The Trilogy Post Part One: The Movie

The start to these epic three days was an (almost) midnight viewing of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

STOP! SPOILERS AHEAD! IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM YET, BEWARE! SPOILERS!

The movie was...okay. It was not the best Potter movie but it certainly was not the worst (Ahem, Prisoner of Azkaban). Now I've been reading the books since the first one was released so my expectations going into the films are very high. That being said, I loved the first two films. It seems though that after the loss of director Christopher Columbus and the death of Albus Dumbledore portrayer Richard Harris, the movies have been losing more and more magic with every one being made. This sixth film had the least amount of magic by far.

Let's start with the film's loyalty to the book. Before criticising the filmmakers for an unloyal portrayal of the book, one has to keep in mind that the book is massive and to stick to it 100% would result in a twelve hour movie. That being said, why are we adding sequences into the movie that weren't even in the book?! Nowhere in the novel did the Weasley's beloved Burrow burn down! If they had taken out that sequence, they could have made the ending into the intense finale that was in the book!

That brings me to my next point: the ending. In the book, remember the epic battle between the good and the bad? The Order and Dumbledore's Army against the Death Eaters? Yeah, it's non-existant in the movie. Why? My guess is that the producer's thought that there was a great battle scene in the last film and they didn't want to bore the audience with another. What they don't understand is that the fans want to see the book onscreen! Dumbledore didn't get the amazing funeral that was in the last chapter of the book. (By the way, what's with the new Dumbledore?! He's no where near the Dumbledore described in the novel.), Harry didn't have his final words with Ginny, Bill Weasley--Wait a minute, Bill Weasley wasn't even in the movie! All in all, the ending was crap.

The good, you ask? There was some good. They nailed the teenage romance that everyone goes through growing up (yep, even wizards have that awkward teenage phase!). At times, it was a little overdone and cheesy, but for the most part it was hilarious. Rupert Grint stole the show here with his perfect comic timing. Who knew that he had the funny in him? His scenes with Lavender Brown were priceless and exactly how I imagined they would be from the book. The Harry/Ginny relationship was barely developed. All we saw was that they were interested in each other. Boooooooring.

Overall, the film was a build-up, a segway, to the final film. We didn't see Voldemort once (except for in flashbacks of course). Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, which will be split into two parts, one to be released in 2010 and one in 2011, is the final film. I am so looking forward to that one now, hoping that they can recapture the magic from the first two films. Yes, the later films are darker, but they can still be magical!

I give Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 2 stars out of 4. The next time we see our favourite trio will be when they are finally free of their Harry Potter personas in the final film, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.



Stay tuned for The Trilogy Post Part Two: The Music.

The Trilogy Post

Hello my few readers!

This past week has been HECTIC and I've got lots to update on. Unfortunately, my computer crashed on me and while I wait to get it back online, I have to use my lady friend's computer.

My next three posts will be a three-in-one: A Trilogy.

Until then,

adios.

A Critical Review: "My Sister's Keeper"

Question: What's the perfect Sunday afternoon movie? Something funny? Quirky? Witty? Action-Packed? Dramatic?

The answer could be any of the above. The answer certainly is not a melodramatic sob fest. Wait, let me correct myself, the answer could be a melodramatic sob fest, but it should not be director Nick Cassavetes' latest novel-to-film adaptation My Sister's Keeper.

The film, starring Cameron Diaz and Abigail Breslin, is about a lawsuit that a genetically engineered girl launches against her parents for the rights to her own body. In a nutshell:

• At a young age, the Fitzgerald's oldest daughter is diagnosed with terminal leukemia.
• To save her life, they opt to genetically engineer a second daughter who's parts they can use for their cancer-stricken one: a donor child.
• At age 11, young Anna decides she's had enough of the surgeries, the needles, and the hospitals and decides to sue her parents for the rights to her own body.

I thought that this film would be interesting because of the moral and ethical issues the premise presents. How could you create a child and raise it, only to always demand her to sacrifice her body for her sister? Should an eleven year old child have "medical emancipation"? In other words, is an eleven year old responsible enough to make her own medical decisions? Should family always be willing to give anything up for each other?

However, instead of touching upon these questions, the film explores the family's past and more specifically the past of the terminal child. And although the film is touching with it's strong familial values, it falls short of hitting home. It just feels like the filmmaker's only goal was to make his audience cry. And that's all he did.

I have not read the novel on which the film is based, but apparently the differences between the two are disturbing.

I give the film one star out of four. Sorry Cassavetes, you had me with John Q, but lost me with this one.

New Digital Art!

Over the past couple of weeks, I've traveled deep into the world of Adobe Photoshop. And the result has been... satisfying!



Above is the result of my journey into the magical world of Photoshop! It does not have a title, and I feel like it's a little empty (especially in the middle) but otherwise I'm pretty happy about it.

I intend to do more digital work that I can post up here. What do ya guys think?

24 has always been one of my favorite shows. I've watched the whole series (seasons 1-7) almost since the show began and it's non-stop action and unique style has always captivated me.

Now, it's been years since I watched the first couple of seasons and over the summer, I have been watching them, all 24 episodes, with my girlfriend because she had never seen them.

This second time around, I'm noticing things that should not be happening. Check this out:



You see that on the left? Ya, that's a camera. How does that make it into the final cut? It's so blatantly obvious that it makes me think that it was left in on purpose. For what reason I don't know. After that you think they would have corrected it, but no, it happens again here:



Not much different from the first image except that in this scene the camera actually moves! It's one thing to have the camera in the frame in the first place but how could you move it further into the frame?! Someone really wasn't paying attention here and the editor probably shat himself when he saw it.

This was in season one, hour twelve. 24 really is one of my favorite shows so it kills me to see amateur mistakes like this one made. However, I am happy to say that I since haven't seen any mistakes like this made and I am currently watching season three. If I find anymore, I'll be sure to let you know!

Cheers.

Ideology in Film: the 1980s

So I recently decided to watch the old Superman movies again and got through two of them when I realized just how American they are. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing. It's just very evident.

Throughout the 80s, Hollywood films were made to promote the popular American ideology. This ideology was that America is the most powerful nation in the world and should anyone challenge their power, the Americans would annihilate them. Don't believe me? Check out Rambo: First Blood Part 2. Is that movie not about Rambo going into Vietnam and then single-handedly destroying it? To top that off, Rambo is portrayed as an indestructible and muscular man. He is a symbol of America's invincibility and his image promotes the ideology that America is above all and should police the world. The film supports the belief that the bureaucrats lost the Vietnam War and that for one man to go in and kill hundreds of people by blowing up their villages to save a dozen American POWs is unproblematic. It's not unproblematic. But I guess since it's America, it's okay.

But back to the Superman movies. Here's what really triggered this train of thought:

Taken from Superman II

"I hereby advocate all authority and control over this planet to general Zod" Who gives the President of the United States the right to hand over all authority and control over the planet? You could argue that he "consulted" with the other leaders of the world but since when is America a spokesperson for the planet? I have a feeling that that wouldn't go over well in real life with the other superpowers on this planet.

Here's another Superman clip, this one from Superman 1:



Anyone who doesn't believe in the American way, watch out because Superman's coming to get you!

One more film that I wanted to make mention of is Rocky IV, you know, the one where Rocky single-handedly defeats communism? That film is basically the cold war re-enacted in the boxing ring.This video, the intro to the film pretty much sums it up:

Last video in this entry, promise!

If you watch that video closely, right before the gloves collide, you see the Russian one fall first, foreshadowing the end of the film.

The ideologies behind these films are in no way bad. Some of them are a bit of an ego boost for the country but for the most part I see patriotism. Especially in Rocky/Rambo. The protagonists were very patriotic and the film showed American audiences at the time what they wanted to see and what they believed.

I believe that there are still ideologies like this found in film today, however it is much more subtle and harder to identify. And don't get me wrong, I love all of the movies that I mentioned in this post, I just feel like some of the words spoken and actions taken wouldn't fly today.

Until next time!

Daybreakers Trailer

Now I'm not a huge fan of vampire movies, but this looks like a nice contrast to the way vampires are portrayed in the Twilight series:





This movie actually looks pretty good. Intense. Action packed. Emotionally charged. What more could you ask for in a movie? But then again, trailers can be deceiving...