Harry Potter

I saw it last night and really enjoyed it, my fave so far.
It is hard to not think about all the bits left out from the book though, although this was obviously necessary.
The only thing that bothered me was some parts seemed a bit disjointed.
Umbridge finally find the secret training room, and balst a hole in the wall. She is there with malfoy and a seemingly unwilling Cho. Is she meant to have grassed them up? Did they force her to admit where it was? There was no mention of this at all and it really bugged me lol
I also had another thought, if Snape can use magic to read Harry's mind and see his memories, whcih included the Dementor attack, why didn't Dumbledore tell the council to read Harrys mind at the hearing, and it would prove that he only used magic to save his own life?
There may be valid answers, i'm just letting my thoughts flow, even if they are in the form of a mini rant.
Roll on the DVD :)
 
went to see the movie last night, very impressed. couldnt be worse than goblet of fire (which I thought was awful - so did hubby).
we were both really impressed last night though. definitely a good good movie - quite a bit missed out of the book but we read it ages ago so couldnt really remember what we were missing - not all jumbled up like GoF - not in any way confusing which GoF was at times.
havent managed to keep our promise that we would get all 7 books in a set though....went out and bought book 7 today...we are reading it in stages between us!!!:D
 
I watched it yesterday, it starts pretty well, but the overall narative is a bit messy.It's not very focussed if you ask me and reminRAB me of the first two movies.The third one is still the best.Although the fight between voldemort and dumbledore is not too bad.
 
Thats interesting to hear your view - from someone who hasnt read the book. i had read the book - but ages and ages ago and have really forgot what happened. I tried just to take the perspective as if i have never read the book - and found myself very confused. why was Ron weasly's dad in the ministery looking around at night? - to then be attacked by voldermort's big bad snake? i seen to recall it was something to do with the prothecy (in the book) - hence the snake there also (as Voldermort was also looking for it?) - but that certainly was not explained - so that bit didnt make any sense in the film at all.

It just felt the whole film could have done with an extra 30-40 minutes.
 
Loved it! The effects were spectacular and I think they did their best to cut down the immense storyline into something watchable and understandable.

I thought Gary Oldman was fantastic, but then again, when is he not?!
I'm also glad they managed to shoehorn in the cenataurs and Snape's flashback. I was afraid they'd be omitted so it was nice to see them.
 
Was the film's take on Fred and George's going away party .Used differently in film than book .In the book it was a diversion to help Harry talk to Sirius about what he had seen in Snape's memory
 
I agree and I think a few people are being a bit overly critical of what was left out. Many are mentioning St Mungos and Ron's quidditch being left out and it ruining the film but these add nothing to the story and would have been unneccessary roaRAB to go down.

However the main thing they cut, the one thing that would have made the film a whole lot better and taken up about 5minutes of screen time was the scene after climax in Dumbledore's office. Audiences who haven't read the books need an explanation of what had just happened and why Voldie wanted the prophecy in the first place. Plus I think Harry having a meltdown and smashing up his office would have been an iconic movie moment. Apparently they did film this.
 
I will be quite disappointed if in the final book Jk rowling does not explain why some muggles are witches and wizarRAB and at hogwarts ie hermione granger? both muggle parents yet she is witch.

and voledmort is a hypocrite he is a half blood as well.

and voledmort is the way he is cos he was denied the defence agianst the dark arts job?

i think he will b ekilled by older magic that he knows nothing of or is ignorant off as dumbledore as pointe dout think that is one major clue.

so dark or old magic.

any ideas what people thikn the deathly hallows are?

roll on saturday all will be revealed
 
I think: "He works there - he was attacked there" was enough of a explanation for the movie - worked for me. Why did we need to know more? Do we know people who work there have set 9-5 hours? Why he was there is irrelevant for the film version.

Perhaps there could have been more there, but as someone who is sick to the back teeth of overblown three hour summer movies that seriously need an editor, what we had worked well, and was self contained logically.
 
I very much liked the film, but for me two key points from the book were missed:

- It wasn't made at all clear, prior to it happening, that falling through the archway would result in certain death. This lessened the impact of Sirius's death for me, and I only fully understood that he was dead because I'd read the book. I was with two people who hadn't, and were both quite confused by that scene.

- It was never mentioned that Trewlaney had made the prophecy that relates to Harry. I thought they were building up to that, when Umbridge was demanding that she make a prophecy, and then sacking her, but it was still cut.

I don't mind stuff being cut when it's irrelevant (like I'm not bothered by the absence of all the stuff about Ron being on the Quidditch team) but some things need to be included. It's a bit like in Prisoner of Azkaban when they made a real mess of things regarding the Marauder's Map. They showed the map, and showed who had made it by nickname - Padfoot, Prongs, Moody and Wormtail - but never explained who those characters were! As such, if you haven't read the book but have only seen the film, you'll have no idea of the significance of Harry's Patronus being a stag.
 
Back
Top