The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (reactions part 2)

(Part 1 here)

*** BOOK SPOILERS AHEAD ***

There is no doubt one of the most memorable scenes in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is Barrels Out of Bond.

The film is breathlessly action-packed all the way through, but this scene may be the capstone of fight sequences.  If you love choreographed martial arts in a whitewater river  rafting (barreling?) setting, this will be a highlight for sure.  I got a kick out of seeing elves racing/flying/dancing through the trees like it's nothing.  And, for all that, Bombur gets the award for most win fighting skills.  A great scene from the book, taken to a greater level.

I've gone on quite a bit already about the monsters and action - by no means does this take away from the cinematography and scenery, the Middle Earth we all know so well.  Every landscape was a work of art.



Mirkwood, and in particular Thranduil's fortress, was woodsy yet elegant and elven at the same time.  Erebor, Thorin's kingdom under the mountain, was reminiscent of Moria, yet more elaborate.  Emiko said it resembled a forest, over a floor of gold, and I can definitely see that!  Lake-town looked properly cosy and cold, with canals instead of roads, and just like a fairytale town (Baroque?  Elizabethan English?  Something like that...I don't have my history cap on today...)  Dol Goldur was hideous and depressing, as you might expect.

As an aside - one bit of imagery I want to point out.  It seems to me that Thranduil's crown, Smaug's head, and Sauron's helmet all have the same sort of shape and design.  Intentional, or coincidence??  (I feel a photo of Smaug would be too spoilery, so just take a good look at him when the time comes.)

Thorin's meeting with Thranduil was a really excellent scene.  Thorin is certainly too stubborn, and he's obviously shooting himself in the foot, but I can't help rooting for him in his confrontations with Thranduil.  It will only get more interesting if/when this comes back to haunt him in the last film.

On the subject of conversations, Bilbo meeting Smaug is #1 on my list of scenes to rewatch.  As a kid, I loved reading about mythical monsters, so finally seeing a convincing dragon and hearing him talk and watching him fly - well, it was nostalgic.  Bilbo is scared speechless, then starts talking nonsense.  Funny and scary at the same time, just like the book!

I should mention I didn't grow up reading The Hobbit.  It simply has all the right elements from fairytales you knew about before.  It takes you back to some of the best parts of your childhood, because we've all been Bilbo Baggins, at some point or other.  You just have to want to go on an adventure.

Read More

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (reactions part 1)

Side effects may include exhaustion, increased arachnophobia, and random quotations.  Ask yourself if The Hobbit 2 is right for you.

The first question you should ask yourself is "Do I want to go on adventure?"  And then, "Do I believe in dragons???"

My family and I saw The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (a title I love writing out) earlier today, and still it is impossible to put my thoughts into coherent words. Basically I love Smaug, I love Thorin, and I love that Tolkien and Peter Jackson are utter geniuses.  All of them at once, I suppose.

We rejoin Thorin & Company after they have narrowly escaped Azog and his orc gang.  Their narrow escape was actually a fail.  A LOT of bad things happen.  For the plot, I really can't say more than the trailer does.  Even the trailer only shows you PART of the story.  If you thought the last film was a journey - well, this is the real deal.  So real I felt literally exhausted at the end.

Can we talk about characters for a bit, and then favorite scenes?



Beorn.  The bear shapeshifter dude.  My expectations were low, but Beorn was so well-written and emotively portrayed.  And very, very scary.

Hold on, let's go ahead and mention Beorn's house.  Beorn's beautiful house!  And the gigantic bumblebees.  I hope this scene has an extension.

Legolas.  It's as if PJ was thinking "Oh, purists hate Legolas's martial arts, do they?  Let's double it for the Hobbit!"  Confession: I love Lego's fighting stunts.  It's great seeing him as a hot-headed young prince.  With a bloody nose.

Tauriel.  I felt Tauriel was sadly non-descript, not nearly as compelling as Eowyn or Arwen.  On the other hand, her religious/spiritual convictions gave her character a little more depth in a couple of scenes.  Overall, not a bad addition, just not a great one.

Thranduil.  Lego's dad.  On the surface, he is calmer and more levelheaded; in reality, not much better than his son.  Thranduil oozes royalty and contempt, from the top of his artsy crown to the bottom of his regal gown robe. You kind of love to loathe him.

Bard.  I liked Bard.  I like the fact he has a family, and can read through Thorin's obsession and the Master of Lake Town's politics.  He's well-written, and though I once thought Richard Armitage had to play Bard, Luke Evans does a great job.

Gandalf.  Some great Gandalf moments, if rather few and far between!  I always miss him when he's off-screen.  There is a magnificent battle of wills between Gandalf and one of the antagonists - you definitely want to see that part.

Bilbo.  Once again, Martin Freeman puts life into a protagonist I used to think was a trifle flat.  I love how Bilbo's double life, if you will, is subtly and deftly portrayed.  On the one hand, he has gained real, substantive courage of his own.  On the other, he is becoming increasingly dependent on the Ring.  The scene where he momentarily loses the Ring is stunning, like a flash-forward to Fellowship.  (My sister and I both thought for a minute he looked like Ian Holm, too.)  Even though I know the story, I can't wait to see where this goes in the last film!

Thorin.  THORIN THOUGH.  I love this guy.  He's stubborn and way too self-assured (*cough* Boromir *cough*), and if you first saw Richard Armitage in North and South like I did, this casting makes perfect sense.  I like Thorin better than Thornton, though.  Thorin (and Boromir)'s downfall is half naivete and half willful blindness.  He believes good intentions are everything, and that ends could justify means.  The Hobbit 3 is going to break my heart.

Smaug.  The only character to possibly outshine Thorin.  Though I've seen Benedict Cumberbatch in several movies now, and though it was obviously his voice behind the dragon's head, it was also Smaug, 100%.  He's very book!Smaug, convincingly so.  He just might be my favoritest part - the cliffhanger was infuriating, if that's any indication.  If I had to pick one scene to rewatch right now, it would be his conversation with Bilbo.  You thought Thranduil, Thorin, Master of Laketown - hey, even Elrond - you thought those guys were regal?  They don't hold a candle to the King Under the Mountain.

And...it's almost 2 am here, so I will follow up with another post(s) tomorrow (er, later today)!

Read More

Beware the Frozen Heart

My sister and I saw Frozen on Sunday.  I don't know what is harder to admit - that I finally wanted to see it, or that it's been haunting me ever since!

First what I didn't like, just to get it out of the way.

The movie, unfortunately, has a lot of cheesy scenes like what you see in the trailer.  I don't mean just Disney cheesy, but really, dreadfully idiotic scenes.  Usually it involved Anna acting exaggeratedly scatterbrained, or Olaf the Snowman.  A lot of people love Olaf, so maybe it's just me, but I cringed every time he came on screen.  He is so annoying, not in a cute and funny way like Tigger, just plain old cloyingly obnoxious.  I can't think of any other Disney comic sidekick or villain as aggravating as this guy.

Alrighty.  The other disappointment was several of the songs.  It makes me wonder what they were thinking to include "Fixer Upper", "Love is an Open Door," and "In Summer."  Even the (very popular) "Let It Go" and its corresponding scene felt more like a pop music video than a Disney song.  The lyrics in general aren't all that bad, but the genres are so out of place in this Nordic-inspired movie.  You just can't insert country/rock/20s music into a 19th-century world and call it good.  It's embarrassingly bad, especially contrasted with classics like Beauty and the Beast. 

These two cons give Frozen a sort of "group project" vibe, as if the director's vision was overridden at times.  Not good for a final draft.  (It's finals week, so pardon the analogy!)

From the songs, I can transition into what I loved about Frozen.   There were three songs I liked: "Frozen Heart," "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?", and "For the First Time in Forever (Reprise/Duet)."  The second two are heartbreaking songs about Elsa and Anna, while "Frozen Heart" is the EPIC intro song that is sung by the ice workers.  Epic, as in, it sounds like the dwarves singing in The Hobbit.  It set my hopes very high; maybe they should have saved it for the end of the story...

What really gives Frozen 4 out of 5 stars from me is not the three good songs nor the graphics (truly stunning, though).  It's the story, and messages.  Plot-wise, this is the Disney movie for people who despise Disney movies.  Wait, what?

Elsa is a princess who was born with the golden touch - only, she turns things into snow and ice instead of gold.  This unpredictable ability can result in either works of extraordinary beauty, or accidental hurt.  Afraid of hurting someone, she hides herself from the world, including her younger sister Anna, who becomes lonely and frustrated by Elsa's secrecy.  When their kingdom of Arundelle is hit with a sudden snowstorm, Anna believes her sister, once found, can undo the magic.  With the help of a suave Prince Hans and rustic ice-seller Kristoff, Anna sets off through the snowy mountains, determined to break through to the person who was once closest to her.

"An act of True Love!"  As in every fairytale, it is going to take true love to break the wintry spell.  Without divulging spoilers, I can only say that I was seriously impressed, and moved, by the unique, multiple (!) ways it unfolds Frozen.  

"Please don't shut me out again."  The song "Do You Want to Build a Snowman" is Anna begging Elsa to take the time to be a sister.  A good thing to see a story calling for oldest children to be best friends with their siblings, not avoid them.

"Didn't your parents ever warn you about strangers?"  Anna is so sure that her dreams of romance and independence are coming true, Cinderella style.  This appalls one of her friends, who speaks the words of sense long overdue from Disney...

Change of heart.  Anna wants to change Elsa, but no matter how far she goes, she can't.  She can only love her, and it is up to Elsa to find her own change of heart.  Pretty deep, and very true.

Despite its problems, Frozen was worth seeing (I give it a 10+ age rating), and I would watch it again on DVD.  It's great to watch/discuss with your sister(s) and would also be a good mother-daughter movie.

Read More

The Virginian TV series (mega!) review

Aaahh, where to start?  The Virginian is my favorite TV show, even more than Star Trek Next Gen.  And here's why (extra credit if you have the patience to read a rambling review).

Background (semi-important)

A few years back, some of my family members were in a classic/pre-Eastwood Westerns phase.  They loved it, and...I tried.  My attempts were episodes from Bonanza, Gunsmoke (many, many episodes), Zorro's Fighting Legion, The Big Valley (part of an episode), High Noon, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, etc.  I never warmed up to John Wayne or his characters, so that was no recommendation to the genre.  While I liked Along Came Jones (a comedy) and Wagon Train, neither of them made me a fan of Westerns per se.*

One day Dad got The Virginian season 3 from the library.  We were still watching Wagon Train, and I wasn't excited about starting a new Western series, at its third season, too.  Ironically, S3 ep. 1 introduces my favorite character - and as we later found out, S1 ep. 1 is one of the worst episodes.  Starting with S3 turned out to be a good move; we have watched other seasons in the following order: 4, 1, 2, 5, 9 (partially watched), 6.  Chronology is not a big deal here, though I would recommend starting with S2.

This is one of the few shows our whole (picky?) family enjoys.  6.5 seasons of 90 min. episodes is probably a record of patience/dedication for us, and the fact we are still looking forward to seasons 7 & 8 (when the library gets them) is kind of amazing.  If that weren't enough - I love classic Westerns now!

Characters

The show should be called "Shiloh Ranch."  Close to the respectable town of Medicine-Bow, Wyoming (late 1800s), Shiloh is one of the biggest, most prosperous cattle ranches in the area.

Lee J. Cobb as Judge Garth (L), James Drury
as The Virginian (R). Photo by NBC TV.

"The Virginian" - who goes by no other name - is the ranch's practical, fair-minded foreman.  He does not actually feature in many of the episodes; in fact, he holds onto his reputation as a mysterious drifter, while putting his whole heart and loyalty into his beloved Shiloh.  As long as he believes in Shiloh, he stays there indefinitely, keeping a good watch over the ranch and the growing town.

Another main character is Trampas.  Trampas is the Virginian's top hand, but his frequent witty humor and good-natured swagger don't always win him the bossman's approval.  He's a skilled and dependable cowhand, suffering only from his doubtful success with the pretty girls in town, and the occasional boredom with his day job at Shiloh. Like the Virginian, he has come to adopt the ranch as his home, and he can never bring himself to leave it for good (at least, not for long).

Doug McClure as Trampas
(photo by NBC)

Throughout the series, the cast changes, while the roles remain basically the same.  The stubborn yet conscientious owner of Shiloh is first Judge Garth, then later Morgan Starr, John Grainger (the best IMO), and Clay Grainger (along with his wife Holly).  Judge Garth has a daughter Betsy, who is naive but well-meaning (and loves horses and new dresses); Lizzy Grainger (S5), John's grandaughter, is very similar.  Lizzy's brother Stacey creates a new role as a sort of gentleman-cowboy and dutiful grandson.  There are MANY other great recurring characters, like cowhands Steve, Belden, and Randy, and Sheriff Abbott.  To name a few.  I think we've come to like all  the characters, for different reasons!

The one I left out is lawman Emmett Ryker (mostly S3-S4); he's my very favorite.  Just throwing it out there...

While we're not always fans of guest characters, The Virginian does feature a lot of actors and actresses from back in the day, many of whom we recognize from other Westerns and classic TV shows.  As a Trekkie, I was excited to see Spock, Kirk, and Bones in some of the episodes, and Han Solo also stars in a season 5 episode.

Story

(photo by NBC)

Shows like Gunsmoke and Wagon Train are pretty easy to summarize.  The Virginian, however, being a show on such a big scale with a good diversity of characters/settings, takes just about every classic Western plot you can imagine (and then some) and makes it an episode.  Outlaws, drifters, range disputes, court cases, chase scenes, moral dilemmas, mistaken identity, romance, humor, tragedy, adventure, etc., this show covers a pretty decent bit of subject matter.  On the downside, that means some episodes only have one or two of the main characters in them.  The plus side is that you can watch all these seasons without finding them utterly predictable (there are some repeated plotlines, but they are extraordinarily few).

Given its age and budget, the sets and filming are quite good.  Both Shiloh and Medicine-Bow feel like familiar places you want to go to.  The costumes are often over-the-top (60s influence), but there are glimmerings of historical accuracy.

Speaking of historical accuracy - like Star Trek, The Virginian tries to promote multiculturalism and racial equality.  Unfortunately (also like Star Trek), it falls into the unintentional and woeful trap of stereotypes (not that the white characters are not also stereotyped, but they are less so).  Some people may also view the Shiloh owners' benevolence as unrealistic - well, if you don't believe charitable "capitalists" exist, this is not the show for you.  ;)  There are many avaricious ranchers portrayed, though, and plenty without principles.

The one season I don't recommend to anyone is season 9.  It is a revamped version called "The Men from Shiloh" and pretty cheesy and dreadful compared to The Virginian.  Seriously, avoid it, avoid it.

Returning to the storyline again: what makes it great are the recurring themes.  Honesty, sense of duty, defending people treated unjustly, loyalty (but not blind loyalty), upholding the law, and avoiding bloodshed as much as possible.  Revenge, a big motif in many Westerns, is not as much of a focus for The Virginian's good guys.  The fragility of a "civilized" West and the importance of peace are two of the driving themes, giving you a sense of closure/resolution in the show as a whole, plus a major reason to like the characters.

Content

This is a pretty squeaky-clean Western, even by classic TV standards.  It has its share of gunfights, fistfights, and farming accidents, but there are many episodes focused simply on the story and characters.  There is no cussing to speak of and there's lots of clean, actually funny humor.  Consistency is one of its strengths; there are fewer dumb/cheesy episodes than you typically see in other series.  It could be argued the Wild West is here portrayed as too clean and gentle.  Don't watch it for historical accuracy, then - watch it for the escapism, the old-fashioned characters, and a welcome relief from the many other more gritty Westerns.

So, basically...

...if you want to like old Westerns, then give The Virginian a try.  It won't make you a John Wayne fan, but it will help you appreciate the classic Western tradition, which is what his roles were about.  You just might love this series, too!

---

* I wrote these mini reviews a while back:

Bonanza - The plots were lukewarm entertaining.  The characters were not very interesting, and according to my family (who are more informed), most of the romantic interests get killed off.

Gunsmoke - I liked Marshal Matt Dillon a lot.  He is definitely a character with a conscience.  But, as the scriptwriters would have it, there is constant carnage in this series.  Practically every episode involves a nasty shootout and lots of dying, and Matt Dillon, despite his reluctance, is generally in the thick of it.  The plots are very predictable and often involve some lunatic coming to Dodge City.  It all gets old and wearisome.  (In fact, the intro to the series shows a cemetery and/or a shootout--an apt summary.)  A real shame, since the main character is likeable.

Wagon Train - This is the best of these three.  The plots and settings are a tad repetitive, but with a visibly small budget, they still made an effort.  There is less gratuitous violence than in Gunsmoke.  The more you watch it, the more you enjoy it.  I think its main fault is an unusual lack of main characters--there are only two, and sometimes just one, with the focus being more on guest characters. 

Read More

Star Trek: Into Darkness movie review

Disclaimer: I missed the ending, due to poor planning . . . however, I know the gist of it and want to write this review with first impressions fairly fresh in my head.

So, initially I had no interest in watching a new casting/scripting of Star Trek, especially with the original characters.  After its release, I heard good things about it and eventually went by my lonesome out of bored curiosity.  (And failed to allow enough time to see the grand ending.)

The script spends so much time reintroducing Spock et al that the plot's details are pretty much cough-and-you-miss-them.  You can bet your bottom dollar that it involves a young Captain Kirk breaking rules to stop John Harrison (spoiler in white:  KHAAAAAN) from terrorizing Earth. This is set before the days of Picard diplomacy, so many chase scenes and action sequences - benefiting from the big screen - take place before the end.  Another spoiler: I missed the Spock vs. Khan duel and left right after Kirk supposedly died and Spock, in one of many emotional moments, epically yelled Khan's name.  That really should have been the ending right there; it was the best part!

As you might guess, I have quibbles about the script.  Too much cussing; it wasn't what is rated "strong," but it really dumbed down the film.  Kirk and Spock act like smart-alecks at the beginning, which discredits them both (yes, Kirk, too).  Thirdly, I can scarcely get past the fact that, though the Enterprise has come a long ways from the original's cardboard-esque sets, the old stereotypical portrayals of characters are still there.  Chekhov's exaggerated Russian accent, check....Kirk's cute-smart-objectified-crush, check.  Kind of shocking.  To a point, I also agree with some of the criticism (spoiler-related) of casting Cumberbatch as Harrison (as much as I am a fan of BC, and as much as he did a truly excellent job).  Overall, I had to try too hard to like the script; the effects and music were more fun.

That said...it fits the recipe for a very good Star Trek film.  Basically, it's comparable to the original films I-III, with enough to make you groan but also, somehow, enough to make it worth a Trekkie's while.  It might be that one scene I loved, plus the awe-inspiring effects, plus the soundtrack, plus the exciting (though dubiously advisable) save-the-world storyline.  The revamped original characters aren't too bad, either; I was impressed by the cast's impersonations of the classic actors everyone knows so well (one original actor has a cameo, too!).  I wouldn't buy it, but I'm looking forward to seeing it on DVD, with the full ending, of course.

Read More

Moby Dick (2011): Call me Bored

I was so keyed up to find out that the library had Moby Dick (2011).  New cinematography, new CGI, new costumes - what could be more amazing, right?  Nobody else in my family was interested, but I popped disc 1 into my laptop and settled down for a good show.

Only to be thoroughly underwhelmed.  I don't know if I even watched half of this miniseries.  It is hard to pinpoint what is so bad about it, but there are three things that stood out to me:

1)  This is a TV production.  The problem is not a low budget and poor design, but, rather, a good budget and excellent design not used to their full potential.  The costumes and sets are nice, but they look like costumes and sets.  Very contrived.

2) The script is pretty lame.  For example: Father Mapple's "Jonah" sermon is shortened (as I would expect in a movie), but it completely fails to mention God giving Jonah a second chance.  Queequeg observes it was too late for Jonah, "eaten" by a fish, to learn his lesson, which Ishmael thinks is funny. This joke falls flat if you know the whole story of Jonah, or, ahem, read the book... 

3) Captain Ahab is everywhere, but he has no stage presence.  Oddly enough, I think he is more like book!Ahab than Gregory Peck's version.  Still, he is less mysterious here than he is in the book.  We get to see him very early on in this show, as opposed to the book/old film where he doesn't show up until later.  Kind of anticlimactic.

Things I liked.  Well, the filmmakers added an interesting aspect to the story: a sort of friendship/camaraderie between Ahab and Ishmael.  Also, I liked Mrs Ahab (played by Gillian Anderson, aka Lady Dedlock in Bleak House); she seemed like a very real character, especially for one mentioned only in passing in the book.  Thirdly, I liked how the people of different ethnicities were portrayed as people, not just "characters."  While the book contains some seemingly racist elements, I think that the international aspect of the Moby-Dick story translates well to this adaptation.  The fact that men from different countries united under Ahab's will and rule is an important, symbolic point. 

Content-wise...  They show Queequeg naked from the back, and they come a little too close to showing him from the front, too.  Just skip the scene where he meets Ishmael. 

I LOVE the book and I have patience to watch long productions, but this one wasn't worth it, and it had nothing to do with length.  Save yourself the disappointment and watch an old classic like the 1956 version, or even The Old Man and the Sea, instead.

Read More

Raid on Entebbe (1977) movie review

Entebbe Airport (actual photo, not a film screencap)

Interestingly enough, Raid on Entebbe was filmed and released soon after the real-world event that inspired it: Operation Entebbe.  From Britannica's entry:

Entebbe raid, (July 3–4, 1976), rescue by an Israeli commando squad of 103 hostages from a French jet airliner hijacked en route from Israel to France. After stopping at Athens, the airliner was hijacked on June 27 by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Red Army Faction (a West German radical leftist group) and flown to Entebbe, Ugan., where they were joined by additional accomplices . . . In response, Israel, on July 3, dispatched four Hercules C-130H cargo planes carrying 100–200 soldiers and escorted by Phantom jet fighters.

If I were to describe this film briefly, it would be "historical drama done right."  Between Titanic sentimentalism and Lincoln stoicism, I'll always vote for stoic facts, since it is in subtle scriptwriting that you can really feel history.  This film tends toward the factual approach, though not in an emotionless way.

Raid on Entebbe is generally regarded as historically accurate.  It avoids creating elaborate backstories for the people it depicts, instead focusing on the innocent civilian victims of terrorism and the incredible rescue led by Brig. Gen. Dan Shomron (well portrayed by Charles Bronson).  The script maintains a good balance between action and realistic buildup; the costumes and cinematography tend towards realism as well.  In this way, you are brought straight to the point of these events, and what you see comes across as fairly convincing, without too much Hollywood to distract.

The human side to this quasi-documentary is just enough to make you care, in the way you would sympathize for the real-life victims.  The passengers are ordinary people, people holding onto a quiet courage under the tedium of uncertainty.  Michel Bacos, the French pilot, chooses to stand by them instead of accepting his release. The disappearance of the elderly woman, Dora Bloch, is heartbreaking (as well as factually correct).  You don't have to invent melodrama to film a historical event - as Raid on Entebbe shows, the reasons for caring about these people are all there in the original.

What about the hijackers?  They seem to be fairly portrayed, as far as their actual deeds allow.  Idi Amin, president-dictator of Uganda, is depicted in a few scenes.  (He is worth reading about; this article from the BBC is a good place to start.)

5 out of 5 stars.  Suitable for family/older kids viewing (due to the subject matter, there are scenes of crossfire).

Read More

To Kill a Mockingbird movie review

This summer my sister and I both read To Kill a Mockingbird.  Our favorite genres tend to differ from each other, but this was a book we both enjoyed.  Afterwards, we watched the classic 1962 adaptation, a first for us both.

The story is told from the perspective of Scout Finch and her brother Jem, whose blissful, surreal childhoods are interrupted by a controversial court case.  The accused is Tom Robinson, a black man alleged to have raped a white girl; the lawyer defending Tom is Scout and Jem's father, Atticus.  Atticus's personal convictions about race and justice make the Finches' hometown of Maycomb uncomfortable, setting the family against many of their neighbors.  Those who agree with him wish him well, but are reluctant to speak out.  As the trial approaches, public hostility grows, and Atticus must decide how far he will risk their threats to keep on fighting for Tom's life, and his own unpopular beliefs.

The movie is beautifully filmed and scripted.  It combines the old black-and-white film style with 60s "artsy" cinematography, which I think fits the story's mood well.  Modern color cinematography could be used to excellent effect in a remake - but then, you wouldn't have the original casting.  I really liked Mary Badham as Scout and John Megna as her friend Dill.  Brock Peters' portrayal of Tom Robinson was really moving, and, as others have said, Gregory Peck is Atticus Finch.  One of my favorite actors from old-school Hollywood, Peck is good at playing angelic characters with a certain credibility and humble dignity.  Under the glasses and "everyman" clothes, he looked the part of Atticus, too.

By Dominic Sherony [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

This adaptation really tries to stay close to the book.  While the script is accurate enough, it suffers from the two-hour time constraint.  Some of the scenes, such as the classic "mad dog" scene, are too short to convey their complete psychological importance.  Minor scenes like the visit to Calpurnia's church - indeed, most of Calpurnia's scenes - were not included, which is especially unfortunate since she was one of my favorite characters.  The book takes you on a rich reading experience; you really get inside Scout's head, and Maycomb, with all its quirks and gray characters, grows up out of the pages, a complex character in itself.  I think that understanding Maycomb is essential to understanding the story, so it could be argued that a two-hour adaptation falls short from the start. 

Still, To Kill a Mockingbird is a worthy classic film with the book's fundamental storyline and message, so it gets 5 out of 5 stars.  I will definitely rewatch it in the future, and being more distanced from the book will no doubt help me appreciate the film even more.

Read More

Why The Hobbit Makes the Perfect Valentine's Day Movie

{February 13, according to Fandango, appears to be the last day The Hobbit AUJ will be showing in theaters.  (In Java programming, we would call this an "off-by-one" error.)  Still, this post is totally legit if you celebrate St. Valentine's Day early, or stretch it out over two days.  :)  Here goes.}

Though I would find any excuse to re-watch it, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey really qualifies itself as a great Valentine's Day film.  This, for the number one reason: a central theme in the story is love.  At face value, The Hobbit is only a lighthearted fantasy saga with some fairytale villains and a comedic unlikely hero, who has a love/hate relationship with the idea of "going on an adventure."  But the core of the story, through which it serves as a perfect prequel to The Lord of the Rings, is much deeper: it is built on the ongoing conflict between good and evil, vengeance and forgiveness, and hatred and love.

* * *

As Balin wryly puts it, there's nothing heroic about him or the other twelve dwarves who show up for "An Unexpected Party" at the hobbit's home.  Bilbo Baggins would agree; he is disgusted by his unwanted guests and feels quite superior in about every way (especially table manners).  The one exception is their kingly leader, Thorin Oakenshield.  He is a proud dwarf dead-set on fulfilling his seemingly crazy plan: to retake - from the dragon Smaug - his ancestral home and fortune that is buried inside the Lonely Mountain.

Though he knows well their several faults, Thorin respects and loves his followers like brothers; his simple and only request of them is "Loyalty, honor, and willing heart.  I can ask no more than that."  He puts aside his pride because he loves his people, and they stick by him with loyalty equal to his own.  Eventually, Bilbo is also persuaded to help him.

In a similar vein, the wizard Gandalf's loyalty to a free Middle Earth is so strong that it forces him to endure scorn (and later, persecution) from his leader, Saruman, in order to plead with him for its safety's sake:

Gandalf refuses to ignore his own Churchillian intuition, and instead insists on explaining what he has learned about the growing evil, not because it is comfortable but because it is true.  His self-sacrifice in The Hobbit is a relatively small one, yet without this first step he would not be able to give more, as he later does in The Lord of the Rings.  Gandalf's love is a fatherly love, and one wedded to preparedness.
 
For, as he tries to tell Bilbo, enemies will appear where none are expected, and in unexpected forms.  At the start of his travels, Bilbo can hardly comprehend the idea of having enemies, or wishing to deal them death.  He soon finds this becoming increasingly easier. What catches him completely unawares is the temptation to hate, seemingly justified by the fact that the one he hates is his would-be murderer.  It is only after an immense mental struggle that Bilbo overcomes this hatred and learns to love his enemy.  After this, and only afterwards, is he finally able to have mercy on one who is determined to kill him.

The Hobbit, then, is not an obvious choice for Valentine's Day movie night, yet repeatedly love plays a vital role in the storyline.  Even true romantic love, despite its absence, is related to each of the types of love in The Hobbit: they are all gifts given unselfishly, as sincere love always is.

Source: google.com via Susan on Pinterest  | Eowyn and Faramir, from The Return of the King

“The world is indeed full of peril and in it there are many dark places.  But still there is much that is fair. And though in all lands, love is now mingled with grief, it still grows, perhaps, the greater.”
- The Fellowship of the Ring

Read More

The Remains of the Day (1993) movie review

This is a deceptively simple story about an English guy, Mr. Stevens, who goes on his first-ever road trip in the English countryside.  Mr. Stevens is the butler of Darlington Hall, once a center for low-profile international meetings during the Inter-War Era.  As he looks forward to a reunion with Darlington's former housekeeper, Miss Kenton, he begins to examine his past and his life's question: "What is a great butler?"

I read the book for school, and while I like this movie better, it is really, really close to the book.  There was only one major change (the identity of the new owner of Darlington Hall), which was added for extra irony.  I'm not sure how the flashbacks worked for movie-firsters, but they seemed to be portrayed smoothly and clearly.  Cinematography was excellent, music was good, and the casting of Anthony Hopkins as Stevens and Emma Thompson as Miss Kenton was brilliant.

So, if it follows the book, why is the movie better?  To me, it was the fact that Mr. Stevens translates better to screen, than first-person narration.  In the book, Mr. Stevens came across as a bit neurotic and self-centered, constantly worried about himself.  On screen, Mr. Stevens is a really noble character, very loyal and self-sacrificing.  Perhaps he was this way in the book, and maybe it was the first-person perspective that ruined it.

Also, while the romantic subplot seemed to me to be the focus of the book, it was the political subplot that stole the show in the film.  The conflict of good intentions vs. reality, coupled with Mr. Stevens's point-of-view, was just heartbreaking.  (They omitted the part where he dismisses democracy, too, so that was interesting.)

At the end of the movie, you've got to ask yourself "why????" and be prepared for a debate.  One thing my mom and I agreed on was that Darlington Hall, in itself, limited Mr. Stevens's personal life, because of its particular prestige.  Unlike Baskerville Hall, for example, where things are more relaxed. 

The movie is rated PG for "themes," which is quite baffling to me.  I don't recall any objectionable content, unless you count kissing and smoking.  Probably, it was rated PG because it is a "boring" movie with very little action, and you have to understand the dialogue in order to appreciate it.  4 out of 5 stars as a movie, and 5 out of 5 stars as an adaptation.  Great movie for costume drama fans and history enthusiasts.

Read More

Moby-Dick (1956) movie review

How does one review a childhood favorite?  All the words that come to mind are childish phrases, like "WATCH IT NAO!!!!1"...  

Captain Ahab is a creepy guy.  The Pequod is a creepy ship.  Captain Ahab wants to wreak revenge on Moby-Dick, the white whale that severed his leg.  But none of the crew--least of all Ishmael, the whaling newbie--none of them know this until they sign on to the job.   Now that they're out at sea, they're doomed to follow Ahab to the edge of the world, or however far it takes for him to take revenge on Moby-Dick.

This is one instance where you don't need to read the 600-page book.  This movie gets the spirit and essential plot right, with whole lines straight from the book ("I'd smite the sun if it insulted me.").  Gregory Peck is worlds better than book!Ahab--his stricken youth is even more poignant, more horrifying.  Leo Genn is, by contrast, older and grimmer than book!Starbuck, but he aces the part of a levelheaded family man and conscientious Christian.  Ishmael is, well, Ishmael.  The cinematography and special effects are pretty amazing for a 50s movie, and overall they've aged well, too.

What makes this movie worthwhile, besides the epic adventure, is its incredible, inscrutable depth.  Is Ahab completely evil, completely mad, well-intentioned, or something else?  What would you do if you were Starbuck, the second-in-command?  What does "doing the right thing" mean when all the choices seem wrong?

When I read the book, I thought Ahab was pure evil, or at least deranged in a sick, sick way.  Upon this umpteenth viewing of the movie, I was able to read between the lines more.  Yes, Ahab is insane and wicked, but he is a tragic character as well.  There are those figments of sanity and regret, which I saw on previous viewings, but then there are his enigmatic lines, in which he views his revenge as a noble cause:

Yet he is but a mask. 'Tis the thing behind the mask I chiefly hate; the malignant thing that has plagued mankind since time began; the thing that maws and mutilates our race, not killing us outright but letting us live on, with half a heart and half a lung.

Book!Ahab rebels bitterly against God, but this Ahab comes across with an additional (perhaps chief) objective: an attempt to crush sin/decay.  Yet these two different motives somehow surface as the same actions, hatred, and madness.  He hates himself, because he hates what the whale has done to him.  His mistake is looking to his own strength for salvation.  (Of course, this is only how I see movie!Ahab.  Never could fully understand the book-character or what Melville intended him to be...certainly subject to interpretation.)

I'll never get tired of this story--already want to re-read the book!  The history and adventure, the irony and contrasts (democratic Americans swearing loyalty to one man?!), and, of course, Ahab and the Whale and the psychology/mystery I can't unravel.  Watch it now!  :)

Read More

Edwin Drood (2012) movie review

Another movie with strangulation and a psychopath...hooray.  :P Watch the trailer HERE (paragraphs don't work when I try to embed it).
In Charles Dickens' unfinished work, young Edwin Drood reunites with his fiancee Rosa Bud after a long separation.  His uncle John Jasper, as it happens, is the local choir master and disturbingly obsessed with Rosa.  Jasper then meets the Landless siblings, who have come to study with the clergyman Rev. Crisparkle, and finds them to be yet another barrier between him and Rosa.  Meanwhile, Jasper's opium-tinged dreams of murder grow increasingly more frequent.

After watching this, I couldn't help but see the following similarity with The Phantom of the Opera:

Edwin = Raoul = spoiled rich kid with good intentions
Rosa = Christine = naive girl
Jasper = Erik = obsessed creepy sneaky old guy with musical talent
Bazzard = The Persian = smart guy who solves the mystery

I rate The Mystery of Edwin Drood (2012) 4 out of 5 stars, but I can't say it is one that I'd rewatch in the foreseeable future.

It was slightly better than I expected (I have not read the book, by the way).  Most of the good characters are pretty likeable.  All throughout the movie, I kept thinking "Bushy sideburns...neither Edwin nor Jasper looks like a leading man, but at least their hairstyles are accurate!".  Many familiar actors/actresses, some from other Dickens adaptations.  Nice cinematography.  Decent pacing, if a little too choppy.  I liked Bazzard, the bored secretary/nice version of Mr Guppy, and Neville Landless a lot (why Rosa prefers Edwin is the biggest mystery). 

Could have been longer, overall; I'm so used to looong Dickens dramas that this felt almost incomplete.  Also, the Dickensian sense of humor that one expects is greatly missing.  There's some, but very little in-between all the gloom and doom.  Given the subject matter, I'm not surprised--it reminds me a little of Martin Chuzzlewit, which is the most depressing one I've seen.  Chuzzlewit retains some charm and comedy, however, that doesn't show up much in Edwin Drood. 

There is way too much repetition of the strangulation scenes (and in front of the altar, no less).  It makes the old Poirot episodes look like light viewing.  After a while, I concluded the filmmakers were just being plum lazy at the viewers' expense.  They could have shot, or edited-in, 5 extra minutes of footage instead of copying & pasting.

The ending (not written by Dickens) was very well-done, and I must say I didn't completely see it coming.  It really felt like his style.

The Mystery of Edwin Drood is not quite up to par with Bleak House (either version) and Little Dorrit (2008), though I can see they were striving for that and did match it in certain aspects (e.g. cinematography, casting).  Edwin Drood is a bit too depressingly realistic; there's no hint of how such a crime could have been prevented...doubtless, Jasper would have found a way to get drugs, even if opium and laudanum had been illegal in Victorian England.  I guess this story (or adaptation?) reminded me more of Thomas Hardy than Dickens, which could be a positive or a negative.  Going back to Martin Chuzzlewit--as my mom pointed out, the crime in Chuzzlewit originates from greed.  In Edwin Drood, it's the product of a sick, hatred-obsessed mind, which is the main reason this story comes across as darker.

Read More

Rebecca (1997) movie review

{I couldn't find a trailer, but there's a 10-minute intro here.}

For book-firsters and fans, it's impossible not to compare this 1997 adaptation with the 1940 Hitchcock classic.  I have one gripe with the 1940 version, and that is the very big liberty he took in changing the climax, in such a way that changed the whole nature of the story.  I like the book, so that was kind of a big deal to me and one reason I was interested in seeing the "new" version, which sticks closely to the book.

The plot is very simple: anonymous shy girl meets rich older guy--Maxim de Winter--and, on the spur of the moment, they get married to live happily-ever-after at his English estate, Manderley.  Enter brooding housekeeper Mrs Danvers, who only adds to the young lady's fears that she can never be as beautiful, accomplished, and upper-crust as Max's first, deceased wife, Rebecca.  Rebecca had died in a boating accident, and Max continues to be grieved by memories of her.  His new wife, meanwhile, tries her hardest to emulate Rebecca, but things only go downhill from there...

I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars.  The book, by Daphne du Maurier, is a brilliantly chilling, heavily psychological ghost story, yet very understated.  It's a difficult story to film, I'm sure.  Rebecca (1997), while an imperfect adaptation, is a costume drama I'd watch again.


The first thing we noticed while watching this was the music--wow!  Composer Christopher Gunning has also written music for Middlemarch and Poirot; you can hear a very short clip of "Rebecca" here, but it doesn't do it justice at all.  The theme totally sets the mood for the (moody) plot of Rebecca.

Another thing I loved was the settings/costumes.  We guesstimated this takes place in the 20s/early Inter-War Period (the exact year may or may not be mentioned, I forget).  Expect to see plenty of cute/interesting/bizarre 20s fashion, and classic cars, and dreamy English countryside.

Casting...oh dear, oh dear.   

Geraldine James was very good as the heroine, but less awkward/naive than either the book or Joan Fontaine's portrayal.  Maybe she is supposed to be easier to relate to?

Diana Riggs as Mrs Danvers was creepy.  I don't remember book!MrsDanvers very well, so I can't say anything about accuracy.  I seem to think that Mrs Danvers' creepiness is supposed to be more a figment of the heroine's perspective than anything else...time for a reread?  In any case, I don't remember Mrs Danvers like a vampire sneaking up on people (I mean, really!).

Charles Dance is an excellent actor.  He was brilliant in Bleak House and he's my dream casting for Professor Moriarty (it's a compliment!).  However, he is simply miscast as Maxim de Winter.  I like a good romance story, including a May-December one, but Max in this version is more grandfatherly than fatherly in age, and he doesn't look like a young fifty-something year-old, either.  On top of that, the filmmakers decided to portray him with alarming mood swings, and altogether he comes across as a little bit psycho.  Like Mrs Danvers, he makes the viewer feel uncomfortable.  Yes, he is more gothic...no, he is not the charming (if melancholy) Max from the book.  

This is a key problem.  If we don't like Max (and I tried), then the story fails.  His charisma is supposed to glue the story together; you are supposed to like him.  He is supposed to make you care about Manderley, ask questions about Rebecca, and trust him.  Unfortunately, I got tired of him, and for a while the heroine did, too (not good!). 

Now, I did like being able to see/hear Rebecca.  In fact, I wish she had had more of a role.  While some viewers don't like her presence at all, I think that, sort of ironically, it makes sense for her to appear on screen. 

Content-wise, there was a scene of violence (strangulation) that was not in the book.  


Apart from that, the plot was very loyal to the book.  And I really loved the ending in this version (not the very ending, but the "ending" before that).  Without mentioning spoilers, I think this is one scene that benefits greatly from CGI--it's quite magnificently dramatic. 

Some thoughts on the story itself (spoilery, in white): When Max finds out that Rebecca would have died of cancer in any case--is it supposed to be ironic and depressing, or is it supposed to help him feel he was meting out poetic justice?  Also, I did not like the heroine's happy resignation at the end, in this version.  I felt, in the book, she was more stunned/horrified by it all, by Max, even.


In summary...I'd recommend this version, overall.  It is more-or-less plot-accurate and truer to the spirit of the book.  The 1940 version is closer in its portrayal of characters/relationships. Watch them both!

Read More

Day 4: A favorite TV show

Easy peasy lemon squeezy. (Sorry, Star Trek TOS, you're second.)


The Virginian is a classic Western with good values, great characters, and intriguing plots.  Set in the very-late 1800s, the show revolves around the people of Shiloh Ranch and (best fictional town ever) Medicine Bow, WY.  "The Virginian" is the anonymous but hardworking foreman of Shiloh Ranch.  There's a splendid diversity of plots and settings; at the same time, the "world" of The Virginian is recognizable, in a good way.  The landscape and town are familiar, like places you really could (and want to) visit. 

Before we discovered this show, some of my family members had already watched other Westerns--lots of the old, pre-Eastwood classics.  (I feel like a bad person for saying it, but I really don't like watching John Wayne, and Gunsmoke gets horribly repetitive...) When my dad got The Virginian Season 3 from the library--the only season they had on the shelf--I expected it to be boring.  Plus, starting with Season 3 won't work, right?  Wrong.  My favorite character doesn't show up until S3 (hint: episode 1).  XD 

My family and I have watched The Virginian S1-5 out of chronological order (which is no big deal), and we're hoping the library will have S6 soon.  This is one of the few TV shows that is popular with the whole family.  And it increased my interest in the Western genre, so even if it doesn't sound like your thing, you should give it a try!

Read More

Day 2: A favorite movie

One of the best episodes in this (somewhat inconsistent) series of made-for-TV Hornblower movies.  In The Fire Ships, Midshipman Hornblower attempts to study for an important exam while dealing with sickness aboard the Indefatigable, an embittered seaman, and an arrogant but influential captain.  This episode exemplifies what makes this series great: vivid characters, exciting plots, complex topics/situations, and contrast between the "rule the high seas" glory and the brutal realities/injustices of life in the navy.  There's a lot of food for thought, while The Fire Ships remains a fun, swashbuckling, summery movie to watch.  I recommend it for ages 15+!

Read More

I don't watch Disney movies much,

but I've got to admit, it's a great story.

 Belle is "Beauty", of course, but it doesn't make her happier.  Gaston is dreams-come-true "Mr Right", NOT.  The Beast goes through a rather rapid character arc, but at least he does.

One thing, though--the wolves scene is so inspired by Dracula.

Read More

Onegin (1999) movie review

A good movie follows the book closely, right?  Usually.  But a movie that follows the book closely does not necessarily equal a good movie. 

For tech writing class, I was assigned to review a movie new to me, and my review had to imitate the Rolling Stones magazine's review style.  But truth be told, I don't care for that style, and my review didn't say all I wanted to say (of course!).  So here is my brand-new review of Onegin, just for you.  ^_^


 (in lieu of a trailer--this music video is actually better than the movie!)
Onegin (1999)
My rating: 3 out of 5 stars
 
Things to know: 

• Onegin is based on the book Eugene Onegin, by Alexander Pushkin.  This is one of the most (if not the most) famous Russian classics in Russia, while still greatly unknown in the U.S. (compared to War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, etc).  
• The book is short and written entirely in poetic verse.
• The book is one of my top 5 favorites ever and my favorite romantic story.

I'm not a purist.  I'm totally ok with some changes; sometimes changes are for the vastly better (e.g. A&E's Hornblower).  But all that's neither here nor there, since there were no major changes in Onegin.

My reaction to the movie was lukewarm.  This was particularly atrocious, since I've read the book twice in the last year and both times found myself having a good cry at some point or other.  Movies typically convey as much emotion as their book inspirations.  Onegin is atypical in this regard.

I quote my first review for the synopsis:

The only non-silent, non-operatic movie adaptation of Eugene Onegin, by Alexander Pushkin, deviates little from its inspiration. . .Ralph Fiennes as Eugene Onegin escapes from a decadent life in St. Petersburg to his countryside inheritance, only to befriend trespasser and poet Vladimir Lensky (Toby Stephens) at gunpoint, literally. In the same breath, Onegin unconsciously wins the heart of his neighbor Tatyana Larina, played by Liv Tyler (of The Lord of the Rings fame). Belittling Tatyana's love letter and Lensky's code of honor, Onegin suddenly finds himself on the road to disaster as he struggles with fate, or, as he learns, his own brutal cynicism.

This movie is all head and no heart, in a bad way.  It basically follows the book's plot to the letter, but the spirit of the book is missing.  You know when you watch Great Expectations, or Pride and Prejudice, or North and South, and you get a sense of atmosphere and setting?  There was none of that here.

The dialogue is probably the chief culprit.  It's very minimalist. . .in a bad way.  So very little is said, while a ton of time is spent on the visuals, which alone are not effective in conveying what's going on and what the characters are thinking.  It was frustrating and mind-numbingly dull to watch, and the chemistry between characters was weak.

Secondly, plot pacing is pretty bad.  The "filler" scenes were painfully slow, and the pivotal scenes were greatly skimmed-over.  Also, the dream sequence was omitted, which is a real shame since it is one of the most dramatic parts of the book.  The book is so short--there was no need to cut that scene or add-in an awkward husband & wife scene (dear me, if you must expound upon the book, there are better aspects to expound upon). 

My third major gripe was the casting of Ralph Fiennes as Eugene Onegin.  There's just something wrong if Fiennes is more likeable as Hades in Wrath of the Titans, one of his most recent roles.  Now, Onegin isn't a good guy in the book, but he is certainly charismatic and three-dimensional.  On the other hand, Fiennes's Onegin is one-dimensional, apathetic, and--too old (Onegin is supposed to be twenty-six).  For the majority of his screentime, he comes across as very unlikeable and, in the final scene, just plain creepy.  I don't blame Fiennes.  I do think he was horribly miscast. 

So, what did I like?

The plot accuracy is excellent.  I was glad to see that the ending was not typical-Hollywood style, but exactly like the book.  This is the essence of the story, so it's good they got it right.

The cinematography was really nice, very artistic; they certainly put a lot of effort into it.

Casting in general is a bit of a grey area.  I dislike British & American actors portraying Russian characters; it's very distracting.  However, Liv Tyler deserves credit for her portrayal of Tatyana.  The scriptwriters chose to emphasize Tatyana's girlish naivete (which I question), but keeping this in mind I think Tyler did an excellent job.  Also, Toby Stephens was splendid as the idealistic, irrational Vladimir Lensky, making him more personable to a 21st-century audience than the book does. 

The content was overall ok (more in-depth content review here, but beware of spoilers).  I fast-forwarded Onegin visiting his lady friend and the husband & wife scene, but they didn't show anything objectionable, that I could tell.  I also fast-forwarded the duel.  Apparently, the duel is the main reason the movie is rated R.  I'm pretty squeamish, but if you're watching it on DVD with the remote handy, it shouldn't be a problem.  Personally, it would bother me more if they tried to sugarcoat it. . .Pushkin himself died in a duel, and by showing a premeditated duel as it is, at least we show how twisted and childish the "code of honor" really was.

Onegin was not the worst movie I've ever seen.  Still, it feels like a missed opportunity--with even just a better script, it could have been a good movie.  As it is, I don't necessarily recommend it to non-book-firsters, as it might give you a wrong impression of the story.  It is also a very slow movie, even for those of us who enjoy 3+ hrs long BBC dramas.

Read More

'No one will ever convince me that you told me a lie.'

{Reichenbach SPOILER ALERT}

Wow.

Everything came full circle--almost.  Except now Watson believes Sherlock is who he says he is.  I didn't want it to end.  It was heartbreaking, though. . .he didn't die the hero's death of the book.  Well, he did, but nobody knew (maybe Mycroft?  Molly?) and only Watson believed.  But the rest of society thinks Sherlock dies a psycho serial killer and everything else Moriarty was.   The part where Sherlock shouts "You're insane"--one of the few moments when he sounds like a real person, when he sees where cunning can go too far.  He has admitted to fighting on the side of good and now he knows the fundamental differences between Moriarty and himself.

I'm still confused about Moriarty though--was there really no code?  I must say, it always sounded very unlikely.  If so, however, then Moriarty becomes no greater than the cabbie in A Study in Pink--just someone wanting to prove they're smarter than Sherlock Holmes.  (Moriarty is probably the biggest disappointment of this new Sherlock series--he lacks the gravitas of being a respectable math professor and comes across more as a whining, cringing Gollum instead.)

And, it would mean that one of Sherlock's weaknesses is taking things too seriously.  But I would say it can also be his strength.  If he really considered every crime to be just a puzzle, he wouldn't care a bit about the people involved, as I think he does, deep down.  He wouldn't do what he did in the end if lives didn't matter to him.

Now, of course, there's the opposing argument--what if he were going to die?  What if he wasn't going to fake his death?  Would he still have followed through with it?  That's one thing the book left no doubts about--Holmes himself believed it was the end, and he had no backup plans.  I guess in this case you just have to decide whether you're John or Sally.  Is Sherlock a hero?  Is he what he appears to be, or is he only what you believe him to be?  Can you know for sure, either way? (Excuse me if I'm getting too analytical here, but I love agonizing over ambiguous storylines and characters).




So.  "Totally erroneous conclusions" or not--I pretty much subscribe to the idea that the body is a cadaver from the hospital, placed on the sidewalk by Molly, and I'm inclined agree with some other viewers that Holmes fell into a moving vehicle.  I do think he actually fell a certain distance--it's possible it was a mannequin, but there wasn't anywhere on the hospital rooftop to store one, unless it was inflatable.  O_o  Besides, I don't think that would be very convincing.  Most probably, there's some psychological factor involved--Watson was expecting to see what he thought was going to happen, so as long as he saw Sherlock falling, he didn't need to actually see Sherlock hit the pavement.  In other words, I think it's the moment where Sherlock is halfway down that the substitution is made--Watson's mind fills in the blanks, and a few seconds later, there's a body on the ground.

Thoughts? 

P. S.  It was pretty awesome to hear Sherlock playing Bach's G minor Adagio while waiting for Moriarty. 

Read More

Sherlock S2: Hounds of Baskerville

Sufficiently creepy! 

Not altogether what I expected, but a great improvement (yes, I said that) on the Baskerville story.  I love how it kept you guessing until the end.  And it was sci-fi!  We need more sci-fi. 

The little pieces of original-story references and Victorian dialogue were fun.  "How on earth did you know that?" 

Overall, this episode felt WAY TOO SHORT.  Looking forward to The Reichenbach Fall--sort of.  It looks like a real tearjerker.  :(

Read More

Tolkien and Titans

Today I saw Middle Earth on the big screen for the FIRST TIME!  Local theaters are already playing the Hobbit trailer.  <3  It was truly epic hearing the music and dialogue and "Precioussss...." with a theater sound system.  Plus, you're assured it's going to be a big deal when they're playing a trailer for a December movie as early as APRIL.  <3

And that was the last trailer they played.  One does not simply play more trailers after the Hobbit trailer.

So our movie was Wrath of the Titans (Clash of the Titans 2).  RECOMMENDED.  I can't write a proper review right now...all I can do is rave about how epic it is.  Indeed, it IS better than Clash of the Titans.  It DOES include the LABYRINTH--one of my favoritest of favorite Greek mythological stories.  AND there's a Chimaera.  And Cyclopes.  The characters are really good and more developed than before.  This is a more serious movie than Clash of the Titans.  The mythology feels more like the Greek mythology I read about as a kid.  The human and fantasy aspects are both stronger. 

I'm not sure why Wrath is getting such poor reviews.  Possibly because it is a decent action-adventure film, where heroines aren't femmes fatales, and mythological gods are just--mythological?   More on that when I write a real review.  ;)

Read More