Harry Potter

According to a story featured on Fox News, author J.K. Rowling has announced that two characters will die in the final book of the beloved Harry Potter series.

Rowling indicated that the key characters would be targets when she said in an interview: “We are dealing with pure evil here. They don't target extras do they? They go for the main characters.”

Amazingly, Rowling claims to have written the final chapter of the entire series in 1990, and has kept it under wraps ever since. She also revealed that there have been a few minor modifications to what she originally wrote but, for the most part, the series will wrap the way she envisioned it 16 years ago.

Harry Potter is not exempt from the list of characters that should be watching their back. The author, whose net worth was recently estimated at more than a billion dollars, spoke about not leaving a legacy character alive because the series should end forever with book 7.

Rowling expressed concern that someday a sequel that wasn’t authorized or written by her could be penned by someone else, after her death.

It’s an interesting perspective that I’ve never heard an author admit to. She would rather kill Harry Potter for good rather than risk the tarnishing of her cherished franchise at the hands of some hack looking to make a quick million 15 years from now. And you know what? I completely understand that.

No one can create the kinds of characters with the devoted following that Rowling has without being truly in love with the project. I know all the stories about Rowling being destitute and rising from the doles of public assistance on the heels of Harry Potter mania, but she didn’t do this entirely for money. Rowling lived this series, she loved it. She crafted it with passion and the kind of imagination that is really once in a lifetime.

It’s a little refreshing to see that Rowling has some respect for the franchise and for her talent that goes beyond its ability to be a cash cow. She has created a world and several amazing characters that captured the imagination of people on a global scale. She gave millions of children the desire to read, to write and, perhaps most importantly, to imagine.

It’s so rare to see a writer with that kind of power, with a character and world so completely engrossing, that it’s not even once in a lifetime—it’s truly magical. The Harry Potter series will be around hundreds of years from now, perhaps beyond. Kids that aren’t even born yet will lose themselves in the Hogwart’s Academy and the tale of Harry Potter.

So amazingly gifted is Rowling that adults, English students, English professors and “grown-up” people everywhere have taken up these books and devoured them. It’s a skillfully crafted world that you can’t help but lose yourself in. There’s something delightfully childish in her books, and yet something sinister. In some way she manages to allow us to enter the Harry Potter universe but without feeling childish. She has made adults open up their imaginations in a way they probably haven’t since they themselves were kids. Rowling has brought out that part of childhood where innocence still exists, but it’s being rubbed away. Where adulthood is just around the corner and yet the allure of being a child still pulls at you. Rowling's universe gives adults a taste of child-like wonder again, and it gives kids a whiff of adulthood and dark troubles. The very things that fascinate each of them.

It’s good to see that the public appreciates Harry Potter, and that feeling is reciprocated by Rowling. Every adult who has enjoyed her work should realize that this is the rarest of talents. We will not see the likes of J.K. Rowling ever again in this century. Unless, of course, we have a rememberall!

The Great Buck Howard

Here's an upcoming movie that looks interesting. The Great Buck Howard is the story of an aging and declining illusionist who is seeking to invigorate his career with the addition of a young protege. John Malkovich will be playing Buck Howard and in an interesting move, Collin Hanks will play his assistant while Tom Hanks plays his father, who strongly dissaproves of his career choice. The movie is written and directed by Sean McGinly (Two Days).

Filming is loosely scheduled to begin next month and the release date is still unkown.

New In Theaters

Opening this week in theaters and the official "See It Or Don't See It" reccomendation from MovieMojo:

The Lake House--Starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. Keanu Reeves, who borders on a wooden, stiff performance even during his action roles, takes on a low-key remake of the Sout Korean film Siworae. Bullock who, even at 40, is always cute and charming might provide some giggles. Over all the time travelling, star crossed lovers plot is going to wear thin quickly and Reeves isn't compelling enough to save dry material. It's my understanding the South Korean version was more sci-fi, less love story. MovieMojo says avoid this like an abandoned Muslim's briefcase in the airport

Nacho Libre--Starring Black and directed by Jared Hess. Hess is returning to the silly comedy genre fresh from his success with Napolean Dynamite. MovieMojo has a strict "Be careful with Jack Black Films" policy, but the involvement of Hess makes this interesting. As does the concept of a priest moonlighting in the professional wrestling circuit. If Black is under control a little it might be fun. MovieMojo says wait a week, get some word-of-mouth feedback, and then decide.

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift--Paul Walker does not return to the franchise that showcased his horrible acting and infuriating, silly smile that makes accentuates his dim wittedness. There's really nothing to say here unless you're either 10 or labatomized. MovieMojo says avoid this. Don't even rent it. If you do rent it, don't ever vote again.

Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties--Starring Jennifer Love Hewitt and Breckin Meyer. Bill Murray returns as the obese cat. Rosie O'Donel returns as a fat woman with a football players haircut. But that's another film entirely. This time Garfield goes overseas and is confusedd with another fat cat, resulting in his ascension to ruler of a castle. Much like the film cars, you should know what to expect here. The kids are going to love, there will be enough to make the adults snicker a little, and Jennifer Love Hewitt is in it. MovieMojo has a strict "Go see it if Hewitt is in it" policy. MovieMojo says, if you have kids, take 'em. If you ever found Bill Murray funny by himself, get a cat scan. Get it? Cat scan?

Daryl Hannah

A little Hollywood tidbit here. According to Fox News Daryl Hannah was arrested, along with dozens of other protestors, in Los Angeles yesterday afternoon. The star of Splash, Grump Old Men, Roxanne and very little else, was protesting the development of a warehouse on privately owned land that currently serves as a community garden. Also participating in the deomonstration was, who else, Danny Glover; there's an ex-celebrity that never met a cause he didn't like.

The landowner claims that the "gardeners" began squatting on the land 14 years ago and that he's been more than kind in letting them stay that long. However, he is paying $30,000 a month in mortgage and other fees and decided it's time to develop the property. He also claims that rather than be grateful the squatters have sued him, called his home and harrased him and picketed him. I think he put it best when he said,"After 14 years of free land use I think you say thank you."

While some protestors chained themselves to concrete filled barrels Hannah instead chose to go back among her own kind and climbed up a walnut tree. It's too easy isn't it? There's just too much to say, so please insert your own joke about a Hollywood nut hanging out in a nut tree.

The fire department had to use a bucket to elevate officers who subsequently took the has-been actress into custody.

Isn't it nice that Danny Glover and Daryl Hannah believe they should be able to tell people what to do with their own land? Good thing their not arrogant. I wonder if either of these nuts offered to compensate Mr. Horowitz for his $30,000 a month expenditure? Wouldn't that have been easier than climbing a nut tree? Who can afford to lose that money more, a few ex-celebrities or some private land owner?

And who will compensate the poor LA Police Officers who spent an afternoon trying to determine which were the actual nuts and which were the celebrities? I believe the took 200 walnuts into custody in the hopes that 2 of them were Hannah and Glover.

Chuck Norris Is Still Awesome

Check out these hysterical facts about Chuck Norris from the awesome Chucknorrisfacts.com website. Head on over there and read them all.

• When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.



• Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.



• There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.



• Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Chuck Norris.



• Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.



• Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.



• Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.



• Chuck Norris counted to infinity - twice.



• There is no chin behind Chuck Norris’ beard. There is only another fist.



• When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.



• Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.



• Chuck Norris’ hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.



• There is no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold, so he turned the sun up.



• Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.



• Chuck Norris doesn’t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.



• Chuck Norris gave Mona Lisa that smile.



• Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.



• Chuck Norris does not get frostbite. Chuck Norris bites frost



• Remember the Soviet Union? They decided to quit after watching a DeltaForce marathon on Satellite TV.



• Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.

Cars

I love reading reviews that claim cars has a weak storyline. It's just hysterical to me.

"Visually appealing, but weak story line," read one.
"Stunning Pixar animation, short on plot," read another.

Give me a break. It's a cartoon about talking cars for crying out loud. The animation is terrific and the movie has some genuinely funny moments, what more did you expect?

Cars is the story of Lightning McQueen, a hot shot young race car competing for the Piston Cup championship. He feels that he has nothing to learn from his elders, fails to appreciate those around him and proudly proclaims that he can do everything on his own. He ridicules his pit crew and laughs at the older race cars resulting in his being friendless and cocky.

McQueen gets lost enroute to the race and finds himself in Radiator Springs, a small town that's experiencing a depression of sorts. McQueen, played by Owen Wilson, embarks on a journey that teaches him the meaning of friendship and that some things in life are more important than trophies. Is it a complicated plot? No, it's inteded for children.Is it amusing? Yes. Visually interesting? Yes.

We're treated to Paul Newman, playing an old retired race care named Doc Hudson, Tony Shalhoub playing Luigi, and more.

There's not a terrific amount to say about the movie other than that it was fun, the actors were terrific and sounded as though they had a good time doing it, and the animation was spectacular.

Pixar studios spoiled us with Toy Story, sure, but this movie was no dud. Kids are going to love this movie and adults will find enough in it to keep them interested. Don't listen to some pompous critic tell you the story was under developed. That would be like opening a jar of baby food and complaining it was bland. If it's available in your area, go see it at the drive-in. That's what I did and it was a blast, this movie is just made for that unique outdoor viewing. If there's a drive-in where you live, take advantage.

The Break-Up

The Break-Up has enough insights into a relationship, and into human behavior in general, that everyone will identify with aspects of the main characters. The fact that it is a little clumsy or heavy-handed at times doesn’t so much distract as it does show promise; the writing behind the movie showed cleverness and wit and great sense of who people are. It’s a novice effort from two young writers, and it shows in parts, but when the skills are polished and they have found a better way to film the human aspects of a story I think they’ll achieve much greater things.

Vince Vaughn saves this movie and the producers knew it. The material here is weak enough that anyone else would have withered miserably trying to pull it off. Jennifer Aniston’s gift isn’t so much who she is but who she isn’t. She isn’t the actress that tries to steal scenes or wants to pull off all the jokes on her own. She clearly understands her role is to play the part with some heart and to respond to, or be the butt of, Vince Vaughn’s jokes. This is the second time Anniston played a supporting role to one of the funniest men in film, pulling it off easily with Ben Stiller in Along Came Polly. It’s disappointing to see critics overlook or dismiss Anniston as these roles are much more difficult than she gets credit for.

OK, Anniston is gorgeous and there’s always that in her favor, but there is more to her. Her performance is convincing when the movie moves from absurdly funny to sad and disturbing. The heartbroken Anniston is upsetting and we want nothing more than to see someone cheer her up. It’s amazing how much talent it takes, and how little ego, to be the one always reacting to the joke rather than making it. Jackie Gleason always said the he marveled at Art Carney’s ability to crack a joke, but Gleason understood that his gift lay in reacting to the other characters and that’s what he did. Anniston seems to get that too and after this film she should get her due.

The story pits Gary (Vaughn) and Brooke (Anniston) in an escalating war in which each of them tries to make the other jealous and convince them that yes, thank you, I’m getting along just fine without you.

The problem, predictably, is that back and forth spirals out of control and moves from the realm of harmless and funny and into hurtful and damaging. Poor advice from their friends coupled with a false sense of security concerning their own relationship leads to situation that seemingly can’t be reversed.

It begins with Brooke believing that Gary does not appreciate her or the efforts it takes to clean up after him and deal with his sports and video game obsession. Gary, on the other hand, feels like Brooke’s inability to understand how badly he needs a pool table is a serious problem.

The reason this movie can involve the audience at all is because both characters are likeable and we want to see them happy. It’s clear that neither one of them wants the break-up to happen and there’s plenty of moments were you know that one conversation, one word, or one apology could put a stop to the whole mess. It’s like rooting for a terrible sports team, you know they’re going to lose, you want to just leap through the screen and do it for them because from an objective distance their mistakes are so clear to see, but in the end all you can do is look away as things get worse.

Brooke continues to follow the bad advice from her friends and from her eccentric boss, played by a shriveled Judy Davis who looks as though she should be auditioning for a role next to the other dead people in the waiting room of Beetle Juice.

Gary takes his sweet time doing some soul searching before a tirade from his brother, played by the extremely talented Vincent D’Onforio, and a long overdue heart to heart from his best friend convinces him there may be something to the accusation that he’s thoughtless and selfish.

Brookes strategy of parading men in front of him to make him jealous succeeds in making him angry and convincing him it really is over while in real life, any rationale man could have seen right through the ploy and realized he should just take her back.

The main problem in this movie is that for the Break-Up to occur the main characters, funny as they are, have to be clueless. They have to blindly follow shoddy advice, they have to ignore the overt hints they throw at each other and skillfully avoid having the one conversation that could have straightened it out.

Interestingly, the same things that are problematic also add to the intrigue. Because we’ve all known that couple that should have been a perfect fit but for some reason, they just weren’t. In the Break-Up we want each person to change enough to make this work because on paper it would be a great match but in practice, they’re completely dysfunctional. So you’re left to root for them to be happy, just not together. In that way we share the sad realization that with them and come to understand this relationship is hopelessly broken and it needs to end for the betterment of them both.

In the end it’s a very funny film that has so much more to say about people and relationships than it actually does. It falls just short of being insightful, just short of being moving and leaves you wondering just what was missing; what it does accomplish is making you laugh and making you empathize. And for two young writers that I expect we’ll see more of it could have done a lot worse.

Why Movie Marketers Have It Wrong

One more word on the Weather Man--and this applies to a number of films recently: The marketing is what failed this film. Every ad or promo I saw made this movie out to be a whimsical comedy of sorts and downplayed the wonderful dramatic moments and moral dilemas that were key elements in the film. It was advertised much like the Family Stone which, as most of us know, was misrepresented as comedy but turned out to be reprehensible drivel and blunt modern day political correctness lessons. I have 2 problems with marketing a movie like this:

1. Doing this naturally assumes that there is no audience to be found for intellectual and dramatic films. It makes it seem as though a movie that was moving and intelligent could never succeed and so the audience must be tricked into thinking it's just funny fluff. Otherwise, they'll never watch it! That's rubbish. There are plenty of movie goers out there that appreciate an intellectual movie that inspires thought and not just mindless laughter. Movies are supposed to have something to say, there supposed to provoke introspection and conversation. Not all of us are looking for a feature length sitcom.

2. As a result of number one, audiences are dissapointed and the movie suffers bad word of mouth. This should be obvious to these genius marketers but somehow they continue doing it. Audiences buy a ticket for something like the Weather Man, which they think is a whimsical comedy, and instead see something much more in line with a dramatic and somewhat depressing film that they were not in the mood for. They then tell all their friends that is sucked. They feel cheated and ripped off. Why? Because it wasn't a laugh riot. I wonder what Gore Verbinski would say if asked to comment on that advertising effort for that film? Might he say that the movie wasn't supposed to be entirely a comedy? That the film was missrepresented?

It's a cheap tactic to fill as many seats as possible in the opening weekend and it ignores the fact that word of mouth will kill it in a week. It's unfortunate becase quality films like this one are lost and discarded when they don't deserve to be while disgraceful garbage like the Family Stone gets way more attention than it should.

Memo to Hollywood: Just be honest with us. Tell us what the movie is about and what it is. So you miss out on a few tickets from the 20 and under crowd. You have to realize that there is an audience for smart, intellectual and moving films! Any other approach is simply insulting.

The Weather Man

Recently, I took the time to view The Weather Man, a movie that has looked intriguing to me for quite a while. It’s a pretty large departure from director Gore Verbinskis usual fare but features just the kind of quirky character that Nicolas Cage was born to play; the combination of the two was unusual, to say the least.

Verbinski is best known for his Pirates of the Caribbean movies making this film, full of complex characters, raw emotion and difficult dialogue, something you wouldn’t think suited to his talents.

In the film Cage play David Spritz, a local TV weather man with a ruined marriage, a strained relationship with his children, a father in whose shadow it’s impossible to thrive and, in general, very bad luck.

Spritz bumbles his way through life, convinced his father can’t possible respect or be proud of him and not ever very sure if life has conspired against him or if he’s just a big screw up making his own troubles. Cage has mastered the art of staring thoughtfully into space, giving us the sympathetic and introspective character that doesn’t ever bore us or make us think he should stop whining. It’s a tough piece of acting and Cage is excellent in the film.

When Sptitz finds out that his father is not well, he embarks on a personal quest to make him proud. He figures that with some hard work he can live up to his fathers expectations by repairing his obviously (to everyone but him) irreparable marriage, establishing a closer bond with his children and succeeding at work.

And he needs to do all this while random passersby throw milkshakes and tacos at the weather man, while inexplicable bad luck plagues him and his inner turmoil continues trying to simmer to the surface and break out. It’s a noble undertaking indeed.

His father, Robert Spritzel (Spritz has shortened his last name on the advice of a TV marketing expert) is played by Michael Caine with his usual excellence. Robert is everything his son is not. He is together, well organized, goal oriented, successful, patient and wise.

The most interesting moments in the film come when Spritz tries, in a ham handed way, to emulate the wisdom of his father and struggles to impart some life lessons to his children. The trouble is it’s not a way of life for him, trying to be wise is just a mood, trying to teach his children valuable lessons just a passing fancy undertook for personal redemption.

For example, Spritz tries taking his overweight daughter ice skating and, of course, she falls and hurts her leg. In that moment the intellectually clumsy Spritz decided it’s time to teach the value of never giving up and makes her finish the race. Rather than imparting this lesson in a meaningful way we are dismayed to discover that she has suffered a severe knee injury and his insistence on making her race was more inadvertent cruelty than sage advice.
Spritz’s ex-wife, Noreen, played by Hope Davis, is forever at odds with seeing Cage for the man he so desperately wants to be rather than who he is. You get the sense that she thought she was marrying someone like his father and was rather surprised to find she had gotten a stripped down version.

Some of the shots that Verbinski gives us are inspired. They don’t just tend to supplement the movies mood but go the extra step and create it. It’s the difference between a creative shot of autumn leaves clumsily implying depression and a director, like Verbinski, who can create the sense of being depressed by finding the right elements in any given setting. He’s creative and interesting, often giving us a sense of isolation as it relates to Spritz that is incredibly powerful.

The characters here require thinking, something that modern audiences and critics don’t seem to care for. They don’t just open their mouths and explain themselves. Their real and subtle and you have to figure them out through their actions, both large and small, and in the things the imply. Especially in Spritz’s case as what he doesn’t say is often as important as what he does.

Robert Spritzel knows his son is in pain. He knows that he is a hugely successful writer and his son just doesn’t have it in him. But for all his wisdom we get the sense that he’s at a loss as to how to help. We come to understand that the elder Spritzel has given up any meaningful effort to mold and shape his son and has instead focused his efforts on saving and healing his grandchildren and sons ex-wife.

The film creates a sense of empathy that is so unique in film today that when we see Spritz through his own his eyes it’s truly depressing; we find ourselves not asking What will he do next? but What would I do next?

If had had one minor complaint with the movie it’s that some of the dialogue is pretty unrealistic and contrived. Hope Davis delivers a few lines that just make you want to wince, but she’s game enough that she comes as close to pulling them off as is possible.

As much as I liked Cage in this film the small difference that existed between brilliance and excellence was a tad too much Forest Gump. Any man as introspective and as aware of his own short comings as Sprtiz has enough intellectual activity going on that he isn’t bumbling along. Sure, he lacks focus and discipline, of course he looks to the sky when yet another bit of bad luck is foisted upon him, but he isn’t just meandering around stupidly and stepping in open manholes. Cage gives us sorrow and rage, he gives us some sense of being beaten not by life but by a maddening inability to “buckle down” and follow through. He lets us know how it feels to truly understand what wisdom is but to also understand that he can never attain it.

All in all this is a terrific film that should not be overlooked. It has a terrific cast and a brilliant director, it’s well worth viewing.