Richard's detailed GOF review

[Richard]

Just to differentiate this thread from those already started, I've included 
my name in the subject...

A few preliminaries. I've not touched the book for over two years (since 
OotP came out) so my memory of specific scenes is a little hazy. I'll 
probably see the movie again after I've leafed through the book (I doubt 
I'm up to re-reading it in full). I've just come back from watching it once 
through to the end of the credits, and again from the middle of the first 
task to the beginning of the end credits (the second, incomplete, viewing 
allowed me to notice a few more things). This review will probably be a 
little different to the comments already posted (not that I've read any - I 
won't do so until after I've finished writing this), as firstly I'd like to 
review the movie in some detail *as a movie* (as I've done with the 
previous three), before making some of the nitpicky comments more typical 
of this list... I will try to keep the review as spoiler-free as most 
professional reviews are, but will then get VERY spoilery, so you've all 
been warned!

Overall, as the pre-release hype and the few interviews I've seen have 
insisted, this is definitely the best of the movies so far. For one thing, 
the passage of time  and the feeling that the story happens over a whole 
school year has been done better than any of the previous three. 
Regrettably, however, Dan Radcliffe remains more wooden than his Firebolt - 
as I've said about the previous movies, the expressiveness of his eyes is 
his one redeeming feature and there are plenty of ultra-closeups to show 
them to best effect. My impression is that he's probably got less dialogue 
than in any of the other movies to date, which is perhaps a recognition by 
Kloves and Newell that line delivery is perhaps where he is weakest. 
Strangely enough, in my view, his best scene is in the Prefects' bathroom. 
Perhaps this worked best because he needed to concentrate so much more, 
acting against Shirley Henderson, added in post-production as an extremely 
frisky Moaning Myrtle. The audience at my two showings were all adults (one 
of the reasons I went to morning shows, while the kids are at school) and 
the scene  generated plenty of embarrassed laughs.

On the subject of acting, Brendan Gleeson as Mad Eye Moody simply steals 
the show, dominating every single scene in which he's present, even if he 
has nothing but a glance or a grimace to produce. The rest of the adult 
cast acquit themselves admirably, although most of them are relegated to 
little more than cameos. Alan Rickman's Snape as comic relief comes as a 
bit of a surprise, skulking around Harry and Ron (talking about girl 
problems) while invigilating a homework session, but strangely remains very 
much in character.

Michael Gambon  seems to be settling into the Dumbledore role, playing his 
part very differently from Richard Harris but including a little homage by 
adopting a distinctly Oirish (yes, the "O" was deliberate) :-) accent here 
and there. His reaction to Harry's name coming out of the Goblet could have 
been played in so many different ways, but the way he does it, with a 
believable combination of incredulity, surprise, dread and just a little 
anger, is spot on - just the kind of reaction one would expect from a 
concerned parent.

I have myself to blame for having a problem with Ralph Fiennes' Voldemort: 
I had hoped I could get over it, but regrettably I saw The Constant 
Gardener yesterday in which he provided a practical masterclass playing the 
titular character, on his journey from fairly stereotypical 
stiff-upper-lipped to passionate, but always sympathetic. (Forget GoF, go 
see The Constant Gardener. Now.) Despite the makeup and CGI nose,  he 
remained recognisable, and, in a rare occurence for me, I had trouble 
accepting him as the embodiment of evil. One of the reasons I have to see 
GoF again is to be able to appreciate Voldemort without the other movie's 
ending still playing in my mind. On a more technical note, the makeup and 
whole "birthing" was magnificently done, and apart from the eyes (which I 
had expected to be more serpentine - I assume Fiennes has a problem with 
contacts?), his appearance was straight out of the book (at least as I 
remember it).

On to other aspects of the movie. Much as I liked and admired PoA, one of 
its shortcomings for me was the overuse of the rather gimmicky "iris" 
fade-out, which I took to be Cuaron's little homage to the films of the 
French New Wave in the 60s (in particular Truffaut's  400 Blows, which 
totally coincidentally I saw again just last week) to get over some rather 
dodgy editing. No sign of that here: editor  Mick Audsley did a magnificent 
job with Roger Pratt's cinematography. I was particularly impressed with 
going from the World Cup match about to start to the Weasleys enthusing 
over the result, and even more by the transition from Harry about to grab 
the golden egg to the Gryffindor common room. Movie publicity doesn't make 
a big deal about editors and unlike directors or cinematographers, their 
names don't usually make it through to the public consciousness other than 
at awards ceremonies. Audsley is definitely a master of his craft and 
deserves a lot more recognition (and, I would hope, several nominations for 
this movie).

Of course, a lot of credit is also due to Mike Newell for keeping 
everything tight. There are a few difficulties with the adaptation, more on 
which in a moment, but there are plenty of little touches which lift this 
movie from Columbus's painting-by-numbers approach. I think he got the pace 
just right, which to a certain extent is more down to the plot, which gave 
him a fairly clear "5 act plus prologue and epilogue" structure, always 
easier to work with than the rather rambling middle acts to date.

Newell has a reputation as an "actor's director", and it shows. As I said 
above, despite his usual tree impression, Radcliffe manages to shine a few 
times, Rupert Grint is much better than he has been, and Emma is showing 
some true talent (and increasing beauty). Her appalling attempt at tears in 
CoS (on which I commented ad nauseam 3 years ago) is a distant memory, 
compared to her terrific performance after the Ball. Regardless of whether 
her girlie giggle on entering the Hall on Krum's arm was her idea or 
Newell's, it was perfectly done and a wonderful touch. A bit weaker, 
however, was the last scene, with the "everything's going to change" 
conversation - the Trio seem to be *amused* by the subject, rather than 
scared or worse!

Before I end by commenting on the adaptation, a short note on the music. 
I've been an admirer of Patrick Doyle's for some years and was glad to hear 
he was taking over from John Williams. I've had the soundtrack for a little 
over a week and have listened to it a lot, without referring to the sleeve 
notes (I wanted to let the music speak for itself during the movie rather 
than have any preconceptions about which musical cues went where). 
Immediately noticeable was the "darkening" of the few John Williams themes 
which were retained, in particular "Hedwig's Theme" and parts of "Harry's 
Wondrous World" (not quite so wondrous any more: this could be "Harry's 
Dangerous World"). Despite liking the music so much, I was grateful that 
the sound mix put it in its proper place, supporting the action on the 
screen, rather than dominating it, as it did for the first two movies, and 
still, although to a lesser extent, for the third.

I was overjoyed to learn a year ago that Steven Kloves was handing over 
screenwriting duties for the OotP movie to Michael Goldenberg. Apart from 
having actively enjoyed his work on Peter Pan and Contact, we've  all had 
our reservations about Kloves over the last five years. This time, he's 
used the book as much less of a source of dialogue, replacing much more of 
it with his own (and his own sense of humour). He has also, famously, had 
to do much more adapting of the plot to bring the movie in at a manageable 
running length. What surprised me was that, with just a couple of 
exceptions, the movie actually made more sense than the book, so perhaps 
Kloves is finally on the right track. Before going on to the two problems I 
can see, there are LOADS of adaptational touches for which I would like to 
heartily commend Mr Kloves. Here are a few which I can remember.

I never expected the final showdown scene in the hospital wing to be 
included, and this was confirmed to me when the title of the last chapter 
and one of the last lines in the book became one of the first lines in the 
film: instead of "parting of the ways" being a sad and perhaps angry 
statement about Dumbledore and the MoM, it becomes a lighthearted farewell 
between Mr Weasley and Mr Diggory at the QWC.

The brand new dialogue for Harry and Ron's reconciliation after the first 
task (in the book it works brilliantly as completely unspoken) and Ron's 
convoluted logic ("I told you about the dragons"), together with the 
earlier scene to which it refers with Hermione as go-between, was a master 
touch and a real understanding of teenage communication. I can't wait for 
the DVD to play both scenes over and over again.

Cutting out the whole SPEW sub-plot (and, indeed, Dobby & Winky themselves) 
was a great idea (personally, I'm hoping that whole race - including 
Kreacher! -is dropped from the rest of the movies unless Book Seven gives 
them some kind of important role in the final denouement), as was expanding 
Neville's role (inter alia by his getting the Gillyweed clue from 
crouch-Moody, despite missing it in the book) and having Ginny around a lot 
more.

I'm *extremely* glad that the movie skipped having the winner of the 
tournament get a sack of gold - it made it about glory and recognition, not 
money, which was in keeping with the theme of the movie - and indeed the 
book - without diluting it. Ron's problems with Harry were that he's 
*famous* enough, not *rich* enough - in fact, the whole Weasleys-are-poor 
thread was dropped completely. The twins getting the money to start the 
shop will need another explanation, but there are several I can think of.

However, a big problem with the re-plotted storyline is the whole Crouch 
family plot getting lost. The conversation Harry has with Crouch Sr. after 
the second task and Crouch's statement about losing one's family was a nod 
to the book readers, but wasn't explained for movie viewers' benefit. The 
fact that Crouch Jr. was meant to have (presumably quite recently) "escaped 
from Azkaban" was incongruous: in the background chronology, Sirius Black, 
"the only person ever to have escaped", did so a year earlier and is 
(presumably, unstated) still on the run. One would therefore expect that 
Azkaban is on the lookout for other dodgy activities.

In particular, when Harry tells Dumbledore that he's been seeing Barty Jr. 
in his dreams, Dumbledore presumably would have made enquiries about his 
status and discovered that he'd escaped. I really don't see a problem with 
keeping the "dead man dunnit" plot from the book, and I would've preferred 
a nod towards PoA: when Harry tells Dumbledore about his dreams, Dumbledore 
replies that "Barty Jr died in Azkaban"; "that's what everyone thought 
about Peter Pettigrew" is the immediate response. This also gives an 
immediate reason for Barty Sr. being killed - he'd have been the first port 
of call for an explanation. As things stand, the whole thing is a mess.

Not so good on the dialogue front are the "Cedric's memorial speech" scene, 
segueing into the Harry-Dumbledore explanation towards the end. I 
particularly couldn't see where the "choose what's easy/what's hard" bit 
came from in the private conversation - it really belonged in the speech to 
the whole school. Furthermore, non-book reading viewers will have been 
mystified by the priori incantantem reference: this needed an extra couple 
of sentences (no more!) to rmind viewers about the wand cores and the 
"apparitions": Dumbledore's dialogue as it stands seems to focus on 
entirely the wrong thing.

OK, four hours after I started writing this, I'm pretty much out of things 
to say (at least until I see the movie again and remember things I've 
forgotten to mention - next time I'll be taking notes!).

Two short items from the credits on which to finish:

Is William Melling ("Nigel": why on earth did Kloves have to invent a new 
character? Why not bring back the Creeveys?) any relation to Harry Melling 
(Dudley)?

"No dragons were harmed during the making of this film"

LOL!

--
Richard, previously AKA GulPlum, who was expecting someone to say "*DOCTOR* 
Who?" when Harry's asks "who's he?" regarding Barty Crouch Jr., i.e. David 
Tennant, AKA The Tenth Doctor (OK, how many non-Brits understand what I 
mean?) :-)

Off to read what other people have said now that I can no longer be spoiled...