"'Fire' Hires"
Source: EW
Just last month, you plunked down your money to see ''Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,'' but it's not too early for the hype surrounding the next movie, ''Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,'' to begin. There are at least 10 new actors in the cast of ''Goblet,'' which began filming last month under a director new to the series, Mike Newell (''Mona Lisa Smile,'' ''Four Weddings and a Funeral.'')
In keeping with the international flavor of J.K. Rowling's fourth Potter book, the upcoming movie has expanded beyond the series' traditionally all-British and Irish casts. The biggest new name is Brendan Gleeson, the Irish actor recently on screen as King Menelaus in ''Troy'' -- he'll play Mad Eye Moody, who takes on the least secure job this side of Spinal Tap drummer: the Defense Against the Dark Arts teaching slot at Hogwarts. Other new grownups include Belgrade-born Pedja Bjelac (''Eurotrip'') as Durmstrang professor Igor Karkakoff, as well as British actors Frances De La Tour as Madame Maxine, headmistress of Beauxbatons Academy of Magic; Roger Lloyd-Pack as Barty Crouch, head of the Department of International Magic Cooperation; David Tennant as Barty Crouch Jr.; and Jeff Rawle as Amos Diggory.
Among the student cast, the newcomers include Katie Leung, an Scottish girl making her professional debut (having beaten out a reported 3,000 others for the part) as Harry's love interest, Cho Chang. Other newcomers are young French actress Clémence Poésy as Fleur Delacoeur, Stanislav Ianevski as Quidditch ace Viktor Krum, and Robert Pattinson (who'll be seen opposite Reese Witherspoon in the upcoming movie ''Vanity Fair'') as Cedric Diggory.
Most of the cast from previous Potter pictures is on board for ''Goblet,'' including Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron), Emma Watson (Hermione), Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid), Michael Gambon (Dumbledore), Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall), Alan Rickman (Professor Snape), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), and Timothy Spall (Peter Pettigrew). Notably missing from the cast are Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw, and Harry Melling, who play Harry Potter's Muggle family, the Dursleys. Apparently, they've been trimmed from the screenplay in order to keep the running time of Rowling's epic tale down to a reasonable feature length. ''Goblet'' is due in theaters in November 2005.
Fiennes is 'Potter's' Voldemort
Source: Hollywood Reporter
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has been named. Ralph Fiennes, who played memorable evil guys in "Red Dragon" and "Schindler's List," has signed on to portray the wicked warlock Voldemort in the next "Harry Potter" movie, Warner Bros. announced Wednesday. Voldemort is so bad that the magical characters in author J.K. Rowling's stories do their best not to speak his name aloud. In the first three installments of the saga, a deadly magic spell meant for a baby Harry Potter backfired and deprived him of a body. So only his spirit wrought havoc in "The Sorcerer's Stone," "The Chamber of Secrets" and the recent "Prisoner of Azkaban." But Voldemort finally returns in the flesh in part four: "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire."
Why was I under the impression that John Malkovich was Voldemort?
Quote from: ranemaka13Why was I under the impression that John Malkovich was Voldemort?
that was reported on imdb and a couple other sites a while ago.
Nair Offered Harry Potter 5 Director's Chair
Source: The Times of India , The Leaky Cauldron Monday, August 30, 2004
The Times of India spoke to Monsoon Wedding and Vanity Fair director Mira Nair, who says she's been offered the director's chair for Warner Bros.' Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
"I'm getting offers to direct 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I read it over the weekend. I'm still deciding," she said, "I'm not letting all this go to my head. I'm grounded. I practice detachment, it helps me keep my balance. I'm a Dilliwalli, only an asana gets me on my head! My son Zoharan's excited. I've seen all the Harry Potter movies with him."
The studio is currently filming Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, directed by Mike Newell for a November 18, 2005 release. "Phoenix" is targeted for a June, 2007 release.
i love monsoon wedding
Quote from: mira nairI'm a Dilliwalli, only an asana gets me on my head!
wtf is she babbling.
Rowling will kill another 'Potter' character
LONDON -- "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling said Friday that one of her characters will not survive the next book in her series about the young wizard. Asked on her official Web site whether she planned to kill off any more characters, Rowling replied, "Yes, sorry." But she refused to identify that character. The sixth book in the series, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," is due to be published next year. (AP)
Jarvis Cocker to provide soundtrack 'Harry Potter' film
source: the sun newspaper u.k.
JARVIS COCKER has been signed to write the soundtrack for the fourth Harry Potter film.
As well as composing the music for Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire, the former PULP frontman will make a cameo appearance.
Movie bosses were determined to bring in a trendy British musician to give the film a sprinkling of Britpop cool after the previous Potter flicks were scored by prolific American composer JOHN WILLIAMS — most famous for Star Wars, Indiana Jones, ET and the chilling theme from Jaws.
But new Potter director MIKE NEWELL wanted to make sure his movie appealed more to a generation of music-mad teens.
He asked DANIEL RADCLIFFE and the other young stars to draw up a shortlist of candidates. Jarvis bagged the job because of his reputation and professionalism.
He may even write the score under the name of his alter ego DARREN SPOONER — a goth-rocking punk image he invented for himself last year fronting a band called RELAXED MUSCLE.
Jarvis will be responsible for picking additional music for the film and has already chosen FRANZ FERDINAND to appear and write a track.
A source at movie giants Warner Bros tells me: "Everyone here is really excited about Jarvis being involved in Goblet Of Fire.
"He is a very talented musician who is a big fan of movies and knows exactly how they work. You may just think Jarvis is the bloke in specs who fronted Pulp but he is a man with many hidden depths."
Jarvis, a dead ringer for an adult Harry Potter, saw Pulp splitting last year as an ideal opportunity to explore new avenues.
He studied film at Central St Martin's in London and once said: "I think I'll end up as a film-maker eventually. It's just a question of when. You always wish that people you like knew when to give up, but they never do."
He has some experience in the field, having composed music for 1995 film Wild Side.
Jarvis in Potter? It will be absolutely magic.
that is insane. this could ruin the movie or make it awesome. as much as i like franz ferdinand, trying to shove a bunch of hip songs into the soundtrack could be a total disaster for hp.
I choose "Disaster"
Yeah...I really hope they at least maintain William's main theme, because that's so recognizable and instantly associable with the world of these films. I imagine what Cocker comes up with will still be a 'score' and not a collection of britpop songs, but that theme is just too good to leave out.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fwarner_brothers%2Fharry_potter_and_the_goblet_of_fire%2F_group_photos%2Fdaniel_radcliffe6.jpg&hash=03cf574c5d971846184405169a122e9418aa43d4)
Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/harry_potter/thegobletoffire/)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fharrypotter.warnerbros.com%2Fgobletoffire%2Fimages%2Fgof_poster.jpg&hash=2886fe0c0f7a83002fa9c0566445d2394cee6fbc)
That looks sorta crappy.
they're looking too old and punkish now. that first picture looks like they're goths loitering in front of a library.
Quote from: GhostboyThat looks sorta crappy.
what up with thaqt handheld shit , kids will get dizzy :yabbse-angry:
it must be cos i never read the books, not the whole things anyway..
the first two movies, which ppl think are the better ones, i think are the crap ones.
i really liked azkaban and this looks alrite too. as long as they don't go back to that columbus crap.
I don't know about everyone else, but I loved the first two and then realized that I didn't when I saw how amazing Azkaban was.
From the roughly thirty seconds of footage here, this looks like a step backwards - although I think my judgment is due almost entirely to the crappy CGI of the mer-person.
well it certainly made me pretty excited
Quote from: [img]http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/harry_potter_and_the_goblet_of_fire/_group_photos/daniel_radcliffe6.jpg[/img]
omgz ambulances: we're going to see my ebfflz after the chariot
her heartfelt reply: linzy is an e-sl00t frealz
loveliesbleeding: lol
omgz ambulances: lollerskates yeah shut the fuck up harold
omgz ambulances: bc she wouldn't pb you
omgz ambulances: friday nite
her heartfelt reply: no
her heartfelt reply: no
loveliesbleeding: LOL yeah
omgz ambulances: 'omfg im so sad im gunna go sit i nthe bathtub and cut'
her heartfelt reply: np hellogoodbye - welcome to our record.mp3
omgz ambulances: send me that amp plz
her heartfelt reply: i didnt even ask her to
omgz ambulances: she showed me the log
omgz ambulances: WHO WANTS TO SEE
her heartfelt reply: you have an amp already
omgz ambulances: im on anthonys laptop
loveliesbleeding: my mom is such a fag
I didn't like the first screen name I saw so I didn't read it
I really disliked the first two movies and liked the third (though the screenplay still kind of sucked).
This is my favorite of all the books so I'm sure to be disapointed, but I have a feeling it's going to be better than the Columbus turds.
my girlfriend is pissed and thinks it looks crappy (she also thinks its the best book). i think it looks okay but its nowhere near the excitement and coolness of the azkaban teaser with the 'something wicked this way comes'. this is just like, random stuff. eh.
Quote from: themodernage02my girlfriend is pissed and thinks it looks crappy (she also thinks its the best book). i think it looks okay but its nowhere near the excitement and coolness of the azkaban teaser with the 'something wicked this way comes'. this is just like, random stuff. eh.
what do u expect, azkaban was an anomaly. it was stylish and awesome. this one is going a Little bit back to the columbus days of "hey this isn't about a director's 'vision', it's about making the movie as much like a book as possible, totally non-visually-daring!"
if they could get away with shooting sumone turning the pages of the book for 10 hours, they would.
she's also pissed that none of the characters look like they're supposed to look.
I'm a sucker for these books and will probably like the movie. I think the casting for the most part was horrendous, though. It's too politically correct, etc.
I'm still wondering how they're going to fit this in less than 3hrs.
When does this come out (too lazy to go to first page.)
Quote from: deathnotronic
When does this come out (too lazy to go to first page.)
I know, but I'm too lazy to tell you.
Quote from: ranemaka13Quote from: deathnotronic
When does this come out (too lazy to go to first page.)
I know, but I'm too lazy to tell you.
I'm lazy but not really lazy: November.
Quote from: SiliasRubyQuote from: ranemaka13Quote from: deathnotronic
When does this come out (too lazy to go to first page.)
I know, but I'm too lazy to tell you.
I'm lazy but not really lazy: November.
well so much for that great ranemaka reply.
AICN is reporting that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire will be rated PG-13 for "sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images."
EXTRA talks over the new trailer... http://extratv.warnerbros.com/v2/news/0805/12/3/video.html
i think it looks GREAT. really dark and about a million times better than the earlier trailer. with the advance word being really strong (best of the series) and supposedly the best source material to work from (best book of the series) i'm really looking forward to this now. REALLY.
I always thought this was the best book (I haven't read the last two). This trailer looks fantastic.
New Trailer (http://movies.aol.com/movie_exclusive_harry_potter_goblet_clip)
Voldemort looks pretty great.
MUCH better trailer. and at least they're acknowledging the fact that this is a really pivotal chapter in the series... "Everything's going to change now, isn't it?".
A Fiennes Voldemort
Actor discusses becoming You-Know-Who in new Potter film.
You can't have a great movie hero without a good nemesis. And so for the forthcoming film version of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, filmmakers knew they had to bring in actor with some serious chops to fill the role of the evil Lord Voldemort. After all, the fourth installment in the fantasy film series is, for all intents and purposes, Voldemort's coming out party.
Ultimately, Brit thesp Ralph Fiennes (The English Patient, Red Dragon, The Constant Gardener) was chosen for the role -- a proven actor with striking angular facial features that just say "evil." Despite his extensive experience, Fiennes says the role was still a challenge for him.
"It's quite hard to play someone who is is the essence of evil," says Ralph Fiennes. "In my discussions with Mike about the character, we talked about giving Voldemort human qualities, because to just play 'evil' is really impossible. 'Evil' is often conveyed through gnashing of teeth and a lot of spit. I wanted my portrayal of Voldemort to be deeply, truly evil. That comes from fear, frustration and unhappiness. Voldemort was a rejected child. He had a very unhappy childhood, and that's where his anger, jealousy and hatred began to fester."
"Voldemort is someone who knows no love," producer David Heyman notes. "He thinks of love as a flaw. He is the embodiment of pure evil. Someone who is powerful and attractive. Ralph is an actor of great depth, and he captures the complexity of Voldemort's charisma and darkness brilliantly."
"The term 'enemies' doesn't do their relationship justice," says Potter star Daniel Radcliffe. "Harry hates Voldemort with every fiber of his being. He wants to murder him for killing his parents. At the same time, he is also absolutely terrified of him."
Enraged that the legend of Harry Potter - the boy who lived - has eclipsed his own, Voldemort has spent the last thirteen years regaining the powers he lost on the fateful night that Harry's parents died. With help from his sniveling servant Wormtail, the Dark Lord triumphanty returns to human form to destroy Harry once and for all.
"[Director] Mike [Newell] was very keen to explore Voldemort's unexpected mood swings, his explosive rage," Fiennes says. "There are moments when anger spits out of him at Harry and other moments when he can be almost pleasant. You never quite know what he's going to do.
"People are incredibly scary when they're charming but you suspect they might suddenly do something very violent," he continues. "If you sit across the table from someone who offers you a glass of wine and a present, but you know that he stabbed his wife to death, it's quite unnerving."
Fans got a brief glimpse of Fiennes as Voldemort in the most recent theatrical trailer for the film, but they'll have to wait until the film hits the big screen on November 18th to see He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named in all his glory.
"Ralph is really frightening as Voldemort," Newell confirms. "(You can see he's mad, gone somewhere else in his eyes.) I'm nailed to the floor when he's onscreen in this film."
"It was a very intense experience," Radcliffe says of filming his scenes with Fiennes. "I learned from watching him, the way he used his body and his hands, especially when Voldemort first regains his human form. It's fantastic."
"Daniel had to put up with a lot from me," Fiennes says with a chuckle. "Here's a boy who's tied up with a man pushing his finger into the wound on his head, laughing and delighting in the pain he's causing. He had to act as though he was in agony and terror without having many words to say. I was full of admiration for him."
Fiennes' proved a suitable palate for the film's designers to work with. "When Ralph joined the cast, David Heyman said to me, You're gonna mess about with his face, aren't you?" Newell recalls. "I said No, no. Ralph can play evil. He'll dredge it up from the inside of his psyche. Then I went home over the weekend and thought, I really should mess about with his face."
"My nieces and nephews were dying to come to the set and see Uncle Ralph as Voldemort," Fiennes recalls, "but when they arrived they didn't recognize me!"
Creature effects supervisor Nick Dudman and his team created the key concepts for Voldemort's makeup, in which minimal prosthetics and transfers were used to cast a sickly, transluscent pallor to Fiennes' skin and suggest a snarl of veins running down his skull, arms and hands.
"The makeup is quite simple and strong in its design," notes Fiennes, whose head, arms and chest were shaved as part of the process. "I wanted to wear as little makeup as possible, to be free to move. The idea is that Voldemort has just gotten this new skin. He's new in this body, so he's testing it, relishing the power of it."
In post-production, the visual effects team digitally re-shaped Fiennes' nose, flattening it and adding slits to evoke a serpentine look that underscores Voldemort's Slytherin origins. "It's really creepy," Heyman says of Fiennes' digital transformation, "but in a very subtle, disquieting way."
Radiohead for Harry Potter
Jonny and Phil join Pulp's Jarvis Cocker on the screen and in the soundtrack.
If you were a powerful wizard, wouldn't you conjure up a few members of one of the world's biggest bands? Okay, that and maybe a hobbit. Today, fan site ateasweb.com reports that Radiohead members Jonny Greenwood and Phil Selway will appear as part of a band in the upcoming Harry Potter film, with help from Jarvis Cocker (Pulp), Steve Claydon (Add N to (X)), and Jason Buckle. The wizard-worthy supergroup also contributes three songs for film's soundtrack -- one of which is titled "This Is The Night."
Of course, this isn't the first time members of Radiohead have broken away from the pack. Jonny Greenwood worked with bandmate and brother Colin Greenwood for 2003's Bodysong documentary soundtrack.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is scheduled to hit theaters on November 18.
Row over Potter film budget
He had the backing of one of Hollywood's biggest studios and a budget he called "colossal," but British director Mike Newell was continually fighting over money while filming the latest Harry Potter blockbuster.
In a weekend interview to promote "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," Newell said his experience was not unlike that on smaller movies where he felt there were never enough funds to get the job finished.
But he praised Warner Brothers executives for giving him creative freedom and allowing him to explore the dark side of the world of sorcery in his movie based on the fourth of seven books planned in J.K. Rowling's bestselling Harry Potter series.
Scenes of death, destruction, and a graveyard confrontation between Potter and his nemesis, the evil Lord Voldemort, mean the movie has been rated unsuitable for pre-teenagers to watch unaccompanied by adults, limiting its box office potential.
"I very clearly remember that within a couple of months of starting work I was intensely angered by the lack of money, that there wasn't enough money to make the film properly and that really pissed me off," Newell told Reuters.
He gave the example of the effects-laden opening scene, set at the Quidditch World Cup, which was the subject of heated debate among filmmakers and producers.
Eventually he argued successfully for its inclusion, saying that without it Potter fans would feel short-changed.
Creatively, however, he had an easier ride.
"Warner Brothers and the producers were quite extraordinary about letting me go."
FUN, FEAR
Newell believes he was chosen to direct the fourth film in the hugely successful Potter series because of his reputation both for romantic humor, as in "Four Weddings and a Funeral," and for darker films like "Donnie Brascoe."
The result is a movie that ranges from the comic awkwardness of teenage romance as the pupils of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry prepare for the Yule Ball, to fear and danger as Voldemort tries to destroy Harry.
The 63-year-old director described the resulting two-and-a-half hour feature as "a kind of fusion of a children's film and an adult's film."
He did not disclose the budget of Goblet of Fire, which goes on general release on November 18, though Web sites have said it was between $130 and $170 million.
Not that bigger budgets means bigger box office.
The first Harry Potter film released in 2001 cost an estimated $125 million to make and amassed $976 million at the box office, while the third film, released three years later, cost around $130 million to make and took in $790 million.
Newell, the first Englishman to make a Potter film, said he would like to direct the seventh and final episode in the Potter series. He is also in talks to bring Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "Love in the Time of Cholera" to the big screen.
Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry in the films, said he felt growing pressure as the series progressed.
"There's so much pressure on them now to be getting better and better, and also we felt we were going to have to go an extra mile to top what Alfonso (Cuaron) did (with the third film)," the 16-year-old told Reuters.
As well as dueling with Voldemort, Potter faces the equally daunting task of asking his teenage crush, Cho Chang, to the annual prom, a problem Radcliffe himself has faced.
"I'm getting better now, but I used to be incredibly awkward with girls," said Radcliffe. "I think any guy who says 'I've never had an awkward moment with a girl' is a liar."
Clip from the beginning of the movie (http://movies.aol.com/movie_exclusive_harry_potter_goblet_clip)
This is a terrifying scene in the book, and it seems to have been translated to the screen almost perfectly; it bodes well for the rest of the film.
if i'm (pathetically) really looking forward to this movie, should i not watch this clip? I'm always a little apprehensive about watching clips before the movie comes out.
Quote from: Tictacbkif i'm (pathetically) really looking forward to this movie, should i not watch this clip? I'm always a little apprehensive about watching clips before the movie comes out.
it reveals nothing but it might make u want to see it more.
watched it. you were right, thanks.
...and i agree completely with ghostboy.
"Harry Potter" Carjacked
Here's a new book title for J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter and the Thief of the Anglia.
Muggles everywhere should be on the lookout for one blue 1962 "flying" Ford Anglia, registration number 7990 TD, after an enterprising thief snuck onto a British studio lot and stole the vehicle made famous in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Police are investigating but have no suspects, but it seems like the work of You-Know-Who to us.
The magical coupe, originally bewitched by Arthur Weasley and used by Harry Potter and Ron Weasley after they missed the Hogwarts Express and needed alternate means of transportation to school, had been parked out in the open on the grounds of the South West Film Studios in the southwestern English county of Cornwall. It apparently vanished sometime between 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday and 4:15 p.m. on Thursday.
The car thief would have had to use a trailer, tow truck or magic to make off with the Anglia, since it was not capable of driving.
"The film prop was being stored under a tarpaulin. It was not in good condition and could not have been driven away under its own steam," a police spokesman told the U.K.'s Press Association.
The classic automobile was reportedly the only prop from the Harry Potter films stored on the lot.
Harry has become something of a target for ne'er-do-wells. In May 2003, a British forklift driver was arrested for swiping an advanced copy of Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix and offering it for sale.
The latest heist comes three weeks before the arrival of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, which is scheduled for release Nov. 18. In addition to the regular Potter players, Ralph Fiennes makes his debut as the flesh-and-blood Lord Voldemort.
Meanwhile, Rowling's latest installment, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, has sold an astounding 300 million copies worldwide since hitting bookstores July 16.
Quote from: MacGuffinMeanwhile, Rowling's latest installment, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, has sold an astounding 300 million copies worldwide since hitting bookstores July 16.
other words i would use to describe that statistic.. amazing, bewildering, breathtaking, extraordinary, impressive, inconceivable, miraculous, mind-blowing, outrageous, phenomenal, remarkable, spectacular, staggering, startling, stunning, stupefying, unbelievable, unearthly.
Quote from: PubrickQuote from: MacGuffinMeanwhile, Rowling's latest installment, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, has sold an astounding 300 million copies worldwide since hitting bookstores July 16.
other words i would use to describe that statistic.. amazing, bewildering, breathtaking, extraordinary, impressive, inconceivable, miraculous, mind-blowing, outrageous, phenomenal, remarkable, spectacular, staggering, startling, stunning, stupefying, unbelievable, unearthly.
you forgot orgasmic.
Quote from: mogwaiQuote from: PubrickQuote from: MacGuffinMeanwhile, Rowling's latest installment, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, has sold an astounding 300 million copies worldwide since hitting bookstores July 16.
other words i would use to describe that statistic.. amazing, bewildering, breathtaking, extraordinary, impressive, inconceivable, miraculous, mind-blowing, outrageous, phenomenal, remarkable, spectacular, staggering, startling, stunning, stupefying, unbelievable, unearthly.
you forgot orgasmic.
But that only applies if you're J.K. Rowling.
So I've seen this twice now, and it gets better each time. The first third is really far too fast for its own good.. most of the changes made are good (turning Crouch and Bagman into a single character, getting rid of the Dursleys and the Elf Liberation Front, etc.) but they could have spent a bit more time here and there on some of the details we've come to know and love about the series. It feels like they Kloves and Newell went out of their way to speed things up - this is the shortest movie yet - and as a result certain things (that I won't talk about because they're spoilers) have less impact than they should. There's also a really stupid red herring that feels like it was left in the film as a mistake.
Also, Patrick Doyle' score, as good as it might be, pales in comparison to John Williams. The old themes are scarcely heard, and sorely missed.
Still, right around the Yule Ball the film hits a good groove, and gets better with the second tournament (the underwater stuff is far more impressive than it was in the trailer, and is a great set piece). The last third of the film is pretty heart stopping, as it was in the book, and if you're invested in the series at all, you'll probably shed a few tears. Ralph Fiennes' incarnation of Voldemort is really quite wonderful....he's not playing some stodgy old dark lord, but a lithe, physical, sepentine fellow. And his accent is perfect.
All in all, this doesn't feel like the epic that the book did - it's more of a transitional film, to get Voldemort into the picture - and so while it's not as perfect as Goblet Of Fire, it's still very much worth seeing if you've seen the other films. If you're starting off fresh, though, you're in trouble, because the pacing leaves no room for newcomers.
I'm interested to see whether people who haven't read the book respond to it more favorably...
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 16, 2005, 06:54:29 PM
this is the shortest movie yet
According to IMDB, it's longer than both "Sorcerer's Stone" and "Prisoner of Azkaban".
Still, your review worries me a little... my one complaint with "Batman Begins" was how fast it felt, like they patched a two-and-a-half hour movie out of scenes from trailers. It sounds like this suffers from the same problem.
Quote from: polkablues on November 16, 2005, 08:29:14 PM
...my one complaint with "Batman Begins" was how fast it felt, like they patched a two-and-a-half hour movie out of scenes from trailers.
Are you kidding me? The pacing in that movie could not have been more perfect.
Quote from: POZER! on November 16, 2005, 09:38:02 PM
Quote from: polkablues on November 16, 2005, 08:29:14 PM
...my one complaint with "Batman Begins" was how fast it felt, like they patched a two-and-a-half hour movie out of scenes from trailers.
Are you kidding me? The pacing in that movie could not have been more perfect.
Dead serious. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie. It just felt kind of like watching Canadians do Shakespeare on "South Park".
i saw it tonight.
i think it's by far the best of the movies.
interesting paradox-- it's a great movie by itself, but it's not so great if you waste a lot of time thinking of the sheer volume of stuff they left out of the movie from the book, but there are MAJOR plot holes if you haven't read the book.
i thought it was great. i expect this to be an absolutely outstanding dvd... quidditch footage and all that.
Goblet of Fire is by far my favorite of the books. But the movie didn't quite do it for me. First off, I can't imagine anyone really getting into it if they haven't read the book already, or maybe I'm just saying that because I know what they took out. The minor changes to cover up the cut out parts were done well but it should have been either a half hour shorter OR spread over two 2-hour movies. As it is now, there's a lot of great sequences followed by drawn out scenes that advance the basic plot but worked better in the book.
The end of the book is on par with the end of Empire Strikes Back in terms of dramatically changing the trajectory of the entire series. The end of the movie dropped the ball in that respect, though Ralph Fiennes makes a great Voldemort.
I liked it but Cuaron is still king.
i haven't seen the second or third since i hated the first one, but this was good stuff. lots of fun, the scenes underwater i found genuinely disturbing and terrifying. i kinda wish it went balls out with the sexuality/adolescense stuff instead of reeling it back to family friendly or strictly comical but i guess that's the nature of the beast. ralph fiennes is fantastic.
there's probably another thread for this but who else thought the superman teaser blew?
Quote from: samsong on November 19, 2005, 02:07:13 AM
there's probably another thread for this but who else thought the superman teaser blew?
Here here. There is another thread, but I didn't want to post my beef there. They are all in love on that thread so I figure let them be. Getting beyond the voice over, what I see in the film will be special effects comparable to Spiderman and a story that may be imitative of the original. Considering how I loath the corniness of Spiderman and relish the original Superman, this could be a film made for no reason.
Quote from: samsong on November 19, 2005, 02:07:13 AM
there's probably another thread for this but who else thought the superman teaser blew?
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=167.300
And yes, it blew a little. "Superman Returns" is to Richard Donner's "Superman" what Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" was to Hitchcock's.
And for the love of god, go see the third Harry Potter flick
immediately.
Quote from: polkablues on November 19, 2005, 02:53:59 AM"Superman Returns" is to Richard Donner's "Superman" what Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" was to Hitchcock's.
based on what? a teaser?
i've never read any of the books and i really liked this. i guess it was either my favorite or my 2nd favorite to the 3rd one. which is funny because when i saw the 3rd one, i still thought the 1st was my favorite. but i guess it was because i hadn't seen it in a long time and my memory of seeing it for the first time was really something special taking in everything. in the sequels i never got that feeling because they took the 'wow' for granted and just had the plots to hang the film on. but re-watching the 1st and 3rd film recently, the 1st film didn't hold up as well as i remembered it and the 3rd did. so, thats the way it goes sometimes.
i still can't get over how dark they made this and how PG-13. when dumbeldore comes storming in the room almost threatening harry!? that was crazy. moaning myrtle in the bath with harry was pretty sexual. ron saying 'piss off'! i thought the humor here really worked too. without it, all the darkness and brooding might've been overwhelming and i think newell realized that. at 2 1/2 hours it still has to rush through things where i would've appreciated the 'down time' with the trio that i'm used to. so i'd have to see it again but it might be my favorite.
I'd rather defend the Superman teaser in the other thread (because I might be the biggest fan of the original Superman on this board), but I have to say that basing all this dumb shit on a TEASER is ridiculous. What the teaser does is show us that this will have the same overall feel as the original, but will have it's own look.
SPOILERS
I agree with a lot of what Hacksparrow said, except that I don't think the film "dropped the ball" on the ending. I don't think it was as powerful, dark, and Empirish as the book, but I didn't expect it to be.
Overall, I actually really enjoyed the movie, but I think that has a lot to do with my love for the book. I saw it with a couple who hadn't read the book and my friend fell asleep.
I think where this movie DID screw up was with Harry's relationship with Sirius. There was only one little scene. That was a tad disapointing.
Your friend fell asleep? What an asshole :bravo: Maybe you should have offered him some candy.
Quote from: polkablues on November 19, 2005, 02:53:59 AM
"Superman Returns" is to Richard Donner's "Superman" what Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" was to Hitchcock's.
Well said.
Quote from: RegularKarate on November 19, 2005, 10:57:03 AM
I think where this movie DID screw up was with Harry's relationship with Sirius. There was only one little scene. That was a tad disapointing.
Funny thing I just remembered. Of the 6 other people I saw this with last night, only one hadn't read the books or seen past the first movie. At the end, he asks me "Where the hell was Gary Oldman in this movie?" But I don't really remember Sirius being in the book that much outside of owl correspondence with Harry and the fire scene.
In any event, as long as they go Sirius-heavy in the Order of the Phoenix movie, all is well... in fact, if they're going to streamline the story like they did with this one, that should be top priority because there was such little Sirius in this one.
Sirius shows up in person near the beginning of the book, and then is a pretty steady presence throughout (he flies in on Buckbeak later on). I didn't mind the compression of those scenes in the movie (the fire face was brilliantly executed), but now that you mention it, yeah, they're gonna have to really strenghthen that relationship in the next film.
Made 36 million openning day... not bad!
It was good, but could have so easily been great. The first part was just choppy. It seemed like they sat down in a script meeting and said "this book is just to long. Let's go to every 20th page and first the scene that's on it through the first third." Since I had read the book and liked it a lot there were a bunch of changed things that irritated me. I can understand leaving a lot out but they changed things for no reasons in some cases (having the kids not know they were going to the World Cup and not sitting in the Ministry's box with Malfoy at the game and instead in the "nose bleed" section so, what, Malfoy could get a jeer in?). The film settled a bit after the Goblet's introduction and got better.
It's definitely one of those movies where you could see easily see improvements. For instance, at the first challenge how easy and great would it have been to show the Champions coming back into the tent injured, singed and getting immediate medical treatment before Harry goes out? They added some suspence not showing anything that happened, but it could have been greater with that little scene.
Anyway, nitpicky things from me. I was expecting a better movie story-wise. Visually it was pretty great (although WHY IN THE HELL does a MAGICAL eye make mechanical whirly noises when it zooms in?) and the acting was pretty good with the exception of Watson who needs some acting lessons not garnered from the tutoring of William Shatner.
Quote from: Raikus on November 21, 2005, 09:35:07 AMthe acting was pretty good with the exception of Watson who needs some acting lessons not garnered from the tutoring of William Shatner.
I was thinking "serious" Halle Berry more than Shatner but same idea.
Yeah, what the hell? Something's got to be up. She was better than Daniel Radcliffe in the first 2 and she was just as good in the third; her delivery of the line "Come and get the nice dead ferret," makes me smile every time. I don't know if this was her own subtle protest for the producers cutting out the SPEW subplot but she really tanked in every scene she was in. She had no chemistry with Ron at all, leaving it up to all the bits in the previous movies to remind us that there's a Han-Leia-like love-hate attraction there, so judging the movie on its own, you have no idea why she's being so nasty to him. And her teacher's pettishness, which is really her defining characteristic, was just gone from this movie; she just became some annoying chick at Hogwarts.
But something just hit me. Everyone's been saying how it seems like she's PMS-ing the whole movie. Well, she was what? 14 when they filmed it... maybe she WAS PMS-ing the whole shoot.
I can't understand the people who read the books and then put so much stock in the films. All you see is failure when adaptation is an impossible task to begin with. Because I like the films a lot I will never read the books. This latest one is really spetacular. One of the best movies of the year.
This was the weakest film, for me. The story was fine, and I was never bored since it moved along quickly, but the direction was lacking. The action scenes weren't very well directed, and as was previously mentioned, some of the acting was off (I've always said that Emma Watson opens her mouth really wide when she speaks, but here it was like she was one movie away from eating someone's head). She needed to be told to tone it down a few notches. In that, HER direction didn't match up with the direction of others, thus making for a lack of any actual direction. And this is off the point, but while I agree with everybody who says that Watson is getting quite pretty, I thought Ron's sister was more attractive, personally. She needed more screentime.
I also thought it was stylistically quite plain, as opposed to the other movies. I got the feeling that I was watching an illustrated, abridged Harry Potter rather than a movie in its own right.
But I still liked it. The story was fun to follow along with. Once.
Having never read a sentence of the books, I felt (once again, but much moreso) that I was watching cliffnotes. (I've heard that the first 400 pages were covered in the first 15 minutes.)
I'll echo the complaint I had of the first two films, and that I might have of the books if I read them... Harry Potter is a vacuous character. Mostly because he doesn't actually do anything. Even in this film, where he wins the Goblet, everything is done for him. He makes a couple moral (but screamingly obvious) choices along the way, but that's it. Even his magical powers seem to originate not from his character but from his nature and his history, about which he seems indifferent. His backstory is good, but his character is not significantly played out or developed by his actions. Harry Potter doesn't do anything... things happen to him.
And in the movies at least, that seems to leave a vacuum.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on November 28, 2005, 12:18:31 AMI'll echo the complaint I had of the first two films, and that I might have of the books if I read them... Harry Potter is a vacuous character. Mostly because he doesn't actually do anything. Even in this film, where he wins the Goblet, everything is done for him. He makes a couple moral (but screamingly obvious) choices along the way, but that's it. Even his magical powers seem to originate not from his character but from his nature and his history, about which he seems indifferent. His backstory is good, but his character is not significantly played out or developed by his actions. Harry Potter doesn't do anything... things happen to him.
that helps explain why i don't like the books. the first two i've read.
Quote from: picolas on November 28, 2005, 12:23:56 AM
that helps explain why i don't like the books. the first two i've read.
Which really explains why you don't like the books. You've only read the first two.
What JB says is kind of true for the most part of the first two or three books, but the movies kind of mask his depth after that (so far, they're going to have to change that soon).
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on November 28, 2005, 12:18:31 AMI'll echo the complaint I had of the first two films, and that I might have of the books if I read them... Harry Potter is a vacuous character. Mostly because he doesn't actually do anything... things happen to him.
I wouldn't call him vacuous simply because things happen to him. Most characters in similar stories (i.e. Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins, Neo) are more interesting because they don't know how to deal with everything that's being thrown at them; we can relate to them better than someone who does everything right. The becoming is more interesting than the being... and Harry is still becoming. This why I prefer Superman The Movie over Superman II... and The Last Temptation of Christ over The Greatest Story Ever Told.
And RK is right: the movies really gloss over his achievements. The only movie that shows you he can do something is the 3rd one but he's delivering the goods in the last couple of books.
Quote from: RegularKarate on November 28, 2005, 12:58:59 PM
Quote from: picolas on November 28, 2005, 12:23:56 AM
that helps explain why i don't like the books. the first two i've read.
Which really explains why you don't like the books. You've only read the first two.
why do people keep reading if the first two books stink? i got the first book a few months before it was a fad when i was in grade 6 or something and i didn't like the first 30 pages so i stopped reading. then other kids said it was amazing so i read the rest of it and it wasn't. then a couple of years later i decided to read the second book and it wasn't amazing again. i don't understand how other people could've made it far enough for it to get amazing without turning away first. if everyone gave other authors that much of a chance to convince them they were telling an amazing story the world would be crazy with book selling all the time. why does it have to happen to this? why did you keep reading after the first two RK?
I found that they were just really enjoyable (the first two) and that was enought to keep me reading until the third, which was when things got a little amazing.
Quote from: picolas on November 28, 2005, 04:06:29 PM
why did you keep reading after the first two RK?
Pretty much the same reason that GB stated. I enjoyed them, I thought they were kind of fun and they only took a day or two to read. I don't think they stink, so maybe you wouldn't like the third, but I feel that's where the series changed from cute to great.
oh. i thought you meant it was normal to not like the first two.
I felt this was the weakest film in the series so far, though still a good film. I like that the trajectory of the series so far gets slightly darker with each film, and this one is particularly dark. However, it did feel like the film left a ton of stuff out. Considering that I thought the first two seemed like a laundry list of stuff in the book being checked off, this is an odd complaint. I thought the 3rd film was very good. I'm sure it left out things from the book as well.
I agree with GB's point about the score. I watched the third film a few hours before seeing the fourth one, and the score from Goblet of Fire was weaker. Only in the end credits did I see that it wasn't John Williams doing the score.
Quote from: matt35mm on November 26, 2005, 01:49:56 PM
but the direction was lacking. The action scenes weren't very well directed, ... In that, HER direction didn't match up with the direction of others, thus making for a lack of any actual direction.
ah, but the director directing the direction directed the direct directive directly to the directees, so the direct --- *head explodes from lack of meaning*
Quote from: hacksparrow on November 21, 2005, 09:57:06 AM
the SPEW subplot
what is that?
worked-the second and third challenges
-the part when the hedges almost engulf them
-when hermoine screams at ron at the end of the ball
(but where the hell did that come from?? she was acting as if he'd been bothering her the whole nite but all we saw was him making a couple of smart ass comments early on.)-fiennes, so fine.
failedhermoine's eyebrows
comparison to azkaban which still rules. (this is second)
winnerthe asian girl's accent
Feeling lazy,
so in short I agree with Pubrick.
It felt like alot was cut out, mainly with Hermoine.
Quote from: killafilm on December 13, 2005, 08:08:46 PM
It felt like alot was cut out, mainly with Hermoine.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 13, 2005, 07:50:23 PM
Quote from: hacksparrow on November 21, 2005, 09:57:06 AM
the SPEW subplot
what is that?
SPEW was a house-elf rights campaign that Hermione launched in the book. She was so disgusted with Crouch's treatment of his house-elf that she basically becomes an abolitionist for elves, trying to get a petition going to lobby Hogwarts to free all the elves who cook and clean, etc. (better than it sounds). The upside to cutting it out was that all the house-elves would bring on the Jar-Jar factor that Dobby brought to the second movie, only 100-fold, but everything that was the Hermione we know and love was concentrated into this subplot and when they took it out of the movie, they made her just another chick at Hogwarts.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 13, 2005, 07:50:23 PM
worked
-when hermoine screams at ron at the end of the ball (but where the hell did that come from?? she was acting as if he'd been bothering her the whole nite but all we saw was him making a couple of smart ass comments early on.)
My favorite part of the film. The whole ball sequence brought me right back to fifteen, but that moment the most. Those sudden bursts of emotion...its out-of-the-blue-ness was perfect.
JUST AWFUL AWFUL COVERART. and i think the 2 Disc silver may even be worse. it looks like Harry has been colorized by Ted Turner from black and white. it makes me want to not watch the film. why couldnt they have kept the packaging consistent with the first two films?
Title: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Released: 7th March 2006
SRP: $28.98 & $30.97
Further Details:
Warner Home Video has officially announced Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire which stars Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. The film will be available to own in single-disc and double-disc editions from the 7th March this year. Each will carry a 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer, along with English and Spanish Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks. The single-disc release will be featureless, and should retail at around $28.98. The double-disc special edition will include additional scenes, Conversations with the Cast, a Preparing for the Yule Ball featurette, a Reflections on the Fourth Film featurette, multiple interactive games (Dragon Challenge, Harry vs. the Horntail: The First Task, Meet the Champions, Lake Challenge, In Too Deep: The Second Task, Maze Challenge, To the Graveyard and Back Challenge, The Maze: The Third Task and He Who Must Not Be Named), an EA game demo and a Hogwarts Timeline. This one will retail at $30.97. Lastly, there will be an eight-disc Harry Potter Collection housing all four of the Potter films. This will retail at $73.92. We've attached the official region one package artwork below:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Fharrypotter2.jpg&hash=b98a5efe94cefbd0db0d9ef9c742d3f8be85daa4)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Fharrypotter1.jpg&hash=3753a2e58a30d823bc57d8c2613e2c9cb905072f)