I'm bummed because I'll have to wait until either Friday or Saturday to see it (gotta work at the bookstore Wednesday night, and am on call for the store Thursday night).

I also might have to wait until the evening of Saturday, the 21st, to read Deathly Hallows, which ticks me off, but it looks like they're going to put the most recent hires on to open Saturday since most of the long-time employees are the ones working Harry Potter night. Oh, well, at least if they do that it means I'll have Sunday off to finish reading it/reread my favorite parts, as I always do.

Roger Ebert's review of OotP is enough to make me want to thwap him on the head. He spend it whining "Where's the whimsy?" and "My hope, as we plow onward through "Potters" Nos. 6-7, is that the series will not grow darker still. Yet I suppose even at the beginning, with those cute little mail-owls, we knew the whimsy was too good to last."

He insists on reviewing the story he would prefer to have seen rather than the one he did see, just like he did for LotR. Drives me crazy!

LE SIGH. I love a lot of Ebert's reviews, but, geez, has he read the books? The series has been growing darker since BOOK TWO. And for many people, that's a good thing.

I'm seeing it tomorrow night. Going to get tickets tonight after work.

Wow, that review demonstrates an epic lack of cluefulness. I hope to God Ebert really has never read any of the books past Sorcerer's Stone, because if he has then there's truly no excuse. Where's the whimsy? Er, crushed beneath the boot of the writer since roughly the midpoint of Chamber of Secrets.

Also, this caption to the still accompanying the review:

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is filled with British actors solidly established long before Daniel Radcliffe (seated) landed the role of Harry.

irritates the fuck out of me. What, they should have cast an experienced RADA-trained Shakespearean actor of 11 in the role to match up with the rest of the cast? What the fuck does that even mean?

Clearly I'm in need of either lots more or lots less coffee. I really shouldn't be sitting here itching to slap an oldish man who's been recently ill. But, really, Ebert is too intelligent and too film-literate for this review. It's beneath him.

It isn't like Radcliffe had no acting experience whatsoever--he was the title character in David Copperfield, after all. And, like you said, where does an 11-year-old (not named Christian Bale) get Shakesperian experience at that age?

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is filled with British actors solidly established long before Daniel Radcliffe (seated) landed the role of Harry.

I wouldn't blame Ebert for a caption. The review, yes; the captions, no.

Wow, that review demonstrates an epic lack of cluefulness.

He does this often. I often get eyerolly reading him (much as I like lots of his writing, especially in his Great Movies books, and even in his two books of trashing reviews) because he seems to be deliberately and willfully not getting things at times.

Not only is the cinema near me showing HP5 at midnight on ten screens (eleven if you include the IMAX one), but they're having an additional showing on one screen and also the IMAX at 3:00 am!

Waiting for word from my aunt if I can take my cousins to the midnight showing in ... less than EIGHT HOURS.

I'm planning on seeing HP when it comes to IMAX here, which is generally about a month after general release. I was planning on rereading the series, but I can't find books 1 and 2, very distressing.

In Non HP talk did anyone see that TCM had a Silent Shakespeare special on? I can't remember when it aired but I dvr'd it, it's early silent movie adapations of Shakespeare (or in some cases what's left of the films). I watched the first part of it and it's very interesting to see the sets and some of the acting. I'm nots sure if they are going to air it again but anyone who is a fan of Shakespeare and silent movies should check this out.

I think that was on Sunday night--that's when TCM usually shows silent films. I saw that on my cable listings and was thinking about watching, but passed over it in favor of something else I can't remember now.

I like some silent films, but find that some of them indulge in what Kathy Selden in Singin' in the Rain calls "a lot of dumb show."