Miss Liv's video reviews; Transformers

Doctor who review, Love and Monsters

Five arguments in favouor of my little pony friendship is magic

Green Lantern review

Twilight video review

Legacy Hunting; Tintin

Muppets Wizard of Oz; Movie review, vidoe!

my second very serious attempt on doing this! I can honestly say I gave it my very best shot, but that I have an awful lot to learn, I honestly did not mean for this video to be this long! I was aiming at 20-25 minutes. Which I obviously failed, many points and even some jokes was left out doing the editing process as I realised how long the video was becoming!

any constructive feed-back would be deeply appreciated. Please enjoy.

Movie review; Dirch

Erh.. look. I know, there are probably none outside of me country who cares for this one, or have even as much of heard of it.

But it just so happens this is a movie that from the beginning was a subject matter very dear to me, and handled it in a surprisingly tragic-ironic way. And hell, this is my blog, I can do what-ever the hell I want.

Oh, and something more mainstream done as Video review should be get released tomorrow, done better than my top ten video for sure, I am actually spending time on it! any feed back would be appreciated!

Well, Movie, just came home from it, and it really was from the beginning a movie very close to my own heart.

"Dirch Passer." is probably the most famous name in all of Denmark, despite him being dead for over 25 years, we all know who he was, we all know his face, his voice.. his acts. He is probably the funniest man who ever lived in Denmark, and here, two and a half decades later, the entire country of Denmark still laughs of the old filmed theatre sketches and tons of old movies, which they keep on re-running in television to this date.
He was my first inspiration and idol when I was a child, I early on learned to mimick his words and faces, my dad had an old LP with him singing, and I could stand in front of the player with a wig on acting out the comedy numbers. All of my life, his work has made me laugh and has inspired him. The entire Danish comedy culture has been influenced. That is how big he is. Still today.

So all this put aside... who was he? How was he as a person? Was he as energetic and funny off stage as on stage?... Hardly.

The biographic picture of Dirch Passer, so simple just called. "Dirch." to keep it informal, shows a more tragic picture.
A vulnerable insecure man, who just happens to have the gift, that all he needs to is to walk out on that stage, open his mouth, and people will laugh of him.

"There are people out there willing to give their life to be able to do what you do!" a theatre producers exclaims to Dirch in one of the many scenes in the movie. And he is quite right, I for all of my life have pursued to be able to do what Dirch Passer did, and of cause I can't yet. But Dirch just sits there, and he asks the good question several times. "Why?" he asks. "Why is it they like me so much?" and the people he asks sit stunned back, lacking an answer. "Well erh.. because... because..."

People see Dirch, they only need to watch his face, and they expect to laugh. How-ever, he is not that kind of man who can take just being happy as it come and take in strives, he's insecure, about himself and his work.

A particularly heart breaking scene, which is ripped out of reality, this is what really happened.
Dirch wanted to make a break out of all the comedy, trying to do something more serious, so he went for it, and decided to play Lenny in the classic theatre play. "Of mice and Men." by John Steinbeck.
Now, if you know anything about litterature, you should know. "Of Mice and men." it's very much a classic, and a very serious play. Lenny is the halfwitted tragic giant who can't control his own strength, it's a story to be taken very seriously.
Dirch plays Lenny, he re-hearses and as always is very nervous if he is good enough, finally it's opening night, and the moment he steps out on stage... people laugh and applaud by the sight of him. As he starts on his dialogue, people keep on laughing. And it continues until Dirch breaks together and starts crying ten minutes straight on the middle of the stage. And this really happened, it's a true story.

The movie shows the story of this insecure man, who has been handed this position and of cause goes with it, doing the best he can't, but is i'll equipped to deal with it, he has trouble saying no, taking far more plays and movies than should be allowed, in real life, his thirty years in the profession, he made over 200 movies and stage plays.. that's a lot. It would not be unusual for him to do a movie in the day time and then two plays in the evening driving from theatre from theatre. As a result the private life suffers, and though he doesn't mean to do bad, he almost jumps from wife to wife.
And it all ends up in Dirch, slowly but surely burning himself out, he could never say no, he could never cope, he resorted to the wrong sort of ways to solve his problem, which lead to his early death of heart failure, which happened. On stage in the middle of one if his shows, he fell down, and he died.. this is true.

The story really got to my head, and I shed tears three different places, perhaps it's because I all ready know of the real person, and his work always meant so much to me, he made me laugh.

The movie has nothing but love and respect for "Dirch Passer." and goes out of its way to be as true to the real him as humanly possible, which is probably also why the story could have been just a tiny bit tighter. well, compromising some facts to get a tighter story would have helped.
Yet, it's such a good looking movie! it re-creates so many scenes from the most classic Dirch Passer perfectly.

Nikolaj Lie Kaas, who plays Dirch is.... nothing short of absolutely amazing. He nails it! he doesn't just play Dirch, he is Dirch. The way he movies, his face mimick, the was he talks, that constant look of vulnerability in his eyes and awkwardness shyness in his behaviour. The Sketches perfectly re-told second for second and you could sometime have sworn it was Dirch it, it's the same!

Everybody else, also great casted! We don't have that many excellent big stars Danish actors, does we do have tends to be hijacked to the US, but they collected them anyhow here.. or perhaps it's the direction that looks so bloody good. It really looks like we are back in the sixties and move our way up to the early eighties, as supposed to. Having recently seen Captain America which also takes place in the sixties.. it's kind of amazing. "Dirch." Doesn't in any way have a budget coming as much as close to Cap America, and yet they pulled it off with the sets and looks of the sixties. (Dirch must have cost like 30,000 Dollars, that's the biggest budgets we deal with in this country)

I liked the movie, I am glad they handled Dirch passer so well. I don't think the movie will go on outside of the country, it's not exactly another contender for "Best foreign picture." at the Oscar's.. but, it is kind of a national treasure, the subject was treated with much love and caring, with a little fright of ever getting something wrong.

If you want to know what kind of man I grew up with, and who inspired my comedy acts the most.. check this movie out. It's definitely not a waste of time.

X-men first class Review

And this is how you figure that you gained weight and your hair is stupid..
I have no idea whether to think it's sort of cool my hair is able to defy logic like this one a daily basis or if I should just go out and buy some styling products.. and I have most differently gained weight since my last video :/





If you got comment or a question, just ask I promise I'll answer.


...hm, maybe I should turn that into my trademark that my hair will always be a wild mess.

So honest thoughts.. I know I didn't go into how wild this movie is, but... should I keep on recording reviews like this or just write them?

Pirates of The Carribbean on Stranger tides review

Urh, why doesn't anything ever work for me?

It was yesterday I saw Pirates of the Caribbean on stranger tides, the first thing I did when I came home was smacking up a camera with the intention of just filming me making a review and then post it... but this temporarily computer wouldn't corporate with that, this morning I instead tried to record my review as in voice only.. neither Youtube nor Blogspot fancy posting that.. so I guess I will be writing.. again. Next time, I do believe it will be a filmed review though. That would be.. the Captain America Movie I think.

So Pirates of the Caribbean, let it be no secret that I adore this genre and I genuinely fell the is a lack of attention on it, the adventure Swushbuckler genre... unfortunately Pirates 3 did not succeed at being that and overdid it by a mile, becoming a muddle and no one knows what kind of movie it was supposed to be, how ever. This movie is right back on track again and does it right... mostly. It doesn't make the best of sense.. then again, neither the first movie which is still the best one of the lot.

Well, I know why most people are going to go in and watch this movie... how is Jack Sparrow this time around?
Let me be honest here, I adore his character in the first movie, but from that point of he changed.. The first movie was all about setting up that you can be a good man and a pirate, that Jack Sparrow is just that, he is the most honest of the lot.. just sometimes he doesn't tell the entire truth, only the partial but the truth none the less. as he said, "It's the honest ones you should watch out, because you never know when they are going to do something incredible stupid!" and then he does something incredible stupid X)

In the next movie.. he starts lying straight out of the back, and he is pictured as a dishonest character.. Jonnhy depp makes it work and he is at least enjoyable to watch... in the third movie.. he is hardly in it, and it's only barely he doesn't make his few appearences being obnoxiouse and annoying.. in my humble opinion, I don't even know what he does in that movie or why he is there.. other than comic relief.
In this movie, it's seventy percent Jack Sparrow doing cool shit and he does it really well, he is the definite star of the movie and he is never ever tiring, never ever obnoxious, he is just a whole lot of fun!
I like how in every movie they go out of the way to make Jack Sparrows introduction uniqe, grant and funny.. though there is no beating the first movie, the motherload of all funny introductions, though this one does it really really good as well, it was brilliant.

Actually, I even think the first ten or twenty minutes is the best of the entire movie, I love a good sword fight, I love it a lot, but there is something I love even more.. a good chase scene, and I don't mean stupid car chases, I mean on food chase scenes where you have to jump through buildings, swing in ropes, go over the roof tops, jump down some kind of whole.. yeah, that's the first twenty minutes of this movie! and he screws over the king of England and swings in a chandelier as well! He swung in a chandelier! YEAS! the cliché of all swushbuckler clichés and it's never ever going to get old or uncool! I am so happy he did that! And that's only the beginning of all the shit he did, and it tells what this movie is about... fun! it's fun. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense but neither the first one.

Again I will say it annoys me a bit how much they screw up Jack's character.. he isn't the same character as in the first movie and hasn't been in a long while, but... in the first one he was all about that committing a mutiny is the worst sort of crime you could ever do, even for a pirate and he would never ever stoop that love.. and, erh well.. he commits a mutiny in this movie.. it could have been justified really easy, that he is not on the ship of own free will and never swore legiens to the captain, but the writing never goes there. I mean it is cool seeing Sparrow staging a mutiny and all, and again, then he serves a vital part to the plot.. but.. oh it's a detail it's not that important. I just can't stress enough Jack Sparrow of the first movie and Jack Sparrow in the rest of the movies is not the same dude.. he is still funny and enjoyable as hell but he is not the same dude, or at least a couple of moral values have changed on the way.

Anyhow, Penelope Cruz is the lady... because every movie has to have "the lady." and the lady always have more balls than any of the guys, wops ass in a fight, is brash and is only too happy to face danger yet will at some point need saving.. this is every main lady in every movie, and that's also her.. though there is one fact that makes her different than other lead ladies... she's a rotten egg.. you don't know at ones, and what would normally happens is that we figure by the end.. she's not that bad she just needs love.. no, this woman is rotten to the core, and what Jack does with her in the end is well deserved.. even actually making her a potential main villain in any sequels. Cruz herself is hot as hell, beautiful.. a bit obnoxious as is the case with most female leads, but all around decent.. and I gotta get myself one of those pirate outfits! That is hot!
Geffory Rush is back as Barbossa.. well, and he is great, just as great as the first movie.. we have a new cursed Pirate Captain.. black beard, but dude, the last two was so hardcore that there is no beating that, I mean he is great, but they are no skeleton pirates and he is no David Jones.. perhaps it's time to get away from the cursed Pirate villains and try something else, I don't know what else you can do with it.

The adventure works, it's fun, enjoyable. And all around a funny ride.
Will there be a sequel? To take a guess, it's all in the hands of Johnny boy, if he signs up, there will be a sequel, if he doesn't... they could make another pirate movie but I doubt they would. bummer. You can make pirates movie without Sparrow, the genre existed for just as long as movies as a medium in itself.
And here is what I would really like from a sequel... seeing Jack Sparrow actually being a captain of his ship! I mean, he goes around calling himself captain and the joke is, he is never in the position as one.. he's been that twice, in the middle of the first movie when he hired a crew for the Inceptor.. which he lost, and in the end where he got the pearl which tied over the beginning of the second movie.. where he lost it.. I would love to see him command a crew for an entire movie so we can see why he calls himself Captain Jack Sparrow, that would be great.

Anyway, doesn't make much sense, isn't deep, but is differently great fun and there isn't made to many movies like this.. and there probably wont be in any near future, what comes closet is the musketeer movie that will be released at December and it looks like shit, it's totally up to Depp if there is going to be a sequel. (please sign up.)

If you liked the first movie, I am positive you will like this one to! if you like swushbuckler and supernatural adventure, it's a nice little trip. It isn't perfect in anyway (Why are the Spanish even in this movie?)
But it's really funny and made me laugh plus smiling constantly.

Beastly movie review

Oh boy.
One hundred and twentytwo percent guilty Sofie pleasure.
Well, all though I try to hide it, I happen to be a girl, and there are romances I love to watch... as I first heard about this movie, Beastly, a modern interpretation of beauty and the beast happening in the big city between two high schoolers.. I was into it. I tried to convince myself that I wasn't but I was, I wanted to see the movie. Totally guilty.
And even worse, now that I've seen.. I really liked it.
Beastly is another movie trying to cash in on the major popularity of Twilight and is indeed yet again just a supernatural romance spending most of the time with two people falling in love and being.. well, romantic. ... I always thought Beauty and the beast was the most romantic tale in the entire world, I've seen lots of different interpretations of it and.. yeah I sort of like all of them, in each their way, some a pretty bad and yet they still have something.
And this, have at least three factors for it that works which is factors against Twilight.
1; The movie is about the romance and never tries to sell it as anything else, thus you will get what you paid for and can't be mad about that some sort of war plot that doesn't make any sense.
2; the characters are likeable and we get why we should care for them, the key part in any beauty and the beast adaptation is making the beast absolutely loveable, making the audience fall in love with the beast on the same time the heroine does. And it works here, we even like the heroine, she actually has personality is not vain and is not stupid in the least, the beast (Hunter) actually has to win her over, which he does wrong in the beginning as he tries to buy her with gifts, and she is just not that kind of girl, first as he simply starts being nice does she open up.
3; Chemistry! these two actors have chemistry, their characters are actually likeable, they are flawed, awkward, not afraid of laughing and look both alive and vibrant on screen, the most important aspect of this movie works. The romance works.
And.. that's all the movie exists for, all what it tries to be about, a self exploration about inner beauty, our place in the world and what love really is about it. And it works, that's all there is to it.
I blatantly admit this is as much a girls movie as it's ever going to be, and it's probably my biggest girly pleasure ever! I even adore the fairytale style there is over it, both in cinematography and soundtrack to how they just go with it that there is a witch among them.
I promise, I still don't like Twilight, you would never catch me watching Sex and the city, but this I like. It's what Twilight should have been.
God it's nice with a romance where I actually like both the man and the woman, often I only sort of like one of them while the other is simply to nice and cheesy. The beast is close here, but he is awkward enough to make it work.. and he has a great smile. That's another thing people should do more in Hollywood movies, smile! Chris Hemsworth smiled a lot as Thor and I totally fell in love with him, and not only for the body.. the guy playing the Beast smiles a lot and I bought it raw.
Well as I said, for girls, a little guilty pleasure not saying much and not doing much. Something for a very relaxing saturday with the girls, nothing more.
And I liked it. Now you can use that as a weapon against me for the rest of my life.

------------Edit----------

By the way, I just managed to get my hands on the book to, and it happens to be a very slim little book I just managed to read in the hour it takes for me to take the bus to work. Also I am a fast reader.
Well... the movie is better than the book... The book is pretty much shit and it's very obviouse that it's an inexsperienced young author who wrote it.
I like the issues the movie chooses to pick out that the book doesn't even mention, a moment that differently stood out to me in the movie is when the beast overhears his former friends talking about him.. the person he used to be, and as it turns out, none of them liked him, they were even intimidated by him and felt forced to act like jackasses to stay in his favour so they didn't have to become the bullied ones.. and it was so obviouse from his eyes that he didn't even realise this fact. Stories like this rings a lot truth to real high school life and was a great little moment in the movie, the book is far to busy being over the top cheesy, it's a poorly written poorly concieved novel with little to nothing going for it, and I would more compare it to does cheap monthly teenage horror novels I can buy in the local shop than an actual novel. The script really deviates only maintaining the actually good ideas.
So yeah.. for ones in my life I can say, don't bother with the book if you want to exsperience the tale, just watch the movie.

Thor movie review

Just came back from watching "Thor"
Who would have thunk, that it's the that has nothing at all to do with vikings other than some borrowed names, but about these knights in an alien city flying around in colorful capes, wearing silly helmets and use massive weapons.. who was going to get a very firm structured three act shakesperian story piece, allowing it to just be a movie not pretending to be anything else.. a tale, something I have been looking for.. and some scenes indeed just smell of Shakesperian court intruqes and emotions, sometimes mixed up with some fighting. And who would have thought that... it all fits. It works! this movie is.. good. Really good.
It's not groundbreaking or anything, it doesn't give us something new, but it does give us something rare.
It's a movie not ashamed to admit.. that it's a movie and a fairytale, structured and told as such. having the fell of the good old days in the fourtish and how you would structure and adventure movie back then. It's unashamedly the kind of super-hero movie all other super-hero movies shy's a way from becoming.
It is.. fun. And unpretentious. Who would have thought that Shakespearian Kenneth Brannagh would be such a perfect fit for this? the only other major hollywood film his done.. "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." is not a movie I fancy. but this one I enjoyed.
It's by no means flawless, but it's straightforward has a firm grounding in a three act plot and it's a lot of fun. I think the major flaw is that it never raises above any of this, it never even tries.. but on the other hand, that also turns into a strength and a nice change of pace.. also before the super duper awesome avengers movie comes out next year. It's nice just so sit back and relax the story.
Many worries have gone out that it's to complex.. not a problem, it's not even a tiny bit complex, it's straight forward. And it really is its own movie and not a set-up to the avengers. "SHEILD" place its own part in the movie, having an actual purpose and there is a one liner hint towards "Iron Man." and a one liner hints towards. "the Hulk." and that's it. small snacks for the nerds to feast on.
I have to admit.. I never ever liked the Marvel Thor.. as I said, it has nothing to do with the Norse mythology other than borrowing some names. But I liked the movie regardless.
Christ Hemworth who plays Thor.. is a keeper! I swear, he has the best smile in cinema history, it reaches all of his face and his eyes, he is just so likeable! and got a... really good body.. I am sort of in love..
He is perfect casted most differently, and he could without a problem carry the entire movie on his shoulders.
Now.. we all know what exactly is always the weak point in all of these superhero movies, without any exception.. the lady love. This time played by the lovely Nathalie Portman.. well, she is not annoying, she doesn't come off as a card board cut out and she is kind of likeable.. not that interesting, but just the mere fact that she doesn't annoy me instantly grant her "Above average leading lady in superhero movies." status. It's a shame though.. but honestly, I don't know either what to do to write strong female love interests. now that I write myself and am really getting into it.. you realize how hard this really is.. I got no solutions on this.
Loki... oh boy Loki.. again, this Loki never ever had anything to do with the original Norse mythology Loki.. and even if they didn't shared a name.. this Loki has always been my number one most hated arch nemesis of all time. Because all he seems to be is being the powerful god who never grew up and all of his motivations is "Daddy and big brother never appreciated me." emo issues.
And yeah.. that is also what he is in this movie.. yet strangely enough.. didn't come off as annoying as Loki usually is to me.. he is still a wining bastard but there is something more going on here. plus the actor is just perfect and very enjoyable.. I don't know if this is intentionally or not.. but I love the tale about how in the beginning of the movie Thor looks like someone who seriously needs to grow up and Loki is the voice of reason, differently looking like the grown up of the two. and by the end of the movie, Thor has grown up and suddenly Loki seems like the child who needs to grow up. That's clever structure, I like that.
All though, I don't see how Loki is ever going to make a comeback without appearing like a whiner :/

So as I said. I liked to movie, it isn't ground breaking and amazing, but it is fun and entertaining, it keeps a nice balance and a nice pace. Is a swell fantasy adventure not pretending to go out of scale, it's a great chance of pace.
Go give it a watch, it's cool.

Doctor who: The impossible astronaut, thoughts

I know.. I really know. I shouldn't be doing this at all.

Doctor who is probably the currently most popular show in nerd circles and everyone, I really mean everyone! Is making some sort of review out of this..

But craters, I can't help myself!

Help me guys, I am the only one in miles radius watching this show, there is no one I can talk to. And boy was this season opener something else. and boy do I think the only prober word to describe is. "Intense."

Well.. firstly what I kind of fell many reviewers (yeas, beat me down now, I am critising all other web reviewers.) has wrong.

You can't... it's impossible to even attempt and review this episode in any other regards than your immediate exsperience. Not only because it's the beginning of a two-parter, so what you have is only half an episode. But also because it's an episode all about setting up, you can only review this episode as you know the pay-off. which wont be revealed to us before the very end. And thus, this series, more than any other series in doctor who season.. will ultimately have to be judged as a hole after we seen it all. I foresee that none of the future episodes should be judged on their own but only as a part of the collective.
Which is different, nice.. will make it harder for new people to get into the show but be more rewarding for the fans.. And from a writers stand point it's exstremely impressive and the reason why I favor British Tely so much over American.. stuff like this just wouldn't happen in American Tely.

I said it once and I am saying it again. Steffen Moffat is a uniqe and rare talent in writing, there is litterately only one of him and when he is dropping out of writing will wont see anyone exactly like him ever again.

What you learn to see as you watch either a lot of movies or read a lot of books is that really good writers really have personality within the writing. I can recognise a RTD structured script, I can recognise a Moffat structured script. These a guys with very different personality.

The interesting thing about this season starter is that it takes every single thing Steven Moffat is good at, and he has showed us before that he is good at, and shoveled it into forty minutes. From. "Where is my mommy?" transformed to. "Watch out for the spaceman." to, weird paradoxial space travel only Moffat can pull of, to the weeping angels distant cusins.. which scared the living hell out of me. This is so clearly a moffat script!

It's bold, it's different, it's shameless. It's Steven Moffat being an eleven year old kid sitting by his computer saying. "Oh boy! I need to find more ways to use my time-traveling device! I need to do it differently, oh! and I need to make it a western, and I need these creepy ass aliens.. and, Riversong gets fleshed out." I mean... the guy is on a rampage and he is on crackers.. seriously.

Though as with the last season.. I know that he wrote the ending first and then all the other stuff so it would fitt in.

It's another form for writing, which I use myself.. J.K. Rowling is a clear user of this tactic to. Writing the ending first and you can have all this stuff going on as long as you reach the goal, and lay out small hints and signals.

My favorite one from the last series... which no one picked up on or have mentioned! Is how in "Victory of the Daleks." Amy drives ford the human side of the robot-doctor man, by reminding him of his love, which is a clear connectiong to the season finale where Rory proves that he is human not a robot because of his love for Amy. Small things like that is littereted throughout the series. And as will they probably be in this season, it all ready Started. Moffat is a man who looks forward, who wrote the ending first and thus is able to drop all these small references along the you can go back and discover, but first makes sense as you exsperienced the finale. (Exactly like Harry potter actually...)

As for a season started... best one I have ever exsperienced, but only as a season started. I am on pin and needles to watch the next episode and the entire series, I have no freaking idea where this is going. Which is good. I was scared, I was sad I laughed. And I don't understand how it was humanly possible to get that many things into forty minutes of tely! I am sincerely clueless.

Does this episode make any kind of sense? Nope, it doesn't.
Does it matter? I really don't think it does. I need to ask again, when ever did Doctor who ever make any fucking sense? This show doesn't make any sense at all. It's all about our feeling as adventure, the show is the only show thus far capable to turn me into a little child when I watch it, capable to make me loose myself into whatever is happening. Nothing else is able to do that anymore, and that is why I adore the show so much.

The reason why Moffat is better at this than T. Davis..

I don't believe RTD is such a bad writer as everyone gives him credit for. I mean, look at the numbers! look at your own adoration for the show, we wouldn't have cared if it was that bad. I just think that the thing is that RTD is very inconsistent. Because, when he is good, he is really good! when he is bad.. he is bad. He constantly bounches between being good and bad, but it's his personality. Oddly enough, I think the two writers are pretty good represented by the Doctors they were writing for. Tennant really is the face and perfect representitive for RTD, Mat Smith really is the face and perfect representetive for Moffat. You know that saying about writers and directors casting people in the main parts that they view as looking like themselves in their own mind? I believe this.

I am getting side-tracked. I'm sorry. What I meant to say is that Moffat is really good to keep it being about the people. Letting it be about the companions see future doctor die and now have to keep it a secret from him, let it be about Riversong who loves him but is doomed to tragedy. About the doctor knowing that his companions is keeping something from him, and now have to show fate by not asking.
By keeping these personaly themes going, it doesn't matter that the sci-fi doesn't make any bloody sense.

It's not any writer who can do this. It takes skill and personality, I'm positive Moffat puts a lot of personal exsperience and feelings into his writing. Cause that is how writing works, believe it or not. You write about what you observe and what you have exsperienced, only give it other names.
Writers have as much uniqeness and personality as painters and as a writer you can't really control your style, same as one who draws can't really control it either. Certanly you can always become better, and the more you write the better you become.

I guess.. I am just tired of people bashing RTD when there is no need. He did the best he could, he he delivered the torch to somehow even he thought was a writer tons better than himself. Someone will at some point take over from Moffat, and guess what, that person will be completely different to and nothing like Moffat at all. Moffat's personality is just to huge, no one will be able to copy it. No one will be able to copy RTD.

Just saying.

Waiting for Godot

Considered one of the most important and influence plays in the 90’ century.

The entire plot of this play is though, explained very easily and very shortly.

It’s about two men, waiting beneath a tree for a man called Godot.

And that’s the entire play, two acts folks.. Yet, of cause there is a lot more the to the play than just that, all though the prior description is very correct, it is just two guys waiting by a tree.. and that is two very contradictive statements isn’t it? Yet that’s kind of the entire point of the play.

Nothing happens, though there is more to it than that, yet when you look at it, nothing happened and we haven’t moved from the spot, despite the intervening and attempts of making the time pass faster, while giving a sarcastic comment here and there, while asking some basic yet philosophically questions, we haven’t moved at all.
These two men is desperate to find ways to make the time pass while they wait, just so the times passes quicker and gets more enjoyable.

But yet all that happens is that it becomes night, and they proudly exclaim. “We made it! We made it through another day!” and then the response is. “Yeah, but then there is tomorrow…”

We might as well hang ourselves now…

The play is enjoyable, because it drawls so much in its sarcasm, which makes it morbidly funny.

Our two people really do get to the conclusion early on that they should just hang them selves and get it over with, but they just never do it. And they are left to wait, for someone to offer them a better form of existence, but of cause he never comes.

Often one of them suggest that they should just leave, he is so tired of sitting here doing absolutely nothing, he wants to go places, but the response is that they can’t because they are waiting for Goddot.
At one points he tries to leave, but hurries back.. because these two tramps, all they got is each other, and he doesn’t want to be alone.

It’s an abstract play that plays on contradictions and things left to the audience to question, and there is honestly a thousand different ways to interpret everything, much is left to the audience, you are allowed to think the time in the play is merely two days, but there is also a lot of room to wonder if the time that have passed between act one and two is a lot more than that, yet as they start. It doesn’t really matter, cause what is really the difference between yesterday and tomorrow? Do you even remember what you got for lunch yesterday? And I can assure you don’t remember what you have tomorrow. So what is the difference really between yesterday and tomorrow?

It’s fascinating how the play is still very much relevant to our modern society, I am even going to say a lot more so as people today have it easier than ever and have more spare time than ever, we have time to go on the internet, write on forums read blogs, look at silly videos, but why do we do it? To learn? To get a laugh? .. though, if you go all the way down to the basics, we are actually just trying to make then time pass quicker in a enjoyable way while we wait.

But waiting for what?

mission impossible

I fucking love mission impossible!

And right there I can hear all the ”Oh noes.” and screams of disbelief in the far off distance.

And then I got to say.

No no no! Not the Tom Cruise mission impossible movies! I hate those movies, probably even more than most other people, because in my mind they have nothing to do with mission impossible, what so ever! At most they are a very poor imitation of James bond.

What I am talking about, is the original show from the sixties! And if Leonard Nimoy playing a secret agent with the speciality of masquariding, pity thief trickery and imitations for two seasons, my god I don’t know what I am supposed to do convince that this show is awesome.

Seriously though, it’s such a joy seeing Nimoy putting out all the spectre of his acting ability in those seasons, he can do a lot more than just being Spock for sure.

And other than that, even without Nimoy it’s so a joyful show for me. It really comes down to the aspect in agent movies and series that fascinates me the most but I am getting exstremely little of, especially in Hollywood, I am saying never ever will I get it.

Except this show! This entire show is about it, and its’ awesome.

It’s about a groupe of agents, solving their missions, not by force, not by explosives, but by trickery, stealth and just sheer fucking around with who-ever the mission concerns. It’s about getting in and out without being noted.

And to do so they go undercover, they uses disguises they trick them selves out of tight situations rather than pull a gun, guns are only ever last resorts in this series, as agents that relies on their brains they rather trick themselves out, and it’s bloody awesome.

And what this show is also a lot about, it’s the team work! What it’s essential about is the same team, each one with some sort of speciality and the missions they are send out to solve, occasionally some team members would be exchanged, simply because the actors or actresses left the show. However three Characters were pretty much a constant.

Jim Phelps, who is the teams leader and also an accomplished masquerader and strategist.

Barney, who also happens to be the first leading black male in television history, is their handy man and gizmo genius who can do just about any engineering work.

And Willy, who is their strong man.. and yeah.. he is very strong, can do weapons and is just good to have around.

Then in every season but one there would be a lady, and this have been four different actresses doing the show’s run, though the lady’s would always pretty much be capable of the same things, they would kind of just be the masqurader, like Jim Phelps.

Lastly, they had two different tricksters onboard, who was also masqueraders and could do a lot of trickery such a pitch pocketing, illusions and so on. And as noted before, Leonard freaking Nimoy played this part.

They also had a doctor at a point, but he was only in the show for about one and a half season, and even then he was only in one third of the episodes, so I don’t know if it counts.

Which actually seems odd to me, as I find a field doctor to be a very good thing to have on the time, also because he would take the part as chemist rather than Barney.. but who am I to judge what makes sense or no.

And the best part is the massive plots that the team is forging to get to their information or item. We are talking staging a fake nazi submarine so a former Gestapo member is lead to believe that he is among friends, only to have the fake submarine attacked so he believes that he is going to die and thereby willingly give up the information no one could get out of him with torture, we are talking impersonating a terrorist leader to strike up a fake bargain so they can catch an illegal organisation red handed, sharing a prison cell with a convict, then the stage a prison outbreak with said convict to get to the location of a secret document. All sorts of plots!

Though the even better part, things doesn’t necessarily always go as planned, in a episode a team member was undercover as a convict, and was suppose to met up doing mission at a critical point, but then the team member actually got caught by the police long before he made it far enough, and brought to the police station due to the false conviction, thus not meeting up on time, thus the rest of the team suddenly finds themselves in a dia situation they have to use their wits to get out.

In one of my absolutely favourite episodes, Barney is shot doing a mission and is seen by the police running away, so what the episode is basically about is him being wounded while running from the police, trying to find his way to the meeting point, while the team try and diverse the polices attention by staging a fake convict.

Some of their ploys is pretty damn silly though, like when they convince a mobster that they own a mind reading tool, or when they convince the gangsters that one of their team members is actually one of the long since dead gang members, who of cause merely staged his death back in the day and got a plastic operation to change his appearance.. right.. way to use finger print technology guys. And it’s the sixties not the former centuries, they could use fingerprints back then.

Though mostly, it’s extremely inventive, fun and smart, a definite inspiration too much of my own writing as I very much think seeing hero use such inventive smart ways to get out is way way more fun than them just pulling a gun. I wouldn’t recommend it for everyone in the worlds, as I really can’t say that the show have aged all that way, and often the viewer would have to be quite attentive to capture what is going on.

But when it works, it works. And it’s great.

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.