| Thursday, March 16, 2006 |
I FELL IN TO A BURNING RING OF FIRE
|
 HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE
Do you like chocolate? What!? How can you never have eaten chocolate? What do you mean you're allergic to it?
I typically get the same shocked reaction when I mention that I've never read a Harry Potter book. I think there are seven of them now and the closest I've been to actually reading one is scanning the cover to try and decipher the fancifully written title. I was on a date once and the conversation turned to the Harry Potter. The first movie had recently come out on DVD, if I recall correctly. When I mentioned to him that I'd never read any of the books, I think the date almost ended there. It was quickly amended by agreeing to rent/buy the movie and come over to watch it. Since then I've watched all the Harry Potter movies. Typically as fair trade payback for forcing someone else to watch a movie I wanted to see. It's not that I dislike the movies. They turn out to be quite good. I just don't have the same fever for them as most fans do.
So what are up to now? Four movies and 80 books later Harry Potter still hasnt' figured out a spell to comb his hair. Seriously! Can we get this boy into hair and make-up to do something about that bitch-mess going on? That's how he is supposed to look? Yikes.
Well there is no point in commenting about the cast because it's the same kids that have been in every film. To change the cast up at this point would be heresy in the eyes of most of the fans. There usually is a few additions to the cast each time. I don't think any of them have stood out of particularly ill-fitted. Though, having never read any of the books I suppose there might be a majority who disagree with the actor choosen to play Dumbledore after the original passed away.
The plot was interesting, if not a little formulaic. I finally figured out that the movies/books take place over a whole year at Hogwart's. There is always the set up of the conflict. There is always then a character development part in the middle that feel like forever. Then there is the big fight at the end, stemming from the revelation that someone who they trusted was actually not to be trusted. Either that or an one-time enemy is shown to be actually an ally. I know I'm over simplifying it. But honestly, I feel I could partially watch one movie, fall asleep, someone could put a previous Potter film, I'd wake up and never know the difference. My point being that I'm not sure there is really much that makes one movie stand out from the other. If you like one, you'll like the rest.
I started out trying to sum up this thought in one sentence, but I soon realized I had more to say about it. The movie is over two hours long, which I can handle. But the budding romance and best friends fighting seemed to go on forever. Only to have it end suddenly before the final conflict. I looked at the packaging to see how long the movie was and was horrified to see it was 4 hours and 40 minutes long. Misprint or Netflix Prankster?
Ron is now jealous of Harry, because he wants to be hunted down formless evil? Harry testicles finally descend and he is checking out every girl in the room. Good for Harry. It adds a nice facet to the story. Yet the romance between Hermoine and Ron feels odd. I hope it's explained better in the book because there is approximately two scenes of dialogue about it in the movie. Left field, checking in.
The conflict at the end was impressive. I wish there was more of it throughout the movie. The Tri-Wizards Challenge that Harry ends up being a part of, is a pretty cool idea. Yet it makes up only a fraction of the overall story. I had to laugh when I read another bloggers review of the movie where she tried to imagine what the Parental Permission slip for such an event must be like.
I'm glad I watched it. I'm not sorry I didn't read the book (as of yet). I kinda wish I would've seen it on the big screen. If you've bought the others, you might as well buy this one so you can eventually complete the set. |
|
I posted this @ 11:04 AM.............Need a link?..........
|
|
|
|
| Tuesday, March 14, 2006 |
CONSTANT CRAVING
|
 The Constant Gardener
Mike summed up this movie rather well, he "fell asleep during a commercial" for it. While I was somehow able to stay awake, it didn't do much good. I think I could've watched this with Cliff Notes or director's commentary and still be lost.
I make an effort to see the films that are nominated for the main Oscars, each year. The Constant Gardener was one of those films. Rachel Weisz took home Best Supporting Actress for her role as, Tessa Quayle, an activist investigating shady pharmaceutical practices in Kenya. I thought she did a fine job. I'm not sure I'd call it Oscar worthy. So far all I have to compare it to is Brokeback Mountain actress Michelle Williams. I'd say Michelle beats Rachel. I'd love to be in the mind of the people who are voting for these things. Or I'd at least like to hear rationales. Maybe they have a very good reason that I'm overlooking. Anyway... I digress.
Ralph Fiennes plays Tessa's husband Justin who is trying to figure out why she died and who killed her. As he uncovers more and more and what Tessa's work really involved he puts his own life in jeopardy.
The movie starts out very convoluted. There are flashbacks showing how Tessa and Justin got together. Plots within plots are being exposed. Businessmen. Government officials. Doctors. Everyone is having a very bright line shone on them. Everyone is having to answer Tessa's questions. It's like a half dozen plot lines all come running at each other and finally coalesce into a movie in the last half of the film.
Kaz sat down half way through it and asked a question about the movie and I didn't know where to begin explaining it.
The cinematography was also half good / half not-good. I understand there are certain styles used to portray or send the message of certain emotions, but... I don't typically get that. I don't understand the need to see part of the movie being filmed the angle of what appears to be a pygmy holding a Super 8 camera. The sweeping landscape shots of Kenya are beautiful. Such films always make me wonder if the locals have any idea what's going on. Typically when little kids see a camera they all come running to stand in front of it, smile, and wave ecstatically. I presume someone tells them it's a movie and not a documentary or that Sally Struthers isn't anywhere around.
The story is intriguing. I said this to a friend and they asked if that was a good or bad thing. I guess, I really don't know. The idea of drug companies 'helping' the sick by testing various drugs on them is a powerful topic. The story was not only dramatic for the point it was trying to get across, but also very political. People taking a stand against shady government activities. Also powerful. Not something I'd go for in just any old movie I'd watch. So... I say intriguing. It might mean more to someone who was more passionate about such topics.
I'm glad I watched it. I probably wouldn't buy it, because I don't see it as a film I'd want to pop in some boring weeknight. |
|
I posted this @ 1:00 PM.............Need a link?..........
|
|
|
|
| Tuesday, March 07, 2006 |
LOVE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT HARD ON ME
|
 I watched The 40-Year Old Virgin over the weekend. I'd heard a lot of good, funny things leading up to this movie. So I was psyched to see it. I'm a fan of Steve Carrell on The Office. I like Paul Rudd (Call me! *wink*). So why didn't I like this movie more?
With some comedy movies if you've seen a few trailers for the movie, then you've seen all the really funny parts it has to offer. So I was somewhat worried that this would be one of those movies. It actually wasn't. There was some very funny scenes that they didn't play to death in previews.
The basic plot. Steve Carrell, plays Andy Stitzer, who is a nice guy. He's the guy in high school who laughs at all the dirty jokes even though he may not understand the full meaning. He's had some unfortunate breaks that contribute to his prolonged virginity. Some of which are like Ben Stiller sight-gags.
Once Andy's co-workers figure out he is a virgin, they set out to get him laid. There is an extra portion of awkwardness in all of Andy's moves as he tries to flirt with women. This is excellent as Carrell handles such awkward yet hilarious scenes on The Office with a great comedic sense.
There is the overall morale lesson that it is okay to be a virgin and to wait for that special person that you want to have sex with rather than live your life going from one meaningless sexual encounter to another. Although, I doubt anyone is watching this movie and wanting to use Andy as a role model for abstinence. No matter how ultimately positive the message is.
The acting was good. The casting choices could have honestly been anyone in almost any of the roles other than Carrell. It's like the movie was written for and around him. Many of the cast members have ties to Ron Burgandy or The Office. So if you like one you might be pre-disposed to like 40-Year Old Virgin.
I'm glad watched it, but I'm also glad I didn't pay full movie price for it. There is no big-screen need for this movie. |
|
I posted this @ 11:58 AM.............Need a link?..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
