Looks to be the “Wrath of Khan” of the Harry Potter films.
Currently 89% at Rotten Tomatoes, and the superlatives flow like wine.
I saw the midnight showing last night at the IMAX theater in the Bridge in LA. I thought it was a very good film in a lot of ways, but … I’ve got mixed feelings. More than anything, the pace felt very rushed, and I felt like a lot was missing. I’ll try and organize my thoughts and post a little bit later.
A lot of reviewers are commenting on the pace of the movie, and even those who like it are suggesting that things get a bit rushed; the plot lines are not all clear to those who are not familiar with the book.
That said, we’ll be seeing this one.
Troy
I’ll take “rushed” over “we’ll put you to sleep by the 40-minute mark.” I conked out in the theatre during each of the first two Potter movies, so this is good news to me.
Out of curiosity, do the movies do decent justice to the books? I’m never going to read the series, but if I check out the flicks, will I get a good, albeit general, idea of what the books are like?
This one is directed by Alfonso Cuaron. His past works include Y Tu Mama Tambien and 1998’s Great Expectations (Ethan Hawke, Gwyneth Paltrow, etc.).
He seems to have a good eye for romanticism, hopefully this movie will be much more entertaining to a guy like me. A guy who hasn’t read any of the books but goes to the movies because his wife read all of them.
I’ll take “rushed” over “we’ll put you to sleep by the 40-minute mark.” I conked out in the theatre during each of the first two Potter movies, so this is good news to me.
Getting bored or checking your watch constantly is one thing, but falling asleep during a movie tells me more about your disorders then the quality of a film. :)
I’ve never been able to fall asleep in a movie, but you do hear about it all the time. Maybe I just do not go to enough movies.
I can’t speak for the most recent one, (the one in theaters right now) but I have seen the first two movies, as well as read all the books.
Most of the reviewers are right… the first two movies are extremely faithful to the books… and yet, they somehow completely miss the point. They just don’t feel right. All the events are accurate, things look the way you would expect them to, I thought the actors were quite good… and yet, the movies don’t have much of the magic of the books. The movies are actually kinda boring, especially the second one, while I thought the books were (trite catchprase alert) enchanting.
Anyways, the books got better as they progressed… deeper, richer, and darker. Maybe the movies will too. Still, I found even the first Potter book to be pretty good, while I thought the first Potter movie to be “meh”, at best.
Rex Reed is a bitter old queen.
Harry Potter and the… Wrath of Khan. hehe
Ironically, I thought the first two movies were too faithful to the books, which is to say that I think they ended up focusing too much on events and not enough on the character relationships. Of course, I enjoyed the movies all the same, and I’m looking forward to seeing the third one.
- Alan
Brett seems awfully disposed to falling asleep a lot when watching entertainment.
— Alan
The first two movies were sort of a filmmaking by numbers approach. They were incredibly boring. The first one is especially lacking. It’s about a kid being introduced to the world of magic, for God’s sake. Why was it so boring? It was like a film version of the Cliff’s Notes. If you had to take a test about the books you could get an A after seeing the movie, but that’s not the friggin point of making movies.
I agree with the “events over characters” “cliff’s notes” and “too faithful” arguements put forth about the first two films, especially the second one during which I can’t watch when even the slightest bit tired or I do find myself nodding off during.
The third movie, though, definitely makes headway into improving this, though I could easily see how someone unfamiliar with the books might question some of the events going on. However I think it’ll be more along the lines of them looking up online the plotpoints they’re missing out on, rather than finding the whole thing unpleasant.
Really, the only downside to having seen the film early today was the fact that the damned theater doesn’t have one of those pre-film slides reminding people to turn off their cellphones, and six phones went off during the run of the film.
I do want to mention that I liked the fact that the actor playing Nevil Longbottom has lost most of his weight and has become something of a tall, lanky teenager, which has the unintended effect of making him better suited for the more pro-active role his character will take in later books.
I also am thankful for the deemphasis on Quidditch, Harry’s involvement in by the third book had worn thin on me.
The very subtle hints to the growing relationship between Hermione and Ron, which went beyond the obvious hand grabbing scene to the way they stood around each other in other scenes was also welcome, as it puts more character development and relationship into the series.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
Does Harry actually do something in this one or is the day saved once again by our little tween hottie (Harmonica or something…)?
/not a fan
//flame-on ;)
Actually the day seems to be saved by just about everybody in a small way, with the possible exceptions of Snape and Ron. The idea of Harry being the end-all-be-all savior never sat well with me, so the more people that help save the day, the better.
Except that the day isn’t really saved in the same sense as the first too films, which gives it more of the Empire Strikes Back level ending though on a happier note.
After more thought, I’m still not sure how to best describe my feelings on Azkaban. Here goes:
-
I really liked the darker, grittier look of this movie. It retains the same world established in the first two films, but takes it in a new direction appropriate to where the series is headed.
-
For the most part, it’s a very attractive film, with some truly breathtaking moments, especially one sequence that sets up the final parts of the film. The dementors look fantastic, as does the effect they have on their victims. On the other hand, I thought the werewolf looked astoundingly cheesy. It bugged me in every scene it was in. In a post-Lord of the Rings world, it really stuck out.
-
I liked the overall tone of this film over the first two. Yeah, there’s still some slapstick, but less of it. I think that’s a good thing. These stories are getting dark enough that they can do without the cartoony skits.
-
I can understand critiques that the pace of the first two films was too slow, but I think the pendulum may have swung a bit too far in the other direction here. As the books get longer, there’s a challenge to pack in more plot details, and in Azkaban, things seem to race along just a little too fast. You don’t really have a chance to breathe or think about what’s happened before jumping to the next event. I know 2:19 is already long, but I would have been totally happy with another 10-20 minutes throughout the center of the film to help even out the pace and add in a few more points from the book.
-
On that note: Hardcore fans of the books are going to notice a lot of stuff missing. This movie, for better or worse, is far less concerned with retelling the book note-for-note than its predecessors. The overall points are all intact, and when things wrap up, the fourth movie can pick up where its supposed to, but there are a lot of little touches that are missing, like the subplot of Harry getting a Firebolt for Christmas (and all the speculation that goes with it), gadgets like the Sneakoscope, or the explanation of who Padfoot and co are. I know these are small touches, but they’re also things that made the books so enjoyable – the movie just kinda races by them or ignores them completely.
-
There’s an amazing cast here, even if they’re not given much to do. Sirius Black is obviously a central figure, but he’s talked about more than he appears, and Oldman really doesn’t have that many scenes. Emma Thompson is funny in her few scenes as Trelawney – I’m looking forward to her returning in future films. David Thewlis gets the majority of screen time as Lupin, and does a great job. My biggest disappointment is Richard Gambon as the new Dumbledore, replacing the late Richard Harris. He looks the part, but (like the film itself, I guess) his tone is very matter-of-fact and to the point, more like a run-of-the-mill principal and less the wise, enigmatic wizard of the first two films. He doesn’t appear much, either, so it’s not a major issue.
-
And what is the deal with Draco becoming a pussy? I’m not really sure where that fits in with anything.
Overall, it’s an enjoyable film, and probably easier to get into than the first two, but there’s also the risk of getting lost with the faster pace. If you’re a Potter fan, you’ll certainly enjoy it, but probably not as much as the book.
Sluggo says: 3 out of 4 stars.
[size=2]edit: just cleaned things up. [/size]
I shudder to think how they’re going to pull off the books following this one, as Goblet of Fire has nearly twice the amount of plot to work through.
I had originally heard that they had considered making GoF a two-parter, but have gone back to a single serving, which quite frankly won’t work all that well.
Even PoA had nearly enough plot to work into a two-parter, as it’s hard to believe a whole school year passed by in the course of the two hours.