Sunday, 28 November 2010
I suppose I can't hide it any longer.
yeas, I have a weakness of children's films and I have a weakness for animation. if I could pick what genre i should make movies and stories in, it would be children's.
I am a child of heart and proud of it.
I love older cartoons and I love good cartoons and animation.
Disney.. dear lord Disney. we can always talk about the trivias around you can't we?
Well, here's a piece of history for you before we go into the movie.
Disney animation have been on quite a downer the last.. many years. It all started going disatourus when they closed down the 2D department, but even then it was going dowhill, the last 2-D was "Home on the range" from 2004 which no ones remembers simply because it sucks.
It tries to be fresh and modern, sort of like "Emperors new grow." but have so little thought put into it that it is just sheer randomness so weird that it isn't even funny, and the quality is totally of, there fore it sucks badly.
After that the hand drawn animation studios was closed down and Disney tried to follow the trend with 3-D computer animation and tried to be as modern as possible.. which ended up in some pretty damn forced and badly executed films. ever since "Brother bear" from 2003 Disney didn't manage to spit out one single animated worthwhile film, they tried to be modern and tried to appeal everyone, and there fore appealed to no one. And with all the competition they got in computer animated movies, not only from Dream works and Pixar who are the two giants in computer animation, but also several independent makers as computer animation is also a cheaper and easier way to do movies and get them out. It is no wonder that the cash didn't get back to Disney.
So in the year 2008 and eight they decided to go along with a new plan. well, they had tried to be fresh and new and follow the times, being as hip as possible, and that was a bloody disaster. so know they decided to try and do the opposite. Be classic, go old, and try to draw on the good old days with "Snow white" "the little mermaid." and "beauty and the beast."
We saw the first product of that coming out last December, with the for the first time in six years hand drawn animation film "Princess and the Frog." a movie clearly trying to look like the olden days of little mermaid and beauty and the beast.
What that movie wins on is the pure nostaliga of it all. I had to see it just because it was Disney 2-D movie, and it's a very beautiful one of that. though all in all, it only holds up as an average childrens movie. not really coming close on the golden days of the early 90's sorry.
And the next product of trying to go back to the classic have just now come out with their interpretation of "Rapunzel." called Tangled.
I'm shocked. very shocked.
And not in a good way. this... is not a good movie.
At least it's entertaining and stuff happens and there is humour and colour and stuff.. but it is not good, not in the least, only to often I was left starring blankly at the screen not believing what I was seeing.
When you look at the posters and pictures of the movies, it does look like sort of the olden days girl princess movies.. or more accurately it looks like a barbie movie. Still fine, fairytale, classy. I can life with that. I love beauty and the beast which is a piece of very classic fairytale story telling.
But it's like this movie keeps bailing out and instead of going with the old tries to be new, and modern and fresh.
Quite frankly, from where I am standing classic fairy tale story telling is fresh, simply because no one does it.. the last one who did it was Steven Moffat in his last season of Doctor who.. before that I do have to go all the way back to Beauty and the beast.
And again, this movie tries to appeal to every soul on earth and then just falls flat on it's bum. the humour is just weird.. yeah so the thiefs are in reality just a bunch of granma's. you could not have told it in a weirder more abrupt and handpalm worthy way possible. At least our main just manages to stay light and likeable, though she is close at crossing the boarder. she just manages because she's so innocent. but damn it's close. our leading man and love interest.. well, supposedly he is just the sort of characer I have indeed been searching for in a long time. a true swush buckler who is manly, smuck and enjoys his fighting.. mostly. to bad he is not in a good movie and half his slapstick is so dump that I could hand palm himself.
Though the worst character.. is the villain. She is so god danm bland, and boring and uinteresting that it's ridicoulus! This movie, ladies and gents. feautures the worst Disney villain song in the history of Disney animated! look it up on youtube it is called "Mother knows best" if I didn't know better I would think it was made for a barbie movie.
Which lead us to the most mind numbing aspect of this movie. something that just shocked me out of my wits and left me flabbergasted long looong after the movie finished.
Alan Menken wrote the music for this movie. I freaking love Alan Menken, he wrote just about every single classic disney song known the man. he wrote songs for; The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, Hunch back of Notre Dame and Hercules.
You can say what you want about those movies, but the songs are awesome and have very much personality! Menken have never ever made a boring sound track or boring songs. he have so many sides and so many different genres he can write for. so many catchy classic songs he have written, there is a reason why there is six Oscars on his shelf.
The songs in Tangled sucks.
Every single one of them. they are bland, they are boring, they lack personality and they just suck. And Alan Menken wrote them.
I am shocked, I am beyond shocked. he doesn't have a history of going downhill, this just came out of bloody no where. I have never seen it before, he always write good songs.
I have no idea what happened, if he is going senile, if he was abducted by aliens to have an impersonator write his music. if his puke really did mutated to try and start write music. I am clueless. And I can't put into words how shocked I am.
Even in my mind I can't put the awesomeness of "Belles of Notre Dame" into the same category of "When will my life begin." urgh.. even listen to the title and you know it's not good.
I am not saying this movie is bad because it's a girls movie. I am a girl, and I loved my barbie dolls when I was smaller, I applaud the idea of being classy instead of trying to be fresh and new.
To be honest, I don't think Pixar ever have in mind to appear fresh and new, they just want to tell a story. and Dream works also success best when they forget all about being fresh and new and just have fun with their story, I know "Megamind." might sounds like an attempt of being fresh, but it is a tribute to the good old 50's and 60's James bond/Superhero movies when you come down to it, which just have fun, and that's why it works. And I know people who made it had fun and liked making it, in Tangled I am unsure anyone even wanted to tell this story, if it was what they wanted to do. if they had fun or an idea where they were going or what they wanted.
It has no focus, doesn't know what it wants to be. I see few glimpses of brilliance and what the movie could have been only to be bashed away as the movie knows it's only small kids who is going to see it, and therefore treats the kids like idiots.
Kids are not idiots! stop treating them like it! neither are they made of porcelain and they love a bit of angst. Hunch Back of Notre dame is like the darkest disney movie ever, it came out when I was seven and I came out all right without nightmares, it was just very fascinating to me... if I remember correctly I even saw it twice in cinema. Kids can handle it, it's not that hard.
And if you do wanna go classic fairy tale, I applause it! very much! so go on do it. now one ever sat out to "Be fresh" when they became it.. it just something that happens when somebody is so intense in making their story work that without knowing it they came up with something new.
Everyone keeps saying Harry Potter became a success because it was fresh, yet on closer examination it is build up around ancient old story telling techniques. same goes for every other widely acclaimed franchise or movie out there. I don't know, this movie is just bad. I doubt guys will go in and see it anyhow as they will be scared by the posters, but even little princess obsessed girls will proabably have a better time watching Megamind that this, because at least that movie wants to be ridicoules and have way more focus than this. plus it doesn't have stinking bad songs in it. I love musicals, I love the old disney animated musicals. so it hurts me that this is not a bad movie, and it hurts me even more that for the first time ever I have experienced a bad bland Alan Menken sound track.
And is it just me, or have the movie world gone "Blond-ophobic." This is the first blond princess in beyound a decade, looking every way as the classy picture of a princess is, but yet she is not a real blond because that would be racist or something -_-;
Blonds are only ever allowed to either be a joke on the "Dump blond." or the smart professor nowadays. never ever classy, because that is both racisme towards blonds that they can be more than just a princess and towards people who are not blond as it it claiming blondness is perfection.... idiots. no one thinks that. ... I sincerely hope.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Right, just came back from the cinema. So this is still my first impression of the movie.
Well, it is quite good. Actually it's very good. And that is my over all judgement, so now that is out of the way lets go more into detail.
When I first heard the movie was going to be made in two parts, I was one of the first people to be sour and grumpy about it, because in my head it was because the studio just wanted a reason to earn more money.
Now that I have seen the movie, I simply could not have imagined it done any other way. How would you cramp all that down on half the time? It's just not possible.
However, this movie do actually kind of suffer from only being a "first part third act movie" … I never said I should have to call anything that.. I usually would be able to say. "First" "Second" or "third" act.. I know the rules for them pretty well… If you really want to now the first act stopped in the end of book/film four, the second act was book/film five and six.. or as I said.. six is kind of a weird in between time to reflect thingy... and yeah we just stopped abruptly in the middle of the third act.
This movie is building up and building up without pay off.. which is why it's such a good thing that it's not meant to stand alone in the first place. It also makes it so I can't review it probably without having seen the second half and the pay off, build up only ever works when you see how it affect the pay off, and we havn't seen the pay off yet. I can't review the movie right.. sorry.
Still, I am pretty happy that it's a two-parter, I still can't imagine it be done any differently. with two hours and thirty minutes it is a long movie, but it uses it's time well and to much is happening for it to being able to stand still to much, though it do like to dwell on the characters for a chance, it's not many directors who would be able to dvell like this, but David Yate exceeds in this particular field and the emotions are dreading and genuine. It fells like we are sort of witnessing the eye of a storm here. You know, the storm is raging outside, and inside in the eye is where our main character is, yet we can very much sense the storm raging just one centimetre to the right and two inches to the left. There is a sort of dull suspension atmosphere, and our main characters only need to put as much a little toe outside of the eye in the storm, and shit happens. Every single time.
I have never been afraid of snakes in films before, but jesus! Now I am oO; those snakes scared the hell out of me. her majesty Voldemorts pet snake (literately) Nagini is a freaking scary main villain all by her snaky self.
And dude if you didn't noticed before, people god damn dies in Harry potter seven.. oddly enough, my emotional state weren't nearly as big as I thought it would be, maybe it's just me who have grown into a cold bastard, but I didn't cry as much as once. Despite on screen deaths, no the mention the off screen. Maybe it's also because I have cried over these characters ones before three years ago, and I am now empty. I don't know.
Once again David Yates understands to use his medium in interpretation the books rather than his own mind or copying the books page for page. I love the fact that the Death eater meeting in the beginning takes place at Hogwarts instead of the Malfoy mansion. In that way we do at least see the school a tiny bit, a whole Harry potter movie without Hogwarts is just weird. it also gracefully and visually show that Hogwarts have now fallen, Jesus that the death eaters chooses to have their main meetings in there is just sheer gloating! also our only chance to see Snape, though David Yates did give a well damn good try of trying to sneak his presence into the movie by having him both mentioned in the radio and we see a news paper front titel saying he is the new head master.. I am not sure it worked because so much happens and the ordinary viewer would probably not even notice, but hey. Yates tried.
And I don't care for all does people who complain the finale battle was set at hogwarts, honestly guys, where else would it have been?
Though as Snape who fill the shoes of this franchises personal villain (most books and films have two villains, the powerful and the personal, try and look other franchises over and see if you can spot them.. and yeas I know Snape isn't a villain, but he fill the shoes anyhow) As I said, Snape have next to zero screen time. but for the first time ever Voldemort have screen time, he actually almost never had any prior.. I mean incarnations of him had but not the current man himself. And it's actually kind of interesting to see him walk around and talk at last, I don't believe we have seen it in that way before.
Other small things have been shifted around and interpreted, but it works. and it's a good movie in it's own right plus faithful to the book.
Many was mad that the polyjuice potion didn't change voices in the second movie, but here it is actually pretty vital. It would have been to weird seeing these two strangers with strangers voices instead of the golden trio in the ministry of magic. it just wouldn't have worked.
Is it only me who thinks it's utterly amazing that they were able to get that many celebrity actors into the movie even though they only appeared for like ten seconds?
I am talking of cause of actors who already played well known characters prior. I just came to my mind how many there are of them, and they are taking the places you normally give to nameless minions. It's not because their characters have turned bad or anything, it was the same way in the book, they had just fulfilled their plot purpose and was there as recognisable faces and villains we knew why we hated and why we wanted them to go down.. but it still amazes me seeing this celebs acting as the background characters you usually hire stunt doubles to do, they are just standing there.. threatening put still, some of these people costs a lot of money for any movie. Well, just nice to seem them. It is the movie after all where everyone and everything is coming together and appear together, on the light or dark side.. that differs. but they are there, also in the book.
The entire movie have a sort of slow dull tone, on the same time as you can fell the raging storm outside, it makes the experience kind of hypnotising and dreading, and it makes me grave the next movie real badly, I grave for my pay off and the finale battle in all it's glory.
And that is good! That is good of the movie, the ending picture of Voldemort screaming in triumph will probably ensure that every single movie goer watching the movie is going to come back next summer.
And god bless the British. You can say what you want about them, but they sure are funny and can do funny twerks in even the grimmest scenes. Even the most bad ass british bloody thriller will have a sarcastic humourus glint in the eye. And it was quite often that the entire cinema hall laughed doing this movie. Despite the dreading situation.
If you're not a Harry Potter fan... I am clueless to whether you should go watch it.. I guess it's an uniqe film and the situation is in any case unique. it's an above standard fantasy movie and original though a little corny now and then.. I dunno.
If you are a Harry potter fan. go watch it. differently!
It is literately; Our last chance, to experience something new in this franchise which both I and a lot of other people hold very dear. And we are ending this one a high note, which is great for me indeed.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
It sure has been a long ride hasn't it?
I mean Jesus. I was actually a fan of the books before the movies came out, but that is quite a feet, because I was bloody eleven as the first movie came out! Eleven, barely out of the diaper and still clutching to my teddy-bear at night.. actually I still do that now that I am twenty, but that's beside the point.
I was excited as hell when the first movie came out, and I enjoyed it to, I owed it all with potter, posters, video games, mugs, twigs I found in the wood and could call wands, plastic cups.. yep.
But now I am an adult and do reviews for a hobby, so I have my boring adult glasses on, bear with me for this one.
I actually re-watched all the movies in preparation for this article, so you can't say I am not doing my homework… or you can.. because I spend my time either writing or watching movies instead of doing school work.. what ever.
It all started back in the year 2001.
At the time, Fantasy movies weren't nearly as many as today.. that is to say. The genre was kind of dead to the world, same as superhero movies.
(try an imagine a world without at least two summer releases of super hero movies and a fantasy movie per summer, I dare you.. but that was how it was at the time.)
This meant two things for the movie upon the release date.
1; due to lack of comparison of the genre and lack of competition, the movie had an a lot easier time surviving the wrath of critics and movie goers a like. So though standard my not be the greatest, it could get away with it.
2; though quality wasn't so good it could get away with it.. and make lots and lots of sequels.
Today when a fantasy movie is being released, we can't be sure that it will have a sequel, even if it's a filmatising of a book series, it does not guarantee sequels (The golden Compass, Eragon, Vampires assistant.. pick one!)
That is damn lucky for the first harry potter movie, because it only works by the promise of sequels.
It spends three fourths of it's time setting up story and universe and only the last quarter is plot. That is usually inexcusable for a movie. And as I said, just because you make the first book into a movie doesn't mean you get to do the next one. That is a stupid assumption.
But having said that, the rest of the books did get filmed as well, and having that knowledge in hand, it would have been inexcusable not to set up the universe probably in the first movie.
There is no real answer to this, there isn't even any compromise clear to me.
The movie holds up as a fairly standard childrens fantasy movie, what it lacks in plot it thankfully gains in originality, there really isn't any franchises out there quite like Harry potter. you can say what you like about Quidditch, but it will still be original and unique to the potter verse.
However, I personally would have liked something a little more over the edge of normality, but that is a matter of taste.
And this movie gave us something that would be the dominate part of the next seven movies. Sets and cast!
Thank god those are right! The adult cast have always been and always will be superb, and the children cast is differently not the worst child actors I have ever seen, plus they grew into it later on and all grew into actually pretty damn good actors. that is pure luck!
There is only one casting choice I have any questions about what so ever, rest is perfection. And this might surprise a lot of you people..
Well… Alan Rickman as Snape.. no no. hear me out for a second.
In my mind, Alan Rickman is both the best choice ever and the worst choice ever, there is good and bad sides to this, so I guess we should talk about the good first and the bad second.
Well good thing, Alan Rickman is born to play parts like Snape. He doesn't sound nor look like something you would want to trust, yet he is so damn fascinating to just watch and listen to, the way he swoones around slick as a fox, he is made for swooning black robes, his deep hypnotising voice, he have a very unique presence and demeanour, just something about him you can't really explain, you just glance at him and knows there is more to the guy than what meet the eyes. When he steps into the room you know he is there, his presence is that great, he knows how to give an evil stare and he understands how to convey deep emotions without saying a word. Not anyone would be able to play Snape, it requires a very highly skilled actor, and Rickman is that. The part could easily have been horrible miss castet, it isn't.
Here's my conflicted reasoning, I think Alan Rickman is to old.
A lot of Snapes tragedy is lost on the fact that he were in his late fourtiesh in the first movie and is now.. well almost sixty. It does make a huge difference that a man is 31 or 48, especially when his reasoning is lost love. I kind of even want him to be younger in the books, and I fell he kind of is in the books, after all, Rowling keeps referring to both him, Lupin and Sirius as "young." Though they are the same age. But that was the age to make the story possible I suppose, hell what would you want? Making James and Lily having harry in the age of 17? That's a litte disturbing.
My other reason why I am a little vague about Rickman.
Snape is not a pleasant person, he is very unpleasant! Snape both looks and sounds unpleasant,you really don't want to be stuck with this guy. He is tall, gaunt, sullen.. you know, how people who have hated life the past twelve year usually looks like.. extremely unpleasant company. repulsive in fact.. he is a gian greasy bat in lack for better words.
Alan Rickman is hot!
You can't deny it, those smooth movements and his awesome voice sends shiver down any felines spine, it's nothing to be ashamed of girls. Though that does present our problem, I would love to be stuck in a room with Rickman, doesn't matter that he is mad at me, because he seems so fascinating and mesmerizing.. that is Rickman, not Snape.
But hell, he is the movie Snape now, there is no denying that, and I can enjoy his superb acting. So I guess I have chosen just to roll with it, and just wanted to point it out.
It only took a year for next movie to come out. "Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets." Which were released in the winter of 2002.
Now we are at a point where we have already seen the cast, sets and universe, so things aint as fresh and new any longer, and the flaws of the director of the first two movies, Chris Columbus gets a lot more glaring and obvious.
Of all things, Columbus's greatest flaw towards these two movies is that he was way to faithful to the books.
The first two movies is almost page for page re-cap of the books. And no matter how you put it, that is not the same as making a good movie.
Despite Chamber of secret being the second shortest book, it is the longest movie out of all of them, and it's a slow clunky ride. We should be able to quickly move on to the plot now that we spend an entire movie setting up the universe, but apparently not.
I am not here to diss the books, they are perfect in my mind! They are early childhood and my entire youth, so even if I wanted to I couldn't say as much as one bad word against them. However, movies are not books, movies only have that much time and needs to pick a focus and stay with it to have continuously flow that keeps up the excitement in each scene, and makes each scene lead to the next. The books have a lot of themes going on, so the movies actually have to choose and focus, the first two movies failed miserable at that.
That is not to say this movie does not have it's salvaging factors, as I said. It is extremely faithful to the book, I don't care, Gildory Lockheart always made me laugh, and Kenneth Brannagh is perfect in the part. most importantly, the magic is intact.
It's not a downright bad movie, but it's not that great either, it is a bit to close to be bad, it is for the most part.. average.
So, the problem with the first two movies was that they were way waaay to faithful, concerning themselves more about being as much like the books as humanly possible rather than standing as good movies in their own right, even to the point J.K. Rowling (god bless the genius!) were drawn a bit to much into the mess, even she stated she was more concerned about the movies being enjoyable than overly faithful, thought she looked forward to see the Quidditch!
In the year 2004 we have the next instalment, enter two new important people.
Chris Columbus did at this point decide to wave goodbye to the franchise and hand to steer to someone else, coursing our first change in director.
Enter the French film director Alefonso Cuaron. Known for his darker children's film.
Interesting choice, well he were known for children's fairy tales at the time so it seemed to make perfect sense, but still as he as a director is known for a very distinct expressionistic style and mood in all of his prior movies.
And the change of the director can be felt instantaneous.
Thank god, this is an actual movie and not a wannabe book.
At this point the books had started growing in plot and themes, and the movies would no longer be able to get away with trying to follow the books page for page, sentence for sentence.
Though the first thing to springs to eye is not the new found ability to have focus, but the over all changed style. Gone is the bright children's colours and in its place we have a dark stylish fogyish world. Cuaron is differently bringing his own style, but it's differently not devoid of childish magic, actually the misty mystical fog gives a lot more magic if you ask me, especially when comparing to later films, I love Caurons over all style, "A little Princess" and "Children of men." Both his movies are movies I enjoy highly, and the misty style suits harry potter a lot, I love it's not so clean any more, but a little dirty, if you leave things foggy and a little less see through, it does appear more magical really.
The other person we need to bit welcome at this is a bit of a controversy. Sadly Richard Harris who had played Dumbledore in the two first films, and had done so to perfection, had passed away and the part had to be re-casted. Entering Michael Gambon.
However, as I don't mind him to much in this movie, lets wait to talk about him until the next one.
Prisoner of Azkaban, at last picks a focus and stays with it, delivering a good paced picture that keeps the attention to the very end and entertains, it is all in all actually quite a good fantasy movie.. but.
Yeas, there is always a but isn't there?
The third book is one out of two books in the series which is not about Harry.
Yeah that's right, the third book is actually not about Harry, what it is about is what came before Harry, it's about his mom and dad, the Marauders and the events leading the Harry's current situation.
Without Lupins condition, Sirius's friendship.. Petigrews betrayal.. Harry's world would have seemed a lot different now wouldn't it? The entire world would have seemed a lot different, and this book is about explaining what happened.. The movie kind of fail to notice this at all.
The plot is kind of the same but the explanation and reasoning is gone. The map and nicknames are there, but not as much as one line of dialogue tells why it should matter. It doesn't mention the Fidilus charm and exactly how Petigrew supposedly betrayed Harry's parents.. they never talk about just how close the Marauders friendship was. And dude, they became freaking Animagi for Lupin, it would have to be a god damn close friendship!
So.. literately, this movie is a very beautiful figure sculpted by a capable sculptur, but missing a leg.
It's a nice experience which probably entertains most people, though then they would probably just go home and forget all about it. The book gave us so much to reflect about and imagine for us selves, it's the story of the story within the story.. urh.. Well it is! But sadly... the movie is not.
Though.. could be a hell of a lot worse.. sigh.. like the fourth movie.
Urgh.. excuse me while I go slam my head in the wall.
The fourth movie is a bloody disaster! All the way from what ever the hell Michael Gambon was on, to all the time spend on mindless action instead of plot to the stupid eighties hair cuts to Robert Pattinsons eyebrows.
The brightest point in the movie is that I got to see Voldemort freaking kill Edward Cullen by the sight of him.
Oh yeah.. and Doctor who on crackers.
Anyhow, lets at least try and be serious about this for a moment, though it would be way to easy just to pull a Spooney one on this one and take a mocking walk through about everything I don't like about this.
Again, it's not the book I am talking about. It's the movie, I like the book.
Well, the steer was once again passed on to Director Mike Newell.. this man was a disastrous choice.
As much as I said you need to steer a bit away from the novels in order to get a more focused movie, which is actually a movie, I didn't mean "Take an entire detour." You would need to balance it. And Mike Newell was suffering badly from the syndrome. "Need to make my own vision regardless of source material and what came beforehand" while making this movie.
He didn't even read the fifth and sixth book, which had been released at the time while making this! That is totally inexcusable!
I mean, I will always support film directors who actually have their own vision and stands up for it, that is a good quality. But this situation is rather unique, we are talking about a movie which had three movies coming before it and would have at least three movies coming after it as well, you just can't disregard that.
Apparently Newell had the idea of showing the life of school the way he sees and remember it, as a dark work camp where the teachers are evil and hit you over the head with a book..
Okay seeing Snape hitting Harry and Ron over the head with a book was pretty funny though out of character, but hell. Snape had nothing to do in the movie so it was a clever way to integrate him somehow.. still.
This is Hogwarts, we like Hogwarts.. we want to be at Hogwarts, read the book Newell, it's a magical place. And it brings us to the next problem which I know many is aware of.
Wtf is up with Dumbledore oO;
Gambons portrayal of Dumbledore in this movie frightens me.. it frightens me a lot.
Hell, to this date I remember the cinema experience, I was one month away from being fifteen at the time, so I had stopped using a pacifier… for the most part.
And still I cringed back in the seat and tried hard not to cry while calling for my mommy, seeing Dumbledore looking that grumpy and evil while yelling at Harry traumatized my childhood at the same time as it gives reason to all of the "Evil Dumbledore" fan fics out there.
And it did not happen by chance or because if Gambon, it was Mike Newell's conscious decision to make Dumbledore the cold distant head master… dude.. at least read the fifth book! One of the important themes in that one is that Harry fells betrayed because Dumbledore keeps his distance.. well why the hell would that matter if Dumbledore was an evil gitt in the first place? Honestly.
And why even put so much effort into making the teachers into cold unpleasant shells of the characters they are based on when it really doesn't matter in the movie, plot wise it means nothing! It does nothing! It does nothing for reflection either.. there is simply no reason nor explanation given! The movie spend all of it's time on the Triwizard tournament anyhows, and as I said, spends far to much time on the tasks and to little time on the overall plot, the red threat is missing here and it gives a clunky weird picture where it's hard to find what anyone is trying to say.
At least the highlight of the movie is the finale. It is actually even so good that movie audiences at the time totally forget how bad the rest of it was and left we a good feeling in their stomachs.
I am of cause talking about the church yard scene and Voldemorts resurrection, and it is kind of awesome. Also because there have been build up to this specific point for three movies, the audience had spend so much time just hearing about Voldemort and see various shadows of him, but they were nothing more than that, just shadows. And there he is, in full glory… killing Edward Cullen.
I'm sorry the joke is to obvious.
And I have to give credit where credits due, all people who are actually cool already knows that Twilight is a brain dead franchise for the sort of girls who are giving fanfiction a bad name because they only like graphic slasher fics that only they can read because they have no brain left to burn out from the just wrong mental imprints.
But Robert Pattinson is not that bad an actor, he can be good. In fact, as usual with harry potter, the entire new casting wich includes Moody, Barty crouch junior and of cause Voldemort himself. Is excellent!
So if for nothing else, we have that. Lets please move on to talk about more pleasant things, like the next director who took the steer with the fifth, sixth, seventh and eight movie.
Where the bloody hell did you spring from and where have you been all of my life?
David Yates. As he was announced I had just begun actually getting into stuff like this.. you know, directors and production of movies and shit.
And I was worried, because. Well.. he was unknown. The man had never ever done a cinema movie in his life, all he had done was a couple of television movies and some BBC episodes of TV-shows.
I had a great difficulty understand why you would put a man who so far hadn't moved beyond television behind such a big movie, wouldn't that be quite a gamble?
Apparently somebody in Warner Brothers knew what he was doing, because out of all of the directors, David Yates is in my opinion the best match for the franchise. He both honours the books but also manages to keep a strict story line that interpretates rather than copy, not his own vision of school, but the books them selves, he understands them! more than any of the other directors.
The fifth book can't have been easy to make into a movie, it is the largest book of all of them, and a lot happens. Not only that, the psychological aspect of Harry's journey is not an easy one to convey.
The fifth book is the heroes breaking point, it's where things are now really dangerous and on the edge, but not quite out in the open and Harry suffers the greatest strain, it's the point where he either breaks or learn from mistake and rises to face the real battle.
Every hero in any good story breaks at some point, they must in order to rise again and win the fight. And Harry both breaks and rises simultaneously here in the fifth book.. a rather unique breaking point actually, but well made Mrs. Rowling :D
The movies does not quite get that, but hell how could it?
Dolores Umbridge is possible the scariest female book villain ever! You would not be able to put her probably on screen, by they are making the best out of it anyhow, and what we are getting is one hell of a creepy scary aunty with that sugar smile of hers and evil sweety giggle D:
Scenes like the Umbridge montage where she takes the school, the Weasleys flying around Hogwarts with their fireworks and the battle in the department of mysteries are great fun sights to behold. And on the same time as we keep the story as simple as is possible with such a complex book as Harry potter five (not easy task, which is probably why it doesn't succeed entirely, though it tries.) Yates gives lots of small visual treats to hardcore fans in the back ground, like Nevielle actually caring around a Nimblus Nimblotonia and Luna reading the Quibbler upside down.
That is not to say the movie is perfect, it isn't.. hell, search me I have no idea what the hell Voldemort did at that train station wearing a business suit (the hell? Can anyone explain?)
It gets a bit cramped and a bit bumpy on the way, but my god it actually tries, and it tries to maintain the fine line in between "vision" and "Faithfulness." Quite admirably. It's a job well done and an actual above average movie though not amazing.
And this brings us to the last movie I can talk about right now.
Harry Potter and the half blood Prince.. Seriously I could kiss David Yates, and I am not to shappy looking if I might say so, so he need not run away in horror because of it.
Harry Potter and the half blood Prince is hands down so far the best movie of all of them!
It was also here I became aware of how good Yates is at transcend meanings that was before described with words into visual pictures. Don't say it, show it. That is the difference between a book and a movie.
There are three instances that jumps into the front of my mind while thinking of this concept in the movie.
One is the over all look, of Diagon Alley and Hogwarts.. it made my mid life crisis arrive around twenty years early.
I mean Jesus! The set of Diagon Alley.. empty, devoid of colours.. magic and any kind of happiness.. empty.. before filled up with people.. now empty.. and sad.
I don't ever want to grow up.. what he does with moods and set designs is incredible, it is really telling without saying or using words, just showing... using the same sets, but now so damn empty and cold.
The second instant that spring to mind is when Harry and Ron stands together in the hall of Hogwarts and observes all the small eleven year old kids below them.
Wauw, the symbolic picturing here you know. The eleven year old kids were our starting point, but now they are so big and stuff.. and stands there… and I am missing my pacifier now.
Unlike the third movie it is not misty dark with magic hidden in the corners.. no.. it is dark dark.. devoid of happiness dark.. the kind of dark you get from war and despair, and growing up.. dammit.. absolutely amazing. And so sad! What happened to the colours! same sets just empty as I said, I am having mid life crisis here! And I am only god damn 20!
The third instant in mind, which I think, shows an amazing gift in interpretation and craftsmanship of the director is the scene by the tower in the finale act.
Instead of hiding beneath his invisibility cloak Harry hides beneath a sort of half roof, he have clear view to Dumbledore and he stands by the only entrance to the tower where Dumbledore is.. he is not body binded or anything so he can act if he chooses to do so.
Dumbledore stands up there and is confronted by Draco and the death eaters.
Then Snape arrives, and he is standing right next to Harry.. they are literately inches from each other. Snape signals to Harry to keep quiet by hushing him… and Harry nods, choosing not to act.
That is wordlessly and visually showing Harry choosing to trust Snape, they are that damn close, only inches. The deatheaters has not seen Snape, they have not seen Harry. Harry is not body binded, he could Hex Snape if he chose to do so. But he chose to finally trust Snape… And then Snape kills Dumbledore betraying Harry's trust. wauw.
It is not how it happened in the book, you could not have written it like that in the book. But it is a magnificent movie interpretation, using the medium, as it is, visual. The mood is so extremely intense, even though I naturally read the book and knew what would happen, my heart was still in my throat, and the emotional pay off of Snape's betrayal extraordinary.
That was visual movie beauty!
The sixth book is the other book that is not about Harry, the fifth was his breaking point and uprising, the seventh is the finale stand.
And the sixth is just there in between.. so what do you do with such a book? Well, you reflect on what have happened so far, why it happened, and what will probably happen in the future as well as why.
The sixth book is not about Harry. It's about Voldemort and Snape, and in a way that makes it about Harry to, as Voldemort and Snape is reflections of Harry in different ways.
Voldemorts, Snape and Harry's early childhoods are identical, as eleventh year old children they are identical. They were all raised by the muggle world, and hated it. They all grew up without love, they are all very powerful and intelligent and they are all half bloods. The only thing dividing them and making them different, is the choices that they made.
Voldemort did choose the dark, he did choose to become the dark lord, Harry consciously choose the light, he chose love.. and Snape.. Snape chose something in between.
That is what the book is all about and reflects upon, all though it first became really clear after reading the seventh book and then re-reading the sixth one. Hell, lots of stuff in prior books first made sense after the seventh book! Who would have known Snape spend his childhood scaring Petunia with ghost stories of Dementors? Who would have guessed?
And more importantly, the movie understands that! It uses it and does indeed reflect. The title "Half blood prince." Is not just a reference to Snape, it's a reference to the entire half blood trio of Voldemort, Snape and Harry. And the movie acknowledge that fact. Unlike the third movie which walks around lacking a limp the sixth movies not only honours it's source material, but understands it as well, something the other directors kind of didn't, and on the same time it has the guts to stand on its own as an independent medium.
David Yates.. you are amazing and I salute you.
I can't wait to go in a watch your next movie Thursday!Oh, and for those blasphemic people who doesn't know of it yet, you should totally go to Youtube and watch the legally uplouded. "A very Potter Musical." that thing and it's sequel is a work of geniouse and features some of the best lines ever written by men.
Remember, you might think that killing people makes them like you, but it doesn't! it just makes them dead.
Thanks, see you with next update or review of the new movie.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
To watch this movie was pretty interesting for me.
Mostly because it's only a month ago or so that I was in cinema watching. "Despicable Me." which was not nearly a bad a film as I would have guessed.
And the reason why this is so interesting is because of how much these two movies reminds of each other.
They are both basically about each their super villain who are super geniuses, whit there own created minions and that lot, and throughout the movie they learn how to be better people through love, in "Despicable me." through the three children he adopts for his evil plan. and in "Mega mind." through the love interest "Roxanne" who is this movies version of Louise Lane.. only actually likeable.
That is basically summing up the entire movie, though fortunately outside that frame the movies does diverse. in Despicable me we are in a universe with loads of evil geniuses who sort of compete with each other, and Doctor Gru's goal is the be the best once again, that is a fun concept.. but dear god not nearly as fun as Megamind, the concept behind Megamind is that he is the great super villain, his only purpose is to be a super villain, so his life rhythm is this: Break out of jail, target and set a trap for the SuperHero most likely by kidnapping Roxanne, loose, go back to jail, to break out again and make another trap.
That is all he ever does! and enjoys it to, so good for him, it looks pretty fun in any case, so yeah I can understand him. and when you are blue have an abnormal big head, nobody ever liked you in school and are super intelligent, what are you going to do anyway? he is likeable and funny from the first moment.
However, troubles arrives as he by mistake actually kills the hero.. shit. well now what? what would Joker ever do if he actually killed Batman? go into a depression and get fat?
Megamind is seriously left in a state with zero things left to do, he owns the city, he can do pretty much whatever the hell he likes, and he does... but life is meaningless D:
You may think it's now that he goes out with Roxanne. no, that love story is actually build up in a way I can deal with, and their first encounter after the heroes death happens a lot more by pure accident than them seeking out each other. It actually happens in this way, they are both wandering around in the "Hero" museum and is a bit sad, Megamind is walking around in his pyjamas (what so super villains can't have a relaxation outfit?) and as he discovers he is not alone in the museum he of cause doesn't want to be seen, so he throws up a last minute holographic disguise and they get to cry over the hero together, later she snobs into his secret hideout (well she is the equilliant of Louise Lane, so of cause she walks into the monsters dent) where he throws up the disguise again to try and get her out, and it all ends up in her being so gratefully to him and him being a little in love.. awww..
Anyway, sideways with this development Megamind have gotten a plan! he is going to create his own hero so he can be a supervillain again! so he sets out to find someone to simply give the super mega awesome powers of the hero, including super strength, super speed, flying.. you know, the Superman Package. needless to say that things gets complicated and doesn't really turns out as Megamind had planned.
I am not the biggest Dreamworks fan, but I have to admit that when I go and see an original movie (not a sequel) they will most certainly be funny. Monsters and Alien were really lacking depth and a coherent story, but my god was it funny! the same can pretty much be said about Madagascar and Shrek.
The good thing about this movie is that both Megamind himself and Roxanne is so damn likeable, especially Megamind, it doesn't matter that he is introduced as a super villain, he have a sappy funny personality and a face you can't say not to (no seriously, they did design his eyes to be just a little big bigger than normally, which just makes the character design look so damn sincere) Will Ferrel who made the voice probably have one of the most likeable sincere presences in Hollywood, you can say what you like about him, but he always appear so damn likeable, I had not forseen it went all the way into his voice, even with a weird undefinable accent (he is an evil super villain, evil super villains have accents.. and he is from another planet so that goes to explain why the accent can't be defined in this movie.. doctor Gru was from Rumanina...)
This movie is indeed funny, the elaborate villain hero fans are awesome and imaginative on the same time as it fells like a big homage to the old James Bond classics. Of cause this is not a Pixar movie, but Dreamworks are differently improving themselves, and it is a very enjoyable ride, though it can fell a little slow in the middle. However, that is fully made up for in the last act which is a full blown hardcore super vs super fight using all sorts of imaginative and elaborate powers and gadgets, and it looks just gorgeous.
I will have to say, picking from "Megamind" and "Despicable me." Megamind is the better movie, it's dreamworks so it should be. as Despicable me tends to linger a bit to much on the heart, Megamind moves on quickly and swiftly to get to the good fun paced stuff. so if you in with you cousin, yeah I would say you should pick that one.