Harry Potter movie

We finally saw the fifth Harry Potter movie today. As usual, I have not read the book. (From what I hear, if I do decide to read the books I should still skip this one.) Overall... eh.

( Read more... )

Trailers:

• Bee Movie: Looks cutesy, so it comes down to the quality of the writing. I'm unlikely to bother absent good reviews from people whose assessments are good predictors of mine.
• Golden Compass: We'll see this. (This reminded me to try their web site again. It still fails for me, differently in Firefox and IE. Oh well; I guess I wasn't meant to have a daemon.)
• The Enchanted: This looks funny; I laughed out loud multiple times during the trailer. Definitely worth learning more about and hoping the trailer didn't contain all the funny parts.
• I don't remember the name of the Loch Ness movie. At the beginning of the trailer it evoked memories of E.T., but the trailer suggests that a good chunk of the movie is about the search for and secrets of Nessie, more than it is about a boy and his pet alien, and that doesn't grab me.
• Fred Claus: No thanks. Actually, a pretty good heuristic seems to be to write off anything billed as a holiday story. The snowflake logo at the beginning of the trailer told me everything I needed to know.
• Get Smart: I was never a fan of the TV show, and the trailer hasn't led me to reconsider.

Two for six (one of which we would have seen anyway) is a better-than-average hit rate for me and trailers.

small torah question

In the passage I'll be reading for this coming Shabbat there is a small oddity. There is a pronoun, which must be feminine per the grammar, which is spelled "hei (chirik) vav alef" and understood to be "hi" (fem). "Hi" is correctly spelled with a yud, not a vav; "hu" (masc) is spelled "hei vav alef", so if reading without the vowels you'd normally read this "hu". Except, as I said, it's part of a phrase involving a feminine verb, so it can't be.

I've seen spelling errors before and the tikkun (reference text for torah readers) has always noted it, thus far. This time, no note. None of my chumashim have any commentary on this passage (or that part of it, anyway). I don't own the correct volume of Rashi. I asked another torah reader (experienced and fluent in Hebrew) and she shrugged and said this happens a lot and it probably doesn't mean anything.

I'm curious, though. If it is an anomoly, it happens in a particularly interesting place (i.e. I can see an interesting interpretation). But if this sort of thing is common, I don't want to read into it.

Do any of the torah readers among my readership have any thoughts on this?