Harry Potter & HBP Review

[ISiddiqui]

Well done and I totally agree with your last sentance. Also, while I was like, what about the Maurader's Map stuff!!1! at the time, I realize now that it really isn't that important. I mean, really, what it does it matter that his dad was one of those pranksters? I think showing his attitude towards young Snape demonstrated that more than adequately.

[gstelmack]

Well, keep in mind that I wrote that after watching the movies, reading the books, then re-watching the movies and discussing the holes that were filled in after reading the books. All of those were things that helped me understand the plot of the movies much better in areas that made little sense, or things I thought they were going to need to make the end of the story in HBP and DH make any sense at all. After how much I left GoF and OotP confused, I don't know that these next three movies would make much sense had I not read the books.

Others may well see it differently, but things like Deatheaters, Percy's role in the politics, the key roles Kreacher and Dobby play, the importance of the prophecy, all would have helped OotP make a lot more sense when I watched it the first time.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well done and I totally agree with your last sentance. Also, while I was like, what about the Maurader's Map stuff!!1! at the time, I realize now that it really isn't that important. I mean, really, what it does it matter that his dad was one of those pranksters? I think showing his attitude towards young Snape demonstrated that more than adequately.

That had a lot more to do with my not understanding Sirius' relationship as Harry's godfather, where Lupin fit in, and why they cared so much about Pettigrew. A couple of dialog lines in a movie don't really explain everything. It's like saying "because I said so" when you're a parent; that may work on a 3 year old, but does not work with teenagers or adults. And there are too many instances where the movies ask you to just accept a character's motivation without ever explaining it, and I'm left wanting / wondering.

Others have said they walked out of GoF and OotP perfectly happy, but I walked out somewhat confused after GoF and VERY confused after OotP, and reading the books cleared all of that up for me and made the second watchings much more enjoyable than the first, because it was much easier to accept the one-dialog-line explanations for things.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

That had a lot more to do with my not understanding Sirius' relationship as Harry's godfather, where Lupin fit in, and why they cared so much about Pettigrew.

Sirius tells Harry he's his godfather, we know that he was close with James and we know Sirius was setup to take the fall for Pettigrew and Harry's parents. As to why they cared so much about Pettigrew, the third movie hit us over the head pretty hard on that one. We had the scene in the inn where they talk about only 1 finger left of Pettigrew which setup Lupin telling Harry that Pettigrew was dead when he saw him on the map. Plus, we had the encounter in the shack that spelled it out pretty clearly. As to the Pettigrew younger days, there really wasn't much point in going through that. I'm not sure what going more into Lupin's backstory would have accomplished. We knew he was Sirius and James' friend at hogwarts and that he got bitten by a werewolf. That's about all you need to handle his role in the stories.

A couple of dialog lines in a movie don't really explain everything.

Hence the fatal flaw in using a movie to completely tell a story. If someone would have set out to tell the entire HP series in movie format, it would be very difficult to watch and not nearly as successful at the box office.

It's like saying "because I said so" when you're a parent; that may work on a 3 year old, but does not work with teenagers or adults. And there are too many instances where the movies ask you to just accept a character's motivation without ever explaining it, and I'm left wanting / wondering.

I would say it's more like "Why shouldn't I put my hand on the stove?" and the parent answers "Because it's hot". Now, they could go on and explain the properties that make up how the stove gets hot and the damage that can come from a burned hand, but it's not essentially to understand why the character didn't put his hand on the stove.

Others have said they walked out of GoF and OotP perfectly happy, but I walked out somewhat confused after GoF and VERY confused after OotP, and reading the books cleared all of that up for me and made the second watchings much more enjoyable than the first, because it was much easier to accept the one-dialog-line explanations for things.

I watched the first four without reading any of the books and enjoyed them. Between GoF and the Order, I read the first 5-6 books. There were some minor things that were cleared up, but not a ton. I re-watched GoF after reading the book and actually enjoyed it a little less because I did find myself for hoping for more depth in the world cup match and the story on Barty Crouch Jr. But, in reality, they wouldn't have advanced the movie that much, I just would have liked to see more of the match in the movie from a visual standpoint.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Pyser

also, the book is all about voldemorts backstory. the movie wasnt. at all.

This.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I think they made a mistake in cutting out the battle. I understand where the directors are coming from, but we're talking a battle that takes place two whole movies from now, and one which will be quite abit different. I think they missed out on a chance to really add some fireworks at the end, and maybe make Dumbledore's loss even more powerful (and I felt that was handled pretty well, even so).

They REALLY needed to include Neville more, IMO. He was basically relegated to the waiter spot at Slughorn's wedding, and no mention of his parents. For someone who has more and more importance in Book Seven, I feel he should have been featured more.

And these IMO were the glaring plot holes that needed to be filled in. Maybe you can argue that the Voldemort back story was adequately covered and debate over whether it was Harry or Neville who was The Chosen One wasn't important (although given the references on both the early newspaper and being the climactic moment in Harry getting the memory from Slughorn I would strongly disagree) but there is absolutely no way they should have changed the final battle into what it was. For a movie that felt long and slow for the first 2 hours, they sure wrapped things up relating to Dumbledore's death (what I'd argue is one of the 2 pivotal moments of the series with Harry's battle vs. Voldemort in the graveyard in Goblet of Fire the other) within 5 minutes there. It felt like a Heroes episode after budget cuts where they couldn't afford the CGI necessary.

There were so many storylines set up by that battle it will force them into re-introducing a dozen characters in movie 7. I guess they decided to dumb this movie down by cutting the number of characters but they went way too far. We see 2 members of the OotP (outside of the Weasley family), 4 members of the Death Eaters outside Draco/Snape (2 of which weren't even identified) and what, 3 other students with only Luna getting any screen time outside the teenage love quadrangle? In a 2.5 hour movie you can't go in-depth on 50 characters, but Lord of the Rings got about 15 fleshed out well, a few in less than 10 minutes of screen time, and it wouldn't have hurt to have the various teachers/DA/Death Eaters throwing spells around in the backround or hearing explosions while the same basic scene (except actually add Snape delivering his retort about closing the mind that leaves doubt as to whether Snape is good or evil for Book 7) plays out in the foreground. This is supposed to be a civilizational showdown between absolute titans in the wizarding world and its portrayed as the wizarding equivalent of Point Break's Presidents of the United States on one side and the Goonies on the other.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Arles

I watched the first four without reading any of the books and enjoyed them. Between GoF and the Order, I read the first 5-6 books.

I think that's key though, that you read the book BEFORE watching Order. That was where I really lost the plot, and I enjoyed the movie a lot more AFTER watching the book. But the first time I watched that movie I was very confused about why several things were happening. And some of the key plot points I mentioned much earlier were things that helped me understand a lot better what was going on.

[Arles]

Yeah, the order moved pretty quick and I can see that. I also agree on the final battle scene. The battle worked so well in the Order movie, it's a shame they didn't try it with a slight twist in HBP. That's the one omission that I think was a big mistake.

Still, I really enjoyed the cinematography - it was maybe the best in the series. From the opening "deatheater" flight through the city to the scene in the cave, it was a very enjoyable movie to watch.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Arles

Still, I really enjoyed the cinematography - it was maybe the best in the series. From the opening "deatheater" flight through the city to the scene in the cave, it was a very enjoyable movie to watch.

I thought the scenery might have been slightly more exquisite when Cuaron directed Goblet of Fire, but I agree they did really well here. Especially after even good action movies like Public Enemies decided to start going the Bourne route and changing angles 8 times a second during action sequences.

I was hoping to see it in IMAX last night (I guess Transformers II is exclusive until July 29th) and probably won't pay again now, but I guarantee that opening sequence would be pretty awesome there.

[terpkristin]

I thought the movie was enjoyable enough as a movie, but as a Harry Potter fan, I was let down. In the same way that I think that key points were left out of the 5th movie, key things were left out of this movie that will have to be rectified in the final films.

I also thought that the extra scene at the Burrow was awkward and felt out of place. If I remember correctly, it was something JKR had put into the draft and it didn't make it into the final version of the book...I think it was a wise cut by the editors.

I didn't think the opening sequence needed to be changed from the book, with Harry flirting with a coffee girl instead of going to the Dursley's, but I guess it wasn't a terrible thing.

It was interesting to see that they portrayed Molly Weasley as much more nervous about sending them back to school, etc than she seemed in the book.

I also don't really get why they changed the sequence with Borgin & Burke's so much. In that scene and also in ohters, it seemed like Harry forgot he had an invisibility cloak in the movie where in the book it was meant to be a constant companion.

Other things I'm kind of annoyed were missing:

Spoiler

1) The locket in the 5th movie..how will Harry know to go back to the place he OWNS (which also wasn't mentioned in this movie)?

2) The penseive scene at the Gaunt house, introducing us to the ring (which was never very well explained)

3) The penseive scene where you see Hufflepuff's cup--how will Harry know to go looking for that in the 7th film?

4) The discussions between Dumbledore and Harry that point Harry to items realted to Hogwarts

5) The fight at the end where Ginny, Hermione, Ron, Luna, and Neville fight the death eaters (with our without Bill). This I think gives us greater insight into Neville's character in particular, and since he plays such an important role in the final tome...

All in all, excluding the first 2 movies, my least favorite is the 4th, then HBP, then the 3rd and 5th are my favorites. This was quite a letdown.

/tk