![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Movie Friday came and went with me curled up in a theatre seat watching Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and Stepford Wives.
I also shopped.
It was a pretty good day.
(Beware of misspellings)
So. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. It was entertaining. It was fabulously beautiful. It also suffered from some of the same problems as Chamber of Secrets. That is to say, the script is haphazard, slavish and pretty craptacular. If I had never read the books I wouldn't know what was going on, up from down, left from right.
Steve Kloves seems to have a great deal of trouble with adapting these books. A task that, I belive, is no easy feat. However, if we hadn't just come off of the glorious LotR epic then I might be more forgiving.
The script, and as a result the filming, despite the wonderful work of Alfonso Cuaron, is choppy and disorienting. It also leaves out information vital to people who have not read the books. I never notice how important transition can be until it's missing.
Anyway, beef:
- We get to see the kids in all of their classes. Ron is constantly making references to Hermione's sudden appearances in some classes. However, it's never made clear why this is such a phenomenon. The opening of their time at Hogwarts is missing an important, but short, scene that could have easily taken place over breakfast or dinner or in the Gryffindor common room, in which they discuss their class load for the term. I also think that this would have made their time spent in classes that much more effective or at least interesting to viewers. How do they feel about their classes. Who finds what exciting and why. Harry's incredible enjoyment of Defense Against the Dark Arts. Hermione's true loathing of Divination, etc. Small things that could have been incorporated to make the movie more accessible to those who don't know the bloody book.
- Buckbeat's trial. We go from Lucius Malfoy is angry to Buckbeak is being executed. There's no mention between of what's happening (as the rest of the story flows).
- Hogsmeade. There is no explanation of what Hogsmeade is and why Harry is so keen to go. There is very little discussion of the Shrieking Shack and why everyone is so scared of it. The connection between the Shrieking Shack, the Whomping Willow, Lupin and the gang is never discussed. We get to see Remus immobilize the willow but we don't know why or how he can do that.
- The Maurauder's Map. Okay, arguably it's unnecessary for us to know who created the map or the connection to Harry (the maps creators are Peter Pettigrew, Lupin, Black and James Potter) but I was highly irked by the fact that Lupin seemed to know what the map was for and how to use it and we're never told why. If Snape doesn't recognize the map than it is obviously not a normal wizarding object and therefore there should be some explanation as to why Lupin is so very familar with it.
- Lupin and Snape and the Full Moon. Never, ever, ever is it mentioned that Snape is helping Lupin to control his Werewolf by making potions. There is a one-liner tossed off by Pettigrew about Lupin having missed his potion and if I didn't know what he was talking about then I would have been -- wha? huh? What potion? The animosity between Lupin and Snape is also missing. Reduced to Snape's standard alienating behavior.
- Mudblood is appareantly not all that offensive. But then again, I don't remember if the term is first used in PoA or GoF.
- The worm masquerading as a mustache on David Thewlis' upper lip.
- Dumbeldore's hippie act. God! I miss Richard Harris.
Then there's the good:
- The opening sequence of Harry under the sheet. He so looked like he might have been masturbating. I loved the double entendre. Or triple. Boy reading under the sheets. Jacking off under the sheets. Studying 'magic' under the sheets.
- Ron. All grown up.
- Roger Pratt, the Cinematographer. This was a gorgous movie to look at.
- John Williams for the score.
- Emma Watson's softening of Hermione. She was really shrill in the first two movies and I love that we get to see her grow as an actress and make the performance more subtle.
- Daniel Radcliffe!
- Art Direction
- Did I mention how much I adored the Cinematography?
- The glorious Whomping Willow.
- The new Hogwarts grounds. Much more appropriate to what we know about the Wizarding World. It looks less like Disney land and more like the ancient school we know that it is. I love that they distanced the Forbidden Forest and Hagrid's cabin. The Scottish landscape was perfectly perfect.
- The Dementors!!! I loved the effects. The darkening and the way everything died or went all icy. Granted they seemed more than a little like mediocre rip-off's of the Ring Wraiths, but still . . .
- The Leaky Cauldron and Hogsmeade were beautiful sights to behold. Very beautifully realized.
- Gary Oldman. Who else could show up for, like, twenty minutes of a movie and make you believe in his insanity. That said, I don't think they set up enough of how heinous Sirius Black was supposed to be.
- Julie Christie!
- Hermione, Harry and the Time Reverse. All of those shots were put together great! I loved watching them retract their footsteps and watch themselves all from different angles. I also loved the way that everything peripherial added up as they interacted with their past selves.
- Alfonso Cuaron. I credit him with everything that I loved about this movie. He made it so surreal and off-kilter. Also! I love that magic in this movie isn't just a huge show off effect. It was blended in to be something that went on as a normal part of the wizard's life. The chairs at the Leaky Cauldron, the Minister's Pen, Hegwid, all of the tiny little things that went on in the background. The darker colors. Which I think went miles to aging the film and the characters and the themes. This was much less disney-fied, as it should be.
Now that I really think about it. I don't know what the hell I was watching for like 2 hours and change.
The worse news I've heard for the next installment (Goblet of Fire) is that Alfonso Cuaron is not directing. The best news is that Steve Kloves may not be writing the script. Please, please,please Hollywood. Let's get someone in there who knows what their doing. Peter and Fran. If you're available to write a script, please. I beg of you.
Stepford Wives was such an enjoyable movie. I was deathly afraid of what would happen when I heard it was going to be a dark comedy. But, man, did it work! Surprisingly, I find the way the men are so gung-ho to re-create their wives utterly sinister in both movies, although I think it's a little more so in the original - they are nobody housewives which somehow makes it worse.
I loved:
- Glenn Close!! She was amazing!
- Bette Midler. She was Crreeeepppyyy when she was stepfordized!!
- Roger Bart, I. Love. You.
- The costumes. The dresses were superb.
- The stab at reality TV.
- Roger Bart!!
Nicole Kidman and those cupcakes!
Not so much:
- Nicole Kidman's hair and overly botoxed face. Ease up, girl. Ease up. Also. could we have given her some highlights or lowlights or something to make her hair look a little less goth-in-a-bottle.
- Bobbie's house. Although I laughed and laughed and laughed. It was a tad with the overkill.
- ATM Barbie. Wtf. (More explanation on the big WTF moment below.)
- It wasn't as creepy and nightmarish as the original because, I think, we're dealing with petulant, geeks as opposed to high - powered men who aren't so much threatened by their wives as they are just completely selfish and uncaring. In the original, Peter Masterson begins a descent that is never matched by Matthew Broderick. Of course, it couldn't be considering the huge change in endings. (Something I was very disappointed by).
- As much as I loved Bette Midler's performance, Bobbie wasn't so vicious in the original. She was fun-loving and spirited. So that her alteration was much more tragic than Midler's.
- A big ole WTF! for plot confusion. Are these women robots or aren't they. Which one of the editors let the plot get all twisted. Hello. Frank Oz! Are you awake? First their robots (see barn dance), then they're nano-chipped women (see the promotional video), then they're back to sparking like metal maidens. Which is it? Bobbie's hand catches on fire and she doesn't notice (Although I was sorry to see that Joanne doesn't get to stab her the way she does in the original and then see her go all wacky. That is a creepy ass scene). I am vastly confused.
- Also. The time and effort that we get to see in the original is so much more horrific. Changing these women is so deliberate and invested that it's just evil. Whereas here it's almost a whim. With the advent of technology I would have at least liked to have seen Joanne realize that her 'smart house' is watching her. Something.
- The ending. I don't know how much I like the statement in making Glenn Close the bad guy. Although I see the point and it's all somewhat realistic and suitably tragic, I think it loses impact by broadening the blame. It's now a problem between the sexes more than it is an issue of resistance to change. It's just not as effective as a closing. You also lose a lot of the dramatic tension by letting Matthew Broderick play the hero - the one good man. I think it would have been so much better to have kept the original ending, especially in light of how much Kidman's Joanne tried to change. (Of course, it would have been much more effective with John Cusack playing Walter - I think he could carry off the genial, sullenness required). Then it really would have been a dark comedy.
But when all is said and done. I really, really, really enjoyed this movie! It was fun and frothy, unlike the original, light on the politics.
In other news: I am now the proud owner of Kiehl's Rare Earth Clay Mask and the Yummiest Mositurizer ever, Buttercream Frosting! Yum!!!
I also shopped.
It was a pretty good day.
(Beware of misspellings)
So. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. It was entertaining. It was fabulously beautiful. It also suffered from some of the same problems as Chamber of Secrets. That is to say, the script is haphazard, slavish and pretty craptacular. If I had never read the books I wouldn't know what was going on, up from down, left from right.
Steve Kloves seems to have a great deal of trouble with adapting these books. A task that, I belive, is no easy feat. However, if we hadn't just come off of the glorious LotR epic then I might be more forgiving.
The script, and as a result the filming, despite the wonderful work of Alfonso Cuaron, is choppy and disorienting. It also leaves out information vital to people who have not read the books. I never notice how important transition can be until it's missing.
Anyway, beef:
- We get to see the kids in all of their classes. Ron is constantly making references to Hermione's sudden appearances in some classes. However, it's never made clear why this is such a phenomenon. The opening of their time at Hogwarts is missing an important, but short, scene that could have easily taken place over breakfast or dinner or in the Gryffindor common room, in which they discuss their class load for the term. I also think that this would have made their time spent in classes that much more effective or at least interesting to viewers. How do they feel about their classes. Who finds what exciting and why. Harry's incredible enjoyment of Defense Against the Dark Arts. Hermione's true loathing of Divination, etc. Small things that could have been incorporated to make the movie more accessible to those who don't know the bloody book.
- Buckbeat's trial. We go from Lucius Malfoy is angry to Buckbeak is being executed. There's no mention between of what's happening (as the rest of the story flows).
- Hogsmeade. There is no explanation of what Hogsmeade is and why Harry is so keen to go. There is very little discussion of the Shrieking Shack and why everyone is so scared of it. The connection between the Shrieking Shack, the Whomping Willow, Lupin and the gang is never discussed. We get to see Remus immobilize the willow but we don't know why or how he can do that.
- The Maurauder's Map. Okay, arguably it's unnecessary for us to know who created the map or the connection to Harry (the maps creators are Peter Pettigrew, Lupin, Black and James Potter) but I was highly irked by the fact that Lupin seemed to know what the map was for and how to use it and we're never told why. If Snape doesn't recognize the map than it is obviously not a normal wizarding object and therefore there should be some explanation as to why Lupin is so very familar with it.
- Lupin and Snape and the Full Moon. Never, ever, ever is it mentioned that Snape is helping Lupin to control his Werewolf by making potions. There is a one-liner tossed off by Pettigrew about Lupin having missed his potion and if I didn't know what he was talking about then I would have been -- wha? huh? What potion? The animosity between Lupin and Snape is also missing. Reduced to Snape's standard alienating behavior.
- Mudblood is appareantly not all that offensive. But then again, I don't remember if the term is first used in PoA or GoF.
- The worm masquerading as a mustache on David Thewlis' upper lip.
- Dumbeldore's hippie act. God! I miss Richard Harris.
Then there's the good:
- The opening sequence of Harry under the sheet. He so looked like he might have been masturbating. I loved the double entendre. Or triple. Boy reading under the sheets. Jacking off under the sheets. Studying 'magic' under the sheets.
- Ron. All grown up.
- Roger Pratt, the Cinematographer. This was a gorgous movie to look at.
- John Williams for the score.
- Emma Watson's softening of Hermione. She was really shrill in the first two movies and I love that we get to see her grow as an actress and make the performance more subtle.
- Daniel Radcliffe!
- Art Direction
- Did I mention how much I adored the Cinematography?
- The glorious Whomping Willow.
- The new Hogwarts grounds. Much more appropriate to what we know about the Wizarding World. It looks less like Disney land and more like the ancient school we know that it is. I love that they distanced the Forbidden Forest and Hagrid's cabin. The Scottish landscape was perfectly perfect.
- The Dementors!!! I loved the effects. The darkening and the way everything died or went all icy. Granted they seemed more than a little like mediocre rip-off's of the Ring Wraiths, but still . . .
- The Leaky Cauldron and Hogsmeade were beautiful sights to behold. Very beautifully realized.
- Gary Oldman. Who else could show up for, like, twenty minutes of a movie and make you believe in his insanity. That said, I don't think they set up enough of how heinous Sirius Black was supposed to be.
- Julie Christie!
- Hermione, Harry and the Time Reverse. All of those shots were put together great! I loved watching them retract their footsteps and watch themselves all from different angles. I also loved the way that everything peripherial added up as they interacted with their past selves.
- Alfonso Cuaron. I credit him with everything that I loved about this movie. He made it so surreal and off-kilter. Also! I love that magic in this movie isn't just a huge show off effect. It was blended in to be something that went on as a normal part of the wizard's life. The chairs at the Leaky Cauldron, the Minister's Pen, Hegwid, all of the tiny little things that went on in the background. The darker colors. Which I think went miles to aging the film and the characters and the themes. This was much less disney-fied, as it should be.
Now that I really think about it. I don't know what the hell I was watching for like 2 hours and change.
The worse news I've heard for the next installment (Goblet of Fire) is that Alfonso Cuaron is not directing. The best news is that Steve Kloves may not be writing the script. Please, please,please Hollywood. Let's get someone in there who knows what their doing. Peter and Fran. If you're available to write a script, please. I beg of you.
Stepford Wives was such an enjoyable movie. I was deathly afraid of what would happen when I heard it was going to be a dark comedy. But, man, did it work! Surprisingly, I find the way the men are so gung-ho to re-create their wives utterly sinister in both movies, although I think it's a little more so in the original - they are nobody housewives which somehow makes it worse.
I loved:
- Glenn Close!! She was amazing!
- Bette Midler. She was Crreeeepppyyy when she was stepfordized!!
- Roger Bart, I. Love. You.
- The costumes. The dresses were superb.
- The stab at reality TV.
- Roger Bart!!
Nicole Kidman and those cupcakes!
Not so much:
- Nicole Kidman's hair and overly botoxed face. Ease up, girl. Ease up. Also. could we have given her some highlights or lowlights or something to make her hair look a little less goth-in-a-bottle.
- Bobbie's house. Although I laughed and laughed and laughed. It was a tad with the overkill.
- ATM Barbie. Wtf. (More explanation on the big WTF moment below.)
- It wasn't as creepy and nightmarish as the original because, I think, we're dealing with petulant, geeks as opposed to high - powered men who aren't so much threatened by their wives as they are just completely selfish and uncaring. In the original, Peter Masterson begins a descent that is never matched by Matthew Broderick. Of course, it couldn't be considering the huge change in endings. (Something I was very disappointed by).
- As much as I loved Bette Midler's performance, Bobbie wasn't so vicious in the original. She was fun-loving and spirited. So that her alteration was much more tragic than Midler's.
- A big ole WTF! for plot confusion. Are these women robots or aren't they. Which one of the editors let the plot get all twisted. Hello. Frank Oz! Are you awake? First their robots (see barn dance), then they're nano-chipped women (see the promotional video), then they're back to sparking like metal maidens. Which is it? Bobbie's hand catches on fire and she doesn't notice (Although I was sorry to see that Joanne doesn't get to stab her the way she does in the original and then see her go all wacky. That is a creepy ass scene). I am vastly confused.
- Also. The time and effort that we get to see in the original is so much more horrific. Changing these women is so deliberate and invested that it's just evil. Whereas here it's almost a whim. With the advent of technology I would have at least liked to have seen Joanne realize that her 'smart house' is watching her. Something.
- The ending. I don't know how much I like the statement in making Glenn Close the bad guy. Although I see the point and it's all somewhat realistic and suitably tragic, I think it loses impact by broadening the blame. It's now a problem between the sexes more than it is an issue of resistance to change. It's just not as effective as a closing. You also lose a lot of the dramatic tension by letting Matthew Broderick play the hero - the one good man. I think it would have been so much better to have kept the original ending, especially in light of how much Kidman's Joanne tried to change. (Of course, it would have been much more effective with John Cusack playing Walter - I think he could carry off the genial, sullenness required). Then it really would have been a dark comedy.
But when all is said and done. I really, really, really enjoyed this movie! It was fun and frothy, unlike the original, light on the politics.
In other news: I am now the proud owner of Kiehl's Rare Earth Clay Mask and the Yummiest Mositurizer ever, Buttercream Frosting! Yum!!!
