Except the Dying

(Written by Maureen Jennings. First book in the Murdoch Mysteries series.) Detective William Murdoch of the Toronto Constabulary has quite a case on his hands. A servant girl was found dead in the snow - sans clothing. To make matters more complicated, she was pregnant. Where was she going on such a bitter night without a carriage? Why did she just lie down and die? Doesn't anyone know anything about her last few hours? And, most importantly, did someone help her to her death?

On a "Good Book" scale of one to ten, this ranks at about a two. The only reasons it doesn't reach lower are: Its good Victorian flavor and its lack of sex scenes. Other than that, there is really no reason why someone would want to read this book. The characters are generally either boring or annoying, the story is very much a cliché, and there is enough innuendo to stuff a mattress.

First, the characters. Now, I've seen most of the episodes from the first season of the Canadian television adaptation of this series of books. During that time, I fell in love with every one of the regular characters: Awkward but hard-working Constable Crabtree, gruff and humorous Inspector Brackenreid, professional and ladylike pathologist Doctor Ogden, and especially Murdoch, with his strong Catholic faith, shy nature, and head in the clouds of science. Then I read this book. Murdoch is totally different; none of the words I used to describe him would really apply. He's Catholic, though not particularly faithful, more disapproving than shy, and doesn't seem to be quite as involved in science. Constable Crabtree, instead of an awkward little bachelor, is a youngish married man with three kids. The Inspector, who hates politics in the shows, is fond of kissing up to various people in high places in the book. Doctor Ogden isn't even a character yet, although I am told she comes into the series later. In short, the characters were very much improved upon in the television series.

Next, the very straightforward story. Well, a young servant girl gets pregnant, and, although the culprit is unknown, it's pretty obvious that the man involved is the killer. Might it be the stable boy? Don't be ridiculous. What about the housekeeper's husband? Wrong again. Nope, it has to be someone from one of the city's more affluent families. It's not the son, either; he naturally has to be gay (something I saw from a mile off). In fact, I guessed the culprit almost from the outset, and the red herrings throughout the rest of the story turned out to be only mildly distracting.

Finally, the innuendo got a bit much. Or much too much. The victim was an unmarried mother and two key characters in this murder are prostitutes... and although the innuendo is written in Victorian language, it's still fairly clear. Page after page after page of sexual references gets very tiring, especially when there's really no humor, likeable characters, or interesting story to have as a counter-balance.

Though Jennings did a good job of using language and expressions that fit the Victorian time period of this historical novel, she did a very poor job of constructing a clean book with an interesting story and characters. Murdoch and Co. are fairly cardboard, the story is embarrassingly simple, and the innuendo is just too much. If you ever see this book on the shelf at the library, don't even waste the energy it takes to read the back cover.

My Rating: MT (constant innuendo, veiled homosexual reference, mild sexual content)

Another Slippery Post

Warning: Somewhat mature content is contained in this post.

"The fact that it was a lesbian encounter didn't really bother me. What creeped me out was the difference in their ages. Laura's seventeen and Janet's, what, thirty-eight?"

This sentence (or something much like it) was spoken during a casual discussion of The Female Man by Joanna Russ. I and the others in the group had all just read the section where Janet, with the help of a mechanical device, has "sex" with Laura. The others in the group were offended and put off by the twenty-year difference in the two women's ages. My reaction to that (in my head) was, and I quote, "Why the hell not?"

Speaking from a morally relativistic approach, there is absolutely no reason why these two women shouldn't do anything they pleased. Laura was at the age of consent. This is the age of free love, right? Of sexual perversions taken as lightly as a doodle? If there's nothing morally wrong with homosexual acts (I say acts, not people with same-sex attraction), then there's certainly nothing wrong with a thirty-eight year old having sex with a seventeen year old.

But the inconsistency of my fellow group members' logic isn't what disturbed me. I'm very glad that people who look with an approving eye on things considered unthinkable just a hundred years ago would still have some sexual boundaries. No, what disturbed me is the thing that they didn't mention: Laura lost her virginity to a mechanical device. Let's think about this for a minute. Sex is an extremely intimate act wherein a man and a woman become one flesh. This has been so perverted that a woman can now share this sort of intimacy with a metal device, pretending she is having sex with another woman - and no one objects. Maybe I'm naïve, but that strikes me as bone-chilling. Maybe I'm naïve, but that strikes me as dangerous. Maybe I'm naïve, but people who express opinions like mine will find themselves subject to heavy fines and/or imprisonment just a few decades from now. Abnormal behaviors accepted by society become protected by law, and those who oppose things protected by law are persecuted.

Love Dies a Slow and Tortuous Death at the Hands of Hallmark

Hallmark movies. Or Hellmark movies, depending on which title you prefer. In order to enjoy them on any level, you must ignore mediocre acting, writing, storylines, and pretty much everything else to do with a movie. There are typically two molds: 1) Either a Christmas movie of some sort, or 2) a single mother (or father) whose significant other either died or ran out. But sometimes, a Hallmark movie will break out of the typical hum-drum mold and be breathtakingly... worse.

Take the Love Comes Softly series. There have been ten of them: Love Comes Softly, Love's Enduring Promise, Love's Long Journey, Love's Abiding Joy, Love's Unending Legacy, Love's Unfolding Dream, Love Takes Wing, Love Finds a Home, Love Begins, and Love's Everlasting Courage. (I don't really blame Hallmark for the lack of creativity in titles; the book series by Janette Oke has the same problem.) Taken individually, exactly two of them are decent movies: Love Comes Softly and Love's Enduring Promise. The rest are painfully bad, both in acting and in story. But what really makes this series stand alone among other movies from Hellmark is its strangely convoluted family tree.



I dare you to try to understand this
(Click to enlarge)



Okay, so the light blue represents marriages that end with deaths. The dark blue represents children from those marriages. Gray lines are for marriages that are not killed off in any of the movies. Black lines are for children from those marriages. Red is for fiancées that die. As you can see, nearly everybody is married twice (or at least engaged twice), with the paltry exceptions of Drew and Willie, who both die. Wait a minute, you say. What about Erik? I'll get to him later.

First, I have another objection, as Lady Catherine from Pride and Prejudice would say. This is the mysterious appearance and disappearance of convenient characters. First, Ellen's sister is a teenager in Love Begins. In Love's Everlasting Courage, which takes place only about six years after the first one, she isn't even mentioned. Not one word. They could at least have said she married and moved away or something. (Maybe they have a movie for her in the works somewhere down the road... in Hellmark, there is no mercy.) Then there's Ellie King, who apparently is Marty and Clark's daughter. She is slated as the main character in Love's Christmas Journey, which hasn't yet been played on Hallmark. Hm. Where did she come from, exactly? I don't remember seeing her or hearing of her in any movie I've seen.

As far as Erik goes, I'm only guessing that he'll end up marrying Ellie (I haven't seen the new movie). Thus the dotted line and his exclusion from the deathless club. So he might just end up being the only lucky fellow who not only does not suffer the loss of a significant other, but also doesn't die. Ellie, on the other hand, was married to some dude with the last name of King, so that makes her... a widow. In a Christmas movie. See a pattern?

Hallmark must make a lot of money on Christmas movies and the Love series. But, in point of fact, they're becoming ridiculous. The only (and I mean the only) thing that rescued the two most recent movies (Love Begins and Love's Everlasting Courage) from the mediocrity and overall bleah-ness of most of the others was the handsome, good actor who played Clark. Christmas Hallmark movies can be funny, but the world doesn't need 27,000 of them to survive, especially since they're usually a lot alike. Put Christmas movies and the Love series together and what do you get? Well, I guess something straight from Hellmark.

On Arch of Triumph

Dr. Ravic (Charles Boyer) is an illegal immigrant in France on the eve before WWII. Of course, Ravic isn't his real name. An Austrian who was imprisoned and tortured by the Nazis, he now spends his time helping other immigrants and avoiding the police. He stumbles across a nightclub singer named Joan Madou (Ingrid Bergman), who turns out to be a needy immigrant. The two embark on a love affair that can only end in tragedy when Ravic spots the man who tortured him in Germany. Now he wants to make sure that man doesn't return to Germany to torture others. The only way he can do that is to put him in a grave.

I apologize for the short post, but I'm running a bit short on time.

This movie is well-acted (particularly by Ingrid Bergman), fairly well-written, and pretty engaging. It's a bit weird to see Charles Boyer play an Austrian with his very heavy French accent. Also, Charles Laughton plays the evil Nazi - with a really bad "German" accent. Ah well, almost all movies have their foibles. This one's are apparently mismatched accents.

The foibles weren't the worst thing about this movie, though. The ending is horrible. No movie is good without a happy ending. I don't mean an ending that goes "and they all lived happily ever after." One of my favorite movie endings is one where literally almost half the characters die. At any rate, the ending to this movie is tragic. And that ruins what would otherwise be a pretty decent film.

My Rating: T (thematic elements, violence)

Reviews of similar books or movies:

• Montana
• Dragonwyck

On The Incredible Hulk

As the result of a military science experiment, Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) transforms into a mindless beast every time his pulse rate hits 200. Now he must hide in South America with no connections to his former life - he even had to leave the love of his life, Dr. Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), behind. But when the military discovers where he is, they come after him with lots of firepower. Bruce soon finds himself caught up in a deadly battle with military commandos led by the increasingly out-of-control Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth). But Bruce suspects that his greatest enemy just might be himself.

Bleah. First, I wish Bruce hadn't come back to Betty - Liv Tyler is simply dreadful in this role. Arwen in the Lord of the Rings must have been the role of a lifetime, because Liv sadly cannot act. Heck, she isn't even that pretty. Her scenes with Bruce range from crude to stupid to ones of the snorefest variety. And if there's one thing that every movie with romance must have, it's a likeable hero and heroine who actually have some chemistry.

Second, there are holes the size of the Atlantic in the climax scene. Superhero movies are not and should not be totally realistic (otherwise, the heroes would have no powers), but they should definitely be consistent. The climax scene in The Incredible Hulk is not. *Spoiler Warning* It begins as a ho-hum scene, with the Hulk fighting what is apparently called 'The Abomination,' though it's never named in the movie. They try to smash each other up a few times - until the helicopter that holds Betty crashes and eventually catches on fire. This is when the scene becomes stupid. Hulk puts out the fire with a clap of his hands. Really? Seriously? Yep. Then the scene quickly becomes ludicrous. Hulk manages to get a chain around the Abomination's neck and he begins to strangle it. But then Betty - for some unexplained reason - tells Hulk to stop. He does so (thereby showing that Bruce does have control over the Hulk). The Abomination is still conscious, but for some reason it is now subdued. Hulk lets the military deal with it. Really? The only blow that had seemed to even slightly annoy the Abomination was when Hulk threw its head through a concrete wall. But it quickly recovered and attacked again. And now it's subdued? After being merely partly strangled? Pathetic. *End of Spoiler*

All that aside, I was very pleasantly surprised at Bruce's character. The only role I had seen Edward Norton play was Steve in The Italian Job, and I honestly could not imagine him playing a hero that I liked. I was wrong. He was very sweet and kind (except for that one stupid scene in the motel room), and I thought he was a pretty good actor.

Also, any Avengers fan must see the final scene in the movie. I can't imagine that it would be necessary in order to understand the Avengers movie coming out next year, but let's just say that this one scene almost made me forget the stupidity of the rest of the movie.

My Rating: MT (sexual references and content (almost-sex scene in bed; both are clothed), language, violence)

Other superhero movies:

• Thor
• Spider-Man
• Spider-Man 2
• Spider-Man 3

The Single, Solitary Reason

Spellbound or The House of Dr. Edwardes, written by Francis Beeding, is almost completely worthless. In fact, the single, solitary reason why I even keep my copy is: The pictures on the inside cover. They're from the movie, and I loved the movie. Otherwise, the book is rubbish.

Pertaining To The Conspirator

Zzzzzzz... What? I'm sorry. Fell asleep for a minute there.

Okay, something about a woman who is (perhaps) falsely accused of conspiring to kill President Lincoln. She stands trial in a closed military court with Union generals as the deciding body. A young man in the war department is her defense. He's reluctant at first, but then starts to believe the trial is unfair and she may be innocent. He's willing to risk his career to see her get a fair trial.

That about covers it. I've heard the movie is relentlessly accurate (historically, I mean). However, I doubt that very much. It seems a little too liberal to be accurate. The writing is so-so (what's with the contractions in the dialogue?). The acting is kept afloat by Robin Wright as Mary Surratt, the accused woman, and, to a certain extent, James McAvoy as Aiken, her defense lawyer. (Although I think he occasionally had trouble dropping his British accent.)

Aside from the sheer boredom, I also had a problem with the portrayal of the military court. Whether the generals were truly on a witch hunt or not is beside the point. What matters is what audiences bring away from this movie. Unfortunately, The Conspirator implies that military trials are necessarily biased. With the recent (and still unresolved) controversy over suspected terrorist trials, this seems like a thinly veiled condemnation of the military trials that many conservatives want to use. I have heard that this movie was in the works well before the War on Terror, so it seems that the man behind the movie did not intend it as a condemnation. However, I am perfectly willing to believe that director Robert Redford intended it as a condemnation.

Additionally, military trials are called "unconstitutional." Shortly after Surratt's trial, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens cannot be tried in military courts. I would agree. But this was an extraordinary period in the history of this country. Nearly all enemy combatants were citizens because it was a Civil War. The filmmakers also forgot to mention little details like: Abraham Lincoln himself suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Imagine that! The man that everyone includes in their top five best presidents list suspended something that the Supreme Court has recently (and perhaps wrongfully) given to non-citizens. Also, if Lincoln suspended habeas corpus rights without a huge uproar, why would anyone at the time think it untoward that Surratt got a military trial?

Finally, the story seemed a little stilted. For most of the movie, it is implied that Surratt is innocent. Only at the beginning and the end does Aiken seem to doubt her innocence. In the beginning, he is convinced that she is guilty. In the end, he admits that he doesn't know; he just wants her to have a fair trial. In between, he seems to never doubt her innocence. The flimsiness of the evidence presented against her also seems to imply that she is innocent. In the mystery genre, it's a good thing to mislead audience by getting it caught up in the moment. In the historical genre, it's just bad storytelling.

In conclusion, this is a good movie to watch when you need to catch up on some sleep. Robin Wright was wonderful as Mary Surratt, and James McAvoy was pretty good as Aiken. But they were the only bright lights in an otherwise drab (and probably politically slanted) movie.

My Rating: T (mild language, violence (including stabbing), several people are hanged)


Reviews of similar books or movies:

• The Winslow Boy
• Bright Star

Concerning Sapphique

(Written by Catherine Fisher. Sequel to Incarceron.) Finn is Outside, just like he wanted. But, unsurprisingly, he’s having second thoughts about his decision. He finds the world and its silly Protocol to be stifling. Perhaps it isn’t as physically constrictive as Incarceron, the prison where he was entrapped before, but it’s a prison nonetheless. Besides, his oathbrother Keiro is still stuck in the prison – and the Warden of Incarceron absconded with the only way out of Incarceron and sabotaged the only way into the prison at the same time. Finn’s hopes of rescuing Keiro and the former dog-slave Attia are pretty slim. Or is there more to the prison than meets the eye?

Like I said in my review of the first book, this is a really cool idea. There were more cool things in this book, including a crystal-like tower and an airship. And the original idea of Sapphique’s way Out was taken in a new, fairly clever direction. Unfortunately, that’s about all the good I can say about this book. Much to my chagrin, Ms. Fisher took the story from the first book and led it exactly where I didn’t want it to go.

First, Finn alarmingly began to prefer Claudia over Attia. Claudia? The spoiled brat who occasionally yells at Finn for only thinking of himself? I find that particular characteristic of hers both annoying and ironic since Claudia is the one who only thinks of herself (and, occasionally, her tutor Jared). Finn is genuinely concerned about Keiro, although Claudia thinks that’s stupid. Apparently, she thinks Keiro is only concerned about himself as well. Funny how people are most annoyed by the character traits that they possess.

Then there was the really, really cool twist that was hinted at several times. Based on what people were saying, I began to believe that maybe Incarceron could be the Outside, and the Realm might be the experimental prison. It might not be a completely logical idea, but it really seemed like that was where the book was headed. I’m not a real big fan of stories that claim the world is fake, but it would at least have been an interesting twist. Unfortunately, Ms. Fisher didn’t think so.

Finally, I have a strong dislike for the vague and, frankly, weak ending. One of three things happened with that. Either Ms. Fisher didn’t think the whole story through, she neglected to explain it all, or I missed something big. *Spoiler Warning* How did Sapphique, the Emergency Exit glove, become both an exit from and an entrance to Incarceron? And how did Jared become a prison/person hybrid when he put Sapphique’s glove on? Where did his body go? None of these questions are answered.

Sapphique is a very, very disappointing sequel to an intriguing book. There are unanswered questions, a frustrating love story, and a neglect of interesting twists that would keep the story alive and fresh. Need I say more?

My Rating: T (strange sci-fi ideas about the relationship between the body and the soul, mild sexual references)

Regarding This Present Darkness

(Written by Frank E. Peretti.) Satan is closing in on the little town of Ashton. His demons are lurking about, tempting people into doing horrible things. Now his lieutenant, Rafar, the Prince of Babylon, has been sent to carry out his evil plan. An angel named Captain Tal and his likewise angelic companions are preparing to do battle. But their strength can only be increased by human prayers - and there is precious little praying going on in Ashton. Only Hank Busche, a local pastor, and his wife Mary seem to be praying. Can Hank and the angels change the minds of the people in town? And what about that nosy newspaperman, Marshall Hogan? Will he be able to put his finger on what the town's most influential people are doing behind closed doors?

Hm. This book had great potential, but overly dramatic writing and shaky theology derailed it before it really got started. I mean, what could be cooler than angels and demons engaged in a spiritual battle, while human underdogs try to fight off an evil organization that is trying to take over the world? But the book just sort of fell on its face.

First, the writing in the beginning of the book nearly made me quit several times. Peretti attempted to throw the reader into the angels' urgent situation without any background. This might have worked, except he eliminated dialogue that would have been in there, in my opinion, had he not intended to keep the reader in the dark about the forces of light. (Forgive the pun.) Plus, I disliked the drama in the angels' dialogue. One of my favorite Chesterton quotes reads as follows: "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly." Instead, Peretti's angels seem to be fully aware of the drama of their situation.

Fortunately, the writing got better as the book went on. Unfortunately, the theology did not.

On the surface, this book is great. It's essentially a warning against New Age religions, which seem to be benign but are really very dangerous. In Peretti's book, people's lives are destroyed or lost because of New Age influences, and fortune telling and other dangerous practices are similarly condemned.

Below the surface, however, the theology is shaky. Hank repeatedly drives demons out of afflicted people in the town, while other lay persons "rebuke" demons. I'm not sure if a lay person could ever drive out a demon from a possessed person. What I do know is that Catholic canon law states that exorcists must be priests appointed specifically for that task by their bishops. That sounds to me as if it is impossible or nearly impossible for a lay person to drive out demons. Additionally, I have read that exorcisms are processes that can take years of repitition before they are successful. I estimate that the longest it takes Hank to drive out a demon is about ten minutes.

Also, it bothered me that the only Catholics in the book were considered "superstitious." The Catholic items around their house were considered evidence for their superstitious minds. Now, to be fair, the main character who was in that scene was not really religious and therefore wouldn't understand pictures of Mary, etc. However, there was no correction of this mistake later in the book; as far as the reader knows, it's superstitious to have crucifixes and images of Mary about the house. That is not true or fair. Catholics have such images because they lift our minds to God, both because they are reminders and because they are beautiful. Superstition does not fit into the equation.

Plagued by a melodramatic writing style and theological difficulties, This Present Darkness takes a little while just to get off the ground. In the middle, the pace speeds up enough to be bearable, but the theological problems grow at the same time. Ultimately, I would not waste my time by reading this again, and I would not recommend it to anyone else either.

My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, violence, frightening ideas and images)

In Relation To Ice

(Written by Sarah Beth Durst.) Cassie Dasent has no memory of her mother. The only thing she knows is a little fairy tale her grandmother used to tell her that ends with Cassie engaged to a Polar Bear King at birth and her mother trapped in a castle of the trolls. But she doesn't really know what happened to her mother, because it's just a fairy tale. Or is it?

Pros: This book really fires the imagination. Bear's castle is soooo beautiful!

Cons: Where to start? I had several issues with this book. The most obvious (but not the biggest, as it could be dismissed as just being "part of a fairy tale") is the reincarnation, followed closely by the idea that the "soul" of a wind, for example, could become the soul of a human in its next life, and vice versa. My second issue was with a much smaller part of the story, but it was even more irksome. Cassie gets furious with Bear when he alters her body so she can become pregnant despite the fact that she's on the pill. She's angry that he did so without telling her and against her wishes. But never once does it occur to her that she betrayed him as well. She invited him into her bed and, knowing full well that Bear's most cherished wish is to have children, she used artificial birth control without telling him or gaining his consent. What can be more selfish than that? Finally, there's the semi-obsession with polar bears. It's handled pretty well, but polar bears drive me crazy, since they're sort of the poster boys for global warming, a "problem" that has been grossly exaggerated.

Note: Loosely based on the fairy tale "East of the Sun and West of the Moon."

My Rating: T (artificial birth control, birth scene, confused theology)

Picture from sarahbethdurst.com.

Concerning The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) is dirt poor and stuck in a dusty little town in Mexico. If only he had enough money to buy transport to America, he would be happy. Then he and his pal, Curtin (Tim Holt), meet an old-timer named Howard (Walter Huston) who has had experience with gold mining. When Dobbs and Curtin get their hands on some money, they decide to go in with the old man and dabble in gold. After all, they're too tough to be driven wild by gold like other men - or are they?

Pros: I must admit, I didn't see the ending coming. I also have to admit that Humphrey Bogart did a fine piece of acting. I didn't like him in Casablanca, but he's great as a seedy tramp. The old guy is great, from his acting to his character.

Cons: Too long. Not enough action. There are some random parts in the story (which are later revealed as not so random, but that doesn't make them any less annoying when they first happen).

My Rating: AGC

Picture from impawards.com

Really Bad Actors

Since I love movies and, by extension, love to talk about actors, I have decided to compile a list of really bad actors. I won't say these are the "worst" actors I've ever seen, because it's difficult to judge actors on one or two performances - which is about as much as I've seen of most of these men. However, I can safely say that these are some of the worst actors I've ever seen.

1. Peter Fonda. Not only can he not act, but he's fer durn sure not good looking (which, I must admit, sometimes helps me get past lacking acting abilities). As a good friend of mine once said, "Saying Peter Fonda is handsome is like saying a porcupine is soft." That about sums it up.
2. Henry Fonda. Yes, the Fonda men top the list. I once had the misfortune of watching an episode of an old show called The Deputy. Henry's acting performance was so bad, I was completely confused about a vital part in the story. It's difficult to explain, but suffice it to say that Henry's idea of "losing consciousness" looks more like "oh, he's pretending to lose consciousness to trick the bad guys!"
3. Bill Holden. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a softie when it comes to heroes and heroines. In my view, a decent love story is a requirement to a good movie or book (with a few exceptions). But Bill was the worst romantic actor I've ever seen, reducing otherwise sweet scenes to laughingstocks.
4. Gary Cooper. Bleah. High Noon was an awful movie. Even putting aside the ballad popping up in strange places and Grace Kelly's all-wrong Quaker character, Gary Cooper absolutely ruined the movie. I must admit he was pretty decent in For Whom the Bell Tolls (another awful movie), but maybe that was because he was opposite Ingrid Bergman, the greatest actress ever.
5. Nicolas Cage. After I first watched National Treasure, I told myself, "Nicolas Cage must be related to someone, because he could never have gotten so famous purely on acting talent." Turns out I was right. He's the nephew of some famous director whose name slips my mind. Thought so.
6. John Wayne. I realize this is a very polarizing pick. Either you love 'im or you hate 'im. I'm not quite on the "hate" side (I love The Quiet Man), but I must admit he was one of the worst actors I've ever seen. Anytime he had to inject some emotion into his character, he fell on his face.
7. Harrison Ford. I must admit, I love Han Solo. But some of his lines were a bit shaky. And I like Linus Larrabee in Sabrina. But some of his lines were a bit shaky. Finally, I can't stand Jack Ryan in Clear and Present Danger. (I mean, going from Alec Baldwin, who's not so great himself but was at least handsome, in The Hunt for Red October to Harrison Ford?! No contest.)
8. An honorable mention goes to Elizabeth Taylor, who couldn't make this list because she's a woman.

(There is no "really bad actresses" post in my future, because famous actresses are generally pretty good at what they do. Except, apparently, for some I haven't seen in any movies, such as J-Lo.)

I would advise you to be wary if you ever come across a movie with one of these seven men - unless, of course, you don't mind unconvincing acting.

Regarding The Love Letter

Scott Corrigan (Campbell Scott) is going to be married to a wonderful young lady named Debra (Daphne Ashbrook). When Deb's eye is attracted to a beautiful wedding dress in the window of an antique store, the couple ventures in to take a look around. Scott discovers an old Civil War-era desk, which he promptly buys. When he brings it home, he discovers a letter hidden in a secret compartment of the desk - and begins to communicate with a woman who has been dead for a hundred years.

Pros: Um... *Scratches head* I liked Scott's mother, Beatrice (Estelle Parsons). I also liked Deb.

Cons: Where to begin? First, the acting was terrible and the writing was worse. Elizabeth, the woman who falls in love with Scott through his letters, was so modern it was literally painful. (Painful because I was laughing so hard my side hurt.) **Spoiler Warning** Plus, what was up with the "I'm in the past and the future, only I'm different people"? Huh? That smacks of reincarnation to me.

My Rating: AGC

Pertaining To The Historian

In Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian, a young woman finds a mysterious packet of letters in her father's study. When she demands an explanation from him, he begins, bit by bit, to tell her a strange story concerning an old book, a professor of his... and Dracula. As the mystery gradually becomes clear, the young woman finds herself ever more deeply entangled in a desperate mission that could end with her or one of her loved ones as a dead body. Or an undead body.

Pros: The story was very interesting and kept me reading. There were some unexpected twists. I rather like the father, though I think the daughter is a total idiot.

Cons: Kostova used two strategies to build suspense. I think she failed at both. 1) The book is over six hundred pages long. If she had eliminated unnecessary details and descriptions, it could have been three hundred pages and a lot more fast-paced and exciting. 2) It jumps from letters to stories to present time, with four different people narrating at different times. Only masterful writers can use this technique to their advantage; it only works when the reader leaves an interesting/cliff-hanger part of the story to go to another interesting/cliff-hanger part of the story. Switching from an interesting part of the story to go to a dull part of the story does not work. 

My Rating: MT (evil vampires, moderate sexual content)

Picture from coverbrowser.com

Concerning Stranded

David Robinson (Liam Cunningham) is a preacher who refuses to swear allegience to the crown. Because of this, he and his family are put on a ship and sent to a penal colony in the Pacific Ocean. But then the ship wrecks in a storm. The youngest Robinson, Jacob (Andrew Lee Potts), is placed in a lifeboat, but the rest of the family gets trapped in the hold and left behind. They make it to a nearby island and slowly build a life there. Then, after a period of seven years, a young lady shows up on their shores and brings trouble. A pirate ship is right on her heels, captained by a lieutenant from the prison ship and an unusual first mate - a seventeen-year-old boy named Jakie.

Pros: Um... The scenery and wildlife are stunning. Fritz (Jesse Spencer) is very good looking.

Cons: It's a not-too-good adaptation of Swiss Family Robinson, though they had to change the title because the family is British, not Swiss. The Disney movie is far superior. There are tons of storylines (father/son conflict, Jacob's conflict over choosing family or friends, sibling rivalry, Captain Blunt's (Roger Allam) inexplicable attraction to Lara Robinson (Brana Bajic)), but none are fleshed out. In short, they tried to cram as much as possible into a roughly three-hour movie, but failed to make it work.

My Rating: OK (violence)

Regarding Marple: The Blue Geranium

Can pink geraniums on wallpaper ever turn blue? Are fortune tellers shams or can they predict the future? Was Eddie Seward (Jason Durr) murdered or did he commit suicide? And who killed Mary Pritchard (Sharon Small)? Was it Phillipa (Claudie Blakley), Mary's jealous sister who was once in love with Mary's husband George (Toby Stephens)? Or perhaps George tired of such a nagging, whining wife and decided to be rid of her once and for all. The wrong person is on trial for murder and only Miss Marple can stop an innocent person from being hung.

Pros: Another example of a fine Agatha Christie work, though not as good as many I've read/seen. The acting was very good. I rather liked the inspector. There was a theme of the seven deadly sins woven into the story (though they only dealt with three or so), which I found very refreshing if not quite Catholic.

Cons: Agatha Christie's version was a short story, so the filmmakers naturally had to flesh out the storyline. The things they added were, in my opinion, very obviously not a part of the original story.

My Rating: T (the usual scandalous behavior)

Concerning Lantern Hill

Lantern Hill, a Canadian adaptation of L.M. Montgomery's book Jane of Lantern Hill, is the story of a young girl whose parents are separated. Twelve year old Victoria Jane Stuart (Mairon Bennett) has lived with her mother Robin (Patricia Phillips) for as long as she can remember. Then one day they receive a letter from Jane's father Andrew (Sam Waterston), requesting a visit from his daughter. Jane, who has heard nothing but bad things about her father from her mother's family, reluctantly agrees to go.

Pros: To be perfectly honest, there are very few pros in this movie. The two best parts were Jane's friend Jody (Sarah Polley) and Violet and Justina Titus (Joyce Campion and Florence Patterson, respectively), who could be very funny.

Cons: The acting was bad. Particularly in Andrew's case, which is too bad because the whole emotional pull of the movie is centered on him. There are also some weird sort of dream/vision scenes with a ghost that are entirely out of place. I've never read the book, but the whole movie came across like a badly done abridgement. Many scenes and characters seemed to be included simply because they were necessary for later parts of the story - there was very little character development and almost no flow in the story development.

My Rating: T (broken marriage, "spooky" ghost scenes)

Picture from movieberry.com

Pertaining To Dragonwyck

Anya Seton's Dragonwyck is the story of Miranda Wells, a farm girl who has always dreamed of being a fine lady. Her dreams seem about to come true when she receives an invitation to spend some time nannying a rich relative's daughter. Little does she know how much suffering this invitation will cause.

Pros: I thought the characters were pretty well formed. Miranda is something of a cliche, but I find that most heroines are. I really liked the doctor, Jeffrey Turner. Except for that one scene.

Cons: Miranda falls in love with a married man and then falls in love with another man after she gets married. The former is portrayed as wrong, but the latter is not. There's a little ghost story, but not enough to make the whole book a spooky tale - only enough to make it odd. Nothing explicit is described, but we see the effects of the abuse Miranda suffers at the hands of her husband. About halfway through the book I just wanted to skip ahead and read the part where Miranda's husband is dead (I had no doubt he would die eventually) and she can marry the other man.

My Rating: MT (thematic elements, physical and sexual abuse - nothing explicit described)