First time at movies in a while: Two BIG films and I walked out of one (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

I think his reference to $6/ticket refers to matinee prices - he states "Not to mention how much it costs after 6PM, $9 or $10."

 

[Citizen87645]

Hmm...totally missed that part. I pay $7.50 after 6PM, so I feel pretty fortunate.

 

[Citizen87645]

Hmm...totally missed that part. I pay $7.50 after 6PM, so I feel pretty fortunate.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

I just can't justify walking out of a movie I paid nearly 10 dollars for... he he, even if it's just horrible.

It's funny saying Shrek 2 has more heart than the original, which I found to be much more sweet and heartwarming that the sequel, which felt like an trip down "BEEN THERE, DONE THAT" Lane.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

I just can't justify walking out of a movie I paid nearly 10 dollars for... he he, even if it's just horrible.

It's funny saying Shrek 2 has more heart than the original, which I found to be much more sweet and heartwarming that the sequel, which felt like an trip down "BEEN THERE, DONE THAT" Lane.

 

[JonZ]

$7-8 here, $5 for matinee.

 

[JonZ]

$7-8 here, $5 for matinee.

 

[Leo Kerr]

Shrek II Well, I, for one, am very pleased with the fact that Miazaki doesn't throw in musical numbers 'just because it's animation.' Life isn't a musical, no matter how much you try (and what a favor that is!)

Harry Potter III
The film was, compared to the other two, beautifully made.
That said,
1. How many effin times does the camera need to fly through a window, a mirror, a clock, a closet, a crystal ball, someone's eye glasses, or whatever else? Once per film is probably quite enough - of just one of those.
2. The story adaptation was horrifically bad. Here are just a few of my peeves...


Harry was the last to play with the boggert, and the professor never let it manifest before Harry in the classroom.

Why the ---- did the werewolf fight with the dog? Prongs, Wormtail, Mooney, and Padfoot were Hogwarts friends - cause Mooney wouldn't attack other animals. (For those who don't remember, Pettigrew became animagus Wormtail. James Potter became animagus Prongs. Black became animagus Padfoot. Lupin was werewolf Mooney.)

Hermione bugged out of Divination fairly early in the semester.

Where was the whole thread on the potion for Lupin, and the whole plot of, 'is Snape poisoning our favorite teacher?'

And gee, how obvious can we be about Hermione taking more classes than is possible?

Why'd the dog attack the painting?


I realize many changes had to be made to fit the film in a short run-time for the theatre, but many changes seemed arbitrary: 'let's do this instead.' Why? Who cares?

On the other hand, I was pleased that Chris Columbus is no longer involved in Potter films. I felt that the first two films were of unacceptable quality - why would any idiot go into a foggy-night scene, and shoot it Super35, 800 speed film, and pushed and overprinted to an effective 3200 speed?

On theatres
I am fortunate to live near the Muvico Egyptian. So far, I've yet to see a disappointing presentation there. I also am in a job that requires me to work every other weekend, so I get one weekday per week off. It is a truly excellent thing to be able to catch the 10:30am showing of a film on a Friday or Monday morning... especially during the school year, when there's a reasonable chance that you'll see a first run film, say, Van Helsing, in a 500 seat auditorium with less than 50 other people in the house with you.

Leo Kerr

 

[Leo Kerr]

Shrek II Well, I, for one, am very pleased with the fact that Miazaki doesn't throw in musical numbers 'just because it's animation.' Life isn't a musical, no matter how much you try (and what a favor that is!)

Harry Potter III
The film was, compared to the other two, beautifully made.
That said,
1. How many effin times does the camera need to fly through a window, a mirror, a clock, a closet, a crystal ball, someone's eye glasses, or whatever else? Once per film is probably quite enough - of just one of those.
2. The story adaptation was horrifically bad. Here are just a few of my peeves...


Harry was the last to play with the boggert, and the professor never let it manifest before Harry in the classroom.

Why the ---- did the werewolf fight with the dog? Prongs, Wormtail, Mooney, and Padfoot were Hogwarts friends - cause Mooney wouldn't attack other animals. (For those who don't remember, Pettigrew became animagus Wormtail. James Potter became animagus Prongs. Black became animagus Padfoot. Lupin was werewolf Mooney.)

Hermione bugged out of Divination fairly early in the semester.

Where was the whole thread on the potion for Lupin, and the whole plot of, 'is Snape poisoning our favorite teacher?'

And gee, how obvious can we be about Hermione taking more classes than is possible?

Why'd the dog attack the painting?


I realize many changes had to be made to fit the film in a short run-time for the theatre, but many changes seemed arbitrary: 'let's do this instead.' Why? Who cares?

On the other hand, I was pleased that Chris Columbus is no longer involved in Potter films. I felt that the first two films were of unacceptable quality - why would any idiot go into a foggy-night scene, and shoot it Super35, 800 speed film, and pushed and overprinted to an effective 3200 speed?

On theatres
I am fortunate to live near the Muvico Egyptian. So far, I've yet to see a disappointing presentation there. I also am in a job that requires me to work every other weekend, so I get one weekday per week off. It is a truly excellent thing to be able to catch the 10:30am showing of a film on a Friday or Monday morning... especially during the school year, when there's a reasonable chance that you'll see a first run film, say, Van Helsing, in a 500 seat auditorium with less than 50 other people in the house with you.

Leo Kerr

 

[RobertR]

You do know that Columbus produced this film, yes?

 

[RobertR]

You do know that Columbus produced this film, yes?

 

[Leo Kerr]

yes, but..

much less involved in III, and almost, if not completely removed from IV, from the stories I've heard.

Leo Kerr

 

[Leo Kerr]

yes, but..

much less involved in III, and almost, if not completely removed from IV, from the stories I've heard.

Leo Kerr

 

[Nick Sievers]

I went to Shrek 2 yesterday and Harry Potter today, I would consider myself a mild fan of the first Shrek but in the realm of 3D animation it hasn't come close to any of the Pixar films. The 2nd installment, well we are half way through the year and it ranks as one of the worst films i've been to this year. At least in the bottom 10.

The film just stops in its tracks whenever Shrek and Fiona are on screen together and if I hear Shrek bitch and moan any longer I think i'll go nuts. There hasn't been a more annoying protaginist in an animated film for years. Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas saved this from being a total waste of time.

On the other hand I totally dug the latest Harry Potter. I haven't read the books and I did like the first two films in the series, but this one was hit right out of the park. It sucked me in for the 2+hr running time and nobody will convince me otherwise but I thought Cuarón brought a great visual style and narrative flow that Columbus couldn't match in his previous HP films. It really shows just how 'vanilla' the last two films were. POA is by far the best in the series so far. It really gave me something to anticipate in the world of Harry Potter, hopefully Newell will head in the same direction.

 

[Nick Sievers]

I went to Shrek 2 yesterday and Harry Potter today, I would consider myself a mild fan of the first Shrek but in the realm of 3D animation it hasn't come close to any of the Pixar films. The 2nd installment, well we are half way through the year and it ranks as one of the worst films i've been to this year. At least in the bottom 10.

The film just stops in its tracks whenever Shrek and Fiona are on screen together and if I hear Shrek bitch and moan any longer I think i'll go nuts. There hasn't been a more annoying protaginist in an animated film for years. Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas saved this from being a total waste of time.

On the other hand I totally dug the latest Harry Potter. I haven't read the books and I did like the first two films in the series, but this one was hit right out of the park. It sucked me in for the 2+hr running time and nobody will convince me otherwise but I thought Cuarón brought a great visual style and narrative flow that Columbus couldn't match in his previous HP films. It really shows just how 'vanilla' the last two films were. POA is by far the best in the series so far. It really gave me something to anticipate in the world of Harry Potter, hopefully Newell will head in the same direction.

 

[Mary M S]

Saw this thread late:

Wow, I don't think your signature pic could be any more menacing if you said you walked-out of a hole in the prison wall! I disagree repectfully with Garrett but rather find the pic very Vin Dieselesque. A look that not all men can (or should) pull off, - but from the pic you wear it very well.

I always hate it when another person does not find pleasure in what I find pleasure in.
But it’s a small pang overridden by my respect for different tastes and personalities.
Which afterall makes humans rather more exciting than if they were cut & paste affairs.

I agree totally with your feelings regarding Shriek 2. The first installment which was not my pick to attend at a theater; unexpectedly delighted me.

Disagree with the HP POA feelings and hope you find some enjoyment from it down the road if you ever acquire the DVD when available.

My main disappointment in POA was the loss of Richard Harris (bitterly felt by me) I think he was a fascinating and accomplished actor.

I found Michael Gambon lackluster in the role. The part of any serious light (Vs Dark) side wizard should be played by an actor who can emote controlled power threaded with the threat of a capacity for violence. Gambon did not emit the authority, dry wit, and wisdom that I think Dumbledores character requires.

I would have much preferred Ian McKellen regardless he has ‘Gandalf” stamped on the mind of moviegoers as he can portray the dangerous side of a magical being. Wizards can often go where they please can’t they? Why not to Hogwarts while on vacation from Middle Earth.

 

[Seth Paxton]

My only worry is that you would let your response to a film affect your view on theatrical showings.

I have a couple of nice setups in my home and I agree that the comfort and convenience make this a nice option, but its still nowhere near the same as the magic of seeing a great film with a great audience.

Seems hard to come by lately I realize, but the holy grail of filmgoing does still exist. I probably only see about 30 films in the theater per year vs a total of around 125 (new releases) but at least 5-6 of these are magic. That's enough to keep me coming back for more.

 

[Arman]

Completely agree on Shrek 2 (inferior and uninventive compared to the original) and absolutely disagree on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (by far, the best of the series and in my Top 10 First Half of 2004).

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It's funny, because I couldn't get with it until about ten minutes after the point at which you left. The rest of the film was an absolute joy. And the ending that you left at was not the ending that should have been. The ending is very different from the initial portrayal.

 

[Lynda-Marie]

Hi folks! Green newbie here just wondering something... The folks who have not seen either Shrek 2 or Azkaban probably deeply appreciate that you are NOT giving away any important details or plot points by using the spoiler [screens? or whatever they are called]. HOWEVER, I have seen Azkaban [not interested in Shrek], and I would like to read the commentary beneath these spoiler covers; Is there a way to do it?