Goblets, fire, for the burning of
Nov. 29th, 2005 12:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kingandySeen Harry Potter's Flaming Receptacle. And saw that it was good.
Much props to the staging, and the loading of a gun not only in Act I but repeatedly throughout the movie, and in doing it in such a way that you don't even realise what it is you're seeing. Slapped myself, really I did. As to the villain himself ... well, it was a bit Scooby-Doo, being a character that we'd only really properly seen once before, and that only in an "accidental" plot device. (Not that anyone really believes that. Come on, every time he leaves Harry alone in his office, something falls off a shelf or ignites or crawls out of its secret passage to deposit plot information in the lad's lap. Either the sneaky old bat's up to something or his office is filled with the most helpful of ambulatory furniture.)
Nice to see the other teachers (particularly Snape) getting a bit more to do, though I suppose from one point of view it must be nice getting a regular paycheck for the better part of a decade for a part that you can basically phone in (qv. Warwick Davies).
If the movie suffers from anything it is that it is very definitely a middle movie. Fourth of a purported seven, it is notable for its lack of closure and reliance on canon. Certainly none of the wizarding world is explained, nor are many of the characters identified, though it is fair to assume that most of the audience would be at least passingly conversant with the basic setup unless they've been particularly fervent about stuffing rocks in their ears or something. The plot is liberally littered with elements from earlier films, from Moaning Myrtle and the Polyjuice Potion to the ubiquitous Cloak of Invisibility and Sirius Black. Most of these could be accepted as random local colour (and, indeed, Moaning Myrtle's appearance actually serves to mention that Potter and pals have previously produced a Polyjuice Potion), but Black's appearance doesn't particularly advance the plot and would leave the casual viewer very much in the dark.
Conversely, the climax of the film doesn't really resolve anything. Voldemort isn't defeated Once Again, nor do the Forces of Good suffer any particularly crushing blows (except one character who existed only to be beloved by all and then die); all that happens is that Evil is strengthened so that he can more convincingly threaten Good in future films.
But, this does not necessarily make a bad movie. The Empire Strikes Back is likewise a Middle Movie, and widely acclaimed as the better of the three[1]. And I think I liked it marginally better than the Escaped Convict. If only because it didn't have any time travel plot devices being entrusted to thirteen-year-olds. (Not that the time travel in that wasn't very well done, since it didn't involve actually changing anything that they'd explicitly seen ... but I digress.)
I look forward to seeing how the movie compares to the book. The only obvious element that lacked explanation (either explicitly or through previous movies) was the use of Accio, which I am given to understand is a generic summoning/telekinesis spell, though so many spells are randomly called without prior explanation that I'll allow it. (Oh, and the wording "Accio Firebolt!" could lead to confusion if you didn't know the Firebolt was the brand name of his broom. Or whatever. For a moment I thought he was trying to deflect the dragon's fire. But anyway.) Judging by the Wikipedia entries there are a number of substantial omissions and alterations. Still, the movie stands by itself as a movie (and it in some ways may make more sense - compare the movie's foreshadowing and laying down of plot threads with Ms Rowling's preferred out-of-the-ass method of denouement).
Notes:
ADDITIONAL: Krum's wand is made of hornbeam and has a dragon heartstring core. It is ten and a quarter inches long. Blimey. Yes, not bad at all from the neck down.
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL: According to the movie site, Cedric's wand is a little over a foot long ... oh sod it, just go and look at the Wikipedia entry. FILTH! SUCH FILTH!
[1] Naturally, the prequels are here considered to be a distinct entity.
DUMBLEDORE: Good news, everyone! This year, instead of an evil plot that draws Harry Potter into a series of improbable death traps, this year we're going to have a series of improbable death traps that draw Harry into an evil plot! And we all get to watch from the stands, isn't it grand.
Much props to the staging, and the loading of a gun not only in Act I but repeatedly throughout the movie, and in doing it in such a way that you don't even realise what it is you're seeing. Slapped myself, really I did. As to the villain himself ... well, it was a bit Scooby-Doo, being a character that we'd only really properly seen once before, and that only in an "accidental" plot device. (Not that anyone really believes that. Come on, every time he leaves Harry alone in his office, something falls off a shelf or ignites or crawls out of its secret passage to deposit plot information in the lad's lap. Either the sneaky old bat's up to something or his office is filled with the most helpful of ambulatory furniture.)
Nice to see the other teachers (particularly Snape) getting a bit more to do, though I suppose from one point of view it must be nice getting a regular paycheck for the better part of a decade for a part that you can basically phone in (qv. Warwick Davies).
If the movie suffers from anything it is that it is very definitely a middle movie. Fourth of a purported seven, it is notable for its lack of closure and reliance on canon. Certainly none of the wizarding world is explained, nor are many of the characters identified, though it is fair to assume that most of the audience would be at least passingly conversant with the basic setup unless they've been particularly fervent about stuffing rocks in their ears or something. The plot is liberally littered with elements from earlier films, from Moaning Myrtle and the Polyjuice Potion to the ubiquitous Cloak of Invisibility and Sirius Black. Most of these could be accepted as random local colour (and, indeed, Moaning Myrtle's appearance actually serves to mention that Potter and pals have previously produced a Polyjuice Potion), but Black's appearance doesn't particularly advance the plot and would leave the casual viewer very much in the dark.
Conversely, the climax of the film doesn't really resolve anything. Voldemort isn't defeated Once Again, nor do the Forces of Good suffer any particularly crushing blows (except one character who existed only to be beloved by all and then die); all that happens is that Evil is strengthened so that he can more convincingly threaten Good in future films.
But, this does not necessarily make a bad movie. The Empire Strikes Back is likewise a Middle Movie, and widely acclaimed as the better of the three[1]. And I think I liked it marginally better than the Escaped Convict. If only because it didn't have any time travel plot devices being entrusted to thirteen-year-olds. (Not that the time travel in that wasn't very well done, since it didn't involve actually changing anything that they'd explicitly seen ... but I digress.)
I look forward to seeing how the movie compares to the book. The only obvious element that lacked explanation (either explicitly or through previous movies) was the use of Accio, which I am given to understand is a generic summoning/telekinesis spell, though so many spells are randomly called without prior explanation that I'll allow it. (Oh, and the wording "Accio Firebolt!" could lead to confusion if you didn't know the Firebolt was the brand name of his broom. Or whatever. For a moment I thought he was trying to deflect the dragon's fire. But anyway.) Judging by the Wikipedia entries there are a number of substantial omissions and alterations. Still, the movie stands by itself as a movie (and it in some ways may make more sense - compare the movie's foreshadowing and laying down of plot threads with Ms Rowling's preferred out-of-the-ass method of denouement).
Notes:
- THEMES: Everybody Takes After Their Parents. Note how the Death Eaters are composed of Crabb, Goyle, Malfoy etc, while Potter and Longbottom both were on the side of good (or at least victims or something). The only exception thus far has been Barty Crouch Jr, who appears to be the only instance in the wizarding world of teenage rebellion. Maybe in a book or two young Draco will start shrieking that Luscious is so unfair and I hate you and I'm joining the forces of Good just out of spite.
- The thought occurs that, in the larger sense, these books aren't actually about Harry Potter. I mean, they're clearly about him, but what they are is the story of Voldemort's prolongued downfall by his own hand. Harry, in and of himself, wouldn't be at all special without the reverberations from Voldemort's attack on his parents. Voldemort's inability to touch him is an obvious consequence, but his parselmouth ability, the Sorting Hat's dithering over houses and potentially even the affinity for his particular wand (the mate of Voldemort's, and apparently the reason for the Priori Incantatem) - all of that is a direct result of the essence absorbed during Voldemort's attack. Little Harry doesn't have to do very much, it seems, as Voldemort is his own undoing. Possibly later books will give the lie to this but, as things stand now, that's how it looks to me.
- Snakes are bad. Except that one in the first book, who was quite personable. But since Book 2, everything snakey has been eeeeevil.
ADDITIONAL: Krum's wand is made of hornbeam and has a dragon heartstring core. It is ten and a quarter inches long. Blimey. Yes, not bad at all from the neck down.
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL: According to the movie site, Cedric's wand is a little over a foot long ... oh sod it, just go and look at the Wikipedia entry. FILTH! SUCH FILTH!
[1] Naturally, the prequels are here considered to be a distinct entity.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 02:21 am (UTC)I'd be in Slytherin without a doubt. I always think that the poor fellow gets a rough deal because of the prejudices of the damn Gyffindors.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 09:59 am (UTC)cockwand - actually had the temerity to not be in Gryffindor. Of course he had to die, the bastard.no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 02:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 07:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 10:01 am (UTC)blink
Date: 2005-11-29 10:55 am (UTC)So hang on, you haven't read the books first?
Re: blink
Date: 2005-11-29 11:21 am (UTC)Re: blink
Date: 2005-11-29 11:29 am (UTC)*Although this may be changing with ubiquitous CGI these days.
Re: blink
Date: 2005-11-29 12:16 pm (UTC)Re: blink
Date: 2005-11-29 12:26 pm (UTC)Oddly enough, though, I already saw Maggie Smith as McGonnagle and Alan Rickman as Snape when I read the book.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 11:38 am (UTC)Compared to the book, the film was both worse and better in different ways. It was better because it did cut out an awful lot of fluff which really was not necessary. It was worse in that sometimes this is taken too far and the cuts in the early part of the film seem very rushed.
In the books later on Harry does become less passive and more proactive. There are indications that the next book may have a sort of 'Kung Fu' element to it with Harry and pals travelling the world righting wrongs with their magics. But I could be wrong about that.
Part of the film was spoiled by me for having read the book. This is because elements of the plot are based on one very basic subterfuge and once you know it you know it and it no longer holds a surprise. Then again, it is no different to learning that Vader is Luke's father. I have to admit, I was waiting for the point in the books where Voldemort says that famous line to Harry... 'Harry, I am your father'. Clearly now not the case, though. :)
I am still stupidly and quite pointlessly amused by the idea that it was Doctor Who wot done it. Are this generation's crop of newly inducted young Dr Who fans going to be confused by this? It's like Tom Baker playing Darth Vader (which he could have done, quite easily, in another universe).
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 12:34 pm (UTC)They are, after all, different media. With a movie you can throw in a visual clue - licking of the lips - and let it be lost in the general spectacle, because on screen when you see a person you see the whole thing. Conversely in a book if you want something to be seen you have to describe it, draw attention to it. An advantage of book format is of course the lack of a time limit - though this can lead to the aforementioned fluff, it also leaves time for character development and context. As well as, apparently, setting up the next book, which here got cut entirely.
As far as spoiling goes - as with Fight Club or Sixth Sense, when you know the twist there is still a certain joy to be had from spotting the signposts (some of which, in this case, they had to insert). Incidentally, I did learn of both those movies' twists before I saw them - another reason I want to go into the Potters cold. ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 10:21 am (UTC)The problem with Rowling is that she is sometimes lapses into a very formulaic way of writing. This may change in later books, especially as the last one is likely to not be set in Hogwarts and so is removed from that whole 'adventure a term' format.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 12:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 12:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 02:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 02:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 10:10 am (UTC)I suspect the shaven look is a way of making them look more eeeevil, which is a part of the book not really gone into in the film - the blind that the Durmstrang lot are evil death eaters (since their headmaster was one...) and therefore responsible for all the plot.
Instead, Krum just comes across as an obsessive teutonic thug who has a crush on Hermione. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 02:03 pm (UTC)I worry about the fifth. Weak actors, and, for the first time, a weak book. We wait with baited breath.....*
*except we don't, because we'd suffocate, but you get the point.
SPOILER FOR BOOK
Date: 2005-11-29 02:25 pm (UTC)The film is (as all the HPs are) very condensed versions of the books, but most of them stand OK as films on their own. I do feel that the books are better (and I do read them before the films, although now I have the film's characters in my head rather than my original ones I had before I even knew they were making them into films) and have a lot more depth and inticricies (sp?) that make it worth the read, but then they do make the films quite disappointing - you don't even know what a Veela is in the film and it's quite important! As for the first film - you don't know that Snape actually helped to protect the philosopher's stone (as he does in the book), you just see him as a pompous git who gets in the way! I just don't think you can do the books justice, even in 2 1/2 hours. :(
(NB. Must get my 1st HP book back from Tree soon!)
Re: SPOILER FOR BOOK
Date: 2005-11-29 02:31 pm (UTC)Important in later books or important to this one? Because in removing the references in the movie they've also removed the reason it was important, and it seems to have turned out not to be all that important after all. Significant, adding depth, and interesting, but not actually important to the plot.
Re: SPOILER FOR BOOK
Date: 2005-11-29 02:47 pm (UTC)Re: SPOILER FOR BOOK(S)
Date: 2005-11-29 04:16 pm (UTC)I want to know how they are going to do the next film seeing as the Snape - Good guy/Bad guy is a very important thing for the next two books and probably further, but there's no "good guy" in the films other than Dumbledore's memory saying he trusts Snape...
*sigh*
Re: SPOILER FOR BOOK(S)
Date: 2005-11-29 04:21 pm (UTC)Albus didn't just say he trusted Snape - he mentioned that he'd gone undercover and spied on Voldemort. That is quite an endorsement.
I do like that Severus embodies the best Slytherin qualities - willingness to do whatever is necessary, no matter how distasteful, except for the greater good rather than personal gain. The end justifying the means.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:03 pm (UTC)and also how the hell did harry stop the death spell..........as this now means he has survived it twice ...(I know that there was a wand joining typething but surely when the spells hit and the death spell was pushing through it like it wasn't there harry shoiuld have died...)
but I enjoyed it as a film and havenever read any of the books and never plan too I don;t like watching books that I've seen the film of or vice versa... I don;t like all the comparing that is guaranted too happen
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:14 pm (UTC)and he's done all that to make it so he can touch the potter...but all potter has to do is cast spells to regain his voldemort invulnerability
and it would have been so much cooler if harry had of gone... okay lets have it you way AVRA CADAVER (or whatever the correct spelling is) ha ha I kill voldemort you all suck ........then did a little dance whilst all the deat heaters looked scared
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:20 pm (UTC)As for the killing spell - one has to REALLY mean it and have the blackness of heart to pull it off. It's not something that can be done by someone inexperienced and "good" very easily.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:31 pm (UTC)ahhh that makes perfext sense...........though is somethin else I herefore don't like about miss rowlings magical world.... it is better if god guys CAN do evil nasty spells and merely choose not to
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 05:01 pm (UTC)From a certain point of view, that's sort of what the fourth book seems to be about. It's very much the transition between "kids" and "young adult" stories - Harry notices girls, somebody dies and Voldemort transforms himself from a nebulous threat easily fended off by a clever young whippersnapper and friends into a real and deadly force in the world, complete with henchmen and powerbase.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 05:09 pm (UTC)and also he has henchmen that he doesn't trust, and in fact seems to mostly hate, and therfore are about as useful as a chocolate kettle.. besides I am sure that malfoy wants the dark lord crown anyway....
I suppose the level of threat he pose's is slowly rising and by the last book/film he will be scary as hell
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 10:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:23 pm (UTC)....... you really have missed the point entirely, haven't you.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:28 pm (UTC)though I am expecting that to be how the final book ends prett ymuch
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 05:11 pm (UTC)but In seriousness I don;t know because it is aimed at an older audience one that knows that killing and murder aren;t the same thing, and that sometimes you have to make that sacrifice for the greater good, even if it wears on your own heart and soul.......plus killing evil people is fine
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 05:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 05:21 pm (UTC)or big maigcal duel going on.. it;s scary and frightenning harrie's getting beaten annd draco malfoy shows up and kills voldemort for killing his dad after his dad made a play for taking control.....
well no-one but mewould see it coming
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 04:27 pm (UTC)Most talked about!
Date: 2005-11-30 10:21 am (UTC)