People were always going to get up in arms over Darren Aronofsky‘s new film, Noah, which is a retelling of the classic Biblical tale. Of course, it’s a movie, so of course they take some liberties to make it suitable for the big screen and actually entertaining. Otherwise, everyone would be asleep. Of course, some religious nuts were protesting it before the film even came out, so it now has a disclaimer in the beginning to appease those who might complain:
Of course, if you go into a movie theatre to see a movie based on a book and get upset that it isn’t exactly like the story you see on paper, you probably need to reevaluate your life a bit. Harry Potter was different on screen than it was in the books, and while people bitched, they generally got over it and enjoyed it for what it was. And no, I don’t need the Christian sect in the comments telling me there’s a difference between The Bible and Harry Potter. Some of us don’t believe there is – deal with it.
The movie does look kind of great/blockbuster-y with some good special effects. Even I can say that and I’m not religious. However, if I did go see it (which I won’t), I sure as hell wouldn’t be expecting to see a literal interpretation.
I dunno, what do you guys think? Will you go see this? Even if you are religious or consider yourself a Christian, do you feel the uproar about this is warranted?
If you haven’t heard about The Bling Ring yet, I’ll give you a short synopsis. It’s Sofia Coppola‘s movie about the true story of a teenage burglary ring who broke into the homes of several celebrities in the Hollywood Hills. What’s not to love? Emma Watson stars as Nikki, the leader of the girl gang, in a totally refreshing role that’s a far cry from Harry Potter, that’s for sure.
Israel Broussard, Katie Chang, Leslie Mann, Claire Julien, Georgia Rock and Carlos Miranda are also in the movie, which is coming out June 14 in the US and I have to be honest, I can’t wait to see this shit.
If you want to know Emma’s thoughts on the movie, here’s a few – she basically hated her character but “relished” the chance to play someone so amoral and selfish. Hurrah!
“When I read the script and I realized that essentially it was a meditation on fame and what it’s become to our society, I had to do it.
“The character is everything that I felt strongly against – she’s superficial, materialistic, vain, amoral. She’s all of these things and I realized that I hated her. How do you play someone you hate?
“But I found it really interesting and it gave me a whole new insight into what my job, or my role as an actress, could be.”
Richard Griffiths, an acclaimed British actor perhaps best known for his role as Vernon Dursley, Harry Potter‘s mean uncle, died yesterday. The Los Angeles Times reports that he died from complications following heat surgery. He was only 65.
Mr. Griffiths again starred with Daniel Radcliffe in the play Equus. He did quite a lot of theater, including The History Boys for which he won a Tony. He also reprised his History Boys role in the film. Personally I loved his role in the first episode of Episodes, starring Matt LeBlanc. That was a good show. A spot-on satirical look at American television and Hollywood. He plays a renowned British actor in a beloved British television show being adapted for America. Even though he’s a respected British actor, he’s still required to audition for the American version, and things go horribly wrong when he’s asked to do the audition with an American accent. He loses the role to Matt LeBlanc. It’s like how he once said,
If I had my way, all actors over 55 would be issued a 3-lb. wet salmon with which to slap the face of every young, beautiful, successful upstart. ‘That’s for being so lucky, you bastard!’ I would shout. And then, hit them again, if you can.
God. Thirty seconds into the damn thing and I was already outright weeping.
From Internet sensation Kees van Dijkhuizen Jr., who’s no beginner at video editing, a 13-minute montage of all of the Harry Potter movies, the definitive Harry Potter Retrospective. From Kees:
Exciting news today! Just under eleven years ago Harry Potter made his big screen debut. Now, the legend has turned into a worldwide phenomenon, with shattered box office records and a massive loving fan base. Not just great adaptations but great films, period, the Potter films are crown jewels of the British film industry.”
“With the upcoming Harry Potter Wizard’s Collection, a numbered and limited box set with all eight feature films, take a journey through the life of Harry Potter and how his adventures enchanted the world. ‘Mischief Managed’ shows just that: it’s an epic, exciting 13-minute reel with footage from all eight films cut to music from their original scores by John Williams, Patrick Doyle, Nicholas Hooper and Alexandre Desplat.”
You’ll have to excuse me, but I think I have an overdue date with all of the Harry Potter movies, all over again, starting this afternoon.
I’m not usually a fan of people dressing their animals up – and not because I think it’s all noble and kind to revere animals like PETA does, worshiping them and not, you know, wanting to embarrass them – but because it’s stupid. It’s flat-out stupid. If you want to go ahead and dress your dog or cat, I’m alright with that. Just don’t expect me to reciprocate or join in the fun by making my coonhound parade around in booties, sweaters, cell phone holders or watches. They’re animals, ffs.
Anyway, in case the headline wasn’t clear enough, the following photos are dogs dressed up like Harry Potter characters. It’s actually pretty amusing, on the whole, and I guess if I *did* decide to go nuts and dress my dog up, it might be in this kind of attire. I’d be Hermione, of course.
Oh, please. Please, Academy, make it possible for me to see little Daniel Radcliffe say something insanely moving to all the Potter nerds again. Please give me another chance to see all those magical people together as they should be. And please give some acknowledgement to some of the best performances in film this year (Alan Rickman, right?).
But beyond my fangirl dreams, is it possible that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 will win any Oscars? Actually, yes. E! points out a few reasons: the Academy considers up to ten nominations for the Best Picture award, which gives our beloved HP a better chance than it would have had in previous years. And The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King won Best Picture in 2003, and anything Lord of the Rings can do, Harry Potter can do better*. Finally, if Deathly Hallows were to get nominated, the Oscars telecast would more than likely see a sizable increase in ratings, natch.
What do you guys think? What Oscars, if any, does Deathly Hallows deserve next year?
*Have we ever gotten into a LOTR vs. HP debate here? Should we start?
Just when I thought that I was finally getting over the anguish and despair that I felt this summer over Harry Potter’s last hurrah, it starts up all over again. Because she hasn’t done enough already, JK Rowling had a big long chat with Daniel Radcliffe for the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 Blu-ray in which she taunts us with horrible, awful things she almost did and one heartbreaking account of something beautiful that she cruelly decided could never be.
On killing Ron Weasley: “Funnily enough, I planned from the start that none of them would die. Then midway through, which I think is a reflection of the fact that I wasn’t in a very happy place, I started thinking I might polish one of them off. Out of sheer spite. ‘There, now you definitely can’t have him any more.’ But I think in my absolute heart of heart of hearts, although I did seriously consider killing Ron, [I wouldn't have done it].”
On killing Hagrid: Rowling reveals that from the start, she always knew that the final chapters of the last novel would include these beats: That Harry would walk willingly to his death; that he would be joined by the spirits of his parents and other loved ones during that death march; and that Hagrid would carry Harry’s (apparently) lifeless body out of The Forbidden Forest. Rowling tells Radcliffe that the image of Hagrid cradling “dead” Harry — a bookend to the beginning of the series, when Hagrid brought infant Harry to the Dursleys – stuck with her the entire time she wrote the books and she never let it go. If she had, Rowling says Hagrid would have been a “natural” target for elimination. “That image kept him safe,” she says.
On maybe not killing Remus: Rowling shares with Radcliffe that when she created Lupin’s character, she planned for him to survive the finale. While the author has said as much in other interviews, here, she elaborates, explaining that she changed her mind when she realized that her last Harry Potter story was really about war, and that “one of the most horrifying things about war is how it leaves children fatherless and motherless.” The most powerful way she could dramatize that idea, she says, was to kill a set of parents that were dear to readers. “I had no intention of killing [Lupin],” says Rowling. “But then it dawned on me he had to die.”
Well, that was exhausting. Can you imagine if Ron had died? There was a point when I thought that Hagrid would surely die, but Ron? No. No, I couldn’t do it. Could you? And Remus … after four years, I still get choked up when I think about Remus. Is that normal? Are any of you guys still torn up over anything Harry Potter related? This is the time to let everything go.