Tangled, Movie review.

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.

From then to now, All the harry potter movies.

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.

…

Thank you!

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.

Despicable me, Movie review

It was one of those movies I had not counted on actually go in seeing. not at all!
Before I went into see "Despicable me." with my little niece for her mother so her mother could have an evening off, my clear impression of the movie was that it had to be one of those cheap knock off's who things they are oh so smart, and can quickly make some bucks on a selling concept.
It's the first movie out of an entirely knew animations company "Illumination entertainment", and that is not enough for me to be excited at all, countless of companies have tried their luck with animation movies as it's a cheap way to make some movie money and so many have failed, I can count around five independent animation movie companies who have been forced to turn the key after two or three movies, and their movies have often seemed rather soulless, so that was exactly what I was expecting from this. all in all, I was expecting another "Planet 51" which again have a cool concept but is so filled with pretentious humour and stupid cliches's that that movie makes me cringe! that movie is like that annoying guy in the room who thinks he is funny as he keeps spitting out dump jokes without owning the thing called. "Comedic timing"

Well, after this big rant it should be obvious where I am going.. despicable me.. is not bad. It's actually very enjoyable. true, it's kind of predictable and we have seen this plot before, but it have a charm and passion to it that is undeniable, and it is genuinely funny. it's visual humour works and is not over selling itself.
Like dream works it's kind of like being Pixars naughty little brother, only if judging with this movie and the lates three or four Dream works movies.. I prefer this one, because even though it's filled with funny cliches'. my mind was very much brought to the spy 007 genre lots of times, it does not linger in it's own jokes and move on with the movie, the slapstic here also works, and believe me, I've seen so much animation slapstic that fails that it hurts me, so that made me very happy to see a studio that is not pixar actually mastering the small visual gags.

The movie is about the super villain Gru (which is kind of funny for me as "Gru" is the danish word for "Horror"... no seriously it is)
He is in a state of failish as he have been out contested by another villain who stole the pyramids, determinant to out villain this new comer Gru decides to steal the moon. only trouble is he needs a shrinking ray, he almost succeeded stealing it (in a well handed funny hyped scene) but finds himself once again beaten by the same guy who stole the pyramids, "Vektor"
Gru tries to steal the shrinking ray back but must realize that Vektor's super mega awesome oo7 agent style explosive lazer rocket filled intruder system is to much for him.

Which again leaves Gru even more annoyed as three orphant cookie sellers can walk into the property with no trouble as Vektor have a weakness for cookies.
This however give Gru an idea, adopt the girls and make them sell Vektor some cookies where he have infiltrated the cookie packages with cookie robots!

This is where the movie kind of jumps the track for me, because as the movie after 25 minutes of great hilarity and throw backs to the good old action movies does not have time for so much more of that as it's now about Gru learning to accept and eventually love these three girls.
Hi's scenes with them do swing from being genuinely funny to a bit to sugar sweet, thankfully we have the high points as he do steal the shrinking ray and by mistake gets trapped inside of Vektors high tech home so he have to escape using a great deal of physical gags, but the loving montage with the kids afterwards sort of spoils it, it's first from that point the movie gets to predictable. Though not heart less, I genuinly liked these girl, especially the oldest one which seemed like a little adult to me, who had taken on the cruel world in a bit to young an age to be able to shield the two younger once, that was kind of heart breaking to watch.
However, it's a genuine good movie, it's funny and nice, and it never lingers to much in anything, if you happen to get a chance to watch it, there is no shame in that. it's kind of worth it.

The Phantom of the Opera, from then to now.

Hi's there the phantom of the opera!

Beware the Phantom of the opera!

We'll. kind off seems I wont have access to a computer tomorrow, so two articles today.

I love Phantom of the opera, but boy, what a girly thing to review. but at least it isn't quite as stupid as stuff like "Twilight" and other teen flicks. and it both have a sense of drench full horror and class above it. awesome!

Phantom of the opera was originally a book written in 1909 by Author Gaston Leroux.
The book is really not the best book in the world, I read it and completely expected a devastating tragic love story with a flinch of creepy stalker ghost story. as that Is what I get from the many adaptations.
What I did get was another detective mystery book where we see everything from the perspective of the character "Raul" the most hated character in the phantom adoptions, and he is equally hated in every single adoption despite being the good guy, I will explain exactly why in a moment when we get to the summary.
Button line is, the book just isn't very good, it's now downright bad, but it's a very bland and long read and not nearly as interesting as it's own legacy.

What the story is about is the opera house in the middle of Paris. Christine Daae is a singer in that opera house and have for a long time taken lessons by the mysterious phantom who is madly in love with her, he is fine with just giving her singing lessons until Christines old childhood sweet heart Raul appears and starts dating her, where after the phantom gets insanely jealous and all hell breaks loose.
you see as it turns out the phantom is a horrible disfigured man living in the dungeons of the opera and hiding behind mask, is a genius in almost everything but is also completely mad and a murder. he sports the cape and mysteriously disappearing acts, he plays the organ and the hypnotic voice, the insanity and is bloody dangerous, he is the stereotype of the kick ass bad guy, awesome!
But he is just so interesting and human that every girl phantom fan have a crush on him, dude he even got a cape, a romantic giving side and can play the organ, he is just sexy and we kind of fell sorry for him that his so lonely. Raul is always mr perfect, young, beautiful, charming and giving and really really boring. which is why every phantom fan girl in the world hate him for taking Christine away. Anyway, adaptations!




funny how the early adaptations always seems to be the definite version in the fan base's collected concious. that does in any case very much apply here where the silent 1925 Phantom of the Opera with Lon Chaney in the title role is regarded the definite thing.
Who can blame the people who thinks that? this movie is awesome and differently worth for anyone to check out. Though I must say right now, I own three different copies of this film and they are all different. when you go and watch it, if you watch it, make sure to watch a copy with a good soundtrack, the soundtrack on the free version in the internet is pure crap, and the good sound track make all the difference in the world.
Though it do kind of bother me, that one copy I do have with good soundtrack doesn't have the coloured versions of the two scenes that are some of the first techni colour film scenes ever made.
One of the big masquerade scene that is all colourful and looks awesome as the guests are dancing around in all these imaginative animal costumes, and of cause the phantom in his red death costume. It just looks awesome in colour.
Anyway, movie! this is one beautiful and moody film. it's a ghost story and a romance. it is creepy and it's tragic. the atmosphere in the room is that of a fairy tale, not to mention Lon Chaney's make up is really good, and makes him look really scary, his face looks sort of like a skull or something.
amazing film, if your a fan of the silent era and like stuff like "Nosferatu" or the silent "Jekyll and Hyde" you simply mustn't cheat yourself of this.





in 1943 another Phantom of the opera film was made, this time with Claude Rains, mostly known from the invisible man (1934) and Casablanca, in the title character.
For some reason this movie actually won an Oscar for best movie, I have a hard time seeing where that Oscar came from. this is not that good a movie and it's differently not that good a phantom movie. Claude Rains is a really odd casting choice for the Phantom, especially his small height makes it seem weird, all though his voice is awesome and fits the phantom well. The film is not really that creepy, it's not really that suspenseful and the romance almost non presence. all though the movie have it's really tragic elements. in this the phantom is more a victim than anything else as we actually in the beginning of the movie witness his fall from grace, and this is also where the origin of him being burned by acid instead of just being born disfigured started.





in 1962 it was the Hammer companies turn to bite into Phantom of the opera.
Now, Hammer is a late British horror film company, who adapted all the classic horror tales. Dracula, Frankenstein, Doctor Jekyll and mr Hyde. They did them all, and they did them in a very delightfully horrifying and gore filled way. really putting the horror back into the genre.
Why on earth does their version of the Phantom of the opera then seem like such a tame affair.
There are few traces of the good nasty Hammer gore feast and creepiness. and again the romance is non present. in fact it's written completely out of the story, there isn't as much as a hint towards it.
Not to say the movie haven't got it's cool factors, like the inserted villain, though despite of evil and slick he is. The phantom is the villain, so you shouldn't have to put another one in. well, in this movie the phantom is even more a victim than the Claude Rain version, and this Phantom couldn't even hurt a fly, what a bore.





in 1986 Andrews Lloyd webbers musical stage version of the phantom of the opera opened for the first time, this is probably the version most people is familiar with as it still lives and have become truly a classic. and it is awesome!
everything that is good about the phantom is in this musical and is used. The danger, the ghost story, the romance, the tragedy, the mystery and element of magic. not the mention the extremely grand music score. I saw this show twice in west end and once in a Danish production, and it's still just as awesome. cause it's just such a ride to watch, you just fell with this thing.
And people who says Andrew Lloyd Webber's music is bland clearly haven't seen this musical... all though with Stuff as "Cats" and "Star Light Express" behind him... I don't blame them.







The 1989 Phantom of the opera movie.
Freaking Robert Englund Freddy Kruger as the Phantom! need I say more.
well yeah, I do. two lines of description is hardly enough, I gotta make it at least ten.
This movie is really cool, it's kind of weird. sometimes in a good way sometimes in a bad, but really cool. It does not have the romance in it, but the dark edge and horror element is totally present plus it's such a good looking movie. whit great mystery elements in it, it's differently worth checking out for any horror fans.
plus, Freaking Freddy Kruger as the Phantom!




"Il Fantasma dell'opera", or just plain English Phantom of the opera 1998.
It's stuff like this that makes me sympathise with the nostalgia critic. THIS MOVIE SUCKS!
it's made by Dario Argento which is known for his gritty horror films, and so this should be a good edgy film. though, the horror is dump and disgusting more than anything else, the romance likewise so, the phantom isn't even disfigured, though as disgusting as ever. dude, there's a scene where he shows sexual pleasure by stuffing a rat into his pants, Christine who is by the way played by Argento's daughter is totally sexualiesed in the most disgusting non senses way, her feelings towards the phantom as he is suddenly totally in love with him makes absolutely no sense, he treats her horrible and then claims hi loves her, and she wants to stay with him.
I mentioned twilight before in this article, well this movie is way worse than twilight for kind of the same reasons. it just sucks, don't bother with it.



most recently in 2004 Joel Schumacher made the film version of Andrew Lloyd Webbers stage play. this movie is... really not living up to it's potential. it's so boring and plane, it looks way to clean and not edgy at all, the Phantom is really miss cast. (girls I know Gerard Butler is hot, but doesn't changes the fact that he was miss cast) You should think it would be easy as Joel Schumacher already had the script and incredible score in his hands, and just needed putting pictures on it. but all the cool stuff in the franchise and stage play, which is kind of edgy, he toned down and made way to clean. Like the Phantoms red dead costume at the masked ball, it's the most boring and clean cut Phantom/red dead costume I have ever seen.
The movie have its moments, and especially for girls the plain romantic music can get to you. but for an adaptation of one of the greatest stage musicals ever produced, it's just not good enough.





and then this yeas Andrew Lloyd Webber had all the fans of his original phantom of the opera musical enraged as the sequel "love never dies" had its opening at west end.
Have anyone ever done a stage sequel to a stage show? I have never seen it done before, and Ive had my eyes on stage shows for a long time.
Anyhow, I haven't seen it, just thought I would mention it. I listened to the soundtrack, it both have really good numbers in it and numbers that fall short.
Plus the most hardcore awesome musical number Andrew Lloyd Webber have ever composed, it's just so extraordinary awesome, and I would so kill to see it being used in a phantom movie. The song is called "Beauty underneath" it's on youtube. I implore everyone to just check it out, you will never think of Andrew Lloyd Webber the same way again.


And so on this ending note, this is another thing that I don't think will ever die. it's just a matter of time before another adaptation will see the light of day. I actually haven't covered all the versions I know of the Phantom of the opera in this article, there are books, other stage plays, television movie and cinematic spoof kind of movies I haven't even mentioned, the material is awesomely big, and fortunately is keeping on growing.
The next time I have access to the computer we will talk about "Darkman" which is a movie that in many ways reminds me both of Phantom of the opera, and the classic secret identity disguising hero, which is why I wanted to cover does two aspects this quickly. see yah around, hopefully.

The Scarlet Pimpernel, from then to now.

They seek him here
They Seek him there
Does Frenches seeks him everywhere
Is he in heaven? or is he in hell?
That damned, illusive, Pimpernel.

I ask of you, how many swashbucklers have a poem about them self which is actually from their first original appearance over a hundred years ago and have the purpose of mocking once uttered.

So with such an ancient old character, do he have like a secret underground fan base... not what I know about. in fact, as far as I know nobody knows who the Scarlet pimpernel is, ecxept for really dusty littérateur professors, and very cultivated people who also likes stuff like "Cyrano de Bergerac" "Romeo and Juliet" and "Les Miserables."
All of which are good stories in their own right, especially Cyrano which one of my favourite stories of all time, but it isn't exactly what a mainstream audience want to go watch.

And when talking the Scarlet Pimpernel, that is such a shame, as he truly is the first hero ever to sport the secret identity of a incompetent fobish prince cheesecake, also in front of the love of his life which is in this case his actual wife, to fool the enemy and go one heroic dangerous crusades under the alias of "The scarlet Pimpernel."

The Scarlet Pimpernel is really starting to become and old character, he was created in 1902 in a book by Baroness Emmuska Orczy, and it was quickly turned into a stage play.
She wrote several books with the figure, but only the first one have been adapted and is the one which is considered the classic.




The book is kind of written like a mystery novel, where Marguerite, the hero's wife is the actual main character and we see everything from her point of view as she unravel the mystery about her husband and eventually take matters into own hands.

so, summary.
The Scarlet Pimpernel concerns the French evolution where the French noble was taken prisoner and decapitated by the guillotine for their single crime of being French noble, and it was everyone. Men, women, children, people who was under suspicion of hiding or just being in contact with nobility, having a noble grand aunt. and this is real history folks.

Sir Percy Blakenly is a English nobleman, and therefore have quite a lot of French friends of nobility, so he decides to something about it as he collects a gang of friends around him and create the alias of the scarlet pimpernel, so he through disguised and planning can smuggle the French nobility out of the country and to England where they are safe.
The Scarlet Pimpernel have been marked French's enemy number one, so carefully planning even more cunning disguised are in other, at the same time as Percy must at all cost keep his identity secret.
It's the stuff of great adventure, and it is. great fun story, and I only got 3 bloody different adaptations to talk about. man that sucks, but oh well. lets get started.




The most famous adaptation if the scarlet pimpernel, and what is considered the definite version would be the Leslie Howard "the scarlet Pimpernel" from 1934.
It's a great fun movie, all though it's not as much an action movie, as it is an adventure movie of wits. actually its not an action movie at all, there are no stunts and no sword fighting. Percy is purely fighting with his wits using elaborate cunning plans, incredible disguises and impersonations plus fooling the entire French police was to think he is the most incompetent fobbish person in all of England and French.
It is differently my favourite scenes in the entire movie when ever Percy stands as himself, in his noble clothing just beside the French police, and talk with them with his fobbish voice.
The really interesting thing about these scenes is how much he is mocking the French police force, they don't know that they are being mocked as they just find him incredible annoying, but believe me, they are.
His disguises when being in French, like when he plays an old hag, or a stupid farmer is just delightful. to see what he planned on how it's set into work is just great fun. not to mention the movie climax which is purely a battle of wits between Percy and sir Chauvelin that goes on for around 5 minutes. and it is nothing but the two of them standing in a room constantly trying to outwit each other, it really proves you don't need great action and explosion to have tension, that scene have it fully.

as sequel "Return of the Scarlet Pimpernel" was made and released in 1937, it kind of sucked. what more can I say?
It's about Chauvelin trying to get revenge by kidnapping Percy's wife and Percy must pursue him. There are no fobbish persona, no great disguised, no elaborate plans. just boring suck about a man trying to get his wife back, we seen that a thousand times before, just tell it fun and well in a Pimpernel fashion and it would have been cool, but no.





Then there is the British television movie "The Scarlet Pimpernel" from 1982.
And what can I say about that? it's an extremely faithful remake of the 34 movie, which is both good and bad. It's good because this movie is just as good as the old one, it follows the same formula, Percy do pretty much the same things, and the actor playing Percy carries it out beautifully and fun, but it's not better than the Leslie Howard movie either, cause it's the same thing. Well, this movie have Gandalf as the villain, and Ian McKellen is always good in whatever he is in, in fact every actor in this is good. but what can I say I did not say about the 34 movie?
anyhow, if you like adventure and disguises, it's worth checking out.




A short British mini series of the scarlet Pimpernel was released in 1999. I have heard it should be really good. but I have no idea for myself as I was never able to get a hold on it.
What I have seen from it it seems okay, Percy don't seem to be as much fun as I am used to, but who am I to judge when I havn't seen the connection of his actions.





I'm sorry. but I am a musical person. I love a good musical.
you see, musical are like movies, there are really good musicals and there are many really bad musicals. and people tend to think all musicals are bad because that one thing they saw was a bad high school production.
As far as I am concerned, the Scarlet Pimpernel musical from 1997 is a really good musical.
It's bloody funny and adventurous. the music is big and great, the plot is as adventure as ever. they even have a good sword fight or two in there. mocking and disguises. it's just great. Percy is really written as one of the best comedian parts in the century and everything about it is just fun. just to show you how funny and awesome this musical is, check out this scene from the original production. Both what happens before and after the song.
Before Maugurite, Percy's wife who doesn't know that Percy is the Pimpernel rushes the the Pimpernels rescue to warn him that Chauvelin is on the way, and Percy takes the uppertunity to start questioning her.
After the song, the villain Chauvelin actually catches Percy red handed, so Percy must use his wits to get out of it.. which he does... quite brilliantly.




So, 1999 was the last time the pimpernel made an appearance, and that was only in a small mini series. that's over 10 years ago.
Is he dead and gone from the mainstream medium? I really don't know, but I sure don't hope so.
I am one of the few who are really for remakes and adaptations of this really old stuff, and especially the Scarlet Pimpernel I would so want to see have a shine in Hollywood.
If I myself could pick exactly what movie should have the green light in Hollywood, that would be it. and I am all for turning it into a swashbuckling adventure ala Pirates of The Caribbean, as long as you remain it fun.
Hell, with 45 minutes of extra screen time (The average movie in the 30's was only like 60 minutes) you can easily put in some sword fighting and elaborate chases scenes. I am all for it.