![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_elyanUsed part of my time off to go and see HP5 this morning, as part one of the Potter-fest. Nine of us in the cinema (one of Cineworld's smaller screens, with slightly off-kilter sound, which made me much more aware of being outside the picture than I am in their big screens), and no chaos which is nice. So
Overall I liked it - probably better than the last one, in fact. I think this is because I found OotP lighter on plot or subpolits than the previous two, so crowbarring it into two hours ten minutes didn't seem to hack out so much. Character development suffered, of course, in some cases grievously, but that matters less because there seems to be the ghost of a consensus that the HP films are an adjunct to the books, rather than an alternative to them. It will be interesting, when the film series is complete, to see whether they tell a coherent storyline in the way the books do. I'm sure more was supposed to be made of the smashing of the Prophecy, for instance, and the provenance of same.
It also probably helps that, although I have read all the books at least twice, I am not especially fanatical about HP, so I probably miss minor infelicities.
This film seemed to have a lot less less humour than any of the previous ones. This is true to the darker tone of the book, I suppose, but even the fourth one managed to crowbar in quite a lot of levity. No Quidditch, either...
Was personally very glad to see that most of the more hormonal stuff had been removed, although my favourite line from the book - "How was it, then?" "Wet" - made the cut. In fact, now he has more of a defined Purpose, Harry seems marginally less nauseatingly adolescent than he was in the last one.
I thought Imelda Staunton got Umbridge as right as it was possible to - a disturbing resemblance to Margaret Thatcher helped (although Thatcher wouldn't have had kittens anywhere around her, unless it was to bite the heads off them when she was angry). Although she wasn't as nasty as the book perhaps demanded, there was a reserve of nastiness somewhere under the pink woollens, desperate for an opportunity to get out.
Wiothout wishing to speak ill of the dead, it's probably a good thing that Michael Gambon took over the role of Dumbledore - I don't think the way Richard Harris was playing it would have dealt well with the step up in epic energy of the last couple of outings.
It's scary to think Gary Oldman can act that well in his sleep - the series will miss him, even if he was slumming it somewhat.
I agree with (I think)![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
the_alchemist that Helena Bonham-Carter's Bellatrix is far too close to her (much superior) Ophelia in Zefferelli's Hamlet for comfort. There is also, as often with her, a charnel-house whiff of Spike's other half (whose name eludes me).
One major loss was the rest of the Order of the Phoenix vanishing into the background. Tonks is in practice the sort of character that film-makers usually flesh out a bit - to lose what presence she has in the books was a great shame, especially as I seem to remember she's a wreck for most of book six.
Luna Lovegood, on the other hand, I found wonderful. She manages that hardest of feats for a mainstream film - to create a character who is both manifestly weird, and hugely sympathetic. Her last appearance, looking for her hidden possessions and accepting with unworldly good grace the world as she finds it, was the one moment in the film that really moved me. She was also quite startlingly beautiful, which again is rare for weirdos in mainstream pictures. Since respect for diversity is one of the central messages of the HP books - "Some people are different from the rest of us, and so are the rest of us" as Clive James said - I suppose this fits, but it was still very refreshing.
The big questions for the last two films, as I see it, are:
i) why, as the books get longers, are the films getting slightly shorter?
ii) will the rapid change of directors (four for five films) affect their continuity as the story gathers pace?
iii) how are they going to get Stephen Fry into the series? I suppose he's getting big enough for Slughorn, though I still think they have a problem because they've already cast Richard Griffiths - Slughorn being effectively Uncle Monty with a box of crystallised fruits.
Still, most worthwhile, and a good curtain-raiser for the Big One.
Overall I liked it - probably better than the last one, in fact. I think this is because I found OotP lighter on plot or subpolits than the previous two, so crowbarring it into two hours ten minutes didn't seem to hack out so much. Character development suffered, of course, in some cases grievously, but that matters less because there seems to be the ghost of a consensus that the HP films are an adjunct to the books, rather than an alternative to them. It will be interesting, when the film series is complete, to see whether they tell a coherent storyline in the way the books do. I'm sure more was supposed to be made of the smashing of the Prophecy, for instance, and the provenance of same.
It also probably helps that, although I have read all the books at least twice, I am not especially fanatical about HP, so I probably miss minor infelicities.
This film seemed to have a lot less less humour than any of the previous ones. This is true to the darker tone of the book, I suppose, but even the fourth one managed to crowbar in quite a lot of levity. No Quidditch, either...
Was personally very glad to see that most of the more hormonal stuff had been removed, although my favourite line from the book - "How was it, then?" "Wet" - made the cut. In fact, now he has more of a defined Purpose, Harry seems marginally less nauseatingly adolescent than he was in the last one.
I thought Imelda Staunton got Umbridge as right as it was possible to - a disturbing resemblance to Margaret Thatcher helped (although Thatcher wouldn't have had kittens anywhere around her, unless it was to bite the heads off them when she was angry). Although she wasn't as nasty as the book perhaps demanded, there was a reserve of nastiness somewhere under the pink woollens, desperate for an opportunity to get out.
Wiothout wishing to speak ill of the dead, it's probably a good thing that Michael Gambon took over the role of Dumbledore - I don't think the way Richard Harris was playing it would have dealt well with the step up in epic energy of the last couple of outings.
It's scary to think Gary Oldman can act that well in his sleep - the series will miss him, even if he was slumming it somewhat.
I agree with (I think)
the_alchemist that Helena Bonham-Carter's Bellatrix is far too close to her (much superior) Ophelia in Zefferelli's Hamlet for comfort. There is also, as often with her, a charnel-house whiff of Spike's other half (whose name eludes me).One major loss was the rest of the Order of the Phoenix vanishing into the background. Tonks is in practice the sort of character that film-makers usually flesh out a bit - to lose what presence she has in the books was a great shame, especially as I seem to remember she's a wreck for most of book six.
Luna Lovegood, on the other hand, I found wonderful. She manages that hardest of feats for a mainstream film - to create a character who is both manifestly weird, and hugely sympathetic. Her last appearance, looking for her hidden possessions and accepting with unworldly good grace the world as she finds it, was the one moment in the film that really moved me. She was also quite startlingly beautiful, which again is rare for weirdos in mainstream pictures. Since respect for diversity is one of the central messages of the HP books - "Some people are different from the rest of us, and so are the rest of us" as Clive James said - I suppose this fits, but it was still very refreshing.
The big questions for the last two films, as I see it, are:
i) why, as the books get longers, are the films getting slightly shorter?
ii) will the rapid change of directors (four for five films) affect their continuity as the story gathers pace?
iii) how are they going to get Stephen Fry into the series? I suppose he's getting big enough for Slughorn, though I still think they have a problem because they've already cast Richard Griffiths - Slughorn being effectively Uncle Monty with a box of crystallised fruits.
Still, most worthwhile, and a good curtain-raiser for the Big One.
