Harry Potter

WhiteWashMan

Its harry potter.
Its entertaining.
Its even funny in places.
if you liked the first one, then you will enjoy the second one.
seen better, seen worse, but at 3 hours, wastes away a sunday afternoon nicely.

by the way, the new odeon in kingston is just bloody fantastic!
hmmmmm, foot long hot dogs and nachos with jalapenos an cheese sauce followed by hagen daaz.

*BURP*

Wook

aaah so you are one of those guys 'stinking' the place up and always has to sit close to me? :cool:

nosmo

I'm going to see it on Saturday, at the expense of Microsoft.
How does it compare to the book?

WhiteWashMan

very similar.
by the way, if you dont like spiders, bring a cushion to hide behind. there are lots fo them at one stage!

MiCr0

i went to see it on saturday
defn a kids film
but then again its exactly what it says on the tin

Shinji

Saw it last night, and really enjoyed it - matches up very nicely indeed with the book, and it's a significant improvement over the first film (just as the books improved as they went along).

The humour in the film is excellent (Branagh is perfectly cast as Gilderoy Lockheart, the foppish Defence against the Dark Arts teacher), and the special effects are a definite notch above those seen in the first flick - especially notable being the Quidditch match, which is much more seamless and exciting than previously.

The film also doesn't flinch from showing the darker side of the book, despite the billing as a kids movie; the section with the spiders is definitely not for the squeamish, and some of the violence in the movie is genuinely painful looking (a sequence where Harry's arm is broken being made all the more painful looking by a rather incompetent bit of magical fixing).

Altogether, well... it's not Lord of the Rings, but for fans of the books it's a tremendously entertaining movie, and for anyone with a bit of suspension of disbelief on their side, it's a funny, coherent and very interesting film which is a hell of a lot better and more intelligent than a lot of allegedly "adult-oriented" movies of late.

Kalina

Great movie, I saw it last night and really enjoyed it even though it was a shade too long. I was numb by the time I got out of the cinema seat!!
The special effects were fantastic, especially on the Basilisk, the Quiddich match and Dobby. Harry and Hermione weren't so goody-goody as they were in the first movie thankfully cos they were so annoying and Draco was even more of a little brat, brilliant. Jason Isaacs was fantastic as Lucious Malfoy, nobody can play evil roles like him... remember him as Col. Tavington in The Patriot?? Kenneth Branagh was very good also, I thought Gilderoy Lockheart was the most annoyng character in any of the 4 books but Brannagh managed to make the character really funny.
Richard Harris was great as usual, it's very sad watching him. So who will play Dumbledore in the rest of the movies?? I also read that the 3 main actors (HArry, Ron and Hermione) will quit after movie 3.

DapperGent

I wonder what they're going to do with the fourth film.

From my reading of the book it'll be quite difficult to stick accurately to the story and bring it in without a 15 cert.

The books seem to be changing into something darker and more interesting over time, it's diffcult to see Warner Bros (they're the studio aren't they?) allowing this to happen with the films.

Maybe they'll jettison Radcliffe et al at film 3 and then take a totally differnet tack from film four. They're almost going to have to.

Karl Hungus

I was planning on see this at the weekend, but seeing as Donnie Darko is showing, Potter will have to take a back seat untill a later date. Looking farward to seeing it though.

BLITZ_Molloy

Well I think the hollywood producers have realised that if you make a series less dark as you go along like Batman you end up killing it. Making the series more adult as it goes along could work very well as the fanbase will age with it.

I can't wait to see Donnie Darko. I hope it comes to the cinema here down in Clare.

sceptre

Originally posted by DapperGent
I wonder what they're going to do with the fourth film.

From my reading of the book it'll be quite difficult to stick accurately to the story and bring it in without a 15 cert.

Pretty hard to do without making it a six-hour epic as well I'd have thought. It's a bloody big book compared to the first one.

Apparently the Order of the Phoenix (book 5) is 38 chapters, one longer than Goblet of Fire (or so that Rowling chick has said - she's finally managed to finish it).

Shinji

Pretty hard to do without making it a six-hour epic as well I'd have thought. It's a bloody big book compared to the first one.

They're talking about doing it as two movies - one released at Thanksgiving, one at Christmas. I'm sure some people will scream rip-off, but I'd prefer that to the inevitable messing of the source material if they tried to compress it into one three-hour film....

Apparently the Order of the Phoenix (book 5) is 38 chapters, one longer than Goblet of Fire (or so that Rowling chick has said - she's finally managed to finish it).

Oh good - is it meant to be out before Christmas then? Got some long plane journeys coming up around then that could do with a giant of a book to absorb me, and the Potter books are the only ones in ages and ages that I've stayed up overnight reading (and, er, consequently skipped work the next day)...

Mr E

No such luck

Read a couple of weeks ago that Rowling was 'almost' finished it. When its done, it will go through some sort of review process, and will hit the shelves in 5 months. So late March/early April, I reckon....

- Dave.

Kalina

Read a couple of weeks ago that Rowling was 'almost' finished it. When its done, it will go through some sort of review process, and will hit the shelves in 5 months. So late March/early April, I reckon....

About time too... it was supposed to be released this autumn and I was really looking forward to it.
I got the 1st 4 books for Christmas last year and read them within a month and it's been agony waiting for the Order of the Phoenix!
I'm much worse than a kid!!:p

aine

How does it compare to the book?

actually compared to the first film its sticks a lot more rigidly to the book and not as much has been left out!

I though the Quidditch had improved sooooooooooo much but thats probably down to the involvement of LucasFilms!

I was finding it difficult to imagine Kenneth Brannagh playing Gilderoy but I was proved wrong, as with most of the characters it seems as though the role was made for him...I think httas possibly the film's best point...the casting that is...its amazing how every character lives up to the expectations set by the books!

Granted it is a kids film but at 19...I thoroughly enjoyed it and am eagerly awaiting Book 5!!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Makaveli

I should probably go and see this.
I've read all 4 books but I cant remember half the stuff in them. Maybe I should read them again too.

azezil

seen it last nite, a lot better than the first one. I enjoyed it... 2 women n 2 kidz siting behind us, one puked (slugs)the other screamed and kidz cryed LOL

Catch_22

Originally posted by MiCr0

defn a kids film

and were not ?

I think in that respect it aimed berfectly at the boards crew

the celtic tiger

anyone seen this yet? I couldn't find a thread about it already so......thought i'd start one.

Saw it last thursday and it was excellent.

darker and funnier than the first one. a truely enjoyable 3 hours.

WINNER!

sceptre

There's one just down the page here. Probably going to see it tonight.

Mr E

Very enjoyable. I saw it in Limerick on Saturday night. When Harry was fighting the thingie at the end (keep it vague... ) you could hear a pin drop in the cinema - everyone was glued to the screen. When he killed it, the silence was broken by a "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!" from the back of the room. (Sounded like a 3 or 4 year old... too young for this movie). I have to say I don't think its suitable for the very young.

I wonder what they are going to do with the third one? Its even darker than this one. Due out Summer 2004, I believe. They should probably split it into two 2 hour movies (one for summer, one for November). Hopefully with Chris Columbus on board, the new director won't f**k it up.

- Dave.

Shinji

I think the third one is staying as a single movie, but they're definitely talking about splitting the fourth one (Goblet of Fire) into two movies - probably released about six weeks apart.

Offy

Brill, not as enjoyable as the book do.

Pencapchew

Very good film and well worth the 3 hours.

Sexy bee-ach!!:)

Mr E

Interesting article on the trouble Warner Bros. is going to have with the franchise.....

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-fi-potter18nov18,0,1642863.story?coll=cl%2Dmovies

- Dave.

segadreamcast

The Third one, however, is not out until 2004...poo.

Here's my impression of the movie anyway - if anyone feels it contains any spoilers as such - PM me and I'll be glad to correct them...

Once again, Harry Potter mania has throttled the world as another movie is thrust upon us. This time though, the mood is darker, the actors are more experienced, and the plot is far richer than ever before.

The Books...

However, the question on every true fans lips is "Does it remain faithful to the books?". To which I can simply say it does stick to the core of the plot - but outside of that Colombus is a bit more creative, which makes for a far better movie. Some large chunks of the book have been cut out (the Death Day scene would be a prime example), but this was essential in the transition from book to movie.

The Acting...

The quality, in this case, has really been bumped up a notch or two generally speaking. Again though, at times, I found myself not believing what Dan Radcliffe (a.k.a. Harry Potter) was saying. Rupert Grint (as Ron Weasley) took what was good about him in the first movie, and exploited it to the extent that it made you want to squirm with embarrassment.

Kenneth Branagh was a superb addition to this talented, seasoned cast and was truly convincing as the narcissistic, self-conceived Professor Lockhart. Alan Rickman gives another barnstorming performance as Severus Snape, but it seems as though he might be getting a tad softer on the triumphant trio.

In addition to that, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Chris Rankin and Emma Watson all put in commendable efforts. Overall, the acting was great - but the distinct lack of Zoe Wannamaker was intruiging to say the least.

Nitty Gritty...

John Williams managed to compose something of a masterpiece this time out, although there was some amount of repetition during scenes - the audience didn't seem to mind. The special effects were stunning, with the noteworthy Dobby looking almost lifelike, although at times he was a bit too comical for my liking - but the audience warmed to him nonetheless. Meanwhile, the Quidditch scenes were far better - with some truly stunning camera work as Draco and Harry intensely battle it out through the stands of the quidditch stadium to try and catch the snitch in, what can only be described as extremely perilous conditions.

Monotony...

Generally speaking, the movie was mostly entrancing, and captured your imagination quite well. In the beginning it was one laugh after another, and by the end it was all out, breakneck, in-your-face action. However, somewhere in the middle of it all, the movie tended to suffer from tedium where it would just waddle from one dull scene to another. Thankfully, this didn't last too long - and before you knew it, you were shoved right back in the action seat as Harry fought to the bitter end with a giant serpent.

Lights, Camera, Action!

All in all though, despite the aforementioned criticisms, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was everything that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone should've and could've been. Most aspects have been improved, and Chris Colombus as a director has certainly learned from his mistakes and has improved his distinctive style too.

The sheer flair and charisma that you could see from the actors throughout this movie was truly inspirational, as was the emotional, heartwarming climax.

This movie certainly isn't spectacular, or necessarily outstanding, and, contrary to many claims, it certainly is a classic. Be that as it may, it is still a good (if not great) family movie, one which I recommend to absolutely everybody.

Overall Rating - 7/10

Summary - "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was everything that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone should've and could've been. From the mirthful, charismatic beginning to the touching, uplifting climax this movie is something that should be seen, and relished, by all."

It's so obvious that I didn't initially write it for the audience of boards.ie - eh?

plastic membrane

Much better than the first one. Still not perfect by any means, but enjoyable all the same..

Ph3n0m

Originally posted by plastic membrane
Much better than the first one. Still not perfect by any means, but enjoyable all the same..

well then how would it have been perfect then?

Karl Hungus

Got around to seeing this today.
Very enjoyable, and well worth seeing.

I can't say I'm much of a fan of the whole fairytale style of the films/books. But I've never read the books, or even seen the first film, so I can't really judge it as well as those who have. But I found the very over-acted style much to my liking.

Lucious Malfoy was easily the most lavishly acted character, and hat's of to the actor who played him. I wasn't as impressed with Alan Rickman though, I think he could have gone far, far more over the top than he did. Kenneth Brannagh was great though, very pompous!

All in all, good film, and great way to while away a dull friday evening.
Especially seeing as I've pretty much given up the beer.