Anyone seen it yet? I am going to see it today, and can't wait. I've read some good reviews, for the director, for the actors, and actually for the pacing of the movie. Even though it's the longest book made into a movie, it is actually about 20 minutes shorter than the previous movies.

I've read the books, so the story is not a surprise for me, but is there anyone who hasn't read the books who will also see it?

Edited to add spoilers to the title

I am looking forward to seeing it this week. Personally, I don't think the films are as good as the books, but it sounds as if it is going to be good!

I can't wait to see it but we don't get it until later this week. Still, it'll delay the undoubted pleasure I shall receive from watching it. I love the books too and just can't wait for the 6th book to be released. Any ideas when that's scheduled for release?

Just wanted to put a disclaimer in the subject line, since this movie is still so new! We don't want anyone to stumble upon this and accidentally read something they didn't want to read, yet.

I'm going to see it. But, I want to wait until the crowd clears out some.

okay.... I went, I saw....

***Spoilers Ahead***

I liked it, but there are things I didn't like.

Myhusband went with me, and he has not read the books. He saw the other two movies with me, and understood them, but he really got lost about halfway through this movie. He enjoyed it more than the others for the pacing, acting, and cinematography, but the story lost him.

I think this movie is geared more for those who are familiar with the book, unfortunately, mostly because of how much they had to leave out.

Emma Thompson was hilarious as Professor Trelawney, but they didn't use her enough. Her part was really cut down. David Thewlis did a good job as Lupin, but I had a different idea of him in my head. Maggie Smith was almost non-existent as McGonnigle. Even Dumbledore was almost a minor player. This movie was really all about Harry, Ron and Hermione.

They did an excellent job with Buckbeak. I'm glad they took the extra time with the CGI.

I have to say something about Michael Gambon as Dumbledore... I don't want to say he did a bad job, but it was so different. Richard Harris will always be the vision I have of Dumbledore. We always get an idea of what a character looks and acts like in our heads when we read, and Richard Harris was my Dumbledore. Sometimes, an actor can change your mind, such as Maggie Smith's portrayal of McGonnigle. I had always pictured her as a younger character, but Maggie Smith really has done an amazing job, so now I see her when I am reading. I see Ludo Bagman played by Tim Curry, and wouldn't that be lovely to see!

I cannot find any information for most of the cast of Goblet of Fire, although they are already filming. I know they have listed some of the cast on IMDb, but many of the main characters are missing. Anyone else know where I can find a list?

Back to Prisoner of Azkaban...

I love Gary Oldman, and I was excited to see him cast as Sirius. They really did not use him much in this movie. The scene where he attacks Ron looking for Scabbers is totally missing.

And what did they do to Draco??? He has become a wimpering wuss!

That's all for now. I need to re-read the book to refresh my head since the movie is in there now.

I am one of those crazy adults who is supremely addicted to the story. I saw the movie opening night with my husband and a few other adult friends. I re-read the book on wednesday, and while liberties were taken with the book (scenes deleted, re-arranged etc) I thought it was a fairly good interpretation. All of the interviews I have read of Alfonso Cuaron's interpretation indicated he was concentrating more on the characters themselves and the turmoil, angst etc they are going thru.

While I do get frustrated that some of the supporting cast members don't get enough screen time (Kenneth Branagh as Lockhart in #2, Emma Thompson as Trelawney in this one, or especially Gary Oldman as Sirius Black), I realize that to do so would make each movie 4+ hours in length.

There were two things I strongly disliked and wished they had changed. Yes Michael Gambon was a different Dumbledore, and they made him more of a hippie, with his beard having a rubber band and tucked in etc. Also the Maurader's Map, Professor Lupin never explained who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs were. As well as the shape of Harry's patronus. I would have thought that including this information would have taken an additional minute of film and made a world of difference to the audience and too Harry Potter.

Going to see it tomorrow hopefully, but not bothered about reading the spoilers because I'll know what to expect!
I'm addicted to Harry Potter, too, although I'm a "adult", it takes you into a different world! Relistening to book 3 before I go to see the film!
And I'll report back to say what it is like!

It honestly was a good movie JaneM and you should like it if a fan. Seeing someone bring to life what you read about is fantastic. In this movie the performances of the 3 main characters was much better. The subtle nuances of being a teen, facing horrible truths was brilliant. Emma THompson and Gary Oldman nearly steal the show. Emma's oddly quirky with flashes of prophecy was perfect for Professor Trelawney. Sirius Black is my favorite character, and Gary Oldman's portrayal made me really happy. I have always enjoyed Gary Oldman's work and do even more so now.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that part about the missing explanations of who the 4 mischief makers were!

Like I said, my husband was totally lost after about the first hour. For those of us who are fans of the books, it is more understandable.

And yes, Emma was wonderful! I worried about her when I first heard they had cast her.

I keep thinking ahead and wondering who will play Looney Luna and Rita Skeeter, and I read that they got a Scot to play Krum!

OOOOOO!!! I also read that they might be getting Rowan Atkinson to play Voldemort! Mr. Beeeeeaaaaaaaaannnn!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well!
********SPOILERS*********SPOILERS********SPOILERS*****SPOILERS*******
Hope that is clear!
Went to see it. Very good indeed, but again, in my opinion, not as good as the wonderful book! I imagined Buckbeak to be bigger (but it was well protrayed!) and disappointed that the founders of the map wasn't explained properly. Peter Pettigrew was played good, so was Lupin and Sirius. The children were the usual brilliant but D umbledore was different than last time. Obviously played by a different person but still very different.
Mauraders (spelling?) Map was excellent and so was the "Time Turning" part too. Very good film considering. Looking forward to the DVD with the extra bits!

What did you think of how they portrayed Draco?


I just have to say that the new "Fat Lady" portrait, Dawn French, was hilarious!! I was a little disappointed that they did not use Sir Cadogan at all (you get to see a flash of him after they discover the portrait is slashed, but if you blink, you miss him, and they certainly don't mention him by name), or the witch Violet, after the fat lady gets slashed, but the little bit part she played was fabulous!

Ooh, Dawn French? I love her - she's hilarious!

Wasn't keen on Draco, din't like his hair long and didn't play as much as a part as usual But that was some punch Hermione gave him....good for her, couldn't happen to a nicer person!

I liked how they portrayed Draco, very similar to the books. He is a bully who uses his father's power as a back-up, along with his fists Crabbe & Goyle. But when a bully gets bullied as Draco did, he turned into a big bag of mush.

JaneM, I didn't like his hair long, either. I wonder if they are grooming him to look more like his dad for the next movie.

I did like what they did with the twins, though. Liked the hair, and I also liked that they used them in a more, well... twins mode. They were finishing each others sentences, you know? I thought that was great.

sebastiancat,
I loved that Hermione got a good punch in, but I feel that they really overdid the whining with Draco.

Oooooo... did y'all notice how much Neville has grown?? Didn't he look great? I mean, they are all hitting that growth spurt and puberty, but, wow. I didn't recognize him at first.

Another scene that was left out that would have been fun was when Draco and his goons went onto the Quidditch field as Dementors to scare Harry. I know it was cut to streamline, but it would still have been fun.

Has everyone seen that they are debating how to make Goblet of Fire? There is talk of either a 4 hour movie, or two shorter movies. I would much rather see it as one long movie. How do you all feel?

Silver---I completely agree with you about Neville. All of them have seemed to hit their growth spurts, but it was most noticeable in Neville, taller and thinner.

As a person who has sat through all the LOTR movies, even Gone With the Wind when they re-released it at theatres years ago, I'm all for an extended length movie. Theatres can offer a slight intermission (make loads of money on the concession stand that night).

Yes, Neville has changed a lot. Personally, I preferred him in the first two movies! Only seen the first of the LOTR triology, on DVD, which was reasonably good, but I would love the next Harry Potter mvoie to be really, really long!

I reckon you'll love it Chocolate. It will be so much fun if they make the next film four hours. I can see me going to the cinema for it AND buying it on DVD!

I have just seen a trailer for the film on television and now I am even more eager to see it! It was described as darker by Daniel Radcliffe, but the trailer didn't bring that out. I've seen the advert in the papers, and am chomping at the bit to get there!

I didn't really have problem with the new Dumbledore, although I was a bit disappointed with how little of him there was. I'm hoping they do a special edition release like with Lord of the Rings where all the extra stuff is put back in. That would rock.

I was really quite annoyed that the creators of the map weren't mentioned. In fact they didn't even mention that James Potter could turn into a stag. That kinda sucked.

But all up I really loved this film. There was some genuinely good humour in it (I loved Ron's nightmare ) and the acting has improved heaps. Those kids are going to be some of the finest actors in hollywood in a few years.

Yes, I love the extra bits on the DVDs of Harry Potter. I'm guessing it should be out near Christmas...ten guesses what will be top of my Christmas list!!

You are right about the Firebolt. It was actually an anonymous Christmas present, and Hermione was afraid it was from Sirius Black and that it could be jinxed. It was a source of disagreement between Hermione and Ron as Harry couldn't get his Firebolt back immediately.

It's a shame they didn't work the Firebolt more into it. And Crookshanks the cat didn't appear much in it, and it was quite an important character. But the way they had Scabbers turn into Pettigrew - the effects was good!