Just After Twilight...

As I might have mentioned earlier, I love Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight. It is possibly my favorite book. I have many reasons for this, but notably, it is one book that any sane person, once they have started reading, simply cannot put down. And I have tested this theory. Even the most steadfast “I won’t read it” friends of mine always give in, and always finish the book and demand New Moon. So needless to say, I was one of the die-hards who could hardly wait to experience the film adaptation of this book.
Book to film transitions are always rocky and never whole. Considering the audiobook of Twilight is 12 hours long and entirely in first person, I accepted the fact that the more omniscient point of view of the film medium, along with a time limitation (though I for one would have been fine with a 3 hour movie as opposed to a 2-hour movie. Harry Potter did this, and survived just fine) I expected some things to be cut and left out, and new things to be added.
The addition of Emmett’s humorous lines, and Charlie’s gun-cocking protective-father-ness was welcomed with laughter and a great respect for the screenwriter, who, I will admit, besides the reckless and stupid addition to flying through the treetops (vampires CANNOT fly!!!!!!) and the half-hearted attempt to give the nomadic vamps a pointlessly added storyline, kept as true to the book as “humanly” possible.
As I have not seen the 12 plus deleted scenes that we’ve already been told will be on the DVD, I am not sure to blame what was carelessly left out on the screenwriter, or the editors who cut them out. There were many important elements that were left out, that folks who have not read the books (sad but true, I went to the film with a girl who had not read any of them) will be left confused about. I’m not sure if the following is a spoiler, but just in case, I will warn you, watch the movie first! My non-twilighter movie companion had these questions: Who are all those people and why do they live together? And what was with the venom thing? My question is why did the film not include at least a little of Edward’s explanation to Bella about why these vampires have come together as a family? At least Edward and Esme are explained, but Jasper and Alice’s extraordinary circumstances are left out. In fact, the entire storyline of James’s hunt for the human Alice, resulting in her being changed into a vampire for her safety and protection from him, was left out. I think it’s important because it is what drives James most: his need for revenge on the Cullen family. As he says in the book, he is driven by his desire to make things even. Alice was taken from him, and so he will take from Alice and her beloved family. For the second concern, the film skipped over Alice's explanation that the venom in the bite of a vampire, meant to painfully disarm a victim, is also what changes a human into a vampire. When Bella is screaming "it burns!" and Edward must suck out the venom, no one who hadn't read the book had a clue why. It is mentioned at prom later, but it fell on deaf ears by then.
The other things that everyone I watched the film with noticed are: it is never explained that Bella’s Lullaby is just that. It is noted on the soundtrack, yes, but it would have taken 2 whole lines to have Edward explain that the song hes playing on the piano was written for her. The scenes in the beginning are choppy and rushed, and it is hard for me to believe that Edward and Bella love each other at one point. He is so angry (much more than in the book) and she is so stoic (where is the swooning? Where is the being dazzled look? She looked like an absolute rigid statue in the forest when she announces she knows what he is!!! Where’s the love, Kristen Stewart?) that this very important, pivotal scene (which should have been in a meadow, fyi) is just not right.
So now that I’ve torn it to pieces, I will let you know, about 5 seconds after I left the theater I was DYING to see it again. It was extraordinary, beautiful, and mesmerizing to watch Robert Pattinson transform himself into the outrageously deep, thoughtful, and mysterious Edward Cullen. His portrayal is uncanny. Also, Ashley Greene’s Alice is pitch-perfect (no pun intended, as even her balletic baseball movements were perfectly executed). My only complaint casting-wise is Jessica. In the book, she is not a ho. In the movie, she is a ho. Nuff said.
Otherwise the casting is perfect (well, except Rosalie, but with Nikki Reed’s close relationship with director Catherine Hardwicke, what did you expect?) The dialogue was wonderful (only one or two of my favorite lines from the book were left out), the cars and the town of Forks were represented with uncanny precision, and though the Cullen’s house was not what I imagined, it was great just the same.
One last note on additions that were unexpected but much loved was Bella's imagining of Edward feeding on her. With the lipstick? And the awesome sofa? Gorgeous.
I know that in someone else’s hands, this movie could have been a disaster. But I heartily congratulate everyone who made it possible to be as true to the written work as it could. Those folks made us Twilighters right happy. I laughed, I gasped, I sighed, I teared up, I jumped and stifled a few screams, and altogether was thrilled by this film. I’d say a cute little Twilighter bunny has come out of this hat, complete with a t-shirt that says “Stupid Lamb.”

Top Ten Upcoming Movies

*** OK I know I haven't posted in an extremely long time and I apologize, that is, if anyone actually ever reads this blog. Anyway, I will try my very very best to post more often Here goes:***
Top Ten Movies I Can't Wait To See:
1.) Twilight
I cannot express to you how much these books have meant to me. Not only are they wonderful, but they have brought me together with some really true friends that I might not have been as close to without this book to share to start us off. I am so proud to be a Captain in the ever-growing Twilight army, for which I am constantly recruiting. Everyone I tell to read the first book comes back to me weeks, sometimes even only days later, begging for the next book. I say get your own! Haha, just kidding. But this is an incredible story that I cannot wait to see how it has been captured/adapted to film. I do regret in advance though the sacrifices that I'm sure have been made, but it is impossible to keep every single detail from a book accurate on screen. Not only would it be boring to watch entirely in first person, but a lot of the cinematic visuals would have been lost. So I look forward to blogging that response.
2.) Alice In Wonderland
So this movie is not coming out until what is it? 2010? 2011? Either way, I have YEARS to wait and yet the idea of this masterpiece being done by Tim Burton gives me goosebumps of joy just thinking about it. And Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter? And ALAN RICKMAN as the CATERPILLAR???? Need I say more?
3.) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
So I have to say it: Twilight totally pushed this film back. But being the kind of "love all" person I am, (I don't choose sides in the ridiculous Potter vs. Twilight war which I think is silly. Why can't we all just get along???) I was heartbroken when I heard that I'd have to wait til next year to see this. What the heck happened? I want my Potter fix thankyouverymuch.
4.) The Vintner's Luck
OK so this movie is a French language film filmed in New Zealand set in France. It is starring the smoldering Gaspard Ulliel (my vote for Edward, though I am very pleased with the Pattinson-ness) as an ANGEL. On the one hand, we have amazing sexy moments to look forward to, and on the other hand, we have the lovely New Zealand countryside to... who am I kidding? Gaspard. Half naked. For 2 whole hours. 'Nuff said.
5.) Australia
The trailer makes me cry it is so beautiful and well-executed. Easily on my list of top ten movie trailers (hmm, maybe I should post that one next, eh?) for its use of score, dramatic editing, just... all about it. So if the trailer is that good, does that mean "mastermind trailer editors" or "bound to be an amazing epic adventure?" Can't wait to find out.
6.)Pirates of the Caribbean 4 (yet untitled)
I know it's going to be a long wait, but at least there's something to wait for. I was shocked and amazed that Depp would agree to reprise, yet again, the only role in the history of his career he's ever done more than once. And I couldn't be more thrilled. I just hope, with Elizabeth and Will's storyline complete, that Disney does not churn this out for the heck of it with some random characters that we don't care about (um, The Haunted Mansion much? That one was a HUGE disappointment.) but instead comes out with something brilliant, unexpected, and memorable. Here's hoping.
7.) Quantum of Solace
I will be the first to admit, as a former Bond purist, that I did not want Daniel Craig to be Bond. Bond is brunet! He is dark-haired, debonair, and no. As hot as he was in Tomb Raider, I just wasn't going to have it. But after about, oh, 5 minutes into the film, I was hooked. It was what "Batman Begins" did with Batman: it was real, it was gritty, it was classy, it was serious, and it was still Bond just the same. And after seeing Craig in "The Jacket", I'm glad he stuck with his natural color instead of going dark and looking creepy. So now that "Casino Royale" is one of my all-time go-to films, I am dying to see what happens next. (But I loved Vesper, 'sigh'.)
8.)The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
I love Heath Ledger. Yes, in the present tense. I will always love him, and I know I am not alone in this. This is the last film he ever made, and I want to see it. The creativity and determination of the folks who made this film possible without it having been finished by Ledger is outstanding, and in my book, heroic. Kudos to Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell, and Jude Law for taking on the role to let this film be.
9.)Sherlock Holmes
Brilliant. English mystery at its best, I am very intrigued to see what kind of storyline they have in store for us. It is bound to be a treat.
10.) Terminator Salvation
Undeniably epic, and yet, with Terminator II being the best, and the 3rd being straight-up awful, the odds on this one being a good film are questionable. I am ready and willing to decide.

Other ones that didn't make the top 10 but I still want to see: Madagascar 2, The Time Traveler's Wife, The Reader, The Brothers Bloom, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Revolutionary Road, Inkheart, Possession (2009, not to be confused with the 2002 classic), He's Just Not That Into You, Push, The Box, Duplicity, Knowing, Dragonball, Angels & Demons, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Defiance, The Great Pretender, Amelia, and about a million more.

Jones and the Recycled Kingdom

Let me preface this by saying: I adore the older Indiana Jones films, so you can imagine how excited I was to see the new one...
In a world where a top box office hit is just a giant recycling bin, I cry for the future of films. After seeing the much-anticipated Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I’m feeling let down. Starting out with lots of humor that makes sure viewers are aware this is the 1950’s, we are led into what seems like a promising action-adventure film. Then the aliens show up. Reusing scenes straight out of the Brendan Fraser hit The Mummy Returns, even Disney's Tarzan, and special effects that aren’t half as good as M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs, Indy 4 shows off the writer’s ability to keep Hollywood green- and that is NOT a compliment. I understand that everything has been done before, but…
*Spoiler alert* I’m afraid to say it’s not much of a spoiler, considering anyone with the intelligence of a toaster could figure out that Shia LeBoeuf’s character, greaser Mutt Williams, is Indiana Jones’s son with estranged girlfriend Marion. It gets icky, boring, and even more predictable from there on out.
With such a stellar cast, and the chance of a lifetime these filmmakers had, I’m appalled at their half-assed attempt. Considering the trailer gave most of the best moments away anyway, I will say that the motorcycle chase scene was the most refreshing I the film, exciting and adorable, especially Indy’s quip about “getting out of the library.”
All in all this is a flick that’s good for fans, great for people with an hour and a half to kill, but not so good for people who like to watch movies and be surprised. I really miss gasping at moments in film that catch me by surprise! Give me something new, people!
Rating: A cardboard box came out of the hat, because this film belongs in a green recycling bin.

Whose Island Is This Anyway?

Nim’s Island had my expectations high (fabulous cast, exotic location, storybook-inspired cinematography) and my hopes way up (one of the best trailers I’ve seen so far this year: http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/nimsisland/trailer/) for a great couple of hours. I’m going to get my complaint out of the way first: the movie just stopped. Just as I was getting into the storyline, a rushed ending came into play. I was startled when the end credits began, and even stayed in the theater for a moment, waiting for another scene to interrupt. Sadly, a terrific beginning led to a lacking end. I will not spoil it for those who haven’t seen it, but I will go as far as saying it left me wanting more: more explanation into Foster’s character’s debilitating agoraphobia (what caused it?) her choice to become an adventure novelist in the first place (never explained) and the magnificent likeness of Nim’s father to Alexandra Rover’s imaginary counterpart (she doesn’t even react!!!). The film’s unfinished quality and bulk of missing scenes (do not expect to see Nim swordfighting the pirate, it is in the trailer but never appears in the film) leaves me to wonder if the film’s editors dropped one of the film reels on the floor of the cutting room by mistake.
Now that my complaints are through, it’s time to gush: a great film for kids and fans of the ever-smoldering Gerry Butler, Nim’s Island at the very least takes the viewer to a fun fantasy adventure for the quite short hour and 36 minutes. The brevity of the film aside, the adorable animal friends and quirky characters will stay with viewers who thoroughly enjoy a good family film.
One thing that absolutely fascinated me (and I wish there was more of) was Alexandra Rover’s inner dialogue and relationship with Alex Rover, her, suffice it to say, imaginary friend. He is always with her, embodying every aspect of her personality that she herself is unwilling to display. It is a study in psychology, for certain. I am reminded of some of the works of author Charles DeLint. In several of his stories, he depicts a character named “Christy,” a man who, when he was 7 or 8 years old, had part of his personality split away from himself, leaving him with his own traits that define who he is. Years later, Christy discovers that the traits he lost were so strong that they became another person altogether, a woman who calls herself Christiana. Where Christy is shy, contemplative, patient, and reserved, she, his “shadow self”, embodies all the feminine, seductive, fiery, short-tempered, passionate, and hasty traits he had shed in childhood. The male vs. female qualities of this pairing, along with the stark contrast of personalities is shockingly similar, and I adore the depiction that when a human being comes into their own, they may choose, or even subconsciously decide, to either inherit or disavow the parts of themselves that they can be. In the case of DeLint’s characters, the split is permanent and whole, and Christy and Christiana become like siblings, understanding each other in ways no one else can. In the film, Alexandra’s cast-off traits of heroism and masculinity are a product of her own imagination, and she faces the choice of either keeping them separate or absorbing them into herself, creating a complete sense of self and what she is or isn’t capable of.
I understand that delving into the fascinating psyche of Alexandra vs. Alex was something quite impossible for the filmmakers; this isn’t a drama, it is a family adventure/comedy. Told through the eyes of the child Nim, Abigail Breslin is borderline annoying at times, but Jodie Foster stretched herself as a physical comedienne and definitely did not disappoint. Gerry Butler’s interpretation of Alex was spot-on and really fun to watch, whereas his portrayal of Nim’s father had me a bit confused: what kind of accent was he trying to do? American? Australian? Some weird Scottish mix of all three? When Butler sticks to the language of the British Isles, his performance is felt, not his phony accent.
All in all, Nim’s Island is fun and lighthearted, with a few giggles, and a heartwarming story. However, so much is left unsaid, so much of the plot completely missing, I’m left with the decision to hang a Vacancy sign over the hat: the rabbit went on vacation and possibly was swallowed by a whale, but I won’t explain why or how and leave you completely frustrated about it.

The Other Boleyn Movie

Where do I begin? Seeing “The Other Boleyn Girl” today was quite an experience indeed. I have always been fascinated with the era of King Henry VIII’s reign, and the life of Queen Elizabeth I. I’ve read several novels about their lives but also studied their true histories. A few years ago my grandmother gave me Philippa Gregory’s novel The Other Boleyn Girl and I was immediately swept away by the untold story of Mary Boleyn, the eldest daughter of the doomed Boleyn family. Anne’s story had been told so many times, seeing as she was the mother of one of the most famous women in history. It was a unique, albeit fictionalized account of the “other” sister.
As I loved the novel, I expected to adore the film. I am especially intrigued by historical costume and was not disappointed. The gowns and elaborate hairstyles and headdresses portrayed in the film, not to mention the lush English landscape and architecture, were exquisite. Unfortunately, that’s about all that I liked about the film.
When it came to the acting, Eric Bana was a disaster. His portrayal of Henry VIII was childish, whiny, spoiled, and ruled by nothing but his Johnson. I know for a fact that during these times the influence of others was pressed upon him constantly but I also know that Henry seldom did what he was told, and was not controlled like a puppet on a string as Bana displayed, but rather was the puppet master to others.
Scarlett Johansson did not disappoint, showing a true shyness, self-doubt, and simple beauty of an uncomplicated woman under very complicated circumstances. Kristen Scott Thomas stone brightly, understated as she was, her role and several of her lines were poignant and haunting. Natalie Portman did her very best to make me hate Anne Boleyn. However, Anne is such an intriguing figure that I truly adore her and despise Portman’s snobbish, backstabbing, wily version. In all accounts, Anne Boleyn did what she could under the strain of her family. Her choices were to be passed aside or try for more. Who in their right mind would not try to succeed in the face of certain disaster? Portman made Anne manipulative and spiteful when I have always seen Anne as brave, strong, and ambitious.
Her acting, however, is trumped by one plain fact: this movie hasn’t gotten any of the facts straight. Number one: Anne Boleyn had six fingers on her left hand. This was part of the reason many people accused her of being a witch. In the film, Portman’s hands are 5 fingers each. Number two: King Henry never fell off a horse chasing Anne into a ravine. That is utter rubbish. He was a fantastic athlete, for one, and for another, he hadn’t even met Anne yet. Henry met Mary Boleyn first, and their affair did begin despite Mary’s marriage to William Carey. At this time, Anne was in France at court being courted by Henry Percy. When Anne was summoned back to England, she and Percy became betrothed but their engagement was broken when Henry VIII saw her and refused, as king, to allow them to marry. Number three: Anne did not sleep with Henry VIII until after they were married. He never raped her, either. In the film, she is depicted on her wedding day as pregnant, after Henry rapes her in a fit of frustrated anger. Anne, historically, was insistent that they not sleep together until they were married as, if she were to become pregnant, the child would not be a legitimate heir. She promised him a son, one that his current queen could not provide. Number four: OMG this one really made me mad: Anne never even THOUGHT about sleeping with her own brother. In the movie today, I (and all the girls I went to the movies with) almost puked at the scene where Anne attempts to seduce her younger brother. NEVER HAPPENED. When Anne couldn’t have a living son, Henry and his advisers fabricated a great lie about Anne, saying she was unfaithful to the King.
Number five: Anne had at the very least 3 miscarriages, along with the live child Elizabeth. The film shows only one miscarriage. Number six: A missing character from the film was Cardinal Wolsey. He was a huge factor in Henry’s decision to part from the Catholic Church and create a new religion for England. He never appears, and it is told in the film that Anne alone convinces Henry VIII to make this change. His decision was much more intelligent and complicated than that. Number seven: Anne’s brother George was only one of five men accused of having affairs with the Queen. The film makes it look as though George almost slept with her, was caught, and charged to save Anne, who was trying to hide her miscarriage. All Anne’s pregnancies were well documented, and George and Anne did not try to conceal her loss, ever. Number eight: I know this is nit picking, but Anne’s execution is extremely well documented. She was happy to die and quoted as saying "He shall not have much trouble, for I have a little neck,” when referring to her own beheading. She also wore grey on the day of her death. In the film, Portman is terrified. It’s beautifully done, the shaking and all, but totally inaccurate. The film also has her in blue. The speech she gives, Anne’s famous last words, are pretty much verbatim. However, Portman’s unsteady, watery voice makes her sound like a wimp. I mean, yes she is going to die, but Anne was no wimp. She took on the King of England when no one backed her up. I say she said her words unwaveringly. However, that’s just my opinion.
Natalie Portman ad Eric Bana had a great responsibility when it came to this film: depicting a real person. I’d say they failed. It may be in part the directing, and it is especially the writing, but seeing them will influence a lot of people into thinking that this is accurate history when it is not.
One huge thing about adapting a novel into a movie: make sure that it’s still about the book. Someone got carried away and it became just another tale of Anne. MARY was the main character in the novel. Mary’s travel through the courts, from the country to the King’s bed to the country in exile with child, to her romance with a stranger who escorted her to the country, to her subsequent marriage to that man. Where was all this stuff in the movie today? It threw the book out the window and left me wanting way more Mary and way less Anne. The book is fascinating and I highly recommend it, at least for Mary’s side of the story.
Editing wise, the film was too long, some parts extremely rushed, specifically the gap between Anne and King Henry’s marriage and Elizabeth’s birth, among many others. Also, did anyone notice that the aerial shot above Anne’s beheaded body was stolen straight from Tim Burton’s “Sleepy Hollow”? Just saying.
There were more things wrong with this movie than Henry had wives. And that’s saying something.
I say this movie pulled a banana out of the hat. It did get some magic going, but the wrong kind. If it weren’t for the fact that these were once real people and real evens, it would have been an okay film. But it made me too angry to pull out a rabbit.
I recommend “Anne of the Thousand Days” to anyone who wants to see a more historically accurate, and better acted, version of Anne’s story.

Booking It

When I heard that Hayden Christensen was going to be starring in Jumper, I decided to read the novel. Unfortunately, I only made it halfway through before putting the book down in disgust. I love my share of sci-fi, and the concept of teleportation was fantastic. But the main character, at times almost depicted as an anti-hero type, suffered through so much violence and heartache that I could not stand to finish. However, I did get the jist.
After seeing the film today, I can safely say that the story was extremely toned down, ignoring the book’s themes of child abuse and rape. It did keep the kidnapping and torture bit in though. Adventurous, exciting, and action-packed, it was enjoyable, the pace during the action sequences a bit rushed and the dramatic, slow scenes too long.
Jumper had its faults, but altogether it was a decent film. The exotic international locales and really top-notch special-effects were very entertaining to watch. A lot of people have criticized Hayden Christensen, calling his acting “wooden;” I wholeheartedly disagree. Christensen brought to life not exactly the book’s awkward hero, but a young man whose upbringing leaves him disconnected from others. Even though he is more than in touch with the world around him, its as if he never really belonged anywhere. On the other hand, actor Diane Lane, who has an talent to spare, was hidden away in the smallest bit part of the story. Her amazing abilities were squandered I think, and they should have developed her character much further.
I was also surprised to find that Rachel Bilson of O.C. fame (I was a big fan of the show) has no acting talent whatsoever, or if she does, beyond playing a bimbo-turned-hippie, she is hiding it away. Blank stares and whines made up the bulk of her poor performance. Anna Sophia Robb, who plays the younger version of Millie, was outstanding. Her version of the love interest far outshone Bilson’s. As Robb grows, that girl will be one force to be reckoned with.
I was especially glad to see Jamie Bell and Christensen on screen together. Bell is definitely going to be a bright star. I first saw him in Billy Elliott and later in a Green Day music video, and I must say that I look forward to seeing what he does next.
The love story had no on-screen chemistry, the actors I wanted more of had parts too small and the ones I could care less about (such as the father, Millie, and Samuel L. Jackson’s, well, let’s face it, typecast character) took up more time than necessary. Though the book was disgusting, it did explain a lot more than the film even tried to.
It was also left wide open for a sequel. I wonder what will happen with that.
This film, ladies and gentleman, pulled only a rabbit’s foot out of the hat. It will be lucky in the box office, and it is good, but a lot was missing to make this movie truly GREAT.

Once Upon A Time in Jane Austen World

"Stop gloating about yourself and then maybe you could play more songs!" -my sister, complaining about Celine Dion

* * *

So let me begin by saying that James McAvoy is possibly the most fantastic actor alive. I am extremely proud to say that the first film premiere I ever attended was 'Becoming Jane.' For Valentine's, I re-screened it with my best friend.
Although the underrated Anne Hathaway carries the film, James McAvoy steals the show. Loosely based on what many girls hope and pray is a real man, Tom Lefroy is converted from philandering bad boy to hopeless romantic. The most amazing thing of all is watching this transformation, subtly, and how McAvoy makes it seem not only believable, but possible.
The film is exquisite and has a romantic score by Adrian Johnston. I'm usually also a big fan of costumes, and though there are some lovely gowns, it was interesting to see the plainness of some of the simpler day dresses Jane and her family wore. On the night of the "grand ball," Hathaway was dressed in the most terrible gown. It could have been any other color: the pale green washed her out and the puffy sleeves were terrible. Meanwhile, Dame Maggie Smith rocks out in a fantastic midnight blue satin number that knocks my socks off. And yet Hathaway makes Jane real, beautiful, charming, the kind of girl that I could see myself being really great friends with.
The relationship between Jane and her sister Cassandra (though casting-wise, the two look nothing alike: but the cousin, a French countess, played by Lucy Cohu, could be an older Anne) is admirable. Being a sister myself, I can see that there is a lot of truth in the way they act towards each other.
There is some old-age makeup in the film, and I am definitely a stickler about makeup. They aged Hathaway, but Cohu hadn't grown a day older! It was a bit ridiculous, but the facial hair and the changes of costume for the times was remarkably dead-on.
This one DEFINITELY pulled the Rabbit Out Of The Hat! Heartbreaking at times, and bittersweet, with a beautiful supporting cast, each bringing his or her own tone to the film, like each was an instrument, creating a full and perfect orchestra. So I didn't like one dress, and I needed more than one hankie while watching. I saw it in theaters twice and bought the DVD the moment of its US release.
That brings me to one B.F.: Why are films released so late in the U.S.? It came out in the U.K. in March and didn't arrive in the States until August! And the DVD was the same, I had to wait a ridiculous amount of time before being able to procure the region one! Grrrr....
OK, so now about what I mentioned earlier:
Last March, some friends and I went to Europe. All throughout the Underground tube stations, I would see posters for this new movie, 'Becoming Jane,' and get all excited. I couldn't wait for it to come out. One night, my sister and I found ourselves lost on the streets of London. I had visited before and had been spoiled by the kindness of strangers I'd met there in years past. Unfortunately for us (or maybe very fortunately, as it turns out) no one gave us the time of day. It was dark and cold and rainy and we were basically miserable when we finally found what we were searching for (a free teddy bear, actually) and were leaving the store when I saw the hugest James McAvoy poster I'd ever seen. It was fantastic, so I stepped forward to take a picture. Then I noticed that there was a huge crowd around all these bright lights. The crowd was being held back by barricades. So we went closer. That's when I saw the camera men. And the cars. And the RED CARPET. If I thought I was going to faint then, I had something else coming. My senses on overload (partly because of the loud classical music blaring from giant speakers and the blue-white spotlight on the giant poster), I pushed through the crowd to the edge of the barricade. And at exactly that moment, a sleek car pulled up and out from the back seat emerged a handsome man in a smart black suit. He smiled up at us from beneath his curly brown hair. It was James McAvoy. I only managed to get one blurry picture that remotely shows that its him, but all the same it was worth the entire trip for that moment. Not because of him, or because of the glitz and glamour of it all. It's because I love movies more than anything else in the world.

* * *