So, what did you think of the new Harry Potter? (WARNING: SPOILERS!)

[Skinner]

Please be aware that this thread is intended for people who have already seen the new Harry Potter movie, and therefore the discussion will likely include SPOILERS which give away secrets from the movie. If you do not wish to read any spoilers, please close this thread now.

While the members of DU were tearing each other apart about Ronald Reagan last night, EarlG and I went out to see the new Harry Potter movie. Here are my impressions.

Overall, I thought it was really great. The best Harry Potter movie yet, IMHO. Much darker, and more "grown up" than the other two. I know this sounds pretentious, but it is clear that the director made a big difference. For fun, my wife and I watched "Y Tu Mama Tambien" (another movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron) on Friday night, so we could compare and contrast.

The most obvious difference is that The new Potter movie has much less sex. :) But having just seen "Y Tu Mama," I couldn't help noticing the scenes in "Azkaban" that subtly pushed the envelope for a film supposedly for children. Of course, the movie starts off with Harry secretly "playing with his wand" in his bedroom, trying to avoid getting caught by his Uncle. And then there was the thinly-veiled drug experimentation scene when they Griffyndor boys first arrived back at school. (A bunch of boys sitting around in a dorm room, with their shirt tails out and their ties tied around their heads, passing around "magical candy," looked immediately familiar to me.)

This Potter film had some funny parts, but Cuaron very deliberately got rid of the more comical elements from the previous films (For example, John Clese and the other ghosts were almost nowhere to be found here, except for a couple knights on horseback who didn't do anything comical).

The film was "granier" which gave it more of an indie feel (if that's even possible for such a mainstream franchise). Hogwarts was much greyer, practically a ruin, with none of the lush green grass. Even the bright burgundy-and-gold Gryffyndor scarves are gone, along with most of the pointy hats. The special effects were much more realistic, and less cute and child-like than the other two movies. The dementors could have come straight out of Lord of the Rings, as could the hippogriff and the werewolf.

In short, this movie lost much of that "children's book" cuteness, and to be honest, I didn't really miss it. The movie was still "magical" but in a much more serious, ass-kicking, adult kinda way.

It was cool to see a new director re-imagine the Potter franchise. Cuaron has really taken Harry Potter to the next level. I give it two thumbs up.

What do you think?

[Liberal Veteran]

1. I pretty much agree....saw it yesterday

It could have been a bit longer and they glossed over some elements of the book that would have greatly added to the story (such as the fact that 13 people also died in the confrontation between Black and Wormtail), but all in all it was a good movie.

[Skinner]

2. It's been a long time since I read book 3.

I didn't really remember many of the details, including that one.

I actually thought that the guy who played Peter Pettigrew was somewhat jarring and out of place. His comical facial expression and rat behavior seemed like a throwback to the earlier Potter movies. He just didn't seem to fit in this move, particularly next to Black and Lupin.

[Ilsa]

5. Yeah, that casting threw me as well.

I had a difficult time with Pettigrew. I've read it twoce, but my image of him was more serious.

I thought the directing was brilliant. I loved that we weren't taken back through all the comparisons between Muggles and the wizarding world.

Gene Shalit liked the movie and also characterized it as darker. But I suspect he hasn't read the books or he would have noted the more serious tone and implications that the table has been set for a long term battle between the forces of good and evil.

[Lisa]

56. I somehow imagined Pettigrew as scrawnier and downright creepy

(remember how repulsed Ron is in the book when he remembers that he took his pet to bed with him!)


I'd hoped that they would show various people's interpretations of the "explosion" incident, as Harry gets more information -- though I can see that they might have nixed this as too disturbing for kids (especially after coverage of the Madrid bombing, etc.).

But I thought the general "look" of the movie was good -- it paralleled the darker tone of the 3rd book. Having different directors with different perspectives on the world of Hogwarts, now that I've gotten used to it, is a good idea (even though it may not have been consciously planned).

[loftycity]

3. On the same page as you

I had taken the neighbors kids now teens for the last 3 years. We always go the first day. They liked it...wanted it to be longer.
I think LOR has taken a step forward that movies can be 3 hours.
I thought the directing was great, editing very tight and it had an adult thriller approach. It was my favorite so far.

[DeposeTheBoyKing]

4. I don't think it was the BEST of the 3 movies

But I did enjoy it very much. My husband, who has not read the books, was confused by the Sirius/Lupin/Pettigrew confrontation and even termed it "stupid." It's read been a while since I read the Azkaban book, so I need to dig it out and explain it to him.

This movie was slower-paced than the previous two; I think that's why my husband didn't enjoy it. As for me, I love anything Harry Potter, so I liked it.

[Skinner]

6. I was also confused by the Sirius/Lupin/Pettigrew confrontation.

I didn't realize that Sirius and Lupin were talking to the rat. I thought they were talking to Harry. I didn't figure it out until my niece explained it to me after the movie.

As I said earilier, it had been a while since I read the book.

[Liberal Veteran]

9. They didn't dwell on "Scabbers" enough before the revelation...

...nor did they spend enough time explaining the connection between Lupin, Black, James, and Pettigrew.

[Skinner]

11. True.

They never once explained the whole "Padfoot, Wormtail, Prongs..." thing on the map.

[TXlib]

24. I think they just assume that the overwhelming majority of fans

had read the book, as well.

[loftycity]

19. I think that was a moment the director was playing with us

We all felt as confused as Harry. When Sirius and Lupin were talking to the rat.

[Skinner]

20. Oh, I agree.

The director was playing with us.

I just wish he had explained it a little better after the fact, cuz I never figured it out. Maybe I'm just a little thick. :)

[Ilsa]

8. I would agree that this

set of relationships could bear a better explanation in the movie.

I'm looking forward to seeing it again in a few weeks so I can concentrate harder on the details.

[Speck Tater]

7. Definitely the best so far.

Much more real without being any less magical.

[Randomthought]

10. I agree the best of the three

Interestingly my husband hasn't read any of the books but he thought this movie was the best of the three.
He also figured out from the names on the map that Lupine, Black and Pettigrew were Moony, Padfoot and Wormtail and that there wasa history.

[Dudley_DUright]

12. To avoid the orgy of canonization of St. Ronald on the tube

Nell and I went to see the movie last night. I agree with your assessment 100% and I hope the same director (Cuaron) stays on to do the fourth movie "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire".

[Skinner]

14. It's got a different director.

They've already started filming Book 4. The director is Mike Newell. Here's the IMDB page for the movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330373/

Apparently, he's the guy who directed "Mona Lisa Smile" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral":

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001565/

[WildClarySage]

17. No, he isn't.

They are alternating directors so that they can begin shooting the next film as soon as they've finished the last, so that they can get the movies made while the main 3 actors are still children. Cuaron may direct 5 though, not sure. But they've been working on 4 for months now.

It would have been nice if they'd done more with the the map, and I think they did a real disservice by not touching the whole hermione/house elves angle. There's important social commentary being ignored there.

I got the feeling that they tried too hard to pack too much into the movie and rejected the things that made you care about Hogwarts and the characters. Like showing only a brief part of the Quiddich game. And more of Professor Trelawney & that class would have given the movie more oomph. Like they did with the Leaky Cauldron. They gave us some more insight into Harry's world that way. The movie needed more of that kind of thing. The first two did a better job of that. But I guess if they did it my way, the movie would have been 5 hours long! And I really liked the cinematography and the "feel" that Cuaron gave this one.

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. What about hermoine and the house elves?

Can you elaborate?

[supernova]

25. Hermione gets socially aware

and realizes the apalling way house elves are treated. House elves like Dobbie are magical, virtual slaves. They work in the kitchens of Hogwart's and a lot of prominent families have house elves. Dobbie himself was kept by the Malfoys.

Hermione sets up her own advocacy group on behalf of the house elves. It's worth noting that Malfoy, especially in Book 3, derides her "mudblood" heritage.

She even gets a lot of grief from Ron about it, eventhough the Weasleys are poor.

edit: I haven't see the movie yet, but it's sad that this part of the narrative didn't make it to the screen. It's one of the most important moral lessons in the book, IMO.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. I think I picked up a ting of this in the movie in another scene.

Hermoine herself is on the lower end of the social strata because she is a muggle. And the scene where she trudges out of the Fortune Teller's classroom indicates that she is socially aware of her lower class status. Emma Thompson delivers a cutting assessment of Hermoine's chances of "getting it" and after Hermoine leaves abruptly, Thompson doesn't even show any indication that she said anything wrong, because, well, what she said is just the way it is.

[supernova]

28. There's a hint of it "The Chamber of Secrets" movie too

When Hermione asks Maggie Smith to tell them about The Chamber of Secrets.

As she begins her tale, she notes that the four founders of Hogwart's had a huge disagreement about who could attend. As she notes that Slytherin wanted to accept only magical kids from magical familes, Malfoy and Hermione pointedly exchange glares.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

29. THAT is in the fourth book.

Hermione starts SPEW in the fourth book after meeting Winky at the Quiddich world cup.
Duckie

[supernova]

44. You're right

I was getting ahead of the movies.

[MaineDem]

34. No Hermione/house elves in Book 3

I just finished re-reading it last night. It's in another book; I can't remember which one. The one where they go to the Quiddich Cup, I think.

On edit: I should have read Rubber Duckie's reponse before I replied. :)

[curse10]

13. Definately the best yet

The three kids have really matured. The acting is greatly improved from the first film. I had a hard time getting used to the new Dumbeldore, but Michael Gambon has huge shoes to fill.

I always want more Quidditch scenes, but I complained about that in the first two films as well. But it is only going to get harder to pare these books down into a 2.5 hour movie.

The special effects were fantastic. The Dementers scared the shit out of me. I'm glad they did that, though. They are supposed to be terrifying, and not just to kids.

[MusicTVstar]

15. i'm the dork...

who went and saw it at midnight on thursday. I don't think anyone in the theater was under 15.

I liked the new movie a lot, as it moved much faster & held my attention better than the first two did. I agree, the movie was much "darker," which i think made it more enjoyable among the older viewers, but i wonder if kids will like it as much. And, (assuming that Cuaron directs the 5th book), I cant wait to see his interpretation of it. That book was so much darker than the others already.

so all in all i liked the movie, it is probably my favorite so far. still like the books better though! :)

[LWolf]

39. lol

I'm the teacher that had to deal with all of those bleary-eyed kids Friday morning.

I haven't seen it yet; I considered it Friday night, but decided to wait for a few weeks until I'm on vacation, and the kids have all seen it.

I spend all day every day in a room packed with kids. I'll hit the theater when they're off doing something else.

Not worried about spoilers; I've read the books, and the kids talked of nothing else all day Friday.

[Lisa]

58. it would be a great way to get people talking about "revisionist history"

e.g. how events are covered in the media, and the different impressions that are conveyed. Even younger kids can get into errors/biases (they love talking about mistakes made by grownups, such as when the paper gets things wrong!)

I sometimes use Harry Potter examples in my college lectures. It's funny to see a few older students who have read the books and don't care who knows ... and more who don't want anybody to think they're nerds, but eventually not being able to resist adding in points! We had a pretty good discussion earlier this year regarding accessibility of education, using the Sorting Hat's description of the 4 different philosophies of the Hogwarts founders (elite access only; those who meet the highest intellectual standards; those with the desire and initative; or universal).

[LWolf]

60. I like the sorting hat analogy.

We did a little "revisionist" history today, discussing the origin of the Washington/cherry tree fable. My 5th and 6th graders surprised me; when I asked them if they thought exaggeration or "fictionalizing" a real person or event in order to influence public opinion was an isolated incident, they unanimously said no. When I asked them if they thought it happens currently, they said, "all the time."

All of this time, I thought they believed everything they see on T.V. :eyes:

I can't use HP to "teach" in elementary school; it's not on our "approved" list. We can discuss what we've read and seen on our own, though, and those are some interesting avenues of discussion.

:hi:

[TrogL]

51. I took some kids

They liked it fine.

I think the werewolves spooked one of them who's got a thing about dogs.

[ikojo]

16. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and consider it the best

of the three Harry Potter movies. The three main characters are teens and are experiencing the range of teen emotions. I especially liked it when Harry blows up his aunt in the kitchen after she has insulted him one time too many. A kid can only take so much before he loses control.

Too bad Cuaron is not staying on for the next movie. The next director has big shoes to fill. I am glad Chris Columbus is gone..he is too pollyannish for my tastes.

[moof]

18. Very good film 8.8 to maybe even a 9.0 but the director was a bad idea,

This is not to say he did a terrible job but that he was given the box with 128 colors and only used 64. There will never be a way to tell but had it been up to moof a director that had no idea of harry Potter and had never read any of the books or seen any of the movies should have never been under consideration for the job.
The books get darker as each one takes you deeper into the world of harry potter. This may be a minority opinion but it seemed like a director who was familiar with the first two films would have made an
even darker film. Personally the last film seemed as dark and even took harry closer to the edge of no return than this film did. When were any of the 3 main characters ever put in real danger that looked like there was no way out.

Snape again catches the flavor that Harry Potter needs more of, his performance gets across the point that the situation is serious and you can never let your guard down or be too careful.

So great film but a nagging feeling that several opportunities for taking an audience to places they were promised were lost.

[donhakman]

21. The physics of the CG were outstanding

There was also one scene where a moving image passed right through me - with the assistance of the sound effects.

[TXlib]

23. Maybe you're reading too much into it?

Of course, the movie starts off with Harry secretly "playing with his wand" in his bedroom, trying to avoid getting caught by his Uncle. And then there was the thinly-veiled drug experimentation scene when they Griffyndor boys first arrived back at school. (A bunch of boys sitting around in a dorm room, with their shirt tails out and their ties tied around their heads, passing around "magical candy," looked immediately familiar to me.)

Now, I've got a pretty dirty mind, but the 'playing with the wand' bit didn't strike me as hinting at any double entendre.

And your drug scene was nothing more than candy spelled with enchantments to make the eater sound like a particular animal for a moment... just novelty candy. I didn't think it was hinting at drug experimentation.

I always thought Hermione was supposed to be rather plain, and Emma Watson is really a very cute girl. She's going to be very pretty when she gets older. Unfortunately, I have a hard time looking at her now without thinking of the SNL Harry Potter skit with Lindsey Lohan as Hermione.

[Skinner]

26. Certainly possible that I'm reading too much into it.

Who knows. That's what makes it fun.

[TrogL]

53. I disagree

Now that you pointed it out, I see it. I had assumed he was studying under the covers - but that's a Hermione (sp?) thing, not Harry. He's known how to light a wand for quite awhile - there's no need to "practice". Hence, it's got to be a double entendre.

I don't quite agree on the drug thing. It appears to be just an extension of the wierd flavoured candies (can't remember the name of them) from earlier movies.

[TrogL]

54. Somebody else agrees with you

http://www.providencephoenix.com/movies/other_stories/documents/03879194.asp

...in bed with his head under the covers, furtively playing with his wand. Read into that what you will.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

55. Various other newspapers, including the Globe and Mail picked up on that.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

30. I agree with you Skinner.

I was thinking that at the end when Harry went to see Lupin that they'd explain the whole animal thing, and why Harry saw the stag when he cast the spell on the dementors. And when they didn't focus on the rat enough, and suddenly he became this human, people wouldn't get the connection between Black, Lupin and Pettigrew without a little explanation.

I think this movie was visually superior to the other two, but I was craving for the to be more of an explanation, and I wanted them to show more of the interaction between the Weasleys and Harry like in the book. THe Weasleys are the best characters in the book in my opinion, with Hagrid following a very close second. I hope the Fourth movie goes back to the original idea, where we learn a lot of back story and maybe Harry will find out about the whole connection of Black, Lupin, Pettigrew and his dad, and why Snape resented them all. I'm craving information, and I know those that haven't read the books are to. Maybe JK and Cuaron were conspiring to get people to read the book?

Also, in the Third book, Sirius gave Ron a little owl. He's a good part of the fourth book, so I'm hoping they somehow work him into the fourth.

Duckie

[No2W2004]

31. I saw it yesterday

I didn't read the book, I saw it with my son. We both liked the movie. They finally made Hagrid look like a giant. I never made the connection between names on the map and the 3 chariters, and I never figured out why Harry saw a stag, as it wasn't explained. Another question I have is what is the deal with the stuff Lupin kept giving Harry after he woke up from a dementor attack? That wasn't explained either. Pettigrew was really out of place compaired to the rest of the people in the movie. I didn't miss another trip to Diagon Alley, another 30 minutes about how horrid the Dursley's are, and another end-of-term story wrap up. Maggie Smith was hardly in the movie. The dementors were cool, as was Buckbeak. I liked it better than the first 2 movies, I just wish that some things had been made clearer.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

33. OK...I can explain...

Lupin was giving Harry chocolate, because as he said, it helps to warm you back up after having the life sucked out of you by the simple presence of the dementors. I agree about Pettigrew. Sirius Black was in Azkaban, because he supposedly killed Pettigrew plus 13 muggles in the process. Plus, they believed Black helped kill the Potters by telling Valdemort where they were hiding. I highly suggest reading the books. They are so much more informative than the movies. Especially the third, because in my opinion, it's the best in the series so far.
Duckie

[No2W2004]

36. Thanks for that,

I knew he said it was chocolate on the train, but it seemed like they were trying to make a point of mentioning it after every attack. I got the book today. Boy, this will be a lot different from the books I've been reading recently. (All shrub related)

[hel]

32. It was definitely not for the kids.

I went to see the movie in a theater at 9PM where more than half the people were kids, and I'm sure a lot of them saw nightmares that night. This one not only was dark, it had a lot of horror movie elements in it.

I liked it, but not as much as the book itself. I like the tiny details, the little in-jokes as much as the main story itself in Harry Potter books. For example, the Weasley twins were hardly there in the movie.


Although, the funniest thing was the 4 or 5 year old kid who came sitting next to me. He had come with his father, who obviously came directly from work. After the first part (we have a 10-minute break during movies here in Turkey) his father was asking him 'I fell asleep, what was it like?' and the kid said 'It's a good thing you slept, you'd get scared.' with this really serious and parent-kind of expression.

[alittlelark]

37. My kids loved it!

My 8 and 9 year old have read all the books already, and really enjoyed the movie. My daughter, 9, yelled 'way cool' - a bit too loudly - when Hermione decked Malfoy. It was her favorite part of the movie.
My son's favorite part was the time-travel - Mine was the patronus scene.

The movie is fine for relatively mature kids.

PS....my son is the spitting image of Harry Potter, and is told so all the time. As we left the theatre my son went running out (in full Hogwarts dress) - there was a huge line waiting for the next movie - there was a scene with everyone pointing and yelling because I think they thought he was an actor playing for the theatre!! He's getting a big head now...

[SarahB]

40. My kids loved it

But both my 8 and 12 year old read all the books. My son (the 8 year old) complained that they left out too much, but we explained that's how it usually is with books vs. movies. I didn't see it though, they went with dad. I did hear that you could tell it was a different director.

[Snoggera]

35. Same as the old Harry Potter?

I haven't seen or read any of this trifling trifle.

Maybe I should.

[derby378]

38. A disappointment compared to the first two films

I mean really, what were they thinking?

[scarlet_owl]

41. I liked it, but I thought the pacing was off.

I understand that the book was hard to adapt to the screen, but I felt that some of the scenes went too fast. I thought the ending sucked, but the dementors looked pretty good. I give it a B+.

[Liberal Classic]

42. The books themselves are getting darker

And I am glad this is reflected in the film.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

43. It was quite brilliant.

Cuaron is a star.
Since when did Hogwarts become Rivendell, though?

[hunter]

45. My kids enjoyed it, but not as much as the first two.

I was much less critical than they were, and the effects were great.

Both my kids wanted the movie to be longer, and they missed very much the Quidditch matches and classroom situations that are in the book, but not the movie.

[HuckleB]

46. How can you have "spoilers" regarding Harry Potter?

Are there people in the world who haven't read the books?

No friggin' way!

;)

And, yes, this is a big improvement over the first two snooze fests.

[derby378]

47. LOL!

Gotta admit I liked that perspective...

[TrogL]

48. Takes the franchise to a whole new level

I didn't 'get' any of the sex references except that I couldn't take my eyes off Hermeione (sp?) - and I'm gay. Maybe it's the tomboy thing. She slapped Harry's hand once - I'm not 100% sure why. I didn't see anything out of line.

I was worried about what an adolescent Harry would be like. The books turn him into a real bitch but he's a bit softer and gentler in the movie. He can't do a "woohoo" worth a damn - he should drop it or take lessons. Nevertheless, he's gained power both as a actor and a character. His expression doing the Petronus spell (final time) is dead on.

The timing of the ending is superb - feels like Agatha Christie or the ending of Oceans Eleven.

I just love the massive pendulum swinging back and forth. Another sex reference?

A few quibbles:

I don't like what they've done with Malfoy. Even in the books I don't remember him being that much of a whimpering fop. I much preferred the junior dark malevolence of the earlier movies. Snapes still does senior dark malevolence to a T. There's an interesting bit of parallellism between Hermeione (sp?) decking Malfoy and Sirius(?) decking Snapes (which reminds me - whatever happened to Snapes?).

The "when I recovered consciousness" thing gets a bit tiring after the third time around.

The special effect for the Petronus charm seen side-on is just plain cheesy. Looks like early Star Trek.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

49. When did Malfoy become Ben Mulroney?

:shrug:

[derby378]

50. My main complaints with HP3

1. Why a children's choir? That time could have been devoted to plot.
2. "Snape's Grudge" totally gone. No development of Snape/Black feud.
3. Book - Three (count 'em, three) Quidditch matches. Movie - One-half?!?
4. Dementors were pretty cool - but the movie take on the Dementor's Kiss was a little weak. Not scary enough.
5. Remember that little coda with Uncle Vernon at the very end of the book? Gone.
6. Movie just stops in freeze-frame. Weak - even if Harry has reason to be overjoyed.

On the other hand - lush visuals (if a bit dark), great acting, and the Knight Bus was a hoot.

[Lavender Brown]

52. I missed the Quidditch too, especially the winning of the cup

The third book is the first time Gryffindor wins the Cup.

To me, the dementors didn't seem as scary as they were in the book, and I don't seem to remember them floating around above Harry so much as stalking him from the ground and making him fall during the game.

But mostly, I liked the new look of the movie.

[2bfree]

57. We enjoyed it.........

I wish they had explained a few things better. There was no mention of why Harry was seen in the form of a stag and everyone's nicknames. I can't wait for the next one to come out so I can see how they do the whole wizard tournament thing.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

59. I loved it!

I just got back from a matinee and have to say, I adored it!

I am a big fan of the books, and a so-so fan of the films. I have never been comfortable with Chris Columbus' direction of the first two films, he's a bit too "shiney happy" as a filmmaker for me.

What Cuaron did with the franchise is turn it on it's head.

I didn't feel as if I'd entered a Disneyland theme ride as with the first two, now I feel as if Hogswart is a real place in a real environment that I could visit if if only I weren't a Muggle. :) The color palatte was a thing of beauty and the photography was damn good. I also liked Cuaron's choices of showing the kids as modern teens in their own clothes when out of class, and his tip of the hat to 1940s England with Lupin and his dress/music. So much of it had a traditional English public school feel with a magical overlay about it.

I loved Gambon as Dumbledore -- I think he will be a great addition to the cast. I liked what they were doing with Hermione's character (girl power!), though I hate what they are doing to Ron's -- they are playing Ron for a comic weeney way too much. Giving his line "You'll have to kill us all" in the shrieking Shack to Hermione was unforgivable. In the books Ron may be afraid of spiders and such, but he is fiercely loyal and quick to come to his friends defense -- they are losing too much of that for the quick laugh. And as for Harry, I like the "new" teenage Harry -- a little cocky, a little smartass, a lot more willing to stand up for himself.

And Cuaron's focus on Harry's relationships with the various father figures in his life and his own moving into his maleness/adulthood with their help was very nice.

There was so much going on in various scenes in the background that I will have to see it a few more times just to watch for all that action! I really loved the giraffe bolting through the picture frames when the Fat Lady is discoverd missing from her picture. :)