Weekend Showdown: Harry Potter Movies

For all my non-Harry Potter fan readers, this is the last Harry Potter post, for The Deathly Hallows has arrived! I will not be seeing it until tomorrow afternoon... babysitters are hard to come by. Boo.

First, we start with the Sorcerer's Stone- or, for my non-US readers, the Philosopher's Stone. This first movie keeps very close to the book. The book is short, the shortest of the series, so there isn't much to cut. We lose a few minor details, but just about everybody and everything is in there. Story authenticity: 9/10

The worst thing I can think of about this movie is the inevitable: they're just kids, and they're in every scene. Kids are... well, kids. They aren't Oscar winning geniuses (the adults in the movie are though... 13 Oscar nominations between them. Yowza.), heck none of them were even professionals when they started. They were 10, 11 and 12 years old. If you have kids anywhere near that age, think about their ability to focus and take direction every day for months at a time... yeaaahhhh... that's what I thought. Acting: 5/10

I should also mention the CGI in this film is horrendous. It's ridiculous, really. I know this came out before HDTVs, before HD cameras, and before BluRay had even been imagined, but, yikes. There are some scenes where they (particularly Neville and Harry) look just like their Lego-video-game counterparts. Special Effects: 4/10

Total for SS/PS: 18/30

teens.aol.com*

Next up, we have the Chamber of Secrets. For all of you who are not entirely obsessed, this book is the book J.K. Rowling suggested readers should scour if they wanted clues as to Snape's true character and intentions, and if you haven't read it with that frame of mind, I suggest you do; that little exercise cemented my correct assumptions about Snape ;)

Again, the movie stays pretty close to the book, the only thing I can think of that got cut is the subplot about Filch being a squib (non-magical person born to magical parents), and that's not really all that important; in the films he's just a jerkwagon, and we all hate him an appropriate amount as a result. Story Authenticity: 8/10

The kids are better in this one, and we see a lot more of the adults, particularly Snape, and Gilderoy Lockhart, the only character to be based on a real person. Acting: 6/10

The CGI is measurably improved, mostly because they had to make Dobby. The first movie made money, so Warner Brothers was willing to shell out a little bit more, but more importantly, Lord of the Rings had been released. The public had seen Gollum and knew what was possible in the world of fully-CGI characters (Gollum was done differently, yes, but the standard was set- nobody was going to settle for Lego-men anymore). Special Effects: 7/10

Total for CoS: 21/30

harrypotterwallpaper.org

 

Next, we have the Prisoner of Azkaban. People were finally starting to realize that these were not just kids books, and adults were falling love too, and this is where I was actually introduced to Harry, when this movie came out. Which is a shame, really, because I think this movie is the worst of the bunch. The book is considerably longer, and much more of it gets cut. By the time you get to the end, there is a litany of questions unanswered, so many that I felt the film didn't even make sense. Story Authenticity: 3/10

The kids are better, but still not great. Plus, they started tying their ties really, really stupidly in this film. Acting: 7/10

The special effects backslid tremendously, in my opinion, too. The tilting camera stuff in the Shrieking Shack? Nauseating. The "werewolf?" More like a stretched out prairie dog. Maybe they just put all their time and money into the dementors, which were truly terrifying. Special Effects: 5/10

Total for PoA: 15/30

reelingreviews.com

For the Goblet of Fire, we move into what has undoubtedly become darker territory. The villainy is more dangerous than ever and we see the death of a character for the first time. The kids are unquestionably much better in this one. Harry especially turns it on, and the kid who plays Ron has entirely perfected the "I'm so scared/upset I might vomit" face. Acting: 7/10

This book is much longer, and thus more of it needed to be cut. Aside from the death of S.P.E.W. and the houselves altogether, I don't think they cut anything necessary to the main story. The screenwriting/editing team did a better job of paring down the story while staying true to the intent and the overall story arch. Story Authenticity: 7/10

The special effects are also improved. The dragon? Totally awesome. The mermaids? Vicious and completely scary. Special Effects: 9/10

Total for GoF: 25/30

allmoviephoto.com

Order of the Phoenix is the most condensed of the series. First off, it is the longest book with the US hardcover version boasting over 850 pages. But, it is the shortest film to date, at only 138 minutes, nearly 20 minutes shorter than the first film (based on the shortest book). As such, there is a huge amount of stuff cut from the story. Subplots, almost all of the romance and lots of nearly overwhelming tension got dropped. They stuck to the theme and the overall arch, but a lot of the complex details and relationships are missing. Story Authenticity: 6/10

The acting is better yet again, considering the fact that most of this film is more understated. The tension comes not from violence but from political oppression, and we see real personal loss for the first time. But Hermione's nostril flares have got to go. Acting: 7/10

The special effects are more subtle, simpler, to fit the feel of the movie. They're spot on, but not too technically impressive. Special Effects: 8/10


Total for OotP: 21/30

reviewstl.com

 

And, lastly we come to the Half Blood Prince. This is the Snape-iest book of them all, and therefor my favorite. It's shorter than the other "later" books, and is barely longer than Prisoner of Azkaban. This one actually serves as a launching pad for number seven, and is the only book that I don't feel can stand on its own two feet; the end is completely untied-up and leaves you literally scrabbling over a cliff's edge. The movie adapted most of this very well, and actually did a good job lightening the mood and playing up the relationships, both romantic and otherwise, that we hadn't seen previously. Story Authenticity: 8/10

The acting is yet again better, and since we see even more of the amazing adults in this one, we get even more support. Cormac McLaggen is the douchiest kid ever, and the creep factor is exquisitely painful all through this movie. Acting: 9/10

The special effects are stunning. The inferi (animated corpses... zombies dedicated to a master, I guess) are terrifying. The whole "feel" of the film is brilliant, right from the get go. This one is perfectly nailed, right on the head. Special Effects: 10/10


Total for HBP: 27/30

moviematics.com

Final Tally: 
PS/SS 18
CoS 21
PoA 15
GoF 25
OotP 21
HBP 27

Half Blood Prince, number 6, wins this weekend showdown!

Enjoy your Harry Potter weekend, and we will return to regularly scheduled posts on Monday, folks!
Please post your ideas in the comments- whether you agree with me or not!
*Was anybody else surprised to see that AOL.com still existed? Just me? 

Weekend Showdown: Robin Hood

You know all about him: He robs from the rich to feed the poor. He loves Maid Marian. He is loyal to King Richard. He wears tights. He's an excellent archer. And on and on. But which Robin Hood has been the best Robin Hood?

Let's explore, shall we?

Robin is (as best we can tell) based on a real live person, but over the centuries, the details have been lost/forgotten/changed. He appears in popular writings from as early as the late 13th century. He actually is referenced in a court document in the 1400s, so there must be some basis for his notoriety.

Since that time, he has appeared in literally countless pieces of literature. His first appearance in "modern" literature is in Ivanhoe, published in 1819, but he appears in many novels and children's stories over the next century and a half.

Not so surprisingly, he has also appeared in many, many films and television shows. IMDb list 112 characterizations of Robin Hood dating back as far as 1912. I will now compare and contrast them all in great detail.

Cha. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

I will actually compare and contrast the three most recent, mainstream versions of the character; Russell Crowe in Robin Hood, Carey Elwes in Robin Hood: Men in Tights and Kevin Costner in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. Before you start, I know Errol Flynn is considered by many to be the epitome of Robin Hood, but I haven't seen that film, so I cannot speak to it.

First, let's look at awards. Costner won 5 awards for his performance in this film. 3 of them had to do with his hotness and 1 was a Razzie... so. 1 award.

fanlistings.org

 

Crowe's version just barely came out this year, and it has yet to be nominated for any awards. Although, by all accounts, he won't get any.

When we look at "reviews" you have to consider a critic's point of view, surely, but you also must realize that real people are not critics. I do not have a degree in Outstanding Film Execution from Uptight University, so I have slightly different standards than, say, Roger Ebert. Which is why I love RottenTomatoes.com. Only 45% of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes liked Men in Tights, but 70% of real people liked it. Those are my kind of people.

hollywoodcultmovies.com

On Rotten Tomatoes, Prince of Thieves has a 56% rating from the critics and 72% from the real people. The biggest thorn in Prince of Thieves's side, I think, was the Siskel and Ebert crew (whoever was doing it then) who complained that the kids wouldn't have a good time in this "violent and depressing" movie. Um, hello, PG-13 rating? It's not for the kids. Although he has a point. It was violent. If only he knew had bad it could be...

Speaking of unnecessary violence. Crowe's version of Robin Hood was so violent at first that it received an "R" rating. They, of course, cut it down so they could get a PG-13 rating and entertain all those kiddies. Joking. Please don't show your kids this movie. This one has done even worse on Rotten Tomatoes: 42% and 60% for critics and real people.

Add caption

Prince of Thieves made back all of it's budget and then some. The movie cost around $50M to make and made over $150M in the US box office. Robin Hood has been a total bomb; the $200M budget has yet to be made back, and it has all but left the dingiest of dollar theaters. In a summer with really only two over-hyped films, that's bad. Men in Tights did also recoup its admittedly more modest budget; but really, this is about the profit margin more than anything.

OK, so, Kevin Costner gets an extra point for this:

denofgeek.com

I know, now it doesn't look so impressive, but it's been 17 years. When this was first released, this was COOL. There's a reason they put it on the posters. And the DVD case.

He gets another point simply for going toe to toe with Alan Rickman.

cinemovies.fr

Carey Elwes gets another point just because he does. He gets another shot. ::muttering:: He does, he does.

Now, we come to the British Accent. Elwes has to win this, hands down, because he's BRITISH. Side note: a girl on the IMDb forums complained that Crowe should have been allowed to use his native accent. When I pointed out that he is from Australia, she saw nothing wrong with this. I don't know what she learned in history and geography classes (if anything) but it sure wasn't the same stuff I learned.

Robin Hood is generally surrounded by his Merry Men. I *think* Elwes wins the category for leading the merriest of men: 


At this point, Elwes and Costner are actually tied. I fished around for a tie-breaker, and decided to use IMDb's user ratings. Russell Crowe's version gets a 6.7 out of 10, Kevin Costner gets a 6.9 and Carey Elwes gets a 8.0. So, I guess Carey Elwes wins. Now, I will admit that the Rotten Tomatoes rating and IMDb rating are probably very nearly the same thing. If you can come up with a different tie breaker, even if it swings the vote in a different direction, let me know.

Also, if you can think of anything redeeming about Russell Crowe's Robin Hood, let me know that too.

Weekend Showdown: Anna and the King of Siam

I love musicals and I am proud of it. So, when I learned that the story of Anna and the King of Siam was based on a book, I was so very, very excited to feature it here on Fantasy Casting. Here's the truth, though. The musical movie, starring Yul Brynner (probably the most famous version) is based on a Broadway play, the Broadway play is based on a movie made in the 40s, which was based on a semi-biographical novel which was based on a pair of memoirs written in  the 1800s.

You got all that? Book to book to movie to play to movie. Does nobody have an original thought in their head?

 Anyway, I am not here to criticize the inability of authors and producers to create original material in exchange for their seven-figure salaries. I want to talk about which version of this movie was better, particularly the casting. I'm going to stick with the two most famous. OK, the two that I have seen multiple times.

First, we have the 1956 version starring Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner.

Second, we have the 1999 version, titled Anna and the King, starring Jodie Foster and Chow Yun Fat.

naergilien.info

The real Anna Leonowens was a widow who had buried not only her husband but two of her four children by the age of 27. She joined the Thai court (Siam) at the age of 31 and spent six years there. Deborah Kerr was 36 when she played Anna, and Jodie Foster was 37. As far as Hollywood standards of age measurement goes, both are pretty darn accurate.

weekinreview.com

The real King Monkut (whose name was actually Phra Bat Somdet Phra Poramenthramaha Mongkut Phra Chom Klao Chao Yu Hua- betcha didn't know that) was 58 when Anna came to his court. Yul Brynner was 36 when he played the King, Chow Yun Fat was 44. I guess the accuracy vote must go to the newer version in this case, although neither is particularly close.

allmoviephoto.com

Side note: what not-so-subliminal message is sent when women are playing parts significantly younger and men are playing significantly older? I'll let you chew on that...

King Monkut is obviously of Siamese descent. Chow Yun Fat was born in Hong Kong during the British rule, and Yul Brynner is Russian. At least Hong Kong is in the Orient. That one goes to Chow Yun Fat, too.

Anna Leonowens was British, born in India. Neither of the two women who played her were British; Kerr was Scottish- though she lived in England for a good portion of her life- and Foster is American, born and raised in Los Angeles. Uh, I guess that one goes to Kerr.

monkut.com

Remember how I said Hollywood doesn't care much about race or nationality?

In the 1956 version, Kerr and Brynner were BOTH nominated for Oscars and Golden Globes (he won the Oscar; she the Globe) and the film won 8 awards overall. The 1999 version was nominated for two Oscars and neither of which were for the actors. Neither Foster nor Yun Fat were nominated for any awards for their performances. Older version wins this category.

screenrush.co.uk

I have to give one point to the 1956 version because it's a musical, and I love musicals.

On RottenTomatoes.com, the 1956 version is rated 100% fresh and the snippet for the 1999 version (51%) is: Beautiful cinematography can't prevent Anna and the King from being boring and overly lengthy. Ouch.

And, lest we forget that money makes the world go around, the 1999 version recouped only about 50% of its budget, making it a certifiable box-office bomb. The 1956 version made nearly as much money- and 43 years can do a lot to inflation. Yikes.

So, I know this will upset the fanboys and fangirls out there, but Jodie Foster loses. Badly. The win goes to Deborah Kerr and the 1956 version.

Agree? Disagree? Post your thoughts in the comments.

Weekend Showdown: Elizabeth Bennet

This week, I am again stepping outside my wheelhouse of fantasy novels and trying something a little different. I know a lot of people read my nerdy sci-fi, fantasy, YA stuff, but not everybody. So I am branching out and reaching for one of the most popular characters of one of the most popular stories of all time: Elizabeth Bennet from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.

I talked about Mr. Darcy a few weeks ago, and left the final vote up to you, my faithful readers. And you pulled through and agreed with me (as I knew you would) and said the Colin Firth won that showdown!

For this week's showdown on Elizabeth Bennet, I am going to limit myself to the two "main" versions of Pride and Prejudice; I haven't seen the Bollywood version (yet) and I maintain that the LDS version is too different, and thus the characters aren't really comparable.

So, we have two portrayals to compare. First, Jennifer Ehle in the BBC version in 1995 and Keira Knightley in Pride and Prejudice in 2005.

For your visual consideration:

FanPop.com

JaneAustenSequels.blogspot.com

I happen to usually lean towards the more "robust" women, particularly for this time period. I just think that Jennifer Ehle looks healthier, you know? And, I kind of hate the way Keira Knightly looks like she's constantly pouting or rolling her tongue around inside her mouth or chewing on her cheeks or something. Despite the sharp cheekbones and clavicles, I am going to have to vote the Jennifer Ehle wins in the looks department, both in general and especially as Ms. Bennet.

As for awards, Keira Knightley was nominated for 11 awards for this role. Yes, eleven. One of which was an Oscar, one of which was a Golden Globe (both of which she lost to Reese Witherspoon in Walk the Line) and one of which she won. Jennifer Ehle was nominated for and won only one award, the BAFTA, for her portrayal. I think Keira wins the awards showdown. By a smidge.

FanPop.com

So, here's my big thing with Elizabeth Bennet. In the book, I kind of don't like her. She's stubborn and demonstrative. I know this is a big deal because women of that age were meek and submissive and she was a departure from the mainstream, blah, blah, blah. But, seriously, "prejudiced" isn't exactly the most kind adjective, right? So, I don't love Lizzy Bennet. I tolerate her presence.

However, this is nothing in comparison to how I feel about Jennifer Ehle's character. She's huffy and snotty and bull-headed. She's kind of a b-word, you know?

Oddly enough, I like Keira Knightley's version because I feel like she brings some passion to the character. She's still stubborn, but somehow it comes across as headstrong and willful instead of pigheaded and obstinate. She's embarrassed for her family instead of being embarrassed of them. She's worried about how they are presenting themselves, instead of how they are reflecting on her. I know it's maybe a subtle nuance, but I think it's a distinctive character difference.

I also actually like the overall lifestyle that the Bennets, including Elizabeth, present in the newer version. I like that they aren't so "clean" and "proper", because they aren't nobility, they live meekly in a smaller village and are of a more humble stock.

So, while I will go with the general consensus that Colin Firth and the BBC version win the Mr. Darcy showdown, I will now stubbornly adhere to the fact that Keira Knightley wins the Elizabeth Bennet showdown.

Go ahead, try to convince me otherwise.


All Images pulled from Google Images

Weekend Showdown: Mr. Darcy

You've all read it.

 Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. I guess, I should say, you've read it if you're female.This is not one of my favorite books (let the flogging begin) but there's no escaping that it's a very popular story. You would think for all the hoopla about this book, it would have been made into a movie at least 400 times by now. But, really there have been only two major makings of this film. The first is, of course, the BBC mini-series from 1995 and the second is the Kiera Knightley version from 2005. If you are LDS (as I am) you probably also saw the LDS version in 2003 (because in today's world, only Mormon kids could think they are practically engaged after only meeting a few times!)

For comparison's sake, I am only going to focus on the first two; the BBC mini-series and the Keira Knightley version. The LDS version is 1) less popular and therefore not likely to engender much discussion and 2) set in today's environment, thus the characters had to change accordingly, making an unfair comparison.

There's a popular saying that "I blame Mr. Darcy for my impossibly high standards in men" and I know a LOT of women hold Mr. Darcy in very high regard. He was played in 1995 by the ineffable Colin Firth and then in 2005 by Matthew Macfadyen.

I know that I am going to take a lot of flack for this, but Colin Firth's entire performance looks exactly like this:

Seriously. 300 minutes of steely-eyed glares. Minimal lip movement. No eye movement. I wanted to slap him. Repeatedly.

Although, Matthew Macfadyen's performace seems to be entirely based upon this image:

And this scene:


OK, I'll be honest. That scene is biggie. You almost can't lose with that, right?

Almost.

However, I do have a problem in general with Macfadyen's costume and appearance in this film. The hair? Ugh. The strangely clothed, um, nether region. (oh, please, with that kind of draping, everybody notices it). He feels kind of hopeless in this movie. Like Elizabeth is going to spend the rest of forever trying to comb his hair out of his eyes or get him to button his shirt properly.

And, you have to give Colin Firth a little bit of credit for playing not only this Mr. Darcy:

Not kidding- his only facial expression.

but this Mr. Darcy, as well:

  Heh, heh, heh. That's funny to me. Just me? OK, then. Moving on.


Back to Matthew Macfadyen, he won one award (Character and Morality in Entertainment*) and was nominated for another (Best British Newcomer) for this role.

Colin Firth was nominated for two awards (BAFTA and UK TV) and won another (Broadcasting Press) turn as Mr. Darcy.

I think that comes down to Colin Firth winning. That can't be right. One facial expression, and he wins? OK, you tell me. Who wins? Your votes will decide the winner of this weekend's showdown.

*Um, how cool is it that they give awards for Character and Morality? 

Agree? Disagree? Post your thoughts in the comments?
Images: Google Images

Weekend Showdown: The Parent Trap

I bet you didn't know that The Parent Trap was based on a book, huh? It is. It is based on Lottie and Lisa by Erich Kastner, so it qualifies for my weekend showdown. Boo-yah! (Did I just "booyah" The Parent Trap? I'm tired...)

The Parent Trap, in case you don't know, is a movie about two young girls who look an awful lot alike. When they meet at summer camp they hate each other, but eventually find out they are identical twins separated at birth. They cook up a scheme to swap places, forcing their parents to be in the same room with each other and inevitably fall back in love, reuniting the family. Hilarity ensues.

I happen to actually think both versions are cute. Harmless family fun, and I think each is worth watching, particularly if you have kids under 13 around. They'll love these movies, I promise. 

The original version was released in 1961 and starred Hayley Mills as Susan and Sharon.

PROS:

Pro #1: Verbena. You know, the dad's housekeeper? The gossiper who always says "It's none of my never mind, but..." and then dishes everything you ever wanted to know. Hilarious.

Pro #2: This little ditty:


It's adorable. I don't care what you say.

Pro #3: Maureen O'Hara plays the mother in this version. Does anybody else think she is one of the most beautiful women ever to live?

Pro #4: This version was nominated for two Oscars, of which it won one. It was nominated for two Golden Globes and a Grammy.

Pro #5: The split-screen technology was groundbreaking and flawless; especially considering it was all done with razorblades and physical film. 

CONS:
Con #1: Hayley Mills is British. Asking a 15 year old Brit to alternately put on a California-girl accent and a Bostonian accent is asking a lot. Listening to her cover up her gosh-awful attempt with gum chewing is painful. Who thought that gum smacking would make "pahrk the cahr" sound more like "paaak da caaaa"? And then of course, she messes it up and sounds British half the time anyway. Lovely.

Con #2: These haircuts:

 Yikes. 

The remake was released in 1998 with a pre-crazy Lindsay Lohan playing Annie and Hallie.

PROS
Pro #1: Dennis Quaid played the father in this one. Does anyone else think he is underrated and totally awesome?

Pro #2: Lindsay Lohan was 11 when she filmed this. Eleven. years. old. And she is in every single scene. She may be crazy now, but that is one talented little girl.

Pro #3: Actress Joanna Barnes played the "wicked girlfriend" in the original version and plays the mother of the wicked girlfriend in this version. Both characters are named Vicky.That's cute, clever and something that most people wouldn't expect or think of.

Pro #4: Lindsay Lohan puts on a British accent much better than Hayley Mills puts on American accents. 

CONS
Con #1: The mother lives in England. The father lives in northern California. They each send their children to a summer camp in Maine? At least the original was all stateside...

Con #2: They're championship fencers? Fencers? 11 year old fencers? Really?

Con #3: The housekeepers fall for each other, too? Really?

Con #4: You should check out the list of continuity errors for this film. It is ridiculous. For a film released in 1998, when the production company knows that people are going to see this on DVD for time and all eternity, they should know better than to throw out errors like that. tsk, tsk.

The Original Parent Trap: 5 Pros, 2 Cons
The New Parent Trap: 4 Pros, 4 Cons

That tells me that the original actually wins this time around. My mother will be so happy :) And I'm sorry that you will be singing "Let's Get Together" for the next 24 hours.

Agree? Disagree? Post your thoughts in the comments?
Images: Google Images
Video: YouTube

Weekend Showdown: Captain Hook

Welcome back to the weekend showdown, folks! This week I will be examining who was the best Captain Hook.


Captain Hook, as you probably know, is the nefarious villainous pirate enemy of Peter Pan, from J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan stories.


While there have been 23 incarnations of Captain Hook (according to the trusty IMDb), there are arguably three main portrayals of Captain James T. Hook that are indelibly embedded in our collective psyche:

From left to right: Disney's Captain Hook voiced by Hans Conried  in Peter Pan (1953), Dustin Hoffman in Hook (1991) and Jason Isaacs in Peter Pan (2003).


Since the first character is a cartoon, I don't think it counts. Not that voicing a character doesn't count, but for our purposes, I can't really pick apart his performance, since at least 50% of it was done by other people. So we are left with two: Jason Isaacs and Dustin Hoffman.


This is a big, big problem. These are both amazing actors.


First, Dustin Hoffman. Won 2 Oscars. Another 46 wins & 24 nominations. 7 times he's been nominated for an Oscar, won twice. That's a lot. He was actually also nominated for a Golden Globe for this role.


Personally, I think Jason Isaacs is highly underrated. Maybe this is the Harry Potter geek in me, but I just think he is awesome. He's been nominated for only 9 awards in his career, none of them were for his Captain Hook portrayal.


But, let's look at how they compare to the actual description from J.M. Barrie's original vision. Here's how Hook is described in the original story:


"In person he was cadaverous and blackavized* and his hair was dressed in long curls, which at a little distance looked like black candles and gave a singularly threatening expression to his handsome countenance. His eyes were of the blue of the forget-me-not, and of a profound melancholy, save when he was plunging his hook into you, at which time two read spots appeared in them and lit them up horribly. He was never more sinister than when he was most polite."


So let's look at this, 6 points: cadaverous, threatening, handsome, profound melancholy [in his eyes], sinister, polite.


As far as the "look" of Captain Hook, I actually think Jason Isaacs wins this. Honestly, who's more threatening: the guy who played Lucius Malfoy, or the Rain Man?

Oh, you don't think it's fair that I used the mentally challenged character for comparison? OK. Who's more intimidating, Lord Felton or Mr. Magorium?

Edit: I neglected to mention the Lord Felton is one of the evil henchmen in Dragonheart.

Still not convinced? OK, how about their voices? Which is more sinister and threatening- the voice behind Ras al Ghul- Batman's nemesis and the leader of the League of Shadows, or Master Shi Fu?

I think I have made my point. Jason Isaacs is the more threatening, intimidating and evil looking Hook.


But there is more to Hook than just the appearance of evil. James Hook is really a bad, bad man. He kills one of his men for tripping (while carrying Hook on a carriage). Kills him without pausing, looking at the man or taking the cigar out of his mouth. Wow. That is ruthless. Jason Isaacs character doesn't kill anybody, and Dustin Hoffman kills Rufio. And honestly, the man who would steal another man's child is bone chilling. I think Dustin Hoffman wins this one.


And only Dustin Hoffman professes to have "good form", or the sinister politeness spoken of. While Hook is certainly underhanded, he only professes to be polite, and Isaacs doesn't even cross this path. 


The last part of Captain Hook's character is the melancholy, and manic psychosis when he kills. For me, this one goes to Jason Isaacs all the way. The scene where he first wakes up from his drunken stupor is sooooo creepy. He shows a softer, human side underneath all the Hookiness, when Hoffman really gives us a more developed sense of vengeance and ruthlessness.


So, of our 6 points to consider, Isaacs wins 4 of them (cadaverous, threatening, handsome & melancholy) while Hoffman wins the other 2.


This makes me happy. Jason Isaacs wins!

How's that for an unexpected outcome? As much as I think Dustin Hoffman's Captain Hook is BRILLIANT, I do think that Jason Isaacs is more true to the original character written by J.M. Barrie.


*this is just an old word that meant to have a long, wild beard and dark skin.




Agree? Disagree? Post your thoughts in the comments?
Images: Google Images