Yes another post...
...but nothing worthwhile to say.
I was cajoled into taking my mother to see the new Harry Potter film (funny I thought people are supposed to take their eager kids, not their eager parents) and since I have nothing better to do I'll put thoughts up to prove I am paying more attention to this thing.
As with previous books large sections were consigned to the cutting room floor in order to make the film a bearable length, which in effect largely means the character development and actual school side of things.
As a film this one flows better than the past couple which was odd because my recollection of the book was it was overfilled with coincidence as a plot device. The death scene works better in the film, but the entire ministry section seemed too rushed and tended to cut out the heroics of the other characters.
And for the first time Alan Rickman was actually upstaged in a Harry Potter film; true he didn't get enough screentime (at least he did better than Warwick Davis who it seems is no longer allowed to speak) but Imelda Staunton did an excellent job of portraying Dolores Umbridge making the character work with the enforced cheerfulness and air of menace that could have easily fallen flat.
The film did focus too heavily on Luna Lovegood than it probably needed to. I think the additional scene they added with the thestrals wasn't actually necessary and the movement of the emotional outlet of the details of her mother's death was a mistake in my opinion: it would have been more poignant if it had remained at the scene at the end of the film.
The actress who played her did get Luna's dreamy way of dealing with things right but the script didn't make her seem as odd as the book portrayed the character.
Other than that Jason Isaacs continued to be menacing as the ever composed Lucius Malfoy, he could have possibly done with more screentime in (without knowing the contents of the last book) what is probably his last appearance in the films. Whereas Helena Bonham Carter managed to convey mad, deranged and dangerous with about four minutes of actual screentime.
In all I think it made a better movie than a book, but it suffered from failings where at times it cut things too far. The film has several glaring plot holes that were specifically closed in the book, but like all the Harry Potter films it directs you to read the book to better understand the plot anyway.
I am somewhat worried about the sixth film, the sixth book may have been shorter than the fifth but it contained less filler material and the plot interlinks more than the other books do. I think the scriptwriters will be more eager than most to know what is in book seven to work out what can be cut back from film six without making film seven's plot make no sense.
EDIT: Apparently I can, but you have to change the mode to use it properly. I need a course on Livejournal changes since last year it seems.
I was cajoled into taking my mother to see the new Harry Potter film (funny I thought people are supposed to take their eager kids, not their eager parents) and since I have nothing better to do I'll put thoughts up to prove I am paying more attention to this thing.
As with previous books large sections were consigned to the cutting room floor in order to make the film a bearable length, which in effect largely means the character development and actual school side of things.
As a film this one flows better than the past couple which was odd because my recollection of the book was it was overfilled with coincidence as a plot device. The death scene works better in the film, but the entire ministry section seemed too rushed and tended to cut out the heroics of the other characters.
And for the first time Alan Rickman was actually upstaged in a Harry Potter film; true he didn't get enough screentime (at least he did better than Warwick Davis who it seems is no longer allowed to speak) but Imelda Staunton did an excellent job of portraying Dolores Umbridge making the character work with the enforced cheerfulness and air of menace that could have easily fallen flat.
The film did focus too heavily on Luna Lovegood than it probably needed to. I think the additional scene they added with the thestrals wasn't actually necessary and the movement of the emotional outlet of the details of her mother's death was a mistake in my opinion: it would have been more poignant if it had remained at the scene at the end of the film.
The actress who played her did get Luna's dreamy way of dealing with things right but the script didn't make her seem as odd as the book portrayed the character.
Other than that Jason Isaacs continued to be menacing as the ever composed Lucius Malfoy, he could have possibly done with more screentime in (without knowing the contents of the last book) what is probably his last appearance in the films. Whereas Helena Bonham Carter managed to convey mad, deranged and dangerous with about four minutes of actual screentime.
In all I think it made a better movie than a book, but it suffered from failings where at times it cut things too far. The film has several glaring plot holes that were specifically closed in the book, but like all the Harry Potter films it directs you to read the book to better understand the plot anyway.
I am somewhat worried about the sixth film, the sixth book may have been shorter than the fifth but it contained less filler material and the plot interlinks more than the other books do. I think the scriptwriters will be more eager than most to know what is in book seven to work out what can be cut back from film six without making film seven's plot make no sense.
EDIT: Apparently I can, but you have to change the mode to use it properly. I need a course on Livejournal changes since last year it seems.