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.”

Asked if he wished that Barack Obama would publicly back gay marriage, he replied: “Yes, I do, but can he really? Of course he’s in favour of it, but he has to be careful about saying so. I’d rather have someone like him in the White House than the alternative.

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.

Best of all, “Black” director James Watkins is a real talent, having written a credible sequel to the great horror film “The Descent” and directing one of the more chilling horror sleepers in recent years, the 2008 shocker “Eden Lake.”

Young Radcliffe appears to be in very capable hands.

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 …

.. Behind the camera, the gender inequality is just as dramatic: only 3.6% of the directors and 13.5% of the writers on the top-grossing films of 2009 were female, according to the study.

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.

Recent films like “Moneyball” and “J. Edgar” earned mixed to solid reviews at best, while the early buzz on director Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants” is solid, not terrific. “The Iron Lady’s” released date just got bumped to late-late December, not a sign of confidence from the studio. “The Help” might slide into a Best Picture slot simply by being both topical and uplifting, but the film’s 75 percent “Fresh” rating at RottenTomatoes.com hardly screams artistic excellence.

And spare us the talk that Woody Allen’s overrated “Midnight in Paris” deserves Oscar consideration. Has the bar been set so low for Allen that even his mediocre fare fires up award chatter?

“Deathly Hallows – Part 2″ is a terrific film, both a stunning visual achievement and an emotionally satisfying coda to a complicated film franchise. Oscar voters often nominate films that mean something, or that cap an historic film achievement. Just consider the Oscar coronation for “The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King,” the third film in that triumphant fantasy franchise.

The final “Harry Potter” film deserves that kind of emotional voting, but it shouldn’t need it. It’s good enough as is, an epic tale of good versus evil that proved long-running franchises can end on the highest of notes.

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.

WARNER BROS. PULLING ALL HARRY POTTER DISCS FROM STORES DEC. 29

Interesting idea to follow the Disney route and place these films on an announced moratorium. Since the beginning of VHS, films have been going on a moratorium where they are out of print for long periods of time, but they’re never announced as such, and I’ve always wondered why.

What better way to gin up sales than to announce the product will no longer be available?

REDBOX PICKING UP FLEEING NETFLIX SUBSCRIBERS

You can count me among them, and I am now eyeing the Blockbuster Movie Pass, as well.

HOW HOLLYWOOD SEDUCED AND ABANDONED CRITIC PAULINE KAEL

An old but always entertaining story. Basically, for practically no money, Warren Beatty completely de-fanged the most feared critic in Hollywood. The retelling of this tale in the link above all but dismisses that notion but few in Hollywood are as Machiavellian as Beatty.

—–

—–

SCOTTDS’ EPIC LINK-TACULAR

NETFLIX WOES NEVER SEEM TO END

WHY SPIELBERG IS OPENING LATEST FILM OVERSEAS FIRST

HOW ‘THE HELP’ OR ‘MIDNIGHT IN PARIS’ COULD WIN BEST PICTURE

DETAILS ON JOSS WHEDON’S SECRET ‘MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING’ ADAPTATION

NBC PURCHASES TV PILOT ABOUT A DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY LIVING IN THE WHITE HOUSE

BEN AFFLECK TO DIRECT WHITEY BULGER MOBSTER MOVIE, TO STAR MATT DAMON AND CASEY AFFLECK

NEW TRAILER FOR ‘THE PHANTOM MENACE 3D’ RE-RELEASE

CINEMATOGRAPHER WAS MISQUOTED: SCENES FROM ‘THE AVENGERS’ WERE NOT SHOT WITH AN IPHONE

COOL PHOTO: INSIDE A REDBOX MACHINE

COOL INFOGRAPHIC: THE VARIOUS GANGS OF HBO’S ‘OZ‘

NORRIS! STALLONE! VAN DAMME! THE 10 BEST CANNON FILMS!

TOP 10 MOVIES FOR HYPOCHONDRIACS

FOR YOU SCREENWRITERS: 10 WAYS TO JUICE UP A SCENE

25 THINGS YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT ‘WEST SIDE STORY‘

—–

—–

CLASSIC PICK FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26

TCM:

8PM EST: Razor’s Edge, The (1946) –  A young man’s quest for spiritual peace threatens his position in society. Dir: Edmund Goulding Cast:  Tyrone Power, Gene Tierney, John Payne.  BW-145 mins, TV-G,

Bizarre but fascinating noir film and Exhibit A for those defending Power’s underrated talents as an actor.

"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.

• Pro-Capitalism Themes. Harry Potter is also unabashedly pro-capitalism. Time and again, the private sector, not the government, is shown to be superior. Whereas the government world is drab and oppressive, the private sector is vibrant and alive. This is true from the pro-commerce Diagon Alley, to the way The Quibbler (a tabloid) rises to meet consumer demand for the truth when the main paper falls under the influence of the government, to the Weasley brothers being a walking advertisement for the joys of starting your own business. Even the fight against Voldemort is handled without the “help” of the government.

• Anti-Cult of Personality Themes. The Death Eaters, Voldemort’s followers, worship him in a strange cult of personality. They do as they are told without question. . . “Yes we can, my master, yes we can.” Nothing is more classically liberal than thinking for yourself. Nothing is more modern liberal than uncritically believing what you are told by a “gifted” leader.

But what about traditional morality? That’s the second part of the equation (Portus). Well, Potter is deeply conservative there too:

• Rejection of Moral Relativism. Rowling simply does not accept shades of gray in these books. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. It’s black and white. Readers are told repeatedly that you cannot do evil and remain good, even where evil seems to offer an easy solution. And whenever a character suggests that an evil character might only be evil because they feel pressured or disadvantaged (like Dumbledore suggests about Malfoy or Tom Riddle), those characters always prove that person wrong with violence.

Further, Voldemort is an evil man. He is not evil because he is misunderstood, or the product of an unhappy childhood, or driven to evil by economics or lack of health care. . . he is evil by choice. And while various motivations are offered to explain him to the audience, it is never suggested that the audience should sympathize with him or excuse his behavior. This is a truly conservative message: evil should be fought, not sympathized with. Heck, this message is so conservative that if you put the third book to your ear, you can actually hear an ACLU lawyer weeping.

"My social worker said I have clarity issues. . . so I killed her to make myself clear."

• The Value of Hard Work/Self-Reliance. Unlike most modern heroes, Harry is actually nothing special. He’s not smarter or wiser or stronger or faster than the other kids. He doesn’t have super powers. What Harry does have, is a group of people who care about him and who push him to work harder. When he does, he succeeds. When he doesn’t, he fails. It’s that simple. In the Harry Potter world, hard work gets rewarded, slacking gets punished, and anyone can succeed if they are determined to succeed. What could be more conservative than that?

• Belief in Traditional Families. The series repeatedly stresses the importance of the traditional family. Harry’s mother and father died to protect him, and in so doing, put a charm on him, which protects him so long as he has family, even nasty family like his uncle and aunt. The happiest people in the series are the Weasley family, who impart invaluable lessons about love, responsibility and all the other things conservatives want parents to teach their kids. By comparison, the messed up kids, from Neville Longbottom to Luna Lovegood, come from single parent homes (though they rise above their problems — another conservative theme). Similarly, Malfoy and Dudley, who have complete families, are taught the wrong lessons. Malfoy’s family is loveless and spiteful. Dudley’s family is over- indulgent and selfish. Consequently, Dudley and Malfoy became really messed up. The implication is clear throughout the book: a strong family is the best foundation. Love your parents, love your kids, and teach the right values. Indeed, the greatest moments in the book involve self-sacrifice to save family members.

• The Gay Issue. But what about Dumbledore being gay, you ask? Well, first, there’s no reason a gay person can’t be conservative. If Ronald Reagan had been gay, he’d still be my favorite President. And having gay characters in films really should not be a problem for conservatives unless they’re attacking traditional or religious values. Even then, remember that you have to look beyond single moments in films to determine the overall ideology. One leftist gay character does not a commie film make (Portus). And in any event, in the Potter series, the issue of Dumbledore being gay simply NEVER comes up. . . and no, that’s not innuendo for anything — you people have dirty minds. At no point is it ever mentioned.

"Um. . . Professor Dumbledore, will this be on the test?"

There you have it. Call me crazy, but that all seems pretty conservative to me?

Thoughts? Commento Lumos!!

(P.S. Thanks for all the comments in the prior articles. I want everyone to know that I do read all the comments, even though I can’t respond to them all.)

—–

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.

But Harry has a last-ditch plan: to start searching for whatever Horcruxes—the magical artifacts that contain pieces of Voldemort’s soul—are still extant. Armed with the all-powerful Sword of Gryffindor, he can now destroy them—and with them, Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) himself. The younger wizard has some loyal support: stalwart Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis, who gets a scene of rousing declamation), spacey Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch), the wolfish Remus Lupin (David Thewlis), and the steadfast Weasley clan. However, given the series’ body count to date (we’ve already bid sad farewells to Dumbledore, Mad-Eye Moody, and the lovable/annoying House Elf Dobby), you might fear that several of these characters won’t be emerging alive at the end of the tale. Is it wrong to say you’d be right?

Read full review here.

—–

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.

—–

“Larry Crowne” opens everywhere July 1st. Looks charming enough.

—–

“Monte Carlo” opens everywhere July 1st. Teenage wish-fulfillment is another kind of film I’m probably not the best judge of. Also not a big fan of any film that looks as though it’s yet another theme-less celebration of narcissism.

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?

But gee willikers, listen to the silence.

My colleagues in the film business absolutely a-dore causes.

They sport really cute AIDS and breast cancer ribbons at every opportunity. Global warming—rebranded as climate change—is, natch, the fashion forward cocktail shmooze of the moment. Park in any studio lot and you’ll see a dozen “Free Tibet” bumper stickers, as if Tibet will ever be free from the mass murdering Chinese.

But talk to film people about the oppression of women in the Muslim world, specifically honor killings, and you’ll be met with either blank stares or a stumbling explanation about the moral complexities of judging third world cultures.

In short, western liberals in Hollywood and elsewhere, most notably so-called feminists, have abandoned the human rights of Muslim women in the name of multicultural gibberish. It’s okay to let women be slaughtered by their fanatic families because we, as depraved western oppressors, have no right to tell the natives how to live.

Which is a pretty good description of dhimmitude.

In fact, western liberals are the perfect dhimmis. Accepting and condoning the violence of Muslims is exactly what the Islamists want. Why do you think it’s a hate crime to burn a Koran, but urinating on a crucifix is considered art?

The reason liberals can moan about Tibet is because they really don’t have to do anything. Just slap on the dopey bumper sticker and yadda-yadda about what a great guy is the Dalai Lama and your progressive credentials are totally up to date. You can go to your yoga class or faculty meeting and feel the love. Liberals are not going to go up against the ruthless and murderous Chinese who have turned Tibet into a massive killing field. They just want to feel good about themselves. It’s the nirvana of self-righteousness liberals seek.

But to confront Islam, violent and fanatic, actually takes courage. Because, let’s face it, Islamists are homicidal maniacs who take great pride in rioting, maiming, raping, torturing and beheading. Why else do you think they go to such lengths to broadcast their atrocities on You Tube?

And now that one of Hollywood’s own, Afshan Azad, 22, a fine young actress, is in hiding because her father and brother are determined to murder her, well, I’m sure Hollywood will sigh with compassion, and then move on because the part can always be recast.

This moral nothingness perfectly compliments the barbarism of the Islamist world. One cannot survive without the other. They are, in clinical terms, enablers.

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.

Let’s take a look at what’s in the theaters this Christmas to test this theory.  How about How Do You Know, with Reese Witherspoon.  It’s supposed to be a smart, mature romantic comedy.  Now take a look at the trailer:

—–

Oh my – yet another romantic comedy that appears to be neither romantic nor a comedy.  Tired, telegraphed jokes and Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd playing the same guys they play in every movie.  Plus Jack Nicholson in the same growly old guy mode he’s been in (except for the otherwise annoying The Departed) for the last couple decades.  Look, unless Jack is ripping the cover off a water department/incest conspiracy, I’m not interested.

The latest Harry Potter movie is still out.  But I’m a bit old for movies about teenage wizards, and I suspect a substantial number of the adult males watching it are going less to experience story than to see the now adult Emma Watson play with her wand.

The latest Narnia movie is out too, and I understand it’s C.S. Lewis and it has an important message and so on, but there’s a problem:  I’m not 12.  My kids will probably love it – when it comes out on DVD.

The Tourist with Johnny Depp and Angela Jolie is out.  But it’s rated PG-13, which kind of eliminates the whole point of having Angela Jolie in it.

There’s a sequel to 1982’s Tron coming out as well.  Finally.  I guess the 28 years of non-stop clamoring for more adventures of some guys who go into an Atari game and do stuff have finally paid off.  I suppose I’d be more interested in Tron: Legacy if I hadn’t discovered girls in the meantime.

Soul-crushingly, we have De Niro cashing yet another paycheck in Little Fockers, the third or fourth sequel to a mildly amusing movie I’ve pretty much forgotten by now.  Watch the trailer and die a little inside:

—–

It’s like they invented a whole series of new clichés just for this movie.  And Ben Stiller’s recycled antics are annoying enough, but Barbra Streisand too?  I wouldn’t force Julian Assange to watch this nightmare…okay, maybe I would.  As for De Niro, just keep saying to yourself, “He’ll always be Neal, he’ll always be Neal.”

Jack Black will be waddling back on screen too as America’s favorite funny fattie.  This time, he’s in a wacky new version of Gulliver’s Travels.

—–

Can you spot the fresh, original joke?  Trick question – there isn’t one!  It’s just more Jack Black yelling, mugging, and running about, which might be hilarious to Miley Cyrus and her pals after a couple rippers off her achy-breaky bong, but for the rest of us, this thing looks like a celluloid kidney stone that you have to pay eleven bucks to pass.

But there is hope.  The Coen Brothers have a remake of True Grit coming soon.  Let’s leave aside the sacrilege of trying to compete with the Duke – it looks badass:

—-

A movie about adults, doing adult things, speaking in phrases that aren’t designed so that even the average public school drop-out can understand them – who would have thought it possible?  I’m getting disoriented – how can this be?

So, maybe I will visit the multiplex this Christmas season after all.  Right after I finish running off those damn kids.