Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - - (Spoiler zone)

[innerSpaceman]

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.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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.

You're not alone. Harris was a lovely and benevolent Dumbledore and was very well suited to the Dumbledore we got to know in the first two books. But we later see Dumbledore in high action, which would have been hard for Harris to do. Dumbledore is spry. Gambon is spry. Harris was, being ill, not so spry. So I love the energy Gambon brings. The sense of danger. And I really can't wait to see him in action during the scene from Book 5 where he takes down a bunch of people in his office.

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.

[Isaac]

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 ? "

[innerSpaceman]

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.]

[wendybeth]

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.

[Snowflake]

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

[wendybeth]

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.

[Alex]

(and give him a better haircut too).

Just out of curiousity, are the haircuts described in the books and the movies are just matching them? Lani and I were speculating that perhaps they were giving the boys such atrocious hairstyles to help hide the fact that they don't remotely look 14 in this movie. So I'm curious if there is a better reason.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

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.

[Alex]

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.