To be honest, I'm not sure what this photo is trying to convey. "Two of us are attractive in make-up, while the third needs a backlight masking his facial features!"
Actually, I stand by my initial opinion that Dumbledore is unfit to be an educator. The difference is that later they try to cover it up and make it all like Dumbledore is some great teacher and mentor. What he teaches us is that we should forget about what we are supposed to be doing and do whatever the hell we want instead. He is supposed to be the headmaster of Hogwarts, but how often does he concern himself with that? How often does he instill in Harry and his friends that, yes, indeed, it is perfectly OK and perhaps rewardable behavior to break into places, use magic in the muggle world, deceive, lie, and generally disregard any rule that doesn't allow you to reach your end goal.
In fact, I don't see how everyone can see that Dumbledore is this great wizard and fit to run a school of witchcraft and wizardry for children and still uphold societal laws. Is the world of magic truly upheld by magic alone? It would have to be, as opposed to being governed by "the ministry" as it claims, or else they would have a panoply of other problems besides some asshat named Voldemort. And if it is run by magic alone, then why isn't the magic absolute? Why would they need courts or trials or judges? Why wouldn't the magic keep people from doing bad things? I mean it seems pretty complex (so complex that the author may or may not make up half the shit as she goes along).
I have some more complaints before I get to the good. 1) Hogwarts policies are ridiculous (perhaps, again, because of Dumbledore). You're telling me that Harry Potter is not allowed to go on a field trip to some faery village because he doesn't have parents to sign a permission slip yet he is allowed to compete in more than one deadly contest because a magic goblet said it was OK? Where are your priorities!? And the arbitrary favoritism is unacceptable. Why have the house of Slitherin if its just shunned and poked? You're creating bad mojo and begging everyone in Slitherin to join Voldemort.
2) I'm going to make an assumption that this is Jeri Kurl Rowling's fault and not the screen adaptation's fault, but she resorts to deus ex machina wayyyyy too much. Harry can't beat the bad guy on his own? Well, how about this magic sword turns up randomly that we'll try to explain later? No, no, that was intentional. The...uh...sword of Griffindor, it...uh...randomly presents itself to those in need. Oh, how about on top of that when an effin' phoenix flies in and plucks the monster's eyes out? Oh, what about in the next one when they went back in friggin time to solve their insurmountable conflict? I have the biggest problem with time travel as a resolution. It's such a cop out. If you can go back in time, then why don't you just go back to when the bad guy was a baby and kill them then? You can't introduce time travel after two movies/books (and then never mention it again) and expect people to take you seriously after that. Honestly...
3) The ending was sappy and unnecessary. Aspiring for The Return of the King wherein by the end of it we don't give a crap anymore?
With that said, here's the positive. Err...
1) It was entertaining enough that I could watch two movies in one day. The world of magic is alluring and Jasper Kronkite Rowling did a good job keeping up the entertainment value through seven different stories. It didn't get too tired and resort to recycling the same things over and over again. It introduced something interesting every time, especially toward the end of the series (although slightly predictable). I'm curious as to how much Joriah Kevlar Rowling made up as she went along and how much she had planned out far ahead of time.
2) Gary Oldman and Alan Rickman in the same movie is the coolest thing this side of a Pacino/De Niro team.
3) I'm struggling to come up with another...OH! Uh...special effects were well done in the latter movies. In the first couple, the CGI was a little obvious, but we as viewers become more jaded as technology improves, so that can't really be blamed on them.
Yeah, ok so the negatives got more air time than the positives and that's just my personality. Plus negativity sells, don't it? And that's really why I blog. The benjamins.
No comments:
Post a Comment