Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
http://www.chud.com/60160/movie-of-the-day-harry-potter-and-the-chamber-of-secrets/
We're doing them all! And the forum should start auto-posting them soon, but if you'd like to talk about the first film here, I'm sure Erix would dig some more discussion. :)
Is this really the least popular in the series? I thought the general consensus is that while still not as good as the "real" ones, it has better pacing, plot, villains, and effects than the first.
That first picture of Isaacs is beyond perfect.
Nick Cave should've been brought in from the very beginning of the first movie! DISAGREE.
I remember a friend of mine not liking the casting of Branagh simply because he wasn't the dashing looker she imagined when she read the book. Pshaw!
Schwartz, I don't think it's an 'official' view. But I have heard the sentiment whispered before. It has the rotten luck of being Columbus' second outing with the series. He was given kudos for getting it going, but didn't really bring anything particularly new to the 2nd movie. And it was starting to feel like he was basically xeroxing the books, being too afraid to excise anything. I mean, isn't the 2nd movie the longest of the films so far?
I remember the final scene ("There's no Hogwarts without you, Hagrid!" AWWWWWWWW) getting some hate around here in some threads.
For good reason. It's artificial as all hell. But all of these films except the first one have blown the final moment in some way.
Chamber's a mixed bag. Sorcerer's Stone suffers for needing to lay down the foundation for everything to come. Chamber suffers on its own terms. For all the foreshadowing of elements that would come into play later, there's still just some piss poor execution going on. The scene with Polyjuiced Harry and Ron talking with Malfoy is still especially cringeworthy.
Sidenote on the Lockhart factor I found out while reading up on my Phoenix writeup: apparently Branagh *was* going to cameo if they kept the St. Mungos scenes which were in the early drafts of that script. The movie works better just getting down to business at the Ministry, but Lockhart's an awesome dickhead in Chamber.
And agreed on Lucius Malfoy. He's as amazing in this flick as he is down the road. Possibly one of the only adults I can say that about, all of whom stumble somewhere along the line.
The Columbus movies actually seem to follow your generic superhero movie pattern. The first one spends most of its energy introducing the world and a bunch of characters with the last 1/3 rushing through a standard adventure story. The second one is a much more assured outing in front of and behind the camera, and a more cohesive storyline. That's a relative scale, of course. Chamber still makes time for mostly pointless interludes for the Dursleys and Quidditch and such.
I know FOR A FACT (I'm just very certain) that the Quidditch match in this movie re-uses a Williams cue from the Coruscant speeder chase from Attack of the Clones (which I think came out in the same year). That always really bugged me.
For good reason. It's artificial as all hell. But all of these films except the first one have blown the final moment in some way.
People say this all the time, but I love freeze frame Harry in Prisoner of Azkaban, and Voldemort taking the Elder Wand seemed the ideal way to end Deathly Hallows Part 1.
I know FOR A FACT (I'm just very certain) that the Quidditch match in this movie re-uses a Williams cue from the Coruscant speeder chase from Attack of the Clones (which I think came out in the same year). That always really bugged me.
It's not the same cue, but they're really similar.
I found the freeze-frame at the end of Azkaban strange the first time I saw it, but it has really grown on me as I read the books. Final triumphant moment before things got darker, an all... I also love that it's the first movie in the series to curb that need to end every film with a formulaic good-bye. No train. No ceremony. Just Harry getting the broom he wanted.
It's not the same cue, but they're really similar.
Yeah, it could just be Williams working on auto-pilot from the needs of a rushed schedule (which I hear was one of the reasons he hasn't worked on these movies since the third?). But jeez... it sounds so very similar. It's only about 10 seconds of score that's mostly overpowered by an aggressive sound mix, but it's really distracting.
People say this all the time, but I love freeze frame Harry in Prisoner of Azkaban, and Voldemort taking the Elder Wand seemed the ideal way to end Deathly Hallows Part 1.
Ive said before that I kinda dig Azkaban's ending as the last moment Harry Potter is ever a child, but it's still kinda awkwardly handled. Elder Wand Get in DH 1 is a logical jumping off point, but there's really no perfect place to split that book in two. It just kinda cuts for a year-long intermission.
Nobody really ever mentions it (and that may be because I'm full of shit and pulling it out of my ass), but I kind of tend to hold the first two books (and movies, to a degree) up to a bit of critical immunity simply because I don't know if Rowling knew what was going to come of it, almost like she wrote purposely restricted the first two just in case they didn't sell for shit and she wasn't allowed to go any further and wouldn't have had to end it with any gigantic loose threads.
Also, I've tried to "Like" this article like 4 times now and it hasn't worked. I need to look at that...
The only good things in Chamber were Branaugh and the way they lit Lucius's face like Morticia Addams when he talks to Harry in Dumbledore's office.
The CGI Basilisk is still pretty convincing when it's darting around in the chamber.
Nobody really ever mentions it (and that may be because I'm full of shit and pulling it out of my ass), but I kind of tend to hold the first two books (and movies, to a degree) up to a bit of critical immunity simply because I don't know if Rowling knew what was going to come of it, almost like she wrote purposely restricted the first two just in case they didn't sell for shit and she wasn't allowed to go any further and wouldn't have had to end it with any gigantic loose threads.
Also, I've tried to "Like" this article like 4 times now and it hasn't worked. I need to look at that...
The first three books were also the most heavily edited and overseen by the publishers, from what I understand. I imagine they had the same idea -- well hell, what if it never goes to all seven? -- and twisted her arm a bit to fit within a certain youthful style. Once they became runaway hits with kids and adults alike (and Rowling fell behind schedule), they gave her a free rein, stopped editing them, and even stopped Americanizing them.
I actually think it's a shame they didn't edit a few of those -- Order of the Phoenix is so goddamn repetitive. Scholastic needed to dial back the greed, up the security, and take out 95% of the "Umbridge looked toad like" descriptions. The book would have been shorter by half, and would flow so much better.
HEM! HEM!
Columbus' job on the first film was both rewarding and unenviable- rewarding because, well, he got to make the first Harry Potter movie, but unenviable because he felt had to stay as close to the source material as possible to not piss off a built-in fan base that had gained some serious momentum (we were up to Goblet Of Fire in print at that point). For me, the result was a mixed bag- Stone was pretty magical, visually, but lacked its own identity. It came across a little cold to me on my first viewing. I warmed up to it, eventually, but it's still the one I rewatch the least- there are some parts that really drag, right from the get-go (example: did we need Dumbledore to take that long to douse all the street lights with the deluminator?), but I now chalk that (and really, most of the movie) up to Columbus' need to introduce Rowling's world to the uninitiated.
Chamber does some of the same stuff, but, thankfully, Columbus seemed to be having a blast this time around. Like you pointed out, Branagh swoops in and chews scenery in that smarmy way only he can, and Isaacs brings an almost operatic energy to the proceedings with his holier-than-thou evil sonofabitch-ness (seriously, that little scene between him and Arthur Weasley at… Flourish & Botts(?) is one of my favorites in the whole series). It's as if Columbus realized his gamble paid off with Stone and he was able to relax, let his actors do their thing, and concentrate on the fun. Stuff like the pixies scene and the (creeeeeepy) spider colony scene are so very memorable because they're not afraid to be over-the-top. The movie's still a bit too long, but unlike the first (for me, anyway) that doesn't detract from its rewatchability. It's just so damned fun. It makes me wonder where C.C. would have taken the series if he had stayed on as director… but you'll hear no complaints from me about Alfonso Cuarón. Azkaban is still my favorite of the films.
Anyway, this post was too long (like the first two movies! Booyah!), but I blame that on you, E-Rapp. Your write up was so good it made me want to talk Potter. Huzzah!
Let's just make this the master thread for the Potter MODs, shall we?
Day 3:
http://www.chud.com/60319/movie-of-the-day-harry-potter-and-the-prisoner-of-azkaban/
An excellent summary of why Azkaban is my favorite. Once Jeremy puts up his write-up on Goblet, you must post about your anger towards it! I feed off the fury!
Spot on, Renn.
If I were to introduce a friend without prior Potter knowledge to the movie series (don't think I have any of those, though), I'd start them here and tell them to just go forward. When all was said and done, I'd leave it up to them to watch the first two movies and call them "prequels".
Also, it's nice to know I'm not the only one out there who feels that Goblet Of Fire was a little awkward, cinematically. It plays out more like an homage to the first two movies than a logical step forward. It's like a step sideways. Ultimately, though, it's OK, since, as you said, the series shifts "into high gear" with Phoenix. Goblet is almost like the calm before the storm.
Also also, nearly everyone I know thinks I'm nuts when I tell them I prefer Gambon to Harris. It's maddening. Harris's Dumbledore almost feels like he's the subdued, dying version that Gambon masterfully portrays in Half-Blood Prince. Of course, Hodgkin's will do that to you, so... I guess I'm just an insensitive prick.
Anyway, I'm loving these retrospectives.
People who hate Gambon inevitably fall back on something like "Harris is closer to the book!" Ignoring the fact that what's closest to the book is irrelevant when it comes to quality, book Dumbledore is a total kook. Gambon in Prisoner of Azkaban is perfect.
Harris was a fine/bland choice that didn't particularly go against the description of Dumbledore in the first two, but he was not an investment in the franchise. Consider all of the subtext and questionable history Rowling ladled on to the character, then try and imagine Harris' creaky old wizard embodying any of that. Like Gandalf, Dumbledore has to be vital, alive, and ruthless, though ultimately kind. Gambon is everything that character should be.
Ultimately it boils down to the fact that the faceless, straw-man viewer that prefers Harris is a goddamn butthole.
Besides, don't they repeatedly say in the books that Dumbledore is the only wizard that Voldemort is afraid of? I could never buy that with Harris. To me, Gambon had the kind, old man exterior, but with hints of the ole' badass lying underneath. Like when you find out your grandfather used to be a Marine.
...or shit, what Renn said.
During Azkaban, I found myself disappointed with Gambon's performance. It wasn't a poor performance by any stretch of the imagination, but I felt that it lacked a very necessary sense of warmth that Harris had brought to the role. By the time I finished watching Goblet, however, that sense of disappointment--whether it was because Gambon had adjusted the role or because I was simply used to him--had apparated (see what I did there?). Now, I think Gambon is a fantastic Dumbledore and one that, frankly, pulls off the strength (physicality?) of that character in a way that Harris probably could not hope to at such a late stage.
ETA: or more or less what Renn and Dirty said. *sigh*
Having seen the first seven films over the course of a week it boggles my mind that anyone can hold up The Philospher's Stone over Chamber of Secrets. Chamber of Secrets is overlong and still sort of hamstrung by Columbus's Victorian fetish but it's got momentum and a sense of fun the first film wishes it had. It's also got Branagh, who just nails Lockheart. Love every moment he's on screen and he's up there with David Thewlis in terms of injecting the guest teacher of the year with personality.
I actually hold up Azkaban, Goblet and Phoenix as the highpoints of the series and they all suceed in very different, very unique ways. I've always found Azkaban a little episodic and a little scatter brained in its focus, whilst Goblet of Fire is really helped by the rigid structure given to it by the trials themselves, it still amazes me that Phoenix manages to condense the book AND make the film fun. Really interested to hear your thoughts on those films, because I know that Mick Newell's film in particular doesn't have many defenders.
The last thing I ever thought I'd read describing Harris' take on Dumbledore is bland. He brought a subtle sense of confidence and power mixed in with the warmth. His interpretation was the book come to life. I loved what he brought, and really wanted to see what he did with the part as the movies became more complex. (He might've been more Alec Guinness than Ian McKellen, but that's cool) Gambon's take lacks the sense of wizened intelligence and zen calm.
The last thing I ever thought I'd read describing Harris' take on Dumbledore is bland. He brought a subtle sense of confidence and power mixed in with the warmth. His interpretation was the book come to life. I loved what he brought, and really wanted to see what he did with the part as the movies became more complex.
Agreed. The biggest loss to the series is to see what Richard Harris might have done had he lived to see the series through.
As great as Harris was, he really didn't have the vigour or sense of power to really capture Dumbledore. I actually quite liked the transition, because Gambon brought a tempremental, obtuse, quality to the character which really encapsulated how Harry couldn't solely rely on the adults as the series progressed.
Gambon never really got the character 100% right until Half Blood Prince, and he's just all sorts of wrong in Goblet, mostly from Mike Newell directing him to be Gandalf than anything else. But while Harris has the right presence for a kid's story wizard in Sorcerer's Stone, even if he hadn't been dying by Chamber, he would be just completely lifeless in that flick. That's a complaint one can never lobby at Gambon.
On the topic of Azkaban, though, Gambon nailed Dumbledore for one moment here, and we never see that Dumbledore again till Phoenix:
"Professor! We did it!"
"Did what? Good niiiiiight. *hums*"
Quote:
Gambon never really got the character 100% right until Half Blood Prince, and he's just all sorts of wrong in Goblet, mostly from Mike Newell directing him to be Gandalf than anything else. But while Harris has the right presence for a kid's story wizard in Sorcerer's Stone, even if he hadn't been dying by Chamber, he would be just completely lifeless in that flick. That's a complaint one can never lobby at Gambon.
On the topic of Azkaban, though, Gambon nailed Dumbledore for one moment here, and we never see that Dumbledore again till Phoenix:
"Professor! We did it!"
"Did what? Good niiiiiight. *hums*"
I disagree about Goblet. His frustration with knowing for a fact that somebody is fucking with the tournament and Harry, mixed with the fact that he knew Voldemort's return was imminent, the growing friction with the Ministry- these are the worst moments for him, as he's still trying to keep the status quo maintained and focused before it all falls apart. I love his obvious frustration.
Harris was Dumbldoreclaus.
Gambon exudes wisdom with the best. More importantly though, he exudes a sense of keen rationality. And his calm moments with Harry are beautiful- calm exchanges of respect and common understanding of tragedy amidst all the laying down of knowledge. I'm really not suggesting Harris was shit or anything, but Gambon captured the little eccentricities and the big-picture traits that make Dumbledore feel like a wizard as wise and powerful as Gandalf, without being a clone of him. There's nothing I enjoy more about rereading the books than visualizing how he might have performed all the extra material.
I'd love to back and forth on this all day, but I'm about to retreat to the woods to put together my thoughts on the final movie. I can't wait for it to be out there and to discuss it with all of you!
His interpretation was the book come to life.
If you haven't read the book, sure. Dumbledore has to be strong. Harris was frail. Dumbledore is a kook. Harris was not.
The scene in Azkaban where Gambon delays the Minister's execution of Buckbeak, walks outside, explains how "extraordinary" it is that Buckbeak is gone, then wants a Brandy and gets a stern "fuck you" in to the executioner -- that's Dumbledore.
I loved Harris to begin with, he's Richard fucking Harris! He's awesome! Of course he'd make a great wizard! Just look at him!
And that's the problem: he makes a great wizard. Frail looking, raspy voiced, intelligent. He plays Dumbledore as "the wizard you see in your head", not actually Dumbledore, with all the character's little ticks. Gambon is (was?) great and his absence was felt during HP 7.1.
Edit: wait, Cuaron hasn't made another movie since Children of Men? What the hell, universe?
Having seen the first seven films over the course of a week it boggles my mind that anyone can hold up The Philospher's Stone over Chamber of Secrets. Chamber of Secrets is overlong and still sort of hamstrung by Columbus's Victorian fetish but it's got momentum and a sense of fun the first film wishes it had. It's also got Branagh, who just nails Lockheart. Love every moment he's on screen and he's up there with David Thewlis in terms of injecting the guest teacher of the year with personality.
I actually hold up Azkaban, Goblet and Phoenix as the highpoints of the series and they all suceed in very different, very unique ways. I've always found Azkaban a little episodic and a little scatter brained in its focus, whilst Goblet of Fire is really helped by the rigid structure given to it by the trials themselves, it still amazes me that Phoenix manages to condense the book AND make the film fun. Really interested to hear your thoughts on those films, because I know that Mick Newell's film in particular doesn't have many defenders.
I'm with you 100% on everything here except for the relative strength of Goblet. I don't really hold that against Newell, though, as I think he brought a strong visual aesthetic (outside the butt-ugly merpeople sequence) and gets good performances out of his cast, although everyone is so settled in by that point that it probably wasn't so big an accomplishment. My problems with Goblet are writing ones; there's explicitly no stakes in the majority of the action sequences, much as the story would like us to believe otherwise, and it irks me how we never really meet Mad-Eye in this installment but subsequent ones try to cash in on the impostor's characterization anyway. Also, the fiendish conspiracy plot is even more nonsensical than usual.
The Yule Ball and finale are really strong, though. And I like how retroactively perfect Robert Pattinson's casting is as the pretty boy who we/Harry only grudgingly accept is actually a decent bloke.
I just think that Newell manages to give real energy to the scenes school scenes. I think Goblet and Half Blood are the two films where the classroom scenes are the funnest bits in the film, a lot of the other films seem to charge headlong through the classroom stuff to get to the adventures of the core-trio or do something with the meta-plot, both Goblet and Half Blood let the kid actors (and not just the main three) carry the film. The stuff with Mad Eye Moody is a problem, but it's a problem with the writing of the book itself and the characters non-presence in the following films.
I always felt Rowling made a minor misstep by having Barty Crouch Jr. dealt with at the end of Goblet. It would have made sense to have him brought back as one of the main Death Eaters in the later books. As it stands aside from Lucius Malfoy (whose kind of a simp in those last few books) and Bellatrix there really don't feel like there are many established Death Eaters in those final books. They all feel like one shot extras, rather than characters themselves.
I just think that Newell manages to give real energy to the scenes school scenes. I think Goblet and Half Blood are the two films where the classroom scenes are the funnest bits in the film, a lot of the other films seem to charge headlong through the classroom stuff to get to the adventures of the core-trio or do something with the meta-plot, both Goblet and Half Blood let the kid actors (and not just the main three) carry the film.
Absolutely this. I admit I have a soft spot for the film, as it's the first one I saw as Potter fan/convert. I dismissed the series after seeing Sorceror's Stone. Friends and the quality of Azkaban convinced me to read the books when HBP was coming out in 05, and it was book 4 that finally hooked me on the series. In my opinion, Newell nailed the character/school stuff, the yule ball being a particular highlight. Unfortunately he completely fumbles the action set pieces.
I will say that I loved Doyle's score, and always wished he'd gotten to do another one. Harry in Winter is one of my favorite pieces from the series.
I'll let Jeremy link to his own work, but re: what we were going on about on Facebook last night? Beaters, dissemble. Great writeup. And yeah, agreed that the final, final moments of Goblet cut the legs right out from under it, to say nothing of the fact that as well as Gambon handles the eulogy, so much of that punch is lost without Dumbledore getting into a screaming match with Cornelius Fudge. None of the amazing foreshadowing of the final chapters of that book make it onscreen. Thats my major beef with it.
Hush! All we need is people happily waving good-bye to good friends! And "Priori Incantatum! ... that's all."
Great write-up, Jeremy.
One good thing came from this movie for me: it made me read the books. For a while, my friends swore by the books and sang their praises. I kept teasing them for having so much invested in children’s books. I enjoyed the first two movies, and loved the third, so I was excited going into this one. When I walked out of the theater I was so confused. It looked pretty, but the story didn’t make a ton of sense. My friends tried to explain, but the movie is such a cliff’s notes version, it wasn’t helping. So I read the books (very, very quickly) and got caught up.
Today, Goblet is by far my least favorite, but I have grown to appreciate most of it. It’s just disjointed as all hell. My friends that loved the books well before me? They are a bit unreasonable. They refuse to own, watch or consider this entry for one reason. One reason only. They hate when Dumbledore runs over to Harry and demands to know if he put his name in. They feel like it is so out of character for Dumbledore it actually ruins the WHOLE FUCKING MOVIE for them. Maybe I am making excuses, but I think it is very much in character. I don’t see that scene as outright anger. I see it as fear and anger as though coming from a parent. It is one of the few extremely human moments in the movie. And it’s the human moments that work the best in this entry anyway as evidenced in the review.
There is something I still have a hard time getting over though. Emma Watson’s acting. She acts with her eyebrows through the whole movie and it drives me batty. One would hope Newell would have noticed that, but he didn’t. So, I am left staring at Watson’s kinetic as hell eyebrows every time she talks. She has adopted this technique since, but it isn’t nearly as apparent as it is in Goblet.
From this point forward, the movies were hampered with highly condensed versions of the stories, but this movie shows it the most in my opinion. This was the only time they couldn’t seem to focus on a main story. While the movies to follow have several unexplained scenes, they still have some focus.
I'm actually one of those that really hate angry bulldog Dumbledore. It was just so off-putting. It was an interesting acting choice on paper, but it really doesn't work for me. It really feels like he's taking it out on Harry. It's as if the raging teen hormones that drenches the 4th film rubbed off on Dumbledore as well.
OH SNAP I didn't realize this had become the catch-all. So, um, yeah - Goblet of Fire, everyone: http://www.chud.com/60460/movie-of-the-day-harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire-2005/
And thanks for the kind words guys (AND I TOLD YOU, JUSTIN)
And for the record, I loved that scene with Dumbledore and saw it exactly as WD40 saw it, which made me angry when they just dropped it. I also agree with Justin that the shouting match should have been left in - admittedly I kinda had forgotten about it since it's been forever since I've read the books but as soon as Justin mentioned it I was like "OHYEAH."
Dumbledore grabbing Harry didn't ruin the whole fucking movie for me, but it was jarring. The movie was honestly screwed for me going in because I wasn't the biggest fan of the book. This was the book that really highlighted the things that annoy me about the series. At this point in the series, I was getting sick of the "villain of the week" pattern that Rowling was developing in the books. I wanted some goddamn Voldemort, and I don't mean just showing up at the end only to be defeated like a Scooby-Doo baddie. I wanna see Voldemort fucking fools up much more than I wanna see who's dating who. In fact, the only relationship that had a bit of poignancy in the books that is practically absent in the films is Lupin/Tonks. The rest of the couples can get the fuck out, in my opinion.
I'm actually one of those that really hate angry bulldog Dumbledore. It was just so off-putting. It was an interesting acting choice on paper, but it really doesn't work for me. It really feels like he's taking it out on Harry. It's as if the raging teen hormones that drenches the 4th film rubbed off on Dumbledore as well.
No offense at all man, but I am curious if you have a kid? I have witnessed it as an ex-child, and currently witness it from my friends that have kids. Parents practically attack their children when they get scares like that. They DO take it out on their kids. I can't tell you how many times I scared my parents as a kid. My parents were seconds away from beating the shit out of me simply because my actions scared them. I heard far too many times, "How dare you run off in a crowd like that!" or "I was calling for you for hours!"
It isn't rational, but it's very real reaction. I mean, damn, even when my dog escapes the yard I get angry at him, and that's just a pet. If my kid did the same, I would be so overwhelmed with emotion, my first inclination would be red-hot anger. Personally, I would have been far more annoyed had Dumbledore just kicked back all chill-like. Not only do I praise the decision to make him human in that scene, but it further cements the underlying idea of Dumbledore being a father figure to Harry. I absolutely applaud that scene.
But I admit. I have no kids, so maybe my impression of reality is skewed.
No offense at all man, but I am curious if you have a kid? I have witnessed it as an ex-child, and currently witness it from my friends that have kids. Parents practically attack their children when they get scares like that. They DO take it out on their kids. I can't tell you how many times I scared my parents as a kid. My parents were seconds away from beating the shit out of me simply because my actions scared them. I heard far too many times, "How dare you run off in a crowd like that!" or "I was calling for you for hours!"
It isn't rational, but it's very real reaction. I mean, damn, even when my dog escapes the yard I get angry at him, and that's just a pet. If my kid did the same, I would be so overwhelmed with emotion, my first inclination would be red-hot anger. Personally, I would have been far more annoyed had Dumbledore just kicked back all chill-like. Not only do I praise the decision to make him human in that scene, but it further cements the underlying idea of Dumbledore being a father figure to Harry. I absolutely applaud that scene.
But I admit. I have no kids, so maybe my impression of reality is skewed.
I agree, the only problem is that it doesn't mesh with Dumbledore's later "I thought if I distanced myself from you..." monologue in PHOENIX. Though that may have been just a misstep on Yates' part - it's okay though because it leads to Radcliffe's aMAzing "LOOK AT ME!" moment.
I agree, the only problem is that it doesn't mesh with Dumbledore's later "I thought if I distanced myself from you..." monologue in PHOENIX. Though that may have been just a misstep on Yates' part - it's okay though because it leads to Radcliffe's aMAzing "LOOK AT ME!" moment.
How so? He doesn't get it into his head that he needs to keep his distance from Harry until after Voldemort comes back at the very end of GOBLET.
I'll admit that it was this entry in the book/movie franchise that made me think Dumbledore was a bad guy, or at least one of the Death Eaters in disguise.....all cause of that goddamn polyjuice potion.
No offense at all man, but I am curious if you have a kid? I have witnessed it as an ex-child, and currently witness it from my friends that have kids. Parents practically attack their children when they get scares like that. They DO take it out on their kids. I can't tell you how many times I scared my parents as a kid. My parents were seconds away from beating the shit out of me simply because my actions scared them. I heard far too many times, "How dare you run off in a crowd like that!" or "I was calling for you for hours!"
It isn't rational, but it's very real reaction. I mean, damn, even when my dog escapes the yard I get angry at him, and that's just a pet. If my kid did the same, I would be so overwhelmed with emotion, my first inclination would be red-hot anger. Personally, I would have been far more annoyed had Dumbledore just kicked back all chill-like. Not only do I praise the decision to make him human in that scene, but it further cements the underlying idea of Dumbledore being a father figure to Harry. I absolutely applaud that scene.
But I admit. I have no kids, so maybe my impression of reality is skewed.
No offense taken, and you bring up a VERY good point. I have no kids. But I do have a pet and have experienced that feeling of terror and directed anger. I think it comes down to me having a very definite idea of Dumbledore from the books as I raise him up on a fictional pedestal as a man who would be beyond becoming so blusteringly angry and out of the loop. He never came across that way in the books, and GoF is really the only movie where he does.
As I said... it's a choice that sounds fine on paper, but rubs me the wrong way in execution. I'd prefer my disillusionment with the character to come in the 7th book! ... but then the movies really seemed to have dropped that.
Order of the Phoenix: http://www.chud.com/60301/movie-of-the-day-harry-potter-and-the-order-of-the-phoenix/
My favorite of the series until I saw DH2. Harry finally mans the fuck up and becomes a respected leader who his peers would march into battle with. They streamlined the fuck out of the book, which I honestly didn't mind all that much, but I didn't like how the Harry/Cho break-up went down onscreen. As it stands in the film, she gave up the Order because she'd been dose with Veritaserum, but Harry treats her like some wretched traitor. There's that shot where she tries to talk to him and he just walks right by her without saying a word. Made Harry look like a world-class dick.
My favorite of the series until I saw DH2. Harry finally mans the fuck up and becomes a respected leader who his peers would march into battle with. They streamlined the fuck out of the book, which I honestly didn't mind all that much, but I didn't like how the Harry/Cho break-up went down onscreen. As it stands in the film, she gave up the Order because she'd been dose with Veritaserum, but Harry treats her like some wretched traitor. There's that shot where she tries to talk to him and he just walks right by her without saying a word. Made Harry look like a world-class dick.
At the time that happened though we didn't know she'd been dosed with the serum - that was only established later. Granted, Yates missed a tiny opportunity to redeem Harry for that little (slightly understandable at the time) dick move by not having him apologize to Cho. Or did he and I'm not remembering?
After the kiss, Cho doesn't even get a line beyond "Harry..." until Deathly Hallows Pt. 2.
This might not be the best place to post, but I am trying to avoid the Post Release thread (even as someone that has read the books a few times!) I hate to give the man any acknowledgement, but is anyone surprised Armond-“fuckstain”-White blasted the hell out of the movie and the series?
Anyway, as my comment states, OotP is by far my favorite book and contended with PoA as my favorite movie for a while. I still think PoA hits the points of the book better, but it also has the advantage of being shorter. I guess I just like the characters in PoA so much it carries into the movie. I have way more goodwill towards Sirius and Lupin than PoA encourages (eh maybe Lupin deserves it) just because of the literary versions of the characters.
To this day I am shocked that I enjoy OotP so much. I had very high standards for it and it didn’t even come close to the movie I expected. Major kudos for getting to the meat of the story. I just find it interesting that the longest book is the shortest movie. (I refuse to accept that 7.1 or 7.2 are separate movies. They were filmed as one and regardless of how awkward they will be viewed as one in the future, I just can’t see it any other way.)
However, this movie makes me wish I had never read the books. I would love to know if this series makes sense to someone that knows absolutely nothing about the story beforehand. I partially envy those people. Yet, I do not regret the experience I had reading the final book. I wish I could have just waited until the 6th movie and then plowed through all of the books at that time.
Sorry I suck. My thoughts are horribly written and organized.
