Silver Screen in a Red Envelope: A Diary of Time Wasted

The third of this series reminded me quite forcefully why I dread these stories. Bad things happen. We're talking endless misery bad things. I HATE stories like this. And honestly, the occasional light moment doesn't really make up for it. This movie bodes very ill for the remaining five. I almost stopped watching entirely halfway through. I thought Black was a character that could certainly have been better developed, but I understand the time constraints in film-making (as well as half a dozen directors who ignore them entirely). I hope I make it.

 Dobby frustrated me extremely, as he did in the books. The child-acting was still pretty stinky, but making some improvements. It felt odd to have Ginny, the center, play so little part leading up, although I suppose that would be something of a giveaway. Unfortunately, as it is, it seems like the writer couldn't make up her mind who she should finally make the culprit, although making her an innocent seems to be a clever move. I loved Moaning Myrtle. I thought the Basilisk was clumsily done. This film was neither as funny, nor awe-inspiring as the first, but good enough to be getting on with.

 I recently began re-watching the Harry Potter films to so I could finally catch up. I'm afraid I have only seen up through film number four. My little brothers convinced me I was missing out, although I distinctly remember the books being agonizing. I found the first film noticeably well-done for a children's film. Although the acting made me cringe several times (I had already known Daniel Radcliffe to be a terrible child-actor, after having seen him in David Copperfield ), it didn't really spoil the movie, as the adult acting and the special effects really were a thoroughly amusing ride. I think conceptually, this first film is the most amazing for the wonder it produces as a distressed young boy learns that he is special. Although I still have moral issues with creating any kind of idealistic fantasy in which children are not born equal (see "Percy Jackson"), I got over it for this movie.

I have always had a fascination for Lovecraft, and this indy film captured his style and periodicity quite well. Although no high tech special effects were even attempted, the camera work held the suspense and horror with remarkable veracity. The acting was nothing noteworthy, but all of it was perfectly adequate to hold the audience. And how am I supposed to draw attention to a film for being perfectly adequate? Lovecraft afficionados and true horror fans will certainly be interested already, and anyone else would be ill-equipped to appreciate the work. How 'bout this? It's only forty-five minutes long - the length of a current television episode. I'd recommend investing the time.

 Anne Hathaway managed not to ruin this particular film, but only because she wasn't in it. Although I never really found Madeleine at all sympathetic, this iteration was as unobtrusive, even in her acting, as Dickens wrote her. I liked it. It didn't scream "I'M FAKE!" . James D'Arcy as Nicholas managed his role quite well, although I'm afraid I compare him at moments unfavorably with the RSC giant Roger Rees. Where Rees played Nicholas as one truly headstrong, if not outright violent, D'Arcy underplays that part of his written character and so comes off as just slightly misunderstood. The director amped up the violence and sexuality of this film to reflect our no-longer-Victorian times. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I understood completely. It did not detract from the film as a whole, but rather supplemented interpretations for a current audience who may not fully sympathize otherwise. This version seemed a little abrupt. I felt that...

 Peter Bogdanovich does the retro thing again in this film, although where What's Up Doc ? hearkened back to the mere screwball, Paper Moon more fully embraced a slightly different thirties style, more like Clark Gable than Cary Grant. Those of you who enjoyed O Brother Where Art Thou  will recognize many of the elements of this film, although the comedic elements aren't quite the same. Although the scripts had the same, long lines and monologues that older films seem known for, in Paper Moon  the actors more fully embraced them, delivering them like they would Shakespeare, instead of George Clooney's rattled-off, barely intelligible, and over-written one-liners from O Brother. Although Tatum O'Neal won an Oscar for her performance here, I truly think both Peter Bogdanovich and Ryan O'Neal deserve some significant credit (though I think I'm going to have to disapprove of any father who would allow his nine-year-old to smoke at all, let alone on camera) (and...

 Although not a particularly romantic or away-sweeping role, Bullitt brought out the best of Steve McQueen, which, if you ask me, is his ability to play put-upon and still seem sexy. Although his girlfriend dumps him for the stupidest reason I've ever heard, he still comes off a winner, especially through the harrowing car-chases, in which McQueen typically does a significant chunk of his own driving stunts. Knowing he eventually died of his cavalier recklessness does nothing to mitigate the fear, sensibly enough. Robert Vaughn surprised me, playing a character despicable, if not truly evil. I had been used to seeing him from U.N.C.L.E. and even as a schmuck, I still think he's cute. I wouldn't date him, though. The plot of this film rolls evenly, mostly set pieces for moments of adventure. The full story could be summed up in just a few words. The filming and script are typical minimalist, and neither indulges in feeling or sentiment. Even the sense of relief when t...