Continuing our tradition of awesome times at the Orem Public Library, my wife and I scored The Goblet of Fire last night for a buck, having placed it on hold (and having waited for some punk, miscreant, to turn it in late).I won't put you to sleep with all kinds of details on this one, but let me just say that GoF was loads better than PoA.
No more tripped out cinematography just for the sake of cinematography (and so the genius critics will say, "Hey, bromide, sweet cinematography!!!")
This one just felt so much crisper than PLEASE, send ME to Azkaban! did.
The characters were, for the most part improved, aside from a few major gripes:
V-Mart (as the F-Word has christened him) was pretty cool in this, except for, why couldn't they have done the raspy-almost-dead voice?
Victor Crumb: He's not a stone-faced American Gladiator, he's an awkward wall flower.
Fleur Delacour: She's supposed to be a self-assured, snooty, "Whiff-whiff," part-Veela, not an uncertain Canadian (okay, whatever she looks like, she just doesn't fit the part, no offense intended to my literal or figurative Canadian cousins).
Ron: What's with the movies making this kid a pale faced pansy?
Hermoine: Why is she obnoxious (still) rather than quick-witted and almost always instrumental to Harry's success?
Snape: This is one of the movies' biggest let downs, if you ask me (which you would, of course). In the books, Snape is such a compelling, rich, and loathsome figure. We can't help but want to hold his hands behind his back while Harry punches him in the stomach. In the movies, the terrorist actor guy who plays him does a great job, it's just that his character is so limited and meaningless. He's pretty much the epitome of a crotchety librarian whose sole purpose is to shushh noisy students . . . sigh.
Dumbledore: For me, this is the Fluberworm that breaks the Ronald's back. Rowling's Dumbledore, in my limited knowledge of writing, is simply a masterpiece. In regards to the movie Dumbledore, as my body-odor-free role model Charles Barkley would say, "Terrible, just terrible." Once more, history's greatest wizard is presented as bumbling, hot-tempered, and, most disturbingly, unknowing. YES, I GET IT, HE'S HUMAN!! So what? Can't I just have a fantasy character who embodies stalwart wisdom, patience, and stern self-control!!? Stop pleasing the "I'm so deep and intellectual" critics and just g
ive us the real Dumbledore (or at least one as stoic and majestic as Rowling presents him).Finally, Harry: Much improved in GoF. Major gripe? He's not a I-show-off-when-the-moment-presents-itself sybarite, he's a class act. (No, sybarite's not an every-day part of my vernacular, I just saw it in my Gmail Web clips the other day and just loved it too much to not start using it.)
Oh well, when it comes down to it, I suppose I must resign myself to the fact that 95% of movies will never ever come even close to being as good as the novels they try to reformulate.
Give me Jim Dale, or give me death! (The narrator of the audio books, in case you haven't experienced Nirvana for yourself just yet).
2 comments:
Glad you could get up to speed on GOF. I totally agree with your comments on Snape. He is pathetic in the movies. While many hate the POA, I think it was the turning point in the series that changed the style and pacing (for the better) over the next two films. Great Dumbledor pic. At least this guy is better than the nearly dead actor who played him in the first 2 movies. He's no Gandalf, but adequate.
Have you seen OOTP? Will you see HBP this summer?
Have seen OOTP, but like two years ago. We'll probably see it again soon.
As far as HBP, it will have to be a matinée or $1 theater . . .
Post a Comment