Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Harry Potter and the philosopher's stone

I've watched the Potter series before but honestly don't recall that much about them, and after a rewatch of the first film I can see why: this is a completely forgettable film. The CGI doesn't stand up for a start. The child actors show some talent but over all are pretty weak (they certainly don't reach Culkin Home Alone levels of acting). The plot is all over the place and the conclusion is totally senseless: how did the plants get under the trap door; what is the chess board doing there; how did the mirror, which they've had easy access to for the whole film, get hidden under the trap door; his hands do that because of love!?!

Now I'm not saying this is a terrible film because I understand that, of all the series, this is a kids flick. But it is a pretty bad film.

The plants, keys chess etc were all put their to protect the place.

Sure, but none of it is explained. I get that earlier in the story we are told the teachers have secured the stone, but why the plants, who put them there and how? Why a chess board, what's the frame of reference? Fluffy gets explained and that bit works. None of the rest of it makes any sense.

I find The Harry Potter Pitch Meetings on YouTube to be particularly entertaining. The wizarding world is not big on child safety

 Henry wrote:
Harry Potter and the philosopher's stone

I've watched the Potter series before but honestly don't recall that much about them, and after a rewatch of the first film I can see why: this is a completely forgettable film. The CGI doesn't stand up for a start. The child actors show some talent but over all are pretty weak (they certainly don't reach Culkin Home Alone levels of acting). The plot is all over the place and the conclusion is totally senseless: how did the plants get under the trap door; what is the chess board doing there; how did the mirror, which they've had easy access to for the whole film, get hidden under the trap door; his hands do that because of love!?!

Now I'm not saying this is a terrible film because I understand that, of all the series, this is a kids flick. But it is a pretty bad film.

For those who read the book and are fan of the IP that was a really good movie, probably one of the best about that saga. I watched it in theatres when it was released, 20 years ago as a 13-14yo kid and I was enthusiastic. The last movies are much worse, ending one in particular.

I agree about the child actors, all of them were (and still are) pretty bad. They were perfect look alikes for the characters they portrayed though.

The Office (US) is pretty funny. Never was keen on watching it because I've been a big fan of the original Office for many, many years and the US version being basically the more pleasant and long-running version (the original being unpleasant at times - but heart-warming when pleasant - and short being some of my favourite things about it) didn't appeal to me much.

But it's on Netflix now, and I'm dull and pretty much gave up on everything, so I like sitcoms to watch over and over. The Office works for that, and sometimes it's really funny too. The cast's also good, isn't it. Of course the story between Dwight and Angela is more interesting than Pam&Jim. That Jen character got extremely interesting before they just turned her into the most evil person in the world. But it's alright. It's a fun show.

I have only watched two episodes of The Office, by chance it was the same episode twice!

I have no interest in watching a sitcom that is a mirror of my actual life. I can just wake up and go to work for that "pleasure".

Yeah, I assume that this is something that wouldn't appeal to everybody. My brother can't stand watching either the US or the UK version either.



I watched Near Dark (1987) now since you lot recommended it, and because it happened to be on tv recently.

That's a good vampire film, isn't it. Never seen it before, but I like Bigelow's films, and I like 1987 films. Not very keen on vampires in general, and this film works for that notion very well I think.


Watch It, I'd say it's one of the go-to films when it comes to vampires. The review is very short because everybody except me is familiar with the film anyway.

Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets

From my recollection, one of the most memorable of the films, so it must have done something good. On with the viewing...

From the opening notes of the intro, it's obvious that this film is running on a confidence that was absent in the previous entry. This is shown in the first adults we meet (the Dursleys and Weasleys) both setting a pace and a mood that continues through the film. Radcliffe and Grint must have had some acting lessons because they're ok (Grint is quite impressive at points), although Watson still has a long way to go before she stops looking like she's rehearsing for the school pantomime.

Now don't get me wrong, there's still moments that don't make any sense (a magic sword that's never been mentioned before saves the day?). But, if the first film is a very poor mash together of incoherent plot points, then this film is consistent, confident and has a flow that keeps the viewer engaged. A very good film.

On HP and child actors?

Remember they’re just kids, some in their first movie roles. As child stars go, they’re really not that irritating. Indeed I understand Hermione’s over pronounciation of words is entirely consistent with how she’s described in the books?

Harry Potter and the Magic Rock

Kyoto Secunda is reading the HP books so it seemed a good time to start the films. I pretty much agree with what's been said, some CGI doesn't hold up, the kids look right but have the acting skills of 11 year olds etc. But y'know it's up there with LotR for quality in bringing a world to life, the cast is just perfect (and the kids get better) and seeing it now it reminds me that Harry Potter does in fact earn its place in the canon.

First off it uses a classic story telling engine of the British boarding school (with a magic twist) which had been forgotten as a cliche so that when it hit a new generation they were totally unprepared for it. Kids are away at school, so no parents, deal with bullies and teachers and rules and somehow solve a mystery with their new best friends. It's a great setting that kind of disappeared after the 50s. (Titanic is the same, the Romeo and Juliet star-crossed tragic love affair had not been put in a major film since West Side Story and so it hit viewers with its full impact). Secondly they're books that grow up with the readers, becoming more complex and addressing new themes each year. Finally the kids are very authentic, almost to the point of being unlikable. Any parent or teacher will recognize them. And readers know that.

Kyoto Secunda is still fuming that Harry had blue eyes rather than green but is willing to look past that crime and enjoyed the film.


Midsommar

Didn't this get good reviews when it came out?

Can't someone make a horror film that doesn't give away the premise in the trailer?

Needed to be cut by like, an hour, but otherwise OK. If you're thinking about it, watch the first 20 minutes then skip to the 2 hour (!!) mark for the climax.

3rd night so it's:
Harry Potter and the prisoner of azkaban
Well I'm damned if I remember anything about this one from the title alone, so here goes ...

This is the first film that feels like the director had a vision, rather than slavishly reproducing something that had been dumped in front of them. The colour palette, set design, a better blend of practical effects and CGI, humour that is a step above the slap stick of the first two. The change of Dumbledore is welcome too.

It also helps that Watson and Felton (Malfoy) have finally turned up and are acting at the same level as the main two boys.

But, the change in tone is quite dramatic. While the theme of the film is strong, all the excitement and buzz is drained from the series to be replaced with a punishing emotional tax. At least some things making zero sense is consistent - "she gave it to me in the first year" and we're supposed to just accept that?

This is a good film, but the lack of charm does slightly hold it back.

Please stop me if I'm boring you.

Harry Potter and the goblet of fire
I do remember bits of this one, so it must have made an impression. But was it good or bad? ...

My word, everything is unbearably gloomy. Dour, glum, cloudy, rainy, muted colours of dullness. That fits the underlying theme of events (the carnage of puberty), but dear lord it is depressing. It takes about an hour before there's any respite and the mood becomes momentarily bearable. That said though, the action sequences are mighty impressive.

How many times over the last four movies have we heard "Hogwarts isn't safe any more"? It's just cliché at this point.

The acting is finally at a level that's worth commending. Radcliffe's earnestness captures the nature of the character and overcomes any failings he may have, Watson is doing fine and Grint is still the best of the three.

I'd like to say this was a good movie, the story and action are good enough, but the unending misery is too much. Technically better than the first film but the least enjoyable to watch.

I think it was around Goblet of Fire that Harry became an authentically unlikable 16 year old.

It was a gutsy move by Rowling but it worked. Haven't seen that film but I can see what you're talking about.

Yesterday I spent most of the day at a wargames show. Came home, had dinner, collapsed. Woke up around 1am, right when The Bourne Identity started on TV. That's a good film, isn't it. Haven't seen any of the others beyond the second, but the Bourne Identity is really good. It's like the least American American action film.

The Descent (2005)

A group of adventurous friends travel into the wilderness to explore some caves, in what happens to be their first time together since a tragedy befell one of them. As they make their way further underground, it becomes apparent that they're decidedly less alone than they should be.

One of those weird holes one often has in one's history this one. Despite regularly featuring highly in horror greats lists, I'd never seen more than a few minutes here or there.

I'm glad I finally got around to seeing the whole thing. It's an excellent example of how horror as a genre can do "less is more" with budget better than nearly other type of film. The chemistry between the girls and the individual performances all feel natural. Jump scares are used judiciously and not overplayed (something far too many get wrong.) The film looks amazing, using the pitch dark and monochrome lighting to real impact, and the sound design doesn't let the side down either, with some really meaty and visceral effects. Special mention to a very effective dream state/waking device that's deployed very successfully a couple of times and completely unseats the viewer from where they think they are.

Criticism probably comes most in that it does feel a little like two films joined together as it tries to transition from the opening scenes to the final acts, and those final acts are perhaps a little breathless and could perhaps use a little room to let the viewer and cast really come to grips with the horror of their predicament. The creatures themselves aren't all that original either, but they're splendidly brutal and efficient in their manner which offsets a lot of that.

It appears the sequel isn't on Netflix right now, but I'll be keeping an eye out, and even though it by all accounts offers diminishing returns (as is the way with most sequels,) I won't be waiting another 17 years to watch it!

 Sigur wrote:
The Bourne Identity started on TV. That's a good film, isn't it.

The Bourne Identity is the reason we never got another Die Another Day and instead we got Casino Royale.

I mean... we also ended up with Quantum of Solace and Spectre, but you can't have everything.


I was in my teens in the 90s and Britpop was everywhere. There's a scene in the Bourne Supremecy where, every time I see it, the lyrics run through my head:
"So I hit him on the head with the only things that were anywhere near me: a tin of baked beans and a Women's Weekly"
I love the physicality of those films.

Been binging Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Tried the first season ages ago, skipped to the second when DeVito appears (from what I've heard that's the norm with this show), and I honestly can't remember the last time I laughed so hard at a TV show.

Harry Potter and the order of the phoenix
Is this the one with the crazy teacher?


Well this is a nice change. The film is dark without being miserable. Sinister without being hopeless. In fact, the whole story is hope in the face of desperation. That positivity is the offset to the despair that was absent in the previous film. A story of family against adversity.

The Potter films have always focused on death, yet against this constant doom the film makes space for music and colour and humour. The director does a nice job of adding the details without labouring them; "Nice one James"; Dumbledore's batting Harry aside.

There are no dull spots, the story shifts along at an even pace. And we're treated to one of the most spitefully bonkers bad guys in cinema history.

It's a close thing but I put this one just behind chamber of secrets. It's really good.

@Henry: Oh, that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, the fight scenes in that film are really good. No superhero stuff. I mean it sure it superhuman, but in the end Jason Bourne is a human being.

@Valkyrie: Sounds excellent! Some day I'll watch that show.

I just finished Arcane. It’s so good. It’s worth getting Netflix for a month just to watch that. The art is amazing, the characters compelling, and watching Powder change into Jinx just makes me shiver.

I’m sure it could be criticised over stuff, but I found it utterly spectacular.

Modern tragedy, implemented very well.

I hear that many people like it. It's not for me (too many red flags for my very own, prejudice-ridden mind ), but many peeps like it.

Harry Potter and the half blood prince

Before the movie I'm drawing a blank, can't remember a thing about this...

...and after watching the movie I can see why. Important things happen yet they can't prevent this from being a regrettably beige movie. It isn't helped by having half an hour towards the end of the movie that makes absolutely no sense because, hey, why should we let the audience know what's going on, right?

That's it. That's all I got to comment on this half baked flick.

The Adam Project

As a disclaimer, I generally dislike all time travel movies. This one is no different, BUT at least it doesn't take itself that seriously so it can ask you to overlook a lot of BS.

That said, your enjoyment of this movie 100% depends on your enjoyment of Ryan Reynolds style of comedy and acting. He is the main focus of the movie.

It was nice to see Jennifer Garner and Mark Ruffalo working together again. They are good together. Also has Gamorra in it (Zoe Saldana <sp>?).

Otherwise, a solid Netflix style movie. Nothing great, but not an abomination either. Workmanlike and competent enough, with a few fun moments and solid performers.

Bear with me, only two left.
Harry Potter and the deathly hallows, pt 1

While there's clearly not enough story here to warrant a film in its own right, that doesn't seem to matter. In many ways this plays more like a traditional film than the string of ridiculous events that has been the hallmark of this series. We're given time to feel for the heroes and there's some lovely lingering cinematic shots.

One thing that really stands out is the audio. Next time you watch it pay special attention to the sound effects, the music and the environment. They did a cracking job on this film.

While I don't think it's the best, of all the Potter films this is the one I would most happily watch again.

 Henry wrote:
Bear with me, only two left.
Harry Potter and the deathly hallows, pt 1

While there's clearly not enough story here to warrant a film in its own right, that doesn't seem to matter. In many ways this plays more like a traditional film than the string of ridiculous events that has been the hallmark of this series. We're given time to feel for the heroes and there's some lovely lingering cinematic shots.

One thing that really stands out is the audio. Next time you watch it pay special attention to the sound effects, the music and the environment. They did a cracking job on this film.

While I don't think it's the best, of all the Potter films this is the one I would most happily watch again.

Fully agree. Deathly Hallows pt 1 is not loved by the fandom, but I really dig it for the reasons you mentioned. It was interesting to see the trio outside of the school, with no teachers or magic mcguffins at every corner.

We made it to the end.
Harry Potter and the deathly hallows, pt 2

Sadly this is little more than a functional end to the series. There is emotional satisfaction to the conclusion and the events themselves are engaging enough. But the story only really happens in two places, the bank and the school, and it feels like an almost pedestrian plod to the end.

The choice of displaying black on black on black as the colour palette doesn't improve the situation.

We're left with a film who's good bits only work due to the heavy lifting done by the previous entries and is coasting toward the finish line.


The Harry Potter series
So what's the conclusion? The series has merit as a technical achievement, but the erratic quality of the individual films doesn't elevate it as worthy of artistic praise.

In my order of preference:
Good
The Chamber of Secrets - the complete kids wizarding adventure.
The Order of the Phoenix - complete wizarding adventure, but a bit more mature.
The Deathly Hallows, pt 1 - a proper movie that satisfies all the grown up bits in your head.

Okay
The Prisoner of Azkaban - ticks all the right boxes but lacks the charm to really draw you in.
The Deathly Hallows, pt 2 - a workmanlike finale that deserves no higher praise than "it'll do."

Bad
The Half Blood Prince - the hardest to categorise. Is it bad or merely okay? Would I ever want to watch it again? I've put it in the bad list, so you can probably guess.
The Philosopher's Stone - an un-loveable and forgettable mess.
The Goblet of Fire - impressive set pieces cannot rescue the relentless unpleasantness.


I apologize for high jacking the movie thread for a week.

Nah thanks for the Harry Potter reviews, I read the books but only saw the first film or two and now Kyoto Secunda is reading the books.

Good to have some idea what's coming down the pike. In your opinion are any of them too scary for 9 year olds?

Soul

This is a Pixar film that I had totally forgotten was every released! I can see why this one did not catch on as the subject matter is a bit heavy. The set-up takes about twice as long as it should, and the ultimate "moral" of the story is very light weight. Some of the structure of the film is also a bit dicey.

That said, I enjoyed it for what it was. I also enjoyed the use of the New York setting to help tell the story, the main character is very relatable and well rounded, and there is some nifty music too.

A cut above most of the films I have seen recently, but not Pixar's best movie. I still liked it for what it was and the heart it brought.

I only liked the first 3 movies. Deathly hallows part 1 in particular was one of the worst movies I've ever seen at the theatre, reminded me of Twilight, to the point that when I saw it I promised myself not to watch the sequel, although I did it anyway. Part 2 was also awful, but at least it was a relief since the franchise was finally over.

I find that the three leading actors are so terrible (and still are, Watson in particular) that they can be acceptable as kids, as people don't expect much from them. Most child actors are that bad. But as teens or young adults they're surprisingly bad. This in addiction to worse directors and worse writing made the late HP episodes really bland movies.

I've alwyas had the feeling that the movies were ok as long as they were simple child adventures. After the first three episodes they needed a much better cast and directors to work properly, not to mention that the books were much harder to adapt thanks to their content and lenght.