I have seen 2 movies this week.

Last night was a perfectly dreadful Bollywood epic called Taj Mahal. You know how most Bollywood movies have the one really boring sex scene/love song that's only really there to give the audience time to go to the bathroom, and maybe sell a few soundtrack CDs? Well, in this film, it's all that scene. I have never been so tempted to walk out of a movie in my life. The only reason we didn't is DH was reviewing it. It was so. fucking. boring. Not to mention all the bad CGI and worse wigs and fake beards. And the CGI deer. Oh lord, the deer...

Anyhoo, tonight we saw Mrs Henderson Presents, which was absolutely delightful. Judy Dench and Bob Hoskins are terrific, and it's got a great period feel to it. It's glamorous period rather than gritty period, but it commits to the style without making it about the style, and allows the actors to give wonderfully honest performances.

I finally saw Ginger Snaps.

It was neither as good nor as bad as I was expecting. Ultimately, I think the idea of lycanthropy as an allegory for female puberty just doesn't work. Also, major Stupidity Factor. I'm just no longer tolerant of scenes or plot points that require Stupidity Factor to happen.

But still, not too awful, esp. for a werewolf flick.

So today is the day that Harry Potter and the Blitz of Marketing gets released, right?

Yep--I'm heading over to the 6:00 show in a few minutes.

I know we've got a handful of gamers about, so I figured I'd share this.

I just watched the new D&D movie that was on Sci-Fi last month. ("Wrath of the Dragon God" or "The Elemental Might." I've seen both titles used.) While you can tell it had zero budget (the special effects are decent for the spells, but creatures, whether CGI or make-up, are really bad) and the writing, acting and directing are shaky in parts, it's still a decent cheesy fantasy movie, especially if you're actually familiar with D&D and can catch all the little references peppered throughout. It actually stays fairly true to the game and there weren't any moments where my inner rules lawyer went "Wait, that shouldn't happen!"

There is some annoying exposition, but mostly they just expect the audience to either have played D&D or be smart enough to figure out what’s going on. There’s also a subtle side effect of a detect magic spell that made me go "Hey! Cool!"

It's also surprisingly grim for being a cheesy fantasy movie based on a game. The heroes get their butts kicked and have bad things happen to them with surprising frequency.

That said, there are plenty of parts that deserve to MST3Ked. One that stood out is the heroes find a village of goblins who’ve been slaughtered. One of them looks around and says “Who could have done this?” and my first thought was “Quick, look for a group of 1st level adventurers !”

So, overall, I wouldn’t bother paying $18 or whatever for the DVD, but it’s definitely worth watching for D&D geeks if you can get ahold of it in some other fashion. The usual places had it when I got it earlier this week.

Just got back from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. As a fan of the books, but one who enjoyed the book Prisoner of Azkaban more than the book GoF, I'd have to rate the films the same way. Radcliffe is definitely improving as an actor, but he still needs some substantial training to bring it up to the level he's going to need by the seventh outing. His crying/portrayal of grief has gotten better than the last film (his reaction to the events after the third task were very well done indeed) . Grint and Watson have more screen time than in PoA, and Grint has finally moved past the mugging-for-the-camera stage (thank you, Mr. Director!). Watson was wonderful in the Yule Ball scene, especially in her confrontation with Ron at the end.

As for the secondary characters, Gambon and Gleason were both just terrific. I've posted before my disappointment that Patrick Stewart wasn't casted for Mad-Eye, but now that I've seen Gleason, I like the fact that they didn't use such a recognizable face as Stewart would have given to Moody. Too bad that Rickman and Dame Maggie didn't have more screen time, but the fact that Hagrid had less was fine with me. The other students had some nice moments, especially Fred and George (they've really picked it up in the last two films, and I'm so looking forward to their grand exit from Hogwarts in OotP), the Patil sisters (loved Ron's date at the ball!), and especially Neville. Giving him the heart of an Astaire was a wonderful touch!

Overall, definitely worth another viewing--3 1/2 stars, easy. (PoA got 4 stars.)

Loved the show myself as well, for the same reasons. Wished Rickman had gotten more lines; he was at the top of my list of people I felt got short-changed. I was expecting such a thing--you simply can't do everyone justice in this framework and have the whole be any good--but still.

Did everyone else get to see the trailer for "Happy Feet" on this one? Was anyone else entirely baffled by it? If the film lives up to the tone of the trailer, I'm calling Unintentional Stoner Movie of the Decade.

Wished Rickman had gotten more lines;

Question: was Gary Oldman in the movie at all and was Snape's role as a former death eater / ally of Dumbledore discussed at all ?

Frank... 1) Oldman was only in one scene and that was really all CGI, so he was never REALLY there. Quite a disappointment.

2) Harry does see, in Dumbledore's pensive, that Snape was a Death Eater, but he also sees the younger Dumbledore defend him and explain his role as a spy. If I remember correctly, that was the only reference. Snape was definitely not as menacing in this one. The scene where the boys are talking about getting dates for the Yule Ball is priceless.

There was also the scene where Harry stumbles upon Snape and the Durmunstrang headmaster are showing off their tattoos. So yeah, they establish Snape's past a bit.