On Sun, 18 November 2001, mellienel2@yahoo.com wrote:

> Then again, it could be that Harry's touch forced Voldemort out of <BR>
> that part of Quirrell, and departing with Voldemort caused his <BR>
> hopeless shell of existence to break away. 

I like this idea.  It makes the movie's otherwise disturbing rendering of the scene more defensible.  But it bothers me not only because (whether in self-defense or not) Harry is the apparent cause of Quirrell's death.  In the book, Harry loses consciousness while the outcome of the confrontation is still in doubt, and Dumbledore arrives in the nick of time to rescue him.  For me, this detail is important to showing Harry's vulnerability--yes, he was able to fight V off for a while, but wasn't strong enough to vanquish him on his own.  Having Harry oust V from Quirrell on his own dilutes the threat, IMO.

The other change in the movie that really bothered me (the rest I can either forgive or support) was the gift opening on Christmas morning.  Sure, the invisibility cloak is important (and one of the best special effects, I thought), but did the other gifts have to be left out completely?  Dan/Harry's reaction on the stairs was poignant and perfect, but then he doesn't get to bask in the loving warmth of his own Weasley sweater, or see that Hagrid, Hermione, and Ron have remembered him--and the audience doesn't get the chance to contrast these gifts with what the Dursleys send.  

Ah, well.  On the whole I'm happy with the film and looking forward to seeing it again as a post-Thanksgiving treat.

Jennifer

On Wisconsin!  Get your free University of Wisconsin alumni e-mail at http://uwalumni.com