Goblet of Fire Pensieve

March 21st, 2006 · 13 Comments · The Movies

I finally got a chance to sit down and watch my Goblet of Fire DVD. It’s such a fast-paced movie that taking it all in just that once in the theater was not exactly enough. I shared some initial thoughts then, and now that I’ve had a chance to take a second look, sifting through the details, here are more thoughts.

In the first place, it’s still my favorite of the four. It’s beautifully done, and I really don’t mind the fast pace of it. Some complain they can’t understand what’s going on, but my guess is that changes from person to person. I’ve heard folks who never read the books say they loved it. There were, however, some things that I found more disappointing second time ’round. Here goes.

1) Michael Gambon. I know I complained about him last time, but I just had to say it again. He is not Dumbledore. I also didn’t like how his office was always so dark.

2) The dragon scene. LaShawn Barber was not thrilled with this either, as she wrote recently:

There is no way Dumbledore would sit idly by while a fire-breathing dragon chased Harry around the school. No way.

I disagree with this reasoning in particular, because Dumbledore was just as bound by the rules of the Triwizard Tournament as anyone else. By magical law and contract, my guess is that Dumbledore simply would not have been allowed to interfere. The Tournament had killed people before.

My problem with it is its length. With so many great things to cover, and the final scene rushed, I would much rather have seen a shorter dragon scene and a longer LV rebirthing scene. Nevertheless, I can understand, from a Hollywood point of view, why the cool dragon action scene was added.

3) No Phoenix Song. This was easily my biggest frustration of the LV rebirthing scene. Priori Incantatem was really not explained at all. Dropping the Phoenix song drops one of the most important symbols of the series.

4) The Harry-Dumbledore Denouement. This portion is so critical to the books that the weak conversation, in which Priori Incantatem was not explained, and there is no dialogue about Voldemort’s using Harry’s blood was disappointing.

My guess is I’ll have even more complaints when I re-read the book again.

A few positives, then.

1) Ralph Feinnes. I’ve decided I like him as Voldemort. Arrogant, sarcastic, evil. Good job all around.

2) Harry, Ron, Hermione. All getting better with each film.

3) Added scenes. Sure, this might contradict my earlier complaint about the length of the dragon scene, but what I liked about this movie was that it was a real adaptation. They made the choice to take a 700 page book and make it a 2 and a half hour movie, and they stuck with that choice all the way through. It wasn’t the book set almost directly to film like the first two, and the added scenes (like the one where they learn to dance) are creative and fun.

4) The Castle. It actually felt like an old, mysterious castle, rather than a bright, magical wonderland like the first film.

So there’s a few more cents worth of opinion.

Share and Enjoy:

Tags:

13 responses so far ↓

1 LMB // Mar 21, 2006 at 6:53 pm

Oh, Travis! Bound by the rules? No way, no way. While I understand exactly why it was allowed in the movie, I couldn’t imagine the Dumbledore from the books allowing Harry Potter - the remarkable boy who lived, whom Voldemort marked as his “equal” when he killed his parents and tried to kill him, whose mother sacrificed herself so he could live, even though it meant enduring life with blood relatives who hated him - to be chased by a fire-breathing dragon.

I don’t believe Dumbledore would obey any rules that put Harry’s life in the balance for a mere game. Now, horcrux-chasing is a different story altogether. It’s Harry’s destiny, thanks to the Dark Lord, to risk life and limb to kill the Dark Lord. But for a shiny cup? No way, man.

But I enjoyed the post.
2 Fantasy Fiction for Christians: Christian themes and symbolism in Narnia and Harry Potter // Mar 21, 2006 at 7:17 pm

That Dragon Scene

Fellow blogger and Harry Potter fanatic Travis Prizi reviews the Goblet of Fire DVD. I said there was no way the book Dumbledore would have allowed that dragon to chase Harry around the school, and Travis disagrees, citing Triwizard Tournament Rules. …
3 Travis Prinzi // Mar 22, 2006 at 9:11 am

Just to be clear, I was referring to the actual context of the movie, not the Dumbledore we all know and love from the books. You’ll recall, I’m sure, that in the film, Dumbledore was quite against Harry’s participating (remember - we know students have died in the past, so Dumbledore could have protested the whole thing for the very same reasons you’ve given), but Barty Crouch said it was an absolutely binding magical contract.

But since the films have butchered Dumbledore, we’re talking about two very different characters, so I get what you’re saying.
4 Deborah // Mar 22, 2006 at 3:05 pm

Travis:

I completely agree with you on the whole Michael Gambon thing. I know he didn’t want to mirror the old actor, but in doing so he hopelessly undermines DD’s true nature and character as well. That has been, to this very day, my biggest dissapointment with the last 2 movies. As the series progresses, it will become more and more obvious too. Some how I just can’t see Michael Gambon as the DD we all know from the HBP.

Additionally, I completely concure with you about the actor who plays LV. He WAS perfect!

One more thing that I picked up on, which you may have commented on else where, but haven’t heard anyone complain about yet is that in the graveyard sceene, LV refers to Harry’s mother as a “Muggle” vs. a “Mudblood”. I’m truely suprised Rowling didn’t catch that one. She must be swamped!

All in all, most of the adaptations to the movie in order to meet the time requirement bother me, though I do sadly understand the need. I just make a point to anyone who liked the movie that they are guarenteed to like the book 20x better because of all the mini plots that are left out etc… for what good that does anymore. (It seems like most anyone who is interrested in reading them by now, would have already done so for the time being. I say that because, once it becomes apparent that Rowling is in fact writing Christian literature, many resistors will finally join the throngs of fans.)

Deborah
5 LMB // Mar 22, 2006 at 3:59 pm

In that regard, I wonder if we should even consider the movies part of the canon…
6 Travis Prinzi // Mar 22, 2006 at 4:40 pm

Yeah, I think that’s an important distinction. I wouldn’t consider the films part of the “canon,” which is why I liked GoF - it was obviously a film adaptation, not an attempt to put the book directly on screen.
7 jkr2 // Mar 24, 2006 at 6:55 am

all the interviews with the producer (heyman is it?) make me really like him and see him as someone devoted to the books and process etc, so it pains me to not LOVE the films.
i adore rupert grint though and think that dan radcliffe really nails certain inner aspects of harry’s character. and they seem so earnest and into the whole thing.

i totally am in your court with gambon. i actually nearly walked out whenhe shoved harry. (and i don’t walk out of movies, even if i’m bored lol). what frustrated me was seeing him interviewed and thinking he should have just talked like that instead of ‘acting’…. *sigh* this will definately hinder my pleasure of coming movies. how are we supposed to have any sense of harry’s dissillusionment when he starts to realize he’s not all knowing/ powerful since he’s already portrayed that way?

i’ve been watching snippets of the movie on line (mainly background making of stuff) and have decided i quite like all the elements. the problem was when i saw the movie itself i was about 40/60 about it. and the 60 was against. when it was all put together it didn’t work for me. i’m looking forward to seeing it again on dvd and perhaps changing that assessment.

anyway i have come to the conclusion that i can be at peace with it all by thinking of the movies as a very expensive, somewhat sophisticated fan fiction.

cheers,
jkr2 (jo in australia)
8 Crystal // Apr 23, 2006 at 7:31 am

I FINALLY just got to watch the movie…I loved L.V. in this movie. He did and excellent job!! Now D.D. is another story….he is not D.D. It seemed to me that they left out many important story lines that will come into play in OotP movie. Peter Jackman posted reasons for the changes he made to the LotR movies….does anyone know if there is a similar posting for the H.P. movies and if there is where I can find them. Mabey than I will feel better watching GoF. I can’t believe I am about to say this but while watching GoF I was almost wishing I had never read the books, just so I could enjoy a good movie. It was a good movie, just not a H.P movie.
9 Deborah // Apr 23, 2006 at 5:56 pm

Watching Chronicles of Narnia last night, I came to the conclusion that the man who played Father Christmas would be a much better DD than Michael Gambon.
10 Daryl // Jul 24, 2006 at 2:56 pm

Hmmmm…..haven’t seen GOF yet. I just get the feeling that the directors and JKR need to collaborate a little more on the aspects of the book that will be important to future films, because it seems as if they don’t realise that they cut certain parts that may seem inconsequential but will later become very important….i.e. they are more producing the movie for a one - off shot, rather than a complex series where minor happenings are related to major events later on in the film…
11 Seriously_Black // Mar 11, 2007 at 4:53 am

You know, Mr Slot, I’m hoping that Travis will be along any moment now to expunge your meaningless drivel.

Meanwhile, it’s obvious that anyone with a genuinely worthwhile product and a successful business does not want or need to stoop to such unscrupulous and anti-social forms of promotion.
12 Ms. Jan // Mar 11, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Goblet of Fire is my least favorite of the movies for many of the reasons listed above. So much that I felt was important to the characters’ developments was left out…, i.e. Hermione and S.P.E.W, Percy’s withdrawing from his family. I also have a problem with Michael Gambon as DD. He’s a wonderful actor in all I’ve seen him in, but he just hasn’t nailed Dumbledore. His reaction to Harry’s inclusion in the tournament was terribly off. He was furious and cold toward Harry; in the books he was upset, but concerned, as well. He was insistent that Harry be truthful about whether or not he put his name in the goblet, but didn’t ‘attack’ him. In each book, you sense the relationship between Harry and DD grow, as father/grandfather-son, or mentor-student, but the chemistry is not apparent in the movies. DD trusts Harry. He cares deeply for him. I hope this comes more to light in OoP, or HBP and Deathly Hallows as movies will fall short, too. This relationship is the most important for Harry at this point in his life. It’s critical to the storyline and will have to be for the movies for them to make sense. I hate Hollywood. If they had their way, Harry would be an American and living in Southern California. Arrrggh!
13 Ms. Jan // Mar 11, 2007 at 2:44 pm

In case I have offended, I have nothing against Southern California–just Hollywood’s interpretation of the world. There are people living other places throughout this plant, too, that have fascinating lives. Oh, well, that’s fodder for another and unrelated debate.