Goblet of Fire
Nov. 19th, 2005 10:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakShort version: I liked it. It still has that problem the HP movies have as opposed to the LotR films, i.e. they're more book illustrations and/or fanfic than movies, but that doesn't mean one can't enjoy it very much.
Given that GoF is far, far lengthier than any of the previous books, I'm amazed how well by and large the cutting worked. Actually, I thought they chose better than in PoA (though Cuaron is a visually more interesting director than Newell), because in PoA the entire Marauder versus Snape backstory which is crucial was lost, whereas here SPEW and Rita versus Hermione were important for Hermione's character and for the overall image of the wizard world which is darkening more and more in the books, but they weren't crucial subplots in the same way. Actually, the house elf issue probably will work better for a cinema audience when focused on Kreacher in the next film. My one cutting complaint is that due to the lack of Fudge for the closing scenes, we didn't get to do Snape reveal his black mark in order to make the minister see Voldemort has indeed returned, but then they did include the Snape-as-death eater/spy info in the earlier Pensieve scene, so that's alright.
Most importantly, there were some lovely character scenes. Not sure how they'll work for an audience who hasn't read the books, but Neville's reaction to the Cruciatus performed in front of him during and after was touching and excellent. A movie-only viewer would have to pay attention to the names in Karkaroff's testimony, though, to get the full reason, i.e. that Neville's parents were tortured this way. Speaking of Neville, loved his increased screentime in general.
Miranda Richardson was great fun as Rita, despite the feud being cut, and I hope she'll be back for her one scene in OotP. Her comment about the cupboard was wonderfully vicious precisely because it came in the middle of all the other things and not uttered with any great emphasis.
I predict a lot of new slash pairings as the result of this film, both because of the usual result of a good looking actor getting cast and because of the way things play out on screen. Certainly Cedric/Harry, as the film went above and beyond to make Cedric a believable, endearing boy and to build up a relationship between him and Harry so we'd care at the end. And they do have chemistry. Also, all frivolity aside, Cedric's death scene - the horrible casualness of "kill the spare" and then later the cheerful music that starts when Harry returns with his dead body, until Fleur notices what happened, and Harry's grief - have real emotional impact. This is where everything changes, indeed. Acting wise, kudos to Dan Radcliffe. No Haley J. Osmont but absolutely believable as Harry who has just seen a boy killed in front of him, because of him, someone he liked. Harry's resulting behaviour in OotP will be that much more founded. I immediately was reminded of Dudley taunting Harry about his Cedric nightmares, too.
Then there's Barty Crouch, Junior. I haven't seen David Tennant in a role before, aside from his very brief cameo at the end of ep. 13 of the new Who, so I was looking forward to find out what he's like as an actor, and I came back favourably impressed and reassured about his capability to take on the Doctor. He used what little screentime he had well and got the fanatic minion and even the father issue across without going over the top with it. Of course, he still had far more screentime than Barty-as-Barty has in the novel, which makes things easier for the movie-only audience. I think without the changes (i.e. let Barty Junior show up in Harry's dream, and at the World Cup) the audience, just based on the trial flashback, would still have gone "who the hell is this guy supposed to be?" at the final transformation. Considering Crouch the Younger isn't looking badly at all, I predict Snape pairings, especially since movie Crouch doesn't get his soul sucked out by dementors.
(Speaking of action for good old Severus, Karkaroff got a beauty makeover for the film, too, and hence probably will be fodder for fanfic.)
But the actor I've been looking forward to see a Rowling character the most this time around was Ralph Fiennes. Honestly, Voldemort isn't a particularly interesting villain. Your standard Evil Overlord. But the one scene where (adult) Voldemort really, really creeps me out and totally works for me is the big resurrection scene and the aftermath in GoF. The casualness of Cedric's death, which really isn't something that he spends more than a second of thinking about, is far more effective than the entire Muhahhaha speech in Philosopher's Stone or OotP. And Harry being forced to donate blood? Voldemort touching him afterwards? Is Rowling writing truly effective horror. No wonder Stephen King loved this book (I remember the review back then). So I was both anxious and expectant, and boy, didn't Fiennes (and the direction, and the make-up) dissapoint. I never could imagine the snake-like appearance of the aged Voldemort as anything but involuntarily funny, but I can now. And sorry, Joseph fans, but Ralph F. will always be my favourite Fiennes brother. No matter whether in villainous (Schindler's List) or romantic (English Patient) mode, he's great. Evil Overlords are so easy to go over the top with, and much as I loved Cuaron's take on PoA, I'm not sure he'd have resisted the temptation of Camp!Voldemort, so I'm glad Newell got this one. Fiennes is absolutely chilling and creepy and does the Orson Welles trick from The Third Man: his character is on screen only for ten minutes or so, but these ten minutes are used so effectively, and the character gets talked about so often, that you think he's present far more than that.
Crouch-as-Mad-Eye-Moody: convinced me. It's a fine line to tread on the script's part, because the hints to the audience that Moody isn't just your grouchy old warhorse but has his own game going can't be so blatant that the characters look stupid for overlooking them, but in this case I don't think they are. Again, difference between visual and written: "Moody" presenting the three Unforgivable Curses is straight from the books, but seeing him on screen doing this makes him look far more ambiguous. Same with the turning Draco into a ferret. Props to Maggie Smith, too, because McGonnagall's cutting delivery of "we NEVER use transformation as a method of punishment" makes it clear that Moody really has crossed the line here, that as opposed to what Harry & Co. might think, this wasn't fun.
What didn't work for me as well as in the book was Hermione at the ball. Because let's face it, they let Emma Watson look so pretty throughout the films that this wasn't much of a transformation. Incidentally, I'm not going anywere near the shipper wars, but let's just say books and films are on different tracks there. In the books, especially GoF, Hermione and Ron are very clearly set up as bickering (future) lovers and it's equally clear Ron is jealous as hell. Harry never has more as a moment of "hm, Hermione looks pretty that way, now, isn't it horrible to watch Cho and Cedric dancing together!" In the film, he just comes across as a clueless male friend being obnoxious, and Harry is at least as much impressed by Hermione's sudden female-ness as Ron is, and his being put-out comes across as possibly for the same reason.
(Harry's crush on Cho was completely believable in their few other scenes, though, and Cho came across as not just pretty but likeable.)
Let's see, what else: Moaning Myrtle was as much fun here as in CoS. Poor Harry. He.
And: I liked the SFX all around, as opposed to the werewolf problem I had with PoA. Given that fantasy movies mishandle dragons as regularly as they do werewolves, that was a pleasant surprise.
Rupert Grint doesn't mug and ham as much as he did in CoA - seems Cuaron permanently cured him, or Newell kept up the tight reign - but I still think Ron is ill served by the films. He comes across as Xander without any of Xander's good sides. Which isn't the case in the novels.
Given that GoF is far, far lengthier than any of the previous books, I'm amazed how well by and large the cutting worked. Actually, I thought they chose better than in PoA (though Cuaron is a visually more interesting director than Newell), because in PoA the entire Marauder versus Snape backstory which is crucial was lost, whereas here SPEW and Rita versus Hermione were important for Hermione's character and for the overall image of the wizard world which is darkening more and more in the books, but they weren't crucial subplots in the same way. Actually, the house elf issue probably will work better for a cinema audience when focused on Kreacher in the next film. My one cutting complaint is that due to the lack of Fudge for the closing scenes, we didn't get to do Snape reveal his black mark in order to make the minister see Voldemort has indeed returned, but then they did include the Snape-as-death eater/spy info in the earlier Pensieve scene, so that's alright.
Most importantly, there were some lovely character scenes. Not sure how they'll work for an audience who hasn't read the books, but Neville's reaction to the Cruciatus performed in front of him during and after was touching and excellent. A movie-only viewer would have to pay attention to the names in Karkaroff's testimony, though, to get the full reason, i.e. that Neville's parents were tortured this way. Speaking of Neville, loved his increased screentime in general.
Miranda Richardson was great fun as Rita, despite the feud being cut, and I hope she'll be back for her one scene in OotP. Her comment about the cupboard was wonderfully vicious precisely because it came in the middle of all the other things and not uttered with any great emphasis.
I predict a lot of new slash pairings as the result of this film, both because of the usual result of a good looking actor getting cast and because of the way things play out on screen. Certainly Cedric/Harry, as the film went above and beyond to make Cedric a believable, endearing boy and to build up a relationship between him and Harry so we'd care at the end. And they do have chemistry. Also, all frivolity aside, Cedric's death scene - the horrible casualness of "kill the spare" and then later the cheerful music that starts when Harry returns with his dead body, until Fleur notices what happened, and Harry's grief - have real emotional impact. This is where everything changes, indeed. Acting wise, kudos to Dan Radcliffe. No Haley J. Osmont but absolutely believable as Harry who has just seen a boy killed in front of him, because of him, someone he liked. Harry's resulting behaviour in OotP will be that much more founded. I immediately was reminded of Dudley taunting Harry about his Cedric nightmares, too.
Then there's Barty Crouch, Junior. I haven't seen David Tennant in a role before, aside from his very brief cameo at the end of ep. 13 of the new Who, so I was looking forward to find out what he's like as an actor, and I came back favourably impressed and reassured about his capability to take on the Doctor. He used what little screentime he had well and got the fanatic minion and even the father issue across without going over the top with it. Of course, he still had far more screentime than Barty-as-Barty has in the novel, which makes things easier for the movie-only audience. I think without the changes (i.e. let Barty Junior show up in Harry's dream, and at the World Cup) the audience, just based on the trial flashback, would still have gone "who the hell is this guy supposed to be?" at the final transformation. Considering Crouch the Younger isn't looking badly at all, I predict Snape pairings, especially since movie Crouch doesn't get his soul sucked out by dementors.
(Speaking of action for good old Severus, Karkaroff got a beauty makeover for the film, too, and hence probably will be fodder for fanfic.)
But the actor I've been looking forward to see a Rowling character the most this time around was Ralph Fiennes. Honestly, Voldemort isn't a particularly interesting villain. Your standard Evil Overlord. But the one scene where (adult) Voldemort really, really creeps me out and totally works for me is the big resurrection scene and the aftermath in GoF. The casualness of Cedric's death, which really isn't something that he spends more than a second of thinking about, is far more effective than the entire Muhahhaha speech in Philosopher's Stone or OotP. And Harry being forced to donate blood? Voldemort touching him afterwards? Is Rowling writing truly effective horror. No wonder Stephen King loved this book (I remember the review back then). So I was both anxious and expectant, and boy, didn't Fiennes (and the direction, and the make-up) dissapoint. I never could imagine the snake-like appearance of the aged Voldemort as anything but involuntarily funny, but I can now. And sorry, Joseph fans, but Ralph F. will always be my favourite Fiennes brother. No matter whether in villainous (Schindler's List) or romantic (English Patient) mode, he's great. Evil Overlords are so easy to go over the top with, and much as I loved Cuaron's take on PoA, I'm not sure he'd have resisted the temptation of Camp!Voldemort, so I'm glad Newell got this one. Fiennes is absolutely chilling and creepy and does the Orson Welles trick from The Third Man: his character is on screen only for ten minutes or so, but these ten minutes are used so effectively, and the character gets talked about so often, that you think he's present far more than that.
Crouch-as-Mad-Eye-Moody: convinced me. It's a fine line to tread on the script's part, because the hints to the audience that Moody isn't just your grouchy old warhorse but has his own game going can't be so blatant that the characters look stupid for overlooking them, but in this case I don't think they are. Again, difference between visual and written: "Moody" presenting the three Unforgivable Curses is straight from the books, but seeing him on screen doing this makes him look far more ambiguous. Same with the turning Draco into a ferret. Props to Maggie Smith, too, because McGonnagall's cutting delivery of "we NEVER use transformation as a method of punishment" makes it clear that Moody really has crossed the line here, that as opposed to what Harry & Co. might think, this wasn't fun.
What didn't work for me as well as in the book was Hermione at the ball. Because let's face it, they let Emma Watson look so pretty throughout the films that this wasn't much of a transformation. Incidentally, I'm not going anywere near the shipper wars, but let's just say books and films are on different tracks there. In the books, especially GoF, Hermione and Ron are very clearly set up as bickering (future) lovers and it's equally clear Ron is jealous as hell. Harry never has more as a moment of "hm, Hermione looks pretty that way, now, isn't it horrible to watch Cho and Cedric dancing together!" In the film, he just comes across as a clueless male friend being obnoxious, and Harry is at least as much impressed by Hermione's sudden female-ness as Ron is, and his being put-out comes across as possibly for the same reason.
(Harry's crush on Cho was completely believable in their few other scenes, though, and Cho came across as not just pretty but likeable.)
Let's see, what else: Moaning Myrtle was as much fun here as in CoS. Poor Harry. He.
And: I liked the SFX all around, as opposed to the werewolf problem I had with PoA. Given that fantasy movies mishandle dragons as regularly as they do werewolves, that was a pleasant surprise.
Rupert Grint doesn't mug and ham as much as he did in CoA - seems Cuaron permanently cured him, or Newell kept up the tight reign - but I still think Ron is ill served by the films. He comes across as Xander without any of Xander's good sides. Which isn't the case in the novels.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 11:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 12:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-19 10:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-21 10:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-20 11:30 pm (UTC)re: Hermione -- I thought the ball scene worked because they had the good sense not to pretend that no one had ever noticed Hermione was attractive. It's just that they notice she looks spectacularly attractive in this scene (which she does -- what a dress!) I think it would have been interesting if movie-Hermione was portrayed like book-Hermione from the beginning (a girl who's just not comfortable with 'girly' things and doesn't pay much attention to her appearance in everyday circumstances); but they've never done that (her hair is occasionally uncombed, but then NOBODY in this fim series seems to comb their hair, except Ginny). And since I got used to that change (it really took until PoA), I've liked Emma Watson best of the big 3. Ron, on the other hand, is my favorite book-character, and I don't think he's served that well, either by the writing or the casting in the movies. I don't dislike him; he just doesn't produce that love.
I'm still not totally sold on the Voldemort makeup (though this may partly be a carryover from the slightly embarrassing number of times I've watched The English Patient, which causes my immediate association to be "burn victim" rather than "evil overlord"). Though you have a point that book-Voldemort presents a challenge however the filmmakers approach him. I definitely think he's more interesting as Tom Riddle than as Lord Voldemort (and I liked the Riddle-actor in CoS a lot). One advantage of GoF in book form is that the opening, with explicit references to the Riddle backstory, reminded us that he used to be human who had certain things in common with Harry.
Overall, I thought this was the best of the films in terms of focusing on the students, with nice moments not just for the big three but for Neville, Ginny, Cho, Cedric, and even the Patil girls (who mostly come across as airheads in the books, but who I felt pretty sorry for in the ball scene with mopey Ron & Harry.
now to what's really important -- don't you get "serenity" soon?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-21 10:44 am (UTC)Ron, on the other hand, is my favorite book-character, and I don't think he's served that well, either by the writing or the casting in the movies. I don't dislike him; he just doesn't produce that love.
I agree. Each time I read someone praising Rupert Grint, I feel confounded. Because while Ron isn't my favourite, I like him a lot in the books, and in the films - as I said, Xander without any of Xander's wit or charm or other positive attributes, only with the negative or neutral ones.
The Patil twins: so agreed. One was entirely on their side in the ball scene, and before, the film version didn't give me the impression of them being airheads.
Serenity: on Thursday night, with
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 02:40 pm (UTC)I haven't seen GoF but the movie poster with Ron clearly behind Harry and Hermione signaled that this trend of minimizing him was going to continue.
Predicting new slash pairings.
Date: 2006-01-08 09:58 pm (UTC)Re: Predicting new slash pairings.
Date: 2006-01-09 04:56 am (UTC)