Harry Potter reactions

Cafe Society
41

I have just read an interview with Chris Columbus in Empire in which he says that there was neve a four hour cut, and that he deosn’t know where that rumer started. He also says the origional cut was only two hours long but after watching it it was decided to extend it. (I got the impression they allread had the footage but reeditied it)

Regarding the LOTR trilogy, it would be nice if they did nine films. But I think that threee will be enough, they will have to cut a lot, but I think they can do this while still keeping the main story. We’ll just have to wait and see I guess.

42

The team that catches the Snitch doesn’t always win. They usually win, since catching the Snitch means game over, and the team with the Snitch gets 150 points, but it is possible to win even if the other team catches the Snitch. This is especially likely if the game has gone on for a long time before the Snitch appears. If, say, Ravenclaw manages to score 160 points with the Quaffle, and Hufflepuff has 0 points but catches the Snitch, the score would be 160-150 and the game would go to Ravenclaw.

43

I believe that the opposing Seeker in that particular match was the beauteous Cho Chang of Ravenclaw.

44

Just saw it for the secong time today. I must say, I absolutely loved it. Most characters were dead-on. The castle itself was the most amazing thing in the movie. It was just as I pictured it in my head.

A few minor comments…

Would of liked to have seen Hermione’s parents. The whole wide-eyed muggle parents angle would have been funny.

They botched Snape’s character big time. I know things needed to be cut from the story, but Snape was demoted to a minor annoyance rather than the menacing nemesis he must have seemed to an 11 year old boy.

Wasn’t their first meeting with Draco on the train?

Finally, let me say that Hermione was perfect. The young lady who played her can act circles around the the kids who played Harry and Ron.

All in all, I loved it.

45

Saw it today.

  1. The movie was very good overall, but Chris Columbus damn near blew it. He’s a TERRIBLE director - he has absolutely no eye for action. The Quidditch scene wasn’t well edited or directed at all, and it was impossible to get a sense for a game actually taking place. Action scenes involved far too many closeup shots and no perspective shots. The chess game sequence was brutally directed. It’s a testament to the quality of the story that it was exciting at all with Columbus blowing the action scenes.

  2. I was surprised at how good the kids’ acting was. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) was a little spotty but Rupert Grint was good and Emma Watson was terrific. (Now I know how to pronounce “Hermione.”) The adults all turned in good performances. Gotta agree with the crowd; Robbie Coltrane was great.

  3. Even at 160 minutes the movie felt a bit rushed. The movie has been roundly criticized for leaving out some minor characters (e.g. Peeves) and not developing others. I would have to say I completely disagree; I think doing so was a great idea. If you develop all the characters now, there’s nobody to introduce in future movies. The books, in this regard, are somewhat repetitive.

  4. Although they’ve taken some fire for the Draco Malfoy character, I had no problems with him. I never thought he was supposed to be terribly evil; he’s a spoiled, slimy eleven-year-old rich kid, nothing more.

  5. If this movie doesn’t get Oscars nod for art/set decoration and costume design, nothing could.

  6. Even cutting some things out, the movie was rushed. I think more should have been cut. But overall it was still very good.

46

Well, it’ll have stiff competition from Lord of the Rings…I predict a split decision, though (art direction for Harry and costumes for LotR, based on what I’ve seen). I do love the entire look of this movie – the visualization of Hogwarts was amazing, of course, and I also thought Diagon Alley was great.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the movie. They left out a few things that I’d like to have seen, but on the whole it was highly enjoyable, and all the key players were spot-on. (I can’t decide whether Hermione or Ron was the best actor of the three main kids – I’m inclined to say Hermione, though. She was wonderful.)

Snape may not have been menacing enough, but he was disturbingly attractive. :wink: (Alan Rickman rocks.)

I loved some of the cameos – John Cleese as Nearly Headless Nick (that’s a rather Pythonic concept, don’t you think?) and especially John Hurt as Mr. Ollivander.

They cut one of the bits from the book I really like – when Harry asks Dumbledore what he sees in the Mirror of Erised (Dumbledore’s answer: himself with clean socks). I do think they could have showed a bit more of Dumbledore’s personality quirks; he was a bit Obi-Wan-esque in the movie. Although Richard Harris was great in the role.

I liked the Quidditch match – and I also liked that Oliver Wood was Scottish! :smiley: (Said a friend of mine: “I’d take a Bludger to the head for a Scottish captain!”)

Robbie Coltrane was a terrific Hagrid, as many people have already said – just thought I’d repeat it. (Hard to believe that’s the same guy who played Falstaff in Branagh’s Henry V, even if that’s part of the reason I like him so much… ;))

Ian Hart, who plays Professor Quirrell, looks and sounds eerily like the guy who usually does the patter-baritone roles in the U of Mich Gilbert and Sullivan Society.

I’m quite upset, though, that I didn’t get to see the LotR trailer on the big screen! I mean, who cares about Scooby Doo? I want my LotR! (I was grinning like a little kid through basically all of HP. I think when I see LotR I’ll just pass out from sheer excitement. ;))

Oh, and I’m definitely looking forward to the next HP film…Kenneth Branagh is in it! (He plays narcissist wizard Gilderoy Lockhart.) Woo-hoo!

47

kellibelli posts:

There were alot of little things I found upsetting - Harry didnt catch the snitch in his mouth in that match, I am almost certain of it…

Harry did catch the snitch in his mouth in that match, but without the standing-on-the-broom antics inthe movie. The book makes it almost sound as if his catch was accidental. Either way, he did cough it up at the end, lol.

48

Sorry to break up the Harry Potter lovefest, but… :wink:

I just went to see it tonight, and I thought it was okay. Basically average – but it didn’t have any spark. It was too commercialized, too cute. But then I didn’t really like the books either, so maybe that’s not fair. Both the book and the movie were really just “okay,” IMO. I don’t regret going, but I’d certainly never go again, (I got somewhat bored the first time) and I’d never stand out in the rain waiting for tickets! There were a few things I thought were really stupid in the movie:

  1. The portrayal of Dumbledore. In the book, he is portrayed as a bit of a nutcase. A lovable nutcase, yes, but a nutcase. For example, when he speaks at the banquet at the beginning of the book, when he is asked to “say a few words” he literally SAYS a few words: “Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!” And Ron makes a comment about how he’s “a bit mad.” That whole part is cut in the movie – he simply tells the first years not to go to the dark forest, etc. He is changed from an original character to a cliched over-sentimental Gandolf-wannabe.

  2. The reactions of the characters – they really didn’t have enough emotion, especially the Dursley’s and the reaction of Harry upon recieving his letter.

  3. It tended to be a bit, well, corny, especially at the end. The chess match was cute, but Hermione was left seeming like a total wimp. At least she didn’t faint or something, the fair maiden destined to be saved by Harry… that was earlier.

Like I said before, I’ve never understood the fascination the world has with this book – I’ve read so many other children’s books that are much better written and frankly, more interesting. Ah, well, at any rate, it’s still far more deserving of praise then the Babysitter’s Club, so I guess it’s all good.

I saw the preview of Clone Wars, and thought it looked very interesting. Hopefully, it will turn out better then the “Phantom Menace.” (What gawdawful titles, though!) Actually, I thought the Phantom Menace was better then this movie, but the reviews were certainly not encouraging. I will definitely be going to Clone Wars, but I doubt I’ll attend the next Harry Potter movie.

49

Just got back from seeing this movie. Initial impressions…

  1. Very good adaptation. It is difficult to adapt a book into a movie, and given this book’s fan base, it would have been nearly impossible to satisfy all of the fans without creating a movie that would have been prohibitively long. Yes, there were some differences between the book and the movie, but none of those differences troubled me.

  2. I thought the special effects were well done. Except for the centaur. Didn’t really buy the centaur.

  3. The acting was good. Even the kid who played Harry Potter. I realize he’s not Oscar material, but at least he didn’t make me cringe with saccharine cuteness like the moppet who played Anakin Skywalker. The boy who played Ron was fine, and the girl who played Hermione damn near stole the show. Zebra said earlier that she was disappointed with the boy playing Harry, and pointed to the mirror scene as an example. Actually, I thought the mirror scene was one of the best scenes in the movie. I had always read Harry Potter as a somewhat reserved character, partly because of how he would need to conceal his emotions around the abusive Dursleys. So it would make sense that this sense of emotional reserve would be retained throughout the rest of the movie.

  4. My brain is telling me now that I forgot something in that last note. Something about opals. Not sure what my birthstone has to do with any of this, but I digress.

  5. Quidditch, as described in the book, has never sat well with me as a believable game. The movie’s depiction of it was fun to watch, but the concept of the game still doesn’t sit well with me. And frankly, the movie’s depiction of Quidditch brought home a thought I’ve often had…it looks so easy for fatalities to occur.

  6. Not enough Snape.

  7. Not enough Malfoy.

  8. When I heard this would be a movie, I had feared that the effort would made to soften the darker aspects of the sotry. I was pleased to see that no such attempt was made.

  9. No Attack of the Clones preview. Somebody lied to me.

  10. No Lord of the Rings preview. No one lied to me on this point, but I was surprised at reading how many other viewers saw it with this movie.

  11. If they yank a two-and-a-half hour movie out of the first book, how in the hell are they ever going to make a movie out of the fourth book? The bloody thing is almost 800 pages, and it is by far the darkest and most violent of the books so far. I would love to see a faithful adaptation of The Goblet of Fire, but I worry that so much would be dropped and sugarcoated as to make for a poor adaptation.

  12. If I had a chess set like that, I would be playing that game a lot more often.

50

Just got back from my showing (I went at 10:30 on Sunday night, which I figured would minimize the “noisy kid” factor). So, I’ll just do a quick tally, which, needless to say, will be chock full of spoilers:

STUFF I LIKED

  1. Quidditch was mighty cool, and the kid who played Oliver was spot on for the role.
  2. Hagrid was excellent, despite overlooking the obvious choice for the role (me).
  3. Background details. Even when significant stuff happens in the foreground, behind it all little stuff is happening, such as the portraits moving and the candles slowly bobbing up and down.
  4. Ron, Hermione, and Harry were all good, in my opinion. A lot of people have been saying that Harry was bland, but as I see it, despite being the title character, Harry’s only supposed to be the “glue” that holds the real story (everything else) together. And, glue he was.
  5. All the teachers. Good work, yo.

STUFF I DIDN’T LIKE

  1. Not enough development of Neville. If they’d done the whole story of Norbert’s departure, we’d have seen how hurt Neville was when he thought the others were lying to him, and so on.
  2. The CGI centaur was, um, not good.
  3. It bothered me that Hermione discovered the Flamel story in a book, rather than Harry realizing he’d read about him on a card from a Chocolate Frog. The latter’s just more charming.
  4. Cutting out Snape’s puzzle protecting the stone, which Hermione defeated. It was important, in my opinion, because it shows that Hermione can think logically; on the other hand, it’d be boring as hell on film, so I can understand why they cut it. Still…
  5. No props were given to Hedwig, not even her name. Damn shame, that.
  6. Finally, I wish they’d shown a bit more of the kids in class, actually learning magic. You know, the reason they’re at Hogwarts in the first place? For one thing, it’d give them a chance to show more of Snape and Draco being all snippy; for another, if they’re going to cut Snape’s puzzle entirely, they should have shown a Herbology class to put the plant puzzle in perspective. And of course, we’d see our heroes learning magic and getting more skilled at it, which is always good.
51

I agree with most of what has been posted, especially any and all criticisms of Chris Columbus, who I think should be dragged out back and fed all (and I mean all) the gross flavors of every flavor jelly beans.

I mean, have you ever heard of subtlety, sir? We’ll notice the floating candlesticks in a nice, fun magical realism sort of way even if you don’t have them fill the entire frickin’ screen. Similarly, you don’t have to have extreme closeups of every single CGI effect in the movie. In fact, you shouldn’t have because, really, a lot of them really weren’t all that good. (Of course, in a Brobdingnagian way, nothing is really going to look that good that close up.)

And this may or may not have been your doing, but you don’t need the “magical” music for every single scene. Soundwise, my favorite scene was the potions class, with no noise except for the soft bubbling of cauldrons and Rickman chewing out Harry.

And is it just me, or was Hedwig a bit on the plump side?

52

Admittedly, I have not yet seen the movie (still having problems after surgery, but my attention span is getting better), but could you explain this observation? How so, in terms of the way the wings flapping, mid-air turns, braking, landing?

And by the way, is Hedwig a snowy owl (as depicted in the coffee mug on my desk) or a great howned owl (that I see on all the tv advertisements)?

53

I’m posting to this thread without having read any of it just to say…

It has been TORTURE not to read this thing. I’ve been trying to avoid spoilers, etc. for this movie and it’s been killing me. I promised my sister I would wait to see the movie with her, and the first chance we’ve had to go is tonight. Do you know how hard it was Saturday afternoon to know the movie was playing not ten minutes away from where I was but not be able to go? I held out, though, with strength I didn’t even know I had.

And so in a few short hours my torment will be over. Then I will return to comment.

I’m sooo excited!

:wink:

54

I noticed that too. I liked the rest of the movie, but the scenes with the flying CGI owls were jarring. They flew more like helium baloons that happened to be owl shaped and not at all like actual birds. Little to no correlation between the wing beats and the overall movement of the owl. Inexiplicably gaining speed and altitude without flapping the wings, too. Whoever animated that sequence needed to spend more time watching real owls in flight first.

55

I mean, considering how few movies are made which attempt to be intelligent and not talk-down to kids. I was so glad that there was no forced slapstick or the like added to make the movie more “digestable”. Not perfect by any means, but definitely above average.

Minor nitpick:

Harry as a child with his still living parents looked much larger than the bundle delivered at the beginning of the movie.

Oh, and the biggest problem I’ve had with both the book and the movie is the gratuitous awarding of points at the end. I mean, isn’t it overkill to have Harry save the day, win the Quidditch match, and also have his house win the year? Just my own personal opinion.

56

I haven’t seen the movie yet (that’ll be Thursday night :D), but I’m reading the book right now.

May I mention a few observations?

Here we have a misunderstood and out-of-place boy sent to live with his aunt and uncle.

An aunt and uncle who don’t tolerate talk of imagination or fancy.

The boy’s parents were killed in the boy’s infancy by an evil force.

A boy with secret powers that he doesn’t yet understand.

A wizened old wizard who looks after the boy from a distance.

The wizened old wizard is the key to the boy realizing his True Potential.

Now, let me ask you: does any of this SEEM FAMILIAR? :smiley:

[sub][DISCLAIMER]Not that I’m accusing Ms. Rowling of plagairism; I understand that many fantasy stories share similar elements…[/sub][/DISCLAIMER]

57

I assume you are talking about Star Wars, but not only should it seem familiar, it is practically the recipe for most effective storytelling, in one form or another, fantasy or otherwise. Check out The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writer’s, it gives an excellent account of the basic prinicples involved in the character arc, of which many are what you described in one form or another: the Hero, The Mentor, enemies in various archetypical forms (tricksters, threshhold guardians etc.), the call to adventure, tests, ultimate challenge, etc.

58

Whoops, I should also mention The Hero With a Thousand Faces which is more academic and general (Writer’s Journey is really focused on screenwriting and it freely admits it is based up HWATF) and not quite as accessible.

59

I’m sure, of course, that rastahomie was referring to the legend of King Arthur. :slight_smile:

60

I know this is silly (and I feel like an incredible geek for even noticing), but I was really cheesed off by one pointless change in dialogue from the book to the movie.

In the movie, Hagrid says he got Fluffy from an Irish fellow, but in the book he got Fluffy from a Greek. It’s a great joke in the book, because Fluffy is obviously Cerberus, the guard dog of Hades. And, moreover, the fact that he can be tamed by music is a direct reference to the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Even if most kids won’t get the reference, why make the change? Unlike the other elisions in story made for the sake of movie length, this change had no discernible purpose. Part of the reason I like the Harry Potter books is that some of the language and not-so-obscure references can be appreciated on multiple levels depending on the sophistication (read: advancing age) of the readers.

Rick