Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: Army, Politics and Angst...oh my!

In the fifth film Voldemort has returned and the Order of the Phoenix starts to assemble once again.  Fourteen years earlier the Order was comprised of people like Lilly and James Potter, Frank and Alice Longbottom, Peter Pettigrew (turned traitor) and some of of our current characters like the Weasleys, Siruius Black, Remus Lupin, Dumbldore, and many more.  This film sets up for the younger generation to learn to defend themselves and be able to fight back.

There were several scenes in the films, in which first time Potter director David Yates, used to help make this film visually stunning.  The scene were Harry and the rest of the Order fly through and over London, and the epic battle at the end where the wizards and witches duel.  Yates first foray into the world of Harry Potter was not the strongest, but throughout his journey he has grasped the material and used cinematography to help weave the tale.

The main problem is main governing body within the wizarding world, The Ministry of Magic lead by the Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge is in denial and afraid of what Voldemort's return means.  There is some great symbolism within this film built around the new defense against the dark arts teacher, Dolores Umbridge, who also works under Fudge.  Umbridge and the ministry represent a force that wants to pretend that everything is alright, while the wizarding world is falling a part.  This book was published in the post 9/11 world and the invasion of Iraq had just happened.  Rowling is a British author, but this time period had a huge effect on the entire world, and both the UK and US government seemed to work in hand in hand on not understanding the terrorist issues of the world.  I do not know Ms. Rowling's politics, but this book has connections to fighting the authority to do what is right for the citizens of the wizarding world, and not just sitting back and letting things happen.

My least favorite part of this book (the book specifically) and the film is how much angst Harry has.  The angst is understandable because; he is dealing with the death of Cedric Diggory, the return of Voldemort, being called a liar by many of classmates, and seeing visions in his head because of his connection with Voldemort.  the boy is dealing with so much (but in the book again more specifically) I grew tired of him fighting the teenage angst.  The angst combined with Umbridge made this a difficult book to read for me.

With the new film only a few days away I am more and more excited, but still realize that this will be the conclusion to the story of my favorite boy wizard.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: Voldemort is Back!!

Well it only made sense that since I finished the Prisoner of Azkaban that I start watching the next Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.  In this film Hogwarts is visited by two other schools for witchcraft and wizardry Beauxbatons (located in France) and Durmstrang (have Russian and Bulgarian students).  This is also the film where Voldemort returns in full force.

Beyond the new details of  the plot there is some thing interesting about what JK Rowling has done with the invention of the villain Lord Voldemort; she has created someone so terrifying that characters refer to him as "he who must not be named."  Voldemort is such a complex villain with a dark and twisted past.  The books do a much better job of painting a much richer deeper picture of Voldemort's past.  To be fair the books never intend to make the reader think there is chance he will be good, but they do make you feel sorry for him.  In the fifth film Harry says to him "You will never know love and I feel sorry for you."  

Voldemort's return to his full capacity signals a war that is brewing.  Both the films and the books do a good job of pointing out that there is nothing that is definitively good or definitely evil.  There are shades of grey, and how people choose to act defines which guides their actions.  What if the sorting hat put Harry in Slytherin?  Would the story have changed or would Harry been the wizard he was always meant to be?  Do labels matter, or do actions define people?  Rowling is great at creating this battle between good and bad the light and the dark, but she also states that labels don't matter!  The wizards who come from pureblood families like the Malfoy's or black's were mostly dark, then there are families like the Weasley's who use magic for good.  There are so many complex issues about good and evil that come out of these books.

In the end though beyond the use of the imperius curse the wizards and witches that are bad, are bad!!!  Voldemort is a true villain; he split his soul my killing other people in order to live longer, and murder both muggles, and what he would refer to as "mud bloods."  At the end of this film his return brings about the fear that there are few who are safe from his wrath, especially our main hero, Harry Potter.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: My Favorite Film and Book

The third film is where the darker tones really start to sink in within the books.  Sure the second film had Ginny under a spell of the diary and writing on the walls in blood for Voldemort, but the third book. is where  JK Rowling sets it it all in motion.  In the third book we are introduced to the Dementors who are normally prison guards at Azkaban, but have been tasked with protecting Hogwarts from another new character, Siruius Black.  The Dementors "kiss" makes a person feel as though there is no happiness in the world, everything goes cold, and they suck out your soul.   Remus Lupin the the new defense against the arts teacher (and secretly a werewolf) helps Harry battle his fear of the Dementors and teaches him the patronus charm.  Harry's patronus was a stag the the same as his father's.  Sirius Black was another new character who was trapped in Azkaban broke out and was on the look for Harry to "kill" him for Voldemort. Sirius Black was a good friend to James and Lilly Potter, and the godfather to Harry; he was said to be the person who told Voldemort where they were the night they were killed.  The truth was that the real person that lead Voldemort was another new character Peter Pettigrew who hid in his animagus form; he was a Weasley pet, and Ron's pet rat while at Hogwarts.

The third book went into a deeper explanation of the Marauder's Map, the map was created by Remus Lupin (Mooney) Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail), Sirius Black (Padfoot), and Jame Potter (Prongs).  The four of them named this map after their names of their animagus.  My one problem with all the films, is that directors and screenwriters never did a good job of explaining the back story of Harry's parents and their friends.  In the third film Lupin sees him using the map, and confiscates it from him.  There is never any explanation in the film to the viewer that about how the map was created or by whom.  This is only one example and this continues to happen throughout the rest of the films.  Paying attention to history is important, it helps the film viewer to have a better grasp of why things happen.

With that said, this is still both my favorite book and my favorite film.  I love this film because the director Alfonso Cuaron unlike Chris Columbus understands the material so well, and does a good job creating the story of Sirius Black.  I know many people are divided on this film because Cuaron took this film in a very different direction.  Some will say that it doesn't handle the material well, but there are flaws in all the films with regard to misuse of the material.  I think Cuaron knows the subject matter well, and creates a well acted, visually stunning film.  There are great moments of levity and darkness, and the film balances them very well.

The one piece of this film that I did not love was the re-cast of Dumbledore.  Richard Harris was the perfect Dumbledore; he was stoic but clever and witty, he never raised his voice and felt just the way Dumbledore was imagined by JK Rowling.  Harris past away, and the role was taken over by Michael Gambon.  Gmabon is a great actor, but was too animated in the first few films, he yelled, and just did not capture the spirit of Dumbledore.  Unfortunately I thought he finally got it right in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.

As friday comes closer I am getting more and more excited about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.  I think David Yates (the current director has begun to understand the material well, and will create a great concluding chapter.

Harry Potter According to Chris Columbus: One Week Until the End

Yesterday I finished my first week of work and Orientation at my new job at Northeastern University.  The week was great but I needed some down time at night just to sit back and relax.  My friends have planned to watch all 7 Harry Potter films before the last film, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is released next Friday.  Last night we watched Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's (Philosopher's) Stone, and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

This series (in book format and film) has been a huge part of my young adult and adult life.  I remember my sister got a copy of the first book when my grandparents returned from their vacation to Cape Cod when I was in the seventh grade.  My sister is not much of a reader and asked her if I could read the book before she did.  I remember that I felt I had to hide the book because everyone my age around that time would have made fun of me for reading a "little kid's book."  Now in 2011almost fifteen years later both the books and the films are a huge part of me.  I read the first book incredibly quickly and have read many of the books more than once and seen the films a dozen times (each).

The first two books (and films) are the innocence and the three main characters Harry, Ron, and Hermione growing up in a world of witchcraft and wizardry.  In the first book (and film) Harry has lived with his muggle relatives and doesn't know anything about Hogwarts, the world of witchcraft and wizardry, or even how his parents died and how he got his scar.  Then comes the first tale of He Who Must Not be Named or as we would call him Lord Voldemort.  The first book and film set up the fact that Harry and Voldemort will be linked through his murdering Harry's parents and leaving Harry his scar as a mark.

As the second book and film continue we learn more about Voldemort as younger student at Hogwarts, house elfs and the role they play, dead girls in bathrooms, pure blood vs. well in the Malfoy's language "mudbloods" and that when Lord Voldemort attempted to kill Harry the mark he left transferred some of his abilities to Harry.  There was also a second Defense against the dark arts teacher, because the first one was  overtaken by Voldemort.  The second book introduces some important characters and the concept of the Horcuxes (the diary of Tom Riddle-but we did not know it was a Horcrux while reading this book).  This is both my least favorite book and film.  Dobby was annoying, Gildeory Lockheart was a waste, and the story was my least favorite story.

Within the film world of Harry Potter there have been several different directors, Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell, and David Yates.  Chris Columbus (Rent, Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, Stepmom) has directed a wide variety of films.  I have not been a huge fan of his directing style, far too simplistic, but it worked for the first two Harry Potter films.  The first two books are the most simple books in the series.  After the second book JK Rowling turned Harry's world into a much darker place.  Columbus is not the best director; he ruined Rent the film by watering down the subject matter, but he did a good job with the first two films in this series.

Watching these two films reminded me how I love this series, the characters, and the world it created for me.  This book connected me more than any book ever has, and without more films being released it will difficult, but I can always go back to the films or or go back to the books and get lost in the world of Harry Potter.

Top Ten Highest Paid Actresses-Is this a Joke?

While reading perezhilton.com today I stumbled upon his listing of the top ten highest paid actresses and they are:

1-Angelina Jolie-30 million-I think I get why she is one of the highest paid actresses; she is hot and people go to see her in movies.  Jolie also makes some good films, and although not the best actress has done a great job in some films, but 30 million?! Really?!  This woman's films do not earn that much money.  Only 5 of her films have made over 100 million dollars.  These films were all action films, and she is a central character.  Having a female driven action film make over 100 million is a feet, so I give her credit.  I do not think anyone is worth 30 million dollars!

2-Sarah Jessica Parker-30 million-This is shocking to me.  Sure she starred in the second highest R rated comedy starring women, but 30 million dollars for what? Did you Hear About the Morgans? Failure to Launch?  What a waste of money!

3-Jennifer Aniston-28 million-Aniston hasn't had a truly successful film career since she finished Friends.  Aniston has never been the focus of a film that did great at the box office.  Her biggest success at the box office was Bruce Almighty, but the attention was clearly on Jim Carrey.  I do not enjoy paying 10 dollars plus to see her play Rachel Green time and time again; she should not be one of the top 4 grossing actresses.

4-Reese Witherspoon-28 million-Reese is a talented actress, versatile, and has made some great films.  In recent years she also has made some poor choices (post her Oscar), so I would not pay her as much as she receives, but she is truly talented and is the first person I came across that deserves to be on this list.  I hope she starts to pick better films soon, otherwise I will have to change my opinion.

5-Julia Roberts-20 million-Ten years I would have agreed with Julia Roberts being here, but at this point in her career she is longer someone audiences flock to see in a film.  I know she always lowers her fee, or will take a cut for some films, and I respect her for that.  Roberts film career has had peaks and valleys.  I hope this is a short valley and she can pick better, and have a film resurgence.

6-Kristen Stewart-20 million-She stars in a film series that grosses high, but she has never done anything else successful.  If this were the case then Emma Watson from the Harry Potter series should make this much also.  This girl is ambivalent about her success, and you can tell she doesn't care about what she does; she is fly by night actress who will fade away once the Twilight saga is done.

7-Katherine Heigl-18 million-Another actress who made the move from television to film and has had some moderate hit films.  Hollywood rewards too many actresses with these salaries far too soon, and this is a prime example.

8-Cameron Diaz-18 million-The worst actress on this list, who has been in some pretty awful films.  The only recent successful films she has had lately is the Shrek series; she is beyond overpaid.

9-Sondra Bullock-15 million-I like Bullock; she has had some stinkers and flops, but unlike the rest of the actresses on this list the majority of her films have been successful.  When people go to a movie they may actually go because she is the star and well liked, but she is one of the lowest paid on this list.  Ironic how the bottom two actresses deserve to be higher than most of the rest.

10-Meryl Streep-10 million-Lately Streep has not only turned in great performances, but she has also turned in some big hits.  With Mamma Mia!, Julie & Julia, It's Complicated, and The Devil Wears Prada under belt the older crowd has found their goddess and she deserves this salary if not more.

This list for the most part is a joke, even if some of the women were not talented and brought people to the movies in large numbers I could make sense of this list, but many of these women are just not successful, and make salaries that don't match their success rate.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon has no Brightside

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (1 out of 5 stars)

Directed by: Michael Bay

Written by: Ehren Kruger

Starring: Shia LeBeouf, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, John Tuturro, Patrick Dempsey, and Frances McDormand.

According to this film, the space between the USA and the USSR was because an auto bot shipped crashed on the moon and a CGI John Kennedy ordered his people to get to the moon first.  When John Glenn and Buzz Aldrin walk on the moon, America cheers and the cameras get shut off.  They find the autobot ship that has a group of transformers and the government cover up begins.  Then we flash to our "hero" Sam Witwicky (a rather whiny unlikeable hero) with his new hot girlfriend Carly, played by the Victoria's secret model turned actress. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley.  Rosie may be a better actress than Fox, but she is still a stiff cardboard cut out that Bay uses to represent women in his films.

 Sam our "hero", from the previous two alien encounters is unemployed, and wants to be more. Sam is of course like a lightening rod to this alien trouble and become the central focus of this story.  LeBeouf is just not someone I root for, nor is his character (the way he plays him) someone I care about.  I know he and his insert hot girlfriend will survive, but I never get connected to these characters. Of course as the story continues things start to get out of control and like the other films there is a fight between the autobots and the decepticons.  The thing the Americans found on the moon was a Cybertonian spacecraft and it has rods that can bring the planet Cybertron to Earth.  

Bay knows how to pack his film with visual effects ( I credit his visual effects team with this achievement), but the problem with this film is I don't care about any of the characters.  There are a slew of supporting players who all end up living somehow, but what do really know about any of them?  Lennox (Josh Duhamel), Epps (Tyrese Gibson), and Simmons (John Turturro) all play one dimensional characters in each of the films and as audience member I could care less about any of them,  Bay sacrifices actual genuine character development for explosions.  If you can deal with that you will have no problem with this film.

Even older summer box office films from around this time like Independence Day (1996) allowed me to get to know the characters in one film, and I was rooting for this like able group.  The Transformers series is just about the shiny robots and explosions without any depth.

A Study in Character: Are you a Miranda, Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte or like Most People All of the Above?

So I recently re-watched the television seasons of Sex and the City and then re-watched the first and second films.  After watching just the television show I remembered just how great this show was, the was great wit, wonderful dramatic writing, deep characters, and classic moments (Carrie falling on the runway).  Then I watched the movies again, and while the films kept up the general spirit of the show, there was just something missing.  The second film is actually one of the worst films i have ever seen.  Some films do not transcend the different mediums, and apparently this was one of those shows.  I think the new trend of continuing television shows that have ended with films is flawed (That topic is for another day!)

While I was finishing up the Sex and the City series I thought about how while people watch television shows or films and compare themselves to one character in the show or film.  Girls (and some men) will often state that the the sluts are Samantha, the ones who want marriage and babies are Charlotte, the fashionista is Carrie, and the sarcastic smart person is Miranda.  This show was a show that was concerned with labels, but those labels most often were in regard to Prada, Louis Vuitton, Dolce and Gabanna etc.  When you think about character development within the television series each of these women grew to be more than what they started.  When a person states I am (fill in random character) they are only defining themselves through one aspect or venue of their lives.

Charlotte learned more and yes her life revolved around her family but through two marriages learned that the man of your dreams doesn't need to look like prince charming, and that that "fairytale ending" can have many different stories.  Miranda learned that you can still be cynical and have it all.  Samantha learned that love is possible (including monogamy) but the most important thing is that knowing your self and not losing yourself is also important.  The one person who never changed much was Carrie; she still clung to Big (John) and to me is the most one dimensional character.  Carrie was the one character we learned from, the one who was navigating life but she never found herself on her own or through the help of her relationships (my opinion of course).

When I thought about this question for myself, the answer hit me, I have a piece of everyone of these characters.  I am sassy sarcastic and witty (Miranda), like some i have my "Samantha moments", I am a hopeless romantic (Charlotte), and sometimes I am stubborn, selfish, and get hooked on one man (Carrie).  These are all traits to do not define me nor are they permanent characteristics.  As people we are fluid in our identities, and I think remembering that as we get older we grow and develop.  We can not define ourselves by one character or characteristic.  So I ask you all why get carried away with labels?