Yet more thoughts from someone who has seen all of the movies at least once, and not read the books:
The third one (PoA, I guess, from reading this thread) is still the best movie of them, but the one comes in second.
It seemed like they put a LOT of effort near the beginning into emphasizing that This Is Happening In Modern England!.. to the point where it was a little bit jarring.
I thought that Die Hard would be the most formulaic movie that I saw this summer. I was wrong. I have no idea if the book is like that, and it doesn’t really end up taking that much away from the movie… but this is literary/cinematic formula after formula. I was half surprised Harry and Cho didn’t just kiss and make up at the end to make everything complete (though I realize from a friend that They Don’t End Up Together!!!).
The fight between Dumbledore and Voldemort at the end of the movie was the first magic-battle that was remotely satisfying from any of the movies, speaking as a huge arcane magic dork-fan.
On the one hand, the Evil Teacher was extremely well acted. On the other hand, she was in no way threatening, and I really just wanted the kids to slap her around at a couple of points.
The girl with the changing hair colors? Hot. Luna? Perfectly creepy. Watson? Acting better, but it definitely shows that she’s a year younger than Harry and two than Ron.
Speaking of which, they can put Harry in the awkward glasses, hairstyle, and hoodie all they want… but they’re not going to have much luck getting him to look like a kid for that much longer. They better film these last two movies FAST.
I guess in the end, I am both happy with what I saw - because like I said, it’s definitely the second best movie of the group, and the quality of the acting in general has come LIGHT YEARS since the first one - and a little disappointed because I think the story itself was lacking. Which, I suppose, jives with the opinion that many have expressed that this was the worst of the books.
And, really, I’m going to see the last two either way, because who am I to cut out of a story before it’s done being told?
I just wanted to add that I was all sorts of squee! over the baby thestral. As a sometimes death rocker and former competitor in 4H horsemanship it just made me melt.
They actually fucked up a bit on this point. There’s a scene in the Gryffindor common room where there’s recent music playing in the background - except the HP books don’t take place now, they take place roughly ten years ago.
Just watched it today. Liked it overall, but was a bit disappointed with McGonagall’s reduced role. In the book she pwned Umbridge with her mere presence. In the movie, not so much. The final battle was also much more toned down, but I suppose it had to be. And where the hell was Malfoy? I think he had like 5 lines in the entire thing.
Gah! It’s my favorite HP book. I just started re-reading it tonight so I can finish it and Half-Blood Prince again before the last book is released. I love all the exposition and extra characters. I don’t think it’s too long at all, though I do think that the movie screenplay kept most of the most important stuff.
It’s not important since Harry IS growing up. By the end of the last one he’ll be a fully grown man, and DR will look the part.
Liked the movie, not much new to add. I did have one small question, a logical (yeah I know, logic in HP magicallness, not likely):
Harry is attacked by Dementors. Dementors are apparently only found around Azkaban unless ordered elsewhere. They’re super-creepy soul-suckers that no one likes. If I were Harry, I would have asked a pretty simple question at that trial:
“Isn’t there a way to tell, magically, if there were dementors there?”
They weren’t cloaked, or Figg wouldn’t have seen them. If they’re just untraceable, someone’s a damn idiot. Might as well throw in the towel right away, just flood Hogwarts with the suckers.
One of the many things that endears me to these books is the lovely, intricate world that Rowling has crafted. I love that the book is 800 pages long and we get the kind of detail that we do. I know it’s not strictly necessary to the plot, but I enjoy the journey more so than an efficient point-A-to-B adventure story. I missed a lot of the stuff that was cut out and felt like the movie was a “just the facts, ma’am” interpretation.
That being said, I wasn’t nearly so bothered by the stuff they omitted as by the stuff they changed for no apparent reason. Like this random Nigel kid, why? Why couldn’t they just have used Colin or Dennis?
In reference to both points, I’m mad that they changed as much of the dialogue as they did. Lines that should heavily foreshadow major events have been changed to render them nearly meaningless, or non sequiturs as someone else mentioned.
I was very disappointed in the Dementor/Dursley scene. An extra five minutes would have made this packed with tension and drama. As shown, it’s a complete yawner. In the book he wrestles with self-restraint over baiting the crowd of bullies, in the movie he does the complete opposite. When the dementors attack he allows himself to be pinned to the wall by the throat for an immensely long period of time with his wand just hanging at his side, ho-hum. Oh yeah, maybe I’ll use it to poke the goddamned thing. Patronus? Complete afterthought. WTF? Also, he watches it begin sucking out Dudley’s soul for several seconds before it occurs to him to send Patronus Prongs to the rescue. In the book, Dudley decks him, which is perfectly in character. In the movie, they run off together, acting at least somewhat cooperatively. Again, why? The punch serves the purpose of stunning Harry and knocking his wand out of his hand, nearly causing the Dementors to win through no fault of Harry’s. In the movie it appears as complete ineptitude.
Furthermore, Arabella Figg just stroooolllls around the corner, appearing mildly concerned. Did the director even read the book? Her part of the scene could have played out exactly as in the book with no added time, and would have helped convey what a horrifying thing this was to happen and all the OotP involvement about which Harry has been kept in the dark. As it happens on film, it’s nearly a complete ho-hum to everyone involved and the tail is an aftertought which doesn’t appear to have been taken terribly seriously by Mrs. Figg. Even the Dursleys are way off. Again, they could have pulled Vernon and Petunia’s dialogue straight from the book and ended up with a completely different and vastly more effective scene. Where was Vernon’s fury? His kicking Harry out and subsequent howler to Petunia, setting us up for all that exposition in the next film? Was anyone else bothered by how the whole opening played out? And seriously… Mad-Eye Moody flies the whole squad directly through a highly visible Muggle thoroughfare past a major monument? Again… did the director even read the book? It was as though he had zero familiarity with that character, whatsoever.
I was so looking forward to the big Weasely exit speech. Why… of all brilliant, exciting, cheer-out-loud scenes to cut, why would you get rid of that? The mayhem builds to this point and they just… fly off with a not-terribly-showy finale, a big sparkly W. I didn’t think it was terrible, but just… disappointing. I was looking forward to the swamp, and even the fireworks as described in the books were much more spectacular. But more than anything else ommited, leaving out the twins getting busted, “Accio Brooms!” and the big announcement / “give 'er hell, Peaves!” speech bummed me out.
I was blown away, and actually blurted out “wait… what?!” when Harry hands the prophecy to Lucius Malfoy. He hands the prophecy to Lucius Malfoy. This seems to me maybe most egregious change. They could have reached the same point with the kids battling the Death Eaters and showing off their wide range of DA developed skills, Harry tossing the prophecy to Neville, it breaks and we hear a snippet, keeping the film true to the book’s plot. I simply cannot believe that Harry would ever willingly hand the prophecy over to Lucius and thus Voldemort, and I’m really angry at the director for panting him into a corner where he was forced to do so.
In the movie version, the rest of the wizarding world will now know the prophecy entire, because the whole posse heard it as he took it off the shelf. This completely eliminates the whole story line of Dumbledore and Harry being the only two in the world who know the totality of the prophecy and so on. I don’t know how much that particular detail matters, and I get changes made for the sake of brevity, like Cho for Marietta, but it seems like this is another place where the movie varies from the book for no apparent reason, and in that sense it just pisses me off.
Finally, and this is the biggie for me, I really, really dislike the second Dumbledore. There’s a mile-long list of other things I’m sad were changed or missing, but I just can’t forgive the director, the actor, or Rowling for allowing him to play Dumbledore as he does. In the books, Dumbledore is supposed to be the greatest living wizard, a wizard of immense, quiet power. He flicks his wand and worlds move. He stands up and the great hall falls silent. He is calm and sure in his actions, the very few times he is really angry we certainly see it, and Rowling is careful to point out that the visible display of anger is rare. The movie Dumbledore shouts and hollers all the time, has to scream “SIIIIIIIIIILEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNCE!!!” to get people to shop chattering at the feast in book four, grabs and shakes Harry, wild-eyed and shouting–something that Dumbledore just. Would. Not. Do. In fact, in book five he leaps to his feet, wand drawn and actually does look angry (again, a highlighted rare occurrence), when Umberage manhandles Marietta. He was much more toned-down in the newest movie, but I have to admit I was really disappointed in the grand battle scene.
Remember in book six where Harry, watching Dumbledore work in the cave, thinks something about having learned that shouts and bangs are more often signs of ineptitude than power? We should have seen a battle in the ministry of magic with Dumbledore calmly addressing Tom, not wide-eyed with fear, delivering his awesome “there are things much worse than death, and indeed your failure to realize this has been one of your greatest weaknesses” speech. Flicks of the wand cause massive forces. In contrast, Voldemort has to work awfully hard, and nothing he does surprises Dumbledore. Again, we get a feeling of immense wisdom and power behind Dumbledore. Instead, what we get is Dumbledore waving his arms like a maniac, a look of near panic on his face, leaping around and shouting, skinny ankles and calves showing like some kind of nutcase in a housedress. He actually reminded me of Arabella Figg’s appearance in the ministry where you see her in her robe and slippers.
All that bitching aside, I thought it was (otherwise) beautifully cast, and while I’d like to have seen a whole lot more of everything, I thought what was there was generally beautifully visually portrayed. The costuming and sets and props were gorgeous. The thestrals were amazing, and Luna was immaculately cast and played. Really, really a great choice and a great performance. Although Grawp was nothing like I pictured him, like others had concerns going in but was really happy with what they did.
Naja–I agree with you. They did allow Figgs to say some of her lines (the one about harry being intelligent is quite funny), but I disliked how she just showed up, like she was waiting for a bus.
Don’t get me started in this new Dumbledore. I can’t stand him. In GOF I was shocked when he basically attacked Harry and shook him. Also when he sits down in front of Harry and admits that he is at a loss re the Triwizard stuff. BS! AD may not have known who confunded the Triwizard Cup, but he was NOT at a loss. And he would not show that to a student. I dislike the way his dentures click every time he talks; I dislike his snapping at students re “don’t you have studying to do?” in the Trelawney scene; I dislike his condensing of that great post-Sirius death scene between HP and AD to “I care so much about you.” I do hope he improves next film-he has a lot on his shoulders…
I didn’t mind the dementors and Harry’s reaction to them this time. I do wish they’d settle on their appearance, though. And for god’s sake–just what does the train station look like? In movie 1 it’s an open platform, much like" modern" Britain is today(with Thomas the Tank overtones). This movie has it look like it’s in Sherwood Forest(with Arthurian overtones). Ditto the carriages–in GOF they were Victorian hansoms. Now they’re open buggie-type things.
But overall, I liked this film-mostly because Radcliffe has come so far in his acting, Grint, too. I really liked the dynamic between the three this time around. Even Watson gets over herself overly emphatic self after they get to Hogwarts.
I agree 100% with all this. The journey is what’s important in the books, and Order of the Phoenix is a great slice of the 7 book journey.
I missed some of the stuff that was cut out, but the movies by default have to be a “just the facts, ma’am” telling of the story. Though not without quibbles, I think the filmmakers do a great job.
I don’t agree with much of anything else in the post. Since I saw four of the movies before I got around to reading the books, book fan complaints evoke little more than a shrug and eye-roll from me. The books are the books. The movies are the movies. Except for Chris Columbus’s first two, I enjoyed the movies and have had few problems with what’s onscreen.
And I love Gambon’s Dumbledore. Not that I don’t understand some of the complaints about him, but he works for me. Richard Harris is dead. Get over it already.
Well, it’s true that they’re two different works and I’m aware of the complete impossibility for the movies to be exactly parallel to the books, but I think the movies–or at least the newest movie–would have been vastly more effective at telling Rowling’s story had they stuck to the book in reference to the things they did show. I’m not so much complaining about what was cut out–at 800 pages they sure as hell had to cut the majority of it, and that’s fine–nor am I complaining that they changed things, per se. I just think that some of the ways in which they deviated did not improve the film.
I also had to roll my eyes at “Richard Harris is dead, get over it already”. I liked Richard Harris’ portrayal, but I don’t care who plays the character or that it’s a different actor movie to movie, I just hate Gambon’s version. The fact of the matter is, it’s not the same character as in the book. If you don’t have any attachment to the books it’s not going to matter to you at all and that’s fine, but for those of us who know Rowling’s characters as they were written, it does. If fans of the written work know the course of the story better than you and that gets a shrug and an eye roll then there’s really no reason to have any discussion about ways the movie could have been improved from a storyline point of view. If you liked the movies and they stood alone for you, then whoopee. I’m glad it worked for you. Generally, it worked for me, too.
Saw the movie last night so I can finally jump in. I don’t have a problem with the actors playing Dumbledore so much, as the way his character is written/acted in the movies. I do agree with the assessment that fear and anger are emotions rarely displayed by Dumbledore- it’s the reason why it’s so shocking for Harry to hear Dumbledore pleading and crying when Harry’s forcing him to drink the potion in HBP.
My other problem with the Dumbledore in the films is that he’s not weird enough. No, “Before we begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!” or how one can never have enough socks, or any of the other strange things he comes out with in the books. I like that Dumbledore much better. The Dumbledore as played in the movies would never go to a Muggle orphanage in a flamboyantly cut suit of plum velvet.
That said, I thought the actress playing Luna looked the part, and had the air of dottiness down, but didn’t get enough lines. She was one of the funniest parts of OotP and HBP, she definitely should have gotten more screen time. I missed her going on about the Crumple-Horned Snorkack, and missed the part where Ron asks if she’s suggesting they fly on the Cacky Snorgle. I hope she does have more dialogue in the next film, the Wrackspurt and Loser’s Lurgy scenes made me laugh out loud.
I understand that things have to be cut or changed to fit in the couple hours available to a filmmaker, but do agree that they seemed to cut things they should have left or change things in such a way that didn’t improve the films.
All in all, it was a decent movie, but I was disappointed once again. PoA was the closest the movies came to how I imagined it in my mind, but that also suffered from some unnecessary editing.
ETA: also, I didn’t like how they changed the dialogue so much from how it’s written in the books. Harry’s speech(es) really sucked, as did Dumbledore’s abbreviated “I care for you too much.”
But, I originally thought the actress playing Bellatrix looked all wrong, but she played it well. If only she had gotten an extra 3 minutes of screen time. I liked her “Longbottom? I’ve had the pleasure of meeting your parents, boy!” much better than her “How are your parents?” “Better, now that they’re about to be avenged” crap.
Things those of you who haven’t read the book didn’t learn from the movie:
*During the torture scene, Umbridge admits that SHE sent the Dementors. Her purpose was to do something to force Harry to use magic and then use that as an excuse to expel him. She is a complete and unshakable worshiper of Cornelius Fudge (who, IIRC, didn’t know about the Dementors) and the “Voldemort is not back” theory and a firm believer in “exitus acta probat/the end justifies the means”, thus she’ll break rules left right and center in order to enforce the rules.
*Arabella Figg had appeared in at least the first book and may have been mentioned afterwards. She was Harry’s babysitter as a child- a crazy old woman who made him look at pictures of every cat she had ever owned- and he hated going there, which is why the Dursleys sent him. Figg is a squib, as is Filch the Caretaker (vital to understanding his bitterness), meaning that she was born to wizards but has no powers herself, but squibs are more perceptive to magic than Muggles are meaning that while she cannot see Dementors she can sense them.
*At the end of the wand-battles in the Ministry, the aurors took several Death Eaters into custody, among them Lucius Malfoy, and they were dispatched to Azkaban. Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) escaped. This is extremely important and I’m surprised it wasn’t in the movie, because it’s very important later: Phoenix ends with Draco (and Crabbe & Goyle, whose dads were also arrested IIRC) attacking Harry over his dad’s arrest and being thwarted, then attacking him again on the train where he’s instantly counter-attacked by Dumbledore’s Army, and thus Draco and Harry’s hatred of each other goes up several notches. Also, the next book (Half-Blood Prince) actually begins with Malfoy’s wife and Bellatrix (her sister) visiting Snape and asking him to protect Draco, who has been given an extremely important (almost impossible) task by Voldemort on penalty of death for himself and his family, and much of the book revolves around this task where Draco’s unprotected by his father and his and Harry’s extreme hatred of each other- very very important, thus I can’t believe they omitted them (like any Potter fan would have complained the movie was too long if they’d had 30 more minutes!)
I can’t remember if it’s PHOENIX or GOBLET where Mad-Eye Moody has one of my favorite lines. I think it’s PHOENIX because Harry, who loved Moody in GOBLET until he learned that 1) he wasn’t Moody and 2) he was a Death Eater intent on killing him, thinks about how odd he is to be introduced to a man he knew for a year. Anyway, I love the line at (I believe) the end of PHOENIX where Harry’s returned to the Dursleys and Moody tells them to take care of Harry or else. Vernon Dursley asks indignantly “Is that a threat!?” and Moody just calmly replies “Yes”.
Speaking of Moody, I thought it was cool in the fight scene learning his stave is also a wand (or at least a weapon).
Was Hagrid’s father a muggle or a wizard? Either way, am I the only one wondering
1- Why Hagrid’s dad fell in love with a giantess (because presumably their intellect and speech is more on par with full-blood Grawp’s)
2- How they “took their love to the next level” once he had fallen for her
3- How the giants, who all seem to be retarded (even half-blood Hagrid has his moments) could be much assistance in a fight against wizards
Excellent question.
Maybe because you would rather have the retarded giants for your side rather than against it.
I don’t think the giants will make much of an appearance in 7. They were a way to a) explain Hagrid’s size and story line a little b) give Hagrid something to do in OotP.
I think I could have fully gotten behind this movie if they had gotten the dialogue right. I went in expecting to be disappointed by Dumbledore, so wasn’t really all that put off about it. I can accept all the hacked out story, but it seems like there was just no excuse for what they did to the dialogue.
For example, the whole point of that scene where Dumbledore tells Harry that he was beginning to greatly care for him was to illuminate the prophecy and Harry’s necessary role in Voldemort’s downfall, as well as some of the reasons Dumbledore has handled things the way he has thus far. Just saying “I care for you too much” is nothing near the same as saying “This was the flaw in my plan, I began to act in the way that Voldemort expects we fools who love to act.” Instead of setting us up for all the exposition re: Lily’s blood protection and the role of the power of love in Voldemort’s eventual downfall, the movie Dumbledore just says “I was weak and I care for you”. So?
I guess that’s the difference between knowing the books and not for the purpose of the enjoyment of the movie. If you don’t know how loaded every line is supposed to be, then it really doesn’t matter and the dialogue did what it needed to do in the scope of the film. As I said before, one of the things I really enjoy about these books is the intricacy of the crafting of the story. Every little detail means something in one way or another, and that certainly goes for the wording of important speeches. That they changed it so that what’s said isn’t meaningful sucks, but maybe it doesn’t make any difference to someone who’s only going to get the pared down storyline shown in the movies anyway.
NO. AD does not shake Harry in the books–ever. He does express disappointment a few times, and even gets testy in book 6, but nothing like Gambon does in the film.
It has nothing to do with Harris being dead. It’s Gambon’s interp of the character that gets me.
I do agree that the movies are the movies and the books are the books–two very different animals. They have caught the spirit and flavor of the books and that is what matters most.
The problem may well lie with the scriptwriters–I have no idea if JKR gets final approval on all aspects of the script (seems likely-she hinted that they’d better include Kreacher in this film so as to not overly complicate film 7), so if the lines are ok by her (ycch-she let us down, if so)…then it’s the delivery of the lines.
I really liked this movie, but it has some serious flaws. It chose to coast over some very intricate plot lines and character developement, in order to move the action along. Yates doesn’t seem to realize that like LOTR, the fans don’t care that the movie is 3 hours long. Give us that world, in more detail.