Let the Halloween Begin!

Romance. Passion. Suspense. Murder. Ah, it is nearly Halloween, just in time for the plots to thicken, and to go back to review some great old supernatural favorites. The four I have recently re-screened (including one that's not REALLY supernatural, but I will delve into that in a moment) are The Uninvited, The Haunting, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, and Rebecca.
The Uninvited (1944) is probably my favorite of the three because watching it as a kid it made a huge impression on me. I remember watching it at my Grandmummy's house and being completely entranced- not just with the story but with the amazing special effects- and no, I am not being sarcastic. There is a moment in the film where you actually get to see what these characters have been feeling watching them, terrified, and it does not dissapoint. I'm sure it's something as simple as a double negative-type shot or a projection, but the effect is chilling.
The Haunting (1963) I watched recently as recommended by a podcast I listen to. I'd heard of the book it's based on, and I've watched the 1999 remake a bazillion times (LOVE Catherine Zeta-Jones as Theo!) but until a couple of days ago, I never really thought about the other one. So I watched it. Definitely more realistic than the 1999 Jan de Bont version, more like the depictions of a "real" haunting, with the knocking, etc. but I was a little, OK, a lot disappointed in the main actress, Julie Harris, as Nell. I think she overdoes it. I don't think she makes Nell likeable, I think she makes her look like an annoying crazy person. And I don't think that's the point. I think Nell is supposed to show how a haunting can change an ordinary person into a crazy person, but she starts out crazy, and director Robert Wise's choice to have her thoughts on voice over do not help the situation. I also wish they had developed Theo's ESP ability in the plot more; like maybe she could have been able to tell what the spirits were thinking, maybe.
The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947) is extraordinary, and another favorite. It's the story of a strong, capable woman made even stronger by her love... for a dead man. Rex Harrison is absolutely captivating and you just might fall in love with him, too, as Captain Daniel Gregg's old salty sea-faring quips and sharp wit tangle with Mrs. Muir's sensibilities.
Last but not least, there's Rebecca (1940). Why include this in the supernatural category? I have two words for you: Mrs. Danvers. I swear the minute that woman appears on the screen goosebumps appear on my arms. She is cold, calculating, cruel and obsessed, and in my opinion, possessed. OK, I know it's a long shot, especially for fans of the Daphne DuMaurier novel, but how could a woman so repected by everyone, and so together (she does keep a nice house...lol) fall apart in such a devious, destructive way... and with a straight face? The line that chilled me most was when she says, "Look, you can see my hand," as she shows the new Mrs. DeWinter the dead Mrs. DeWinter's old negligee. See? You're creeped out already. So there may not be any visual ghosts in Rebecca, but the Halloween-y vibe is definitely there if you're in for a good chill.

So I Married A Time Traveler

I want to say I was talked into seeing The Time Traveler's Wife, or that I was forced, but I went of my own free will. Now, the reason I say this is because I made a HUGE deal about why I couldn't finish the book. In this case, I'm really glad I saw it. Not only was it beautifully written and filmed, I believe Eric Bana has finally proved to me he has some semblance of acting skill (in case you don't know, his portrayal of King Henry VIII made me basically physically ill.)
Speaking of ill, I should probably explain why I couldn't finish the book. Though the concept is fantastic, and truly brilliantly original, about halfway through Niffenegger's novel, the main character does something nasty and uncalled for (if you're so curious what it is, read the book yourself) and I just could not go on (same reason I never finished reading Jumper, actually.)
So years later, my best friend tells me she's just read this book and it's great and I tell her nuh-uh. Then months later the film comes out, and after thinking about it, figure the scene aforementioned would probably not appear in the film version, and so I decided to go for it. I went with my sister and I was blown away.
I loved this movie in every way, especially its reinforcement of fate, of love, and of the fact that we all have a destiny. Others may argue that it's like there's no free will, or that the characters were trapped, but I thought that it was a cyclical thing, reminiscent of Somewhere In Time (also phenomenal, if you liked this you'll LOVE that) and of the "Out Of Time" series of novels by Caroline B. Cooney.
I also liked Rachel McAdam's in The Notebook and Red Eye, so it was no surprise to enjoy her performance in this. As I said before, Bana just wasn't my cup of tea. He was OK in Star Trek, but with the fantastic makeup, of course he was a believable Romulan. It was this film, watching him be this man (that I hadn't liked in the book) and making me like him. After the magical scene where his character gets a haircut (there was literally a collective sigh in the audience when this happened) and appearing in ahem, unusual places (I laughed way too loud) and going through continual heartache (cried my eyes out) yet staying in love through it all (swoon) I was sold.
Blurabbit's Take: Didn't notice too much of the score in this one, and thought the in-between bits looked just like the Focus Features' logo. In my opinion, Ron Livingston as Gomez stole the show. He was intelligent and funny and great. It's a movie to make you "feel" (cough, chick flick, cough) but a good one with a strong plot and so far I can't see any plotholes, which is startling in a time travel film (like, don't get me started on the plotholes in Premonition, it's like it was riddled with bulletholes or something). So I'm pulling a big ol' heart out of the hat. This film is a valentine for people who believe in soulmates, true love, and destiny. If you're someone who doesn't, skip this one.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Let me start off by saying that at 12:01am today I was right there waiting for the too-long trailers to end (except the Where the Wild Things Are trailer... that movie is going to be AMAZING and the trailer is perfection... see here: http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/wherethewildthingsare/)
Then suddenly, I was no longer at the theater, I was in England.
Phenomal, fantastic, and the true definition of magic I say. Not just "movie magic," either. I always have adored Rowling's books and early this morning got to see what I believe is the best film so far in the series. (My rank from best to worst is #6, 3, 1, 4, 5, then 2) The cinematography, some of the new shots (visual angles like on the stairs at the Burrow, or through windows on the train and at Hogwarts), the acting (far better than any other film in the series), and the balance of dark and light. By that I mean the scenes of humor and laughter and light-heartedness were perfectly balanced with the dark, depressing, and foreboding scenes. There were moments of horror, suspense, and deep sadness, and then moments that made you feel warm and fuzzy all over. It was remarkable.
I only have 3 complaints: #1: There was not enough of some of the smaller characters, Neville, Professor Lupin, and Tonks especially. I felt that they were jipped a little in lack of screen time and script. #2: There wasn't enough explaination of WHY the Half-Blood Prince is called so. Fans of the boks already know, but many of the folks who saw the film with me just haven't read the books and had no clue when it was kind of tossed in at the end with no elaboration. #3: The living dead were REALLY CG-obvious and I felt could have been done better)
But all in all, even if you dont like the Potterverse (which if you don't I don't know why you're even reading this blog) this is one sight to behold. Everything I imagined when reading the book (especially the cave/ocean scenes, and the Ron/Quidditch sequences) came to life in the purest way possible. I cannot stress enough how good this film is. GO SEE IT!!! It is definitely worth $10.00 to watch on the big screen, and I am sorely tempted to catch it in IMAX soon.

Blurabbit's take: Why Cloud insisted on taking her Professor Snape doll to the movies I will never know, but the girl is a "Fan" through and through. From a *cough* unbiased *cough* perspective, the film is well-blanced with timing, action, and adventure, but I still don't know who those bad wizards kidnapped...
Cloud interjects: "It was Ollivander, the wand maker! It will make sense when the next movie comes out!"
Blurabbit: As I was saying, from the point of view of someone who hasn't read the books, I dozed off a bit when the mushy loe scenes happened but the brilliantly developed CG of flying and stuff was great and a don't-miss! So I'm pulling all sorts of movie magic out of the hat.... *sparkles and faery dust* and now I have my very own magic wand! OK, it's LED light, but still it's fun to poke at people!

Earth, Air, Fire, Water

The only reason I own Bram Stoker's Dracula is because of Gary Oldman. Ever since I can remember, this actor has fascinated me with his ability to completely transform into someone else. I dare anyone to watch his performance as Dracula and then immediately after check him out in The Fifth Element... one of my favorite films, just because. It's one of the ones that has no rhyme or reason to why it is likable and watchable. I suppose because there really isn't anything else quite like it. It makes the future look like what it might actually be... gritty, grimy, real, and yet shiny, metallic and cold. I also have a soft spot for Egypt (I will talk all about The Mummy series later) where both the beginning and the end take place. I could have lived without the ace bandage costume, but it's a small price to pay to see something creative and funny and entertaining yet clever and thoughtful at the same time. Did I mention that Milla Jovovich is a hidden gem?
"I don't know love..." the scene where she must convince a hardened former-military-turned-taxi-driver to admit he's fallen for her, is so sweet and is just one of those "moments." Chris Tucker just about steals the show as DJ Ruby Rhod- excellently naughty and the future of "metro" - a straight man who screams like a girl and wears head-to-toe leopard print. As the marvel of the imaginative (albeit scandalous) costuming continues, we see the evil and power-hungry Emmanuel Zorg. Yes, that is Dracula, with a limp, wearing what looks like an empty salad bowl on his head. Gary's accent, his facial tic, every mannerism and demeanor, is completely transformed from the suave and monstrous to the comical and monstrous.
Your next mission is to see him in Batman Begins...

Blurabbit's Take:
Eh, I can skip Dracula. Really bad acting, especially on Winona Ryder's part- and it was before she got her teeth fixed. Liked her in some other stuff though. And Keanu Reeve's British accent? Tell me you are kidding. But really, I have to agree with Cloud on this one, The Fifth Element is one of those movies you just have to see for yourself. Take a mental vacation and watch it; be transported, and you will not regret it. Out of the hat this time is a nice little rocket ship so we can all go to Fhloston Paradise to see Plava Laguna. Have a safe trip!

Who is Blurabbit?

Meet Blurabbit. He's always been behind the scenes, making the magic, making sure there's always something in the hat. And now he's here to share his opinion on film. Blurabbit will be pulling whatever out of the hat he deems fit for the film being discussed, and I'm sure he has a few surprises in store! Hope you like him!

Blurabbit's Take: Hello people! Cloud has been in a serious writing slump as of late and I am here to help! She'll do the reviewing, and then I'll come along and tell you what's what for real. Just kidding, I'll just add my two cents to what I'm sure has been a sparkling review. Look forward to hearing your comments!!!

Explosions, Crashes, and Stunts, Oh My!

*Hugh Jackman Naked*
Now that I have your full attention, I will say that the above statement is one of the very few good things about X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Sad to say, I left the theatre overwhelmed with disappointment. (Aside from the fact that I have a personal dislike for the female lead in the film, due to the fact that she was Wendy in 13 Going on 30 and in real life is married to the awesomely smoldering Stephen Strait.)
I went in with the love and complete adoration of the X-Men trilogy on my mind.
I saw the first X-Men film with little to no knowledge of the comic, so forgive me in advance: my reviews of these films are based solely on the films themselves, not the stories they are based on. You are swept away immediately by the startling and heart-wrenching introduction of a small boy being separated from his family in a concentration camp, and then flying directly into the heartache of Rogue's truth: she, now hitting teenagerhood, can no longer touch another human being without harming or even killing them. And then suddenly you are transported into their world: separated by differences and by fear, the viewer is just another outcast mutant along for the ride with some extremely personal and memorable characters; "Aurora" Storm, Scott "Cyclops", Xavier, Jean Grey, and of course, Logan "Wolverine."
The second film, X2, did not disappoint as I went in with extremely high expectations. In fact, X2 is my favorite of the trilogy. I love how the story between Rogue and Bobby "Iceman" evolves and sides are joined and divided and joined again. It is dark and sinister and enemies unite over common enemies only to backstab each other yet again: fantastic.
The third, X-Men III, jolted me. Jean Grey, now "Phoenix," takes the central role and knocks out one of my favorite characters early on. I was rendered speechless at the shocking turn of events. Though it featured my very favorite character of all the series, "Angel," it is my least favorite of the trilogy just because so much is lost and so much tragedy is experienced. I just feel like some of the things weren't necessary for a good movie to happen. There were other things that could have been done to make it a worthwhile film. I do adore Wolverine's self-sacrifing (and clothing-sacrificing) attempt to save the Phoenix from total destruction, as it is an incredible scene, both visually and musically- the score knocked my socks off. But I was still left feeling like it wasn't as good as X2.
So it was with high hopes, expectations of tie-ins from the other films, explanations that maybe weren't featured in X2 (where I thought Wolverine already had everything finally figured out- guess not) about where Logan came from, I had fingers crossed for a decent plot and some great action.
Nay to the first and yay to the second- though way over the top to the point where I just had to roll my eyes.
Let me explain: I just couldn't figure how Liev "me alone" Schrieber was the same Sabertooth from X-Men (the first). Where's the continuity people??? Where's the long blond hair and shaggy fur-draped ensemble? Where's the real animalistic appearance, not just the "homeless guy" look that Liev has got going on? The brother thing was so far from all the other storylines that the writers had going on before. (My only thought was that maybe Sabertooth and Wolverine were brothers in the comic but I was told by several avid reader that this was not the case.)
Secondly, "Jimmy" aka Logan, (really racking up on the akas here) fell in love and got married, lalala. How LONG exactly does it take for a couple to meet, date, and marry, and be living in the mountains? Because A went straight to C and bypassed B, leaving the audience not giving a crap when whaaa whaaa death. Boo. Hoo. I did not feel that amazing intense passion that once was (or will be as this is a prequel) between Jean Grey and Logan. There was just no chemistry- just a slutty looking chick straddling Logan and then biting it a scene later. Not impressed with the love storyline. Too short lived and underdeveloped to care. In fact, one person I was watching this with FELL ASLEEP.
Now the CG? Phenomenal. Stunts? Well played. Ryan Reynolds's character has the best ninja sword moves I've seen in some time. Yet, to seconds later, HE's gone! What gives? The only great thing lasts one scene.
Another dumb thing? The dude with the guns, Agent Zero. So he can aim real good, big whoop.
Well, there's always the drive-a-motorcycle-out-of-an-explosion-jump-off-the-top-of-a-crashing-helicopter-then-walk-nonchalantly-away-from-another-explosion scene.
Don't even get me started on the final fight sequence. Really. It's that nuts.
One huge redeeming factor (besides two hours of staring at Hugh Jackman- who really is amazingly talented and deserved a WAY better movie than this so much that it's sickening) is Gambit. Love him! The actor, the accent, the card tricks, the sonic walking stick, the climbing up the wall bit, the "I won her in a card game" plane... he stole the whole show for me.

Blurabbit's take: I'm pulling a... really big blank out of the hat. Where was the movie? It was all the good pieces of the other movies ripped up, thrown about, picked up and reassembled into not so greatness. Sad thing is, this one's got a spinoff coming out of it. Picture this: A spinoff of a prequel of a trilogy. At least it's about Deadpool and not Zero. Who did that guy think he was? If I have to pull out something, I guess it's a Joker card. Because although Gambit was cool, I'd rather be watching Batman.

Hide Your Children!!!

First off let me just say this: I loved Stardust. Classic, clever, witty, occasionally scandalous, and heartwarming. The story lacks originality here and there, but what doesn't these days? I actually read the Neil Gaiman book before seeing the film and was disappointed in neither. So imagine my dismay when I read Coraline. Then imagine my horror when I saw it. Recklessly marketed toward a very young crowd, I, an adult, was terrified. The book is innocent enough: girl caught in an Alice-Thru-the-Looking Glass nightmare, must find way out, monster follows. I especially thought the part in the book featuring the clever well-top tea party was unique and interesting (And of course, this, one of the only things I actually liked about the book, was omitted from the film). But altogether, as creative as this modernization of Alice is, THIS IS NOT FOR CHILDREN. Here I am, at a theater surrounded by little kids, watching a mostly naked, extremely topheavy woman, clad only in three small seashells, bounce around in all her stop-motion-animation glory. Then she unzips herself. Evil vampire dogbats, a mute child with his face SEWN into an evil sneer, the constant threat that the main character's eyes will be removed and buttons sewn in their place, not to mention the aforementioned nastiness, are some of the countless reasons this should have been a horror film for adults, not something marketed as a harmless childrens' movie. A perfect example of this is a scene that was actually stolen from the horror movie The Ring/Ringu- I'm telling you, it is the exact same shot of the view from the bottom of the well being covered over. Even I got a little jumpy, during a particular scene where the 'Other Mother' is transformed into her true monstrous self, when a small child ran past my car in the parking lot (I saw this film at a drive-in.) Definitely not my cup of tea. Disturbing. Pan's Labyrinth dude-gets-his-face-cut-open disturbing.
Meanwhile, Stardust is still wonderful, mainly because its adult themes glide harmlessly over childrens' heads as they enjoy action, adventure, and high-seas/airship romance. Coraline leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination, though at the best times we wish it would! No gory detail, including ghosts, death, mutilation, and every kid's worst nightmare- abandonment- is left out of this thing. The rabbit has pulled some scary needle and thread out of the hat on this one. It's sharp and I have but one point- it was irresponsible of the filmmakers to give what I'm sure has been hundreds of kids nightmares. I don't even have children and I wouldn't let my kids near this thing. I don't understand how Gaiman is responsible for these two very different stories- though I will give him credit, as the book Coraline is on the YOUNG ADULTS shelf at the library, where it belongs.

I'm Still Here

So I recently faced a lot of people's worst fear: my computer crashed. I lost a lot of my photos and most of my writing. So, in despair, I broke out a bottle of wine and toasted with my roommate over a Star Wars original trilogy marathon. (On VHS, baby!!!)
You think... why Star Wars? It was the first thing in my head, to comfort me, not only because it is a classic story with traditional hero/journey themes, but also for its everlasting quality. Star Wars is going to live forever, unlike my laptop, heck- even unlike me.
So it is a reminder to leave my stories here while I can so that they may live on, though technology is ever-changing and fashion trends are born and die; stories, the tale and myth of overcoming peril and woe, are eternal.
Plus, Harrison Ford was really hot. I'm just saying.
And so to honor the occasion of starting over, I am going to do something a little different with my blog soon. I'm not saying yet, but it will be fabulous.
And so for all of those folks who haven't seen Star Wars episodes 4, 5, and 6... go watch them! Lots of people have their favorites; mine is probably "Return of the Jedi" because it is the completion, the return of balance, and the fulfilling of an ancient prophecy. It is also fun to look back on the little mistakes that the newer trilogy made. For example, Leia recounts that she clearly remembers her mother, that she was "very beautiful, but very sad." It is made clear in Episode III that Leia never saw her mother. Stuff like that.
The spinoff series of Ewok films are also quite cute, but I couldn't find the tapes I'd owned long ago.
If movies are like food, Star Wars is comfort food. Spaghetti and meatballs, mashed potatoes, and a glass of milk for the soul.
Next up I think I'll look for some dessert!
Other recommended "comfort food" movies:
The Wedding Date, Labyrinth, The Goonies, The Princess Bride, Amelie, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, The Neverending Story (which they are threatening to remake: GRRRR!), etc. Let me know some of your faves!

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.

* * *