film: Harry Potter 3 ... and the Prisoner of Azkaban

[randycaver]

Play nice.

 

[doof-kittie]

Why is it that all of the stories build up a mystery and then summate and conclude it right at the end of the narrative?
Because JK Rowling doesn't know how to write a concisely constructed story... Sirius Black was a major let down (and a complete waste of Oldman's talents) and the mega-twist ridden ending was just embarassing..
4, The rushed, twist ridden ending was obviously slapped together when Rowling reached the end of her narrative, because she had no idea how to end the book.


I found the movie did gloss over the ending, however to say that J.
K rowling was at fault is too harsh IMHO. Some of your comments seem to confuse the book and the movie. The book itself was quite intricate in its build up to this point, whereas the movie rushed and poorly explained it.
Also, there was only one werewolve. Sirius is a dog

 

[frostyangel]

I think this was the best one yet.. when I went to watch the first one I had alot of doubts... but it honestly is a good movie.. i'm trying to finish the 4th book before it comes out... and this one is a big one.

 

[randycaver]

^^ Have you read the books? I read them all the time, as do many other adults.

The movies aren't exactly a great comparison, but thanks for your wonderful contribution.8(

 

[randycaver]

I hope [X] meant hippogriff, i just caught that.

 

[randycaver]

I think they're fun. I never really read fantasy books or anything like that when I was a kid - and throughout all my 4 yrs of college I've only read books from the college curriculum, so HP was a nice break.

 

[drEaMtiMe*@#]

^ would you say it resembles a fairytale?

 

[Petersko]

They're acclaimed because they accomplish something rare these days - they get children to read. What other 600+ page childrens books are doing well on the market?

So they aren't "War and Peace". Try to get a 9 year old to read that instead.

 

[Stark]

^
Good point.

I s'pose ANY printed word if better than letting television raise your kid.

 

[KaNdii kiSses]

I gave it three stars over all I thought it was a good movie

 

[Mike DMA]

Re: Harry Potter 3 ... and the Perverts of Azkaban

(and i do mean PERVERTS!!!)

.

speak 4 urself please

 

[Petersko]

No... the adults read them because they really enjoy them. I've read them. They might not be great works of literature, but they are imaginative and intriguing.

I expected childrens books, and bought them to share with my nephew. Turns out that Rowling has a lot in common with Chuck Jones. Both ostensibly created material for children... but neither allowed the label to prevent them from instilling their works with plenty of adult sensibilities.

 

[randycaver]

I agree with Petersko. I think the books are awesome - they are something I fully enjoy - and I can read over and over again. They may be children's books but that doesn't mean adults cant enjoy them. Certain Nickelodeon shows, ie, Rugrats, are certainly for children but plenty of adult jokes pepper the shows (at least, they used to) so that makes them enjoyable to me.

What does it matter to you what people enjoy? Why should we have to quantify what we find entertaining? I doubt that JK Rowling is putting these books out expecting to come out on the positive end of an intense critical analysis by folks like yourself. They ARE children's books.

Besides, who suggested they were great literature? The only time I have ever heard Harry Potter and "great literature" used in the same sentence is in your posts.

BTW, I don't particularly care for the movies.

 

[randycaver]

I don't feel that I have to back up my opinion simply because I corrected your spelling. I didn't correct your spelling, you used an entirely different word. If you had spelled hippogriph or something similar to hippogriff instead of hypocrite, I wouldn't have said anything.

You have suggested that others think they are great literature in your posts. I don't know who has, please name names.

It's true, the only times I have seen them called that is in posts made by you. I didn't say you called it that, mind.

You're obviously expecting some sort of critical analysis or something by expecting me to tell you why I like the books - I just DO. I never read any sort of fantasy type book when I was younger. I find them far more entertaining, than any book I've read recently - and they're quite refreshing. I don't aim to analyze everything I read or watch - unlike yourself.

 

[Grep]

Having not read any of the books, and hearing that it was darker than the others prepared me for what was to come. I think I would have been mightely dissapointed if I hadnt know this fact and was expecting it to be more lighthearted.

All in all, not bad. But as previously stated, many times I was just confused at certain times in the movie, so I guess I will just have to watch it again.

 

[Benefit]

First of all, perverted? Chock full of sexual innuendo? Grow up. If you look hard enough, you can read totally bizarre meaning into anything. It's a ridiculous notion.

Michael Gambon is a much better Dumbledore.

Time travel plots bug me because they present so many continuity problems, not to mention the metaphysical implications.

It was well-shot and the darker tone was appropriate given the subject matter (soul-stealing wraiths, escaped psychopathic murderers, etc.), but the narrative was quite rushed in parts. The last half hour would have benefited from some polishing, but I'm not sure how they could have really improved it without altering the source material.

Excellent special effects.

In the ultimate analysis, these films are just a bit of light fun. An entertaining 2 hours.

 

[physix]

First of all, perverted? Chock full of sexual innuendo? Grow up. If you look hard enough, you can read totally bizarre meaning into anything. It's a ridiculous notion.

it's a ridiculous notion that there's a scene with Harry playing with his wand and then the uncle comes in and then he stops? and that's not supposed to be taken tongue and cheek? a scene like THAT which was NOT in the book and added BY the director???

please, learn to catch the signals. Cuaron LOVES doing double entendres and anyone who's watched even one of his other films would know this.

 

[Benefit]

I do think it's pretty ridiculous. [discuss the issues not the author] while I will admit the opening scene could be intended as a slightly tongue in cheek exploration of teen sexuality, I think you are reading waaay too much into the subtext here.

But, you are entitled to your opinion and so we'll have to agree to disagree for now.

 

[physix]

wow, a much better response than your original drivel...

Yes, it's ridiculous and means you are a pervert. Get your head checked.

so anyway, thanks for admitting the subtext and basically reducing your entire point to a (yes it was) homophobic comment hidden in faux-courtesy (after a not-so-stealthy re-write).. alas, i'm not offended when discussions are reduced to such childishness... go figure. [please don't inflame]