA is that you always get the sense that the world is going on behind the main characters in the scene. There's always something going on in the background....I mean Dumbledore and Fudge had a whole conversation while Harry and Hermione were trying to rescue Buckbeak..it was brillaint. It wasn't just them walking down to Hagrids Hut in silence...u actually felt like this is really happening...on man I want Cauron back for Deathly Hallows lol

I like POA as it is such a contrast to the first two, also the subtle little changes that Cuaron makes such as the cast's hair, robes, Hagrids hut, etc I really like the style of these.
The music however is abit weird, I think its just because its so different to Williams style in the first two, its certainly unique music though which is quite fitting for a unique world.
From this film onwards I think you get a sense that the younger cast actually can act when they are given the room to. Columbus just sort of told them every singly little facial expression and movement to do throughout scenes and this disappointingly came across very clearly on screen. However in POA they come into their own and are able to put their own identity on the characters they are portraying.

My favorite thing about POA is that you always get the sense that the world is going on behind the main characters in the scene. There's always something going on in the background....I mean Dumbledore and Fudge had a whole conversation while Harry and Hermione were trying to rescue Buckbeak..it was brillaint. It wasn't just them walking down to Hagrids Hut in silence...u actually felt like this is really happening...on man I want Cauron back for Deathly Hallows lol


Yes! Someone else noticed! I thought Dumbledore was excellent in POA...of course then Gambon ruined him in GOF, but thats another story. If you listen to the conversation they're having, it's hilarious! Dumbledore keeps trying to point out the landscaping, "And see...all the strawberries..." It's just so great, I laugh every time. You get the impression that he is trying to distract Fudge, and it works so well.

Moving on...I agree with what everyone else has said: POA is definitely the film with the most heart. There are a few things that make me cringe, but it is definitely the most artistic of the movies (good thing).

I would also like to point out the scene where Mr. Weasley warns Harry about Sirius in the Leaky Cauldron. If you watch it, the entire conversation is ONE shot! It's amazing! They keep moving to get away from people, and I think it really shows off Mr. Weasley's acting chops. The cinematography throughout the whole movie is amazing, and the color palette is also very good...it's just a beautiful film to watch.

And, because I can't resist mentioning it, the soundtrack is incredible...the best from Williams in years.

I've really come to appreciate this movie over time. When I first saw it I was disappointed as I'd just read the book for the first time and many of my favorite parts were cut out. It also seemed rushed in a lot of places (still does). Later on, I was able to look at its merits as a movie and I realized that, until OOTP came out, PoA was my favorite Potter movie. There are just so many things I love about it. The look and feel of the movie, the constantly cloudy days (how fortunate that they had that weather because it fits the movie), Lupin, Sirius, the Dementors, the Knight Bus, Harry's angrier attitude, Buckbeak, the whole time turner plot, the little Ron/Hermione moments, the improvement of the younger actors (with one glaring omission, heh), the Whomping Willow almost being its own character, the music, the map, and more. It's the movie I'd watch before any others and I'm always sad that there isn't more to tell when it ends.

Oh, and it also has the best end credits. I worked at a movie theater when it was out and got to clean many times to those credits. They're great.