Azkaban is my fave.
-
-
They blur into one after a while, so it's nice to see them again to remember them a bit better (plus my son loves them).Originally posted by Atticus View Post
I remember Azkaban has one of my favourite scenes with
.
The next film, Goblet of Fire is also good, but it's the start of it getting quite dark, so we'll have to have a think if we want to stop there.
Goblet of Fire is heavily referenced in The Cursed Child, so it's worth re-watching that if you ever see the (amazing) play.Comment
-
A Leeds-set heist movie called THE RISE, starring Ramsay Bolton out of GoT and a few mins of Timothy Spall in a cop shop interrogation room.
It was...OK. I was a bit distracted trying to spot bits of Leeds I know but I found it all a bit unconvincing and I could barely hear what peeps were saying a lot of the time, it's quite 'muffly'.
It's not bad as a gritty urban Brit movie but the budget on this one is obviously not high enough to lend the heist bit gravitas...let's just say a working men's club gets robbed and all that happens is you see two guys having a scuffle outside in the car park and nowt else.
Another example. It mentions them having this plan to rob this club then use the cash to go to Amsterdam to pull off a big deal, early in the movie. It makes you think the last half/third will be set there. Nah. Instead, it culminates at 'The Rise WMC'. In Leeds. Where about 67% of the movie is set. And by 67%, I mean set at that club. It's 100% set in Leeds. There are no other areas.
Best thing is Neil Maskell as a rather unthreatening but nicely menacing psycho named 'Roper'. He's always bloody great and he pulls of quite an amusing cod Yorkshire vocal in this.
And it's clear they only had Tim Spall for half an hour. You never see him out that cell.Comment
-
Anyways, watch if you liked that wave of gritty urban Brit movies that splurged around 2011,Tyrannosaur and that type of stuff. I'm very partial to seeing British council estates on film and this offers a few scraps of downbeat goodness.
Great writeup on THE YAKUZA, btw, [MENTION=5490]wakka[/MENTION]. Never seen it but you have piqued my interest, fancy it for the visuals, bet it looks cool in HD.Comment
-
I actually thought of you as I was writing that Jazz, I think it's def a film you'd enjoy based on the posts of yours I've read in this read.
[MENTION=6476]JazzFunk[/MENTION]Comment
-
Aw cheers, I'm always after movies like that.
I think my benchmark movie is CHINATOWN. It's a bit long and flabby but it nails the atmos.
One thing you can say about good 70s movies is that they are chock-full of funky-fresh atmosphere.
Also, to deviate pleasantly, I found a sealed Blu of BLADE RUNNER 2049 in a chazza shop this afty for £1.49. I nearly fell asleep watching it at the flicks but reckoned then it would be better digested at home, and in highish definition.
£1.49 and sealed...BANG ON!!!
Comment
-
Personally, I've always felt there are two distinct groups - the original 2 movies and then the rest - because the production design changed enormously from 2 to 3, but then remained pretty consistent after that.Originally posted by QualityChimp View Post
I felt Goblet of Fire was the apex of the series. That being said, it was the only book I'd read prior to seeing the movie (to this day I've only read that and the final book), and I don't know if that's because I inadvertantly "fill in" missing stuff with book knowledge.Comment
-
Azkaban and Deathly Hallows were my favorite books but ulimately Goblet was probably the best in book and film. Chamber of secrets was my least favorite book but is probably the best adapted film. I'd say Deathly Hallows is but its 2 movies not 1.Comment
-
I agree about the shifting of tone from 2 to 3. It reflects the darker, more mature tone of Azkaban. I read the first two books and they were somewhat twee, but the third book had a definite shift in theme and narrative complexity.
I’d recommend reading books 3-7 because they are a richer experience than the films, but only if you can handle the changes made. There’s sizeable chunks of Goblet left out of the movie. Phoenix is even worse in that respect. It’s 800 pages long and massive swathes are omitted from the film. Consider how Hallows was split into two films to do it justice, yet it was a shorter book than Goblet and Phoenix. Having said that, a lot of the stuff left out is flab, context and backstory. I just know that a lot of people find omissions annoying, and changes even worse.
Azkaban is the best book. I’m not sure it’s the best film, and certain things aren’t explained clearly enough, but it’s the real beginning of the darker arc that ends with Hallows.Comment
-
[MENTION=5941]Asura[/MENTION], Philosopher's Stone came out in 2001, I saw most of the films once at the cinema and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, including having two kids, so that's why my memory is a little hazy! It's like Friends "The One With Wizard Trials" or "The One With The Massive Snake"!
We watched Prisoner of Azkaban last night together, aka "The One With The Time Travel".
I remember this one being one of my faves at the cinema as it still wasn't too dark and the time-travel was great fun.
My son enjoyed Chamber of Secrets more, I think. The plot moved a little slower and had a big-bad at the end, whereas Azkaban built up to a twist. We offered to stop it and explain it, but he said he understood.
We might watch it again before we move on.
Watched some of the extras and Paul Whitehouse is totally cut from the final film!
They really put a lot of effort into these films. They spent ages working on the Hippogriff, changing him from an excited puppy into a stroppy teen, researching skeletal movement on animals to make it realistic.
The Dementors went through a load of changes too, with some of the fabric tests being unsatisfactory.
Eventually they saw a puppet show set underwater and they tried some tests that looked great, but wouldn't work on the scale they wanted underwater, so they used that style, but moved to CGI.
It's fun spotting all the little practical effects they have at the Studio Tour like the self-tidying table and the self-packing luggage trunk.
Emma Watson's acting continues to improve, but I'm enjoying pointing out to my wife when Ron Weasley makes a face like he's shat himself.
Philosopher's Stone
Chamber of Secrets
Prisoner of Azkaban
Ultimately, these are great films, I'm enjoying watching them again and loving being able to share them with my son.Comment
-
Yeah, the Studio Tour is a great day out. I didn't realise before going but one of the reasons the movies look so good is explained there - when they were making Azkabahn, the director/producer took the unusual step of speaking to the studio and asking if they had the intent to make the rest, and the studio was really happy with the receipts from Secrets so they said yes. As a result, they took a bit longer to create Azkabahn because they did a ton of work to make sure it laid the necessary groundwork for the future movies; for starters, they mapped out Hogwarts from a production design perspective so that it would have a consistent layout; places like Snape's classroom were built in sections where they added another piece for each movie until by the late films it's almost an entire room that can be shot from any angle.Originally posted by QualityChimp View PostComment
-
After seeing Fellowship of the Ring I kind of looked down on The Philosopher's Stone at the time, thinking the LOTR films were going to be the real deal and the HP films would be heartless cash-ins. How wrong I was. I think the Harry Potter films have stood the test of time far better.Comment
-
I've watched them all and with each sequel to the Harry Potter films I became less and less interested. Not so with the LOTR films which I can and do still enjoy when they're on (Freeview) despite some of the crass and annoying censorship that has been applied in recent years ie. Denethor's flaming death plunge. The TT and ROTK are battle heavy and too samey but the action scenes have always remained watchable.
I'm not a big fan of the Hobbit movie series either as standalone films or as book adaptations. The first is dull and the third resorts to the by now tired battle heavy formula of the LOTR's ones. But the second one: The Desolation of Smaug I'd argue is the best of the six Tolkien adaptations maybe because it is actually the one that deviates and elaborates the most from the source material.
Smaug is great, the introduction of the dwarf/elf love triangle involving the totally invented Tauriel 'she-elf' character (played by Evangeline Lilly and rightly praised), Kili and Legolas works well and the film also has one of the most imaginative and well choreographed action sequences of the six films: the down river escape from the wood-elf prison.Comment
-
I think the core thing about the Harry Potter films when you consider them in tandem with the Lord of the Rings films is that you’re all a bunch of nerds.
NERDS!
Nerds.
I’m done now.
Comment
-
Yes.......but, in my case at least, not a super nerd. I've never read any of the Harry Potter books and do not want to. Kids stuff IMHO but as films they're entertaining even if, for me, with diminishing returns.
LOTR though I'm happy to accept nerd status as is a great piece of literature I've read through three times and made into some very good films with some outstanding sequences: like Galadriel's Mirror which are true to the book and almost perfectly imagined in the film.
There's are also some other beautifully literate sequences in the films which are worthy of Tolkien himself but entirely invented. The one I particularly like watching is between Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and his daughter Arwen (Liv Tyler) where he shows her the sadness in her future if she marries Aragorn, trying to convince her to leave.
The real nerds have actually picked the sequence apart because it is contradictory but that apart the writing, the acting. the lighting and cinematography, like a Burn Jones Pre-Raphaelite painting come to life, is those films at their best.
Comment
Comment