Reviews are in - Harry potter premiere.

[Maria]

I voted no because I like to wait until the DVD release as they usually have lots of extras. It costs £9.50 on average round here per person to go to the cinema, so the DVD is much cheaper! Special effects are good for these kinds of movies, but I haven't really felt as charmed as I thought I'd be by any of the Harry Potter films.

 

[pip]

I voted no because I like to wait until the DVD release as they usually have lots of extras. It costs £9.50 on average round here per person to go to the cinema, so the DVD is much cheaper! Special effects are good for these kinds of movies, but I haven't really felt as charmed as I thought I'd be by any of the Harry Potter films.

Fair enough.

Cinema is pretty pricey these days but with such excellent staff as Dave its understandable.

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

...but I think Tolkein copied a lot of JK's stuff.

Quite a feat really as JK was only about 8 when JRR died
Was Tolkien related to Prof Hix d'you think - or just a graveyard chat buddy? :twisted:

 

[deldaisy]

WHY is anyone even discussing reviews and ratings?
If you like Harry Potter and seen the other movies then you are going right? Would you have NOT gone to see the last of the LOTR movies if it had got a 2/5 rating after having seen the first two?

 

[deldaisy]

I'll wait till it comes on the telly.

You have to read the books first anyway.

Shan't.

You don't have to read the books Bouncy. We only get a certain number of hours in our life hun. I could never get into the LOTR books but loved the movies.

 

[pip]

I just find the reviews interesting but they will never change wether or not i'll see a film.
and you don't have to read the books but it helps.

LOTRs was great in both formats and run before Jan gets you.

 

[DaveC]

I voted no because I like to wait until the DVD release as they usually have lots of extras. It costs £9.50 on average round here per person to go to the cinema, so the DVD is much cheaper! Special effects are good for these kinds of movies, but I haven't really felt as charmed as I thought I'd be by any of the Harry Potter films.

Fair enough.

Cinema is pretty pricey these days but with such excellent staff as Dave its understandable.

No-one ever sees me unless the crane their necks. If they're lucky, I am short and can barely be seen in the port-hole!

I just find the reviews interesting but they will never change wether or not i'll see a film.
and you don't have to read the books but it helps.

LOTRs was great in both formats and run before Jan gets you.

Shall I stop postin' em.

 

[deldaisy]

Dave you just keep right on posting hun. I love your posts.

 

[pip]

I voted no because I like to wait until the DVD release as they usually have lots of extras. It costs £9.50 on average round here per person to go to the cinema, so the DVD is much cheaper! Special effects are good for these kinds of movies, but I haven't really felt as charmed as I thought I'd be by any of the Harry Potter films.

Fair enough.

Cinema is pretty pricey these days but with such excellent staff as Dave its understandable.

No-one ever sees me unless the crane their necks. If they're lucky, I am short and can barely be seen in the port-hole!

I just find the reviews interesting but they will never change wether or not i'll see a film.
and you don't have to read the books but it helps.

LOTRs was great in both formats and run before Jan gets you.

Shall I stop postin' em.

All reviews of all films and books welcome of course. I've found all the different reviews for this film quite interesting as there's a great spectrum of reviewers

Our own reviews once its out will be very interesting too.

 

[Who's Wee Dug]

I'll wait till it comes on the telly.

You have to read the books first anyway.

I've never read any of the books but I do enjoy the films,I will wait for a few days for the rush to die down and go mid week early screening.

 

[pip]

I'll wait till it comes on the telly.

You have to read the books first anyway.

I've never read any of the books but I do enjoy the films,I will wait for a few days for the rush to die down and go mid week early screening.

They do an adults only screening in our local which is great.

 

[DaveC]

Dave you just keep right on posting hun. I love your posts.

They're not really my posts!

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

I just find the reviews interesting but they will never change wether or not i'll see a film.
and you don't have to read the books but it helps.

LOTRs was great in both formats and run before Jan gets you.

Shall I stop postin' em.

Don't you DARE stop posting these!

Just because the 2nd & 3rd of the Trilogy movies were riddled with canon holes and the cop-out ending with not a blow being struck in the Shire was bloody criminal doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the films on all kinds of levels. The book's obviously far better, but the one thing I really did love about all the films, but especially FotR (the 1st one) was the locations concept and realisation which were absolutely superb, in particular the Shire, Rivendell, Lothlorien and, strangely enough the Emyn Muil right at the end of FotR, where Sam and Frodo were looking into Mordor - that bit had me in tears of wonder it was so 'beautiful', eerie and right.

The HP films I've seen (up to Goblet) are much the same with the locations and the casting, as I've said already is brilliant, in the main both character-wise and physically (Gary Oldman was great as Sirius but wasn't good-looking or, even worse, tall enough to carry him off entirely). Some of the fantasy animals are rather strange and Dobby's too much like Gollum (I know Dobby was on the movie screens first more or less) because Andy Serkis' Gollum was so bang on with bells on, I still think of Dobby as derivative in that respect in the book, along with the rest of the stuff she's borrowed from all over and re-spun. Everybody does that, even Tolkien, so that's a not a problem, but the first time we saw Gollum in the Trilogy everyone laughed because he was so much like Dobby in appearance and it just ruined the moment, even though it was funny

I probably won't go to the cinema to see this (I'm the only 'see how it goes' peep still) but that's mainly because of the popularity aspect and I hate crowds and cinema audiences especially (in terms of behaviour - I'm a shush-er), whether or not they're full of kids, plus I haven't seen films 5 & 6 yet either. Or if I do it'll be on a wet Weds in the New Year when the schools are back at the 10am showing as they're really great for not being crowded.

 

[Beautiful Dirt]

I've got to say Jan as an avid Lord of the Rings fan - books and films - the casting of Andy Serkis for me was the weak link in the films. The voice was irritating and sounded forced. I never associated him with the Gollum from books and found his attempts at comedy weak. Personally I liked Peter Woodthorpe in the Bbc Radio dramatization. I like you was disappointed that the Scouring of the Shire was not included, but not surprised and I didn't begrudge the screen writers this as I felt they did an immense job incorporating small pieces of dialoge and poetry that, in their original context - would not have made it in. Pippin's song in the final film is one example. I'm quite glad Tom Bombadil was not considered too, whilst I enjoyed this structuring detour in the books, I don't believe it would of added anything to the film. I'd love to debate about it all though, I do love LOTR :twisted:

 

[Beautiful Dirt]

Apologies for the spelling mistakes and missed words. Posting on my mobile phone leaves a small margin for error because of the tiny screen!

 

[Jan Van Quirm]

BD - It's my passion although you'd never know it!

We'll have to agree to disagree on Andy Serkis as his interpretation IMO was perfect in terms of Gollum's speeches which is down to Fran Walsh's adaptation and, of course with being a movie didn't have to depend on the voice quite so much (I did love the BBC Radio version too though and I think it's more to do with the media than the acting as such - in that radio just can't be compared visually with CGI). What I did love in the Trilogy was how they portrayed the duality of Gollum's personality but also how they re-integrated it after his brief period of redemption with Frodo. I think the way it was handled got across the tragedy of Gollum and in him (as in the book) the true danger of the Ring for mortals, as it affected all its lesser bearers except perhaps Bilbo and, to a lesser extent, Sam.

If you like debating LotR in all its aspects click on my sig image For a fan biog on Smeagol/Gollum click HERE - that's a dead site but we're moving some content onto the new one

Sorry HP fans - back to the Leaky Cauldron!

 

[Beautiful Dirt]

I think I'll do that Jan I've just started re reading the trilogy this week and as always feel like I've rediscovered a gem even though I've read them countless times. The films did impress Smeagol's dual personality very well, I do agree on that point. As a fan of both HP and LOTR I can't stand the aesthetic comparisons between the two and become frustrated when supporters use these apparently 'common factors' to decide which author used them to the better.

 

[DaveC]

Dobby's too much like Gollum (I know Dobby was on the movie screens first more or less) because Andy Serkis' Gollum was so bang on with bells on, I still think of Dobby as derivative in that respect in the book, along with the rest of the stuff she's borrowed from all over and re-spun. Everybody does that, even Tolkien, so that's a not a problem, but the first time we saw Gollum in the Trilogy everyone laughed because he was so much like Dobby in appearance and it just ruined the moment, even though it was funny

I never heard anyone say Gollum was too much like Dobby - he was instantly hailed as classic whereas everyone laughs at Dobby, although I rather like him in Chamber of Secrets. I know I'm crazy but maybe its because Toby Jones is a better actor than Daniel radcliffe in their scenes.

 

[DaveC]

Pippin's song in the final film is one example. I'm quite glad Tom Bombadil was not considered too, whilst I enjoyed this structuring detour in the books, I don't believe it would of added anything to the film. I'd love to debate about it all though, I do love LOTR :twisted:

Pippin's song is maybe my favourite thing in the whole trilogy.

 

[DaveC]

This reviewer calls it the first complete realization of the series' potential.


http://www.aintitcool.com/node/47472