Is Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets underrated?

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

Gambon's Dumbledore was an overtly melodramatic and emo teenager caught in a 150 year old body.

 

He was all flightly energy and dramatic gestures and parodic movement.

 

It was like watching pantomime. It was like he was performing mo-cap for the SMURFS movie with the dumbledore costume on.

 

Add in Radcliffe it was like a dueling hams extravaganza.

[Holko 9,525]

I still think my favourite Dumbledore moment either of the actors had in any of the movies is at the end of Azkaban when they return. "We did it!" "Did what?" *turns around and walks away humming a tune*, especially when you realise it's a second after his "3 Turns will be enough" speech.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

1 hour ago, Holko said:

I still think my favourite Dumbledore moment either of the actors had in any of the movies is at the end of Azkaban when they return. "We did it!" "Did what?" *turns around and walks away humming a tune*, especially when you realise it's a second after his "3 Turns will be enough" speech.

Huge departure from the book there, but truth be told, quite an efficient one.

Of all the changes made for the movie, that is one I'm finally getting used to.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Gambon as Dumbledore was absolutely spot on in PoA, just listen to him as he tries to distract Fudge while Harry and Hermione are rescuing Buckbeak. 

 

He was given some absolutely shocking dialogue and direction in Goblet though, it’s bizarre. The character improved in later films, recapturing some of that wonderful sense of humour by HBP, but by then it was too late.

 

The only thing I’m looking forward to in Rowling’s new films is Jude Law’s take on the character, hopefully third time’s a charm. I won’t hold my breath though.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

5 hours ago, Chen G. said:

There are times, especially in The Goblet of Fire, where his intensity is way too much. But he’s much better acting as Dumbeldore than Harris, simply because Harris had to take direction from an incompetent director.

Mike Newell's direction regarding the acting was generally slightly over the top.

[Holko 9,525]

Everthing about 4 is over the top, which makes it thoroughly entertaining when I manage to look away from the fact that it's supposed to be an adaptation of that dense and complex book and gets most of it wrong.

 

It's interesting how the usually more American mentality of "bigger=better" was introduced to the franchise by its first British director.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

13 hours ago, Docteur Qui said:

Gambon as Dumbledore was absolutely spot on in PoA, just listen to him as he tries to distract Fudge while Harry and Hermione are rescuing Buckbeak. 

He managed to rub me the wrong way in his very first appearance in the film.

The script gave him some sort of "enlightening lecture", which seems very much against his book character.

 

His character did get better in the later movies though.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

I've never understood why people dislike the movie version of Dumbledore in GOF. What's so unrealistic about the 'did ya put your name into the Goblet of Fire?!' moment? Why can't Dumbledore finally get tired of the endless troubles with Harry?

[Smaug The Iron 513]

5 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

I've never understood why people dislike the movie version of Dumbledore in GOF. What's so unrealistic about the 'did ya put your name into the Goblet of Fire?!' moment? Why can't Dumbledore finally get tired of the endless troubles with Harry?

 

Because it is out of character for Dumbledore to be so angry. He is always calm even in the most desperate hours. 

[Smeltington 1,440]

It makes some sense that he has to make a big show in front of the other teachers (including from other schools) of taking the whole situation very seriously. But the biggest reason really is just the different tone of this film. And it's a fun movie in spite of the tone shift from the book and from the other films. Personally I can just enjoy it for what it is, a different interpretation of the same material, even if the inconsistency is annoying.

 

More unsatisfying to me is the lack of explanation in the film for why Dumbledore doesn't try to prevent Harry from having to participate in the tournament. The other teachers try to convince him to do something, but he dismisses them for no real reason. Hrrmm. Even in the context of just this film, it doesn't add up.

 

[Holko 9,525]

Because book Dumbledore knows 100% that Harry didn't put it in, someone just tries to kill him again. That question is just a formality in the book, because the answer is obvious to every party : D knows he didn't so it and he's honest, he will say no; the other headmasters are angry and suspect he will lie and say no; Ludo's just having fun, so he doesn't care; and Barty knows the rules bind him, so he doesn't care about the answer. I can imagine absolutely no reason D would get so upset he'd scream at Harry andush him against the wall, especially with this completely insignificant question.

[Smeltington 1,440]

I dunno, I feel like the other headmasters and Barty would have suspected Dumbledore and Harry of conspiring, or some other kind of foul play, even if Dumbledore knows the truth. The other headmasters would feel that Hogwarts was seeking some kind of unfair advantage. And the mistake would be an embarrassment for the ministry, so Barty would have an interest as well. So I think if we didn't know Dumbledore so well, it would make sense that he wants to show the other adults in the room that he's no more pleased about this turn of events than they are. But of course the fact that it's out of character for him is still problematic, and more a symptom of the change in directors than anything.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

Gambon had an almost impish charm, but Harris had a quiet humanity, which makes him my favourite Dumbledore.

 

My favourite line in GOF is:

"May I have your arm?"

"Arms, legs...I'm yours". That still makes me chuckle.

 

 

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Also, why didn't it ever occur to Harry to just say 'the hell with the tasks' and not participate?

[Smeltington 1,440]

The rules were absolute!!!

 

The whole Triwizard thing doesn't really make sense, even in the book. The 4th one always had major plot holes. Most of what I love about Harry Potter has to do with aspects outside of the plot, like the characters, world building, and humor.

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

9 hours ago, Holko said:

Everthing about 4 is over the top, which makes it thoroughly entertaining when I manage to look away from the fact that it's supposed to be an adaptation of that dense and complex book and gets most of it wrong.

 

It's interesting how the usually more American mentality of "bigger=better" was introduced to the franchise by its first British director.

4th film is garbage. Absolutely and utterly butchered the book. 

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

As the books are at best somewhat amateurish pulp that I have zero loyalty to or interest in, I have no problems with characterization and can say that Gambon's Dumbledore is far more entertaining and endearing.

[Chen G. 3,949]

5 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

Absolutely and utterly butchered the book. 

 

Screw the book!

 

All that matters is making the best possible film!

 

The Goblet of Fire isn't a great movie, but its still quite good. Much better than the Chris Columbus entries, combined.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

Azkaban is not only the best one, but also the only one that's actually re-watchable.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

I find the first three rewatchable. I also have a strange fascination with H-BP.

In purely technical/visual terms, it might just be the best Potter film. This might sound odd, but I wanted H-BP to be nominated for the "best picture"Oscar.

I know, I know.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Its one of the stronger entries, to be sure.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

It's probably the last great Potter film. I've always preferred DHpt1, to pt2.

[Chen G. 3,949]

17 minutes ago, Richard said:

I've always preferred DHpt1, to pt2.

 

That's the consensus. But than, last entries are always tricky!

[Pieter Boelen 740]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Screw the book!

 

All that matters is making the best possible film!

 

The Goblet of Fire isn't a great movie, but its still quite good. Much better than the Chris Columbus entries, combined.

Do you actively dislike the books?

To me, they pretty much paint a brilliant film in my head, just from the written word alone.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Dislike them? Not at all.

 

But that’s just what you do when you adapt a piece of literature. On the one hand, you are being respectful to the source material, but on the other hand you need to say: “to hell with that, I’m going to do whatever it takes to make this the best movie possible.”

 

A good experiment would be to look at all of these adapted works as if they were original screenplays.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

I like that original Hornblower film as an example.

One movie based on three books that I like as much as Harry Potter.

When you watch the film, a LOT has been taken out and the tone is quite different.

And yet it works brilliantly as a singular film.

 

The Harry Potter adaptions, unfortunately, are not like that...

[Chen G. 3,949]

I'm not here to argue that they're brilliant cinema, but a lack of fidelty in adaptation isn't their fault. If anything, superflous fidelty is.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

17 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I'm not here to argue that they're brilliant cinema, but a lack of fidelty in adaptation isn't their fault. If anything, superflous fidelty is.

I'm inclined to say it's both.

In some parts they're too faithful, but sometimes they diverge too much.

That is one of the reasons I feel these films are wildly inconsistent.

[geom_00 36]

I'm not sure if this is the place to ask this, but I can't find any other topic that may fit this.

 

Does anyone else hear any of The Firebird Suite by Stravinsky when JW is portraying Fawkes?

[Josh500 1,615]

1 hour ago, geom_00 said:

Does anyone else hear any of The Firebird Suite by Stravinsky when JW is portraying Fawkes?

 

I need to listen to Stravinsky's work first in order to judge. But it may well be... JW is known to admire these old-school Russian masters, like Stravinsky and Tchaikovsky. 

 

But it's actually funny, you should revive this thread today of all days. I was earlier thinking about COS, how some pieces sound like Dracula... 

[Demondm810 399]

On 3/28/2018 at 4:56 PM, Richard said:

I find the first three rewatchable. I also have a strange fascination with H-BP.

In purely technical/visual terms, it might just be the best Potter film. This might sound odd, but I wanted H-BP to be nominated for the "best picture"Oscar.

I know, I know.

 

Bruno Delbonnel killed it. Every shot of that film is absolutely gorgeous.