Shouldn't Archaeology make me an expert in Pottery?
So, I caved in and went to see the Order of the Phoenix.
Not a great surprise, there! Usually, I wouldn't bother reviewing a movie of this sort, but since it would appear that Harry Potter is shaping up to be the defining shared cultural experience of the turn of the millenium (yeah, I know, it's quite terrifying), I suppose it's inevitable that I say my - vaguely spoiler-ish, if you really care about minute details - piece on the movie, eh?
Ironically, the Goblet of Fire movie is much less of a train wreck than the book. It's nowhere anything short of respectable - it cuts and adapts lot of stuff, just as it ought to, but it faithfully covers most significant plot points, and actually, it toned down a lot the books a lot in certain respects, which is good, because Harry's angst in it ranged wildly from out of character to just plain unbearable. Harry didn't piss me off in the movie much at all, which is a great improvement. If they keep that up in the next movie, it might turn out to be a respectable series after all. (I don't imagine they're gonna have Daniel Radcliffe talk about his Chest Monster, no one's ever going to get Ginny's actress look half as Sue as she is in the books and the movie couldn't possibly make the pairing any more left field than the book anyway, so that might cover the worst of it.)
Back to this movie, though, for the most part, its major bane is that it's largerly unremarkable. It has nice touches and all, but I couldn't helpt but notice, it's actually much less intense or... hm, teenage-ish than the previous one, despite that Order of the Phoenix really is the angsty one out of the books. Like I said, toning Harry's whining down is mostly a good thing, but still, the Goblet of Fire movie captured teenage far better. Sure, Dumbledore was high on 300, the film was paced with a machine gun and the plot was completely inscrutable to anyone who hadn't read the books, but at its best it had a couple of great scenes, like the deliciously awkward Myrtle bathtub affair and pretty much everything relating to the ball. There's nothing in this one that was genuinely awesome.
Well, maybe something. Goblet of Fire succeeds mainly in that it's basically never bad or stupid, but the other thing is, the acting is surprisingly solid, for the most part, and this time around the choices for new actors are great. Umbridge was exactly the way she is in the books, which works considerably well on screen. Subtlety was never Rowling's suit, but her supremely over-the-top characters are occasionally enjoyable. Also, Luna Lovegood (whose actress is considerably cuter than Luna's ever described in the books, but hey), is definitely the crowning jewel of this film, which I'm pretty sure the director must have noticed, 'cause she got about as much screentime, dialogue and character development as Hermione, Ginny and Cho combined. I received a certain grim satisfaction from the way the film basically snubbed Ginny, and the film Luna was true to my long-standing belief that she's basically much more awesome than Hermione anyway, so I can't really complain over her not doing anything notable again.
You know, I was just thinking, a large degree of my occasionally not inconsiderable distaste for the books, specifically the latter ones, derives from how I've come to view Harry as, essentially, a cretin. It's not the fact that he's not terribly intelligent that really gets to me, but simply, his emotional life is uninteresting to me. This is because he's not at all perceptive of his own issues, desires and needs. He rarely second-guesses himself, he barely knows what he wants and certainly doesn't know why he wants what he wants. This makes it pretty hard for me to actually really care all that much about his problems, and certainly it makes me disinclined to identify with him. As it is, he's a jock with issues. Let's face it, if he had the brains and the balls, he'd go after Luna, or at least Hermione. Not that he's really good enough for either one, but c'mon. The movie Harry's not really that much better, but at least the movie doesn't rub it in by forcing one to muddle through his painfully unobservative, brutally self-centered mental narrative. Frankly, Harry makes that much more sense when he isn't being a jerk. Sad to say, the movie Harry still isn't terribly smart, but at least he's more or less likeable.
So, basically, the film had its basics down pat, but there was little in the way of highlight moments, 'xcept for any time when Luna's on screen, which still isn't that often, because the movie does juggle a huge cast. This film isn't as absurdly packed to the brim as the other ones, but half of the cast is still reduced to cameos, essentially. I was expecting Fred and George's leaving Hogwarts to be a highlight scene, but honestly, it wasn't done that well. It needed 200% more pyrotechnics, humiliation and awesomeness. Other things to look out for is Harry's bizarrely generic Loners are Evil speech to Voldemort, with a cheesy, crusty smattering of Power of Friendship on top. Also, I feel a little bit robbed that they didn't cast Samuel L. Jackson as Kingsley Shacklebolt, because that would have been a definate extra bit of awesome.
Finally, as far as the future of the Harry Potter saga goes, I'm not going to say much, because honestly I don't really care all that much. But here's something I couldn't help but notice in the movie - In Luna's last conversation with Harry, instead of the hint at afterlife that was in the book, she told Harry that the things one loves always come back, though not in the way one expects. Veiled as a comical scene of her looking for her shoes, no less. How thoroughly cunning. It better be a red herring, in which case I'll laugh, 'cause if the filmmakers know something we don't and that was allegorical foreshadowing for character revivals later on, Darkken is going to have to choke a bitch.
So, there's that. In other news, I beat Tomb Raider: Anniversary, and I have to say, I love what they did with the first game; it's definitely the best game remake I've ever played, easily better stuff than the oddly lumbering gameplay, plot retcons and atmosphere hijacking of the Resident Evil remake. It's an interesting comparison to me, because the philosophies behind the two remakes are so very contrary; Capcom kept the lackluster mechanics of the original and actually made them considerably worse compared to the original's decent playability - what they mainly did was completely change the feel of the game while making it prettier, clamping down on both the delicious B-movie atmopshere and the oppressive, unreal ambience of the original mansion. Instead the Arklay Mansion became your run-of-the-mill haunted house, with an added cheesy science victim story in the vein of RE: Code Veronica X.
What Crystal Dynamics did with Tomb Raider was just the opposite; they went to extreme effort to maintain both the ambience and the memorable locations of the first game, while completely revamping the gameplay and structure. Honestly, I like the original game's gameplay a lot, but the new one is definitely an improvement in many significant ways, and at any rate not a step down. What they did with the plot was also clever, in that they added a simplistic, but pleasing thematic struggle to the otherwise pretty basic plot, which if anything built on the atmosphere of the original, rather than usurping it. Now, I'm still slightly more fond of Tomb Raider: Legends, for its remarkable ease of play, unwavering cinematicism and unhinged humour, but Anniversary's definitely a great game! Glad I got it. Maybe now I'll have the attention span to tackle an RPG for once.
Yeaah... I guess that's about all I've been up to lately, other than going out to gather blueberries with my mother. We're going to Krakow on vacation later this week - I'm meant to wake up half past four on Wednesday to catch the flight, so I suppose I might as well not go to sleep that night - and other gaming plans will have to wait 'til then. Now which game shall I go for first, I wonder?
Not a great surprise, there! Usually, I wouldn't bother reviewing a movie of this sort, but since it would appear that Harry Potter is shaping up to be the defining shared cultural experience of the turn of the millenium (yeah, I know, it's quite terrifying), I suppose it's inevitable that I say my - vaguely spoiler-ish, if you really care about minute details - piece on the movie, eh?
Ironically, the Goblet of Fire movie is much less of a train wreck than the book. It's nowhere anything short of respectable - it cuts and adapts lot of stuff, just as it ought to, but it faithfully covers most significant plot points, and actually, it toned down a lot the books a lot in certain respects, which is good, because Harry's angst in it ranged wildly from out of character to just plain unbearable. Harry didn't piss me off in the movie much at all, which is a great improvement. If they keep that up in the next movie, it might turn out to be a respectable series after all. (I don't imagine they're gonna have Daniel Radcliffe talk about his Chest Monster, no one's ever going to get Ginny's actress look half as Sue as she is in the books and the movie couldn't possibly make the pairing any more left field than the book anyway, so that might cover the worst of it.)
Back to this movie, though, for the most part, its major bane is that it's largerly unremarkable. It has nice touches and all, but I couldn't helpt but notice, it's actually much less intense or... hm, teenage-ish than the previous one, despite that Order of the Phoenix really is the angsty one out of the books. Like I said, toning Harry's whining down is mostly a good thing, but still, the Goblet of Fire movie captured teenage far better. Sure, Dumbledore was high on 300, the film was paced with a machine gun and the plot was completely inscrutable to anyone who hadn't read the books, but at its best it had a couple of great scenes, like the deliciously awkward Myrtle bathtub affair and pretty much everything relating to the ball. There's nothing in this one that was genuinely awesome.
Well, maybe something. Goblet of Fire succeeds mainly in that it's basically never bad or stupid, but the other thing is, the acting is surprisingly solid, for the most part, and this time around the choices for new actors are great. Umbridge was exactly the way she is in the books, which works considerably well on screen. Subtlety was never Rowling's suit, but her supremely over-the-top characters are occasionally enjoyable. Also, Luna Lovegood (whose actress is considerably cuter than Luna's ever described in the books, but hey), is definitely the crowning jewel of this film, which I'm pretty sure the director must have noticed, 'cause she got about as much screentime, dialogue and character development as Hermione, Ginny and Cho combined. I received a certain grim satisfaction from the way the film basically snubbed Ginny, and the film Luna was true to my long-standing belief that she's basically much more awesome than Hermione anyway, so I can't really complain over her not doing anything notable again.
You know, I was just thinking, a large degree of my occasionally not inconsiderable distaste for the books, specifically the latter ones, derives from how I've come to view Harry as, essentially, a cretin. It's not the fact that he's not terribly intelligent that really gets to me, but simply, his emotional life is uninteresting to me. This is because he's not at all perceptive of his own issues, desires and needs. He rarely second-guesses himself, he barely knows what he wants and certainly doesn't know why he wants what he wants. This makes it pretty hard for me to actually really care all that much about his problems, and certainly it makes me disinclined to identify with him. As it is, he's a jock with issues. Let's face it, if he had the brains and the balls, he'd go after Luna, or at least Hermione. Not that he's really good enough for either one, but c'mon. The movie Harry's not really that much better, but at least the movie doesn't rub it in by forcing one to muddle through his painfully unobservative, brutally self-centered mental narrative. Frankly, Harry makes that much more sense when he isn't being a jerk. Sad to say, the movie Harry still isn't terribly smart, but at least he's more or less likeable.
So, basically, the film had its basics down pat, but there was little in the way of highlight moments, 'xcept for any time when Luna's on screen, which still isn't that often, because the movie does juggle a huge cast. This film isn't as absurdly packed to the brim as the other ones, but half of the cast is still reduced to cameos, essentially. I was expecting Fred and George's leaving Hogwarts to be a highlight scene, but honestly, it wasn't done that well. It needed 200% more pyrotechnics, humiliation and awesomeness. Other things to look out for is Harry's bizarrely generic Loners are Evil speech to Voldemort, with a cheesy, crusty smattering of Power of Friendship on top. Also, I feel a little bit robbed that they didn't cast Samuel L. Jackson as Kingsley Shacklebolt, because that would have been a definate extra bit of awesome.
Finally, as far as the future of the Harry Potter saga goes, I'm not going to say much, because honestly I don't really care all that much. But here's something I couldn't help but notice in the movie - In Luna's last conversation with Harry, instead of the hint at afterlife that was in the book, she told Harry that the things one loves always come back, though not in the way one expects. Veiled as a comical scene of her looking for her shoes, no less. How thoroughly cunning. It better be a red herring, in which case I'll laugh, 'cause if the filmmakers know something we don't and that was allegorical foreshadowing for character revivals later on, Darkken is going to have to choke a bitch.
So, there's that. In other news, I beat Tomb Raider: Anniversary, and I have to say, I love what they did with the first game; it's definitely the best game remake I've ever played, easily better stuff than the oddly lumbering gameplay, plot retcons and atmosphere hijacking of the Resident Evil remake. It's an interesting comparison to me, because the philosophies behind the two remakes are so very contrary; Capcom kept the lackluster mechanics of the original and actually made them considerably worse compared to the original's decent playability - what they mainly did was completely change the feel of the game while making it prettier, clamping down on both the delicious B-movie atmopshere and the oppressive, unreal ambience of the original mansion. Instead the Arklay Mansion became your run-of-the-mill haunted house, with an added cheesy science victim story in the vein of RE: Code Veronica X.
What Crystal Dynamics did with Tomb Raider was just the opposite; they went to extreme effort to maintain both the ambience and the memorable locations of the first game, while completely revamping the gameplay and structure. Honestly, I like the original game's gameplay a lot, but the new one is definitely an improvement in many significant ways, and at any rate not a step down. What they did with the plot was also clever, in that they added a simplistic, but pleasing thematic struggle to the otherwise pretty basic plot, which if anything built on the atmosphere of the original, rather than usurping it. Now, I'm still slightly more fond of Tomb Raider: Legends, for its remarkable ease of play, unwavering cinematicism and unhinged humour, but Anniversary's definitely a great game! Glad I got it. Maybe now I'll have the attention span to tackle an RPG for once.
Yeaah... I guess that's about all I've been up to lately, other than going out to gather blueberries with my mother. We're going to Krakow on vacation later this week - I'm meant to wake up half past four on Wednesday to catch the flight, so I suppose I might as well not go to sleep that night - and other gaming plans will have to wait 'til then. Now which game shall I go for first, I wonder?