Harry Potter
Nov. 21st, 2002 01:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellio![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
lefkowitzga
and tangerinpenguin for dinner at
PF Chang (very good!) and Harry Potter
(ok).
Food: PF Chang is apparently a chain, and they have some "signature" dishes. One of these is the "lettuce wraps", which are sort of like moo-shoo but with lettuce instead of pancakes. We got the vegetarian ones and they were very good. The "ma-po tofu" was also very good, with a tasty sauce that was not especially hot. (I would like to learn to cook tofu like this, and I don't know what the secret is to get pieces that are firm, almost "crispy" on the edges, and thoroughly cooked.) We also had the baked fish (tilapia, yesterday) with ginger. Mmm, ginger. The carnivores at the table ate two other dishes that I can't comment on.
Movie (without spoilers): It had some very funny bits (including a great one at the very end of the closing credits). Technically and acting-wise, it was pretty well-done. It was entertaining. It was not as good as the first one. And it had some character behavior that was either nonsensical or insufficiently justified; I gather it's the same in the books, which I have not read. So overall, it gets an "ok" from me.
I can suspend disbelief pretty easily for most things -- technology, alien worlds, magic, alternate history, even hard sciences to a degree. Just show me the ground rules of the story's world, and I can roll with it (even Star Trek, most of the time). But I've found that I cannot hold out against characters who behave in ways that do not fit with their characters as we've been given to understand them. I can't easily suspend disbelief about behavior. And in this movie, either some key characters (one in particular) behaved nonsensically, or their motivations were not sufficiently explained.
Ok, why is Dumbledore being so hands-off when there is a clear danger to the school and its inhabitants and it's pretty darn obvious that he knows Potter is up to something? He invites Potter to 'fess up, not once but twice, but does nothing when Potter fails to do so. The movie gives no motivation for that behavior at all. It wouldn't have been hard: I could accept, say, a geas that prevents him from providing help uninvited. I could also accept the behavior if combined with any sort of "what was I thinking?" moment later in the movie. But we didn't get anything like that. This is my big complaint with the plot, though there are also some smaller-scale issues of this sort.
Err, we're supposed to accept an entire stadium full of wizards who can clearly see that something dangerous is happening in the quiddich match, yet none of them so much as calls a time-out (let alone zapping the errant ball)? Maybe quiddich simply needs to be better motivated in the movies.
And then there's Haggart. What exactly was the point of sending the kids into the spider den? The spiders made it clear that they owed allegiance to Haggart but no one else; did Haggart not know that when he sent them in? (I thought this part of the story was pretty pointless anyway; they did not learn anything useful from the spiders and it took up quite a bit of screen time.)
And finally (for now, anyway), doesn't the HR department require a portfolio presentation, or at lease a reference check, before hiring a professor? Sheesh. :-)
Short takes:
- That phoenix is pretty cool!
- That poor owl -- not even a seat belt. :-)
- How did they do the elf? Was it a puppet, or CGI, or what? It worked well as comic relief. The part at the end was fun.
- I was surprised to see Haggart with a fairly normal pet, after last time.
- "Can you tell me?" "Yes." Perfect.
- I take it that Hermione is similar to Jason Fox in her attitude toward school. :-)
- Oh, and this was definitely a much classier grade of commercials than I was used to. The trailers were a mixed bag (there's some animated thing coming up that looks really, really stupid). But no LOTR trailer! There was supposed to be an LOTR trailer!
(no subject)
Date: 2002-11-21 11:34 am (UTC)No, the running gag throughout the series is that there's going to be a different Defense of the Dark Arts teacher every year and Snopes will never get the job! :D Voldemort does NOT appear in "Prisoner of Azkaban" or "Goblet of Fire"
The elf was CGI, however the credits threw me for half a second when they gave the name of the actor who played him. It took me a few seconds to realize they were referring to the actor who voiced his lines! :D
The biggest problem I had with the movie was the car. In the book, it got totalled by the whomping willow. In the movie, it's animated and driving itself to rescue the boys. This was never properly explained
(no subject)
Date: 2002-11-21 11:39 am (UTC)Without wishing to give much away, that's not how I remember it.
In the book, the car did return to rescue the boys--it had gone wild from living in the forest.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-11-21 12:43 pm (UTC)Not to give anything away, but this is extremely untrue.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-11-21 01:11 pm (UTC)*shiver*
Bad Dagonell! Bad Elf! Must be punished!