[HPFGU-Movie] Phyllis's GoF Review

[Richard]

At 00:24 28/11/2005 , Phyllis wrote:

><...> basic questions  afterward such as "Who was the old man in the 
>beginning?" and "Why did the wands connect?").

As to the first, the answer was given in Voldemort's translation of 
Nagini's message: "The old Muggle caretaker...". As to the second, I agree 
that this was a serious deficiency in the script, which has been raised by 
others.

>where was the look of triumph?

Do you know what a gleam of triumph in someone's eye looks like? I sure 
don't. Something like that is much easier to write than it is to portray on 
screen. How do we know that there *wasn't* a triumphant gleam?

(Completely incidentally, one of my objections to the book is that, as any 
psychiatrist/psychologist will tell you, one of the side-effects of raging 
hormones in adolescent boys is that between the ages of about 13 and 16, 
almost all boys have a great deal of difficulty correctly identifying 
fairly basic facial expressions such as fear, surprise or sympathy - I know 
of at least 3 statistical studies which prove it beyond a doubt. So how 
Harry is able to identify something as nebulous as *triumph* in someone's 
eyes is, frankly, bewildering.)

>Where was Fawkes?

Why did he need to be there? What was he going to add to the scene? 
Especially as we weren't in DD's office.

>Do non-readers remember that Voldemort is named Tom Riddle after his father?

One of things I really admired about this film was that the adaptors make 
absolutely no concessions to those who hadn't followed the story to date. 
At least for the first five, JKR made some attempts at summarising the 
story and characters to date, but 1) she had the page space to do so, and 
2) she admitted herself at one point that it was tedious both to write and 
to read. Voldemort's identity had been established in the second movie, and 
the producers deemed this sufficient. And I applaud them for having the 
courage to do so.

>Why weren't we told that the  house in Harry's "dream" was the Riddle House?

Did we need to be told? We had the Riddle tomb at the very beginning, and 
the camera move up to the house said all that needed to be said, IMO. 
(People I've spoken to who've not read the books, but have seen the movies 
- once each - made the connection, so it's not just in my mind.)

>Why didn't they explain that the wands were twins and that's why they 
>connected?

Whilst it wasn't made clear that there is a causal relationship between 
these two facts (see above), the "weighing of the wands" in the book was a 
particularly crude way of reminding readers of the wand cores, and I'm sort 
of glad that the movie eliminated it. But again, this should have been 
dealt with during the Harry-DD conversation at the end of the movie.

>Why have Barty Jr. in the Riddle House in the beginning and not explain
>how he escaped from Azkaban

My issue with that is slightly different. Read my full review (msg #11437) 
for more.

>(especially after taking the time to throw a potion that was never stated 
>to be Veritaserum down his throat)?

Well, Snape had shown us/Harry the Veritaserum bottle and it was the same 
bottle, so most attentive viewers would make the connection. Never mind the 
reaction...

>Why bother to show Hagrid and Maxime talking intimately if  we're not 
>going to learn they're both part-giants?

Because, well, it's obvious that they're at least half-gaints, innit? :-) 
Secondly, the fact doesn't come into its own until OotP, and we know that 
Grawp will be included, because David Heyman has already let it be known 
that he'll be an entirely CGI character. As the fact will need to be 
mentioned then, why bother mentioning it now?

(Incidentally, the same goes for a comment someone else has made, regarding 
Neville, his parents and the Cruciatus - there is no real reason why 
we/Harry need to find out *why* Neville had such a strong reaction until 
it's included in OotP.)

>Why were there no obstacles in the maze?

Because they changed the very concept of what the maze challenge was about. 
It was no longer about conquering scary creatures, but about conquering 
one's own fears, as (sort-of, not particularly well) explained by 
Dumbledore when the contestants went in. I don't think they pulled it off 
particularly well, but personally, I'm glad that we didn't have yet 
*another* "fight off the scary monster" sequence, seeing as that had been 
the core of the first two tasks.

<snip>

>Why not  spend some of that showing how Harry isn't Superman and has to
>struggle to learn how to use the summoning charm.

As I said in another post, that isn't really a problem with this movie 
alone, as the whole series to date hasn't got across the idea that Harry is 
at best average at picking up new skills. This is just one of the ways in 
which Movie!Harry is a little different to Book!Harry.

>I loved the QWC stadium (it truly looked as enormous as it was supposed 
>to), but after all the time spent getting them there, they didn't show any 
>of the game!

A decision for which I am personally thankful! Apart from the fact that it 
would be fairly boring (inasmuch as it would just be a variation on all the 
Quidditch matches we've seen to date), it kept the movie as *Harry's* story 
and even though it's a little unfair, it kept Harry being the only one 
doing really impressive feats on-screen. Again, it's a slightly different 
Harry from the books, but it is in keeping with the rest of the movie series.

>And then it's never explained why the Hogwarts students won't be playing 
>Quidditch that year.

Did we really need an explanation? Most non-book-reading members of the 
audience probably didn't even notice that there was no Quidditch in the movie.

>And why couldn't Krum have talked more?  Did Hermione really need to intimate
>that she and Krum spend all of their time in non-verbal pursuits?

Well, Book!Krum *is* a man of few words and I actually liked the fact that 
the only time we heard him speak on-screen was when he threw Rita out of 
the tent (I might be mistaken, he may have grunted one or two words much 
later on).

>Harry needed to be gagged in the graveyard scene, though,

Sorry, why? To what dramatic purpose? (And please don't say "because that's 
the way it was in the book".)

>It all happened so fast, it wasn't at all clear to me that the "shades" of 
>Voldemort's past victims were actually emerging from his wand - they just 
>seemed to appear from nowhere.

It was clear, but like so many movies nowadays, for better or worse, this 
one has been made to be watched more than once. I currently stand at 7 full 
viewings and I notice some new detail every time. I do agree, however, as 
said above, that the *reason* for the apparitions was something lacking 
from the final DD-Harry conversation, which would have cleared up any 
ambiguity.

>And why, oh why, does Harry have to say "Have it your way" - that line 
>reminded me of the old Burger King commercials!

That's not the only Harry line to which I object, but this one is really a 
minor objection, as Harry needed to say *something* to show that he was 
prepared to meet Voldemort on his own terms, rather than cower behind a 
headstone. "Have it your way" is as good as anything else, I suppose. 
(Although the phrase does, I agree, have connotations with not just BK's 
advertising slogan.)

>To me, the fundamental flaw with all of the films is that they fail to 
>tell the story from Harry's perspective.  I think this could be easily 
>done - show some scenes from Harry's eyes; "hear" him thinking what he's 
>feeling, etc.

Heck, NO! Doing first-person narrated movies that way is lazy and nine 
times out of ten falls flat on its face. Hearing characters think is one of 
the worst ways to tell a story, and should be used only in vary limited 
circumstances, none of which apply to HP. I would submit that by and large, 
Harry's POV is maintained, even if Cuaron and Newell refuse to take the 
easy way - the Columbus way - of achieving that by filming most of the 
scenes from a child's height. The movies restrict "seeing through Harry's 
eyes" in the almost literal (i.e. technical) sense to dreams, etc, of which 
we have more to come.

>Showing Harry's perspective - his fears and the way in which he decides 
>how to deal with his fears - would have helped to create more tension 
>during the 3 tasks and in the graveyard scene, IMO.

Except that the actors should be able to show that without the need for 
trickery of that sort. I've always maintained that young Master Radcliffe 
has severe limitations as an actor, and that scene is a perfect example.

>Just my two knuts :)

And that's mine in the pot as well. Sorry if any of the above sounds harsh 
or curt, but I'm trying to keep my comments short (I'm sure some people 
must be tired of hearing from me) but I disagree with you about so much 
that I had to pipe up. I apologise in advance for any perceived offence: 
none is intended. I welcome any counter-attacks. :-)

--
Richard AKA GulPlum, who's falling behind on replying to posts again