Re: ***SPOILER*** POA Movie: Top 10 things

[Kaisenji]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Scott Peterson"
<sfpeterso at y...> wrote:
> *** Please move if this is in the wrong spot ***
> I was able to see "Azkaban" last night.  All I can say is "WOW".  It 
> was spectacular!
> 
> Here is my list of "Top 10 things I liked about the movie":
> ·	The dementors – These foul creatures actually surpassed my 
> book imagination (an extremely rare feat).  Very scary, a lot of 
> symbolism, and the soul-sucking was out of this world – excellent 
> special effects here!
> ·	Buckbeak – Wow.  Buckbeak had me believing that this wasn't a 
> robot.  The horse-like actions were amazing, and dragging his talons 
> through the water?  Again, I can just say wow!
> ·	The score – Scary, funny, and leading us through the 
> adventure. I truly felt like I was right along side Harry during the 
> whole movie
> ·	The detail – Hagrid's hut, the 
> ·	Remus Lupin – the acting and dialogue.  Remus stole the show 
> (in my opinion)
> ·	The Whomping Willow – I never pictured the Whomping Willow as 
> a humorous angle, but the vignettes of the Whomping Willow were 
> classic:  the birds, the leaves, and the snow.  This added some much 
> needed humor to the movie.
> ·	The Weasley twins – Yay!  They finally had the scene of the 
> Fred and George saying every other word while talking to Harry about 
> the Mauraders map.  Too bad we didn't see more of them (movie length 
> is to blame).
> ·	The Mauraders map was great – the special effects were truly 
> amazing 
> ·	Hedwig – Wow!  I had read an interview stating that Hedwig 
> was a special owl, but his character was truly amazing on the screen.
> ·	 The opening dorm scene, where all of the roommates were 
> taking turns with noise-making treats.  I especially liked the steam 
> coming from Harry's ears, and hearing them laugh together.
-----------------------------
Totally agree!  I definately cheered with the Dorm scene, the Wesley's
and Lupin is my favorite as is Sirus.
> 
> 
> Here is my list of "Top 10 things I didn't like about the movie":
> ·	Hurry, hurry, hurry – Most scenes were just too short.  I 
> know we needed a lot of scenes to make sense of the movie, but it 
> seemed much too rushed.  Columbus did a better job of providing us 
> some breathing room between scenes.  I would rather have another half 
> hour of movie, and not feel like I just ran a 100 meter sprint when 
> the movie ended.
> ·	15 minutes of credits – were there outtakes after all those 
> credits?  At 3:00 am, I couldn't wait more than 15 minutes to see if 
> there were any outtakes.
> ·	Remus Lupin visual – Remus looked more like a Remus Weasley – 
> a cousin of Molly and Arthur.  His acting was impeccable, but I have 
> always pictures someone looking more like Peter O'Toole with 4 days 
> worth of stubble.
-------------------
There are some pictures online that show Lupin more as a lost, tired
soul. I didn't see the connect there as you did however. Interesting :)

> ·	Are the grounds really so vertical?  I guess my book 
> imagination pictures Hogwarts as being flatter.  I always pictured 
> the castle opening up to green lawns, leading to the lake straight 
> ahead, Hagrids hut on the left, and the greenhouses on the right.  
> This had a lot of vertical movement, and a lot more ground than was 
> in my imagination.
---------------------------
I felt that Alfonso did a better job show just how vast Hogwarts is. 
And the hills work because in medevial history, Castles were often put
on high or plateau ground so they had a 360 degree view of everything
around them.  Makes me glad I'm not going there WHEW! Can you imagine
having to walk up and down all those stairs?!?
I'm tired just thinking about it.


> ·	Peter Pettigrew – a fat rat?  Hmmm, this seemed to mock the 
> book.  This was a casting mistake IMHO.  My mind always pictured a 
> Wallace Shawn (Vizzini in "The Princess Bride") look-alike when I 
> imagined Peter.
---------------------------
Inconceivable.  Well they did say in the book that he was quite 'rat
like in appearance which they did accomplish--ick!

> ·	OK – I will get flamed for this one, but Daniel Radcliffe 
> didn't act very well.  Emma and Rupert were sensational, but I got 
> nothing from Daniel in this movie.  Yes, Harry has a somewhat wooden 
> personality, but I just didn't see the facial anxiety, or any of the 
> things that endear us to Mr. Potter (except for the first few scenes 
> at the Dudleys).
------------------------------
Completely disagree with you on this one but I promise no flames!  Mr.
Radcliffe is way better in PoA than in the other two movies were he
felt like someone had to push him into being emotional. Although I did
like his performance in SS better.
This time, the director made him be his emotions instead of just
playing them.  Anyone can play act but to be is something different.
Emma's performance and use is much improved. You can see her being a
powerful witch by GoF-yet still our fav bossy know-it-all.
Rupert on the other hand-ugh. I disliked how they've turned Ron into
the clown (though he(as Ron)is good with his comic timing) and a
chicken at the worst of time.  What's up with that??? Ron's importance
in Harry's life is far underused and frankly I'm tired of seeing it. I
hope that this Michael guy can do what no one else has done since SS,
Make Ron an essential next to Harry.  GoF is where Ron has to shine,
be himself, show his colors or I'll be very disappointed if they hand
lines off. 
Ron is my favorite character and I hate seeing him so disused *sigh*


> ·	The dark forest was the same set in 1, 2, and 3.  Ok, I need 
> to see more of the forest than some mangled tree roots and bare 
> forest floor, surrounded by very tall trees.
> ·	Cornelius Fudge - I never noticed that Cornelius was 
> changed.  I guess I got used to the old Cornelius Fudge – the new
one isn't so bumbling.
------------------
But isn't he though otherwise he would not need to bother Dumbledore
with owls all the time.  I only pictured him being younger so I agree
with ya on parts.

> ·	Dumbledore – I REALLY missed Richard Harris.  Michael Gambon 
> was too comedic, and didn't have the commanding presence of Richard 
> Harris.  And what was with the beard jewelry?
-----------------------------------
I like him!  He shows the other side of Dumbledore Harris couldn't or
didn't want to show.  Where Harris was the Grandfatherly yet powerful
wizard that stared Lucius in the eye w/o blinking; Gambon had the
humor w/ a touch of seriousiness and quiet power that is also Dumbledore.
Mind ya know, these are also my interpretations from reading the books.
Jewelry!? LOL. I missed that!

Kai