Fawkes and flames

Skipped gym last night...no BC, BS or even RPM. We had a different thing in mind...a date with a much grown up but not so grown upwards, Daniel Radcliffe. After acting in a play which involved nudity and horses (it was NOT THAT type of play), the young man reprises his role of The Boy Who Lived.

Watching a movie weeks after it's released, and on a weekday to boot has huge advantages..no need to book, and seats are always available, especially if its TGV. But anyway, back to the movie. BH's actor friends feel that one theatre stint made this kid a much better actor...for me, well, I don't think it takes much brilliance to portray Harry Potter...you just need a kid who looks the part, can act foolishly blur, but yet superbly lucky enough and wise enough to overcome unbelievable obstacles.

Well, Harry grew up, Ron grew much taller and Fred and George...sigh...Not one to be called a cradle snatcher, but dng, those boys are looking good. It's always different, what you imagine when reading the book, as compared to whats on screen..I imagined that Umbridge woman fatter, with stumpier legs, broader face, thick RED lips and those super funky 60's glasses..even Kingsley I imagined differently. Always had that black guy who acted in Angel in my imagination. Tonks..ok,lar..boleh lar. Luna..didn't she have thick glasses? Or was that my imagination too? Sirius obvously looked the part...so sad, he dies...darn! Still prefer the first Dumbledore, the one from the first movie. Always had much respect for McGonagall..she was also the mother superior in The Sound of Music and Sister Act, I believe.

The story itself is growing darker..as is the movie. the duelling scene was very,very cool. Even BH can't wait for the next movie..and he's still NOT reading the book.