Goblet of Fire
-
Who watched? It was bloody brilliant!! I watched it on wednesday, the sneak preview thing. Gonna watch tmr again. Wicked!! Love it!
But I think that Voldy isn't scary enough. Maybe it's me. I was watching the actors instead of the characters.
Anyway, i think the critics of life newspaper, I read daily are dumb, they suck. They give boring movies -alot of them- high ratings and great movies aka harry potter have low ratings. Which sucks. Anyway everyone I know says it's good. Maybe the critics are old and only watch shows with people playing with their slippers.
It's the best film so far.
P.S. Yes it is! -
voldemort got no nose.
-
It is also my right to say that Harry Potter is for audience who are incapable of appreciating art films and find enjoyment in some kid flying on a broom.Originally posted by BizarreRocksD12:Who watched? It was bloody brilliant!! I watched it on wednesday, the sneak preview thing. Gonna watch tmr again. Wicked!! Love it!
But I think that Voldy isn't scary enough. Maybe it's me. I was watching the actors instead of the characters.
Anyway, i think the critics of life newspaper, I read daily are dumb, they suck. They give boring movies -alot of them- high ratings and great movies aka harry potter have low ratings. Which sucks. Anyway everyone I know says it's good. Maybe the critics are old and only watch shows with people playing with their slippers.
It's the best film so far.
P.S. Yes it is!
Here are some of the reasons why HP deservers its low-rating:
- lack of depth
- failure to relate its theme to the society
- character development is rock bottom
- inane monster vs humans
- unconvincing and empty plot
- good ol' good guy vs bad guy good guy wins and happy ever after
- there is little directional skill since the majority of movie is made up of SFX.
The world does not revolve around a broomstick and silly magics.
And I am fortunate that I did not see any of the Hairy Porter. -
Comon la.. give HP a break. There are thousands and thousands of films out there that falls into the criteria you set...Originally posted by philia:It is also my right to say that Harry Potter is for audience who are incapable of appreciating art films and find enjoyment in some kid flying on a broom.
Here are some of the reasons why HP deservers its low-rating:
- lack of depth
- failure to relate its theme to the society
- character development is rock bottom
- inane monster vs humans
- unconvincing and empty plot
- good ol' good guy vs bad guy good guy wins and happy ever after
- there is little directional skill since the majority of movie is made up of SFX.
The world does not revolve around a broomstick and silly magics.
And I am fortunate that I did not see any of the Hairy Porter. -
show for kids..
-
*Thumbs up*Originally posted by philia:It is also my right to say that Harry Potter is for audience who are incapable of appreciating art films and find enjoyment in some kid flying on a broom.
Here are some of the reasons why HP deservers its low-rating:
- lack of depth
- failure to relate its theme to the society
- character development is rock bottom
- inane monster vs humans
- unconvincing and empty plot
- good ol' good guy vs bad guy good guy wins and happy ever after
- there is little directional skill since the majority of movie is made up of SFX.
The world does not revolve around a broomstick and silly magics.
And I am fortunate that I did not see any of the Hairy Porter.
Looks like the threadstarter lacks maturity to appreciate the true nature of movies... -
It just so happen that there is a thread on HP.Originally posted by DriftingGuy:Comon la.. give HP a break. There are thousands and thousands of films out there that falls into the criteria you set...
I would still say the same to:
- Spiderman
- X-Men
- Batman
- whatever- Man
- Lord of the Rings
- The Hulk
- Fantastic 4
- and every other Disney films
- etc. -
I don't think Spiderman 2 and Batman Begins are asbad or 'empty' as you think. At least, they deal with the themes of urban crime in the modern cosmopolitan society, and how society views, or might view, vigilantes who take it upon themselves to fight the criminal scourge.
-
no rush..
nxt friday... -
apparently the director assumed that the audience have already read the book before watching the movie.Originally posted by philia:It is also my right to say that Harry Potter is for audience who are incapable of appreciating art films and find enjoyment in some kid flying on a broom.
Here are some of the reasons why HP deservers its low-rating:
- lack of depth
- failure to relate its theme to the society
- character development is rock bottom
- inane monster vs humans
- unconvincing and empty plot
- good ol' good guy vs bad guy good guy wins and happy ever after
- there is little directional skill since the majority of movie is made up of SFX.
The world does not revolve around a broomstick and silly magics.
And I am fortunate that I did not see any of the Hairy Porter. -
So what is the point of the movie when the society has a more in-depht alternative to a story?Originally posted by TwinTurbo_Supra:apparently the director assumed that the audience have already read the book before watching the movie.
To provide graphical images in order to aid readers when they fail to visualize the words penned in the book ? -
"Themes of urban crime in the modern cosmopolitan society" are amazingly and superiorly portrayed in movies like Chinatown, Pulp Fiction, City of God and etc. I am sorry but I think Batman and Spidey have themes that are more centralized in glorifying nonexistant superheroes as a popcorn treat to teens who, before they enter the society, enjoy spending as much time as possible in feasting upon the "supernatural" ideas.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:I don't think Spiderman 2 and Batman Begins are asbad or 'empty' as you think. At least, they deal with the themes of urban crime in the modern cosmopolitan society, and how society views, or might view, vigilantes who take it upon themselves to fight the criminal scourge. -
I see a Californian putting his foot in his mouth.
-
Like what they say: Its easier to criticise than to do it. Talk easy, do hard. But then thats what an online forum is for -
Stop acting deep, how can you judge a show without even watchin it??!!Originally posted by philia:It is also my right to say that Harry Potter is for audience who are incapable of appreciating art films and find enjoyment in some kid flying on a broom.
Here are some of the reasons why HP deservers its low-rating:
- lack of depth
- failure to relate its theme to the society
- character development is rock bottom
- inane monster vs humans
- unconvincing and empty plot
- good ol' good guy vs bad guy good guy wins and happy ever after
- there is little directional skill since the majority of movie is made up of SFX.
The world does not revolve around a broomstick and silly magics.
And I am fortunate that I did not see any of the Hairy Porter.
You've got no idea the level of directional skills required to film each Harry Potter movie.
If its just a typical 'good ol' good guy vs bad guy good guy wins and happy ever after' plot, the book wouldn't have sold so many gazillion copies worldwide.
Bottom line is, the plot is good, the direction is good, so the movie is good. All your points count for nothing coz you haven't watched it. -
By the way Pulp Fiction and City Of God are two of my favourite movies of all time. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate Batman Begins coz its "shallow" or whatever.
What's your definition of an "Art" film anyway? I find it such a pretentious term. -
the producers actually wanted to make GOF a 2-part movie, each part 2 hours. but in the end dunno wat budget or time constrains turn it into a 2 and a half hours movie. an online petition was made to convert it back to 2-part but failed. i heard that they queeze infomation into the 2hr 30mins and the ending was very sudden? from all the review i've read, can tell the EFX r nice but the flow of the story isn't gd. and LOTS of things, even though they may be minor details, haf been changed too...
shall not say too much till i watch it next tue... -
I HATE HARRY POTTER, I READ THE 1ST CHAPTER OF THE FIRST BOOK, I BTH LIAO!!!!
-
Come come.. don't be an art fart snob...Originally posted by philia:It is also my right to say that Harry Potter is for audience who are incapable of appreciating art films and find enjoyment in some kid flying on a broom.
The world does not revolve around a broomstick and silly magics.
And I am fortunate that I did not see any of the Hairy Porter.
Harry Potter was NEVER meant to be an art film and I dont think being able to appreciate art films means you should not enjoy commercialised movies made purely to entertain without any deepset messages or visual metaphors.
Lighten Up! Its great if you are able to enjoy art films but not every film needs to be Battleship Potemkin or Citizen Kane to be worth watching. Its just like a good roller coaster ride - watched for the thrill, the light hearted laughs - and comparing a roller coaster ride to a museum tour and sniffing at it, just smacks of a cheap low down shot at other people's fun - Unnecessary and the only reason why you do it, is to sound more 'high class. -
just wondering, whats the difference between the digital version and non-digital version, since they are at the same price?
-
Many shows can be classified as entertaining or literary. In my opinion, both entertainment or a literary ('art') acclaim can be appreciated aesthetically. Art is a form of expression, in any. I think it would be quite reasonable and objective to say that entertaining, thrilling or literary shows do not belong within a specific spectrum akin to most aspects of expressionism.
Harry Potter shows have the POTENTIAL to become artistic when we apply our rationalistic ideals to the directors intent in showing what he has and in the way he chose. Claiming that plot, ('depth'?) or themes do not exist, or have failed to accentuate, is probably due to the lack of attention and the exploitation of stereotypical beliefs that artistic plays are akin to that of Tennessee Williams' "Glass Menagerie" or eugene O'neils' "Long Days Journey into Night".
In other words, the KINETIC key is important to the keyhole. If you do not actively persue the 'art' in the show, or for anything at all, you won't get it. That is perhaps why the show seems innocuous to your artistic senses.
I hope you understand that i'm not saying this to get back at you.[/list][/quote] -
i wanna watch.. but got exams...
-
When is your exam finishing? When it ends, you can go watch Harry Potter dressed as Hermione.Originally posted by starblue:i wanna watch.. but got exams... -
it's obvious harry potter is a movie designed to capture box office success... mass appeal.. depth or not.. who cares.. of coz compared to movies with depth like cinderella man, harry potter is crap.. end of the day, harry potter is designed for ppl looking for light-hearted entertainment. what matters most is audience feel money well spent.
-
What do you mean by acting deep? The author of the thread was complaining on how the newspapers were lashing out high ratings for "boring movies". It is quite obvious that most arthouse movies are "boring". Like I said, it is my right to criticize Hairy Porter whichever way I want to because in the first place, audience do not sit through a movie with a blank mind. The director expect us to digest the movie and give judgements.Originally posted by stoty:Stop acting deep, how can you judge a show without even watchin it??!!
You've got no idea the level of directional skills required to film each Harry Potter movie.
If its just a typical 'good ol' good guy vs bad guy good guy wins and happy ever after' plot, the book wouldn't have sold so many gazillion copies worldwide.
Bottom line is, the plot is good, the direction is good, so the movie is good. All your points count for nothing coz you haven't watched it.
It is just not my cup of tea to see a kid flying on a broom fighting monsters. Whatever your cup of teas are, I do not care. To each his own.