list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Harry_Potter_and_the_Prisoner_of_Azkaban/224365/default.aspx Title: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Year: 2004
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Plot: After directing the first two movies in the Harry Potter franchise, Chris Columbus opted to serve as producer for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and passed the baton to Y Tu Mamá También director Alfonso Cuarón. Though "immensely popular" is an understatement when it comes to Harry Potter, Azkaban is somewhat of a departure from its predecessors, and particularly beloved among fans for its surprise ending. Prisoner of Azkaban also marks the introduction of Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), who has escaped from the title prison after 12 years of incarceration. Believed to have been the right-hand-man of the dark wizard Voldemort, whom Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) mysteriously rendered powerless during his infancy, some of those closest to Harry suspect Black has returned to exact revenge on the boy who defeated his master. Upon his return to school, however, Harry is relatively unconcerned with Black. Run by Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) -- who is widely regarded as the most powerful wizard of the age -- Hogwarts is renowned for its safety. Harry's nonchalance eventually turns to blind rage after accidentally learning the first of Black's many secrets during a field trip to a neighboring village. Of course, a loose serial killer is only one of the problems plaguing the bespectacled wizard's third year back at school -- the soul-sucking guards of Azkaban prison have been employed at Hogwarts to protect the students, but their mere presence sends Harry into crippling fainting spells. With the help of his friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), and Defense Against the Dark Arts professor Remus Lupin (David Thewlis), Harry struggles to thwart the Dementors, find Sirius Black, and uncover the mysteries of the night that left him orphaned. ~ Tracie Cooper, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 97
Number of Lists: 115
Number of blog posts: 12
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:36:47 GMTHarry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban2004Alfonso CuarónAfter directing the first two movies in the <a href=/films/227199/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Harry Potter</a> franchise, <a href="/players/P____85595/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Chris Columbus</a> opted to serve as producer for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and passed the baton to <a href=/films/196780/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Y Tu Mamá También</a> director <a href="/players/P____86327/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Alfonso Cuarón</a>. Though "immensely popular" is an understatement when it comes to <a href=/films/227199/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Harry Potter</a>, Azkaban is somewhat of a departure from its predecessors, and particularly beloved among fans for its surprise ending. Prisoner of Azkaban also marks the introduction of Sirius Black (<a href="/players/P____53946/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gary Oldman</a>), who has escaped from the title prison after 12 years of incarceration. Believed to have been the right-hand-man of the dark wizard Voldemort, whom Harry (<a href="/players/P___299899/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Daniel Radcliffe</a>) mysteriously rendered powerless during his infancy, some of those closest to Harry suspect Black has returned to exact revenge on the boy who defeated his master. Upon his return to school, however, Harry is relatively unconcerned with Black. Run by Albus Dumbledore (<a href="/players/P____25729/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Gambon</a>) -- who is widely regarded as the most powerful wizard of the age -- Hogwarts is renowned for its safety. Harry's nonchalance eventually turns to blind rage after accidentally learning the first of Black's many secrets during a field trip to a neighboring village. Of course, a loose serial killer is only one of the problems plaguing the bespectacled wizard's third year back at school -- the soul-sucking guards of Azkaban prison have been employed at Hogwarts to protect the students, but their mere presence sends Harry into crippling fainting spells. With the help of his friends Ron (<a href="/players/P___299719/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Rupert Grint</a>) and Hermione (<a href="/players/P___300014/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Emma Watson</a>), and Defense Against the Dark Arts professor Remus Lupin (<a href="/players/P____70493/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>David Thewlis</a>), Harry struggles to thwart the Dementors, find Sirius Black, and uncover the mysteries of the night that left him orphaned. ~ Tracie Cooper, All Movie Guide97Tag Target (>10)1151233http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u48296ujgia.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Harry_Potter_and_the_Prisoner_of_Azkaban/224365/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/4/27/41792.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 4/27/2009 11:36:47 AM
Body: I have never read the "Harry Potter" novels, so I was unaware of the story presented in this movie. With that said, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" to me is a dark movie with comical elements thrown in. The special effects are very well done, there are only a few that didn't have the feel of reality to me. You could pick out which are puppets, and which are CGI. In my opinion, the CGI could have been better in a few scenes. The acting is probably the best part of the movie. All the actors appeared to be comfortable in their roles. Those who uttered the nonsensical "magic words" to cast spells made you believe that the words were able to conjure up a magical spell. One problem that stuck out like a sore thumb to me is the over-the-top performances of the actors in the minor roles/cameos. Obviously these were meant to be comic relief, but they just didn't seem all that funny to me. I also didn't like the blond kid who bullied "Harry Potter" and his friends, he just didn't seem to be that much of a bully. Another thing I noticed were some weird edits. Many of which were when the scenes were changing to continue the story. They weren't done well at all. Sound was also a bit of a problem. I had trouble hearing characters that were distant from the central characters in the scene. Overall, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is a pretty good fantasy movie. I am a bit curious on how the story is depicted in the novel.
]]>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:36:47 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog4/27/2009 11:36:47 AMI have never read the "Harry Potter" novels, so I was unaware of the story presented in this movie. With that said, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" to me is a dark movie with comical elements thrown in. The special effects are very well done, there are only a few that didn't have the feel of reality to me. You could pick out which are puppets, and which are CGI. In my opinion, the CGI could have been better in a few scenes. The acting is probably the best part of the movie. All the actors appeared to be comfortable in their roles. Those who uttered the nonsensical "magic words" to cast spells made you believe that the words were able to conjure up a magical spell. One problem that stuck out like a sore thumb to me is the over-the-top performances of the actors in the minor roles/cameos. Obviously these were meant to be comic relief, but they just didn't seem all that funny to me. I also didn't like the blond kid who bullied "Harry Potter" and his friends, he just didn't seem to be that much of a bully. Another thing I noticed were some weird edits. Many of which were when the scenes were changing to continue the story. They weren't done well at all. Sound was also a bit of a problem. I had trouble hearing characters that were distant from the central characters in the scene. Overall, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is a pretty good fantasy movie. I am a bit curious on how the story is depicted in the novel. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/27/41289.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/27/2009 9:00:44 AM
Body: Though the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/27/2009 9:00:44 AMThough the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/23/38761.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/23/2008 12:00:52 PM
Body: Should special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:00:52 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/23/2008 12:00:52 PMShould special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/11/7/37094.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 11/7/2008 10:01:26 PM
Body: I had watched Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone several years ago, shortly after it came out on DVD and found it among the least enjoyable movies I’d watched in quite a while. It wasn’t that it was bad - it was that it was, in my estimation, completely forgettable. I compared it at the time to a fast food value meal: Nothing about it would stick with me for very long. I’ll admit I went into it having not read it or any of the other Harry Potter books, but that didn’t seem to matter. I had no interest in exploring the Potter universe farther. Then my brother-in-law, darn him, convinced me to read the books and I decided to indulge him and give them a shot. He was, after all, the one who had overcome my resistance to “Buffy, the Vampire Slayer” and so I’ve come to more or less trust his judgement on these things. I, of course, wound up enjoying all seven books. So I decided to give the movies another shot. While Sorcerer’s Stone still comes off as pretty flavorless - as does Chamber of Secrets, the second in the series, the movies do get progressively better from there. Prisoner of Azkaban is quite a bit darker than the first two and brings with it 150 percent more characterization effort than those two combined. If anything, Goblet of Fire is *too* fast-paced, trying to cram too much into its relatively short running time. The fifth and most recent movie, Order of the Phoenix, is probably my favorite of the bunch as it manages to contain not only some of the best action sequences of the series but also some very good continuation of the characer development Prisoner and Goblet really started in earnest. All in all I’m glad I decided to give the movies a second shot and, much like I was when I was reading the books, I’m now anxious for the next couple movies to come out.        Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 03:01:26 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog11/7/2008 10:01:26 PMI had watched Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone several years ago, shortly after it came out on DVD and found it among the least enjoyable movies I’d watched in quite a while. It wasn’t that it was bad - it was that it was, in my estimation, completely forgettable. I compared it at the time to a fast food value meal: Nothing about it would stick with me for very long. I’ll admit I went into it having not read it or any of the other Harry Potter books, but that didn’t seem to matter. I had no interest in exploring the Potter universe farther. Then my brother-in-law, darn him, convinced me to read the books and I decided to indulge him and give them a shot. He was, after all, the one who had overcome my resistance to “Buffy, the Vampire Slayer” and so I’ve come to more or less trust his judgement on these things. I, of course, wound up enjoying all seven books. So I decided to give the movies another shot. While Sorcerer’s Stone still comes off as pretty flavorless - as does Chamber of Secrets, the second in the series, the movies do get progressively better from there. Prisoner of Azkaban is quite a bit darker than the first two and brings with it 150 percent more characterization effort than those two combined. If anything, Goblet of Fire is *too* fast-paced, trying to cram too much into its relatively short running time. The fifth and most recent movie, Order of the Phoenix, is probably my favorite of the bunch as it manages to contain not only some of the best action sequences of the series but also some very good continuation of the characer development Prisoner and Goblet really started in earnest. All in all I’m glad I decided to give the movies a second shot and, much like I was when I was reading the books, I’m now anxious for the next couple movies to come out.        Originally posted on:Chris Thilk http://www.spout.com/groups/I_watch_the_credits/Re_Best_of_the_Best/644/36316/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Ravie13
Post To: I watch the credits
Post Date: 10/14/2008 7:49:44 PM
Body: One of my favorite credit sequences is the one for HARRY POTTER & THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN. The whole sequence takes the concept of the Marauder's Map (from the movie and the books) and throughout the sequence you see little footprints walking around on the map. But if you pay attention there are little jokes like Lupin's footprints that start out shoes and then change to paw prints. And others that gang up on someone with someone disappearing.
]]>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:49:44 GMTRavie13I watch the credits10/14/2008 7:49:44 PMOne of my favorite credit sequences is the one for HARRY POTTER &amp; THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN. The whole sequence takes the concept of the Marauder's Map (from the movie and the books) and throughout the sequence you see little footprints walking around on the map. But if you pay attention there are little jokes like Lupin's footprints that start out shoes and then change to paw prints. And others that gang up on someone with someone disappearing. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/1/33404.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/1/2008 2:01:40 PM
Body: Andrew Sarris may be one of the most influential American film critics, but here’s a claim, located within his recent review of In Search of a Midnight Kiss, that may not hold up to some of his better-remembered theories: “Even when we confront 40-year-old virgins of either gender, movies refuse to show them compensating for the lack of a sexual partner. There is lasting shame involved in this spectacle.” Not to ever, ever profess superiority over Sarris, but I’ve nonetheless compiled today’s list as a way of proving the man wrong. There are actually tons and tons of masturbation scenes found in non-porn movies, from the low brow to the high brow, from as indirect as the boy wizard playing with his wand under the covers in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to as direct as the non-simulated masturbation in Michael Winterbottom’s 9 Songs and John Cameron Mitchell’s Shortbus (which would probably feature my #1 pick, from the sound of it, if I ever bothered to see it). The following 10 films are some of the most memorable masturbation scenes, excluding any movies that might be considered examples of, in Sarris’ words, “the fringe exploitation genres” (I’ve even gone so far as to leave out mainstream horror like The Exorcist, considering it’s crucifix masturbation is far from the self-pleasuring moments Sarris is clearly interested in). Oh, and I’ve attempted to chart these films artistically from lowbrow to high. 10. Fast Times at Ridgemont High - Everybody remembers this scene because of the fantasy: Phoebe Cates emerges from a swimming pool in slow motion and removes her bikini top. And then Cates’ character walks in on the fantasizer, Judge Reinhold, for one of the most awkward moments in the history of awkward comedy. There’s been plenty of uncomfortable scenes of guys being caught in the act, including those moments in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Little Children and the most obvious masturbation movie, American Pie. 9. Léolo - Speaking of masturbating with food, not even pie-fucking beats the scene in this French-Canadian gem in which our young titular hero decides that his real father is a man who jerked off with a tomato, which later impregnated Léolo’s mother when she fell onto it. There are other less memorable masturbation scenes involving liver and chicken, too. Yum! 8. Spanking the Monkey - I always found the masturbation scenes in this movie so interesting because of how clean a “job” Ray Aibelli (Jeremy Davies) does with his personal business. I guess when you’re probably fantasizing about your mother, your mind is dirty enough, and so (seemingly) uncomfortably jacking off while sitting on a toilet is the best way to go. But couldn’t he just do it in the shower, like Kevin Spacey in American Beauty? I’m surprised that Sarris forgot about this one, since the title alone refers to the act. 7. The Squid and the Whale - If I have to select one movie involving a little kid masturbating (and writing this sentence has already got me feeling immensely ashamed), I pick this one over Todd Solondz’ Happiness (”I came!”), because while both scenes in question are quite disturbing, the one featuring the real-life son of Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates jerking off in a library and then wiping his hands off on some books is at least a little amusing. A lot amusing if you take into account his mother’s appearance in movie #10 above. And if you need another little kid masturbating movie to choose from (I’m not judging), Babel has one too. 6. But I’m a Cheerleader - That Natasha Lyonne sure loves to masturbate! is a quick response to the realization that she pleasures herself in both this film and the earlier Slums of Beverly Hills. The reason that this movie is the more significant of the two is because the masturbation scene is very tastefully done, and yet in its original form, it controversially garnered the film an NC-17 rating, only because, as argued in the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, it deals with both homosexual desire and female sexuality. The main evidence: American Pie was released in the same year with an R rating. 5. Mulholland Drive - A less beautiful yet no less exploitive depiction of female masturbation occurs in David Lynch’s enigmatic film. Despite the fact that guys tend to enjoy watching a girl pleasure herself, only the most sadistic of men could be turned on by Naomi Watts crying and painfully attempting to get off. 4. Bad Lieutenant - When I first heard about the scene in which Harvey Keitel’s corrupt cop masturbates in front of two teens in a car he pulls over, I thought it had to be the most debauched scene in film history. Of course, I was only 15 when it came out and wasn’t yet familiar with a lot of cinema. By the time I actually bothered to watch the scene many years later, it was less shocking than I expected. Still, as far as depraved things a character can do in a movie — at least in theory — it’s up there, and it’s certainly one of the first scenes that comes to mind when I think of movie masturbation. 3. Amarcord - Oh, right, here’s another movie with little kids masturbating. But it’s a Fellini movie, so obviously it’s incomparable to the three referenced earlier. Although an amusing scene, featuring a bunch of kids masturbating in unison in a car, it’s much less disturbing, as it simply displays the act as a part of growing up. 2. Being There - “I like to watch.” Hopefully you’ve seen this wonderful film, and that’s all I need to say. But just in case you’re not familiar, here’s the scene: Eve Rand (Shirley MacLaine) attempts to seduce the rather simple Chauncey Gardner (Peter Sellers), who responds by saying, “I like to watch.” Of course, he means the television, but Eve takes the statement to mean he wants to watch her pleasure herself. And so she proceeds to humiliate herself on the floor while Chauncey hilariously takes enjoys an exercise show on the TV. 1. Adaptation - Really, the whole movie is one big masturbation scene. There is a literal masturbation scene, though, in which Charlie (Nicolas Cage) fantasizes about Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep), and it’s pretty good on its own. But it takes the top spot for affirming that screenwriter Charlie Kauffman created the literary equivalent of beating off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:01:40 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/1/2008 2:01:40 PM Andrew Sarris may be one of the most influential American film critics, but here’s a claim, located within his recent review of In Search of a Midnight Kiss, that may not hold up to some of his better-remembered theories: “Even when we confront 40-year-old virgins of either gender, movies refuse to show them compensating for the lack of a sexual partner. There is lasting shame involved in this spectacle.” Not to ever, ever profess superiority over Sarris, but I’ve nonetheless compiled today’s list as a way of proving the man wrong. There are actually tons and tons of masturbation scenes found in non-porn movies, from the low brow to the high brow, from as indirect as the boy wizard playing with his wand under the covers in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to as direct as the non-simulated masturbation in Michael Winterbottom’s 9 Songs and John Cameron Mitchell’s Shortbus (which would probably feature my #1 pick, from the sound of it, if I ever bothered to see it). The following 10 films are some of the most memorable masturbation scenes, excluding any movies that might be considered examples of, in Sarris’ words, “the fringe exploitation genres” (I’ve even gone so far as to leave out mainstream horror like The Exorcist, considering it’s crucifix masturbation is far from the self-pleasuring moments Sarris is clearly interested in). Oh, and I’ve attempted to chart these films artistically from lowbrow to high. 10. Fast Times at Ridgemont High - Everybody remembers this scene because of the fantasy: Phoebe Cates emerges from a swimming pool in slow motion and removes her bikini top. And then Cates’ character walks in on the fantasizer, Judge Reinhold, for one of the most awkward moments in the history of awkward comedy. There’s been plenty of uncomfortable scenes of guys being caught in the act, including those moments in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Little Children and the most obvious masturbation movie, American Pie. 9. Léolo - Speaking of masturbating with food, not even pie-fucking beats the scene in this French-Canadian gem in which our young titular hero decides that his real father is a man who jerked off with a tomato, which later impregnated Léolo’s mother when she fell onto it. There are other less memorable masturbation scenes involving liver and chicken, too. Yum! 8. Spanking the Monkey - I always found the masturbation scenes in this movie so interesting because of how clean a “job” Ray Aibelli (Jeremy Davies) does with his personal business. I guess when you’re probably fantasizing about your mother, your mind is dirty enough, and so (seemingly) uncomfortably jacking off while sitting on a toilet is the best way to go. But couldn’t he just do it in the shower, like Kevin Spacey in American Beauty? I’m surprised that Sarris forgot about this one, since the title alone refers to the act. 7. The Squid and the Whale - If I have to select one movie involving a little kid masturbating (and writing this sentence has already got me feeling immensely ashamed), I pick this one over Todd Solondz’ Happiness (”I came!”), because while both scenes in question are quite disturbing, the one featuring the real-life son of Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates jerking off in a library and then wiping his hands off on some books is at least a little amusing. A lot amusing if you take into account his mother’s appearance in movie #10 above. And if you need another little kid masturbating movie to choose from (I’m not judging), Babel has one too. 6. But I’m a Cheerleader - That Natasha Lyonne sure loves to masturbate! is a quick response to the realization that she pleasures herself in both this film and the earlier Slums of Beverly Hills. The reason that this movie is the more significant of the two is because the masturbation scene is very tastefully done, and yet in its original form, it controversially garnered the film an NC-17 rating, only because, as argued in the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, it deals with both homosexual desire and female sexuality. The main evidence: American Pie was released in the same year with an R rating. 5. Mulholland Drive - A less beautiful yet no less exploitive depiction of female masturbation occurs in David Lynch’s enigmatic film. Despite the fact that guys tend to enjoy watching a girl pleasure herself, only the most sadistic of men could be turned on by Naomi Watts crying and painfully attempting to get off. 4. Bad Lieutenant - When I first heard about the scene in which Harvey Keitel’s corrupt cop masturbates in front of two teens in a car he pulls over, I thought it had to be the most debauched scene in film history. Of course, I was only 15 when it came out and wasn’t yet familiar with a lot of cinema. By the time I actually bothered to watch the scene many years later, it was less shocking than I expected. Still, as far as depraved things a character can do in a movie — at least in theory — it’s up there, and it’s certainly one of the first scenes that comes to mind when I think of movie masturbation. 3. Amarcord - Oh, right, here’s another movie with little kids masturbating. But it’s a Fellini movie, so obviously it’s incomparable to the three referenced earlier. Although an amusing scene, featuring a bunch of kids masturbating in unison in a car, it’s much less disturbing, as it simply displays the act as a part of growing up. 2. Being There - “I like to watch.” Hopefully you’ve seen this wonderful film, and that’s all I need to say. But just in case you’re not familiar, here’s the scene: Eve Rand (Shirley MacLaine) attempts to seduce the rather simple Chauncey Gardner (Peter Sellers), who responds by saying, “I like to watch.” Of course, he means the television, but Eve takes the statement to mean he wants to watch her pleasure herself. And so she proceeds to humiliate herself on the floor while Chauncey hilariously takes enjoys an exercise show on the TV. 1. Adaptation - Really, the whole movie is one big masturbation scene. There is a literal masturbation scene, though, in which Charlie (Nicolas Cage) fantasizes about Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep), and it’s pretty good on its own. But it takes the top spot for affirming that screenwriter Charlie Kauffman created the literary equivalent of beating off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Film_Library/They_Got_It_Right/512/22300/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: TheWorkingDead
Post To: The Film Library
Post Date: 11/28/2007 12:17:08 PM
Body: Until fairly recently, I've been known to have a knee-jerk, negative reaction to films based on books I love. Hell, even books I mildly dislike would usually rate better with me than the film version, and not always based on pure quality. A lot of that was snobbishness, a way to feel superior by telling myself the experience I had was better than the one most people in the theatre had. Of course, I've lightened up a bit, and now tend to go the other way. Where once a filmmaker changing a small detail from the book would get my ire up, I now hope for these deviations. In the end, I'll always have the book I read, and the movie should provide it's own unique experience.The movie that brought me to this way of thinking was actually the third Harry Potter movie, Prisoner of Azkaban. I'd seen the previous two, but part three was the first one I saw after reading the books. My girlfriend, and many of my friends who had read the books, disliked the movie because of how much it left out. I loved it, partially for that very reason. While the first two films crammed in every detail and subplot that it could, they felt a little robotic, flat and hollow with no real emotion. The third film, by excising most of the subplots, focused solely on the emotional core of the book, and was able to breathe in that extra room. It's the first film of the series that I think could stand up as it's own work of art. The way I put it when explaining my point to angry Potter fans is; the first two films had the subplots, but missed the heart, while the third film lost the subplots but nailed the heart of the story.There are others that I think have succeeded due to their alterations of the source material, of course, but while I've gone over this topic elsewhere, I think I'll leave the floor and hear what you have to say. What are some of your favorite book-to-film adaptations?
]]>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:17:08 GMTTheWorkingDeadThe Film Library11/28/2007 12:17:08 PMUntil fairly recently, I&#39;ve been known to have a knee-jerk, negative reaction to films based on books I love. Hell, even books I mildly dislike would usually rate better with me than the film version, and not always based on pure quality. A lot of that was snobbishness, a way to feel superior by telling myself the experience I had was better than the one most people in the theatre had. Of course, I&#39;ve lightened up a bit, and now tend to go the other way. Where once a filmmaker changing a small detail from the book would get my ire up, I now hope for these deviations. In the end, I&#39;ll always have the book I read, and the movie should provide it&#39;s own unique experience.The movie that brought me to this way of thinking was actually the third Harry Potter movie, Prisoner of Azkaban. I&#39;d seen the previous two, but part three was the first one I saw after reading the books. My girlfriend, and many of my friends who had read the books, disliked the movie because of how much it left out. I loved it, partially for that very reason. While the first two films crammed in every detail and subplot that it could, they felt a little robotic, flat and hollow with no real emotion. The third film, by excising most of the subplots, focused solely on the emotional core of the book, and was able to breathe in that extra room. It&#39;s the first film of the series that I think could stand up as it&#39;s own work of art. The way I put it when explaining my point to angry Potter fans is; the first two films had the subplots, but missed the heart, while the third film lost the subplots but nailed the heart of the story.There are others that I think have succeeded due to their alterations of the source material, of course, but while I&#39;ve gone over this topic elsewhere, I think I&#39;ll leave the floor and hear what you have to say. What are some of your favorite book-to-film adaptations? http://www.spout.com/blogs/jakestevens/archive/2007/10/12/20780.aspx Post By: JakeStevens
Post To: JakeStevens Blog
Post Date: 10/12/2007 7:07:41 PM
Body: Even though there are quite a few things different from the book in this film, I think this is one of the best adaptations of the series, and Alfonso Cuaron reallys owns the look, style and story of Prizoner of Azkaban moreso than Chris Colombus did in the first two, even though he faithful filmed the first two in the series. This one is more colorful, more playful and a bit more serious than the others. And that's why I love it.
]]>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:07:41 GMTJakeStevensJakeStevens Blog10/12/2007 7:07:41 PMEven though there are quite a few things different from the book in this film, I think this is one of the best adaptations of the series, and Alfonso Cuaron reallys owns the look, style and story of Prizoner of Azkaban moreso than Chris Colombus did in the first two, even though he faithful filmed the first two in the series. This one is more colorful, more playful and a bit more serious than the others. And that&#39;s why I love it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jlgdrd/archive/2007/8/14/18031.aspx Post By: jlgdrd
Post To: Wicked Fun
Post Date: 8/14/2007 2:51:00 AM
Body: Just what is it about J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series that makes it so irresistible? That drives thousands to wait in costume for midnight releases of the next book, the newest film incarnation? To hold marathon gatherings where the entire text of the increasingly longer novels are read from start to finish in one sitting? Perhaps because so many of us can relate to Harry’s plight: an orphan raised by ignorant and abusive muggles who is whisked away to a community where he is welcomed and revered for the very attributes that branded him a freak. Don’t we all secretly long to be cherished for what makes us different? Perhaps it is Rowling’s gift for making sorcery and everything that implies, the fantastic and enchanting and astonishing world of extraordinary humans (and other marvelous, terrible beings) plausible. She intertwines just enough of the commonplace with the wizarding world to make it feel feasible, genuine. Wizards and witches have their schools, too, their trains, postal system and shops down Diagon Alley. They have their hierarchy, their government, their regulations, and sadly, their own biases, politics and petty grievances. Most impressive is Rowling’s skill at balancing plot and character. development. Her ability to keep us involved in the emotional lives of the principals, with their eccentricities and torments and foibles, while the action propels us like a perpetual motion device.It is this interdependent relationship between the psyches of Rowling’s extensive cast of “players” and what happens to them that his been most challenging in bringing Harry Potter to the screen. Christopher Columbus (who directed the first two films) recruited Alfonso Cuaron to direct Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban, too exhausted to move on to the next installment and highly impressed with Cuaron’s previous work. I won’t pretend familiarity with Cuaron’s work to date, but can tell you that Y Tu Mama Tambien (a very different, albeit impressive, film) in no way prepared me for the grace and finesse of Azkaban. Y Tu Mama is practically all character and very little plot while Azkaban is nearly the opposite. All the information vital to advancing the narrative is supplied and little else. And for this reason, the film doesn’t seem to get quite as bogged down as the first two. The movie hums and pops and soars and crackles and has some of the most bracing chills you’re likely to experience in a theater. There is kind of a failsafe built into filming the Rowling novels. So many folks are so deeply and passionately invested in the text (including Columbus and Cuaron) that there is keen motivation to get it right. To do justice to the phenomenal reading experience. Cuaron has been extremely vigilant in preserving the key aspects of Harry’s third year at Hogwarts. As Harry approaches adolescence his desire to find his identity and direction his life will take becomes stronger and more urgent. So naturally he tries to bond with the wizards who were closest to his deceased parents. As with all the novels so far, his first catastrophic (and triumphant ) confrontation with Lord Valdemort, too early for him to remember, will continue to steer his destiny. Cuaron covers all this, sometimes with dialogue, sometimes in less obvious ways, by implication or situation. Where Columbus was grappling with Rowling’s complexity and depth, Cuaron goes for movement and impact.There is a vibrant, credible feel to the milieu in Azkaban. The forest, Professor Lupin’s study, the dining hall, the village where the students spend their outings, engulf us in shadow and torchlight, they submerge us in the moment. Cuaron hovers at the edges of hallucination, teasing the normal into the subtly surreal. The shape-shifters and specters he constructs are chilling and unsettling. In the crucial episodes, the special effects are spot on, not calling attention to themselves, but making our hearts bounce. Our nape hair tingle. It is a rule of thumb that most films are imagistically savvier than their scripts. The story may be one thing, the dialogue another. But is the manipulation of the images fluttering before our eyes that separates the brilliant directors from the ones who are just trying to make sure the camera winds up in the right place. Cuaron has a visual sophistication that is dazzling and spectacular and serves the material well. It may sound like I’m casting aspersions on Columbus but please understand, I’m not. Both he and Cuaron have their strengths, neither one has gotten it just right, and as I suggested earlier, Columbus had the acumen to pass the torch to someone who could handle this daunting task with eclat’. Further credit should be given Columbus in his casting of the three key characters, Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, Emma Watson as Hermione Granger and Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley. Grint has great comic instincts and often serves as the reality check for Radcliffe and Watson, whose characters are loftier or more introspective. It’s as if Hermione were the Super-Ego, Harry the Ego and Ron the Id. Ron never hesitates to say what his friends are too tentative or guarded to reveal. When everything’s going to hell, he’s not afraid to be terrified. He just is. Watson makes Hermione formidable, her anger, her pride, her outrage at injustice. Her impatience with stupidity. But she also makes her sympathetic, helping us understand what drives Hermione. The injuries she can’t brush aside. Radcliffe has the most demanding role. Harry Potter is a boy who lives inside his head. Years of degradation and antagonism have forced him to use detachment as a means of survival. He is repeatedly subjected to ordeals and derision but is never the object of pity. So then it falls to Radcliffe to let just enough of Potter’s spirit and anguish come through to make those subtle changes in his face. The camera makes this kind of understatement possible; often our clues to Harry’s state of mind are in reaction shots and Radcliffe is meticulous in these. There are a few quibbles I have with Azkaban. One of the reasons that J. K. Rowling’s novels work so well is that she resists the temptation to continuously confront us with the supernatural. The Harry Potter series has reached the crossover audience of readers who would never otherwise have picked up a novel that dealt in sorcery and enchantment. The magic happens, and it’s never dull, but she weaves it organically into the character’s lives. We don’t need constant reminders that Hogwarts is a school for sorcery. It didn’t spoil the movie for me by any means, but I think Cuaron might have pulled back a bit from this compulsive need to distract us. A great deal of Azkaban is agreeably funny, it breaks up the looming sense of menace, but in the end, I think for Cuaron it’s all about momentum. Movement and trajectory. Sometimes expediency is highly effective, other times it comes off as shorthand or shtick. I cringe when I see broad strokes like a cloud in the shape of a dog or Snape calling Hermione an insufferable “Know-it-all” or Dumbledore speaking in homilies. Or a choir singing the Weird Sisters’ incantation from Macbeth ! (How many times we heard that?) But by and large Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban is a glorious, sumptuous plunge. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Starring: Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore) Gary Oldman (Sirius Black) David Thewlis (Professor Remus Lupin) Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid) Directed by Alfonso Cuarón
]]>Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:51:00 GMTjlgdrdWicked Fun8/14/2007 2:51:00 AM Just what is it about J.K. Rowling&rsquo;s Harry Potter series that makes it so irresistible? That drives thousands to wait in costume for midnight releases of the next book, the newest film incarnation? To hold marathon gatherings where the entire text of the increasingly longer novels are read from start to finish in one sitting? Perhaps because so many of us can relate to Harry&rsquo;s plight: an orphan raised by ignorant and abusive muggles who is whisked away to a community where he is welcomed and revered for the very attributes that branded him a freak. Don&rsquo;t we all secretly long to be cherished for what makes us different? Perhaps it is Rowling&rsquo;s gift for making sorcery and everything that implies, the fantastic and enchanting and astonishing world of extraordinary humans (and other marvelous, terrible beings) plausible. She intertwines just enough of the commonplace with the wizarding world to make it feel feasible, genuine. Wizards and witches have their schools, too, their trains, postal system and shops down Diagon Alley. They have their hierarchy, their government, their regulations, and sadly, their own biases, politics and petty grievances. Most impressive is Rowling&rsquo;s skill at balancing plot and character. development. Her ability to keep us involved in the emotional lives of the principals, with their eccentricities and torments and foibles, while the action propels us like a perpetual motion device.It is this interdependent relationship between the psyches of Rowling&rsquo;s extensive cast of &ldquo;players&rdquo; and what happens to them that his been most challenging in bringing Harry Potter to the screen. Christopher Columbus (who directed the first two films) recruited Alfonso Cuaron to direct Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban, too exhausted to move on to the next installment and highly impressed with Cuaron&rsquo;s previous work. I won&rsquo;t pretend familiarity with Cuaron&rsquo;s work to date, but can tell you that Y Tu Mama Tambien (a very different, albeit impressive, film) in no way prepared me for the grace and finesse of Azkaban. Y Tu Mama is practically all character and very little plot while Azkaban is nearly the opposite. All the information vital to advancing the narrative is supplied and little else. And for this reason, the film doesn&rsquo;t seem to get quite as bogged down as the first two. The movie hums and pops and soars and crackles and has some of the most bracing chills you&rsquo;re likely to experience in a theater. There is kind of a failsafe built into filming the Rowling novels. So many folks are so deeply and passionately invested in the text (including Columbus and Cuaron) that there is keen motivation to get it right. To do justice to the phenomenal reading experience. Cuaron has been extremely vigilant in preserving the key aspects of Harry&rsquo;s third year at Hogwarts. As Harry approaches adolescence his desire to find his identity and direction his life will take becomes stronger and more urgent. So naturally he tries to bond with the wizards who were closest to his deceased parents. As with all the novels so far, his first catastrophic (and triumphant ) confrontation with Lord Valdemort, too early for him to remember, will continue to steer his destiny. Cuaron covers all this, sometimes with dialogue, sometimes in less obvious ways, by implication or situation. Where Columbus was grappling with Rowling&rsquo;s complexity and depth, Cuaron goes for movement and impact.There is a vibrant, credible feel to the milieu in Azkaban. The forest, Professor Lupin&rsquo;s study, the dining hall, the village where the students spend their outings, engulf us in shadow and torchlight, they submerge us in the moment. Cuaron hovers at the edges of hallucination, teasing the normal into the subtly surreal. The shape-shifters and specters he constructs are chilling and unsettling. In the crucial episodes, the special effects are spot on, not calling attention to themselves, but making our hearts bounce. Our nape hair tingle. It is a rule of thumb that most films are imagistically savvier than their scripts. The story may be one thing, the dialogue another. But is the manipulation of the images fluttering before our eyes that separates the brilliant directors from the ones who are just trying to make sure the camera winds up in the right place. Cuaron has a visual sophistication that is dazzling and spectacular and serves the material well. It may sound like I&rsquo;m casting aspersions on Columbus but please understand, I&rsquo;m not. Both he and Cuaron have their strengths, neither one has gotten it just right, and as I suggested earlier, Columbus had the acumen to pass the torch to someone who could handle this daunting task with eclat&rsquo;. Further credit should be given Columbus in his casting of the three key characters, Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, Emma Watson as Hermione Granger and Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley. Grint has great comic instincts and often serves as the reality check for Radcliffe and Watson, whose characters are loftier or more introspective. It&rsquo;s as if Hermione were the Super-Ego, Harry the Ego and Ron the Id. Ron never hesitates to say what his friends are too tentative or guarded to reveal. When everything&rsquo;s going to hell, he&rsquo;s not afraid to be terrified. He just is. Watson makes Hermione formidable, her anger, her pride, her outrage at injustice. Her impatience with stupidity. But she also makes her sympathetic, helping us understand what drives Hermione. The injuries she can&rsquo;t brush aside. Radcliffe has the most demanding role. Harry Potter is a boy who lives inside his head. Years of degradation and antagonism have forced him to use detachment as a means of survival. He is repeatedly subjected to ordeals and derision but is never the object of pity. So then it falls to Radcliffe to let just enough of Potter&rsquo;s spirit and anguish come through to make those subtle changes in his face. The camera makes this kind of understatement possible; often our clues to Harry&rsquo;s state of mind are in reaction shots and Radcliffe is meticulous in these. There are a few quibbles I have with Azkaban. One of the reasons that J. K. Rowling&rsquo;s novels work so well is that she resists the temptation to continuously confront us with the supernatural. The Harry Potter series has reached the crossover audience of readers who would never otherwise have picked up a novel that dealt in sorcery and enchantment. The magic happens, and it&rsquo;s never dull, but she weaves it organically into the character&rsquo;s lives. We don&rsquo;t need constant reminders that Hogwarts is a school for sorcery. It didn&rsquo;t spoil the movie for me by any means, but I think Cuaron might have pulled back a bit from this compulsive need to distract us. A great deal of Azkaban is agreeably funny, it breaks up the looming sense of menace, but in the end, I think for Cuaron it&rsquo;s all about momentum. Movement and trajectory. Sometimes expediency is highly effective, other times it comes off as shorthand or shtick. I cringe when I see broad strokes like a cloud in the shape of a dog or Snape calling Hermione an insufferable &ldquo;Know-it-all&rdquo; or Dumbledore speaking in homilies. Or a choir singing the Weird Sisters&rsquo; incantation from Macbeth ! (How many times we heard that?) But by and large Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban is a glorious, sumptuous plunge. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Starring: Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore) Gary Oldman (Sirius Black) David Thewlis (Professor Remus Lupin) Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid) Directed by Alfonso Cuar&oacute;n http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2007/7/30/16839.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 7/30/2007 1:00:39 AM
Body: One thing that makes Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix a good, but not great installment in the series is its treatment of magic.Alfonso Cuarón is the only one of the Potter directors to effectively evoke a world of everyday magic. Mike Newell's interpretation of J.K. Rowling's creation is one of magic as a Big Deal. David Yates and company have made a move in the direction of Cuarón's approach, but there's still a sense of magic as something essentially special or exceptional (Chris Columbus' contributions are just too flat and devoid of ideas to be meaningfully compared to the rest). Of course, some uses of magic have to be rare or truly serious, but there's an offhandedness and normalcy to the way the witches and wizards use their powers in Prisoner of Azkaban that sets that movie apart from the others in the franchise. It remains the film that best captures the fantastic for me. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:00:39 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog7/30/2007 1:00:39 AMOne thing that makes Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix a good, but not great installment in the series is its treatment of magic.Alfonso Cuarón is the only one of the Potter directors to effectively evoke a world of everyday magic. Mike Newell's interpretation of J.K. Rowling's creation is one of magic as a Big Deal. David Yates and company have made a move in the direction of Cuarón's approach, but there's still a sense of magic as something essentially special or exceptional (Chris Columbus' contributions are just too flat and devoid of ideas to be meaningfully compared to the rest). Of course, some uses of magic have to be rare or truly serious, but there's an offhandedness and normalcy to the way the witches and wizards use their powers in Prisoner of Azkaban that sets that movie apart from the others in the franchise. It remains the film that best captures the fantastic for me. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 942

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT609316942Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1087

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1342

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:38:30 GMT10872531342Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 150

Number of times used: 417

]]>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:43:48 GMT260150417Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dark/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT223137390Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 319

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 460

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:02 GMT319111460Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cute/MemberTagFilms.aspxcute
Number of films tagged: 210

Number of people who tagged: 98

Number of times used: 314

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:46:12 GMT21098314Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 91

Number of times used: 122

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT7891122Tag