I myself never went to Spring Break in Fort Lauderdale—big shocker, I know—but I did go to see the 1983 movie about it. The trailer pretty much shows you what to expect from the movie, which is not all that much. The women are young and look great, the men are young and kind of goofy, and the story is pretty much just that. If you now choose to sit through the whole thing on your own, well, don't say you weren't warned.
Still from "Spring Break" (1983) Movie Trailer
Still from "Spring Break" (1983) Movie Trailer Oh, there were some men in the movie too.
Fast? Certainly. Furious? Yes, but not in a way that's consistent with staying alive for more than a few weeks. Believable? I don't think very many people could maintain such an expensive hobby as customizing race cars while perpetually crashing and trashing them. Not even an outlandish criminal scheme could support that kind of colossal waste.
Interesting? Not terribly. But many folks must disagree with me. After all, they made a sequel...and then some.
"The Fast and the Furious" - Trailer
Video trailer of the 2006 re-release added May 27, 2012
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1"(2010)
3.5/5 Stars
From the very first of the seven movies now in this series, it has seemed to me that the target audience was those who already had read and possibly reread J. K. Rowling's exciting and inventive Harry Potter books. As a result, I felt and still feel that the filmmakers absolved themselves from the ordinary duties of storytelling, concentrating instead on visualizing highlights from the books for fans who know the story inside-out already.
Rowling's novels are too complex to have all their ideas transported into the standard two to three hour film format, so it made at least some sense in adapting the final volume to present the movie in two parts. The extra time could then presumably be used to make the movie less of a gloss on the book than the earlier episodes had been.
Despite the extra time allotted, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1" is still not all that it should be. Like the earlier films, this one benefits from its near-perfect casting and lavish budget. Like the earlier films, it fails to capture fully the suspense, the thrill, and, yes, the magic of the books. Do we really need to see a three-minute dance between Harry and Hermione that isn't part of the book? It's done well, but it doesn't add much, other than giving the director the feeling of accomplishment that comes from slipping something of his own into the works. Ms. Rowling, as producer, evidently was willing to go along with the digression. But why leave out what happens to Peter Pettigrew during the battle of Malfoy Manor when he has his crucial moment of hesitation? Anyone who read the book would recall that event vividly. Why omit Ginny Weasley's equally memorable birthday offer to Harry? In all fairness, it might take ten hours to tell the whole story, but my complaint is more that the movie doesn't make the best use of the time it does have.
HP7
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:
Part I Official Trailer #1 - (2010) HD
Video added May 27, 2012
Note: My brief movie review of"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" can be foundhere.
Blog Updates:
I have updated the post on Timothy Q. Mouse with the sale resulthere.And I never leave out the Q.
I have updated the post onGeorge Boothherewith a new contest proposal from James Gurney.
I have updated the post on Whistler's "Upright Venice"with the sale result here.
I have updated the post on Pablo Picasso's "Visage" with the sale result here.
My opinion of the Harry Potter movies hasn't changed very much through the years. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Princeis the sixth book in J. K. Rowling's series and is absolutely essential. It is the book which answers a great many of the vexing questions about Lord Voldemort, the tale's embodiment of evil. We see, through the magic of the Pensieve, many memories of Voldemort's life back when he was called Tom Riddle, a schoolboy eager to master the ways of dark magic. We are also introduced in this volume to the concept of horcruxes, one of Rowling's many beguiling inventions. Finally, there is a truly devastating conclusion.
The movie has a lot of information to condense, and this it does in a manner similar to the previous movies in the series, occasionally for no apparent reason adding something that wasn't in the book. Those who liked the first five movies will no doubt still like this one. It continues to flaunt its dream cast and dream budget, and it allows one to visualize the incredible world of Harry Potter. It falls short, as the other films have, in the areas of narrative and suspense, and it dumbs down the story to some degree. How could it not? As with the other movies, it's worth seeing, but it's a supplement to the books, and not a substitute.
HP6
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Official Trailer (HD - Best Quality)
Video added May 27, 2012
Note:My brief movie review of"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" can be foundhere.
As we all get ready for the release of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2," I'm posting my reviews of three earlier films in the popular series.
"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (2001)
I've never been a huge fan of the Harry Potter movies, although I've seen them all dutifully. These films come to us in deluxe packages with dream budgets and dream casts. They accomplish the nearly impossible task of allowing us to visualize Harry Potter's world, with its fabulous characters and magical settings. For this reason alone, I think they deserve to be seen.
But where they fall short is on storytelling. J. K. Rowling's books, to be sure, set the bar very high. She maintains an uncanny level of mystery and suspense throughout the seven books. The films, for me, can't match that. Plenty of plot is churned out on cue, and plenty more just has to be left out, but the intoxicating thrill of the books just isn't here.
I know there are legions of people who know Harry Potter through the movies only, and many of them are devoted fans. To my mind, the movies by themselves don't really make all that compelling a case for Harry. But they do get him up on the big screen and, imperfect though it is, it's far better than not having Harry Potter up there at all.
