1) After Kath and Ariel caught the midnight opening night showing of "Harry Potter And the Rapidly Aging Cast," I went (with Ariel again) to see it this evening. Definitely the best of the lot, as the kids truly come into their own as actors with this film. Certainly the most sophisticated and compelling plot (wisely not split into two as was originally considered) with many wonderful sequences allowing the increasingly sophisticated cast to bring many shadings to their performances. At Kath's suggestion, we watched "Sorceror's Stone" before Ariel and I went this evening, and it's amazing to see how this franchise has grown from a rote condensation of the books to works of art in their own right.
There were some curious omissions (would it have killed them to take a minute of screen time to explain what happened with Harry's and Voldemort's wands?) but most of the cuts were correctly made and serve the course of the film story. Miranda Richardson was gloriously daffy as reporter Rita Skeeter, who I'm convinced is J.K. Rowling's payback for reporters who have their stories written in their heads, regardless of what their subjects have to say. And Brendan Gleeson was so great as Mad Eye Moody that I wanted to see a whole film just about him. Plus Ralph Fiennes as a creepily chilling Voldemort and tons of great special effects makes this a must see. I should mention, though, that it's a lousy jumping on point if you've never seen any of the films or read the books, because--like the second and third LoTR films--it just assumes you know everyone and everything involved.
2) We're taking Caroline to her very first ice show tomorrow: "Disney on Ice," featuring the Incredibles. We picked up one of the program books in advance and Caroline has been flipping through it for the past several days. We figure this way she'll have a frame of visual reference (although "Incredibles" is already one of her favorite CGI films.)
3) Ariel is trying out for the high school bowling team. Tryouts go four days, so they can get a feel for the kids' consistency. After all, a lousy player could have three great games and a great player can have three lousy games. This way the coach sees 12 games over four days. So far she's doing very well, showing poise and confidence in her delivery and averaging a consistent 155-165. She's not stringing together a lot of strikes but her spare shooting is remarkably consistent, and that's really what it's all about. Monday and Tuesday are the final two days, so fingers crossed.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 20, 2005 01:38 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingA little background. I've been out of the Midwest for a couple of decades now. How does bowling rank as a high school sport? (I never even knew there was high school bowling before Michael Moore.) It certainly can't be as cool as football or cheerleading, and it can't be as much a hallmark of failure as lacrosse and intermural swimming. So how does it rank?
There were some curious omissions (would it have killed them to take a minute of screen time to explain what happened with Harry's and Voldemort's wands?)
Huh. I'm kinda disappointed to hear that that explanation from the book didn't make it into the movie, but I guess I understand. Sometimes the books have a pattern of having Dumbledore give some ex-post-facto exposition about what actually was going on during the big, exciting climactic event. I suppose especially for the movies, it's appealing to not minimize the big climax by, y'know, overtalking about it afterward. Or something like that.
How does bowling rank as a high school sport?...it can't be as much a hallmark of failure as lacrosse...
Huh? Well, it's certainly been a while, but at my high school, the lacrosse team members were hardly looked at as athletic failures. It can be a badass sport, even if it doesn't have the Friday Night Lights popular appeal of football.
nice post, good to hear about the family. Honestly, I have been waiting for your take on the "live debate" from the West Wing a few weeks ago.
The interesting thing that I saw, at the 7PM show Saturday night in northern New Jersey (West Orange, to be specific), was the immense number of small children that were present at the show. At first, that startled me - "Goblet of Fire" was not a children's book, as it had quite intense violent themes, deaths and all-around scary stuff going on, not to mention the blooming awareness of each character's sexuality. But then, I remembered that 90% of parents these days are stupid and do no research (or don't care) on what their children watch or read. >sigh
I had a really hard time believing hte characters were only 14. But, all in all, it was a good film. It was a bit light on plot. serving more to further tha larger story than to tell a complete story in the film. But, at least I got to see the previews for the Superman movie. Badass!!!
Tommy Raiko, you misunderstood. You said...
"Huh? Well, it's certainly been a while, but at my high school, the lacrosse team members were hardly looked at as athletic failures."
I didn't specify "athletic" failures. I'm certain that the ladies that play that sport are very healthy, physically speaking. I said failures, GENERAL. You know high school life; if you do one wrong thing, you are a complete failure as a human being.
If you're a football player, especially a quarterback, you are a god. If you're a cheerleader and have a perfect bod and skin (including breasts within a modest range and the ability to smile in a garbage dump, you're a goddess. If you head up the chess club, promote the Flat Earth Society or have a laugh that's a trifle too loud or jarring - LOOO-ser!
And whether it's fair or not, at least in my experience, girls who play lacrosse are usually associated with another "L" word. No, not "liberal" or "lasagna." No particular insult to Ms. David or other girls; this is just part of the shark cage that is high school life.
While I did hear more about boys lacrosse than girls while I was in school, I think it's fair to say that in New York state - as I, and more relevantly, PAD, are - lacrosse is held in much higher esteem than it may be in some other places. I would say it is one of the top three high school sports, in both visibility and prestige, for both sexes.
As far as bowling goes, I don't know that I would have even been aware that my high school had a bowling team if we hadn't had one of the state's top bowlers (a male; I'm not sure whether we had female bowlers or not).
At any rate - good luck, Ariel!
Most sophisticated plot? But what about the fact that it's one big contrivance? Nobody but me seems to notice how silly and contrived it is that the villains went to all the trouble to get Harry into the tournament and make him win, just so he could touch the Cup and be transported to the cemetery. I mean, why did the Cup have to be the port key? Couldn't anything be made into a port key? Couldn't the Moody impostor have made, say, a book into a port key and simply handed it to Harry? That really bothers me.
And I disagree about the three young actors. They still can't act.
But I still thought it was a pretty good movie.
"I had a really hard time believing hte characters were only 14."
But the actors WERE 14. Well, except Ron, who was 15, but big deal.
Robert i suppose one can fanwank it a certain extent with the revival spell taking several months to brew. Remember polyjuice potion takes a month to make.
Also voldemort wanted a spy at hogwarts before rushing things.
just a thought or two
I would say it is one of the top three high school sports, in both visibility and prestige, for both sexes.
That may be true - I've talked to a couple of fellows online in the past who played lacrosse in high school in the Northeast.
Since Colorado got one of the National Lacrosse League teams recently, I'm actually becoming a fan of the sport - indoor lacrosse looks to be more in line with hockey though, which makes it more enjoyable to watch than outdoor lacrosse. :)
Actually bowling is very popular in schools today. I'm in middle school and my school has a bowling team. We compete and raise money for the special olympics. I think thats what we do with the money. I'm not on the team. I've bowled twice and i won every time with amazing scores. But i never persued even though my neighbor won $10,000 bowling. It's increasing rapidly in popularity.
Robert, I've got to agree with you on the age thing. I don't understand why some people seem to have a problem with the fact that the actors are growing up when the characters themselves are growing up... and at roughly the same rate! (I've got a friend who kept saying "But they're so *old*!" every time we passed a billboard for the third movie.)
Seriously, would anyone want to see the 11-year-old actors in all the dating intrigue subplots of book 6 -- or even this movie?
Personally, I really enjoyed the new Harry Potter movie. I agreed with most of the changes and deletions that were made, Though I could have done with a little bit of exposition about the priori incantatum thing.
As for bowling, I'm all for anything that lets more kids get involved. Let's be honest, some of the best bowlers are the ones who are LEAST likely to get onto the football or basketball teams. Makes me wish my HS had had a bowling team when I was there.
-Rex Hondo-
The only problem I had with Goblet of Fire was the screaming creepy crawlies the maze gave me. reminded me of pruning my mother's garden and how I always thought about the bushes getting PO'd at me.
And Ariel's averaging 155-165? And you're right, consistency is what it's all about. I'm gonna take my 90-some average and just hang my head now. But then, basketball, football and laser tag are my games of choice.
'Course, I suck at those, too.
I thought Dumbledore did explain what happened with the wands when he talked with Harry in his room afterwards.
As far as the plot to get Harry to the graveyard ... well that presumably was only half the scheme. They managed to make a port key that could GET INTO HOGWARTS. Once Harry was killed, the Death Eaters would have used the port key and attacked at Hogwarts with this large crowd completely unsuspecting their fate. They would have caused tremendous fear with this plan. If Crouch/MadEye had just given Harry something inocuous at some random time, and then they used that to get back in, it wouldn't have had as big an effect as they wanted. Also, Crouch/MadEye would wanted to be seen giving Harry something and then Harry suddenly disappearing.
Neil
As far as the plot to get Harry to the graveyard ... well that presumably was only half the scheme.
That really bugs me every time I read it, too. Somebody needs to show Voldemort (and JKRowling) the Evil Overlord list so he stops making such blatantly stupid errors.
An alternate explanation I've seen among fandom is not that they were preparing for a full assault on Hogwarts... yet. Ideally, nobody would've known they were back so they'd have more time to build up strength and plot. Besides, given the crowds of wizards watching the Triwizard finale, it would've been a slaughter of the other sort.
But this was a massive sporting event. All the wizarding world of Britain and Europe were watching. And then to have it end with Harry Potter's dead body appearing at the finish line, with no explanation... Would've been devastating to morale, and all the blame going back and forth would cause dissention and split up allegiances, making it easier to slip in and pick up the pieces.
That said, the scene of Harry catching the portkey back to Hogwarts was more powerful on film than in print.
None of these are really explanations. The only real explanation is that the villains picked the most difficult way to get Harry where they need him simply because the plot required it.
As someone who has only read the first Potter book, but loved films 1 and 3... I have to say that Goblet was awful for the very reasons you enjoyed it. Too much was cut and it felt like the plot was only really revealed at the end... just in time for the closing credits. I felt like I'd just watched a collection of random scenes that didn't have anything to do with the end of the movie... until one character told me that I had to trust that it was all his doing. I think Goblet would have been far better off as two movies. That way, fans of the book could get more of what they love, and non-readers like myself would know what the heck was going on!
ITEM THE FIRST: In my opinion, this was the weakest of the four movies - but still very good and well worth the time and money to see it (speaking of praising it with a faint damn... :))
ITEM THE SECOND: I don't recall in the book that anything was ever explained about what was going to happen after Harry was drawn to the graveyard... the sole intent was to get Harry to the right place at (presumably) the right time so that he could unwillingly assist in Voldemort's resurrection. But if I may speculate, Harry would have been only at Hogwarts or the Dursley's... neither of which would make him easily accessible for the Death Eaters. True, Barty Jr. COULD have gotten him at any time... maybe there's a little stretch of imagination there, but I'm also giving consideration to the fact that Voldemort seems to need the grand gestures and large theatrical actions...
As to the movie - I liked the kids, I loved Fred and George, but I thought that Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith got a little short shrift (although, in consideration, they don't do much in the book either.)
But Michael Gambon is terrible as Dumbledore. That's just a comment on the performance, not the man - he may be a wonderful fellow and fantastic in other parts.
He can't do Dumbledore, though. IMO, he got the character almost completely wrong - I saw no compassion or kindness in his performance.
And he couldn't hold an accent FROM ONE WORD TO THE NEXT IN A SENTENCE. There were some lines that he started in accent and changed halfway through. Very rocky - again, only in my opinion.
Apart from that - good luck, Ariel! I can only share one thing I was told when I was bowling: Take care of the spares and the strikes will take care of themselves. And it would seem that you're doing exactly that.
(wisely not split into two as was originally considered)
[Spoilers}
I disagree with you, PAD. Because they didn't split the movie, we lost quite a bit. For instance, the death of Cedric isn't a tenth as powerful as it should be, because the audience barely knows who he is, or why his loss is so tragic. We hardly see Krum, and we don't get to see him mis-pronouncing Hermione's name. We don't get a lot of the Hagrid's girlfiend stuff, and how she's a giant, and Hagrid only a half. The reveal that Mad-Eye is not, indeed, Mad-Eye, came about oddly, and the backstory seemed shoe-horned in, just so that the audience would have any shot at getting it. The first five minutes of the Quidditch Cup were SO incredibly well-done, that it's a shame we didn't have another 5-10 minutes of it, that would have been highly interesting. And too many explainations were left off, such as why the wands cancelled each other out and why his parents appeared, what's the dark mark mean, etc -- and my favorite unsolved mystery, how did Fred and George know the outcome of the match in the first place?
In my world, I would have done two movies, the first a 90-minute action-adventure film, that ended with the Dark Mark appearing in the sky after the World Cup. It would have been effects heavy, reminicent of Star Wars I with the speeder race, and we would have gotten a lot of quidditch and other fast-paced excitement. Then I would have come back in 6-8 weeks with the Hogwarts story. It would have let us get to know Krum more, Cedric more, and it would have let us set up what Bartie was doing, and why, so that you'd have a prayer of grokking it if you hadn't read the book.