Harry Potter 3: I Saw It Before All You Suckers!
Posted by erin at May 23, 2004 11:41 PM[Spoiler-Free, I swear.]
Because of Alison leaning on Tom, our company got 20 tickets to the world premiere of Harry Potter 3: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Sorry I didn't invite any of y'all, I couldn't even bring N., and I could barely get a ticket myself.
Despite the difficulty of getting tickets, and Alison's insistence that “everyone dressed up at the last premiere" she went to (which was just for New York, and not the World), hardly anyone was really dressed up at this premiere… and somehow tons of ordinary-looking people had tickets, including at least two Girl Scout troops. Most of the audience was made up of families.
At this point I’d like to say that premieres are great. There are assigned seats so you don’t have to worry about not getting in (this was at Radio City Music Hall, a classy joint which I've never been to), and all the popcorn and soda is free. On each seat there was a bag with a free T-shirt, a lego set of the “Night Bus”, a bag of gummy slugs, and some suckers. Plus some people dressed as witches and wizards were giving out bags of Every Flavor Beans in the lobby (with two new flavors, “Earthworm” and “Spaghetti”).
There were no previews or commercials before the film, instead, we got to see a live video feed of all the celebrities (mostly cast members and LL Cool J) being interviewed on the red carpet before they went into the theater. Then they played some of the film’s score, kind of like the overture before an old-fashioned movie. Finally some Warner Brothers guy introduced the cast members in attendance, and then they played the movie.
In my opinion, the first Harry Potter movie sucked for the first half hour or so, and then managed to end well, but it wasn’t as good as the first book. I didn’t like the second Harry Potter book very much (my least favorite in the series) but the first hour of the second film was quite good. Then the (second) film screwed up by going on for about 45 minutes too long and having at least three endings.
Now, I didn’t like the “Prisoner of Azkaban” book very much, but I’d have to say that this was a really decent film. Where the other films were inconsistent, this third Harry Potter movie had its act together throughout. The first two films were sprinkled with cringe-ably bad lines, but the third film only had a handful of such cringe-worthy moments, to the point where I’d say there were only half as many bad lines, perhaps fewer, than I found in the first two films. Granted, a good film should be free of bad lines, but I'm willing to allow that not every film ever made can be as minute-to-minute delightful as Fellowship of the Ring.
“Prisoner of Azkaban” was a darker film the first two, and shot in this interesting high-contrast lighting with much darker colors than before. The film is a decent length, without multiple endings, and its paced quite well. The director (whose other films I haven’t seen), has done a good job, making better use of scenery, and using the Whomping Willow tree for some great transitions (which I won’t give away). The Quidditch match in the film is probably the best Quidditch match so far – in that the CG is good and its dramatically tense.
Perhaps the best thing about this film was that there was true dramatic tension from time to time. The climactic scene did have me, so to speak, “on the edge of my seat” trying to compel the characters act in time.
The biggest disappointment of the film is the new Dumbledor. The previous actor was great - every line he had was wonderful to listen to. The new Dumbledor looks very similar but every time he opens his mouth its a little bit of a let-down. Fortunately he doesn't say much.
Rrrg… its hard to write a review that doesn’t give anything away without using really clichéd writing. Granted, I’m no trying very hard. Whatever, you guys should all go see it so we can argue about it. My prediction:
Adan might like it.
Dan might hate it.
N. might not like it (who knows?!).
Kerry’s a wildcard (not enough cute girls, no kung fu training).
Hal will probably hate it (or find it adequate).
Evonne will think its OK.
Sam will probably like it (having read the books, unlike Evonne).
Maggie will think it is “awesome”.
Comments Individual Archive Index
May 24, 2004 12:33 PM, Eugene said:
Thanks for the review! I'm sure you could spoil the movie if you really wanted to, since it is based on a book and all :)
I am really looking forward to this, because Prisoner is my favorite of the books and Sirius was one of my favorite characters. I really liked Y Tu Mama Tambien as well, so I am very hopeful that Cuaron has put together a good dramatic film. He can't be any worse than Chris Columbus!
I never really warmed to Richard Harris as Dumbledore somehow, so I am hoping the new guy meshes better with my image of Dumbledore.
May 24, 2004 03:11 PM, anthony said:
The fourth one is being made by yet another director, so I guess there was some some sort of problem with Cuarón.
May 24, 2004 04:41 PM, Erin said:
I heard that the director of 3 only wanted to direct Azkaban because it was his favorite book.
May 26, 2004 04:15 PM, ali said:
Alas, I must disagree on the topic of the new Dumbledore. Previous!Dumbledore always seemed about to fall asleep, was very wheesey and quiet without any of the spunk and mischeviousness I expect from that character. Current!Dumbledore always seems like he's up to something, and is a little insane to boot. Awesome.
May 26, 2004 05:06 PM, Matt said:
I've only seen the first movie. That's the one with the mirror, right? That's a part I remember liking a lot. Other parts, not so much. So yeah it seems like consistency is a real problem. But I blamed that on ol' Chris Columbus. I still want to see the second one, and consequently, I want to see the third.
I'm reminded of how much I hate people like Mark and Amy because of their Kill Bill strategy. They watched Kill Bill Vol. 1 for the first time on DVD and then immediately went out and watched the 2nd in theatres. That's ridiculous! It's totally against the spirit of the movies. For one thing, they should both be seen in the theatre. For another, you need to experience the cliffhanger! You need to live and breathe it, and let it flow through you like water. Or, if Jesus is around, wine.
May 26, 2004 11:42 PM, Agnieszka said:
Except not, because Kill Bill was supposed to be one movie that you saw in one sitting. The cliffhanger was a cheap marketing ploy, which I would have resented, had there been any doubt in my mind about how a movie called "Kill Bill" is going to end.
May 27, 2004 12:36 PM, N. said:
While the cliffhanger was undoubtedly a cheap marketing ploy, the movies were edited so as to be two separate stand-alone narratives, intended to be viewed with a 6 month intermission in between. I don't approve of this, mind you, but I do think that it is best to watch a film the way it is meant to be watched.
Of course, refusing to watch KB 1 & 2 until the full-movie edit becomes available (which will undoubtedly happen, one day) might be another solution.
Indeed, let the record show that all revenge movies should be at least four hours in length. I think six hours would be ideal.
May 27, 2004 03:25 PM, Matt said:
Yes yes we all know that Kill Bill was intended to be one movie. But as it stands, it's not. Even if the cliffhanger was "cheap," I thought it was great. It was one of the better cliffhangers I've seen. Therefore, it adds to the overall effect of the saga if you watch the movies separately--at least a few days between.
Other good things that were intended one way and ended up another: Mario 2, Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones, Belle & Sebastian's first album was supposed to be their only album, and Burger King was originally Burger Queen.
The burger queen thing: made up.
May 27, 2004 03:42 PM, N. said:
Thank you for that final clarification.
May 29, 2004 10:17 AM, anthony said:
Matt: "Mario 2"
You mean the video game Super Mario Bros. 2? That's what happens when you slap some licensed characters onto an existing game.
May 29, 2004 10:31 AM, ET said:
Although I haven't read the books, I'm really looking forward to this one because of Cuaron. As much as I liked Y Tu Mama Tambien, it's his work on The Little Princess, with its awesome Ramayana sequences, that has me excited about the movie. It's the second most exciting behind the scenes work this summer after Michael Chabon writing the Spider-Man sequel.
June 1, 2004 11:20 AM, matt said:
anthony: "That's what happens when you slap some licensed characters onto an existing game."
What is what happens? You get a great game? Think about the alternative though. Think about how shitty Lost Levels is... it's just more Mario 1! Absolutely no new features whatsoever. I thank god they did what they did with Mario 2. Otherwise, not only would Mario 2 suck, but I doubt Mario 3+ would be anywhere near as cool as they are.
June 8, 2004 01:24 AM, Eugene said:
What do you mean there were no new features in Lost Levels? What do you call those tricksy poison mushrooms, eh? Since I liked Mario 1 a heck of a lot, I sure didn't mind more of it. But the SMB2 we got wasn't too bad. It was different and good.
Incidentally, I mostly liked Azkaban--it was quite brilliant and beautiful, but streamlined a lot of important things right out of the movie, to the point where things didn't really make sense in the context of a stand-alone film, and it lost a lot of depth it might have had otherwise. It was way artistic though. My advice: go read the book, then see the movie. The movie is good, the book is better.
Post a comment