Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Year: 2009

Director: David Yates

Production Company: Warner Bros.

Leads: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

Screen Shot 2014-10-15 at 1.12.59 PMContinuing on with our journey into the Potterverse, Little Satis and I sat down to watch the sixth installment of the Harry Potter movie franchise (having concluded the book sometime in the spring) for this week’s movie night. I’m not quite sure what took us so long to get around to it, given our only rule was to have read the book before watching the movie, but when all is said and done, life often gets in the way.

In it, we watch as Harry Potter, played excellently as always by the remarkable Daniel Radcliffe, embarks on his sixth year at Hogwarts, where he excels at potions thanks to a well-annotated textbook from the mysterious Half-Blood Prince. Meanwhile, the sinister Death Eaters are wreaking havoc on both the magical and muggle worlds as they follow the now-returned Lord Voldemort in his conquest to control all of…well, England? The world? I guess it was never terribly clear in the books, either.

You get a GIF!

You get a GIF!

The film seems to have two strong focal points, in keeping with the book: Dumbledore’s (Michael Gambon) insistence that Harry continue to learn more about the young Voldemort and his early rise to power, and the emotional traumas of being young and in love (Hermione and Ron, Harry and Ginny, etc.). Herein, however, lies unfortunately the film’s greatest weakness, which it shares with most of the Harry Potter film franchise. In trying too hard, I feel, to keep to the letter of the book, the film rushes its pace along, and never truly gives enough weight to the emotions and feelings of its lead characters. As the books in the series grew ever longer, trying to compact the content into a two-and-a-half hour movie became increasingly difficult, and the pacing suffers as a result. For an example of how to do an epic book conversion well, see Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings: whilst many would say the films are too long, you certainly can’t fault them for taking their time over character development.

Ooh…and another!

Ooh…and another!

Then there are the small incidents that were never in the book at all, and the most egregious of these is the burning down of the Burrow. Not only did it not happen in the book, it was entirely unnecessary, leads to difficulty with setting in the following movies, and leaves a gaping plot hole: if the Death Eaters are capable of knowing perfectly well where Harry Potter is at any given moment, why didn’t Voldemort simply apparate there himself and kill him?

Having said all of that, it was still an immensely enjoyable film, and the shock of the conclusion – even knowing it from the book – was handled superbly. Alan Rickman’s portrayal of the duplicitous Severus Snape was spot-on as always, continuing to make him (even though we haven’t finished reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows yet) my favorite character in the Potterverse.

The brilliant – and secretive – Severus Snape.

The brilliant – and secretive – Severus Snape.

 

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ 

Satis Logo 2014

Movie Night: Robin Hood: Men in Tights

Don’t forget – you can claim your free copy of The Redemption of Erâth: Consolation just by emailing satiswrites@icloud.com and telling me which digital format you’d prefer (ePub, Kindle, PDF, etc.)!

***

Year: 1993

Director: Mel Brooks

Production Company: Brooksfilms

Leads: Cary Elwes, Richard Lewis, Roger Rees, Amy Yasbeck

1Welcome back to Movie Night, after a very long hiatus! I can’t pretend I’ll be able to update this with a new movie each week as I used to; my new work schedule doesn’t always allow for a weekly movie with Little Satis as it once did.

Nonetheless, we did manage to sit down this week for a viewing of an old favorite of mine, Robin Hood: Men in Tights. I had some reservations about letting Little Satis watch it (and not for the raciness); he isn’t terribly familiar with the Robin Hood story in general, and I had kind of wanted to let him see Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves or the supposedly excellent BBC adaptation. I had to quiz him on the lore of Robin Hood first, and having decided that he passed (with a D, most likely), started it up on Netflix.

The Everlast™ chastity belt.

The Everlast™ chastity belt.

It had been a long time since I had seen Men in Tights, and I’ll admit to having forgotten much of it; mostly things like the blind Blinkin and the Everlast™ chastity belt are what stuck in my head. I forgot that it opens with a brilliant scene with the late great Isaac Hayes; I forgot the wonderful cameo by Patrick Stewart at the end; I forgot the utter ridiculousness of Mel Brooks’ humor. (This was Little Satis’ first Mel Brooks movie, incidentally; Spaceballs might be next.) I also forgot how utterly Jewish it all is.

A lot of the humor was lost on Little Satis, and whilst some of it I explained (for example, the brilliant Robin of Loxley and Marian of Bahgel quip), some of it I left well alone (such as the key to the greatest treasure in the kingdom being the one to Maid Marian’s chastity belt). Also the bit about circumcisions. And the pantomime sword erection. And Tracey Ullman‘s “I touched it” line. And…well, most of the movie, come to think of it.

 

“I knew her parents before they were taken in the plague, Lord and Lady Bahgel. You know, you two were made for each other. I mean, what a combination. Loxley and Bahgel! It can’t miss!”

 

Is that a sword in your pocket, or…?

Is that a sword in your pocket, or…?

Ah, well…there was more than enough slapstick to amuse a ten-year-old, such as the overweight handmaiden jumping to her horse and cracking the pavement, or the repossession of Robin’s entire castle (carted away on wheels), or just about every scene with Blinkin (played marvelously by Mark Blankfield). Mel Brooks has an amazing knack for producing comedy that can appeal to all ages – the raciness just above the heads of the younger crowd, and the slapstick not quite too goofy to bring a smile to the most hardened of adults. Ultimately, though, it’s the sly references to contemporary pop culture that make the movie (or at least, made it at the time), and I will admit that it serves only to date it now; nonetheless, my favorite quote from the whole film is Cary Elwes’ dig at Kevin Costner‘s inability to put on a British accent:

 

“And why should the people listen to you?”

“Because unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent.”

 

If you haven’t seen it, it’s well-worth the watch; if you have, watch it again. It’s just as funny now as it was twenty years ago.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Featured image from http://www.filmcaptures.com/robin-hood-men-in-tights/.

Satis Logo 2014

Movie Night: Just Visiting

Year: 2001

Director: Jean-Marie Poiré

Production Company: Gaumont

Leads: Jean Reno, Christina Applegate

just_visiting_ver1For once this isn’t one Little Satis and I watched together. Mrs. Satis often likes to “discover” movies on TV after Little Satis is in bed, and the other night I happened to join her (usually I’m kicked out for talking during the movie). I really didn’t know what to expect, except that in passing I noticed Jean Reno, who I like, and Malcolm McDowell, who I like even more, and Christina Applegate, who will always be Kelly Bundy from Married With Children to me.

It turns out this is an americanized adaptation of a French film, with the distinguishing fact that it was made by the same people who made the original. This to me gives it slightly more authenticity than most bastardized adaptations (The Ring, I’m looking at you), though I’m still left with the feeling that the original is better. Even so, it was surprisingly enjoyable, with a blend of tongue-in-cheek and slapstick humor that, in fact, felt very French.

~

“I could reanimate her corpse, but I don’t think you would like the way she looks. Or smells.”

~

On the eve of 12th-century French Count Thibault’s wedding to an English princess he is poisoned by an English noble, and in a delusional rage kills the woman he loves. Condemned to death, he seeks the aid of an English wizard, delightfully portrayed by Malcolm McDowell, who offers to send him back in time to the moment before her death. Unsurprisingly things go wrong, and Thibault and his servant Andre suddenly find themselves in Chicago, in the year 2000.

Things fall out rather predictably from there, with much of the film’s humor stemming from Thibault and Andre’s difficulties in adjusting to 20th-century life (Andre eats everything he finds, and Thibault uses $2,000 worth of Chanel perfume as bath oil). Neither can cope with traveling at more than 20 miles an hour and they have naturally no understanding of modern culture, but their antiquated views on etiquette, civility and honor nonetheless have much to teach their ultra-modern counterparts. In other words, no big surprises.

Thibault and Andre discover Chicago.

Thibault and Andre discover Chicago.

What felt particularly authentic about the film to me, though, was the thought clearly put into the reactions of these 12th-century time travelers in modern-day Chicago. They arrive in a medieval museum exhibit, and Andre points out that their castle has been cleaved in half. The museum appears to them to be a demonic hell-plane, and the shock of stepping out of the museum sends them both running back inside in terror. Unable to cope with dining at an upscale restaurant, Andre the servant takes to skewering a chicken on an umbrella and roasting it in a fireplace before the other patrons. And of course, Thibault has to be convinced not to take off the hand of a pickpocket for stealing a lady’s purse.

I felt there were some missed opportunities as well, though; Thibault, despite his nobility and, ultimately, generosity, doesn’t seem to learn any particular lesson throughout the film, though he serves as the catalyst for others’. In terms of humor, there are few one-liners, mostly reserved for Malcolm McDowell’s wizard. When asked what he can do to save Thibault’s bride, he replies, “I could reanimate her corpse, but I don’t think you would like the way she looks. Or smells.” While such statements are undoubtedly humorous, it feels as though they undermine the humor of the rest of the film, which relies more heavily on situational humor (and, to be fair, slapstick).

For all of that, however, I was surprisingly pleased with the movie, and am glad to have been introduced to yet another Jean Reno movie. I’ll certainly be looking up the French original now, and I may just have to write about how they compare.

If you haven’t seen Just Visiting, do. If you have – what did you think?

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Satis Logo with ©