Wow. 35. We celebrated, sans-Lucy, with a day that included an eat-out breakfast, chess at the coffee shop, much enjoyable dangling conversation, dinner out, and a viewing of the latest Harry Potter; which I thought was the best so far and by far.
The directing was superb. I also think the kids have been taking acting lessons; they all did a great job. More than any of the others, it really didn't seem like a movie from kids, both in terms of the intensity and also when you consider all the scenes having fun with the awkward boy-girl dynamic of early teen years. That could have been done wincingly bad, but I think they did a really great job of it and, as adults, one can watch those scenes with warmth and humour. Got to agree with Gibbsy, though; the new Dumbledore is a nutcase. I don't know what they were thinking with that...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Surprised that you choose to see that over TLTW&TW.
Not that much interest in seeing TLTW&TW. I prefer the Harry Potter books to the Narnia books, especially after that pisser in book 7 I alluded to.
A question to those who read the entire collection of Narnia books. Is the professor in TLTW&TW the boy from the first book? He seems to know about traveling to other places. What's the scoop on him?
I do think that is the implication - regarding TLTWATW.
As far as HP and specifically Dumbledore, I don't think he's crazy, but he's lost the charm he should have. The new one is too menacing and doesn't seem to be on top of things the way the book portrays him. In the books he always seems to be 2 steps ahead, and generally comforts Harry with a wink or some other subtle gesture. This one gets played to reactionary and I don't know why the directors and Rowling herself haven't reigned that back in.
Sounds like a sparkling day.
Sharon & I were talking about those very couple of Dumbledore differences. The only thing I could come up with is maybe this new guy wanted to distinguish himself (i.e. not fall into the "Batman" trap, where good actors are mowed down continually by playing the exact same character). But I, too, am not sure why the director & Rowling didn't reign him back in.
I have this theory that Rowling is in consultation with the directors of these films, and might even be working with them to drop very subtle hints about some of the mysteries that will be unveiled in the last two books. Notice, after everyone else leaves, and Snape is alone with Barty Crouch Jr., how he goes the extra mile by punching his wand deep into his cheek to guard him. Subtle indication that maybe he is good, after all. We've not talked about it to my memory, but Rickman does a fine, fine job as Snape.
Does the professor bring the White Witch to Narnia? Does the professor plant the tree and makes the wardrobe from it?
Hey, hey! Keep those Narnia comments on the Red Oak. Let's not start going down the road of comment on issues unrelated to the post.
Alan Rickman is excellent at most parts he plays, though usually that means being at least superficially evil. Certainly a great villain in Die Hard.
We could go back to our original Book 6 discussions about DDore being dead and whether Snape is truly bad, where I firmly sad that he was not, on both counts. I'll reiterate my principal logic - in every book in the series whatever specific ability they were learning that was new in that book played an important role in the plot. In Book 6 that was the wordless spellcasting or whatever they called it. NOWHERE was it explicitly used to advance the plot, except perhaps when Snape blasted DDore. Has there ever been an example where the use of the Abra cadavra (sp?) spell sent someone flying through the air. Even in the latest movie they showed it as without such theatrics.
I remain convinced that it was a setup and DDore is alive.
I hope you're right, as long as they don't get all cheesy about the comeback.
If he shows up dressed all in white, in a forest inhabited by talking trees, after fighting a demon, naked?
Post a Comment