'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone': PopWatch Rewind watches the first (and worst?) Harry Potter film

By the time the Harry Potter film series is all over and done with, it will have comprised ten years, eight films, and every single British actor ever to utter a letter of the Bard. But as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 1 apparates into theaters this weekend, it’s almost hard to remember how it all started: An American behind the camera, a color palette approximately 16 shades brighter, and a marketing team who, never mind “hallows,” was afraid the word “philosopher” would alienate all those American readers that find thinking to be elitist. So we flipped our Time-Turners and went back to the beginning to see how the greatest (by default?) septology of all time has changed over all these years. Of course, this all just a couple of Muggles’ opinions.

Darren Franich: I feel pretty confident saying Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is unquestionably the worst Harry Potter movie. Even Chamber of Secrets, which was based on the worst book, actually turned into a decent movie. You could argue that Chris Columbus had to introduce the whole world, so Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was always going to be a difficult movie to make. But the first Star Wars did a great job of introducing a complete universe in the context of a thrilling storyline. By comparison, Sorcerer’s Stone plays like Exposition!: The Movie.

Keith Staskiewicz: At a certain point you lose the wonder and gain the wondering when it’s going to end. A 2 1/2 hour running time is fine, but the first book is about 1/64 the size of the later ones. If they were able to condense Goblet of Fire into an acceptable running time, Sorcerer’s Stone didn’t have to be any more than 2 hours long. But, to be honest, I don’t dislike the movie that much. Saying that it’s the worst of the bunch really only means that the series got better over time, which is impressive in itself. Chris Columbus was a decent choice for this kind of movie. The first book is all about wide-eyed wonder and introductions, with very little dirt and grime and Cuaróniness. Columbus isn’t the director we deserve, he’s the director we need. Like his namesake, he’s discovering and mapping out new territory, but without all that killing-a-civilization-with-smallpox stuff.

DF: My problem with the movie is exactly that there isn’t that much wide-eyed wonder in this movie. All the magic is presented in such a clinical, rote fashion. Every scene is: Harry Potter walks into room. A talented British actor does something magical. Harry: “What’s that?!?!” Hermione: “That’s [random latin magic word].” Ron: “Blimey!” Harry then tries to perform the magic, succeeds on his first try, and everyone applauds.

KS: No, no, you misunderstand. I meant, literally, Harry Potter’s eyes are really wide throughout the whole movie. He looks amazed at everything.

"Wow! A stick! And over there…a staircase!"

DF: Goblet of Fire is actually a good comparison point. That movie is also a complete narrative mess, but it’s a lot of fun! Sorcerer’s Stone just looks like a preproduction cycle that someone turned into a movie.

KS: I think we’re not giving Columbus enough credit. He was building the foundation for the rest of the series. He had six more movies looming over him when he made this, which then changed to seven. He had to show enough, but not to much; get actors who would be willing to commit for that long; and actualize a ton of imagery in the book that they’d then be stuck with for a decade. Quick digression that has absolutely nothing to do with anything: one of the best moments in the movie is when Hedwig drops the package, and it’s clearly a broom wrapped in brown paper, but everyone around the table is like, “What is it?” and “I wonder what it could be?!” What do you think it is? A book? A bicycle?

"I hope it's a new computer!"

DF: Okay, but this scene connects perfectly with what you were just talking about. Because yes, we can give credit to Columbus for laying the groundwork. But that just seems like the job of a producer, really. Whereas every single directorial choice he makes in the movie — “Kids, act excited! ACT EXCITED! Okay, Rupert, do your wry smile!” — is so wrongheaded.

KS: With the exception of Half-Blood Prince, which is one minute longer than this, the first two Potter movies are the longest. Chamber of Secrets is the longest ever, at 2 hours 41 minutes. What I want to know is how did Columbus take the shortest books and make them into the longest movies? Maybe it was easier for the later directors because the audience was familiar with the material, but come on.

DF: It’s even more egregious when you consider that Order of the Phoenix is the longest book, and it became the shortest movie.

This is not a shot you will see in an Alfonso Cuarón movie.

DF: In the interest of not picking on Columbus, I will say that Sorcerer’s Stone is probably the best showcase of the supporting cast. The Harry Potter franchise has the most enjoyable overacting by the highest volume of great actors. Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, brilliant one-offs like Kenneth Branagh and Imelda Staunton…

KS: Emma Thompson as Trelawney, Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody…

DF: This is something I always wonder about when I watch the Star Wars prequels: Why are British actors so much better at playing claptrap than American actors?

KS: Because they’re actually trained. Many have experience in theater, playing Falstaffs and Iagos and whatnot. American actors go to the Actors Studio and play smoldering versions of themselves. But I think British actors are doing theatrical work less and less nowadays, though. Just look at Christian Bale. Imagine him playing a Harry Potter character. I guess I can see Colin Firth in a Potter role. But not Ewan, Jude, Orlando, Keira. Although Clive Owen was originally going to replace Richard Harris as Dumbledore , wasn’t he?

The floating head of Radcliffe shall visit you in your nightmares.

DF: Ha! Watching Sorcerer’s Stone now is interesting, because it reminds you of all the stuff you used to care about in the Harry Potter world. Like Hagrid. Remember when he was, like, one of the main characters?

KS: To me, the first two movies work better when taken with the later ones. Their superficial wonder and amusement-park-ride sets look almost purposefully cutesy and Britishly twee when compared to the horror that comes later. Even Harris dying, while clearly sad, is an interesting demarcation point. Harris’ Dumbledore was wise and kind and friendly. Gambon always played him as a little bit of an a–hole.

And he shaved this morning.

DF: One other thing I noticed watching Sorcerer’s Stone this time around is just how primitive it looks by comparison to the later movies. You can tell this was the one Harry Potter movie made before Fellowship of the Ring hit theaters.

KS: The broom-flying CGI is that same terrible featureless ragdoll look that was in the first Spider-man. It was 2000-2001, and they were still reaching beyond their grasp when it came to that kind of stuff.

DF: We should also talk about the hindsight weirdness of seeing Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson when they were young and kinda annoying. It’s remarkable to me how little Radcliffe has to do in this movie. Besides the scene with his parents in the mirror, which is quite moving, he’s literally just onscreen to open his eyes really wide, and then open them wider in the next scene.

KS: Emma Watson is the most successful here, in my eyes. She manages to hide any stiffness and awkwardness by overdoing Hermione’s annoyingness, which totally works, so she doesn’t have those same “What do I do?” looks that Harry and Ron have every once in a while.

Harry, having absolutely none of it.

DF: I think she’s fine, but I think Rupert Grint actually carries the (very) few scenes between the three or them. In a weird way, the franchise kind of abandoned Ron in the later movies, partially because his plotlines in the book were the most extraneous, and partially because Radcliffe and Watson just have way more actorly chemistry than Radcliffe and Grint. I haven’t read the first few books in awhile, so maybe there are more rules I’m forgetting. But is Quidditch, like, SUPPOSED to be the most pointless game ever? Because all that really matters is getting the Golden Snitch, right? What’s the point of the beaters and thuggers and cudgels and whatsits?

Quidditch: The most confusing British sport since cricket.

KS: You get 150 points and end the game if you get the Snitch. So I guess, technically, if you’re 16 Quaffle goals behind, you can still lose. But then, why would you even go after the snitch? (Looks up official rules online.) Okay, apparently the Quidditch Cup is based on points earned rather than games won. So, the Quaffle goals do make a small difference. Though that seems unfair, if a game goes really long and lots of goals are scored then both houses playing have an advantage over the other two. Man, there’s a lot of strategy going on here. I can see losing thousands of Galleons at the OQB (Off-Quidditch Betting).

DF: Then Gringotts repossesses your house.

KS: Can I just say how awesome Rowling is at naming her characters? Every name perfectly evokes exactly what the characters are. Harry Potter: Generic, strong, staid. Ron Weasley: Scruffy, lovable, none too bright, can’t even afford a good name. Hermione Granger: A fancy-pants first name, but her last name isn’t all that. (Maybe because her parents are Muggles?) Draco Malfoy: basically Dragon Badfaith. Even objects: Quaffle, Bludger, Golden Snitch. Dammit, J.K. Rowling! Even her name is awesome.

"Wait, what's going to happen to us over the next six years?"

Next Week: Burlesque is a story about a talented small-town girl who seeks fame and fortune in the big city. Showgirls is literally the same movie, except with more nudity, less talent, and did we mention more nudity? Check back here next week for a thoughtful discussion in which we attempt to answer the big questions: Is Showgirls purposefully bad? And does that make it good? Where are we?

Read more:
PopWatch Rewind

Comments (150 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 2 3 6
  • Chris

    I liked the first film. It may have been the worst of the series but it was far better than 99% of the movies that were in the theaters that year.

    • Just Jules

      The sorcerers stone was brilliant! It is why I ended up reading all the books.

      • Melissa

        Me too!

      • Amber

        same here

      • Myk

        I think the reason the first two movies are longest is cause they are the most faithful to the books. Once you get to #3 and #4 they realied that there was no way to include everything so they were free to cut away…which is a shame cause 3 and 4 are two of the best books and didn’t come across as well on film

    • harpier

      Don’t get me wrong, a forced viewing of *Sorcerer’s Stone* by a good friend (who had my best interests at heart) is the reason I got into Harry Potter. And it was fun the first time, though a little long, but it just isn’t fun to revisit. (Neither, for that matter, is *Chamber of Secrets* much.) In retrospect, I’m sure different decisions would have been made in light of the dark tone of later books–since principle photography began very shortly after the release of *Goblet of Fire* and was unlikely very influential in the production of the first film. (Re: the lack of Christian Bales, Jude Laws, and Keira Knightleys in the movies–I’ve always thought there was a conspicuous lack of 30-40 year-old actors in the Harry Potter franchise. They’ve frequently cast characters older than the books would have them, including thespians with little stage training or experience. Although I loved Thewlis as Lupin, I could see a scruffy Bale playing him as well. No one does weary quite like him.)

    • BFD

      When you make a movie and have no idea how it’s going to be received you make mistakes. That’s why they won’t make movies of the last to Pullman “His Dark Materials” books. Great material, crap movie, how do you go from there? They did what they could.

      And I think Azkaban, as brilliant as that book is as a set up to the rest of the stories, is the worst movie. So much was cut out that the rest of the stories are missing quite a bit. Why is Harry’s patronus a stag? Who are Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs?

      • James D

        You have a good point. They did cut a lot. And not having an explanation on the Marauders’ Map annoyed me, they could have put that in there. I actually like Azkaban the best, because Cuaron managed to create a fully realized magical world.

      • bamalam

        And I never liked the movie because it was practically made into a stupid comedy. What was with that Shrunken head? What was with those animal candies? What was with the Fat Lady and her “singing”? What was with the comedy bits with that monster book? What was with the housekeeping lady at the inn? All those details were not necessary at all

      • anonymous

        The third film my favorite. It isn’t just a good retelling of the book, it’s actually a really good film all on it’s own and the most creative of the bunch in my opinion.

    • Diane

      I loved the first movie. I’d read some of the books and the movie just made it live

    • E

      Wow, you guys, this is kind of pathetic, no offense to you or anything, but your critiqueing(I do believe I spelled that wrong) of eleven year olds, who, for most, was there first job. Thats just kind of sad…. Cant you guys ever just sit back and enjoy a movie purely for the joy of it, instead of psycho-anlyzing every tiny thing about it??

  • Louise

    Chamber of Secrets is my least favorite. I can’t watch it and I have watched all the other films more times than I care to mention. Prison of Azkaban was, until last night, my favorite of the movies. I think Deathly Hallows has replaced it.

  • Heather

    Sorcerer’s Stone is not the wrost movie. Prisoner of Azkaban is. I forget that I read the book and just watch it as a movie and I think its horrible. The first two movies were so long because they actually did feature other characters and more storyline from the books.

    • Skip182

      azkaban is the 2nd best.

      • steph

        I agree – I loved Azkaban. The only part I was sad that they left out was all the backstory with the Marauders. Fave part of the book.

    • 1

      i feel azkaban is the best movie… hands down…

      • Nick the Dick

        I agree, Chamber of Secrets would likely come in second for me.

      • Delon

        Yep. I’ve never read the books. I’ve only seen the movies and Azkaban by far is the best of the bunch. I still have frames in my mind from that movie. I can’t say the same thing for the other movies.

      • anya

        I totally agree. I haven’t read the books either (aside from the last one), and to me Azkaban is the best of the movies by far.

    • Mac

      Prisoner is the best one. The one with the giant snake is terrible.

    • dwalker

      I loved the first film! The worst, for me, was the Half-Blood Prince! There was so many bs in that sequel…

      • liz

        the half-blood prince was frustrating on many levels, a lot of which i dont entirely blame the director or screenplay writer for. the most frustrating part for me was the sudden love between ginny and harry. while the books actually allowed for chemistry to build between the two, the earlier movies cut a lot of those scenes because they probably didnt see them as relevant, not knowing the future of the story. as a result, they had to throw in some last minute plot development between the two, and it felt sloppy and just plain didnt work. they also had to throw out the major battle scenes at the end so that the last three movies werent all “back story-build up-climax-fight scene” which was also disappointing because while i can understand cutting it from a movie making stand point, it really did work in the books. also, there were three really annoying girls talking and giving commentary throughout the entire movie when i went and saw it, so that could have been my problem as well.

      • liz

        oh yeah, and the burning of the burrow? huh, wha? but again, i think that was thrown in to give harry and ginny more relationship development. not that it worked. i think that HP fans can understand something being cut out of movies to save on time, but to just add a whole new scene that makes no sense and doesnt help the plot at all? what?

      • Mariko

        I agree with you– HBP is not a very good movie because you can barely watch it by itself– it only makes sense in the context of filler between the fifth and last movies. All the random added stuff, the anti-climatic reveal of Snape as the HBP and the Death-Eaters finally getting into Hogwarts. It was def. the most disappointing for me.

    • wendy

      I agree. Azkaban is the worst.

  • Jackie

    I actually loved the first movie :) “Sorcerer’s Stone” was my favorite of the books, and to see it so faithfully adapted made me very happy. Plus, nothing will ever beat sitting down in the movie theatre on opening day and hearing “Hedwig’s Theme” playing for the first time. For me, the worst is a tie between “Chamber of Secrets” and “Goblet of Fire”. I always felt “Chamber of Secrets” was the weakest of the books (most of the stuff that happens in it doesn’t actually become important until much later in the series), and they made the best film they could, given the material. I loved the book “Goblet of Fire”, but they just did too much chopping for the movie. It was still an ok movie, but paled so much in comparison to the book.

    • Jackie

      P.S. Yes, I realize they did a lot of chopping when it came to adapting “Order of the Phoenix”, but when you take it on its own merits as a film, it’s still a better film than “Goblet of Fire” was.

  • Abby

    I agree with Heather. As far as a SERIES goes, the Prisoner of Azkaban is the worst. I saw it with someone who’d never read the book, and we sat in the theater for 30 minutes after the movie ended so I could explain to him how it all worked. 5 other people that we didn’t know ended up staying to listen as well because the (admittedly complicated) conclusion of the movie was so poorly explained.

    • Mike

      I agree. I’m usually a minority when I say that that the 3rd is the worst. It’s stuck between cute and dark. The book is my least favorite also. So I’m really bias.

      There was really no threatening villain. Wormtail was the closest thing. Everybody is a red herring that resulted in 15 pages of people pointing wands and chatting about the past.

    • Jo

      I’ve never read any of the books and had no problems following the story in Azkaban. As such PoA is second best for me. I think people spend far too much time trying to analyze HP films instead of just enjoying them.

    • musica1

      I loved many things about Prisoner of Azkaban, but really did hate the way they left out MAJOR parts of the story. They really should have kept in the story of the Moony, Padfoot, Wormtail and Prongs. I, too, have had to give long explanations about the story to people who see the movies and never read the books. They always say, “Oh, it makes more sense now.” No movie should leave people needing explanations like that.

    • Jennifer

      I’ve never read any of the books (nor do I intend too, for that matter), but I had no problem following the movie without reams of additional explanation from the friend with me. It stood on its own merits just fine as a movie, far better than the first movie did.

  • sgerbil

    Chamber of Secrets is the Worst. Yeah Kenneth Branagh was perfectly cast, but it was WAY TOO LONG and boring. The cheese starts to wear itself out in this one. Sorcerer’s Stone suffers from the long time and cheese of CofS, but it was the first so I will cut it slack for having to introduce everything. And Harry is just so sweet in SS. I was so glad they went darker for PofA and the others or I would have been done.

    • anya

      I agree. I feel like Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets are very similar in their flaws, but Chambers is worse because it’s so pointlessly long.

      • Liz

        Actually, Chamber of Secrets was just the right length, and all the others are too short. As for all the talk about the movies getting “darker” as they go along, that makes sense because the books got darker too, and some scenes in those first two are plenty dark.

  • Sean

    I remember really liking it at the time, but since the others have been released, this one has kind of been overshadowed. Not that it’s bad, but it’s just not as good as the rest. But Chamber of Secrets is NOT the worst book!

  • Lolita

    I agree with Heather. POA was very disjointed, rushed, and incomprehensible unless you’ve read the books. I also think the actorly expectations went from “look amazed” to “look quite scared, constantly.” It was my least favorite.

    • Dave

      I hadn’t read any of the books at that point, and I had no problem understanding Prisoner of Azkaban.

    • Remy


    • William

      Ditto, I never read the books and Prisoner of Azkaban turned out to be my favorite of the series.

      • musica1

        It is beautifully filmed and very artsy, but it doesn’t really tell the story well. If you want to really know the story of The Prisoner of Akhaban, go read the book. You’ll be amazed at how much better it is than the movie.

      • @musica1

        The point Dave, Remy and William were making is that none of us needed to read the book to enjoy the movie. For us, it told the story just fine.

      • anya

        If you saw the first two films I honestly don’t understand what you would be confused by when seeing POA. I didn’t read the books and I wasn’t at all confused. And I thought this movie was lots of fun while being darker at the same time. It’s just a good movie.

  • Suntrap49

    Half-Blood Prince was the worse movie. They butchered the entire thing and then somehow managed to take all of the emotion out of Dumbledore’s death.

    • chattypatra

      Yes! I was actually angry when I left the theater. Stupid director! He completely ruined what could have been an amazing movie. Every scene felt like: next! next! next! Ugh.

    • MB

      I agree. I mean, it’s a good movie if you separate it from the Harry Potter series. But it’s a lousy Harry Potter movie. It misses all the high points and emphasizes the low points.

      • Liz

        Yes I agree! I really really agree. I went to see Deathly Hallows this weekend with a friend and she ws mad that Harry didn’t wear the invisibility cloak when they left the wedding. I told her at least they didn’t randomly add chunks that NEVER could have happened like in HBP (hello Bellatrix burning the Burrow I’m looking at you)

    • Kathy

      I totally agree…I really disliked HBP (and I loved the book). The emotion is drained, the meat of the story is gone, and the visuals were depressing and blah. I don’t even think it’s a good movie if taken outside of the series.

      • MaxPowers

        I’m not sure if it was the worst, but it was the most disappointing to me. With the story they had to work with, it should have been the best. It was their opportunity to really develop Voldemort and show alot of his backstory, but instead they cut out most of that and spent an hour and a half focusing on the awkwardness of teenage romance…not to mention gliding over what was up to that point the most epic battle in the books and making it extremely anti-climatic.

      • @MaxPowers

        You said this so much better than I could. Disappointing is the best way to describe Half-Blood Prince, for exactly the reasons you stated.

      • Chris

        I agree completely with max. HBP is my least favorite movie because of the final rampage (I refuse to call it a battle) and they way they changed the focus away from voldemort.

        In regards to Sorcerer’s stone, I don’t understand why they are saying it is the worst film. I think it is the best because it followed the book the closest.

    • Dusty

      HBP (movie version) focused on all the wrong things- all the teen melodrama instead of more important things like, say, WHY Snape called himself the Half-Blood Prince, etc. And the changes they made to Harry & Ginny’s relationship always irritated me. HBP was the one movie of the 6 that I really didn’t understand well until I read the book afterwards (I didn’t read the books until after I had seen the movie based on the respective book).

      • Kristin

        Agree with Half-Blood Prince. This was my favorite book because of the Snape backstory. I was so disappointed by the film. Snape is one of the most interesting characters of the books and he really gets backburnered by the films. Such a shame because Alan Rickman is amazing.

    • musica1

      Amen! How could they have left out the entire battle at the end? That was a huge part of the story, so I left the theater feeling cheated.

      • PJ

        Because it too closely mirrors what happens at the end of Deathly Hallows.

    • shopgirl33

      also, i was disappointed that there wasn’t anything about the backstory of Voldemort’s parents. that was so vivid and cinematic in the book and they didn’t even try.

      • K

        That bugged me too. It is the reason I loved the book so much! I think they cut it out of the movie b/c it didn’t involve the main 3 characters.

    • Jennifer

      For me, Half-Blood Prince was on a par with Chamber of Secrets. The action of the last half-hour or so felt totally rushed, and I failed to the see the point of the revelation of the HBP’s identity. I also could’ve done without all of the teenage angst – that part bored me senseless because. But some of it was terrific, and the scenes with the very young Voldemort were excellent, so I’m willing to forgive the parts I didn’t like a lot more than I can 99% of the first movie.

  • Dave

    Yeah, the first two Potter films are the weakest, in my opinion. They’re not bad. They’re still good movies and very enjoyable, but just the weakest of the bunch. I think I realized that more when the later films were released and they were so much more style. Chris Columbus simply isn’t the most skilled filmmaker, although I do admire him for the effort he put into this film.

  • Teresa

    I absolutely disagree! Sorcerer’s Stone was a wonderful and wide-eyed introduction to the wizarding world. Every time I watch it, I get that warm, (pardon the cheesiness) magical feeling. I love feeling like I’m experiencing it for the first time with Harry, Ron, and Hermione. I love knowing that the actors started out just like the characters they played – so little and inexperienced, and new to the world of magic – and then actually took the journey to become what they are today. They didn’t just play the characters – they ARE Harry, Ron, and Hermione. They lived the adventures that their fictional counterparts did. And I love recalling that, and knowing all of what’s going to happen, while watching them grow up on screen.

    I don’t think there is a ‘worst’ Harry Potter, film-wise. I think it’s all going to come down to which one each individual person enjoyed the most, just like with everything else. There are flaws with all them; pacing problems, continuity, and things left out/added that shouldn’t have been. But there is no one that is inferior to rest, just as I believe there is no ‘greatest.’ It’s all Harry Potter, magical and amazing individually, and collectively a masterpiece.

    • Kathy

      Great way to say what I was thinking, Teresa. The wonderment was so great, and just SEEING Hogwarts and the magic for the first time was what it was all about. I actually felt my first disappointment in the third movie. I didn’t agree with Curazon’s vision.

      • Kathy


  • Neil

    One reason the first two movies are so long is that they are also pretty tightly structured mysteries, with tons of clues and puzzle pieces to fit together. Plus the world has to be introduced. So for the plot to work they had to include practically every scene of the books. The later books are much more rambling and digressive, and have more subplots that can just be trimmed out.

    • Mindy

      GOF was a very tightly constructed mystery…. in the book. When the turned it into a movie it turned into a shambles. I am not even sure it is coherent to someone who hasn’t read the book. In fact I was a little confused watching it trying to figure out how the heck they were running the plot without Winky.

      • Dusty

        I hadn’t read the book when I watched GOF, and it made sense to me. The book is a much better story IMO, but the movie was good on its own without knowing what happens in the book version.

  • S

    I’m so glad more people than just me don’t like POA. I just watched it again last night and it is so disjointed. It has horrible pacing problems. And everytime I watch the Shrieking Shack scene I just want to start crying, it was so hacked up from the book.

  • Sigmagrrl

    I loved the cinematography of Prisoner of Azkaban the most. Alfonso Cuaron should have kept directing them. It was luminous, haunting, and magical from the beginning!

    • Mindy


    • Kathy

      Nope…IMHO he wrecked the series with his dark and twisty visuals.

    • lilian

      Prisoner of Azkaban is by far the best Potter film. I never understood why they changed directors. I absolutely loved it. The first two were completely blah, Goblet of Fire was fun, but I didn’t like the Order of the Phoenix and was really disappointed that they had chosen Yates to helm the rest of the series. I guess Half-Blood Prince was not as bad, but I liked the book so much more.

  • Erin

    Good debate. From a huge fan of the books, Sorcerers Stone was not the worst. I felt that the magic was captured more in this one than the others. The worst plot wise was Goblet of Fire. It was too thrown together and it felt like other things could have been added.

    • Tarc

      Totally agree. Goblet of Fire needed two movies to be done properly, and a lot better SFX production house. Way, way too much was left out, leaving the plot disjointed and unmoving. Even the cool stuff in the book was so severely undercut. OoP is my fave book, but it was never going to make the most trilling movie. Honestly, I think DH 1 & 2 will be up there with PoA as the best film (in the stand alone, stylistic sense), but we’ll have to wait to see how it really pulls together when part 2 arrives in July.

Page: 1 2 3 6
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos


TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP