My late comments

[dragondor1709 at yahoo.com]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., Elizabeth Dalton <Elizabeth.Dalton at E...> 
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I saw the movie Sunday afternoon with my 7-year-old daughter and my 
> mother-in-law, who's probably about sixty. My daughter hasn't read 
the books 
> (she's just starting to read, but she's also only been speaking 
English for 
> about a year-- long story). My MIL has read and enjoyed all the 
books. I read 
> them this summer for the first time-- I've probably read them about 
3 times 
> each, at this point. (I sometimes only read parts of them on re-
reads, so it's a 
> little hard to estimate this.)
> 
> After logging into this group, I ploughed through the archives. 
Well, everything 
> since Friday, anyway. :) Not much left to say that hasn't already 
been said, but 
> here are the few points I'd like to make:
> 
> First, I guess I'm alone in this, but the altered confrontation 
between Harry 
> and Voldemort/Quirrell really bothered me when I saw it. Where was 
the point 
> about Lily's sacrifice? What's this nonsense about bringing James 
and Lily back 
> to life??? I can see that having Quirrell crumble to dust was more 
cinematic 
> than blisters, but Harry doesn't come across as nearly as brave 
without the 
> issue of the pain from his scar (don't ask me how they would have 
shown this, 
> though). And though I didn't realize this was bugging me until I 
read the 
> comments here, it bothers me that he ends up purposely killing 
Quirrell. It *is* 
> OOC. And I guess I really am the only one to complain about this 
item: I don't 
> think Voldemort should have been able to swoop through Harry like 
that at the 
> end of the fight. For Pete's sake, he's not supposed to be able to 
*touch* 
> Harry. What kind of sense does it make for him to be able to attack 
him directly 
> this way? But I suppose Rowling must have ok'd the change, and I do 
admit the 
> whole thing was more dramatic than the "deus ex Dumbledore" book 
scene.
> 
> Second, I think it weakened the story considerably to have all the 
other 
> characters addressing Voldemort by name. Hagrid whispers it once 
and then after 
> that things just go on as if it doesn't matter at all. That takes 
out a lot of 
> the impact of confronting him directly at the end. Of course, if 
they'd done it 
> properly, they'd have had to leave in the scene where Dumbledore 
tells Harry to 
> use the proper name. (Like many here, I felt Dumbledore especially 
got chopped 
> up in the dialogue department.) But of all things, to leave out the 
bit where 
> Harry rants at Ron and Hermione about what it was like when 
Voldemort was 
> around, Ron getting more and more upset at the way Harry uses the 
name so 
> casually.... Then again, that is one of my favorite scenes. We all 
have them, 
> don't we?
> 
> Third (but this has been discussed to death), I think they really 
underplayed 
> Snape, his actions, motivations, history, etc. He's easily the most 
intriguing 
> character from my point of view. Rickman did a great job with the 
few scenes he 
> had (enough for me to forgive him for not being as thin as I've 
imagined Snape 
> to be), but he didn't have enough airtime, and then to leave out 
Dumbledore's 
> explanation for Snape's animosity... unforgiveable!
> 
> Overall, I agree with comments that have been made about taking out 
original 
> lines to put in lesser lines, especially in how that affected the 
humor. I also 
> think that while the beginning and middle showed the effect of 
compressing the 
> story somewhat, the ending took the most damage. There's a lot to 
fit in there, 
> to set up for the later stories, and I think they left too much 
out. I can't see 
> how they'll be able to do PoA, let alone GoF (unless the rumor is 
true and they 
> go for two movies for GoF).
> 
> But the acting was quite good, the casting was good, and I thought 
most of the 
> effects were decent. (I particularly liked the entrance to Diagon 
Alley. I'm 
> trying to forget about the centaur and the unicorn.) The kids did a 
really great 
> job, all things considered. Even if they did always look made-up, 
and the 
> crinkle tool they used on Hermione's hair was kind of obvious. It 
really helped 
> me to see the relative sizes of the kids, especially in the 
Quidditch match, to 
> understand why it is such a big deal to have a first-year playing 
on the 
> Gryffindor team. I can only imagine that the CGI editing I'd heard 
they planned 
> to use for Harry's eyes just didn't work out in time. No matter. 
That glare he 
> gave Dudley in the zoo didn't need any tinkering.
> 
> Given that so many of you have reported liking it better on a 
second viewing, I 
> think I'll see if I can fit that in at some point. And I do hope 
there's a DVD 
> with plenty of extras. I don't know if that four-hour director's 
cut really 
> exists, but I know we saw stuff in the trailer that didn't make it 
into the 
> movie (e.g. the reminder not to use magic in the corridors), so 
hopefully a less 
> cut version would be... well... less cut up. :)
> 
> Happy nitpicking, everyone,
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> (...who likes Rickman well enough, but has her own ideas about the 
Snape she'd 
> like to invite in for a cup of tea and a bit of cheering up. Poor 
misunderstood 
> fellow.)


Now that is the very kind of thing I wish to read more of. How people 
felt about the movie,etc. Well put,I dare say. I am in agreement with 
you. Chris