This is not strictly a movie blog entry, but I'm writing it anyway.
For those of you who have been living under a rock for the last 6 months, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the fifth book in the excellent series by J.K. Rowling, is hitting theaters in July 11, only 10 days before Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and final book, is published on July 21.
FINALLY!!!!
Yes, I have been waiting for July to come for quite some time. To prepare myself for both the movie and the book, I've been rereading and rewatching the books and movies already released. It is going to be exciting to see what has been kept in the movie, and what happens to Voldemort in the final book.
The fifth book is the longest of the series so far, and therefore a lot of material is going to hit the chopping block. With the exception of Prisoner of Azkaban, which I felt cut out too much of the book in leaving out the story behind the Mauraders, the movies have done an excellent job of abbreviating the story and keeping the essentials that make the books incredible draws. From the clips and previews, it appears the new director, David Yates, has done a wonderful job at continuing the atmosphere and setting established so well by Alphonso Cuaron and Mike Newell. As with all the Potter movies so far, this one is set up to be another blockbuster sensation.
And the excitement continues ten days later with the release of Deathly Hallows!
Will Harry die? I'm in the camp that says he won't. I agree with several people, including Emerson Spartz of Mugglenet.com that believe Jo wouldn't do that to us. As I recently read online, it would be a marketing disaster to kill Harry with 2 movies left to make! The hope for Harry's survival is something that, as far as I can tell, has no basis in canon, since Jo has given clues that could indicate either end, but I am going to stubbornly adhere to it at this point, because it really would be cruel to kill Harry off, and I cannot imagine Jo as a cruel person, marketing motives aside. Dumbledore's demise I expected, though I had thought it would happen at the beginning or middle of the last book. Sirius shocked me and shook my faith for a few months; however, I am still holding out hope, however misguided, that Harry will survive.
Who WILL die? Hmmmmm.... that's a trickier question. My money is on Neville Longbottom. I think he will come into his own, and stand up to Voldemort or perhaps Bellatrix Lestrange, and pay the ultimate price. For the second, I'm going to put my money on Severus Snape. There is no way he will survive, having alienated most of the wizarding world, but I think he will die in such a way as to vindicate himself. Jo has often stated that there is more to Snape than meets the eye, and his betrayal in HBP was just tricky enough that you cannot be completely sure whose interests Snape is really serving.
I've already reserved my book and will be attending a midnight release party. I'm planning to be up reading the book all night, if necessary, and I'm going to love every minute of it. I'm also planning, the minute I get my hands on it, to read the very last page to see whether or not my hunches are right on, or SOL.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Upcoming Gotta-see
Next week Transformers hits the theaters. I am excited to see this, despite the director.
As kids, my brother and I watched every Transformers cartoon that hit VHS. We were both thrilled when the movie came out, but I was terribly diappointed by it; Optimus Prime was killed within the first 30 minutes. I couldn't cope with the writer's decision to kill off my favorite character so quickly into the movie. I was 11, which must be my excuse. I recently watched the 1986 movie again, and while I was still upset about Optimus getting the ax, I was better able to appreciate the talents of Judd Nelson, Eric Idle, and the great Orson Welles.
Since I did love the cartoons as a child, I was interested when it was announced that a live-action version had been green-lighted. The concept has, in my opinion, the potential to be an exciting summer action flick, if, and only if, it is done correctly.
When Michael Bay was announced as director, I quickly lost interest. I have never seen an entire Michael Bay movie because I either a.) fall asleep in the middle of them from boredom, or b.) get angry at the over-done effects and even more over-done acting. They start off well- then quickly loose momentum. Armageddon started off well, but by the end of the movie I was ready to shoot Bruce Willis myself just to get through the treacle of his "heroic sacrifice". The end of Pearl Harbor was more of the same, giving me even more reason than I already had to dislike Ben Affleck. The direction and FX of both movies are boring and repetative. I have since avoided all Michael Bay movies.
From what I've seen of Transformers, Michael Bay could redeem himself. It would be a tall order, to be sure. However, there appears to be some (small) interesting plot. The transformers themselves look incredible. And best of all, in my mind, he has stuck with the original "version one" characters from the cartoons, which were the best of what I remember as a child.
After viewing all the trailers, the piece that interested me the most and whetted my appetite for this movie was seeing Optimus Prime, live and in the metal. He looks awesome.
This is also going to give viewers a chance to see Shia LeBeouf in an action movie before next year's Indiana Jones IV is released. I, for one, and curious to see if he can hold his own in an action movie, since he is about star in a sequel to the Grandfather of All Action Movies, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Can he blow up Nazis with Indy? Hopefully, this movie will give viewers some idea of his abilities.
I hope this movie focuses on the machines and not on some sappy human subplot. I hope there are no repetitive FX and no substandard acting. But most of all, I hope it lives up to the potential of the concept.
And I hope Optimus doesn't get killed off at the beginning of the movie. I couldn't take the trauma again.
As kids, my brother and I watched every Transformers cartoon that hit VHS. We were both thrilled when the movie came out, but I was terribly diappointed by it; Optimus Prime was killed within the first 30 minutes. I couldn't cope with the writer's decision to kill off my favorite character so quickly into the movie. I was 11, which must be my excuse. I recently watched the 1986 movie again, and while I was still upset about Optimus getting the ax, I was better able to appreciate the talents of Judd Nelson, Eric Idle, and the great Orson Welles.
Since I did love the cartoons as a child, I was interested when it was announced that a live-action version had been green-lighted. The concept has, in my opinion, the potential to be an exciting summer action flick, if, and only if, it is done correctly.
When Michael Bay was announced as director, I quickly lost interest. I have never seen an entire Michael Bay movie because I either a.) fall asleep in the middle of them from boredom, or b.) get angry at the over-done effects and even more over-done acting. They start off well- then quickly loose momentum. Armageddon started off well, but by the end of the movie I was ready to shoot Bruce Willis myself just to get through the treacle of his "heroic sacrifice". The end of Pearl Harbor was more of the same, giving me even more reason than I already had to dislike Ben Affleck. The direction and FX of both movies are boring and repetative. I have since avoided all Michael Bay movies.
From what I've seen of Transformers, Michael Bay could redeem himself. It would be a tall order, to be sure. However, there appears to be some (small) interesting plot. The transformers themselves look incredible. And best of all, in my mind, he has stuck with the original "version one" characters from the cartoons, which were the best of what I remember as a child.
After viewing all the trailers, the piece that interested me the most and whetted my appetite for this movie was seeing Optimus Prime, live and in the metal. He looks awesome.
This is also going to give viewers a chance to see Shia LeBeouf in an action movie before next year's Indiana Jones IV is released. I, for one, and curious to see if he can hold his own in an action movie, since he is about star in a sequel to the Grandfather of All Action Movies, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Can he blow up Nazis with Indy? Hopefully, this movie will give viewers some idea of his abilities.
I hope this movie focuses on the machines and not on some sappy human subplot. I hope there are no repetitive FX and no substandard acting. But most of all, I hope it lives up to the potential of the concept.
And I hope Optimus doesn't get killed off at the beginning of the movie. I couldn't take the trauma again.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Disney has FINALLY seen the Light!
It was announced this week that Sharon Morrill, president of the DisneyToons division, was ousted from her position, and that many of the projects in her department, mostly direct-to-DVD sequels of Disney classics, were scrapped.
It appears that, after years of having the collective heads of Disney push out low-quality animation, John Lassiter, the Chief Creative Officer, has finally made someone sit up and take notice that this is NOT a good idea.
At this point, I'd like to lead us all in a cyber-dance of joy.
I have loved Disney since I was a child. Growing up, it was a big treat to get to see the classics Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and many more, in the theater. And like many people I've talked to in recent years, I've been perplexed and confused by the inability of Disney to put out features that were remotely original or artistic. With the exception of Pixar's work, which has been refreshing in both it's art and originality, Disney hasn't put out an animated movie worth seeing in 10 years, and the sequels are even worse. Cinderella II?? What were they thinking? I have the suspicion that Mr. Disney, who personally oversaw the development of the company's first feature-length animated films to ensure the quality, would be disappointed.
Fortunately, Mr. Lassiter has more sense than to allow this to continue. I applaud his desire to take Disney back to it's roots: producing quality animation that becomes an instant classic, without the need to beat it to death in endless, poorly done sequels.
You can read more about this here.
It appears that, after years of having the collective heads of Disney push out low-quality animation, John Lassiter, the Chief Creative Officer, has finally made someone sit up and take notice that this is NOT a good idea.
At this point, I'd like to lead us all in a cyber-dance of joy.
I have loved Disney since I was a child. Growing up, it was a big treat to get to see the classics Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and many more, in the theater. And like many people I've talked to in recent years, I've been perplexed and confused by the inability of Disney to put out features that were remotely original or artistic. With the exception of Pixar's work, which has been refreshing in both it's art and originality, Disney hasn't put out an animated movie worth seeing in 10 years, and the sequels are even worse. Cinderella II?? What were they thinking? I have the suspicion that Mr. Disney, who personally oversaw the development of the company's first feature-length animated films to ensure the quality, would be disappointed.
Fortunately, Mr. Lassiter has more sense than to allow this to continue. I applaud his desire to take Disney back to it's roots: producing quality animation that becomes an instant classic, without the need to beat it to death in endless, poorly done sequels.
You can read more about this here.
Friday, June 22, 2007
DVD Buyer- Elizabeth I
At my house, movies and TV series are classified in two ways: "buyers" and "non-buyers".
Everyone knows what a "buyer" is- it's a DVD you cannot live without and pre-order the minute the news of it's upcoming release hits Amazon. A non-buyer can be left in the store.
Honestly, I'm finding more non-buyers than buyers as I get older. I'm always surprised at the places I find a good buyer.
I'm not much of a TV movie/series kind of person. Usually they are overacted and the set appears to be a non-descript hodgepodge that anyone could come up with on a budget of $100. My personal bias aside, I'm finding more and more this is not the case.
Movie series in point: Elizabeth I, from HBO Films.
I rented this from Netflix a few weeks ago, despite the nagging worry in the back of my mind, dredging up all the poorly done movie series that I had seen in the past. I was terrified that would be the case here.
Before I continue, I should state here that I spent 9 years studying Elizabeth I. I love the character and the culture behind that era, and I am fascinated by Elizabeth herself. An incredible intellect, Elizabeth was also scarred by her upbringing as the daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife Anne Boleyn, who was executed for treason and adultery when Elizabeth was 3 years old. Her early years were characterized by upheaval and rejection, and her young adulthood by more of the same. When she ascended to the throne at the age of 25 upon the death of her sister Mary, few expected she would become the icon history has made her.
Instead, she flourished.
It is her story that I spent hours pouring over when I was a child; her birth and rejection by her father, the tense years she spent during the reigns of her brother and sister, and finally, her own ascension and reign. I poured over every detail, and could not get enough. As an adult, and with a degree in history under my belt, I look at historical movies with an eye for accuracy as well as good acting. Elizabeth, released in 1998 and starring Cate Blanchett, was well acted, but I had to turn it off to keep myself from pummelling the TV over the historical inaccuracies. "Angry" does not even begin to describe it.
I hope my reader can understand my aforementioned terror at receiving this movie in the mail. On some level, I expected a repeat of my previous experience. Happily, it was not the case.
Elizabeth I, starring Helen Mirren (who won an Emmy for her role as Elizabeth I), and Jeremy Irons, tells the story of England's Queen Elizabeth I, who reigned from 1558-1603. The story picks up in the late 1560s, when Elizabeth was entertaining her last offer of marriage from the Duke of Anjou, and ends with her death. The film beautifully captures Elizabeth, her court, and the intrigues of the later half of her reign, without glossing over the intricate details and drama that were the Elizabethan court.
Incredible detail and historical accuracy were observed in the filming, to the point of using exact historical descriptions of clothing and events. When the Queen of Scots is executed, it is historical fact that her head fell out of the executioner's grasp, revealing that she wore a wig. There are many details of this nature throughout the series.
Helen Mirren was inspired in her portrayal of Elizabeth, capturing the mercurial aspects of Elizabeth's personality while showcasing her humanity and insecurities. Jeremy Irons, in his role as the Earl of Leicester, created a compelling character, who captured the Earl while complementing Mirren's Elizabeth. Neither, in my opinion, would have performed to the level they did without the other. Hugh Dancy's performance as the Earl of Essex was also inspired, as he captured not only the earl's passion, but also his incredible lack of sense.
In all, this series was inspired. Historical accuracies preserved, ombined with excellent acting by two of today's great performers.
A definite buyer.
Everyone knows what a "buyer" is- it's a DVD you cannot live without and pre-order the minute the news of it's upcoming release hits Amazon. A non-buyer can be left in the store.
Honestly, I'm finding more non-buyers than buyers as I get older. I'm always surprised at the places I find a good buyer.
I'm not much of a TV movie/series kind of person. Usually they are overacted and the set appears to be a non-descript hodgepodge that anyone could come up with on a budget of $100. My personal bias aside, I'm finding more and more this is not the case.
Movie series in point: Elizabeth I, from HBO Films.
I rented this from Netflix a few weeks ago, despite the nagging worry in the back of my mind, dredging up all the poorly done movie series that I had seen in the past. I was terrified that would be the case here.
Before I continue, I should state here that I spent 9 years studying Elizabeth I. I love the character and the culture behind that era, and I am fascinated by Elizabeth herself. An incredible intellect, Elizabeth was also scarred by her upbringing as the daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife Anne Boleyn, who was executed for treason and adultery when Elizabeth was 3 years old. Her early years were characterized by upheaval and rejection, and her young adulthood by more of the same. When she ascended to the throne at the age of 25 upon the death of her sister Mary, few expected she would become the icon history has made her.
Instead, she flourished.
It is her story that I spent hours pouring over when I was a child; her birth and rejection by her father, the tense years she spent during the reigns of her brother and sister, and finally, her own ascension and reign. I poured over every detail, and could not get enough. As an adult, and with a degree in history under my belt, I look at historical movies with an eye for accuracy as well as good acting. Elizabeth, released in 1998 and starring Cate Blanchett, was well acted, but I had to turn it off to keep myself from pummelling the TV over the historical inaccuracies. "Angry" does not even begin to describe it.
I hope my reader can understand my aforementioned terror at receiving this movie in the mail. On some level, I expected a repeat of my previous experience. Happily, it was not the case.
Elizabeth I, starring Helen Mirren (who won an Emmy for her role as Elizabeth I), and Jeremy Irons, tells the story of England's Queen Elizabeth I, who reigned from 1558-1603. The story picks up in the late 1560s, when Elizabeth was entertaining her last offer of marriage from the Duke of Anjou, and ends with her death. The film beautifully captures Elizabeth, her court, and the intrigues of the later half of her reign, without glossing over the intricate details and drama that were the Elizabethan court.
Incredible detail and historical accuracy were observed in the filming, to the point of using exact historical descriptions of clothing and events. When the Queen of Scots is executed, it is historical fact that her head fell out of the executioner's grasp, revealing that she wore a wig. There are many details of this nature throughout the series.
Helen Mirren was inspired in her portrayal of Elizabeth, capturing the mercurial aspects of Elizabeth's personality while showcasing her humanity and insecurities. Jeremy Irons, in his role as the Earl of Leicester, created a compelling character, who captured the Earl while complementing Mirren's Elizabeth. Neither, in my opinion, would have performed to the level they did without the other. Hugh Dancy's performance as the Earl of Essex was also inspired, as he captured not only the earl's passion, but also his incredible lack of sense.
In all, this series was inspired. Historical accuracies preserved, ombined with excellent acting by two of today's great performers.
A definite buyer.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Movies in My View
Welcome to my movie blog!
I love movies- watching a good flick is one of my favorite pastimes. What better way to share my love of movies than to blog about it?
Check back for reviews and comments on new, old, and upcoming movies. Every movie has a right to my opinion!
I love movies- watching a good flick is one of my favorite pastimes. What better way to share my love of movies than to blog about it?
Check back for reviews and comments on new, old, and upcoming movies. Every movie has a right to my opinion!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
