As a huge fan of the books, we have to keep this in context. This is a movie, there is no way it could have included all of the book. I use the movies as fillers between the books, entertaining, but just fillers. That said, there were some glaring omissions that are vital to the next book. Why did Mike Newell extend the dragon scene, but leave out key characters? - because mistakenly Hollywood thinks that such exciting CGI is more important to the fans of the books than expanding characters and plot details. Wrong. But we will go and see the movie anyway.
I felt the movie was chopped up. The Quiddich World Cup while fascinatingly done in the movie was over so quickly that it barely seemed to be a part of the plot. Mr Crouch is suddenly dead, but it is just left dangling. Why bother to have Sirius in the movie at all, his brief scene in the fire was really disappointing, his head should have been fully out of the embers, as in the book, not part of the embers. He was barely recognizable as Sirius. What a waste.
No Ludo, no Winky and Dumbledore looking like a bumbling idiot rather than the world's most powerful wizard. Most importantly the whole end of the book is gone where he has a parting of the ways with Fudge and the Ministry of Magic, because of Fudge's refusal to believe that Voldermort is back. This whole scene sets up the next book.
So where does this movie adaptation shine? In the script and the impeccable casting. Despite what some have said about Daniel Radcliffe, he IS Harry. From the first movie, his sweet innocence to how he has grown into the part, he remains the face I see when I read the books. Emma Watson needs to tone down her overacting a bit, she was near perfect in the first movie, but hasn't really developed her character much. Rupert Grint really shines in this movie, his face is handsome, and funny and full of expression, he is the perfect Ron. The Phelps boys, as Fred & George really come into their own in this movie although how they are to start their joke shop without Harry's Tri-wizard winnings in film #5, is a question since it was entirely missing from the movie. And it was nice to see Neville getting a bigger more important role, even though all of his key info was left out of the movie. And now I've read book six, Snape takes on a whole new meaning to me and again Alan Rickman has been the perfect Snape in all of the movies.
The question as to whether the three main characters should remain on after the release of the 5th movie in summer 2007 seems a dumb question to me. Since when has Hollywood ever cared about the age of an actor and the part he or she is playing? How often have we had 20 somethings playing teenagers! There comes a time when the age of Daniel, Emma and Rupert will not matter to the audience. Personally I hope that they play in all of the movies.
They say that JK Rowling has a big say in what stays in and what is left out of her books, because she alone knows what happens and how each piece of the jigsaw fits. She must have been on holiday when decisions were made for this movie. Perhaps "the Director's Cut" DVD will explain that also...
I felt the movie was chopped up. The Quiddich World Cup while fascinatingly done in the movie was over so quickly that it barely seemed to be a part of the plot. Mr Crouch is suddenly dead, but it is just left dangling. Why bother to have Sirius in the movie at all, his brief scene in the fire was really disappointing, his head should have been fully out of the embers, as in the book, not part of the embers. He was barely recognizable as Sirius. What a waste.
No Ludo, no Winky and Dumbledore looking like a bumbling idiot rather than the world's most powerful wizard. Most importantly the whole end of the book is gone where he has a parting of the ways with Fudge and the Ministry of Magic, because of Fudge's refusal to believe that Voldermort is back. This whole scene sets up the next book.
So where does this movie adaptation shine? In the script and the impeccable casting. Despite what some have said about Daniel Radcliffe, he IS Harry. From the first movie, his sweet innocence to how he has grown into the part, he remains the face I see when I read the books. Emma Watson needs to tone down her overacting a bit, she was near perfect in the first movie, but hasn't really developed her character much. Rupert Grint really shines in this movie, his face is handsome, and funny and full of expression, he is the perfect Ron. The Phelps boys, as Fred & George really come into their own in this movie although how they are to start their joke shop without Harry's Tri-wizard winnings in film #5, is a question since it was entirely missing from the movie. And it was nice to see Neville getting a bigger more important role, even though all of his key info was left out of the movie. And now I've read book six, Snape takes on a whole new meaning to me and again Alan Rickman has been the perfect Snape in all of the movies.
The question as to whether the three main characters should remain on after the release of the 5th movie in summer 2007 seems a dumb question to me. Since when has Hollywood ever cared about the age of an actor and the part he or she is playing? How often have we had 20 somethings playing teenagers! There comes a time when the age of Daniel, Emma and Rupert will not matter to the audience. Personally I hope that they play in all of the movies.
They say that JK Rowling has a big say in what stays in and what is left out of her books, because she alone knows what happens and how each piece of the jigsaw fits. She must have been on holiday when decisions were made for this movie. Perhaps "the Director's Cut" DVD will explain that also...