Shrek 2 and Harry Potter 3 Become DC Recommendations

So you're on parole then?

Behave this time.

Parole?

DC stands for "Dante–Cubed"

I thought H.P. was pretty good. Cuaron didn't, however, cover up one of the books' big flaws: Harry himself is too stupid to live. If Hermione didn't restrain him, he'd make the wrong move every time. The pacing is pretty good and the visual mood is nice. Who'd have thunk, but Emma Thompson was execrable.

The CGI creatures are also horribly executed. Cf. Van Helsing's werewolf, also ridiculous looking. They can't get them right.

Yeah, I kinda wondered about that. Like when they went back to save Sirius and Buckbeak, when the Dementor thing came after them and they were scared, surely they must have known they would have survived otherwise how would they have got to the point where they could then go back and change things. Sorry if this sounds like an episode of Red Dwarf or something.

Seconded on Emma Thompson being crap. David Thewlis, however = TOTAL CLASSIC.

Also, guest appearance from Ian Brown out of the Stone Roses in the Leaky Cauldron. I mentioned it on ILM and people didn't believe me.

I don't believe you on ILE either.

He is, though. He's reading 'A Brief History Of Time' an' all.

Oh come on!

HE IS!

HE IS! Go and see it! He IS!!!

Yeah, and A Guy Called Gerald is the new Bond.

HE IS!!! Look! It says so here!

David Thewlis, however = TOTAL CLASSIC Yes, very much so. Nicely understated. CF both Kenneth Brannagh and Emma T. WAY over the top, and conseq. not really very funny.

i really liked how the opening scene was shot (after the title) in the dursley's house. the handheld shots and cluttered, claustrphobic atmosphere was really cool. it was almost like a dogme film ;-)

I enjoyed HP3 very much and concur about Thewlis. I missed seeing Ian Brown too. My biggest criticism of the movie was that the Dementor's should've had a consequence to their face-sucking...or were they meant to *eventually* get your soul out that way? At any rate, a little bit of face-sucking seemed not to do enough harm.

I liked it, but felt it was lacking in terms of plot satisfaction or, most of all, villainry. The dementors were scary and nasty, sure (I wish we'd had more than one brief shot of its mouth - that was scary), but their lack of evil will made them very much 2nd string baddies. As for Sirius, as soon as there's a chance for genuine good vs evil action, his true nature is revealed so quickly as to deflate any sense of tension.

When the film ended, it felt like it should just have been a quiet breather before the REAL climax of the film. But instead, just credits.

I'll still go and see number 4, though I'm even more worried how they'll fit it into one movie.

(David Thewlis was fine, but Maggie Smith still rulez0rs.)

Saw HP3 and found it much better than the other two by a long shot, and Thewlis was a big part of this. My wife was a little bothered by Emma Watson's clothes and make-up, though, which seemed designed to emphasize her budding babehood, and were therefore totally wrong for the character.

How would she have had her dress? In a boiler suit?

No, but not in a very tight "hello, boys!" pullover.

HARRY POTTER MOVIE IS GOODER THAN FUCK: FILM AT ELEVEN

The CGI in this film was WAAAAAAAAY the fuck better than either of the first ones. I loved the Whomping Willow shots as change-of-seasons set-ups.

MISCHIEF MANAGED

this movie seriously makes the others look cheesy in comparison.

Seriously. It is amazing what an actual director can do. Notes:

Dear Dawn French: it isn't actually panto. You're allowed act, if you can. Big broad acting, like Emma Thompson, is fine, but not just camping it up please.

Micheal Gambon isn't a great Dumbledore, he made me realise how good Richard Harris was: Dumbledore was all about being completely useless and doddery until about five minutes afterwards, when you realised you'd been played. He isn't a Gandalf.

Robert "Seigfried Farnon" Hardy is a genius choice for Cornelius Fudge.

It seemed a bit post-LOTR in that suddenly there seems to be a lot more fantastic scenery around Hogwarts than before.

They did cock up the ending, though. But more by leaving things out than getting things wrong, which may mean that a DVD release will put them back in.

SPOILERS:

A little thing - they don't mention that this year's guest stars + Harry's dad made the map 20 years ago.

A medium thing - they don't mention that the reason that Lupin, Pettigrew, Black and Potter were Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs is that the last three learned animagic to accompany Lupin at the full moon.

A big thing - they don't mention that Harry's dad was Prongs because he used to turn into a stag, hence the whole point of the stag at the lakeside / Harry misrecognizing his father etc.

END SPOILERS

Also the actual ending was a bit shit, in particular "Remember what Dumbledore said two minutes ago!" but it is pretty much that thrown-together in the book as well.

I thought that they were usually wearing their uniforms. A boilersuit would better fit Hermione's character than a pink sweater.

saw this last night. great flick. completely improved my mood, altho i'm curious about how much footage was cut. It seemed like there were deliberate set-ups with no payoffs included(e.g. Hogsmeade), plus the plot points mentioned earlier.

but yeah, FAR better put together as a film. hand-held shots, fish-eye at certain points, far better frame composition, MUCH better quidditch sequence, etc.

And the kid who plays Neville now looks a good choice to play a young Pete Townshend in a Who biopic or Jimmy if they ever remake Quadrophrenia.