Harry Pothead and the Prisoner of AllakhazamFollow

Did you guys forget about Torque? Fast and the Furious 1 and 2...well I guess you can just count all those as one long painful movie.

Fight Club is the best movie listed so far. LOTR is a close 2nd.

Been that way in movies and television for as long as I can remember. Hell, the entire cast of 90210 was 35 and still in high school.

alright Yanari, any credibility I have (actually don't have) I don't mind chucking now. Sweetheart, are you on a perma prescription of valium or something? wait wait




So that's nice you are a patient person (chemically), what movie would you ALMOST wait in line for then? What beefs do you have with Reagan... SHOW SOME GOD DAMN PREFERENCE or *****. CHRIST.

(Edited: This is what happens when I have insomnia. )

Edited, Mon Jun 7 08:08:25 2004 by DeanoTyler

Edited, Mon Jun 7 13:29:37 2004 by Kaolian

Permanent valium perscription? No, what I have is more time logged on my life clock than most of you here on the boards. See, time has taught me that in 2 weeks, I'll be seeing the exact same movie as those people who stood in line for an hour on opening weekend.

Long lines anywhere make me cranky. I avoid them whenever possible.

There are a few. One of them is that he was far too old to have run for a second term as president. His health and mental state was no longer up to the task. I don't believe the presidency is one of those jobs one should just coast through.Sorry but since I don't even know to what you refer (other than that the word puissant and plague begin with the same letter), it fails to sting my ego.

By the way, your title envy is delicious.

Edited, Mon Jun 7 14:40:53 2004 by Yanari

Moe, I'm still in denial of the season switch.

I abhor having to close all the windows and run the a/c non-stop.

Funny that, since they're 13-14 years old. Daniel Radcliffe (I believe that's how you spell his name) is 14 years old at the start of the Goblet of Fire movie. As long as they keep churning them out about one a year, then the actors will match the age of the characters.


If you've read Entertainment, the new one with Harry on the cover, they talk about why the third movie is so different than the first two - they changed directors (this one did .. uh, I think "Y tu Mama, Tambien"?). And they have a new director for the fourth movie, too.

All the changes in the script was OK'd by JK Rowling. (And she did veto some proposed changes to the script and kept things in the movie that they wanted to cut out)


They reportedly pared down the script a bit to get more of the important plot lines in rather than the floofy stuff. Like two quidditch matches were cut out, apparently, and they moved around some of the less "important" things, like Harry's new broom. So, no cramming. Just cutting out bits and pieces to make the movie less long. It was the shortest of the three movies.

And they turned the script from Goblet of Fire from TWO MOVIES to one movie.

Like every other movie made from a book, there will be differences from the book. If you go into the movie expecting it to be exactly like the book, only with pictures - you'll be disappointed. If you go into the movie expecting to have fun and watch a movie-version of the book, you'll be pleasantly satisfied with the results. I'm not saying it's the best movie of the year, but it was a very good movie. There are little touches in there that are not in the book that make the movie delightful. Like the Hippogriff ride (though the King of the World thing was a touch overdone, but that entire scene is NOT in the book and was added, and shows personality to Buckbeak that was otherwise lacking, making his proposed fate even more horrendous)

But if you just go there expecting the movie to be exactly like the book.. well, you should stop going to movies. :P


This movie is supposed to be darker than the first two, as it's the turning point in the series thus far. From this point on, it just keeps getting darker. The movie reflects that. There were happy parts in there too, just maybe not your favorites.

Just my personal opinion, but I thought every (just about) important thing from the book was translated over to the movie. The start of their adolescence, the vitality of Sirius Black (Gary Oldman did a WONDERFUL job, in my opinion) and his dedication to Harry, the curse of Lupin... etc.

I also thought it quite interesting how Snape put himself between the werewolf and the kids, even though he doesn't like them. It just points out something that I personally think.. Snape is petty, vindictive, jealous, and all those things, but he isn't evil.

The ONLY complaint I have is that they didn't explain Prongs. That would have been worth mentioning.

Oh, and they apparently are going to put more about the origin of the Marauder's Map in the next movie, since they did skimp on it this time.

And I thought the new Dumbledore.. while he wasn't as good as the old one, his character was different enough from the original that it's a little hard to make comparisons. It must be tough to try to fill that spot. My problem was I kept expecting him to act like the old Dumbledore, and that just isn't going to happen. He's doing the right thing by not trying to emulate the old Dumbledore but by making his own version of the character. And in a little bit, his way of Dumbledore will seem just fine and dandy.

Mmm, done rambling. Suffice to say, I enjoyed the movie immensely.

Movie is spelt with an I...

Edited, Mon Jun 7 12:31:49 2004 by Kiatrix

It was GoF that Dumbledore told him that, I believe, after the Death Mark or Head or whatever it is (Hrm, I need to reread them also, apparently) appeared in the sky. Because, I may be mistaken, but wasn't he missing in Order of the Phoenix?

Snape? No, he was the one who tried to teach Harry to close his mind off, forget the name of the discipline.