It is May already…can you believe it? Four months of 2012 have passed us by and I ask you – what has Hollywood given us in the way of quality entertainment in that time? I look at the Top 20 grossing films of the year so far (always using the Box Office Mojo website for reference — thank you Box Office Mojo!!!), and I see one…yes only one movie that I wanted to actually go out of my way and see in the theater – the #1 grossing film so far, The Hunger Games. Everything else? Either a definite wait-for-DVD (Safe House, Chronicle) or nothing that gets me in the least bit excited. Of course, I have seen a small handful of independent films and documentaries, but those are few and far between and don’t even sniff the Top 20 top-grossing films of the year.
Underworld Awakening, Think Like A Man, Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, The Vow? These are my options?! The very few times I have actually gone to the movies this year came early on when I was still catching up on films from the previous year. I look at the films released so far in 2012 and it’s no wonder I have seen so little – The Three Stooges, Joyful Noise, another friggin’ Ghost Rider flick? And I’m not a big summer blockbuster movie fan to begin with, so the immediate future doesn’t look so bright for me either. The Avengers? Meh, I’ll go see it – but I am not expecting much at all and I am not quivering in my boots with heightened expectations.
I understand that the early months of each year bring us the leftovers and duds, as the awards season is in full swing. But this year strikes me as unusually pitiful and insipid. My big choices this month? Battleship, MIB3, What to Expect When You’re Expecting??? Looks like I’ll be spending more and more of my time watching the NHL playoffs and baseball – and getting some new books to read. Got some recommendations?
There is a moment one hour and forty-three minutes into Stephen Daldry’s film Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close that I think turned many people off – critics and the public alike — to this well-intentioned, thoughtful, and engaging film. Young Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn) is playing the six voicemail messages his loving father (Tom Hanks) left for his family while trapped inside the World Trade Center on the tragic morning of September 11, 2001. Oskar has kept these messages for himself and hides them in his bedroom closet. It is all that he has left from what he calls “The worst day.” He plays Message #6. We hear the muffled and inhibited voice of Mr. Hanks repeat the question, “Are you there?” “Are you there?” The message then, abruptly cuts off. The camera, tight on Oskar, then immediately pans to a television showing the North Tower implode and fall to the ground. It is a heart-wrenching moment – and an image that has stuck with me since seeing the “Best Picture” nominee. And I’m sure exactly what Mr. Daldry’s intentions were for this carefully choreographed scene.
I know many resented and were outraged by the fact that “Extremely Loud” was even nominated for the top Oscar prize. I’m not exactly sure why. I personally did not place the film in my own Top 10 of the year, but I did it give a strong 3-star rating. Did people feel that the movie manipulated our feelings? My answer to that is, “Well, doesn’t everyfilm do just that?” I have heard from others that they felt that the novel by the very talented authorJonathan Safran Foer (which is the source material that the movie is based on) took a very tragic event and simply “cashed in” on the misery of others. I could not disagree more. I read the book. I enjoyed it very much. To me, it was just one small (and at times, magical) story to stem from one horrific event that affected thousands…millions of people in many ways. I don’t think Foer was trying to capitalize on anything and, in reading the novel, I never felt that the author was being disrespectful in any way.
My question is — Are people so touchy about 9/11 that anypiece of art that is inspired by it (songs, books, photography, film, poetry, etc.) is frowned upon with utter contempt? I know numerous television specials and documentaries that have been aired about that fateful morning. I walk through Barnes and Noble and see dozens upon dozens of books on the subject. Are all of these authors just greedy and trying to exploit the feelings and lives of others who have suffered? I choose not to think that. In the same manner, I choose not to think that the U.K.-born Daldry – and everyone involved with the making of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close were taking advantage of America’s misfortunes. It’s a simple father-and-son story…gentle and unique and poignant. Everyone gets so outraged so easily and we’re all so politically correct…honestly, it’s quite nauseating. Perhaps Foer wrote this as his own homage to those affected by 9/11 and his intentions here were nothing but genuine. I choose to think that. I also choose to believe that Mr. Daldry sought to create a film that would move everyone who saw it in a positive and inspiring way. For those who are offended by the movie, I would simply say that there are so many other things in this world to be offended by….this movie is should be the least of your worries.
I just read on The Huffington Post yesterday that director Steven Soderbergh is seriously contemplating retiring from Hollywood to become a painter. The first thing that came to mind was (sadly) Brett Favre and all of the other famous athletes who have proclaimed a hasty “retirement” only to come back to their sacred ground before the new season even begins. So my feeling here is that although I’m sure Mr. Soderbergh is genuine in his feelings for wanting to explore new artistic ground, I’m sure that in due time the lure of money and familiarity of making movies will suck him back in. And this, for most movie buffs, is a good thing.
I vividly remember seeing Soderbergh’s feature-length debut Sex, Lies, and Videotape 22 years ago (Jeez, has it been that long?!). To this day, I think this is one of the strongest debuts of any director to come out in the last 50 years and remains one of his strongest efforts. To his credit, Soderbergh is one of the few filmmakers who dare to explore new ground and take artistic risks with new experiments. They may not all work or make for great movies (see Full Frontal or The Girlfriend Experience), but you tip your cap to a man seeking to push the boundaries and test new concepts. His style has a unique vision and “look” to it – the lighting in his films and use of color always stand out and immediately tells you that you are watching a Soderbergh film. Since Sex, Lies, and Videotape, the Oscar-winner has made some of the strongest films over the past two decades, including (the often-overlooked) Out of Sight, King of the Hill, Traffic, and Erin Brockovich – all mostly coming in his earlier years. The last decade – which includes the insulting Ocean’s Twelve and his poorly received Che – has not been nearly as impressive. I enjoyed Ocean’s Eleven thoroughly. It is a stylish, well-made film, but also a helluva lot of fun too with a terrific all-star cast. It wasn’t until the subsequent two sequels that I felt he perhaps “sold out” just a bit, and this is a shame because he still is one of America’s finest directors.
But I digress. Announcing your retirement from Hollywood? Is this not a wee bit dramatic? David Lynch manages to balance a number of artistic mediums. He makes a film every few years (and the rarity of it makes a new release of his seem more like an event), while still dedicating himself to his other artistic outlets such as painting, photography, and music. Lynch is a true artist – and can never be accused of being a sell-out by anyone. With three films currently in pre-production and his movie Contagion set for release, it will be interesting to see how Soderbergh segues into his new endeavor, if he does at all. The trailer for Contagion (see below) is very intriguing and personally, I can’t wait to see it. It has the look of being his best in years, but I won’t get ahead of myself.
I hope that Soderbergh proves to be more Michael Jordan (or Joaquin Phoenix, if you will) and less Barry Sanders when it comes to the act of retiring — because it would be a shame not to have his films to look forward to. I have a feeling this is all much ado about nothing — and coincidentally garnering much publicity at the very time his new film is set to be released. For fans of the director, I wouldn’t let this get to you and I wouldn’t be overly distressed. He’ll be back – -just cross your fingers that it isn’t for an Ocean’s 14.
Summer movie season is my least favorite time to go to the theater. The only good thing about it is when the summer starts to fade out and the excitement of the new Fall releases begins to percolate. These are usually the movies I want to see and this year looks no different. One film that I am especially excited about is The Descendants – and if you watch the trailer below, you’ll have a good idea as to why that is. First off, it is the first feature-length film written and directed by Alexander Payne since the amazing Sideways (2004), a film I thought belonged in the Top 10 movies of the decade. His short film, “14e Arrondissement” was, in my opinion, the very best to be included in Paris Je T-Aime. And now The Descendants, which looks like it has award nominations written all over it.
The movie looks like a tremendous vehicle for George Clooney. I have always liked Clooney, but have always felt that he fits ‘too easily’ in the roles that he takes on – even in those roles in which he has garnered much critical praise from. I am always thinking that, although quite convincing, he could have played these roles (Up in the Air, Three Kings, Out of Sight) in his sleep. From the looks of it, Matt King, the character he plays in The Descendants, gets him out of his comfort zone just a bit – and we, the audience, can perhaps have greater empathy for him this time around. Here, Clooney is trying to re-connect with his adolescent daughters after his wife suffers a terrible accident and falls into a coma. We can see that his relationship with his girls is strenuous at best – and when one of them breaks the news to him that their mom was having an affair, it shatters his world.
I can’t wait for the release of this movie. It looks like the typical grand fare that we have come to expect from Payne (Election and About Schmidt) – a wonderful blend of the tragic and lighthearted; heartbreaking and quite funny – with a pitch-perfect script and wonderfully sculpted characters to surround Clooney. I’m sure the Fall movies will bring with it much competition for Payne’s latest work – but for right now, I am eager to see what this movie brings.
I know I’m a little late to the party on this one, but can someone please tell me what is the point of rebooting the Spiderman franchise? I know there can only be one answer, which is money (probably tons of it, which is sad in itself), but if you can give me a better explanation, I’d love to hear it. I thought Sam Raimi‘s first two Spidey films were pretty darn excellent — never mind the third one, which was an absolute disgrace. I understand they were making a fourth and that was cancelled. Now comes The Amazing Spider-Man, scheduled for release in the summer of 2012. I know I have asked this many times before on this very website, but…is Hollywood really that desperate and so lacking in the original scripts department? If so, I have a couple of treatments sitting right on my desk.
I can understand why Marc Webb would sign on to direct this. He was behind the wonderful (500) Days of Summer and a project like Spiderman could potentially put him on the Hollywood A-List for blockbuster films. I get that. Andrew Gardfield is a wonderful actor – I have enjoyed his work thus far and yes, he actually fits the part of Peter Parker quite well. They’ve also made sure to sign on a number of other very gifted Thespians to join in, including Martin Sheen, Campbell Scott, Sally Field, Denis Leary, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, and Julianne Nicholson (who I absolutely adore). Pretty nice cast. The trailer? It looks equally impressive — and if there were not three very recent Spiderman films, I would be super excited to see this.
My problem? Other than a few tweaks here and there…a new character introduced here, a different subplot there – what is point of all of this? I remember back in 2006 when I was duped into seeing Superman Returns with Brandon Routh and Kevin Spacey. It looked new. It looked nice. But I walked out asking, “What was the friggin’ point?!” It didn’t vary very much at all from the original 1978 film and quite frankly, wasn’t nearly as good. In essence, it was the same story of Clark Kent from beginning to end – just snazzier looking. I will not be duped again in July 2012.
In the end, it’s about the money. I understand that and I can appreciate the business that is Hollywood. But that doesn’t mean I have to fall for the trick. Each of us has the right to purchase a ticket to see a concert, a sporting event, a theatrical piece, and yes, a movie. We also have the right to stay away and not buy a ticket…to stand up and make the statement that we will not go to the multiplex to see anything you put on our plate. As an audience, we should be smarter than that and demand more. The upcoming Spiderman film bothers me. It is telling me that Hollywood execs think so low of us that we will buy re-tread after re-tread. What bothers me even more — is that much of America probably will.
I can still remember, quite vividly, the first time I heard “Rehab” playing on the radio. For an hour or so after, I refused to allow it to vacate my memory. It stuck with me. Amidst all the generic, repetitive and ultra-manufactured pop music that tried so desperately to project nauseatingly boring bubble-gum perfection, here was a singer that so honestly, brutally, and beautifully sang of her flaws. It was a clever, catchy, wise-ass melody that was undoubtedly the most distinct tune I’ve ever heard on mainstream radio. Aside from being impressed with the lyrics, I can remember thinking: “My God, whose voice is that?”
For the following month or so, “Rehab” stayed amongst the Top 40 radio songs and I found myself constantly singing the chorus without noticing just how frequently I was doing it. Eventually I managed to catch the music video for “You Know I’m No Good,” and glimpsed the harbor for that divine, magnificent voice for the very first time. A comically enormous black beehive, frail arms covered in ink, long fingernails clicking along the rim of a glass of iced whiskey – it was Amy Winehouse, and anything but what I imagined her to be. Immediately, my level of intrigue skyrocketed. If “Rehab” ignited in me an insatiable level of curiosity, it was nothing compared to the effect “You Know I’m No Good” had. I was now familiar with only two songs from this sultry songstress, the first being a defiant anthem of her refusal to quit drinking get help and enter rehabilitation, and the second being a wildly unfiltered confession of her infidelity.
Soon she was on the cover of Rolling Stone and Spin, among others, accompanied by the subtitles “The Diva & Her Demons” and “The Dangerous New Queen of Soul,” respectively. And even though at the time I was only a fan of two songs of hers, I was nonetheless thrilled when she won five Grammy awards after her performance on February 10th, 2008 – at least somebody unique was getting praised for it.
A few months later, I was advised by a friend to listen to her first album, Frank, released in England in 2004. After hearing one song from the record, “You Sent Me Flying,” I needed no further convincing. The song was yet another brazenly honest re-telling of an incident that occurred during a crumbling relationship, with the lyrics: “And although my pride’s not easily disturbed, you sent me flying when you kicked me to the curb.” Immediately, I rushed home and hungrily downloaded every available Amy Winehouse song I could get my hands on, and instantly became passionately obsessed. Her gritty and modern lyrics were paired with classical, old-fashioned jazz instrumentals, essentially creating a musical dichotomy. The music sounded as if it was created decades earlier, but the songs would begin with “He left no time to regret, kept his dick wet with his same old, safe bet…” and “What kind of fuckery is this?” It was without a doubt the most unique ensemble of songs I had ever discovered, and I fell deeply in love with this no-bullshit, bad-ass British diva with the voice of an angel and the mouth of a truck driver who refused to make excuses for herself.
It began to irritate me that this remarkable talent was ferociously overshadowed by her well-publicized battles with drugs and alcohol, and every time I Googled her (which was a mandatory, daily ritual) I would always seem to be reading the most unflattering material. Because of how devoted I was to her music, it really was very easy for me to overlook it, and I convinced myself that it was simply tabloid fodder; that she would soon come out on top and promptly announce the release of a third album or impending tour dates. Whenever I would bring her up in conversation, I would constantly have to sift through the dismissals of her being a casualty of addiction to get to the reasons why I adored her: her music. Unfortunately, I still have to do this.
My adoration remained steadfast, and I hunted feverishly for more of her music. I scaled the most obscure corners of the internet and found underground, unreleased original songs, b-sides, covers and studio sessions – anything to hear more of that voice I came to worship. Her unreleased material was equally as satisfying as her albums. I found myself falling in love with not just her music, but the jazz, soul and R&B genre as a whole; in fact, many artists I regularly listen to now are the product of my interest in Amy Winehouse. I memorized her entire discography – each of her songs, an eloquent expression of her turmoil, all of them blazingly honest, and I couldn’t help but be captivated by the painful and undeniably beautiful humanity presented in all of her gorgeous melodies. Some of them were witty and very funny, such as “Addicted,” a jazzy tune all about her annoyance at a friend’s man smoking all of her weed; others were downtrodden and defeated, such as “Back to Black,” in which her grief is so severe she croons she “died a hundred times.” The Los Angeles Times very accurately labeled her “The Beautiful Voice of Despair.” Amy Winehouse had on me that bold, profound effect musicians have on every person who connects with their music, the connection that inspires the listener to think: “I get it.” I cannot think of a higher compliment to pay an artist, especially the artist who so magnetically utilized the word “fuckery.” Two years ago, in July of 2009, I decided to make my fanatical love for Amy Winehouse a permanent fixture, getting a caricature-like portrait of her tattooed on my left arm.
One week ago, while at work, I received 22 text messages and 8 missed calls within fifteen minutes – each either informing me of her death or curious as to how I was coping with it. I’m well aware of how perfectly ridiculous it seems to be bereaved to this level of extremity over somebody I’ve never met before, but I cannot stress how genuine it is. I remember the televised grief of Michael Jackson’s fans after his passing and my complete lack of empathy towards them, certain that I was incapable of mourning a stranger to that degree. The loss of Amy Winehouse is my first acquaintance with the death of a beloved artist; I will never see her in concert, and I will never get the chance to meet her and show her that her work profoundly impacted me so much that the only reasonable way of expressing it was permanently inking her into my arm. She joins Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin,Brian Jones, Kurt Cobain and Jim Morrison in “The 27 Club,” as she, like all of them, passed away at the age of 27. The only positive factor I can seem to apply to this is that she will always be remembered as a musical legend, as she deserves to be.
Amy Winehouse, to me, was never first and foremost an addict, an alcoholic, or the self-destructive nut-job the tabloids so frequently illustrated her as. She was a breathtaking talent, a musical genius, the most unique artist in years – a girl from the suburbs of London gifted with a voice that was blissful beyond comprehension. Unfortunately, she had her demons – but it was her demons that made her Amy Winehouse, and it was her demons that she embedded into her songs and so aptly translated into musical beauty.
It’s been reported that a dozen or so new and unreleased material has been discovered since her passing, one of which will be used for the next “James Bond” film. I pray that I will be hearing these new tracks soon, as I have been patiently waiting for new Amy Winehouse songs for years. Many fellow musicians and celebrities have also expressed their sadness over the loss of such an incredible talent; some, such as Adele and Lady Gaga, thanking her and crediting her with being a musical pioneer, paving the way and making it easier for the more unconventional artist to establish a career. Her groundbreaking, phenomenal second album, Back to Black, is now #1 on iTunes and has sold hundreds of thousands of copies since her tragic passing. I can only hope that now her music will be properly appreciated and her struggles with drugs and alcohol no longer the dominant aspect of her persona.
Of course, I never did get the privilege of meeting her, but judging by the copious amounts of interviews and footage I have seen, she was a charming, witty and hilarious woman. Backstage after one of her performances, a reporter asked her: “What did you think of your performance this evening?” to which she quickly replied, “It was a piece of shit. You look fit, though.” and walked away. During another interview, when asked if she considered herself a sex symbol, she instantly replied, “Only to gays.” Amy made no excuses for herself, never once tried to fit the mold of a proper pop artist, and always maintained a no-bullshit philosophy I cannot help but deeply admire and respect.
Since her death, naturally I’ve been replaying her songs constantly. If possible, my devotion to the soulful jazz singer has only increased. I’ll no longer enter her name in the Google search bar, hoping for news of an album release or tour dates. My worst fears regarding Amy Winehouse have been realized and she passed away at much too young an age. Now, my only hope for her is that wherever she is, she is still singing, and she is still maintaining that charismatic sense of making no excuses and tolerating no bullshit…or, as she so eloquently sang it: fuckery.
I do love the summertime, but I can’t stand summertime movie-going. With all of the inane sequels and remakes, on top of the annual big blockbuster “action” flicks being released, there are so few films playing in theaters that I actually want to go out and see. My solution? I am stuck at home renting more films than usual and staying away from wasting my money at the multiplex on schlock like The Green Lantern, Captain America, and yes…The Smurfs. So I thought I would do another quick recap of what I’ve been watching and letting you know whether you should RENT IT! or SKIP IT! These are not film reviews – just very brief thoughts on some of the movies you may have missed in theaters that I’ve been playing on the ‘ol DVD.
Miral (dir. Julian Schnabel)
Surely, one of the year’s very best so far and Schnabel continues to prove what a visionary he truly is. Other than David Lynch, Schnabel is the only other director I can think of who directs a film as if it were a painting on a canvas, with each shot just as visually striking as the next. Based on a true story (and on Rula Jebreal’s autobiographical book), Miral begins in Jerusalem in 1948 during the Arab-Israeli War, when Hind Hussein (a wonderful Hiam Abbass) comes across a number of children left orphaned in the street due to a bombing. She takes them in. Within months, her Dar Al-Tifel Institute was helping to educate thousands of children who otherwise would have been left for dead. Young Miral (Freida Pinto) is brought to the Institute in 1978 and most of the movie follows her growing up and trying to balance the love she has for Mother Hind and her father — and fighting for the love of her country she sees suffering at the hands of the Israeli army. Yes, this is a political film, but Schnabel really doesn’t show any bias towards the Israelis or the Palestines. In fact, he received cooperation from both countries before shooting. I held off watching this for a while, but Miral is a moving, inspiring, and gorgeously photographed film. The musical score shines, the performances are strong, the direction is sublime, and the story is nothing short of moving. VERDICT: RENT IT!
Peep World (dir. Barry W. Blaustein)
This one is a nice, small indie comedy written by Peter Himmelstein and features a nice ensemble cast. A dysfunctional family is getting ready to celebrate their wealthy father’s (Ron Rifkin, perfectly cast) 70th birthday. Tensions are at their peak since the youngest son Nathan (a spoiled and uncouth Ben Schwartz) has written a tell-all book exposing the family’s dark secrets. The book is an amazing success and even being made into a motion picture. His three siblings, of course, are not at all pleased – and it all comes to a head at daddy’s birthday dinner. Rifkin is terrific in his pomposity. Rainn Wilson, Michael C. Hall (TV’s Dexter), and Sarah Silverman play Nathan’s siblings. The very funny Lewis Black narrates the story. I thought the film was funny at times, and it kept me engaged. As the family’s dark sheep, Wilson turns in a restrained and moving performance. There is a moment near the end of the film where he opens up to Nathan and it is a very touching scene. In the end, I just felt that with the intriguing premise and impressive cast assembled, that the film didn’t go far enough – it could have dug much deeper and done much more. Despite this, I would recommend it – the script is crisp and quirky and the cast is fun to watch. VERDICT: RENT IT!
Sucker Punch (dir. Zack Snyder)
After Snyder’s Watchmen, I was super excited to see this one. I know most don’t agree with me, but I thought Watchmen was one of the Top 10 films of 2009 and one of the best superhero flicks (if not the most unique) I have ever seen. The trailer to Sucker Punch looked equally as stimulating – especially how visually arresting it is. But alas, Snyder’s latest effort is shockingly, well…a bore. Yes, all of the visual aspects are captivating. But aside from watching all of the eye candy here, there is very little as far as story goes and the plot gets a bit repetitious after some time. Young “Babydoll” (a sexy, doe-eyed Emily Browning) is committed to an asylum for the mentally insane by her sexually abusive stepfather. She becomes the ringleader to a pack of beauties who are being mistreated at the institution — and, following her lead, they plan their massive escape to freedom. Throughout, the film alternates between the real world and the fantasy world that Babydoll slips into. The movie plays out like you’re watching a 100-minute video game and poor Scott Glenn…what the hell was he thinking signing up to be a part of this mess? As many have suggested, I didn’t find the film to be misogynistic. If anything, I do believe that Snyder is on the side of the ladies and has attempted to showcase the empowerment of women over their oppressive male counterparts, but really…20 minutes into this, I just didn’t care. Here is hoping to a much better effort from Mr. Snyder the next time around! VERDICT: SKIP IT!
Insidious (dir. James Wan)
I don’t believe that a horror film needs a significant amount of violence or gore to be scary. Hell, some of the scariest films are ones that don’t show the viewer anything at all, but give the viewer the expectation of what might creep up from behind the curtains. But Insidious really didn’t scare me at all. Perhaps the PG-13 rating hurt it a bit and kept the filmmakers somewhat restrained, but this film really fell a bit flat to me. The first half is actually pretty good and sets us up quite nicely. Renai and Josh (Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson) have just moved into their new home with their three young children. Young Dalton has took a fall in the attic after seeing something (offscreen) that scares him half to death. The next morning, dad cannot wake him up as he has fallen into a coma that baffles everyone. Weird things take place in the new home and Renai convinces Josh to pick up and move again – but the strange supernatural events take place there too. It turns out, that the house is not haunted at all…it is their son. The second half of the movie falls short and does not live up to the lofty expectations that the first portion sets up for us. Lin Shaye is exceptionally good here as the older woman who works in paranormal activities and comes in to help the couple and their child. Patrick Wilson is a terrific actor, but isn’t given all that much to do here. Insidious is like taking a ride on the kiddie roller coaster at the amusement park instead of stepping into the daunting one where the delightful screams can be heard in the distance. It has its small thrills and is adequate for the faint of heart, but leaves you wanting much more. VERDICT: SKIP IT!
I Saw the Devil (dir. Kim Jee-Woon)
What Insidious fails to do, this flick does in spades – it scares the crap out of you! I can’t believe how much I enjoyed this – and how impressed I was in the visual aspects of this film. Kim and cinematographer Lee Mo-gae make this grisly and gory film so engaging and so beautiful to watch from the opening scene to its final credits. And do not fool yourself either – this is one of the more disturbing films you will see, with enough graphic violence to please the most hungry horror buff. But it’s not really a horror flick…more of a revenge thriller – with elements of horror thrown in. It opens on a chilly winter’s night and pretty Joo-yun (Oh San-ha) is stuck with a flat tire. The psychotic Kyung-chul (Choi Min-sik) pulls up in a small children’s bus and offers to help. He kidnaps her and brutally murders the poor girl, chopping her up in pieces. Her fiancée, Soo-hyun (Lee Byung-hun) is an agent on the police force and of course, he wants his revenge. The rest of the movie is a brilliant cat-and-mouse game, with Soo-hyun doing everything in his power to torture the sadistic killer who can’t seem to stop himself. Choi Min-sik is absolutely superb in this movie – he is haunting, menacing, and evil incarnate. Kim Jee-woon has crafted a magnificent and absorbing work with visual elements that are nothing short of breathtaking. The script, by Park Hoon-jung, goes places that you would not expect, keeping you on your toes throughout. If you have the stomach for it, and you are into revenge movies – do yourself a favor and watch this film. It is easily one of the year’s very best. VERDICT: RENT IT! — if you dare
OTHER MOVIES OUT ON DVD/BLUE-RAY:
Rango (* * ½) — RENT IT! The Lincoln Lawyer (* *) — SKIP IT! Kill the Irishman (* * *) — RENT IT! Happythankyoumoreplease (* * *) — RENT IT!
Master filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen are the subject of a summer-long retrospective at AFI (now through September 5th) featuring many of their greatest works. The film family over at Brightest Young Things (myself included) thought this provided a great reason to write briefly about our most favorite Coen Brothers films. I had to get the jump on Barton Fink. But 9 other great BYT film writers posted their own personal thoughts about other films in the great Coen Oeuvre. I made sure to add a link to that below, complete with a listing of writers and the films chosen. Hope you enjoy — and feel free to comment and tell us what YOUR favorite Coen Brothers movie is!
MY THOUGHTS ON BARTON FINK (1991)
Though it may be their least accessible film for a mainstream audience, Barton Fink remains my favorite Coen Brothers film to date. Not only do I never get tired watching their 4th feature film, but I manage to capture something new or add a new piece to the puzzle with each viewing. Set in 1941, the film stars John Turturro (one of our most underrated actors) as the title character — a Clifford Odets-like playwright who writes for “the common man” and is now the toast of Broadway. The lure of Hollywood success reels him in and Barton now finds himself in the surreal and forsaken Hotel Earle, a hellish west coast hotel where he must begin work on a screenplay for a Wallace Beery wrestling picture. But things don’t go so smoothly for Barton as he suddenly experiences a horrible case of writer’s block. On top of this, he must deal with constant visits from Charlie Meadows (John Goodman in a towering performance), his chatty and ominous neighbor.
Feeling the pressure to produce, Barton seeks producer Ben Geisler (a hilarious Tony Shalhoub) for advice and is instructed to seek the counsel from a fellow writer. Barton obeys and meets with famed novelist (and drunk) W.P. “Bill” Mayhew (John Mahoney), a character mirrored after William Faulkner who Barton initially has tremendous admiration for. Barton later calls on Mayhew’s secretary (Judy Davis) and asks her to visit him at the hotel for more help. When he wakes up the following morning to the ubiquitous sound of the room’s mosquito, Barton finds the woman dead in his bed. And so the fun begins.
The Coen Brothers are masters at ambiguity. They rarely serve up all the answers to their viewers on a silver platter, which is one of the reasons why I admire their work so much. They constantly challenge their audiences and let you put the pieces together for yourself. No strangers to period pieces, the Coens beautifully capture the look and feel of 1941 here. The exquisite art direction (especially in the contrast of the Hotel Earle and the luxurious surroundings of the Hollywood elite) by Dennis Gassner is stunning to take in and Carter Burwell’s haunting score adds to the foreboding mood. And as we have come to expect (now 20 years after the release of Barton Fink), the cinematography by the masterful Roger Deakins is splendid. Barton Fink is a haunting and yes, oftentimes funny film filled with quirky characters and picth-perfect dialogue that have become standard fare in most of the Coen Brothers works. Turturro is mesmerizing as the troubled intellectual writer and his chemistry with Goodman is ever-engaging. Their scenes together are a pleasure to watch and absorb. The supporting cast is no less impressive – they are fittingly cast and a marvel to watch. The film takes a strong look at the culture of Hollywood and entertainment as well as the process of writing. It is also laden with symbolism throughout (though the Coens have always denied most of it).
I vividly recall seeing this movie in the theater when it was first released in 1991 when I was a student at New York University. I went with two close friends who lived in Long Island at the time. They took the train in to see it with me, as we were already huge fans of the Coen Brothers and couldn’t wait to see their new flick. I distinctly remember the overall feeling of disappointment upon leaving the theater, with my friend Chris saying what a tremendous waste of a train trip it was — that we had just witnessed pretentious garbage. I didn’t love it, I must admit. But i was certainly intrigued by it and I told my film-loving friend, “We missed something…we didn’t get it.” Barton Fink is certainly not the film for those who don’t embrace and appreciate the voice of the Coens’ to be sure. It isn’t the film I would inaugurate someone unfamiliar with their impressive canon of work. It may not be their strongest work, but after that initial screening, it quickly became my most favorite. At the risk of hyperbole, I think the Coen Brothers are without a doubt the finest American filmmakers working today, creating one remarkable film after the next with astonishing continuity. If you’re a fan — and you have yet to see this early work, get ready to be challenged and watch this perplexing, rioutous, dark, and fascinating film.
Click HERE to see the full article by the film staff at Brightest Young Things. Each writer gives his/her personal thoughts on a Coen Brothers film of their choosing.
The 10 Movies Chosen Are:
The Big Lebowski by Logan Donaldson Fargo by Erin Holmes The Hudsucker Proxy by Svetlana Legetic Intolerable Cruelty by Alan Zilberman Miller’s Crossing by Peter Heyneman O’ Brother Where Art Thou? by Andrew Bucket Raising Arizona by John Foster A Serious Man by Zach Goldbaum
“Tuileries” by William Albeque Barton Fink by moi
Well, this is it…the final posting of our in-depth look at the tremendous ensemble cast of the Harry Potter series. This also marks the end of The Lantern’s special “Harry Potter Retrospective” which has been tackled quite impressively (if I may say so) by William Buhagiar, film buff and self-proclaimed Potter nerd. I hope all of you Harry Potter fans will read these articles and, of course, share your own opinions on how the films honored (or dishonored) Rowling’s books. Of course, the final film is set for release on July 15th — and once again, I would like to remind you that Buhagiar’s movie review will be posted here that weekend. I am still hoping to be caught up by then (as I have just recently started watching the films). Thank you for reading — and thank you, William…for an amazingly thorough job! — P.E.
Bellatrix Lestrange
Played by: Helena Bonham Carter Performance: A+ Screen Treatment: A
I find Bellatrix Lestrange to be one of the most fascinating characters Jo Rowling created, as she is the only witch in the series who is almost as obscenely evil as her beloved master, the Dark Lord. Rowling sums her up accurately in the seventh book as “a witch with prodigious skill and no conscience,” when she ravenously takes down four men with a stroke of her wand. She is, to put it mildly, an absolute lunatic; a bloodthirsty sadist and a woman who commits horrifying crimes, such as the torture and permanent incapacitation of Neville Longbottom’s parents, Frank and Alice. After the first downfall of Lord Voldemort, Bellatrix, ever the fanatic servant, set out to find her master and suspected the Longbottoms knew of his whereabouts. She tortured them so brutally and severely that they lost their minds permanently, and remained at St. Mungo’s Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries for the rest of their lives – forgetting that they even had a son together. Bellatrix is one of the very few Death Eaters that are among Voldemort’s ranks purely out of devotion to his cause, and throughout the series built a reprehensible body count, torturing and killing many characters that we had grown to love.
Although I had never seen her in a film prior to this series, when Helen McCrory was cast as Bellatrix prior to the release of Order of the Phoenix, I was thrilled, simply because she resembled Rowling’s description of Bellatrix so well. She dropped out soon after due to pregnancy and for a few weeks I waited patiently to see who would replace her. Despite the fact that she is a repugnant character, she certainly ranks among my favorites. When Helena Bonham Carter, my absolute favorite actress, accepted the part, I was beside myself with excitement. Although I knew her role in Order of the Phoenix would be minimal, I couldn’t wait to see her portrayal of the psychotic Death Eater.
The movie was a disgrace, but her performance was spectacular. It was wild, explosive and very unpredictable. In Half-Blood Prince, she was given a significant amount of additional screen time, and totally topped her Phoenixappearance. She very artfully tore through the castle, blasting away windows in the Great Hall, setting Hagrid’s cabin ablaze and savagely screaming as she released the Dark Mark into the sky. I thought it impossible for her to deliver anything new in Deathly Hallows: Part I but alas, I was quite mistaken. In the fifth and sixth movies, she was insane in an almost comical way – her anarchy and cackling lacked any real menace, but in the seventh, she introduced us to a completely different side of Bellatrix that we had not yet seen in the films, and added a new (and very disturbing) layer to the character’s insanity.
Overall, I find Helena Bonham Carter to be the most enjoyable part of the movies, and this might be a biased opinion. Her performance as Bellatrix Lestrange is wickedly intoxicating, and it is truly impossible to take your eyes off her while she is on screen. Her role in Deathly Hallows: Part II will be her most prominent out of any of the movies, and I am beyond amped to see what she comes up with next.
Draco Malfoy
Played by: Tom Felton Performance: A Screen Treatment: C+
Tom Felton is probably the best of the younger actors in the series. He seems to have a very good understanding of the character and always aces the scenes he is in. In Half-Blood Prince, his role is more prominent than in any of the other installments, and his performance was admirably parallel to the behavior of the book’s Draco Malfoy.
Sadly, Draco’s treatment in the films is watered-down and disappointing. Jo Rowling’s Draco Malfoy cannot only be irritating, but also vile and cruel at times. Whenever Malfoy was on the page, readers were infuriated by his bigotry, his cruelty and his constant tormenting of Harry, Ron and Hermione. In the films, however, Draco is nothing more than an irksome bully, occasionally inconveniencing our heroes with a snide remark and providing comic relief whenever his cowardice is showcased.
Draco’s storyline in the seventh film, though very rarely on screen, is properly established, as his family is now being degraded and humiliated by Lord Voldemort. This will ultimately serve the viewers in Deathly Hallows: Part II with (hopefully) one of the most satisfying character arcs in the series, as Draco’s newfound reluctance to take part in the Dark Lord’s new regime is a fantastic route for the misguided youngster to take.
Remus Lupin
Played by: David Thewlis Performance: B Screen Treatment: C-
Lupin, though a frequent and bold presence in the books, is sadly nothing to rave about in the films. He is given much leg room in Prisoner of Azkaban, during the many Patronus charm lessons he gives Harry, and his general role in that particular entry was the most prominent out of the seven. After the third film, however, he is pretty much nowhere to be found, popping up in the occasional scene maybe to provide a little exposition, remind us he’s a werewolf, and that’s about it.
Thewlis’s performance as Harry’s third year Defense Against the Dark Arts professor in Azkaban was certainly adequate, and though he didn’t resemble the Lupin I pictured, that does not give me license to complain about the casting choice; if the filmmakers were to satisfy every fan’s mental image of the characters, then the films would obviously be impossible to make.
As previously stated, Lupin’s presence in the books is certainly more frequent, which is frustrating considering he is the subject of major events that unfold in Deathly Hallows: Part II, and in the previous film he has barely any screen time. I’m hoping that the filmmakers will find a method of compensating for Lupin’s very heavily-sacrificed prominence in the films by somehow inserting a Lupin-related something in the beginning of the finale. This will most likely not be the case, as there’s already so much back-tracking and revisiting that must be done in order for the audience to have a vague comprehension of the main plot alone – therefore I assume that poor Lupin’s story will be left unattended to.
The Trio (Harry, Ron & Hermione)
Played by: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson Performance: B, A- and A Screen Treatment: A (for all)
Now that they have played the parts in each of the eight films, it’s difficult for us to picture any other actors playing the parts of Harry, Ron and Hermione. Each of the three beat out thousands of others for the parts and were all plucked from obscurity to play the central heroes of the Harry Potter series.
I feel there is not much to be said for each of them. They have played their parts to the best of their abilities, and very little was sacrificed to bring them to the screen. Hermione (Watson) was a dream come true for the screenwriters, as she was constantly utilized to explain every bit of exposition required for the stories. Rupert Grint served us well as the permanent source of comic relief, and whenever the films aimed to get the audience giggling, Ron was always there with a goofy remark. Daniel Radcliffe was, at times, a bit dry in his portrayal of the Boy Who Lived, but his dramatic improvement was heavily evident as the films progressed, and his last performance in film seven was his best yet.
I must admit, I’m glad that the three actors were featured in each film. I’ve had my issues with their performances at times, but considering their age, I’d say they did an adequate job and certainly improved gradually with each movie. If there were ever any problems with the characters, it was more in the writing and less a product of the actors. Ron’s goofy sidekick quirks were sometimes misplaced and inappropriate, Hermione seemed less a character at times and more a secret weapon for the writers to get information across, and Daniel Radcliffe, given the daunting task of carrying all seven films, was an occasional bore.
To execute each role to absolute perfection for eight films would undoubtedly be impossible, and these three have done their best to respect their characters. They’ve brought Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger to life over the course of a solid decade, and like I said, suggesting anyone else for the roles would not only be difficult, but impossible.
I suppose I should preface this post by declaring (yet again) that I thought Niels Arden Oplev’sThe Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was the best movie to come out in 2010. The two installments that followed were mediocre at best, never really carrying the emotional or dramatic impact of the original. Now (of course) here comes the American version, set for release later this year and directed by the very talented David Fincher. I won’t even get into asking why this film needed to be made when we all had the opportunity to see the original film…just last year. Is Fincher (and all of Hollywood for that matter) hard up on finding new material? Are producers so cowardly that they need to remake a proven commodity rather than take a chance on a new and original idea?
But never mind all of that. The trailer for this new American version was recently released and I must ask…how shitty is this??!! The 90+ second trailer is a mish-mash collage of quickly edited clips set to the music of Trent Reznor and Karen O doing a cover of Led Zeppelin’s “Immigration Song.” If you are not familiar with the books or the Swedish films, you have absolutely no idea what the movie is about. The trailer attempts to be dark, mysterious, violent, cool, and “hip” — but it’s nothing short of a mess. It caps off with the very tacky and campy tagline: “The Feel Bad Movie of Christmas.” Really, people? This is what they pay you big bucks for?
Listen, the cast is an impressive one and Fincher is an accomplished filmmaker. I’m not proclaiming that the film is going to be terrible. I just think that millions of dollars could have been put to much more productive use. It’s a shame our country feels the need to “one-up” the work of others on a continal basis. Shame on Fincher for taking this project on – and shame on all of those involved. If this trailer is any indication, we’re in for a car wreck of a movie. Give it a watch — and tell me what you think.
Here, contributing writer William Buhagiar continues in his no-holds-barred analysis of the impressive cast of the “Harry Potter” film series. Yesterday, we had Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon, and the late Richard Harris. In this 2nd part, Buhagiar looks at four additional characters — and the actors who play them. Our special “Harry Potter Retrospective” will end with the next post, in Part III of the Cast Breakdown. With the final film due out in just a matter of weeks, I remain very excited to read what Buhagiar has to say about it, here on The Lantern. — P.E.
Professor Minerva McGonagall
Played by: Maggie Smith Performance: A+ Screen Treatment: A+
Dame Maggie Smith as Professor Minerva McGonagall, Deputy Headmistress of Hogwarts and Head of Gryffindor House, is undoubtedly the most perfect casting decision made throughout the series. It seems as if the part was written specially for her – a woman who is very stern, intimidating and disciplinary, but also very warm, likeable and compassionate.
Whenever I read the books, I always have very separate images in my head of the characters than those of the actors who play them. However, in the case of Professor McGonagall, Maggie Smith is always playing the bespectacled Transfiguration professor, as she is unquestionably the most remarkable choice for the role.
What I find most exciting is that the best of Professor McGonagall is still yet to come, as some of her finest moments will take place in Deathly Hallows: Part II, when she begins to organize the final battle against the Death Eaters and sets up the defenses around the boundaries of the castle. According to the MuggleNet staff (who were very privileged in seeing a test screening of the impending finale in Chicago), McGonagall has a very respectable number of applause-worthy moments – rightfully so, I say, as she is certainly amongst the best and the most heroic of characters in the ‘Potter’ universe.
Lucius Malfoy
Played by: Jason Isaacs Performance: A Screen Treatment: A
This is another casting decision and performance that I admit, I have no complaints about. I always thought of Jason Isaacs as a great actor, and he is usually seen playing villainous characters, so it seems a no-brainer to cast him as the aristocratic and despicably prejudiced Death Eater Lucius Malfoy?
Much like Ralph Fiennes, Isaacs is phenomenal at playing detestably evil characters. In Chamber of Secrets, Lucius Malfoy (father to Draco, Harry’s school rival) is at the epicenter of the dangerous events unfolding within the school, thus making him the essential antagonist of the second film. This may seem outrageous and perhaps a bit blasphemous, but I am very curious as to the idea of Isaacs and Fiennes switching roles, and watching the former assume the role of the Dark Lord. There is nothing disappointing or underwhelming in his performance as Malfoy, it is simply a matter of curiosity, as I think he would have played Voldemort beautifully.
The filmmakers properly conveyed the “rationing” of the villains; what I mean by this is that rather vile characters (like Malfoy), who seem horrible, are the prime antagonists in the earlier installments. Once Lord Voldemort returns, however, these characters that we felt were horrific and villainous now seem absolutely wholesome by comparison – this technique has actually been complimented by Isaacs himself, praising Jo Rowling’s ingenious style of creating a sort-of “pyramid of villainy.”
In Deathly Hallows: Part I we begin to see the tip of the iceberg concerning Lucius’s fall from grace in Voldemort’s circle. Having once been one of You-Know-Who’s most trusted servants, Lucius Malfoy, who is present in the opening scene of the film, could not appear more different than when we are first introduced to him in Chamber of Secrets. Not only is his general appearance substantially less flattering: his hair is greasy and unkempt, his eyes sunken and shadowy, etc, but there is also no sign of the familiar, sneering arrogance he carried that he so obviously passed onto his son. The storyline of the Malfoys is undoubtedly one of the most interesting, considering the Malfoy family’s intent was once to gain as much power as possible within Voldemort’s circle; as Voldemort’s power begins to peak, however, and the Dark Lord begins to display outward contempt for them, humiliating and degrading Lucius whenever possible, their motivation dramatically changes from a loyalty to Voldemort’s establishment of his new regime into a desperate struggle to remain together, and to ultimately survive the war.
Dolores Umbridge
Played by: Imelda Staunton Performance: B- Screen Treatment: C
Dolores Jane Umbridge, Senior Undersecretary to the Minister of Magic and High Inquisitor of Hogwarts School will never fail to introduce herself without that very lengthy title before her. She is a downright awful, infuriatingly menacing character — one I wish I could personally slap in the face. She projects a false image of girlish sweetness, and hides a savagely sadistic disposition to abuse her power and torment students.
Casting Imelda Staunton, though a fine actress, was the first red flag that the character would not be translated to the screen properly. Why was this decision a red flag? Not just because Staunton looks nothing like the enormously fat, toad-like woman described in the book, but because she is also simply too likeable. Everything about Umbridge is meant to infuriate us, as she represents such an enormous problem Harry has to overcome: the Ministry’s refusal to believe Voldemort has returned and their very public attempts to defame Harry and Dumbledore as much as possible. Umbridge is the ultimate embodiment of a flawed institution, and though she is present mostly in Order of the Phoenix, she certainly leaves her mark in Deathly Hallows: Part I, as the newly-appointed Head of the Muggle-Born Registration Commission, overseeing the trials of the Muggle-borns and imprisoning them for “theft of magic by force.”
Perhaps, being that Umbridge plays her most prominent role in Order of the Phoenix, which was absolutely the biggest a-hole train wreck of a ‘Potter’ movie; her screen treatment is woefully incompetent. Rather than being the shocking, cruel, wretched and infuriating witch Jo Rowling so aptly created, the movie Umbridge is merely an inconvenience.
Sirius Black
Played by: Gary Oldman Performance: B- Screen Treatment: D
Sirius Black is such a fantastic character, and Gary Oldman is an equally fantastic actor – it’s truly a shame that Sirius Black (on screen) is such a hollow, insignificant character, one that lacks any of the endearingly flawed qualities of Rowling’s creation. We’re first introduced to Sirius in Prisoner of Azkaban, and throughout most of the novel/movie, we are under the impression that he was a traitor to James and Lily Potter by selling their whereabouts to Lord Voldemort, and that he is now after Harry. Eventually, his innocence is revealed and he re-assumes his role of godfather to Harry.
Sirius Black was a very exciting character to read, as he was very unpredictable, hot-headed and always entertaining. The only member of his family for generations to rebel against the insanely strict “pure-bloods-only” mentality and placed in Gryffindor House, Sirius was the best friend of James Potter and a beloved father figure to Harry.
In the movies, I find it tremendously difficult to really sympathize with Sirius. There is not much to his character, and nowhere in the films are there moments where Sirius surprises us or is as radically hot-tempered as his literary counterpart. Jo Rowling wrote Sirius Black as such a vividly human and multi-dimensional character that was never dull and whom I always enjoyed reading. In the films, however, Sirius just seems to be one of many in the series of characters improperly staged.
NEXT!!! The Final Posting in Magic Lantern’s “Harry Potter Retrospective” Looks at the Following Actors:
Helena Bonham-Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange)
Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) David Thewlis (Remus Lupin) and the trio of Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, & Rupert Grint
As the ‘Harry Potter‘ series will be closing permanently in July, looking back and examining the massive ensemble is truly mind-blowing, as it seems each of the United Kingdom’s most accomplished thespians were willing to play a role in the films. I assigned the actors letter grades – but the grading is not based solely on their performances; I have also taken into account the character’s general screen treatment, which is mainly a product of the writer and director. Since there are so many to examine and critique, this is the 1st of 3 postings on the ‘British Acting Elite.’ — W.B.
Professor Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore
Played by: Richard Harris (Sorcerer’s Stone, Chamber of Secrets) and Michael Gambon Performance: B + (Harris); B (Gambon) Screen Treatment: D-
Dumbledore is undoubtedly one of my absolute favorite characters. He is the supreme paragon of wisdom, goodness and a brilliant mentor to Harry. Despite his benign, gentle and always calm nature, he is also one bad-ass wizard. I mean, come on, he’s the only wizard that Voldemort is deathly afraid of.
Harris’s performance as Dumbledore was adequate, I suppose, but I also think his old age and his suffering from Hodgkin’s disease at the time may have prevented him from delivering the best performance he could have.
Michael Gambon was cast for Prisoner of Azkabanand the rest of the films after Harris’s passing. One of the most frequent complaints I hear from fans is that they find his performances unbearable. But I believe it is Dumbledore’s screen treatment that is to blame. The Dumbledore in the movies is a short-tempered, angry and vulnerable man, essentially the antithesis of Rowling’s beloved headmaster. To those who complain, I say: don’t blame the actor, blame the filmmakers.
Lord Voldemort
Played by: Ralph Fiennes Performance:B+ Screen Treatment:C
Just as Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness, Lord Voldemort is the champion of all things horrid and evil. He is a raging psychopath, devoid of compassion and mercy, and I believe he is undoubtedly the most horrifying literary villain ever created. Genocidal, deformed and terribly prejudiced, Lord Voldemort has unsurprisingly been the product of many of my nightmares, and I am certain I’m not the only one.
Though Ralph Fiennes is a brilliant actor (one of my personal favorites, actually), I find myself constantly underwhelmed by his performance as Voldemort. Fiennes does seem to have a reasonable comprehension of the Dark Lord – describing him as “…absolute evil. He’s very much the Devil.” I believe Fiennes was most likely offered the role more for his past portrayals of despicable characters (such as Amon Goeth, the appalling Nazi pig from Schindler’s List), and a knack for embracing unadulterated evil, than for a potential aptitude to embody He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
Lord Voldemort’s screen treatment, to me, is also sadly inaccurate. For example, in the Goblet of Fire film, during the Little Hangleton graveyard scene (directly after the Dark Lord’s rebirth), Fiennes runs amongst the headstones like a madman, darting furiously about, barking at Harry and the Death Eaters like an ill-tempered drill sergeant. This is not the behavior of the terrifying Dark wizard that so aptly gave me chills on the page, but a substantially less frightening character, which is arguably only parallel to the novel’s description of Voldemort by simply being hairless, pale, and famously sporting those snake-like slits for nostrils. The Dark Lord who so effectively frightened me was subtly terrifying – very sparingly raising his voice, and keeping his servants terrified with softly-spoken statements that very subtly expressed his malice:
He put back his terrible face and sniffed, his slit-like nostrils widening. “I smell guilt,” he whispered. “There is a stench of guilt upon the air.” A shiver ran through the circle, as though each member of it desperately longed, but did not dare, to step away from him.
This Rowling passage I find to be one of the hundreds of examples throughout the series of Voldemort inspiring fear and apprehension – and not just among his enemies, but also his servants. Sadly, the Dark Lord was translated to the screen unsatisfactorily, despite being portrayed by a fantastic actor.
Professor Severus Snape
Played by: Alan Rickman Performance: A+ Screen Treatment: B-
”Well, Mr. Potter…our…new…celebrity…”
Severus Snape is undoubtedly my favorite character in the series – and despite the fact that Alan Rickman is about twenty-five years older than Snape is supposed to be, I wouldn’t dream of ever complaining about something as trivial as an age difference, for Rickman’s performance is, to put it mildly, golden. The audience hangs onto his every very drawn-out syllable, and even though viewers are very familiar with Rickman’s portrayal of the bitter, miserable Potions Master after having seen it multiple times (as he appears in every single movie) he still manages to surprise us, impress us and do a marvelous job of entertaining us.
Severus Snape is by far the most complex, fascinating and multi-layered character Jo Rowling created – and during the years prior to the release of the final two books, whilst discussing Snape she would constantly advise her readers to “keep an eye on him,” which, as those of us who have read and finished the series know, was a very significant statement. Snape ignited ferocious debates amongst ‘Potter’ fans and was certainly the most closely-speculated, baffling and enigmatic of all the characters in the ‘Potter’ universe.
What I also find very interesting is that Alan Rickman was the only person equipped with the knowledge (besides, of course, Queen Rowling) of the crucial answers exposed in one of the very last chapters in the series, “The Prince’s Tale” (My favorite chapter in the entire saga). Rickman would utilize this knowledge and apply it (very successfully) to his performances in each movie – knowledge that would ultimately assist him in understanding where Snape’s ferocious animosity towards Harry came from, and also why Snape constantly risks his life in order to protect the Boy Who Lived.
I have yet to meet a fan who has been disappointed, under-whelmed or dissatisfied with Rickman’s ingenious portrayal of Professor Snape. Of course, his screen treatment is naturally disappointing – which is not any fault of Rickman’s. The filmmakers barely laid any groundwork for the enormous revelation that is to take place in Deathly Hallows: Part II regarding Snape, but we can only hope that somehow they’ve realized this, and that they find a method of closing the brilliant tale of Severus Snape, my absolute favorite character, in a way that honors his story.
Rubeus Hagrid
Played by: Robbie Coltrane Performance: A Screen Treatment: B-
It’s impossible to bring up Rubeus Hagrid, Keeper of Keys and Ground at Hogwarts, without fondly exclaiming and elaborating on just how lovable the half-giant is. Robbie Coltrane was another brilliant casting decision, and Hagrid is one of the very few characters brought to the screen that I have never complained about.
As predicted, Hagrid’s backstory regarding Rita Skeeter’s exposure of his giant ancestry and the hatred and bigotry he faced afterwards was deleted. Although predictable, it was still an unfortunate loss of a fantastic storyline regarding the beloved, magical beast-loving half-giant.
Coltrane always seems to be reading lines taken directly out of the book, as Hagrid’s very distinct style of speaking that Rowling created was projected with a fine accuracy by the actor. Subtle details that collectively contribute to Hagrid’s character are often on display throughout the films much to my delight, such as the birthday cake spelled: “Happee Birthdae Harry,” his horrible brown suit and orange polka-dotted tie saved for formal occasions and constant signs of his reckless affection for dangerous magical creatures.
Hagrid’s presence in the films gradually dwindles in the latter installments of the series (as they did in the books), but the audience remains just as fond of him as ever, and devout fans of the books (including myself) were beside themselves with relief as we watched Hagrid survive the final battle; a survival, that I must admit, I feared unlikely. Ultimately, Hagrid’s cinematic treatment was one of the most satisfying and accurate, and could not have been played by a more appropriate (or large enough) actor.
NEXT!!! Featured in Part 2 of Our Cast Breakdown Feature:
The Oscar-winning Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall)
Imelda Staunton (Dolores Umbridge) Gary Oldman (Sirius Black) and Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy)
Links to The Lantern’s “Harry Potter Retrospective” by Rowling Geek William Buhagiar:
Click Here to see Part I (an introduction to the film series) Click Here to see Part II (a look at the first two films) Click Here to see Part III (a look at films 3 and 4) Click Here to see Part IV (a look at films 5 & 6) Click Here to see Part V (a look at Deathly Hallows I)
It is May already…can you believe it? Four months of 2012 have passed us by and I ask you – what has Hollywood given us in the way of quality entertainment in that time? I look at the Top 20 grossing films of the year so far (always using the Box Office Mojo website for reference — thank you Box Office Mojo!!!), and I see one…yes only one movie that I wanted to actually go out of my way and see in the theater – the #1 grossing film so far, The Hunger Games. Everything else? Either a definite wait-for-DVD (Safe House, Chronicle) or nothing that gets me in the least bit excited. Of course, I have seen a small handful of independent films and documentaries, but those are few and far between and don’t even sniff the Top 20 top-grossing films of the year.
I understand that the early months of each year bring us the leftovers and duds, as the awards season is in full swing. But this year strikes me as unusually pitiful and insipid. My big choices this month? Battleship, MIB3, What to Expect When You’re Expecting??? Looks like I’ll be spending more and more of my time watching the NHL playoffs and baseball – and getting some new books to read. Got some recommendations?
What Lantern Readers Are Saying