posted
I just saw it. Over all I wasn't at all impressed.
Things I liked: Hermione and Krum at the Yule Ball, I'm totally back to being a Hermione/Krum shipper, I'd forgotten how much I like that ship
It was funny
The few moments with Hermione and Ginny were priceless
Cho was so sweet, but I have no idea how they're going to make her manipulative and nasty in the next movie
All of the new actors were amazing
I thought it was great that Voldemort appeared more human. In the books it's easy to just think of him as this ubervillan and forget that he was human, he was given the same choices all of us are given, and he chose to be what he is.
Things I didn't like: Did anyone get a really sexist feeling from the whole Beaubaxtons/ Durmstrang entrance? Everyone is saying they loved it, but you have Durmstrang come in all proud and strong and Beaubaxtons come in and do slutty dances? And then Fleur is depicted as this subpar champion the whole movie. The scene where she was running screaming through the maze really annoyed me.
Lots and lots of Harry/Hermione, Ron was barely there.
I loved the Quidditch World Cup, oh wait, it didn't happen!
Why did we waste a very very long time on a broom chase, when there were so many other things we could have been spending time on.
Too much Rita Skeeter, just enough to be annoying, not enough to make sense.
I thought it was really interesting what they left in. I believe I will be formulating several new theories just based on what they thought we would need to know in order to understand the next movies.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked it very much, though not quite as good as I thought it could have been. They kept the meat of the story, but though I loved the book, the plot is not nearly as strong as the fifth and sixth books and this was reflected in the film. The directing was fantastic, the acting is getting better and better, and the tasks and the Ball were all great. I was a bit let down by the Graveyard scene - I felt it was too short. But Fiennes was pretty badass. I also thought they needed more exposition at the end, where Dumbledore meets with the Professors and Sirius, since it really helps to set up the next film.
As for Dumbledore, I like Gambon far more than Harris. Gambon plays DD much more like I picture him when I read the books, aside from his charging up to Harry to ask if he put his name in the cup. I don't think Harris would be nearly as good in this film, and especially in the next, where Dumbledore really starts kicking ass.
Oh, and to whoever asked about "The Second War", that's the last chapter of the 5th book.
Anyways, I'd say it's the best Potter film so far, and I expect them to keep getting better.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, even when Dumbledore kicks ass, he's not flamboyant and crack-pot about it. He's always in control, always calm, always strong. He makes you feel like you're ok because he's around. Gambon SO doesn't do that for me. But, to each his own I suppose.
Again, I think it comes back to the DIRECTING. Cuaron's Gambon as Dumbledore was a lot better than this guy's Gambon as Dumbledore in my opinion.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah, that reminds me. The scene when Harry comes back with Cedric's body--that was excellent. He comes back all bloody and wretched and everyone leaps up screaming and cheering, and Cedric's father, and everyone slowly realizing....I was very impressed by that scene.
But how would the Triwizard Tournament be any fun at all for the people not doing it? Okay, the first task would be excellent to watch, but what about the second and third tasks? The schools would all be sitting there watching a quiet lake and a quiet maze, respectively. Such nonsense.
quote: Even though it was described as "high", "thin", and "reedy"?
Point taken...my brain must have glossed over that while reading the books. (I don't need page numbers, but were those decriptions in GoF?)
It's just that I can't respect that. Definately lowers Voldemort in my opinion*: all through the graveyard scene I just kept thinking to myself, "People are afraid of him? One of those Death Eaters should stick their legs out and trip him. It would be hilarious."
*Including in the books now.
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I don't think his voice was high enough. I think it would have been a whole lot creepier and 'I have come back from death' if the voice had been a little more un-human.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Lord Whatsit, Voldy is sposed to have a snake-like voice, that's described in every single book, not just GoF. It is part of the fact that he is hardly human anymore and is sposed to have many snake-like attributes.
Which doesn't come off in the movie... like I said earlier, giving him a vaguely snakelike nose does not qualify as making him snakelike and unhuman.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see what you're saying Bryan, but in all of the books, they are trying to make Voldemort out to be very snakelike, and unhuman, and yet the voice was not. As with most movies, this is going to be a whiny time where we fuss that things weren't perfect, yeah that's ok, but it's what could have been better.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really liked the movie, but I was bothered by many of the same things mentioned here by others:
The entire film did seem rushed, and the pace was off. The film felt like it should have been longer, instead of sticking to the arbitrary 2.5 hours movie maximum they all aim for. I look forward to seeing a "Director's Cut" someday, with more coherant transitions and more character development. Even though I loved the Dragons, that scenario was poorly choreographed as long as they were on the ground. It got much better in flight.
I was also unimpressed with the music. It was like gothic elevator music!
I've never liked Michael Gambon as Dumbledore either. His performance lacks subtlety, and lacks the restraint that Harris' commanding, enigmatic Dumbledore exhibited.
I always enjoy Snape. Wormtail was creepy enough. Voldemort was a bit mild, but I remind myself that this was a child's book series. I agree that the voice could have been more raspy - like Parseltongue - that would have helped. That scene felt so rushed, too. It left me wanting more more more.
Neville's awakening was well done, and his scenes were endearing. And I was glad to see more of the Twins. I wonder how they will get their joke shop without Harry's winnings to draw from! We did see them hawking merchandise a lot, though. Did you really think Cho was manipulative? I thought of her as just being shallow and immature.
The scene in the Prefects bathroom was VERY good - I loved Moaning Myrtle's performance and Harry's discomfort.
The deliberate lack of physical contact between Ron and Hermoine has always been (for me) an obvious tipoff to their real fealings.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what makes Voldemort all that more frightening and fascinating is that, physically, he's not that intimidating. Like most powerfully terrible men...until you know the nature of their deeds, they look pretty normal.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I think what makes Voldemort all that more frightening and fascinating is that, physically, he's not that intimidating. Like most powerfully terrible men...until you know the nature of their deeds, they look pretty normal.
That! What he said!
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not so much the look, more the sound and actions.
Image in your mind the good Lord Vader. He's terribly silly looking, but the voice and the way he holds himself turn him into one of the greatest screen villains of all time.
Now, I'm not saying make a Vadermort for the movies, but to have some of that classic composure would have been great. Just something in Fiennes performance to tell the audience, "I know what I'm doing." Especially if you're going to turn around and have the greatest wizard of all times beaten (miraculously, I admit) by a teenager. How can anyone be scared of him?
There was no sense of power.
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
First of all, I recognise that people didn't like the way it was so rushed- we didn't get to see anything. However, considering the fact that a massive book was squished into a two and a half hour movie I was really impressed by how it seemed to fit. I deliberately didn't read the book (and haven't for what has been some years now) and so when I came out I honestly had very little idea what had been changed or missed (except the ones where it was obvious and very deliverate.) I felt that overall what they had done worked.
Characters-wise I was very happy with Ron, Neville and Fred and George. I thought they were brilliant and funny but also very convincing. I liked that there was a very human element in the story- I was glad that they chose to retain the people moments rather than fill the movie with the action scenes. Cedric and Krum also really worked in their roles. Cedric's dad broke my heart.
Hermione and Harry held their own. Neither were particularly stunning but neither flopped. Hermione was very convincing (although very YOUNG) when paired with Krum. Harry, although he clearly wasn't leading the charge, which I don't think is the case in the book, either, was convincingly Harry. Both of them, however, did have some moments of awkwardness but I forgive them.
The adults were great. I especially liked Barty Crouch and Barty Crouch Junior. They really worked for me. Moody was alarming, which was excellent.
I agree that something about Voldemort didn't work, but I'm going to suggest that seeing Voldemort's face is like seeing the aliens in the end of the movie- they're simply more frightening off screen. However, I felt that Voldemort did act exactly how he was written. I was very happy (and very unhappy) to see that they had retained the "kill the spare" line and the ensuing murder. That is very, very important to me.
There wasn't so many visual artsy things going on in this movie, but the director knew how to tell a story, even one that's almost impossible. I was swept up. Never once did I got "argh, why'd he do that."
I loved it and I think it works very well as a stand alone movie, as well as one that is complimented by the books.
posted
Oh, I don't think she was being slutty. I think she was just giving Harry a hard time because she knew he was embarrassed. She was rather miffed that he had never come to visit her. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Avadaru: Anyone who watches that film without having read the book beforehand will be completely lost. I've read the book several times, and I still had trouble following some of the faster sequences. Half the freaking movie made absolutely no sense unless you knew something that happened in an earlier book, or happened in this book but was left out of the film. As a movie for Harry Potter fans, it's great, but as a stand-alone film, it really sucks. I feel bad for all the people that Potter fans are dragging along to see the movie in hopes of getting them interested in the series, because this is NOT a good introduction. It moves way too quickly, they leave out a TON of important plot points, and it tries to cram far too much information into a short span of time. I enjoyed it, but....it just wasn't what I expected. I expected a complete story, and this was a jumbled-up, confusing mess.
This was pretty much exactly how I felt about the 3rd movie. Maybe I'll wait until this one is in the cheap theatre.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I expected a complete story, and this was a jumbled-up, confusing mess.
I disagree quite strongly. Of course, I've read the books, however, there was nothing that made me go "Whoa, that's going to confuse people."
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: This was pretty much exactly how I felt about the 3rd movie. Maybe I'll wait until this one is in the cheap theatre.
The only thing I didn't understand that everyone else seemed to was the Wormtail, Padfoot, Moony and Prongs thing. I hadn't read the books by the time I saw the third movie, but I thought it was pretty understandable. After reading the book I don't feel like I missed a ton, and the third is still both my favorite book and favorite movie.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have two friends who have seen the film now without reading any of the books. They both enjoyed it quite a bit and were not confused at all throughout the film.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: This was pretty much exactly how I felt about the 3rd movie. Maybe I'll wait until this one is in the cheap theatre.
The only thing I didn't understand that everyone else seemed to was the Wormtail, Padfoot, Moony and Prongs thing. I hadn't read the books by the time I saw the third movie, but I thought it was pretty understandable. After reading the book I don't feel like I missed a ton, and the third is still both my favorite book and favorite movie.
I was really disappointed in the third movie. I know that I am in the minority with this opinion. I felt that the third movie focused way to much time on Harry and Lupin and left out so many of the details that make the book so enjoyable. It is probably still my favorite of the books but I really didn't think the movie did it justice. The movie was visually impressive but otherwise fell flat for me.
I thought that the first two movies captured the spirit of the books. They didn't bring anything really new, but they stood on their own as films and didn't remove any details that become important in the following books. That may be entirely because they are shorter books, though Azkaban isn't much longer, and they have less details that do impact the future books. I can't think of any examples right now as it has been a long time since I have either read the book or watched the movie but I know that when I watched Azkaban I felt that there was a lot missing.
I hope that I feel differently about this one.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I felt that since they butchered Rita Skeeter's part so much, it would have been better still to cut her entirely (even though I am a Miranda Richardson fan). What little is left of her character and an occasional comment in the newspaper added very little to the movie plot. If the whole character was cut I think that would have worked better.
The dragons were cool, but that scene was far too long considering what else was cut short. The underwater scene was a bit off as well. The peril wasn't done well, I agree.
The emphasis placed on the challenges would have been better spent on some of the other story elements, I think. And they could have used another half hour to really help with some of those extremely choppy sections.
I was very disappointed in the portrayel of Fleur. She wasn't terribly sexy, wasn't terribly snooty, was fairly wimpy and weepy. Not quite like the character impression we get from the book.
Dumbledore frequently seemed off to me, more's the pity.
I got the impression that the director was trying to show Harry/Hermione as developing a love story, with only an occasional nod to Hermione/Ron. The sixth book hadn't come out at the time of the filming, but now that it has I wonder if they would have chosen a few things differently. Though I realized something else that makes a lot of sense. When I had a crush on someone in middle school I would tend to avoid touching them at all if possible, where I would quite easily put my arm around the shoulders of someone I thought of as a friend. Perhaps that's more what was happening in this instance: Hermione feeling more comfortable around Harry precisely because she doesn't like him the way she likes Ron.
Earlier in this thread someone said they found it hard to believe that Hermione's vocabulary was so far beyond her maturity level. I disagree. I come from a family full of very bright people, many of whom are not emotionally up to speed. My uncle, for an extreme example, is fluent in nine languages and taught himself to write opera, but can't hold down a job and lives in his parent's basement and is scared to drive a car, at approaching age fifty.
I think I was a bit like Hermione in school myself. I knew all the answers to the questions on the tests, but I was clueless about how to interact with my peers. In fact, she's a bit more balanced than I was.
I was okay with Krum not being attractive. In the books he's described as a bit hulking and duck-footed. He was only so popular with the girls because of his athletic ability.
I'm very curious as to what the actress who plays Ginny will look like by the time they film the sixth book. In fact, I'm curious about what choices the directors will make in the next two movies. I hope in HP5 they tone down the extreme angst that Harry portrays throughout. It's tiring reading, and I have no desire to watch three hours of it on screen.
Posts: 180 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but then everyone will just complain that Harry isn't angsty enough and it isn't true enough to the book, even if it works better on screen.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: got the impression that the director was trying to show Harry/Hermione as developing a love story, with only an occasional nod to Hermione/Ron.
quote:Lots and lots of Harry/Hermione, Ron was barely there.
Do you know any young teenagers, boys in particular? It was pretty clear that Ron was the one who was most upset with Hermione. Harry, because he doesn't feel that way, was much less awkward. He's the really good male friend- but there's no interest. It was pretty clear to me that the connection between Hermione and Ron was strong and tense.
I thought Rita Skeeter, although her "point" was missing, was a very good addition just from a character and interest POV.
I talked to my friend who watches the movies, then reads the books (so the movies are always good to her). She wasn't at all confused by the movie and really loved it. The only comment she made was that she couldn't wait to read the book because she knew that there was way more in the book than there was in the movie.
And Krum is supposed to be "unattractive".
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought Rita Skeeter, although her "point" was missing, was a very good addition just from a character and interest POV.
I agree. I loved the little scene with her quill in the broom closet. Harry's indignation was cute and just right.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did anyone get a really sexist feeling from the whole Beaubaxtons/ Durmstrang entrance? Everyone is saying they loved it, but you have Durmstrang come in all proud and strong and Beaubaxtons come in and do slutty dances? And then Fleur is depicted as this subpar champion the whole movie. The scene where she was running screaming through the maze really annoyed me.
The entire series is full of very blunt attitudes like this one. Note that the brave, brash, completely unthinking go-getter house (Gryffindor) is home to most of the heroic main characters (the sole exception being Cedric Diggory)? The message seems to be "charge in, act without thinking," which is what we see Harry, Ron, and most of the other Gryffindor characters do repeatedly through the books.
More in line with the extremely sexist undertones: note that no one thinks Hermione is attractive when she's true to herself and doing what she enjoys (studying hard, being herself, not giving a damn about her appearance) and suddenly everyone's interested when she pretties herself up for the ball (which, we're given to understand, is not just a clothing/hairstyle makeover - Rowling makes specific mention that she used magic to alter her appearance). The message here: aesthetics are everything? Surrender yourself to the superficiality required for love and acceptance? Notice that Krum is described unattractively, but people are still attracted to him for his talent. Apparently only the women need to alter their appearance to meet society's needs in order to be accepted for who they are.
I wonder what other great messages kids are taking away from these books Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was very disappointed in the portrayel of Fleur. She wasn't terribly sexy, wasn't terribly snooty, was fairly wimpy and weepy. Not quite like the character impression we get from the book.
I agree, and it'll be interesting to see whether they include her at all in movie #6, given the relative lack of screen time they gave her in this one.
quote:Oh, I don't think she was being slutty. I think she was just giving Harry a hard time because she knew he was embarrassed. She was rather miffed that he had never come to visit her.
That whole scene did, however, make me feel like the cops were about to break in and arrest me for viewing child porn. Myrtle looked like she was about to dive under the water and start servicing Harry at any moment. And they're 14, for goodness' sake!
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Victor Krum, seeker extroidinaire and pursuee of the female population of Hogwarts, falls for pre-teeth-shrunken Hermione as she studies in the library.
The point was that he did like her for exactly what she really was. And the actor who played him was yummy.
The only part I did not like was Dumbledore. He seemed untwinkly, flustered, and harsh with Harry.
posted
Wow, OSC *really* liked GoF. His review's up. I gotta say, it really didn't do so much for me. It was good, but not great.
But Dan Radcliffe does seem to have gotten better at showing grief on camera. His crying scene in PoA made me cringe, but in GoF it didn't. Good for him, at least.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh. I so do not agree about the emotional payoff. I felt like everyone forgot about Cedric as they all left school. Harry's performance wasn't that stellar to me....I think he's got better in him. It seemed like the director settled for the best take they had instead of spending some quality time getting some real crying out of him. But I'm in the minority with this opinion. S'ok, I'm holding out for a hero.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That whole scene did, however, make me feel like the cops were about to break in and arrest me for viewing child porn. Myrtle looked like she was about to dive under the water and start servicing Harry at any moment. And they're 14, for goodness' sake!
ew ew ew ew ew ew ewwwww.... Yeah, I also felt really. really. really. uncomfortable.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That whole scene did, however, make me feel like the cops were about to break in and arrest me for viewing child porn. Myrtle looked like she was about to dive under the water and start servicing Harry at any moment. And they're 14, for goodness' sake!
First of all, Harry was very uncomfortable. Second of all, despite the fact that Myrtle's ghost body is not very old she is mentally much older as well as being silly and somewhat crude, even in the books. Thirdly, this movie was directed by a British director. That kind of harmless joking is not uncommon at all in a British comedy setting, in fact, it is almost expected. The film was rated pg-13, not G, also. Moaning Myrtle herself is played by an actress who often plays that role. Forthly: For someone called erosomaniac, you're very sensitive!
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
