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

[alasdairm]

i finally saw this yesterday and i have to say that the notion of it being perverted would not have even crossed my mind if it hadn't been raised in this thread.

a case of 'if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'?

i enjoyed the movie immensely. it was visually lush, a little darker than the previous movies. i felt it was losing my attention about 2/3 of the way through but it recovered well.

overall, i think the first movie was my favourite - because of the overwhelming joy of being intorduced to this world. however, i think that this third installment carries on the tradition of excellent movie-making.

alasdair

 

[physix]

i finally saw this yesterday and i have to say that the notion of it being perverted would not have even crossed my mind if it hadn't been raised in this thread.

a case of 'if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'?

unfortunately 2 years of taking film classes has pretty
much made me unable to simply just "take in" movies
anymore... i look for allusions, innuendo, analogies,
and metaphors....


but if you can't see the innuendos when it's the very
first scene (especially considering the director and
his past films), then you must be lucky ... or whatever.

 

[physix]

As long as Emma Watson stars in the Porno spin-off I will own it...How's that for perverted? Hell, she was hot in the first one and, yes, as sick as you may think I am, I am not ashamed to say would've bit and scratched and licked that little girl....Again, how's that for perverted? Lmao

that is kinda perverted.....


unless you were like 11 then...

 

[NecroTrance]

Heh, not exactly.

 

[for_sho]

i finally saw this yesterday and i have to say that the notion of it being perverted would not have even crossed my mind if it hadn't been raised in this thread.

a case of 'if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'?

i enjoyed the movie immensely. it was visually lush, a little darker than the previous movies. i felt it was losing my attention about 2/3 of the way through but it recovered well.

overall, i think the first movie was my favourite - because of the overwhelming joy of being intorduced to this world. however, i think that this third installment carries on the tradition of excellent movie-making.

alasdair

I agree, although the third was probably my favorite (I loathed the second).

I did feel like a pervert seeing a 13 year old Hermione wearing more tight shirts. Seems like everyone was wearing clothes you'd see on any other kids (instead of the traditional wizards robes.)

sho

 

[MOS]

Seems like everyone was wearing clothes you'd see on any other kids (instead of the traditional wizards robes.)

I actually enjoyed that - to me, it made the characters more real, although, it does date the movie.

 

[physix]

so does the metrosexual haircuts (ie Weasley's twin brothers)

 

[StuffedTiger]

That word (metrosexual) makes me nausious.

 

[FunkyAlfonzo]

your report doesn't really explain why you chose to use the word 'perverts' beyond a little teenage innuendo. care to expand?

http://www.bash.org/?111338 :D

 

[alasdairm]

well, take any movie involving any phallic object and replace the word pen/sword/whatever with 'cock' and you'll see a similar effect surely?

perhaps i just don't have a smutty enough mind?

alasdair

 

[physix]

perhaps.

ode to the slut minds!

 

[lost_boi]

just saw this today.

My major disappointment was the new dumbledore. He sucked compared to the last one. He didnt have anywhere near the air of authority the last one managed to call upon, even when not being the focus of a particualr scene. His dress sense sucked ass as well.

I felt that the movie kind of never had an introduction or conclusion. We were just thrown straight in there. I guess thats to be expected being the 3rd movie along.

Scenery was astounding, loved it. just too much focus on it at times when we could of been getting to know characters more and more. Like when that scene focussed on a leaffalling to the ground, looks cool but i dont know, part of the movie could of been in national geographic or something.

I dunno it was just really weird how that happened and i dont feel i can describe it the way i want to. I was like i was on a ride more than watching a movie because its like there were no little scenes to link into the bigger ones and explain parts.

Otherwise i loved the movie. Absolutely loved it.
And about that sexual innuendo thing, even that part at the beginning under the sheets seemed nothing like what youre proclaiming(one of the posters above me). If i hadnt read that on here previously, i wouldnt have thought that. Even then i struggled to make it seem that way in my mind.

I also thought they were in normal(muggle) clothes too often. I wanted to see robes. Oh well, theres plenty more good parts than bad in this movie. It was awesome.

Go see this movie for yourself if you havent already. it's good fun.

 

[Dastrix Slogan]

Visually the movie was wonderful but I feel that it wasn't as good as the first two. I got helluva confused in the scene where Harry confronts Siruis, it just went a little too fast and didn't round of the story as much as it should have. Also the scene where Harry "saves himself" I felt was lacking. He just rushes into it - theres no great sense of realisation that you would expect.

 

[randycaver]

I'm going to edit this title b/c I find it inappropriate in general.

 

[physix]

yeah... you need to lighten up.

 

[alasdairm]

5, The new dumbledore was absolutely hopeless and I find it somewhat insulting that they just through in a relative look-alike and tried to disguise him with a long beard... That's lacking in respect, immensely in my opinion.

i agree with your comments about gary oldman. he's better than that.

your comments about dumbledore are interesting.

i don't think they cast michael gambon simply because he's a look-a-like (i don't think he looks like richard harris at all). i think he was cast because of his acting talent - his work in the cook, the thief.. and the singing detective was excellent.

the old dumbledore had a beard. i don't think it was a disguise - it's just continuity of character.

richard harris owned the part but how could the film makers have paid more respect? it would be hard for anybody to step into harris' shoes in that part but i feel that michael gambon had to find a compromise of carrying on the part of dumbledore as seamlessly as possible while leaving himself an opportunity to make the role more his own over the next 3 (or more) movies. under the circumstances, i think he did a fine job.

who else would you have considered casting?

alasdair

 

[Mystic Styles]

I think if you found this movie perverted; you are in fact, a pervert. I went into this movie actually looking for something perverted, and found nothing.
I liked it, but it was odd seeing Harry and the crew getting older.

 

[randycaver]

neither did i.

fuckin pervs

 

[drEaMtiMe*@#]

i finally saw this yesterday and i have to say that the notion of it being perverted would not have even crossed my mind if it hadn't been raised in this thread.

a case of 'if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'?

i enjoyed the movie immensely. it was visually lush, a little darker than the previous movies. i felt it was losing my attention about 2/3 of the way through but it recovered well.

overall, i think the first movie was my favourite - because of the overwhelming joy of being intorduced to this world. however, i think that this third installment carries on the tradition of excellent movie-making.

alasdair

Yep. i totally agree.

I love Harry Potter. You'd seriously have to do quite a lot to fuck up this movie for for me. It actually kind of shits me when people start bagging it. Yeah, alright it may not be perfect, but in my eyes there is still so much wisdom within the text that it just cant be ignored.

 

[drEaMtiMe*@#]

hmmm, thanks. Glad to see you still can ^

P.