“Harry Potter” star Daniel Radcliffe “opened” his first post-boy wizard film over the weekend with “The Woman in Black.” The horror movie hauled in a very respectable $21 million, not bad for a project without built-in brand recognition or sequel pizazz.

Now, Radcliffe is opening his mouth on politics and likely losing a few admirers along the way.

First, the actor slammed the GOP presidential candidates for their stances on gay rights. Next, he applauded President Barack Obama on the issue even though Obama holds the very same position on gay marriage as his ideological opponents. He’s against it.

[Radcliffe] went on to say that he has been “disgusted, amazed, stunned” by candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination, such as Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, who have been openly hostile to gay rights.

“But they disgusted me less than candidates like Rick Perry, who made that ridiculous advert wearing ‘the Brokeback jacket’, and I think pretend to be homophobic just to win votes.”

(more…)

Audiences have no idea whether Daniel Radcliffe will forever be known as Harry Potter, or if the British actor’s career has only just begun.

Either way, his first major post-”Potter” screen assignment looks like a step in the right direction. “The Woman in Black,” hitting theaters Feb. 3, 2012, casts Radcliffe as a lawyer who runs into one very persistent ghost.

Radcliffe already proved he could stretch with his Broadway run in “Equus” as well as a more recent turn in “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.”

He doffed his clothes in the former, flashing the kind of abs that could find him a gig in a “Twilight” sequel. But just like that franchise’s star players, a lengthy film career is hardly guaranteed for Radcliffe. That’s why his first few films in the wake of the outstanding “Potter” finale are so crucial.

“Black’s” first trailer was out and out creepy, and the second snippet above is just as satisfying if a bit recycled from prior haunted house affairs. As for Radcliffe, he’s clearly benefiting from those sculpted sideburns and period garb that chases away thoughts of the boy wizard.

(more…)

The more things change in Hollywood – CGI, franchises based on toys and Taylor Lautner, movie star – the more things stay the same. Like the fact that women are poorly represented in front of the camera, and the situation is far worse behind it.

The LA Times reports a new study by USC’s Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism uncovered some alarmingly consistent trends in the film industry:

In a survey of the top 100-grossing movies of 2009 — including “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,’ “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” and “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” – researchers found that 32.8% of the 4,342 speaking characters were female and 67.2% were male, a percentage identical to that of the top-grossing movies of 2008 …

(more…)

It’s Oscar season, the time of year when oh, so serious films line up for our approval.

That means somber biographies – “J. Edgar,” “The Iron Lady,” and “My Week with Marilyn” – will compete with Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse” and a few other films that practically scream, “Vote for me!”

So where does that leave “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2?”

The eighth and final film in the ridiculously popular franchise hits Blu-ray and DVD shelves this week, a timely reminder that it deserves serious consideration in the biggest Academy Award category, Best Picture.

Normally, popcorn fare is excluded from most Oscar chatter. Even “The Dark Knight,” a film which delighted critics and audiences alike, couldn’t nab a Best Picture nod.

But this season is shaping up to be a particularly weak one for Best Picture contenders.

(more…)

CONFIRMED: ‘DARK KNIGHT RISES’ PROLOGUE TO PLAY BEFORE IMAX ‘MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE’

Truly a piece of genius marketing. Expect more of this.

I’m well aware I’m calling this idea a success before the results are in, but it’s a no-brainer.

LINDSAY LOHAN TO POSE NUDE IN PLAYBOY

The only thing worse than the Hollywood gossip media that feasts off the slow-motion train wreck of human beings who also happen to be celebrities is the infrastructure in place to capitalize on the train wrecks many stops along the way. The clubs, the dealers, the hangers-on, the elite rehabs, and of course Playboy. Instead of rallying to protect this young woman from herself, Playboy will exploit her need for money and addiction to attention.

Hell can never be hot enough. (more…)

Is Harry Potter now or has he ever been a communist? Just kidding. . . he’s no Smurf. When I first read the books, I recall some conservatives screaming that Potter sends the wrong messages. Imagine my surprise to discover the exact opposite. Indeed, at its core, the Harry Potter series is a truly conservative work, and it seems to me Harry should be considered a conservative hero.

"You are charged with being an inconvenient truth."

** SPOILER-AMUS **

Let’s consider the various themes that run throughout the books and movies. Do you remember the individual v. collective thing from my prior post about what makes a film conservative (Portus)? Potter has it in spades:

• Anti-Government Themes. A common theme throughout the books is that the government not only cannot help you, but will abuse its power to harm you. The Ministry of Magic is hopelessly bureaucratic and ultra-intrusive. It regulates every trivial aspect of wizards’ lives, e.g. caldron sizes, but it cannot protect the people. Instead, it gets brutal trying to cover up its ineptitude. When Dumbledore warns the world that Voldemort has returned, the MOM tries to discredit Dumbledore and then Harry. When this proves ineffective, it tries to drive Harry from the magic world through a Soviet-style show trial. It then drums up fake charges against Dumbledore and chases him from Hogwarts, where he is replaced with a bureaucrat (Delores Umbridge) who imposes an educational agenda designed to lower all children to the lowest common denominator. The government also seizes key industries, hides behind a veil of secrecy, denies the truth, and locks up its opponents. Frankly, this sounds like something Ayn Rand or George Orwell could have written.

(more…)

And so it ends. What began 10 years ago in a blaze of magical wands, mysterious potions, swooping Quidditch brooms, and enchanted banquet halls now concludes in terror and sorrow, death and resurrection. Surprisingly, this is more fun than you might expect. There’s a wild ride down into the stony bowels below the Gringott’s goblin bank, and some first-rate dragonizing; and the fiery Battle of Hogwarts lights up the CGI sky as gloriously as any fan could wish.

—–

Still, the most gratifying aspect of Deathly Hallows Part 2, the eighth and final installment of the Harry Potter cinematic saga, is its commitment to the book’s somber dénouement. There’s very little comic relief, and the drained colors and besieged emotions entirely honor the novel’s bleak sensibility. We can be thankful that director David Yates got all that standing-around-talking-in-tents stuff out of the way in Part 1. Here, in a brisk two hours and 10 minutes, he makes space for the story’s tragic elements to build and tower, and for the series’ lead actors to rise to their finest performances.

As the 450-million-or-so buyers of J.K. Rowling’s books will know, this second part of the Hallows story begins with the Wizarding World in tumult. Lord Voldemort’s evil minions, the Death Eaters, have taken over, and even Hogwarts has fallen to the rapacious horde, with the ambiguous Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) installed as headmaster in place of the late Albus Dumbledore. Meanwhile, at a remote seaside location, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), now hunted and desperate, contemplate a darkening future. “I’m afraid you really don’t stand a chance,” says the wand merchant Ollivander (John Hurt), who’s among those on the run with them.

(more…)

—–

My hatred for this impossibly dull, episodic franchise makes it impossible for me to judge the trailer. The good news is that it all comes to an end July 15th. I do, however, hope all you HP fans get everything you want from the final installment. 

—–

This famously troubled production has ended up looking absolutely fantastic. Brad Pitt’s charm, the score, feel, supporting cast, and underdog concept all centered around the beauty of baseball should make for a perfect autumn afternoon at the movies. “Moneyball” opens September 23rd.

(more…)

Afshan Azad, 22, who plays Padma Patil in the “Harry Potter” film series remains in hiding. She refused to  appear in a London court and press charges, no doubt because she knows there’s no way the British police can protect her. It is open Islamic season on Ms. Azad.

What has she done to bring down the wrath of Allah? Ms. Azad’s boyfriend is  Hindi, a non-Muslim.

And according to the racist, misogynist doctrine of the Islamists, she is a traitor to the umma, the transnational Muslim community, hence deserving a death sentence.

Actress Afshan Azad is in hiding.

Ms. Azad’s father, Abul Azad, 53, and her brother Ashraf, 28, labeled her a “prostitute” when they discovered her secret boyfriend. Her brother beat her and her father threatened to kill her after she refused an arranged marriage with a Muslim man. Ms. Azad escaped her family home by climbing through a bedroom window. She has been in hiding ever since. And I’m afraid that like the Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris and so many others, she will remain in hiding for the rest of her life.

Just so we understand what’s going on: this is the norm in the Muslim world. Women who dare enter a  relationship with non-Muslims are fair game for an honor killing, usually proceeded by various forms of unspeakable torture.

You would think that Ms. Azad’s case would sweep through Hollywood like a prairie fire, with celebrities stepping forward to condemn Islam’s war against women and offer support to this unfortunate young actress and the millions of Muslim women who live in perpetual fear of their lives.  And hey, Hollywood is stuffed with card carrying feminists. So doesn’t it make sense that western women—specifically liberals who are always lecturing cave dwelling conservatives about social justice and human rights—would surge forward like an angry wave in support of their sister? (more…)

Hollywood, hear our plea:  Could you make some mainstream movies that don’t suck?  There’s nothing worse than a Christmas season where going to the movies seems about as appealing as sharing a straw with Lindsay Lohan.

Throw us a bone – how about more than just one or two flicks a year not targeted to the demographic that thinks Lady Gaga is a boundary-pushing icon of limitless creative vision?  Maybe a couple that are not focused on shiny supernatural creatures who chat about their feelings and stare longingly into the eyes of dead-eyed starlets acting as the surrogate for the millions of lonely shut-ins who adore them?  Just a few films not aimed squarely at creepy man-children dwelling in their moms’ Kleenex-strewn basements wishing they too could winch their bloated tushes into tights and fight crime just like their cinematic heroes.

How about more than just a handful of movies for men and women who need more than five hands to count out their age, who breathe through their noses, who have lives?  I have some dough – well, at least until the President and his fellow travelers declare me rich too – and I’d like to take my hot wife out once in a while to see a movie.  I used to go a lot, a few times a month.  But it seemed that five years ago there were always at least a few movies that piqued my interest.  Perhaps it’s me – perhaps I’m too demanding, what with my stubborn insistence on interesting stories told in a coherent manner by competent actors.  Or perhaps it’s just that the recent crop of movies is exceptionally crappy.

Let’s address the curmudgeon question here and now – yes, I have occasionally turned my hose on those damn kids when they messed up my lawn, but hobbies aside, the fact is that Hollywood is both leaving money on the table and sacrificing what little artistic credibility it has left by ignoring the normal adult demographic.  It appears that Hollywood has simply thrown in the towel and decided to focus on feeding formulaic moron fodder to a waiting cohort of slack-jawed ninnies eager for the next story about a magical robot or a superhero with issues. (more…)

Regardless of its quality, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I” will likely become a huge blockbuster. It’s the seventh film chronicling the long-running book series about a wizard named Harry Potter and his two best friends. The final book of the series was split into two films and the second part will be released in July 2011. As a long time fan of the series, I was excited to see the penultimate movie in the franchise but ”Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” lacks the magic and the imagination of its exciting prequels.  

—–

“The Deathly Hallows” begins as panic continues to brew in the wizarding world. Voldermort (Ralph Fiennes), the story’s villian, is leading an army that plans to ambush and kill Harry Potter, the young and powerful wizard. Voldermort tried to kill Potter as an infant after killing his parents but his plan failed. At long last, he’s now trying to finish the job.

As the story begins, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) reunites with his wizard friends, who know what is at stake in the battle between Potter and Voldermort. In the earlier films, Harry and his best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) spent much of their time at Hogwarts, a school for young wizards. However, after Harry’s mentor Professor Dumbledore was killed at the end of the sixth film, Hogwarts is no longer a safe haven for any of them. (more…)

——

This is part 1 of the final chapter which hits screens this November. Part 2 arrives in July of 2011.

These Potter films are all the same to me: Harry Potter and the Punishing, Overlong, Episodic Trip Into Cinematic Hell.

Like “Grown Ups,” once again I’m obviously in the minority here, so geek out to your hearts content in the comments. My only request is that you don’t say the following: (more…)

Opening in conjunction with the Winter Olympics opening ceremonies in Vancouver, “Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief,” brings classical Greece to modern times in a very different way from the Games. It earned a number two U.S. opening spot last weekend, bringing in $31.1 million. 

Much like the Harry Potter series, “The Lightning Thief” thrusts its hero into the midst of a magical world within our own, with mortals coexisting unknowingly with strange beasts. It’s like “Men in Black” with B.C. aliens. Into the delicate balance between the top three gods, Zeus (Sean Bean), Poseidon (Kevin McKidd) and Hades (Steve Coogan), comes a “lightning thief” who steals Zeus’ lightning bolt, the most powerful weapon in the universe. When Zeus pegs Poseidon’s unsuspecting—and innocent—half human/half god son as the culprit, the count-down begins for Poseidon’s son Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) to find the lightning bolt or allow a war that would destroy the world.

The film focuses around the most epic road trip of all time, starting in New York City and moving to a Spartan wilderness camp where young demi-gods play full-contact capture the flag, complete with swords and any special powers inherited from Dad or Mom. From there, Percy, his satyr protector Grover (Brandon Jackson) and Athena’s daughter Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) embark on a journey to rescue Percy’s mother (Catherine Keener) from Hades, who is holding her as a bargaining chip to get the lighting bolt. Along the way they face some of the baddest creatures that the Greek bards conjured, including a hydra and Medusa (Uma Thurman). They make it to the Underworld a little wiser—only to receive a shock about who really is the lightning thief. (more…)

Per Vanity Fair, all is not as well in Tinseltown as the box-office cheer-leading would have you believe. Either way, some folks are raking it in. Especially those Harry Potter kids. Wow.

Vanity Fair:

Despite setting a domestic box-office record of $10.6 billion in 2009, Hollywood is on edge. The oceans of easy, eager money that once flooded the industry from foreign investors, hedge funds, and private-equity pools have all but dried up. And with actual attendance still off sharply from its 2002 high and DVD revenues in retreat, fewer and fewer movies are getting made. Worse still, from a talent point of view, where once studios were happy to reward stars with lavish back-end deals siphoning money straight from the studio’s share of the box-office gross, they are now reining in such deals, forcing many stars to collect only when all of the film’s costs have been recouped. In Hollywood, then, as in most of the country, people just aren’t getting paid what they used to. But for a select group the money is still rolling in. (more…)

Christmas Day is upon us, a day of celebration for Christians AND Hollywood: Christmas Day is the day when many blockbuster and Academy Award wannabes are released. If you’re a screenwriter jonesing for an Oscar, how do you prove you’re part of the “cool clique” in Hollywood deserving of recognition by your Hollywoodite peers? Why, by trashing the very schlubs who may be thinking of shelling out 10 bucks plus to see your new movie as a bunch of zombies, vampires and werewolves.

Were you thinking of seeing “Nine”? Well, sucks to be you, doesn’t it?

“Nine” Screenwriter Michael Tolkin

Ah yes, the Academy Awards – specifically, Best Picture. And maybe in this case, Best Screenplay. (Only the actual winners get excited about categories like Best Makeup and Best Editing.) Best Picture winners don’t necessarily reflect a movie’s popularity with the public, but often the political statement the movie makes – or, perhaps, statements made by those closest to it – like the screenwriter.

Yep, Michael Tolkin may have written a movie about an “arrogant, self-absorbed movie director” looking for meaning in his art (is this based on a true story???), but he’s positive that the bitter clingers who populate Middle America don’t have a clue either, and he’s prepared to educate the masses. (more…)

John Podhoretz in the Weekly Standard:

“[T]he system around which the motion-picture business has oriented itself almost since its creation in the early years of the last century–the star system, which it largely invented–has finally reached its end.”

“The eight most successful movies over the course of the year’s first eight months have collectively grossed $2.7 billion, up from $2.3 billion for the entirety of 2008. And what is most striking about these eight films is that not a single one of them, not a single one, features an unmistakable star. Three of them are cartoons (Up, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, and Monsters vs. Aliens). Three are sequels whose top-line talents are incidental to their success (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, the sixth Harry Potter, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine). Two feature relative nobodies (Star Trek and The Hangover). The first traditional star appears in the ninth-place film, which is itself a high-concept sequel in which the star mostly stands around (Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian with Ben Stiller). It’s not until tenth place that a classic vehicle hits the list, Sandra Bullock’s The Proposal. And after that you have to jump down to 15th place to find Tom Hanks in Angels and Demons. Will Ferrell’s movie tanked. Julia Roberts laid an egg. Adam Sandler couldn’t sell a ticket. Johnny Depp disappointed. Denzel Washington and John Travolta bombed together. Instead, the movies whose successes depended on their strong leading performances were the ones featuring the 57-year-old Irishman Liam Neeson (Taken, $145 million) and the out-of-work TV comedian Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop, $146 million).
(more…)

Kyle Smith:

Compare [Harry Potter to] Luke Skywalker, who has to conquer his own vanity, laziness and anger in order to earn his powers. Harry, like many of his generation, is the Cosseted One from an early age. He’s told that he’s special, that he’s got awesome gifts, that those who don’t understand this are blind to the plain facts. Deploying his powers involves no more character or soul-searching than following a recipe.

(more…)

(more…)

So, John Nolte didn’t much care for the new “Harry Potter” movie. If memory serves, he didn’t care for movies 1-5, either. He admits, however, to never reading the books. This is a fatal error in appreciating the “Harry Potter” films, in my opinion.

John is like Charlie Brown and the football — forever doomed to dislike these movies, but he keeps coming back for more. Because the “Harry Potter” films are made for the books’ readers, period. In fact, you might say it’s a unique genre unto itself.

Let me attempt to head off the expected response to this: a movie should stand on its own, without requiring familiarity with the source material. Ordinarily, I agree with this. And I agree that the “Harry Potter” movies would probably be better off if they tried harder to satisfy this rule.

But it seems as though the filmmakers made a conscious or semi-conscious decision at some point early on to make these movies for the readership, not for the general public. They’re really cult films. And with such lavish budgets, if they were based on any other source material, they’d be a financial debacle. (more…)