There was an error in this gadget

Monday, July 18, 2011

My review of Puppet Master

I'm not sure what this film was going for, but boy did it fail...unless it was going for boredom.

Acting/characters: zzzzzz...zzzzzzz....zzzz. Can anyone say boring? everyone in the film was blank and I got the feeling that the actors hardly cared about being in the film at all. They only had two expressions to work with. Three at most. As for the puppets, if you thought people were inept around Chucky these people are worse. These murderous puppets are half the size of Chucky and people are still inept at escaping. The only puppet that I can see being a problem for anyone is Blade. I mean, he has a knife for an arm so that's okay (he's the best character in the film anyway). The characters are flat and inept and that never makes for interesting characters. .5/10

Plot: It could have worked. It had some decent potential but it just didn't. No one working on the film seemed to care at all about making an exciting film. They didn't even try any scares and this is a horror film! When it started out it looked like it could be interesting. I wondered a bit where it was going. But as the film went on it just got more and more boring and predictable and I cared less and less. They never gave me a reason to care about what was going on so I just decided not to. It had some potential but it ultimately failed completely. 2/10

Screenplay: The funny thing is is that I don't remember a word that anyone said outside of a few minor bits and pieces. It just kind of went in one ear and out the other. I can hardly remember if there was one that's how forgettable it was. I don't know what else to say because I don't remember much. It was that boring and uninteresting. 0/10

Likableness: It had an odd moment where it was interesting and it had minimum potential, but the whole tone of the film was just boring and flat. The characters don't even act like they are in danger at all. Plus, the puppets are so small and weak the whole movie could be solved in minutes by them just kicking the dolls and pulling their heads off. They are sronger than the dolls (except for Blade who would be hard to kill I imagine). It was just a dull film. 1/10

Final Score: 3.5/40 8% (S)
Current Tomatometer rating: 20%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 17%



TRIVIA TIME: 1. Inspired by an earlier Charles Band production about killer toys, Dolls.

2. The puppet, Blade, is based on one of David Schmoeller's favorite actors, Klaus Kinski.

3. Originally intended to be released into theaters in the summer of 1989 and onto home video in September 1989, it was then pushed to 12 October 1989 as a direct-to-video release, as producer Charles Band had stated in an interview that he would make more money in the DTV field than he would in the theatrical market.

4. In the finger-slicing scene, the blood was dyed green to avoid an "X" rating.

Blade



Klaus Kinski

My review of Shane

This is one that I have needed to watch for eons and now I finally have. I can move on to High Noon sometime in the near future too.

Acting/characters: Anyone who has seen this movie knows that Alan Ladd steals the show playing the titular character. However that is not to take away from the rest of the cast at all. I mean, Ladd has to be the best in the show because he's the titular character. It's a testament to his performance that he manages to be the best character but he hardly ever says a word. No more than 2 or 3 sentences every so often. I can't imagine how they found the actor to play the kid. He was pretty good even if he was stunningly annoying at times. But int he end, it all came down to Shane. Even if he didn't say much and even if the movie didn't focus on him all the time, he still carried the whole thing and did a good job of it. 10/10

Plot: It's not something that is uncommon for a Western. Gunfights, fistfights, poor homesteaders, evil gunslingers, lone hero etc. My film class delved into how the Western is totally an American genre. No one does westerns like America. Yes you have films like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but it's really an all-American genre. That and debatabley the Slasher film but that's off topic. It's a formula that has served the Western well. Shane uses that to great effect here. But the homesteaders here aren't completely defenseless (some are, and some are just stupid). However, despite the fact that this movie is called 'Shane' it isn't about him very much. He's just kinda there. But it really does work. 10/10

Screenplay: SHANE, SHANE COME BACK!! Yeah, you've all heard that line. If not you have now. It really does work. Like I said before, the screenplay doesn't give Shane very many lines. But the screenwriter made sure the lines he did have were really good. There were other really good lines too.

"A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."

"There's no living with a killing. There's no goin' back from one. Right or wrong, it's a brand... a brand sticks. There's no goin' back. Now you run on home to your mother and tell her... tell her everything's alright. And there aren't any more guns in the valley."

excellent stuff. 10/10

Likableness: Shane is an excellent film and I would highly suggest it to anyone, Western fan or not. If nothing else than for Ladd's performance. If good performances doesn't float your boat, then the gunfights and the fistfights in this movie should do it for you (even though there aren't a lot). it is a very well done film. You should all see it if you have not. 10/10

Final Score: 40/40 100% (N)
Tomatometer score: 97%
Tomatometer score if I was added: 97%


TRIVIA TIME: 1. At the time of filming, Jack Palance was not comfortable with horses. The one good mount he achieved during the numerous takes was used in the film.

2. In the funeral scene, the dog consistently refused to look into the grave. Finally, director George Stevens had the dog's trainer lie down in the bottom of the grave, and the dog played his part ably. The coffin (loaded with rocks for appropriate effect) was then lowered into the grave, but when the harmonica player began to play "Taps" spontaneously, the crew was so moved by the scene that they began shoveling dirt into the grave before remembering the dog's trainer was still there.

3. Jean Arthur was over 50 years old when she played Marian Starrett (and this was her last film) - she was, in fact, ten years older than Emile Meyer, who plays grizzled old cattle baron Rufus Ryker.

4. According to the commentary on the DVD, during the scene where Shane and Joe are fighting in the corral, the tied horses were supposed to panic. To instill hysteria in the horses, the director had two men dressed in a bear costumes to scare them.

5. Jean Arthur, a committed animal lover, took it upon herself to personally inspect the conditions that the film's roster of livestock were being kept in. If they wasn't up to her satisfaction, she would ensure that the matter was rectified.

6. When writer A.B. Guthrie Jr. came on board the project, he didn't know what a screenplay looked like.

7. The scene where Alan Ladd practices shooting in front of Brandon De Wilde took 119 takes to complete.

8. During the bar fight between Shane and Calloway, the off-screen voice that says "knock him back the pig-pen" is that of George Stevens.

My review of Children of the Corn

Now, people since the beginning of horror have complained about how bad child actors are in general (this is by no means limited to horror). There are a few notable exceptions such as Regan from The Exorcist and Samara from The Ring, but in general they do not work. So, imagine a film with only child actors and three adults and you have a good idea of what kind of movie Children of the Corn is.

Acting/characters: Like I said, it relies heavily on child actors. now since not all child actors are bad it could have worked but it really did not here. the characters of Isaac and Malachi are pivotal for the film to work. If they are played by bad actors the whole thing falls apart. Guess what? they weren't very good. The character of Isaac had a ton of potential. Creepy kids can be very good for a horror film if done right but it was not done right here. He just wasn't...evil enough. I know there was no way around the child actor thing. It's a story that centers around evil kids. But it just failed. Linda Hamilton needs to stick to films like The Terminator. 2/10

Plot: It had potential I'll give it that, but it just did not work at all. If there's one thing I hate it's failed promising plots. So naturally I hated this plot. The whole plot just didn't seem to have any development to it. It went too fast for me. It seemed to me to be just "okay let's zoom through the story and give no one a reason to care about anyone." I only cared about Linda Hamilton's character because Hamilton was in The Terminator. since this came out around 8 months before The Terminator, people didn't even have that reason to care. it just didn't work at all. 2.5/10

Screenplay: Now this was utter garbage. I mean it sounds like the script was written by one of the 6 year olds. Tons of cringe-inducing lines here. When I wasn't cringing at how stupid it was I was rolling my eyes. Maybe it just goes back to the child actors. Although here's a conundrum for you: does the screenplay suck because the child actor suck at delivery or do the child actors suck because of the horrible screenplay? Or both? Chicken or the egg? That aside, it was just terrible. 0/10

Likableness: It had its brief moments of being vaguely interesting, but overall it was just plain dumb. Plus, it had horrible special effects. Who was in charge of that!? I know this film probably didn't have the budget of other films but still, it looked like they hardly tried. A failed premise to an interesting plot, horrible acting all around, and an abomination of a screenplay means that you should all give this a miss. It was terrible. 2.5/10

Final score: 7/40 17% (S)
Tomatometer rating: 39%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 37%



TRIVIA TIME: 1. On the dashboard of Burt and Vicki's car is a copy of Night Shift, the Stephen King short story collection in which Children of the Corn originally appeared.

2. Though real corn was used for most of filming, polyurethane corn had to be used for the more difficult action sequences.

3. Michael and Corey Frizzell, the nephews of legendary country music stars Lefty & David Frizzell and Sons of Country Gospel great Allen Frizzell (once married to country star Shelly West), played extras at the age of 8 and 9. Michael was also Robby Kiger (Job) stunt double. Corey who is now an artist to country music stars was also a stand in actor for Robby Kiger (Job).

4. The tagline "And a child shall lead them" comes from Isaiah 11:6 in the Old Testament, which reads, "And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."

Oh look, a Tarantino corpse shot.

My review of Reservoir Dogs

Acting/characters: This film revolves around only 8 or so characters (9 if you count the Cop). It can be dangerous to have a small cast because if one person isn't good it brings down a lot of the movie. However, I can say that everyone in this film did an excellent job. Harvey Kietel, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn, and even Quinten Tarantino himself do great jobs here. The cast is also capped of nicely by Steven Wright the monotonous comedian who plays the D.J. I feel that each of the characters were really interesting to watch from the nervous Mr. Pink to the psychotic Mr. Blonde, to the collected Mr. White, each benefited the movie very well. The actors did an excellent job of conveying the pure tension and uncertainty of the entire situation. Excellent jobs. 10/10

Plot: I gotta say that the fact that this film is rated as one of the best heist films ever made despite the fact that we never see the actual heist is a testament to how well the plot is done. The film takes place in almost one setting throughout the run time of the film. As an audience member you are given about as much information about the situation as the characters which helps the tension very well. I always enjoy a plot not giving all of the information. too many films just give the viewer all of the information right off the bat. Not that I totally mind being an omniscient viewer, but I enjoy not being one too. The enclosed and exclusive setting of an abandoned warehouse and being given as little information about what is happening as the character are really helps you relate to the characters and puts you in their shoes. It is just structured very well and considering that this was his first shot at a movie, well, that just makes it all the more amazing. 10/10

Screenplay: Again, considering that this was his first shot at a movie script I'd say he did a pretty friggin' fantastic job in this one. I wish that I could do something like that. I just enjoyed the lines in the film. Right off the bat you see at the diner scenes the way that the characters talk to each other and you get the feeling immediately that they all know each other very well and are good friends or are at the very least, comfortable around each other. How each character speaks and interacts with the others at the table gives you a great insight as to what kind of people they are. There are dozens of directors who can't manage this in their entire careers and Tarantino manages it in the first 10 minutes on his first try. That is talent. 10/10

Likableness: I liked this film enough that I bought it a week or so ago. The feel of the film and the general plot structure combined with stellar acting and great storytelling make this one a must-see film for anyone. it isn't full of adrenaline pumping action scenes but it certainly has them from time to time. This movie is proof that art and entertainment can be combined. It was amazing. 10/10

Final Score: 40/40 100% (N)
Tomatometer Score: 96%
Tomatometer Score if my review was added: 96%



TRIVIA TIME: 1. At several points, Tim Roth had lain in the pool of fake blood for so long that the blood dried out and he had to be peeled off the floor, which took several minutes.

2. All the actors who portrayed the criminals have spent time in jail.

3. The actress who plays the lady Mr. Orange (Tim Roth) shoots was Roth's dialect coach. Roth insisted that she take the role, as she was very hard on him.

4. Quentin Tarantino wanted James Woods to play a role in the film, and made him five different cash offers. Woods' agent refused the offers without ever mentioning it to Woods as the sums offered were well below what Woods would usually receive. When Tarantino and Woods later met for the first time, Woods learned of the offer and was annoyed enough to get a new agent. Tarantino avoided telling Woods which role he was offered "because the actor who played the role was magnificent anyway". It is widely accepted that the role that Tarantino was referring to was Mr. Orange.

5. Quentin Tarantino was originally going to play Mr Pink, although he made a point of letting all the other actors audition for the part. When Steve Buscemi came in to read for it, Tarantino told him that he really wanted the part for himself and that the only way Buscemi could possibly wrest it from him was to do a killer audition. Buscemi duly complied.

My review of Pulp Fiction

Now one thing I felt while watching this film is that even for a Tarantino film, it is incredibly unique. Even before this marathon started, I'd seen about 75% of his stuff and none of it is like this except in basic structure (acts and non-chronologically). The whole feel of the film is unlike anything I have experienced. The guy is a certified genius.

Oh, and one other thing, There has been much debate as to what is in The Briefcase. Cracked.com wrote in an article of theirs called 'Seven Hotly Debated Movie Questions That Totally Have Answers' and said that in the script it was the diamonds from Reservoir Dogs. THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER. Tarantino decided not to go with that because it was too mundane. I agree. Finding out what was in the briefcase would be like knowing how the Joker got his scars. We don't need to know. It's more fun guessing than knowing. But, my OFFICIAL NASEBY GUESS as to what is in the briefcase (the one that would be most interesting and I don't want it to be true if that makes sense) IS: The version of The Godfather Part III that didn't suck. Moving on.

Acting/Characters: Tarantino has a brilliant knack for picking actors who do a great job carrying the film. Here is no exception. Bruce Willis, Vhing Rames, Christopher Walken Harvey Keitel, Quinten Tarantino himself, and of course, Uma Thurman, John Travolta, and Samuel L. Jackson. This is a cast that lesser directors dream about but Tarantino uses them all to great effect and a such, this film had 3 acting Oscar nominations (Thurman, Travolta, and Jackson). Also, Tarantino is really good at character development. Of what I've seen, most of his characters go through some sort of transition that makes their characters change during the film. I think that this film is where he does it the best particularly with Jules. He is just great with characters and I feel that if the rest of the film industry had the knack of creating engaging and interesting characters that he has, we wouldn't be complaining about how far in the dumps the industry is. But he rocks at making great characters. 10/10

Plot: Like most of his films, it is presented out of order chronologically. I think this really works for him. It gives him his own unique style that no one else could do like he does. He also has aspects of separate stories in here but they all interconnect. Now, It takes talent to do this. If a director doesn't know what he is doing, it cam make for a disastrous film that is impossible to follow. Tarantino pulls it of with ease. His unique style also employs the use of 'chapters' in his film. They usually all add up together to make up the story, but here they are a little more like interconnected vignettes. Each vignette is highly enjoyable and each one could almost be their own separate movie (that may be stretching a bit) if they wanted. I enjoy the homage aspect of it but I think what I like the most about the plot is its masterful use of dark humor. I enjoy subtle dark humor a lot and Tarantino uses it masterfully here. I could rant on about each individual moment of genius in the plot but I don't have than much space. I think the rating of 10/10 speaks for itself.

Screenplay: If the acting in a Tarantino film is good, if the plot is amazing, the screenplay is always genius. Dialogue-heavy films in this day and age are always risky. People complain about things like how the bar scene in Inglourious Basterds was boring. Like everything else though, Tarantino pulls it off with ease. He usually has a few great lines that stand above the rest.
"English Mother f***** DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"

"Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead."

"You know what they call a... a... a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?"
"They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese?"
"No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is."
"Then what do they call it?"
"They call it a Royale with cheese."
"A Royale with cheese. What do they call a Big Mac?"
"Well, a Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it le Big-Mac."
"Le Big-Mac. Ha ha ha ha. What do they call a Whopper?"
"I dunno, I didn't go into Burger King."

Other directors wish they could write scripts like Tarantino but few can. I mean, he won the Oscar for This screenplay. He deserved it too. The fact that his movies are so dialogue heavy and so successful means that he is great at writing screenplays. This one may be his best. Basterds is competition, but this may be his best one. I'll leave that up to you to decide. 10/10

Likableness: I really liked this movie a lot and I would not mind owning it if I got the chance. Anyone who can appreciate film knows that this one is an amazing film. Great characters, an engaging plot, and a fantastic screenplay make this a fun enjoyable film for the whole family (ha ha just kidding on that whole family part. Seriously, do not show this to your children) but it's a fantastic film. I enjoyed every minute of it (well, maybe not the 'gimp' scene so much). It is a great film that I suggest to anyone who has not seen it. 10/10

Final Score: 40/40 100% (N)
Tomatometer rating: 94%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 94%



TRIVIA TIME: 1. The passage from the Bible that Jules has memorized was mostly made up by Quentin Tarantino and Samuel L. Jackson. The only part that's similar to what the Bible says is the part where he says, "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger. And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee." However, the parts about the righteous man and the shepherd are not real.

2. Daniel Day-Lewis (who incidentally shares a birthday with Uma Thurman) wanted the role of Vincent Vega, but Quentin Tarantino turned him down in favor of John Travolta.

3. The role of Vincent Vega was written for Michael Madsen, who played the character's brother, Vic Vega, in Reservoir Dogs (1992), but he couldn't do the film due to scheduling conflicts for another film.

4. Tarantino has said that it was Butch that keys Vincent's car.

5. Quentin Tarantino hesitated over the choice between the character he was going to play: Jimmie or Lance. He ended up choosing Jimmie's role because he wanted to be behind the camera in Mia's overdose scene.

6. The marquee where Butch boxes advertises the following fights: "Coolidge vs Wilson" and "Vossler vs Martinez". The first is a reference to United States Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Woodrow Wilson, the second is a reference to Russell Vossler and Jerry Martinez, who are two friends of Tarantino's from when he worked in a video store.

7. Knoxville, Tennessee, where Butch was meeting his connection and where his great-grandfather bought the gold watch, is also Quentin Tarantino's birthplace.

8. Isabella Rossellini, Meg Ryan, Daryl Hannah, Joan Cusack and Michelle Pfeiffer were all interviewed for the role of Mia Wallace. Out of all of them, Tarantino said he preferred Pfeiffer. Other actors considered for the film included Daniel Day-Lewis as Vincent, Mickey Rourke, Matt Dillon and Sylvester Stallone as Butch, Michelle Pfeiffer, Daryl Hannah, Meg Ryan, Joan Cusack and Isabella Rossellini as Mia. Rosanna Arquette also auditioned for Mia, but was offered Jody instead.

9. Courtney Love claimed that Quentin Tarantino originally wanted Kurt Cobain and her to play Lance and Jody. However, Tarantino denies ever having even met Kurt, much less offered him a part.

10. Having to refuse the role of Jimmie due to scheduling conflicts, Steve Buscemi appears as the Buddy Holly waiter in Jack Rabbit Slim's. As Mr. Pink in Reservoir Dogs, he refused to tip wait staff.

My review of Transformers: Dark of the Moon

There is a harsh lesson that I have learned over and over again during my time as a film watcher/critic: There is no movie so bad that the sequel cannot be worse. It was tried before by Michael Bay, he tried made Transformers 2 so bad that many felt that the only way for this one to go from 2 was up. How wrong I was. I expected something to be good in this one but there was simply nothing at all. And yes, I will stick to my belief that this movie was in fact, worse than Revenge of the Fallen.

Acting/characters: In the very beginning they show that Sam is now a total jerk. They make him unlikable from the very start. SHUT UP ABOUT THE STUPID MEDAL YOU GOT!!! He spends the whole first half of the movie complaining about who knows what (I tuned it out after the 300th time he got started). His new girlfriend (after Megan Fox was fired for calling Bay a Nazi which, as much as I dislike Bay, a guy who serves a leader who kills millions of people and a guy who makes really really really bad movies aren't the same type of person at all) basically has a carbon copy role of the one Megan Fox had: eye candy. She's there because she can still look picture perfect in the middle of a war zone. Thankfully Sam's parents are in here a lot less but they are both still really really stupid people. The Transformers themselves might as well not even have personalities just because they are there to destroy/be destroyed. In fact, that' the whole point of the movie. The characters themselves are incidental to the rest. But if you look at it closely everything else is incidental. I could finish the review here by rating the other 3 categories as 'incidental.' It was just made to show people what a Michael Bay explosion looks like but if they want that, they can see another film of his. Any other. But I digress, everything about the acting and the characters was horrible. 0/10

Plot: I'm not sure I even know. Like I said, it was incidental. It's more or less a carbon copy of the first two: Optimus has to save something or other and all seems lost but then they all come back and save the day. Something like that. But it is all just a big setup to show giant robots fighting and explosions going on around them. you could really just interchange action scenes from this one with the other two. but the snippets of plot that they did put in there (namely, introducing how much of a dick Sam turned out to be) were just so poorly done I have to wonder if anyone thought about it at all. It just didn't do anything but set up the action scenes. 0/10

Screenplay: Don't even get me started on this abomination. This is why I consider 3 to be worse than 2. I mean come on, who on Earth looked at this screenplay and decided that it had the remotest quality to it? I don't even know where to begin on how horrid the screenplay was but I'll try my best. Here are some of the worst quotes ion the film:

"I'm going to kick you!!"

"You may lose faith in us, but never in yourselves."

"You didn't betray me, you betrayed yourself."

Actually, let's just go ahead and say that anything that came out of Optimus's mouth was ear-splittingly bad. The same goes for Sam really. I don't even call it a screenplay it's more like Chinese Water Torture. If you must see this, see it with ear-plugs. 0/10

Likableness: There was nothing to like. The Dialogue was bad, they characters were made so we didn't care, the plot was virtually non-existent, and they OVERUSED SLO-MO!!! I wouldn't see this again if I had the choice. I only saw it now because a good friend of mine had free tickets. BTW, don't see this in 3-D there no 3-D here. It was worse than 2. I don't know how they did it but they did. They made a movie worse than 2. It's unbelievable. 0/10

Final score: 0/40 0% (H)
Tomatometer rating: 36%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 36%


TRIVIA TIME: 1. During filming in Washington, DC, the 2011 Chevrolet Camaro that plays Bumblebee was struck by an metro police K-9 SUV responding to a bomb alert. The police officer involved sustained minor injuries, and Bumblebee sustained considerable damage. Filming was able to continue, as there were copies of each automobile for shooting purposes.

2. The "dark of the moon" is defined as a phase (approximately three days) when the light of the moon is obscured, and thus absent (i.e. a no-moon time), and precedes the new moon and the beginning of a new lunar cycle. Symbolically, it represents a time of inner stillness and contemplation, and preparedness for a new beginning.

3. Production stalled in Chicago as Gabriella Cedillo, an extra was seriously injured driving her own car as background for a stunt shot. The stunt was taking place in the opposite lane and a metal object (rigging from a snapped cable) went flying through her windshield and struck her in the skull. Cedillo suffered permanent brain damage, including left side paralysis and limited vision in her left eye. Paramount Studios provided an undisclosed amount of money to cover the cost of her medical care.

4. Michael Bay described the tone of the film as "a homeland version of Black Hawk Down with giant alien robots." Screw you Michael Bay. You couldn't begin to make a movie that good.

5. During the highway chase, a Decepticon is thrown into the oncoming traffic and obliterates a car. This exact crash is in The Island, another Michael Bay film. However, instead of a piece of metal, it is a transformer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyhnmRdze-0

6. Michael Bay compared Megatron to Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now: "He's hiding in the jungles of Africa, nursing his wounds and vainly hiding his pulverized visage while plotting - what else? - revenge!" BTW Mr. Bay, Kurtz wasn't planning revenge. He was waging war. Yeah, Kurtz and Megatron are not a darn thing alike. Moron.

I love money and explosions, that's all you need to know about my latest film...actually, that's all you need to know about any of my films.

8 best cast Harry Potter characters

In the spirit of movie 8 being out now, I am doing  a blog on the 8 best cast Harry Potter characters of the film series. 


 #8.

Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom: This one could be interchangeable, but I think Matthew Lewis just did a great job transitioning the character from a beaten down kid to ultimate badass. Could others have done the role as well? Maybe, but I think he did a fantastic job.

















 #7.



Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart: He just did fantastic at portraying the pompous, self absorbed professor. They also considered Hugh Laurie and Hugh Grant for the role. Grant I doubt would have worked. maybe Laurie. But I think that Branagh did it the best. He just nailed that role



















#6.

Ralph Finnes as Voldemort: some of you may think that he's a bit low on this list. I'm just not 100% positive that he is the only person who could have pulled it off as well as he did. Don't get me wrong though, his performance was chilling.










#5.

Dame Maggie Smith as Professor Minerva McGonagall: the stern expression, the total no-nonsense demeanor that she shows, This is the first person on my list who truly no one else could have done except Maggie Smith. Judi Dench was considered, but Maggie Smith just made the role. It couldn't have gone to anyone else. 












#4.

Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood: Lynch beat out 15,000 other people for the role. They chose wisely. I can't imagine anyone else playing Luna. The dreamy expression, the innate quirkiness, it just couldn't have been done by anyone else. She truly brought Luna to life.

















#3.

Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore: I don't care what anyone else says (though pretty much everyone agrees with me here I'm sure) Richard Harris IS Dumbledore. Michael Gambon plays the part admirably but Harris is far superior. Harris is everything that readers of the book imagined Dumbledore would be. It is a great tragedy that Harris died.



















#2.


Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge: Before Hans Landa, we had Dolores Umbridge: a character so gleefully evil we just had to love to hate her. Staunton plays it so beautifully that she is the best part of HP5. No contest. Sorry Luna but Umbridge was the best. Each time you see her you almost have to smile at her evil girlish giggle. I don't think anyone could have done it like she did. She was perfect for the role.


















#1.










You know what's coming

















Alan Rickman as Severus Snape: This is the only choice for #1. anyone how has seen even 2 minutes of Die Hard knows that Rickman can play an ominous character flawlessly. With the 8th Harry Potter getting rave reviews (97% on Rotten Tomatoes) Rickman could be up for an Oscar. I highly doubt it but there is that 1% chance. We'll see. But Snape is such a highly complex character and if you don't get Snape right, you pretty much sabotage the whole movie right there. Rickman pulled it off with apparent ease. Rickman as Severus Snape was easily the best casting choice in the entire Harry Potter franchise.