Comparing "Lord of the Rings" with "Harry Potter"
It is always risky to adapt a classic, especially one with legions of fanatical followers. Because such followers often savage blundering works. However, "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter" came within a whisker.
If you compare the two series, you will find similarities and differences. For example, they are both classic storybooks which have magics and monsters. But while "Harry Potter" has several stories, "Lord of the Rings" has a story. "Lord of the Rings" has a wider story than "Harry Potter". And "Harry Potter" has a few usual members, " Lord of the Rings" uses a lot of people, especially in the scene of battles.
The most important difference is that "Lord of the Rings" is a kind of epics, which have a wide range of time. On the contrary, "Harry Potter" is short stories, and they have some modern goods such as a car, a train and a bank. So, we will be pleased with the difference though they are both classics.
Which movie is more difficult to film? It is "Lord of the Rings". J.R.R.Tolkien's original story is the origin of every fantasy. Fantasy is also enjoyable worldwide. There were many plans to make the story a movie, but the story did not become a movie because of its enormous size of the world. Only a director, Jackson succeeded in filming, he used the land of New Zealand as the stage, many experts such as linguists, sculptors, weapon designers, craftsmans and fashion designers to make a close copy of the original. So this movie may be very useful to know the old fantasy world. Of course "Harry Potter" is also true to the original, it is also useful to know about the English culture.
Tora!Tora!Tora!
I think this is a rare movie because this movie doesn't have any grief and serious tension which are characteristics of war movies. This movie shows rather technical features than tragic features. The evolution of this movie is like a game. Japanese movements and U.S. movements appear turn about until Sunday morning December 7 1941. This movie appears to contain all of the events and remarks at that time. One officer said, "Use your common sense" in an operation room. That order definitely does not sound sensible. Overall, the American side didn't have proper actions though they had always exact information and many documents. Is it the reason that the U.S. was a third party until this attack?
Anyway, every performer has good or decent actions in this movie, and use realistic procedure in the oreration of battleships and attacking planes. The sound effects are wonderful. Above all this movie amply use much time at the most impressive point of the movie , although the length of the movie is proper.
My Fair Lady
The story of "My Fair Lady" is simple enough. I could guess the latter plot after seeing the evolution of the opening. And I liked the former part of the movie in which Professor Higgins and Eliza Doolittle were swearing each other. I think this movie uses good contrast between the early stage and the final stage. Audrey Hepburn appeared with shabby costume and a mop of hair. To my surprise, she was always shrieking. Whenever Higgins treated her badly, she gave a hysterical scream. Such noises must be offensive to the ear, especially his ear.
I'm very interested in the tone of English language, such as vowels after seeing his knowledge and research of phonetics. I have not learned the right pronunciation so maybe he would divine from my expression that I am Japanese. However, if I couldn't pronounce English correctly, would I have no right to live? No, because English already became universal language, there should be a variety of English pronunciations. And if I lived in London for six months, even I would speak as beautifully as her.
Overall, this movie was well decorated with fine clothes, good music and unique acting. They are welcome. But I think the length of the movie is too long to be pleased with such a simple story.
Lawrence of Arabia
I remembered his name and his achievements as a history book discribed him. But I have known that I didn't know of him well after seeing this movie. I didn't know how should I evaluate him. In fact it seems uncertain among researchers. Although he made a halfway job, the process of his job is interesting to me and maybe to everyone.
Many countries have problems about their borders. For example China and Japan had recently some dispute over Japanese territorial waters. But Iraq has more serious problem about their territory because they contains Kurdish people who speak a Kurdish language. Although the disorder of Iraq was triggered by America, its indirect but essential cause may be their own borders.
Lawrence is the key person of this issue. He had compassion for the Arabian people and supported their self-determination. So if it succeeded, would the Middle East have no racial and religious tension? However the power of the only one person seem to be not enough for the work.
In London's Imperial War Museum, there was an exhibition commemorating T.E.Lawrence. You can know about the history of his adventurous life through his book"The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and a map which shows his plan of borders in the Middle East.
By the way, why did Lawrence have so much passion for such greedy, gross and cruel countries? He was a scholar and was born in a good family. Is there any relation to the fact that he was an illegitimate child?
Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi was born in Porbandar in 1869. After he graduated from college, he took a job in South Africa. There he began to canpaign against injustice.
He took peaceful nonviolent noncooperation. One says that his policy was passive. However in this movie he said that our resistance must be active and provocative. And it seems that he just knew western weakness. That was intriguing to me. Additionally, he just took constructive programs for his aim. Overall, his actions were not likely to be passive.
He began a journal and used it for his aim. But why is a newspaper so important? It sounds somewhat different from his way of activity. He took always more primitive way. In the end I felt that this question was solved by his words. He said that one should make the injustice visible. It was one of my favourite words in this movie.
Poverty is the worst form of violence. It was another of my favorites in this movie. He thought British rule of India was evil and it's time the British left. They were trying to make a nation. It must be a hard work. Nevertheless, he was so stubborn a man that he wouldn't use any violent means. He said that the way of truth and love has always won throughout history. So he refused importing the unhappiness of the West. It sounds difficult to prove real but sounds ideal and confortable with it.
I'm sorry, you are under arrest. It was the most frequent words in this movie. He was also memorable in frequency of arrest.
The mission is impossible?
Can Society of Jesus make the Latin world a better place?
When the Reformation came to Christianity, the catholicity must face up to a need to strengthen their force. So Society of Jesus is strictly organized. And a Jesuit is well known by us. His name is Francisco de Xavier. His mission had difficulty in preaching. Because some Japanese feudal lords were embarrassed when their people had another lord. But finishing seeing this movie, thinking about it, it is sensible for some Japanese lords to reject receiving the religion. Apparently, some Jesuits had a political intention.
Of course not every Jesuits have a bad intention. I am very impressed by Mendoza's atonement. He was, I think, the only one person who was redeemed. He became a good Jesuit. Unfortunately, his good and religious intention was a individual matter in the army-like Society of Jesus.
In the latter part of the movie, there was a shocking end. Many indigenous people fought against the army and die. It was terrible and I realized that this movie had too heavy theme to enjoy it. Overall the most worst point in the act of preaching is speaking with a double tongue. One speaks in favor of the local people.
Another speaks against the people. What a confusing story it is!
The location is set in the middle of the Latin America. So this movie features the grand nature, such as a big river, waterfall and bluff. And the performances of Robert de niro and Jeremy irons, especially when in proceeding his atonement are great. That part is a enjoyable point.
Cast Away
The life without everything is equal to death. But even in such situation, there were what we should learn and ideas for seeking happiness.
Can you imagine the world without economies and communities? This is the very situation that Chuck Noland met. This is the most impressive movie for me, because this movie avoided using any unnatural facters and too dramatic events. At first he preserved his calmness when he was floated to an island. The instant that he found he was cast away, he did rationally what he could do. If I was cast away, it seemed that I would do the same things. So those cool attitudes make the story real and horrible.
Economics is sometimes explained in relation to the story of "Robinson Crusoe". He also was cast away. The both stories remind us how important an economy is. The system is too general, so we take it for granted.
Communities are also important. In this movie, he named a volleyball, and always talked to "him". Because there were no humans and animals. Thanks to him, he can transform his hysteric misery into common unhappiness.
Every depression, anxiety, conflicts, or relationship problems in modern societies are mere trivial, compared with this story. Additionally, this movie teach us real happiness. The performance of Tom Hanks was wonderful and elaborate. If you can endure long still time, you will enjoy this movie.
