I giggled and clapped like a silly school-girl through most of it, and shouted with abandon during the Ministry of Magic battle (especially when Voldie and Dumbly got in the mix)
When did Daniel Radcliffe learn to act?
Could they have captured Umbridge any more perfectly?
They managed to get in so much of the plot without it feeling too terribly rushed (although it is *very* fast-paced) and working in some pretty freakin' awesome cinematography and acting.
and i literally drove straight home and came upstairs to post this, so you know I loved it.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
My viewing experience was ruined by a particularly unruly theater audience. Several young men thought it was the funniest thing in the world to stand up and shout profanities at the screen.
Four others thought the middle of a crowded movie was the perfect time and place to have a fiery argument, with borderline acts of increasing physical violence.
The ushers didn't turn up to keep an eye on things until the film was nearly over.
Still, the tidbits I managed to see and hear were good. Luna, Umbridge, and Bellatrix all stole the movie.
Here's hoping the actresses involved all remain for the next couple of films.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought the first 3/4's of the movie or so was gibberish.
The last quarter, when they got to the Ministry of Magic and everything that ensued afterwards, was friggin awesome. I would say that the end was just as good as I expected, but it was easily 20 times better than I could have imagined. I thought it odd that Harry could perform non-verbalized spells, but what the hell, it's not like the movies are anything near canon. It was a good ride. The Weasley's exit, while I think could have still been better, was pretty cool. I can't imagine it would have been that much harder to add Peeves or the swamp.
But frankly I don't think the first parts of the movie made much sense. They rushed through the whole thing at warp 9.9. Cutting out most of the first 300 pages or so was fine, there was a lot of filler in there that could easily have been done away with, but other than leaving out a couple of my favorite scenes, I still think it was terribly rushed, and a lot of the characters were changed for what I saw as no reason.
I will say that they did a better job with Luna Lovegood than I would have thought possible, and I ended up really liking her character at the end, probably better than any other female character (on the side of good). Bellatrix Lestrange was wonderfully executed as well, Carter really brought her to life. As was Umbridge, who while a bit different than I expected, ended up fitting snugly into the role. The third one is still my favorite, but I maintain that this book more than any other should have been broke up into two movies, or made an hour longer. It was the shortest Harry Potter movie, made out of the longest Harry Potter book, and I think they culled way too much out of it.
Maybe I'll feel differently about it tomorrow, but other than the spectacular ending, I was rather underwhelmed with it as a whole.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Puffy, I saw that thread title about Emma Watson. What were you going to say?
My sister and I hold out hope that she'll eventually work with a director who will duct tape her eyebrows down and make her act with her actual eyes, face, body, and voice. *sigh*
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Enough people convinced me that I had hallucinated she could ever act. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Will you clarify? I'm not thinking clearly.
(so you thought she could act and now think she can't? Is that right?)
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I'm not either. Bring it up again six hours from now. Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I'm on the same page as everyone who though that Umbridge, Bellatrix, and Luna stole the show! After seeing Evanna Lynch as Luna, I became convinced that all casting sessions for students be fans-only, with a special trivial test and everything. She had every nuance of the character down. She obviously studied the books and didn't just rely on what the director told her. Though I'm mad they replaced her bottlecap necklace.
Weird complaints:
-Vernon did not sound mad at all after Dudley pointed Harry out as his attacker -Why would the Guard fly so low and completely visible if Moody is so concerned about anyone dying. I know it looks cool, but still! -The exterior of Grimmauld place looked like the muggle apartments around it, not like a home belonging to an ancient pureblood family. And the interior was too small. I missed the portrait, as well. -Dumbledore's fight with Voldemort was pretty good, but I still wanted more -Same for the Weasley twins. I liked the fireworks but would have liked to see a variety of pranks. And would have liked to see Minerva standing by calmly and laughing to herself. -I might simply be getting used to Emma Grant, but I like Hermione more in this movie. Though I still hate that she gets way more lines than Ron and she always huffs out the beginning of her lines.
I had heard that a character had to be added back into the script after Rowling said they'd be important in Book 7. My guess is Grawp. Can anyone confirm this for me?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think she gets more lines than Ron because while Emma Watson isn't the be all end all of acting, I think Rupert Grint's acting ability is about the same as what Hermione says Ron's emotional range is, that of a teaspoon. He plays Ron well because Ron is fairly one dimensional on the surface, and he really doesn't have to do a whole lot to play him. It might be that he's a better actor than that, but nothing more is being asked of him.
I hope it is Grawp, only because if it's not, leaving him in the movie, while taking out so much other stuff that was a lot more important seems pretty damned silly.
I'm betting it was Luna though. Considering how many actors got the axe in this movie, I mean hell, Ginny barely said more than a half dozen movies in this movie, and most of that was her blowing the hell out of stuff with "Reducto!" But of all the characters that were massively cut down, frankly Luna strikes me as the most expendable, she didn't really do all that much in the movie, or in the book really, especially after they cut out the bit with her dad, the Quibbler, and telling his story to Rita. Giving her THAT much screen time, when so many others suffered for it, to me, would seem like they are trying hard to establish her as a character, and frankly I think it has to do with the Veil, but that's just my guess.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
All I could think throughout most of the movie was, "If you haven't read the book, you are gonna have no effin' clue what is going on." That said, if you have read it, it's very good- probably the second best Potter movie, after Cuaron's sublime "Prisoner of Azkaban," and miles ahead of the other three entries in the movie series, all of which were varying degrees of craptastic.
I like that director David Yates was willing to be more adventurous- stylistically, this is nearly as much of a departure from the previous films as Cuaron's was. Lots of frenetic handheld camera work, quick cuts, jump cuts, and contrasted with some lovely transitions swooping over Hogwarts castle. Nice use of the very appropriate gray-blue color palette. CG work is still spotty, but that's not the director's fault.
Character-wise, Luna and Umbridge were spot-on perfect.
I find the whole business of "shipping" a little bizarre, but damned if I'm not rooting for Harry and Luna to get together in Book 7. They had more chemistry than the rest of the cast combined (including both Cho and Ms. Mary Sue, a.k.a. "Ginny Weasley"). A big hand for Evanna Lynch, who played Luna with dignity and just the right amount of whimsical battiness.
Umbridge was, if anything, even creepier than she was in the book. Rowling's incessant need to make her villains ugly sometimes gets on my nerves, and I liked that they cast Umbridge as sweet-looking, with the nastiness just under the surface. It makes her rare outbursts much more effective, and imbues her with an indescribable creepiness the rest of the time.
I actually didn't like Bellatrix in the movie... although she's supposed to be nuts, the actress played her a little too much like the cackling Wicked Witch of the West for my taste. Less scenery-chewing, please.
Making Cho the "traitor" was a really clever move, I thought. Having her friend betray the DA in the book always felt like a bit of a copout, so this change both streamlines the narrative and enhances the emotional impact of the DA's capture. But that said, I didn't really buy the Harry/Cho romance at all on screen... as I mentioned, Harry and Luna had far more interpersonal chemistry (to say nothing of having more in common), and I felt like every interaction between them sucked more life out of the Harry/Cho dynamic.
That said, well done to Daniel Radcliffe! He's really blossoming into quite the capable actor- you can really buy that Harry is seriously pissed off throughout most of the movie. Unfortunately, Radcliffe's given some really atrocious lines in this script ("You'll never feel love! Or friendship!"), but he does what he can with those.
Dumbledore is back to form after being an inexplicable idiot in the fourth movie- smart, powerful, perilous, with just a hint of wry humor.
Ron and Hermione were serviceable, but nothing special. I echo the comments about Emma Watson's acting... Less eyebrow! More face!
Sirius's death was disappointing, as was the hamfisted soundless "NOOOOOOOOOOO" that Harry does right afterward, complete with slo-mo. This is particularly annoying since they did a great job with Sirius throughout the rest of the movie, with some lovely bonding scenes between him and Harry that made up for his near-absence in movie 4. Gary Oldman is still God.
Snape rules. Alan Rickman is also God. He's one of the few actors in this series who underplays the character, and Snape is far better for it. His deadpan response to Harry's "Padfoot" exclamation is even better on-screen than it was on paper, and the occlumency scenes crackled with tension. I particularly liked the use of the shot from the very first film, of young Harry looking at the Mirror, with new footage of Snape spliced in as if walking in on Harry's memories.
Overall, I give the movie a 7/10. Big ups for Luna, Umbridge, Snape, Harry, and Sirius (mostly). Minor ups for Dumbledore, Grawp (who is impressive simply by not being incredibly annoying, as he is in the books), Cho Chang, and Neville. Downs on Bellatrix and Voldemort for excessive mastication of scenery.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Ditto to the above
I'd also like to say a word about the soundtrack being used too heavily. Pirates 2 did this as well, and as such, every scene was laden with INTENSE INTENSITY OF INTENSENESS, that was just exhausting.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Kreacher was the "character Rowling said we'd regret cutting", according to the film makers.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:That said, if you have read it, it's very good- probably the second best Potter movie, after Cuaron's sublime "Prisoner of Azkaban,"
Uh-oh. I hated POA.
quote:Pirates 2 did this as well, and as such, every scene was laden with INTENSE INTENSITY OF INTENSENESS, that was just exhausting.
I thought this during Pirates 2 but couldn't put it into words, that's it exactly!
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
kq: There's no talking voodoo heads. There's that.
Tarrsk: Does bookBellatrix have any lines that don't read like they were spouted by an insane drama queen? Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm waiting to see the movie until July 20th -- after which I'm going to a midnight release party and getting book 7. I don't mind spoilers. I mean, I read the book, so you can't ruin the ending for me.
As usual, some slight differences of opinion but overall, you've all got me looking forward to it. I wasn't sure. After the first 2 movies, which I thought were pure crap, I almost didn't go to the third movie. I'm glad I did because it turned out to be the best, followed (so far) closely by #4. Unfortunately, even these had their weaknesses, but that's for another thread, right?
It's particularly nice to see that Luna did a good job. I really enjoy her character in the book.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Luna was terrific. This movie was terrific. The last 20 minutes contained more excitement for me than the rest of this summer's movies so far combined (those of you who liked Transformers will obviously feel differently.) (For me, it's been a pretty hollow movie season so far.)
Huge thumbs up!
Having said that.... Things I didn't like:
*They didn't make enough of Neville. Stole the show in the novel, and in the movie they didn't give him anything to do. *The Groppy- / Centaur- / Umbridge's Fate-thing felt very hack.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Well, I came out of the movie a fairly serious Harry/Luna shipper, and I don't normally hold to that nonsense. I think it's because I'm now officially in love with Luna. I think she's the only one of the child characters who's translated from book to screen exactly. Wonderful! I read a review of it somewhere (I think AICN) that said it was like the casting director picked up the OotP book and shook it until Luna fell out and decided to call herself Evanna Lynch.
I'm also massively in love with Sirius. I thought the death scene was going to hit me harder than it did (for which I blame the silent "NOOOOOOOO"), but it was actually the Christmas-time scene in the tapestry room that got me.
Also, after seeing him on Leno the other night, I had little hope for Dan Radcliffe's acting. Colour me surprised - he was quite good.
What didn't I like? Well, Ginny Weasley has NO PLACE whatsoever in life, let alone tagging along with Harry and his posse. Also, didn't she look an awful lot like his mother? Hello, my name is Oedipus and I have a complex for you.
Also, why on earth was everyone able to produce corporeal Patroni? Oh, and when Voldemort possessed Harry, why were his eyes (finally) green instead of red? Nitpicking = fun!
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: kq: There's no talking voodoo heads. There's that.
Tarrsk: Does bookBellatrix have any lines that don't read like they were spouted by an insane drama queen?
Insane? Okay, you're right there. But drama queen? I never got that vibe from her.
I think my main problem is that Bellatrix is supposed to be someone you can hate on a very personal level- she tortured Neville's parents to insanity and killed Sirius, after all, and in the books, I always found her more maliciously frightening than even Voldemort. She's the wild card, the sociopath you can't predict, who is just as dangerous when cornered as when she's roaming free. The movie version, on the other hand, is so cartoonishly over-the-top that I couldn't take her seriously. There's nothing to fear there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
When I imagine Bellatrix I always imagine the Grand High Witch from the movie version of Roald Dahl's "The Witches."
*Spoiler*
Obviously the image is of her BEFORE she takes her mask off.
/spoilers.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Never, never judge actors by how they appear on talk shows. Quite a few actors are horrible extemporaneous speakers, halting or awkward or just not entertaining. I was startled the first time I heard James Earl Jones speak on a talk show and heard how badly he stuttered, although he's gotten better since.
Actors can bring a scripted and directed character to life, and that's what I want to see. If it turns out they can also be witty conversationalists, as some can, then that's just gravy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: Also, didn't she look an awful lot like his mother? Hello, my name is Oedipus and I have a complex for you.
I don't think there's anything wrong, disturbing, or worrisome about a guy liking a girl who is similar to his mother. It's kinda sweet, IMO.
[ July 11, 2007, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: Also, didn't she look an awful lot like his mother? Hello, my name is Oedipus and I have a complex for you.
I don't think there's anything wrong, disturbing, or worrisome about a guy liking a girl who is similar to his mother. It's kinda sweet, IMO.
I always got the impression from the books that Ginny looked a little like his mother. This doesn't seem weird to me at all. On the contrary, it was a big hint from the start that he would end up with her. Men actually tend to like women who look a little like their moms.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
The guy who plays Seamus Finnigan may be the worst actor I've ever seen. You can almost see the cue cards reflected in his eyes.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: But drama queen? I never got that vibe from her.
She proudly proclaimed to her own blood kin that if she had sons, she'd gladly sacrifice them to Lord Voldemort. Right at the moment said kin is inches away from hysterics over just that issue.
If that's not being a scenery-chewing attention craver, I don't know what is.
Also, note bookBellatrix's taunts to Harry about the way one has to want to do the unforgivable curses. She's a ranting, taunting fireball. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"The guy who plays Seamus Finnigan may be the worst actor I've ever seen. You can almost see the cue cards reflected in his eyes. "
Oh, man. Seriously, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so, and I'm wondering how he got hired.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Mmm... I don't know. There's similar, as in a couple mannerisms or affectations, and there's being practically a carbon copy, which is how I see Ginny.
Maybe that puts me in the minority, then, as I just don't get it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Carrie -
Several character were able to produce a Patronus in the book. I know at the very least Hermione was able to produce an Otter, I don't remember specifics about the others. But why for the love of god did they make Neville such a FOOL at DADA? It took him the entire training montage (seriously, there was a training montage) to be able to do ONE spell. In the books he was Harry's star pupil, but a bumbling oaf who happened upon a spell after weeks of practicing. It was a turning point, as other than Herbology is was the ONE thing that Neville could actually do naturally pretty darned well. ...........
I thought it sucked that they took that moment away from him just so the class would have a dunce.
Azkaban is still my favorite book and my favorite movie. The intense intensity of intenseness thing is a great way to describe the first hour of this movie. I think they are trying too hard to get you ramped up for all the stuff that happens at the end. And I also agree that I can't imagine anyone who hadn't read the books would have the foggiest clue as to what was really going on.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Mmm... I don't know. There's similar, as in a couple mannerisms or affectations, and there's being practically a carbon copy, which is how I see Ginny.
Well, if you take the cline of redheads, and weed out all the things redheads are famous for, I think you wind up with a pretty homogenous group. No offense to any redheads. There just aren't that many redheaded ingenues, and that's what both Mrs. Potter and Ginny are supposed to be in form.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Uh, Lyrhawn, I don't remember that about Neville at all. In fact, I remember Harry partnering up with Neville in practice so he could help him some more. I'll have to go look it up, but I'm sure it took Neville quite a while to get decent at anything they were learning. However, he DID get decent, because Harry took special care with him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Harry notices a big change in Neville after Christmas (when they meet his parents). I 'm not sure he's star pupil, but he's definitely no longer incompetent.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I could be wrong at that, but I do remember him specifically being one of the best, if not the best, of Harry's students in the end.
I'm like 400 pages in, currently rereading it now. I'll get back to you later when I get to that part.
I guess my main problem with it is them making him look comically helpless, when he wasn't at all like that. I think they cheapened his character.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I believe it said Harry felt his progress in occulmency was abyssmal compared with the progress Neville was making in DA. Also, Cho had a fairly clear swan patronus. The patronus was something Neville had trouble with in the book.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narnia: Uh, Lyrhawn, I don't remember that about Neville at all. In fact, I remember Harry partnering up with Neville in practice so he could help him some more. I'll have to go look it up, but I'm sure it took Neville quite a while to get decent at anything they were learning. However, he DID get decent, because Harry took special care with him.
As I am currently just about done rereading book 5 and just got to this part last night....
ahem
Neville did start out bumbling, but after Christmas (when Harry meets him at St. Mongo's), he notices a dramatic change in him. In fact, the book leaves the definite impression that Neville was well on his way to being almost as good ad DADA as Herbology, between the combination of his own determination and Harry's help.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
According to Wikipedia, Rowling told the film makers that the two-way mirror that Sirius gave to Harry would be significant in the seventh book, but was still left out of the fifth movie. I still think we're going to see Sirius in some way other than a flashback in the last book.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Am I the only one who was vaguely upset that when he showed up at the ministry for the battle, Dumbledore was not wearing Bermuda shorts?
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Wha...?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: According to Wikipedia, Rowling told the film makers that the two-way mirror that Sirius gave to Harry would be significant in the seventh book, but was still left out of the fifth movie. I still think we're going to see Sirius in some way other than a flashback in the last book.
I'm going to guess that it'll be significant because Harry will remember the mirror and use it with someone else. I don't think Sirius will be talking to Harry through it.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
The Sword in The Stone.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: The Sword in The Stone.
Heh, I got the reference immediately. I love that movie.
"Insolent piece of crockery!"
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I got the reference, but I just wasn't getting why it went with that scene. *shrug* I love Sword in the Stone. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: According to Wikipedia, Rowling told the film makers that the two-way mirror that Sirius gave to Harry would be significant in the seventh book, but was still left out of the fifth movie. I still think we're going to see Sirius in some way other than a flashback in the last book.
I'm going to guess that it'll be significant because Harry will remember the mirror and use it with someone else. I don't think Sirius will be talking to Harry through it.
I agree. I think he'll find Sirius' mirror (the one he didn't give Harry) or something and use it to communicate with someone else.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
He comes back and fights the badguy after leaving. Maybe I haven't seen it in way too long.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Now I'm picturing Voldemort teamed up with Mad Madame Mim.
Now there's an unholy alliance for you.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: Mmm... I don't know. There's similar, as in a couple mannerisms or affectations, and there's being practically a carbon copy, which is how I see Ginny.
Maybe that puts me in the minority, then, as I just don't get it.
I don't mind the similarities between Ginny and Lily- in fact, I'd never noticed them prior to reading this thread. Ginny bugs me as a character because she literally serves no purpose other than to be the plucky girl who is destined to be Harry's girlfriend. Both Luna and Cho have attributes unrelated to their relationship to Harry that make them interesting characters (well, only marginally so in Cho's case ). Like all of the other truly sympathetic characters in the Potterverse, they have flaws; they're imperfect. Ginny just... is there, taking up narrative space.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I thought Ginny was extremely cool in OotP, and one of the most interesting characters in THBP.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think Ginny just seems to be in the backdrop because Harry doesn't notice her until HBP. He's too busy with Quidditch and seeing her as Ron's little sister to notice her attributes. i think she's pretty cool once she gets some confidence.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Tarrsk hit the nail on the head regarding Ginny. I find her lack of flaws completely unrealistic and unrelatable.
Posted by TheBlueShadow (Member # 9718) on :
quote: Oh, and when Voldemort possessed Harry, why were his eyes (finally) green instead of red? Nitpicking = fun!
Probably because they messed up Voldemort's eyes. His were blue of all things instead of red. They could have at least given him green eyes. As that is what he had Pre-Megalomaniac.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
A good movie, although a little too rushed. I was disappointed by the complete lack of Quidditch, though I guess putting Quidditch in would have made it even MORE rushed.
My only real problem is Dumbledore. I cringed every time he was on screen. In my mind (in the books), Dumbledore is lively and cheerful nearly all the time. Whatever he's doing -- unless it's something really horrible or dangerous -- I pictured him doing it with a little smile on his face and a twinkle in his eye. Also, he's witty and has a significant presence, whatever he's doing.
Movie-Dumbledore just doesn't have that. He doesn't have a spark. He never has more than a few lines at a time, while in the books, Dumbledore frequently goes on. I know you have to cut dialogue for movies, but movie-Dumbledore just felt so silent and grim. He never made me laugh.
And sometimes, like for example when Harry was being posessed by Voldemort, Dumbledore had this look on his face of total stupification, a look of "I have no friggin hell of an idea what is going on." Surely, Dumbledore must have been SURPRISED to see Harry's eyes go all weird, but I never imagined Dumbledore would have that look on his face, ever.
I don't remember what Michael Gambon (the second actor to play Dumbledore) was like in the third and fourth movies, because I barely remember them at all, but I'm guessing that he had minor enough parts in those movies that I didn't notice how bad it was. I do remember being very disappointed by his start-of-term speeches.
I also remember Richard Harris being wonderful in the first and second movies. (One of the only things Chris Columbus did right!) He was nearly as close as you could get to portraying Dumbledore truthfully. Now I'm really sad that he died, because he would have been so wonderful in the sixth movie, in which Dumbledore has a huge part. I don't know if it's Michael Gambon's fault that Dumbledore is so badly played, or the director's, but either way...I really hope they shape up before the sixth movie!
P.S. I really don't understand why everyone has such strong opinions about Ginny...
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
A couple of people have said that it was after Christmas when the main three ran into Neville at St. Mungo's that he really began to shine in the DA practice sessions. But I'm pretty sure it was the Escape of Belatrix that sparked his determination. I'm too lazy to look up the pages but I'm almost positive it was the Azkaban break out and not the Hospital visit that caused Nevile to work So hard. And yes, he was in fact one of the fastest learners by the end. I can't rememebr the jinx they were working on, it may have been the patronous, but there is a direct line in the book where harry noticed that it was only Hermione who had learned to do the spell faster than Neville.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, they never get Dumbledore's mixture of silliness, strength, weirdness, that twinkle in his eyes, the way he's always under control in the most terrible situations. The way he's just... cool. I was watching a bit of Harris in the 2 first movies. He was pretty cool and came close to getting it. But Gambon, the way he was shoving Harry around in the 4th movie... These movies just dont get it.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I agree that Gambon played Dumbledore a bit too stern, but I like his portrayal a lot more than Harris's. Harris was a fine actor, but by the time they filmed the first two Potter movies, he was just too old- his Dumbledore was downright frail. I wouldn't have bet on him against a gust of wind, much less the Dark Lord.
In "Azkaban," Gambon did have that wry humor that so characterizes book-Dumbledore, without being outright silly. It disappeared in "Goblet of Fire," but I've already mentioned why I thoroughly disliked the direction they took Dumbledore in that film, and I place responsibility for those choices solely on the writer and director, who seemed insistent on making Dumbledore look like an ineffectual, loud fool. In OoTP, he's played more sternly because that's how he was in the book- remember that he essentially spends the whole book brushing Harry off. I do think they severely underplayed the conversation between Harry and Dumbledore at the end of the movie, but again I think the lack of emotional resonance was due more to directorial choices and the extremely tight editing than Gambon's acting. You can't effectively convey a twinkle in your eye if the film cuts away from the entire scene the moment you finish your line.
I think HBP will be the true test of Gambon, and personally I suspect he'll do just fine, as long as the writing and direction don't once again cripple him.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You don't see any of the lighter side of Dumbledore because this movie was all cowboyed up. It's not an automatic bad thing, but by removing pretty much every bit of fun or magic (in the less literal sense I guess) and turning it into a more militant oriented film, you lose a lot of the characters I think.
During the Dumbledore/Voldemort fight, I didn't see Dumbledore as lost at all. I took the look on his face during the possession as sheer horror. I think he knew perfectly well what he might have to do if Harry couldn't overcome Voldemort, but I didn't believe for a second that he was lost, even when the fire Basilisk looked like it was going to wipe the floor with him.
I did think the whole swooping swirly smoke aspects of the fight were a bit out there. I mean, sure it was cool (who am I kidding, it was really cool), but it was kind of ridiculous at the same time. I felt like I was watching a fight between the Ancients and Anubis from Stargate. Apparating means you POP in and out, you can't fly around like some weird non-corporeal wispy spirit ghost creature. I thought that aspect was very, very odd, much as my brain was also stamping it with little cool tags whilst watching it.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Re: Neville's ascension - American version of OotP, p. 553
quote:Harry was pleased to see that all of them ... had been spurred to work harder than ever by the news that ten more Death Eaters were now on the loose, but in nobody was this improvement more pronounced than in Neville. The news of his parents' attacker's escape had wrought a strange and even slightly alarming change in him. ... [He] worked relentlessly on every new jinx and countercurse Harry taught them ... He was improving so fast it was quite unnerving and when Harry taught them the Shield Charm, a means of deflecting minor jinxes so that they rebounded upon the attacker, only Hermione mastered the charm faster than Neville.
It goes on to say that Harry wished he could be making as much progress with Snape as Neville was in life.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
In the scenes Dumbledore was in he couldn't be smiling or glimmering. He had to not look Harry in the face for fear that Voldemort was controling his mind.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I just saw it a couple of hours ago, and liked it quite a bit. Frankly, I liked it better than I liked the book- admittedly, it's my least favorite book of the series. They toned down Harry's petulant-teenager act, and gave him stronger motivations for the anger and frustration that remained; also, I felt they made the relationship (and break-up) between Cho and Harry more believable. It annoyed the heck out of me in the book that Harry finally has a requited attraction, and the author decided to throw a wet blanket on the matter; it's like she'd completely forgotten what one's first requited love is like. (Or, at least, her first requited love was very different from mine.)
I appreciated that the director was smart enough to let things that were grand and spectacular be so, but also willing to let some things be quiet and/or subtle when it was more effective; we don't ever actually need to hear someone yell "Nooooooo....!" in slow motion ever, ever again. The previews I saw during Ratatouille made me wonder if subtlety was going to become an extinct quality in mainstream motion pictures.
Luna Lovegood was so good and so... I don't have a single word; the movie focused on her so much?... That I was a little surprised, knowing (to the best of my knowledge) that there isn't going to be a romance between her and Harry. (Conversely, Ginny's absence from the film makes me wonder if they aren't planning to smuggle in a different actress to play the part for Half-Blood Prince.)
I agree with those that say the early parts were somewhat rushed, and without a knowledge of the books (or at least all the previous pictures) the viewer will be somewhat lost; still, as one who is familiar, I have to applaud it getting in at under three hours, and I enjoyed it tremendously.
ADD: Oh, and finally a supernatural battle that isn't the protaganists floating in mid-air and/or throwing things at each other telekinteically. Huzzah!
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: (Conversely, Ginny's absence from the film makes me wonder if they aren't planning to smuggle in a different actress to play the part for Half-Blood Prince.)
Ginny was in several scenes, she just didn't get much in the way of lines.
She also was given the chance to send Harry and Cho a knowing look. I liked that touch.
[ July 11, 2007, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Puffy Treat ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sterling -
You really think that anyone who hadn't read the books even knew Harry and Cho were together at some point? Other than fleeting looks at each other and one kiss in the Room of Requirement, they didn't have a realtionship, and therefore the breakup was sort of a moot point.
And it wasn't just under three hours, it was just over two hours, it was the shortest of all the films thus far.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Puffy- I had to go look her up on imdb before I recognized her. Does she even get a line?
Lyrhawn- In this movie, I think that qualifies as a relationship, though based on what's in the movie a relationship with Luna would seem more likely. While they don't spend a lot of on-screen time together, almost all the time that they do focuses on either moving toward or away from that relationship. It's definitely a non-trivial plot element.
I had heard the movie was two and a half hours; rottentomatoes says 2 hours 18 minutes. Within reason, I appreciate that.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Sterling: As per my previous post, yes, she gets some lines. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'll take your word for it.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
Thank you Carrie. I love it when I actually know something that I think I know. So often it turns out that I'm just flat out wrong.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
It. Sucked.
Gambon, the speed, the enormous amount of stuff left out, the bad acting, the myriad of unbelievable special effects. The spells in Rowling's HP world always struck me as not terribly flashy and rather restrictive. The curses thrown around in the final battle didn't even seem like spells... they looked like they were dueling with really long light sabers or something. Plus what's with the half corporeal flying around as smoke? They just screwed up so much. Plus did anyone else notice: JOHN WILLIAMS IS NO LONGER DOING THE MUSIC! I noticed all through out the movie that the soundtrack sounded horrible, nothing like the John Williams soundtracks of the first couple. Now I know why.
Worst of the movies in my opinion. And that's saying a lot, cause I've never been fond of them. Guess I'm just too fond of the books to really accept their portrayal of the movies.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I think Williams only officially did the soundtrack for the first one. The rest just borrowed from him.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Williams did the soundtrack to "Azkaban," too. Just another reason why I like that one best. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
The soundtrack to Azkaban was one of John Williams best soundtracks. I would say it was the best one he's done in 10 years. Absolutely stunning. The music in Goblet of Fire was distractingly simplistic and the music in this one? Well. I honestly didn't notice it. In my book, that's a good thing.
And now. My thoughts.
Loved it. I really really don't like this book. It's the only one I just can't reread. I try, and I've succeeded only once (in rereading). Here's why I loved the movie:
Harry's angst was much more believable in the movie than it was in the book. It was a burning, smouldering anger that came out now and then, but was quite evident in his inability to talk to his friends or feel like a part of any group. I really got that. Bravo to the script writers and to Radcliffe.
Ron and Hermione did not annoy me. For the first time ever, I actually LOVED movie Ron. His part wasn't big, but the writers' use of him as a calming voice for Harry was a brilliant stroke and I loved it. Hermione used less of her eyebrows, and that was a relief. She was also believable as a 'friend' in this one, instead of the constant nag.
Imelda Staunton is a genius. The costume designer is also a genius.
Much less Draco. Thank heavens.
Luna was beautiful, luminous, and a perfect addition to the crew. I really enjoyed how the director pulled those six together again on the train platform just so we could see that a team has been formed. I love the ensemble feel that this movie had because of that.
Speaking of ensemble, I truly enjoyed the DA meetings. Harry's coaching was a little too "rah rah rah" but it was lots of fun to see it. I could see the change that came over Harry as he transitioned from "alone" to "not alone" and it was believable.
This movie represents the longest book in the series thus far, and it had to cut out a lot. I didn't really mind those cuts. I would have loved to have seen Lockhart in the hospital wing, but I knew it would have to go. I was bummed that we didn't get to see the Umbridge/McGonnagal/Hagrid duel during the astronomy OWLs. However, I loved how they still managed to take time in this movie, which I never felt like we've had in the other movies. Time for talking, like people do when they care about each other. The H/R/H scene in front of the fire where they talk about Harry and Cho's kiss...the Harry and Sirius scenes...the Harry and Luna scenes. They were so nice and calming. I was grateful for them, for the quiet, for the character development, and for the great acting done by all.
The final duel was what we've been wanting to see. I was bummed that they didn't show the crazy rooms on the way into the prophesy room, and I was bummed that the kids didn't get injured like they did in the book. It kind of...belittled their involvement in it. However, I can't find fault with the Dumbledore/Voldemort duel. It was beautiful and exciting and again, we had TIME to see what was going on. And then V's possession of Harry...props again to Radcliffe. I thought it was very well done. Everyone in my theater was leaning forward in their seats...and I was in the back row, so I could see.
I thought Kreacher was perfect.
I liked that I felt sympathy for Grawp. Poor guy.
The only major problem with the movie (that I see) was pointed out to me by my mother. (I didn't even notice it.) She leaned over to me and said "Why did Voldemort want the prophesy?" I had to sit and think for a minute to remember why, and I realized that we had no idea why Voldemort wanted the prophesy and we didn't understand that it was only Harry or Voldemort who could take it from the Department of Mysteries. It just wasn't explained, so the motivation for V to lure Harry there just wasn't clear. Yeah. Slight problem.
but, all in all, I loved it. It's my favorite of the 5 movies, my least favorite of the 5 books, and all in all, tons of fun. Completely worth my long wait in line for a good seat.
[edit for spellings]
[ July 14, 2007, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Dude. I totally ditto everything Narnia said.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote: The only major problem with the movie (that I see) was pointed out to me by my mother. (I didn't even notice it.) She leaned over to me and said "Why did Voldemort want the prophesy?" I had to sit and think for a minute to remember why, and I realized that we had no idea why Voldemort wanted the prophesy and we didn't understand that it was only Harry or Voldemort who could take it from the Department of Mysteries. It just wasn't explained, so the motivation for V to lure Harry there just wasn't clear. Yeah. Slight problem.
Lucius does say that in the movie. He tells Harry that when he's trying to get Harry to hand him the prophecy.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I thought that it was very, very good. In bits. There were some lines that made me wince (oh, God, like when Harry was all, "You won't ever know love or friendship and I feel sorry for you"), but there were also parts that made me all squealy with excitement.
The scene in the Ministry was excellent. I was as tense as a, a, a terribly tense thing. The Death Eaters traveling around in smoky blackness and always appearing everywhere and stopping the kids from getting anywhere was very cool. I didn't even notice how completely on edge I had been throughout the scene, but when Dumbledore showed up, every muscle in my body relaxed.
Imelda Staunton was perfect. I can't say enough good things about her. That giggle, the sweet sweet voice, it was all excellent. I wish we'd had the scene where Hermione rebels in her classroom, but I accept that it was necessary for it to go.
Gary Oldman made me go all teary-eyed, in basically every scene he was in. Such a very excellent Sirius. I was sad they didn't do much with him being trapped in the house, and Snape taunting him about it. (I think maybe they overheard a few things, but it was so very minor.) But the interaction between him and Harry was great.
Helena Bonham-Carter was exactly how I pictured Bellatrix Lestrange. Exactly. She was over the top, but the character was as well, and I have to say it worked for me. During the scene at the Ministry, I expected Lucius Malfoy to scare me to death, because he was quite scary in the second movie; but actually I was totally chill about him and all my tenseness was reserved for Bellatrix. She's a loose cannon! You don't know what she might do! She's a crazy crazy crazy lady!
I also thought that they did the Occlumency scenes well, even though I was chagrined at how short they were, and how little they seemed to affect Harry's life. But Alan Rickman was excellent. I should preface this by saying that I hate Snape ever so much. He's a big bully and he's nasty and I know his life's been rough but for heaven's sake, that's no reason to make life miserable for a bunch of kids under your charge. That said, the scene from Snape's memory, and the aftermath of that, worked so, so well. Alan Rickman actually made me feel sorry for Snape. Not just a little bit sorry, the way that seen does in the book, but like quite, quite, quite sorry.
However, the Occlumency scenes weren't very well explained. You didn't totally know what was going on, and it never said anything about Harry wanting to keep having the locked-door dream, and there wasn't that whole thing about if Harry had learnt Occlumency like he was supposed to then Sirius wouldn't have had to die.
But overall very good.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I saw it this afternoon and I really liked it. Echoing all the Luna and Umbridge comments - they were excellent. Emma Watson's eyebrows still did a lot of the acting, but I liked her. I loved the scene with the three of them (H/R/H) by the fireplace.
I'm a little disturbed at how grown up and *ahem* dishy Harry and Ron are becoming.
I also think that if you hadn't read the book it would have been impossible to follow - but meh. And I missed the swamp.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I saw it last night and thought it was great. Having watched the first movie last Saturday and thinking wow this movie is so long, OotP went by so quickly. I'm sad they cut out the OWL exams, but it would have been sort of boring. They also didn't really talk about why the OWLs are important considering how much they stressed about them in the book.
I loved the looks Ginny gave whenever Harry was waiting for Cho. I also loved Umbridge. She was fantastic and everything I thought she would be.
As for Dumbledore, I really didn't like the first one. He spoke too slowly and didn't really capture the force I thought he would be.
This one is definitely my favorite of the five. There were funny parts and sad parts. Harry showed some good change in emotion whenever he saw Sirius and then again when Sirius died. Hopefully the last two movies will live up to this one, but considering the length of the books it might be hard.
Posted by Uindy (Member # 9743) on :
One of the things that really confused me was when Betrix killed Sirius in the movie. To me it looked like Betrix hit him with the killing curse, then he fell throuh the vail. In the book I seem to remember that she only hit him with a stunner that pushed him in the vail. A curse didn't killl Serius a vail did.
Am I right about this? Betrix didn't really kill Sirius the vail did it.
[ July 12, 2007, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Uindy ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's what I thought.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
One thing I have to say though, is that even though I've enjoyed the last couple of movies, they won't get a pass from me if they do 6 and 7 the same way.
It won't be fair if when they adapt the final two, they do so in broad brushstrokes, give you the feel, but leave out 80% of the material.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I wonder how one of my least favorite books in the series could become one of the best movies in the Harry Potter series.
I have a theory. I think reading about Harry's angst and boiling, unfocused rage was more tiring and less sympathetic than the performance of it in this film. I saw the action and Harry's response to it-- pulling away from his friends, desperately not wanting to be alone but isolating himself anyway-- and it made sense. Not only did it make sense, but it was more relatable than in the books.
Also, Dan Radcliff can act. Who knew? Luna was fabulous, as were most of the secondary cast.I really enjoyed it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Regarding Sirius and the veil, I think for purposes of a movie where you can't have pages and pages of internal monologue, it needed to be clear that Sirius had died at that point. In the book, Harry wants to look through the veil even before Sirius goes through it, and he's obsessed for days afterward that he might somehow still be just on the other side waiting for him.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bellatrix didn't hit him with a killing curse or a stunner, she used Sectumsempra, and he fell into the veil after being hit with it.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
It was not Sectumsempra. The curse was never named. Here's how it goes in the book:
quote:Only on pair was still battling, apparently unaware of the new arrival. Harry saw Sirius duck Bellatrix's jets of red light: he was laughing at her.
"Come on, you can do better than that!" he yelled, his voice echoing around the cavernous room.
The second jet of light hit him squarely on the chest.
The laugher had not quite died from his face, but his eyes widened in shock.
...
It seemed to take Sirius an age to fall: his body curved in a graceful arc as he sank backwards through the ragged veil hanging from the arch.
It could have been the killing curse or stunning curse, but sectumsempra is full of blood ... so I don't think it was.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
The vet clinic where I work got free tickets to a sneak preview sponsored by Bayer drugs (talk about a weird pre-movie experience: instead of previews, we were treated to trivia questions such as "How many eggs can an adult roundworm lay per day?" and commercials for Advantage flea control.) Everyone here has pretty much covered everything I had to say about the movie, so rather than repeat them, I will simply say that I am proud of this movie for actually getting my boyfriend interested in what was going on. He agreed to come with me, which was amazing enough in the first place, as he wants absolutely nothing to do with Harry Potter, but after the movie he drilled me about who was who and what exactly just happened, and seemed to have some geniune interest. I was very pleased (even though this does not by any means indicate that he will read the books or see the previous movies, 'cause it ain't gonna happen) because now perhaps he will come see the next one with me, and not think I'm such a dork (even though I am, proudly.) Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
AK= green light by the way.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Yeah, I was rather interested that JKR chose not to tell us what color Bellatrix's light was in the book. She mentions that the earlier ones were red...and then we don't know what that last one is. Just to drive us crazy. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Narnia -
In the movie, not in the book, it's what she used.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Which is what she used? Sectumsempra?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I wonder how one of my least favorite books in the series could become one of the best movies in the Harry Potter series.
I have a theory. I think reading about Harry's angst and boiling, unfocused rage was more tiring and less sympathetic than the performance of it in this film. I saw the action and Harry's response to it-- pulling away from his friends, desperately not wanting to be alone but isolating himself anyway-- and it made sense. Not only did it make sense, but it was more relatable than in the books.
Also, Dan Radcliff can act. Who knew? Luna was fabulous, as were most of the secondary cast.I really enjoyed it.
Aw, man! Now I KNOW I'm not gonna like it. I liked all the internal monologue of angst. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I wonder how one of my least favorite books in the series could become one of the best movies in the Harry Potter series.
I have a theory. I think reading about Harry's angst and boiling, unfocused rage was more tiring and less sympathetic than the performance of it in this film. I saw the action and Harry's response to it-- pulling away from his friends, desperately not wanting to be alone but isolating himself anyway-- and it made sense. Not only did it make sense, but it was more relatable than in the books.
Also, Dan Radcliff can act. Who knew? Luna was fabulous, as were most of the secondary cast.I really enjoyed it.
Aw, man! Now I KNOW I'm not gonna like it. I liked all the internal monologue of angst.
So did I/ I loved how dorky and embarassed Harry felt when it came to Cho, like how he thought his arms looked stupid. That was great. I thought he had every right to be cranky.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
All that is still there, without all the annoying "He said angrily"'s. The angst is still there, but it's raw and written on his face, in his actions. Very well done, actually.
Edit: I didn't re-read the book because I didn't want to be hacked off about all the stuff I liked that they cut. Eventually there will be a several BBC series or something that will have it all. Until then, this was good for what it was.
[ July 12, 2007, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I was sort of indifferent to the 5th book the first time through, but when I re-read all the books recently, the 5th and 6th were by far my favorites, and I'm not sure between the two which I like better.
There's just more going on in the 5th book than any of the others, more stuff outside of the Hogwarts world. I love The Order. I loved the DA. I loved Fred and George. I loved the ministry of magic fight. And I loved the big exposition at the end with Dumbledore. And there's probably more I loved too. Harry's angst really didn't bother me that much.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
well now you made me look stupid, didn't you Olivet! HUH?
I refuse to delete my post. Everyone will wonder what I'm talking about. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
No, I meant to hit edit and I hit quote instead. Need to wear my reading glasses!
ETA:Then I thought I could delete it before anyone got the wrong idea. My bad.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
well then. my edit stands.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm about to be po'. Is this movie worth spending six bucks on tomorrow when I go to Cambridge to by Bernie some rabbit pellets?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: All that is still there, without all the annoying "He said angrily"'s.
Oh god, the "angrily"s. I hope her editor went into book 7 and manually deleted every adverb in the text.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I loved Ron in this movie, for the first time. I agree w/ those who loved the Ron/Hermione/Harry scene discussing the kiss with Cho. And yes, Luna was gold. They could have made her a little weirder, but still, she stole the show in a lot of ways.
I probably wouldn't have cast or directed Bellatrix the way they did, but I sure thought that Carter was fun to watch!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with Narnia and Fyfe. Absolutely marvelous! Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
First off, I'd like to thank each and every one of you for telling me about Emma's Eyebrows. I've never noticed them, but I'm sure when the next movie comes out, I'll laugh inappropriately in a particularly dramatic scene, because I noticed her eyebrows for the first time.
Thanks. LOL
I really can't enjoy *any* movie based on a book unless I see it as a supplement to the book. It will never every be as good as the book, but it *does* present a chance to 'see' some of the things in the books, and bring my favorite characters to life.
My brother watched this movie, not having read the books, and he had no clue what happened. There were several things unexplained.
See, Me and my sister have read the books, and we had never seen any of the movies until this past weekend, when Family Channel showed the first three. My brother caught a couple of glimpses of the first movie, and hated it (Thanks Columbus!), saw the last part of the second movie, and liked the snake, and actually watched the whole third movie and liked it.
We got tgof off of netflix, and the same day my sister asks me to drive her to the theatre to see the ootp. She hated it. I liked it.
Honestly, I didn't see why they took some things out. If you haven't read the books, some of this movie isn't going to make sense to you anyway. So. If you're not going to explain things properly in the movie, why not perplex the non-readers a little more, and give the fans of the books some scenes that we'd like. The non-readers are already confused. A little more confusion won't hurt them.
The high point in the movie series for me was tgof. I felt that every cut was appropriate (And even though I didn't like anything being cut, the movie's just a supplement. I can always pull out the book any time I want.) The only real problem I had with the movie was that they didn't explain what happened between Harry and Voldemort's wands. My brother asked me what happened, and I had to explain it to him (After taunting him about not reading the books). That was bad. But that was all I didn't like about the fourth movie.
This movie didn't have things that I liked, and while the scenes were required, per se, I would have liked to see them in the movie. The movie was the shortest of them all, so far, so time wasn't an issue. They could have fit in more.
But, all I have are petty gripes. I can still pull out the book (My favorite in the series so far) and read it anytime, and just see the movie as a suplement. A cliff notes. Nobody gets angry at a cliffnotes book for bad storytelling. Not that the storytelling in the movie was bad, it just wasn't perfect.
Oh, and BTW, I never liked the soundtrack to any of the Harry Potter movies. This movie actually had music that I noticed as being okay (It wasn't distracting; I listen specifically for the music whenever there's a sweeping panoramic shot or something like that.). This is as opposed to music I never noticed. If I did notic ethe music in the music earlier in the series, it was because it was distracting, boring, or even sloppy sounding. The biggest problem I had with *this* soundtrack was that they played it so much.
This brings me to my next point... And final point. "My favorite book, the movie fell short," etc. I'll go on like this forever if I don't stop myself.
The movie didn't have the same feeling as the book. The book was the darkest of the first five, and possibly darker than even Thbp. It didn't feel the same... The sense of the school pulling together to get on Umbrige's nerves... I don't know what it was. But it was in the book, and not in the movie. And I felt that the music director tried to make up for it by playing intense music all the time, to create a 'mood'. <Sigh>
I'm done now.
Intellectually I can say this was a great movie, but as a die-hard Potter fan (Even if I only read the series for the first time this past March), I'm cringing.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My sister who did not read the book thought it was really good except for Hermione. I thought the posession scene was a major departure from the book and does a disservice to where this story is likely to go. Voldemort flees not only from his love, but his acquiescence to death IMO.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The one part I thought absolutely needed to be there was when Petunia announced what Dementors are. Instead they wasted time with the letter reading itself. It would have been faster and more effective if Vernon had simply looked at the letter and announced that Harry had been expelled. That would have given them time for the flurry of activity in the book, including "Remember my last, Petunia!"
I also disliked the battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort. Gambon made Dumbledore appear to be struggling with Voldemort. The stronger he attempts to look, the weaker the character appears. Dumbledore's immense power can only be demonstrated through understatement. Harris had that in spades. I don't think Gambon has even read the books.
"'We both know there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom,' Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk toward Voldemort as though he had not a fear in the world, as though nothing had happened to interrupt his stroll up the hall."
Overall I liked this movie quite a lot. Yes, a huge amount was left out, but it wasn't a synopsis like Goblet of Fire, and it wasn't utter crap like Prisoner of Azkaban.
Finally, Radcliffe's acting is up to the job, and Ron didn't mug so much. Cinematography and editing was wonderful, and the story held its own.
Important to note: those directorial and editing shots that show that time is advancing, without hitting you over the head with it like Azkaban, allow the missing pieces of the story to be much more palatable, even if you don't quite understand what's going on.
And yes, Luna was great.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Narnia, Lyr:
I watched the film again. Bellatrix definitely says "Ava Kedavra" when she casts her curse.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yep, Jenni and I got that the first sitting.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Yup, Ava Kadavra. Kinda surprised me since I didn't remember her saying that in the book, but it makes sense.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Narnia, Lyr:
I watched the film again. Bellatrix definitely says "Ava Kedavra" when she casts her curse.
I knew to watch for it but she definately says "Avara Kadavra." Spell was the same green that is has always been in the movie. Pretty sure they did it so there would be no confusion concerning Sirius being dead. I honestly had to reread that part in the book like 4 times before I understood what had just happened, and how Sirius was suddenly dead. It always bothered me that there was no sign or guard rail with something along the lines of, "You WILL die if you walk through here." Why do they even have that arch there?
Wait wait...let me guess....Its the "Department of Mysteries?! So its a mystery?"
edit: Incidentally I'll post my thoughts on the movie on Monday as anything to take my mind off work fore just a few minutes is welcome. Overall I greatly enjoyed it!
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
The film didn't move me either way really. It was "alright". I liked Luna, she was delightfully eccentric, and Umbridge was a real dog. Hagrid seemed out of place. He's all like "hey guys" for 2 scenes, and then he's gone.
Harry's angst, while probably appropriate, is getting old.
Dumbledore still rocks.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
A few things I didn't see mentioned. Her part was too small, but I thought the woman who did Tonks really did well with the part and the effects of her doing animal faces at the table were neat. She was also *very* hawt, IMO.
I really liked the opening scene and how grown up it was... and really the rest of the movie, too. There was never the sense of real menace in any of the other films that there was in this one. But Dudley and his gang weren't there for comic relief and the dementor attack was, IMO, more frightening than the mass of them in Prisoner of Azkaban. The Death Eaters at the end were much more real threats and much less a bunch of bumbling adults who couldn't handle a small group of teenagers. For the first time they really seemed like a group of wizards and witches who could take over the world.
About the whirling, whooshing, smokey thing in the big battle at the end, three theories (not mutually exclusive):
1) it's to cause confusion, fear, and misdirection about what they're doing... all major elements in winning a fight.
2) is it possible there is a similar prohibition on Apparating at the Ministry as there is at Hogwarts? It would make a lot of sense, security-wise... including explaining the need for all the flues and lifts.
3) Disapparating takes, I believe, a few seconds concentration... you don't want to just stand there and think about where you're going when someone's hurling curses at you.
Beyond that, ditto to what everyone said abut Umbridge and Luna-- they were excellent. The movie *really* seems to be making a play for Luna and Harry to get together. The main characters have really improved their acting skills. Oldman was excellent as always. I was scared that Sirius had been too left out of the other movies for his death to make an impact here, but Oldman sold us on him very well.
But that brings us to my only real complaint with the movie.... for all his angst at the moment of death, Harry doesn't show one sign of remorse at the loss of Sirius afterwards. How hard would it be to show him crying as he packed is suitcase or something? After declaring that Sirius was the only family he had, Harry seems strangely unmoved by his loss.
But I really enjoyed it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He didn't seem unmoved to me at all.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
*shrug* maybe I have the emotional range of a teaspoon?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
I doubt that....
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:1) it's to cause confusion, fear, and misdirection about what they're doing... all major elements in winning a fight.
2) is it possible there is a similar prohibition on Apparating at the Ministry as there is at Hogwarts? It would make a lot of sense, security-wise... including explaining the need for all the flues and lifts.
3) Disapparating takes, I believe, a few seconds concentration... you don't want to just stand there and think about where you're going when someone's hurling curses at you.
I'll buy number 1, it definitely made it seem to me more like a magic battle than people standing around lobbing incantations at each other.
Number 2 is out; Arthur apparates to work. Somewhere it explains that a lot of adults don't even bother with apparation because it's difficult and dangerous.
My take was something similar to number 3. It seems to me that the battles were all fought in slow motion, except for the dialog. I viewed the smokey trails as what apparition would look like in slow motion.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Ahem. I never questioned the movie spell. I'm glad it's now clear that it was GREEN and the killing curse.
I just saw it again last night and it withstood further scrutiny. But, to be honest, this movie is so good that I'm not really aware enough to scrutinize it. Let's just say that it still doesn't feel too long or too short, and I enjoyed every minute of it the second time through. I noticed that Lucius does explain that Harry is the only one who can get the prophesy (but it's one line and I don't think many people will get that in one viewing), and I noticed that Kreacher was talking to Mrs. Black's portrait and that she actually answered him from under the covering. Again, something else you'd miss on one viewing, but tons of fun anyway. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Everyone: Avada Kedavra.
just for accuracy's sake Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:1) it's to cause confusion, fear, and misdirection about what they're doing... all major elements in winning a fight.
2) is it possible there is a similar prohibition on Apparating at the Ministry as there is at Hogwarts? It would make a lot of sense, security-wise... including explaining the need for all the flues and lifts.
3) Disapparating takes, I believe, a few seconds concentration... you don't want to just stand there and think about where you're going when someone's hurling curses at you.
I'll buy number 1, it definitely made it seem to me more like a magic battle than people standing around lobbing incantations at each other.
Number 2 is out; Arthur apparates to work. Somewhere it explains that a lot of adults don't even bother with apparation because it's difficult and dangerous.
My take was something similar to number 3. It seems to me that the battles were all fought in slow motion, except for the dialog. I viewed the smokey trails as what apparition would look like in slow motion.
He Apparates, but perhaps not inside the building itself. And most not into the Hall of Mysteries, where every attempt of made to keep things secure..
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, it seems quite likely that different security rules (and spells) apply in the entry lobby and within the Department of Mysteries.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Does anyone else find it hard to take Avada Kedavra seriously as the most forbidden, evil, and lethal spell because it sounds way too much like Abracadabra? I have no idea if there's any serious etymology in there (cadabra/Kedavra do sound an awful lot like cadaver); but Abracadabra meant "silly meaningless parody of a magical incantation" to my mind long before I knew the meaning of the word "cadaver," s it's hard for me to give it any serious connotations.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes, I had noticed that. I have a problem with that spell in general, and feel it weakens the entire stoyline and world, to be honest, long before I ever saw it in any of the movies.
All spells in combat could cause death, and do cause pain. Why would a spell be evil, or more evil, because it does it more effectivly?
If you are willing to kill, why would using that spell make you more evil?
Why would anyone ever use anything other than that spell in combat? Or at least why would anyone already evil not use it more?
It really threw me out of the world when I read about it. If it existed, it should not be as simple as it is, nor should it be usable in combat because of it's difficulty.
Perhaps it would work as a ritual, or something other than a flick of the wrist, but I think it makes the whole story less, IMO.
[ July 15, 2007, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Kwea, I agree. Then again, spells, period, are not well explained in the series.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think they do explain that you have to actually hate the person you're trying to curse fairly strongly -- i.e., have a lot of bile and anger and "evil" behind the spell, for it to work properly at all.
I was especially confused in the movie when Bellatrix screamed and collapsed in the main hall of the ministry of magic, lip quivering as she watched Harry step towards her. Was she faking it? I was under the impression that Harry did not manage the Crucio in the book, and she mocked him for not meaning it. Anyone remember definitely?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I was especially confused in the movie when Bellatrix screamed and collapsed in the main hall of the ministry of magic, lip quivering as she watched Harry step towards her. Was she faking it? I was under the impression that Harry did not manage the Crucio in the book, and she mocked him for not meaning it. Anyone remember definitely?
In the film it sounded like when she fell she lost her wand. So I'm under the impression that she was just hamming it up, trying to get Harry close enough to snatch his wand. And besides, Harry is a goody goody...she might have got off with the sniveling because he's a white hat and won't kill an unarmed opponent.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
Was anyone else completely confused when Harry suddenly mastered Occlumency? He still hasn't managed that in the sixth book, and I don't know how they'll reconcile that in the next two movies. However, that was the only part of the movie that left a bad taste in my mouth. I loved the rest of it, though I avoided rereading the book so that I wouldn't notice what was missing as much. I loved the look on Ginny's face when they were all walking back from the first information/signup meeting for the DA. Right after Hermione tells Harry that Cho couldn't keep her eyes off him.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MidnightBlue: Was anyone else completely confused when Harry suddenly mastered Occlumency? He still hasn't managed that in the sixth book, and I don't know how they'll reconcile that in the next two movies.
When did he master it? He was able to respond with a shield charm, just as he was able to do in the book. That allowed him to see inside some of Snape's thoughts. All they did in the movie was cut out the Penseive.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by MidnightBlue: Was anyone else completely confused when Harry suddenly mastered Occlumency?
But he didn't do that in this movie.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, it wasn't occlumency, it was reverse legilimency. Also... crap, I'll just have to check out the book again and recheck that scene. Who says Harry really accessed his worst memory?
I was disappointed with the climax at first, though I think I've come to understand what they were trying to do, and I don't know that I have any better idea on how that moment could have translated to film. I think this was better than 4, but not in the same class as 3.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
J.K. Rowling titled the chapter "Snape's Worst Memory", though I believe in the film they've deleted the reason why Snape considered that to be his "worst" one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Random thoughts,
I wish they had kept the part where Dudley punches Harry as the dementors attacked as that greatly increased the tension for me and Harry being nearly taken out by a dementor makes more sense in that context. Harry has beaten off MANY dementors, just letting one waltz up and grab him seemed alittle wrong.
The news report stating the degrees in celsius made me happy, and then he clarified what that temperature was in fahrenheit and I was disappointed, broke my immersion just alittle bit but not a big deal.
Tonks was REALLY cute, and her personality was really bright, I liked her alot, good casting choice. I hope she can pull of the sharp contrast of her character in book 6. Kingsley was exactly as I imagined him, I enjoyed his line right out of the book about, Dumbledore, like him or hate him, has alot of style. I wish they could have found a way to show that Kingsley actually helped Dumbledore make his escape.
Luna Lovegood was actually a bit different then how I had pictured her in the books, but the movie made her VERY likeable and much more interesting, so gratz to the movie makers for doings something my mind failed to do.
Umbridge was however EXACTLY how I imagined her, and I loved every minute of it.
Dumbledore is getting better and better as far as I am concerned, definately redeemed himself as far as I am concerned from that ODD scene where he banged Harry into a cabinet and held him by his collar in TGOF. His fight with Voldemort was really enjoyable, I liked how both of them used spells that took advantage of their surroundings rather then just shooting spells back and forth.
I didn't like that Fudge as he walks in sees Voldemort fade away so quickly and then say without hesitation, "He's back!" I would have let him see Voldemort for about 4-5 seconds before he disappeared as somebody who was in denial THAT much could easily see a quick vaporization as their mind playing tricks on them, or worse Dumbledore playing tricks on him.
It kinda sucks that the killing curse can hit you in the hip and thats it, game over. Sirius dying that way just seemed horrendously unfair because of that. I always assumed the curse hit you and then sorta engulfed you for a moment like in the 4th movie where Cedric is killed.
Harry's angst as a rule was well done in the movie, I can see why in the movie they did not have him trash Dumbledore's office, but I still kinda wanted to see it even though when I read it I was pretty fed up with Harry's emo teen angst schtick.
Ron and Hermione are heading in the right direction, you can clearly see the beginnings of more then just friendship
But they made Luna so good that I thought Harry was starting to like her a bit, they completely neglected the beginnings of Harry and Ginny's sparks which are clearly identified at the end of book 5. It would have been nice to see a quick glimpse of what is a HUGE feature of book 6.
I liked the look of young James Potter in Snape's memory, he definately looked like Harry but just alittle different.
Daniel Radcliff can act?! He should do another stage play if its going to have THAT effect on his ability to be Harry Potter.
Did it seem like Grawp was too cute to be a giant? I guess again my mind had one picture and it was not CLOSE to the movie. But then again Hagrid's father being a human and hooking up with a giant just seemed like a hard stretch so I suppose Grawp needed to look likeable for a human and a giant to be able to reproduce.
Fred and George really did well for themselves in this movie. Their journey towards just quitting school was believable to me, and it was fun to watch.
I was at first annoyed that it was Cho who sold them out in the movie but Snape's mention of Umbridge using the last of the truth serum on "Ms. Chang" actually made me like the movie's take better then the book. edit: But then they never tied up the loose end of the members of DA mistakenly thinking she had sold them out and Harry never spoke to her again. Seems like it needs to be tied up.
Neville saying he was proud to be his parents son but just was not willing to let everyone know it yet was really good, especially when coupled with the scene where he tell Harry, "Don't give it to him Harry!" when the Death Eaters have them all restrained at the dept of mysteries. I thought it definately showed that Harry was thinking about saving his friends, but gained courage from Nevilles, refusal to give in.
End of random thoughts Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kingsley was exactly as I imagined him, I enjoyed his line right out of the book about, Dumbledore, like him or hate him, has alot of style.
In the book, the line is not his. It belongs to the portrait of Phineas Nigellus Black.
It is a great line, though. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kingsley was exactly as I imagined him, I enjoyed his line right out of the book about, Dumbledore, like him or hate him, has alot of style.
In the book, the line is not his. It belongs to the portrait of Phineas Nigellus Black.
It is a great line, though.
Brilliant line. One of the few times I've ever laughed out loud while reading a book, and the theater I was in yesterday absolutely loved it.
Oh, and I have to put in my two cents that, yes, Tonks was VERY hawt. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kingsley was exactly as I imagined him, I enjoyed his line right out of the book about, Dumbledore, like him or hate him, has alot of style.
In the book, the line is not his. It belongs to the portrait of Phineas Nigellus Black.
It is a great line, though.
You just wait until I get home and grab my copy of the book!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kingsley was exactly as I imagined him, I enjoyed his line right out of the book about, Dumbledore, like him or hate him, has alot of style.
In the book, the line is not his. It belongs to the portrait of Phineas Nigellus Black.
It is a great line, though.
You just wait until I get home and grab my copy of the book!
Haha, sorry to gang up on you BB, but it was Nigellus who said it in the book.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The line is right out of the book, but rivka is right, it's the portrait of Hogwarts most unpopular headmaster who said it.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Kwea -- I think Rowling's defense of the Avada Kedavra spell would be something like this: In order for the spell to work you have to truly have a desire to kill the person; therefore, Dumbledore could not use it, because he believes that to kill someone would be worse than dying yourself.
Most of the spells that are generally taught in DADA classes seem to be disabling spells -- Expelliarmus, the immobilizing charm, Stunning, the shield charm, etc, rather than spells that cause a lot of pain or injury. These are the kinds of spells that Dumbledore uses.
There's always the question of whether Dumbledore or Harry would be willing to use the Killing curse on Voldemort himself. Harry would probably say that Voldemort definitely deserves to be killed since Harry has so much anger towards him, but Dumbledore would probably try to defeat Voldemort by weakening him and turning away his followers rather than straight-up murdering him. This would give him time to repent before he dies, because love is the most powerful magic, etc.
The Killing curse is Voldemort's most useful spell; he can use it because he truly wants to kill people. There is no one in the world he really loves, and therefore he doesn't feel the tragedy of a death. He is so afraid of his own death that he is willing to kill multiple times to avoid it. The Death Eaters can use the spell because if they do not kill the people they are supposed to kill, Voldemort will kill them and their whole families.
The way Dumbledore sees it though, it is better to die than be alive with the memory of murdering someone, and Harry will probably believe that too by the end.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm in the middle of re-reading book 5. When I hit that line yesterday, I noticed that it was said by a different character than in the movie. Although I think the change made sense -- for the movie, it worked better this way.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:I wish they had kept the part where Dudley punches Harry as the dementors attacked as that greatly increased the tension for me and Harry being nearly taken out by a dementor makes more sense in that context. Harry has beaten off MANY dementors, just letting one waltz up and grab him seemed alittle wrong.
But to fight off dementors, you have to think happy thoughts. Harry is in a slump. As someone who has struggled with low grade depression for years, I can tell you that coming up with happy thoughts in the middle of a slump is Not Easy.
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Gambon made Dumbledore appear to be struggling with Voldemort. The stronger he attempts to look, the weaker the character appears. Dumbledore's immense power can only be demonstrated through understatement. Harris had that in spades. I don't think Gambon has even read the books.
I read an interview with Gambon a few years back (around the release of either the third or fourth movie, but I can't remember which). He said that not only had he never read the books, but something like "I'm not a character actor, I just read the lines the way I would say them"
That approach can work fine in many situations IMHO, but not when you're trying to portray a loved, well established character like Dumbledore. That being said he was much closer to doing Dumbledore "right" in this movie than either of the other two, though I doubt he'll ever reach the perfection that Harris had in the first two movies.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Just saw it today. Ahhh, marvelous! Would love to see it again soon!
I love the portrayal of Umbridge! I didn't "read" book 5, I listened to it. So my mental image of Umbridge was very much affected by Jim Dale's voice-work. In my mind, she was a hideous, bloated, characature of a human. Grotesqueness trying its best to look powderingly feminine.
But Imelda's Umbridge has completely re-written that image, for which I am deeply grateful! The Umbridge I imagined before was wholely unpleasant, while Imelda managed to make the character entertaining to watch. You look at her cute little smile plastered to her face and her madly twinkling eyes--she looks like she's about to loose it half the time--and you think, "This woman is NUTTERS!!"
And Luna, oh how wonderful! Listening to Jim Dale's ugly, stupid-sounding voice for her, she comes across as dull and annoying. In the movie she was brought to life! You could see her integrity, her wisdom, her solid sense of self, utterly unruffled by the annoyances about her. She is admirable! She embodies the sentiment, "If people don't like you, it's their loss, not yours."
And while the chemistry between her and Harry did seem to weaken the chemistry with Cho, it doesn't lead me to think that she and Harry are destined for each other. There are friendships that are deep and pure that just don't have the spark of romance to them.
Sadly, the movie failed to convey the powerful feelings of infatuation Harry had towards Cho. The fact is, the spark between them *was* rather superficial, and to that, I believe the movie is faithful. Ooo, you're cute and fun to kiss! Uh, now we have nothing to talk about....
I loved Hagrid's brother! You see, I have an 18 month angel of a little boy, and I just couldn't help but imagine a 30 foot toddler. The image melted my heart. A 30 foot toddler is at once endearing and terrifying. Very terrifying. I liked that he didn't really speak. There tends to be an unconscious prejudice against poor speech, and his muteness seems to give him more depth.
Loved the sparkle that the heavyweight actors brought to the movie in their short, minimal scenes. I will always adore Alan Rickman. I already had an unexplicable liking for Snape, and Alan Rickman only deepened that for me. (On the subject of liking Snape: Bother!)
[ July 20, 2007, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I was bored. The message about these kids standing behind Harry is a great message, but the way it was pulled off was hokey. The giant kid broke my heart. How is it humane to keep him tied to a stump in the forest? Neville's development was handled well, but the highlight of the movie, for me, was Ginny. I did like how they handled Ginny. Halfway through the movie, I thought, who cares about Harry Potter, does anybody realize that this girl is awesome? I know the whole story is about the angst of Harry Potter, but I'd like to watch a movie about the quiet little Weasley girl who is awesome. If were picking teams, I'd pick Ginny over Harry and Hermione.
[ July 20, 2007, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Those puppets are BIZARRE. I think this one is my favorite.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
:lol:
I hadn't seen that one. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Re: Gambon, he's probably going with the Clark Gable school of acting. I don't think he's quite as brilliant as that, but he does well. He is Dumbledore, whereas Professor McGonagal is Maggie Smith. Emma Thompson is trying to be Trelawney, but it breaks my suspension of disbelief. Alan Rickman is awesome, though. But imagine if Michael Caine were Dumbledore. We wouldn't be able to forget it, I don't think.
Well now wonder he hasn't had time to read the books. Do you see how many movies he's in? Also, what book was actually out when he got hired on. If it was Order of the Phoenix, forget it. And the books are from Harry's viewpoint anyway, I don't think they would be essential to him acting Dumbledore.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think Emma Thompson's Trelawney is exactly right. Ditto for Maggie Smith's McGonagall.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:"I'm not a character actor, I just read the lines the way I would say them"
Just so you know, the wallbash is somewhat unwarranted. That quote is essentially the essence of method acting.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
omg... HOT!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob the Lawyer:
quote:"I'm not a character actor, I just read the lines the way I would say them"
Just so you know, the wallbash is somewhat unwarranted. That quote is essentially the essence of method acting.
I don't ad lib, I just make it up as I go along!
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Finally saw the movie last night as part of the start of my Harry Potter weekend. Very dark. Pretty well done. Overall, it may be my favorite, but I may have to watch it again to be sure. There were definitely a few things I wouldn't have done the way they did -- especially the part where Ginny, Neville, and Luna randomly show up in Umbridge's office in the end with no real explanation other than, in my mind, "Well, they have to be there for the last adventure because they were in the book!" I also thought Fred and George's antics were squashed too flimsily into one scene that then rushed into the ending in a whirlwind that kind of felt like, "Oops, we're running low on time, better combine five things that happen in the book into one scene to save space." The pacing was definitely inconsistent....slow bits interspersed with fast-paced or deeply emotional bits.
But Daniel Radcliffe definitely learned to act. Umbridge was wonderful. Luna was good. The portrayal of what Harry was going through was EXCELLENT and POWERFUL -- even complimenting what was in the book to help bring it to life a bit more and help you to really understand his anger better.
Oh, and I just cracked up when Harry pulled his wand on Dudley at the beginning. I mean, yeah, we knew what the threat was but I instantly saw it from the POV of Dudley's friends and cracked up.
Anyway, a bit late in coming but there's my thoughts on it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I also saw it last night and thought it was pretty good. I didn't have a problem following the plot without reading the book, so if there were bits that should have confused me, I missed them completely.
The hardest thing for me was trying to remember that high school trapped feeling. When Umbridge got nuts, why didn't people just start transfering? I've quit jobs that were less oppressive than that. I had to remind myself that these are kids and no one cares if they hate school. They expect them to.
But I still think Harry should have hired Mrs. Weasley to be his private tutor. I saw the giant vault of money in the first movie; he can afford it. That gets him away from the crazy family and out of Umbridge's way.
Also, most of these kids have at least one magical parent, right? So where the heck are they? The kids didn't write home about Umbridge carving words into their hands? No one bothered to check up on her? I had trouble pushing the "I believe" button on that point.
Goblet of Fire is still my favorite so far, but the Dumbledore/Voldemort fight was easily one of the greatest of all time. They made Gandalf and Saurumon look like ameteurs.
Posted by 1lobo1 (Member # 7762) on :
I haven't read any of the HP books. I could never get into them. Other than POA, the rest of the HP movies have only been so-so.
This movie, however, was fantastic.
I only have one real complaint -- when Harry starts to hand over the prophesy to the blond baddy....up to that point I thought the entire film combined with the last film was leading up to Harry's understanding that big things were at stake, that he would have to make tough choices that would have consequences on those that chose to help him.......I was let down when Harry didn't smash the orb rather than hand it over. Sure, I didn't expect the friends to die, but I did expect HP to reach a level of understanding about the seriousness of everything....that things and people would have to be sacrificed even if it tormented him in the end -- and it would have strengthened even more HP's realiziation of what made him stronger than Voldemort - his friendships, etc...........I really was lead to beleive that this was how things were going to turn out (HP's angst over that other kid's death, his attempts at pushing people away, and finally his accepting of their help -- combined with finally being exposed to the Adult world, that the kids just are in over their heads, that real power is at use, and serious consequences are at hand....)
Anyway, that may not be a theme in the books, but I thought the film wasted a great opportunity for a further maturation point for HP....
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I thought this during Pirates 2 but couldn't put it into words, that's it exactly!
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). Like all of the other truly sympathetic characters in the Potterverse, they have flaws; they're imperfect. Ginny just... is there, taking up narrative space.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
My bad.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)