Todd wrote:
>
> All in all, I think he did a fine job on OOTP. The book
> is ridiculously long and there's just no way to satisfy
> everyone's wants in a two-hour-plus film. My own
> preference would have been to see St. Mungo's
> Hospital but that too was left on the cutting room
> floor.
>
Yaknow, moments like these remind me why I miss the old days of Deja -
I liked that it would put the topics that had had the most recent
activity up ahead of other topics. That way, it was a lot easier to
keep up with the conversation and to keep it going more smoothly.
Anyway, moving back to the topic at hand - yes, the book is
extraordinarily long but that makes it all the stranger to think that
Movie 5 is the shortest of the Harry Potter movies to date. They lost
a lot of material in the process which helps to add context to the
relation****ps and situations at hand.
For instance, I, too would've loved a scene at St. Mungo's. That
would've brought up an excellent op****tunity for explaining why
Neville would want to seek revenge upon Bellatrix Lestrange. I'm not
sure that it's clear to folks who haven't been reading the books, in
addition to the movies, otherwise.
Plus, I don't think that the movies have done that great a job of
explaining why there is such enmity between the Marauders and Snape.
They've touched on it somewhat - but only very briefly. They need to
go into fuller detail on this.
One critic suggested that the movie could've done without the whole
trial thing at the beginning of the movie. He pointed out that after
20 minutes, Harry ended up being in exactly the same position as
before the trial. That being the case, the filmmakers could've easily
cut this part out and concentrated on other areas from the book
instead. The critic does have a point, methinks.
One thing, though, in which the movies continue to do well is the
casting of parts. Imelda Staunton was terrific! She made a rather
terrifying figure in pink!
La Binsk
|
