"BREAKING DAWN, PART I" (2011) Review

 

"BREAKING DAWN, PART I" (2011) Review

Over a decade ago, Warner Brothers Studios had decided to split its adaptation of J.K. Rowling's last HARRY POTTER novel, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" into two movie adaptations. The first was released in the fall of 2010 and the second half, during the summer of 2011. Apparently, the studio had decided to do the same with Stephanie Meyer's last TWILIGHT novel, "Breaking Dawn".

I had discovered that Meyer wrote the 2008 novel in three sections. The first section dealt with Bella Swan's marriage to vampire Edward Cullen and their honeymoon in Brazil. There, she discovers that she is pregnant and that her unborn child's growth is accelerating at a rapid pace. The second section dealt with shape-shifter Jacob Black's efforts to save Bella and her unborn child from the Quileute wolf pack, who believe that the child is a monster and poses a threat to the community. The child's birth nearly kills Bella and leads Jacob to "imprint" (or sense his "soul mate") upon her. And Edward saves Bella by turning her into a vampire. The final section dealt with Bella's transformation into a vampire; and the Cullens and Jacob's efforts to save the new baby named Renesmee from the Volturi, who sees her as a threat. This third section was adapted for "BREAKING DAWN, PART II". Melissa Rosenberg based the screenplay for "BREAKING DAWN, PART I" on the novel's first two sections.

How did I feel about "BREAKING DAWN, PART I"? I might as well be frank. It sucked. There. I said it. All right. There were a few aspects of the movie that I found entertaining. Billy Burke was funny as ever as Bella's sardonic father, Charlie Swan. However, not all of the humor came from him. I have to admit that the entire sequence featuring Bella and Edward's wedding struck me as rather funny. Taylor Lautner, as usual, made some sequences from the movie rather bearable. I realize that I am going to be slapped down for this, but his screen presence has grown rather considerably since he first appeared in 2008's "TWILIGHT". Both Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattison gave decent performances. But I was really impressed by Lautner. The final action sequence in which the Cullens, Jacob, Leah Clearwater and Seth Clearwater fought to protect Bella and her child from the Quileute wolf pack struck me as pretty exciting. However, the birth of Bella and Edward's child turned out to be one of the most tense and excruciating birth scenes I have ever seen on film. I never want to experience such a thing again. The only reason I had listed it as a virtue was because I thought it was well shot by director Bill Condon.

Despite the virtues I had listed in the previous paragraph, I still believe that "BREAKING DAWN, PART I" sucked. And I cannot decide whether it was the worst or second worst movie in the franchise. The movie had its share of overwrought dialogue and one-dimensional characterization that has marred the franchise since the beginning. Melissa Rosenberg has a lot to answer for. Since the adaptation of this last novel was divided into two films, moviegoers (who were not squeeing fangirls of the franchise) were forced to endure Edward and Bella's excruciating honeymoon in Brazil. God, what a torment that turned out to be! I realize that the honeymoon sequence was important to the story, considering that it featured Renesmee's conception and Bella's discovery of her unusual pregnancy. But was it really necessary to inflict a long and agonizing montage of the newly married couple cavorting on a private Brazilian island?

There is another aspect of "BREAKING DAWN, PART I" that really disturbs me. Why on earth did Charlie Swan's closest friend and Jacob's father, Billy Black, never warned Charlie about Edward's true identity? Now, I realize that such a revelation would have forced him to tell Charlie the truth about his family and tribe. But one would think that Bella's safety was more important. He kept his mouth shut when Edward and Bella first dated. And continued to remain silent when the young couple finally married. I hate to say this, but Billy Black's silence on the identity of the Cullen family continues to astound me to this day. One can only wonder how Charlie will react to Bella's transformation into a vampire.

I wish I could say that I enjoyed "BREAKING DAWN, PART I", but . . . who am I fooling? I disliked the film. Hell, I dislike the franchise. And no action sequence or tortuous childbirth scene could save this movie for me.

James "Sawyer" Ford and the Art of Illusion

 

JAMES "SAWYER" FORD AND THE ART OF ILLUSION

In past articles about the ABC series, "LOST", I had complained about the willingness of some of the series' fans to make excuses or dismiss some of the more serious mistakes and crimes of the leading female character, Kate Austen. But it took me several years to realize that Kate was not the only popular character that fans tend to defend - undeservedly, I might add. One other character has been defended just as much, or perhaps even more than Kate. And I am referring to the series' resident con artist, James "Sawyer" Ford.

I suppose it made sense that Sawyer’s profession happened to be a con artist. Several years following the deaths of his parents, he proved to be quite adept at deceiving and swindling a good number of people for his benefit. After surviving the crash of Oceanic Airlines Flight 815, it did not take long for the series to display Sawyer’s talent for deceiving his fellow castaways, several other inhabitants on the mysterious island, and more importantly, himself.

As a child, James had endured a traumatic tragedy after another confidence man had swindled money from his family. That tragedy soon followed when his father murdered his mother (who had an affair with the con man) before committing suicide. These tragic events not only led James into eventually becoming a con man named Sawyer, himself; but also a very unpopular character with the fans – especially during Season One. He was a surly and sardonic man with a tendency to antagonize other characters, think only of himself and dump some of the silliest nicknames upon the other castaways. However, once the fans became aware of Sawyer’s childhood tragedy in episodes like (1.08) "Confidence Man" and (1.16) "Outlaws"; he became something of a fan favorite – especially in regard to his relationship with Kate. Fans soon began to appreciate Sawyer’s nicknames for others (why, I do not know), his sardonic sense of humor and Southern charm. When Sawyer began displaying signs of heroism in Season Four episodes like (4.09) "The Shape of Things to Come" and (4.12-4.14) "There’s No Place Like Home, Parts I and II", certain fans began to view him as the overall hero of the series . . . or perhaps someone who should be the series' hero.

One of the results from the Ford family tragedy was James' search for the real "Sawyer", the man who had swindled his parents. Young James had dumped the blame for his parents’ deaths completely on this con man’s shoulders. Not only did he write a letter to the man (which he kept on his person) at the age of eight, promising revenge for his family’s tragedy; he finally got the chance to exact his revenge. In the Season Three episode, (3.19) "The Brig", fellow castaway John Locke was ordered by Ben Linus of the Others to kill his father – another confidence man named Anthony Cooper – in order to prove himself a worthy member of their group. Unfortunately, Locke could not get himself to kill Cooper, despite the latter’s taunts. But when Locke learned more about his father’s past, he found someone who could do the job for him. Namely, one James "Sawyer" Ford.

I suppose no one should have been surprised that James would end up murdering Cooper. I certainly was not surprised. But I also felt a great deal of disappointment and contempt toward the con man. For 28 years – since the age of eight – James had solely blamed Anthony Cooper for his parents’ deaths. In other words, he used Anthony Cooper as a scapegoat for all of the hurt he had experienced during that troubling time. Yes, Cooper had been guilty of swindling the Ford family and having an affair with Mrs. Ford. But that was the extent of his guilt. As he matured into an adult, I wonder if James ever bothered to wonder about his parents' actions. Look at Mr. Ford. How did he expressed himself after realizing that he had been swindled by Cooper and cuckolded by Mrs. Ford? He murdered his wife in cold blood and then committed suicide; instead of reporting Cooper to the police and divorcing his wife. Sawyer could blame Anthony Cooper for swindling his family. But apparently, he seemed incapable of realizing that his mother was guilty of adultery with Cooper . . . and his father was guilty of murder. Even worse, James refused to admit that his father had reacted to his wife’s infidelity and Cooper’s deception with vindictiveness and cowardice.

When you think about it, one could say that Sawyer is almost a chip off the old block. His determination to solely blame Cooper for his parents' deaths not only led him to eventually murder the con man on the island, it also led him to commit another murder before he had boarded Oceanic Flight 815 in Sydney, Australia. Back in the United States, a fellow con man named Hibbs informed James that Cooper is living in Australia, under the alias of Frank Duckett. After catching up with the man in Sydney and shooting him, Duckett revealed that his name was not an alias and that he owned money to Hibbs. In other words, Hibbs had used James' desire for revenge to murder an innocent man. And in "The Brig", Locke used that same desire to manipulate the Alabama native into committing another murder. Many fans have claimed that James’ murder of Cooper allowed him some form of solace over his parents’ deaths. For me, his solace is false. The murder only allowed James to ignore the fact that his parents – especially his father – was even more guilty for leaving him in an orphan state. In fact, James’ desire for revenge allowed two men to make a chump out of him.

Around the end of Season One, James managed to win a seat aboard a raft constructed by another castaway – Michael Dawson. Along with Michael, the latter’s ten year-old son Walt Lloyd, and a fourth castaway, Jin-Soon Kwon; James sailed away from the island in (1.23-1.25) "Exodus: Parts 1 and 2". As everyone knows, the raft passengers failed to get very far after young Walt was kidnapped and James was shot by Tom Friendly and the Others. James, Michael and Jin washed up on the other side of the island; was briefly held as prisoners by surviving Tail Section passengers led by Ana-Lucia Cortez. The three men and the Tail Section survivors eventually reached the Fuselage passengers' camp. After James was nursed back to health, he noticed that a good number of belongings had been taken by the other castaways. But he did or said nothing . . . until the castaways' unofficial leader, Dr. Jack Shephard, violated his privacy by taking a bottle of aspirin from his tent in (2.13) "The Long Con". What happened? Sawyer decided to take control of the guns through a con job that involved Charlie Pace's assistance and scaring the hell out of Jin’s wife, Sun-Hwa. Not only was he pissed at Jack for entering his tent without permission, he was angry at the other castaways for going through his things after he left the island on Michael's raft:

"That's right, Jack. He's as stupid as you are. You were so busy worrying about each other you never even saw me coming, did you? How about you listen up because I'm only going to say this once. You took my stuff. While I was off trying to get us help -- get us rescued -- you found my stash and you took it, divvied it up -- my shaving cream, my batteries, even my beer."

One, Sawyer could have simply taken the pills back from Jack, through a fist fight, if he had to. But his anger at the other castaways bordered on the ridiculous . . . at least to me. Sawyer originally had no intention of returning to the island in the first place, when he left on that raft. Why on earth did he expect the other castaways to keep their hands off his belongings, when he had left them behind without any intention of using them again? Did he expect them to erect some kind of shrine in his memory? Not only could the entire con could have been avoided, it initiated a story line that went nowhere.

The events of "Exodus" led to another incident – Sawyer’s murder of Tom Friendly in the Season Three finale, (3.22-3.23) "Through the Looking Glass". Some fans had claimed that the death of Tom, one of the Others that followed Ben Linus’ lead, had been necessary measure to prevent Tom from becoming a possible threat. Others claimed that the castaways were in a "war" and Sawyer had every right to murder Tom in cold blood. I find the last argument a joke and a horrifying example of excuses human beings will use to condone violence. The argument that Sawyer had defended his fellow castaways from the threat of Tom did not resonate with me. As far as I am concerned, Sawyer was defending squat. A former member of the Others who had joined the castaways, Juliet Burke, had already prevented Tom from grabbing a gun. Then Tom surrendered. And what did Sawyer do? He shot Tom in cold blood, when the guy was defenseless. And Hurley protested his act of murder. Which did not strike as an act of defending friends to me. The murder seemed like an obvious act of revenge, sparked by Sawyer's own vindictive personality. He eventually admitted it seconds later:

SAWYER: That's for taking the kid off the raft.
HURLEY: Dude it was over, he surrendered.
SAWYER: I didn't believe him.

Bullshit!! I suspect that Sawyer believed that Tom’s surrender was genuine. He simply wanted revenge. And I am beginning to wonder if he only wanted revenge for Walt’s kidnapping. After all, the moment he, Jack, and John Locke had encountered Tom in (2.11) "The Hunting Party", the first words that came out of his mouth were:

"He's the son-of-a-bitch that shot me on the raft."

One, Sawyer did not even mention Walt. Two, Tom never shot Sawyer. In fact, he never ordered someone to shoot Sawyer. The latter got shot, because he was stupid enough to try something when Tom and the Others had guns trained on him, Michael and Jin. Tom did not even have to say a word. The same thing occurred in "The Hunting Party". Even worse, James was determined to use Tom as the scapegoat for Walt’s kidnapping. Yes, Tom did lead the kidnapping mission. However, by "Through the Looking Glass", both the fans and the series' characters had discovered that it was Ben who had who ordered Walt’s kidnapping. A "mobisode" (two- or three-minute clip) from 2007 titled "Room 23" revealed that long time island protector Jacob had ordered Ben to initiate Walt's kidnapping. And it was Ben who had decided when and how Walt would be returned to Michael. Tom was guilty of following orders. Actually, both he and Ben were guilty of this. Yet, when Sawyer had the chance to attack Ben for Walt's kidnapping, Sawyer did NOTHING. Instead, he attacked Ben for making innuendos about Kate's preference for Jack's company in the Season Four episode, (4.02) "Confirmed Dead". Did that mean Sawyer was afraid to force Ben to pay the price for Walt’s kidnapping? Or did he allow his mind to focus upon the delusion that Tom was solely to blame, because he needed a convenient scapegoat to feed his vindictive nature?

I am sure that many "LOST" fans are aware of the series' last tragedies that occurred in the Season Six episode, (6.14) "The Candidate". Due to a bomb planted on a submarine that the remaining castaways had planned to use to leave the island, Sayid Jarrah, along with Jin and Sun Kwon, had lost their lives. In (6.01) "LAX – Part I", thirteen episodes before this tragedy, James’ then lady love, Dr. Juliet Burke, had died after triggering Jughead – an atomic bomb that the U.S. Army had brought to the island in 1954. She had followed a plan originally initiated by Daniel Farrady and followed through by Jack after Farrady’s death, to use the bomb to change the timeline in the hopes that Oceanic Airlines Flight 815 would land in Los Angeles. The bomb did three things – it stopped DHARMA's destructive drilling into the island's electromagnetic source, conducted by Dr. Stuart Radzinsky; sent the time traveling castaways back to the early 21st century and the right year - 2007; and slowly killed Juliet via radiation poisoning. Following this tragedy, Sawyer resorted to his old game of creating convenient scapegoats by solely blaming Jack for her death. He had completely ignored the facts that Daniel had created the plan in the first place, Sayid had been just as enthusiastic as Daniel and Jack to carry out the plan, and Juliet had changed her mind and made the decision to trigger the bomb herself. Why? She had previously spotted an affectionate glance exchanged between Sawyer and Kate. Was Jack guilty of Juliet’s death? Initially, I thought so. But I did not believe Jack was solely guilty of Juliet’s death. Decisions made by Daniel and Juliet herself led to her death. However, I eventually realized that Radzinsky was responsible, thanks to his obsession with accessing the island's energy source. Even Sawyer had witnessed the near damage of Radzinsky's drilling and saw how it had caused Juliet to be dragged into the future Swan Station's pit. But Sawyer did not care. With both Daniel and Juliet dead, and Radzinsky being back in the past; he needed a scapegoat for his pain. The surviving Jack Shephard was his scapegoat.

For the next thirteen episodes, James harbored a deep and lingering anger and resentment toward Jack. It all came to a head in "The Candidate", aboard Charles Widmore's submarine, when the castaways discovered that the entity known as the Man in Black (MIB) had planted a bomb in one of their knapsacks. The majority of them aboard were potential candidates to replace another entity known as Jacob, who had ensured the MIB’s presence on the island. With Jacob and his candidates dead, the MIB would finally be able to escape. What happened after the discovery of the bomb? Jack realized that if they allowed the countdown to continue, nothing would happen. After all, the MIB – for some reason – could not directly kill any of Jacob’s candidates. But due to his lingering distrust and anger toward Jack, James refused to believe him and tried to deactivate the bomb. Instead, the bomb’s countdown accelerated.

Realizing that they were all about to be killed, Sayid grabbed the bomb and raced to the other side of the submarine to ensure they would not be in direct fire of the blast. Sayid was immediately killed. Frank was knocked out cold from the blast and no one could find him. He eventually ended in the water and survived by floating to the surface - unconscious. Sun found herself trapped by wreckage inside the submarine. But since James was knocked out cold, Jack had to help him escape from the submarine (Hurley had already assisted a wounded Kate into the water), while Jin tried to free her. Unable to do so, he decided to remain by his wife’s side, until their deaths. The episode ended with an unconscious James and the grieving Jack, Kate and Hurley on a beach.

Some fans had supported James' decision not to trust Jack, claiming Juliet’s death as a good reason for him not to do so. I can no longer accept that, since I now realize Jack was never responsible in the first place. But James and Jack had been enemies ever since the Oceanic 815's crash in September 2004. Although their enmity had begun with James' resentment of Jack's growing leadership over the Oceanic survivors, a great deal of their enmity had to do with their rivalry for the affections of one Kate Austen. And the two had a history of rarely trusting one another in the first place. And considering all that had occurred on the island, I believe that James could have tried to put aside his remaining feelings aboard the submarine and realize that Jack had been right about the Man in Black. He also could have opened his mind and realized that Jack was not responsible for Juliet’s death.

But due to James' habit of using someone as a scapegoat for his pain, he solely blamed Jack for Juliet's death. James was also a pragmatic man. Perhaps too pragmatic for his own good at times. He had never been in the habit of immediately giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. And it is possible that not only did he not trust Jack, but he was also wanted to flee the island and his memories of those three years with Juliet so badly that he was unwilling to listen to anyone. Perhaps Jack’s willingness to carry out Daniel Farrady’s plans regarding Jughead may have led to that moment when James pulled the wires from that bomb. But I believe that James’ own emotional demons, his desperation to flee the island and his inability to instinctively give others a chance may have sealed the Kwons and Sayid's fates.

Did James ever learned to let go of his feelings? Did he ever learn to at least give others a chance, if not immediately trust them? Did finally realize that he had acquired a great deal of blood on his hands over the past three years, due to his own demons and a tendency to form immediate scapegoats for the problems and pain he had experienced over the years? Did he ever learn to finally learn to let go of his delusions and face the reality of his situations . . . and himself?

I found myself recalling a conversation between James and Jack in the series' penultimate episode, (6.16) "What They Died For". Considering James spent a good deal of that episode beating himself up over what happened on the submarine, I like to think he had finally learn to let go of his illusions. And I hope he finally learned to confront the reality of himself either before or after he left the island for good.

"MANSFIELD PARK" (1983) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "MANSFIELD PARK", the 1983 television adaptation of Jane Austen's 1814 novel. Directed by David Giles, the six-part miniseries starred Sylvestra Le Touzel, Nicholas Farrell and Jackie Smith-Wood:





"MANSFIELD PARK" (1983) Photo Gallery

"HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" (2004) Review

 

"HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" (2004) Review

I have a confession to make. I was not much of a fan of the HARRY POTTER franchise - both novels and movies - before the summer of 2004. Before that period, I had seen the first two movies, "HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE" and "HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS". But I had never read any of the novels written by J.K. Rowling. Then in June 2004, I saw the franchise's third movie, "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" and my views changed.

Based upon Rowling's 1999 novel, "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" follows the adventures of thirteen-year-old Harry Potter during his third year at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The story begins with Harry enduring a visit by his Aunt Petunia Durnsley's sister-in-law, Marge Durnsley, who proves to be just as boorish, narrow-minded and arrogant as the other members of the family. When "Aunt" Marge makes an insulting remark about Harry's late parents, the thirteen-year-old loses his temper and inadvertently causes the woman to inflate before she floats out of the house and into the sky. Still in a rage over her remarks and the rest of the family's reaction, Harry packs his belongings and leaves the Durnsley home. The Knight Bus - a magical transit bus for Britain's wizarding world - picks him up and transports Harry to London and Diagon Alley, where he is informed by the Cornelius Fudge, the Minister of Magic that a prisoner from Azkaban Prison named Sirius Black has escaped from prison. According to Fudge, Black was a former follower of Harry's arch-nemesis, Lord Voldemort, and vows to kill the thirteen-year-old in order to finish his master's task from years ago.

During Harry's third year at Hogwarts, he has to deal with a brewing conflict between his two best friends - Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger - over their respective pets. Hogwarts acquire a new Defense Against the Dark Arts instructor, an old friend of Harry's father called Remus Lupin. Harry and his friends also acquire two new instructors - Divination teacher Sybill Trelawney, and Rubeus Hagrid, the old gamekeeper who has begun teaching Care of Magical Creatures. Unfortunately, when a hippogriff named Buckbeak attacks Harry's nemesis Draco Malfoy during Hagrid's first class, the animal's life is hung in the balance by the Ministry that is under the influence of Draco's father, Lucius Malfoy. But Harry's biggest problems are the still missing Sirius Black, who has been spotted near the school; and the Dementors - soul sucking creatures from Azkaban, sent to Hogwarts by the Ministry to find Black. Due to Harry's bleak past, the Dementors are naturally attracted to his presence.

The movie's literary source, the 1999 novel, is highly regarded by the franchise's fans. The novel also won several literary awards and nearly came close to being nominated for the Hugo Award. And although I view the novel's main plot as one of the best created by Rowling, I must admit that I found it difficult to harbor such a high opinion of the novel. There were certain flaws that the 2004 movie managed to avoid, thanks to Steve Kloves' script. For me, I was relieved to discover that "THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" only featured one Quidditch match - the first one that featured Harry Potter's second encounter with the dementors. But the novel's subplot featuring Harry and his fellow Gryffindor players' efforts to win the Hogwarts Quidditch Cup was completely ignored in Kloves' screenplay. And I say . . . THANK GOD!. I have never been a fan of Quidditch to begin with. I also found the Quidditch Cup subplot unnecessary to the main narrative. Some fans have pointed out that Harry first met both Cedric Diggory and Cho Chang in the 1999 novel. But the introduction of the two characters were brief and played no real part in the saga's main narrative. Their roles in the narrative became a lot more important in the next two novels. So, Kloves' deletion of their characters struck me as the right thing to do. Aside from one or two matters, Kloves did a first-rate job in adapting Rowling's novel to the screen. This is not surprising, considering that "The Prisoner of Azkaban" was the last "short" novel in the series before the remaining four became "mega novels".

Looking back on the movie, it occurred to me that it possesses a very simple plot. More importantly, the story featured the next set of many mysteries surrounding Harry's parents and the part they played in his current connection to the still formless Lord Voldemort aka Tom Riddle Jr. And one of those mysteries featured their close friend, Sirius Black.

"THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" had a few flaws. Actually, there were two aspects of the story that did not sit well with me. One, I grew tired of Rowling coming up with an excuse for any of Harry's transgressions. In this particular movie, Sirius Black's escape from Azkaban allowed Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge to dismiss Harry's temperamental use of magic against Madge Durnsley. And thanks to the Invisibility Cloak and the Maurader's Map given to him by Fred and George Weasley, Harry was able to sneak out of Hogwarts Castle and explore the nearby town of Hogsmeade without any trouble or parental permission. Speaking of the Maurader's Map, Remus Lupin revealed that the following was written on the map:

"Messrs Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs
Purveyors of Aids to Magical Mischief-Makers
are proud to present THE MARAUDER'S MAP"

Any fan of Rowling's novels knows that "Messrs Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs" are Harry's father James Potter, and the latter's friends - Lupin, Peter Pettigrew and Sirius Black. Why did Steve Kloves' screenplay failed to reveal their identities to moviegoers? Lupin could have told Harry in one of the movie's final scenes. And why was Kloves so determined to portray Ron Weasley as "comic relief"? I read somewhere that Hermione Granger was one of his favorite characters. I assume this is why he allowed her to speak one of Ron's more famous lines - erasing one of the latter's more positive traits and unnecessarily building up Hermione's traits even more. This final criticism is also directed at both the novel and the movie. According to Hermione Granger, time travel is considered dangerous by the wizarding world. So why did Minerva McGonagall allowed Hermione - third year a student - to use a time turner to attend more classes in the first place? And why did Albus Dumbledore task Harry and Hermione with the story's final rescue job . . . and not do the job himself? I have one more minor complaint - and it involved the verbal showdown between Potions professor Severus Snape and fugitive Sirius Black, both who were former classmates . . . and enemies at Hogwarts. Both Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman gave excellent performances in the film. But I must admit that I found their performances in this little showdown rather over-dramatic. Dare I say it? Hammy? There was more ham and cheese coming from the pair than a high school cafeteria.

When I first read Rowling's novel, I noticed that it did not have much action until the final sequence regarding the Shrieking Shack and Hermione's time turner. And yet, this did not diminish the story one bit. In fact, the story for "PRISONER OF AZKABAN" felt more like a character-driven mystery, with a heavy emphasis on the past. It is the first time Harry really learns about his parents' past through characters like Remus Lupin and Sirius Black. This is the first time Harry had discovered some of the details that led to his parents' deaths. This story marked the first time Harry learned about his parents' close friends - Remus, Sirius and Peter Pettigrew. "PRISONER OF AZKABAN" also marked the first time that one of the franchise's stories had ended on a bittersweet note. All of these aspects of the film's narrative, along with some very satisfying scenes and Alfonso Cuarón's superb and original direction had combined to make the 2004 film a big favorite of mine in the HARRY POTTER franchise.

As I had just stated earlier, there were scenes that struck me as crowd-pleasing or very memorable. I found Harry's ride on the Night Bus both exhilarating and hilarious. Another favorite sequence of mine featured the introduction of the Dementors, during the students' northbound journey on the Hogwarts Express. I thought Cuarón and the movie's special effects team did an excellent job in creating Harry's ominous introduction to the supernatural beings. Speaking of dementors, I also enjoyed the movie's Quidditch match between the Gryffindor and Hufflepuff teams during a thunderstorm. This match featured Harry's second encounter with the Dementors - one that nearly killed him. I also enjoyed the movie's Christmas sequence at the Hogsmeade village. What started as a playful sequence in which Harry used his Invisible Cloak to sneak out of Hogwarts (he lacked parental permission to join his fellow students' excursion into the village), ended on an emotional note after Harry vowed revenge after learning that one of his father's close friends had betrayed his parents to Lord Voldemort.

I also enjoyed those scenes that featured Remus Lupin's talent as a teacher, when he taught Harry and his classmates and later, Harry alone, about Boggarts and Dementors. Thanks to Emma Thompson's performance as the eccentric Divinity professor Sybil Trelawney, I really enjoyed the scenes featuring the students' lessons in that subject. More importantly, the movie featured one ominous scene in which Harry witnessed Trelawney unknowingly reveal a prediction regarding Voldemort and one of his minions. But I feel that without a doubt, the film's pièce de resistance proved to be the last third of the plot. I also enjoyed Professor Beginning with Harry, Ron and Hermione's visit to Rubeus Hagrid's hut in order to witness the execution of the hippogriff Buckbeak and ending with Harry and Hermione assisting in jailbreak; the entire sequence is brilliant example of fantasy, action and superb filmmaking from Alfonso Cuarón.

However, special effects and a first-rate narrative were not the only aspects that made "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" memorable for me. The movie also benefited from excellent performances from a first-rate cast. Now, a cast filled with actors and actresses of sterling reputations is not a guarantee of good performances. I still have memories of this film's successor - 2005's "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE". Aside from one particular scene, "THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" is blessed with first-rate performances. The movie had its share of solid performances - including from the likes of Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw and Harry Melling (who portrayed the Dursley family); a very entertaining Pam Ferris, who portrayed Vernon Dursley's sister, Marge Dursley; Timothy Spall in a brief, yet effective role as Peter Pettigrew and Julie Christie, who portrayed The Three Broomsticks owner Madam Rosmarta. More solid performances came from the likes of franchise regulars like Alan Rickman and his always entertaining performance as the surly Severus Snape, Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall); James and Oliver Phelps as Fred and George Weasley, Tom Felton as Harry's nemesis Draco Malfoy, Mark Williams as Arthur Weasley, Julie Walters as Molly Weasley, and Robert Hardy as Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge.

There were performances that I found memorable. The movie's three leads - Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson - gave excellent performances as Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger respectively. In fact, I would say this film marked the first time they were able to ditch that heavy-handed style of acting that slightly tainted their performances in the first two films. Radcliffe did an excellent job of conveying Harry's struggles over his discovery that his parents had been betrayed. And I must admit that I found the interactions between Grint and Watson very entertaining as they portrayed Ron and Hermione's constant bickering and unwillingness to acknowledge their growing attraction to each other. I also enjoyed Robbie Coltrane's performance as Hogwarts gamekeeper-turned-Care of Magical Creatures professor, Rubeus Hagrid. I especially enjoyed Coltrane's scenes that featured Hagrid's awkward debut as a Hogwarts professor and his emotional attachment to the hippogriff Buckbeak.

"HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" marked the first appearances of four cast members. And all four gave excellent performances. One proved to be Gary Oldman as the chaotic and desperate Sirius Black, the wanted fugitive who unhappily proved to be Harry's godfather. Emma Thompson gave one of the funniest performances in the entire movie franchise as Divinity professor Sybill Trewlawney . . . who may or may not be a genuine seer. I was very impressed by David Thewlis' subtle, yet dynamic performance as Hogwarts' new Defense Against the Dark Arts professor Remus Lupin. Michael Gambon had a difficult act to follow when agreed to replace the late Richard Harris as Hogwarts' Headmaster Albus Dumbledore. And may I say that he did a superb job of capturing Dumbledore's enigmatic and commanding nature with his own style.

Granted, I had a few issues with "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN""THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN" proved to be one of the most unusual entries in the HARRY POTTER franchise and quite possibly my absolute favorite. In fact, my opinion of the film has not changed one whit in nearly twenty years.

Top Five Favorite Episodes of "THE CROWN" Season Two (2017)

 

Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season Two of the Netflix series, "THE CROWN". Created by Peter Morgan, the series starred Claire Foy and Matt Smith as Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh:

TOP FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF "THE CROWN" SEASON TWO (2017)

1. (2.05) "Marionettes" - After Queen Elizabeth II makes a tone-deaf speech at a Jaguar factory, she and the British monarchy come under public attack by an outspoken liberal peer named Lord Altrincham.

2. (2.03) "Lisbon" - Palace insiders try to prevent the scandalous divorce of the Duke of Edinburgh's aide, Lieutenant-Commander Mike Parker, that could reflect poorly on the former and the monarchy. Prime Minister Anthony Eden faces censure from his cabinet and the press over the Suez Crisis.

3. (2.09) "Paterfamilias" - Prince Philip insists that Prince Charles attend Gordonstoun, his alma mater in Scotland. Also, he reminisces about the life-changing difficulties he experienced there as a student.

4. (2.07) "Matrimonium" - A heartbreaking letter from former lover Peter Townsend spurs Princess Margaret to make a bold proposal to her current lover, photographer Antony Armstrong-Jones. The Queen has good news that causes complications for Margaret.

5. (2.02) "A Company of Men" - Elizabeth feels disconnected from Philip during his five-month royal tour in the South Pacific. Meanwhile, Eden copes with ill health and international pressure to withdraw British troops from Egypt during the Suez Crisis.