Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I guess you can’t really go too wrong when you hinge yourself on a story based on mystical creatures, magic and a bunch of children out to save the world. The plot sounds captivating enough as it is. The show wasn’t all that great. If anything, it felt very much like a connector that had to be there. Without it, the story just wouldn’t progress. But because it was a connector, it didn’t leave much of an impact or impression either. The 2 hours and 45 minutes show was bearable, thanks to said mystical creatures, magic and a bunch of children out to save the world. Strangely, I can’t remember much of the show. The only scene that comes back now that I try real hard to recall, is Malfoy Jr. lying on the bathroom floor, bleeding from his wounds after Harry casts a spell created by the Half Blood Prince on him (sorry if this spoils any of your viewing pleasure).
The strangest thing: why name the movie Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, if all you’re going to do is allude to a book that once belonged to the Half Blood Prince and then reveal who the Half Blood Prince is right at the end of the show? You’d think that with the Half Blood Prince being featured in the movie title, you’d see a lot of the Half Blood Prince (or at least enough for you to understand why the title was made so). Makes the title a little pointless, no? But I’m a nitpicker like that. Boston.com agrees.
Here on forth, I guess Harry Potter is pretty much going to be like Lord of the Rings. Or so I reckon, with all the chasing after Voldemort’s horcruxes (like Frodo and Sam had to destroy the ring) and fighting the death-eaters and other evil wizards (like the hobbits who had Nazguls on their hands). Well, to be exact, Harry Potter is going to try and be like Lord of the Rings. Yes, I know they are inherently different, set in a different period, with different plots (if you overlook the overarching patterns) and very different actors (yes of course. LOTR has much better acting, thank you very much). Still, you have to give some credit to this incredible bestseller.
Overall rating: 3/5 (To put things in perspective, LOTR would have gotten a 6/5 and Ice Age 3 got 3/5 despite the criticism that it was a tad pushing it with the repeated humor)
If you read the book, save your cash for other things (like a nice meal, 3 or 4 cheeseburgers, or another movie). If you believe (like I do) in the saying “Why read the book when there’s going to be a movie?”, then you have to watch it, simply because you need the connection to move on to the fantabulous 2-part movie (yes, Harry Potter’s final installment will be split into two movies, one out late 2010 and the other in 2011).
From Harry Potter to unfathomable fashion trends. Hands up if you think Bossini sports cuttings that really don’t make much sense on anyone. Or if you think Giordano shouldn’t be charging so much for styles that are really not that outstanding (or nice, for that). Hands up if you think Uniqlo is totally cool and that we should have more such stores in the world, or at least Singapore. There you have it, a paradox. Why would you think that Bossini and Giordano spell uncool and fashion disaster, but deem anyone who sports Uniqlo cool? Because unlike the others, Uniqlo’s from Japan, and anything from Japan = cool?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate Uniqlo. The outlet at Tampines 1 has a refreshing design, filled with bright colors and flashy posters. On the outside, it looks interestingly different, worth going into.
Once I’m in though, a sense of feeling that can only be described as unfathomable overwhelms me. Why are there so many people clamoring for jackets/tops/shirts/pants that look ill-fitting and are incredibly overpriced? The outfits and styles just don’t look that amazing to me. If anything, they look exceedingly ordinary and somewhat dull despite the bright colors they come in (which ironically should have made them look oh-so-cool). All of that would be justified if the prices were drop-dead-affordable. But $30 for a loose-cut sweater that comes in dizzying colors? Befuddled.
For that price and cutting, I think I’d rather head over to Topshop/Dorothy Perkins, where its sales racks sport decent and oft gorgeous designs. If you’re going to buy an ill-fitting, sort-of badly designed, overpriced piece, you might as well get an oversized, better designed, slightly pricier (or possibly even cheaper, if you look at the right rack) piece and throw a belt over it or wear a tube under it so it fits better.
Another alternative: Cotton On. Fabulous everyday pieces that go absolutely well if you know how to mix and match your clothing. Gentle on the purse/wallet too. Even better: Flea markets. Anyone who visits those knows how fantabulous they are. Amazing finds at awesome prices. Why pay more just to get a brand when you can look equally, or perhaps even more, fabulous with 10X less money?
Disclaimer: The above comment reflects the writer’s personal views and should be taken with many pinches of salt. Evidently, the writer adores Cotton On and flea markets, and adopts an incredulously cheap outlook when it comes to shopping. Please continue supporting branded goods by putting incredible dents in that gorgeous Hermes purse or Braun Buffel wallet. The fashion industry needs more people like you.