What's new

Different director for 4th Harry Potter movie Goblet of Fire (1 Viewer)

JonZ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
7,799
From DH.........

"Slavish devotion to the material by Chris Columbus meant the first two "Harry Potter" movies clocked in at nearly three hours each. Not a problem in itself as ticket sales showed, but with each Potter book proving to be significantly longer than the last, the question of length began to become a concern.

Director Alfonso Cuaron has managed to bring in the third one at a little over 2.5 hours, and now Mike Newell has been handed the difficult task of turning in a fourth film of about the same length (the split into two films idea has long been given the rightful heave-ho) even though there's around 2.5 times as much material to condense as there was for the last film "Chamber of Secrets".

Well today, CBBC Newsround have revealed at least one way in which that condensation is happening - he's cutting out the first few chapters of the book. Actor Richard Griffiths' agent revealed that Richard was "very disappointed" not to be appearing as Harry's nasty Uncle Vernon Dursley in the fourth movie.

Time considerations have forced the filmmakers to start the film at a later point in the book, most likely at The Burrow or the Quidditch World Cup scenes from the novel. Griffiths is reported as saying "I said to JK Rowling: "Couldn't the Dursleys turn up to an open day at Harry's school or something,' but she said, 'I don't think so'."

Griffiths and the other Dursleys will appear in this June's "Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban", and are hopefully expected to return for the fifth feature "Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix"."
 

oscar_merkx

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
7,626
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/MT...es/004370.html

".. a Warner Bros. spokesperson recently announced that the target release for this movie is November, 2005. (4/11/04) Specifically, WB is aiming for November 18th, the Friday before Thanksgiving, which currently puts them up against James Bond 21. The two movies appeal to different audiences, so I think they might actually both stick to this date."
sounds good to me
 

Adam_S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2001
Messages
6,316
Real Name
Adam_S
I thought they'd probably be switching the films to every eighteen months now, because once they had principle photography of the kids in the can for the first three, ages aren't going to be quite as essential, and people will easily accept how they look. Especially since standard Hollywood practice is to cast a few years older than a part, so we're used to seeing kids seem older than they are. Hopefully by the time May/June 2007 roles around and Order of the Phoenix film comes out we'll already have the sixth book and the seventh hopefully coming soon or already released (most fantasy writers I've seen take the longest for the middle books which are the most difficult to write, but it varies, let's hope the long delay between four and five was a bit of anomaly, but I'm willing to wait so long as the quality holds up.

Adam
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
The Dursleys are my least favorite part of any Harry Potter movie or book. Tedious. Boring. Melodramatic. Forced. Cartoonish.

Rowling trying to be Dahl. The Dursleys escape to a tiny island in the ocean? What next, a giant peach lands next to the house?

On DVD, their horrid scenes are among the reasons for the invention of the "chapter skip" button. I love me some Harry Potter movies, but I'd just as soon as kick a Dursley in the face as endure reading about them yet again, or seeing their tired "let's abuse Harry" garbage on screen yet again.

Glad to not have to bother with such scenes during the film version of Goblet of Fire. Sounds like the best HP movie yet.
 

Ricardo C

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
5,068
Real Name
Ricardo C
You're right on all counts, Ernest. But I'm very disappointed we won't be seeing the meeting between the Dursleys and the Weasleys, with the latter busting through the fireplace
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,971
Location
Albany, NY
Color me disappointed. I like the Dursley scenes. It's sort of how one knows they're going back to Harry Potter. I'll miss the scene Ricardo mentioned in the post above this one the most.
However I'll be absolutely devestated if they don't have the tents at the Quittich World Cup. I'd really like to see the domestic Burrow scenes as well.
As long as they keep the bare essentials of the plot and the final confrontation that results, it still has the chance to become a good adaptation.
You'd almost need to have the domestic Burrow scenes to make the Portkey look inconspicuous, in order for the audience to buy the Trophy as a portkey.
 

oscar_merkx

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
7,626
Some sad news indeed

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._selway_dies_1

Mary Selway, widely recognized as Britain's top casting director, died Wednesday at London's Harley Street Clinic following a long battle with cancer. She was 68.

Mike Newell, with whom she was working on the fourth "Harry Potter" when she died, said, "Once she had taken something on, she bit into it and never let it go. She believed in every film she did very fiercely, and sometimes her willpower was the only thing that made them happen."
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,971
Location
Albany, NY
And Brendan Gleeson (of Troy fame) has been cast as Mad-Eye Moody. I've only seen him as the Flesh Fair guy in A.I., so I don't know what to expect in regards to performance, but atleast he's got the build and look I pictured for Mad-Eye.

I know even less about Madame de la Tour. I never really had a picture in my head of Maxime, but I can see how they extrapolated her look from the written descriptions. Hopefully some with a greater appreciation for British sitcoms can chime in better on how she'd play in the role.
 

oscar_merkx

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
7,626
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv...00/3736481.stm

Matthew Lewis plays the nerdy Neville Longbottom in the Harry Potter movies.

What are you doing now?
I've started filming on the Goblet Of Fire. I started a couple of weeks ago. I've just been working on a few difficult scenes so far. But I'm off now til July. There's a lot of things to prepare for before filming really starts all the time. There's a lot of stuff to do with Dan. It seems to be getting pretty busy though once I am back in July. They have given us a schedule but I don't trust it - ha! Film schedules don't usually go to time.
 

oscar_merkx

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
7,626
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/

BURBANK, CA, August 4, 2004 - Ralph Fiennes (Red Dragon, Maid in Manhattan, Schindler's List) and Miranda Richardson (The Hours, Sleepy Hollow, The Crying Game) have joined the all-star cast of Warner Bros. Pictures' Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the fourth film adaptation of J.K. Rowling's popular Harry Potter novel series. Fiennes will play Harry Potter's nemesis, the evil Lord Voldemort, and Richardson takes on the role of muckraking journalist Rita Skeeter.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
Are casting notices spoilers?

I wonder if they'll go back and change the VFX in Sorcerer's Stone so that a certain "face" now resembles the face of a certain actor who has just been cast...
 

Claire Panke

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Messages
412
How can this be a spoiler when Warner publicity puts out a press release on the casting which was picked up by the media amd all the HP websites over THREE days ago? Not to mention the fact that Fienne's casting has been an open rumour for weeks. There. I said his name...so ban me. ;)

I want Cuaron back for OotP.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
I think the Cuaron buzz was over-hyped, myself. I think all three Harry Potter movies are on even par. There is much to commend in HP3, but then, there is much to snipe at, as well -- just like the previous HP films.
 

Claire Panke

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Messages
412
I couldn't disagree more strongly. I could snipe for pages and pages on the shortcomings of SS and CoS.

The first 2 HPs were enjoyable if rather pedestrian live-action scenes from the books. I found them overstuffed, overlong, clausterphobic and plodding. Worse, for movies about enchantment and magic, they were visually uninspired. Columbus sure ain't much of a hand with a camera. Plus he can't resist underlining the obvious, telegraphing his intentions or letting the kids mug in close-up. Columbus simply can't resist the cartoonish.

I do think the HP movies are Columbus best efforts, although, that's somewhat damning him with faint praise. The charm of the three young principals and the fine British cast went a long way toward redeeming SS and CoS, as did Klove's scripts, Stuart Craig's designs and Columbus' apparent fondness for the material. (JKR also isn't gonna let anyone get to crazy with the franchise.) SS and CoS were about as subtle as a them park ride, but they could have been so much worse.

Cuaron, OTOH, knows how to tell a story cinematically. I was delighted with PoA and find very little to complain about. Not only is this the first Potter movie that feels to me like the books read, it's the first Potter movie that actually feels like a film (instead of a very expensive live-action souvenir of the books.)

I don't want to go on and on, many critics have described PoA's virtues much more eloquently than I ever could (e.g. Stephanie Zacharek in Salon, Mary Ann Johansen and David Poland to name three among a hundred). But first of all, I was so relieved to see Cuaron finally move the bleeding camera! Finally, a HP film that FLOWED. The whole film opened up visually, especially with the location shooting and wide angle lenses. You can see so much more on the screen and there's so much more to see.

Hogwarts for once truly seemed like a real place in the Scottish highlands. The magic was so much better integrated into the texture of the film - plus there are delightful little details in the backgeound and corners of the frame that added texture to the film. I enjoyed the visual subtexts - the motifs of the clocks/mirrors/reflections throughout PoA. (Harry discovers that the enemy is not without but within).

Indeed, Cuaron wisely chose to explore the main theme of the book - Harry's emotional journey, his search for identity - while jettisoning the extraneous incident and subplot that cluttered the first two movies. Personally, I'd rather see the emotional territory of the book captured very well, at the expense of secondary plotlines, than endure another cramped and supreficial tale a la Columbus. I think Cuaron succeeded in spades here. Even the kids acted like true adolecents for a change, with their bickering and school ties askew.

J.K. Rowling felt the first two HPs were "too literal" - she was right. We'll see what Newell does with #4. Hopefully, he'll be in his Donnie Brasco/Awfully Big Adventure mode and NOT his Mona Lisa Smile mode (shudder).
 

Ricardo C

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
5,068
Real Name
Ricardo C
Cuaron's Azkaban felt incredibly rushed in the early stages. Far too many important details were left out in the name of hitting the ground running. However, the third act is so masterfully executed that it more than makes up for any early deficiencies. Easily the best HP movie yet, and certainly the richest in terms of audiovisual splendor. Darker, more surreal (thanks in no small part to the reimagined Hogwarts and John Williams' evocative score), and more involving. Pity he's not directing GoF.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
The first 2 HPs were enjoyable if rather pedestrian live-action scenes from the books. I found them overstuffed, overlong, clausterphobic and plodding. Worse, for movies about enchantment and magic, they were visually uninspired. Columbus sure ain't much of a hand with a camera. Plus he can't resist underlining the obvious, telegraphing his intentions or letting the kids mug in close-up. Columbus simply can't resist the cartoonish.

/
This must all be a matter of taste, because I find Rowling frequently creates broad characters and events that hover around the word "cartoonish". Look at the Dursleys -- not the most realistic characters to spring from British literature, but completely authentic in the paths of literature tread by fantasist Roald Dahl. The events leading up to the Dursleys and Harry living in a shack on an island in the middle of the sea in SS are *pure* Dahl, and while the books and the films tend to ground themselves a bit more as they go on, the spirit of Dahl lingers. Isn't it interesting how Rowling sometimes introduces her characters by comparing them to animals or echoing animals in order to achieve an immediate, broad (but accurate) visual image? Professor Umbridge is compared to a frog, Lockhart to a peacock -- we know Rowling's opinion of bad journalists when she names Rita Skeeter after a nickname for a mosquito. Rowling's work is not achingly subtle in the least, why should we expect the films to be subtle? Ebert compared SS to The Wizard of Oz, probably the least-subtle fantasy film ever made, and yet, also one of the most beloved.

Exactly how subtle should a movie be when an early scene showcases a family living on a rock outcropping in the Atlantic, a scene interrupted by the appearance of a giant who - last time we saw him - rode a flying motorcycle, and he now casts magic with an umbrella that makes a spoiled kid sprout a piggy tail?

In other words, I find that Columbus' films are solid adpatations of Rowling's writing. Maybe they don't transcend Rowling, but that's a testament to the strength of her work.

As for cartoonish mugging in SS or CoS, I think the actor who plays Draco Malfoy has *never* mugged so terribly or acted so unconvincingly than he does in POA. In fact, his performance in PoA is the worst performance ever given in a Harry Potter movie.

As for the recurring complaint that the films are too long, I remember a quote by an old studio head - I think J. Warner - and he was asked how long a movie should be. "How long is it good?" was his reply.

So many people have expressed the "too long" complaint for me to write it off, but then, watching SS and CoS, I wonder what exactly people would like to specifically remove without damaging the unfolding narrative or the flow of the film?

Conversely, one of the chief complaints I routinely hear about PoA is that it was too short and that it left out vital details. The meaning of the stag, for instance, is completely lost in the film, and it is a powerhouse moment in the book and the series.

What is the worst sin, a film with a running time equal to Fellowship of the Ring, or a compressed adpatation that trades brevity for meaning?

This is ironic, because for me, the greatest scenes in PoA are those where Cuaron allows himself to take his time. The Dementor attack on the train (easily one of the best scenes in all the movies), the leisurely talks between Lupin and Harry, Harry's private training lessons, Mr. Weasley trying to gently break some bad news to Harry in a long unbroken shot - these are wonderful moments and they have an authenticity and a reality that mirrors the srongest personal scenes in Rowling's books.

That's what I mean when I say all the films have their debits and credits, and for me, they are on even par.

SS and CoS were about as subtle as a them park ride, but they could have been so much worse.

The books aren't subtle, either, and in fact, SS *does* contain a moment right out of a theme park ride...the "roller coaster" in the underground vault in Gringott's bank that takes Harry and Hagrid to the Potter family fortune. Columbus cut that out of the film.

Cuaron, OTOH, knows how to tell a story cinematically.

So does Columbus. I would, in fact, challenge you to give demonstrable proof that he doesn't.

I was delighted with PoA and find very little to complain about. Not only is this the first Potter movie that feels to me like the books read, it's the first Potter movie that actually feels like a film (instead of a very expensive live-action souvenir of the books.)

Well, all the Harry Potter movies have "felt like" movies to me. So this is just, once again, a matter of taste.

I don't want to go on and on, many critics have described PoA's virtues much more eloquently than I ever could (e.g. Stephanie Zacharek in Salon, Mary Ann Johansen and David Poland to name three among a hundred).

And yet, oddly enough, PoA's total score on Rotten Tomatoes is just a few decimal points higher than CoS, and CoS was just a few decimal points higher than SS. That sort of backs up my argument -- that all the films have merits and debits, and are all roughly on the same even keel. I will not dispute that PoA is the best received of the HP films, but looking at the total scores, we are not talking a sizable bounce. Just a small blip.

TITLE / AVERAGE RATING

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone / 7.0 (C-)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets / 7.2 (C-)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban / 7.8 (C+)

But first of all, I was so relieved to see Cuaron finally move the bleeding camera!

Columbus moved his camera, and frequently, in both of his films. If you notice, more so in Chamber of Secrets. Why? In the first film, he was dealing with largely inexperienced child actors. The second film they were more seasoned. Cuaron inherited the experience they learned on the first two films.

Finally, a HP film that FLOWED. The whole film opened up visually, especially with the location shooting and wide angle lenses. You can see so much more on the screen and there's so much more to see.

I think Prisoner of Azkaban is the first movie that *skips*, personally. But its strengths far outweigh such quibbles.

Hogwarts for once truly seemed like a real place in the Scottish highlands.

That was one thing that bothered me, actually. The lack of cohesion with the first two movies. Hagrid's hut is now at the bottom of what looks to be a brutal climb of stairs -- Rowling certainly never wrote that, and the first two HP movies certainly never indicated that. It is a pet peeve of mine, but one I've had since I was a youngster -- not to sound like Annie Wilkes, but when sequels disregard what was seen and established in their predescesors, it annoys me.

The magic was so much better integrated into the texture of the film

How so? Explain.

- plus there are delightful little details in the backgeound and corners of the frame that added texture to the film.

And there are the same little details in Columbus' films.

I enjoyed the visual subtexts - the motifs of the clocks/mirrors/reflections throughout PoA. (Harry discovers that the enemy is not without but within).

Harry was fretting about the "enemy within" in Chamber of Secrets, and the taint of Voldemort upon him is a continuing theme of the series, that is not new in Azkaban. As for the visual subtext, you are absolutely right. The book is about time -- time squandered (Hermione refusing to do so), time wasted (lost in a prison), time as a force of nature (the plight of the werewolf, whose life is measured by the lunar cycle), time not shared (the aching gap between the brief time Harry had with his parents and all the long days since) and Cuaron nailed this with his frequent displays of clock imagery (one of the first close-ups of the film is a cuckoo clock).

Indeed, Cuaron wisely chose to explore the main theme of the book - Harry's emotional journey, his search for identity - while jettisoning the extraneous incident and subplot that cluttered the first two movies.

All of the films have been about Harry's emotional journey, and all the books have been about Harry's emotional journey. The first film was about discovery - revelation of self. The second film plunged darker - just as Harry feared evil rested in his heart, he learned evil rested within the walls of Hogwarts. The third film was about time as explained above.

Personally, I'd rather see the emotional territory of the book captured very well, at the expense of secondary plotlines, than endure another cramped and supreficial tale a la Columbus.

Superficial? That's a harsh word to use. What do you find superficial about Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets?

But to echo your words, personally, I'd rather see a film where a stag erupts from a wand and we understand exactly what that means and why, see a film sporting a map named "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs" and understand what that means and why. Maybe that is superficial, but I'll take another half hour to increase clarity and emotional impact at the risk of of a few scenes of plodding.

I think Cuaron succeeded in spades here. Even the kids acted like true adolecents for a change, with their bickering and school ties askew.

They weren't adolescents in the first two films, why should they have acted as such?

J.K. Rowling felt the first two HPs were "too literal" - she was right. We'll see what Newell does with #4. Hopefully, he'll be in his Donnie Brasco/Awfully Big Adventure mode and NOT his Mona Lisa Smile mode (shudder).

Considering the multiple, large-scale action sequences in the book, this should give him quite a challenge. Goblet of Fire is one action showdown after another, building to the biggest of them all. Mike Newell is an odd choice, we shall see what comes from his input.
 

Claire Panke

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Messages
412
The Tomatometer - LOL! I hardly consider Rotten Tomatoes the gold standard in critical consensus. They arrive at their score on a pass/fail basis.

I find qualitative evaluation more enlightening. Moreover many of the on-line "critics" RT use are less knowledgable about film than posters on this forum. Meta-critic is slightly more accurate, but I don't consider either website particularly meaningful. If you read the reviews (not just note the number of stars or the score) of the of top US critics, the majority agree PoA is better cinematically than its predecessors. Even if that weren't the majority opinion, I would still stand by my own assessment.

I don't think PoA is too short, and neither do most critics. One main fault I and others find with SS/CoS is that they are too literal, and they try to include too much. The first especially is bogged down with exposition. This kind of filmmaking pleased kids, who are, after all, lit4eral minded. But it didn't help the movies. BTW, as I said above, to keep the narrative thrust, Kloves & Cuaron jettisoned exposition and incident that didn't relate to the main theme of Harry's emotional journey, and combined or added scenes. The explanation of the Marauder's Map and the Harry's patronus is in a future film - Kloves & Cuaron discussed this with Rowling, and Kloves felt it would payoff better within a future script.

I always found the first two HPs disappointing visually, so the alterations to Hogwarts came as a distinct pleasure to me. It seemed much more ancient and "real". If a change is an iprovement, as I feel this was, I have no issues.

I didn't find the children's interaction particularly convincing in the first two films, and thought much of it was clumsily staged. PoA gave Cuaron & Kloves much more to work with in the third film, and, of course, the kids themselves are much better actors than they were at the beginning of the films.

Shall we agree to disagree? You think all the HPs are on are close in artistic merit - I don't. I think Columbus is a servicable director but only a bit better thab a hack, and his HP movies reflect his limited artisitic abilities. After seeing PoA, I went back and watched the first two again very carefully - I won't be doing that again soon. For me, it's like going from a Porsche to a Pinto. I won't say PoA is flawless, but it's far more interesting a film.

I want to cite some specific cinematic imagery and technique for you, but I'm at work (and must go back to it...so that will have to wait until later, but I will come back to it.




I
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
The Tomatometer - LOL! I hardly consider Rotten Tomatoes the gold standard in critical consensus. They arrive at their score on a pass/fail basis.

No, they do not. Perhaps you should go explore the website more thoroughly. Aside from the "Rotten/Fresh" ranking, they also have an average score of all reviews...and I listed the average ratings in my post above. HP 1 = 7.0, HP2 = 7.2, HP 3 = 7.8.

I find qualitative evaluation more enlightening. Moreover many of the on-line "critics" RT use are less knowledgable about film than posters on this forum.

And some are more knowledgable than posters on this forum.

Meta-critic is slightly more accurate, but I don't consider either website particularly meaningful. If you read the reviews (not just note the number of stars or the score) of the of top US critics, the majority agree PoA is better cinematically than its predecessors. Even if that weren't the majority opinion, I would still stand by my own assessment.

So why did you choose to use critical evaluation in the first place, since it is irrelevant in the final analysis to your own assessment? In my corner, I've stated that all three HP movies have been more or less equally good. You mentioned the critical praise for HP3, and I used the RT scores to show how they all hover at around the same basic "C" level.

I don't think PoA is too short, and neither do most critics.

But how do fans of the book feel?

One main fault I and others find with SS/CoS is that they are too literal, and they try to include too much.

And I repeat, which is the worst sin? Too much or not enough?

The first especially is bogged down with exposition.

As is the book.

This kind of filmmaking pleased kids, who are, after all, lit4eral minded. But it didn't help the movies.

This kind of filmmaking mirrored the book upon which it was based.

BTW, as I said above, to keep the narrative thrust, Kloves & Cuaron jettisoned exposition and incident that didn't relate to the main theme of Harry's emotional journey

And what is the main theme of Harry's emotional journey? And how does the stag not fit into it? It's important enough to film, just not important enough to explain, eh?

The explanation of the Marauder's Map and the Harry's patronus is in a future film - Kloves & Cuaron discussed this with Rowling, and Kloves felt it would payoff better within a future script.

Odd - in what book other than PoA is the animagus nature of HP's father discussed? What better place to explain it that PoA, the way Rowling wrote it?

I always found the first two HPs disappointing visually, so the alterations to Hogwarts came as a distinct pleasure to me. It seemed much more ancient and "real". If a change is an improvement, as I feel this was, I have no issues.

If a change makes the previous two movies "alternate universe" versions of the same locale, I have issues. Especially since Rowling did not write about an incredibly steep stairway leading down to Hagrid's hut. The first two movies were completely consistent with the book's descriptions, just as Jackson's LOTR films scored high marks for mirroring the author's intent. If Frodo & Co. had returned to Bag End in Return of the King and we were shown a Hobbiton strikingly different in layout than in Fellowship and The Two Towers, I imagine some people would have ruffled feathers about the inconsistency.

I didn't find the children's interaction particularly convincing in the first two films, and thought much of it was clumsily staged.

Those were child actors, after all. Even Henry Thomas and Drew Barrymoore hit some false notes in E.T.. They did a fine job overall, child actors can't all be Christian Bale in Empire of the Sun or Haley Joel Osmet in The Sixth Sense. As for clumsily staged, once again, I'd like to challenge you to list some demonstrable examples. You claimed Columbus doesn't know how to tell a story visually, you say his work was clumsily staged, you said his work was superficial, you even inferred Columbus didn't move his camera. I'd like for you to back all of that up, because none of that sounds like the HP movies I know.

I think much of the general criticism of Cloumbus stems from the populist hatred over his enormously successful mass-market family films, Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire, creating a critical prejudice in the minds of his detractors. I was no fan of Home Alone, but I thought Columbus did a fine job with the first two films, and forgive me a bit of "Emperor's New Clothes" doubting, but I fail to see how the hype over Cuaron is really justified based on the final product. Sure, it was different. Was it better? Debatable. I think they're all about equal. My opinion.

PoA gave Cuaron & Kloves much more to work with in the third film, and, of course, the kids themselves are much better actors than they were at the beginning of the films.

Thanks to Columbus.

Shall we agree to disagree? You think all the HPs are on are close in artistic merit - I don't.

No, I said they all have debits and credits. They all average out for me, because I find each about as entertaining as the others.

I think Columbus is a servicable director but only a bit better thab a hack, and his HP movies reflect his limited artisitic abilities.

Wow, that's another bold and harsh statement. Columbus is close to a hack? He has devoted his life to making family entertainments, and he is an established and respected professional. He is certainly no "hack". You want a "hack", I give you William Shatner or Roger Christiansen. Chris Columbus is close to a hack?

After seeing PoA, I went back and watched the first two again very carefully - I won't be doing that again soon.

I did and I enjoyed them even more.

For me, it's like going from a Porsche to a Pinto.

For me, it's like going from one episode of the X-Files to another, with the 3rd episode helmed by a different director, with most of the usual elements still intact.

I won't say PoA is flawless, but it's far more interesting a film.

Why? You keep making these declaritive statements, and then you don't post any tangible examples. Explain, please.

I want to cite some specific cinematic imagery and technique for you, but I'm at work (and must go back to it...so that will have to wait until later, but I will come back to it.

And I'll be interested in what you have to say.
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason
I think Columbus is a servicable director but only a bit better thab a hack, and his HP movies reflect his limited artisitic abilities.
Describing Columbus as a "hack" is pretty harsh. Columbus is a pretty safe studio director. He doesn't take a whole lot of risks and gives you what you ask for. There is nothing wrong with that. It is exactly the type of guy you want leading a huge franchise like this, since if you get it wrong, it will bite you in the ass. He did a solid job with both films he has directed, which is what the studio wanted.

Actually, my main problem with CoS has nothing to do with Columbus, but with the source material itself. An important character to the plot isn't shown very often, so therefore it is impossible to figure things out on your own. It is something Rowling fixed with PoA.

I mean, what about the source material? Of the first three books, PoA is clearly the best book. Don't you think that had something to do with your enjoyment of the film?

Jason
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,730
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top