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}
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.