MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

BYOB 1122

55 Responses to “BYOB 1122”

  1. sanj says:

    The SHAYCARL REBELLIONITE Gathering

    internet people have fans … Shaycarl has over 800,000
    subscribers

    7 minute video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HMv-MYLCVw

    so do movie critics pay attention to people on youtube ?
    they do provide lots of entertainment mostly comedy ..

  2. sanj says:

    Mean Girls 2 Trailer on DVD Feb 2011

    lots of new actors

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp9CBuDfgZk

  3. Krillian says:

    After seeing her trash herself for nothing in Machete, I think it’s better for Lindsay Lohan to not be in the Linda Lovelace biopic. I also don’t see the movie doing Malin Akerman’s career any favors.

    I’m okay with actors retiring but can’t someone write a good movie with parts for Sean Connery and Gene Hackman so their last movies are not respectively The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Welcome to Mooseport?

    Hey, Lincoln Lawyer trailer – if I had Bryan Cranston in my movie, I’d brag about it.

    Someone please tell me Tangled is not a Shrek wannabe, as badly as the marketing wants me to believe it is.

    This HBO series Game of Thrones is going to be really good. I could see Sean Bean and Peter Dinklage and Lena Headey in my head as I was reading the books.

  4. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    Is The Lincoln Lawyer basically an updated Criminal Law, with Matthew McConaughey as Oldman and Ryan Phillippe as Bacon? Kind of reminds me of a Paramount/James Patterson thriller. Looks pretty generic.

    Hackman is so missed. Thankfully he has an amazing body of work to return to.

  5. krazyeyes says:

    I’m also excited about HBOs upcoming Game of Thrones but I’m aware that pulling off this series is going to be very, very tricky. I think if they play it up as the Medieval answer to Sopranos then they might have something but with the huge costs of production they’re going to need great ratings to prevent this going in the same route Rome followed.

    I also think they’re at a huge disadvantage in that the series is an adaptation and not an original work. Part of the thrill of Sopranos (among many) was not knowing where the story was going and wondering who would be whacked next. It’s far to easy for someone to find out exactly where this series will beheading.

  6. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    I’m surprised HBO made Game of Thrones right after canceling Rome. Didn’t Rome have good ratings, by HBO standards, and only get canceled because of how insanely expensive each season was?

  7. Eric says:

    Paul, I’ve read that Rome was indeed fabulously expensive. (In fact, HBO apparently canceled Deadwood because they couldn’t afford it and Rome at the same time.)

    I haven’t read that Rome was canceled after the second season though. It always seemed to me that they wrapped up the story pretty well. There weren’t the loose ends that you see with other series canceled against their creators’ wishes.

    (By the way: I thought the first season of Rome was very good and the second season was fantastic. However, I suspect a fourth season of Deadwood would have been better.)

  8. krazyeyes says:

    I think the situation with Rome is that HBO greenlit a 2nd season but told them before they even started that it was the last season. This gave them a chance to wrap everything up.

    I loved the 1st season of Rome and the first half of the 2nd season. I felt felt that point that they tried to fit way too much history in. By the final episodes that were jumping years ahead each episode.

  9. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    One of the people behind Rome, I believe Bruno Heller, has said that he was shocked by Rome’s cancellation and expected at least a third season. He said they crammed a whole lot into season 2 because of this. I read this a while ago but I believe that was the gist of it.

  10. Paul MD (Stella's Boy) says:

    OK I found it. Heller told The Hollywood Reporter that three more seasons were planned and he was informed of the cancellation halfway through writing season 2.

    http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=50913

  11. krazyeyes says:

    Thanks for the quote . . . that helps explain why I thought the quality of the show (and the writing) dropped considerably halfway through the second season. Sounds like he was trying to squeeze those other planned seasons into the finale.

  12. mutinyco says:

    Tower Heist was shooting a block from me last week so I slapped this together: http://mutinycompany.com/spec/ratboom.mov

  13. a_loco says:

    Anyone else wierded out at how much Matt McConaughey looks and sounds like a young Don Johnson in the Lincoln Lawyer trailer?

  14. IOv3 says:

    Rome only had two seasons because of the expense associated with that set. The whole expensive thing being why Broadwalk Empire got a renew after one episode because their set is even more expense than the Rome set, and HBO definitely wanted to keep that thing intact for a reason and greenlighting season two did just that.

    What Game of Thrones has going for it that Rome does not… is a president of HBO willing to spend MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to create HBO level product. The guy even stated as much in an interview I read about Broadwalk Empire. He believes HBO has to spend, something they have not wanted to do in the past and something they did do in the past reluctantly, to keep making shows only they can make. Which probably means Game of Thrones is safe, if it has a big enough debut.

    One last thing: who needs that overblown Emmy winner, when you can have a guy who should have just as many Emmys wearing a bitching hat and teach Damon a thing or two about life! http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/universal/adjustmentbureau/

  15. chris says:

    The choices Malin Akerman has been making haven’t done her any favors either, though. At least “Lovelace” could — accent on “could” — convince folks she has a bit of range.

  16. IOv3 says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3Nt74J_0go

    Going from the above and that she starred on that show, it would seem Malin wants to be a part of comedies and who could blame her. Comedies always need a good looking chick opposite the homely male lead, and she could make a good living being that hot chick.

  17. movieman says:

    You’ll probably see a lot of better movies this holiday season, but “Burlesque” is the only one you can take both grandma AND your tranny BFF to.
    All snark aside, “B” is a helluva lot better than anticipated, and Aguilera is shockingly not terrible (in fact I’d almost say that she’s “pretty good”).
    The sight of a frighteningly well-preserved Cher is worth the price of admission alone. (Does she drink the blood of virginal schoolgirls or something? Or is it formaldehyde?)
    “Faster,” though, has all the earmarks of a typical dump-and-run (early) “holiday” release (remember Tim Olyphant in “Hitman” three years ago?).
    George Tillman deserves props for trying to make a film in the lean, mean style of vintage Phil Karlson and Don Siegel, but the script is such an incoherent botch that it soundly defeats him. Johnson coasts; Thornton slums; Movieman snoozes. And if they were willing to go with an “R” rating, why not make it a proper “R” with ultra-violence, wall-to-wall profanity and (at least) some stray boob or ass shots.

  18. anghus says:

    ackerman had a supporting role on HBO’s the Comeback, which is the first place i saw her. She was funny.

    I don’t really know what to make of her in the Linda Lovelace story. That whole project feels like the next potential AutoFocus. A dark project that very few people see.

  19. Shillfor Alanhorn says:

    RE: INFERNO

    Personally, I think Matthew Wilder is a self-promoting scumbag — a huckster who exploited Lohan to drum up financing for his Lovelace movie, leaked to all the tabloids during her troubles to build up his profile, then threw her under a bus, most likely because the cost of insuring Lohan went up after her latest sentencing to rehab. She gets out in January; are we really to believe he couldn’t wait until Spring for her?

    “Lindsay Lohan IS Linda Lovelace” was the marketing hook that was his project’s entire raison d’etre, the perfect synergy of actress, troubled public persona and role. He raised money off her back, did racy photo shoots with her for the posters (footage of which he leaked to every web site imaginable) to get attention at Cannes and used the publicity to position himself as some sort of auteur, even though he has only one straight-to-video title under his belt. And fucked up as Lohan may be, she IS a gifted actress and, knowing that this was to be her do-or-die comeback, would most likely have thrown herself into the role full gusto ala Mickey Rourke in THE WRESTLER, making for fascinating (if potentially trainwreck-level) viewing.

    So now, after squeezing her dry for his own ends during a very dark period of her life, Wilder spits her out and brazenly declares that he’s “fired” Lohan and replaced her with Ackerman, getting more ink for himself. Malin Ackerman? Are you kidding? Yes, the investors will probably make their money back, because the nudity will guarantee it permanent cable-rotation status on late night Cinemax until the end of time, but who’s going to care about this project now? What once was a potential event, now screams “straight to video.” Serves him right. Fuck Wilder and fuck his film. Explain to me how is he any different than the lowlife pimps who exploited Lovelace in real-life?

  20. anghus says:

    wait. so you’re telling me the guy making the linda lovelace story isn’t a decent human being but some starfucking soulless douche?

    i am shocked sir or madam. shocked.

  21. hcat says:

    Saw Potter today, thought it was the weakest since Columbus was at the helm. Suffered greatly from the same malady as Wyatt Earp and Meet Joe Black were each individual line was deemed so important that everyone waited an extra two beats before responding or reacting. I know it was hamstrung by having to follow the novel but the Blair Witch kids spent less screen time in the woods.

  22. Am annoyed at the harsh pans for Nutcracker 3D (if you care, my review just went live). Not saying it’s a good movie (it’s an interesting muddle), but many of the critics seem to be taking offense at the very idea of a Nutcracker film redone as Holocaust parable. Whether it works or not is open to debate, but surely the filmmakers have a right to form such a story and tell such a tale.

    It’s certainly not a cash-grab or a toss-off in any way, shape, or form (the 3D was pretty obviously a studio-mandated decision after the fact). Again, not saying it’s a great or even good movie, but it’s definitely trying something different and it’s almost a little ballsy for a kids’ flick. Most of the pans I’m reading are condemning the film for its social overtones on principal, as if the filmmakers should be chastised for making a somewhat intense/scary family film that dares to reference recent historical atrocities, rather than critiquing whether or not it actually succeeds in its goals.

  23. anghus says:

    I was dissapointed with Deathly Hallows. I liked the final shot, and a couple of scenes. But high holy hell was it long and labored. And for all the ‘darkness’, it really didn’t feel any darker than the end of Half Blood Prince.

    I think Yates is a rather pedestrian Director. He has all the tools in the toolbox and we’ve now sat through 3 very dull Potters.

    I give them kudos for making a very dark very creepy movie, but the stories within this marvelous world they’ve created are kind of boring.

  24. Joe Leydon says:

    I’ve just seen “Love and Other Drugs.” Now I only have to come up with nine more titles for my Top Ten list.

  25. IOv3 says:

    Anghus that is just so freaking out there. Long and labored? They are at war. They are on the run. Being under siege is not an easy thing. That’s one of my fave parts of the film because it captures these characters under stress so damn well. Seriously, you and Hcat are so out there that it makes me want to push for this film to get an Oscar, just so you two may ponder what in the hell is up with people who love a HP movie so much, they want it to get an Oscar. It’s easily one of the best films of the year by a country mile.

  26. scooterzz says:

    anghus — the fact that i’m taking time to respond while actually watching the movie is kind of a testament to what you’re saying…the film reminds me of nicole kidman: skilled and proficient but totally bloodless…that said, my love for the potter films is not diminished…..much…

  27. IOv3 says:

    Again, you three and your criticisms of DHpt1 are really mind blowing. Bloodless? Really? I am not at a loss for words but my expounding may not lead anywhere so I will leave it with this: WHAT THE WHAT?

  28. scooterzz says:

    grint is kind of a revelation here, doing all the heavy lifting….nice to see…

  29. christian says:

    None of the HP films I’ve seen have any real magic. They feel like well thought out business decisions.

  30. York Durden says:

    HP is about nothing but the fleecing of pocketbooks. So glad it’s almost over… until the reboot….

  31. anghus says:

    people who have read the books seem far more forgiving of the average Harry Potter offerings. By the by, i’ve never read the books.

    IO, my criticism for Harry Potter are half directed at the source material and half directed at how they are adapted.

    I remember a review i wrote for Order of the Phoneix, and how i identified my main issue with the Harry Potter universe: bureaucracy. I find the whole world rather ‘limited’. You can be awesome, but only in one world, at one school, as long as you follow the bureaucratic rules of yadda yadda yadda.

    As a guy who only knows this world though the films, and i’ve seen them all, i can tell you the major failing of the franchise.

    The first two Columbus films did a shitty job of establishing this universe as wonderous. I remember watching Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets and recalling Hook. Everything about it felt forced and the production design made everything feel fake. Dodgy CG did not help the first 2 films.

    Potter 3 and 4 did a much better job of establishing the world. It felt more realized. I liked 3 and 4, but again the general story elements made me groan. It’s ALWAYS the new teacher involved in main story or has something to do with the reveal. The fact that no one in the films ever catches onto that baffles me.

    But really, the Potter films always have an uphill battle to face because the films that established this world were shit. And other than 3 and 4, the movies seem to coast by on the fact that most of the people seeing them can fill in the blanks from the books.

    Deathly Hallows felt drawn out. There was an hour of relevant story and character drawn out to 2+ hours. They are milking it. At least, it feels to me as if they are.

  32. Krillian says:

    The books are better about burying who the real culprit is. Goblet of Fire they had Harry & friends suspicious of Moody immediately and after several events they started suspecting other people, and but to have it not actually be Moody but Crouch’s son in disguise… well executed in the book telegraphed way too early in the movie.

  33. krazyeyes says:

    Kind of surprised DP hasn’t commented on the recent Netflix developments

  34. Joe Leydon says:

    Can’t help noticing in all the stills from “Tangled” that the lead female character appears to be barefoot throughout the film. Does this mean LexG might finally break down and watch — dare I say it? — a cartoon?

  35. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    How can any male over 20 watch the potter films? In Russia they are chemically castrating any male over 25 who is seen coming out of a Potter screening. Makes sense to me

  36. christian says:

    TANGLED looks like warmed over SHREK.

  37. leahnz says:

    oh, you boys are all so cool with your persnickety harry potter disdain, tut tut (the pretension in here is so thick i need a shovel. peeyew)

    and really, nobody has to go see or like harry potter, but to impugn the masculinity of those who do? a sure sign of deep insecurity and false bravado/machismo, not to mention arrogant dickishness

  38. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Leah You only say that because you’re the most masculine around here. I’ll impugn anyone or thing I want too. I’ll impugn you too. I’ll impugn the world. I am on a impugn rampage. I’ll Impugn without impugnity. It was a joke Leah. Like your sex life, you 1985 swimsuit model. The boys can stick up for themselves. They don’t need grandma coming to wave a stick.

  39. leahnz says:

    question of the day: why do the boys who impugn me here almost without fail feel the need to get personal and impugn my sexuality/sex life? having to resort to impugning women you have a disagreement with by saying variations of, “you have an opinion and i don’t like it so you must need to get laid so you’ll stop thinking/disagreeing with me, waaaah waaaaah waaaaah!”: the ULTIMATE sign of a weak mind, pathetic sexist frat-boy mentality, no originality or flair, and very likely a rather telling lack of sex in their own life (and who said i was a 1985 swimsuit model? waaaay off)

    yes, you can impugn all you like, JBD. and i’ll pooh-pooh your impugning. i’ll come charging in on my walker to defend whomever i see fit waving my cane in the air, and i’ll whack you over your stupid ‘you’re not a man if you like this or that!’ ass-head with it while i’m at it, then shuffle back to the rest home for my afternoon jello.

  40. christian says:

    “why do the boys who impugn me here almost without fail feel the need to get personal and impugn my sexuality/sex life?”

    Because they lack.

  41. LexG says:

    Johnny On the Spot, on the scene as usual.

    Christian, you should get a superhero costume made up with a giant C on the chest.

    Actually no, a giant D would be more appropriate.

    I am just kidding by the way. HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL.

    Also A BIG, BIG Happy 1-8 to Miley Cyrus.

    YEP YEP.

  42. Joe Leydon says:

    “why do the boys who impugn me here almost without fail feel the need to get personal and impugn my sexuality/sex life?”

    Because they have no one to wave their sticks.

  43. IOv3 says:

    Leah, JBD is a woman, so it’s another example of woman on woman hate. Whateverthecase, the dislike of Harry Potter in this thread is just nonsensical. Seriously, it just does not compute with reality, what so ever, especially when Scoot gives props to Rupert. Rupert is good and all but everything in part one is carried by Emma Watson. She does all of the heavy lifting and in a way, it’s her film, and she fucking nails it.

  44. Foamy Squirrel says:

    I suspect because of the same reason people feel the need to impugn in response.

  45. IOv3 says:

    If you are referring to me then yeah, I am impugning nothing but seven or eight straight post of hate towards one of the most amazing franchises in the history of cinema. EXCUSE ME, FS! EXCUSE ME!

  46. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    IMPUGN IMPUGN IMPUGN… watch out men! If you say it twice more Candywoman will jump out of your mirror and start berating you like a ragged up Andrea Dworkin.

    IO, I’ll take the 5th on that. Leah was jumping on some chum I threw out.. I didn’t realise I’d catch an old liberal trout as a bonus!

  47. leahnz says:

    JBD is a woman? who knew

    hey JBD….BOO! (wow that’s the best you can come up with, more inane fratboy-bully drivel? but thanks for proving beyond a doubt everything i said above about the rather narrow mental capability of those who need to resort to such insipid sexist tactics, well done, leykis. i mean JBD, sorry)

    and I’M the one who used the word ‘impugn’ in my original comment and continued to over-use it after you used it repeatedly in your response, as did io, so your attempt at being insulting with the word in your last comment above is nonsensical and misguided, and really rather foolish.

    (io, not everyone likes harry potter, you just have to accept it, it’s no skin off your nose. it’s when people are condescending or insulting re: others who might enjoy it or whose taste is not the same as their own that shows poor form)

    forgot to say to joe & christian: i see.

  48. hcat says:

    I have no problem with the franchise on a whole, but this one was weak. IO stated they were at war, then show the Goddamn War!!! Not Ms. Miniver’s camping trip. Yes, Hermonine and Ron were the bright spots, too bad they were seperated for what 45 minutes of the movie?

    My wife who has read the books multiple times loved it and that seems to be all the difference. Those that have read the books are bringing the magic in with them, while those that have not are relying on the films to supply all of it, and IMO this one falls far short. Now the Book audience is certainly large enough to cater to so its a sound business decision to make these as faithfully as possible to the books, but coming in cold made this one a long haul.

    One more quick note, a number of reviews have compared this to Empire Strikes Back, presumably because of the constant sense fo dread. My wife (who I will shamefully admit has never seen a Star Wars film) asked me how it compared. And it was nowhere close to it. Empire moved, it was a constant chase with them slipping through the net almost every reel. We get the Leia/Han courtship established (the Weasley/Granger thing has been going on for what four movies now) and Luke gets more mentoring/explanation of the force in the second act than Potter ever gets from Dumbledore. My problem with the Potter series is that it feels a bit like seasons of television. Rowling knew that she wanted seven books and had to create a narrative twisty enough to sustain them. While that has worked like gangbusters for the books, the films often suffer from an inefficiency of plot, and are redeemed by the detailed bits of wonder that Rowling planted in the books and the interaction between the young cast. The best moments have been the smaller ones such as Ron’s embarresment over having to practice dancing with McGonnagle and the slow burn stares that Watson throws his way. It is almost a shame all this Voldemort stuff has to get in the way.

    I will also admit – that was not a quick note.

  49. leahnz says:

    i don’t agree with many of your assessments there hcat re: the HP flicks but i also don’t see a valid parallel for comparisons of deathly hallows 1 and ’empire strikes back’, that’s tissue thin.

    (and duh, it’s been a long day and i’m ready to go home but my work-mate just pointed out that i was sticking up for MEN in this instance and i still get the frat-boy ‘you need to get laid you ugly feminist” ‘tude from one of the ‘my-ego-is-fragile-and-i’m-so-easilty-threatened!’ brigade)

  50. hcat says:

    Do you find the movies to be as magical as the books or more like solid adaptations?

  51. IOv3 says:

    Leah, yeah I know but much like you and Avatar, if anyone throws down on HP… there will be… MILKSHAKE! I also bought the extended cut of Avatar on DVD in order to see if the extended opening does anything for me. I figure that I should at least be fair to it, after all the 3D dough has been put towards whatever FOX is doing next, and driving you and Dave nuts.

    Oh yeah, JBD is a total woman and slipped up by admitting to having a partner in a whole “her long time boyfriend” sense of things.

    Now onto HCAT with… UNLIMITED MCWEENY POWERS!

    “I have no problem with the franchise on a whole, but this one was weak. IO stated they were at war, then show the Goddamn War!!! Not Ms. Miniver’s camping trip. Yes, Hermonine and Ron were the bright spots, too bad they were seperated for what 45 minutes of the movie?”

    Harry, Hermione, and Ron are essentially involved on the FALCON part of the Empire. The rebellion were at war as well and were being hunted the same way. Did you get that angry at Lucas for only showing that part of the war? Again, they are under siege, have only a freaking magical purse to help them get through all of this, and their magical skills. Very Empire like if you ask me.

    “My wife who has read the books multiple times loved it and that seems to be all the difference. Those that have read the books are bringing the magic in with them, while those that have not are relying on the films to supply all of it, and IMO this one falls far short.”

    I would agree with you, if it were not for me reading the books after seeing the movies. The only book that I read before seeing the movie is The Deathly Hallows. Seriously, I have loved these films since the very beginning and find them so damn magical and enchanting, that without ever reading a single book, I would still go down to Universal Studios Florida and spend 100s of dollars on HP swag. These movies are fantastical and when someone does not see that, it really blows my mind.

    “Now the Book audience is certainly large enough to cater to so its a sound business decision to make these as faithfully as possible to the books, but coming in cold made this one a long haul.”

    Again, DHpt1 is one of the greatest films made this year and it is mind-blowing that someone finds it to be such a tedious experience. It’s not like I am pissing all over your opinion, I am just sort of staggered by the whole slamming of HP in this post and this thread.

    “One more quick note, a number of reviews have compared this to Empire Strikes Back, presumably because of the constant sense fo dread. My wife (who I will shamefully admit has never seen a Star Wars film) asked me how it compared. And it was nowhere close to it. Empire moved, it was a constant chase with them slipping through the net almost every reel. We get the Leia/Han courtship established (the Weasley/Granger thing has been going on for what four movies now) and Luke gets more mentoring/explanation of the force in the second act than Potter ever gets from Dumbledore.”

    The whole reason Dumbledore treats Harry the way he does because HARRY HAS TO FIGURE THIS OUT FOR HIMSELF! He has to figure it out because Voldemort has insight into his head and explaining everything to Harry could screw him up. Outside of that, Hermione and Ron are one of the greatest film couples ever. No, I am not kidding and GINNY AND HARRY 4 LIFE!

    “My problem with the Potter series is that it feels a bit like seasons of television. Rowling knew that she wanted seven books and had to create a narrative twisty enough to sustain them. While that has worked like gangbusters for the books, the films often suffer from an inefficiency of plot, and are redeemed by the detailed bits of wonder that Rowling planted in the books and the interaction between the young cast. The best moments have been the smaller ones such as Ron’s embarresment over having to practice dancing with McGonnagle and the slow burn stares that Watson throws his way. It is almost a shame all this Voldemort stuff has to get in the way.

    I will also admit – that was not a quick note.”

    Do you like Rushmore? It’s a year of these kids wives. It’s everything that happens to them each year and you cannot really equate it to a TV series, because she’s British. They do 13 eps usually so it’s more a Rushmore thing. Nevertheless, different strokes, have a good Thanskgiving Hcat, and watch SW with your wife. Seriously, nothing weirder than those people who have never seen SW.

  52. leahnz says:

    “Oh yeah, JBD is a total woman and slipped up by admitting to having a partner in a whole “her long time boyfriend” sense of things.”

    really? that’s hilarious (but couldn’t having a boyfriend mean it’s a gay man? whatever, pretending to be some prickly badass know-it-all dude who is actually a female lapdog of the patriarchy is far more amusing. suddenly the ‘watch out men’ comment makes a bit more sense in that context. how bizarre)

    anyway on to more important matters:

    “Do you find the movies to be as magical as the books or more like solid adaptations?”

    hcat, that’s a hard one; i started reading the books to my boy from the beginning of the series after seeing ‘prisoner of azkaban’ in the cinema, because he was too young prior to that, so the films informed our view of the book’s wizarding world to a certain extent, but of course the novels are far more intricate and complex and engaging on a deeper lever due to our increased investment of time and energy in the characters and stories (the books are also at times convoluted and dull due to rowling’s lack of a stern editor, particularly the more recent entries when rowling’s ego was perhaps allowed to run amok; much of ‘phoenix’ is like being enveloped in an endless grey chloroform haze of despair from which there is little respite).

    i think you have a point in “those that have read the books are bringing the magic in with them” – being privy to the origin story in the novels probably can’t help but to subconsciously inform our interpretation and flesh out in our minds the stories told in the movies, which are by their nature abridged and visually-oriented, but this can also be a double-edged sword. the inevitable comparison of the movies to the books by fans of the written forms can also lead to disappointment in the film versions; for instance, while to me ‘prisoner of azkaban’ is probably the finest of the films to date, it is also one of the least faithful adaptations and i have one friend who absolutely loathes cuaron’s ‘azkaban’ for this reason. he just can’t get past it, and that’s his prerogative of course. personally i’ve always been fairly good at being able to separately appraise film adaptations as completely different beasts from the source material – not tooting my own horn but just to say that some people seem heavily invested in having film adaptation of beloved source material conform to a certain expectation, and i’m pretty easy with letting go of any expectations and going with a totally new flow, so long as it grabs me in its visual form for what ever reason.

    for me personally the quality of the HP films have varied quite a bit, some being more successful than others at compelling, engaging, thrilling and even moving me, but on the whole there is something intrinsically visual about acts of magic performed by witches and wizards and evil beings amidst castles and clueless muggles and fantastical creatures in fantastical locales that is particularly suited to cinema, and on the whole i’d say that yes, i think the movies having taken that opportunity and created their own magic, they are as magical as the books in their unique, more simplistic way, and tho i don’t dig every movie equally (much like the book ‘order of the phoenix’ was a bit of a funeral dirge, and the failure of the film adaptation to portray umbridge as the smiling frog oozing evil beneath her outer layer of pink suits and doilies and kittens, whom i so deliciously despised in the novel, was a crushing disappointment) and the films certainly aren’t as intricate and finely woven and all-encompassing as the written forms, i think the HP series has been successful in conveying a sense of visual wonder and excitement quite unique and separate from the source material by virtue of the same cast having grown up in their roles, with some terrific supporting perfs by fabulous actors and consistently high production values; i think the films have really managed to take on a life of their own quite separate from the books, and this is perhaps the most important thing for me when assessing their success in relation to the books.

    also, just to say i knew after seeing ‘deathly hallows pt 1′ that some people would find it slow and boring, so while i don’t necessarily agree with that assesment i can certainly understand where you’re coming from there, it’s not a huge stretch.

  53. IOv3 says:

    I would agree with the whole slow and boring thing, if it were not for the same folks probably enjoying films that are slow and boring. Something about Potter rubs people wrong in here, go figure.

    Back to the secret lady in our mist, yeah I thought that as well Leah, but it was around the time that I believe Scoot to be a man because she referred to her husband/man as her PARTNER. JBD did something similarly that revealed that her partner was a man to her Jane.

  54. christian says:

    JBD? Lady talks like a dude.

Quote Unquotesee all »

“We don’t have any idea what the universe is. Wise people have always told us that this is proof you shouldn’t think, because thinking leads you nowhere. You just build over this huge construction of misunderstanding, which is culture. The history of culture is the history of the misunderstandings of great thinkers. So we always have to go back to zero and begin differently. And maybe in that way you have a chance not to understand but at least not to have further misunderstandings. Because this is the other side of this question—Am I really so brave to cancel all human culture? To stop admiring the beauty in human production? It’s very difficult to say no.”
~ László Krasznahorkai

“I have a license to carry in New York. Can you believe that? Nobody knows that, [Applause] somebody attacks, somebody attacks me, oh, they’re gonna be shot. Can you imagine? Somebody says, oh, it is Trump, he’s easy pickings what do you say? Right? Oh, boy. What was the famous movie? No. Remember, no remember where he went around and he sort of after his wife was hurt so badly and kill. What?  I — Honestly, Yeah, right, it’s true, but you have many of them. Famous movie. Somebody. You have many of them. Charles Bronson right the late great Charles Bronson name of the movie come on.  , remember that? Ah, we’re gonna cut you up, sir, we’re gonna cut you up, uh-huh.

Bing!

One of the great movies. Charles Bronson, great, Charles Bronson. Great movies. Today you can’t make that movie because it’s not politically correct, right? It’s not politically correct. But could you imagine with Trump? Somebody says, oh, all these big monsters aren’t around he’s easy pickings and then shoot.”
~ Donald Trump