All Friends of British TV - Alert

I've found an adaption here of the Three Musketeers by Andrew Davies, starring Logan Lerman. And yes, that is Matthew MacFadyen to the far left. :-)

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

I just wish I could find lyrics to this piece.....

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

A delightful piece from the new film Tangled.

Hanna Trailer (2011) HD

Another Bourne film? I sure hope so.

A Tangle of Old-Fashioned Fun and Modern Animation

Don't judge a film before you see it.

Like me, that is. I was as determined as possible not to take interest in this new Disney film Tangled the moment I read it's cliche summary. No way, no way would I ever spend money to go to such a symbol of fallen Disney.

And last night I went to see Tangled with a friend and had an absolute blast. It shocked me in so many ways, I was a bit numbstruck when we reached the car. Much as I hate to admit it, Tangled is the film Disney has been needing to make since Beauty and the Beast. Following in the footsteps of the magnificent Pixar, Disney takes a new approach toward animation and storytelling which nevertheless proves effective in Tangled.

To begin with, the animation in this film was simply phenomenal. I don't think I've been this impressed by animation since Pixar's The Incredibles came out. Rapunzel's hair shimmers, yes that's right, shimmers on the screen. Each movement of the characters feels real. The clothes flow softly to invisible breezes and all facial expressions have the intricacy of real human faces. John Lasseter, the executive producer, is an old Pixar pro who has worked on all their films from Monsters Inc. to Toy Story 3. The 3D feel to a 2D movie which we've become accustomed to in Pixar has finally hit Disney.

In the meantime, Dan Fogelman outdid himself on the screenplay. Skillfully working with the original fairy tale, Fogelman creates a story so enchanting that at the end you're shocked to find it's over. The same Disney stereotypes are there - a hidden princess, falling in love in a matter of days, and a lovable sidekick for the princess among them - but Fogelman's versions are so unique that the stereotypes get forgotten. His dialogue is brilliantly hilarious and his compositional abilities allow him to mix chase scenes, an avalanche of water, and a simple campfire discussion between Rapunzel and Flynn in one twenty minute period without so much as a blink of your eyelids.

At the same time, the character depictions in a Disney films haven't been this realistic since Beauty and the Beast. Rapunzel's character is neither a frilly weakling nor a warrior princess; she achieves a medium between independent young lady and feminine princess which is delightful. Her beau Flynn Rider, on the other hand, has a combination of charismatic thief and a man looking for purpose in life which makes us laugh and sympathize at the same time (Yes, this character is named after the legendary Errol Flynn). Mandy Moore and Zach Levi create an enchantingly realistic relationship between the two characters. The film rests almost completely upon their interactions, and the two hold up magnificently.

The other character of note, Mother Gothel, has got to be one of the creepiest villains I've ever seen. She beats Ursula from The Little Mermaid and Jafar from Aladdin not because she's more absurd, but because she's vastly more realistic. Other villains try to hurt the heroes, use magic on them, and work out a myriad of other devious plans. But Mother Gothel doesn't use magic or any of the typical villainous devices - she plays mind games with Rapunzel which, sadly to say, is similar to what I've seen some mothers do with their own children. She constantly belittles Rapunzel, making her feel ugly, stupid, and insufficient for anything. But this greater realism of Gothel makes Rapunzel's declaration of independence at the end all the more moving. The audience feels for Rapunzel all the more because Gothel seems so very real.

Disney legend Alan Menken does a magnificent job with the score, creating a soundtrack which echoes  medieval music without sounding like mere repetition. Glenn Slater's lyrics really are not on a par with the rest of film, but Menken's music makes them passable. Mandy Moore's voice is accessible to the ordinary listener, making Rapunzel's songs less immediately stunning than the theme songs of other princesses. Levi has quite a magnificent tenor voice, and Donna Murphy brings an operatic diva into Mother Gothel's "Mother Knows Best".

So, take your family to Tangled. Have a girl's night. And while you're sitting in the theater, you may hear strains of "Tale as old as time" echoing from all those years ago when you saw Beauty and the Beast.

Promising Part: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

I've read a lot of mixed reviews about David Yates's latest, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1. Though they're typically positive, most reviewers seem a bit bemused by this half of the film adaption of Rowling's seventh novel. Fact of the matter is, few people really know what to think about Deathly Hallows Part 1. It doesn't fit into anyone's expectations. But I think most confusion will be cleared up if people remember that this is, after all, part 1, and not the whole story.

The most common puzzler for reviewers, and thus the most frequent complaint, is how dark the film is. And they're absolutely right - this film is dark in a way none of the other Potters have been. It has very few humorous moments, and those moments feel more like accidents than anything else. We spend no time at Hogwarts - with its romance, beauty and Dumbledore-supervised adventures - and school days are but a memory. The lighting reflects this darkness, as very few shots in the film have bright light. The actors (as I have heard some reviewers complain) do little more than frown in stress and worry. All these observations on the film's darkness are very true and not what you'd expect from a Harry Potter movie.

But that's the point. The first half of Rowling's seventh novel is rough too. After all, it's in the first half of the story that there is absolutely no hope, none whatsoever. Not until the trio reaches Shell Cottage, knowing how to destroy Horcruxes, do they begin to think they've got the tiniest chance against Voldemort. Minister of Magic Rufus Scrimgeour's words describe the first half of the book best: "These are dark times, there is no denying it. Our world has known no greater threat than it does today." This seventh film is not for the faint-of-heart, and absolutely not for any young people.

You see, as the young wizards come of age (17, in the wizarding world), they begin to face the tough realities of adult life. And I really mean that they face them. Ron Weasley confronts his worse fears, among them a racy kiss between Harry and Hermione (one of the primary reasons this film should not be shown to children). Muggle-born Hermione is tortured by Bellatrix Lestrange, and though most of the torture occurs off-screen, the performances of Watson and Bonham Carter are so powerfully convincing that the scene really haunts you. The story is book-ended by excruciating sacrifices and its center turns on the moment when the trio breaks up painfully. Several of the fight scenes are intense enough that I'd say they're ought of bounds for anyone really young or immature. All in all, Deathly Hallows Part 1 isn't really a "fun" film to watch, at least by Potter standards; it's a pretty tough film on the viewer. It's no surprise to me that many walk out of the theater more serious than joyful.

But I confess, the intensity and darkness of Deathly Hallows Part 1 didn't bother me. The reasons are threefold. First, it was appropriate to what is going on with the characters in the story. Yes, there's some tough/nasty stuff going on. But to be frank, life's tough. When you come of age, when you're an adult, life takes you by surprise and whirls you around while you try to get a grip on things. In real life, people face hard things like desertion, jealousy, and death. When you're fighting for what's right, the people you love face serious danger. In Deathly Hallows Part 1, you see these things come out. It's not always pleasant, but it's boldly, thought-provokingly honest.

Secondly, the seriousness of the film is very faithful to its half of Rowling's seventh novel. It is unfortunate that, in this first half, the darkness doesn't let up, but that's how the story goes. Really, Deathly Hallows Part 1 was almost unfailingly true to the book, though it did not go quite so far as Chris Columbus's rather slavish adaptions. Of course, Part 1 will require some help from the final film, which brings me to my third reason.

I also didn't mind the intensity of Deathly Hallows Part 1 because I have hope that the final film will blow my socks off my feet. Part 1 just won't work well if the last film is a flop. But if Part 2 can succeed in bringing everything together and in compensating us for the intense darkness of Part 1, the two films combined have the potential for five hours of cinematic art, the kind which ought to be made more regularly.

Something to keep in mind if you go to see Deathly Hallows Part 1 is its primary question: Is goodness really worth the price we pay? In other films, where the trio have elders they can turn to and rely on, they never question the value of fighting for good. But when it comes time to call their own shots, things get blurry. Ron deals with a desire for vengeance, a jealousy of his friends, and a fear for his entire family. "Nobody else is going to die," says Harry, "Not for me." No wonder they lose their grip sometimes. And when we look into the dark circles under Hermione's lonely eyes and her care-worn expressions, we can't help but ask the question. Is destroying a Horcrux (a bit of evil soul) really worth all this pain and toil, all the blood and strife? Though the movie never gets into this, the story does end with the belief that, yes, goodness is worth all this sacrifice. But unfortunately, viewers will have to wait until July to get the movie's answer. This first half sets the stage for the second in the best possible way: it shows just how much you have to be willing to lose in order to conquer evil.

Now, Deathly Hallows Part 1 does have its faults. The prime example was that it didn't flow quite smoothly enough. Yates once again proves that his strength lies in poignant vignettes and specific scenes with his Obliviate prologue, Harry and Hermione dancing scene, Godric's Hollow Graveyard, among many others. Even certain sequences, like the brilliant Ministry of Magic scenes, work splendidly. But Yates's ability to string them together is not as strong. I can name sequences which are simply enchanting, but the transitions from one scene/sequence to another is often not a smooth as it ought to be. I am willing here, however, to grant David Yates a little artistic license. A lot of the clunkiness can be interpreted as a deliberate artistic choice, and if you choose this interpretation, it's actually quite skillful. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is first and foremost character drama. The film isn't actually concerned with the movement of the plot as much as it is with the portrayal of each character's psychology. For example, Yates focuses more on Hermione's loneliness (a particularly well-done theme through the film) than her typical "girl power" image. He emphasizes Ron's vulnerability instead of his humor. But the overall smoothness of the plot suffers as a consequence.

But I really felt that the strengths of the film outweighed this potential problem. The cinematography and lighting were just as excellent as in the last film. And the acting in this series just keeps getting better. Daniel Radcliffe succeeds quite well with Harry and, for the first time since The Sorcerer's Stone, I'm satisfied with the portrayal of Ronald Weasley. Ron is no longer the stupid comedic relief, and thus finally becomes the important, deep character he is in the books. Watson, who has already proved herself countless times, once again acts her role like a pro. In some scenes, notably that of Hermione's torture, her acting was downright chillingly brilliant.

And when other actors are required (most of the film is spent between just Harry, Ron, and Hermione), they all flourish. The cold Ralph Fiennes continues as Lord Voldemort, and his Death Eaters are led by the superb Helena Bonham Carter (honestly, Carter's role here is overlooked by most reviewers and film awards. It takes guts and talent to pull off a role this crazy). I could go through a list of the other actors, but since this film is practically a catalogue of the greatest British acting talent of our day, I think I shall cease my raptures here. I only note, for those fortunate enough to have seen Gwyneth Paltrow's Emma, that the wonderful Sophie Thompson appears here in a small role (Just a tidbit for fellow fans of British acting).

I know that this review is rather longer than usual, but I cannot end without discussing Alexandre Desplat's soundtrack. Continuing in the footsteps of Patrick Doyle and Nicholas Hooper, Desplat moves away from that sterile Hedwig Theme and brings new life into the sound of Harry Potter. But just as Part 1 is a very different movie from its predecessors, this soundtrack is special. Desplat completely captures the sombre nature of the story with a sound reminiscent of James Horner's Braveheart; in the meantime, he creates a sound which transcends its Harry Potter stereotype. Desplat uses his strings to maximum emotional effect, and as a means to unify the soundtrack, as can be seen in pieces such as "Obliviate", "Snape to Malfoy Manor", "Ron Leaves", and "Ron's Speech". A new sound for the series is the delightful cello, a development which I find thrilling. Occasionally, Desplat makes excursions with other instruments - the piano in "Harry and Ginny" and the flute in "Farewell to Dobby". A few pieces are odds and ends, pleasant though they be. He captures the ultimate bureaucratic sound in "The Ministry of Magic" and "Lovegood" is beyond my ability to describe, it's so unique. By and large, the piece that encompasses the most musical themes is "Godric's Hollow Graveyard", which incorporates the piano, strings, and the signature solo cello. All in all, I found this music the most profound which has yet been composed in the series.

And so, I found Deathly Hallows Part 1 quite excellent, when taken with a few provisos: 1) the second film must round the story off well and 2) people do not let children sit through it. What many people (including, I believe, the person I accompanied to the movie) found depressing, I simply found refreshingly honest and thought-provoking. Deathly Hallows Part 1 doesn't try to hide the tough parts of becoming a responsible adult. It isn't content to be part of the most successful franchise in movie history - it actually wants to examine human nature and the struggles people face. As such, Yates's Part 1 is not, I repeat, not for children. It's an adult movie (ie., beneficial to adults but harmful to children). But for its appropriate audience, Deathly Hallows Part 1 really transcends its place in the Harry Potter series. It wants to be more than entertainment, a fact which I can appreciate. If Part 2 can maintain that transcendence, and still bring light and hope to the story, I'd say that Deathly Hallows is definitely worth a viewing.

Confused Prince: Where Brilliance Meets Madness

The strengths and weaknesses of David Yates's Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince could be summed up by looking at the first ten minutes of its running time. Its beginning is frankly beautiful; I got goose-bumps as Dumbledore leads a broken Harry through the pressing reporters of the magical world. Continuing in Yates's flair for brilliant scenes, this beginning one was incredibly artistic. The lighting, the colors, the acting, the music: they gave me such great pleasure.

Fast forward to Harry, sitting in a subway cafe and reading the Daily Prophet. A flirting waitress informs him that she gets off work at 11, and Harry nods his head and hurriedly checks his breath. Wait, what just happened? No longer the young hero, who bears burdens beyond his years and learns to be the responsible man he must be. No, here we see Harry as a shallow young man who drives around on subways and flirts with waitresses to, as he puts it, "take his mind off things". I call this mediocre at best, and downright shameful at worst.

So, what's the problem? The film adaption of Harry Potter and Half Blood Prince, hated as it is by many fans of the books, does have some truly incredible qualities. Hooper's soundtrack is inspirational. Delbonnel's cinematography made me feel like I was watching a Vermeer painting; he plays with light like a true master of painting. And most of the acting remains thoroughly solid ground for the film to stand on.

Yet the film has some serious failings which made it impossible to like completely. Because the film focuses more on the story's romantic relationships than on Harry's discoveries about Lord Voldemort's past, problems in the relational development are far more glaring. The greatest of these was Harry and Ginny Weasley's outrageous "romance", or so some call it. In the book, Harry and Ginny's relationship is not as appealing as Ron and Hermione's, but it still has a life of its own. But in the film, when Bonnie Wright's nondescript Ginny meets Radcliffe's inconsistent Potter, we're given a prime example of teenage drama and disaster. Radcliffe's Harry drifts his way into a crush on Ginny after apparating to the Burrow and seeing her reading in a window sill (please, hear me scoff). Even more disgustingly miraculous is that somehow, after a a handle of pining looks from Harry, Ginny appears to reciprocate Harry's emotions. Oh, young love in all its glory! I'm afraid I'm left with Hermione, saying "Excuse me, I have to go and vomit."

The other relationship, between Hermione and Ron, requires a tad more examination. Apparently, self-confident, sassy, and brilliant Hermione Granger also has room in her schedule for a heart overfilling with powerful emotions. And though Hermione does a relatively good job of keeping those emotions in their proper place, the audience watches Hermione's trials with the greatest sympathy. The delightful Miss Emma Watson milks her character for everything it's worth, and the result is charming. She makes every twitch of Hermione's eyebrows, every glance of her eyes count. Her mastery of the character is remarkable; in Watson's hands, Hermione blossoms even more. She stammers, makes sharp intakes of breath, and yet remains the reliable Hermione we all love so much. I must admit that, somehow, Watson manages to make her side of the romance very realistically endearing.

But the movie runs into a serious problem that I've been awaiting since The Chamber of Secrets. Through no fault of his own, Grint's Ron just isn't convincing as a romantic possibility for the incredible Hermione. I kept asking myself why Hermione Granger would possibly fall in love with an emotional, irresolute, and (to be completely honest) non-existent character. In the films, Ron has merely been comedic relief, and very rarely does the movie-Ron capture the very real character in the book. In the book Ron is irresponsible at times and very insecure; he does, however, have real character qualities that suit Hermione perfectly. He's got an inner calm that Hermione often needs to rely on (particularly when she's freaking out about her schoolwork). And above all else, Ron is not flashy, a fact which he eventually comes to accept. While sniffing Slughorn's love potion, Hermione says, "For example I smell freshly mown grass, and new parchment, and spearmint...toothpaste." She smells touches of a simple life, the life in which Ron excels. He's very grounded, and it is this solidity of character which makes him perfect for Miss Granger. But unfortunately, the movie-Ron lacks the book-Ron's strengths, making any romance between the two friends truly implausible.

A few notes: Tom Felton excelled as Draco Malfoy. He more than captured the psychological quandaries the young Death Eater faces. Michael Gambon is decent as Dumbledore, but he still doesn't capture the powerful contemplator of the book. And though Radcliffe and Gambon work well together, Harry and Dumbledore's important hours working together to destroy Voldemort get lost behind the relational issues the characters face.

And so, to conclude, I found Yates's Half Blood Prince a Chex Mix of brilliant artistry and revolting hogwash. Please, pardon a very bad pun when I say that Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince was, shall we say, half and half.

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

Dear Mr. Desplat~

I believe I've underestimated you. I'm going to look for some more of your music at the library.

Sincerely, Jillian

The Rebirth of the Phoenix

Well, the pendulum has swung back round to the middle, ladies and gents. David Yates, in his Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, learned several good lessons from Prison of Azkaban director Alfonso Cuaron. Almost all the strengths which made me like the third film so much can be found in this fifth one, and though Phoenix does not quite achieve the excellence of Cuaron's work, it comes pretty darn close.

The entire film hinges on the vigorous unity of the screenplay. From beginning to end, the story flowed so well, it was almost as if it didn't require its predecessors. Phoenix stood on its own two feet, and didn't merely trickle along like The Goblet of Fire. Anything in the novel (the longest of all seven) which could possibly detract from this unity was ruthlessly cut. Though this did unfortunately result in some important omissions (Fred and George Weasley, for example, are not merely school-dropping bumpkins. They have plans for their lives which don't make it on screen), the film has an attractive concision. Despite a rather rushed atmosphere, it rolled along quite well.

Yates also tries really hard to maximize the strengths of his actors. Dan Radcliffe, for example, excels at playing a hero in torment but is not so successful at playing a flourishing one. So Yates makes the most of Harry's inner turmoil and Radcliffe shines as a result. The key to Grint's participation, however, is minimal dialogue. Though fascinating in the novels, in the movies Ron is at best a weak character, and at worst is downright despicable. Thus, Grint finds himself with fewer lines and a mercifully shorter haircut, both of which suit him well. Watson underplays the character of Hermione a tad; I suspect, however, that her retiring performance helps Radcliffe shine the brighter.

In the Phoenix, Michael Gambon is finally in his element. The need for an energetic and forceful Dumbledore suits him completely, far more the contemplative Dumbledore audiences have seen so far. And Imelda Staunton, the incredible British comedian, knocks my socks off as Dolores Umbridge. Fellow fans will also enjoy her performance because here, Staunton isn't just asked to make people laugh. She captures the cold heart beneath Umbridge's pink frills and the red-taped, ineffective methods of the Ministry of Magic. Staunton chills to the bones, and I highly applaud her acting abilities.

In addition, Yates has some of the best scenes I've encountered in the whole film series. The Sacking of Trelawny (excellently acted by Emma Thompson) sent chills up and down my spine. In that one scene, pages and pages of Harry's feelings in the book are expressed. And I get chills just thinking about the Possession scene where Harry resolves his internal conflict. The themes of the whole film are summed up when Harry looks at his friends while he's being tortured by Voldemort (this may be found here).

And with a final note, I turn to the film's composer, Nicholas Hooper. I have read complaints by people who wish Hooper had incorporated John Williams's signature "Hedwig Theme" more into the film. They are right in observing Hooper's move away from the famous theme, but they are most mistaken in saying it's a bad idea. The famous Hedwig Theme fits Harry's early years well enough, but as the story progresses, Potter needs something deeper, and more moving, though perhaps less flashy. This task Hooper fulfills exceptionally.

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

Oh cello, how do I love thee?

Decent Time

What would you do if you could turn back time?

This question is the primary theme of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, the video game-turned-movie of this past summer. Directed by none other than Mike Newell from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and produced by the legendary Jerry Bruckheimer, Prince of Persia was a guaranteed financial success. With connections like that, no movie could be a complete flop; it can, however, be bombarded by critics as fake, plotless, and predictable.

And the critics are right in that respect. Prince of Persia is about as original as a red brick; I could have predicted 90% of the whole plot and script. Ruggedly dashing warrior-hero? Check. Feisty princess/love interest? Check. Wicked stepmother, er, excuse me, uncle? Check. Someone saying, "You're not my type"? Check. The story was like a poorly cut-and-pasted word document; I couldn't help feeling bad for the screenwriters. Writing a movie based on a video game is no easy task, and I'm afraid they weren't up to the task.

But despite the cheesiness (by cheesy, I mean really cheesy), an admittedly exhausted Jillian enjoyed it more than she expected. Most of its appeal comes from Jake Gyllenhaal's debonair performance. Not unlike Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood, Gyllenhaal sweeps around the screen, defeating entire cities, escaping all foes, and grinning roguishly at the ladies in the audience during all spare moments. In addition to his warrior charm, Gyllenhaal's Dastan has a sort of morality rare to find in today's hero. Not only does Dastan go out of his way to help the fair Olivia de Hav....I mean, Tamina - in the whole movie, all they share is one kiss. This hero type, although predictable as all get out, is much more classic and thus more enjoyable than that popular currently.

When you add to this an ending which gives your insides warm fuzzies, Prince of Persia was a decent use of a tired Friday night.

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

I know the beginning of this is not especially pretty, but the bit starting at 1:08 is simply gorgeous. In this respect, it's like James Newton Howard's Those We Don't Speak Of from The Village.

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

"Ok, we've got free femes going on 'ere."

But they're all very pretty. :-)

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

A little jazz anybody?

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

This has a very similar sound to James Newton Howard's Hidalgo. It does, however, have a stronger sense of action. The two combined would make for an excellent The Horse and His Boy soundtrack.

Just saying.

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

Beautiful song. I can only imagine what it would be like to be in a choir that sings this!

Empty Goblet, Sputtering Fire

I want to begin this review by saying that I did read the book before I watched the movie, but my opinion of the book will be part of my review of the next book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which I have not yet finished.

At first glance, Mike Newell’s Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire seems ideal, with its action scenes and daring escapes. The third director to lead Warner Brothers’ prolonged Potter project, Newell definitely does take a different tack from his predecessors, Chris Columbus and Alfonzo Cuaron. Of them all, I’d say that Newell’s use of CGI and computer generated/processed environments Is by far the most effective. The dragon Harry battles is as real as Dan Radcliffe himself; the underwater test is chillingly realistic. Most scenes left me holding my breath, it all seemed so real.

But once I’d muscled my way past the impressive action sequences and computer work, I found an emptiness that’s hard to ignore. The characters did lots of things, but I kept feeling like nothing had really happened. And then I noticed the things missing which had been there in Prisoner of Azkaban. True, Harry fought a Hungarian Horntail for ten minutes of breathtaking peril - but his relationships with Ron and Hermione are at a complete standstill the whole film. I was shocked to find that where Columbus wished to draw in fans of the book with an obsessive reproduction, and Cuaron wished to entice the viewer with beauty and quality, Newell didn’t really seem to have much of a vision at all. Beneath the glamorous exterior, Goblet of Fire lacked any movement of character or realistic emotions.

And since there was nothing in the script or cinematography to act as makeup, the strengths or (more often) weaknesses of the actors really showed through. For the most part, Daniel Radcliffe relapsed into his former ineptitude for the role. I know Harry Potter is a tough role to play, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask that he be a strong center for the tale. Radcliffe’s only shining moment was at the very end, when Harry brings Cedric’s body back. Here, I felt, he wasn’t simply trying to act: he was acting.

On the other hand, Rupert Grint discovered too late that his role as comedic relief could not last forever. He floundered around during the whole film, desperately searching for something to hold onto. Everything he said and did felt like chalk on a chalkboard; he made loath Ron, who I rather like in the books. The eery Robert Pattinson (I don’t care what anyone says, the man is just weird looking) completely botched the likable character of Cedric Diggory. Only Emma Watson (from whom I would at this point expect nothing less) managed to make something decent of her character.

There were two quality performances in the film: those of Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody and Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort. Gleeson was brilliant as the slightly mad Auror, or Dark Wizard catcher. Fiennes, unsurprisingly, performed magnificently - I applaud Newell for his selection. But let me ask this: what happens when your villain can outstrip your hero in acting? What effect does that have on the audience?

Now, I don’t want to be unjust. It’s not that The Goblet of Fire wasn’t faithful; Newell and Kloves did seem to be trying to remain close to the book. AndThe Goblet of Fire most definitely is NOT easy to adapt. Not only is it twice the size of the first three novels, but it also is right in the middle of the series and so, unfortunately, has a somewhat dragging plotline. Sorting through the incredibly extended plot must have been difficult, and I give them credit for what they did manage to get.

In short, Newell’s film was filled with action, but no movement. Beauty was abandoned for CGI; genuine emotions and relationships were lost in a tidal wave of stilted ones. With few exceptions, the actors delivered lines which they did not think and performed actions they did not feel. The result was actually similar to that of the first two films, leaving me vexed and with a less than savory taste in my mouth. Let us hope David Yates followed in the footsteps of Alfonzo Cuaron, not Columbus or Newell, in his Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Columbus vs. Cuaron - Part 2: Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban

The third film in the Harry Potter series is Alfonso Cuaron's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and its approach to the world of wizards on screen couldn't be more different than Chris Columbus's. I won't hesitate to say right off the bat that I thought Cuaron did a vastly better job. He really cared how the story came across as a movie, and how it was best to tell it in a movie. He made no scruples in maximizing the effect of the greatest strengths of his story, characters, and actors. In short, his approach was that of a true filmmaker.

Cuaron is the director of the popular film A Little Princess and, more importantly for my first point, the director/writer of Children of Men. He is a master of cinematography; so before reading further, I want you to picture that movie in your head. It is dominated by a greyish film over everything, expressing the grimness in the souls of men. 

This same technique was the first thing I noticed when watching Prisoner of Azkaban; it was, in fact, so unexpected that it took me at least 45 minutes to get used to. The picture was different from the previous films; before, the colors at the Dursleys's home were ordinary bright colors, but in this film, everything at their house took on a greyish monotone. Even in the wizarding world many colors are bland, having the effect that all images are darkened by several notches - only the really bright colors at Hogwarts were bright at all. Then I realized what was going on: the colors were dull at the Dursleys and when life is most dreary or bad, but when Harry's life is at its best - when he's talking to Professor Lupin or doing something fun with Ron and Hermione - the colors are soft and alluring, or bright and excited, whichever fits best.

Cuaron then ultilized another strength: the sheer, vast beauty of the Scottish and British countryside. From the mountains and lake Harry flies over on Buckbeak to the flowers that grow nearby on his walks with Professor Lupin, the shots of the beauty which can only be found at Hogwarts are breathtaking. It was obviously given a lot of thought. Not only does Cuaron show the beauty around, but he takes moments to dwell on it. And those moments, however fleeting, feed the viewers' souls. In none of the previous films were the courtyard of Hogwarts and the surrounding buildings built specifically to enchant the viewers - they were not a thought in and of themselves, merely a skeleton for the actors to work in.

But those moments of dwelling on beauty aren't limited to the countryside and architecture. Cuaron, and, at his order, Kloves, incorporate little moments which, although not strictly necessary, enrich the overall tone of the film, and also give the viewer a short time to breath. Despite the time limitations, we are shown a simple happy scene of Harry, Ron, Neville, and Seamus hanging out and laughing in their dormitory. True, we don't need to see such a seemingly "pointless" scene, but it does shape our experience more than we realize. Viewers feel the same joy and relaxation that Harry himself feels, preparing them to better face the fearsome dementors. In another such scene, Ron wakes, whimpering about a dream. Harry, still awake, responds like any brother should. And so viewers' hearts are given a balm, seeing such a scene of close friendship. These contrast greatly to the Chamber of Secrets where viewers end up on a none-stop roller coaster of action.

Finally, Cuaron and Kloves skillfully work the screenplay so that each actors' ability is found in exactly the right amount and at exactly the right time. Rupert Grint, who is mostly comedic relief in the films at this point, is funny, but not overused. On the other hand, Cuaron gives the last hour almost exclusively to Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe, whose portrayal of Harry and Hermione's friendship has never been better and was, in my opinion, delightful. They work together like a brother and sister, and their cooperation is in many ways the central relationship of the film. And the side characters have never been more at their British best. Emma Thompson's Sybil Trelawny is was positively hilarious, and David Thewlis played a magnificent Remus Lupin. Gary Oldman more than fulfilled his role as Sirius Black, and legend Robert Hardy excels as the incompetent Ministry of Magic Minister. True, Michael Gambon doesn't quite capture Dumbledore, but that would be an extremely hard thing to do.

One more short note: John Williams really modified his approach to the soundtrack for the better. Instead of the signature, but rather mediocre, basic theme, Williams builds new sound for the series that was not only for Harry Potter - it was beautiful in itself. For the best example, listen to this.

So, in short, I found Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban far more satisfying than the previous two films by Chris Columbus. He wasn't simply trying to make money off of book fans - he wanted to make something that had its own merit. I would argue that it does, and that at least of the first three, it is by far the best.

Columbus vs. Cuaron - Part 1: Columbus's Chamber of Secrets

In the film Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, director Chris Columbus returns for a second time and, I am tempted to say, another chance. Though his first film was very popular, I found it less than satisfying. It was faithful to the book in almost every detail, and yet somehow fell short. So, when watching the Chamber of Secrets, my biggest question was whether it would improve on its predecessor.

Well, the short answer is, yes. Where the Sorcerer's Stone dragged, the Chamber of Secrets did not. It was action packed, and every minute was so filled with things busying here and there that my mind almost had trouble keeping up. My attention didn't wander, unlike with Columbus's first film where I thought, "Come on, this is getting boring. Can the plot begin to move at the pace it does in the book?" However, I still wasn't quite satisfied with how the story was told. It wasn't boring, but it wasn't captivating either. It didn't grab you up the same way the book did. To put it another way, Columbus only seemed to care if the details of the film were faithful to the details of the book. But whether the movie itself was high quality wasn't really a priority. It wasn't terrible or anything - it just lacked the Muse you find in the Lord of the Rings.

The acting was good, as can only be expected from the best Britain has to offer. Richard Harris's Dumbledore is still good, though I must say he doesn't quite convey the rigor of Rowling's character. Kenneth Branagh was superb, as I didn't like him one bit (a difficult thing to accomplish). His portrayal of the despicable Gilderoy Lockharet was, well, brilliantly despicable. Bonnie Wright does what she can with the little screen time she has for Ginny Weasley (And for those who have read my review of Rowling's novel, Ginny's crush is basically non-existent - she doesn't even have enough screen time to send him the Valentine). 

For the trio of friends, this one was rough. Not really as regards the acting; in fact, Radcliffe's performance was quite convincing this time round. I don't know what he did, but it made a significant difference. The problem was really just with the various sizes they went through. The poor young actors were obviously going through puberty, so at the beginning we have a sizable Ron and a taller Harry matched against a significantly shorter Hermione. As as to Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), he simply towers over the other students. In addition, poor Rupert Grint's voice is changing in at least several scenes of the film; it was just plain comical hearing Ron's voice squeak around his lines. But, all things considered, they did a very good job within their limitations.

So, to conclude, Columbus has improved, but not enough for my liking. Not much thought for the cinematography and music was given, and only a little more was given to how the story told by the movie, not the book, worked. Columbus's work was decent, but unfortunately not something I'd particularly recommend to someone else to watch.

Harry Potter's Film Debut

How can a movie based on a book stand on its own two feet? Is it even possible for a movie to be faithful to the book and yet its own work of art?

These questions have plagued readers, movie watchers, and screenwriters ever since the art of filmmaking came into being. Why, we wonder, does Mary Poppins work but Inkheart fall flat? What makes The Two Towers an excellent adaption and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian a huge failure? One could even go as far as saying that this is one of the most important, unresolved issues in Hollywood today. Book after book is adapted to the screen, and yet no clear answer seems to have risen to the top. Directors and screenwriters continue to glance indecisively between safety and originality.

In his film version of J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chris Columbus decides to take the safe route. Instead of deviating from the plot, he sticks to it as closely as a wizard to his wand. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a big screen adaption of a book remain this faithful to its originator. Before last night, I hadn't even thought it possible; now, my uncertainty is gone. Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the audience, it is possible to be faithful to the original, despite what many Hollywood screenwriters protest.

And yet, despite its faithfulness to Rowling's ingenious tale, the film still feels a little flat. In their fear of alienating Harry Potter fans, Columbus and Kloves stood a little too near the original story. Somehow, what was so delightful in the written word didn't translate very well into film format. Don't get wrong, the film did have some strengths I'll explain in a minute; I'll also explain at the very end of the review why the movie was such a spectacular financial success. It's merely that for the well-developed palate, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone will frequently drag a little.

But Harry Potter did have, shall we say, a few Golden Snitches in some of its actors. Richard Harris plays a very good Dumbledore and Maggie Smith chills the bones and warms the heart as Professor MacGonagall. One can only imagine the pleasure they must have had from playing these roles. Alan Rickman, however, takes an honorable mention for his portrayal of Severus Snape. Only an actor as good as he could play Colonel Brandon, the ultimate hero, and then Severus Snape, the torn wizard.

The three main children, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson, worked incredibly well together; their friendship has a genuine flavor. Considering that all three were at the beginning of their acting careers, you can tell that they must have been working through this once-in-a-lifetime situation together. Radcliffe plays a good Harry, though I must say he was easily overshadowed by more stellar acting. Grint did exactly what he was supposed to: be the comedic relief for most scenes.

But Emma Watson simply steals the show. Where others simply fill their roles, Watson embodies hers and gives an already lively character even greater life and color. Her portrayal of Hermione Granger was by far the best performance in the film. Perhaps part of my admiration is that Hermione is probably, hands down, the hardest little girl character to portray I've ever come across. The screaming teenager with a crush, the little ballet student, the hurt younger sister, the sassy and disrespectful daddy's girl: these are the typical roles for little girls in Hollywood these days, a fact which merely reflects the views of our culture. But Hermione is different - in many ways, she reminds me of my own mother. Incredibly intelligent, sassy when appropriate but perfectly capable of being serious and respectful, and above all humble about her failings. Such a role is very hard to make admirable to today's little girl, but Watson comes through with flying colors.

But why was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone so very popular? Because it's exactly the sort of film that appeals to children between the ages of 9-12.

Deep down, every child wants a good story and great adventure with out the stupid humor and offensive material we're supposed to believe appeals to them. This much I'll say, Harry Potter does provide this. Unlike the newer Parent Trap, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone maintained a surprising level of innocence. And I believe it was that innocence, that maintenance of good on one side, bad on the other, that made Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone the eighth grossing film of all time.

Foyle's war theme music

Listen to this beautiful, spunky bit of TV music. It embodies the British detective played by Michael Kitchen. Find this soundtrack on iTunes, for it is well worth it - going back and forth between the more sombre war pieces and the fun dancing/Jitterbug bits.

A very belated review of Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

It's very, very late right now, and I don't have lots of time, so I shall give a brief(ish) review of Percy Jackson. In most aspects, it was quite average. The acting and sets, fight scenes, etc... were mediocre. In addition, the plot was completely predictable. Hero is in ignorance of his unique abilities, hero discovers he is the hero, hero meets love interest and then sets off on a quest with love interest and funny sidekick. Adventures, followed by hero's defeat of nemesis and his ultimate victory, followed by final scene with love interest. I was able to predict almost all the "character development", which really had no depth or development to it at all. Despite the mediocrity, however, I still enjoyed it. Why, you may ask? Because Percy Jackson and the Olympians has some story idea. The very concept is rather ingenious and refreshingly new. And so, thought the acting and plot lacked life, the idea was so fresh and living that the movie was still quite enjoyable.


Oh, and for those few happy students who, like me, are students of Greek - this story should win an award for the funniest joke in a dog's age. Apparently (at least in the world according to Percy Jackson), dyslexia is a sign that you're hotwired to read ancient Greek.

The best lecture on movies ever

At this link (http://ancientfaith.com/specials/the_climacus_conference_of_thoughtful_ascent), at the very bottom there is a podcast called "The Orthodox Moviegoer". Listen to it, please. You will never watch movies the same way again. He here says everything I could ever hope to say, and much better than I would.

Defiance Soundtrack - 09 The Wedding

My brother and I adore this piece. That high note at the end is sheer brilliance.

Return to Me

“Return to me/Oh my dear, I’m so lonely/Hurry back, hurry back, Oh my love, hurry back - I am yours”. 

From the moment Dean Martin’s voice croons over the sound system, you can tell that the movie Return to Me is something special. From an Irish-Italian restaurant to a communicating gorilla, it’s filled with the slightly absurd, and yet it remains completely grounded and has a reality which few films achieve. Add to that its amazingly deep, Christian message and you’ll find you’ve got the near perfect romantic comedy.

The story of Return to Me at first seems like another one of those inanely ludicrous Hollywood plotlines. Bob Rueland, an architect, has a beautiful life with his pretty and loving wife Elizabeth. But everything goes awry when Elizabeth is killed in a car accident, leaving Bob hopelessly lonely and depressed. Meantime, Elizabeth’s heart has been given to Grace Briggs, a young woman who has had a heart problem since she was young. A year later, Grace and Bob meet up and immediately fall for each other. But as their relationship strengthens, Grace struggles with herself, wondering whether to tell Bob the truth. But the “absurdity” of this tale isn’t like that of many other romantic comedies; it feels very real. It’s the same with the quirky characters; though they all are far from “normal”, they have a significant reality to them, just like those in the film While You Were Sleeping. Return to Me presents viewers with a convincing depiction of the cockamamie reality they face everyday.

But what made this film one of the best romantic comedies I’ve ever seen was the deep message which provided balance to the humor and jollity. Not only is Christianity presented in a very positive light; Return to Me deals with marriage itself in a profoundly Christian way. In the Christian mindset, marriage is forever and always. Two people, when married, become one. Correspondingly, Return to Me tells audiences that Bob is forever tied to his wife, that they will be forever one. When Elizabeth’s heart begins to beat again in Grace’s breast, Bob reacts to the heart that was given to him. His oneness with Elizabeth causes him to feel to her heart’s revived beating. Then later, toward the end of the film, Marty tells Bob about Elizabeth’s heart, “Perhaps it was meant to be with you always.” It’s not merely a story of “commitment”; Return to Me tries, successfully in my opinion, to express the mysterious unity that comes with marriage.

So, whether you’re looking for romance, hilarity, or depth, Return to Me has got it all. Not only that, but it combines these elements in a way rarely found in films. Above all, what I was struck by was the reality of this movie. It was honest and relevant. Of all the romantic comedies I’ve seen (and being the romantic I am, I’ve seen many), Return to Me is one I will return to again and again.

Cinematic History in the Making

Watch, weep, rejoice. Scenes of this caliber only come around every so often.

I Cannot Believe Myself!

I forgot one of the most amazing guy characters ever! Ladies and gentlemen, please give a huge round of applause to.......

Christopher Foyle! He's intelligent and moral, quiet yet feisty, and also has an incredible walk. And the slightly hesitant way talking, as if holding back something really important, is quite charming.

Attention Gentlemen!

Here's a little list of movie characters you can model yourselves on. Trust me, these are the kind of guys ladies are looking for. Pick one or a little from each; either way, you'll be in good shape. (Please note that most of the traits I mention for each character all these gentlemen share. They're all important and they do go together) Hopefully there are lots of guys reading this.

1. Arthur Clennam from Little Dorrit - Sensitive and manly, kind and hardworking, and with an amazing walk. Honestly, what could be better?

2. Fitzwilliam Darcy from Pride & Prejudice - Matthew MacFadyen or Colin Firth, take your pick, though I must say my own preference is MacFadyen's version.

3. George Knightley from Emma - Perfect for an Emma who, being intelligent, emotional, and bossy, needs someone firm and mature.

4. Frederick Wentworth from Persuasion - His most important trait is his steadfast devotion. We ladies fall for it every time.

5. Colonel Brandon from Sense and Sensibility - Quiet and reserved, but deeply passionate and loving. Humble and self-sacrificing. And carrying your woman five miles in the pouring rain to save her life really isn't a bad idea either.

6. Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings - Perhaps a little more resolution and purpose, but you get the idea. The kingly hero is never a bad person to imitate.

7. Samwise Gamgee from the Lord of the Rings - I know, this one may seem odd. But Sam's loyalty is so unflinching, and his love is so deep, that any woman worth her salt would say yes immediately.

8. Alex Wyler from The Lake House - Alex is creative and intelligent. He's also fights for what he wants despite the obstacles - even if one of those obstacles is time.

9. Bob Rueland - Above all, Bob is a family man. He likes being with his girlfriend's family, he joins them as he should.

10. Robin Hood as portrayed by Errol Flynn - *swinging on a vine to a tree branch" Welcome to Sherwood, my lady! Need I say more?

11. Lucius Hunt from the Village - Lucius is a visionary. He is not merely content with life. He knows things can be better and thus wishes to make them so.

12. Maximus from Gladiator - In this last slot, you can really put most of the characters guys think about emulating. You know: Jason Bourne, The Saint, Andre Marek (from Timeline), and all the superheroes. It's the fighter category, which is very, very important.

Don't worry, I won't pick on you guys. Soon I'll enter a list of female characters who girls should try to imitate.

The Parent Trap

Since I recently did a review on a film tied to the classic Disney film Swiss Family Robinson, I think it’s appropriate that I turn to a version of another of the Big Four (Swiss Family Robinson, Pollyanna, The Parent Trap, and Old Yeller). Up till now, I hadn’t given a thought to the 1998 remake of The Parent Trap, but several weeks ago, while in the limbo that is too-tired-for-homework-but-still-awake, I found it on YouTube. Although what I could access was difficult to piece together, I managed to get a good feel for what the Meyers/Shyer version was.

Here’s a quick summary for anyone unfamiliar with the story.

Annie James and Hallie Parker (Sharon McKendrick and Susan Evers in the 1960 Hayley Mills version) are two completely different girls who meet at summer camp and immediately come to loathe each other. Annie is a sensitive and cleanly Londoner. Hallie’s a hip and brusque American. Funny thing is, they look exactly alike, and, as they eventually discover, are twin sisters whose parents divorced soon after their birth. Since each girl wants to meet the parent she never knew, they decide to switch places, and while at it, to bring their parents back together.

My opinion? Meyers/Shyer’s The Parent Trap was a kid’s movie for adults and teens, not children, which only some will find amusing enough to be worth their while. A kid’s movie for adults, you say? I know, that sounds crazy, so let me explain.

The morals which define adults are as clear or murky as the stories they read and watched in their formative years. Thus, I believe it is imperative that the stories and characters we give to children have pristine clarity. The villains must be obviously evil, the heroes must be lucidly good, and the message must be straightforward and simple. Children do not have the maturity of adults and thus cannot handle the complexity of character and story that adults do, and should, have in their books and movies. It was the maintenance of this clarity which made Disney so great in the past and has made Pixar so great in the present. They have no dabbling in adult themes and complexities, unlike the Hannah Montana/High School Drama/Cartoon Network shows that make up the bulk of today’s “children’s section”.

And it is because the newer Parent Trap lacked this lucidity that I would not recommend it for children. In the original film, all the characters had a clear moral standing. Their growth was straightforward, and the conduct of each character fit perfectly. In the newer version, however, all the dramatis personae have a muddy ambiguity which at times became downright inconsistency of character. The best example is the two girls. The audience is supposed to care about their innocence and childish vulnerability. Scenes such as when Hallie meets her mother or Annie meets her father express this perfectly. And with a young actress - Lindsay Lohan was 11 as opposed to Hayley Mills, who was 15 - that youthful innocence is supposed to shine through. Yet I found it hard to see a little girl as innocent and, well, little who was a bit too comfortable saying “O G-d”, mentioning sex or drunkenness, and playing real, betting poker. Meyers/Shyer created little girls who were just a tinch too adult, making the new Parent Trap definitely not something I would want my own children or siblings to grow up struggling to sift through.

On the other hand, this is a movie I would say adults can undoubtedly handle, and even enjoy at the same time. Not to say that they necessarily will enjoy it, but it’s a definite possibility. After sifting through the (relatively few) content issues which create character ambiguity here, there are undeniably some good elements to the film. The acting, I must say, was on the whole pretty good, excepting a surprisingly lifeless Dennis Quaid, who had none of his predecessor Brian Keith’s vividness. Lindsay Lohan, though not an exceptional actress, definitely has talent which comes through in her performance. She handled the dual roles quite well, giving each a unique identity. As for Natasha Richardson, what can I say? Though not Maureen O’Hara, she was charming and engaging, vivid and real. More than any other character, hers had emotions that touched the viewer. But, what else could one expect from the sister of Joely Richardson and the daughter of Vanessa Redgrave?

To conclude briefly, then, for I have gone on long enough. The new Parent Trap lacked the clarity of its predecessor, leaving a somewhat turbid morality that I find unsuitable for young children. It would, however, fit into a category of “kid’s movie for adults”, though whether such a genre is necessary or proper is a question I shall leave for another day. Let’s just say the 1998 version of this classic tale wasn't a trap for parents, but for their children.

Here's the Second Clip!

Scenes that will Shape the Entertainment Industry

Here, my friends, are two scenes from the film Enchanted. Classy and delightful, they will be some of the trend setters for the next generation of movies. (I'll post the second clip right after this one)

Films Every Child Should Watch (Or, Films that Shaped My Childhood)

1. The Parent Trap - the original Disney
2. Pollyanna - also the original Disney
3. Swiss Family Robinson
4. The Sound of Music
5. Fiddler on the Roof
6. Sleeping Beauty
7. 101 Dalmations - animated version
8. Robin Hood - Ok, this title is counting for three films: the Errol Flynn, Richard Todd, and animated Disney version
9. Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
10. The Music Man
11. Beauty and the Beast
12. Lady and the Tramp
13. The Jungle Book
14. Bambi
15. Dumbo
16. The Rescuers and the Rescuers Down Under
17. The Aristocats
18. Enchanted
19. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
20. Mary Poppins

And here are two series NO ONE should go without seeing:

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh - the ORIGINAL ones

Veggie Tales

On Howard Shore's Fellowship of the Ring

Movie soundtracks have in the past 10 or 15 years come into their own. Frequently, the music is actually better than the film it accompanies. And though there are so many soundtracks I love, if there was only one score I could save, only one which I could preserve, it would be Howard Shore's Fellowship of the Ring.

This is a score set apart from others, a score truly unique. The listener doesn't need to know what's going on in the story, for the music itself expresses a story. It has a life of its own. And, what is most important, it is the most musically universal score I've ever heard. It combines vocal sounds with instrumental ones, and it splits instrumental sounds equally between strings and brass and wind. This universal quality enables Shore to play with his themes, and to keep the soundtrack from becoming limp and stale.

The CD begins with foreboding music, then moves into the sounds of chaos and darkness, with wisps of mysterious string melodies playing throughout. Then it slowly becomes light and cheery, with the sound of a well-tilled field and brightly colored fences, the sounds of joy and the familiar. Ah, the flute and the fiddle! The village tavern, Rip Van Winkle, such are the impressions on my mind.

Now, I could go on and describe each track and images it brings, to my mind at least. But it would be far, far better for you to get the soundtrack yourself and listen, really listen to it. What images does it bring to mind? What emotions stir in your breast? Listen to it repeatedly, let its tones become a part of your very being.



And you will forever be the better for it.

Smoldering Embers

Secrets hidden away. Races with time. Government conspiracies. These Hollywood cards, each worth so many dollars in the minds of screenwriters, are pulled out of the hat far too often. They’ve even begun to infiltrate children’s films, though, as usually happens when an adult theme is modified for kids’ stories, the result is generally less intriguing than the adult equivalent. No film expresses this pathetic trend better than the Walden Media release City of Ember.

Born and raised in the underground city of Ember, Lina Mayfleet wants nothing more in life than to fly over the broken cobbles of the streets with the speed of electricity. After trading her assigned job at the pipeworks with classmate Doon for his job as a messenger, she continues on in her humdrum existence. That is until the power of their underground city begins to fail, when Lina and Doon find themselves caught up in a whirling race with opposing forces to try to find the way out of their decaying city.

But it wasn’t merely the city that was decaying. The whole script was. For a story that is rather over-used to begin with, the screenplay needed to be exceptionally fine in order to succeed. But almost immediately, the script lost touch with the viewer, and it limped along its 90-minute span, progressing from crisis to crisis for lack of anything better to do. It was incredibly rushed, copying Lina’s desire for speed, and yet ironically, the continual barrage of crises made the film really begin to lag by midway. Towards the very end of the film, I found myself saying, “Another important moment. So exciting. How much longer is this thing gonna take?”

The few engaging scenes were due only to the good acting of Saoirse Ronan (Atonement star and rising actress) as Lina. She brought the little charm there is to be found in the film with her cheery face and energy. The rest of the actors, lacking anything substantial to work with, stood around waiting for a miracle. Even the great Bill Murray looked lost, confused, and helpless.

It’s sad, because I really did want to like the film. I support Walden Media and their message. I like to find movies to show to my brother and sister. And though its content really wasn’t too bad, City of Ember, with its weak story and much weaker script, didn’t pass muster. Don’t waste your time on this movie; imagine the underground darkness of the Mines of Moria with a weaker version of National Treasure, and several touches from the book The Giver, and you’ve got it. We’d better let the embers of this one burn out.

No Sunshine Here

There are hours when you spill coffee down your best shirt and then fall down the steps on your way to the washer. There are days when you wake up late for class and then find last night’s gum between your library books. And there are weeks when you watch first one, then another, phenomenally terrible movie.

A few weeks ago, I had one of those weeks.

Two films: Sunshine Cleaning and Little Miss Sunshine. The former tells of a struggling single mother, who balances her time between her married lover and attention-deficient son and sister. During the film, she works through her relationships, particularly that with her sister, which is complicated by their different responses to their mother’s suicide in their youth. Little Miss Sunshine speaks of the Hoover family, a group of six who define the term dysfunctional. When the potbellied little girl has a chance to become California’s “Little Miss Sunshine”, the whole family, from the Nietzche-reading teen with a vow of silence to an unspeakably foul grandpa, must pile into a broken down van in an attempt to get her there in time.

Besides the word “sunshine”, both movies share the same producer, Marc Turtletaub, but other than that, they seem to have nothing in common. But both films were terrible, and for ultimately the same reason. I’m afraid my exposition will be rather brief, as I do not wish to dwell long on these vulgarly odious films.

It was noted in a previous Nota Bene from Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man how careful an artist must be when creating an image of terror, for terror is a very real thing. When such terrors are created, but not resolved, a ravenous lion has been released onto an unsuspecting populace. In a very real sense, an unresolved thing of evil echoes through all eternity with malicious tones. This was the problem with both of these films. The characters had essentially the same disgusting lives they possessed at their story’s beginning. There was no real character progression. Thus viewers were and are left with the same terrifying image they commenced with. I came away from both films with a darkness that pervaded the soul, and I tremble to imagine what movies like these could do to a viewer who had no hope in life.

Be careful, filmmakers, what you create.

Tim Hawkins - Cletus Take the Reel

This is a delightful parody of the music video, an insipidly tasteless media form.

Protecting the Island

Dum, dum, duuuummm - the ominous-sounding notes commencing the live action Disney film Swiss Family Robinson, sounds forever engrained in my memory. That lone island with its fantastic houses was the playground of my childhood, and tropical animals and pirates populated my imagination. One of the most successful family films ever made, this film is the classic adventure tale and it embodies the honest type of movie children should grow up watching.

Now, picture this golden oldie with cruisers instead of pirates, and you have the movie Nim’s Island. It tells the story of young Nim (Abigail Breslin) who lives on an uncharted island with her father, Jack Rusoe (Gerard Butler, who captures the ‘Crusoe’ hidden in the character’s name). When Jack gets lost at sea and her island is “invaded”, Nim calls on her hero, Alex Rover. Unbeknowst to her, however, Alex Rover is not the swashbuckling adventurer she imagines, but reclusive and germophobic writer Alexandra Rover (a hilarious Jodie Foster) from San Francisco.

It’s difficult to believe that the popular “adventure tale” could be well-done after having been used by so many screenwriters and novelists, yet Nim’s Island manages to delight the viewer once more with filthy buccaneers and life-or-death journeys. At once engaging and familiar, the film charmed me with its vividly humorous presentation of this basic storyline.

Though the film ranges from flying geckos to airport checks, it had amazingly strong unity. After all, when the main characters have approximately 5 minutes of screen time all together, and the bulk of the film is spent watching them fight their struggles alone, it would have been easy for the script to fray around the edges. Instead, their individual struggles seem, in a strange way, to draw the characters closer together. We have here a pleasing reversal of Swiss Family Robinson; instead of people bonding by working in the same fight, they bond by fighting to get to each other.

I must also note that it was genius to have Gerard Butler play the adventurer Alex Rover in addition to Nim’s father. Thus viewers see that the two women of the tale are united by the same image of a person, and though they are not conscious of it, that person actually exists in Nim’s dad. So it’s not quite so hard to believe that Nim can accept that her hero wasn’t what she expected and that Alexandra falls for Jack pretty quickly. After all, Nim’s hero didn’t really die, he showed up again when her dad returned. In the same way Alexandra can cope without her story and easily come to love Jack because, in a wonderfully unrealistic way, she already knows him.

As I sat on my couch downstairs and listened to my younger siblings giggle and roar with laughter, I felt that deeply satisfying feeling that arises when those you love watch something decent, something basically good. Their laughs were the hearty kind, brought on by sheer enjoyment of a classic tale, not the shallow ones brought on by the cheap tricks of most filmmakers today. Nim's Island preserved not only the integrity of the classic adventure tale but also the ideas about life which that story stands for and the innocent joy of the children who watch it. So for a night of family relaxation and togetherness, keeping the necessary guns and provisions close, I highly recommend Nim’s Island.

Sherlock Holmes

After watching the trailer for the new Sherlock Holmes, I had decided not to go see it. It looked like a waste of time, a “filler” movie (my term for something released when nothing else big is coming to theaters). But after hearing positive reviews from everyone, I relented. I went to go see Sherlock Holmes a while ago, and was pleasantly surprised. Although there were a few disappointing parts, I saw several elements in it that were very rewarding.

My favorite part of the story was the character development. Although the Holmes, Watson, Adler of the film are emphatically not those of Conan Doyle’s making (yes, I've read many selections of the short stories), they still are complex and insightful. Robert Downey Jr.’s Holmes was, to be frank, quite a brilliant character. Presented to us is a person who has incredible mental faculties, who can see things invisible to others and then put them together with lightning speed, but who at the same time cannot fully handle his own mental prowess. Scenes such as those at the dinner table one evening offer a deep insight into Holmes’s psyche. He is so distracted by all the information which comes to his attention (and everything comes to his attention) that he finds it all difficult to process. Indeed, he finds himself so out of balance at times that it is only when a savior arrives in the person of Watson that he can comes to terms with everything. Jude Law’s Watson acts as a balancing effect in Holmes’s life, and thus the despair with which Holmes meets Watson’s departure from their partnership is movingly earnest. I found the relationship between the two characters magnificent, owning in great part to the great teamwork of Downey, Jr. and Law. They give us a pair who work excellently, in their own unorthodox way.

In addition to this, we see that Holmes’ intellectual superiority is complicated by his awkwardness in every social situation. Any time Holmes has any communication with a human being, he struggles to adapt himself to the rules of decency. He knows others do not understand his mind and its workings, its constant shiftings and movements, and he finds it well nigh impossible to adjust to their ways of thinking and acting. At times, it almost seems as though he is so preoccupied with controlling his skills that he is oblivious to the rules of decorum. And we see that it is this which attracts him to Irene Adler. She alone, of all the people he has met, can match his intellect and wits. In fact, I found the relationship between these two quite interesting. Instead of being based sheerly on physical attraction, their continuous battle of the minds was intriguing.

My final praise is that Sherlock Holmes had several scenes which were brilliantly executed. The acting was quite good throughout, and in a few particular spots the construction of the scenes was extremely expressive. The best example is that in Holmes’s room, where he is grappling with everything that has occurred in the tale so far. He stares into the distance, plucking his violin (a trait which was carried out magnificently, as it was not overdone nor underdone). The look in his eyes is piercing as he wonders if the thing he excels at has ultimately failed. Will he too, like everyone else, be insufficient for the complexities of the case? The confusion in his mind is emphasized by the voices we hear playing out in his mind and the scribbled words on the wall behind him. The chaos he feels is brilliantly portrayed in this masterful scene.

There are several things, however, which I found disappointing in the new Sherlock Holmes. To begin with, the jolting camera and many action scenes were a little jarring on my nerves. I can normally take a little excessive action (the Bourne series being a perfect example). I cannot, however, take such gratuitous CGI than is absolutely necessary. The CGI effects were completely overdone in many scenes, which were painful to watch. Ironically, those scenes which employed the most CGI seemed the least realistic to me.

The most disappointing thing for me, however, was the overall plot-line. Although the character development was magnificent, I was let down by the **background** plot, which was simply another lame version of Hollywood’s current favorite plot. Let’s be real, now. How many times have we seen a movie that centers around a secret society and its doings? The first few times were okay; I’m a fan of National Treasure. But at this point, the idea behind such a plot is so feeble and flimsy that everyone in the audience knows all the inner workings that might and will occur. These screenwriters did not even attempt to change a few details of the plot, leaving no vestige or even illusion of originality about it. It’s sad, I thought leaving the theater, the good acting and characters deserved better.

To conclude, then, Sherlock Holmes did have its failings. Excessive CGI and an extremely poor plot made it a movie which I do not believe I shall greatly desire to see again. Yet these failings did not completely ruin the film, which was quite artistic at times. Fine actors, impressive character development, and astutely depicted scenes made much of the film quite enjoyable, and I must say that with a little work, Sherlock Holmes had much potential for greatness.