Change Your Image
nayruslove14
Reviews
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
A Disaster
Where to begin? This movie started off a disaster and ended a disaster.
I understand that given how long the fourth book was, some editing needed to be done. But to this extent? The whole movie was altered so drastically from the book, it almost seemed like a whole different story altogether. What was left of the original story was far and few in between and was filled with plot holes and inconsistencies.
The Dursley's were never shown in the beginning, Weasley's Wizard Weezes was never even mentioned nor was Harry giving the twins his Triwizard earnings. Ludo Bagman wasn't in it at all. There was no S.P.E.W. There were no Veela's. Hardly any of the classes were seen and we never actually see the fake Moody putting Harry and his classmatesunder the Imperious Curse or find out exactly why the Cruciatus Curse bothers Neville so much. Rita Skeeter was given very little to work with (almost all of her articles were not shown) We never found out about Hagrid's half-giant status or saw Hermione blackmail Rita Skeeter. Those are just a few of the smaller cuts in the film.
The larger ones include the trio not meeting Sirius in Hogsmeade and finding out about Crouch Sr. and Jr.'s histories, Harry never witnessing the Lestrange's and Barty Crouch Jr's trial. All we have is Kakaroff telling us during his trial that Barty Crouch Jr.was a Death Eater and then Barty acts all snakelike and his father stares at him blankly and says that he is no son of his.
In the book we actually see the trial. I'm saddened that it wasn't included. The original scene was done so well, it had so much emotion. I almost felt sorry for Barty Crouch Jr. when he is sobbing for his father to not send him back to Azkaban and his father is refusing to listen. Not to mention, that is when we are introduced to Bellatrix and she stands up and says that the Dark Lord will rise again. But of course, they had to ruin it all.
There is of course more. No Winky and Dobby (or any house elf for that matter) no testing Crouch Jr. under Veritaserum. So therefore we don't know how Crouch managed to escape Azkaban or exactly how he found Voldemort or anything like that. His father is killed and it is never elaborated on as to why. We don't see Fudge arguing with Dumbledore over whether or not Voldemort is back or get told that Barty had the Dementors Kiss performed on him. The whole reason that no one believed that Voldemort had returned in Harry's fifth year is because there was no one to give testimony to his having returned besides Harry. Barty Crouch Jr. obviously couldn't anymore.
I could go on but there is little point. The film as a whole was as I said before a disaster. Even the cast seemed to be horrendous. Michael Gambdon was off as usual and Alan Rickman was given limited screen time which is a shame considering how talented he is and how important that Snape is to the fourth book and indeed the rest in the series. David Tennant while a good actor, did poorly here. I don't blame him though, he really didn't have much to work with. Ralph Fiennes was laughable as Lord Voldemort. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson all did well as usual but even their performances were not enough to save this film.
Two out of ten stars.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
It had it's moments.
This film had a lot of potential. The third book was easily one of the best in the series, so naturally you shouldn't have to alter the storyline of the movie to much to make it dark and fun.
Right? Wrong.
From the beginning, it's obvious that this film is going to be much different from the book. Not completely so, but enough to take the enjoyment away from any hard-core fan of the book.
The scene with the Dursleys, for starters, was horribly done. That scene should have been longer, it should have been so much more emotional. Instead, it feels completely rushed, like it was just thrown in there for humor. Because thats what it came off as. It was not as dark and horrible as it was in the book, which took away from it.
The next few scenes were well done (with the exception of the shrunken head on the Knight bus) The scene with the Dementor was well done and appropriately dark. This however, seemed more due to lighting than the actual Dementor itself, which didn't look scary at all.
Threy then arrive at the school and from there on it's a series of ups and downs. The boggart scene was done well. Buckbeak looked fantastic. The Harry/Ron/Hermione interaction is good, all three of the kids have definitely grown into their roles nicely. (not that I had any doubt that they would) The downfalls however, are plentiful and certainly enough to ruin what could be a great film. For starters, the whole set is different from the first two. I can read the books and then watch the first two films and see Hogwarts as it was described in the books in those two films. I however, can't with this one. It also seems that in order to show this films darker tone, the film was simply stripped of it's color. It looks bland, almost like it's about to resort to black and white soon.
The classes are almost never seen and the students are almost always seen wearing regular clothing instead of robes.
They also failed to mention the firebolt, until the end. Only one Quidditch match was actually shown, and Hermione's overwhelming amount of classes was hardly addressed at all.
This however, could all be overlooked if it weren't for the gaping plot holes that pop up at the end. What should have been a lengthy, somewhat dramatic confrontation between the three remaining Marauders, Snape and the trio was altered so drastically that had I not read the book beforehand, I never would have been able to figure out what was going on.
The Marauders were never explained, it was never told that Harry's father was an Animagus or exactly why Petttigrew and Sirius were ones. The Marauder's history with Snape was never explained either. We didn't really find out exactly what had transpired between Sirius and Pettigrew or about Lupin being a werewolf. (we were just told he was one by Hermione, no further elaboration except for Lupin briefly confirming it) The scene was rushed and over-dramatized at times. I remember first reading this book a few years ago when I was about fifteen and being shocked out of my mind at this part. I never would have guessed on my own that Pettigrew was an Animagus or that he was even still alive. Yet, when I watched the movies version of it, I felt nothing but confusion by the whole thing, not to mention upset considering just how much was cut.
The next few scenes, were thankfully done well. There were inconsistencies, like Hermione's rather rushed explanation of the time-turner. But overall it was action packed and trilling. (Although, I did feel that Lupin as a werewolf looked pretty lame, almost comical) As for the actor and actresses, I believe they all performed admirably, with the exception of Gary Oldman and Michael Gambon. Oldman just didn't seem right as Sirius to me and don't even get me started on Gambon. The man can't hold a candle to Richard Harris. (R.I.P. Harris) Overall, not a bad film, but there is definitely room for improvement. Perhaps if this movie had been longer and included more of the original storyline, it would have been a more worthy entry to the series.
Four stars out of ten.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Dark and Entertaining
When I first caught the tail end of this movie awhile ago is when I decided to read the Harry Potter books. When I was done, I went and watched the movies (those that are out, that is) and I must say, this certainly added up to the book.
The entire movie was well done. It had the same dark atmosphere the second book had. The Chamber of Secrets looked eerie and the scene between Harry with Harry speaking Parseltongue at the dueling club was awesome. Not to mention the superb casting. Tom Riddle looked just as handsome and evil as I imagined him to be, the movies Gilderoy Lockhart matched the one from the book, and Jason Isaac's was a perfect choice for the elder Malfoy.
Overall a great film. Sadly though it's the last great one in the series.
Nine stars out of ten.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Adorable
I've decided to write a review for every Harry Potter film here so here goes.
I'm a huge Harry Potter fan. I adore all of the books, and no while I didn't wait on a line all night to get a copy of the last book, the moment that the local K-Mart opened, I rushed in and grabbed a copy. That said I obviously have high standards for the movies and this one definitely met my standards.
The whole film had a very magical feel to it. Hogwarts looked gorgeous, the Quidditch pitch, the grounds, the classrooms, not to mention the Great Hall looked stunning. Just like I pictured it all to look in the book.
The casting was perfect too. Richard Harris (R.I.P) made an excellent Dumbledore and Maggie Smith was great as McGonagall. The Dursleys were well cast and Snape was played well by Alan Rickman. Hagrid too looked just as I imagined him to look.
Not to mention the kids. Daniel Radcliffe looked so cute as eleven-year-old Harry Potter and Emma Watson and Rupert Grint made the perfect Ron and Hermione. Tom Felton did well as Draco as did Matthew Lewis as Neville.
The story line in itself was also well done. Not a thing was left out that needed to be there and I could easily follow along without having to recheck the book.
Though the rest of the films went downhill, it at least started off well. Nine out of ten stars!
Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)
They're Back
While not as good as the first one this movie was interesting. It was well made and featured many of the same actors and actresses as well as a few new ones, who all turned out excellent performances.
The story line was solid and thought out. I particularly felt that Julian Beck's character Cane was a nice addition. He was chilling to watch on screen as a antagonist to the family. Will Sampson as Taylor was also an interesting character. R.I.P to both actors and to O'Rouke.
Overall a good film but one that can not possibly hold a candle to the original.
6 out of 10.
Final Destination 3 (2006)
Makes Me Wish Death Would Go After The Director of This Trash
I entered the theater to see this with low expectations. I expected it to suck and it did. So therefore I can only blame myself, I had no right to waste my time and my money on this garbage.
I would like to give a detailed analysis of just how bad this movie truly was but I can't bear to subject myself to reliving it out. Therefore I will sum it up without going into detail.
The acting was bad, the dialog cheesy. All the characters were cliché Slasher movie types. There was not a bit of compassion and care in any of them, SO it prohibited me to feel any for them when they died.
Another problem was that the movie was not suspenseful at all. There were no twists, no truly frightening moments. It didn't chill me like the other two did.
I would go on but the very thought of having to rehash this poor excuse for a film makes me shudder. So in closing if you are looking for a cheap excuse for a film with breasts and gore-filled, over-the-top deaths, then this is your movie. But if you are looking for an intelligent, thought provoking movie with character development then stay far FAR away from this film.
One out of ten.
Final Destination (2000)
Death Doesn't Take No For An Answer
I don't understand all the negative reviews this movie is receiving. I mean it's made for teenagers which should be apparent by the cast, yet people insist on bashing it by saying that it is stupid because it is a teen slasher. Yes in essence it is very well a teen slasher, but it is much more original and thought provoking than most. Sure it has the stereotypical slasher movie type characters, Carter and his girlfriend being the prime examples of this, but thats to be expected.
Overall the plot was solid, the characters believable (for the most part) and the scrip appeared well written enough. There was very few cheesy lines and the romance between Alex and Clear was done well, neither rushed nor prolonged too much. The two had a lot of chemistry and worked well together on the screen.
There are a few inconsistencies with it that I myself can't overlook. For instance, why in the world would people stay on a plane if someone said it was going to explode. I know that he was just a kid and very few people will take the word of a kid seriously, but his outburst she have shaken at least a few people into walking off the plane. I know I would but then again that's just me.
I also don't know how he got away with supposedly killing the teacher when the police were sure he did it. At the end they just showed him in France with his friends rather than in jail for her death. They never did explain how his name got cleared.
Despite this though the movie is good. It's a teen movie at heart and perhaps it does lean more towards the slasher genre than anything else but it does so in style. It has the creativity that most slasher and indeed even horror films of it's time seemed to lack and that to an extent still seem to lack.
Overall not Oscar winning material but a very good film nevertheless. 8 out of ten.
Final Destination 2 (2003)
Not as Good as the First
Now it really takes a lot for me to dislike any film really. Even if I don't like a film and I say so, I try my hardest to write at least something positive about it.
For me even though this film wasn't too bad it really shouldn't have been made. Granted it was pretty obvious that a sequel was going to be made given the cliffhanger ending of the previous movie but I didn't expect this. I thought it would concentrate more on Clear and Alex rather than just bringing in a whole new cast and list of people to kill. Should have known.
The cast was not bad but unfortunately they were given very little to do with their characters. Aside from Kimberly and the police officer none of the new additions were developed properly. I couldn't feel sorry for them when they got killed off.
Now that I'm done criticizing I can discuss the good parts. Overall this film is still good. It lost some of the creepiness that the first one possessed but regained a bit with the appearance of the mortician. He was great the first time around and was just as good here.
Kimberly was also a nice addition. She was done very well having been portrayed wonderfully by A.J. Cook and I enjoyed watching her. I would have felt bad if she died.
I can say as well that the way death was working backwards was interesting. Certainly not something that I saw coming.
I didn't however approve of them killing Alex and Clear. They were my favorites and needn't have died.
Despite that though it's not that bad of a film. The acting is mostly good and the deaths while a bit over the top are creative and interesting. Well worth watching but don't expect it to live up to the first because it won't. 5 out of 10.