|
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - - (Spoiler zone)
I'm shocked that there isn't a thread on this!! :eek:
My plan is to go to the local midnight showing Late night Thurs/Early Morning Fri. I have a cute Ravenclaw shirt and I'm ready to rock. Now, being that the movie may run about 2 1/2 hours, I'm excited to see how they condensed the book. I think they cut out Hermione's S.P.E.W. crusade. Is anyone planning on going to a midnight showing or on opening weekend? Post here!! |
We've had tickets since they first started selling them.:D
We're going on the 18th, as I have to work earlier in the day, and can't stay up until 4 in the morning. |
Going to a Saturday matinee with a good pal and my dad. Heidi and Tom were going to join us but, sadly, her movers are coming that morning and it's the only showing that works for my out-of-town guest and the paps.
|
I can't have any fun until my article's done. :( Might go the next weekend, though.
|
Sometime Friday. No midnight showing for me this time (did that last time).
|
We already have the computer and Gamecube games. I don't think I like them as well as I did the past ones.
|
LibraryVixen, that's my favorite Fraggle! BOOBER!
|
Actually, it's Goober.
|
Quote:
|
Doober?
|
Quote:
Going to see it on Friday after work. |
I've got tix for a midnight show (yikes, Tomorrow night!) at the Vista Theater in Hollywood. My usual lining-up pals will be having a pot-luck dinner on the street and then hanging out till the wee hours.
Saturday night, I'm seeing a late show with zapppop and dozens of other L.A. friends at the world famous Grauman's Chinese Theater. These will be the first two of a likely half dozen screenings. I Heart Harry Potter. |
Going either to a midnight show tomorrow or sometime on Friday. Can't wait. :)
And it is Boober. The others are Gobo, Red, Mokey and Wembley. Then there are the Doozers, the Gorgs, the Trash Heap... etc. :D |
I'm going to see it, um, soon. Sunday? Idunno. I work Saturday so no matinees then, maybe a matinee on Sunday.
|
I went!
It was low key in terms of people dressing up. The one thing I have to say for the big crowd, it was the best crowd to go and see it with. They were very polite amd well behaved. We got awesome trailers: Aeon Flux, Superman Returns, King Kong, Happy Feet (a super cute CG Penguin movie), and Monster House. The movie was fantastic, though I admit the underwater scenes were creepy. *shudder* I thought Ralph Finnes was amazing as Voldy. A girl next to me said "Ewwww.... he looks like Michael Jackson with that nose". I guess it was funny because it was 2 A.M. ;) |
Well, I was very entertained by and also pretty disappointed in GoF.
This was a return to the "scenes from" style of directing. Meaning, ahem, there was no style to the directing efforts by Mike Newell. After the beautiful direction of the last outting, a return to this more juevenile style was a let-down, as I'd hope the films would continue to become more adult in style as the characters got older. It didn't help matters that Goblet returns to the same old story pattern used in the two first films of a vague McGuffin device, hinted at but barely dealt with during a Hogwarts term, that transports Harry to a brief and predictible encounter with Voldemort in the final act. Ho and hum. The story is not the director's fault, but the more childish story construction coupled with far less inspired pacing, editing, and other tangibles of film direction, left this film deep in the shadows of Prisoner of Azkaban, imo. That being said, I was thoroughly entertained throughout. This is by no means an unenjoyable film. But I consider it back to the realm of kiddie movie style, despite some scary elements and "afterschool special" adolescent themes. Yet the visuals were good, the story moved along, and there was excitement and humor in good measure. On the other hand, the story editing was atrocious. I know they had to cut a bunch of stuff out, but the film seemed really choppy to me. The arrangement of scenes seemed thrown together rather than artfully assembled. And, much to my great disappointment, it seems to me that both Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson have either passed their attractiveness prime, or are each going through an awkward stage of development. Advance still pictures from the movie had me thinking they were continuing to get sexier with (finally legal) age, but I found the two of them surprisingly unappealing this time around. And speaking of unappealing, I think this story goes way too far in portraying Harry and especially Ron as the biggest losers at Hogwarts. Watching the film, I began to wonder why we should care about these two characters who were such dreadfully unlikeable dorks. I don't mean to sound so down on it. I like the series, and this one might end up being my second favorite (official Zlick ranking pending). I laughed a lot, and I was never bored. Brendan Gleeson as Mad Eye (or technically Crouch as Mad Eye) was a stand out, and hugely enjoyable. But the movie's a step down in quality from PofA, and that's a source of unfortunate disappointment. |
I saw it today. I loved this film. I think it's the best of the bunch so far.
Spoiler:
|
Spoiler:
|
Yes, it was Hitleresque. I thought the actor who played him did a good job. (Not so good a job that I can, alas, remember his name).
Oh, and have fun with spoiler "tags" if you like, but this thread is a free spoiler zone. |
Quote:
|
One thing I liked best about this movie as compared to the first three; this was the first one NOT scored by John Williams. Now, JW wrote brilliant motifs for this series, but I've found his scores for the first three overbearing, hammering every emotional point home like a pneumatic pile-driver, and layering a heavy syrupy coating on the "sense of wonder" moments.
This new score, using the Williams themes, is composed by Patrick Doyle. It's much subtler, and conveys mood without hard-selling it. Doyle has done fantastic and persuasive period-style music for HENRY V, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, and SENSE AND SENSIBILITY. He's versatile and classy, and he provides the best thing about this series entry. His score complements the action without overpowering it, and he also lets the more somber moments play out with dignity, not with glurge. This is the first Potter score I'm tempted to buy the soundtrack for. Oh, and I thought this was a very entertaining movie. Not a one of these has been great cinema, but this easily rates near the top of the pack for HP movies. (I know number three was considered more stylish, and I did enjoy its visual touches, but it irritated and bored me as a movie, and is my least favorite thus far.) InnerS'man is right, Ron and Harry really do come off like a couple of clueless losers here. That just made me relate to them more, myself. I think great casting has been the strong point of these movies across the boards. |
Harry and Ron are 14, which is why they are dorks. They are supposed to be- what 14 year old kid is not going to identify with them? It's when they are juxtaposed against the older students that it becomes glaring, just like in real life.
The only thing I was truly disappointed in was the very end- I wish Harry could have given the winnings to the Weasley boys to start their store. I loved the little add-ins, like Snape smacking Harry and Ron in the study hall. The ferret scene was hilarious, and there were quite a few other really funny scenes. The special effects were fairly impressive, although the forced perspective involving Madame Maxime was not very well done. I liked the movie very much and thought they put more in than I could have hoped for. Book four is simply too massive to include everything- it must have been horribly difficult to choose what stayed and what went. While I liked PoA, I didn't love it. I will see this movie many more times, but I think it's safe to say it's my favorite thus far. Edited to add: The Weasley twins just keep getting cuter, don't they? They were hilarious in this film. |
This is my review cross-posted from MC.
WARNING! Longer than I intended! We saw the midnight premiere last night and had a lot of fun, but I can’t decide yet if I actually liked it or not. It had pretty high quality production values and the acting was superb throughout, which is all definitely good, but there were a few things that I just didn’t quite agree with. Spoiler:
Those are the biggest points I can think of right now. I’ll probably (hopefully) enjoy it more the second time around, in IMAX! One thing’s for sure though. I cannot wait for the next film! |
I'm not going to bother with spoiler tags, as there is a warning in the thread title to beware. Also, I'm lazy.
I love Ralph Fiennes, but I am not sure I like his Voldie. In my mind's eye I keep seeing Daniel Day-Lewis in the role. I don't know why, but I do. Maybe it's his character in 'Gangs of New York', or just what sort of visual he would impart- dark, thin and intense. Fiennes seems a bit too healthy; it seems to me that Voldemort would be a bit more skeletal after his regeneration. The fire was lame, too. But I still loved the movie, and we are seeing it again tomorrow! |
We saw it today because Lani wanted to. I've never read the books so I am looking at them completely as standalone movies.
Most boring 2.5 hours I've experienced in a very long time. Harry Potter is an empty shell who in about 10 hours of movie has not shown one reason for people thinking he is such a great thing, in every situation he has to rely on others to solve his problems. The framework of this movie, the Triwizard Tournament, may have been well done in the book but is thoroughly nonsensical in the movie. First, why do the other two schools only have 8 students each (or did the headmasters abandon the remaining students for a year?). Second Spoiler:
But I was extremely bored about 20 minutes into the movie (at least there wasn't another horrible prologue with Harry's muggle family) so I had extra thought processes to spend contemplating the problems. These things may be interesting for people who have read the books but as standalone movies each one has been crappier than the previous (at least the first one had some sense of discovery but we've been pummelled with essentially three additional repetitions of the same story. I'm sure there is something about the writing that makes the books unique and wonderful, but at core there is nothing particularly revolutionary about the story being told (it is common in epic fantasy, particularly young adult literature; see also Luke Skywalker) and the movies provide absolutely nothing new for the genre other than fair special effects (which weren't much improved over movie 2 and probably not as good as 3). Hopefully when the next one comes out, Lani won't feel compelled to see it. She didn't much care for this one either, but feels she has put in enough time seeing the earlier movies that she should see it out. As much as I hate ever agreeing with Rex Reed, I'm completely in synch with his review (link). I was honestly amazed when the movie ended and I found we hadn't passed the 3 hour mark. Perhaps for the future movies they could cut out the Harry Potter character and focus on the other people, he's the most boring character in them. |
Alex.
(Sigh) If you had read the books, the majority of your questions would be answered. You wouldn't have even thought to ask them. Instead, you would be wondering why such and such a thing was left out, or why something you knew not to be in the book was present, etc. I read a review by someone at CNN earlier today, which reads something like yours. I am at a loss as to why on earth someone would review a movie based upon a series without reading the book, but there you have it. I've attended movies in the past with people who hadn't read the book the film was based on, such as 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' and more recently 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. They didn't get it, and I felt badly at the time they had wasted, not to mention the money. Perhaps some films should come with a disclaimer "If you want to understand or enjoy this film, read the book first!" Peter Jackson said he decided to operate on the assumption that people had read the LOTR's, primarily because he didn't feel like explaining the whole damned history of Middle Earth to them. |
Quote:
|
More than half of the movies released in a year are based on books and for each only a small fractionof the audience will have ever read the book. I've never read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (tried, but didn't care for it) but enjoyed both movies quite a bit. I liked the first two Lord of the Rings movies very, very much even though it had been so long since I read the books that I really didn't remember anything from them (the third one is almost incomprehensible without close knowledge of the books). The Exorcist is a great movie though I've never read the book. As is The Bridge Over the River Kwai. Does it require having read the book to enjoy Gone with the Wind or The Wizard of Oz?
No. Because a movie should stand alone from the book. Either that or they should do what you suggest and be upfront in saying "this is simply an annotation of the books." Anyway, I'm giving my view as a non-reader of the books. Obviously it is a different experience for those who have read the books. But if you haven't, the movie, simply as a movie, is crap. |
I agree, Alex. If you haven't read the series, the movies are difficult to get in to. I have a different take on movies, though- particularily movies that are derived from books: The movies must convey at least a sense of what the books do. I've seen all the movies you mentioned, and yes, some stand on their own. They do not adhere to the books, but they are fine movies. Like the LOTR's, the HP books are simply too full of information to put into movie format in a timely fashion. There is so much that has to be left out for brevities sake- and you would know what I speak of had you read the books- that it seems the filmmakers were left with the same choice Peter Jackson had- try to explain everything , and lose precious minutes, or just assume that the viewer has at least a rough idea of the storyline.
|
And if so that is the wrong choice to make. They need to figure out how to tell a story that can be told in a movie. Les Miserables is longer than two Harry Potter books and incredibly more complex and yet, at least twice, good movies (that stand on their own) have been made. But if they want to make movies that can't be enjoyed without having read the books that is their choice, they should just be more upfront about it.
So tell me, why do the other schools only have 8 students (or so) and how does coming in second get you tied for first? And why is Harry Potter such a waste of space? |
I saw it at a matinee yesterday.
GC - I believe Fleur mentioned Harry saved her sister when she was first brought to the surface. I was somewhat disappointed in some of the things left out - like how the others got their eggs from the dragons. They could have left out all the Rita Skeeter (or whatever her name is) parts to summarize those (like Ron telling Harry about it, or something if they didn't want to hint at that before Harry had his go with them. Would also have explained how Harry and Cedric could have been tied going into the maze. I agree, the maze was really boring. "Don't fall down and keep moving" seemed to be the only trick in getting through it. I had envisioned Sirius in the fireplace as more 'real' and less charcoal-y -- was it this book, or one of the later ones where a hand comes out and tries to grab his head -- that's going to be hard to do with this 'style' of special effect. The story (maybe editing?) was choppy to me -- Fight dragons, be uncomfortable teenagers at a formal dance, (and ALL those kids would rather stay at school for a dance then go home for Christmas???), rescue people from drowning, go through a maze, fight the bad guy, and "oh no, our world will never be the same" loss of innocence. Yes, I realize it's a formula-ic story overall - but I didn't get the cohesiveness. Like the reporter stuff, and why were the three walking with Hagrid through the forest? I'm a believer that you shouldn't have to read the book to 'get' the movie - in fact, if a movie is coming out soon when I'm about to read the book, I'll wait and see the movie first so I get the suspense and surprise with plot twists, since the movie should be more, I don't know, kind of visceral - but that's not quite it. THEN I read the book to get the nuance and detail that I know they can't put into a reasonable length movie. Also, there weren't enough "Mothers" in it -- Mrs. Weasley as Harry's surrogate mother worrying about him in the tournament - Cedric's Mom at the end (she was there in the book, wasn't she?) - This is dangerous stuff, yet I didn't feel any 'worry' over the characters. Finally, WHY does the girl have to fail the most in the tournament? Even Hermione is relegated to 'girl' stuff, and her ultra-book smarts is not a factor. And to end on a frivolous note (yea, unlike the rest of my post), they didn't pronounced the Baton part of Beauxbaton the way I did in my head. Maybe I'm picking up more Cajun pronunciations then I thought living in New Orleans? |
Quote:
In the book, each school brings a full contingency of students. There were even boys that came with the girls from Beauxbaton. I think we're supposed to figure that they only brought the best of the best to compete in the tournament. And the dragon challenge, there was no first place winner. They weren't competing against each other, I don't think. It wasn't a time challenge or anything, so the goal must have been just to finish the task. They didn't start ranking them until after the underwater challenge, and then Harry got bumped up due to his heroism (or whatever.) So maybe the dragon thing was scored somehow like the Olympics and then that evened the playing field or something. I'll have to check the book. I felt it went really fast through a lot of stuff, and if you hadn't read the books you missed things. Like, if you didn't know Neville's last name, there was no way you would catch the part about his parents in the trial, and you wouldn't have the explanation as to why the cruciatus curse disturbed him so much. I really liked it though! And I was glad that Daniel Radcliffe's acting was much improved this time out, not so much of the huffing and puffing and stammering. |
Quote:
|
That's fine, but it is an awfully weak structure on which to build 10 hours of film.
But, really, I'm just sharing the view of someone who hasn't read the books. The movies have done nothing to make me want to read the books (nor anybody I know who has seen the movies but not read the books). Sometimes a good adaptation is a great movie and hints at the greater depth in the book. These don't. I'm not trying to convince anybody they shouldn't like the movies. |
I loved it. From beginning to end, it was an enormously good time. The Trio were in top form and keep getting better/more attractive. Maggie Smith had stuff to do this time around, and was terrific. What I loved most about Azkaban and this film were the add-in touches, making the films their own experiences. My favorite scene was the study hall scene in the Great Hall, when Snape kept hitting Harry and Ron, and "Oi, Angelina!" was kept in!
Azkaban is a flawless movie, save the Shrieking Shack scene which was destroyed for no apparent reason considering ALL the necessary dialogue was in the book. The only missing item from GoF that really stuck out for me was a better explanation of Neville's parents, and Snape showing his Dark Mark to the Ministry of Magic. But even those things didn’t really bother me until after the credits started rolling; whereas, in Azkaban (which I do consider a superior film) the Shrieking Shack’s brevity was jarring and irritating as I was watching it. I loved the teenaged angst fest in Goblet. The first two movies introduced Rowling’s world to the screen, and saccharine though they may have been, I give Columbus a lot more credit than most of my friends for doing a darn good job at establishing the story, the world, and for the incredible job he did casting. Plus, I can't lie, it wasn't until after seeing Chamber of Secrets that I decided to finally give the books a try. Azkaban went on to really *make* the wizarding world a real place. From the bus ride to the Leaky Cauldron to Honeydukes and the Whomping Willow, Rowling’s world looked like a completely realized vision. Newell, in my opinion, really made it feel like a school. Funny, really, since this is the first movie where only one classroom scene was featured. It just felt really populated by students of varying ages. It had that private / prep school vibe going for it and I totally dug it. I loved Moaning Myrtle in the bathroom. I just laughed and laughed and had such a good time. It wasn't as intellectual as Azkaban - not as meditative – but it was a really lovely action movie. I remember enjoying the book a lot, but after Azkaban it felt a bit of a letdown...didn't seem as thoughtful or precise. The second time I read it I absolutely loved it, because it was so much fun. Fun that was necessary considering the absolute darkness of the book’s end, and because of the dreary place she planned on going in the 5th installment. It was the first truly ensemble film of the Potter series, I think. Krum and Fleur didn't get much in the way of dialogue but their presence was felt. Cedric was PERFECT. Oh, how I sobbed when Harry transported them back to Hogwarts and Harry couldn't let go of his body. Grint was wonderfully subdued in his pissy anger. Loved their reconciliation and Watson's "Boys." remark. Ginny did stuff, too! The friggin' twins were EVERYWHERE! Man, I love, love and love them. The Yule ball was brilliant, minus the annoying rock band - though I liked the idea of having a rock band there. Neville's surprise and delight at coming home in the morning. Neville being the first to get up and dance, and the practice dancing in his dorm room. Sweet, brave Neville! I think it was those little perfect moments that made up for some of the other things that were lacking. I did think it strange that the Foe Glass was brought up and then not used again in the scene where Albus, Minerva and Severus foil Barty Crouch, Jr.’s plans. The maze was a bit disappointing, but it was leading up to what we were all waiting for anyway. And the graveyard scene was far from disappointing. I loved Ralph Fiennes' semi-gay portrayal of Voldemort, with his effeminate wand waving. The Death Eater’s shooting out of the Dark Mark in the sky was terrifying, as were their bone-like masks. Awesome! Gleeson's performance left me gleeful. I don't know how I'd feel about the last two films if I hadn’t read the books first. My father really enjoys them, and no plans on reading the books. But I think if I hadn’t read them, some parts would feel very underdeveloped. As large as Goblet was, I don’t really feel like complaining. Still completely baffled as to why the filmmakers have left out so much about the Mauraders and Snape, though. Given where the story is headed in Book 6, that seems almost irresponsible not to have made that at least clear in Goblet. However, since so much of Book 5 is Harry’s internal angry monologue, they can probably cut some of that out in favor of a bit of delayed exposition. |
Fiennes' Voldemort was a little gay now that you mention it. He steps on Cedric's face and says something about him being handsome. Whoa.
I kept thinking how cool his (Voldemort's) face looked. No nose. How did they do that? Fiennes has a biggish nose... |
Quote:
Also, I think Alex mentioned this, in the books they explain that the teachers weren't going to just leave the kids underwater. :) |
I saw the film on Friday night, and I have to say, this was also my second-favorite of the four (number 1, my most favorite).
I think that what Alex may be missing is that the appeal of Harry Potter is not really in that he is this nascent wunderkind sorceror, but that he is a decent, loyal and quick-thinking young man who is kind and caring to friends and teachers alike. It's my personal opinion that why the Potter series is so popular is that the three main characters are true to each other, in a way that we all wish we could be and that our friends would be also. Although I had a similar reaction to GoF that Potter seemed to rely almost completely on ex deus machina interventions to get him out of peril, on reflection, he really only gets out of peril because he is a decent person. His "karma" that he has created by rescuing others and being decent allows him to reap the rewards of those same people helping him in turn. I think the Harry Potter series is a wonderful series of books that let us imagine we live in a world where good is rewarded, evil is punished and we are ultimately surrounded by family and friends that love us. |
Quote:
And he wasn't saved by his karma where others rewarded him for past good deeds. He was manipulated by evil who needed him in the competition and manipulated things to their desired end (and this whole set up is assinine since there is no reason given in the movie for why what happened at the end of the tournament needed to be done in the tournament and couldn't have been achieved through more straightforward means). But I promise to stop now since as I think more about the movie I find myself liking it even less. In good news, in preparation for Narnia I did read two of those books and they were good enough (if awfully blunt in their recasting of Christian mythology). I have hopes for the movie. |
Well, 'natch the reason that the evil plot was done convolutedly through the tournament (rather than, say, having one of Harry's socks be a portkey) was that ... wait for it ... there wouldn't be a movie otherwise.
Really, one could have the same criticism for dozens of fantasy/adventure tales. It may be logical, but it's simply not too valid. Suffice it to say that maniacal villains bent on ruling the world have an incurable penchant for diabolically convoluted plots. Having seen the film again, its flaws are still quite apparent. But the fun and adventure win out for me. It's really the funniest Potter movie, and I enjoyed laughing so very much. Yeah, it's got a choppy structure, the maze sucked tremendously, I didn't like Feinnes as Voldemort, and there was a severe drop in the style, editing, pacing and story departments since the last film. But there were fun characters old and new, some great visuals, and I found it an enjoyable romp. I happen to agree with almost all of Alex's criticisms, but I just don't think they matter much in the context of Harry Potter movies. I know people who like them and haven't read the books, so I'm not at all convinced that reading the books is a prerequisite for this film series. |
Yesterday my sis and her son went with us to see the movie, and even though she's not read the books and has only seen the PoA movie, she loved it. I tried looking at the movie with a more critical eye this time, and I have to agree with some of iSm's assessments- it is a bit choppy, the maze was underwhelming and Ralph Fiennes is just okay as Voldemort. I still loved the movie, though, which is somewhat ironic in that I didn't really care for the book.
Great review, Eliza!:snap: |
Quote:
Sloppy writing is not an excuse just because a lot of other people do it. |
Quote:
It's just a fun read, Alex. No one is claiming that the HP series is the penultimate in high literature. Which, btw, there are many examples of piss poor movies being made out of, Madame Bovary being one. |
I think Alex is simply pointing out that the Tournament is a helluva complicated way to get Harry to a particular portkey. Now if the portkey MUST be the authentic TriWizard Cup, maybe there's a legitimate reason for all that.
But I don't agree that sloppy writing is at work here in not coming up with some absurd explanation to make the Tournament ploy meet logical standards. As I pointed out above, convoluted plots are the accepted method of choice for maniacal villians intent on global domination. It's become an accepted (and much spoofed) film characteristic of comic-bookish or fantasy villains. If this were a political thriller, some explanation of the reason behind a convoluted plot would be necessary; not so for the plans of a James Bond nemesis. I think Voldemort falls firmly into the cartoon villainy deparment, and his convoluted plot can be accepted at face value. |
Yes, Wendy, I undestand that the movies make more sense if you've read the books. But it remains my point that a movie that can only be appreciated by having read the source materials is not a good movie. As I said before, I'm guessing you have opinions of hundreds of movies that are based on books you haven't read. It isn't "weird" at all. It is the norm.
If Voldemort is essentially a Bond villain then I will attempt to recalibrate my expectations for him (though I will point out that the last 15 Bond movies haven't been very good simply because they have embraced formula to the point of acheiving irrelevancy). Like I said, I was so thoroughly bored that it gave me plenty of extra mental computation time for picking nits. If the movie had been engaging I wouldn't care so much. Stupidity and sloppiness that entertains is much more easy to ignore (thus, I like Red Dawn despite its many flaws) than stupidity and sloppiness that bores. |
Ah, good point there, Alex. To which I would counter that Harry Potter fans were not bored. Oh, it wasn't the TriWizard Tournament that kept us entertained, but the comedy of the Weasely Twins, Moaning Myrtle, Crouch Jr. as Moody, Profs. Snape and McGonigal. I daresay it was comedy that made this one enjoyable to the fans, and I will admit that the comedy might be less enchanting for non-fans.
Though why non fans would go see this movie is beyond me. And apparently, there are enough Harry Potter fans to support a $101 million opening weekend. (Let's make that an even one hundred million, to knock off a million for the folks like Alex who were dragged against their desires.) |
I agree with regards to the whole portkey thing- that's one of the reasons I didn't care for the book. I kept thinking it would have been so much easier for Moody/Crouch to simply hex an everyday item of Harry's to transport him to Voldie. Of course, the book would have been much shorter then.
The Tournament was a good way to introduce new characters and schools, though. It also helps to propel Harry more firmly into the world of defensive magic, as his learning curve must be a bit more enhanced than the average fourth year student, given that he has an evil homicidal maniac on his ass. I like your comparison of villians, iSm- it's right on. Voldemort is the ultimate cartoon bad guy, and nothing is ever uncomplicated with him. |
Alex, I understand what you're saying, but the fact remains that the books are driving the movies. I'm not going to go see a movie based upon a book and state that the book sucks because the movie does. I won't review a book driven movie without reading the book first, either. Especially not one of a series. Kind of like going to see The Two Towers without having read either the books or seen the first movie. It's a great movie, but it does not stand on it's own without the support of it's cinematic or literary predecessor.
|
If I have ever given any sense that I am condemming the books because of the movies I apologize. I have no opinion on the books at all.
I don't generally care for juvenile literature so I'm not much interested (whereas I do generally enjoy juvenile movies) in reading them and the movies through their lack of charisma have done nothing to change my mind. So while I have no expectation that the Harry Potter books are something I would enjoy, I'm completely willing to work on the assumption that the books are good while the movies are bad. Steve, trust me, I gave up on the Harry Potter movies after the third one (I liked the first one, was bored by the second and the third confirmed which opinion I should go with). However, Lani wanted to see it and since most of the time it is me dragging her to movies we have an open agreement that I will go along without complaint whenever she actually says "I would like to see X." So, I have no desire to see the next movie, but if Lani again says she wants to, I'll be there. Hopefully whoever is directing/writing that one will give some priority to making a movie rather than just annotating a book. |
Alex, I really do understand- I generally don't care for this sort of genre either. I got sucked into the Potter vortex courtesy of a co-worker, who asked me way back when the first movie came out if I was going to see it. I scornfully responded no, at which point she shreiked "You haven't read the books!" I was a bit proud of the fact that I hadn't succumbed to to Pottermania, and I said as much. When I arrived at work the next day, I found she had deposited the first three books on my station. That weekend I started reading book one, and by Monday I'd read all three and was jonesing for the fourth. :rolleyes:
As far as 'annotating', you are not far off the mark. The way the books are laid out there really is no other way to do it. If you can read the books and then figure out how to do otherwise, you may want to contact the producers. There are so many intricate plot twists and turns- some that are for entertainment purposes, some for red-herring duty and others that are essential to the ending, which has already been written. It really is fantastically involved and it is the writers somewhat thankless task to incorporate esential elements and to weed out the unnecessary, thereby facing the wrath of zillions of fans. (I'm still convinced that having Harry give the Weasely twins his Tri-Cup winnings to start their gag shop is a better ending, as it gives them a platform to continue on as the comedic relief after their departure from the school and foreshadows the coming darkness). |
I'm finding the discussion fascinating. While I have not seen the film yet, to me it makes no real difference since I am very familiar with the books. GoF, in particular was my favorite of the books in the series for some time (meaning the spoilers here won't affect my view of the film)
I, too, lamented the passing of Richard Harris. In other work, I have long admired Michael Gambon. His portrayal as Dumbledore could not be farther from what I envision from the books. I found myself wishing that someone such as Jim Broadbent could be coerced into replacing him as Dumbledore. This is a flaw that will continue to irk me with each remaining film. While I have never thought of the books as fine literature, I enjoy them. I tried for years to read the Tolkein books, without success, could never get "in" to them. Loved the films, however. The Potter novels suck me in and, frankly, any book that encourages and makes kids enthusiastic about reading is a great thing to me. Hopefully I will see HP & the GoF this coming weekend and if I have anything else to add to the good discussion, I will. Donna |
Snow, I agree about MG as Dumbledore. Harris captured him perfectly, and Gambon is too 'in your face', especially in this movie. The literary Dumbledore is quietly cool and confident, slightly arrogant, but in a likeable way. Gambon's Dumbledore is a bit too excitable, and seems to not have the knowledge and assurance that the book's character conveys. In the books, if Dumbledore says it is so, it must be, but the movie Dumbledore would not impart the same sort of confidence.
|
Quote:
With Gambon, it's not only the "personality" of Dumbledore I feel they got completely wrong, but also the look of the wizard himself. I assume that they wanted to differentiate from Harris, in this they succeeded. I do not feel Gambon has the "heart" of Harris. I'm hard pressed to come up with a suitable replacement for Harris. Broadbent does not have the same lanky kind of look of Harris, but he has all the heart and gentle strength. When I read the obit for Harris, I hoped that they might pursue Peter O'Toole for the part. I think he could have carried it off beautifully and made Dumbledore his own. In any case, the casting of Gambon will irk me to the end. Otherwise, I feel the casting of the various new characters has been truly inspired. Kenneth Branagh was brilliant in the second film. I'm on the fence on Fiennes not having seen him (but I think his voice will be marvelous). Donna |
I think another decent choice might have been Pete Postlethwaite, but upon reading his filmography I see he used to be hooked up with Julie Walters (Molly Weasely), so that might not have worked.
|
In looking for a Pete pic, I ran across this one with Daniel Day-Lewis- I'd forgotten that they starred together in the movie "In the Name of the Father".
 He would have been perfect for Voldemort. (sigh).  |
I'm a loner in the like-Gambon-as-Dumbledore camp. I found Harris to be far too benevolent and approachable. I like Dumbledore with a dangerous and maniacal quality.
I love that he nearly choked Potter when asking if he'd put his name in the Goblet of Fire. And I don't think the sweet Dumbledore that Harris portrayed would have fit the story point of continuing to use Harry as bait in the Tournament through the grizzly end. I think Gambon plays the wizard a bit demented, and I like it that way. Perhaps it's not how the character is in the books, but I like the movie to be as different as it can be while telling the same story. Otherwise, like the first two Potter films, it's just a dull filming of the book. I don't see any point in that. |
Quote:
I wish they'd kept the "Remember Cedric Diggory" line as is, though. It's always the little nonsensical differences that bother me about these adaptations, I think. But Gambon and Gleeson were just where I wanted them to be in this film. |
Harris was too decrepit as Dumbledore.
I prefer Gambon as well Steve, but I remember you weren't too fond of him at first. In fact, when I showed you the teaser trailer for POA for the first time, you said when Gambon appeared on screen " AAAAH! Who are you ? " |
Yeah, but as soon as I saw his actual performance in PofA, I was won over.
And EH1812, I agree with you on a tremendous number of your Potter points (especially about the masterpiece Prizoner of Azkaban). [Oh, and I didn't edit your post but merely the grammar within your quote of my post that was within your post which as a layperson I can edit in my own post and as an all-powerful and dangerous moderator I can edit in your post as well. Mwuhaha.] |
I have to say that Gleeson was great, and it will be interesting to see his paranoid, OCD Moody in next film. I hope they keep the "Blow your buttocks" line in as well.:D
|
Part of my Thanksgiving treat was a trip to the local multiplex to see HP & tGoF. Altogether an entertaining mix. Not without flaws, to be sure. GoF is my favorite of the 6 books, it is a rich rich book and I knew that severe cuts would have to be made, and they were.
I've got to start with Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter, she is always a delight in every film I have seen, she captured the acidity of Skeeter to a tee, I only wish there had been more of her. The beetle scene would have been great and I did miss it. I did like to see that she was in the ministry pensieve scene, duly taking notes when Karkarov was spilling his guts to save himself from Azkeban. I loved the Weasley twins getting ample screen time in this film, as has been mentioned by others. They were great and like WB, I missed them getting Harry's winnings in the end to start their joke shop. Perhaps that can somehow be woven in the next film as they depart school (and WHO will they cast as the nasty Dolores Umbridge?) Wheras the twins received ample screen time, Ron was merely a shadow on screen. I could swear his only lines were "blopdy hell" until he whined "piss off." This was a real pity, Rupert Grint has such a natural flair for comedy and since he is part of the trio, I do wish they would write something a little more challenging for him (and give him a better haircut too). I loved Neville Longbottom in this film. He was so charming and cute in the ball and the dancing practice scenes. I realize they had to make cuts, but then why use Neville when Mad-Eye was illustrating the crustacias curse, have him become upset and then not share why he was so upset by it. Loved the stained glass window, though. The Moaning Myrtle scene was hysterical! That was the improvement over the book, beautifully handled and it worked totally. Like everyone else, the maze sucked the chi right out of me. The sphynx and the spider, where were they? So what is all you got was Devil's Snare? It was lame and kept me thinking they were stealing from The Shining. The dragon has been covered, it was impressive. The underwater sequence played very much as I had imagined when I read the book. Now, to Michael Gambon. My earlier posting on the subject was my feeling before I saw the film, I have now changed my mind. Gambon has become the Dumbledore I imagine in the books (except he stills looks like Richard Harris). I feel he was spot on in this film. I liked the "in your face" (was that you IsM? I can't recall) aspect of him. I loved how they did the pensieve, exactly as I imagined! I will look forward to more of that in the next film. So, count me among the Michael Gambon converts, with this film he won me over completely. Ralph Fiennes was merely okay as Voldemort. I did like the scene of the re-birth of Voldemort's body and his self examination. I'm not sure what I have been visualizing when it comes to Voldemort, but somehow this was not it. It was properly scary, however. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It was not a bright film, by any stretch. The cinematography was very muted and dark. Loved the ice cave, a great choice for setting the yule ball. My friend who has seen all the films with me, but not read any of the books, declared this the best of the series so far. I think I'd agree. Donna |
When we saw the movie a second time, I did notice a reference to Longbottoms and the fact that they were tortured into insanity, but it was too fleeting and I doubt anyone who hasn't read the books would have readily picked up on that. (In the pensieve scene, when Karkaroff was spilling his guts). I suppose it's enough in the film version to show that these are nasty spells, and a big no-no in the wizarding realm.
|
Quote:
|
Harry's hair is always longish and unruly- it is one of the early signs of his magical background: no matter how many times his Aunt and Uncle would shave his head, it would grow back by the next day. As far as the others, I think they're going for a contemporary feel. ( Believe it or not, the boys are actually quite fashionable). Still, they fit their characters descriptions remarkably well.
Btw, at the time of filming this movie, Daniel Radcliffe was only 15, just a year older than his character. I think the kids all look pretty darn close to their character's ages. Many of the characters, such as Fred, George, Cedric, etc, are several years older than Harry. |
I certainly am not up to date on how the teenagers are wearing their hair these days. Though I did just spend Thanksgiving at a house where one kid had hair similar to this and was teased mercilessly about it by the other kids so it may not be trandy in this neck of the woods yet.
We'll have to disagree on how old they look (particularly Rupert Grint who was 16 and looks it), but I think we're old hat on that now. Out of curiosity, even if you don't think it an issue in this movie, do you think these three actors can play the characters through all seven movies if they're made at the current pace? The actual-to-screen age disparity is only going to get bigger. Will it end up like the last season of Head of the Class when most of the high school students looked like they were ready for their first AARP mailer? |
Good lord, actors play older and younger all the time- why would it be any different here? At this point, it would be more disastrous to try and replace any of the main characters. So far, they have made four movies in the space of as many years. The actors are all roughly the age of their characters as a result. They have three to go, and I don't see why they can't continue on as they have been doing. Daniel Radcliffe begins filming The Order of the Pheonix early next year, at the advanced age of 16. His character will be 15, and quite annoying. You may want to skip that one, Alex.;)
|
Yes, I echo WB's advice to Alex-- I'm a Potter fan and Phoenix doesn't float MY boat.
Alex, I wonder: why read Narnia to prep for the film, but not Potter? I have always thought that the movies weren't particularly good for those who haven't read the books. I don't deny that they leave things out; Potter seems just like a craftless kid who has such things thrust upon him. If you'd read the books, you'd see that in an effort to splice together a reasonably sized film, they cut out much of the exposition that may have seemed unnecessary book by book, but is wholly necessary for the arc. Such things as how Harry completely resents his lot and his fame. In his mind, too, he's just a craftless kid. Like a Dickens novel, Rowling's secondary and minor characters are the more interesting, vivid ones. Though I also feel great affection for Harry, despite (or because of) his floundering. Really, though, if you're dragging your feet on reading the books, I see no reason why you ought to go with Lani. There's a magic on the page that simply doesn't translate to screen. I enjoy the movies, but primarily as a reflection of the richness more palpable in the books, and the great affinity I feel while witnessing the gradual coming-of-age of these characters and the maturation of their relationships. I just don't think I'd feel the connection with the twins, for instance, if I hadn't read the books. They are all but excised from the first three films, and missing out on their antics disappointed me. Part of the reason I so enjoyed Goblet was their presence. Connecting with these characters on the page is the real magic in Rowling's writing. I believe we all enjoy these films primarily because we're caught in her literary spell. |
For the record, Lani hasn't read the books either. She just feels she has put enough time into seeing the movie that she still wants to see where they end up. I go with her because I drag her to a lot of movie she isn't particularly interested in and 150 minutes with Lani at a boring movie is still better than any way I can think of to spend my time without her.
As for why I read Narnia but not Potter. There are several reasons, the first is that I know and respect C.S. Lewis's other writings on religion and therefore have always intended to eventually read them and just never got around to it (mostly for the reasons I haven't read the Potter books). Second, where I just get to watch Potter, I will have to review Narnia for MousePlanet, so I think being able to comment on the adaptation will be of some use. Third (and most important), all seven Narnia books combined are shorter than one of the later Harry Potter books so even if I didn't really want to read them I could knock them out in a few hours. But you're essentially saying the same thing about the movie that I am: it isn't a good movie, it is a good addendum to the books. I don't deny that; I was just sharing my opinion of a movie. "But in the book..." is not a defense of the movies, it is a promotion of the books. There is enough good adult fantasy fiction out there that I don't have room for Harry Potter on the reading list. I'm ok with this, but it doesn't make the movies any better and I've expressed no opinion of the books. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.