Please do let us know, Mark! I'm going Saturday night!
I soooooooo can't wait!!!
Well, I hate to dump cold water on anybody's head, but, frankly, I was disappointed. This is the first Harry Potter movie I've seen where I was looking at my watch during the movie. (and I've seen all four on the big screen)
The special effects were very good. However, this director portrayed Dumbledore as being far more emotional that the old director. And, btw, the appearance of Dumbledore was indistinguishable (to me) from the old one, but the voice was perceptably different.
Personally, I thought the movie (approx 2-1/2 hrs) was far too much magic and not nearly enough plot. Had I not read the book, I believe that I would have actually had a hard time following what was going on. It seems that the biggest emphasis was on the Triwizard Tournament. And when I say that, I mean that the emphasis was on the actual events (I'd say over 50% of the movie), rather than the dialogue and the buildup, etc. Now, it's been quite a while since I read the book, but if my memory serves, in the book, the Triwizard Tourney was sort of the backdrop that wove itself through that year at Hogwarts, but the focus was on the kids. Again, please let me stress that I'm relying on a rather feeble memory here and its been quite a while.
I would go see it still, but I wouldn't wait in a long line to do so.
I've read a lot of reviews and, like always, they are all over the place: the special effects were great, the special effects were stupid; the acting was great, the acting was over the top, the acting was inconsequential; the movie does a good job of following the book, the movie goes on its own path too much; the movie is jumpy and too hard to follow, the movie is fast-paced but nuanced and well put together.
I won't be seeing it for a few days but a reliable source saw it last night and told me, "The reason it feels jumpy is because people who read and loved the book know what's been left out, and people who haven't read the book don't know all the details." Either way, apparently the movie does sorta cut from one thing to another in a quick manner, and doesn't always provide what some of us might consider key details. (which was my biggest gripe with the third movie)
Frankly, I've finally come to terms with all the different ways the directors envision the Potter world... because that's what JK Rowling wants most: for people to get their own personal experiences out of her books. She has stated that she never wanted people to read the books and have everyone picture the same Hogwarts, or Dumbledoor, or even Harry. She wants to encourage imagination and a love of reading in people. So, to that end, I celebrate the differences in the movies, and enjoy them as an extension of her stories. The books are still the very best way to experience the world of Harry Potter.
The kids and I loved it. Absolutely loved it! We had late dinner and the midnight show. Special effects were great. It was a lot of book to condense and while everyone has their favorite part of the book, I thought Mike Newell did a great job getting it down to 2 1/2 hours.
On the bad side, Hermione seemed overly stressed through the whole movie, and the surprise of the ending is telegraphed so often that you wonder why they even bothered to keep it a secret. Another bad point is that we know Ron and Hermione have a thing for each other, but she has so much more chemistry with Harry that you wonder if the actors haven't started something on the side. Finally, the very, very end is so flat you could write on it. I really thought the three main characters were going to start singing We Go Together.
On the good side: Daniel Radcliffe does an outstanding job. I mean outstanding. I mean outstanding. The rest of the cast is terrific, too, particularly Jason Isaacs, the Weasley twins and the boy who plays Neville Longbottom. Mad Eye Moody is a hoot, and Alan Rickman has one scene in particular that he plays so well he'll need to use extra floss to get the scenery out of his teeth.
And the return from to the stadium at the end of the tournament simply could not have been played better. Plenty of tears in the audience at that one, especially among the younguns. This is really the part of the series where people start objecting to these being called children's books. These are coming of age books, and that scene puts a definite nail in the coffin of Harry Potter as a children's book series.
In some ways, Peter Jackson could have directed this movie. I mean, parts of it were that good.
LOVED IT!!! I'd put up with the lines and the crowds to see it again.
There were some special effects that I missed seeing from the other movies, but it was still a most excellent movie and if we hadn't known that the original Dumbledore wasn't in the movie, I don't think I would have noticed the difference.
Is it just me, or did anyone else initially think that Madonna was playing Rita Skeeter? :o
As a devout reader of these books, I must say I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about half the time.
Okay, maybe I'm not so devout.
I liked Dobby's role in the 2nd trial in the book-
and how not EVERY plan goes EXACTLY as planned.
(How DID he get the gillyweed in the movie, then?)
Moody gives it to him directly, right before the match. If he had not, the implied explanation would have been that Neville (who's VERY good at herbology, you mentioned) gave it to him.
I think I agree with you on the foe glass. Never introduce a gun in act one unless it's going to go off in act three. Is that the saying?
Moody gives it to him directly, right before the match. If he had not, the implied explanation would have been that Neville (who's VERY good at herbology, you mentioned) gave it to him.
I thought that Neville DID give it to Harry. Then Moody accused Harry of stealing from his stash of goodies right before he's discovered as only imitating Moody.
:unsure: Has my memory really gotten to be THAT bad?? :o
Moody gives it to him directly, right before the match. If he had not, the implied explanation would have been that Neville (who's VERY good at herbology, you mentioned) gave it to him.
I think I agree with you on the foe glass. Never introduce a gun in act one unless it's going to go off in act three. Is that the saying?
I think the saying is something like that.
I do know that someone broke that rule once, and Stanslavski (founder of
"the Method" of "Method Acting") used that as an example of what NOT to do.
IIRC,
in the movie,
Neville gets nudged up to Harry, Harry and Neville have their
discussion, and the scene immediately shifts to the next day,
with Harry and Neville walking and talking,
and Harry has the gillyweed PALMED.
From then on, Harry's in full public view.
Moody makes a comment to him about taking the gillyweed
just before the start signal is given,
but doesn't hand over anything.
(And EVERYONE was watching the 4 champions.)
====
In the movie,
Neville TELLS him about gillyweed,
and Moody knows Neville told him,
but there's no specific reference to how it got into Harry's hand.
We know where it CAME from because Snape later confirmed his
stores were missing gillyweed.
So, it was in Snape's supplies, and then it was in Harry's hand.
How it got from Point A to Point B was never specified.
Did Harry have the time and skill to burgle the supplies at night
or early in the morning?
Neville's not good enough to handle a break-in (yet if ever).
Is it just me or was anyone else thinking "Carol Burnett" while watching Madame Maxime?
WW, maybe it's my strange imagination, but I pictured her as being very tall but curvy and graceful as opposed to big as well as stocky like Hagrid. I did NOT picture her looking like Carol Burnett but much more attractive.
I'll have to watch again to be sure, but let's take it point for point:
How did it happen? In a binary approach, it's one of two ways...
a. We're not told/shown.
b. We are told/shown, albeit subtly.
Let's start with (a). We're not told or shown. What do we know?
We know that Neville is very good at herbology. We know that they are in the library when Neville first tells Harry about gillyweed. We know that Moody has taken an interest in Neville because of that interest in herbology. And we know, from later in the movie, that Moody takes credit for telling Neville about the gillyweed.
Based on what we know, we can speculate the following: Moody gave Neville the gillyweed. Neville would not have questioned it. After all, why shouldn't the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher have a bunch of neat stuff? How was he to know Moody stole it from Snape's storeroom? Neville gives it to Harry not long after the scene cuts away from their conversation. Harry has it when he shows up.
b. We do see it. If that's the case, I'm right: Moody quickly gives it to Harry (the fact that Harry's being closely watched doesn't seem to stop him from taking the gillyweed in front of anyone, nor does it stop Moody from telling him now's the time to take it. I'd need to see it again, but I was pretty dang sure Moody actually gave him the gillyweed right there for all to see. I guess I just assumed it wasn't a big deal).
Either way, it's hardly a plot hole, and nothing to lose sleep over.
This all sounds great ........ I have the all the American First Editions in Hardback and the United Kingdoms First Editions on the way with one being signed by the author. Great to have a Brit a a best friend who lives 3 miles from the author.
Going to Drive to the city the weekend to see it ........ been patiently waiting for two weeks.
Coolchef ....... just to let you know ........ an article I read recently about movie theatres may be going out of business because videos are or can be realeased within 90 days of the theatre showing and many people are willing to wait instead of paying $10 a seat.
WW said
Did Harry have the time and skill to burgle the supplies at night
or early in the morning?
Neville's not good enough to handle a break-in (yet if ever).
Well WW in the book it was Dobby who took it from Snapes lab for Harry.
Okay... I've seen the movie twice now and here's my take on the whole gillyweed thing...
Harry and Neville are discussing how long it will last on the walk over to the platforms in the lake. I doubt that this would have happened if Harry didn't have it in his posession at the time. Also, Moody later reveals that he has been orchestrating things around Harry all year, including manipulating Neville by giving him the plant book. And, since Snape accuses Harry of stealing not only the gillyweed but the ingredients for making polyjuice potion, I have to think the director was hoping to give us the impression that whoever was stealing the one thing, was stealing the other things, too. So, I think Moody stole it all, and gave the gillyweed (probably among other plants and things) to Neville along with the book, so that if Harry asked him for help, he would have it, and not have to figure out who to ask to get some, especially at the last minute.
I also agree about the casting of Madame Maxime. Definately thought of Carol Burnett. And I wasn't expecting her to be all hot and bothered over Hagrid, since it's the reverse in the book. But none of that put me off too much.
I agree with the comment about Fleur... watching her in the maze I just kept thinking... she's not that much of a wimp or she wouldn't be the Beaubaton champion. Besides, Moody tells Harry, "Fleur is as much a 'fairy princess' as I am." meaning she's a lot tougher than she seems on the surface, but they really didn't show that. I guess they just wanted to show how intimidating the maze was, and how tough Harry and Cedric were to make it through.
But, as I said, these little trivial bits didn't change my impression of the movie -- I loved it. Romping good fun!
Harry and Neville are discussing how long it will last on the walk over to the platforms in the lake. I doubt that this would have happened if Harry didn't have it in his posession at the time.
Harry had it cupped in his hand at the time-the camera showed it.
....and gave the gillyweed (probably among other plants and things) to Neville along with the book, so that if Harry asked him for help, he would have it, and not have to figure out who to ask to get some, especially at the last minute.
Ok, I can see that working. I wonder if the deleted scenes have something on that....
I also agree about the casting of Madame Maxime. Definately thought of Carol Burnett.
Once Belle said that, all I could picture was the Nora Desmond imitation.
I'm unable to sit and watch Sunset Blvd because I keep hearing her scream
"MAAAXXXX!!" when I try.
Madame Maxime's name WAS taken from the word "maximum" (some variation of it)
and so I would have accepted "curvy" in some degree or another-
voluptuous or whatever-
but THIN just didn't fly.
This surprised me because I never bothered to follow up on the casting decisions
so I didn't know what the actors looked like.
And I wasn't expecting her to be all hot and bothered over Hagrid, since it's the reverse in the book. But none of that put me off too much.
I imagine we missed a number of scenes between them where this went back and forth,
same as in the book.
I agree with the comment about Fleur... watching her in the maze I just kept thinking... she's not that much of a wimp or she wouldn't be the Beaubaton champion. Besides, Moody tells Harry, "Fleur is as much a 'fairy princess' as I am." meaning she's a lot tougher than she seems on the surface, but they really didn't show that. I guess they just wanted to show how intimidating the maze was, and how tough Harry and Cedric were to make it through.
Either that, or Beaxbatons was such a wussy school that their top student STILL
was only so good.
But, as I said, these little trivial bits didn't change my impression of the movie -- I loved it. Romping good fun!
I liked it a lot better than the third movie.
Whatever happened to Mad-Eye's motto: "CONSTANT VIGILANCE!"
and the references to never trusting his food and drink to not be drugged
I was listening to book 6 last night (I have the CDs) and it describes Madame Maxime arriving for Dumbledore's funeral as... "attractive and olive-skinned". Hmmm... not the way they depicted her in the movie.
Nora Desmond.... ROTFLMAOPMP!!!! Absolutely! Now I will think of that everytime I see this movie. hahahahahaha
In the book Madame Maxime was fond of Hagrid for a short time ...... Hagrid suspected her of only wanting inside information is how I perceived it and their relationship which took on the appearance to the reader was going towards the bit more friendly relationship until Hagrid confronted Madame Maxime about her GIANT heritage. In fact between books 4-5 they spend the summer backpacking together through the mountains ........ so I am not surprised the movie displayed over excess of fondness.
Personally I am disapointed in this movie. My husband did not read the book and he found there were terrible gaps of understanding in the movie and asked me to fill him in.
They left out so much that was vital to a good film. They left out much of the humor of the twins, the Thousand Bucks that Harry won from as TRI WIZARD CHAMPION and gave to the Twins Fred and George to start their joke shop, the only string attached to the money was to purchase Ron new dress robes.
What happened to Winky and Dobby?
Why didn't they show the Veelas at the World Quiditch Cup? or leprechauns ........ or explain that Fleurs heritage was veela, thus the reason Ron asked her to the ball in the first place, he just couldn't help himself.
This movie showed all that was dark only. Didn't show a fraction of the humor of book four. I hope when the movie comes out on DVD they have an extended version like Lord of the Rings did to fill in the gaps. I hope it was just because there was way to much book to show in one movie concerning book four, and, the missing pieces and gaps are put in on the DVD. Not just deleted scenes but put into the movies just as I mentioned "Lord of the Rings" did.
I really like Harry Potter series .......... own all first editions in American and Brittish versions ........ the author of the book doesn't always have control over the movies. Although after reading book 6, I wonder if the author is writing for holywood now and not for the series that she started. I was disapointed in book 6.
Personally I am disapointed in this movie. My husband did not read the book and he found there were terrible gaps of understanding in the movie and asked me to fill him in.
But it was an improvement over the third movie losing the entire Marauders subplot when 60 seconds
of exposition would have explained a lot...
They left out so much that was vital to a good film. They left out much of the humor of the twins, the Thousand Bucks that Harry won from as TRI WIZARD CHAMPION and gave to the Twins Fred and George to start their joke shop, the only string attached to the money was to purchase Ron new dress robes.
(Second challenge)
"That sounded a bit like Percy singing.
Maybe you have to attack him while he's in the shower, Harry."
What happened to Winky and Dobby?
"Winky is seeing no one!"
And, apparently, no one is seeing Winky.
Both were trimmed out. Dobby should have been left in,
even if only for a moment before the second challenge.
Why didn't they show the Veelas at the World Quiditch Cup? or leprechauns ........ or explain that Fleurs heritage was veela, thus the reason Ron asked her to the ball in the first place, he just couldn't help himself.
Trimming out the match, mascots and weighing of the wands cut about 10 minutes or more from
the film. This also cut out John Hurt reappearing as Ollivander, which was a disappointment
to lose.
This movie showed all that was dark only. Didn't show a fraction of the humor of book four.
No "spew", no Krum mangling Hermoninny's name.
We also missed the "amazing bouncing ferret."
We did get a few laughs with Snape during the asking-out stuff.
I hope when the movie comes out on DVD they have an extended version like Lord of the Rings did to fill in the gaps.
We can hope, but I wouldn't put money on that one.
I really like Harry Potter series .......... own all first editions in American and Brittish versions ........ the author of the book doesn't always have control over the movies. Although after reading book 6, I wonder if the author is writing for holywood now and not for the series that she started. I was disapointed in book 6.
Digi
I like sleuthing the series, so I have the WWP fan books, plus the actual series,
and the companions-
"Quidditch Through the Ages" and "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them"
which JKR wrote for charity.
I'm a big enough fan to get a "S.P.E.W" button next chance I get,
but not a big enough one to buy robes and a wand from Alivan's, either.
But I'm guessing I know what's on your wish-list... :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
8
6
8
Popular Days
Aug 2
8
Nov 30
6
Nov 15
5
Aug 3
4
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 11 posts
TheHighWay 8 posts
Belle 6 posts
WordWolf 8 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2005
8 posts
Nov 30 2005
6 posts
Nov 15 2005
5 posts
Aug 3 2005
4 posts
markomalley
Well, I hate to dump cold water on anybody's head, but, frankly, I was disappointed. This is the first Harry Potter movie I've seen where I was looking at my watch during the movie. (and I've seen all four on the big screen)
The special effects were very good. However, this director portrayed Dumbledore as being far more emotional that the old director. And, btw, the appearance of Dumbledore was indistinguishable (to me) from the old one, but the voice was perceptably different.
Personally, I thought the movie (approx 2-1/2 hrs) was far too much magic and not nearly enough plot. Had I not read the book, I believe that I would have actually had a hard time following what was going on. It seems that the biggest emphasis was on the Triwizard Tournament. And when I say that, I mean that the emphasis was on the actual events (I'd say over 50% of the movie), rather than the dialogue and the buildup, etc. Now, it's been quite a while since I read the book, but if my memory serves, in the book, the Triwizard Tourney was sort of the backdrop that wove itself through that year at Hogwarts, but the focus was on the kids. Again, please let me stress that I'm relying on a rather feeble memory here and its been quite a while.
I would go see it still, but I wouldn't wait in a long line to do so.
Overall rating -- one weak thumbs up...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
I've read a lot of reviews and, like always, they are all over the place: the special effects were great, the special effects were stupid; the acting was great, the acting was over the top, the acting was inconsequential; the movie does a good job of following the book, the movie goes on its own path too much; the movie is jumpy and too hard to follow, the movie is fast-paced but nuanced and well put together.
I won't be seeing it for a few days but a reliable source saw it last night and told me, "The reason it feels jumpy is because people who read and loved the book know what's been left out, and people who haven't read the book don't know all the details." Either way, apparently the movie does sorta cut from one thing to another in a quick manner, and doesn't always provide what some of us might consider key details. (which was my biggest gripe with the third movie)
Frankly, I've finally come to terms with all the different ways the directors envision the Potter world... because that's what JK Rowling wants most: for people to get their own personal experiences out of her books. She has stated that she never wanted people to read the books and have everyone picture the same Hogwarts, or Dumbledoor, or even Harry. She wants to encourage imagination and a love of reading in people. So, to that end, I celebrate the differences in the movies, and enjoy them as an extension of her stories. The books are still the very best way to experience the world of Harry Potter.
Edited by TheHighWayLink to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
The kids and I loved it. Absolutely loved it! We had late dinner and the midnight show. Special effects were great. It was a lot of book to condense and while everyone has their favorite part of the book, I thought Mike Newell did a great job getting it down to 2 1/2 hours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Good points and bad points.
On the bad side, Hermione seemed overly stressed through the whole movie, and the surprise of the ending is telegraphed so often that you wonder why they even bothered to keep it a secret. Another bad point is that we know Ron and Hermione have a thing for each other, but she has so much more chemistry with Harry that you wonder if the actors haven't started something on the side. Finally, the very, very end is so flat you could write on it. I really thought the three main characters were going to start singing We Go Together.
On the good side: Daniel Radcliffe does an outstanding job. I mean outstanding. I mean outstanding. The rest of the cast is terrific, too, particularly Jason Isaacs, the Weasley twins and the boy who plays Neville Longbottom. Mad Eye Moody is a hoot, and Alan Rickman has one scene in particular that he plays so well he'll need to use extra floss to get the scenery out of his teeth.
And the return from to the stadium at the end of the tournament simply could not have been played better. Plenty of tears in the audience at that one, especially among the younguns. This is really the part of the series where people start objecting to these being called children's books. These are coming of age books, and that scene puts a definite nail in the coffin of Harry Potter as a children's book series.
In some ways, Peter Jackson could have directed this movie. I mean, parts of it were that good.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Is Rita Skeeter in there,
or were all her scenes left out of the script?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Rita is in a couple of scenes...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh, and Moaning Myrtle is a ho-ho-ho! Merry Christmas!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Went to see it again. It's better on a second viewing, particularly the return from the Triwizard tournament.
I can't say this enough: this movie is worth watching for that scene alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
LOVED IT!!! I'd put up with the lines and the crowds to see it again.
There were some special effects that I missed seeing from the other movies, but it was still a most excellent movie and if we hadn't known that the original Dumbledore wasn't in the movie, I don't think I would have noticed the difference.
Is it just me, or did anyone else initially think that Madonna was playing Rita Skeeter? :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
She was saucy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
Okay,
I finally went to see it myself... loved it.
Don't expect it to be like the book... there are LOTS of changes.
But somehow, it IS just like the book because the storyline moves along as it should.
Raf... I totally agree... the scene where Harry returns from the graveyard is awesome.
My only (trivial) complaints:
Dumbledore was a bit too aggressive at times... I always think of him as supreme power under tight control.
I thought they could have drawn the graveyard scene out a bit longer.
I can't wait to see it again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
After the previous mention of the Foe-Glass,
not seeing its use for a moment towards the end was a lapse.
I'm a little disappointed in the casting for Madame Maxime.
She was supposed to have the same body-type as Hagrid.
Ron greeted hearing her comments about being
"big-boned" as
"only thing that's got bigger bones than her is a dinosaur"
in the book.
Most characters are cast to look like they do in the book.
I'm not sure what message they MEANT to send with the
casting choice, but I'd sure I don't like it either way.
I liked the entrance of the Durmstrang team, but found
the entrance of Beauxbatons disappointing.
In fact, Fleur's supposed to be at least BRAVER than she
was depicted. As it stands, that school doesn't seem like
it has much to offer-its TOP student didn't seem
terribly competent.
The incident at the World Cup was well-done, IMHO.
I would have preferred to see the match itself,
complete with the mascots, but I can see why they
left it out-which meant they had to leave out
"the weighing of the wands".
(The veelah references.)
Too bad-I wanted to see John Hurt return as
Ollivander.
I at LEAST wanted to see the teams introduced.
What was with Dumbledore's comment before the maze?
From his perspective, it doesn't make much sense.
I also missed Amos Diggory's dig to Cedric about Cedric
beating Harry, and Cedric making little of the comment.
I also missed the commentary on the first challenge-
"Are you watching this, Mister Krum?"
And the guesses of what the clue to the second
challenge meant.
"I thought it sounded like Percy singing.
Maybe you have to attack him while he's in the
shower, Harry."
"You're going to face the Cruciatis Curse!"
Anybody know why both guest-schools suddenly
became one-gender?
I liked Dobby's role in the 2nd trial in the book-
and how not EVERY plan goes EXACTLY as planned.
(How DID he get the gillyweed in the movie, then?)
I was sure they would skip the Age Line. Nice to see
I was proven wrong.
I liked this one a lot more than the last one, overall.
The invites to the ball didn't go EXACTLY as I expected,
but they handled it just fine.
(And gave Alan Rickman a good scene. :) )
Also nice to see Angelina Johnson was cast correctly.
Due to an apparent misunderstanding,
she was Caucasian in the first movie.
(Seems JKR neglected to mention her description
in the first book, and everyone presumed the
same thing I did. Lee Jordan almost had the
same problem-but they corrected that before
casting started. Good thing-he was too visible
as the Quidditch match announcer in Book 1
to avoid notice if he was cast wrong.)
This time around, they even got the hair right.
Anyone spot the copy of the book
"Flying with the Cannons" when the Golden Trio
was on the Hogwarts Express?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As a devout reader of these books, I must say I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about half the time.
Okay, maybe I'm not so devout.
Moody gives it to him directly, right before the match. If he had not, the implied explanation would have been that Neville (who's VERY good at herbology, you mentioned) gave it to him.
I think I agree with you on the foe glass. Never introduce a gun in act one unless it's going to go off in act three. Is that the saying?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I thought that Neville DID give it to Harry. Then Moody accused Harry of stealing from his stash of goodies right before he's discovered as only imitating Moody.
:unsure: Has my memory really gotten to be THAT bad?? :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think the saying is something like that.
I do know that someone broke that rule once, and Stanslavski (founder of
"the Method" of "Method Acting") used that as an example of what NOT to do.
IIRC,
in the movie,
Neville gets nudged up to Harry, Harry and Neville have their
discussion, and the scene immediately shifts to the next day,
with Harry and Neville walking and talking,
and Harry has the gillyweed PALMED.
From then on, Harry's in full public view.
Moody makes a comment to him about taking the gillyweed
just before the start signal is given,
but doesn't hand over anything.
(And EVERYONE was watching the 4 champions.)
====
In the movie,
Neville TELLS him about gillyweed,
and Moody knows Neville told him,
but there's no specific reference to how it got into Harry's hand.
We know where it CAME from because Snape later confirmed his
stores were missing gillyweed.
So, it was in Snape's supplies, and then it was in Harry's hand.
How it got from Point A to Point B was never specified.
Did Harry have the time and skill to burgle the supplies at night
or early in the morning?
Neville's not good enough to handle a break-in (yet if ever).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Is it just me or was anyone else thinking "Carol Burnett" while watching Madame Maxime?
WW, maybe it's my strange imagination, but I pictured her as being very tall but curvy and graceful as opposed to big as well as stocky like Hagrid. I did NOT picture her looking like Carol Burnett but much more attractive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You're thinking too hard, wolfman.
I'll have to watch again to be sure, but let's take it point for point:
How did it happen? In a binary approach, it's one of two ways...
a. We're not told/shown.
b. We are told/shown, albeit subtly.
Let's start with (a). We're not told or shown. What do we know?
We know that Neville is very good at herbology. We know that they are in the library when Neville first tells Harry about gillyweed. We know that Moody has taken an interest in Neville because of that interest in herbology. And we know, from later in the movie, that Moody takes credit for telling Neville about the gillyweed.
Based on what we know, we can speculate the following: Moody gave Neville the gillyweed. Neville would not have questioned it. After all, why shouldn't the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher have a bunch of neat stuff? How was he to know Moody stole it from Snape's storeroom? Neville gives it to Harry not long after the scene cuts away from their conversation. Harry has it when he shows up.
b. We do see it. If that's the case, I'm right: Moody quickly gives it to Harry (the fact that Harry's being closely watched doesn't seem to stop him from taking the gillyweed in front of anyone, nor does it stop Moody from telling him now's the time to take it. I'd need to see it again, but I was pretty dang sure Moody actually gave him the gillyweed right there for all to see. I guess I just assumed it wasn't a big deal).
Either way, it's hardly a plot hole, and nothing to lose sleep over.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
This all sounds great ........ I have the all the American First Editions in Hardback and the United Kingdoms First Editions on the way with one being signed by the author. Great to have a Brit a a best friend who lives 3 miles from the author.
Going to Drive to the city the weekend to see it ........ been patiently waiting for two weeks.
Coolchef ....... just to let you know ........ an article I read recently about movie theatres may be going out of business because videos are or can be realeased within 90 days of the theatre showing and many people are willing to wait instead of paying $10 a seat.
WW said
Did Harry have the time and skill to burgle the supplies at night
or early in the morning?
Neville's not good enough to handle a break-in (yet if ever).
Well WW in the book it was Dobby who took it from Snapes lab for Harry.
Digi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
Okay... I've seen the movie twice now and here's my take on the whole gillyweed thing...
Harry and Neville are discussing how long it will last on the walk over to the platforms in the lake. I doubt that this would have happened if Harry didn't have it in his posession at the time. Also, Moody later reveals that he has been orchestrating things around Harry all year, including manipulating Neville by giving him the plant book. And, since Snape accuses Harry of stealing not only the gillyweed but the ingredients for making polyjuice potion, I have to think the director was hoping to give us the impression that whoever was stealing the one thing, was stealing the other things, too. So, I think Moody stole it all, and gave the gillyweed (probably among other plants and things) to Neville along with the book, so that if Harry asked him for help, he would have it, and not have to figure out who to ask to get some, especially at the last minute.
I also agree about the casting of Madame Maxime. Definately thought of Carol Burnett. And I wasn't expecting her to be all hot and bothered over Hagrid, since it's the reverse in the book. But none of that put me off too much.
I agree with the comment about Fleur... watching her in the maze I just kept thinking... she's not that much of a wimp or she wouldn't be the Beaubaton champion. Besides, Moody tells Harry, "Fleur is as much a 'fairy princess' as I am." meaning she's a lot tougher than she seems on the surface, but they really didn't show that. I guess they just wanted to show how intimidating the maze was, and how tough Harry and Cedric were to make it through.
But, as I said, these little trivial bits didn't change my impression of the movie -- I loved it. Romping good fun!
Edited by TheHighWayLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Harry had it cupped in his hand at the time-the camera showed it.
Ok, I can see that working. I wonder if the deleted scenes have something on that....Once Belle said that, all I could picture was the Nora Desmond imitation.
I'm unable to sit and watch Sunset Blvd because I keep hearing her scream
"MAAAXXXX!!" when I try.
Madame Maxime's name WAS taken from the word "maximum" (some variation of it)
and so I would have accepted "curvy" in some degree or another-
voluptuous or whatever-
but THIN just didn't fly.
This surprised me because I never bothered to follow up on the casting decisions
so I didn't know what the actors looked like.
I imagine we missed a number of scenes between them where this went back and forth,same as in the book.
Either that, or Beaxbatons was such a wussy school that their top student STILL
was only so good.
I liked it a lot better than the third movie.
Whatever happened to Mad-Eye's motto: "CONSTANT VIGILANCE!"
and the references to never trusting his food and drink to not be drugged
or whatever?
It explained the hip flask quite nicely...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
I was listening to book 6 last night (I have the CDs) and it describes Madame Maxime arriving for Dumbledore's funeral as... "attractive and olive-skinned". Hmmm... not the way they depicted her in the movie.
Nora Desmond.... ROTFLMAOPMP!!!! Absolutely! Now I will think of that everytime I see this movie. hahahahahaha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
In the book Madame Maxime was fond of Hagrid for a short time ...... Hagrid suspected her of only wanting inside information is how I perceived it and their relationship which took on the appearance to the reader was going towards the bit more friendly relationship until Hagrid confronted Madame Maxime about her GIANT heritage. In fact between books 4-5 they spend the summer backpacking together through the mountains ........ so I am not surprised the movie displayed over excess of fondness.
Personally I am disapointed in this movie. My husband did not read the book and he found there were terrible gaps of understanding in the movie and asked me to fill him in.
They left out so much that was vital to a good film. They left out much of the humor of the twins, the Thousand Bucks that Harry won from as TRI WIZARD CHAMPION and gave to the Twins Fred and George to start their joke shop, the only string attached to the money was to purchase Ron new dress robes.
What happened to Winky and Dobby?
Why didn't they show the Veelas at the World Quiditch Cup? or leprechauns ........ or explain that Fleurs heritage was veela, thus the reason Ron asked her to the ball in the first place, he just couldn't help himself.
This movie showed all that was dark only. Didn't show a fraction of the humor of book four. I hope when the movie comes out on DVD they have an extended version like Lord of the Rings did to fill in the gaps. I hope it was just because there was way to much book to show in one movie concerning book four, and, the missing pieces and gaps are put in on the DVD. Not just deleted scenes but put into the movies just as I mentioned "Lord of the Rings" did.
I really like Harry Potter series .......... own all first editions in American and Brittish versions ........ the author of the book doesn't always have control over the movies. Although after reading book 6, I wonder if the author is writing for holywood now and not for the series that she started. I was disapointed in book 6.
Digi
Edited by DigitalisLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
But it was an improvement over the third movie losing the entire Marauders subplot when 60 seconds
of exposition would have explained a lot...
(Second challenge)"That sounded a bit like Percy singing.
Maybe you have to attack him while he's in the shower, Harry."
"Winky is seeing no one!"
And, apparently, no one is seeing Winky.
Both were trimmed out. Dobby should have been left in,
even if only for a moment before the second challenge.
Trimming out the match, mascots and weighing of the wands cut about 10 minutes or more fromthe film. This also cut out John Hurt reappearing as Ollivander, which was a disappointment
to lose.
No "spew", no Krum mangling Hermoninny's name.
We also missed the "amazing bouncing ferret."
We did get a few laughs with Snape during the asking-out stuff.
We can hope, but I wouldn't put money on that one.I like sleuthing the series, so I have the WWP fan books, plus the actual series,
and the companions-
"Quidditch Through the Ages" and "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them"
which JKR wrote for charity.
I'm a big enough fan to get a "S.P.E.W" button next chance I get,
but not a big enough one to buy robes and a wand from Alivan's, either.
But I'm guessing I know what's on your wish-list... :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Did we watch the same movie? There was loads of humor in this movie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.