Harry Potter- round 6-who's ready?

[Gemini Cricket]

There were some interesting shot compositions that the director gave us that worked well for me:

Spoiler:

- The shot from below of the Weasleys' staircase was awesome. Heads poking out here and there was cute.

- There's a shot of the hallway where (I think) Harry and Ron were walking down the hall and then to the left we could see Malfoy on a set of stairs quietly panicking.

- Another similar shot with Hogswart kids snogging in the shadows.

I, too, disagree with iSm about Radcliffe. He's a good actor. I think he gets better and better with each film.

[innerSpaceman]

I recently read an interview where Radcliffe says he started out playing Harry just like, well, himself. He was like 10 years old or something, so had little idea how to "act." Later on, he felt it would be a jarring change of character if he changed that.

So maybe it's just Radcliffe himself I find pretty dull and characterless. He seemed positively lustrous when he was under the influence of guaranteed good luck. So maybe he's got acting chops after all, but himself has all the personality of a doorknob.

I just know the character as written seems a lot more lively to me. I don't find Radcliffe unappealing, just needlessly dull. And starkly less able to be persuasive to me in the last two films, when I found the acting of Grint and Watson to improve, um, dramatically.

[Gemini Cricket]

Spoiler:

One thing I forgot to mention was how phallic the broomsticks were during this movie. "Quidditch" could be a term for something else if it were dark and no one else was looking...

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, specially with new what's his name played by yummy Freddie Stroma.

Here he is dancing around in his skivvies ... a little earlier in his career.

Anyway, as per my usual tradition, I have just now embarked on a re-reading of the book. I won't be very far into it by the time I see the movie again ... but I'm counting on liking it better the 2nd time, now that I know what it is, and won't be upset about what it isn't.


I truly enjoyed it up till the end, when I started to dislike it. Such the complete opposite of my experience with the novel. When the lights came on, I was so surprised to find my general feeling about the film ... unsatisfied and unhappy. The audience that cheered wildly at the titles two and half hours earlier and had laughed hardily throughout gave less than enthusiastic applause.

True, the story gets grim towards the end, and the mood at the conclusion is somber. I'm looking forward to my re-read and my re-watch very much.

[lashbear]

Stoat and I are of the opinion:

Spoiler:

Why did the death eaters even need to go to Hogwarts? They did nothing, apart from kicking over some glasses from the table on the way out, and busting a set of stained glass windows. Oh, that's right, they did burn Hagrids hut (presumably while Hagrid was out the back having a pee), but they weren't neded for the dispatch of Dumbledore at all.

OOoooooooo, scary.

Snape took care of everything that Draco couldn't do, and Harry didn't even need to be petrified, a simple "SSssh" gesture stopped him from crying out or trying to stop anything from happening.

Also:

• We don't understand the attack on the Weasley house at all, other than to say "We're bad-ass Mofos", and I'm glad that they didn't catch Harry in all that long grass - it's a good thing they were all running around on the ground and not flying over the top - they might have seen him then.

• Is it just us, or does the exterior of Weazleys Wizard Wheezes look like a cross between Archie's Funhouse and Downtown Disney?

We agree with lots of the other things others have mentioned before, especially regarding the title of the film.

We'll post more tomorrow and I may even convince the stoat to post something if I can.

[lashbear]

Oh, and something more to support the "read the book first" theory:

Spoiler:

When Harry shoves the Bezoar down Rons throat, the people who had only seen the movie wouldn't have a clue as to what it is, or why it works, and where Harry knew of it. It could have been an antacid tablet for all they knew.

[Alex]

Lani wanted to see it last night so we did.

I liked it better than the last few. That isn't to say I still don't really give much of a damn at all about these characters but I thought the movie was better put together than recent ones.

I suspect they're really are tons of things that are much better understood with book familiarity but unlike with the more recent films I didn't feel like I was being slapped in the face with them. The biggest was the title but if it weren't for this thread I'd just assume that has been set up for explanation in the movie (and I suppose it still may be).

There were others but for the most part I didn't feel that they made no sense without the back story as so often in the past. The antidote for Ron, not explained, but it wasn't really necessary for the story. It was enough to know that (or think based on presentation) that Harry is finally coming sufficiently into his knowledge that he can actually find -- every once in a while -- solutions of his own. Overall, though, he remains too passive in his own story for me to understand his appeal as a "hero."

Way too much of an episode of "Hogwarts - Seething Den of Adolescent Hormones." But there wasn't actually much larger plot development without that filler.

When Hermione said "you need us" I thought the appropriate response was "Why? You and Ron contributed absolutely nothing to the significant events of this movie beyond mooning over each other."

Look and feel, though, and narrative focus were much improved.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Alex

It was enough to know that (or think based on presentation) that Harry is finally coming sufficiently into his knowledge that he can actually find -- every once in a while -- solutions of his own. Overall, though, he remains too passive in his own story for me to understand his appeal as a "hero."

This was a problem I had with the books. Too much fate, not enough heroism.

[Strangler Lewis]

Good fun. Good fun.

However,

Spoiler:

I thought they gave Ginny short shrift. She had a lot of business in the book, but here she just came off as the girl destined to be the hero's solemn girlfriend.

I thought Dumbledore's dispatch was played too cooly. In the book, it seemed like Dumbledore was a battered old man begging for his life. Now, arguably, in light of what we learned in book seven, perhaps it could be said he was begging for death, but it still had too much of a "Severus, remember what we talked about" feel.

I still have no sense of the wizarding universe. Does the fate of the world really turn on whether Voldemort and a dozen or so punk assed death eaters can get the better of some old professors and a bunch of kids?

[innerSpaceman]

Hahah, loved a review I recently came across in the New Yorker.

Originally Posted by Anthony Lane

Why is that, from Gotham City to Hogwarts, the official word has gone out that anything dark and edgy is a de-facto guarantee of weight and impact? Just what is so serious about horny adolescents cooking potions? We get one lovely, cheering sequence of a trashed room putting itself in order, like the untidy nursery in "Mary Poppins," but the rest of the magic here feels randomly grabbed at - there is something called a vanishing cabinet, whose narrative purpose is wholy redundant - and, as if in response to such silliness, Yates tries to stiffen his story with borrowings from "The Lord of the Rings." We get a dead spider named Aragog, which is a breath away from Tolkien, plus Gandalfian flourishes from Dumbledore, and a rock pool that crawls with a hundred Gollums.

TeeHee. In all fairness, it's hard not to imitate Tolkien in fantasy. It would be like complaining every pirate movie ever made is ripping off the ride at Disneyland.

But the vanishing cabinet critique is spot-on. I understand they deleted the big battle scene lest the next movie seem repetitive, but then the entire reason for the vanishing cabinet is rendered moot and is a gaping plot hole of stupidity.

If the death eaters that come through the cabinet aren't going to attack the school, why go through all the trouble, that apparently takes the whole school year, to work out the bugs and transport through the cabinet? They went to great lengths to have the assassin, Draco, and his back-up, Snape, already installed and part of the accepted people at Hogwarts. If death eaters were going to come through the cabinet, why did they need these key players in place?

Gotta be careful when you eliminate some things from the book .... other things have to go also, or you risk making NO SENSE.