Happy New Year!

Okay, since this is New Year's Eve, I'm taking a brief hiatus from Christmas-themed posts. This is a video of actress Zooey Deschanel (FOX's New Girl) and actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt singing together. I've never seen Zooey in anything, but I've seen Joseph in Inception and can't wait to see him in The Dark Knight Rises. He's a darn good actor, and he's not too hard on the eyes, either. Apparently he can sing and play musical instruments as well. Anyway, enjoy the music; it's great!

Dickens on Christmas-Time

Since the Christmas season lasts from Christmas Eve night to Epiphany (the day the wise men came to Bethlehem; this season it's January 8th), I will be doing Christmas-themed posts until then. So enjoy this excerpt from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol.

"But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas-time, when it has come round - apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that - as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!"

He Has Come!

God rest you merry, gentlemen,
Let nothing you dismay,
Remember Christ our Savior
Was born on Christmas Day,
To save us all from Satan's power
When we were gone astray:

O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy,
O tidings of comfort and joy.

From God our heavenly Father
A blessed angel came,
And unto certain shepherds
Brought tidings of the same,
How that in Bethlehem was born
The Son of God by name:

O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy,
O tidings of comfort and joy.

The shepherds at those tidings
Rejoiced much in mind,
And left their flocks a-feeding
In tempest, storm and wind,
And went to Bethlehem straightway
This blessed Babe to find:

O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy,
O tidings of comfort and joy.

Now to the Lord sing praises,
All you within this place,
And with true love and brotherhood
Each other now embrace;
This holy tide of Christmas
All other doth efface:

O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy,
O tidings of comfort and joy.

Merry Christmas - and God Bless us, every one!

The Hobbit Trailer!!!!!

Okay, this is soooooooooooooo much better than I thought it would be! The character list (Frodo? Legolas?) and various other things were rather worrisome and indicated that perhaps Peter Jackson and company would not be particularly faithful to the book. But this! This is awesome.

The dwarves look much I remember they do in the book - rather short and stout and not nearly as fearsome as in their publicity stills. It looks as if there will be a Shire sequence to rival even that in The Fellowship of the Ring, only with dwarves added! And most of the scenes (Galadriel excluded) seem straight out of the book, right down to the dwarves tumbling into Bilbo's house. Martin Freeman is very nearly perfect for Bilbo - though perhaps not quite as Ian-Holm-like as I would wish.

In short, LOTR fans should be positively drooling over this trailer. Here's a question: If there's enough footage to put out this trailer, why do we have to wait until next December to see the whole movie?!!

The Hunger Games Trailer

Well, the reason why I read the Hunger Games trilogy in the first place was because I noticed this trailer for the movie starring Jennifer Lawrence that is slated to come out next year.

I loved the trailer when I first saw it, not least because I love Jennifer Lawrence. She's fantastic as Raven in X-Men: First Class and even better as Ree in Winter's Bone. Here she plays tough, thick-skinned Katniss - a perfect casting if I ever did see one.

Everything looks very close to the book, with the exception of Lenny Kravitz as Cinna. I confess I never imagined Cinna as dark-skinned. Somehow I think the Capitol would not have approved of minorities. The overall fidelity to the book is great, however - I loved the book, and I think it would make a great movie if one or two parts are dumbed down violence-wise.

All the movies will likely remain close to the books, since author Suzanne Collins is in on the writing (thanks to lostdog from The Wind-Up Dog Chronicles for that info). This is both good and bad, since I liked the series until the end of the third book. Unfortunately, while I might go see the first movie and possibly the second, I have no interest in seeing the third one unless the ultimate message of the story is changed. Since Collins will probably not consent to changing that message, I have low hopes for the third installment of the series.

Book Giveaway!

Miriam Forster over at Dancing with Dragons is Hard on Your Shoes is giving away a copy of Jaclyn Dolamore's Between the Sea and Sky. You can access the contest here. I've never read this book, but it looks very interesting. I would imagine the idea came from old saying: If a bird and a fish fell in love, where would they live? Of course, if Esmerine's transformation into a legged human can be permanent, the question is answered and the book loses some of its charm.

While I'm linking to DWD, I'd like to recommend it. Ms. Forster is funny without being crude (at least, the vast majority of the time), and she has some great posts about writing. Obviously she knows what she's talking about, because she's about to become a published authoress.

Pertaining To Mockingjay

(Written by Suzanne Collins. Book Three in the Hunger Games Trilogy.) *Book II spoilers throughout* Katniss Everdeen has a decision to make. She survived the Hunger Games for a second time, with the help of Peeta and other victors. Now she has been rescued by the people of District 13, who have lived underground since the end of the war. President Coin of 13 wants her to become the Mockingjay: The symbolic leader of the revolution. But Katniss only cares about Peeta. Sweet, strong Peeta whose life she had been determined to save during the second Hunger Games, but who was captured by the Capitol. Then he appears in an interview on television and calls for a cease-fire - a sure sign of betrayal to many rebels. Katniss believes the only way she can save him is to agree to be the Mockingjay on condition that he be pardoned after the war. She has no idea what she's about to get into.

Where to start? This is a very, very disappointing Act III to what began as a very good story. The connections between the Capitol and Ancient Rome (something only vaguely hinted at in the first two books) are strengthened. It is well-written, and there's enough action to keep the book exciting. Those are about the only things I liked.

First, Katniss's character devolved into an even worse one than when she started in Book I. This, after growing into a better person in Book II. Throughout Mockingjay, she seems to have become more compassionate and more loving than she had been previously. But three decisions she makes toward the end of the book are, quite simply, cold-blooded and inexcusable.

Second, I did not like the portrayal of District 13. More specifically, I didn't like the portrayal of those fighting for District 13. Gale, President Coin, and Plutarch are the ones in charge, and none of them are ultimately shown to be very good people. President Coin, in particular, is depicted as monstrous (though this is never confirmed explicitly). This is outright slop, and I'll bet it was directed at the Bush administration. With the ending, the implication of the entire series is that no war is justly fought. The rebels had good reason to fight; it was definitely a just war. But the way in which they went about fighting was wrong, at least at the end. Translation: The message is that both sides in war are evil. This is especially offensive given that the story hints at the Revolutionary War - thirteen districts run by an out-of-touch, seemingly impregnable capitol that views the districts as suppliers. Then the new president commits an atrocity like the one Coin ppresumably orders? George Washington would have been horrified. What really ticks me off, however, is that there is absolutely no reason why it should be that way. Story-wise, there is no real reason why things had to end as they did. No reason except one of anti-war, anti-American sentiment.

Then there is Peeta's character. *Spoiler Warning* He has been "hijacked" by the Capitol (I'm sure there's another message in that term, but I can't figure out what it is). Throughout much of the book, he thinks Katniss is evil and tries to kill her periodically. I find this extremely offensive as well. Peeta was the one that no one could touch; the one whose unwavering strength and devotion were lights amidst the darkness. Then, all of a sudden, the Capitol plants these false, evil memories in his mind and he becomes crazy enough to try to murder Katniss in cold blood? Even if his memories could be altered so that he remembers her as an evil being, Peeta wouldn't try to kill her with his bare hands. It's totally out of character. Then he randomly recovers near the end, with very little explanation or description of his journey. Having said that, he loves Katniss as much at the end as he ever did. He remains a bright spot - that wavers somewhat - in the midst of a dark story. *End of Spoiler*

So, basically, this book ends with an anti-war, vaguely anti-American (aren't those terms synonymous by now?) message, and the main character is less likeable than she was at the beginning of the series. However, Peeta remains a strong character (with a blip - but that's so unbelievable I hardly count it), and it was well written from a pure dialogue and description standpoint.

My Rating: T (brutal violence, psychological warfare, sexual references)

Reviews of Similar Books:

• The Hunger Games (book I) and Catching Fire (book II)
• Airman
• Incarceron

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.

In Relation To Catching Fire

(Written by Suzanne Collins. Book Two in the Hunger Games trilogy.) Having survived the Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen is now adored by people all over Panem - particularly the citizens in the Capitol. There are only two problems: First, she can't seem to shake the Games from her life. They linger in her dreams and keep her apart from Gale, her old friend who might just be something more. Second, President Snow thinks Katniss is dangerous. If anyone in the districts thinks she was directly defying the Capitol with her final act in the Games, she might just be the cause of a rebellion. So Katniss is left in a position every bit as dangerous as the one she held in the Games - perhaps more so, because her life isn't the only thing on the line.

The first book in this trilogy developed the setting: The way North America will be X years from now. Guessing that the government will have taken over and that people will be grossly self-absorbed, The Hunger Games could be seen as a cautionary tale or a philosophical exercise. The second book delves more deeply into Katniss and, unfortunately, also focuses more on the romantic storyline.

In this book, Katniss develops a strong sense of responsibility and honor. The first book depicts her as pretty selfish and self-centered at times. She has had to fight for her survival and the survival of her family for so long that she has forgotten what it means to be honorable. In the second book, however, she discovers that a lot more than her family and her own life hinges on her choices. Because she has evidently been the cause of uprisings, widespread bloodshed and death might come on the heels of any decision that she makes. Additionally, she develops a high sense of honor and a strong protective instinct that she only hints at in the first book. She will not harm anyone who has helped her in some way, nor will she harm anyone who is too weak to protect him or herself.

Since the focus of Catching Fire is on Katniss and her development (as well as setting the stage for the third book... but I don't want to spoil anything), the book naturally takes a look at her romantic feelings. *Book 1 Spoiler Warning* Does she love Gale? Does she love Peeta? Does the reader need to know every little nuance of her complex relationship with him? While Peeta's sleeping in her bed to comfort her after nightmares is a little sweet, it's also highly dangerous - what is known as "a near occasion of sin." Katniss obviously has no interest in taking the relationship farther than their fake love on the screen and their real friendship off of it. However, it's still uncomfortable. Then there's Gale, who might be a red herring. He completes the love triangle, which is fairly solid from a character interaction standpoint - Katniss is definitely appealing, Peeta is the sort of loving, sweet man that most girls dream of, and Gale has been Katniss's best friend for years. But Gale is in the books very little (at least so far), which makes the love triangle existent mostly in Katniss's thoughts. In fact, it seems to pop up mostly when she tells herself that she won't think about it. This makes the romantic triangle an annoying sideshow that, at times, threatens to engulf the story. *End of Book 1 Spoiler*

The Hunger Games trilogy got off to a fantastic start with the first book. The second one, although it moves Katniss's character farther along its arc, tends to get lost a bit in the romantic triangle and in various other storylines. In short, it seems very much like an intermission between Act I and Act III. Having said that, Act III looks promising, if only because Katniss seems to be moving along from a girl with only the will to survive to someone concerned with honor and the protection of the weak.

My Rating: T (sexual content and references, violence)

Review of the third book, Mockingjay

Reviews of similar books:

• The Hunger Games (Book I)
• Airman
• Incarceron

Black Friday, Captain America, and Tim Tebow

A week ago today was Black Friday. Probably my least favorite day of the year, and I don't even go within thirty miles of a retail store. It's the day that immediately follows Thanksgiving (and just two days before the start of Advent), and the day when people completely lose their minds. What would posses someone to use pepper spray on other shoppers? Trample someone on the floor of a superstore? Leave every shred of dignity behind in order to save a few dollars on things that they probably don't need anyway? In addition to the obvious answer - a materialistic culture bereft of kindness and godliness - there is another that I think plays into the madness that descends once a year: A total lack of respect for mankind. People don't respect themselves, much less each other, so they do ruthless and humiliating things to save a little bit of money.

Just take a few sips of the following tonic to help wash away that Black Friday ickiness - absolutely free! These two men, one fictional and the other very much alive, have a lot in common: They respect themselves and people in general, respect women, and even command the respect of others. The two I'm talking about are Tim Tebow, quarterback of the Denver Broncos, and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), better known as Captain America.

Tebow is the most controversial topic in the NFL right now. Some analysts think he's capable of great things. Others think he'll burn out like a match and go down in history as just another flop. Judging from their lack of public support for him, Tebow's GM and head coach think the latter. But Tebow respectfully disagrees. He has more respect for his critics than to get involved in a cat fight with them. He also respects himself enough to maintain confidence in his ability. He just goes about his business - winning football games - every week, regardless of whether critics have fried him to a crisp. Rogers is faced with a similar situation. Up until he frees the POWs taken by Hydra, there are conflicting opinions about him, too. Sergeant Carter (Hayley Atwell) believes firmly that Rogers is capable of more than just selling war bonds. But Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones), Rogers' commanding officer for a time, says that Rogers isn't good enough to take on Hydra single-handedly. Rogers disagrees, but he respects the decision. However, he also has enough respect for himself to go out on his own to rescue the POWs. As Sgt. Carter tells him, he isn't just a performing monkey, and he knows it.

Another similarity between the two is their respect for women. With Tebow it's pretty obvious; much has been made of his virginity. He has never had a "girlfriend" in the unfortunate modern use of the term. Similarly, Rogers has never even danced with a girl, and barely had any conversations with them. He tells Sgt. Carter that he's been "waiting... for the right partner." I don't know what Tebow has said on this subject, but I would imagine he has the same attitude. He's saving himself for marriage - for the right partner.

Finally, both have the ability to command the respect of others. Tebow's teammates truly believe that he's a winner and that, as long as he's on the field, they have a legitimate shot at winning. In fact, they try harder simply because he's playing. He brings out the best in people because they respect him - his work ethic, his unwavering faith in God, and his confidence in himself and his team. To some extent, this is the same with Rogers. Most people respect him because of his prowess in battle. Others, like his best friend, Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), respect him because they see in him the heart of the little guy too dumb to walk away from a fight. Either way, Rogers is clearly respected by nearly all who meet him.

Respect. There's way too little floating around in the world today - particularly on Black Friday. Hopefully the kids growing up in the Tebow/superhero years will take lessons from the quarterback and Rogers. Alike in many ways, these two are two of the best role models one could hope to find for the young men of America. Maybe their respect for themselves and others, their respect for women, and their ability to command the respect of others will give these youngsters a counter example to balance out the insanity of Black Friday.

On The Hunger Games

(Written by Suzanne Collins.) Katniss Everdeen is a survivor. She has cared for her mother and her little sister ever since her father died. Back when she was a little girl. Before near starvation and the need to hunt animals robbed her of her childhood. Now she has to survive the annual Reaping Day - the day where one boy and one girl between the ages of twelve and eighteen will be picked to fight in the Hunger Games. The "Games" where two people from each district of Panem, twenty-four "tributes" in all, will fight to the death. But Katniss's name is not pulled out of the glass bowl. Her younger sister Prim's is. So Katniss reacts like any protective, loving sister should - she jumps forward and volunteers to take Prim's place.

A reviewer quoted on the back of The Hunger Games declares that philosophy can be found within the pages of the book. Though all books contain some sort of philosophy merely because they have words put together in a (somewhat) meaningful manner, this book has a little more deliberately philosophical look at the modern world. Set in North America sometime in the future, it is a commentary on the way our culture seems to be heading - downhill. The good characters, while they don't stick to stereotypes, stick closely to an ideal that our culture, helped by feminists on the warpath, is speeding away from at an alarming rate. But this presentation of goodness is tempered with two searing attacks on evil.

The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is odd, but that is more a compliment than a criticism. With a strong heroine and a strange tendency to end male characters' names with an "a," The Hunger Games hinted that perhaps Katniss would end up saving Peeta, the main male character (I can't call him a hero yet because I haven't read the other two books in the series and he has a rival). Now, there is nothing wrong with the girl saving the guy, as long as it does not constitute an inversion of gender roles. That is, the heroine can save the hero through feminine means (wiles, love, etc.), but she should not save his life in battle through her physical prowess. But there is no inversion of gender roles in this book - just a switch in story roles. Katniss is definitely the heroine and the main character, with Peeta taking an unassuming spot in her shadow. But he is strong in his own right, and spends much of the book looking out for her. In fact, their relationship is refreshingly reciprocal, with each saving the other at different times and through different means.

Now to the depiction of evil. There are two noteworthy lessons in The Hunger Games; a lesson on an unhealthy obsession with beauty and youth, and a lesson on a large, overbearing government. First, the people in the Capitol - the ones who live high on the hog while the rest of Panem starves - are addicted to beauty and youth. People have countless surgeries to keep themselves looking young. They reject fatness as ugly, and have a strange, bright sense of fashion. (Picture Lady Gaga and you have a pretty good idea of what people in the Capitol think is beautiful.) There is almost nothing they can't do when it comes to personal appearance, and they choose to use the technology at their disposal to make themselves fit the ideal of beauty. But those who participate wholeheartedly in this idea are self-absorbed and, frankly, stupid. Caught in the cages of their self-absorption, the ones most obsessed with their appearances are those who are most clueless about what it means to be a good person. Thus, they are portrayed as shallow.

Second, the government, which is a threat to the people of Panem because of its power, is portrayed as evil. So many books and movies nowadays seek to pit the rich against the poor. Some of these stories even offer some form of government as a remedy to the inequalities of wealth. While the government can and should regulate society and the economy to some extent, it can become over powerful and oppressive. It is not the answer to all societal ills or even, I daresay, most of them. The Hunger Games embraces this idea and indicts both the rich, who live clueless, self-absorbed lives in the Capitol, and the government, which oppresses those in the twelve districts. Both the controlling government and the rich are portrayed as bad, but only the government is shown as a real threat. Now, I haven't read the other two books in the trilogy yet, so I can't guarantee that the end won't produce some rich businessman or other pulling the government's strings. But so far, at least, the government is portrayed more as a threat than a savior.

This isn't to say that the good characters are always good. Katniss makes a few questionable moral decisions, and some of the other good characters have definite flaws. But flaws allow for moral development in the characters - and sometimes the portrayals with the most contrast between good and evil rest in a character's realization that something he or she did was wrong.

In the end, the people are what matter to good characters in The Hunger Games. Katniss goes to what she believes is certain death in order to save her younger sister. Peeta nearly loses his life protecting Katniss. Even the odd Cinna, who designs Katniss's costumes for the opening ceremonies, is portrayed as good because of his obvious compassion for her. On the other hand, evil is sometimes portrayed as brutally violent, sometimes as subtly oppressive, but always as manipulative, cold, and self-absorbed. The Hunger Games asks and answers the question of what will happen if our culture continues to careen in the direction it is currently heading. The conclusion is not pretty, but it is sound.

My Rating: T (violence, sexual references, murky moral decisions)

Review of the second book, Catching Fire

Reviews of similar books:

• Incarceron
• The Homelander Series
• Airman

Pertaining To Captain America: The First Avenger

Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is an ordinary guy. Except for his asthma and other health difficulties. And his weight - about one hundred pounds, and he's a grown man. But the thing that really sets him apart is his heart. Far more courageous than he should be given his physical stature, he would do anything to join in WWII over in Europe. Even lie on his enlistment form, which he does with regularity only to be turned down because of his health. Then one day, Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a researcher for the United States military, offers Steve a chance to help his country. The little guy jumps at the opportunity. But when something goes wrong and he is relegated to selling war bonds and making propaganda movies, he thinks he may have gotten less than he bargained for.

This movie is awesome. The special effects are stunning (more so in the theater than on DVD), it's well-written, humorous, and has a sweet romance. The characters are not only likeable - they're lovable. It's also actually pro-America. But the thing I like the most is the old-fashioned feel.

The presence of World War II probably added to this feel. Setting the story in this time period helped to avoid the usual pitfalls of so-so modern movies: Dated jokes. There's also a simplicity in the story that hasn't been in any other superhero movies I've seen. (And I've seen twelve.) The good guys are genuine good guys (every one), and the bad guys are genuine bad guys (every one). The bad guy wants to conquer the world. The good guy wants to save it. So far, extremely simple and very much like a classic movie.

But what ultimately makes Captain America a throw-back is its similarity to the rousing speeches that heroes used to make in war movies. If you've seen a movie made about WWII during WWII you'll know what I mean. In the climax scene of every one of these movies I've seen, the hero is confronted by the villain. It seems as if all hope is lost. But the hero tells the villain that, while good has lost this battle against evil, evil cannot conquer good. That the Nazi agenda is too evil, too brutal to ultimately win. When one man goes down, three more take his place. When the stakes are high, someone or a group of someones step in and win the battle against evil, at least for a time. That is the final impression of Captain America. Steve is the only one who can defeat the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving), but his help is not needed to win WWII. *Spoiler Warning* Though he is lost to the world by the end, the Allies march on to victory against the Nazis. Evil has been defeated, but not for want of victories. That was the message of old WWII movies, and that is a message of Captain America. *End of Spoiler*

The first Iron Man movie is probably the best superhero movie I've ever seen. But Captain America is my favorite. Pro-America, lovable characters, well-written, cool, and with a sense of the old-fashioned, good ol' movie about it, it's a more familiar, sympathetic movie than Iron Man. Even better, the ultimate triumph of good over evil, though it comes with great cost, is clearly seen.

My Rating: T (violence, thematic elements, vague sexual references)

Reviews of similar movies:

• X-Men: First Class
• Spider-Man: First, Second, and Third
• Thor

Snow Whites and the Fourteen Dwarves?

Two Snow White movies in one year! Both have trailers, so I thought I'd write a few observations.

Mirror, Mirror with Lily Collins, Julia Roberts, and Armie Hammer

Page at imdb.com

Snow White and the Huntsman with Kristen Stewart, Charlize Theron, and Chris Hemsworth

Official website

MM has by far the better actress for Snow White. I've never seen the Twilight series (and never care to), but I can say right now that I just don't like Kristen Stewart in the role of Snow White. Stewart's kind of "beauty" is purely fashionable - a pouty chin and not much else to recommend her. Her lips are "red as blood"? Her hair "black as night"? I don't think so. Plus, the story has had to be altered a little ("You are the fairest, but there is another destined to surpass you") because no one with eyes to see would think Kristen Stewart is fairer than Charlize Theron, the evil queen. On the other hand, Lily Collins has been given black hair, white skin, and red lips to fit with her character. Julia Roberts plays the queen as a convincingly (slightly) fading beauty who isn't quite as pretty as Snow White.

Unfortunately, SWATH looks like a far better fairy tale than MM. For one thing, MM looks like it has been hopelessly updated. The characters speak in modern language made harsher by their American accents. And changing it so that Snow White saves the prince? Not loving that idea. (Although, as an aside, the trailer seems to hint that this doesn't really happen.) In contrast, SWATH has a Lord of the Rings/Eragon oldness that I rather like. Additionally, though Snow White goes into battle, she still must be saved by the kiss. However, that retainment of the climax in the fairy tale also creates a contradiction in the movie. Why make her a "tough girl" if she's going to end up being saved by her man anyway? That only makes her look worse - she tries to be "tough" (read: like a man) and take care of herself, but she pathetically fails. Unless the kiss is before the battle, which would be completely anticlimactic and ridiculous.

Just as a footnote, the content in both movies looks borderline. For SWATH, I understand that someone obsessed with beauty (like the queen) would do some pretty evil and/or eyebrow-raisingly bizarre things. Like bathing in white liquid. Or stabbing a man in bed. Plus, I don't mind sexy content (within reason) as long as it is portrayed as bad. So the content in SWATH, though it appears not as good as I would like, is excusable. But the content in MM looks like it's supposed to be funny. It also looks like the movie will be marketed to tweens. (With that kind of humor? I hope teens and up don't think it's side-splittingly funny.) With both these elements, and MM may cross a line or two with its content.

*Spoiler Reflections* On Perception in Inception

Last week I wrote a post about the ending of Inception. Is it a perception that exists only in Dom's (Leonardo DiCaprio) mind, or does he really get back to his family? My conclusion was that he gets back to his family, although I admit the evidence is shaky either way. This week, I want to add a little footnote that was just enough out of place to be unfit for the post last week.

With the question about whether Dom is caught in limbo or not comes another question: Does it matter to him? In other words, does it matter whether his happy ending is real, or is it sufficient that he thinks it is real? The answer is: Of course it matters, stupid! Reality is always better than an illusion - Dom says so himself to his projection of his wife Mal (Marion Cottilard). She is only a figment of his imagination, and he rejects her because she is not his real wife. She is, in effect, a simplification of the real Mal, and nothing less than the real Mal will satisfy him.

The same principle applies to reality. A good illustration is The Matrix. Neo (Keanu Reeves) is convinced that he lives in the real world. He goes about his business, and is reasonably happy. But he knows there's something more. Soon he finds out that his brain has been hooked up to a machine, and, as he says, none of his memories really happened. It takes him a while to adjust to this idea, but he never questions that reality is better than the illusion he had been living.
So is a false happy ending better than a real tragic ending? No. It is better to know the reality than to live under an illusion. Sooner or later reality will come and hit you over the head, sometimes with unpleasant consequences. Besides, reality goes hand in hand with truth, and Truth is God. So it is always better to know the reality (at least of the things that really matter) than to be deceived, even by yourself.

The cleverness of Christopher Nolan is revealed in the way he handled the final scene of Inception. It evokes all sorts of questions, including the question of whether or not a happy ending that exists only in a character's mind is really a happy ending. But the ultimate irony is that the ending itself arguably exists only in the viewers' minds. Since none of us can really know how the movie ends, we can all draw our own conclusions. So Nolan took the idea of an ending that is perceived (perhaps wrongly) by a character and projected that onto the viewers. That is clever writing.

Concerning He Knew He Was Right

(Based on the book by Anthony Trollope.) Louis Trevelyan (Oliver Dimsdale) is a happily married man. He has a beautiful, spirited young wife named Emily (Laura Fraser) and an adorable son. But, as he tells his good friend Hugh Stanbury (Stephen Campbell Moore), marriage isn't always a bed of roses. In fact, Louis is very worried about his marriage. Emily's godfather Colonel Osborne (Bill Nighy) has been seeing a lot of her lately. He's known for dallying about with married women, and Emily is so inexperienced in society. Of course, Louis doesn't really suspect her of doing anything wrong. But then, Colonel Osborne seems to have a way with women...

Yes, the main storyline is incredibly depressing. Louis and Emily split very early in the four-hour movie, and Louis deteriorates as the hours march on. But this movie is made worthwhile by the side characters and the humor.

First and foremost comes Dorothy Stanbury (Caroline Martin), Hugh's sister. She's the sweetest, nicest girl one could ever hope to meet. To perfect her character, she's not particularly pretty. Beautiful women are all right in movies, but every once in a while it's nice to see one that is realistically nice-looking. There are other likeable side characters as well. Hugh comes to mind, and, to a certain extent, Emily's sister Nora (Christina Cole). Others, unfortunately, have too little screen time to make the list.

Then there are the funny side characters. Reverand Thomas Gibson (David Tennant) is absolutely hilarious. He's awkward and has no sense of humor whatsoever. Best of all, he's got a great propensity to get himself into bad situations, but no courage to get himself out. Equally funny are the sisters that both have their eyes on him - the French girls, Camilla (Claudie Blakley) and Arabella (Fenella Woolgar). Their scenes with him and with their mother are very, very funny. Then there's Miss Stanbury (Anna Massey), Dorothy and Hugh's aunt. She's a stiff sort of highly religious woman who likes to boss everyone around, but tends to make snap judgments about things.

The only downsides to this movie are: The somewhat unfavorable protrayal of religious characters, the main storyline, and a nerve-jangling American woman who pops up everyone once in a while. Ugh, just the thought of her painfully bad imitation American accent is enough to send even a strong-stomached person into a tailspin. I think the actress imitated a Canadian accent instead of an American one - I've seen a Canadian television show wherein some of the characters had similar accents. Whatever the reason, she does not sound like a genuine American.

Fortunately, with the exception of the main storyline, the annoying parts of the movie are fairly ignorable. The writing, costumes, and acting are wonderful, and so many characters are either likeable, funny, or even both. He Knew He Was Right is definitely worth the four hours if you are a British mini-series fan.

My Rating: T (marriage disintigration, thematic elements, child kidnapped by its father)

Reviews of similar movies:

• Upstairs Downstairs
• Wives and Daughters
• Cranford

*Spoiler Reflections* On the Ending of Inception

As I said in my review of Inception, the movie's ending is difficult to understand. It's rather like an abstract painting; any person's interpretation of the meaning is as valid as the next one's. (Oh, it's a bird. No, it's a plane. No, it's a big fluffy cloud with a man-eating lion on top.) In a nutshell, the main character, Dom (Leonardo DiCaprio), appears to escape from a dream state called limbo and make his way back to his children. But the viewer isn't sure whether Dom really makes it back. It's possible that he's still in a dream - that he has, in a sense, created a happy ending for himself. I've had a chance to watch the movie again, and I have some ideas about the ending.

The first things to consider in the dream/reality question are the elements that support the dream argument. These are most of the elements in the final scenes. Dom is met at an American airport by his father, who was in Paris the last time Dom saw him. Then Dom meets his children in his old home. The children are conspicuously the same age as the last time he saw them. Also, if I recall correctly, they are wearing the same clothes. These elements suggest that Dom is, indeed, in a dream built from his memories.

However, the last element in the final scenes does not suggest that Dom is in a dream. He spins the top on a table to see if he is in a dream, but he's distracted before he can see whether the top will fall over or not. The camera focuses in on the top as it spins, and it appears to wobble slightly (more in the sound than in the sight) before the picture cuts to the credits. This would indicate that Dom is in reality.

There is another piece of evidence that I think hints at his being in reality. Dom's employer, Saito (Ken Watanabe), coaxes him into taking on the last, difficult job by asking him if he wants to become "an old man, filled with regret, waiting to die alone." The word "regret" pops up later in the film, too, when Dom talks about the moments of his life that he regrets. Both times the word is bound up with the consequences of his choice to plant an idea in his wife's mind - an idea that caused her to commit suicide and separated him from his children. So, clearly, Dom's character is bound up in his regrets. But the song that is used by Dom and his crew to warn them of the impending end of a dream is entitled Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien. Loosely translated into English, it means "No, I have no regrets." This strongly suggests that Dom is in reality.

So does Dom get back to his children or is he trapped in limbo? It seems to me that the former is the more likely answer. Why else would Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien be used so often throughout the movie? And why else would the top begin to wobble just before the credits start? These elements seem harder to explain away than the question marks raised by the other elements I mentioned. Although, I could easily be wrong; Christopher Nolan obviously intended the viewer to remain in the dark.

In Relation To The Phantom of the Opera

(Written by Gaston Leroux.) Once upon a time, there was an opera house in Paris. A beautiful young woman namd Christine Daae lived and worked there ever since her father, a famous and talented Swedish violinist, died. When the opera passed to new owners and a new patron, Christine's breathtakingly beautiful voice was discovered and Paris sang her praises. Among her newfound followers was an old friend Viscount Raoul de Changy. His old feelings for her came back in a rush, and he was determined to marry her. But someone she called the Angel of Music was very displeased with Raoul's attentions. The Angel - or Demon - wanted Christine all to himself, and he was willing to do anything to secure her.

Since I read a version translated from the original French (and abridged - though nothing important was cut out; just flowery descriptions and pointless lines), I cannot comment on whether this book is particularly well written or not. But I can say that it's a good tale, if a bit unbelievable, and at least some of the characters are likeable.

First, the tale. The whole story pivots on the Phantom and his genius. He's a fabulous musician and a very clever inventor. At the same time, his inventions are a bit unbelievable. (For example, the Torture Room, though a clever concept, would never work. The tree, reflected in the mirror walls, would make someone think he was in a jungle. But the man's reflection would also be seen on every mirror. That, I would think, would keep him from losing his mind.) But then, the whole book has a flavor of surrealism, brought on by a very romantic flair and the permeating madness of the Phantom. Because of this, the unrealistic inventions and elements in the story add to the story instead of detracting from it.

Strangely enough, the term "romantic" certainly fits for the tale as a whole and the love between Christine and Raoul, but not for the central love story of the book. *Spoiler Warning* The Phantom's aching search for even a small expression of love is the ultimate point of the story. When he receives just a small gift of love, he is satisfied. Christine, in giving him her kiss and her tears, shows him that someone in the world cares for him. He finds that is all he ever wanted, and he lets her and Raoul go. This is contrary to the typical romantic idea of love, in which passion must be continually satisfied. *End of Spoiler*

In addition to the decent story, some of the characters are likeable. Christine and the Persian are both good characters. Both are honorable, both seek to help others more than themselves. Raoul's brother and Meg are also good characters, though they are in the book very little.

But Raoul is sadly a very pathetic character. Nearly always on the verge of tears, headstrong, and weak-minded, he is a very disappointing hero. Christine is the one who saves the day, and Raoul does nothing to help. In fact, he makes matters worse. Without Christine and the Persian, he would have died an ignominious death.

So, all in all, it's a fairly decent book. But Raoul's schoolboy (dare I say schoolgirl?) character pales in comparison to the genius and virility of the Phantom, who is the center of the tale. In fact, the Phantom's cold-blooded madness is the only thing that makes him less likeable than Raoul. Because of this, the book could never be better than just good.

My Rating: OK (horror elements, very vague sexual references)

Reviews of similar books or movies:

• This Present Darkness
• The Mummy
• The Historian
• Dragonwyck

Untitled Blog Post

More pictures from the Snow White movie coming out next year! (Link to the movie's IMDb page here.)

Reasons for excitement: I love the costumes and overall look. The pictures almost look like illustrations from an old fairy tale book. I also loved Lily Collins in The Blind Side - she'll make a good Snow White. And - this is very important in a fairy tale - the hero looks absolutely gorgeous.

Reasons for dismay: While the whole "look" of the movie fits with the traditional Snow White template, it looks like there are some liberties being taken with the story. It seems as if Snow White will end up leading her troops into battle against the evil queen - when will Hollywood get tired of that story element? What's with this fascination with fighting female protagonists? And what about the kiss?

Reasons for curiosity: It will be interesting to see Julia Roberts as an evil enchantress. I've seen her in two roles (Tess in the Ocean's movies and Alice in Conspiracy Theory), and neither comes close to evil, much less enchantress. But I trust she has the grace needed for the enchantress and can muster enough coolness to pull off the evil part.

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

*Spoiler Reflections* On Indecent Women in First Class

Indecency reigns in Hollywood - but then, everybody knows that already. I don't have to tell any of you about the sexual content that seems required in any movie rated at least PG-13. (And, tragically, some rated PG.) Most of this behavior seems applauded or, at the very least, tolerated. X-Men: First Class, though, has a rather odd stance on its sexual content.

There are three female characters who bring indecency to the movie: Angel (Zoë Kravitz), Emma Frost (January Jones) and Raven (Jennifer Lawrence). Angel is a stripper when Charles (James McAvoy) and Erik (Michael Fassbender) first find her. In her defense, she seems to have been on her own for nearly her whole life (perhaps grew up on the streets?), and she takes up Charles on his offer of a job where she can keep her clothes on. However, she later says she'd rather have men stare at her with her clothes off than because she's a mutant. Then she evidently becomes Sebastion Shaw's (Kevin Bacon) mistress.

Emma Frost begins the movie as Shaw's mistress. She nearly always has some large piece of clothing missing - whether she's in a bikini, an extremely short skirt, or a shirt with an almost unbelievably low neck. At one point, she strips down to her underwear for a Russian general and then uses her telepathic abilities to make him think she's on his lap.

Raven is less promiscuous than the others, but she still has her problems. Her clothing is immodest, though not as much as Emma's. Near the end, she tries to seduce Erik by waiting for him in his bed, sans her clothing. To his credit, he seems uninterested, though it seems he just thinks she's annoyingly immature. Also, it's not clear whether their kiss at the end of the scene leads to anything more or not. Either way, Raven acts like a little idiot.

This isn't to say that the good characters in First Class are perfect. CIA agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) infiltrates a hotbed of communists by boldly walking into the building in only her underwear - it's a Las Vegas club and she blends in with the strippers. Charles hits on a young lady at a bar with the aid of his telepathic powers. She asks him how his seduction technique is working out, and he tells her that he will let her know in the morning. Where this would have ended up is a mystery, because Raven gets Charles to leave soon after.

Now to get to my point: Angel, Emma, and Raven all end up fighting for the bad guys. Angel and Emma work for Shaw and then switch allegiance to Erik/Magneto after Shaw's death, and Raven sides with Magneto. (In First Class, Raven seems to choose Erik because she's in love with him. By the original trilogy, she has definitely developed an evil character.) All three indecent women side with evil.

So does First Class intentionally portray indecency as evil? The answer is no. Some of the indecent actions are portrayed neutrally, if not exactly positively. For example, when Angel is a stripper, the general impression the movie gives is that she's in a bad situation, but not necessarily a bad person. This could be partly true, but not enough emphasis is placed on just how bad her actions were. Raven's attempted seduction of Erik is shown as a result of her search for a person she can truly belong with, not necessarily as the first step in the wrong direction. So indecency is shown more neutrally than I would like.

Another question could be asked. Does First Class portray indecent women as evil and/or misguided? The answer is yes. The most immodest, sexually immoral women in the movie all end up as bad characters. That's a bit of an odd take on indecency: Indecent actions are not necessarily wrong, but indecent women are bad. But, odd or not, for a big, popular movie, that's definitely a step in the right direction for Hollywood.

Pertaining To X-Men: First Class

Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) was treated brutally as a child in a concentration camp, where he first learned that he can control metal objects with his mind. Now it's 1962, and he's determined to track down Klaus Schmidt, the German doctor/scientist who murdered his mother and subjected him to hideous experiments. Enter a telepathic mutant named Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and his adopted sister and fellow mutant Raven (Jennifer Lawrence). Charles teams up with the CIA to track down another mutant named Sebastion Shaw (Kevin Bacon) - formerly known as Klaus Schmidt. Shaw has his own team of mutants, and he has partnered with the Russians in an apparent plan to attack the United States. Charles and Erik inevitably cross paths and decide work together.

(Disclaimer: I have never read an X-Men comic book, so none of this review will come from a comic fan's standpoint.)

This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen. Funny, tragic, cool, exciting, and a little scary at intervals, First Class rises above its minor flaws to the status of a great movie. But the real meat of the movie isn't in the cool superhero (and heroine) powers, or in the story, or in the dialogue. It's in the marvelous acting jobs.

James McAvoy is a pretty good actor. He was great as Mr. Tumnus, and so-so in a badly written part in The Conspirator. But he really shines as Charles/Professor X in First Class. Funny, always optimistic, ever looking out for his friends, and a born leader, McAvoy's Charles is a great character. Every single line and facial expression in the movie is perfect.

Next is Michael Fassbender. I have seen him in three parts now (only two that I remember), and he's simply a fantastic actor. Erik/Magneto is a very complicated character. He's brutal and angry, but can be gentle or even, in one scene, happy. Essentially, he's a conflicted man whose overbearing drive for revenge dominates his entire life, but not so much that his revenge is all there is. As Charles tells him in one scene, there's good inside him - he just doesn't know it. Fassbender pulls this contradiction off beautifully.

The last acting job I want to mention (though everyone in the movie is great) is Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Raven/Mystique. She's not a particularly complex character. She has blue skin, red hair, and yellow eyes that she hides by using her power - the ability to change her appearance completely. She is hurt and angry that society won't accept her. Even her adopted brother seems a little put off by her natural appearance. All in all, not a very difficult part to play. But where Lawrence really shines is in the scenes where Raven is just an ordinary young woman. A warm, fun-loving young woman who's a bit of a spitfire at times must be a difficult part to play, because most actresses I've seen can't do it. Lawrence is perfect.

Unfortunately, First Class isn't my favorite movie for three little reasons. 1) There's too much sexual content for my comfort. None of it is what I would call terrible, but it's constant enough to make it annoying. 2) There's a half-hearted attempt to tie the Civil Rights movement in with the gay "marriage" movement of today.* The attempted tie-in in First Class takes the form of a few scattered jokes, but it's still there. 3) *Spoiler Warning* The part where the U.S. fires on the mutants - good and bad - on the beach is more than a little unrealistic. Unfortunately, there had to be a reason for the X-Men to go into hiding from the government, but the filmmakers could have come up with something better than that. *End of Spoiler*

Despite its flaws, First Class is a job well done. After the total failure of X-Men 3: X-Men United (I haven't yet seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I've heard it's not very good either), the X-Men franchise needed a good reboot. They certainly pulled it off in First Class, despite the movie's flaws.

My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, brutal violence, disturbing images, language)


* For those who don't know, the X-Men stories are reflections of the Civil Rights movement. Professor X is the peace-loving Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and Magneto is the more violent separatist Malcom X. So any tie-in of the mutants with gays is, by extension, a tie-in of the Civil Rights movement with gays.

Reviews of similar movies:

• The Incredible Hulk
• Thor
• Spider-Man
• Spider-Man 2
• Spider-Man 3

The Touch of a Broken Man

I know Mel Gibson has done some very bad things in his life - more, probably, than many of us. But he has also touched many lives, from viewers of The Passion of the Christ to Robert Downey Jr. Gibson is, I think, an example of how Christ uses even broken tools to touch people's souls with His grace.

Concerning The Ebony Swan

(Written by Phyllis Whitney.) Alex is worried. Her granddaughter Susan is coming for a visit, and she's not entirely sure that's a good thing. After all, the girl's father wasn't exactly fond of his mother-in-law, particularly after Susan's mother died in a terrible accident. Grandmother and granddaughter might not get along. At the same time, Alex can't help but think that Susan might just be able to shed some light on the terrible tragedy of so many years ago. Too young at the time to understand, Susan had nevertheless been a witness to her mother's accident. But Alex isn't at all sure that she wants more light on her daughter's death; light has a tricky way of exposing things that some people prefer to leave in the dark.

It is typically easy to guess the murderers in Whitney's books. Luckily, that isn't the case in The Ebony Swan. I thought I had the murderer picked out just a few pages into the book, but I was wrong. After that, every hypothesis I invented was proved wrong. In fact, the revelation near the end was rather surprising. That's the most important thing in any mystery book, and one of only two things that kept this one afloat.

The other was the likeability of the heroine and hero. Susan is a very nice woman, and Peter seems a good man. I'm not real fond of the idea that he and his wife were separated, but at least she's dead. (Cold-blooded, I know, but there it is...)

Unfortunately, there are bad sides to The Ebony Swan as well. First, the lack of certain details was, frankly, annoying. For example, Alex thinks her husband's last words are puzzling. Whitney won't say what they were until near the end of the book - but the words were not important. If they had contained some revelation that perhaps the reader could have used to find the murderer, I would understand the omission. But they were very obvious. And there are few things more annoying in books than having suspense built up around a certain element only to be disappointed in its capacity to surprise.

Then there was the annoyance of the affair. In a curious sort of way, it's condoned and condemned at the same time. Alex, who was years younger than her husband, had a short affair with another man who tried to convince her to leave her husband. She stayed, and the lover ended up marrying somebody else. Showing that she does have some idea that adultery is wrong, Alex is very relieved that her husband knew nothing of her affair. But she is also only half regretful of what she did. She doesn't acknowledge that it was really wrong, and she even seems to regret not leaving her husband once or twice throughout the book. Most disconcerting.

Ultimately, The Ebony Swan is a fairly decent, fairly clean mystery novel with a likeable heroine. Some pointless sleight of pen and murky morals could have held up to a good scrubbing, but it's still fairly enjoyable.

My Rating: T (thematic elements)

First Avengers Trailer Released

*squeals with delight* Okay, now that I'm over my initial thrill, I just have to say that this looks awesome. First, a genuine conglomeration of superheroes, with their own quirks and coolnesses, put into one movie. Second, only Hawkeye's character needs to be established, since the others have had their own movies or at least a fairly major part in another's movie. That means the movie can get right down to the business of saving the world - or avenging it. Finally, Loki looks like he has progressed to a little bit better character. If that is the case, this movie's going to be one for the ages.

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

*Spoiler Reflections* On Marriage and Jane Eyre

"Some mere human law." These are the words Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) uses to describe marriage. To him, his love and devotion for Jane (Mia Wasikowska) are all that matter. Love, or at least, his idea of love, conquers all - even a marriage that already exists between him and mad Bertha Mason. This is the same attitude that many in our ailing modern culture take toward the sacred, God-given institution of marriage. And, like Jane in the oft-told story, it is this attitude that we must reject.

Multiple lines in the newest adaptation of Jane Eyre mirror the prevailing modern attitude toward marriage. A pre-existing marriage is just "a mere convention impediment," according to Mr. Rochester. "Convention" is then the villain in his eyes, not himself. This is the same line of reasoning used both by cohabitants and same-sex union activists. Marriage is a "convention." Marriage is man-made. Marriage can be ignored. Or marriage can be altered to welcome any new combination of consenting adults - and, perhaps one day, children - who want to bestow that title on their relationship. Conventions change, so why shouldn't marriage? If two or more people say they "love" each other (though the definition of that word has become suspect), then marriage is not required. On the other hand, if two or more people love each other, then society should accept them like any traditional married couple. That, at least, is the reasoning.

The reasoning Mr. Rochester uses in an attempt to persuade Jane to become his mistress is similar to those used to justify broken marriages. In other words, divorce. Mr. Rochester pleads with Jane, telling her that, in the sinful relationship that he proposes, "the essential things are the same" as those in a real marriage. "I pledge you my honor, my fidelity, my love until death do us part," he whispers. In our culture, as long as two people "love" each other, it doesn't matter whether those two people have ever been married. As long as they are legally free to marry, they are morally free to do so.

Unfortunately, this the Protestant attitude toward marriage. I'll never forget the scene in Fireproof, the famous pro-marriage, low-budget film, where Catherine has a conversation with a coworker named Anna. Catherine and her husband are on the verge of divorce (which would be her husband's fault more than hers), and Catherine has been enjoying the attentions of a male coworker. Anna expresses distrust of the coworker and says something like: "If he is willing to flirt with you while you're still married, then he probably won't respect your marriage to him if you end up getting married." However, if marriage is not truly "until death to us part," if marriage is merely a legal status, then why should he respect it? What does it matter whether another man flirts with Catherine before or after she files the paperwork? If her marriage lasts only until she gets tired of her husband, then it arguably never existed at all. Either marriage is a temporary legal status that can be changed at any moment (and is therefore pretty much pointless), or it has some meaning and is 'til death. There is no other option.

Despite all arguments to the contrary, marriage is not a convention. It is not man-made. The title of marriage cannot be given to just any relationship. In Ephesians 5, St. Paul repeatedly compares the relationship of a man and his wife (not just two people who love each other) to the relationship of Christ and His Church. In this way, marriage is a covenant that reflects Christ's covenant with His Church. Christ was faithful unto death and will remain faithful throughout eternity. The Church has likewise remained faithful and will remain so for eternity, though its members sometimes stray. Christ will not simply divorce his Church and find another that is easier to get along with. He made a covenant and sealed it with His blood. In marriage, the couple makes a covenant and seals it with the marital embrace. After that, nothing except death can part them.

This was Jane's idea of marriage. Mr. Rochester had entered into a sacred bond with another woman, and only death could part them. He could verbally pledge his honor, his fidelity, and his love, but they were not his to give because he had given them to someone else. As he pledges these three to her, Jane cries "You cannot!" When he is finished, she counters with the question, "What of truth?" His marriage to her would not be a true marriage, and she wants nothing to do with a mere imitation. She soon afterward flees the room and his house.

Jane is vindicated in the end. After a period of several months, she returns to Mr. Rochester's house to find it is partially destroyed. There has been a fire, and Bertha is dead. Mr. Rochester lost his sight in an attempt to save her life - a truly heroic gesture given that Bertha was the impenetrable wall that had been built between him and Jane. Mr. Rochester and Jane are now free to marry, and marry they do (though it is not shown in this particular movie). But this time, each is free to pledge their honor, fidelity, and love in a true marriage with no impediments. Their embrace of true marriage and true love brings a happiness that nothing, not even blindness, can dampen. Thus, the prevailing attitudes in our culture must be rejected, for no "mere human law" could give such happiness.

Off-site links to more in-depth Church teaching and arguments:

• Homosexuality and same-sex unions
• Marriage

In Relation To Jane Eyre (2011)

(Based on the book by Charlotte Bronte.) A lonely, lost young woman collapses on the doorstep of a minister and his sisters. She says her name is Jane Elliot, but her real name is Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska). Her life has been rather hard, and she flees from something - or someone - in her past. After a miserable childhood, she was happy during her time as governess at Thornfield Hall, particularly when her employer Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) was at home. But something happened to crush her happiness and make her willing - adamant, in fact - to leave her life and start afresh under a new name.

Adaptations of classics must always be compared to the original book. Out of the five Jane Eyre adaptations I had seen and remembered, only the 1980s version satisfied me from a faithful adaptation standpoint. Even that one has its serious difficulties - Jane's age, in point of fact. Since Jane's youth is such a huge part of her character, picking a late-twenties actress who looked like she was in her mid-thirties wasn't a good casting job. But this one, this newest Jane Eyre, is by far the best adaptation I have seen.

Mia Wasikowska is the perfect actress to play Jane. She is not too pretty, but not ugly either. Her age (early twenties) is close enough to Jane's nineteen years to be believable. But best of all, she has a sort of quiet grace and self-possession. Underneath this grace runs a sparkling, elusive little thread of passion that glimmers every once in a while. That is exactly how I imagine Jane.

Michael Fassbender plays a terrific Mr. Rochester as well. (Note: I was predisposed to think well of him since I fell in love during X-Men: First Class. However, I think I can honestly say he's a very good Mr. Rochester.) He definitely looks older than Jane, and has a sort of world-weary look about him. He plays bored, amused, and angry well - though the angry could have been a little more passionate. Thankfully, the filmmakers made up for this by putting in the scene where he plays the piano and then goes outside and starts shooting at birds. The crowning moment that really sold me on Fassbender's performance was the scene in the library, where Jane reduces him to tears. Very few actors can cry like that and retain their masculinity so well.

Even though this version is considerably shorter than the 80s one, I think it sticks to the book quite as well. Many of Jane's childhood scenes are thankfully eliminated or at least shortened - filmmakers generally choose the same ones and directly quote from the book. I practically have them memorized. Also, these childhood scenes are broken up with scenes from the present - a handy tool to help keep the monotony of those sadly necessary scenes at bay. Less time is also spent on St. John Rivers's (Jamie Bell) character. The important elements remain (his hardness, his proposal), but the lesser elements are gone. The only two scenes I wish had been in the movie were the veil scene and the scene where Mr. Rochester tells Jane about Adèle's (Romy Settbon Moore) mother. Both these are in the deleted scenes, and after watching the veil scene, I am quite happy that it was left out of the movie. It makes me shudder just to think of it. Besides, those scenes are clichéd by now because they're in practically every movie.

In short, there have been omissions, but no additions from what I can remember. The movie follows the book faithfully and retains all the important things - particularly Jane's and Mr. Rochester's characters. Devotees of the book will, of course, want to watch the 1980s version, but I prefer this one. In a quiet, solemn sort of way, it remains faithful to the spirit and substance of the book whilst it pares the story down to a manageable two hours. That is masterful filmmaking.

My Rating: T (thematic elements, a lingering look at a nude painting of a woman)

Other Jane Eyre reviews:

• Jane Eyre (1983) with Zelah Clark and Timothy Dalton
• Jane Eyre (2006) with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens
• Jane Eyre the book

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.

Concerning Spellbound

(Suggested by The House of Dr. Edwardes by Frances Beeding.) Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) is strictly a woman of science. One of her coworkere at the mental hospital Green Manors refers to her as a "human glacier." Then she meets handsome Dr. Edwardes (Gregory Peck), the new head of Green Manors. He sweeps her off her feet, but she soon discovers that there's something odd about him. He seems to be on the edge of a nervous breakdown, and it isn't long before Constance discovers that he isn't Dr. Edwardes at all. In fact, he's suffering from amnesia - and a deep-seated belief that he killed Dr. Edwardes.

Alfred Hitchcock, Ingrid Bergman, and Gregory Peck. I'm in classic movie heaven. Seriously though, this is one of Hitchcock's better movies, but not quite his best. Ingrid Bergman is as wonderful as she always was, the romance is very sweet, and, of course, it's very suspenseful. On the other hand, the psychoanalysis part and the frankly laughable directing and special effects keep Spellbound from being anything more than just enjoyable.

The special effects are pretty typical for a forties movie. Dummies are used for the dangerous stunts, etc. The directing has its problems, too. Hitchcock could sure pick a story, but sometimes his use of the camera could be a little odd. In Spellbound, he attempted to make the viewer feel like one of the characters at various points in the film. For example, when a character drinks a glass of milk, the glass is held up to the camera and tipped as if the camera was drinking. Unfortunately, it's not very effective when the milk covers the screen. One's vision is never blocked out by the milk one is drinking. There's another scene that is meant to resemble a surrealist painting and ends up looking, well, rather ridiculous. You'll recognize the one if/when you watch the movie.

The psychoanalysis is a bit more disturbing than the lameness, though it's not as blatant. Put simply, psychoanalysis is a load of tripe. You can read a more in-depth article about the subject here, but the underlying principle of psychoanalysis is that our will is subordinated to our instincts. According to psychoanalysts, our true selves are found in our unconscious longings - particularly unfulfilled longings. When suppressed, these longings cause us to act insansely. (That smells suspiciously like secular ideas of today...) There are other problematic aspects as well. However, as a simple therapeutic method, psychoanalysis is morally acceptable (if mentally dangerous) because doctors simply probe the minds of their patients for reasons why the patients are unstable. Fortunately, Spellbound generally sticks to the basic, more vanilla therapeutic application of psychoanalysis. Because of this, the movie doesn't get swallowed up in bad philosophy.

Fundamentally, Spellbound is a Hitchcock movie. There's some doubt as to the morality of the main characters, there are surprises and numerous dangerous situations, and almost the whole movie is drenched in suspense that occasionally gets a little over the top. There's also a hint of something out of touch with reality - in this case, psychoanalysis. But the merits of the movie outweigh its deficiencies, and I have to admit it cast a spell on me.

(Yes, I'm thoroughly ashamed of myself for using that pun.)

My Rating: T (thematic elements, frightening images and ideas)

Reviews of similar books or movies:

• I Confess
• Shadow of a Doubt
• The Sixth Sense