Author: LGmgr1

Bidding Harry Potter Adieu

It’s hard to imagine that there won’t be another book or film about The Boy Who Lived.

**SPOILERS**

Saying good-bye to Harry Potter is a bittersweet experience. I’m happy to see the entire story, but sad the story is all over. Gone is the excitement of pre-ordering the next book and waiting with baited breath until it arrives, then staying up till 3am to finish it so nobody would ruin it by telling me what happens before I had the chance to read it for myself. Now the last movie has broken box office weekend opening records and fans the world over sit and watch the final stretch of Harry’s fantastic journey.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART II starts off right where PART I ended – Voldemort breaks into Dumbledore’s grave and steals the Elder Wand. From there the movie quickly speeds to the dramatic ending of Harry destroying He Who Must Not Be Named. The director, David Yates, again does a decent job of crafting a well-put together film. However, the addition of 3D does very little to propel the story forward. It almost distracts the viewer so much that dialogue and key movements are missed.

There are some significant changes in the adaptation – mainly with Snape’s death (the fabulous Alan Rickman at his finest!! Netflix TRULY MADLY DEEPLY for more of him) taking place in a boathouse instead of the Shrieking Shack, but over all the script makes the right sacrifices of the book to do the story justice and satisfy the fans. But it’s the ending that leaves me a little empty. Through the magic of CGI Harry, Hermione, and Ron age 19 years – just like in the book – but when the book is rich in humor (mainly because of Ron) the movie falls flat.

Endings are hard. I know. But much like THE RETURN OF THE KING, where in the book Gollem gets redeemed and in the movie he doesn’t, the same thing happens in Harry Potter. In the book there are humorous exchanges regarding people staring at Harry, assimilating into Muggle society, and how you can’t give a teacher at school love from your parents. The ending is heart tugging, endearing, and unforgettable. The film accurately shows the kids aging, but doesn’t portray the humor, or feeling of utter contentment and happiness Harry experiences since his scar remains painless. But endings are hard, especially when you don’t want the story to end.

Christopher Moore – A New Favorite Author

There is nothing better than discovering a book that makes you want to keep reading until you casually look over at the clock and it reads 3:00am and you know you have to get up and go to work in the morning – but after one more chapter. LAMB, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BIFF, CHRIST’S CHILDHOOD PAL by Christopher Moore is that kind of book to me.

I’ve never heard of Christopher Moore (I know…sometimes I am so late to the party, it’s unbelievable. It’s amazing I even have a DVD player) before reading this novel, but I am now a diehard fan. The novel is a truly well-told story of the years of Jesus’ life that have been mysteriously left out of The New Testament of the Bible. Christopher (yes, he is a friend in my head so I can call him by his first name…maybe even Chris) tells the story from the point of view of the son of God’s best friend Levi, known as Biff.

The storytelling is inventive, original, and funny. Although told mostly in first person, the four people (including my mother) that read this blog know it is not my favorite point of view. But it works with the author’s unique sense of humor and the established rapport between Biff and Jesus, known as Joshua throughout the book. As in any story, there are licenses taken for dramatic effect, including Biff’s insistence that he created sarcasm. Hilarious!

Biff is a smartass. A warrior. A lover of women and sex. And a good friend. Christopher imbues him with a fierce loyalty and a profound sadness over his friend’s decisions. It is a lampoon, but is never mean-spirited. And none of the silliness detracts it from making the novel one of the most entertaining I have ever read, and I can’t wait to read more.


Game of Thrones Sticks To Its Book Roots

Now that the series Game of Thrones on HBO is at episode 7, the viewer gets a really good picture of how fantastic this new original program is. Based on the best-selling books by George R. R. Martin, HBO once again produces television that brings forth a whole new world. Even if you’re not really into sci-fi/fantasy work, the political intrigue, sexual escapades, and created languages make it totally worth tuning in.  Not to mention, the fantastic brooding ability of actor Sean Bean (Return of the King Fellowship of the Ring) and the marvelous debauchery of Mark Addy (The Full Monty, Still Standing). But it’s the performance of Peter Dinklage (The Station Agent) that really stands out. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it doesn’t earn him an Emmy nomination.

Adapted for the screen by producer/writers David Benioff and D. B. Weiss, the show is reminiscent of the richly refined series Rome that ended in 2007 in its superb art direction and costuming. But the show stays true to its book roots – a very hard task taking into account the author’s enormously descriptive language and the very complicated world full of medieval intrigues and mythical creatures. But the expert storytelling navigates easily amongst all the characters and clearly introduces and carries all plot points. Genius.

Adaptations are difficult. This is a good one.

Russell Brand’s Arthur Misses The Mark

I loved the first Arthur movie with Dudley Moore and Liza Minelli. It was 1981, and the first time my father and I watched a movie together. We laughed. Snorted. And created our own roster of private jokes based on the exchanges between Arthur (Dudley Moore) and his very stoic butler, Hobson (John Geilgud).  Needless to say, the film holds a special place for me, and when I heard it was being remade, I shuddered. Why mess with a good thing?

Turns out my instincts were correct. The remake, starring Russell Brand in the title role and Helen Mirren as the butler turned nanny, is…meh. It’s okay. There is undeniably chemistry between Brand and Mirren. And the script is adequately adapted to present day. But it suffers greatly from the customary dumbing down the audience slap stick that studio execs insist make movies better.  The added silliness fails. It’s out of place and forced. Where the original movie succeeded in the storytelling of a child-man refusing to grow up until the unexpected meeting of his dream girl, the remake misses the mark entirely. It has none of the original heart.

Brand and Mirren have their moments – just not enough. See the original.

Mildred Pierce – One Creepy Performance

The HBO mini-series MILDRED PIERCE concluded last night. The original 1945 film, starring Joan Crawford (her Oscar winning performance) as Mildred, and Ann Blyth as the vindictive Veda, is revamped by the talented Indie director Todd Haynes (FAR FROM HEAVEN).

This version stars Kate Winslet in the title role and the director (who co-wrote the teleplay with writer Jon Raymond) stays truer to the original novel. In exploring the Depression-era class issues, Mildred faces the trouble of finding a job after throwing out her philandering husband. She now has to take care of her two young daughters, including the ultra spoiled (why? We really never know. The child is relentless in her annoying, condescending attitude) Veda (played first by 11-year-old Morgan Turner and later Evan Rachel Wood).

Finding work as a waitress, she eventually learns enough to own and run a string of restaurants, making her incredibly successful. But it is the weird, odd, and many ways sick relationship she has with her daughter Veda that is the real story and why I have issues with this story.

Mildred’s reasoning is never full explained. Her face is continually emoting heartbreak and longing, but the audience is never let into her soul. Why does she make the choices she makes? Why is she so sickly attached to her daughter? Too many questions.

Wood does a decent job of playing the teenage Veda – channeling her best Queen Sophie-Ann from TRUE BLOOD. But it’s the younger Morgan Turner, playing the character in her early teens that is…well…creepy. There I said it. Her performance is so downright creepy you can’t wait for her to get off the screen. Her choice in body language is bizarre and her so-called elevated dialogue doesn’t help at all with the creepy factor. It would be better if she were playing the role of Claudia in INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE.

Thank goodness her performance is nowhere to be found in parts four and five – probably the reason why these last installments are the best in the series.