Harry Potter

[Sprite]

Well ive watched this film twice over and here is what i think.

First Impressions

The film was an interesting version of events compared with the book, and in the respect of the time line its as the book is, but what actually happens in the main set peices is quite different, take the three tests in the Tri-wizard tournament and just not as heroic as the book, the Dragon sequence was very good to watch but the underwater and maze sequences wern't as good.

Overall polish on the film is as good as the others; done with an eye for detail and love. Acting wise the film is also the same as the others and so is the script and the editing although having read the book and seeing the film, noticing the missing bits give a sense of choppiness to the editing.

The Book vs The Movie

Undoubtedly the book is superior to the film and as mentioned the missing bits not only add the editing looking raggid, but also the frustration of wanting to see parts of the book realised,but being felt short changed by it. The lack of certin characters gave this film a less homley feel to it unlike the the others, but this just adds to the cold and terror at the end of the film.

The lack of character developement and pure potter genius is evident through the interaction of the characters in the film, as the book has all three lead characters arguing amongst themselves is well explained and treated in the book, but the film tries to copy this but ultiamtly fails and make is seem as though the characters are acting on three very different films.

The character of Alastor Moody is one that has been done with the most care and consideration in the whole film and befits the book very well indeed.

The Acting

As i said above the script is as all the other films and dosnt leave for much scope in the way of adding personal touches by the actors and actresses, this dose lead to some very stale and poor proformances from two of the leads and most of the supporting cast, they all seem to be very stiff and almost like cardboard cut-outs, the stand out actors are Rupert Grint who plays Ron and Brendan Gleeson who plays a brillant version of Alastor 'Mad*Eye' Mood.y

Conclusion

With the prospect of this movie i read through the books within a week and a half, and im glad i did as most of the relevent points from the books have been glossed over or completly left out. The film felt stale and stagnent and in parts but for a watch its wasnt too bad, this film is more of a rental than a cinema trip, personally if your seriouly thinking of going but not sure and not that bothered i would save my money of go see something else, with big plot gaps and dull moments this film is only enjoyable if you either dont care or have read the book.

**** 4 satrs out of 10

 

[niky]

Interesting, I would've given it five out of ten. Was considering starting a thread about this last week, but it was just too depressing.

Damn... having backread this whole thread, I'm kinda interested in finding that Le Guin series. I've enjoyed "The Giver" and "The Left Hand of Darkness", but I haven't had a chance to dig into her other stuff. Prefer series like "The Destroyer" myself. I know, I'm shallow.

I've read almost all of the Potter books, and yes, it's kind of a throwback to the Destroyer days... everything happens by rote, and you expect everything, especially the odd plot twist... still, a harmless way to entertain yourself for a few nights.

But then again, "The Destroyer" was a satire of the other series of its time (namely "The Executioner, Mack Bolan, etc...) and was written firmly tounge-in-cheek. Same with Terry Pratchett's Discworld series.

 

[donbenni]

Saw the film over the weekend and enjoyed it. Yes there was a lot missing, but it's really an addition to the book, the book on a visual level, it's not there to replace the book. I therefore enjoyed it.

The World Cup - where? And even though they didn't show it, they could've at least made it abundantly clear what had happened in the game.

Veelas - who? Isn't it important that Fleur is a Veela? A passing comment from Hermione would've taken 2 seconds "Ron, she's a Veela."

The Beauxbaton girls were gorgeous, kept the attention during the lest intense bits, but the introduction of both the foreign schools wasn't very well done - it wasn't very obvious what the huge ship that came from the lake or the flying carriage was all about at the very beginning, people who hadn't read the book might well have been left scratching their heads. The dances that both schools did were a bit dumb, and unnecessary.

The last 20 mins of the film were dramatic, depicting the battle between Harry and Voldemort very well. The 3 tasks were also very well done, the dragons esp. even though it didn't stick to the book.

All in all, like i said i see it as an addition to the book, not a replacement. So: 7/10 - If you read the book, go see the film.

 

[niky]

No... actually... watch the film, then read the book to see what you've missed. Me and my wife, who've both read the book, were quite disappointed because of the omissions.

And that's a good observation... the director inserts things like those damn dances, that loooong dragon challenge scene (a mistake, in retrospect, because it made the other two challenges both shorter and less dramatic), and etc... and cuts out things fans were waiting for, like the Quidditch match.

 

[donbenni]

Yup. The Quidditch Match would've made the sort of dramatic opening the film needed.

Also, where were the house elfs? Things like that were left out too. Such as Harry's wand being used to cast the Dark Mark, Dobby giving Harry the gilliweed not Neville, Barty Jnr.'s story. I know it's practically impossible to cram a book into a successful film, but imo too much was changed from the original story. They should release the DVD with all the content that they took out in production, i bet there was quite a bit that was filmed but cut later.

 

[Sprite]

They also missed the biggest point of the book....

The weighing of the wands, this is integral to the whole ending as anyone who hasnt read the books will not understand that voldermorts and harrys wands are brothers, personally i thought it was such a big thing to miss.

Its a shame this film wasnt filled with everything from the book, and i would have rarther it be and extra hour long to fit them in, they need to take a leaf out of Peter Jacksons book and do a LOTR on harrys ass.

 

[Jondot]

I liked the Goblet of fire's film.

Now i thnk about it, it did leave out a fair ammount, but i can't remember half of the things that were in the book in the first place

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

I've been told that many times, but it just doesn't wash.

For a start, more adults read them than children. For a second, "books written for children" don't have to be simpering ass-smears, devoid of personality or plot. For a third, plagiarism is never acceptable.

Stick your kids onto Ursula Le Guin's "A Wizard of Earthsea" books. They're written for children too and, though she's tried her hardest to copy them, Rowling just can't match the character of that series.

Can I justify my claims of copying?

"While still a boy, he discovers that he has the inborn aptitude to practice magic. Some years later, he uses this ability to save his...

[he] then travels to the school of wizardry ... summons a spirit of darkness that scars him and leaves him for dead.

Ultimately [he] confronts the shadow that hunts him, and defeats it by realizing that it is his own shadow."


Wikipedia's transcript of the plot of... "A Wizard of Earthsea".

Anyone want to guess what will happen to Voldemort in the end?

Why Le Guin hasn't sued yet escapes me - never mind Pratchett or Tolkein's estate.


Just an additional. Anyone want to tell me who this character is?

I'll give you a clue - he's a 12 year old English boy who discovers he can do magic one day, is paid a visit by a wizard from a far-away magical institution and is given a pet owl to carry messages to him.


I'm happy to accept that there's an awful lot of "borrowing" and homage in this area of writing in particular - Pratchett is especially good at putting in subtle nods to other authors ("Ullo... it'ssssss my birthday." - Witches Abroad) - but there's a long, long road between the odd gag and building your entire premise around another person's work, to the extent that the plot and even the artwork is cloned (in Earthsea, Sparrowhawk discovers magic, grows up, then releases the evil shadow after he's left the School. In the "Books of Magic", the character pictured above experiences everything in the same order as Potter, it was just written a decade previously).

WOW! i wuz expecting you to be a potterer , whom i loathe , considering you slightly dap the Narnian classics .
But EARTHSEA , the greatest little trilogy ( bloat = quintology w/ the other wind ) i had the good fortune to read early in my formatives . Ursula K.Le Guin has a superb writing style ; clean & evocative , earthsea being a truly novel creation . I even spent a whole saturday in waterstones gobbling her latest tome ; Gifts . It's very fresh when you read a creation by a female that makes no deference to 'male' perceptions or competition , which the one womman cottage industry that is rawlings seems to epitomize . Youve got that spot on , Famine & the auld churn out the movies , well , it's nothing like the little details you get w/ LeGuin suchas the fact that most of the active (storyied) population of earthsea are , in fact , black and the pale-skinned savages of the NE reach play the role of the underdog. Truly in the realms of magical literature along w/ narnia , although Earthsea is far better written & a better kept secret . . .
To answer your microquiz the dood on the board is Timothy Hunter , whose creator is having some litigous struggles in the comic book world i believe . . .

yrs, ged