Peter M Howard ::

wintermute.com.au

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

02December2005 [movies]
[tweet this]

Saw the new Potter movie last night. It’s been a long time since I read the book (ie, not since it first came out), but it certainly felt faithful to the story and its characters. Dumbledore is changing though, an effect of the change of actor (though in the last movie he tried to act more like his predecessor). Also caught lots of hints that make much more sense in the wake of the sixth book, and am not sure if they were put there deliberately.

I realised however, as the movie neared its end, that it hadn’t felt as though much actually happened in the fourth book, and the movie suffers somewhat for it. Certainly it had more content than the first three, but the fact that so much could be dropped entirely for the adaptation just demonstrates how unnecessary it was. It’s not surprising though in a series of seven: the first three set the scene but plot points were always resolved, the middle book is _just_ there to bring back Voldemort (the occurence of both the Quidditch World Cup AND the Twi-Wizard Tournament always felt overblown).

I’ve heard a lot of people say they preferred the third book, and now I understand why. I kind of flew threw the first three books just before the fourth came out; since then I’ve been reading as they’re released, which affects my impression of the books. But having seen the third and fourth movie adaptations, I can certainly see why: Azkaban has a much more pleasing story arc, and much deeper character development. Though I should add that I remember the fifth book as leaving a much deeper impression on me than any of the others. I should go back and read it to try and articulate why…

« The Universal Library :: Mysterious Packages »

Related [movies]