The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I watched the first Harry Potter movie this morning, and I couldn't believe how bad it was.
Don't read on if you haven't seen it, and don't want to read 'plot' spoilers.
I haven't read any of the books, and had avoided it in the past so as to not get taken in my the hype, but as it happened to be on Sky Movies this morning, I thought I'd give it a go.
Admittedly I missed the first 15 minutes or so, but the movie is so slow, that I doubt that would have mattered at all.
My biggest problem with the movie is the acting. None of the kids are at all convincing. Everything they say sounds forced, and the dialogue is like a example of poor exposition throughout.
The movie just seems to plod from one aimless set piece to the next, none of which are in the least bit impressive.
Quidditch is a thoroughly pointless game too. Honestly, what kind of sport would have a rule in which catching a stupid gold ball means that you win, completely negating all the scoring that had gone before hand, making the roles of the rest of the team pointless? Stupid. And the reason why Harry got to play? He disobeyed orders and caught a ball when he wasn't supposed to be flying. Stupid, he should have been expelled.
Another thing, getting onto the stupid platform. Why was it in the middle of the wall, shouldn't it have been 3/4 of the way along? Otherwise it's 9 1/2, isn't it?
The chess game at the end was so slow, and not only that the stupid Ron or was it Rod? kid didn't look like he'd been hurt at all, he didn't even get hit. Plus his one-liners were completely crap all through the film.
The end bit with the villian not being the guy you expect. Oh well done JK, slow hand-clap. A great example of a twist at the end, simply be not telling people stuff during the movie. Well done. One step up from having Harry wake up and it was all a dream.
It was far too long, given that most of what goes in the middle doesn't matter. They see the dog with three heads, and that there is a trap door beneath it, but they don't go down their for another hour or so after they see it. Basically, that whole hour doesn't matter, as it tells us nothing we couldn't have guessed.
And what was the whole film about again? From the ending, you would have thought that it was which form got the most house points. As if any kid cares about house points. How convenient that they got just enough points to win.
Then there was the scene after it, before they get on the train.
Harry Potter goes up to Hagrid, and Hagrid says "thought you were going to leave without saying goodbye?" Well that makes no sense at all. If someone comes up to you before they leave, you can't say that to them, because they're clearly approaching in order to say goodbye, aren't they? Now had Harry have been about to step on the train and Robbie Coltrane grabbed him and delivered the line, well then it would make sense, but not the way they did it.
Well at least I gave it a go, and needn't bother to watch any of the future films in the series or read any of the books. It's too slow to be a decent kids movie, and too dull and childish for adults, with no redeeming features whatsoever.
Don't read on if you haven't seen it, and don't want to read 'plot' spoilers.
I haven't read any of the books, and had avoided it in the past so as to not get taken in my the hype, but as it happened to be on Sky Movies this morning, I thought I'd give it a go.
Admittedly I missed the first 15 minutes or so, but the movie is so slow, that I doubt that would have mattered at all.
My biggest problem with the movie is the acting. None of the kids are at all convincing. Everything they say sounds forced, and the dialogue is like a example of poor exposition throughout.
The movie just seems to plod from one aimless set piece to the next, none of which are in the least bit impressive.
Quidditch is a thoroughly pointless game too. Honestly, what kind of sport would have a rule in which catching a stupid gold ball means that you win, completely negating all the scoring that had gone before hand, making the roles of the rest of the team pointless? Stupid. And the reason why Harry got to play? He disobeyed orders and caught a ball when he wasn't supposed to be flying. Stupid, he should have been expelled.
Another thing, getting onto the stupid platform. Why was it in the middle of the wall, shouldn't it have been 3/4 of the way along? Otherwise it's 9 1/2, isn't it?
The chess game at the end was so slow, and not only that the stupid Ron or was it Rod? kid didn't look like he'd been hurt at all, he didn't even get hit. Plus his one-liners were completely crap all through the film.
The end bit with the villian not being the guy you expect. Oh well done JK, slow hand-clap. A great example of a twist at the end, simply be not telling people stuff during the movie. Well done. One step up from having Harry wake up and it was all a dream.
It was far too long, given that most of what goes in the middle doesn't matter. They see the dog with three heads, and that there is a trap door beneath it, but they don't go down their for another hour or so after they see it. Basically, that whole hour doesn't matter, as it tells us nothing we couldn't have guessed.
And what was the whole film about again? From the ending, you would have thought that it was which form got the most house points. As if any kid cares about house points. How convenient that they got just enough points to win.
Then there was the scene after it, before they get on the train.
Harry Potter goes up to Hagrid, and Hagrid says "thought you were going to leave without saying goodbye?" Well that makes no sense at all. If someone comes up to you before they leave, you can't say that to them, because they're clearly approaching in order to say goodbye, aren't they? Now had Harry have been about to step on the train and Robbie Coltrane grabbed him and delivered the line, well then it would make sense, but not the way they did it.
Well at least I gave it a go, and needn't bother to watch any of the future films in the series or read any of the books. It's too slow to be a decent kids movie, and too dull and childish for adults, with no redeeming features whatsoever.
Page:
The first Harry Potter film gained the wonderful title of first film I ever genuinely fell asleep watching while completely sober and not at all tired.
The first film I actually fell asleep watching was, ashamedly, Austin Powers, first time I watched it, but that was after £40 worth of alcohol, and pressing play at 3am.
I think I managed to stay awake until just after the Quidditch game, I woke up after receiving a nudge as the end credits started to roll. Seriously poor stuff, and this is from someone happy to sit and watch crappy TV movies, and I actually (puffs up chest) sat through all of 36 Hours To Die, easily one of the worst films ever committed to reel, without flinching or yawning once.
I always thought it was a bit sad that so many supposed adults were 'entranced' by Harry Potter, but after watching (part) of the movie, I was left thinking that these people were retarded. I've never read the books myself, and I never will, but after the experience of the movie, I'm left expecting that they will read like primary school training books, with badly drawn pop-up pictures and a size 36 font.
The first film I actually fell asleep watching was, ashamedly, Austin Powers, first time I watched it, but that was after £40 worth of alcohol, and pressing play at 3am.
I think I managed to stay awake until just after the Quidditch game, I woke up after receiving a nudge as the end credits started to roll. Seriously poor stuff, and this is from someone happy to sit and watch crappy TV movies, and I actually (puffs up chest) sat through all of 36 Hours To Die, easily one of the worst films ever committed to reel, without flinching or yawning once.
I always thought it was a bit sad that so many supposed adults were 'entranced' by Harry Potter, but after watching (part) of the movie, I was left thinking that these people were retarded. I've never read the books myself, and I never will, but after the experience of the movie, I'm left expecting that they will read like primary school training books, with badly drawn pop-up pictures and a size 36 font.
Meka Dragon wrote:
> Quidditch is a thoroughly pointless game too. Honestly, what kind of
> sport would have a rule in which catching a stupid gold ball means
> that you win, completely negating all the scoring that had gone
> before hand, making the roles of the rest of the team pointless?
I'm jumping to the defence of a film/book I hate, but, you earn ten points for scoring, and 100 points for catchingthe gold ball thing, catch it, and the game ends, and you add 100 to your score, so, if you score loads points with the other thing, you can still win, it's just difficult.
> Quidditch is a thoroughly pointless game too. Honestly, what kind of
> sport would have a rule in which catching a stupid gold ball means
> that you win, completely negating all the scoring that had gone
> before hand, making the roles of the rest of the team pointless?
I'm jumping to the defence of a film/book I hate, but, you earn ten points for scoring, and 100 points for catchingthe gold ball thing, catch it, and the game ends, and you add 100 to your score, so, if you score loads points with the other thing, you can still win, it's just difficult.
I actually liked the film i thought it was good. Remember its a film for kids, and theyre only kids themselves you cant expect them to be professional actors. i think my self that its way better than L.O.T.R, and believe me if you think that H.P was slow getting into it, don't watch L.O.T.R because that just drags along.
Meka Dragon wrote:
> Quidditch is a thoroughly pointless game too. Honestly, what kind of
> sport would have a rule in which catching a stupid gold ball means
> that you win, completely negating all the scoring that had gone
> before hand, making the roles of the rest of the team pointless?
I agree, tis a stupid game. It's about as pointless as Chess; what sort of game allows you to take most of the opponents pieces and you can still lose because your King can't move anyway and someone has a cheque for him? Man being Henry the 8th sucked when he got to 40 stones.
Anyway I hope I'm not rambling. Cos that's pointless too, why walk when you can run, down the drive and jump into your car.
The world is mad.
> Quidditch is a thoroughly pointless game too. Honestly, what kind of
> sport would have a rule in which catching a stupid gold ball means
> that you win, completely negating all the scoring that had gone
> before hand, making the roles of the rest of the team pointless?
I agree, tis a stupid game. It's about as pointless as Chess; what sort of game allows you to take most of the opponents pieces and you can still lose because your King can't move anyway and someone has a cheque for him? Man being Henry the 8th sucked when he got to 40 stones.
Anyway I hope I'm not rambling. Cos that's pointless too, why walk when you can run, down the drive and jump into your car.
The world is mad.
If you havent read the books then it won't help when coming to watch the film/s.
:S
:S
Mm, kids deserve better than this really.
When their inspiration for imagination comes from this.. bah. I'm determined to craft imagination to a high degree, but it's bloody hard, and I'm not sure if I can do it either.
Bah.
When their inspiration for imagination comes from this.. bah. I'm determined to craft imagination to a high degree, but it's bloody hard, and I'm not sure if I can do it either.
Bah.
Books = Rubbish spasticatedly written "reading aids" for kids
Films = Rubbish.
There (In personal opinion)
Films = Rubbish.
There (In personal opinion)
Meka Dragon wrote:
> (stuff that was in reply to something Timmargh wrote when
> he was in a bad mood about something else)
Fair enough. I suppose it's down to the old chestnut: personal taste. But I did like Hermione's character, though, and she's better in the second film.
> (stuff that was in reply to something Timmargh wrote when
> he was in a bad mood about something else)
Fair enough. I suppose it's down to the old chestnut: personal taste. But I did like Hermione's character, though, and she's better in the second film.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> I thought it was alright as well. Problem is if you want to hate it,
> you will. Much like any movie - the rambling, petty reasons for
> disliking it tacked onto the end of the original post smack of just
> that idea. I'm not saying if you watching it without prejudice you'd
> think it was the best movie ever, you'd just be a little more
> forgiving.
The petty thing at the end, I take it you're refering to the Hagrid bit? I'm sorry, to me, that wasn't petty, it smacks of poor writing. To use a familiar expression is one thing, to get it wrong is completely unforgiveable.
Besides, I did watch it without prejudice. I'd avoided it when it was super-hyped, because I would have been looking for reasons to dislike it. On Sunday I had the spare time to watch it, so I wouldn't feel that the movie had takenm time from me. I actually went into it half expecting that I'd like it, but I really didn't for all of the reasons already presented.
> I thought it was alright as well. Problem is if you want to hate it,
> you will. Much like any movie - the rambling, petty reasons for
> disliking it tacked onto the end of the original post smack of just
> that idea. I'm not saying if you watching it without prejudice you'd
> think it was the best movie ever, you'd just be a little more
> forgiving.
The petty thing at the end, I take it you're refering to the Hagrid bit? I'm sorry, to me, that wasn't petty, it smacks of poor writing. To use a familiar expression is one thing, to get it wrong is completely unforgiveable.
Besides, I did watch it without prejudice. I'd avoided it when it was super-hyped, because I would have been looking for reasons to dislike it. On Sunday I had the spare time to watch it, so I wouldn't feel that the movie had takenm time from me. I actually went into it half expecting that I'd like it, but I really didn't for all of the reasons already presented.
Timmargh wrote:
> What did you expect? It's a film for kids based on a book for kids.
> It's not the best ever made by any means but it wasn't half bad and
> I'm not ashamed to say I quite enjoyed it for what it was: a kids
> film.
I have two children of my own, so I've watched an awful lot of kids movies. There are many which I can't bare to watch, The Tigger Movie, for example, and others which I feel have plenty to them so that an adult can enjoy them too. For instance, I can happily sit and watch Elmo in Grouchland, or Kermit the Swamp Years, because they're not pretentious, they understand the audience, and they appreciate that adults will be watching too, so give them things to enjoy too.
> What did you expect? It's a film for kids based on a book for kids.
> It's not the best ever made by any means but it wasn't half bad and
> I'm not ashamed to say I quite enjoyed it for what it was: a kids
> film.
I have two children of my own, so I've watched an awful lot of kids movies. There are many which I can't bare to watch, The Tigger Movie, for example, and others which I feel have plenty to them so that an adult can enjoy them too. For instance, I can happily sit and watch Elmo in Grouchland, or Kermit the Swamp Years, because they're not pretentious, they understand the audience, and they appreciate that adults will be watching too, so give them things to enjoy too.
Page: