To All Those Ron and Hermione Shippers Out There...

(minor spoilers for those who have not read all seven books)

It is Harry Potter month on ABC network and I have been re-watching each of the films for the third of fourth time. Last night, they aired Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and I just thought...why Ron and Hermione? Just...why? I've never understood the hype for this ship. I see very little to no chemistry between the two characters. Come to think of it, if I were to be left reading the books on my own without any outside contact or Internet access, I would have never guessed it was J.K. Rowling's intention to create romantic feelings between Harry's two best friends. Sure, I am aware of those hints planted here and there but...it never appeared to be something that felt like the real deal. The romance (if you can call it that) feels forced and the revelation in book seven was kind of lame, if you asked me.

Since the first book, I've always thought it was going to be Harry and Hermione. No, seriously. Call me delusional, but I really believed that. And seriously, why not Harry and Hermione? Watching the third Harry Potter film solidified my beliefs. Harry and Hermione work well as a team and Rowling (as a writer) and Alfonso Cuaron (as a director) presented that quite well through their work. I guess the fact that Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson have such great chemistry together also supports my case. The idea of Ron and Hermione seem strangely incomplete after watching the third film. Speaking of Harry, I absolutely loathe the idea of Harry and Ginny. I loathe it and I will loathe it for the rest of my life.

I have to admit that I am not the biggest Harry Potter fan, although I did thoroughly adore the first five books (especially the fifth, which I believe is probably the greatest fantasy novel I have ever read). But things like shipping fandoms that I see no merit in puzzle me to no end. I must say that one of the few shortcomings of Rowling as a writer lies in the fact that she cannot create any convincing romance in her epic series. Rowling's attempts at romance in a series where magic and emotions work so well, feels sloppy and abrupt.

Any thoughts? Comments? Feel the need to enlighten me and share passages of the all-time great Ron and Hermione moments? Feel free to do so.

I was just reading an old movie review of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and it frustrates me that some people can't praise the third film without criticizing the first two, vice versa. They are all fun and entertaining films with the directors' interesting spins on Rowling's novels. Both Cuaron and Chris Columbus are great directors who had done terrific directorial work for their respected installments.

"Death Therapy, Bob. It's a guaranteed cure."

Short Review: What About Bob? | dir. Frank Oz | rel. 1991

I'm glad that this movie went beyond its one-joke premise of an annoying patient who follows his psychiatrist to his vacation home. What About Bob? remains consistently funny throughout and even has some brilliantly goofy dark humor in between. I guess the reason why I enjoyed the film so much was because of its two leading actors--Bill Murray and Richard Dreyfuss. I guess it is expected to see Murray do his usual schtick as a straightforward comedic actor in the role of Bob Wiley. I'm only truly in awe of Murray's talent as an actor when it comes to his performances in Wes Anderson's films. Anderson writes characters for Murray that places him in an unusual arena, and I like that; it forces him to flex his versatility. But still, Murray is quite appropriately a bundle of annoyance and energy in What About Bob?. Oh, who am I kidding? The real reason of why this film works so well, in my opinion, is Richard Dreyfuss.

Dreyfuss is, well, completely and totally insane in the film as Dr. Leo Marvin. He is insanely hilarious, that is. Dr. Marvin, in many ways, is even more insane than his patient when he displays his maddening emotional outbursts. Dreyfuss makes a egotistical, pretentious, and narcissist creep into the character you relate to the most, and that is a fantastic feat. There is a scene where he is teaching his son how to dive. But his son isn't willing to jump into the water. When Bob tries to get his son to dive, the son finally succeeds and this frustrates Dr. Marvin. I think watching someone achieve something that we tried so hard to achieve ourselves is a common emotion--and Dreyfuss and the script portrays that sense of failure and jealousy perfectly. The audience feels sorry for him, not only because he is being visited by possibly the most annoying psychiatric patient within the limits of the film, but even his own family prefers the patient over him. I'm a sucker for cinematic sympathy, and with Dr. Marvin, that's all I felt for him...most of the time.

That is when the writing and directing comes in. The film does a fine job with balancing the more obvious comedic moments with understated scenes of character development. The film cares about its characters, no matter how obnoxious or frustrating they are.

But I must nitpick on a few flaws in the film. Firstly, I was rather irritated by the film's music, which reminded me of standard trailer music from the 90s. Secondly, there are some scenes where I felt rather uncertain about Bob's character. Does this guy need serious help? Is he just a nice guy with a few issues? Is he supposed to be annoying? If he is supposed to be annoying, then why does everyone else in the film (with the exception of Dr. Marvin) adore him even at his worst moments? Another problem that drove my nuts was when Dr. Marvin and his wife allowed Bob to sleep in the same room as their son, especially with Dr. Marvin's hatred for Bob. Would it be a little irresponsible to have your young son sleep in the same room as an adult psychiatric patient? I think so!

Flaws aside, I liked this film quite a lot. I laughed in various scenes, especially in the exchanges between Murray and Dreyfuss and Dreyfuss' individual scenes. What About Bob? is a fun comedy and worth a viewing.

Rating: 7.5/10

"Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"

All About Eve | dir. Joseph L. Mankiewicz | rel. 1950

All About Eve is a glorious dramatic film about life in the theater. The film looks great, so I gave into my temptations--I'm going to make a film stills/review post regarding the film after I found some great screencaps of it. Sorry for the possible incoherence of this post. And there are some minimal spoilers here, so...beware!

I love this shot for some reason. It occurs quite early in the film (before the flashbacks) and it fits in so well with the words being said during the scene:

 Such young hands. Such a young lady.
Young in years, but whose heart is as old as the Theater...

Eve Harrington, the title character of the film, is played by Anne Baxter. Baxter is quite good in the role of an aspiring theater actress but...


Everyone who has seen this film before knows that Bette Davis is the true star of All About Eve. I believe that Davis was born to play Margo Channing, in the same way that Vivien Leigh was just meant to play Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind. I don't know if I could say it better right now than what I wrote in my Xanga regarding the film the other day, so I guess I'll just paste it here for all to read:

Bette Davis is so amazing as Margo Channing. Davis made what had been a simple character of pure bitchiness into a sympathetic, moving, and brilliant character. I guess one of the problems about the film is that Eve Harrington just isn't sympathetic enough (unnecessary? I think that some sympathy is vital to understanding Eve's character) and I find that one of the major faults of Anne Baxter's performance. Baxter, although great, just didn't sink in deep enough for the character to be completely satisfying on-screen, especially compared to Davis, who just gave it her 150%.

I love this scene. Gary Merrill is so wonderful as Bill Simpson. He and Davis have surprisingly amazing chemistry. In so many movies, age difference hurts movie chemistry but here, to my delight, it does not.


Bette Davis' eyes makes close-ups a million times better.

Anyone heard of the song, "Bette Davis Eyes" by Kim Carnes? It's a beautiful song and there is a sweet story regarding Davis' reaction to the song (IMDb):

After the song Bette Davis Eyes became a hit single, Davis wrote letters to singer Kim Carnes and songwriters Donna Weiss & Jackie DeShannon, asking how did they know so much about her. One of the reasons Davis loved the song is that her granddaughter heard it and thought it "cool" that her grandmother had a hit song written about her.

It is quite obvious that every single actor involved in the film just adored their roles and chewed it up completely. The film is decorated with terrific supporting roles--to Addison DeWitt, Bill Simpson, to Lloyd Richards. But there is one supporting performance in this film I absolutely loved--Celeste Holm as Karen Richards, best friend of Margo Channing and wife of playwright Lloyd Richards. In the beginning, Karen is very sympathetic towards Eve, almost motherly. Of course, this is until she realizes Eve's conniving ways that she withdraws from her sympathetic feelings towards the young girl. This transformation could have been sloppily done, but the way Holm conveys her feelings is so natural that you barely even notice the gradual change of heart.


"Oh, you little bitch..." was going through my mind again and again in this particular scene. I love to hate Eve as much as the next person, but I just keep wishing there was at least something I could truly bring myself to sympathize with. I guess the fact that she wanted to be a theater star so badly that she was willing to turn vicious for it is worthy of sympathy but...I still can't bring myself to care enough for Eve's vulnerable side that she put on display during that crucial scene with Addison (George Sanders). I really wish that every character I hate is just like (excuse me for my Harry Potter reference) Severus Snape.

I still can't get over how easily Margo fell for Eve's trap. But hey, Eve was a sweet girl.


What a marvelous ending...

I realized that the more I think about this film, the more I like it. But for now:

Rating: 8/10

Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes

I know this is old news but...



I really like this video because how true it feels to an actual press conference. It just feels very authentic. The video is a really nice addition to the The Dark Knight viral marketing campaign. I am totally psyched that Gyllenhaal is replacing Katie Holmes in the next Batman movie and this video just proves it all. Unlike Holmes, Gyllenhaal has sort of a presence that screams maturity and strength that Holmes lacks. I didn't really hate Holmes' performance in Batman Begins as much as many others did, but I did think that she was a rather weak link in the previous film.

Don't get me wrong, though. I think Holmes is a solid actress and she was surprisingly fantastic in Pieces of April but everything else she has done so far in her career has this weird girl-next-door-but-not-quite kind of vibe. It is as if Holmes never left Dawson's Creek.

Then again, Holmes' awkward performance does not hurt the fact that I like the idea of Rachel Dawes (Bruce Wayne's childhood friend, link to the law, etc). Unfortunately, everything felt sort of unnatural, not just because of Holmes' lackluster performance, but the writing was kind of horrible. Even the wildest Batman Begins fan would admit that the lines for Rachel Dawes were certainly not the greatest. For The Dark Knight, I have some high expectations for both Gyllenhaal and the writers (Jonathan and Christopher Nolan) because they seem to have some insanely awesome material to work with this time around.

So, what do you all think about the video or The Dark Knight in general?

(Movie reviews of recently-seen movies coming soon.)

RIP Charlton Heston (1924-2008)

I had a TV in my room since I was about six-years-old and I would very often watch television shows and movies alone; my parents always wanted to watch something else so they thought the idea of putting a TV up in my room as pure convenience for everyone in the house. Every year, I would watch Cecil B. DeMille's 1956 classic, The Ten Commandments, alone on TV around Easter time. I didn't know much about its Biblical significance back then, but I was entertained by the extravagance and ambitiousness of the picture nonetheless. As a child, I didn't know much about the more detailed aspects of film, but I knew what I liked and what I didn't like. In the case of The Ten Commandments, I was loving what I saw and heard from the screen.

One of the many things I saw and heard on screen was Charlton Heston as Moses. But I never acknowledged Heston as an actor playing Moses. He simply was Moses. Heston held such a convincing command over the role that his presence alone was enough to describe the film as a larger-than-life epic. His voice and demeanor possessed a wondrous authority that it became the basic foundation of the film itself.

He will be missed.