Badmovies.org Forum

Okay . . . Harry Potter is (again) raking in big bucks at the boxoffice.  I shall now publicly confess:

* I have never seen a Harry Potter movie
* I have never read a Harry Potter book
* I do not own any Harry Potter products
* I do not know the names of any characters (except Harry)
* I am not sad, nor do I feel a vast emptiness, because of the above facts

Okay, throw your daggers!  Chastise me!  Ridicule me!  I can take it!

I don't hate you for it.  :thumbup:

I only read up to book 4, but I enjoy the films becuse of the awesome actors in them.

Same here. I'm keeping it that way too.

me too. My kids watched the harry potter marathon last week on tv and enjoyed them, Im completely indifferent to these movies.

What are you missing?  I can tell you that.  You're missing a series that is a light and entertaining read at first (with a handful of quite engaging characters, which definitely does not include the title character), but descends into excessive limp melodrama.  You're missing out on a film series that aims high, but suffers from too much plot in too little run time and just never quite makes it. 

If you're not interested, you're not missing a huge amount or anything.  Meh.

Alright, but I'm not a trained professional...

I think Harry Potter would have been better if the books had been written in the late 1950s and early 1960s and Arch Hall, Jr. was chosen to play Harry in the movies.

I find it really strange how the characters in the new film seem not to accomplish much at all in two and a half hours.

-Jimmybob

The films are not bad, only read up to the 5th book. Might read 6 and 7 soon once I finished reading the Hitch hikers guide by Douglas Adams for the ummm (I have no idea 5 or higher time), all the Shah's men by S, Kinzer and Manufacturing Consent by E. S, Herman and N, Chomsky.

Hopefully by the end of the summer I will read books 6-7.

The films are rather entertaining but not really a fan, I watched 1 and 2 but did not touch the 3rd film. (Its the only book I really enjoyed in the series).

I watched the first movie, maybe a half hour here, an hour there.  Pretty sure I've seen the whole thing  :teddyr:  Watched a few bits of the rest of them, I just can't get into those characters at all.  

Has anyone seen the new movie? I must say Emma Watson is a fox.

-Jimmybob

General rule I normally use. If a film is based off a book, it is rarely going to be great, mainly as it has to condense character development to a much more limited time scale, same goes for plot.

There are some excellent films based on books. I highly enjoyed "No Country for Old Men".

I have read the books which I find amateurishly written at best.  JK Rowling has stolen just about every creature and idea from other stories/mythologies and made big bucks off it.  Yes she has the gaul to sew people who do fan fiction based on her work.  Seriously...these are all things she uses...

Giants
Werewolves
Zombies (aka Inferi but its still zombies)
Elves
Goblins
Wizards
Spiders
Cerberus (three headed dogs named "Fluffy")
Centaurs
Unicorns
Labyrinths

How original... :lookingup:  I guess where her work shines is on film.  I have to admit the films sucks me into the world but I know in the back of my head the story is lame.  If it wasn't for special effects and stunning visuals, theres really nothing holding the plot lines together. 

OOOOhhhhkayyyy . . .

I love Harry Potter, both film and book, though I thought it a HUGE mistake not to cast Bob Hoskins as Peeves - The character of Peeves is dropped entirely from the films, yet he is a driving force in the novels.

No, the films have to pick and choose, and thus will disappoint.  I am a reader and a student of English Literature and don't find the books badly written at all - they are, after all, written as childrens'/young adults books, so sytlistically they aren't going to be "In Bruges", and we should be fine with that.  Accept the films as what they are - excuses to show dragons and monsters!!

And why pick on Rowling for co-opting mythic creatures from the pantheon of known mythic beings?  Joseph Campbell would approve . . .

I have read all of the books, seen all of the films, and will doubtless see this new one as well.  The characters are compelling, the story lines consistent, the what-happens-next factor is lively.  Really, you all are missing a treat because it's "trendy".

I put off reading Tolkien for decades because I went to school with people who named their children "Bilbo" and "Frodo", and I couldn't see any fictional work being that important.  I finally read "Lord of The Rings" while in hospital after a near-fatal adventure in India, and simply loved it!! I was so glad I had put it off, and was able to simply read it for what it was, without being surrounded by its acolytes.  Not to say Rowling is in any way equivalent to Tolkien, but perhaps some of you may have a similar experience one day, once the hype is dead and Harry is very much yesterday's news --

peter hedwig/denny sprout

I agree completely.
I too have read all of the books and have seen all the films.
Yes, the books are better, but only because there's so much more detail. (as with any book)

The final book, "Deathly Hallows" was absolutely fantastic.  I couldn't put it down and read it in about a week.  Considering most books take me around a month to finish, that should tell you how good it is.
Would Harry die while trying to defeat Voldemort?  That was the burning question.
The end of Deathly Hallows and what happens to Harry and his friends was brilliant!
During the final showdown, my jaw was literally on the floor. 
It has a slight twist that I never saw coming.

I highly recommend that if you do decide to get into the Harry Potter movies, start from the beginning.  If you don't, it won't make much sense and will probably suck.

Grew out of it in Year 7, kinda wish I was still into it, the fans seem to have fun, then again it's not a fanbase I'd want to be a part of it I think.

I thought Deathly Hallows stunk.  The way it was written hit me as someone who had two novels planned but said "aw screw it" and rushed the ending.  I'd argue its even more lousy than Order Of The Phoenix which really has no place in the whole series though I thought the film was brilliant.   

I freakin love Harry Potter and I'm not ashamed!  I avoided it for years though because.. I don't know,  I avoid popular things?  Anyway, I thought it was stupid Barney kid stuff and I was p**sed because I liked wizards and dragons and I thought they were being dumbed down for kids but they really weren't!  Harry Potter will tell you - A dragon will F'n kill you, man!  I think JK Rowling is an A-hole though.  She was obviously channelled by the Ministry of Magic to document the fact-based tale of Harry Potter which is why fan-fiction isn't tolerated.

Agreed. 

(http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/harry_potter_and_the_half_blood_prince_emma1.jpg)

I liked the movie, even though I had never read any of the books or seen any of the other movies.  It was exactly what I expected, well-executed light entertainment built around a few easily recognizable archetypes and stock fantasy situations.  Not bad at all, but you're not missing much if you skip the series either.

Yes, Emma is fine looking and still blossoming into womanwood.  She'll more than likely have a Liz Hurley thing going on. 

I just got back from the movies, Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince was awesome and I dont even like Harry Potter movies or books! I had to see it. My Wife loves the books so you see I had to go, But Im so glad I did, I just loved the movie ... Im a fan now.

A+ visual effects, just brilliant. "Merlin's Beard!" It was good!

Never seen the movies or read the books. Just not my cup of tea. Nor any of the LOTR's books or films. Both have been recommended to me-but just not into it,I guess.

Having just graduated from High School, I grew up with the Harry Potter craze, I think the first book came out when I was in second grade (?).. I read the first four books, and saw those movies. I thought they were all good, but I'm lazy and don't feel like reading the other ones.. So I just had my friends give me a plot synopsis. I realize that they borrow from mythology, but so does every other fantasy book / movie / anything. I should probably watch the other movies sometime because I liked the first four. My one complaint is that the guy who plays Ron kind of bugs me.

Enough of that, now!  You're making me feel like an old bastard . . . maybe even an inglorious one . . .

I was dragged to one of those Potter films (I think it was the 2nd one) by a girlfriend of mine. It was OK I guess, but the film was muddled by interpersonal dialogue... The phrase; "WHAT THE F*CK AM I DOING HERE!?!?!" seemed to keep racing across my mind. I guess it would have been better if I were able to shut off my brain.


...in summation: gay. (proof below)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_A233GuYwJbQ/Rb_KH9ZlksI/AAAAAAAAAd0/j5TQOR5inPM/s400/harry1.jpg)
       

I just saw the Half Blood Prince last night.  It is easily one of the best movie (if not the best) out of the whole series.  That’s primarily due to the fact that Director David Yates gets what he’s working with and has done his homework on the book.   Where the directors of Prisoner and Goblet seem to be copying Christopher Columbus’s work in the first two films, Yates took the series where it needed to go; into a creepy and dark realm.  However, he knows when to step back with subtle humor that doesn’t go into Jar Jar Binks territory.  

SPOILERS

I felt that the movie got away from the central theme of the book which was Harry and Dumbledore’s know your enemy type of training.  For example, I don’t know why they didn’t include the memory of the Gaunt House.  It kind of gives back story into what Voldermort uses as objects to manifest his soul into.  

Snape, for the non-reader, kind of made his intentions pretty obvious within the film.  I was hoping he would have off’d Dumbledore in a more cold way.  Also, I was hoping they would have done more with Greyback.  He just kind of comes off as a big ugly dude and note a werewolf responsible for Lupin’s condition.  

Other than that, the film was pretty much flawless.  

END SPOILERS

The cast, as in the past films, were perfect for their roles.  I enjoyed the girl who played Lavender because she took things way over the top.  It was one of those roles where one had to and for once in a long time, I enjoyed the comic relief person of the film. Speaking of which, the girl who plays Luna rocks.  

I was trying to watch part 4 last night, it actually seemed like a pretty darned good movie.  Unfortunately it was on the Family channel.  As if commercial breaks every ten minutes weren't enough, at the two hour mark they must have showed 15 solid minutes of commercials, then 5 minutes of the movie, then more commercials.  I turned it off and ordered the flippin' DVD.  TV is absolutely unwatchable these days. 

If anyone wants to know anything about any show that will be broadcast on the Family Channel for the next three months, just ask.

Having once worked for a company that distributed books, now retired, we use to hold an after Midnight party, when ever a new Harry Potter came out. And I always tried to be there, because it was a fun time. If only to see our customers come as their favorite character from Harry Potter.

Having said that, I'll give Rowling chops for writing something that touched alot of people.

But, having said that, she has never wrote anything that touched me. Thus, I have no interest in reading any of the books nor seeing any of the films in their entirity.

I would also add that seeing some of his performance as Harry Potter and some other things he has done, I'm singularly unimpressed by Daniel Radcliffe's acting ability.

But, the most recent film is on its way, at last word, to being the second highest grosser in the series, and the fourth highest grosser of this year. Thus, they'll probably finish out the series in one or two films.

The series itself I find of interest. The first film was released in 2001, so it's been eight years. And with one or two more films coming out, it'll be 2010 or 2011, before the series is finished. The only A-film series of six or more films, where the main character was always played by the same actor, that I can remember, which ran longer, was the "Thin Man" series w/ William Powell and Myrna Loy, which ran from 1934 to 1947.

But, if one can't wait for the next film Universal in Orlando is spending $200 million to turn 20 acres of Islands of Adventure theme park into The Wizardry World of Harry Potter, and it should open in 2010.

If one does one's math, that is $10 million dollars per acre. And it was only 45 years ago that the Disney brothers were buying up land in that area for the unheard of price of $200 per acre. Now, if you have to ask what the price of land is in that area, you can't afford it.

"The only A-film series of six or more films, where the main character was always played by the same actor, that I can remember, which ran longer, was the "Thin Man" series w/ William Powell and Myrna Loy, which ran from 1934 to 1947."

You make a good point, but the other one with six that springs to mind is Rocky.  I'd also call the Star Trek films A films. 

Other than that though, it's mostly low budget horror/action films, etc, that get long running series of films with the same lead actor.  For example, martial arts films, which sometimes have numerous entries in one series in a single year (back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s that is). 

In recent memory though, Rocky Balboa is really the only one I can think of.

You're right on both accounts.

Now you're talking!  :thumbup:

To put it in 80's (aka Circus) venacular-"Gag me with a spoon!" I have no interest in corporate franchises. Gimme ultra low budget stuff any day.

aw, fook --
tis fookin' grate litter-ature, it is -
be reedin de fookin bukes den -
franchises be darned like socks to hecky darn -
jk rowling rites well, and empty spaces in empty moinds is a thing of shame -
peter crane/denny johnson

Huh_? Is that a recomendtion or a pan?
Methinks Heroes de vores are more the better if hot mustard is applyed.
Horseradish is not the bane of Hyeperbotia-but it's salvation! Without spicy condominets-we'd be reduced to wars of the trade of ketsup and mustard!
And Hot sauce and horse radish will overcome us all.Begorea!  :drink:

about 5 yrs back I decided to give the first book a go, read page 1 and gave up.

then recently I caught the last 45mins or so of one of the films on tv and thought it was quite entertaining actually, in a 'feel-good kids fantasy' type way. (possibly not the best phrased analogy there)...I think if I was 10 years old I would probably be a HP fan, although having said that I've never really dug the whole wizards-and-goblins thing in general, so who knows...but the concept of adults being full-on into this stuff I find a tad strange.

Good to know this movie. I like this movie and amazing magical movie. Thank you very much. :)

Harry Potter thanks you for your easy satisfaction.  :smile:

Hmm...


Personally, I find all the people who are REALLY into almost anything (politics, Star Wars, literature, their own children, you name it) a tad strange.   :twirl: