Harry Potter and the Prisoner from Ass Cabin (giggle)

(Btway, I'm the Half Blood Prince)
Yeah, feels pretty lame doesn't it?

(This review goes out to all the Harry Potter fans that trash the film for weird reasons as well as the fans that completely ignore all of the faults and yell at me when they say that I'm wrong for stating my opinion of the quality of the film.)

These epic sequel movies are pointless to review for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the only reason I give these reviews is because I hope my words will encourage people to think about the movie they just saw in ways they probably didn't. The problems I talk about in my reviews are valid points for why films aren't remembered after they hit the DVD shelves. However, if you're a fan of something you're always going to remember the story no matter what because you're a fan who doesn't have anything else to do with their life.
Cept talk about your fandom on forums.
(Only losers do that.)

The second thing, is that fans of the original material will have different views of the film compared critics because they're closer to the film than anyone could really possibly imagine. So close that every flaw is either amplified ten fold or ignored like awkward kid that randomly starts to talk to you when you have lunch. This love for the material really shapes and manipulates what you think of the overall film because, again, you feel so close to this franchise and because of your love for said franchise. The fans feel their opinion is more important than others because of their love for the franchise is greater than anyone else's, which in turn therefore makes the fans the better critic. So conclusion, because you're so invested in this story you, a fan, feel that your opinion is more correct due to, I don't know, some moon logic.

Which leads to the third reason these franchise interviews are annoying, because in situations where everyone is attached to said original material, everyone is going to feel like they're the director of the fucking thing. So really what's the point.

Well... To be honest I don't know.

This movie is already one of the biggest hits of the summer just from the opening weekend and so many people love it it's hard not to think that even the problem that you had most with the film is actually valid because, so many other people loved it, so why shouldn't I?

But, I would like to talk about this movie because after seeing it it's nice to know that even with different directors the Harry Potter films still have the same big problems they've had since the beginning of the saga. Even though this film is gorgeous, very beautiful and exceedingly well composed I don't think it's beautiful dress really protects it from it's biggest problems.


Film adaptations of books have always been a hard sell to anyone. And in this day and age the writers that have been chosen to write these adaptations for these big fantasy sagas have always been placed with this problem, fitting this huge ass book into 3 hrs. Theses adaptation screenwriters have always found ways to make their jobs easier, and the one that is commonly most used now is leaving the audience to remember the book while watching the film.

This is by far my least favorite thing about these big franchise adaptions films. For the people who don't remember everything that happened in the book (or maybe you just didn't care to read the book) the story of the film, at points, for maybe a character, will just drop dead.
Now if you read the book, you might know why.
If you didn't, fuck you, go out and buy the book.

What happened to Ginny Weasly's boy that she was seeing?
What happened to that new potions teacher?
Did that girl that gave Harry the love potion ever get punished?
I feel that some character motivation was lacking, but you seem to know why I'm wrong, why is that?
Oh.
I didn't read the book.

Now I know some of you are like, "if you didn't read the book, then why did you see the movie?"
Because I assumed this film that you've been shooting praise at like a promise student who has his shit together, would be a good movie.
A good movie should stand up on it's two hind legs and not use the crutches of the original material it is based off of.
At least not in such an important way...

Imagine if a Charlie Kaufman movie, like, say, Being John Malkovitch came out and you; a viewer of said film, found Being John Malkovitch confusing at points and started to wonder what happened to characters as the films plot progressed without them. You think that certain parts of the story were not very well explained. You tell me this and I just scoff at you and say, "Ha! Didn't you read the prologue to his screenplay? It's fills in those gaps completely."

(After I said this I guess I would just walk away smoking a cig and just repeat, 'stupid, stupid, man...' because it sounds like it would be something THIS Brendan would do. The dick.)

You as a movie goer is gonna start to think that this Being John Kochochovitch movie is fucking crazy for doing that. Why would a screenplay leave it to the audience to read something in advance for seeing the film and then expect you the viewer to put it into context afterward. That is not good film making, that is straight up lazy story telling.

I hope everyone and their mom has read my personal journal because in order to really understand the film that's what you're going to need.

Great...

(I point this out because) I would have noticed it for any other film.
I would have taken points off in any other film.
I noticed it in this one.
This one should loose points as well.

Because I'm on the heels of things the fans tend to ignore, I'll skip on down to the acting.

It seems that if your a fan of a franchise the first thing you start to ignore is the acting and the thing you focus the most amount of energy on is if the director captured your feeling of what existing in this magical and fantastical world would actually be like.
I think the director knew that and took advantage of all of you fans.

I say this, because the acting in this film is bad. Pretty bad. I don't know if that is because the dialogue is so stiff or maybe because the actors are still finding themselves in the characters, all I know is that I didn't see characters up there, I saw people trying to be characters. Also, I should note, that this doesn't go for everybody. I loved Snape (even though I felt that his character was left hollow in this film despite being an important story figure.) his acting was at least decent as a semi-drunk, whitty, dark teacher who is out to get his. I liked Hellena B. Carter because she always knows how to play crazy well, because that's what she does...
I still don't think the kids are great actors. Maybe this is just me but I think this film asks a lot from these young actors emotionally and these kids have been pampered from such a young age that it is hard for them to really act like something has been taken from them.

Also, I would think it would be rather difficult for these rich people to act like the entire world is turning against them, because they've been the center jewel of a franchise for some time now.

And I know you can be rich as well as a talented actor when it comes to acting dramatically, I'm just saying that rich kids that have been successful actors since they were little that were cast not necessarily on talent aren't always able to show a plethora of emotions.

Regardless of such huge flaws the film tries to get you all past this. This film tries to dazzle you with state of the art CGI that is applied oh so artistically. The film also tries to make every shot look as beautiful as possible so that this beautiful shot will get you drawn into the film as well. Finally, the film also pulls you into the story forcefully, due to constant camera push-ins. The ladder is the easiest way for a film to draw any viewer in, which I consider the laziest. I think a director should only use camera push ins when the characters are shallow, the storytelling is week and the film only has spectacle to offer.

Which is exactly what is going on with this film.

If I had to call this film anything, I would call it the prettiest turd I have ever seen. It's nicely shaded, the added colors makes the turd look like some heavenly...something basking in the moonlight, but, fact is, the turd is still a turd.

The weak storytelling is there.
The shallow characters are there.
Lame writing is there.
All this film as going for it really is the fact that it looks really nice and that it's really engrossing.

If this was any other film (300 comes to mind) people wouldn't give it a second chance. They would give this film a horrible grade and send it on it's merry way, but because it's something that every one is so attached to, our views become skewed due to an outside influence. So much they change our idea of what a good film should be. This is done because that treasure we're all looking so closely at is something that we're all too attached to.
Crazy fan boys.

I want to make a last statement before I end this review.
Sadly (and I think this goes for every form of media) fans always ruin a work of art.
Fans demand that because the media form that this story is presented in is the most perfect way to convey the message of the story, demand that if their beloved story is changed into something else, the same message will be lost.
And while this more often than not is true, when undergoing adaptation a lot of the meaning the book had usually gets lost within the film making, it doesn't mean you have to stand your ground and make sure that everything that happens in the film happened in the book first.

You don't need a checklist that say what kind of trees Harry and the Gange see in the Forrest of awkwardness. The main question is, is what you're asking important to the story? If it's not, we should take it out.

One of my favorite directors, takes out his favorite part of the film because he knows that if he does that, then every other cut will be much easier. Sometimes films need some editing, nothing to be ashamed of. You shouldn't get your magic panties in a bunch just because they took out your favorite magical animal. They probably did it cause he was too expensive to produce with CG and HE WASN'T THAT IMPORTANT ANYWAY.

Since I know you might be in a tiffy I'll leave you with the fact that, I'm just upset with how deeply connected you are to this franchise that couldn't give five shits about you.

Way to be, Fanboy...
You ruined everything for the rest of us again.

summer encounter

I've just noticed how the romance genre has been blown off the map of the film world hasn't it? We don't have any more movies like Gone With The Wind we have romantic comedies like Manhattan instead. I don't know why that really is. I've been searching my head for the past hour thinking about it and the only thing I can think of is that, maybe it's more realistic? After WWII a lot of American films took a lot of hints from Italian Neo-Realism in which life wasn't fair, every act was random and nothing ever ends. In our post WWII cynical view we must have viewed this as truth and stopped all together with romance films were the man sweeps the woman off her feet and then they travel into the sunset, maybe having sex on a horse.

It's not that realistic is it and I know my description doesn't really help any. But in the light hearted days of today, people have been working with the romance genre in different ways, romantic comedies, romantic comedy musicals, romantic zombie comedies and with (500) Days of Summer we have come to the conclusion that, we should be able to have our cake and eat it too. (500) Days of Summer does something that I'm sure has been done before, and adds cynicism or 'realism' (to you people out there who no longer believe in hope and wonder) to a romance film. He doesn't get the girl, the film is full of heartbreak and there is oh so much whining throughout much of the film to show that life is just not fair.
Now that you know what you're getting yourself into, let me expand.

(500) of Days Summer mostly centers around Tom who has just broken up with Summer. For about 80 days or so Tom just keeps thinking and thinking about Summer and every little thought that he has the audience experiences. We see how he's feeling through musical numbers to paintings, we see through his mind's eye when he thinks constantly about Summer, his opinions about Summer changes rapidly at first there is only non-withholding love for Summer, and then towards the middle of the film, there is only hatred for Summer. This peek into Tom's mind to see how he feels really helps us connect with the character on an emotional level and most of the musical numbers and solo motion fantasies really drag us into the film as well. So when Summer breaks his heart, we sympathize with Tom AND THAT(important part) is the greatest strength of the film. Without these charming break-away scenes that let us share a feeling with Tom I think the film would be doomed. The entire time we would be watching this man, complain and whine about how he doesn't have this girl back who throughout the entire relationship doesn't really seem that into him and somewhat malevolent, the audience would be slouching in their chairs waiting for something to happen that will actually make them give a crap about these characters. Besides the fact that the both look like Barbie Dolls you would see at Urban Outfitters.

Well if these little musical numbers and fantasies are the only things that are worth talking about or remembering; isn't the film very hollow? (You might say if you were really into this film review) In a way it is, but it's not so hollow that is practically an episode of Scrubs (I'm a fan). The reason I talked about realism earlier is because the film has so much realism that it's hard to ignore. The realism makes this movie seem like a story you would hear on This American Life or read on someone's blog about breakups. The story is very cemented in realism and in a way that's really engrossing. Everyone's had a bad break up before and everyone knows what it's like. So when you add some surreal imagery like musical numbers along with a hyper-realistic story the film itself seems to display the act of love as something magical and fantastic that only can be described without words and only with images and music. This works tenfold and whenever one of the films problems get in the way the audience will mostly forgive it with because the film is so cute, funny and charmingly experimental.

But going back to what I just touched on (that's what she said?), (500) Days of Summer has its flaws. Some big ones. Their flaws so big that if this was a mumblecore indie, critics would have given it a crucifixion before it even his the streets.

The flaw that I need to talk about the most out of all of the others are the two lame best friend characters of Tom. They're not even really best friends, they're soundboards, they're only there to be with Tom when he needs to express his current feeling about Summer. They don't really seem to have personalities other than, "Guy Friend." (If you don't know what characteristic I'm talking about, let me help you out, the 'guy friend' character is a character archetype that has really erupted in popularity over the past couple years. It's the friend you have that's kind of rude, but lovable, but you're also embarrassed to be around him at the same time.) While this character archetype can work in certain films it can feel out of place in others and they feels very out of place in (500) Days of Summer. Due to the fact that (500) Days of Summer is treated with such realism I had trouble suspending my disbelief that the only reason Mackenzie and Paul were even in this film is because they didn't want to make Tom seem like a looser with no friends. So the writers gave him friends that were shallow representations of character with 'guys just being guys' mentalities and thought the material wrote itself. I know I'm being a little overly mean here, but you have to understand how upsetting this is. In this film I saw two characters constantly struggling with being in a relationship that they're nervous about and as soon as something exceedingly intimate happens, here come the Brahs! Ready for some Mario Kart and Madden on the Gamecube. BRO, DON'T FORGET THE SHIRNOFFS!

My next criticism may be one that is a little extreme but I still consider it a flaw but who knows it may only be worth mentioning to myself. I found some of the scenes to be a little too much like music videos. Now I've seen Marc Web's music videos and while I wouldn't call him a music video making god like others (SPIKE JONZE I LUUUUUUVVVV UUUUUU!!!111) he does have a talent for timing and he's creative as well. But you could be as creative as Salvador Dahli and it wouldn't stop you from suffering from the usual problems that undergo when a music video director transfers to a filmmaker. The signs are simple, there a plethora of montages, a lot of scenes have music blasting over the dialogue, and in scenes it feels like too much time went into certain shots accompanied with music that you just don't feel were needed in the film.

But while (500) Days of Summer does suffer from some problems, we should be lucky that it's not worse. Most films that wear the romance label seem to have more crippling problems, some scenes felt like music videos or a character or two was a little bit annoying. (500) Days of Summer is a fine film to see this Summer (HA!) and we should be lucky its around. It's charming, creative, intimate, funny and a great story to hear. It's just sad it's not perfect.

P.S. Get ready for more films like this. This film became way too popular too quickly and that means that in two years we're going to see a lot of films that are all cynical romantic comedies. Ugh. I hate trendsetters.