Sorry for the interruption, but we'd really appreciate it if you watched some of our videos!
All videos are written, performed, and edited by the Agony Booth staff, so they're just like the
recaps you know and love, only without all that annoying reading!
11/5/2012 7:14:20 PM
PAGE 394!I'm one of those who thinks this is one of the best Potter movies, and it's not director bias (Cuarón is Mexican), I think this movie works as a self contained story AND as a sequel at the same time, and even though some changes to the book annoyed me, it was still purdy good, dunno.
11/5/2012 2:26:26 PM
If you get the chance, you should take a look at the '90s comedy series "Chef" -- would give you more respect for "the guy who does the Travelodge adverts!"
11/5/2012 7:16:16 AM
About the going back in time thing. There are rules. They mention them in the book. I know, the movie should have had it too. But if your going to question something. Then you have(maybe) to look for the answer. Even if you have to Google it. Anyways in the book. It said that you have to keep the timeline stable or it falls apart. That means you keep the events in the past the same. And about the movie. I really like it. I think why people like it is that it the last book/movie before the series got really dark. It has the perfect blend of a mature story with the lightness of the two other books/movies. Yeah it a bit cheesy. But that the fun of it. I like to watch a movie where someone says love comes from your heart,or a black kid saying dark things when a plot point show up(it would have been great if he was in the next few movies doing the same thing:). Its just a light hearted fun story.
11/5/2012 8:03:49 AM
This is the only potter movie actually feeling like its own self-contained movie.Some fans are angry that this is the movie taking the most liberties from the book, but guess what people? that's what you need to do to turn a book into a self-contained movie. If there are things I would have kind of wished they had taken the time to explain it's the whole marauder back-ground story, it's never really explained. The map is there, and the nick-names "Prongs, Padfoot, Moony and Wormtail." shortly appears, but.. we are never ever told why those names are in any way signifigant, we are never told whom they are, how their story plays directly into present events, Lupin is a werewolf but we are never explained why that is important beyond one action scene, we see that Sirius and Peter can both turn into animals, but are never explained why, neither are we told why Peters betrayal was such a huge deal, why he wasn't just another mindless death eater drone. It's like all the surface stuff is there, but as the book goes deep and emotionally the movie seems to simply stop. All though, I do find that a consistent problem with the movies, they do show the events of the books, but as the books manages to peel layers away and go deep thus emotionally engage the audience, the movies don't. All of the surface, little of what lays beneath :/
11/5/2012 8:43:38 AM
Yeah; the map is never fully explain, I wonder if they thought about it and just thought it would slow the film down somehow. Movies are very visual and a lot of the emotion has to be showed. This is different compare to the book. Where emotion can be told in greater detail. Honesty,I'm not the one to talk about making a book into a movie. If I had my way. The Harry Potter movies would be like crank,and under two hours for each book. And a little bit off topic but there was a book series called Witch and wizard that came out after Harry Potter(books) ended. The story crazy. It about a government who one day decides to "take care"of all the wizards and witches. It like Harry Potter,if the books after 4 went pitch black. They also had a graphic novelization of the books. I guess someone listen to the fantalk about a Harry Potter graphic novel:).
11/5/2012 9:15:31 AM
It was a delieberate choice by the director to focus on the here and now adventure sequence to make "a more exciting engaging childrens movie." which is why we spend so much time on the time-paradox and so little time on the back-story. I do believe with a bit of clever re-writing, maybe showing some shadowy images if needed, we could have gotten all that covered. or you don't even need shadowy imagest but simply have Sirius and Lupin tell, like they did in the book, the same way that Obi Wan tells Luke about Vater, that whole. "He is more man than machine now." stuff, see, that took around, thirty seconds, and suddenly we had depth.. much more depth than three prequels movies managed to sqeesh out actually. Well, when making any book into a movie really, the first thing you have to realise is that you cannot replicate the book, but will end up making an interpretation no matter what, so well.. just make sure it's a good interpretation in this new format. It's actually a bit incredible how faithful the first two movies are of the book, it's almost a page for page re-cap, but on the same time, that was exactly what kept the movies back from being more than just okay.. that's what they are, all of the movies, just okay. Which is a shame, as I do believe, had they been a bit smarter, more economic in what they picked, dwelled on the more important aspects and concentrate on being its own thing, they could have been much better. But then again, I am just a huuuuge potter fan, and I badly want to like the movies more than I have come to do (adored them when they first came out, I was eleven and had all-ready read the first four book, so that was huge for me at the time.) But oh well, i'll always have the book, and those still holes up and I still love them just as much.
11/5/2012 7:57:26 PM
I think the Potter movies work pretty well, even if only as complements to the books. The things the film does best are the visuals, the score, and having such a great cast making a lot out of some rather thin characters. Even though they changed some of the stories and cut out a lot of the expository dialogue, just having those images and sounds made reading the later books really fun, since you could picture all these great actors playing the characters and had all these gorgeous visuals to picture. They're a huge improvement over the early cover art.Same with LotR. I have MAJOR problems with the movies, even though I admit they get at least 90% of it right. But having seen the movies, and drunk in their gorgeousness, makes the books even more fun to read. I haven't read The Hobbit since I was in third grade, but I'm going to re-read it shortly before the movie comes out, now that I have the movies' beautiful backdrops.Also, though I do like Azkaban, it feels way too short, even though I know it really isn't. I think HBP struck the best balance between a good original story and a long, faithful enough screen treatment.
11/5/2012 8:36:41 PM
I'll still say that LotR managed to emotionally engage me much more than any of the potter movies, and still to this day those. Those movies still managest to emotionally bend me, making me sad, happy, excited ext. And well granted, at this point not many movies can do that, not even good stuff is always able to make me emotionally connect. Though that is how I categories great stuff, if I was emotionally invested in the story, it must have been great! And LotR does that to me, Potter how-ever.. the movies seemed to fall flat to me in that regard. Particularly the last movie, which should by all means have been emotionally packed and turned people into wrecks was weirdly emotionless. The only scene managing to force a reaction out of me and my fellow potter fans was of cause Snapes death and our short look into his memories. Though even that had two down-sides to it,1; in comparison to the book, that chapter made people cry as if their cat had just been run over, visualising should have managed to capture that, but it didn't entirely, at most it became a sniff and a wet eye. 2; it made it obvious of emotionless the rest of it was, and it just felt so weird sitting back feeling nothing while Harry faced his own death. Why we didn't feel so much as Harry walked into his death, I don't know, whether it's because the movies didn't managed to emotionally involve us much sooner and there-fore lost its chance or what happened.. but oh well, when it comes to that exact scene, neither did the book manage to deliver the wished effect by most people as far as I can gather. Again, I am not saying any of the movies are bad, they are not! they are indeed not bad and each and every movie has very good things to offer, how-ever, I can't help but to think of them as just. "Okay." maybe even "Good." but never "Great" or "amazing." same way as I think of LotR, so well.. that's just my two cents, take it or leave it.
12/2/2012 2:58:10 AM
That scene in the book made me bawl, but since I gave up watching the movies at 5, I haven't seen movie seven yet. I want to read those books again now. I should watch L of the R again. I love those movies. So. MUCH
Popular Right Now
All articles posted to the agony booth are the sole property of the author(s). Please do not copy/reproduce entire articles without permission. Screencaps from movies and TV shows are used for non-profit, fair use purposes of parody and commentary.
Star Trek and all related images and trademarks are the property of CBS Studios, Inc.
Reviewer icon artwork provided by Tai Porto, Aaron “McKnackus” Rivera, and Magdalen O’Reilly.