Halloween 2017

I'm a little out of practice, but here's what I watched for Halloween this year:

The Void (2016) - a Lovecraftian horror with shades of Silent Hill, Hellraiser, and creature effects that would do justice to John Carpenter's The Thing. You never know what you're going to get when going into a horror film - a stylistic tour de force or a cheap 'b' flick. While seeming like the latter, this fortunately leans more toward the former. A group of small town nobodies is besieged in a local hospital by hooded cult-like figures. But rather than a routine run-around hack-and-slash, themes of occult medical experimentation, dark gods, and dimensions to alternate realities are the rule of the day. Recommended.

The Babysitter (2017) - A geeky adolescent finds his courage as he struggles to survive when a night with the babysitter turns unexpectedly homicidal in this campy horror-comedy that was (to my disappointment) more suburban slasher than Satanic ritual. Nevertheless, it's got the style and the humor to be a throwback cult teen movie. Samara Weaving nails the hot-to-trot babysitter with a heart of gold (and also a dark secret), even if she doesn't make as convincing a baddie. For people who prefer fun over scary movies for their Halloween viewing.

Cabin Fever (2002) - Eli Roth (of Hostel fame)'s cult classic tongue-in-cheek horror about the outbreak of a flesh-eating virus in a backwoods setting, starring Rider Strong (Boy/Girl Meets World's own Shawn Hunter). Irreverently self-aware, this movie pokes fun at many horror tropes, while competently bringing the gross-out (no surprise there, given Eli Roth's reputation). I've never been prejudiced against "gorror" movies, but I do have to admit that I'm losing my stomach for them, and I have to say I was easily distracted while watching this one, and lost a lot of interest as lunch time loomed near.

American Fable (2016) - Good, in spite of its flaws. Tries to be a surreal, "modern day fairy tale" (think Pan's Labyrinth), but is too rooted in reality to get its feet off the ground (it wasn't really the movie I thought it was going to be from reading the description). The plot, however, is as compelling as it is a damning portrait of the lows to which its farmers stoop to save their lifestyle from urbanization (or something). The acting is a little wooden, and some of the characters are unrealistic caricatures (perhaps this was intentional), but young Peyton Kennedy is a vision of radiance and worth the price of admission alone.

Mindhunter (2017) - Not a movie, but a series, and a Netflix original, at that. Was introduced to it from a blurb in Time magazine of all places. It sounded interesting, so I gave the first episode a watch, and was instantly hooked. It's fantastically written, acted, and directed, based on the experiences of the guy who literally wrote the book on criminal behavioral science and (I'm guessing) invented the term "serial killer". The series depicts upstart FBI agent Holden Ford's crusade to redirect the bureau's efforts from trying to hunt inscrutable evil (and always staying one step behind), to learning to predict deviant behavior by studying the criminal mind first hand - by interviewing convicted killers, some of whom are disturbingly captivating. Also costars Anna Torv, formerly of Fringe. I cannot recommend this series highly enough.

Nightbreed (1990)

As a fan of Hellraiser, and of Clive Barker as a horror author, I decided to give Nightbreed a watch. Based on his story Cabal, and both written and directed by Clive Barker, Nightbreed is the tale of an initiate into a dark underworld of mutants and shapeshifting freaks, living beneath a graveyard, who may or may not be immortal and/or undead. Craig Sheffer (a David Boreanaz lookalike) stars as a man suffering from elaborate nightmares, who is fingered by his therapist (David Cronenberg himself, in a role that embodies the principle of "it takes one to know one") as the prime suspect in a series of brutal murders he doesn't remember committing. But rather than an adventure in a nightmare world of pure fantasy horror, this movie is more about the explosive confrontation between the world of the "naturals" and the world of the Nightbreed (a more naturalistic and less BDSM-oriented variation of the Cenobytes, whose leader is nonetheless played by Doug Bradley - in a less flashy role than Hellraiser's Pinhead), with a clear sympathetic bias towards the Nightbreed.

It's far from a flawless movie, but the sheer imagination on display is a sight to behold. The special effects are pushed to their limits (some would undoubtedly say beyond their limits), and you're left wishing you could learn more about the countless genetic oddities on display, especially during a scene in which the main character's girlfriend descends through the nightmare world of Midian - what to the uninitiated could very well appear to be Hell on Earth. I particularly liked the monstrous design of the Berserkers. That having been said, despite some fans' criticism of shifting focus away from the Nightbreed, I also really liked the masked killer, and felt that he could have carried a whole movie (not necessarily this one) of his own. Ultimately, Nightbreed collapses under the ambition of its too-little-developed mythology (perhaps the original story treats it better?), and fails to reach the level of a great film. I'm not sure it's strong enough to support the trilogy that it was originally envisioned to start off. But as a grand spectacle of imagination and special effects, it definitely carves itself a reputation.

The Keep (1983)

The Keep distinguishes itself right out the gate with a cast that includes Ian McKellen, and a score by Tangerine Dream. The cinematography is very artistic, and the setting most foreboding. As the movie begins, a Nazi regiment tasked with guarding a mountain pass in Romania sets up camp inside an ancient keep, whose caretaker warns them of terrible nightmares that have driven out anyone who has previously attempted to spend the night. Just fifteen minutes into the movie, and I'm actually shivering with anticipation of what's to come.

And what follows is far from predictable. Rather than a conventional monster movie, this film evolves into more of an epic battle between good and evil. And while it appears at one point to be shaping up into a Nazi deathwish fulfillment fantasy, the movie has some secrets yet in store. The special effects are admittedly primitive, but the monster, such as it is, has an effectively unique (and imposing) appearance. The music, meanwhile, contributes to an almost Lynchian atmosphere. I consider The Keep to be an unexpected gem, and an example of the positive effect that creativity can have when it is not unduly restrained by adherence to formula, as seems to be a frequent problem with modern cinema.

Maleficent (2014)

I was excited to go out and see Maleficent since it features the darling Elle Fanning as a Disney Princess (Aurora by name), even though the entire concept of the film is a re-envisioning of Sleeping Beauty with the focus not on the princess but on the evil villain Maleficent - played to great fanfare by Angelina Jolie. To prep for the new movie, I watched Disney's original Sleeping Beauty from all the way back in 1959. It suffers from the same singing-animals-and-happily-ever-after tone as your typical Disney movie (unlike, say Dragonslayer), but, the animation looks very nice, and at least as far as Disney movies go, it was pretty good. Maleficent herself makes a very brilliant and terrifying villain, culminating in a climactic scene involving her transformation into a vicious dragon.

This is all the more reason why a new take on Sleeping Beauty with Maleficent at the center of the story was such a good idea. Unfortunately, though, instead of being a chilling portrait of a villain (like, say, Maniac was), this movie goes a little too far in making the character sympathetic, such that it ultimately takes her fangs away to a large extent. It doesn't even work very well as an exploration of how somebody good could ultimately turn so cruel, because in the end, she's never actually that cruel. That's not to say that this version of Maleficent is not a good character - and truly, Angelina Jolie is fantastic in the role - but it just doesn't feel like the terrifyingly sadistic villain everybody loved to hate from the original Sleeping Beauty.

Indeed, one of the prime directives of this movie seems to be to spin a new yarn, revealing the "truth" of how things happened differently from the fairy tale everyone knows and loves, and manages to succeed pretty well on that count, in subverting some of the crucial plot details and playing with fans' expectations. For this reason, I was glad I went back and watched the original Sleeping Beauty first, to be able to appreciate these new twists, although the ultimate determination of which was the better story will be up to the individual fans. Certainly, though the trope of subverting fan's expectations - particularly in fantasy tales - seems to be beginning to verge on the cliché these days, it may not have made much sense to tell the same story that's already been told before. And as much as I have the habit of going into a story I've seen or read before, and wanting things to happen just so, I think I learned with Carrie that it can be problematic if you follow the blueprint too closely.

My main criticism of Maleficent, other than de-villainizing the titular character (and not featuring more of the princess :p), is the abundance of digital effects in use. I think that ultimately it comes down to a matter of taste - because the effects are certainly not poorly done - I just think that too much of them makes the movie look too fake. And it may be ironic to call for realism in a fantasy story, but one of my favorite fantasy movies of all time is Legend; and while it utilized many fantastic elements, even if some of them ultimately looked "costumey", it just felt more real. I fear it may be evidence of me actually losing touch with modern sensibilities, because it's obvious that elaborate digital effects are the soup du jour. I think Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings looked fantastic, but ever since then, it's gotten out of hand (and the new Hobbit movies are victims of this as much as anything else), and every fantasy movie is starting to look the same, with the same ridiculous-looking digital creatures (not the same creatures, but the same stylized look).

All that having been said, despite all of these flaws, Maleficent was not a bad movie, and I enjoyed it, to the extent that I could. For those who like the story, or fans of fairy tales or animated features in general, I still recommend the original Sleeping Beauty from 1959. And a note to Elle Fanning's agents: please, oh please, somebody cast her in the role of an elven maiden. She's got the perfect look for it. Seriously, she could replace Orlando Bloom in the next Hobbit movie, or even play his daughter. It's the perfect match of character to actress, and I will be sad if noone capitalizes on it.

P.S. Juno Temple was completely wasted in a throwaway role as the prettiest of the three bumbling fairies (who, in this version of the story, offer none of the wisdom or pathos of their previous counterparts, and serve instead purely as The-Three Stooges-like comedic release).

Cronos (1993)

Cronos is esteemed filmmaker Guillermo del Toro's first feature film, about an aging antique store owner who comes across a rare, centuries-old artifact developed by an alchemist who discovered the secret to immortality, at the price of an addiction-like craving for blood. It is sort of a Mexican tale of vampirism, with more of a scientific than a gothic mechanism at work. Ron Perlman (who stars as the titular character in del Toro's adaptation of Hellboy) costars as the roughshod nephew of a greedy industry head who craves immortality and has been searching for the Cronos device for decades.

Certainly, Cronos is a human story with heart, but I'll take the heartless creatures in 30 Days of Night over del Toro's alchemical vampire any day of the week. Del Toro is inarguably a talented filmmaker and creative storyteller, and he has a most admirable dedication to the dark side of human imagination, but I think that maybe his sensibilities don't completely mesh with mine. Pan's Labyrinth was a very good movie, and I have yet to see The Devil's Backbone, which I hear good things about, but I think that, especially considering how much he worships monsters, del Toro has yet to grow into the reputation he's been given.

Dragonslayer (1981)

Dragonslayer is unique, in that it is a Disney movie, and yet it is a gritty fantasy with gore, nudity, and adult themes. In fact, looking back on it from the perspective of today's media mentality, it is a wonder that this film is rated PG.

The story follows a sorcerer's apprentice who is tasked with slaying a mighty dragon who had been wreaking havoc upon the countryside until the nearest King entered a pact to supply it with a tasty virgin maiden every so often in exchange for peace. Each virgin is chosen by lottery, in a corrupt system where the rich and the noblemen's daughters are secretly spared from danger of being chosen. Naturally, some of the kingdom's residents would prefer that the dragon be gotten rid of altogether, and a sorcerer (or as may be necessary, his apprentice) is the only one with the power (and, perhaps, the courage) to attempt it.

Some of the special effects are, truthfully, dated by today's standards - after all, this movie was made before I was even born - however, the monsters are immaculate. The dragon itself is treated like a horror monster and not a fantasy creature - like it is in many other dragon movies - and is thus effectively frightening (think of the difference between the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, and the titular monster in Carnosaur). The settings are gorgeous; having been filmed in Wales and Scotland, you get a very foggy Dark Ages kind of a medieval look, in contrast with New Zealand's almost otherworldly beautiful Middle-Earth look that is popular in fantasy today. And the fire lake where the dragon dwells looks totally awesome. It's incredibly inspiring for an imaginative mind like my own, especially one rooted in fantasy and monster-based horror.

The story even manages to evade many cliches, despite how straightforward the premise is. Your heroes are atypical, the wizard rather than the knight faces the dragon, and the princess - well, I'll leave that as a surprise. Plus, there is some very intriguing subtext concerning the decline of paganism - a spirituality that powers the mystic forces of both the dragon and the sorcerer's magic - and the usurping of Christianity, a hollow but powerfully vain and egotistical religion. Altogether I would say that Dragonslayer is most definitely a cult gem of the fantasy genre.

Berserk - The Golden Age Arc 1: The Egg of the King (2012)

As a huge Berserk fan, I was eagerly awaiting the "new Berserk anime". For the unfamiliar, Berserk is a dark fantasy manga (Japanese comic) series by Kentaro Miura. It was adapted into an anime (Japanese animation) series once before, but its ending leaves off on a cliffhanger. So for years, fans have been clamoring for an extension of the Berserk anime series to cover the story as it continues in the original manga. Finally, the powers that be decided to animate a new Berserk series.

The only problem is that instead of continuing the story, they decided to start back at the beginning. This is not a surprising move, as, above all else, it will allow for the introduction of certain elements not included in the first anime series that are required for the plot's continuation. Ultimately, I think this series will serve mainly as a [really long] plot summary of all that's happened, to get us to the point where we're ready to show the rest of the story. And if the title credits animation sequence even in this first installment of the movie series is any indication (featuring flashes of characters not present until much later in the series), they do intend to continue the story beyond the end of the Golden Age Arc where the first anime series left off.

But we're left with the question of what purpose does this first installment of the series - the Golden Age Arc - serve if it's already been animated once before to excellent result? And the answer is, not a whole lot beyond setting up what's to come, as I just explained. You can tell they threw lots of money into the animation budget, as the animation quality is very high. However, I actually don't like it, as it tries too hard to be 'photorealistic', which actually puts it over the edge into the uncanny valley. It's just weird to see obviously cartoon-style characters moving ultra-realistically. I prefer to have room for my imagination to fill in the little things. Also you have the camera doing weird things to simulate live action filming (like one point when a drop of blood lands on the lens), which is cool when you're actually filming live action, but here it just emphasizes the artifice of the whole thing.

So I don't really like the animation, as expensive as it must have been. I don't especially like the new voices, any more than the old ones, which have been ingrained into my head as the characters' "right" voices. The music isn't nearly as good as the first series. And because there's less time, the story is jumbled up and progresses too fast without time to savor what's going on. Like the confusing dream sequence that instead of serving as exposition on Guts' history, raises more questions than it answers. And I know this is all a flashback to set up what's to come, but one of the great things about the first series is that it starts out and you know it's a flashback - but it's such a good flashback that it stands on its own. And so the flashback goes on so long, you forget that it's a flashback, except that in the back of your mind you're thinking, this is leading up to something. And damn right, it is, yet it still floors you when it finally gets there.

So I don't have much good to say about this first installment of the "new Berserk anime", except about what looks promised to come. The story covers everything from the beginning of the flashback (minus the present time setup that the manga story and old anime both start with - not giving you any idea really where the story is headed this time, for better or worse) to the part where Griffith tells Charlotte what a true friend is to him, as Guts listens on, after their encounter with Zodd the Immortal. I'm still interested to see how this series handles the second and third installments of The Golden Age Arc (if the snazzy, lifelike animation style is good for anything, it'll be the pivotal love scene and the Eclipse itself, I think). And I'm excited to see the story continue past where the first anime left off. Although, I wish they could have continued the story in the style of the first anime, and I hope the story-telling pace slows down after we get past the parts we've all seen already before.

Oh, and if this is your first exposure to Berserk, by all means, go back and watch the old series first!

The Company of Wolves (1984)

The Company of Wolves is my new favorite werewolf movie. Being based on The Little Red Riding Hood, it's more of an allegorical fantasy than a horror movie - which a lot of other werewolf movies are - yet it still manages to be genuinely terrifying. It actually succeeds at conjuring an atmosphere where wolves stalking the woods outside of a village are actually scary again. The cinematography is fantastically dreamlike, which becomes quickly apparent in an impressive nightmare sequence near the beginning of the film.

The story-within-a-story (within a story) structure of the narrative places an emphasis on the themes presented - the symbolism of the wolf as sexual desire, and the anxieties of a young girl entering puberty - rather than the whats and the whys of the characters' lives, which is an element that has attracted criticism from some viewers, but earns my enthusiastic support. Angela Lansbury stars as the old-fashioned grandmother, intent on warning her granddaughter about the wolfish desires hiding within every man. Sarah Patterson (who is remarkably actually 12 in this role) plays the pretty young girl who eventually dons the red hooded cape, with a confidence and curiosity that belies a strength and uncertain knowledge that Granny's outdated perspective on gender relations can't comprehend.

"If there's a beast in men, it meets its match in women too."

In fact, this seems to be one of the themes of this treatment of an ages old tale, which is rife with potential sources of symbolism. The morality is troubled at best, as even though the wolves (those that are hairy on the outside, as well as those that are hairy on the inside) are characterized as a threat, they are at times sympathetic, and almost human. This could perhaps be a statement on the ambiguity of feeling that accompanies one's sexual awakening - that one is taught to fear their animal desires, yet maturity necessitates taking ownership of them, and realizing that one's anxieties often exaggerate the perceived traumas of reality. The story of Little Red Riding Hood is an inspiringly deep wellspring of creative thought, and while no adaptation can comprehensively explore every facet of its interpretation, The Company of Wolves crafts a beautiful, haunting, and thoughtful meditation on some of its central themes.

Notes on The Deathly Hallows (book version)

Warning: Harry Potter spoilers!

Just barely over a year since I became interested in the Harry Potter series and started watching the movies, I have now finished reading the books!

And this time, I finally decided to write down notes as they came to mind while reading the story, instead of waiting till the end to pull my thoughts together.

* I'm surprised that Dudley redeemed himself, in the end. I guess that makes him a less pathetic character than Draco?

* While not unattractive in the movies (though she is inevitably overshadowed by Emma Watson's Hermione Granger), judging from the chapter illustrations, Ginny is a lot prettier in the books. Hence, I mind Harry pairing up with her (instead of Hermione) less than I do when I watch the movies (which are filled with great Harry x Hermione moments).

* Wow, I just discovered that some people ship Tom/Ginny (like from Chamber of Secrets), and I think that's fantastic. (Okay, that note wasn't actually related to this story)...

* Much clearer antagonism between Harry and Scrimgeour in the books. He practically grills them like a police investigator during the reading of Dumbledore's will!

* Even with the Deathly Hallows movie split into two parts, it's amazing what didn't make it into the movies. Like how Regulus got that locket, and Grindelwald's association with the titular Deathly Hallows. This is good stuff we're talking about.

* It's fascinating that with Kreacher, we're given a nice middle ground for how to treat house elves. You don't have to forcibly deny them their lifeblood, the work they are proud of doing, you just have to treat them with fairness and respect. It might be tempting to have a slave who is forced to do your bidding, but considering that elves have some nice tricks up their sleeves, it's probably better to get them to help you because they like you, not simply because they have to. Anyway, it's better for your conscience, and it shows what kind of a person you are, the way you treat your slaves.

* Rather convenient that Harry's starting to see into Voldemort's mind again. Not that I'm complaining, those bits of exposition are both exciting and integral.

* Dumbledore really was pretty distant. I guess I could understand if he didn't like to talk about his family, but there was more he could have told Harry, at least as much as using the sword to defeat the Horcruxes. I know he trusted Harry to be able to figure it out on his own and all, and he was an extremely busy man, but Harry had always seemed to be resentful of Dumbledore's distance. I would have thought, apart from wanting to protect Harry from the truth, that maybe his admiration of Harry would have led to more of a connection between them. Although I can't really fault Dumbledore for not treating Harry with respect (like few else do), even back when he was just eleven.

* Wow, after Harry and Hermione visit Godric's Hollow, it's such a low point, even more than I remember it being in the movie. With Ron gone, and Harry's wand broken, they didn't find the sword, almost got killed by Voldemort (who himself actually showed up!), and most incredibly of all, Harry inadvertently helped Voldemort discover who the wand thief was that he's been looking for! And when Harry re-experienced Voldemort's attack on his parents, it's amazing the confusion between Harry and Voldemort, that you can't even really tell if it's the one or the other...

* Amazing that Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends. Even so, I don't think Dumbledore's letter was as damning as it was supposed to be. I've had plenty of discussions like that in my own youth. I'm sure it was a difference of interpretation, that led Grindelwald to become a powerful dark wizard, and Dumbledore to be the icon of respect that he was. Just because he thought Muggles could stand to benefit from the powers of wizards doesn't mean he wanted to enslave them or kill them on a whim or anything of the sort. Even so, I do agree that Dumbledore should have told Harry much more than he did. It's to a point that I've lost a lot of my respect for him. On the other hand, his current actions (noble and not) may be an attempt to make up for what transgressions he may have committed in the past. If anything, it seems that Dumbledore, immensely talented though he was, is not perfect (maybe not even close), even though he may have been right about Snape all along (the one thing that seemed to be the most obvious evidence of his flaws).

* Xenophilius (awesome name) strikes me as something of a cryptozoologist. With the Lovegoods, you have to wonder if they're outright crazy, or if there's some merit to their mysteries. Take Luna. She was one of the few in Harry's group who could also see the Thestrals, ironically "proving" that Harry wasn't crazy in seeing them. And she believed Harry's story about Voldemort's return before most. So you want to believe there's something to her ability to discern truth in the world, and you begin to wonder if the crazy things she talks about aren't true, after all. And Xeno, he knew all about the Deathly Hallows - it makes you think they have inside knowledge on things. But then again, maybe it's just that they're so gullible that they're the first ones to believe those things in the world that are true, but are so improbable that most others don't believe them. On the other hand, it seemed like Xenophilius knew that Erumpent horn wasn't really a Crumple-Horned Snorkack's horn, and he was going to use it to trick the people that took Luna. Yet he insisted (as he must, to keep up appearances, so that the trick would work) that it was indeed the horn of a Crumple-Horned Snorkack. Was this just an unusual circumstance, or is he not as sincere about other things as he makes himself out to be? It's all quite a mystery. No doubt, though, that Luna is unusually sincere, loyal, and a good friend.

* The chapter "The Deathly Hallows" is clearly a turning point, but it's also gotta be one of the most expository-rich chapters in the entire Harry Potter series. I'm so used to getting mere glimpses of exposition here and there, being served with more questions than answers, all throughout the series, which is frequently frustrating. But here in this chapter, we get so much. It's thrilling! I'm glad the group acknowledged that they have one of the Hallows already (the Invisibility Cloak), which went entirely unmentioned in the movie, even though I had been left with the conclusion that it was not unique (other members of the Order were using other invisibility cloaks, unlike in the movies where the cloak was unique). Also exciting to think of Harry being a descendant of the three brothers in the original story (although, wouldn't that also, frighteningly, mean that he's related to Voldemort? And wouldn't that mean that he's also descended from Salazar Slytherin?). And shocking that Harry suspects the Resurrection Stone is inside the golden snitch so early in the story. I love that Harry is so possessed with the idea of collecting the Deathly Hallows and the power/protection it will bring him. Maybe it's immodest or whatever, but he is fighting at a disadvantage, after all, and it's a very exciting goal to have in a fantasy story. I didn't feel as much emphasis on the Hallows in the movie, they were almost incidental, like some trinkets they happened to come across (except maybe the wand, which Voldemort [was allowed to, as a dark and proud wizard] make a big deal about) in the course of their journey.

* Wandlore is fascinating. If I were a wizard, I think I would be tempted to become a wandmaker.

* How the hell is Aberforth the Hog's Head's barman? In the movie, it looked like he was hiding in some underground bunker or something. Did anybody know who he was? He's supposed to be this big mystery, and now it feels like he's been hiding in plain sight all this time...

* The Deathly Hallows is definitely shaping up to be the best book in the series, with all that goes on. Breaking into Gringotts, the Horcruxes and the Hallows, on the run from the Death Eaters, and of course the great concluding battle against Voldemort. Plus it's totally awesome to finally get a look inside the Ravenclaw common room (I love that the password is answering a question!). ;-)

* When Voldemort kills Snape, I can't help thinking (and I had the same thought when I watched the movie), that his method of killing is highly suspect. I mean, it's pretty darn convenient that he kills Snape in a way that leaves him alone and conscious for the last few moments of his life, for Harry to slip in and take his memory. I don't suppose Voldemort knew Harry was hanging around, but considering the meaning behind his killing of Snape (re: the Elder Wand) I would have thought he'd stick around to make sure Snape was dead, as well as to kill him with his own hands. Is he so proud and overconfident as to overlook the surety of a nice, quick Avada Kedavra curse, which he's used so many times before? I mean, honestly, even if Voldemort was right about the wand passing into the hands of the one who killed its previous owner, then even by that logic, the wand would be Nagini's, not Voldemort's...

* Speaking of, I always thought it was curious that Avada Kedavra is so reminiscent of the antiquated magical spell "Abra Cadabra". Plus the "Kedavra" part seems to suggest "cadaver", which the spell can be said to create. The spell names are actually really well done in this series, often foreign-sounding but subtly suggestive of their effects. Like the Cruciatus Curse which subjects a victim to excruciating pain.

* Snape is a tough nut to crack, there's no two ways about it. I guess that's what makes him such an effective spy. I think Snape was a generally unpleasant person, with a genuine interest in the Dark Arts, who nevertheless had sincere feelings for Lily. It wasn't enough to change him into the kind of person Lily would have liked (I would argue that such a thing is impossible - we are who we are), but it was strong enough that he never wavered in his devotion to her. [Incidentally, I knew (with the benefit of foresight) that when Snape called Lily a Mudblood in that one memory Harry spied on during Occlumency lessons, it was something he regretted; I figured that even more than his humiliation at James' hands, it was that outburst against Lily that made that memory one of his lowest and most shameful].

So when Voldemort threatened Lily's life, Snape was forced to make a decision, and his devotion to Lily was stronger than his devotion to the Dark Arts. So he pledged his allegiance to Dumbledore, and even though they couldn't protect Lily, Dumbledore convinced him not to let Lily's death be in vain. I think from that point forward, Snape was genuinely good, if still a generally unpleasant person who was still interested in the Dark Arts. (And his attitude towards Harry was complicated by the combination of his hatred of James Potter and his desire to honor Lily's memory). Voldemort never believed Dumbledore's claim that love was the strongest kind of magic, and I think that's the reason why he trusted Snape, even to the end (and I do believe Voldemort trusted Snape, even at the moment when he killed him). He had to know about Snape's feelings for Lily, since Snape begged him to spare her, but he probably shrugged it off, not thinking that love could possibly override one's devotion to the Dark Arts (especially one as dark and unpleasant as Snape - who could imagine that one like him could feel love?). Yet another personal failing that led to Voldemort's fall.

But the most poignant aspect of Snape's most personal memories, in my opinion, is the point at which Snape implores Dumbledore never to reveal his devotion to Lily, to which Dumbledore responds, "My word, Severus, that I will never reveal the best of you?" I think that, right there, is Severus Snape in a nutshell.

* More answers when Harry "dies" and gets to talk with Dumbledore once more. I think that better explains Dumbledore's plan to die at Snape's hand, since he was dying anyway since foolishly putting on the ring/Horcrux (tempted by the Resurrection Stone - another detail left out of the movies). Dumbledore (and many of the characters) seems more human in the books, which have more time for exposition and characterization than the movies. He's also less perfect. I really like and respect him a lot, but after everything that's happened in this last book, I don't know that I revere him quite as much as I used to. He's less of an untouchable role model, and more of a flawed person, albeit an uncommonly respectable one. Maybe that's for the better.

I like that this series is full of complexity, and you have flawed characters like Dumbledore, who has dirty secrets despite being so well-loved, and Snape, who is a courageous hero in spite of his slimy personality and dubious proclivities. And the stance against trusting both the media and politicians throughout the series is very refreshing. After Dumbledore's parting speech, though, I really wanted Harry to gather the Deathly Hallows, even after it's been explained about how dangerous coveting them is - he was the one who deserved them in the end. I guess maybe I'm not as mature yet as Harry is at the end of the book. :p I guess this series is more than just an entertaining fantasy, but something of a life lesson, too, in certain ways.

I minded Harry coming back to life less in the book than I did in the movies, but I'm not sure if it's because, knowing what's supposed to happen this time around, I'm less committed to the seductive thought of Harry Potter dying at the end of the series, or if it's because the added exposition given by the books makes it seem less like cheating. Perhaps it's a combination of the two.

* Harry and Voldemort's duel was a lot more exciting in the book. The movie seemed to focus on the flash of the spells, whereas in the book, the verbal confrontation between the two wizards was emphasized, and that made it feel more personal, and more satisfying - Voldemort being defeated not just as a wizard, but as a person. And ultimately, it felt less like Harry winning by a "wand technicality", like it did in the movie, and more that he truly earned his victory.

* The Afterthought (er, Epilogue) actually bothered me less in the book. It was actually kind of touching, with the kids hopping around, the excitement of heading off to Hogwarts fresh in the air, recalling back to Harry's first trip on the Hogwarts Express all those years ago. A fitting coda to the series, I think. And I can't help noticing that Harry's son, Albus Severus Potter, if you take his initials, they spell out ASP, which is a type of snake...

Notes on The Half-Blood Prince (book version)

Warning: Harry Potter spoilers!

* I noticed in the earlier books that the author used a strictly limited third person point of view focusing on Harry, such that we, the readers, were not privy to any scenes where Harry was not present. We learned about Voldemort's resurrection - as the rest of the wizarding world did - because Harry was there when it happened. This was particularly apparent in the last book, as Harry's sharing of Voldemort's dreams/feelings felt almost like an excuse (though a good one) for us, the readers, to be able to know what Voldemort was up to without leaving Harry's presence.

Knowing that The Half-Blood Prince opens with a scene far removed from Harry - when Snape makes the Unbreakable Vow (and then the official introduction of the new Minister) - I was wondering if the book would deviate from Harry's perspective for that. I don't know if it's the first time the series has done so, but I thought it was interesting enough to be worth mentioning. Indeed, now that Voldemort is back and threatening the world outside Hogwarts, there are things of importance happening even beyond Harry's scope of knowledge!

* And speaking of Snape... Knowing what I do, having already finished the series in movie form, I can't help looking at Snape as a good guy. But Bellatrix's interrogation (due to her rightful distrust of him) reveals an important point - that Voldemort, a highly skilled Legilimens, grilled Snape on his involvement with Dumbledore at Hogwarts, and not only did not kill him, but decided to retain his services as a Death Eater/spy.

There are only two explanations for this - either Snape was able to convince Voldemort that he's bad, or Voldemort believed that he still has use to him despite his lack of total allegiance. In the first case, we are led to believe that Snape really is bad (and since the series' conclusion seems to contradict this view, I think it's possible that he legitimately "swings both ways", and can't conclusively decide between good or evil, which is why he can convincingly fool both Voldemort and Dumbledore) - unless...I suppose Snape could have extracted his most sensitive memories before meeting with Voldemort - like he did before Harry's Occlumency lessons in the last book. Presumably (judging how the magic is allegedly supposed to work) Voldemort can't read Snape's thoughts that aren't currently in his head at the time of reading.

In the second case, it's possible that Voldemort knew Snape's true loyalties lie elsewhere, but nevertheless had reason to believe that retaining his services could be beneficial to him in the long run. Considering that Snape's involvement is crucial in Voldemort's plan to assassinate Dumbledore, this is plausible. So plausible, in fact, that I'm beginning to wonder exactly how much use Dumbledore's brilliant plan to let Snape kill him to earn the Dark Lord's trust really was. What did they gain after all? Thinking back (to the movies), it might have something to do with tricking Voldemort into not understanding how Dumbledore's wand works. Didn't he also have something to do with giving Bellatrix a fake sword of Gryffindor? Yeah, wasn't he the one who showed Harry where the real sword is, which is of course integral to the destruction of the Horcruxes?

At any rate, it's complicated, and I'll have to wait and see what happens in the final book.

* I have to admit, I don't understand why Slughorn was so resistant to giving Dumbledore his memory. I know that he was ashamed of giving Tom Riddle the information he needed to create his Horcruxes, but as in the end Harry assures him, giving up the memory is the best and only way to make up for that, and is (in Dumbledore's opinion), crucial to fighting back and ultimately defeating Voldemort. I don't care how ashamed he was, and how much he might have been implemented in aiding the Dark Lord's rise to near immortality, but withholding that memory is nothing short of active resistance to the Order [of the Phoenix], and outright protection of the Dark Lord. Then again, he was head of Slytherin, not Gryffindor, so I guess I shouldn't expect noble actions of him where self-serving deeds could suffice.

* I love that the book delves deeper into Tom Riddle's life history, as well as the significance of the Horcuxes, than the movies did. It makes a lot of sense that the plan to defeat Voldemort would require diving into his mindset, and looking at the kind of person he is and was, in order to locate and take advantage of his weaknesses. The very fact of knowing about the Horcruxes is evidence of that - how important it is to understand Voldemort in order to defeat him - but I think the movies underplayed that fact.

And the Horcruxes themselves were regrettably glossed over in the movies. I think the idea of the Horcruxes is wonderfully fascinating - not just the idea of using items to harbor portions of your soul, as if they were extra lives, but the fact that they are treasures! I love treasures, and especially collectible treasures that form a set. But it's more effective if you know something about why those treasures are valuable, and the trouble it took to acquire them. I don't recall the movies ever mentioning that the ring was Voldemort's grandfather's ring, that the locket was his mother's, and that both were family heirlooms that presumably belonged to Salazar Slytherin himself! And I also like the idea of collecting trinkets from each of the founders of Hogwarts. It really is too bad the movie didn't include the scene where Voldemort asks Dumbledore for a teaching job at Hogwarts; it seems to me like that's a perfect scene to illustrate the transition between the curious Tom Riddle, and the malevolent Dark Lord.

* Dobby is less annoying in the books, because since he appears more often, he has more chances to demonstrate how helpful he is. Whereas, in the movies, he shows up in The Deathly Hallows and all you've got to remember him by is the crap he pulled in The Chamber of Secrets.

* I'm less annoyed by the Hermione and Ron pairing in the books, I think partially because I see Hermione more as a brilliant nerd, than the brilliant gorgeous nerd that Emma Watson makes. I still think she deserves better - namely, Harry - but what can you say if Harry simply doesn't have those feelings for her? Regardless, I thought Harry and Ginny's kiss (finally, towards the end of the book), was charmingly sweet. Even though it directly preceded the very terrible events of the book's conclusion, quickly destroying the happy feeling it created. The whole scene in the cave was very creepy and suspenseful.

"It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing more."

* The "ghosts are transparent" exchange between Snape and Harry was hilarious! Snape is an off and on character - he was downright pathetic at the end of The Prisoner of Azkaban, but when he's on, he's really cool. The scene where Harry unknowingly uses Snape's spell to put Draco in the hospital - wow, what a scene, with Snape chastising Harry for using "very Dark magic", and one of his own spells, at that. At the end of the book, during the chase to escape Hogwarts, when he yells at Harry to stop calling him a coward - that was real. It has to take courage to be sneaky enough to double-cross the Dark Lord, and presuming Dumbledore's trust is founded, for him to agree to kill a truly great wizard that he respected and who treated him well (the sort of treatment I get the impression he hasn't received much of throughout his life) in order to do so. But so few people know enough about him to understand (and not knowing is precisely why they distrust him). He's a tragic character, that's for sure.

Red Riding Hood (2011)

Red Riding Hood is, basically, The Little Red Riding Hood adapted for the Twilight generation. It's not a bad movie, but it's not a terribly good movie either. As a fantasy, it's not very convincing. As a drama, it's not very believable. It's too smooth to be very scary, although it works decently as a thriller. But the CG is distractingly obvious - horror requires grit and substance.

The film works best as a mystery - indeed, I was compelled to continue watching largely to find out who turns out to be the wolf. I don't know that it's a good mystery, because though there were many legitimate candidates for wolfhood (Red Riding Hood not excluded, with the woodsman ironically being the most visibly suggestive candidate), I wasn't invested enough in the fantasy world to care about following all the clues and making note of the 'rules' (assuming they're consistent), so I don't know whether it's actually intelligent or just lazy. But it is a mystery that wants solving, even if the paranoid atmosphere recalls much better films that have gone the "killer among us" route.

However, in spite of how it turns out, I'd be just as willing to believe that Father Solomon was running a racket, tricking villages into submission by introducing werewolves that only he knows how to effectively fight. I guess that shows you how unconvincing the characters were, that I'd just as soon believe them to be something else, rather than what the script apparently intends. I find it amusing in a not necessarily constructive manner that this is not the first film in which Gary Oldman has played a character who fights werewolves (harking back to Sirius Black in The Prisoner of Azkaban).

If not effective, it is a pretty film, helped in no small part by the luscious features of Amanda Seyfried as not-so-little Red herself. Although she is gorgeous, and has a more childlike demeanor than most women her age, I couldn't help noticing that she's not as young as her character is portrayed. Though she's not supposed to be a child, as she is in the prologue, when the narration jumps ten years into the future, it looks more like twenty years have passed. And I have a hard time believing that in this [admittedly make-believe] pre-modern era, one's parents would wait until a girl is twenty-five to arrange her marriage, and that, being as beautiful as she evidently is, noone else would have made arrangements of their own long before that time.

Now, I have no problem with an 'adult' telling of Red Riding Hood (actually, the original version is said to have been pretty gruesome already), but I've seen it done better before; and if you're going to make it 'adult', you might as well make it gritty. Red Riding Hood is sensual and romantic, but it's not sexy. It's mysterious and thrilling, but it's not really frightening. And most unfortunate of all, it tends to drag in the way that you feel like somebody had the idea to put their own spin on the story, but it's something that would have been better accomplished in a shorter format (or else with a better script) - here, the less-than-satisfying filling brings down those elements of the story that might actually be clever and/or original.

Notes on The Order of the Phoenix (book version)

Warning: Harry Potter spoilers!

* When Harry was waiting over the summer for news of Voldemort's return, it reminded me of what it was like after 9/11, when we all (or at least I) thought World War III was coming, and then nothing really happened.

* I am in love with Nymphadora Tonks' special ability. I would kill to be a metamorphmagus. I used to think that if I could have one magical item or ability from Harry Potter, I'd take an Invisibility Cloak; but upon further reflection, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to be able to willfully change my appearance.

* I love how Hogwarts descends into chaos after Umbridge ousts Dumbledore. It just goes to show, you can only push so far, before the oppressed begin to push back - when the cost of obedience outweighs the fear of punishment. It's just a shame it takes that long, and that it's only effective when enough people are willing to fight back that they can't be easily stifled and singled out.

* I can't believe Umbridge was prepared to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry! I was convinced at that point that I would view Umbridge as a Dark Wizard (Dark Witch?) - even if in no way affiliated with Voldemort. But then later, when even Harry used the Cruciatus Curse in his anger after Sirius was killed...I figured, as much as I still hate Umbridge, I have to at least give her the benefit of that doubt, else I'd have to consider Harry a Dark Wizard too.

* I was thinking that Voldemort must have been allowing the Ministry of Magic to go about its business, because out of coincidence, it happened to be working in his favor. Not believing the rumors of Voldemort's return meant that the Ministry was helping the Dark Lord to stay hidden and unknown. Plus, their meddling with Hogwarts was directly undermining Dumbledore's authority. But Voldemort was so focused on getting the prophecy, and scared to face down the Ministry head on in the end, that I guess maybe it wasn't necessarily part of his strategy, but just a coincidence in his favor.

* Finally, evidence that Dumbledore is not infallible, even if it has nothing to do with his trusting Snape - and I could see it all along:

"Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels. But old men are guilty if they forget what it was to be young..."

It's obvious that Dumbledore's plan wasn't working re: getting Harry to learn Occlumency. His mistake - a mistake that too many make too frequently - was to try to control another person's behavior, believing that lying to (or withholding information from) them is the best way to trick them into following your path. In this case, it was Dumbledore tricking Harry into learning Occlumency, when Harry's instinct was to resist those lessons. How could he be so blind as to not see that being honest and forthright with Harry was the best (indeed only) way to accomplish what must be done? But yes, it was his love and protective instinct that precluded him from being able to do it.

It's like in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark. The old househand warns the new occupants not to open the bricked-in fireplace. He doesn't tell them why, apparently not realizing that their curiosity (and lack of a good reason) would only make them more eager to open up the fireplace and see what's inside. Maybe they wouldn't have believed him if he told them there were evil murderous spirits inside, but it couldn't have hurt their chances of opening up the fireplace against his wishes.

I'm getting diverted, but it's the same concept. Trying to trick someone into behaving a certain way by lying to them or withholding important information, instead of being honest and open and giving them the opportunity to choose to do the right thing, with full knowledge. I really thought Dumbledore of all people was better than that. Not to give the wrong impression, I still respect him and all that - and indeed, his blunder makes for a great example. And after all, he is aware of his mistake and regretful of it like few would be.

* Snape came off pretty pathetically in the third book. In this book, it's Sirius who comes off pretty pathetic, ignoring his tragic demise. Cooped up in his old house that whole time, eager to be reckless... It's a shame his hands were tied and he couldn't go out and be more of a hero.

* On a related note, James Potter doesn't come off very well via Snape's memory. Not very well at all. Of course, it's a little unfair to judge his character based on what is Snape's worst memory (or one of them), and quite possibly one of James' least proud moments in his life. We all have bad moments like that, when we do things we are not proud of, and it would be grossly unjust to judge a person's character based entirely on one of those moments. Still, James' arrogance does not come off well at all.

* Still looking forward to learning more about Snape's past, and his motivations, in the last two books.

* I was kind of underwhelmed to learn that Hermione's patronus is an otter. What's so great about otters? It's kind of unremarkable. On the other hand, it's only one letter shy of "Potter", so maybe it's an indication that Hermione truly does belong with Harry. :3

* I was relieved when Harry finally did his interview and told his story to the wizarding world. I really felt, all along, that the majority of the people sneering at him didn't necessarily disbelieve his claim about Voldemort's return, or believe the things the papers were saying about him. I think they just wanted to hear his story, to know just what happened, before coming to any kind of conclusion. Granted, I know it's not easy for Harry to talk about it, but I think he should have at least understood that - that they just needed to know more.

* In this book, one of the characters asks Hermione the question I've been dying to ask her - why isn't she in Ravenclaw? Predictable answer - the Sorting Hat considered it before finally putting her in Gryffindor - but it's nice to actually hear that confirmation that Hermione is total Ravenclaw material. Of course, given Cho and her friend's behavior, that may indicate the difference between Ravenclaw and Gryffindor, with an emphasis on Gryffindor's honor.

Notes on The Goblet of Fire (book version)

Warning: There be Harry Potter spoilers in this post.

* I love that Moody's "Mad-Eye" can see through things - even Invisibility Cloaks!

* I love how Hermione is NOT crushing on Viktor Krum in this version. (He's definitely not her type - not that Krum's any worse than Ron, though :-\).

* I loved the entire house elf liberation subplot. It was a great allegory for slavery. Even down to the fact that the slaves feared their freedom, and most people justified the convenience of having slaves by believing that the slaves enjoyed their slavery - even perfectly reasonable, caring people believed this. There is no force as strong, or as corrupt, as conservativism.

* I am continually impressed by how much of an inspiration and a role model Dumbledore is. He has such wisdom and integrity. The way he treats people with respect who deserve it - whether human or giant or youth or former Death Eater - is so admirable; yet he is a force to be reckoned with against the agents of evil and hypocrisy and cowardice.

* I like how scathing this book is toward both the media (Rita Skeeter), and politics.

* I immensely enjoyed the confrontation between Dumbledore and Cornelius Fudge, the Minister of Magic, at the end of the book. It really shows how inadequate politics are, and how fear and laziness can contribute to evil and corruption. And it also sets up the Ministry as an enemy (even independent of Voldemort's influence), and what is to happen to Hogwarts at the hands of Dolores Umbridge in the next book. Like many things, this is explained much more clearly in the books than it was in the movies.

* On that note, I also liked the explanation for what happened between Harry and Voldemort during their duel (Priori Incantatem). It makes a lot more sense than, "oh, guess what, these ghosts are gonna show up, but we're not gonna tell you why".

* The Goblet of Fire is the turning point in the series, and I think that's why it's one of my favorite parts of the story. The tension, and the despair when Voldemort finally returns. It's like the ending of The Empire Strikes Back, when the bad guy wins, and everything looks so grim, and you're dying to find out what the heroes will do to fight back. I'm looking forward to reading on!

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

Warning: this review contains SPOILERS from the second part of the seventh Harry Potter movie (the final part of the series).

That's it, it's all over. This movie is kind of complicated to review because you can either look at it a) independently, b) as the second half of the full Deathly Hallows experience, or c) as the conclusion to the entire Harry Potter series. As a standalone movie (though having seen the rest of the series), it was very exciting and entertaining. As the continuation of The Deathly Hallows, it was a fitting second half, where all the plotting and running around gives way to the final hefty showdown at Hogwarts. And as the conclusion to the Harry Potter series, well, it's mostly satisfying (more on that in a bit), and certainly you get what you were expecting - the final duel between Harry and the Dark Lord - and everything gets wrapped up neatly in the end.

The final battle was exciting. I really liked that the final showdown ended up being the siege of Hogwarts. Voldemort was somewhat less intimidating in the very end than I anticipated, but I suspect that's due to the fact that he fragmented himself into those horcruxes, and that by destroying them, Harry and friends were able to weaken him considerably even before the final fight. Originally I had viewed those horcruxes as if they were extra lives, but I guess I should have taken the "splinter your soul" (or however it was described) phrase more seriously. Now, I wonder if that was really the best idea. Would Voldemort have been more powerful if he had kept all of his strength within himself? And while we're speaking of the horcruxes, I would have liked to have learned more about their individual significances, though I suspect this may be elaborated on more in the books. They mainly seem to be valuable treasures, which is really cool, and I thought that deserved some more focus.

I stated all the way back in my review of the first HP movie that I like the concept of the wands (and my feelings haven't changed). There's a question, though, of how much power the wands themselves have, and how much of that power is the wizard's own. I like to think of the wands as being conduits for magical power, and that different ones - designed differently and with different materials - will magnify or manifest a wizard's power differently. But then there's also the issue of the wand's will, which is brought up in this film, and turns out to be of critical importance. I expected a more traditional power struggle (like Goku vs. Vegeta) between Harry and Voldemort, with Harry ultimately overpowering Voldemort with the power of his love and friendship, rather than Voldemort failing on a wand-related technicality. But the whole horcrux sidequest seems to suggest that it was always more a battle of strategy than brute strength even from the beginning.

So it turns out I was right in my suspicions about Snape, regarding Dumbledore's death. They were indeed co-conspirators. Though I hadn't imagined Snape's connection to Lily, but it explains a lot. I had wondered how Snape could have been a Death Eater, and yet had later gained Dumbledore's trust. I imagine there's probably more exposition in the books (which I am about to read), as there is a lot in the movies that is sort of glossed over, without going into much detail. I can imagine Snape would have been driven to the dark side due to his experience of unrequited love, yet I wonder how sincere his allegiance to Voldemort ever was, considering that he was able to renounce it, and climb so high as to become a trusted friend of Dumbledore. Was Snape a spy all the way back then, too? Or was it Voldemort's murder of Lily that ultimately turned Snape around? I can see it happening that way.

I talked a bit about Draco in my review of the first part of The Deathly Hallows. I was really hoping that he would come out and do something significant, to redeem his character (either as a reluctant hero or a respectable villain, either way). I guess he's just a weak person. And it's no wonder, his father's a spineless coward. It's too bad, though, because I could really see so much more coming from Draco. If he had been a stronger person, he could've become the next Dark Lord after Voldemort's demise. A true thorn in Harry's side. But I guess that's a story that wasn't meant to be.

I was really moved when it was revealed that Harry's fate was to sacrifice himself to be killed by Voldemort. Maybe it's because I have a bit of a martyr complex. Can you imagine how hard that would be? Coming to terms with the fact that you have to give up your life for the greater good? How could you find the resolve to march willingly to your own slaughter? It's a really heavy development, but I liked it. Though things sort of turned out differently in the end. Maybe the book is better on the details, but I felt a little gypped that Harry came back, after establishing that he was going to have to die. I know, it makes for a good narrative - force the audience to mourn Harry's death, and then give them a happy ending anyway. Plus, seeing Harry come back for the final bout is exciting.

But still, when you make super big decisions like that, you should commit to them. Can you imagine how much different the end of the series would have been if Harry had had to die (and stay dead)? It would have been much darker, yes, but they still could have prevailed over the Dark Lord in the end. It would be a bittersweet victory, for sure, but it would be more emotionally heavy, and perhaps more true to life. Sure, some significant characters did die, but the only one that truly leaves a gap is perhaps Dumbledore, and he was old, anyway. There's no constant memory - "oh, that's right, Harry's not around" - like a memento, of the great battle and just how much was sacrificed.

In fact, that's just the thing. The ending is too convenient. Too concise, too wrapped-up. Nothing has really changed. You get to the epilogue, and 19 years later, you're right back where you started. Almost as if nothing even happened. No real lasting scars or memories. And if nothing else, I was pissed that Harry wasn't the Headmaster of Hogwarts, or at the very least, the Defense Against The Dark Arts teacher. Think about it, not only is Harry Potter the one who defeated the Dark Lord Voldemort, but he's the only guy who was killed, twice, by Voldemort, and lived. That's pretty bad-ass. I mean, what better Defense Against The Dark Arts teacher could you ask for than someone who is immune to the killing curse? And what's more, Harry could have been a Master of Death if he so chose, since all three of the Deathly Hallows passed into his hands (two of which he let slip through his fingers).

Regarding the ultimate pairings, I couldn't help but notice the trend of extraordinary people marrying mediocre people. (And ironically, both of those mediocre people are Weasleys). You got Harry, the boy who lived (and then defeated Voldemort), marrying a damsel in distress, and you have Hermione, the brightest witch of her age, marrying a talentless doofus. When it was first revealed that Harry was going to have to die, I thought that was the reason the author had put Ron and Hermione together - so that they could have some measure of happiness in the long run. Even though Hermione deserves to be with Harry. If there's any good to come from this, it's the reassurance for all the mediocre people out there that you may actually have a chance pairing up with somebody extraordinary. Keep the dream alive!

Speaking of Hermione, Emma was as good as ever in this movie, and actually very cute acting all sweet on Ron, even though I hated that it was Ron that was making her act that way. But as an added bonus, her polyjuice scheme in this part was infinitely more intriguing than the woman she impersonated in part 1 of The Deathly Hallows. Emma looked good dressed up in Bellatrix's goth fashions, and damn if I wasn't convinced at first that Helena Bonham Carter was acting in place of Hermione transformed. Their personalities are so wildly different that to see Helena acting more like an insecure Hermione than a wacked-out Bellatrix threw me for a loop. Well done.

So that's it. I think I've said enough. I'll defer you to some other more dedicated Potter fan to give you more celebration for the conclusion to the series. It's funny to think that I hadn't even been interested in the Harry Potter series until just December of last year - a mere seven months ago - as opposed to those who have been dedicated to it either from the beginning of the film series, or even longer, from the books' original releases. And that's where I'm headed now - to read up on the original story behind this epic film phenomenon.

Emma Rating: Sugary Sweet

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

Warning: this review contains SPOILERS from the first part of the seventh Harry Potter movie.

The Deathly Hallows is bleak. But then, the Harry Potter story has just been getting bleaker and bleaker since The Goblet of Fire, when Voldemort was resurrected. I'm very curious to see how it will all end (in other words, I can't wait for Part 2). The one startling difference that makes this installment unique among the entire series is the almost complete absence of Hogwarts (and what we do see of it has changed so very much). Harry and friends spend their time in this one on the run.

And there's some tension between our favorite threesome. Though Harry and Hermione seem to be getting closer than ever (she's so much better off with him...), Ron continues to be stupid. I think part of the reason Hermione is always so mad at him is because she's mad at fate (or the author) for having her fall in love with such a doofus. Ron almost redeemed himself when he showed up and destroyed the Horcrux, but to be fair, you have to measure that one noble deed against all the stupid things he's done over the years. Not a very good balance. I'll tell you, when they started talking about having a wedding, I thought for a moment it was Ron and Hermione they were referring to! Thank god it wasn't. I'm not ready for that yet, though it seems inevitable at this rate.

I really liked the Deathly Hallows story-within-a-story. Great moral tale, and seamlessly woven into the larger plot. A wand to command death, a magical stone to reverse it, and a cloak to evade it. Bonus points for Hermione being the one to narrate that story. =3

As much as Dobby annoys me, he really pulled off a magnificent stunt in this one. He earned himself a noble death. It seems fitting that he should be a sacrificial pawn - when Bellatrix's weapon leapt through the teleportation, I thought someone more substantial might end up dead, so I was relieved when it was just him. Though, saying that, I have to recognize the value of his exploits this time around. I love how he just snaps his fingers to disarm his opponents, like it's nothing at all to him.

At the beginning, when Hermione obliviated her parents, that was a very touching scene. I want so desperately to get to know Hermione, can you imagine knowing her, and then losing all those memories? So sad. But I see that it was necessary. That's just how desperate things have gotten.

The infiltration of the ministry was exciting, although I hated every minute that the beautiful Emma Watson was replaced by some stuffy old businesswoman (on account of the polyjuice potion - funny story, when the potion was first mentioned in Chamber of Secrets, I thought it was called "apologies potion"). No surprise at all that Umbridge of all people would end up wearing the Horcrux around her neck with pride.

Draco was pathetic again in this movie. At the beginning of the series, I saw him as this counterpoint to Harry, likely to become a powerful dark wizard to match Harry. But now Harry's going up against the likes of Voldemort himself, and Draco simply can't compete. He's always been a creep, and I don't forgive him for that, but his heart has been filled with hatred for so long, and it hasn't really gotten him anywhere. As a full Death Eater now, I think it's just more apparent what that has done to his father, turning him into a groveling coward before the might of the dark lord. And Draco's failure at killing Dumbledore - Harry said he wouldn't have done it, that he was lowering his wand when Snape stepped in - I could see him becoming something of a reluctant anti-hero, making some move to help Harry defeat Voldemort, not out of any concern or respect for Harry, but simply distaste for the dark lord's methods, how his regime of fear destroys people rather than fosters their talents. Of course, believing such a thing is possible is giving Draco more credit than he probably deserves. But I think there's potential for a more complex and well-rounded character there.

Emma looked fabulous on the big screen. I'm so glad I got a chance to see her that way. I just can't believe how gorgeous she is. I could stare at her for hours. Actually, that's pretty much what I've been doing all week. It was definitely worth it, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Convenient that there are seven parts to the story, and seven days in a week. This marathon was a lot of fun, and now I desperately await the second part of the final chapter...

Emma Rating: Scandalously Seductive

Addendum: Regarding the "rumored" scene, in which Emma Watson allegedly gets naked - it's hardly even worth mentioning (which is why I left it out of my review), but I might as well tell you my thoughts. I wasn't really expecting much, so I wasn't too disappointed. Hermione has dressed fairly conservatively all throughout the Harry Potter series, so I didn't really expect her to reveal much, even now (being legal and all that). But the thing with her is that she's so unbelievably gorgeous, it doesn't matter that she's completely dressed, she still stuns.

As for the scene itself, it was a magical illusion, so it was all CGed up, and Harry and Hermione hardly even looked like real people. I didn't know the nature of the scene beforehand - I had heard that it was a dream - so I was all prepared to complain about how they played it safe and abandoned a perfect opportunity to give the scene a real (rather than pretended) erotic draw to it (why are we so afraid of doing that?)...but, as it turned out, I don't think the scene was especially intended to be erotic in the first place, so I'm willing to turn a blind eye toward it.

Emma fans will still love this movie, but for the same reasons they've loved the rest of the Harry Potter movies, not for seeing her "naked" (which she's not).

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Warning: this review contains SPOILERS from the sixth Harry Potter movie.

Severus Snape is the Half-Blood Prince. Not that I know what significance that has, other than him being the owner of the book of potions with all the notes in it. It's funny, all the way back in The Philosopher's Stone, when it turned out that Snape wasn't the bad guy, I didn't want to believe it. Now, I don't want to believe that he is the bad guy. Maybe it's true that Dumbledore can make mistakes, but the question remains: how did Snape convince Dumbledore that he was trustworthy? It's a humongous mistake to make. And though Snape is mean, and I described him in The Philosopher's Stone as having perfect "bad guy" mannerisms, I almost like him now. He's not evil enough, not angry enough, to truly be a bad guy. He's too cool, and collected. I want to believe that Snape's killing of Dumbledore was expected - and planned - by the both of them. That Snape still has some trick up his sleeve to use against the Dark Lord, and that if Dumbledore really is dead, then it was a necessary sacrifice that they had agreed upon...

The romance in this movie annoyed the hell out of me. Largely because much of it was Ron being an asshole and making Hermione cry. She deserves so much better than Ron, but it really seems like the story is gearing up for them to be together. I don't think I'll ever accept it. I think another part of my annoyance is that it all seems too fast. And I'm not sure if that's because I'm watching these movies so quickly one after the other, or because the movies themselves are condensing the events from the books (or both) - but it seems like these characters are jumping so quickly from one love interest to the next. Not that I have any problem with sampling the wares before you buy, but it just seems like there isn't enough time to enjoy the romance before it's on to the next one.

I remember Ginny having a crush on Harry back in the Chamber of Secrets, and I thought it was cute then. But Harry didn't seem interested and later he started going after the Asian chick. That was going well, and then it seemed to end so abruptly. (I know, she "ratted out" Dumbledore's Army, but it's only because they used the truth serum on her...is there no room for forgiveness?). And anyway, I thought Neville and Ginny were really cute together, and there was no mention at all of how they split up. But damn, the thing that annoys me the most is that Hermione is wasting tears on a real jerkwad like Ron. Maybe she wouldn't want to be treated like a goddess (though I would gladly do it), but at the very least, if I was in Ron's position, I'd know how to make Hermione feel loved and appreciated.

Gotta admit, I was thrown off a bit about those teleportation pods. I thought Draco was preparing them as a failsafe, so that he could escape when the Death Eaters showed up to torture him for failing his mission. But then at the last moment I realized he was using them as a door to let the Death Eaters in to Hogwarts. The whole scene with Dumbledore and Harry going after the Horcrux was very exciting. Especially the climax with Dumbledore's impressive fire magic. Really cool. Or hot. A lot of dread in this movie, even without Voldemort showing up. And also because I was anticipating Gandal--er, Dumbledore's fate - unfortunately, that was one spoiler that really couldn't have been avoided. But it went down so much calmer than I imagined it would.

If I have one thing to say to Harry for the last installment of the series, it's this: you can forget Ron if you want, he's pretty useless anyway, but you damn well better have Hermione by your side at all times, because she's a powerful witch, and very intelligent to boot. You need her help, so stop trying to do everything alone. That's one of the things I liked most about The Prisoner of Azkaban - Hermione, for once, had a really proactive role throughout the climax of the episode. She's great for support, but I want to see her in action some more.

Emma Rating: Gorgeous & Glamorous

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Warning: this review contains SPOILERS from the fifth Harry Potter movie.

The Order of the Phoenix is kind of a dark movie. But very good. The way the ministry steps in and transforms Hogwarts into a totalitarian school system, with standardized tests, conformity, and loads of rules, sucking out all the life and happiness of the students - I'm convinced it was all part of Voldemort's plan, although the idea of politics creating all this evil independently isn't much brighter a scenario.

I hate the Umbridge woman with a passion. She's my least favorite Defense Against The Dark Arts teacher yet. When she eventually confesses in the woods how much she hates children, that's rather revealing. Who ever decided that the best people to teach children are the ones who hate them? Discipline has its place, but there must be respect, and understanding, and above all, concern for the child's wellbeing, as a person, and not a pawn to be molded into a vulnerable and suggestible agent of the state. Anyway, I would be more inclined to call a 15-year-old a young adult than a child.

"It's sort of exciting, isn't it - breaking the rules?" - Hermione Granger

Dumbledore's Army turned out to be rather different than I thought, just from hearing the phrase in the past. Not much of an army, but damned if it wasn't exciting. It's funny, the thought of Harry Potter being the perfect Defense Against The Dark Arts teacher had crossed my mind, and I thought maybe that's what he'd end up being after all of this is over. But it almost sort of happened a lot sooner than that. When I realized Harry was the one they had selected as the teacher, I was really excited. And he really was the perfect choice.

"Working hard is important, but there's something that matters even more - believing in yourself. Think of it this way. Every great wizard in history has started out as nothing more than what we are now - students. If they can do it, why not us?" - Harry Potter

I'm impressed with how Neville is really coming into his own. But this movie introduced a new character that really caught my interest. "Loony" Luna Lovegood, the white rabbit, was enchanting, with her long white locks and mysterious air. I wouldn't mind having her on one arm, and Hermione on the other. The Room of Requirement was great - appropriately, just what they needed. Even when the mistletoe appeared above Harry and his love interest. Hermione is such a good sport, but I can't stand not knowing what her feelings are. If she has any.

"I'm sure Harry's kissing was more than satisfactory!" - Hermione

The battle towards the end was rather exciting. Multiple wizards fighting simultaneously, spells flying across the room. And then there was the face-off between Voldemort and Dumbledore. I loved when Voldemort sent the shards of glass toward Dumbledore and Harry, and Dumbledore used a shield that ground the glass into sand. Excellent counter move. For a moment when Voldemort seemingly possessed Harry, I was afraid he was going to take control and attack Dumbledore, but luckily Harry pulled through (my perspective is probably biased, but I'm pretty sure it was seeing Hermione's face that brought Harry back to his senses).

"We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That's who we really are." - Sirius Black

I was convinced by Harry's declaration, that the power he had that Voldemort lacked was love (and friendship). And I'm so glad Harry finally agreed to work together with his friends and stop trying to spare them and go it alone. But there is a frightening consequence to that decision, and that's that Voldemort will almost certainly strike out against Harry's advantage, by attacking his friends and loved ones. Very scary, indeed. But they can't just run away from it, they have to stick together and fight it out. Indeed, the prophecy has revealed what is coming - a final duel between Harry and Voldemort, and only one can survive. For now it's just a matter of getting there, and finding the power and confidence to win.

"You're a fool, Harry Potter. And you will lose...everything." - Voldemort

Emma Rating: Delightfully Delectable