Actually, I think you misread something. The comments weren't just about the end of the credits, but the "end credits" of the movie.

sorry

I saw this on opening day but it took a little bit to read this long thread. It seems that all the people who loved the movie and are blowing off the critics seem to think that we are insane fans and want every part of the book to be in the movie or that some things were left out simply because they would not translate on screen. Not true.

I feel as if Cuaron did a horrible job of translating a wonderfully revealing book into a very choppy short handed movie version. I think that his talent as a director is evident in individual scenes but he seemed to just be concerned with the quality of individual scenes then how the entire movie as a whole works. The whole point of this book is to reveal many different factors that contributed to the Potter's death and how Harry is afflicted with this information. That back story which is essential to understanding motivation is totally lacking. He wants to force people to accept what he has laid on screen without conveying the driving will behind those actions.

Basically it could have been much much better if he didn't shortchange the book and focused on the true story at hand. I mean come on, how long did it take aunt marge to inflate and did we really need to have such a long segment on the Knight Bus. I thought the scenes were well done but were really just obligatory special effects scenes that didn't add anything to the story. He had plenty of time to flesh out the story he just decided to focus on the wrong things.

Everyone seems to be swooning on the three protagonists performances but I actually thought that Daniel Radcliffe's (Harry) protrayal was somewhat lacking. Like he wasn't able to convey the emotion behind his actions. IE crying at Hogsmead and the big reveal at the end . Just my opinion though, the other two did a great job.

The crying at Hogsmead was pretty lame, if you ask me Daniel did a great acting job with those crocodile tears. I can't agree with you more on the many problems this film had Cuaron had a great style, but couldn't see the forest through the trees in terms of telling the multi-dimensional story. Maybe that's why he was sacked for the next film and Mike Newell stepped up to the plate.

That was a nice wrap and, like you said, the credit crawl was pretty darn cool. I had to convince the group that I was with to stick around for them, but most of them were happy that they did.

I just saw it a second time and enjoyed it more than the first. I think it helped that I saw it without the critical eye I had the first time around.

I also stuck around for the end credits. The best part for me was the detail in the credits.

It's criminal that there is no plush Buckbeak. Dammit, I want one.

was there anything after the credits?

It's not plush but...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...902055421&rd=1

I'm not sure what you mean where you say people who loved the movie are "blowing off the critics." If you go to http://www.rottentomatoes.com you'll see that of the Cream of the Crop critics this movie received an 89. And if you read the selected quotes you will see that a great many of them single out this movie and Cuaron as making much needed improvements in the series.

Maybe I misunderstood your statement b/c it seems obvious that most critics agree with those of us who think that this is the best Potter movie yet.

By critic I mean those that didn't like the movie or at least thought it could have been much better considering the source material.

you mean gullable critics?

Well I saw this two times opening day, not really planned, it just kind of happened. Easily the best Potter movie. I'm treating this as a film and barely comparing it to the book. I haven't read it in a year so it was much easier to not be too critical on it.

Anyway, it's great to finally see a film that did justice to the books. I like the other two films but they were rather flat, and never felt that magical to me. I think they've gotten progressively better, but this one was quite the step above the other two.

First of all, it's visually a different film, but not too different. It's a good transition from the first two and hopefully into the rest of the stories. Cauron certainly is to thank for that. He just did a lot of interesting things and I hope Newell is on a similar wave length. However, I think he over did the scene transitions, just too many of them. I mean how many times do we need to follow a leaf or an owl from one place to another? Nonetheless it's better than another Columbus movie.

I also liked how he showed the students just being the teenagers they're becoming. The scene were the boys are eating the candy was just great. I know if I was a wizard at that age I'd be having fun like that. Also the scene were Ron has his nightmare and Harry is just very nonchalant about it was great. Very nicely acted and just a funny scene. The actors have certainly improved, but they still got a bit to go. Harry's crying act was a little forced. I was very much against Radcliffe on the first movie, just thought he was mostly off. He won me over by the end of this one, and I hope all three leads make it to the end. I'm also glad Hermione had a lot more screen time. Emma is the best of the bunch and she got a good chunk of screentime, as well as some very funny moments.

I really looked forward to Oldman as Black, and he didn't disappoint, but Thewlis as Lupin was fantastic. He's my favorite character in the films now. Which is surprising because I didn't think too much of Lupin in the books.

Gambon was much closer to the Dumbledore from the books, and was just great to watch. Glad he took over the role, looking forward to him in the other movies.

The CGI was great, and much easier to accept than in the last two. Buckbeak was the highlight, very well done, and great to finally see in motion. I was really worried too. The dementors looked different than I imagined but still pretty cool anyway. Very easy to believe, and I could just feel the evil that they were.

Lastly I really liked the changes to Hogwarts, it finally feels real and organic instead of like a set in the other films.

So overall, I loved this film, and am glad Cuaron helmed it. Hope Goblet is atleast as good.

Does not compute. Does not compute.

If you are going to keep them seperate and not compare, you shouldn't compare dumbledore, though I will have to say that a little of gambon and a little of harris is needed. harris was a bit to stiff for the wizard who is always cheery and gambon was a bit to silly with his tapping of the injured leg of ron.

Couple other things.

The CGI was SO much better then the first two. Buckbeak and the demeantors were good but the Quidditch game was increadible. I really don't miss the CG'd people.

However, Lupin as looked pretty bad. He looked like some Greyhound alien hybrid. I think he should have looked more like Sirius. More like a normal giant wolf. Or a "normal" werewolf.

interesting wording there,

- tall lanky one like in "The Howling" or "Dog Soldiers"
- bear like from "American Werewolf"
- Oliver Reed's silverish werewolf from 'Curse of the Werewolf"
- baroque werewolves from "Company of Wolves"

normal is a very subjective word here in describing what a werewolf should look like.

I think he meant normal as in "wolf". In the books, the werewolf is an actual wolf with minor differences. It was the one thing in the movie that made me cringe, apart from that one line Harry spouted off to Hermione as they're watching things from the forest.

Okay . . . what was the point of the spoiler tag?

wow, now that didn't cross my mind, until you asked it, that's pretty funny come to think of it.

Allright Allright I goofed That was pretty funny. But I guess anyone that is on the tenth page of this very intimidating thread has probably seen the movie. It's not like it was difficult to figure out anyways.

I knew there would be confusion as to what a werewolf would look like that is why I put normal in quotes. But I have never pictured a werewolf to look like that hideous almost hairless thing.

You forgot the most important portrayal of a werewolf in cinema history: Teen Wolf!

[Homer] D'oh [/Homer]

I'll chime in with my thoughts. My daughter and I are about a 1/3 of the way through the book, so I can't really compare the two at this point.

Let me start off by saying that I enjoyed the movie very much. With that said:

- This was my least favorite of the 3 films (the first still my favorite)
- I prefer Harris as Dumbledore over Gambon. Just something about the way Harris spoke his lines in that raspy, whispering kind of way.
- The CGI was very impressive (Dementors, Buckbeak, etc.)
- Looking forward to GoF

Actually my GF remarked that Teen Wolf looked better.

Source? Everything I've read says that he stepped down, having found the process too draining.

He was not sacked. He has stated that making the film exhausted him and he wanted to take a break.