Why Prisoner of Azkaban Is Still the Best Harry Potter Movie

So, like everyone and their mothers in the past couple of weeks, I saw the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in theaters. I enjoyed it, though there were some flaws, and it received generally positive reviews. A lot of critics were contending that this was the best Potter film yet, but I have to whole-heartedly disagree with them. I'm not going so far as to call it a bad movie as my sister did, but there shouldn't be a question that Prisoner of Azkaban is the best Harry Potter film made so far.

The Prisoner of Azkaban is a fantastic story that also made significant contributions to the rest of the series movie wise. I believe that the first two films were too similar to the book in the sense that they didn't adapt well to the screen. The Sorcerer's Stone is more excusable considering it serves more as an introduction to the entire world of magic and such. But the first two films really dragged on as it tried to squeeze as much of the books as it could into the screen. After re-watching the first two, there also seemed to be too many moments where there was a pause for dramatic, suspenseful effect. I don't know if this can all be blamed on director Chris Columbus, but the movie series definitely took a different direction (pun intended) when Alfonso Cuarón took over for the third film. It flowed very smoothly and the paced was picked up a little. I'm not upset about anything specific that was left out because it needs to happen for the film to work. However, minor details were the only thing really missing and the film length was cut down from the first two by about 15 minutes, even though the third book is significantly longer than the first two.

There is one other thing that always bothered me about the first two films. I wouldn't know who to place blame on really, and I never noticed it until the third because it was so different, but who the hell designed the Hogwarts grounds in the first two films? Not the castle itself, but the surrounding area. Anyone else notice that the scenes taking place outside in the first films were shot on entirely flat ground on clear days or nights? Way to stimulate my visual senses. Beginning with the third film, the grounds designs were changed dramatically. There were cliffs and mountains/hills/terrain and bridges and actual scenery that suddenly appeared in Prisoner of Azkaban that were largely absent from the previous installments. They never were part of any scenes, more for just pull-back shots and scene changes. Before, Hogwarts was there, and then there were surroundings. The third film showed Hogwarts as a place built into its surroundings rather than a place that existed alongside them. Perhaps the most noticeable difference was the location of the Whomping Willow, which characteristically appeared on its own on a flat patch of grass outside the castle in the second film. The next film had it along the edge of a hillside, outside the walls of the castle, and actually seeming like part of the scenery. With that inclusion, along with the overall darker tones of Dementors and Werewolves made the third film a clear visual upgrade. The template for the grounds has been used in every Potter film since, which is nice to see, but it also hasn't been exceeded, at least not obviously.

I remember a few years ago when Facebook was still a place for only people who had a college e-mail account. There was I group I saw that proclaimed that Richard Harris was a much better Dumbledore than Michael Gambon. These people are morons. I'm not glad that Richard Harris had to pass away for Gambon to land the part, but as the books progressed it became increasingly clear that Dumbledore was a commanding force to be reckoned with, and Harris' portrayal was one that was too grandfatherly to be that force. I won't claim that this recasting, which was clearly not intended, made this movie better, but Gambon has been a better Dumbledore. In fact, as far as role casting goes, whoever is in charge of it in these movies receives as A. Whether or not the actors chosen fit the exact physical description of their characters in the book (ahem, Alan Rickman), they have played their parts excellently. Helen Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange? Beautiful. Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart? Delightful. But my personal favorite is Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, who makes his first appearance in the series in Prisoner of Azkaban. The man who would become Commissioner Gordon in the new Batman series, and the man who foolishly tried to take over a plane that Harrison Ford was on plays a damn good Sirius Black, which was essential for the best story of the whole series. This doesn't take away from the great casting in other films, but rather bolsters Prisoner of Azakaban's credentials.

I've mostly pointed out the flaws of the first films, and it is true that the more recent movies are generally better. However I take a few issues with the fourth and the sixth and most recent film. Goblet of Fire was probably the most anticipated. A Triwizard Tournament, the return of Voldemort and the Death Eaters. I don't think it completely flopped, but there was a lot missing. They had even thought of splitting this movie into two like the final book, but felt it didn't fit. It's not that specific plot elements were missing, as their inclusion would've created a Return of the King-ending-type feeling for 3+ hours, it was a matter of what was included compared to what wasn't. The addition of Barty Crouch Jr. into the opening scene actually eliminated the twist at the end, and could've been accomplished more subtilely otherwise. And the buildup to the Quidditch World Cup yet its exclusion in film probably pissed off everyone who has ever read the book, including me, and it quite possibly could've been the most anticipated scene in the movie from book fans. It could be compared with Spiderman 3, a film that was solid, but tried to put too much into the film, but found it impossible to leave things out.

With the sixth and most recent film, I felt it was rather anti-climactic in multiple regards. I understand the exclusion of a battle scene at the castle to avoid repetitiveness in the fifth and the final films, but the confrontation between Harry and Snape at the end fizzled. I don't know whether to put blame on director David Yates or Rickman but Snape should have been way more passionately outraged at Harry using his homemade spells, like the book. The love story between Harry and Ginny was also lacking. What was in the book a surprising, somewhat climactic embrace after a Quidditch Cup victory was completely changed into a half kiss, and the story wasn't picked up and just presumed afterward. Not such a big deal had there also not been the buildup. Most everything else missing or lacking in the film can be attributed to it being a "transitional" film.

I actually found nothing wrong with the fifth film, which I watched again recently before the sixth appeared in theaters. I think that Order of the Phoenix is actually a close second to Prison of Azkaban in terms of its presentation on film. More excellent casting (Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge), and a great first big good vs. evil magic fight scene, but I always felt that Prisoner of Azkaban was a better story. They were both more darker tones with a light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel endings. However, Prisoner of Azkaban contains one of my favorite scenes in all the cinema I've seen, when Harry takes Buckbeak for a cruise over the lake. It's hard not to enjoy that scene. The story, not that scene, gives it the edge, but it's nice to have a memorable movie moment, something I don't think was quite given in Order of the Phoenix. In conclusion, Prisoner of Azkaban ftw.

Why Family Guy Is No Longer Funny

A funny thing happened to me nearly every day for the past 7 months. That would be me going through all the seasons I own on DVD of The Simpsons. That would be 1-9 and 11. I don't know why I don't own Season 10. It made me appreciate the heyday of this series all over again, and since I've recently gone through my Futurama DVDs with the commentary on, I will go through all those Simpsons DVDs with that commentary on. Who knows what jewels I can find. With all the TV I've been watching recently, I've had a lot of time to think about all the comedy I've absorbed over the years. I've watched a lot, so I feel like I have a good understanding of what is funny, and let me tell you something: Family Guy isn't funny anymore.

Family Guy may be the most interesting TV show if one were to do a comedy exposé (as I am now thinking of doing). For one, it was off-the-air for THREE FULL YEARS, then came roaring back after insanely strong DVD sales. To think about how astonishing that is, you can look no further than it's return debut, where Peter in a clever gag ends up listing nearly every show on FOX that was cancelled during those three years. Unfortunately, that one gag ended up being a prelude to a large part of the show's humor. It existed before at times, as when Peter trips, falls, and hits his shin. Maybe it went on a little long, but when was the last time you got kicked or hit in the shins really hard? That's really what it feels like! The first time I got hit in the shins hard after seeing that, I couldn't stop laughing, and I was in a bit of pain. But that was the old Family Guy.

It was, before its three year hiatus, quite hilarious. One of the reasons why is, believe it or not, it was actually sort of grounded. At least, grounded enough. Stewie's homosexual tendencies, Brian's alcoholism and love for Lois, and even Peter's escapades were all moderately kept in check, and really let loose only once in awhile. Now, you can't go five minutes without something "outrageous" and "barrier breaking" happening. But it's not just that, it's the in-your-face approach that Family Guy fails at. It tries to do too much with being unconventional or fighting the man or whatever you want to call it, and it takes too much away from the story line. Then at the end of the main story line, the lesson is learned and then forgotten about within about 8 seconds, like the lesson learned is nothing more than obligatory to include as part of the episode.

Nonetheless, the return of Family Guy was initially met with praise from my peers and me. We had loved it, and I felt it left right when it was really hitting a stride. It's first episode back was a good sign, but almost immediately after came a clunker, then a so-so episode, then another clunker, and then a really good episode. Family Guy in short, became hit-or-miss. It would shine one week, but then deflate the next. And it became enough where I quickly stopped watching new episodes on Sundays. The inconsistency, in part stemming from it's supposedly outlandish content, probably hurt it the most.

Family Guy also suffers from dragging its good gags along too far. For example, this. I found myself watching this on TV for the first time thinking it was pretty clever then it got to about 0:38 left (in the linked clip) where I thought "just end it already." It plum wiped the smile I had straight off my face. And it's more of the same. I could spew off 100 more recent clips of this show with a solid bet that barely anyone finds it actually funny. It's just random fillings. It's almost precisely why my favorite episode from South Park is "Cartoon Wars," where the writers of Family Guy are portrayed as manatees who write jokes by pushing random rubber "idea balls" into a bin together.

It's really quite sad, because Family Guy was one of my favorite shows and one of the funniest. It just seems that after it came back it started to become drunk with power. It makes me concerned about the quality of Futurama when it returns next year, and not just because the voice talent may not return. At this point I can only hope.

Tracking My Expenses

Yesterday I bought Wii Sports Resort, and it was one of three purchases I've made on my credit card in the last MONTH that you couldn't file under food/rent/utilities/gas purchases. Also, since I'm still under the beneficiary of my parents for one more guaranteed month, not too many dents have been made in my bank account despite being unemployed since the end of March.

This isn't an excuse for not finding a job. I certainly could have been a little more diligent. It's also not exactly like the economy is just spewing out jobs for me, but I have been able to steadily survive with a small surplus while receiving pseudo-paychecks. Since my employment ended 4 months ago, I have had the last paycheck from my job, a government tax rebate, and various graduation checks deposited into my account, including a generous $5000 check from my grandfather which I partially used to buy myself a fancy new MacBook Pro. And that's not all. Sure enough, sometime this week I expect two more checks to arrive: a rebate check from buying an iPod Touch with the new laptop, and a check from the investment company that controls the retirement savings from UCSD employees (there was only my money in there due to one summer which I worked full-time hours on a part-time job so a small part of the paycheck was transferred to said investment company). The two checks come close to $400, another pseudo-paycheck.

It's the difference in Account Balances (or lack there-of) that strike this all as very interesting to me, because aside from maybe a video game or two more, I don't have any pressing needs or wants to buy that I wouldn't think twice about if I had a job. You'd think I would want something, but at this point I can easily live comfortably. I realize this is all subject to change once I am cut off from my parents, but if I can make enough to cover rent/utilities/food I could survive handily. I've already made all the big purchases I've wanted to, which include a nice LCD TV, a Nintendo Wii... and hell I can't really think of another. I don't exactly want to set the job bar low for myself, but considering the state of the economy I may not have much of a choice anyway.

It's getting closer and closer to the point where I may have to settle for a job that I would consider beneath me. That's something my ego and pride with have to swallow, but I have always come through when it has counted most, so all I need is the confidence to succeed in whatever I end up doing.

Ugh, that was a terribly cheesy ending...

My Top 5 Simpsons Episodes

So, let me explain my train of thought on this one, because it's mildly interesting. It all starts with me not currently having a job. This creates loads of free time for me, as you can imagine. Now, things I think of to do only exhausts so much time each day. Thank the gods it's baseball season, or I'd really be in trouble.

In addition to watching all three seasons of Arrested Development again, I realized that for how many times I've seen all the Futurama episodes, and for how many years I've owned the DVDs, I've never listened to the audio commentary, which is practically blasphemy. I've now watched most of Volume 3 with the commentary on, which includes many great episodes including mine and IGN's consensus #1 (A link to IGN's tops 25 Futurama episodes here), "Amazon Women in the Mood." If you know me on Facebook, you can look at what I chose for my top 10. This led me to a much arduous task: picking my top 5 Simpsons episodes. Even if you eliminate the last 10 (forgettable anyway) years of the show's existence, this is still a tall order.

Entertainment Weekly has a pretty solid top 25 Simpsons episodes here. If you do a quick rundown of the list, you see that at least 20, probably more, of those episodes are on the other side of the millennium, and understandably so. If you want me to get to my picks already, you should know that most of the time spent typing this has really been buying me time to actually pick the episodes. It's tough!

A note: I don't know if I can possibly pick a definitive top 5, much less a #1, so these are all subject to change. This is also why I have 5 honorable mentions (which effectively makes this a top 10 list). Remember, this is also MY top 5, not what I think THE top 5 is.

#5. The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson - The premiere season 9 and the most recent of my personal faves, NY v. Homer is probably pushing itself up the list because now it's considered taboo. If you don't know or haven't guessed why, this is because a large portion of this episode involves the Twin Towers, so FOX pulled it from its rerun rotation after 9/11. I won't bore you with plot summaries, so I'll stick with reasons why these episodes make the list.

#4. Homer at the Bat - A late season 3 episode, this one makes it partially because I'm a baseball fan, so little jokes seem funnier to me. Don't mistake that for blind judgement though, this one does have a bit of everything. It also showed the power of this show by getting a full roster of major league superstars at the time to play themselves: Wade Boggs, Jose Canseco, Roger Clemens, Ken Griffey Jr., Don Mattingly, Steve Sax, Mike Scioscia, Ozzie Smith, and Darryl Strawberry.

#3. 22 Short Films About Springfield - If only this one could be made an hour long. It was quite enjoyable to see many of the minor characters of the show get some limelight without devoting a normally tiresome episode to them. Secondary characters get some love, but it is a stretch when third tier characters normally known for one line/joke/stereotype are given serious screen time. They know who they are.

#2. Bart Gets an F - The premiere of Season 2, the first full season of this show. This was back when The Simpsons had more believable, character driven stories, and even jerked a tear or two from me near the end when I watched it most recently. Even in such great seasons as the 6th and 7th, you could feel The Simpsons of old slipping away into what is now mostly zany antics. It seems to me that Groening wanted a do-over and created Futurama, which throughout its existence has consistently produced excellent characters and memorable jokes and gags. Also, holding a show 1000 years in the future gives better excuse for zany antics, as one of their better credit gag lines read "You Can't Prove It Won't Happen." This episode also contains a wonderful quote from Lisa, combining her impeccable intellect and reasoning and her containment in a child's world: "I'm no theologian. I don't know who or what God is exactly. All I know is He's a force more powerful than Mom and Dad put together, and you owe him big."

#1. Bart Sells His Soul - I've mentioned this before as my possible favorite episode, and no matter how many times I make a list like this, this episode will consistently show up on it. It is the struggle I face as a scientific-minded yet intrigued agnostic put on screen for 23 minutes. I've even attempted, on more than one occasion, to buy someone's soul a la Milhouse as a social experiment (too afraid to try and sell mine). Both deals fell through. Nonetheless, a lesson is learned, jokes were made, but never before have the two been so perfect together in my mind.

Honorable Mentions (no particular order)

Homer's Barbershop Quartet - Once again flashing the power of the show, this one featured the voice talent of former Beatle George Harrison. In fact, Ringo Starr, Paul McCartney, and Harrison have all lent their voices to the show at one point.

Separate Vocations - One of the great Bart-and-Lisa-centric episodes, this one has a great reversal of fortunes and personal sacrifice. Something this compelling I think has been missing from the show for awhile.

Marge vs. The Monorail - A consensus top episode, this one holds close to me because of The Music Man undertone. Also present I believe is the first of several Leonard Nimoy appearances on Groening related programming.

Homer Goes To College - Written by now Tonight Show Host Conan O'Brien (yes, that Conan) this one gets up there purely for the Animal House parodies, much like "Mars University" from Futurama.

King-Size Homer - Perhaps if this episode were made 8 years later, Homer may have faced a few more consequences after the "sudden" emergence that we have a serious obesity problem in the country. Regardless, this episode is just too funny to leave off any list.

The Itch, The Scratch, and The Body

How come anti-itch cream never seems to work when we need it to? It must be because we're always focused on the itch and it going away. Once we focus on it, the mind takes over the body, and the itch sometimes even feels worse. We've never learned to just leave the itch alone so it can just pass and go away.

Last week I miraculously contracted shingles. I say miraculously because shingles mostly occurs in people over 50 years old, or with a suppressed immune system, or mucho stress-o, or all three. I'm a laid back, 22 year old recent college graduate who has gotten the flu once in ten years without ever getting a flu shot in those 10 years. Hard to see where I fit in.

For those of you who don't know what shingles is, read Wikipedia. I'm not a professor. But I do know that it causes some itching. Interesting how the majority of the itching I feel is not associated with the large rash on my back, but the small set to the left of my belly button. It's really quite annoying. I wish I could trade back the itching to feel the pain I had earlier, because I could at least pop some Aleve to help with that.

You're probably wondering where this is all going, so let me assure you that there is one badass politically colored metaphor coming. My views on metaphors are mostly expressed in this article I wrote on LJ a couple years back, but even I didn't expect the upcoming one to work so well when I first thought of it:

The Gay Community (& Friends) is The Itch "Itchy"

The Anti-Gay Community is The Scratch "Scratchy"

So we're clear, I am not saying anything specific about what's wrong or right, or who should win, or anything of that nature. People who know me know what I think about it. I'm merely using this topic as a surprisingly fitting piece in my Itch analogy. I like how it fits. Also, I hope I don't get sued by Matt Groening.

So assume that everything is all hunky-dory at the beginning. But then, the body, America, contracts shingles. Nerve inflammation with a lot of pain on one side, a large rash on the back, and one small spot on the front that itches like hell. Always something wrong in America, but we're focusing on this itch, because we can see it in front of us and see that it is not just going to go away. We know that if we leave Itchy alone, it will eventually resolve itself and everyone is happy (read: Gays get rights, Anti-Gays deal with it until eventual harmony; Not Gays go away and never come back). But Itchy doesn't control the body, Scratchy does (at least one of the arms anyway), and Scratchy thinks that by just scratching the itch, Itchy will go away. For some reason, he hasn't figured out that this isn't true.

Scratching the itch only makes Itchy mad. Itchy starts to bring in its Friends, and the itch becomes worse as a result. As the itch gets worse, the body America gets distracted from the excruciating pain (Economy/Recession) and the large rash on the back (hm... let's say Iraq War) and starts focusing more on this itch that never should have been (read: Gay marriage should not even be an issue). It starts applying anti-itch creams (Propositions/State Laws) to where it is bothered, and while it works to some degree (CT, VT, MA etc.) it won't stop and only seems to get worse (CA).

I wish I could trade back the itching to feel the pain I had earlier, because I could at least pop some Aleve to help with that.

So I wish America would stop trying to deal with Itchy, because really it's just a matter of time before the itch is resolved and it can live with the body unperturbed again. Anti-itch creams may help, but because it draws attention to it, you're too focused on it to worry about the bigger problems in your body, which you can do something about (Aleve) and should be worried about more (because of the PAIN). Unfortunately for America, Scratchy exists, and will keep scratching and hoping for Itchy to go away. Itchy ain't going away as long as you keep scratching, folks.

Welcoming Myself Back To Blogging

Hello, Blogosphere. It has been awhile. Let's start anew, shall we?

Throughout my life I've had a Xanga and Livejournal for my blog, but for whatever reason I feel I've outgrown those particular sites. Regardless of the demographic for those sites, using them reminds of a less cool time in my life: High School. So I've moved on. I've become immersed in Twitter, which for better or worse, I love, but most my thoughts are hard to be expressed in 140 characters or less. I'm very deliberate and thorough when I speak, Twitter isn't exactly the place for that.

So, I now have this. No particular reason for choosing this blog site, so as my former co-workers license plate says, DNWRBDT (decipher that, I give you a cookie).

That's mostly all I have to say for now, but I do want to say that I highly encourage discussion and debate, and I don't care whether you are someone I am close to, someone I barely know, or a random person who just clicked Stumble in Safari, tell me what you think. Unlike most, I can take criticism gracefully and respond without attacking.