Cedric was simply perfect (though Fleur was badly cast and Viktor was obviously chosen for pin-up status rather than appropriateness to rôle!), Amos was pretty good. Didn't see anything of Sprouty this time.
Three stars is like "this film is ok if you like this sort of thing, but nothing particularly special". This film deserved four stars without a doubt, and a sympathetic reviewer would have given it five.
I have to agree, it was fantastic and fun. The graphics were wonderful.. I just giggled the entire first hour from different things. I must see it on the IMAX before it changes *nods*
Mike Newell SO got the humour that a lot of the director's missed. He left in the small bits that make Rowling's work SO rich. I'm not overly fond of Gambon, either. But, I suppose it could be worse.
Krum was too pretty--Fleur not pretty enough--and, I LOVED that there was more of a British sense to it, as well. In fact, I'm of a mind that there SHOULD NOT be two versions in English. *will eventually buy the British versions after all 7 appear*
I agree with you on all counts. And, might I add, I was jumping UP and DOWN when I saw the ferret scene. I had SO wanted that one.
My favourite movie so far--and, Newell didn't insinuate his flavour into every scene like Cuaron did.
*nods in agreement*stirryNovember 24 2005, 00:08:05 UTC
I definitely consider this one the best so far. Certainly it isn't one for someone who hasn't read the books or at least seen the other movies, but for those of us that have enjoyed them all, I think it is safe to say it was fantastic! I laughed, I cried, I cheered and I sighed. I've seen it twice already, second time in IMAX (I highly recommend IMAX to everyone for this one) and will probably see it a couple of more times before it leaves the theater. The humor in this one was outstanding, and we got to see more of the Weasley Twins. It was good to see the others joking around a bit and Malfoy the Ferret was a scream! I agree with you about the new Dumbledore, I think this one is a bit too "warm and fuzzy" for the role, if that makes any sense. For some reason I didn't have as much respect for his booming "SILENCE!" as I did for Richard Harris' call for quiet in the second movie. It just didn't sound right, didn't have that... depth of command. I'm probably not making any sense, but I don't care. I was entranced again, and
( ... )
Gambon as DumbledorekarenopalDecember 25 2005, 02:15:49 UTC
I almost think Gambon as Dumbledore isn't "warm and fuzzy" enough! It's out of character for him to be so rough with Harry, even when he's dismayed that Harry's name pops out of the cup. Thus, when he does yell for silence, we're tired of his bullying ways and tend to ignore him; whereas Harris, as Dumbledore, protrayed such a gently and quietly powerful aura about the Headmaster that his "Silence" had to be listened to because it was a "surprise." I have to grant that this may be a directing error, not Gambon's own interpretation. I am trying hard to warm up to his acting in the movies, but I am not succeeding.
Comments 7
Are three stars like a thumb-down, then? :(
Reply
Three stars is like "this film is ok if you like this sort of thing, but nothing particularly special". This film deserved four stars without a doubt, and a sympathetic reviewer would have given it five.
*hugs*
Reply
And now I can´t wait to see my hero Ced :D
Reply
<3
Reply
Krum was too pretty--Fleur not pretty enough--and, I LOVED that there was more of a British sense to it, as well. In fact, I'm of a mind that there SHOULD NOT be two versions in English. *will eventually buy the British versions after all 7 appear*
I agree with you on all counts. And, might I add, I was jumping UP and DOWN when I saw the ferret scene. I had SO wanted that one.
My favourite movie so far--and, Newell didn't insinuate his flavour into every scene like Cuaron did.
Now for the 5th!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment