GOP Review

[daughterofthedust]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "little_blue_pupooh"
<little_blue_pupooh at y...> wrote:
>
> The GOP opens in the Philippines today (Nov. 16) with a General 
> Patronage rating. Personally, I find the book far better than its 
> movie adaptation. Listed below are significant changes in the movie 
> plot that had destroyed the book's spirit somewhat and that has 
> possible consequences in the next movie.
> 
> 1. Barty Crouch Jr's identity is also introduced though not divulged 
> in the first part of the movie. In the book, his identity is slowly 
> developed and introduced thus a spirit of suspense and thrill on how 
> who Barty Crouch Jr is. 
> 2. The movie fails to mention important characters in the movie like 
> Dobby, who helped Harry get the gilliweed, the elf of Barty Crouch 
> and Percy, who replaced Crouch. Due to Percy's disappearance in the 
> movie, it would be hard for the next installment to point out that 
> Percy would not believe and support his own family and Dumbledore.
> 
> Here are some of my comments regarding the story line.
> 
> 1.	The Crouches' characters were undeveloped
> 2.	Daniel is still a poor actor, though a cute and sexy one 
> (especially when he was figuring out the message of the egg in the 
> bathroom)
> 3.	I hate Dumbledore's acting – he seems to be too energetic
> 4.	The movie is not as dark as the book
> 5.	It would be best if Hermione was ugly at the start and would 
> become beautiful during the ball
> 6.	There was no mention of who won and what happened to the 
> money afterwards
> 7.	There was no mention of Fudge's (or was it Barty) deals with 
> the Weasley and goblins
> 8.	There was no mention of the missing ministry woman and how 
> Arthur went to Moody's house before the start of the term
> 
> Any reactions
.
>


Here's a reaction: How about instead of pointing out areas where the
movie divulges from the book, actually REVIEWING the film for what it is??

Newsflash: All movies based on books "short" the source material. 

They have to. 

All those things you mention, did not need to be in the film.

Now...

The film, I thought flowed well...and hit all the high and low points
of emotion appropriately.

As for what I especially liked...

More Weasley Twins! And very true to the source material. :-)

Energetic Dumbledore....For someone so stuck on source, you would
forget that Dumbledore is described as surprisingly strong
(paraphrasing, of course) at the right moments. He has to be scary to
Voldemort. A frail old man would not scare him.

Viktor Krum...looked and acted right out of my imagination. :-)

Brendan Glesson, ROCKED Mad Eye!! :-)

As did Miranda Richardson's Rita Skeeter...

Neville!! Was sooo cute, especially in relation to the ball. :-D

--------------------
Now, I didn't like...

Ralph Fiennes' Voldemort, I found him a bit too serpentine/femme.

The Dragon sequence, once they left the stadium. I simply found it
more intense, more believable, and frighteningly, claustophobic, in
the stadium.

Emma Watson's acting...She was waaay too dramatic, throughout the film. 

Overall, I thought Mike directed with a sure hand, giving the world
the same comfortable "this is what we are" feel that Cuaron gave.

I still think Kloves is the "tell-not-show" king and doesn't know how
to develop a story to save his life, but...This one WAS well done.

One more little quibble...The flying horses pulling Beaubatons'
carriage...Arrrgh!! Now, this of course, doesn't hurt the flow of the
film, however, it wouldn't have been much trouble to keep the
invisable creatures, either.