comment #1

btwnproductions says ...

It's a slice of Velveeta for the kiddies every year or so. Surely the dullest movie franchise ever; nothing of any substance, import, or consequence happens. And the last book will make for two movies, extending the boredom.

comment #2

markj says ...

Azkaban was the only film of any interest really. I agree with btwnproductions, the dullest movie franchise ever.

comment #3

ROTC says ...

"They're just big-budget cult movies that spin round and round inside their own ... fishbowl."

Funny, I've heard the same about the last couple of Michael Mann movies.

comment #4

btwnproductions says ...

It's only the third-longest, too...the hours one has to put into this thing to get nothing back except regurgitated cliches.

comment #5

Anonymous Bosch says ...

Well, they are For Kids. It's just there's more money to be made in making it and other stuff people should have long grown out of seem like they're Adult Concerns, hence the laughable Grim and Gritty paintbrush they keep tarring infantile movies with.

But 'Dullest Movie Franchise Ever'? In a world with eleven 'Friday the 13th' movies and thirty-plus 'Carry On' films?

comment #6

MathewM says ...

They're pulp for legions of fans. I never got into the books (haven't read) or films (after the third film they started to blur together and I have no interest now). Understandably I'm too old now and was too old to begin with to enjoy them for what they are, children's entertainment.

I think part of the problem is that the primaries are now old enough to be in college yet isn't Hogwarts kind of like middle school? Anyway, the series is just plain tired at this point.

comment #7

Josh Massey says ...

That's a big cult.

Well, count me in the minority, I guess. These films have gotten better with each installment, and matured as its target audience has. They've never talked down to their viewers, and the producers have certainly spared no expense at getting the best actors Britain has to offer. Compare it to something like Transformers - the Potter films are full of wit, have actual stakes for its characters, and aren't just effects-for-effects-sake.

comment #8

Imogen says ...

Oh, listen to the snobbery! The Potter books are wonderful; the pictures less so, but since the Cuaron have grown progressively better. That review from VARIETY is pretty much a rave. I'll be seeing it; you old farts can play with your dominoes and darts and grumble about Young People.

comment #9

fishhead says ...

I'm getting off your lawn old man.

comment #10

Movie fan09 says ...

MadTv did a Harry Potter sketch when the first one came out where they were in the middle of shooting 'Philosopher's stone'.
as soon as they finished one scene, they broke for lunch, then before the actors reapplied their costumes,makeup,etc they shot the sequel until they were done and with food hanging from dumbledore's mouth.

comment #11

Butters says ...

Agreed Imogen. I think the movies have gotten better as well. I have read all the books and I think the movies are great as well. I think screenwriter Steve Kloves has done a great job with an almost impossible task of adapting the books to the big screen.(He did however take a break and did not write the 5th movie.) Calling these cult movies Jeff? Harry Potter and the Order the Phoenix did somewhere around $290 Million in North America alone. I can understand if you think it is not your thing. However, books six and seven are where the action really gets going. I recommend you give this one a try.

comment #12

lipranzer says ...

I was a latecomer to the books, because I'm naturally suspicious of kid trends (having Disney movies shoved down your throat as a kid will do that for you), but I was hooked. The movies have been a mixed bag - the first one was better than I thought it would be, given that Chris Columbus directed it, but it was still subpar, the second one was the worst, the third one (the Cuaron one) is still the best, the 4th was a step back (the parts were better than the whole), and the 5th was my favorite after the 3rd.

All the movies have been around the 2 1/2 hour mark, so this one's length doesn't surprise me. I do hope this movie solves a problem with the book (it felt like too much of the action was happening off-screen, as it were), and if this truly steps into adult territory, I hope it avoids the tacked-on happy endings of the last two movies (by this I mean the final scenes of both).

comment #13

Agent of Nerd 1 says ...

I completely understand that these films are not for everyone, but to claim "they haven't mattered for years." is so adorable in an elderly sort of way. They matter far more than 95% of the movies discussed on this site as far as the rest of the world is concerned, and not simply in a flavor-of-the-month Transformers way. We'll all be long dead and people will still be reading these books and watching these films. Does it mean they are any good? Nope. Popularity has zilch to do with quality. But that's not what was said. And I know you qualified your statement in the next sentence, but that's such a narrow target audience as to render the entire argument pointless. My grandma doesn't watch anything by Kubrick, but who cares about her narrow minded opinion? His work still matters. You should have just said that many elitist film snobs don't think others will be impressed if they give the Potter films a good review, and what's the point of being better than everyone else if no one acknowledges that fact? That being said, Jeffrey's usual curmudgeonly attitude and the egotistical, contrarian nature of so many comments in post after post, is what makes this site such a joy to read. Everyone is like a Will Ferrell character that loves the sound of their own opinions

comment #14

Skip McCoy, American says ...

They're well enough made, there are certainly worse things (is it even possible to sit through the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie?) but they are the very essence of product cranked out because there's demand, not because anyone is fired up by the possibilities.

comment #15

btwnproductions says ...

I don't see Harry Potter as a phenomenon for the ages, more for this age as the unsold books and DVDs pile up on the shelves.

What I like about the movie series is that there is an endpoint in sight and that, absent of any particular growth, they're easy to ignore in the marketplace. A series that doesn't "get going" till the sixth and seventh installments isn't doing enough to hook my Muggle self, but it's clearly an opiate of the masses.

comment #16

Ulysses says ...

I've seen all of the HP films, despite the fact that I have never been able to get into the sorta fey books. I just enjoy the "world" of the HP films, and don't hold a 153 minute length against the new one. I mean, the goofy Transformers movie is 150 minutes long.

comment #17

larry braverman says ...

"Venture out into the world"??

Obviously you've never read the books, as that statement makes no sense on several levels.

You do know there are books, right? And sometimes people read them on airplanes.

comment #18

frankbooth says ...

I also haven't seen once since the Cuaron. They all look the same to me, and I'm always slightly surprised when another installment comes out. "What? Again? Aren't we done yet?"

The only question is what creature from mythology Rowling will throw in this time. Cyclops, have we had a cyclops yet? Gorgon? Hopping vampire, cupacabra, that guy who smashes your pizza?

Seriously, these started concurrent to the LOTR films, and those ended YEARS ago. (Well, until The Hobbit and The Heavily Embellished Appendices, anyway.)

I suppose you could make the argument that it's interesting and unique in one way: have we ever before literally watched a group of young actors grow up on screen, year after year, before our eyes?

Okay, on TV, many times. Never mind.

comment #19

Pinko Punko says ...

I agree with Massey- they are movies for kids that play much less execrably than say, Finding Nemo, which was supposed to be for the whole family, yet was aimed at four year olds and what passes for what parents of four year olds might think that other parents of four year olds might want their four year olds to watch. The movies are fine. They do a good job of giving the feel of the books, whether one likes the books or not. They do a better job at adaptation than the LOTR movies, which essentially were more soulless and made poorer choices in adaptation, with reasonable casting and decent set design, something that HP movies have on at least equal footing.

comment #20

Chase Kahn says ...

"Well, count me in the minority, I guess. These films have gotten better with each installment, and matured as its target audience has. They've never talked down to their viewers, and the producers have certainly spared no expense at getting the best actors Britain has to offer. Compare it to something like Transformers - the Potter films are full of wit, have actual stakes for its characters, and aren't just effects-for-effects-sake."

Amen...

comment #21

heybub1 says ...

It's an "event" movie for the target market. My 10-ear old and I have seen each one since Azkaban on the (real) IMAX screen and are patiently waiting for this one.
Especially these days when I really have to be picky (money-wise) about what movies to go to -- I know I'll feel good about spending the higher ticket prices AND splurging on food and drinks for HP6. Because guess what her dopey friends are all looking forward to. . . .? "G-Force" ! The freakin' guinea pig movie! I feel superior just writing this.

comment #22

heybub1 says ...

Yeah. . and that would be 10-YEAR old.

comment #23

Yuval says ...

I would like to hear a case for the Harry Potter movies (and the LOTR movies) that doesn't include - "you really need to read the books" (or worse, "you really need to read 4 boring books to get to the good stuff"), "the first ones were really dumb but the rest of them were not as dumb", "a lot of people love them so it's ok for me to love them", "the magical world engulfs you" and the recent favorite (weather it be for Harry Potter or Public Enemies) - "hey, at least it's not transformers".

You have terminal cancer, but at least it's not transformers. That movie was long.

comment #24

Rodrigo says ...

Please, Jeff, your self-importance knows no limits. "Certainly not to people like me." Certainly. For the rest of us -- the kiddies with their parents, the costumed geeks in line hours before midnight shows, and those of us who are, in fact, quite like you -- "Harry Potter" is escapist entertainment at its very best, packing political relevance (you would laugh at the notion, "certainly," but your opinion really has no stock beyond that initial dismissal.

"Transformers" doesn't matter, Jeff. "Shrek" is also a throwaway, a harmless diversion that packs in the dummies every three years or so. When Paul Blart is enjoying his third or fourth go in theaters as many years from now and still raking in reliable big bucks, go ahead and rant. At least your absence from the movie's collective audience wouldn't invalidate your regard for the paying masses as beneath you. Hell, I would argue the same about "Star Wars," but then again I have actually SEEN the inexplicably beloved messes that comprise the franchise, so that's neither here nor there, really.

Get over yourself, now, and go rent HP and the Order of the Phoenix. You're probably too stubborn and well beyond the point of no return once your God complex has processed an opinion into certifiable fact, but if you allow yourself (and it won't take more than 5 minutes to be pinned) the opportunity to see the film for what it is -- a dark, complex political thriller outfitted in the Potter world of magic and fantasy and styled in accordance with the maturity level of the action and characters in the story and the later films themselves.

Framing your original announcement of inherent superiority to reflect reality, you'd have to acknowledge, the people like you -- the relatively small legion of engaged intellectuals whose moviegoing habits and anticipations are governed by the same basic set of elements that divide upscale audiences whose weekend at the movies ("Sin Nombre," say) is worlds apart from the sold out mall crowds packed into every showing of "Friday the 13th," "Paul Blart," "Bride Wars,," et. al. -- who experienced Public Enemies as the rarest of subversive Hollywood spectacles (an art film in tentpole's clothing) and sought out the quiet, devastating nuances of Susanne Bier's "Things We Lost in the Fire" in favor of joining the mallrats at whichever "Saw" was packing 'em deep next door.

I'm a big fan, and your pomposity is endearing to a point, especially when fired back to counter the equally arbitrary authority of, say, David Poland, often resulting in the kind of banal antagonism that is rarely on display among real-world adults and provides a wild display of entertainment unavailable in most circles. Certainly not in the circles of people like me, anyway. (But in every sandbox at every elementary school across the globe, and wherever else children convene to trade meaningless assertions of their own righteousness in any given scuffle over any given toy while blithely oblivious to the actual world around them)

comment #25

hunterd says ...

I donno, part 5 was cool for the last 20 minutes when it turned into a 200 million dollar remake of Phantasm.

comment #26

Sonic Boom says ...

Calling them "cult movies" when they make a billion bucks every time out? There's a lot of people who've never read the books yet still see the movies.

comment #27

George Prager says ...

These films won't stand the test of time, they are time wasters for children and fat chicks and men with very small penises.

comment #28

COCO says ...

Kids love the movies.....teens love them.....
some adults love them......I can take them or leave them....meh.....popcorn anyone?

comment #29

frankbooth says ...

"....part 5 was cool for the last 20 minutes when it turned into a 200 million dollar remake of Phantasm."

Flying silver balls drill everyone in the head? Now THAT I'd watch.

Please explain.

comment #30

Imogen says ...

George Prager said:

"These films won't stand the test of time, they are time wasters for children and fat chicks and men with very small penises."

Obviously Prager finds other things to do when watching a Potter film. Cruising the mens bathroom .for hours each day would appear to be one of them.

comment #31

erniesouchak says ...

Dullest movie franchise ever? Give "Twilight" some time.

comment #32

bluetide says ...

I disagree with Jeff. Cuaron's outing was my favorite, and I won't lie that I've been a little disappointed with the two releases since, but the Harry Potter films are so much better than 99% of the major studio swill that passes for entertainment. The books are well-crafted and very entertaining. The movies are well-crafted, exceptionally cast, and very entertaining. I thought Prisoner of Azkaban broke the mold for the series visually, but the last two installments were still a lot more interesting and compelling than the first two. Whenever I get down about the popularity of crap like Transformers, I remind myself that plenty of kids are watching Pixar and the Harry Potter films too.

comment #33

MovieBob says ...

I read the first book back before it was a "thing" and didn't think it was all-that, thought the first movie was pretty good, haven't elected to "continue/finish" the books yet, etc.

But I like these movies. A lot. The repetition (holding so reverently to Rowling's semester-by-semester plotting was probably a mistake, as #1 and #2 could EASILY have been one movie and better off for it) lessens some of the impact since it makes them bleed together, but the fact is that this is a feature series made by a major studio and a revolving-door of directors that has somehow managed to maintain a VERY good cast consistently and still never offer up a truly bad installment. It's easily, unless I'm forgetting something, the most artistically-successful "serialized" movie series EVER. What comes close? The Connery Bonds, maybe?

I don't care if the subject-matter is your thing or not, if they actually "stick the landing" on this thing, the taken-as-a-whole result will belong up there with the "Up Documentaries" "LOTR" or "Berlin Alexanderplatz" in terms of "wow, you pulled that off!" filmmaking accomplishments of all time.

comment #34

hunterd says ...

RE:frankbooth

Yeah...it has young teen chased down long, dark corridors by floating metal orbs controlled by an evil, skeletonlike man.

Seriously, I laughed hysterically throughout the climax of that movie.

comment #35

chad_pole says ...

"Seriously, these started concurrent to the LOTR films, and those ended YEARS ago."

What an asinine comment. The LOTR films ended because there were only 3 books. I'm sure if Tolkien had written 7 like Rowling did, you drooling fanboys would be still be lining up to watch 4 midgets fight fake looking cgi armies of 10 million faceless snotty faced monsters and somehow win every time.

The 15 different endings of "Return of the King" felt longer than all the Potter movies combined.

comment #36

frankbooth says ...

So ROTK had too many endings? Why, that's some mighty sharp criticism, I've never heard anyone --

-- Phantasm orb, right behind you! Duck, Chad!

comment #37

Aladdin Sane says ...

I hope that this is good. I've enjoyed the films - even if they vary in quality. I'm not expecting the world to be changed from this..a somewhat faithful adaptation will be a welcome thing. I'd rather watch 7 HP movies than 7 Transformers' films. That much is for sure.

comment #38

DeeZee says ...

I guess this is for Jeff. http://new.music.yahoo.com/michael-jackson/news/fans-overlook-michael-jackson39s-dark-side--61991203

comment #39

Doug Pratt says ...

Two factors set the Harry Potter series apart as a unique cinematic experience. the first is that there has never been a series having anywhere near as many installments with a single narrative arc outside of television. The secondis that, by the time the series is ended, the actors will have aged in what is close to 'real time' so that if you then watch all of the films in order, you can see them grow before your eyes. That's movie magic for real.

comment #40

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

I might feel differently if the producers were to venture out into the world and leave Hogwarts behind, but that's never been in the cards.

It's never been on the cards because unlike most Hollywood clusterfuck franchises, this one actually respects the source material and so doesn't have Harry and pals going on madcap adventures in Beverly Hills just to please jaded critics.

They're exceptionally well-made films and they have more warmth and heart than 99% of other kids' movies. And the supporting cast is excellent.

comment #41

chad_pole says ...

@ frankbooth

Haha, oops, too late.

comment #42

mizerock says ...

The more recent books included a scathing and infuriating portrayal of the previous American administrations obsession with secrecy, torture, and the disregard of science / "facts". Hardly fluffy disposable kids stuff.

comment #43

Skip McCoy, American says ...

And then, like so many movies from liberal Hollywood, they can't help providing the justification for standing firm against an implacable enemy and not giving in to trendy defeatism or pacifism...

comment #44

micamayer1 says ...

would u like to find some we all interested in...here is a interesting dating site named ------Tallfinder C o m ------where many sexy singles who like making friends and chatting there..welcome to join us and hope u get some fun..