Posts Tagged ‘Harry Potter’

Welcome everyone to Movie-Thoughts’ first annual Turn of the Year Awards! While everyone else is making Top 10 lists for the upcoming awards season, we thought it would be more worthwhile to talk about what we feel are the most notable movies of the past year, good or bad. Read about our Best and Worst moviegoing experiences, our biggest surprises and disappointments, the most well-crafted movies, and the overall Best movies of the year. Then, after you’re done reading what we think, tell us your thoughts in the comments section below!

Read the rest of this entry »

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 concludes the Potter film franchise that has lasted eight films and ten years. Thanks to its devoted worldwide fan base, the film is breaking box office records left and right. Critics are also showering the film with praise: it received a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, the highest for any film in the series.

We at Movie-Thoughts.com thought it would be interesting to talk about the franchise as a whole. Below is the conversation between Cliff Bugle (a casual fan who experienced the story chiefly through the movies) and Marisa Carpico (a long-time Potter fan who read the books and saw the movies). Be sure to get into the conversation by leaving your own comments!

Read the rest of this entry »

Short Take: A very solid effort to end this colossal franchise on a high note

Director: David Yates

Screenwriters: Steve Kloves, J. K. Rowling (novel)

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs

Length: 2h 10m

Synopsis: We begin right where we left off from Deathly Hallows: Part 1 – Harry (Radcliffe), Hermione (Watson), and Ron (Grint) have three more horcruxes to find in order to render Voldemort (Fiennes) vulnerable. The Dark Lord, meanwhile, is organizing his forces to find Harry and repress his following, looking to ultimately kill the boy as he is all that stands in the way of everlasting rule. The Sword of Gryffindor has disappeared again and must be found in order to battle Voldemort’s final attacks and destroy the last horcruxes, but while the young wizards search Harry begins to discover all of the past events and relationships that have led him to this point. He eventually recognizes what his fate must be, and accepts it for the cause of ridding the world of its ultimate evil. In the end, the two wizard legends face off in an epic battle that will decide the fate of the wizarding world forever.

Read the rest of this entry »

With so many bombs like "The Green Hornet" trying to sell 3D (converted no less), which don't even warrant a normally priced ticket, why should we not still consider 3D to be a money-grabbing gimmick that doesn't add enough to the viewing experience to justify the higher ticket price?

Dear Hollywood,

Please stop pushing 3D.

The Hollywood Reporter has revealed that Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides has underachieved in terms of earning first weekend grosses for 3D showings, with more audiences opting for 2D prints. Now, with $90.1 million earned its first weekend in just the U.S., and over $400 million to be earned worldwide by the end of its first full week, the film can hardly be considered unsuccessful. However, numbers show that American audiences’ interest in 3D could be waning. What everyone is trying to figure out is whether fewer 3D tickets sold means audiences are no longer seeing the value in 3D technology or they are becoming less inclined to fork over the extra cash for a 3D ticket.

Guess what Hollywood – if Americans are indeed sick of 3D it’s because of both reasons.

The list of recent movies released in 3D where the extra dimension actually added to the viewing experience is extremely short, including only Avatar, Tron: Legacy, How to Train Your Dragon, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Coraline, and Monster House. Notice how four of those six are 100% animated, and the two “live action” films are ones which were greatly reliant on digital effects to the point where one could justifiably consider them mostly animated as well. This is not a coincidence, and such a pattern does not help the argument that 3D is the future of the medium. Personally, I won’t give that claim any consideration until I see a truly live action film wow me like the six just mentioned.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hogwarts Castle is no longer something of fiction. You can now visit it!

The brand new Orlando amusement park – which reportedly cost $265 million to build – based off of the Harry Potter books and movies has opened to rave reviews from Potter fans around the globe. A fully immersive park all on its own, though technically attached to the Universal Studios park, The Wizarding World of Harry Potter contains rides, restaurants, and enough site-seeing to make you believe you’re actually in the stories. You can hear Moaning Myrtle in the restrooms, visit Dumbledore’s office, drink pumpkin juice and butterbeer (the recipes of which were approved by J.K. Rowling), and see a quidditch match. You can even visit gift shops where if you’re looking to pick out a wand, a wand will pick you!

Let Daniel Radcliffe and MTV take you on a tour of the park here.

Watch a video documenting the grand opening of the park here.

The Gainesville Sun, of Gainesville FL, published in today’s paper their list of the Top 10 features of the new park. Here is a sampling of what they had to say (we wont spoil the rankings).

“Hogwarts: Trademark castle houses the new Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey ride and an elaborate queue with tons of detailing. Watch for the Mirror of Erised, Dumbledore’s office, living portraits, mandrakes, the Dark Arts classroom, levitating candles and more, all before taking off on the ride’s ‘enchanted benches.’ “

“Live entertainment: Expect regular performances by the Frog Chorus (an a cappella quartet plus two amphibians) as well as physical demonstrations by the contrasting styles of Beauxbatons Academy of Magic (dancing with ribbons) and Durmstrung Institute (very serious acrobatics and weaponry).”

For fans of Harry Potter it appears that The Wizarding World is just as wonderful as you could have hoped. Elements from both the books and the movies can be found, which bring to life one of the most successful entertainment franchises in history. If any of you readers out there get a chance to visit the park, drop us a line and tell us about your trip. We’d love to hear all about your experiences!

The Wizarding World's Grand Opening on June 18th

Interesting Factoid: The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has publicly expressed his displeasure about the fact that the Harry Potter park was built in the United States as opposed to England.

“I want to know why this Kingdom of Potter is not being built in the UK, and I won’t be fobbed off with any nonsense about the weather. They built Eurodisney in the Valley of the Marne, where it is at least as cold and drizzly as it is in London – and it has been a triumphant success”

I suppose it’s understandable that a number of Brits would have preferred the park be built in England because the character of Harry Potter is such a huge British icon, but calling Eurodisney a “triumphant success” just makes you sound crazy. The climate was no doubt a very big factor in the decision to build the park in Florida – a state which houses the most financially successful and well-attended amusement parks in the world. The Wizarding World in London would have made logical sense yes, but let’s be reasonable.

Nicolas Cage and Jay Baruchel in the upcoming "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," about a wizard training a teenager in magic

There have been a number of films to come out the past few years that incorporate young leading actors, particularly teenagers (or at least roles written to be teenagers), such as Twilight (1 and 2), Percy Jackson and the Olympians, and the Harry Potter series. And what’s more, the trend is continuing with films like Kick-Ass, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, the ongoing Twilight series, I Am Number Four, and I’m.Mortal. All of these films not only star young actors but appeal to the teenage demographic as well – naturally. I’m.Mortal, for instance, is a story about earth as a place where people never look older than 21, and so teenagers appear identical to their parents and others older than them.

The Hollywood Reporter claims that this is because studios are convinced that movies starring young actors can work in any genre. Plus, it helps support the idea that what are popular right now with audiences are fresh faces. The trick, they claim, is “casting astutely and marketing shrewdly;” finding young actors that can fit the parts – just like with adult roles – as well as prove marketable to whatever the film’s target audience is (teenage girls or teenage boys, say).

What all of this could mean is that, if these films prove profitable, you can expect to see more of them in the future.

Source: Hollywood Reporter

Quick Opinion: I’m not at all surprised to see more movies being made that gear towards teens. The teenage demographic is one of the largest for Hollywood movies (perhaps second only to families), and that was since before the recession. It only makes good business sense that the industry focus on these two primary audience types during a time when they’re trying to make the safest business decisions they can. What’s good about this new attention to teen audiences is that with more teen-geared projects to make, studios can afford to be more daring with which projects they green light. The teen movie genre has opened up to include material that is created for more niche audiences, who would have otherwise probably been ignored.

Add all of this to the following facts:

• some audiences are in fact getting tired of seeing the same faces over and over again and so introducing new talent will potentially raise the interests of a lot of people.
• Young actors are cheap and willing to work, so not only are they cost-effective but you know you’re going to get their best efforts. Less money spent on the cast means more money can be spent on hiring better hands and directors to build the film, increasing the overall quality of the product while also assuring at least decent quality performances (in theory).

The release of Kick-Ass, for example, might spark hope in some of you that niche teenage audiences are finally getting the attention they deserve. However, I wouldn’t be fooled into thinking that this new attention will continue any longer than until the time when they stop acting as a crutch for the studios. Once the recession ends, whenever that may be, I predict that the teen genre will go right back to where it was before – focused on boy-meets-girl high school dramedies. In the end, though, what’s really important is the job market for young Hollywood actors. Congratulations to them!

Would critics like Rolling Stone's Peter Travers be as influential if his reviews weren't published before the release dates?

In thinking of what kind of strange changes could be made to drastically alter the movie industry, I tried to think about how different things would be if we simply changed the time at which movie reviews were allowed to be published. Obviously most of them are written and published before the movies they judge are released into theaters, but some studios decide every so often to not hold critic screenings for some of their films. When this happens it is usually taken to be an indicator that the studio is not confident in its product and therefore wants to spare the film in question any bad publicity for as long as it can, which is up until the end of its first weekend.

What if, though, there were no preview screenings for critics period? Some might say this would completely change what most people take to be the function of a movie critic, which is to act as a sort of consumer reporter that evaluates the quality of a product and relays its findings and opinions to the public. No one wants to go to a “bad” movie for obvious reasons – it’s a waste of time and money. Right? So if there were no advanced critic screenings then how would people know which movies are worth their time and money, and which ones aren’t? Moviegoers would be forced to rely more on their friends, family, and general word of mouth. This may seem hugely inconvenient, but some studies show that people already put more stock into word of mouth than in movie reviews (this Variety article proves very enlightening on this topic). Read the rest of this entry »

Spider-Man (2002) helped make superheros relevant again in Hollywood

In a feature article on FilmSchoolRejects.com, author Landon Palmer lists what he argues are the most influential films of the past 10 years. The list includes such popular movies such as The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter franchises, The Dark Knight, Memento, Borat, The Passion of the Christ, Traffic, and No Country for Old Men, among others. But his list is not fabricated on the basis of popularity alone, as he also takes into consideration the impact these films have on each other, and their relativity with their social and historical contexts. Palmer writes very intelligibly; clearly articulating ideas that are grounded in logic and defended with sound reasoning. You may not agree with him on every choice he makes, but you’ll at least understand why he chose the movies he did and likely admit that said choices are not indefensible.

Some of the more interesting films he mentions are Munich and Jarhead, neither of which were big box-office bonanzas. These two were particularly political in their makeup, Palmer claims, but not preachy such as films like Fahrenheit 9/11 or The Passion of the Christ. However, Palmer goes on to say that these films’ political nature makes them inexorably tied to the contexts of their times, and thus probably wont stand the test of time as well as others on the list. At this juncture it’s impossible to say whether he could be right or wrong, but if such films are as influential as he claims it can’t be thought that them standing the test of time is impossible. Films of the ‘70s like Taxi Driver and Easy Rider were saturated in social and political commentary, yet they’ve lasted as cinematic symbols of excellence for decades.

Palmer’s article, doubtless to lead to controversy simply because of its nature (that is, as an argument), is an exceedingly interesting and impressive read for anyone interested in taking a look in the rearview mirror at the past decade of movies. No other articles I’ve found that take such practices, say, on Variety or that ilk, are as good as this. A highly recommended read.

Jason Isaacs

This idea was concocted by a few friends of mine, and I jumped up and down with excitement when they first told it to me. Most of you might recognize Jason Isaacs from his role as Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies, or the evil Colonel William Tavington in The Patriot (2000). And those who are more aware of his body of work might agree stronger with the notion that Isaacs is terrific at playing a smarmy bad guy.

The script for the next Batman movie is still in the works, but like everyone else we keep a close eye on all of the rumors that float around, one of which has been that director Chris Nolan is toying with the idea of including The Riddler as one of the next villains. Jim Carrey played The Riddler (aka Edward Nigma) in Joel Schumacher’s 1995 box office sensation Batman Forever, and it is pretty safe to say that Carrey is warmly remembered for his performance in that role. His cartoonish brand of comedy fit well with Schumacher’s vision, which attempted to capture the serial-comic flavor of the 1960s. However, being that Nolan sees the world of Gotham as a much darker, more mature place, goofy doesn’t seem likely to be the direction he’ll go if The Riddler is indeed destined to return to the screen. Enter Jason Isaacs. Read the rest of this entry »