While watching Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Part I last night/this morning I had a few thoughts and questions. Not exactly critical analysis but it's got to go somewhere. No, really, it does or else it builds in my brain to a gigantic snowball of existential paranoia....

oh  SPOILER ALERT because I really just don't care and will probably say something that is in the movie that you didn't want to know like...

How does Hermione dye her hair in the middle of the forest? oh, right! it is probably a spell.

And when did Emma Watson become a woman? 

Te he! The boys look silly with there little teenage stubble. I am sure both Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint can grow full man beards and they just made it look dorky for the movie.

 I don't care how hard you try, there is little emotional resonance to watching an animated puppet die. The reaction to the theater I was in was mostly snickering with a few scattered "awwws" that you would get for a friends dead goldfish. Sorry. Way to sell it though.

Not related tot he movie, but the first guy to say something out loud during the previews is mildly amusing. the second exponentially less so. If you are making a joke when the film title is rolling then no one likes you. And I am sorry for all the times I started this cascade of bad jokes in my youth. But I was damn funny, right?

I kind of love Bill Nighy more and more each time I see him.

The scene where the Weasley twin comes in and catches Harry and Ginny kissing and has a tooth brush in his ear hole was hilarious. Even the jaded teenagers next to me thought so.

I kind of just want to give the Mallfoy's a big hug...

Alan Rickman is so perfect. so subtle and yet if you know what is going to happen you can definitely see it.

It's nice that the Harry Potter books are like popcorn for me and soon after reading them I forget almost everything. It makes the movies more enjoyable.

Harry and Hermione making out nude? Kind of creepy.

I would watch a whole animated movie of Beetle Bard! that was amazing! are you listening Warner Bros?

The ending was perfect because the theater let out this massive groan. No one said "That's it?" Just a groan of  "I can't wait to see what happens next!"

I think I was sitting next to the real life Brittany and Santana. They were a lot younger than the actors that play them.

And on the way to the theater I saw a group of deer hanging out with a skunk. It does happen!

What did you think of the movie?

an interesting article

Andrew Leonard at Salon.com was the lucky one to pick apart a conservative column and today’s lucky recipient was David Brook’s New York Times' article “Relax, We’ll Be Fine.” and not the whole article, but one specific paragraph. In the paragraph the Mr. Brooks is stating his opinion that Americans make great pop culture and there will always be a desire for pop culture. That’s it. That is the entire point that he is trying to make. He uses some big words to to try and class it up and I guess that is what Mr. Leonard has a problem with.

Mr. Leonard’s article perhaps is weakened because he chose to quote Mr. Brooks. If he had just made his point without actually showing Brooks’ words it would have been easier to follow his argument. As it was I was able to see that what Andrew Leonard was trying to say had nothing to do with what David Brooks was saying.

Here is a fundamental flaw in criticism; you never know what the reviewer is bringing with them to the piece. I am bringing with me the thought that Andrew Leonard is a liberal/democrat who does not like David Brooks because he is a conservative/republican commentator and that it would not matter what Mr. Brooks said but Mr. Leonard would mock it. I am probably wrong in this assumption, or at least am letting it way my review more heavily than it should. But there is little I can do about it other than tell you what I am thinking and let you judge my critical thinking (and hopefully not me or my own political beliefs which might surprise you) for yourself. That does not make for as entertaining of a read as pointing out how wrong someone else is though.

Should a review of a remake reference the original? And why is a comic website reviewing a movie?

Ok, the recently hacked Newsarama has not been solely a comic book site for some time now but the first question still stands. A remake or an adaptation is a work of art separate from whatever the inspiration for it may have been and deserves to be reviewed as such as well as being viewed as such by the audience. Of course this may be impossible or even what the adaptor wants. Obviously one of the reasons for revisiting material is to evoke some of what the original did and present it to a new audience or dazzle the first audience.

That is the prerogative of the creators involved and should not be the basis for the entire review of a film, which is exactly what Michael Avila did with his review of Clash of the Titans. The review/comparison does offer some insights into the creative process of director Louis Leterrier and the process of deciding to do the movie but this is too much for the review and bogs it down. Mr. Leterrier’s comments do not really offer much and definitely do not add to the review’s purpose.

A combination of review and interview does not save this from being a lackluster attempt to praise the movie and offers me little that is not handled better in other pieces on the movie and the director.

Maybe I just like negative reviews better…

Theatre is hard to do well. So is writing about it. Robert Hurwitt does a good job in a nice little review of Othello at the San Francisco Chronicle. It isn’t perfect and it isn’t a great read but tells me everything I need to know about the play and the interpretation. And it incorporates a simple synopsis into the body of the review instead of as an extraneous paragraph, a trick that many better writers have not even attempted. So thank you Mr. Hurwitt for redeeming my faith in reviewers.

Roger Ebert is enjoying a renaissance of relevance recently. I have never really read his reviews. I remember him from his TV show with Siskel and then Roeper.  But what better time to start reading than when he is at his best?

Perhaps I should I have waited longer…

If you have read any of my previous posts you will know that I think a review should be concise. If I should spend my time and money on a piece of art I want to do that and not read a reviewers reenactment of it. Worse is the rambling personal affection that a reviewer may have for something that I will never share. This is exactly what Mr. Ebert does in his review of 45365. It is really great that Mr. Ebert can relate to the small town life presented in the documentary, but it would have been helpful if he took the time from his reminiscing to tell me what the movie is about. I get no feel for why I should see this movie or the filmmakers intent for creating it, no sense for the artistic feel of the movie and no indication that it is even a movie at all. I do get the sense that Mr. Ebert would much rather be back in his old home town of Urbana, Illinois. Maybe it’s time for him to do just that.

I am sick. Io9 reviews are too long. interesting movie though.

I wonder if this happens in reviews of other mediums? Greg McElhatton over at Comic Book Resources has posted a review of the latest Batman comic, #697 in which I think one sentence was about that particular issue. The rest was a rant about the story line that ended with that issue and praise for the artists growth. The only reason I know that Mr. McElhatton enjoyed the book was the 4 1/2 stars at the top of the review. So do you recall a movie or book review where it is almost entirely about the creators other work? I suppose it does happen.

Because the headline made me literally say “What!?” out loud I am reviewing Io9’s piece on Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter by Seth Grahame-Smith.

Meredith Woerner seems to have mistaken this book for an intended biography. She spends much of the review pointing out that there are historical inconsistencies in the book. I like Io9 and read the articles with some frequency. I knew from the title of the book that there would probably be some liberality taken with The 16th President’s life story but I may not know the Io9 readership as well as Ms. Woerner.

The review does address the concern I would have about this book as to whether it is actually entertaining or just a shabbily produced sequel to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. I am also glad to hear that the book does not mock Abraham Lincoln but just adds a layer of altered history. 

I would say that this review has made me interested in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, but since the reviewer seems to assume that her readers are idiots I am not sure I can trust anything she said.

Carolyn See's review of Walking to Gatlinburg by Howard Frank Mosherstarts out more grippingly than many novels I have read recently. I’m not sure if that is a good thing. I wouldn’t be doing this blog if i didn’t think that there was an art, or at least craft, to write a critique of a work, but I am also doing this because many reviewers take themselves too seriously. The cult of critics is often maligned by artist and reader alike because they do not seem to be able to connect with the intended audience of a work do to their background, education or perceived snobbery.  In this way, the exquisite introduction by Carolyn See could backfire by alienating the reader. Or perhaps that is just what it did with me and I am  projecting.

Besides this the synopsis goes on for three paragraphs, and while there are helpful comparisons between Walking to Gatlinburg and other books that help to determine the audience for the Mr. Mosher’s piece, that is too long for a plot overview.  In fact the whole review is nothing more than throwing in particular scenes from the novel and how they influence the characters. This is more than a “review” in that it wants to make statements about the book itself rather than just a recommendation or condemnation. It falls far short of criticism, however, because the statements in no way further an understanding of the novel on an academic level.

In the end I am left with no understanding of why Carolyn See wrote this piece and because of my dislike of the review I gain no sense of the book being reviewed. Ms. See has made art for her own sake when she should have crafted a review for my sake.

Because it's there... I love Ta-Nehisi Coates. I feel that convention dictates that I should qualify that statement and say why I love him but I'm not really going to. I just do. Anyway, It seems that he enjoys the show "Cougar Town." He is able to concisely state his opinion about the show and even give me a sense of why I should watch it. At first I was going to pan this "review" as something that seemed like a payed plug for ABC but then I realized that it actually was a well crafted critique of a television series. This is why I read Mr. Coates' articles. But I am not going to watch "Cougar Town."