Your faithful correspondent takes a look at the current scene…
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, the third of the popular series, boasts a new director—Alfonso Cuarón—and a whole new dark attitude. A bad wizard has escaped from prison, and is out to get our Harry (Daniel Radcliffe)! The pic has exciting moments, but contains limited story, and is too long at 2 hours 21 minutes. It also relies way too much on CGI, perhaps to make up for the watering-down of what little plot exists in the book. Many who have read the book wonder how non-readers could follow the action, inasmuch as key details were inexplicably left out. (It’s not too hard.) Yet, helmer Cuarón and screenwriter Steve Kloves still have time for three separate stupid incidents of bad boy turned sissy Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) harassing Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson), only to be scared off when met with the slightest resistance.
Most of the acting is poor, with the notable exceptions of Gary Oldman as maybe-villain Sirius Black and David Thewlis as Professor Lupin (think of the French word for “wolf”). If you look quickly, you do get to see none other than Julie Christie pull a short-short cameo as landlady Madame Rosmerta.
Riddled with plot holes big enough for the proverbial Mack truck, and burdened with an unsatisfying denouement, its box office success proves that if you have a franchise and CGI, you don’t need anything else.
Fans of the late, great Roald Dahl will see his influence on the opening sequence covering Harry’s terrible home life. Imagine what Dahl could have done with this Potter thing…
As to the execrable Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 preaching to the choir of anti-Bush Lefties, what can we say? That the guy’s common man persona is a complete fake, that he exploits the grief of a “former” patriotic mom, whose son dies in combat in Iraq, that he engages in over-the-top conspiracy theories that can’t stand up to even the barest analysis?
Suffice to say that the success of this fat, ugly, obnoxious, sneering no-talent could only be possible in a media world dominated by venal, amoral individuals who at once fancy themselves the elite, but when you strip away the facade, emerge as the trash they really are.
Bush Haters and Clinton Lovers
Slick Willie is back in the limelight this summer with his new book. Would you believe that people camped out overnight to be among the first to purchase it?
Have you ever wondered why the Left seems to love the guy, even though he is no liberal? Consider that Clinton prominently upheld the death penalty in a case involving a retarded perp, and that two of his most touted (and there were precious few of them anyway) accomplishments in eight long years were welfare reform and balancing the budget. These are hardly the trappings of a foaming-at-the-mouth Leftist. So, exactly what’s going on here?
The answer, dear readers, is as easy to articulate as it may be difficult to accept. Remember those “venal, amoral individuals” mentioned above? Well, this country is chock full of them, and they’re not just in media. They’re in politics, education, industry, health care, religion, and living across the street from you. They didn’t realize that sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll was only supposed to be a passing phase of youth. They bought into it as a permanent lifestyle.
So, when Clinton was exposed as lecherous creep, who brought oral sex to the oval office, they loved it. One of their own as president. True, other chief executives fooled around, but FDR and Eisenhower were discreet about it, and JFK was boffing Marilyn Monroe, for Pete’s sake. True to form, he lied about the Lewinsky affair, but so would they!
Say what you want about George W. Bush, but he does operate on a somewhat better defined moral compass than his predecessor. Imagine, someone (almost) talking about objective good and evil. They can’t have that, since the existence of objective good and evil inexorably leads to the existence of God.
This simply would not wash with all the atheists and functional atheists, more numerous than you may care to believe. You might recall that Clinton even tested this once by deliberately misquoting the Bible. One of the beatitudes states
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. (Matthew 5:9)
Clinton rendered it, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will inherit the Earth,” using the tagline from “Blessed are the meek…” As he must have anticipated, not a single commentator noted this error, and many praised him for making the scriptural reference. This was absolutely not a mistake, but was a deliberate ploy, especially for a man whose entire life is scripted. Do you really think that in the preparation of the speech that contained the misquote, that a biblical reference would not have been checked?
Clinton and his groupies would have been better served to read on to verse 10…
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.