Saw The Dark Knight last night...

I watched this again a couple of weeks ago. It wasn't as terrible as I remembered from the theater. I watched it in two parts, over two nights. I think that helped me enjoy it more. The movie is way, way too long. The story didn't get better unfortunately, but the effects, I thought, are still very good.

 

The effects were great, and if they had stuck to main plotlines, it might have worked better, but instead you really had three main plots and none went anywhere.
And I think Spidey 3 lived up to the rule that the third movie in the trilogy is likely going to suck.
I believe it is known as the Godfather 3 rule.

And because I freely admit my nerd, loser status, I will go see the next Superman movie in the theater.
What is the nerd word on Hancock? I'm getting an "it stinks" vibe.

 

My interest level is at -2.

 

Die Hard with a Vengeance was awesome.

 

The only three-quel I can think of that breaks the Godfather3 Rule is LOTR: Return of the King.

 

Die Hard with a Vengeance kicked the crap out of part 2. I'd say I even enjoyed it more than the original.

ROTK wasn't a three-quel. It was part three of one long, long ass movie.

I haven't seen it but I've heard the third Harry Potter was decent.

Also, Rocky 3 had Mr. T. That was one good mofo. Mission Impossible 3 was solid as well.

 

Harry Potter 3 (The Prizoner of Azkaban) was, indeed, a big step up from the first two films. The two subsequent films have been even better and, based on the source material, the sixth should be the best of all (even better than 7).
Another example: I was disappointed in Return of the Jedi, but Revenge of the Sith is pretty good.

 

The only way the Prisoner of Azkaban film was better than the first two is because its plot was different than "weird thing haunts school, Harry must confront it, get terrorized by a teacher, and finally win before Dumbledore visits him in the hospital and eats a nasty-flavored jelly bean."

The third Harry Potter film was a complete joke. A new director comes in, and wants to change a few things. So now, after it has stood for millennia, Hogwarts' gounds have a few things moved, and some designs changed, because Alfonso Cuaron had to make "his" Harry Potter movie. Yay, let's just move these things around, because you know, no one will notice (other than most critics and many eagle-eyed fans).

The map of the school made its first appearance in Prisoner of Azkaban. I'm still waiting for them to explain who the names on it were. Oh, I know because I know people who read the books. But Prisoner of Azkaban was clearly made by a guy who didn't care what came before, and didn't care what comes after. He didn't care enough to attempt to fit his film into established mythology, or set up the future stories. He just wanted to make it like a Bond movie, with a formula and no thought to anything other than what he was doing with that script on that day.

Of course, the Harry Potter films are one massive missed opportunity anyway. Yes, I know they make a lot of money. But considering what was done with the Lord of the Rings DVDs, it's amazing that the Harry Potter films' DVD releases don't each contain all the stuff that would fill the plot holes that happen when you have to cut from a long book to make a movie. Where IS that 40 minutes of movie that is missing from Prisoner of Azkaban?

Because, you know . . . . there HAD to be more, right?

Godfather III didn't create this rule, it followed it. Superman III, anyone?

 

I agree with a lot of your assesment of Azkaban, Piotr. However, I think you can't pick on the new director too much for changing things. If having perfect continuity was that important, they should have kept the same director throughout (and not started with Columbus).
They've actually done this at the end. They had Columbus for the first two, then Cuoron, then Mike Newell, then David Yates for Phoenix and Half Blood Prince and he's signed on to do the two-part finale.
Also, there is a lot of the book missing from 3, but that's true with all the films. Consider that the longest book (5) is the shortest of the movies.

 

And that's why the films are such a missed opportunity.

Fine, put in theaters the movie that will bring in the most viewers. Good call. But let's get some uber DVDs out there too. The whole series, compared to LOTR, just has sort of a "quick and dirty" vibe to it.

 

100 percent agree. I've made that argument since the series started. I have the LOTR deluxes and would pay the money for the equivalent HP.

 

Me too, and I don't care to read the HP books.

But you bet I'd watch a four-plus hour HP movie.

And I am glad they finally have settled on a dorector. The tone of the series changes so much, it makes sense to have someone different direct the first couple and the final three. I just wish Cuaron had displayed more respect for the work of the others.