![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Just finished marathoning Terriers - which was bloody brilliant, and will most likely be canceled after this year. Brilliant tv shows that thrill me tend to get canceled (not always, but quite often), while tv shows that put me to sleep stay on forever and a day (*cough*Hawaii50*cough*). Which basically goes to show you that my taste and the general mainstream American public's aren't exactly in sync 85% of the time.
Speaking of being in sync...did see the Harry Potter flick today, after church. Yes, I realize I'm behind everyone else online - who basically saw it when it first came out - ie. opening weekend. (Which begs the question - Do you guys like crowds?) The theater wasn't crowded at all today. But after looking at the audience, mostly kids with cell phones, I opted for the first row of the bleacher seats - granted the screen was a bit bigger from that position than I'm used to, but the cell phones were blessedly behind me along with the heads. It wasn't always like this - by the way. In the 1970s-1990s - it was actually pleasant to see a movie. People might chat a bit, or crunch on their nachos...but outside of that? They were fairly polite. Now? They text on their cell phones, check the time on their cell phones, check for messages, and kick the seats in front of them. Sigh. Folks? Seriously? Turn off your cell phone before a movie starts and keep it off. And yes, that includes texting, twittering, and anything else. Turning a cell phone on in a movie theater is like shining a flashlight and blinding everyone behind and beside you. Turn it off! If you can't handle doing that? Don't go to a movie theater to see a movie. Stay home. It's not tv that ruined movies for me, it's cell phones. Cell phones have turned ordinarily nice people into rude assholes.
But, thankfully, the cell nitwits did not ruin this movie for me. Because I sat in front of them.
The movie was quite enjoyable. Better paced than the book. Although I kept waiting for the scene that had the letter regarding Snape's undying love for Lily Potter...until I realized, no, that was in another book. My problem with Harry Potter is I can never remember when certain things happened. Not the major events, the more minor character moments. Did the Snape back-story happen in Half-blood Prince? Or was that truncated - ie, left out of the film version of Half-Blood Prince? Oh well, should be happy that I remember it all - considering I only read the books once.
What works so well in these films is the brilliant casting choices. Bill Nighy as The Minister of Magic (the good one), Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, Ralph Fiennes as Voldmort, Helena Bonheme-Carter as Bellatrix Black, and the list of A-list British Theater and Film Thespians goes on.
Plus the actors cast as Harry, Hermoine, and Ron are fantastic. Considering they had relatively little acting background prior to being cast in these roles in the beginning - that's rather amazing.
In some respects - I like the films better than the books, or rather the latter ones - which were less interested in duplicating everything in the books to the exact detail. JK Rowlings - god love her, overwrites. And needs an editor. But all writers do. The publishing industry just has gotten quite lax in that area of late. It's not that books used to be written better than the ones out now, it's that they had better editors.
( reviews of Harry Potter and Terriers )
Off to bed.
Speaking of being in sync...did see the Harry Potter flick today, after church. Yes, I realize I'm behind everyone else online - who basically saw it when it first came out - ie. opening weekend. (Which begs the question - Do you guys like crowds?) The theater wasn't crowded at all today. But after looking at the audience, mostly kids with cell phones, I opted for the first row of the bleacher seats - granted the screen was a bit bigger from that position than I'm used to, but the cell phones were blessedly behind me along with the heads. It wasn't always like this - by the way. In the 1970s-1990s - it was actually pleasant to see a movie. People might chat a bit, or crunch on their nachos...but outside of that? They were fairly polite. Now? They text on their cell phones, check the time on their cell phones, check for messages, and kick the seats in front of them. Sigh. Folks? Seriously? Turn off your cell phone before a movie starts and keep it off. And yes, that includes texting, twittering, and anything else. Turning a cell phone on in a movie theater is like shining a flashlight and blinding everyone behind and beside you. Turn it off! If you can't handle doing that? Don't go to a movie theater to see a movie. Stay home. It's not tv that ruined movies for me, it's cell phones. Cell phones have turned ordinarily nice people into rude assholes.
But, thankfully, the cell nitwits did not ruin this movie for me. Because I sat in front of them.
The movie was quite enjoyable. Better paced than the book. Although I kept waiting for the scene that had the letter regarding Snape's undying love for Lily Potter...until I realized, no, that was in another book. My problem with Harry Potter is I can never remember when certain things happened. Not the major events, the more minor character moments. Did the Snape back-story happen in Half-blood Prince? Or was that truncated - ie, left out of the film version of Half-Blood Prince? Oh well, should be happy that I remember it all - considering I only read the books once.
What works so well in these films is the brilliant casting choices. Bill Nighy as The Minister of Magic (the good one), Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, Ralph Fiennes as Voldmort, Helena Bonheme-Carter as Bellatrix Black, and the list of A-list British Theater and Film Thespians goes on.
Plus the actors cast as Harry, Hermoine, and Ron are fantastic. Considering they had relatively little acting background prior to being cast in these roles in the beginning - that's rather amazing.
In some respects - I like the films better than the books, or rather the latter ones - which were less interested in duplicating everything in the books to the exact detail. JK Rowlings - god love her, overwrites. And needs an editor. But all writers do. The publishing industry just has gotten quite lax in that area of late. It's not that books used to be written better than the ones out now, it's that they had better editors.
( reviews of Harry Potter and Terriers )
Off to bed.
