Harry Fucking Potter

[Cerys]

We held out a long time.  But now we're getting the DVDs.  I bamlem peer pressure and the manipulative ways of small children.

So - Harry Potter.  Excellent stuff or a pile of wank?

[Nuclear Optimism]

Wank obviously. Quite wank books, very wank films, especially the early ones (although at least the first two know they're shit children's films, the later ones try to be all dark and serious, which makes them seem wanky in their own right).

On the plus side you might enjoy seeing a collection of top British character actors poncing about the place because their brat kids or grand-kids wouldn't forgive them if they turned it down.

[Neville Chamberlain]

I watched a couple of the films, but it's just all a load of booms, crashes and lots and lots of swooshing noises. In a Harry Potter film, you're never more than two minutes away from a big swooshing noise.

[Don_Preston]

I watched a couple of the films, but it's just all a load of booms, crashes and lots and lots of swooshing noises. In a Harry Potter film, you're never more than two minutes away from a big swooshing noise.

A typical day out in Radstock!

[BlodwynPig]

Like The Beatles - and you know my thoughts on the Drab Four.[nb]

Spoiler alert

For children

[close]

[/nb]

[Kane Jones]

I've never read the books, but I found the films to be pretty drab and boring. The plots are fairly hackneyed, Radcliffe cannot act for toffee and apart from the occasional moment, they're remarkably un-magical and not much fun to be honest. It is fun to see some great actors chewing the scenery, but that's about it for me really.

[checkoutgirl]

Excellent stuff or a pile of wank?

It's a pile of wank Cerys, except for the Prisoner Of Ascabhan, which has Gary Oldman, Tim Spall, David Thewlis, and is actually quite good. Hokum, but quite well produced hokum. The other 7 films that constitute 20 hours of your life are total hot garbage.

[checkoutgirl]

In a Harry Potter film, you're never more than two minutes away from a big swooshing noise.

Or Daniel Radcliffe pulling his acting face. The cunt can't act. This is a huge barrier to my suspension of disbelief. The magic wand stuff doesn't help either.

[olliebean]

Is the Prisoner of Aksbalaban the third one? If so, yes, that one's quite good, the two before it dull but fairly unobjectionable, and all the ones after it are increasingly crap until the last two, which are slightly less crap than the 6th one but still crap.

[Nuclear Optimism]

I don't know why people think 3 is good. The werewolf effects are inexcusably shit. And then all the characters end up in a room where they have to explain the whole plot to each other with the most clunky exposition (part and parcel of the book, but still).

Anyone going back to watch the first two will be surprised at just how very very shit the broomstick scenes are.

[Noodle Lizard]

I'm kind of in the horrifically pretentious Stewart Lee school of "it's for fucking kids, isn't it?"  But people would have you believe it's a masterpiece. 

I get the feeling that the fact that the films are provably awful is a sort of elephant in the room as far as critics go - they all seem locked in to pretending they're worth talking about and overlook glaring, extended flaws that would be the death of any other film.

[Noodle Lizard]

they're remarkably un-magical

Yes, exactly.  That's my biggest problem with the series as a whole.  Also, the wizarding world is presented as if it's necessary and contributing something important to the universe, but it's never really clear why.  More often than not, all these wizards use their magical powers to spectacularly banal ends - which would be quite funny if it was presented as such.  The good guys are just "good" and the bad guys are just "bad", but with no real purpose either way.  It's really quite bad writing.

[Nuclear Optimism]

Look at this shit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JsXzb-sZPY&t=2m27s

Sadly the low definition doesn't really show how laughably unconvincing it is. Inexcusable. It's like something out of Darkplace.

[Kane Jones]

I just checked when the first book came out; 1997. I was 21. No surprise that I missed that particular boat, really. I remember thinking it was just for kids and wondering why adults were reading it. In fact, I didn't even consider watching the films until recently - the last 3 or 4 years, certainly. There's far more fun and imagination in your average Pixar film, so I don't think it's just about age. I just think they're underwhelming stories - the only bits I enjoy are the hammy turns by our veteran actors and the Christmassy bits, because I'm a sucker for anything festive and snowy.

[Noodle Lizard]

I was 7 when the first book came out, 11 when the first movie came out, so I'm really the target demographic.  I don't think I even liked it much back then, though I remember liking the Stephen Fry audiobooks.  Now, it's all shit and for cunts.

Fun Noodle Lizard trivia: I was briefly considered for the role of Draco Malfoy (down to the last 150 I think).

[Gulftastic]

Look at this shit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JsXzb-sZPY&t=2m27s

Sadly the low definition doesn't really show how laughably unconvincing it is. Inexcusable. It's like something out of Darkplace.

And doing the commentary? Magnitude himself! Pop, pop!

And the films? The first two are CFF flicks with a big budget, the third is good, the rest are OK-ish, except Deathly Hallows part one, which is a boring fucking camping trip. The kids are not great actors, although I rate Emma Watson worse than Radcliffe. The most interesting kid is Luna Lovegood, due to a good performance by the actress.

[vrailaine]

It's a pile of wank Cerys, except for the Prisoner Of Ascabhan, which has Gary Oldman, Tim Spall, David Thewlis, and is actually quite good. Hokum, but quite well produced hokum. The other 7 films that constitute 20 hours of your life are total hot garbage.

Yep, Alfonso Cuaron directed hokum! Think it's very good.

The fourth was alright, the last one may have been a bit of fun in the cinema, the rest are pretty tiresome; ESPECIALLY the first two, ridiculously long films, iirc... I believe Cuaron insisted that everything be redone from scratch when he got in instead of Columbus.
Gambon was a lot better as Dumbledore than Harris too, but who knows how Harris's character may have changed after the first two. Although it might actually just be that the character is shite and Gambon failing to capture the character's essence was a benefit in disguise.

Emma Watson is a terrible actor imo, easily as bad as Radcliffe but at least he seems to be well aware he's kinda shite.

[Thomas]

The most interesting kid is Luna Lovegood, due to a good performance by the actress.

There's a heartwarming and relevant tale about the actress, Evanna Lynch, here -

In 2003, at the age of eleven, Evanna had been admitted to the hospital, where she spent two years in treatment for anorexia. She often wrote to Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling, of whom she was a fan and whom she considered a counselor, and got a reply in which Rowling reminded her that anorexia was "destructive, not creative" - a statement which, as Evanna states, helped her to start her recovery. Still, she feared that she would miss the release of the fifth Harry Potter book, but the hospital released her for the morning of the book release, and it was arranged for her to receive a copy of the book signed by J.K. Rowling herself.

Then she grew up to play one of the most beloved characters in the series. That's nice, isn't it? Isn't it?

[CaledonianGonzo]

JK Rowling's just generally great:

http://annerowlingclinic.com/home.html

[Santa's Boyfriend]

I like them.  The books are well planned-out and pretty consistent in their world-building, which in itself is quite an achievement.  The audiobooks are excellently read by Stephen Fry, to the point that I feel that's by far the best way to experience Harry Potter.

The movies are more patchy, but they gain a focus once they get to the halfway point, partly because they stuck with one director, but also because the overarching story became clearer and more focussed.  I think a lot of the appeal for me is the question of what would have happened to our world if a secret magical world like Potter's had actually descended into a fascist dictatorship, which is very much the unspoken issue in the final Potter books.  It's not the greatest story in the world, and certainly not massively original, but it is well told and very entertaining.

And yes, Rowling herself is awesome.

[checkoutgirl]

I don't know why people think 3 is good.

If you accept it as nonsense then there are quality elements in HP3 to enjoy on their own merits. It's well shot, nicely directed and has a satisfying darkness to it. The story is the best of all the HP films and there was some heavy weight actors in it that I enjoyed watching at work. I think I said it was quite good, I'd probably give a score of 55 - 60 out of 100. Hardly a ringing endorsement. The rest of the films are worse and overall I'd say the Harry Potter films are not worth the substantial time investment involved. They're just silly fantasy films with no real depth to them. They're just a display of great English thesbianism and special effects and not much else.

[Gulftastic]

One of my favourite things in the films:



Luna's Lion Hat!

[Saucer51]

I have the DVD's of the first four films but after then, as others have said, it got all dark and it seemed to lose its charm. I held out on watching a HP film for quite a few years because it was so populist I felt it couldn't possibly be very good, just a fad like Tracy Island or clackers or that awful Avatar movie. But the HP series started out as a really lovely story and just typing this makes me want to watch one now.

[Saucer51]

Yes, exactly.  That's my biggest problem with the series as a whole.  Also, the wizarding world is presented as if it's necessary and contributing something important to the universe, but it's never really clear why.  More often than not, all these wizards use their magical powers to spectacularly banal ends - which would be quite funny if it was presented as such. The good guys are just "good" and the bad guys are just "bad", but with no real purpose either way.  It's really quite bad writing.

Well, yes I agree. The Sorting Hat is a dreadful concept, both for cynical adults and impressionable children - people are not black or white, good or bad. But like the Nuremberg Laws, the SH is able to pigeonhole humanity into one group of good, one of evil and two of token boring dipshits.

[Mister Six]

The first two books are quite well-written kids' fluff. The third book is surprisingly excellent. The fourth was so long and tedious I forgot what had happened by the time I finished it. Didn't bother with the rest.

They're well-written and more deserving of their adoration by kids/teens than fucking Twilight or whatever. They're genuinely imaginitive and charming and clever. But they are basically just children's books without the blinding creative spark of yer Dahls or yer Seusses.

Oh, yeah - watched the first film, but it was by Chris Columbus so it was never going to be anything more than purely functional. Obviously there are a billion more interesting kids' movies than that (most of them made by Pixar).

[CaledonianGonzo]

The good guys are just "good" and the bad guys are just "bad", but with no real purpose either way.  It's really quite bad writing.

The whole 'racial purity' thing passed you by, then.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

The whole 'racial purity' thing passed you by, then.

Indeedy.

In fact, the only characters who are out-and-out evil are Bellatrix Lestrange and Voldemort himself, most of the other characters are a product of their class, racial ideology or otherwise misled in some way.  I personally think Rowling did an excellent job on describing how fascism would work within a magical society - to the point that people on far-right message boards[nb]I honestly can't remember why I went looking on them, morbid fascination perhaps.[/nb] were talking about how they liked Slitherin the best and how they thought Voldemort had a point about polluting the magical bloodlines and muggles being inferior etc.  (The fact that, if this were a true story, it would have meant THEIR OWN ENSLAVEMENT didn't seem to come up.)

[olliebean]

I did read the first book after being badgered for ages by a friend who insisted I'd like them, but tbh I found it very much a children's book and bloody tedious to read as an adult.

[Thomas]

The good guys are just "good" and the bad guys are just "bad", but with no real purpose either way. 

Snape's a bit of a character though, isn't he?

[Kane Jones]

Snape's a bit of a character though, isn't he?

I thought that character was the best and most interesting aspect of the films. Rickman stole the show for me.