Harry Potter IV - Spoilers welcome!

[WizarDru]

Well, I hope the next time Molfoy crosses his path Harry reached for his wand and lets him now he'll blast him to smitherenes then.

This nicey nice game with the Molfoys must come to an end. All pretenses are now over.

You really should do yourself a favor and read the books.

That said, for Harry to do that would be a DIRE mistake. Remember, the ancient magic which protects him is from LOVE, not HATE. Harry's inner decency is part of what makes him the hero; he didn't <i>have</i> to rescue Fleur's sister, for example...he did it because that's who he is. He wasn't thinking about the game at that point, but about saving lives. I'm also not sure if you mean Lucius or Draco in your statement...though I'd assume the former. If you meant the latter, that's more complex, but I can't really discuss that without covering material from future books.

One of the major themes of books five and six (and arguably the series) is that the world is much more complex than it first appears. There is a lot of subtext going on that doesn't become apparent until later about what the adults are doing throughout the series. Many of the characters go from characitures to three-dimensional people as time passes.

One thing I truly enjoyed about the movie was Michael Gambon's Dumbledore. Originally I didn't think anyone could replace Richard Harris, but Gambon's rich characterization convinced me. His Dumbledore is less sure than Harris', more stern and less whimsical. Not unlike the transformation that Dumbledore (the character) undergoes as Harry becomes more privy to the things happening that he is unaware of.

The scenes with the Penseive, for example, were particularly good. I also think it says a lot about the actors that many of them were willing to come back for sometimes very small parts. Gary Oldman doesn't even phsyically appear in the picture, but he's there.

 

[Desdichado]

One thing I truly enjoyed about the movie was Michael Gambon's Dumbledore. Originally I didn't think anyone could replace Richard Harris, but Gambon's rich characterization convinced me. His Dumbledore is less sure than Harris', more stern and less whimsical.

Really? I never much liked Richard Harris's Dumbledore. The creaky, whispering old man who always looked really serious, even when attempting to deliver a whimsical line never seemed anything at all like the character as I understood him from reading the books. I think Michael Gambon does a much better job altogether. Although I admit he doesn't look as much like Dumbledore in my mind as Richard Harris does.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I've read the reviews here and looked a little more carefully at who is saying what.

I've also, upon reflection, reconsidered my views on the movie. I think it is the worst of the 4 films to date.

My comment re: objecting to "missed out on the fun at Hogwarts" was that I missed the point: it wasn't supposed to be a fun year...

Look: I didn't miss anything. I never read the book. The people who really like this film have read the books and enjoy Potter as it becomes a more serious fantasy tale. I have enjoyed the movies because they were fun. This wasn't FUN. Seeing as the fun of Hogwarts was the central chamr of the movie series to date - it doesn't get much more basic than that.

I have not read the books. I come to the table as a parent of kids who have read the books and love them (and my wife is a huge fan too) but otherwise - I'm tabula rasa on Harry Potter.

What I know of HP I have come to know from the movies. To date, they have been fun and have captured the imagination by appealing to the desire that you really wish it were true; you wish there were some magical place like Hogwarts that you could be a part of and go to school there.

That's the underlying success of HP. It is a captivating tale that appeals to the viewer's underlying wish fulfillment and interest.

And none of that was present in the film. The ride on the Hogwart's Express is not to excite us about this wonderful place - but to show us that eating candy is a childish thing.

Hermione is depicted not as the most brilliant Wizard of her Age, but as a mere love interest - she is reduced to being depicted a mere girl.

The only classroom scene we get is the curses. The classroom scenes have in the past been brilliant - but not this time.

The dance was good and a poignant reminder of what it was to be 14, but the film concentrated so much upon that aspect of their school year that the rest is wholly absent.

A vast number of questions are left for those who have NOT read the books. Why isn't Malfoy exposed? Why isn't Potter believed? When has this kid ever been wrong so as to dismiss him in this manner so out of hand?

Sure, if you've read the books you know the reasons for all of that (and so it has been explained to me patiently by my wife) and that the conspiracy at the Ministry of Magic which justifies all this is very much a part of the fifth book.

But none of that is clear and is barely alluded to in this film.

I really do think that those who are fans of the novel series are filling in the missing pieces from the film without appreciating how much those missing pieces greatly effect the experience of the viewer who is a not a reader.

And if may be so bold Joshua: If the movie missed out in the FUN of Hogwart's I didn't miss the point - not at all. I came to the film expecting something charming and fun. That isn't what I received.

And that is not a small point at all.

 

[Crothian]

A vast number of questions are left for those who have NOT read the books. Why isn't Malfoy exposed? Why isn't Potter believed? When has this kid ever been wrong so as to dismiss him in this manner so out of hand?

Those are not answered in book 4. That is dealt with in the later books so very easily can be delt with in the later movies.

Book 4 is differnet, it is not the same as the first 3 as the Valdomar plot really takes off and that has a profound impact on the setting. JK took the series in a different direction then you wanted. She's shown the magic of Hogwarts and played out the old formula. Time to shake things up a little.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Yes. 7 straight movies centering about the magic of Hogwarts would get boring very fast. The time for centering on the school is pretty much over at this point. Now it's a fight between good and evil.

 

[Desdichado]

And if may be so bold Joshua: If the movie missed out in the FUN of Hogwart's I didn't miss the point - not at all. I came to the film expecting something charming and fun. That isn't what I received.

And that is not a small point at all.

You may indeed, but I still think you are mistaken about the majority of the audience. You are assuming that what you didn't like was what everyone else wouldn't like, and I don't believe that the numbers will bear you out on that--i.e., read a sampling of the user reviews and critics reviews on Yahoo! Movies and Rotten Tomatoes.

My wife, like you, is a tabula rasa for the films, and she noted a difference in tone, but she didn't like the movie less because of it. The whimsical "fun" is not the point of Harry Potter, and if you've somehow reached that conclusion based on the last movies, then I can only say that I think you have missed the point, not only of this movie, but of the previous three as well.

I also think you're unlikely to like the rest of the movies as they're made too, as they all take this same darker, more serious, more mature tone.

 

[Xath]

I saw it at the midnight release. Although I thought it was successful in compressing the book, I was dissapointed in how they handled things.

Dumbledore: He was too clunky in this book. He stomped around everywhere and didn't have that sense of calm which I identify him with. Also his accent went all over the place.

Moody: Even if I hadn't read the books, I would have known Moody was the bad guy. He kept doing the tongue thing that all of the bad guys were doing. Also, they brought up the fact that someone was making Polyjuice Potion way too many times. I didn't like the way he looked either. Moody had injuries, but while reading, I never felt that he was signifigantly hindered by them. Also his eye was supposed to be electric blue and actually set into his socket. I didn't like how they padded it out and how they made it look like an actual eye. He was entirely too cartoony.

Krum: He wasn't stupid in the books. Hermione never would have dated anyone who couldn't hold his own mentally. Also, he never says Her-mi-o-ninny. I really wanted to hear that.

Beaubattons and Durmstrang: They're not all girl/boy schools. Minor irratant, but there you go.

The Maze: I understand why they compressed the maze, but I missed the Sphinx, giant spiders, and the Blast Ended Skrewts.

Madame Maxine: She was supposed to be beautiful, but large. This woman was not. Also, they never got into the whole "half giant" bloodline which becomes important later.

Rita Skeeter: I liked the actress and the portrayal, but there wasn't much there. There were no scandals and Hermione didn't see her as an Animagus which also becomes important in the next books.

Percy/Mrs. Weasley/Winky/Dobby: Where were they?

As far as continuity goes, Barty Crouch Jr. was never at the old Riddle place. They ignored the fact that Harry's wand was used to make the Dark Mark in the sky.

 

[Pyrex]

I get that you have issues with the film. There was a great deal cut so that they could pack what was left in to 2.5hrs.

So, my question is: If you want more Weasleys, more house-elves, more Rita and more Blast Ended Skrewts; what would you have cut to make space for them?

Note: As much as *I'd* have no problem with it, HP4 is still targeted at a younger audience. A six-hour epic is just not in the cards.

 

[WizarDru]

I saw it at the midnight release. Although I thought it was successful in compressing the book, I was dissapointed in how they handled things.

A lot of the changes you suggest would have consumed more screen time; what are you proposing to cut in favor of those additions...or are you proposing the movie should be 3 hours long?

Some things have ripple effects; if you introduce the 'he used Harry's wand' thread, you have to play that out, or it does more damage than good. If you introduce Winky, then that adds a whole lot of material...and if you add Winky, the audience is going to wonder where Dobby is, adding more material. And so on and so forth.

What I know of HP I have come to know from the movies. To date, they have been fun and have captured the imagination by appealing to the desire that you really wish it were true; you wish there were some magical place like Hogwarts that you could be a part of and go to school there.

That's the underlying success of HP. It is a captivating tale that appeals to the viewer's underlying wish fulfillment and interest.

That certainly is a part of the appeal of Harry Potter...but I'd suggest that Joshua's right, many, perhaps most viewers went to Harry Potter with the expectation of the continuing story of the Boy Who Lived. Hogwarts is fun...but Harry's world is also full of dark, dangerous places. I mean, in the first movie he nearly gets killed three times, at least. In the second film, the school is stalked by a horrible monster. In the third movie, an escaped lunatic is hunting him, his death is foretold constantly, his pet is nearly put to death and he's nearly killed by a werewolf and horrific ghosts of despair, among other things.

I think you're suffering from disappointment based on expectations...but I think you missed how dark Harry Potter gets, at times.

 

[Crothian]

A lot of the changes you suggest would have consumed more screen time; what are you proposing to cut in favor of those additions...or are you proposing the movie should be 3 hours long?

Yes, it should have been 3 hours...or longer