Harry Potter & The Order Of The Pheonix
Like I said in an earlier post, it has been such a long time since I have read the book, it might be hard for me to tell what has been "changed," as some have said. Evidently, I am not as old as I thought. I did see where things had been changed, and again many things were just completely left out. However, if you have read the books, as I have, you will know that each book has several stories within the story, and most of the books are well beyond the 500-600 page limit of most novels. Therefore it would be a mini-series if everthing was left in. All in all, I think the director, David Yates, has once again done a smashingly brilliant job of things. He has kept the flavor and spirit of the story together, omitting only those things that aren't relevent to the main story. I am always impressed with the technical level of these movies, because they have never been anything but completely believable.
Casting, has always been top drawer. Although, I dearly miss Richard Harris's portrail of Albus Dumbledore, (A better person there will never be for that part.) people die and that can not be helped. Although I had originally hoped they would move John Hurt from the role of Mr. Olivander, owner of Olivander's Wands, to play Dumbledore, Micheal Gambon is doing a fine fine job. I now realize I wanted the Dumbledore, I loved back on the sreen. While John Hurt would have done a wonderful job he never would have been exactly the same. It was far wiser to pick someone that could become his very own version of Dumbledore, and do it well, that Micheal Gambin has done smashingly. My only hope now is that we can hang onto Dame Maggie Smith, aka Professor Minerva McGonagall, tell the end. She too would be a great loss to the cast.
For me, what makes a book or a movie really good, is to have great actors play the good guys, but even better ones play the bad guys. Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort, Jason Issacs as Lucius Malfoy, and Alan Rickman as Severus Snape who no one knows for certain if he is bad or good, are all deliciously evil.
It appears I could go on forever so I will finish up with this. Was it the best Harry Potter movie? No. Was it the worst? No, but even the worst Harry Potter is still a great movie. Did I enjoy myself? Yes. Was I disappointed? Certianly not. Would I pay to see it again? In a second! Will I own it on DVD? Do you really need to ask?
The one complaint I have, had nothing at all to do with the movie, and I have expressed my displeasure regarding this issue before. Those people with children under the age of 5, who are prone to be scared by a movie like this and cry, spoiling it for others, please get a baby sitter, or wait till the bloody thing comes out on DVD! If you must bring them, then scoop your crying snot nosed child up and get them out of there the moment they make a peep, covering theor mouth with your hand to muffle their cries.
I have a home theatre complete with Dolby Surround Sound in my bedroom, and a huge DVD collection. So, when I actually pay $8 to see a first run movie on the HUGE screen at the theatre, I would like to not have to put up with talking children, crying babies, and parents scooting past with their children for trips to the damn potty throughout the entire movie. In my opinion if the MPAA rating is as such:
Rated PG-13 for sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images.
Children under the age of 10 should not be allowed by the theatre PERIOD! (The theatre says no one under 13 but they evidently don't really care.) Some people will say, you can't tell me what or what not I can allow my children to watch. Well you know what? Maybe it should be a sign to you that you are screwing up your kids little brains bringing them to movies that they are not old enough to comprehend as "Not Real," thus making them that much more scary. Maybe, it is more simple than all that. Maybe you need to be told it is just plain selfish and rude to bring small children a movie like this because they are going to spoil it for the rest of us. If you are as selfish as all of that, just think how you would feel if you sat in front of me and I kicked the back of your seat throughout the movie. Bet me you would turn around and I would hear about it.
My brother and his wife used to split their kids up. One parent and the older child went to one movie, and the other parent, and the younger child would go to a more age appropriate movie. I see movies first before I take my kids, so I can tell if it is appropriate or not. So sue my brother an I for actually following the rules! I guess it is stupid for me to expect everyone else to, or for the theatres to actually enforce the rules they have.
I need to get off my soap box or I will be hear all night.
Casting, has always been top drawer. Although, I dearly miss Richard Harris's portrail of Albus Dumbledore, (A better person there will never be for that part.) people die and that can not be helped. Although I had originally hoped they would move John Hurt from the role of Mr. Olivander, owner of Olivander's Wands, to play Dumbledore, Micheal Gambon is doing a fine fine job. I now realize I wanted the Dumbledore, I loved back on the sreen. While John Hurt would have done a wonderful job he never would have been exactly the same. It was far wiser to pick someone that could become his very own version of Dumbledore, and do it well, that Micheal Gambin has done smashingly. My only hope now is that we can hang onto Dame Maggie Smith, aka Professor Minerva McGonagall, tell the end. She too would be a great loss to the cast.
For me, what makes a book or a movie really good, is to have great actors play the good guys, but even better ones play the bad guys. Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort, Jason Issacs as Lucius Malfoy, and Alan Rickman as Severus Snape who no one knows for certain if he is bad or good, are all deliciously evil.
It appears I could go on forever so I will finish up with this. Was it the best Harry Potter movie? No. Was it the worst? No, but even the worst Harry Potter is still a great movie. Did I enjoy myself? Yes. Was I disappointed? Certianly not. Would I pay to see it again? In a second! Will I own it on DVD? Do you really need to ask?
The one complaint I have, had nothing at all to do with the movie, and I have expressed my displeasure regarding this issue before. Those people with children under the age of 5, who are prone to be scared by a movie like this and cry, spoiling it for others, please get a baby sitter, or wait till the bloody thing comes out on DVD! If you must bring them, then scoop your crying snot nosed child up and get them out of there the moment they make a peep, covering theor mouth with your hand to muffle their cries.
I have a home theatre complete with Dolby Surround Sound in my bedroom, and a huge DVD collection. So, when I actually pay $8 to see a first run movie on the HUGE screen at the theatre, I would like to not have to put up with talking children, crying babies, and parents scooting past with their children for trips to the damn potty throughout the entire movie. In my opinion if the MPAA rating is as such:
Rated PG-13 for sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images.
Children under the age of 10 should not be allowed by the theatre PERIOD! (The theatre says no one under 13 but they evidently don't really care.) Some people will say, you can't tell me what or what not I can allow my children to watch. Well you know what? Maybe it should be a sign to you that you are screwing up your kids little brains bringing them to movies that they are not old enough to comprehend as "Not Real," thus making them that much more scary. Maybe, it is more simple than all that. Maybe you need to be told it is just plain selfish and rude to bring small children a movie like this because they are going to spoil it for the rest of us. If you are as selfish as all of that, just think how you would feel if you sat in front of me and I kicked the back of your seat throughout the movie. Bet me you would turn around and I would hear about it.
My brother and his wife used to split their kids up. One parent and the older child went to one movie, and the other parent, and the younger child would go to a more age appropriate movie. I see movies first before I take my kids, so I can tell if it is appropriate or not. So sue my brother an I for actually following the rules! I guess it is stupid for me to expect everyone else to, or for the theatres to actually enforce the rules they have.
I need to get off my soap box or I will be hear all night.
Written by Im A Foto Nut at 7/14/2007 04:51:00 pm
2 Comments:
I'm so glad you were able to get out and treat yourself to the movie you've been waiting so long for! I hope you didn't overdo it and make yourself sicker, but it sure does make a big difference, when you're able to get cleaned up a bit and get out for a bit..it eventually all works to make you feel better in the end.
I SOOOOOOO agree with the kids in the theater thing! Keep the little ones at home!
Stacie
I couldn't agree with you more about the rant & rave! Living in a military town, where teenagers run the theatre, it absolutely pisses me off that small children are allowed to come into the theatre when it's clearly not a child-friendly movie. And cell phones? Don't even get me started! I think this town is generally a selfish town. I haven't been to the movies since Da Vinci Code. No lie.
But anyway! I'm so glad you got to see it! I'll wait for the DVD.
M~
Post a Comment
<< Home