“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” 138 Minutes Long


May 26, 2007

Posted by SueTLC

The British Board of Film Classification has updated their site to include the running time of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. This movie will run 138 minutes 4s long (2hours 18 minutes) and has been given a 12A rating for the UK (pg-13 here in the States).
Thanks shinnsky!

72 Responses to “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” 138 Minutes Long

Avatar Image says: I can't wait for it to come out!!Avatar Image says: WOW!!! I CANT WAIT!!!! THE FIRST TIME I POST... AND I COME IN SECOND!!!Avatar Image says: awwww man i was expecting at least 2 hr 40 minAvatar Image says: shorter than goblet of fire? that's interesting...Avatar Image says: I think that makes it the shortest movie so far. I'm actually very happy with that because I think it's the most easily condensed book - the book has a lot of repetition (eg DA lessons, detentions, classes), is relatively class-bound and it moves fairly slowly for the first three quarters of the novel. The structure of the other novels means there are more disparate but integral threads that have to be drawn together, whereas in OotP the subplots (such as Ron's quidditch glory) are more easy to leave out without harming the overall plot. In OotP, although the book is slow and detailed, it follows a beautifully linear path so I'm glad to think it will be tightly paced.Avatar Image says: Does anyone know exactly how much shorter than the other films this is?Avatar Image says: And that's including credits I presume? hmmmAvatar Image says: I am fine with this being the shortest film as long as it is the best. Because this book is so dense, like a poster before me said, it is pretty easy to shave off some stuff and really get to the meat of the story. Two hours is a very long film, still. Just look at The Matrix, which is 136 minutes long and everything they included in it. Don't worry, wait till the movie comes out. As much as the fan in me wants it to be 4 hours long, this is probably best. I am looking forward to a very good movie and can not wait!Avatar Image says: God THAT is SHORT!!Avatar Image says: that' s so coooooool............ i have a doubt though........is this the shortest HP movie???Avatar Image says: GoF was 157 minutes, Azkaban was 140 minutes... this is quite a bit shorter. It's a bit disappointing, but I'll deal with it. I don't understand why it has to be so short though, even the new Pirates 3 movie is much longer!Avatar Image says: It's not very long, for example the last Pirates of Caribeans last 2h48 and it's not such a great story ! And Yates declared several months ago that he shot a 3 hours movie. I think WB is going to release a long version on dvd, at least I hope so !Avatar Image says: Normally, I'd go off on a 10-page rant here, but I have faith in David Yates. If the trailers/pre-screenings are anything to go by, this film will be positively amazing, and it doesn't look as if he left much out. However, this does raise my concerns for HBP. That book is significantly more dense and doesn't have many of those subplots one cna just cut from OotP. HBP better be at least 160. I mean, Spiderman 3 was 140 and no one complained that it was too long. And let's face it, HP is a bit mroe compellign that Spiderman.Avatar Image says: NOOO ITS TOO SHORT, I WANT IT POTC: At WORLD'S END LENGTH WAAAAAAH 12A woohooAvatar Image says: It is all in the manner in which it is done. Let us wait and see, a famous british saying. Have a nice week end.Avatar Image says: This is qute a disappointment. GoF had plenty of pacing problems and it was 157 minutes. And it was still a very linear storyline: The QWC, the Tournament, Task 1, 2, 3, Voldemort returns. I think OotP has a more complex structure. It has a number of plotlines that are all sort of progressing together and being told at the same time: the DA lessons and preparing for the big battle; the Ministry's policies and the state of things at Hogwarts; the mystery of Harry's mind connection with Vold., his dreams, Occlumency lessons, etc.. and his relationships with Sirius, and with Cho. All this stuff has to be maintained throughout the whole film until the climax and I think for this reason the film deserved a running time of at least 2 1/2 hrs to give each of these plotlines its due importance. I mean, looking at GoF's 157 minutes and the horrible pacing problems it had, I can't help worrying about OotP being a whole 20 minutes shorter. I'm not always for longer movies, but I believe this movie would have benefited from a longer run. Still, I can't really judge as I haven't seen the film, and maybe they know better. Maybe they managed to include all the important stuff with the right pacing, though I doubt it now with this news. And yes, HermyG13, this includes the credits, so the film itself will be about 2h07 long. Quite short indeed.Avatar Image says: You are right Andrew nothing really interesting happens In the middle part of HBP The beginning is interesting- first 5 chapters, than there is a extremely boring middle part – there is nothing in there except LOVE , I honestly had a very strong urge to skip a couple of pages to the next lesson with Dumbledore ( It was like some kind of a cheap soap opera – I’m actually really disappointed. I thought Rowling would never write anything that will make me want to skip pages. Finally there is the amazing ending ( chapters THE CAVE and onwards) . So, yes if Yates is able to turn the whole LOVE plotline into something that won’t make me want to vomit, than I think it should be a pretty good movie (and one that you can easily squeeze into 2 hours time).Avatar Image says: You have to wonder at the reasoning that limits a film of OotP to 138 minutes, when LOTR-Return of the King ran 200 minutes--more than an HOUR longer. And that was the second highest grossing film of ALL TIME. There is obviously some deliberate marketing strategy at work here, and I could only guess at what it might be.Avatar Image says: LAME! The longest book becomes the shortest film...Avatar Image says: That's crazy! Far too short!Avatar Image says: Um, wow. Think they'll have an EXTENDED VERSION ON THE DVD (HINTHINT WB) because it being so short is just like why PoA shouldn't have been so flighty and short. I don't see HOW they can cram it all (which they most likely can't, so we get what they think is important from the script). Personally, I LIKE long movies that last almost 3 hrs - I can deal with that 2 HRs and 45 min, because sometimes the story doesn't make sense without a bit more plot. I don't understand why people would want to leave early unless they had somewhere important to be... *sigh* Rant over. Avatar Image says: Not as short as I expected, i remember hearing rumours it was going to be 2 hours on the dot. They obviously want it short, considering that one of the big complaints about Pirates of the Carribean and Spidey 3 was that it was too long (over 2 1/2 hrs). I disagree that there will be big pacing problems in this film. OTP seems to flow a bit better than GOF, which is a bit more clunky, meaning that it sometimes felt rushed. I think the shortest one to date (dont quote me) is Azkaban, while the longest was I believe Chamber of Secrets.Avatar Image says: A decent running time-good! PS and COS were far too long as were some of this year's blockbusters (Pirates3 and Spidey3). The book OotP itself could have done with some cuts. I hope this means Yates has been focusing on quality not quantity.Avatar Image says: I am surprised no one has commented on the rating it has received. Sure the movie is the shortest so far, but at least they seem to be maintaining the spirit of it by not toning it down. I'm VERY glad it's PG-13 again!Avatar Image says: I'm not bothered about the length - once upon a time films were 90 minutes - anything longer smacked of self-indulgence. A great film is a great film - length has nothing to do with it. Those who judge the film by how much of the book is kept or left out will always be disappointed.Avatar Image says: This means I can get popcorn and a drink! I survived POTC3 with them, so I can definitely survive this. I think it will be paced just fine. I think this means is that they didn't add scenes that don't even reflect what happened in the book (like GOF did). It's only a little shorter than POA, which is my favorite HP movie. Yeah, the book is much, much longer, but a lot of it is description of setting, which can be established with a good shot. They kept Tonks, a relatively minor character, being a Metamorphagus (sp?), so I'm happy. That means they concentrate on the characters, instead of just the plot (like GOF). I'm happy. I can't wait to see it! Avatar Image says: ok, this is the most retarded thing I ever heard of! the longest book turning into the shortest film? what the heck is up with that?? David Yates said he shot over a 3 hour film so why wouldn't he just leave most of it in..or ok make it at least 2hr and 30 minutes like the rest. wow this is soo annoying. POA was 140 which I thought was waay too short and fast paced until they got to the end. OOTP being two minutes shorter than POA is just ridiculous. what is their problem??!? honestly other films like lord of rings were much much longer and no one complained..and fans love long films..and if you don't then there's something wrong with you..I mean why would you want a shorter Harry Potter film?? really!? ugh, I guess I'll have to deal with it but I'm just really nervous now that the pacing is going to be screwed up and they're going to leave out too much for the story to make sense..we'll see, maybe they did a great job...but I still think they should rethink putting some of the footage that was cut back in. they'd better put an extended version out on dvd, because if they don't that's just insane..why would you shoot 3 hours of footage and then have 45 minutes of it go to waste!!! ugh sooo annoying!! the length of these films has always annoyed..i always though they should be 2 hr 45 minutes to 3 hours but nooo, WB has to cut them down. wow soo not cool. sorry for the rant everyone, but seriously, the more Harry, the better right?? and OOTP is longest book, so it should at least be 2 hr and 30 min..come on!!!!!!Avatar Image says: 2 hours and 18 minutes? That seems too long to me. I guess that's WITH credits though. If credits are included in that then I think the running time is fine. Avatar Image says: Oh my god! That is so short! Its the longest book but the shortest movie. Thats wierd. I have hope that that means that David Yates made up no "fake scenes". It acually isn't that bad because a lot of the book was ROR meetings which they only need to put 2 or 3 of them in. That makes the amount of parts needed to put in shrink. Same thing with Olcullumcy lessons with Snape. They only need 1- The Worst Memory, maybe 2. Avatar Image says: Now that we know the running time, it's true this will be the shortest film (4 minutes shorter than PoA, so for those complaining that PoA was to short just remember this is an adaptation okay, it won't be exactly like the book and it shouldn't be. Film is film, and books are books). My biggest concern is that they will skip over important information (remember Yates saying he shot a 3+ hour movie) and that it will be too fast paced and choppy (there were times in GoF that were too choppy). Also, remember that credits include the runtime, so if they do another 10+ minute credit sequence (like GoF) I'm a little worried. I heard a story not to long ago saying that WB ordered Yates to cut down the film because the movie "Grindhouse" was a flop (people say the 3+ hour runtime scared them away) and they didn't want "Potter" to make less money because of the running time. We also know now that the movie Yates showed in Chicago, the test screening of OotP, as been cut down vastly too (it was 2 hours, 25 minutes long without credits. This means we may get less Giny, Neville, Umbridge, Hagrid, Grawp, etc. So my fellow fans, most of you will be angry and the changes, cuts, etc. but remember this is a film, not a book. Could they make it longer, sure. As a director I would love to tease the audience with Ron being choked to death by a brain, Hermione almost dying by the hands of a death eater, and more. I love when a film teases the audience. Now that I've said so much about the running time, I still feel this will be the best movie of the series. Think about it, if you had 2 hours to tell someone the whole story of OotP, could you? With a shorter run time the film might feel tighter, unlike the first two. The main story (Harry's story) will be there, and the "feel" and tone of the story will be there. So remember, these films are about Harry, NOT Ron, Hermione, Snape, Neville, Dumbledore, Hagrid, Ginny, Sirius, etc. So, lets enjoy the movie when it comes out, and thank you for reading my comment. Bye. Avatar Image says: Most films work best at an approximate running time of 2 hours. Anything significantly less than that or significantly more than that is considered either too short or too long. Other than Fellowship, in my opinion the other two LotR movies were absolute crap and wayyyyyyyyy too long. This is GREAT news. Look at all the negative criticism Spider-Man and Pirates have received for being too overbloated with plot points and epic nearly three hour running times. Order of the Phoenix had A LOT of unnecessary filler in it and the actual story and plot itself is quite simple. -Harry learns about Order and Ministry/goes to trial -Umbridge takes control of Hogwarts/students form DA -DA fights back/gets ri of Umbridge/goes to Ministry -Harry discovers prophecy/Sirius dies/Voldemort gets away The End Big deal. That needs three hours? Uh--I DON'T THINK SO.Avatar Image says: If Yates thinks this is the right running time then this is good news. If WB persuaded him to make the film shorter, then I don't like it!Avatar Image says: It's the longest book in the series, but the shortest movie so far? This film had better be good.Avatar Image says: It may be the longest (and in my opinion, BEST!) book of the series but it has a lot of aspects and minor plot points that can easily be taken out without ruining the main points of the story. There was a lot of other things going on that the typical movie goer wouldn't be very interested in knowing about, thus the most important bits of the story all put together is a little over 2 hours long. Sounds good enough to me.Avatar Image says: That's good. I mean, it seems like they'll have left a lot out, but it's like WB said, in the book there's a lot of descriptions and the descriptions that go on for two or three pages in the book only take about ten seconds on screen because you just see places. And I'm glad it's not ridiculously long.Avatar Image says: Since this comes from a British site and I've heard over on IMDb that British DVDs have a shorter time on the cover than the US ones, this may be the time without credits. It would be cool if Leaky could find out for sure. *bats eyelashes and holds out a cookie*Avatar Image says: Sue, your a lean mean news machine this week!!! So far I have every confidance in Yates. The trailers blew me away, the details in the reports from Melissa Andrew and John blew me away! Im going to continue trusting his judgment because every single tidbit of movie information we've recieved has exceeded my expectations.(except the Weasley is our King plot, but understandable.) He has been the one director to stick this close to the books details that I think, even though the movies merley two hours again, that he will prove to have made the correct judgments for the movies sake. Avatar Image says: Its shorter that GoF, but its the longest book?! What the hell?! Oh well, its better than the rest, cuz if its not, that's just not fair to give us so little. Avatar Image says: OK, there are many things going through my head: * I trust David Yates because I have no reason not to, and I've only heard praise from his work in OotP and previous projects. * I want the movies to be long and include all the details in the book, but I know that though it is possible, it's never going to happen in the money-driven movie industry that we have; It just wouldn't sell well. Obviously they want to appeal to the mases and thats fine since it's their film! But, still I can't keep from feeling a bit dissapointed about them directing the films toward the cashflow and not the loyal fans who want true-to-the-books films with no details left out. * I, though, go back to the first point here since I've read in interviews that they tried to include many details, even if they occur in the background. Basically I'm having a pre-anxiety attack! So much hype and the movie and the BOOK drawing closer and closer; they're almost tangible! It's just too much exitement to have my brain working properly... The latent content to all this: I JUST CAN'T WAIT! BEST SUMMER EVER! BEST YEAR EVER!Avatar Image says: For those saying that Yates shot 3 hours and should use 3 hours you are missing an important distinction. He likely shot far more footage (if I remember rightly LOTR had 200+ HOURS of footage to edit down to 12ish hours), so his "I have a 3+ hour movie" comment meant that one of his early drafts of the movie (probably one he liked) was at 3 hours. It seems obvious to me, the studios demanded he make it a length like the other films (no matter how many pages the book is) so as not to mess with the success "formula". Beancounters the lot of them. Oh well we always have the book and (maybe) an extended edition DVD set in 3-5 years (when the sell everyone the regular version).Avatar Image says: As much as I am a fan of the books, I am sort of glad OOTP is shorter than the previous movies because that means the pace is quicker, we get the meaty part of the story right then and there's less filler to contend with. I am a bit ticked that OOTP isn't as least 2 hours and 30 minutes long, to give the story proper breathing room. I fear that the movie will feel rushed and I am positive some die-hard fans will be in an uproar over what is cut and/or given short shrift. If this is David Yates's true vision, then I applaud him for this. But if the WB forced him to make it shorter than even POA, it probably won't be that good. And mollywobbles, you're talking about PAL DVDs -- OOTP hasn't been released on DVD yet! DVD video frame rates and the normal frame rate for a projected film are very different.Avatar Image says: "For those saying that Yates shot 3 hours and should use 3 hours you are missing an important distinction. He likely shot far more footage (if I remember rightly LOTR had 200+ HOURS of footage to edit down to 12ish hours), so his "I have a 3+ hour movie" comment meant that one of his early drafts of the movie (probably one he liked) was at 3 hours." It's true, that they would have many more hours of actual footage, and I like you, think that the original script that they shot was three hours long. However, David Yates has been saying since October that he knew he would have cut it to two hours fifteen minutes, in fact I will give you the exact quote: "The book's huge, but it actually distills quite easily. That said, I've shot a movie that's probably over three hours, so I'll have to lose 45 minutes in the edit." So clearly, there was an agreement with the studio at the start that the theatrical release of the film would be two hours and fifteen minutes, and honestly, this is not surprising. Putting aside the rabid fans, feedback that WB received about the first two films said that they were too long (and to be honest, those two films could have been better edited, an opinion I know will make me unpopular with some, lol), King Kong would have done much better if it was 2hr 15 mins instead of three hours, and you can't compare everything to LOTR (which in my opinion could also have lost 15 mins or more in the theatrical release and left more for the extended editions). Without the intermissions of the past (and we aren't getting them back) a three hour theatrical release is an indulgence. You have to have a really good reason to release a three hour film because most audiences don't want to sit there for that long, and despite what many people here think, the majority of people who go to a Harry Potter film don't read the books. What I think has happened this time is that WB have finally given in to the idea of a HP film that is filmed with an extended edition in mind (rather than just adding back in deleted films as has been done with previous flims), just as Jackson did with LOTR, and they have said "Ok, 2hr 15 min theatrical cut, three hour extended edition DVD". If David Yates can do a 2hr 18 min edit that works as a theatrical release, that flows well and gives us the meat of the story in the book (which is very episodic, and therefore ripe for cutting down for a film), I will be satisfied, especially if I know an extended edition, with some of those other moments added back in that will flow better on DVD than in a theatre, is on the way at some point. However, as usual, I will reserve judgement until I actually see the film on July 12th. Avatar Image says: I like everything I've seen so far. So I will just sit back, relax, and see how the movie looks; then I will decide about the length. It's only a few minutes less than PoA. GoF was longer and I enjoyed PoA more; so length doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the movie. Yates has done pretty well so far, so let's just wait and see.Avatar Image says: NOT LONG ENOUGH! NOT LONG ENOUGH! GRRRR!!! Avatar Image says: About the same as POA which is my favoriteAvatar Image says: Urgh, Pirates 3 (which I just saw) was terribly long and some of it was really boring and dragged. I guess I think that HP wouldn't really be boring if ANY of the plot or subplots were kept in. But Pirates and Spidey 3 both had too many subplots and unnecessary things, so I think OOTP can afford to lose a bit of bulk. Though most of what I've seen is good, the comments really have puzzled me- I think they're using some of the wrong angles about Harry "being possessed", but whatever. I am really expecting a LOT from this movie, but I'm more excited for HBP because that'll be a bit harder to do what with most of it being Harry's thoughts.I wonder how they'll pull off getting Harry to like Ginny if she's not really emphasize in OotP? I'm excited to see what they do with Voldemort's story; all the flashbacks and the Pensieve!Avatar Image says: As others have mentioned, what is key is whether the editing process had sufficient time and the proper footage to make a 2h 18m movie that works. As in it feels complete and everything in the story is readily understandable. For instance, Pirates 3 had close to 3 hours and was still ridiculously overstuffed with unneeded characters and storylines, which is hard to understand since they're making their own script and not adapting a 700+ page book. The success of a movie depends on the audience understanding and appreciating the story and connecting with the characters. That means making it work for people who may not have read the books too. If you try to do too much like Spidey and Pirates did this summer, the movie suffers for it. As long as Yates is still able to tell the story he wants to tell without things looking rushed or incoherent on-screen, it will be fine. This means no minor plotlines like Quidditch and fewer sidestories and bit parts. No St Mungo's Hospital. Movies have to get to the point...pleasing fans is great but if the average movie goer can't enjoy and appreciate Harry Potter then they haven't done the on-screen story justice.Avatar Image says: HELL NO! The rough cut was 140-145 minutes long without the end credits and this is 138 minutes WITH the end credits? NOOOOOO... Avatar Image says: Pirates 3, LoTR's (2 and 3) and Spidey 3, were all far too long!! It doesn't matter about the running time as long as it is a quality film. So i reserve judgement until i see it. Just remember though, this is the film, not the book. Its about Harry and Harry only. As for Ginny, i'm prepared for little screentime as long as her character/attitude is shown. (ie: Patronus) She'll have her time in HBP and most likely DH as well. Weasley is our King? I have a feeling that might make an appearance in HBP, as surely they must include quidditch in that one. Avatar Image says: For those saying movies like LOTR, King Kong and POTC 3 were too long and tedious, I agree, but there's quite a big difference here between 3 hours and 2h15. I would have been fine with 2h30 which is the typical length for a HP movie, but why decide to make it the shortest of all is what I can't get. I want to ask David Yates about that. When the fansites collect questions from the fans to ask the cast/crew at the premieres, that will be my first question to ask. I want to know what went on their minds with that decision, and it was WB's or the filmmaker's decision. For those asking how long the other movies were, here are the running times from longest to shortest (including the credits): CoS - 2h41m GoF - 2h37m PS/SS - 2h32m PoA - 2h22m OotP - 2h18mAvatar Image says: Surely anyone who calls themselves a Harry Potter fan would sit through a SIX HOUR version of Order of the Phoenix - I certainly would!! Who cares if the general cinema-going public wouldn't like it? OK Warner Bros please explain why the longest book (and my favourite so far) has to become the shortest film!! Keep your 138 mins for the cinema, but give me a four-six hour version on DVD!! It's a crime to leave anything out of this fantastic book when bringing it to the screen. And please don't let Yates loose on the next one - he'll chop that to pieces as well!! Oh, by the way, following on from some of the other comments, POA was the worst film so far in my opinion.Avatar Image says: I don't mind that the film is only 2 hours and 18 minutes long. People who went to the test screening said that it was only 140 minutes long anyway. I think this might be a blessing in disguise. Think about it, Spiderman 3 was over 2 and a half hours long and it got mixed reviews from critics. Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is practically 3 hours long and it received poor reviews. One of the main problems critics pointed out with these films was the running time: It was too long. So, I don't think the running time of this film would be a problem to critics. This film has already received positive reviews, despite the running time (and that was when the special effects weren't finished). I personally can't wait for this film to come out. I do think it will be the most acclaimed blockbuster to be released this year. The summer blockbusters that have been released already (Spiderman 3, Pirates of the Caribbean 3 and Shrek 3) haven't received that many good reviews. So the bar has been set pretty low. Even if this film only receives good to okay reviews, they will still be much better than the reviews Norbit received earlier this year. Avatar Image says: WTH .....David yates please put in another 15 or 20 minutes. 2 hours and 18 minutes is gonna ruin the film. Avatar Image says: Hey who posted something like 20 times! Anyway I don't see why the time matters because what mater is quality of the movie.Avatar Image says: "WTH .....David yates please put in another 15 or 20 minutes. 2 hours and 18 minutes is gonna ruin the film." You don't know that until you see the film. Longer doesn't necessarily mean better.Avatar Image says: aw I really wanted it to be 2 hours & a 1/2Avatar Image says: For those wondering why WB might want to shorten the film, it's probably due to the money the film will make. The shorter the film, the more screenings can be seen. Also, if I recall correctly, each "Potter" film has been making less and less money at the box office. But, just because it's shorter doesn't mean it will be the worst in the series. I think this film may be the worst adaptation in terms of things they change, cut, etc., BUT it WILL be the best film in the series. Plus, when you think about it, 2 hours and 18 minutes (actually about 2 hours, 8 minutes without credits, maybe) is a long time. Well, I guess we will have to wait to see how the film turns out.Avatar Image says: "Oh, by the way, following on from some of the other comments, POA was the worst film so far in my opinion." [Fred]I beg your pardon?[/Fred] POA to me really captured the soul and essence of the book nicely. Sure it deviated from the book in some instances, but to me it felt like a complete, satisfying and magical film. Cuaron really understood the psyche and motives of the characters, as well as the "passing of time" theme. I really hope Yates did that for OOTP, but the short running time still worries me though.Avatar Image says: I completely agree with Matthew. PoA was the only thing out of this series that ressembled a great movie. Only the purists don’t like it, and I still don’t really understand why, b/c in my opinion GoF changed and cut out much more stuff than PoA did, and worse than that, it derivated from the spirit and feel of the book, whereas PoA retained all the beauty and magical atmosphere. I have faith in Yates, and I’m willing to believe that he will outdo Cuaron, although the running time does worry me. - Fran siad: “I don't mind that the film is only 2 hours and 18 minutes long. People who went to the test screening said that it was only 140 minutes long anyway.” No, they said it was around 2h30 hours WITHOUT the credits. That means 20 minutes were cut since then. - “I think this might be a blessing in disguise. Think about it, Spiderman 3 was over 2 and a half hours long and it got mixed reviews from critics. Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is practically 3 hours long and it received poor reviews.” Spider-Man 3 had the exact same length as OotP. It was 140 minutes long including credits. I didn’t feel it was too long. I felt it was a typical length for this type of movies and I actually liked it. But the critics didn’t not b/c of the running time, but b/c of the plotlines, and a less satisfying story, dialogue acting, etc.. The running time isn’t what makes critics like a movie or not. The LOTR movies were 3 hours long and had fanstastic reviews. POTC 3 didn’t b/c the story and the special effects, battles, etc.. became tiresome and repetetive after the first movie. And when you hve repetetive stuff and a bad story running for 3 hours, critics will be mentioning the running time in their reviews. That doesn’t mean that the fact a movie is long = bad reviews. It all depends on the story you’ve got to tell. I still think OotP would have benefited from a longer runningt time than all these blockbusters.Avatar Image says: So it all depends what was cut and how much it affects the audience's ability to be engaged in the story and characters. Often times with both writing and movies, showing less can mean a better experience all around. If that was the impetus behind the cutting then that's fine. IF however the movie was scripted and rough cut as a 2.5 hour movie and the executives basically said "chop 20 minutes no matter what it takes", then I would also be concerned. PoA could have used more Maurader/Prongs background inserted throughout the story as they never really made up for that and it's doubtful they will much in Phoenix. However in the big picture, what really matters is can the audience follow and appreciate what's going on. If you hadn't read the books for the last two movies you were likely out of luck.Avatar Image says: Not long enough? Wow, I guess I'll go against the grain here again. I can't believe they got more than two hours of story out of it! I mean, filmable story. I love all the scenes, every bit of dialog, just simply everything from the books, but...it's strange. I'm always so giddy when I find out what's been included, really really excited, like the Dursleys, the trial, tapestry, cleaning the mansion, and all that stuff that's rather cuttable. I want to see it all. But I'd also like to see a 2 hour movie, and it almost seems like they'd have to pad it in order to make it almost 2 and a half hours.Avatar Image says: From the trailers i thought this looked the best but now it might be the crappest because of it being so short. i thought it would be longer than GOF. i'm personally one of those people who want a longer film but the wb don't really listen to the potter fans.Avatar Image says: In my opinion, POA was my favorite movie of them all. I had humor in it in a way without ruining the movie. POA was the shortest too. maybe this one will be like that after all it is the shortest. POA was the shortest movie. It also made the least amount of money. I don't get why they would make it short when the shortest one made the least. Still if you think about it this way, that 2hrs. and 18mins even with credits is still a lot of time! I think and hope it will be great. Avatar Image says:

I just hope the DVD will provide the whole 3 hours movie;...

Write a Reply or Comment

Finding Hogwarts

The Leaky Cauldron is not associated with J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., or any of the individuals or companies associated with producing and publishing Harry Potter books and films.