seraphcelene (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
seraphcelene) wrote2006-03-14 11:49 am
seraphcelene) wrote2006-03-14 11:49 am
Entry tags:
Movie: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Without preamble or qualification I find that I must announce that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a ruddy awful movie.
I think that people liked it, and that is a shame because this type of drivel should NOT be encouraged. I skipped all of the comments and reviews around LJ because I didn't want to be spoiled for the movie adaptation. I even changed channels when the commercial showed up. I realize, now, that may have been a mistake. Perhaps I could have been forewarned and, as they say, forearmed. Then, maybe I wouldn't have been so terribly disappointed. Maybe I would have found SOMETHING to enjoy because as it stands now, the only thing I liked about this movie was the prettiness of Cedric Diggory and the Neanderthal swagger of Viktor Krum.
I know, reliably shallow.
But ... as it goes
There are so many things wrong with this movie. Trying to write this up I just vomited my disgust and disappointment onto the page and then realized that wasn't going to work. What I needed was a little direction, a focus for my vitriol. In short, who should I blame. Well, Mr. Newell and Mr.Kloves, you get the short stick. It's your fault. The screenplay sucked and the director had NO CLUE what he was doing and considering the credits between you that is a huge shame.
The reasons that I don't like the movie version of GoF have much to do with the reasons that I hated Chamber of Secrets and was less than enraptured with Prisoner of Azkaban, although PoA managed to save itself from being total rubbish because of Alfonso Cuaron's heavy involvement in all aspects of the film.
It isn't a stretch to say that the Harry Potter movies are made for fans of the books. In essensce, all adaptations are made for fans of the book with the hopes of drawing in a new audience. It is unfortunately true to say that the Harry Potter movies are made exclusively for fans of the books. To follow the plot, to get the film, you have to have read ALL the books. Otherwise you are cast adrift by a writer and director who are merely pumping out another product for the Hollywood machine, searching for the tie-ins and selling plastic crap to the built in audience. I don't think I've been this disappointed in a franchise since Phantom Menace and that's saying a lot because I don't typically expect much from franchises. All I want is to be entertained. GoF couldn't even manage that.
GoF left me cold and, in fact, I had to watch it in two parts. I was SO bored I nearly fell asleep on it Friday night. I only finished it Monday night because I am sure Blockbuster wants their movie back. And I certainly don't want to keep it.
GoF, like the two previous movies takes the books, extracts the most popular scenes and plunks them down in consecutive order without any real connection and only a vague hand wave in the direction of plot. What the fuck is going on in this movie would be my question if I had never read the books, because from the film I have NO CLUE!!
Because of this rather haphazard approach to movie making there is no build-up, there's no excitement, there's no atmosphere. It is the blahest movie since Mission Impossible. Granted it's the most difficult of the HP books to read, imo. The book doesn't even get good until it's 2/3 of the way through. In fact, it took me the LONGEST to read this book because I kept putting it down. I think I read it in a month whereas all of the other books took me a day. But that shouldn't even be a consideration in this production because, let's face it, Tolkien is long winded and it took Sam, Frodo and the gang like five days to make it to The Shire's border and we felt the length of the journey in every single page. Tolkien is still good reading, but Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh were able to boil down LotR to it's essence, distill that and the spirit of the novel was captured in the movie. There is care and attention and love in every detail and although it is not a word for word, scene for scene translation, it is a perfectly beautiful homage to an amazing literary creation.
How long and how much money do you think it'll take to get Peter Jackson to write and direct the remaining HP movies. I'll put my name at the top of the petition list.
I had thought of blaming the cast, but they are the same cast in every movie, poorly directed and fumbling with flawed material. The only bright spot was Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter. LOVED HER and I am sorely disappointed that there wasn't more OF her. Again, a vague acknowledgement of her part in the book because she was a popular feature, I am sure, but then she all but disappears. WTF?! Hermione was far too shrill, although Emily Watson acted with as much energy as I've seen her and I enjoyed her commitment.
Michael Gambon is struggling, I think, with a character that was very firmly inhabited by Richard Harris. Although I get a different feeling for this Dumbledore, he doesn't do it for me AS Dumbledore. A little too violent, too excitable. For me Dumbledore is a man of subtleties and Michael Gambon doesn't project that.
The Death Eaters were far from scary and I HATED that the story started without Harry at The Dursley's. That's an integral part of the story, why he has to be there and his treatment by them. To skip that is rather ridiculous especially at this stage in the game. I don't like that there's no introduction to the importance of the Quidditch World Cup and then we don't even get to see the game, just suddenly there are Death Eaters on the move and everyone is scared, but why? Because it just looks like your standard war sequence. There's nothing unnerving about it.
Where in the HELL are Dobby and Winky?
I did like Madame Maxime. I HATED Mad-Eye Moody. He was too robust and the eye was too cartoonish. I always pictured someone more along the lines of Filch, but slightly less grizzled and more sinister. But in a good way. I ADORED the twins. Cuter than ever. Ron, usually my favorite, was a non-entity. He had none of Emily Watson's over-enthusiasm and left to mope, as per the book, he just sort of faded into the background for me. Ditto Fleur Delacour (and what happened to the whole Veela thing).
LOVED Neville. LOvED Neville and Ginny dancing at the Ball. If they hadn't prettied up Emily Watson for PoA then her transformation in GoF would have been astonishing. As it went I thought she looked exactly the same.
Couldn't Viktor have had more than one line at the END of the movie? Damn them. LOVED Hermione's admitting to a strictly physical relationship with Viktor! YAY!! Everyone go read Silvia Kundera's Sixteen in Bulgaria!
Besides the grindylows and mer-people what the fuck happened to all of the mystical animals that were supposed to be in this one. The maze was noticeably empty. HATED that.
The cemetery wasn't atmospheric, creepy or dark. It looked like a set. And Voldemort's arising was anti-climatic at best. I just felt nothing, although Ralph Fiennes, I think, got quite a kick out of all of the make-up. The exposition was boring and they took too long to kill Cedric. It's supposed to be instantaneous and stunning. Here there was just nothing. Not a thing. I cried for Cedric's father when they made it back to the maze and that was all.
Too, Daniel Radcliffe played the ending too ... I don't even know. He should have been more shell shocked, more lost looking and then we didn't even get that fabulous breakdown in Dumbledore's office at the end where he destroys nearly ever damn thing. All we see is everyone hugging and kissing and heading off into the sunset as per usual. I kept thinking, but Cedric just DIED!! Where's the uncertainty, the tears, the fear? Where's Remus and the Weasley's and Sirius as dog!! Where's the change in tone that we get in the end of GoF? Why does Hermione have to TELL us that everything has changed? Why don't we feel it?
Poorly done. Poorly, poorly done. It makes me sad for the future of the movies. I'll be passing on Order of the Phoenix, thank you very much.
I think that people liked it, and that is a shame because this type of drivel should NOT be encouraged. I skipped all of the comments and reviews around LJ because I didn't want to be spoiled for the movie adaptation. I even changed channels when the commercial showed up. I realize, now, that may have been a mistake. Perhaps I could have been forewarned and, as they say, forearmed. Then, maybe I wouldn't have been so terribly disappointed. Maybe I would have found SOMETHING to enjoy because as it stands now, the only thing I liked about this movie was the prettiness of Cedric Diggory and the Neanderthal swagger of Viktor Krum.
I know, reliably shallow.
But ... as it goes
There are so many things wrong with this movie. Trying to write this up I just vomited my disgust and disappointment onto the page and then realized that wasn't going to work. What I needed was a little direction, a focus for my vitriol. In short, who should I blame. Well, Mr. Newell and Mr.Kloves, you get the short stick. It's your fault. The screenplay sucked and the director had NO CLUE what he was doing and considering the credits between you that is a huge shame.
The reasons that I don't like the movie version of GoF have much to do with the reasons that I hated Chamber of Secrets and was less than enraptured with Prisoner of Azkaban, although PoA managed to save itself from being total rubbish because of Alfonso Cuaron's heavy involvement in all aspects of the film.
It isn't a stretch to say that the Harry Potter movies are made for fans of the books. In essensce, all adaptations are made for fans of the book with the hopes of drawing in a new audience. It is unfortunately true to say that the Harry Potter movies are made exclusively for fans of the books. To follow the plot, to get the film, you have to have read ALL the books. Otherwise you are cast adrift by a writer and director who are merely pumping out another product for the Hollywood machine, searching for the tie-ins and selling plastic crap to the built in audience. I don't think I've been this disappointed in a franchise since Phantom Menace and that's saying a lot because I don't typically expect much from franchises. All I want is to be entertained. GoF couldn't even manage that.
GoF left me cold and, in fact, I had to watch it in two parts. I was SO bored I nearly fell asleep on it Friday night. I only finished it Monday night because I am sure Blockbuster wants their movie back. And I certainly don't want to keep it.
GoF, like the two previous movies takes the books, extracts the most popular scenes and plunks them down in consecutive order without any real connection and only a vague hand wave in the direction of plot. What the fuck is going on in this movie would be my question if I had never read the books, because from the film I have NO CLUE!!
Because of this rather haphazard approach to movie making there is no build-up, there's no excitement, there's no atmosphere. It is the blahest movie since Mission Impossible. Granted it's the most difficult of the HP books to read, imo. The book doesn't even get good until it's 2/3 of the way through. In fact, it took me the LONGEST to read this book because I kept putting it down. I think I read it in a month whereas all of the other books took me a day. But that shouldn't even be a consideration in this production because, let's face it, Tolkien is long winded and it took Sam, Frodo and the gang like five days to make it to The Shire's border and we felt the length of the journey in every single page. Tolkien is still good reading, but Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh were able to boil down LotR to it's essence, distill that and the spirit of the novel was captured in the movie. There is care and attention and love in every detail and although it is not a word for word, scene for scene translation, it is a perfectly beautiful homage to an amazing literary creation.
How long and how much money do you think it'll take to get Peter Jackson to write and direct the remaining HP movies. I'll put my name at the top of the petition list.
I had thought of blaming the cast, but they are the same cast in every movie, poorly directed and fumbling with flawed material. The only bright spot was Miranda Richardson as Rita Skeeter. LOVED HER and I am sorely disappointed that there wasn't more OF her. Again, a vague acknowledgement of her part in the book because she was a popular feature, I am sure, but then she all but disappears. WTF?! Hermione was far too shrill, although Emily Watson acted with as much energy as I've seen her and I enjoyed her commitment.
Michael Gambon is struggling, I think, with a character that was very firmly inhabited by Richard Harris. Although I get a different feeling for this Dumbledore, he doesn't do it for me AS Dumbledore. A little too violent, too excitable. For me Dumbledore is a man of subtleties and Michael Gambon doesn't project that.
The Death Eaters were far from scary and I HATED that the story started without Harry at The Dursley's. That's an integral part of the story, why he has to be there and his treatment by them. To skip that is rather ridiculous especially at this stage in the game. I don't like that there's no introduction to the importance of the Quidditch World Cup and then we don't even get to see the game, just suddenly there are Death Eaters on the move and everyone is scared, but why? Because it just looks like your standard war sequence. There's nothing unnerving about it.
Where in the HELL are Dobby and Winky?
I did like Madame Maxime. I HATED Mad-Eye Moody. He was too robust and the eye was too cartoonish. I always pictured someone more along the lines of Filch, but slightly less grizzled and more sinister. But in a good way. I ADORED the twins. Cuter than ever. Ron, usually my favorite, was a non-entity. He had none of Emily Watson's over-enthusiasm and left to mope, as per the book, he just sort of faded into the background for me. Ditto Fleur Delacour (and what happened to the whole Veela thing).
LOVED Neville. LOvED Neville and Ginny dancing at the Ball. If they hadn't prettied up Emily Watson for PoA then her transformation in GoF would have been astonishing. As it went I thought she looked exactly the same.
Couldn't Viktor have had more than one line at the END of the movie? Damn them. LOVED Hermione's admitting to a strictly physical relationship with Viktor! YAY!! Everyone go read Silvia Kundera's Sixteen in Bulgaria!
Besides the grindylows and mer-people what the fuck happened to all of the mystical animals that were supposed to be in this one. The maze was noticeably empty. HATED that.
The cemetery wasn't atmospheric, creepy or dark. It looked like a set. And Voldemort's arising was anti-climatic at best. I just felt nothing, although Ralph Fiennes, I think, got quite a kick out of all of the make-up. The exposition was boring and they took too long to kill Cedric. It's supposed to be instantaneous and stunning. Here there was just nothing. Not a thing. I cried for Cedric's father when they made it back to the maze and that was all.
Too, Daniel Radcliffe played the ending too ... I don't even know. He should have been more shell shocked, more lost looking and then we didn't even get that fabulous breakdown in Dumbledore's office at the end where he destroys nearly ever damn thing. All we see is everyone hugging and kissing and heading off into the sunset as per usual. I kept thinking, but Cedric just DIED!! Where's the uncertainty, the tears, the fear? Where's Remus and the Weasley's and Sirius as dog!! Where's the change in tone that we get in the end of GoF? Why does Hermione have to TELL us that everything has changed? Why don't we feel it?
Poorly done. Poorly, poorly done. It makes me sad for the future of the movies. I'll be passing on Order of the Phoenix, thank you very much.
no subject
I was starting to think I was the only one who thought this was the most poorly adapted of the books so far (with the possible exception of "PoA," but it's hard to say).
What REALLY bugged me about this movie was that, when they wrote it, they clearly had never read "OotP." While Winky and Dobby are minor characters and CGI is pricey to waste on minor characters, house elves and how they're treated are actually needed for the next movie. Bellatrix Lestrange, who I don't even like, is cut from this and dude, we need her! And why, why didn't we get to find out what happened to Neville's parents? As it stands, it just looks like he was disturbed by the Cruciatus itself, not the knowledge that that's what happened to his parents.
Also...and this is a very small thing, but it still bugged me...NOT ONCE did Moody say "constant vigilance!"
no subject
Now, I'm going to have to re-read the book because I need to remind myself of the great bits. The movie left SUCH a bad taste. SO BAD. And I can usually find something redeeming in every movie I see, with few exceptions. But this? This was just a really rushed, poorly constructed film. I can see that they are racing the actors growing out of the parts, already too late, but I would think that they would hire someone who has read all the books to date and to write the script based upon that. I wonder if the Kloves ever read one novel. And what also gets me is that this is NOT a short movie. 157 mins. OMG!
I am SO bitter.
no subject
I actually disagree that Peter Jackson & co. distilled the essence of LOTR--the books, imo, are whole lot less of an adventure story and a whole lot more a study of fables/myth/fairytales, culutral history, linguistic history, etc. Imo, anyway. And these are things that can only be captured by text, not film. But what they did with those movies was create something NEW; the films were less the same story through a different medium and more cinema in its own right.
I think the number one reason I enjoyed GoF more than the others is Radcliffe finally improved. As far as child actors go he SUCKS. I agree about the lack of feeling toward the end, but this time, he felt much more real. OTOH, EW and RG felt to me like they were over-acting. I thought they were fabulous in the previous films, but I guess now that their older their antics seem childish and out of proportion to me, especially Watson.
no subject
For Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, I think the director just let them run amok on the screen. There doesn't seem to be a point where he tried to reign then in .. so, overacting on her part and Grint was sullen and disappeared. Same with Daniel Radcliffe, although he was rather flat in this film and that may have something to do with the fractured editing.
I actually disagree that Peter Jackson & co. distilled the essence of LOTR--the books, imo, are whole lot less of an adventure story and a whole lot more a study of fables/myth/fairytales, culutral history, linguistic history, etc. Imo, anyway. And these are things that can only be captured by text, not film. But what they did with those movies was create something NEW; the films were less the same story through a different medium and more cinema in its own right.
Perfect way to put it. Although, Fellowship always strikes me as quite the adventure, the overall story does make a shift. I think that I would love to see how Jackson would handle the translation. There's so much to work with that it would take someone with a strong sense of storytelling and a strong vision of the story independent, I think, of what Hollywood thinks will sell, to make it work. Newell and Kloves don't have the necessary perspective. The movies remain too much about what the fans want and/or love, so fail at being movies.