Harry Potter the movie....

I went in with low hopes and went out pleased with the movie. I was dissapointed in both 3 and 4 so it was nice to return to actual storytelling with 5.

Phil

I saw it on Saturday at an IMAX theater and the movie was dark - I mean literally dark. I could barely see some scenes because the image was too dark. I am told that to see it on an IMAX screen at its best you need to be in the middle and near the back of the theater. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. But for all that it is a good movie and I did enjoy it.

It's interesting to me to see the characters actually grow up on the screen. Harry looses some of the baby fat he had in the earlier movies. Hermione goes from an awkward pre-teen in the first movie to a much more sophisticated young woman now. And what about Neville Longbottom? He must have grown a foot since the last movie. He's head and shoulders above all the other student characters.

Jock

Okay, you started it, Shroom! I could go on ad infinitum, but I'll spare you all. :rolleyes:

This is a favorite series of mine, both the books and the movies. I own all of the DVDs out so far and watch them periodically. I own all seven books and revisit them, too (as I do with the Lord of the Rings trilogy).

I felt the first book was great; the second, less so; the third stronger, and things kept improving right up to the final page of the final book. I won't reveal spoilers (I consider that unprincipled!), but if you haven't read all of the books, you're in for a real treat.

The teens who play the main characters (and I include here Neville Longbottom, Draco Malfoy and Ginny Weasley) have indeed grown in to their roles. To be honest, I thought Daniel Radcliffe's acting in the first two movies was wooden. He has developed into a good actor, IMHO. I much preferred Richard Harris as Dumbledore to Michael Gambon's portrayal.

I loved Order of the Phoenix and look forward eagerly to seeing the final two films- although it'll mean the end of the road for the characters and that wizarding world in all probability.

I agree with you, Shroom. Just because the first and second books are okay for younger readers/viewers doesn't mean the later ones are. Parents must always take into consideration their child's emotional development and maturity into account when choosing material. Ratings help, but now that it's easy to see trailers and rather detailed information online before buying a ticket or a book, it gets much easier to make those decisions.

I was horrified to see the young children brought to see Jurassic Park (the original movie). Just because it was about dinosaurs, parents assumed it was for children. It was NOT- quite violent and gruesome, in fact- and the result was that I saw a good number of parents with preschoolers and children up to about age 8 walking in the lobby because their children were too upset to watch any more of the movie.

As for The Golden Compass- I can't wait! I heard Philip Pullman speak when he came to Milwaukee. He hadn't yet published the second book (The Subtle Knife) but the room was crammed with the same audience as one would expect for Harry Potter. The last book in this series (The Amber Spyglass) is also too mature for younger children as it takes a much more obvious tack into theological explorations, the nature of sin, etc. in ways that aren't necessarily appropriate for children under age 12.

Still, the movie (with Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman and Dakota Blue Richards) should be worth the wait!

Potter

I thought the newest Potter movie was ok, but to be honest I found this latest installment lacking in some ways. There wasn't much drama or humour in the movie and I found it be less exciting than the previous installments. Maybe I didn't like it as much as I read the book first and the book was fantastic! Somehow I felt that this movie didn't do justice to the book.

As for scary movies, I can remember when I was little and watched Poltergeist at the theatres... don't think I could sleep for a week. :crazy:

Ah, the Birds, that is a great classic Hitchcock film. That one didn't really scare me even when I was little. I get the most scared by watching ghost movies.

Except for two Jurassic Park movies, me neither. I don't do horror! I walked out of Pulp Fiction; I guess I didn't see the "fun" of it.

Lady DeWinters, I agree that the whimsy and humor of earlier Potter movies wasn't present in this one. I think it's a statement of the increased danger faced by the characters and is also reflective of the maturation of the characters. They're not little children any more and are able to appreciate the peril of their situation.

I've read that the directors and producers are also factoring this into their thinking, and plan to keep the production going pretty much straight through.

Daniel Radcliffe, the actor, is shorter in stature than nearly all the other male student characters, but you're right that Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom) and Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) have sprouted up. They still look like stringy teenagers though, IMHO.

Having taught in middle schools and high schools in recent years, I can tell you the kids are getting TALLER. In my last year I remember a good number of eighth grade girls at six feet and better- even a few of both sexes in sixth grade.