cellio | Harry Potter

(Ok, let's see if this will post today.)

We went to see the Harry Potter movie Monday night. Before that, though... this had to have been the most unappealing set of previews I've seen in a while:

Spongebob Squarepants: Um, I think they might not quite have this movie's demographic nailed.
Spiderman 2: Eh. Didn't see #1 and won't see this, but they're closer to the demographic.
Sleep Over: Eww. Just... eww. Inane gigly teenage girls sneak around their parents and have cat-fights. Um, yeah. Maybe Spongebob wasn't so bad after all.
Catwoman: If, like me, you have not read the comics (I assume there are comics), you get no information about this movie beyond "babe in black doing acrobatics". Maybe that's enough for their target demographic. (Oh, and I gather the cat-woman died and was recycled or something?)
Cinderella Story: Cinderella set in modern-day LA. Looks cute, but if the glass slipper has really been replaced by a cell phone, I would think that identification would be anti-climactic. ("Each of you, quick: what's your phone number? Ok, let's ask the phone.")
Princess Diaries 2: This looks like it could be fun. Or rather, it slightly motivates me to find #1 (this is a sequel). Dani has good things to day about the book.
Polar Express: Eww eww eww. Even if I did Christmas, and even if I had kids, I still wouldn't take them to see this bit of insipid Santa-is-love fluff.

Now, on to the HP spoilers.

Context: I have not read any of the books.

This was a pretty good adventure story about generic characters. I didn't really see a strong effect from this being specifically the Harry Potter universe. There seemed to be less character advancement and less advancement of the overall story than in the first two movies. I don't think we learned anything new about the lead characters, nor did they learn anything new about themselves. And Draco, formerly a snide force for evil, was instead a snivelling force for bully-dom in this one.

I'm not saying the actors didn't do a good job with their characters or that there weren't fun moments -- just that it didn't seem to move the way the first two did. I enjoyed seeing more of Hagrid, I thought the replacement Dumbledore was credible (but lower-key), and Snape was his usual creepy self. (I don't like the divination professor, but maybe I'm not supposed to.) I liked Lupin, though the homosexual-teacher allegory at the end was rather blunt. And I thought Sirius was done well and had some depth; I hope we'll see more of him.

That map was cute. Dani tells me that according to the book Harry's father created it; that would have been a nice detail to include.

There were some very nice effects (I liked the hippogriff in particular) and too much scenery that could have been better allocated to character time. The plot was tidy, tying up loose ends and holding together well.

One plot thing did surprise me, though: the movie makes clear, through the passage of seasons, that this Sirius Black scare lasts at least six months. If we hadn't gotten the weather scenes, it would have seemed like a few days. I did not see the rising urgency you would expect from "oh no, that murderer has been stalking us for months!". What was up with that? Did it come through more in the book?

And a nit: if time-travel is so dangerous, why the heck is the faculty letting Hermione use it to shave a semester or two off her studies?

Assessment: Much better than #2, not a rich as #1. I'll go to the next one.

We made extremely good time getting to the theatre, but were still surprised to be the first ones at this particular show. That's not really a win, though; it just meant we got to watch more commercials. Remember when you could spend pre-movie time just talking, with quiet music in the background?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

jducoeur

Spiderman: Actually, the first movie was pretty good, and I'm expecting the same from the second. (I'm not expecting to see Catwoman, though -- it looks like a complete travesty.)

(I don't like the divination professor, but maybe I'm not supposed to.)

You're not. In the book, it's quite clear that Professor Trelawney is an annoying fraud (or at least, near-fraud), and our heroes don't much care for her. But she'll become more relevant later. Indeed, much of what happens in this episode will be fleshed out more as the story progresses.

Dani tells me that according to the book Harry's father created it; that would have been a nice detail to include.

Well, I appreciate their need to trim things as much as possible to keep the story flowing. But actually, the Map is more symbolically significant than that: the four "Marauders" named on the Map are the nicknames for Harry's father, Lupin, Sirius, and Peter Pettigrue -- that's why Lupin knows exactly what it is immediately. The Map underscores Peter's betrayal.

Also clearer in the book is the relevance of animal magic. In the movie we see that Lupin is a werewolf, and Peter and Sirius are both animagi (rat and dog respectively). What the movie doesn't say is that Harry's father was *also* an animagus -- specifically, a stag. That's the significance of the shining stag seen briefly when Harry finally casts the big Patronus spell...

if time-travel is so dangerous, why the heck is the faculty letting Hermione use it to shave a semester or two off her studies?

Actually, I'm not sure anyone but Dumbledore knows about it. And he has a tendency to let the kids learn their own lessons, even when those lessons are dangerous.

(And it isn't that she's shaving time off her studies -- it's simply that she can't stand the concept of not learning *everything*, and is refusing to specialize the way everyone is supposed to. It's much clearer in the book that she's basically working herself into a coma by overuse of the time travel device...)

lefkowitzga.livejournal.com

Well, I appreciate their need to trim things as much as possible to keep the story flowing.

An interview in Entertainment Weekly mentioned that Cuaron deliberately chose to leave that for the next movie under the assumption that it would fit better there. I think it would have added to the richness of this movie to leave in the relationship between the 4 marauders. BTW, the same interview says Cuaron claims credit for convincing whomever to keep Goblet of Fire to 1 movie.

cellio

That's the significance of the shining stag seen briefly when Harry finally casts the big Patronus spell...

Aha. I initially parsed that blob of glowing light as ghostly hippogriff, then said "no that's not right", and then it was gone. I didn't see the antlers that presumably would have clued me in.

Actually, I'm not sure anyone but Dumbledore knows about it. And he has a tendency to let the kids learn their own lessons, even when those lessons are dangerous.

And even when those lessons endanger the entire school, as in the first two movies where Dumbledore (and the others) could have stepped in rather than letting the kids solve the problems. I hope this is eventually addressed -- that ought to result in a lot more owls to Dumbledore from parents than the small matter of a lycanthropic teacher!

it's simply that she can't stand the concept of not learning *everything*

Oh, ok. I can relate to that. :-)

tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com

"Fraud" is a little strong for how I read Trelawney; it suggests being more self-aware. The way I read it was she actually believed - or wanted to believe - in what she was doing, and was sort of a sad character rather than intentionally misleading. And given that teaching the principles of divination doesn't require actually having a personal talent for it, Dumbledore has the option of being generous.

As for the Time Turner, that was McGonogle's loan to Hermione. I figured she saw as student who actually wanted to learn (for once) and wasn't afraid of extra work to do it, and - combined with the fact that she will bend the rules for her House, as seen when she recruited Harry for the Quidditch team - was weak. Dumbledore just knows about it because nothing slips past him. Except for escaped murderers, and Dementors who've slipped their leash, and unregistered animagus rats, and giant demon snakes...

I had to miss a few bits of the movie due to stomach problems, so I didn't see McGonogal and Hermoine discussing the Time Turner. In the book, she mentions that they had to get special permission from the Ministry of Magic for its loan to Hermoine. Was this really bending any rules?

RE: Harry's appointment to the Quiddich team: The rule was that 1st years couldn't own their own brooms, and it was only after Harry made the team that an exception was made. Was that McGonogal's doing or would any 1st year on the Quiddich team be allowed a broom? Hmmm...

All we know from the movie is Hermione explaining to Harry that "McGonogal gave it to me first term." I'd forgotten the Ministry of Magic reference in the book, in which case things would be a bit more on the up-and-up than I thought.

As for the Quidditch team, that was more a matter of a situation where Harry (by all rights) should have been in trouble, but where McGonogal surprised him by dragging him in and announcing that "we've found our new seeker", having recognized talent in his horsing around.

Fair enough -- it's true that Trelawney isn't as much of an outright humbug as, say, Gilderoy Lockhart.

And I'd forgotten where the Time Turner came from. Interesting, but I suppose in keeping...

Monica

Harry Potter

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

Re: McGonogal

Re: McGonogal

(no subject)

Expand Cut Tags