Saturday, July 16, 2011
Potter-Thon: Day 8: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
As this project of seeing all the “Harry Potter” films draws to a close, I'm reminded of the fact that J.K. Rowling is one of the rare writers of our time who realizes that to write about evil properly, you can't dress him up in a pantomime villain and say, “Well, isn't that scary?” when it's not. As accomplished at playing villains as he is (including one, in “Schindler's List,” who's even less of a pantomime villain as Voldemort is himself), Ralph Finnes can also play Voldemort a bit sensitively, oddly enough. This is actually, in my opinion, the best film in the series EVER. It's emotional, thrilling, and perfectly captures the fact that whether he will live or die in his last battle with Voldemort, Harry will emerge from it all a man, not the boy from the cupboard in “Sorcerer's Stone” that some of us are more familiar with. After that, I have nothing to offer but the tip of my hat. Personally, I was able to accept the ending the book and movie series without much grieving, but I hope you have enjoyed watching the films along with me as I have. Hate to sound corny, but: This is Luke Altman signing off.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Potter-Thon: Day 7: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
This particular installment is one part of a project that is being treated as one movie, and apparently, this part is a bit different from its successor, because “Part 2” is more action oriented, while this movie speeds through some truly nailbiting action sequences in the first hour, before it becomes more of a slow-moving (but still suspenseful) adolescent drama for most of the remaining hour and a half, though another truly suspenseful climactic (and rather violent) battle closes out the movie, followed by another truly gripping cliffhanger for “Part 2” (yes, yes, I know it's frustrating if you haven't read the books, but it was better than leaving us off at Malfoy Manner, and, in any case, it had to end somewhere). The “adolescent drama” part, however, does produce one of the best additions to the story that the movies have done so far… having Harry and Hermione dance to Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds’ “O Children” on the radio (which, for those of you who wanna know, is powered by magic rather than electricity or radar waves). By creating that scene (an addition that even J.K. Rowling loved), the writer basically showed everyone in the audience who Harry and Hermione are and aren't in about four minutes. Some people have said that the dancing was intentionally lame for the actors’ experience, but, come on, you've gotta have a little fun even if you're in such a bad fix as Harry and Hermione. Rupert Grint especially gets to show some complexity as for the jealousy he has for Harry. There are, of course, quite a few truly great moments of physical humor, also. I shall be posting a lyrics video for “O Children” soon.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Potter-Thon: Day 6: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
I bet those of you watching along with me were totally shocked by that character's death at the end. Can't say I didn't warn ya, though. I DID tell you that there would be beloved and sympathetic casualties. Dumbledore is far from the last innocent casualty in the war against Voldemort, too. Upset though I know many of you were about Sirius's death, Dumbledore is such a more important and instantly likable person that it almost seems unfair to kill him off (for those of you who were wondering, yes, he is dead). I hope that you people watching paid close attention to Draco's Disarmining of Dumbledore (trust me, that'll turn out to be important). As you may have also noticed, because there are so many of them, there are so many plot points from the previous films that are slowly being pulled together that even people who started watching them as if cramming for a test will likely have a hard time keeping up with all the details.
Steve Kloves and David Yates return to their respective positions as director and writer for this installment (the former was replaced by David Goldenburg as writer of the previous installment), and the mixture of writing and visual direction style don't quite mesh as well as the last installment. David Yates's visual direction style is basically custom made for a really dark film, but, while this film is a little bit darker than its predecessor, Kloves is clearly trying to pull off double duty by portraying the boy-girl crushes more prominently than ever before as well as bring on the darker side of things, which results in an odd mixture of debauchery, capers, slapstick and romance, and unlike in its respective source material, it doesn't quite gel together all that well. And yet, despite this, as well as being a bit too short, it is still entertaining thanks to J.K. Rowling's masterful storytelling, thrilling action sequences, and a jaw-dropping cliffhanger ending that will have viewers on tenterhooks awaiting the next film.
Steve Kloves and David Yates return to their respective positions as director and writer for this installment (the former was replaced by David Goldenburg as writer of the previous installment), and the mixture of writing and visual direction style don't quite mesh as well as the last installment. David Yates's visual direction style is basically custom made for a really dark film, but, while this film is a little bit darker than its predecessor, Kloves is clearly trying to pull off double duty by portraying the boy-girl crushes more prominently than ever before as well as bring on the darker side of things, which results in an odd mixture of debauchery, capers, slapstick and romance, and unlike in its respective source material, it doesn't quite gel together all that well. And yet, despite this, as well as being a bit too short, it is still entertaining thanks to J.K. Rowling's masterful storytelling, thrilling action sequences, and a jaw-dropping cliffhanger ending that will have viewers on tenterhooks awaiting the next film.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Potter-Thon: Day 5: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenixx
This is my sister's least favorite movie in the series. Its respective source material is over 850 pages making it the longest book in the series, while the movie itself was the shortest in its series at the time, at only 133 minutes. However, I am willing to overlook that if, after all that, it's still entertaining, which it is, I'm happy to say. As a matter of fact, J.K. Rowling herself, who has been openly supportive of the adaptations of all of the books, actually went as far as to say that this movie was the best in its series before “Deathly Hallows: Part 1.” For those of you who've read the books, you're probably upset at how many things were cut out, but, if this helps, David Heyman, one of the producers of all the films (one of the VERY rare crew members who was with the franchise from the very beginning to the very end) has said in a recent interview that cutting out storylines from the books wasn't very fun for him either.
This movie introduced movie-only fans to the character of Luna Lovegood, the slightly batty but whip-sharp and kind Ravenclaw fourth year who ends up playing a major role in outcome of the story. The actress chosen to play her, Evanna Lynch, was a complete newcomer to the acting game, but she captures the characteristics of Luna so well (the dreamy, permanent look of unconcern on her face, the eternally surprised vibe she gives out, and the voice that sounds as though she is permanently unconcerned with anything around her) so well that you'd think she'd acted many times beforehand. This is also the first movie in the series not written by Steve Kloves (he returned for “Half-Blood Prince”), replaced by Michael Goldenburg, who makes the tone considerably darker than in the previous films, which is helped by the well-fitting visual style of replacement for Mike Newell, David Yates (also British). Yates would later direct all of the succeeding films in the series, the most for any director in the whole series. The intense, funny and rather brisk build-up period builds to a spectacularly staged climactic battle. A HUGE problem with this movie is that Umbridge does NOT (despite Ron's incorrectly used comment) have a face like a toad like in the book. As a matter of fact, compared to Anerican artist for the pictures of the books, Mary Grandpré's impression of her, the Umbridge in the movie looks quite well cared for indeed. Also, the decision to use Cho as the snitch for the D.A. was a bad idea. In the book, J.K. Rowling used Cho's friend as the snitch. In fact, the movie oversimplified the way that Harry's relationship with her came crumbling down. The way his crush on her is brought to its close is much more reflective of an actual adolescent relationship. Still, this film ultimately gets you ready for the penultimate installment of the series nicely.
This movie introduced movie-only fans to the character of Luna Lovegood, the slightly batty but whip-sharp and kind Ravenclaw fourth year who ends up playing a major role in outcome of the story. The actress chosen to play her, Evanna Lynch, was a complete newcomer to the acting game, but she captures the characteristics of Luna so well (the dreamy, permanent look of unconcern on her face, the eternally surprised vibe she gives out, and the voice that sounds as though she is permanently unconcerned with anything around her) so well that you'd think she'd acted many times beforehand. This is also the first movie in the series not written by Steve Kloves (he returned for “Half-Blood Prince”), replaced by Michael Goldenburg, who makes the tone considerably darker than in the previous films, which is helped by the well-fitting visual style of replacement for Mike Newell, David Yates (also British). Yates would later direct all of the succeeding films in the series, the most for any director in the whole series. The intense, funny and rather brisk build-up period builds to a spectacularly staged climactic battle. A HUGE problem with this movie is that Umbridge does NOT (despite Ron's incorrectly used comment) have a face like a toad like in the book. As a matter of fact, compared to Anerican artist for the pictures of the books, Mary Grandpré's impression of her, the Umbridge in the movie looks quite well cared for indeed. Also, the decision to use Cho as the snitch for the D.A. was a bad idea. In the book, J.K. Rowling used Cho's friend as the snitch. In fact, the movie oversimplified the way that Harry's relationship with her came crumbling down. The way his crush on her is brought to its close is much more reflective of an actual adolescent relationship. Still, this film ultimately gets you ready for the penultimate installment of the series nicely.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Potter-Thon: Day 4: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
A really big literature battle has been raging since 2005 about which book series is better: “Harry Potter” or “Twilight.” I, personally, tried to read the first “Twilight” book, but couldn't get past the first paragraph. No matter how much “Twilight” is “Eclipsing” (get it?) “Harry Potter” in popularity (at least book-wise) at the present time, “Harry Potter” will always be the winner in the long run for me. But “Twilight” fans of the books or movies (or just movies, which is unlikely) who are watching the “Harry Potter” movies with me were probably delighted to see Robert “Edward Cullen” Pattinson have a key role in how the events of the movie come out. Personally, I think he's a very gifted actor, but he's not given much to do in the “Twilight” films (his most famous role) beyond looking like a gigantic sulk-a-lot (in other words, look sulky). But in “Goblet of Fire,” Pattinson is allowed to play to his strengths quite a bit more, because of the fact that he not only looks the part of Cedric, but he also is allowed to present several emotions more. As an added bonus, it's a relief to not hear his annoying American accent and allow him to speak in his own home accent. There was a scene during the course of the Yule Ball segment where “Rob-Patt” shows more chemistry with the actress who played poor little Cho than he has, as far as I can tell from the parts I've seen from the “Twilight” movies with “K-Stew” (they didn't start dating till after the first movie, and that was the only one I've seen, so I may not be the best person to say that, but… ya know). Many of you watching this movie for the first time were surprised that Cedric died just before we'd gotten to really know him. You can't say I didn't warn you in my introduction, though. I DID tell you that there would be casualties. Plus, Cedric is only the first extremely stirring death of a major AND sympathetic character in the series. There will be at least one for remainder of the series in each film. Like I said, if you want to write about evil, you can't dress him up in a pantomime villain and say, “Well, isn't that scary?!” when it's not.
Like I said in the last post, Alfonzo Cáurón did not return to his post as director of “Goblet of Fire” due to it being in simultaneous production of “Prisoner of Azkeban,” so the first British director of the films, Mike Newell, took his place. Several people have criticized Newell for placing too much emphasis on the action sequences and too little emphasis on the personal stories and character development. While I can see while people would think so, but it has also been praised by many critics and fans for veering into more complex territory than the previous three films and for introducing the raging hormones and the whole “boys-and-girls-noticing-each-other-differntly” thing that comes with the entering into adolescence and that many of us can relate to, no matter how chastely it's handled. The experiments for new material not from the books don't work AS well as they did in “Prisoner of Azkeban,” but overall, this almost lives up to the standard set by “Prisoner of Azkeban.” Personally, I think that they could have gotten some more exposition of explanation of certain events if they had expanded its running time from two-and-a-half hours to three, maybe even three hours and twenty minutes like “Return of the King.” The next movie will be even darker than this one, as Harry's beginning his transition into manhood, so please prepare yourself for that.
Like I said in the last post, Alfonzo Cáurón did not return to his post as director of “Goblet of Fire” due to it being in simultaneous production of “Prisoner of Azkeban,” so the first British director of the films, Mike Newell, took his place. Several people have criticized Newell for placing too much emphasis on the action sequences and too little emphasis on the personal stories and character development. While I can see while people would think so, but it has also been praised by many critics and fans for veering into more complex territory than the previous three films and for introducing the raging hormones and the whole “boys-and-girls-noticing-each-other-differntly” thing that comes with the entering into adolescence and that many of us can relate to, no matter how chastely it's handled. The experiments for new material not from the books don't work AS well as they did in “Prisoner of Azkeban,” but overall, this almost lives up to the standard set by “Prisoner of Azkeban.” Personally, I think that they could have gotten some more exposition of explanation of certain events if they had expanded its running time from two-and-a-half hours to three, maybe even three hours and twenty minutes like “Return of the King.” The next movie will be even darker than this one, as Harry's beginning his transition into manhood, so please prepare yourself for that.
Potter-Thon: Day 3: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkeban
The American director of the first two films in the series, Chris Columbus, was moved down as simply a producer for this movie, and he was replaced by the Mexican director Alfonzo Cáurón, who, up until that point, was best known for directing the Spanish-language film “Y Tu Mama Tambien,” which, for those of you who didn't take Spanish, means “And your mother, too,” about two recent high-school graduates who take a car trip tour of Mexico with a recently widowed twenty-something woman, who fulfills all of their most thought-out fantasies, if you, uh, know what I mean. That may sound like it's really raunchy (which it is), but it's also smart and, as long as you don't mind subtitles, should appeal to many of you reading this who are my age. Unsurprisingly, though, this movie was more popular than “Y Tu Mama Tambien” ever was and will likely ever be, and it is the third Harry Potter film that concerns this blog entry, not “Y Tu Mama Tambien.” This film is often considered the best Harry Potter film ever made, and, after watching it again, I'd have to say, I can understand why they'd say that, as well as (at least for now) agree with them. This film starts branching out from the confines of the books, and ultimately is perfectly capable of forming its own identity and really begins to develop the characters the way that they were developed in the book, which some people may not like considering the faithfulness of the first two movies, but, like I said in my first blog post, some people prefer that to the approach of this film and the ones following it, and vise versa. The additions made to this film that weren't in its respective source material are very commonly successful, like the quip-sprouting shrunken head on the Knight Bus, which, for an odd reason, reminds me of Statler and Waldorf from “The Muppet Show.” This is also the darkest movie so far in the series, with the violence really beginning to push the limits of on the film's PG rating. Many of you watching along with me were alarmed that the Ministry would actually ally themselves with such vicious creatures as dementors, but in two films many of you will see why (hopefully). As I mentioned in the last post, “Prisoner of Azkeban” is much leaner than the last two overlong installments in the series. Now, due to “Prisoner of Azkeban” being in production at the same time as the next movie, “Goblet of Fire,” Cáurón did not return as director for the latter film, so he was replaced by the first actual British director of the films, Mike Newell, who later went on to direct last summer's moderately successful but quickly forgotten “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.” (More on Newell's turn as director in next post.)
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Potter-Thon: Day 2: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
“There is no evidence to suggest that Slytherin built so much as a secret broom cupboard!”
-Professor Binns (not in movies)
This is based on the only book in the series that reused its predessesdor's plot, and is therefore the weakest link in the book series, but it ultimately redeemed itself through J.K. Rowling's wonderful writing and the fact that many will find the identity of the person who opened the Chamber of Secrets a complete surprise, as I'm sure those of you watching along with me were as well. I neglected to mention in my last post that although J.K. Rowling has the composure to not go for pure spectacle, the writers and directors of the movies do not. As a result, several of the scenes in the film are much more drawn out and elaborate than in the book, oftentimes unnecessarily so. Although this movie introduces the first successful addition to the movies that weren't in the book (that Hagrid was late to the end-of-year feast because old and feeble Errol had gotten lost and confused delivering his Azkeban release papers), mostly they don't work. For example, the line that Harry says to Ginny after their ordeal in the Chamber: “It's (the piece of Voldemort's soul) over, Ginny. It's just a memory.” Looking back, I now find that line completely hammy and overly dramatic. And even though the last line of the movie (Harry telling Hagrid “There's no Hogwarts without you) rings with authenticity (not an easy thing, considering the actors were 13 at that time), it's simultaneously incredibly cheesy and sappy and non-J.K. Rowling-like as possible. Overall, though, the darkening of the tone and that, before Deathly Hallows: Part 1, this was the most faithful adaptation of its respective source material ultimately saves it, even if what's wrong with the first movie is still present and accounted for.
P.S. For those of you who don't like that the movies are too long, this is where the more faithful approach to the movies is done away with and the third movie starts a more character-driven approach. You may prefer those to these last two.
-Professor Binns (not in movies)
This is based on the only book in the series that reused its predessesdor's plot, and is therefore the weakest link in the book series, but it ultimately redeemed itself through J.K. Rowling's wonderful writing and the fact that many will find the identity of the person who opened the Chamber of Secrets a complete surprise, as I'm sure those of you watching along with me were as well. I neglected to mention in my last post that although J.K. Rowling has the composure to not go for pure spectacle, the writers and directors of the movies do not. As a result, several of the scenes in the film are much more drawn out and elaborate than in the book, oftentimes unnecessarily so. Although this movie introduces the first successful addition to the movies that weren't in the book (that Hagrid was late to the end-of-year feast because old and feeble Errol had gotten lost and confused delivering his Azkeban release papers), mostly they don't work. For example, the line that Harry says to Ginny after their ordeal in the Chamber: “It's (the piece of Voldemort's soul) over, Ginny. It's just a memory.” Looking back, I now find that line completely hammy and overly dramatic. And even though the last line of the movie (Harry telling Hagrid “There's no Hogwarts without you) rings with authenticity (not an easy thing, considering the actors were 13 at that time), it's simultaneously incredibly cheesy and sappy and non-J.K. Rowling-like as possible. Overall, though, the darkening of the tone and that, before Deathly Hallows: Part 1, this was the most faithful adaptation of its respective source material ultimately saves it, even if what's wrong with the first movie is still present and accounted for.
P.S. For those of you who don't like that the movies are too long, this is where the more faithful approach to the movies is done away with and the third movie starts a more character-driven approach. You may prefer those to these last two.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Potter-Thon: Day 1: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
“While he drove, Uncle Vernon complained to Aunt Petunia. He liked to complain about things: People at work, Harry, the council, Harry, the bank and Harry were just a few of his favorite subjects.”
Tonight, I watched, for what seems the like the millionth time to me, the first Harry Potter film ever made. “The Sorcerer's Stone” may have been viewed many times by me beforehand, but if you're already watching along with me, you were probably extremely surprised by the final twist. Even after many years, I would be entertained by several of the adult actors reading a phone book. As Dumbledore, the late Richard Harris, who died a couple of weeks before the second film was due to be released, gives the all-time best performance of his very long career. Michael Gambon, who replaced him from all succeding, is an exemplary replacement, but he just doesn't have that pathos that Richard Harris bought to the role. Harris said himself that he only took the role to appease his grandchildren, but he made the right choice by choosing it. The rest of the adult cast is similarly perfectly cast: Alan Rickman, who at that point was best known for his “… and cancel Christmas!” line in “Robin Hood: Prince of Theives (where he played the Sheriff of Nottingham), plays Snape with a “I'm-delivering-this-line-and-no-one-will-stop-me” air, and it works nearly beyond all recognition. No one will ever be able to imagine the Harry Potter movies without Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagle), and John Hurt's appearance as Ollivander the wandmaker is brief but memorable (just one reason to call him back for Deathly Hallows Part 1). Many people who were adults when the first movie came out can hardly believe that the kids looked that young ever, but I can totally imagine it. One very clear inaccuracy with this movie is that if Harry saw Quirrell die in the movie, he should already be able to see… something by his third year, though as my sister once pointed out, since Quirrell drank unicorn blood to strengthen Voldemort, he didn't have much of a life to lose to begin with. Two noticeable flaws are that Harry and Hermione are both much better looking in the movies than in the books. Also, that the characters are more compelling on print, when we can see into their brain, and as a result, we're often left with a bunch of characters looking amazed, fearful, sad or mad. I also may tell you that when it comes to fan's of the books’ preferences in movies, their opinions are split right down the middle, with some preferring the more faithful view of this movie plus the one following it, others preferring the more character driven approach of the following movies. Most of my family is squarely in the first camp. My sister actually hates the fifth one because it cuts out MANY plotlines, without the slightest mention of the fact that even after that, it's still entertaining. But this is a good start to the franchise anyway.
Tonight, I watched, for what seems the like the millionth time to me, the first Harry Potter film ever made. “The Sorcerer's Stone” may have been viewed many times by me beforehand, but if you're already watching along with me, you were probably extremely surprised by the final twist. Even after many years, I would be entertained by several of the adult actors reading a phone book. As Dumbledore, the late Richard Harris, who died a couple of weeks before the second film was due to be released, gives the all-time best performance of his very long career. Michael Gambon, who replaced him from all succeding, is an exemplary replacement, but he just doesn't have that pathos that Richard Harris bought to the role. Harris said himself that he only took the role to appease his grandchildren, but he made the right choice by choosing it. The rest of the adult cast is similarly perfectly cast: Alan Rickman, who at that point was best known for his “… and cancel Christmas!” line in “Robin Hood: Prince of Theives (where he played the Sheriff of Nottingham), plays Snape with a “I'm-delivering-this-line-and-no-one-will-stop-me” air, and it works nearly beyond all recognition. No one will ever be able to imagine the Harry Potter movies without Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagle), and John Hurt's appearance as Ollivander the wandmaker is brief but memorable (just one reason to call him back for Deathly Hallows Part 1). Many people who were adults when the first movie came out can hardly believe that the kids looked that young ever, but I can totally imagine it. One very clear inaccuracy with this movie is that if Harry saw Quirrell die in the movie, he should already be able to see… something by his third year, though as my sister once pointed out, since Quirrell drank unicorn blood to strengthen Voldemort, he didn't have much of a life to lose to begin with. Two noticeable flaws are that Harry and Hermione are both much better looking in the movies than in the books. Also, that the characters are more compelling on print, when we can see into their brain, and as a result, we're often left with a bunch of characters looking amazed, fearful, sad or mad. I also may tell you that when it comes to fan's of the books’ preferences in movies, their opinions are split right down the middle, with some preferring the more faithful view of this movie plus the one following it, others preferring the more character driven approach of the following movies. Most of my family is squarely in the first camp. My sister actually hates the fifth one because it cuts out MANY plotlines, without the slightest mention of the fact that even after that, it's still entertaining. But this is a good start to the franchise anyway.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Introduction to Potter-Thon
I've decided that, with the final one coming out in 10 days, I will watch every one of the Harry Potter films a day apart. I've read the books also. For those of you who are not familiar with the movies, let me explain what they are about, in the words of the writers of The Harry Potter Lexicon:
“The books” (and movies) “tell the story of a boy named Harry who was raised by an abusive aunt and uncle from age 1 to age 11. On his 11th birthday, he learns to his amazement that he is a wizard and that he will be attending Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The installments tell of his years at Hogwarts, one book for each of the seven years.
“As Harry learns more about his true identity, he learns that he is part of a larger saga, an almost legendary confrontation between good and evil, between him, along with his friends and allies, and the greatest Dark wizard of the age, Lord Voldemort. Harry discovers his place in this great struggle as his years at Hogwarts go by, and as he finds himself becoming enmeshed in battles and conflicts.”
The movies are based a series of books written by the Scottish writer Joanne Rowling, who writes under the pen-name J.K. Rowling, though in reality she has no middle name and the “K” is modeled after her grandmother Kathleen. I will now attempt to put those who have never read the books or watched the movies because their families have condemned them for featuring witchcraft as a big part of the plot, in other words completely missing the point, but I'm not sure I will be able to tell so many details in this blog, so if I overlook something important, please forgive me.
The wizarding world has many of the dynamics that our world does. Several dilemmas that the wizarding world faces several times over the course of the series include good vs. evil, the rule of thumb vs. the rule of order, corruption vs. democracy, corruption itself, the right choice vs. the easy choice, etc. The series is also of multiple genres. Fantasy is just one among many, including but not limited to political thriller, coming-of-age, action-adventure, horror, comedy-drama, and a little bit of romance. In many works of art like that, the mish-mesh of genres would keep it from any real complexity (i.e. depth in the characters, etc.), the characters are continually and consistently three-dimensional.
If you have heard this for the very first time because of your parents’ flawed rules, I encourage you to watch along with me. Here are the films in order of release and watch date:
1. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (July 8th)
2. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (July 9th)
3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkeban (July 10th)
4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (July 11th)
5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (July 12th)
6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (July 13th)
7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (July 14th)
8. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (July 15th)
The seventh book is split into two movies, so their are seven books in the book series but eight in the movie series. The movies are currently available on Ultimate Edition DVDs and Blu-Rays, with the possible exeption of the seventh, which, if you can't find it in the aforementioned editions, can be found in a regular edition.
Before you start watching the movies, though, I'll have to warn you: J.K. Rowling is one of the rare writers of today who understands that if you want to write about evil, you can't have him be totally silly, so (and I'm genuinely sorry to say this), I'm afraid there will be casualties, even incredibly sympathetic and beloved ones. Also, as Harry grows up, the movies get more mature and darker, so please prepare yourself for that.
Hope to see you write comments about this!
“The books” (and movies) “tell the story of a boy named Harry who was raised by an abusive aunt and uncle from age 1 to age 11. On his 11th birthday, he learns to his amazement that he is a wizard and that he will be attending Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The installments tell of his years at Hogwarts, one book for each of the seven years.
“As Harry learns more about his true identity, he learns that he is part of a larger saga, an almost legendary confrontation between good and evil, between him, along with his friends and allies, and the greatest Dark wizard of the age, Lord Voldemort. Harry discovers his place in this great struggle as his years at Hogwarts go by, and as he finds himself becoming enmeshed in battles and conflicts.”
The movies are based a series of books written by the Scottish writer Joanne Rowling, who writes under the pen-name J.K. Rowling, though in reality she has no middle name and the “K” is modeled after her grandmother Kathleen. I will now attempt to put those who have never read the books or watched the movies because their families have condemned them for featuring witchcraft as a big part of the plot, in other words completely missing the point, but I'm not sure I will be able to tell so many details in this blog, so if I overlook something important, please forgive me.
The wizarding world has many of the dynamics that our world does. Several dilemmas that the wizarding world faces several times over the course of the series include good vs. evil, the rule of thumb vs. the rule of order, corruption vs. democracy, corruption itself, the right choice vs. the easy choice, etc. The series is also of multiple genres. Fantasy is just one among many, including but not limited to political thriller, coming-of-age, action-adventure, horror, comedy-drama, and a little bit of romance. In many works of art like that, the mish-mesh of genres would keep it from any real complexity (i.e. depth in the characters, etc.), the characters are continually and consistently three-dimensional.
If you have heard this for the very first time because of your parents’ flawed rules, I encourage you to watch along with me. Here are the films in order of release and watch date:
1. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (July 8th)
2. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (July 9th)
3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkeban (July 10th)
4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (July 11th)
5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (July 12th)
6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (July 13th)
7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (July 14th)
8. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (July 15th)
The seventh book is split into two movies, so their are seven books in the book series but eight in the movie series. The movies are currently available on Ultimate Edition DVDs and Blu-Rays, with the possible exeption of the seventh, which, if you can't find it in the aforementioned editions, can be found in a regular edition.
Before you start watching the movies, though, I'll have to warn you: J.K. Rowling is one of the rare writers of today who understands that if you want to write about evil, you can't have him be totally silly, so (and I'm genuinely sorry to say this), I'm afraid there will be casualties, even incredibly sympathetic and beloved ones. Also, as Harry grows up, the movies get more mature and darker, so please prepare yourself for that.
Hope to see you write comments about this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)