I missed that SNL episode. Could someone explain why people want Lindsay Lohan as Hermione?

I loved the movie, but I wish they included the scene where
I'm sure it would've been great for some laughs, but I know it wasn't a major part of the plot. Maybe a deleted scene on the DVD...

My biggest problem isn't even with the things that are missing. It is with the way the things that are there were handled. I don't see this as a magnificent film by any stretch of the imagination. Plot points are briefly, even tangentially introduced, and then later they are suddenly, inexplicably resolved, giving the viewer no clue as to how it might have happened.

It is almost as if the movie was designed to be a "visual highlights" reel specifically and only intended for readers of the books.

Oh, and BTW, I also think the new set designs sucked, big time, especially the exteriors. They don't match my "vision" of Hogwarts at all (not that the designs of the first two movies were perfect, but the were much closer for me).

GoF is significantly longer, though. With the same amount of condensing and cutting as PoA, GoF *would* end up at around 3 hours (and I hope it does). Following the "adaptation" pace of the first two movies, on the other hand, would make GoF more like 5 hours. You've got to draw the line somewhere (and I don't think splitting a single unified story into two movies is the answer--particularly not when the following book is even LONGER).

The newest Entertainment Weekly mentions that the cutting was done before filming, so there may not be a whole lot available to make an extended edition.

Big boobs. nuff said. but I wouldn't perfer here in the role. to much of a distraction.

It really did feel like a visual aid for the book highlighting only a few scenes and the whole Lupin werewolf sub plot was rushed through. Even though the pacing may have been stretched in the first two films, this one really needed it to help develope a lot of the side storys that come together in the end to tie up things.

Everything felt rushed through a bit to quickly.

I saw it last night at 10:40 PM, and you would not believe how many parents brought their kids (6 and younger). I sat next to a family that brought 4 kids (1-6 years old), but luckily they were quiet and well behaved.

Having not read the books (I'm currently a 1/3rd of the way into the first one), I rather enjoyed this one. The acting was great, the effects were well done, the story was smooth and I had figured out the rat thing about 20 mins before they revealed it.

One nit-picky criticism... the transitions. Not in story, just the constant blurred circle fade-to-black then reversed. After the fourth or fifth time it started to grate on me. I know the film is dark and edgy (and Cauron did a great job), but come on, there are other ways to go from one scene to another.

Admittedly, Mr. Cauron has a great handle on the dark side of the Potter Universe, but I guess I got used to Mr. Columbus' treatments.

My goal this summer is to read the first 5 books, so I won't have to go around wondering what happens.

One question: Did anyone else think that the glowing thing across the pond was the 'Spirit of the Hippogryph'?

Saw it last night. It is hard to totally separate my impression of the movie alone from the experience, which was terrible, but I'll try.

The movie was okay, but as others have stated, the film was way too choppy. Yes, the ommissions were bothersome, but even the things that were included didn't seem to flow properly. For the most part I enjoyed to visual aspects of the film, including the change of Hogwart's layout.

Overall grade of a B-
I think I owe to myself to see it again though, hopefully when my viewing experience will be better.

I was dissapointed after seeing it, not because it wasn't good, but because I thought it was going to be great. Nothing is more frustrating than a movie that could be great that had a few glaring, unavoidable problems.

The good:

Cauron's camera work- Great stuff, much better than Carter's workmanlike stuff. Very elegent without being showing, and fitting of the magical Potter-verse.

Cauron's handling of the actors- Best performance from the kids to day, though Ron can still be a bit Potsy for my tastes. Great job with the adults. The interplay between Snape, Black and Lupin at the Screaming Shack is spot on. That scene really stood out for me.

New characters- Loved Lupin, Black, and the Dementors. Gambon was also great, and not at all distracting. I think I may have liked him better than Harris. In the books I found Dumbledore to be a bit manipulative and dark underneath it all, and there were traces of that in Gambon's performance.

The bad:

Too short: There is no reason at all this movie didn't go on another half hour. The devil is in the details, particularly in this universe. More school, more plot setup, more development. There is no reason to not explain who Moonie/Prongs/Padfoot/Wormtail are and no reason not to explain why they become animagus. It was rushed, and that is inexcusable.

The changing of Hogworts: Cauron made it prettier, no doubt. It felt much more Scottish, with jagged rocks, steep slopes, etc. And it was all utterly unnecessary. Moving the Willow and Hagrids shack jerked me out of the movie every time I saw them. It's not worth the trade-off to make it a bit prettier if it slaps me out of the film every time I see it.

Street clothes: Having them for the trip to Hogsmeade was fine, but beyond that was distracting, and a bit silly. You have a Harry Goddamn Potter book you are working on. Why try to make it look like it isn't. If Cauron was given the fourth Indy movie to direct would he put Ford in cargo shorts and a hawaiian shirt the whole movie? The robes are part of the world, and not only is it utterly unnecessary put the kids in street clothes, it is downright foolish.

Did anyone else notice Harry's scar was on the wrong side of his head during the woredrobe cabinet scene ?

It wasn't the hippogriff's spirit. You'll find out when you read the third book, but it's something that really wasn't explained in the movie, which is a shame because it is a key point to Harry's world.

barndoor: that was a mirror reflection. It looked a bit odd to me, too, but the camera was panning through the wardrobe mirror.

ha ha! i'd forgotten about little pigwidgeon! my guess is he'll be right in the beginning of the next film...he kinda has to.

so about everyone feeling down about the new "look" of hogwarts. you know, i didn't even look at it that way. in my mind, i just took it as being a view into a side of the grounds the camera hasn't explored yet. same with hagrid's cabin...

also, the complaints about cutting of all the details, keep in mind this is the longest book yet and after a long debate between the producers, director, author, they finally decided not to cut it into 2 films. i think it came out terrific! of course they're are things i wish were included, but i don't worry too much considering it is a translation of a book. like one poster stated before me, if you want more from the film, go back to the book. that's were the true magic lies anyway.

listening to all the comments, i really need to re-read the book!

I think I was one of the few people who liked the changes made to Hogwarts. I always imagined the willow on a bit of a slope on the outskirts of the school grounds. It was right smack in the middle of the grounds in the second movie, which makes no sense because the tree is dangerous to anyone who goes near it. If anyone fumbled the ball on that one, Columbus did.

I feel the same about Hagrid's hut: it is supposed to be on the edge of the lake near the Forbidden Forest. the geography in the first two movies had it up against the forest, but nowhere near the lake. It also was not at the bottom of a slope, as described in the books. Cauron, if anything, fixed the geographical errors Columbus had set up.

After re-reading the books, Columbus was the one who took most of the artistic license in regards to where things are on the grounds.

That said, I'm not sure where the bridge came from, but it was a nice touch.

And considering the location of Hogwarts (hours to the north of london), it was nice to get a Scottish highlands feel to the grounds.

mllefoo, you're right on about the changes made to the grounds. Cuaron made the right decision in moving both the Willow and the Hut, if we want to talk about faithfulness to the books, which is what most of you are complaining about here. I too missed the explanation of the Marauder's Map and thought that there wasn't enough setup for Lupin being a werewolf, Pettigrew and Black being animaguses (animagi?) and the shape of Harry's patronus, but I thought the film was brilliant.

It's already been discussed that Cuaron's work with the camera and the actors was far superior to Columbus', so I don't think I need to touch on that. What made this movie so enjoyable to me was that for the first time, it seemed real. In SS and CoS, Harry, Ron, and Hermione were painted as nothing more than wizard Nancy Drewes, running around and solving mysteries and getting themselves into trouble. In PoA, we got to see the kids actually being kids. The scene with the Gryffindor boys eating the joke candies was beyond priceless. Cuaron had Ron carrying his robe during Care of Magical Creatures, many had their ties loosened, and almost all had altered their "uniforms" in some way, just as kids in any private or catholic school might. I also loved that they got to wear their street clothes to Hogsmeade and on weekends...it's so easy to forget that these characters are more than wizards and witches. In fact, in the previous movies, they almost seemed too grown up, too well-behaved. The final scene where Harry gets his broom is far more realistic in this movie than the original scene in SS--of course the kids want to PLAY with the broom right away! God forbid the kids actually have some fun...

I would also like to note how wonderful Daniel Radcliffe's performance was in this movie. It was EXPONENTIALLY better. In fact, he outshone the other two by far. His scenes with Lupin (which were written beautifully) were touching and subtle, and his reactions completely natural. Also, it's true that many of the supporting characters were underused, but the moments that they did have were just fantastic. Rickman -killed- his scene in Defense Against the Dark Arts class, Fred and George's timing was perfect, and the decreasing threat of Draco Malfoy was played up nicely.

The special effects were also clearly improved. Buckbeak is one of the best CG creations of all time. The dementors, Harry's patronus, dog-Sirius, and the Quidditch scene were especially well-done. I can't thank Cuaron enough for choosing not to use CG actors; the Whomping Willow scene didn't even rely entirely on animation. Kudos to the entire special effects staff.

In the end, the positives of this movie outweigh the negatives by far. Don't forget that there are still four movies to explain the relationship between James Potter, Lupin, Sirius, and Pettigrew. In fact, there is a -lengthy- flashback in Book 5 that does a great job of explaining their comraderie and their relationship with Snape. Perhaps Kloves simply chose to leave that particular storyline to the later films, who knows? If after seven movies the details that we've all missed in PoA still haven't been included, then I might complain.

By the way, is anyone else reminded of Alex deLarge when Fred and George are giving Harry the map? It's disturbing how much they sounded like Malcolm McDowell, complete with menace to their tone of voice. I half expected them to steal a car and go for a joyride through the forest while listening to Rossini's Thieving Magpie.

...okay, maybe it was just me.

I loved the movie, although having read all the books I do have some reservations. My main complaint is the way the Sirius angle was played I don't think the level of danger Harry is supposed to be in was very well articulated in the movie, as opposed to the book. Also, the shift from "You helped Voldemort kill my parents!" to "Wow, you want me to live with you this summer -cool!" felt way too abrupt in the film. I realize both of these cases are due to the fact that the books let us in on Harry's inner thoughts and fears, and we can truly understand his rationales for his fear of Sirius, and later his sudden (and somewhat desperate) joy of connecting with someone so close to his parents. So I don't really know how they could've more accurately translated that to the screen.

Count me in as one who loved the effects work here. Buckbeak was amazing... you can tell the CGI team actually studied various animals and the way they actually move, i.e. the twitchy head movements of a bird. When people try to defend piss poor CGI with remarks like "It only looks fake to you because you don't know what the real thing would like" I have to laugh because of cases like this. I've never seen a real life hippogryph, but this looked great to me.

True that. I was terrified at how Buckbeak was going to turn out after that horrible centaur fiasco in the first movie. I was pleasantly surprised.

The new Hogwarts layout looked fantastic. It allowed for some interesting angles, especially when the kids are walking down the hill with the castle jutting out in the background, or when Sirius and Harry are looking at the castle from the Whomping Willow. I also liked Cuaron's addition of the giant clock and pendulum in the castle. He really represented the themes of change and time very well by setting scenes infront of the pendulum or having characters look out of the clock face. Someone was complaining about the circle fades in the movie, but I thought they gave the movie a fantastic, antiquated feel.

Again, I feel that Cuaron and Kloves stripped the story down to its core plot, making it tighter and much better paced. The important focus of the movie was Harry, and showing how he's changed and still changing. The other plot elements such as Lupin being a werewolf or others being Animagi or Sirius, Peter, Remus, and James being friends were mentioned just enough that they were established, but were not bringing down the main plot.

The circle fade to black and fade up from black felt a little over used. The pacing was just to fast for my taste. I really wanted them to slow it down for some scenes.

As for the layout. I wasn't a fan of why the tree was were it was in the other film, but it was already placed there and moving it without reason (hell just make up that they moved it to keep the kids safer after the attack) seemed to throw me off.

Sadly, I have to wait until 10:30 PM tomorrow night to see this as the girl I am going with is not free until then.

However, I have read the book and am not getting spoiled save for the omission of a few details. Only question:

-Is there any moments that would make the girl I am going with jump? I have seen the other two with girls and they all liked to jump at the little scares. This girl has read all of the books though, so it may be tough for her not to see them coming.

Yeah, there's at least one jumpy moment. I think there might be another if my memory serves correct.

That's from the fourth book, not the third one. However, since the Dursleys will not appear at all in the fourth movie, it's safe to say that this scene will not be included.

I've already made my opinion clear about the new movie, but I do have just two other things to add.

First, I am puzzled why some people seem to think, just be cause some of us have problems with the movie, that we somehow didn't like the CGI special effects. That's kind of a bizarre leap of logic. Of course the effects were great, especially Buckbeak. But great effects do not a great movie make.

And second, am I the only one, or is anyone else finding all the fawning over Cuaron enough to make you want to throw up? I guess I just don't find his "style" all that impressive.

I went in expecting just another perfunctory adaptation and came out having glimpsed magic.

For the first time, the Harry Potter films matched the wonderment and pop-culture poetry of the novels. With Columbus' films, nothing about the world Harry and his friends inhabited felt magical. Cuaron finally nailed the sense of place, the whimsy and the character that is J.K. Rowling's world.

Columbus' films were full of poorly designed set pieces, drab uninteresting exteriors, loads of cheap CGI (the swirling Quidditch stadium, anyone?) and bad, bad makeup work (all of the goblins at Gringott's). Columbus slapped those first two chapters together like he was baking a cake. Cuaron, on the other hand, actually created a magical world. There's a continuity to his visual style that reminded me pleasantly of the more fantastical works of Terry Gilliam. (God, if only Terry Gilliam was interested in this series . . . )

Plus for the first time we got that Star Wars goose-bump "twin suns" scene with Harry's triumphant hippogriff ride - which is what this series desperately, desperately needed. That was a key mistep in Columbus' films. He never stopped the adaptation to revel in J.K.Rowlings' fantastical world. Aside from that too, too brief snowy launch of Hedwig in the first film, there's never a moment where Columbus bothered to stop and take a look around at the world in which the characters inhabit.

And the score this time around was infinitely improved - a definite return to form for Williams.

Trust me - there will be no better film this summer. "Azkaban's" artistry was completely unexpected. Now if only I could say that about even one other film scheduled to come out for the next 2 months . . .

It's impressive when you consider the fact that Columbus directed the first two films completely style-free.