On Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

(Written by Lewis Carroll.) A curious little girl sees a white rabbit with a waistcoat and watch hurry by her and promptly decides to follow him. She tumbles down an amazing rabbit hole with bookshelves and all sorts of things lining the sides, taking absolute ages to get the bottom. Then, well, you know the rest...

Considering that this book or its sequel are mentioned in dozens of movies and books from The Matrix to Regina Doman's Black as Night, I was rather surprised at its simplicity. Though many people have read all sorts of double meanings and dark underlying themes into this book, I found it to be a children's story at heart.

The biggest connection I made was one that Lewis Carroll may or may not have intended: Alice's conversations with the different animals and other creatures in Wonderland are remarkably similar to conversations in academia. No one will give a straight answer, and many people tend to change the courses of conversations so that they don't actually lose even when they're in the wrong. What started out as a debate about one thing can very often (I might even say almost always) morph into a debate about something else - a distraction. When the losing person realizes that he or she is even losing the distracting argument, the subject is changed once again. That can be every bit as frustrating as Alice's attempts to have intelligent conversations with the creatures in Wonderland.

I realize that people have written miles and miles of words about this book and its sequel (complete with distracting arguments), but I don't really see that it contains a meaning much deeper than any other coming of age story. However, like many other surreal or fantastic (as in fantasy) classic books, people have felt the need to dissect it over and over again. I say they should just curl up with a copy of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in one hand and a cup of hot chocolate in the other and leave their dissecting tools in the cupboard for a little while. Alice needs no deeper meanings to be enjoyed.

My Rating: AGC

In Relation To Paycheck

Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck) is a special kind of engineer. He is hired by companies to work on highly sensitive (read: illegal) projects. After each project is finished, he is handed a big paycheck and his memory of everything that happened while he was on the project is promptly erased. When a man called Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart) offers him a job that will consume three years of his life, but leave him rich beyond his wildest dreams, Jennings agrees. Three years later, he finds he not only forfeited his paycheck, he's also being chased by everyone from the feds to Rethrick - and he has no idea why.

This movie is a really, really good idea. In the right hands it would have ranked up with other thrillers like Inception. Unfortunately, it was not in the right hands, so it's only so-so. Sometime between the original idea and the actual making of the movie, something went wrong.

First, Ben Affleck is not a very good actor. Jennings' generic character doesn't call for much acting, so that didn't bother me too much. But his girlfriend Rachel is played by Uma Thurman, who is not very good in this movie, either. Her character is pretty boring (I think perhaps the movie makers relied a little too much on her exotic looks), but she has some lines that should be funny and aren't.

This trend of character-less characters is pretty widespread; almost none of the characters are developed in any sense of the word. By far the best character is Shorty (Paul Giamatti), the kooky sidekick with the funny taste in clothes. Perhaps that's because Giamatti is the only good actor out of the bunch, with perhaps the exception of Eckhart. Unfortunately, Shorty isn't in nearly enough scenes. The evil characters are stereotypes, and the feds are just boring.

The characters are not the only part that doesn't work. Everything is extremely dramatized, as if the movie makers were aiming to make Paycheck the movie of the decade. Evidently they didn't realize that drama only works if the audience has more than money invested in the movie. Excitement cannot be drummed up with slow-motion action scenes or exhilirating music; audiences have to be emotionally invested in the characters at least a little.

My Rating: MT (language, violence, palm-reading, sexual content between hero and a side character)

Picture from coverbrowser.com

Five Best Movie Endings

Having recently re-watched 3:10 to Yuma, I decided to do a post on the five best movie endings I've ever seen. All of these are final scenes, not resolutions. (If I had decided to include resolutions as well, this post would be a lot longer than five!) *Spoilers ahead*

1: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Just when Captain "Lucky" Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) has finally chased down that elusive enemy ship, killed the captain, and sent the ship off to England with his first lieutenant commanding, he discovers that the dead captain was actually the ship's doctor. The dangerously devious captain is on board the captured enemy ship and, considering how long the ship has been been gone, he has probably taken command again. Another long chase with a duel of wits between the two captains is about to begin.

2: The Sixth Sense. Dr. Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) has succeeded in getting a little boy who sees ghosts to go to his mother for help and comfort. Troubled by how his wife has grown distant over the last few weeks, Malcolm is determined to set things right. But when his wife drops his wedding ring, he remembers that the only person who acknowledged him over the last few weeks was the little boy who can see ghosts - and that can only mean one thing.

3: Unbreakable. Throughout the entire movie, there is no central antagonist. In fact, superhero David Dunn's (Bruce Willis) own worst enemy seems to be himself until a home robbery late in the movie allows him to fight a bad guy. But in the final scene, he discovers that Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), a man who breaks bones extremely easily and has encouraged David to develop into the superhero he is, rigged several horrific "accidents" in a quest to find an unbreakable man.

4: 3:10 to Yuma. After Dan Evans (Christian Bale) finally earns someone's respect - no less than the respect of famous outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) - and dies, Wade gets on the train to Yuma like Evans had vowed he would. The train begins to move - and Wade whistles for his horse.

5: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. (Note: This is most emphatically not the scene at the end of the credits, which is more like a post script than a real scene.) Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) has taken back control of the Black Pearl and opens a map to the fabled Fountain of Youth - only to find that Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) stole the vital part of the map just before leaving ship, landing on his feet yet again.

Comments, anyone? What's your favorite movie ending of all time?

Concerning Ponyo

A little boy named Sosuke (Frankie Jonas) finds a beautiful red goldfish stuck in a bottle in the ocean. Unbeknown to him, this "goldfish" is really the daughter of an ex-human man and the goddess of the sea. After licking a little of Sosuke's blood off his finger, the newly-named Ponyo (Noah Cyrus) gains the ability to become human. But her choice to do so upsets the balance of the world, putting everyone on earth in danger.

The perfect word to describe this movie is "whimsical." The colors, animation, story, and above all the two little kids, are very reminiscent of a good, old-fashioned bedtime story. My favorite part of the movie was Ponyo. She is the very picture of a little girl on a new, exciting adventure - running around the house with the light on her head especially caught my attention.

Along with Ponyo's sweetness, I was impressed by the portrayal of Sosuke's mom, as well as the seniors in the senior center. Instead of reprimanding Sosuke for "making up a story" about his fish that became human, his mother accepts it without comment. Ordinarily, the disbelief of the parent(s) is one obstacle for kids to overcome, but that wasn't the case in this movie. The respect shown for the seniors in the senior center was impressive also. Wheelchair-bound seniors generally don't make their way into kids' movies.

With the positive elements in mind, there was an element I didn't really care for. The two mothers in the movie are stronger than the fathers, although it's more glaringly obvious with Ponyo's parents than Sosuke's. The goddess might also be a little problematic for some, but I don't see it as much different than the witch-queen in Snow White or even the fairy godmother in Cinderella. Kids just need to understand that it's only a bedtime story.

Having said that, I'm not sure how little kids would view this movie. For me, the appeal was in the beautiful animation (the traditional kind; this wasn't computer-generated like Pixar) and the innocence of the kids, two things that probably wouldn't make any difference to someone who is still a little kid. There is a little humor, but not the kind that (in my experience) makes little kids roar with laughter. In the end, Ponyo is a wonderful little story that can by enjoyed to some extent by both kids and adults, though it probably won't be anyone's favorite animated movie.

Note: This is a Japanese movie dubbed in English

My Rating: OK (a goddess, slight conflict between spouses)

*Spoiler Reflections* On Feminism in Flawless

This article contains spoilers for the 2007 movie Flawless (starring Michael Caine and Demi Moore)

When the movie Flawless began, I spent the first few minutes rolling my eyes almost constantly. In my opinion, the modern, warped idea of feminism has a lot to do with the problems in this country, and I don't like watching things that have feminist overtones. Although Flawless looked like it was going to be clad in an iron suit of feminism, I was quite surprised by some of the later developments.

At the beginning of the movie, Laura has a conversation with a young female reporter who wants to write about women who forged trails into all-male territory. Apparently she wants inspirational stories for the young women of today. Naturally, she chose Laura as one of her interviews; Laura had been employed by the all-male company of London Diamond in the 1960s. While this made it appear the movie was going to be saturated with themes concerning "oppressed" women, it turned out to be anything but.

When she discovers she's about to be fired, Laura sees her career for what it is: A temporary achievement. Nothing about it would last. She had sacrificed a family, love, and just about everything else for the goal of becoming a London Diamond branch manager, but it was all for naught. Faced with her failure to become a branch manager - her failure to even keep her job - she realizes that a career is not necessarily what it is made out to be. She had searched for "fulfillment" and failed.

In the end, Laura makes a career out of giving. Left with the money Hobbs effectively stole from London Diamond, she puts it to good use by giving it away. Somewhere in the course of her life, she gives herself to a man and a child - the man is her husband (she's wearing a wedding ring), and the child is presumably theirs. Just before she leaves, she tells the reporter that she hopes other young women would be inspired by the example Laura set - not the example of a ruthless business woman, but the example of a woman who gives.

I am not knocking women who want to pursue careers, nor am I criticizing working mothers. However, I think there is too much emphasis put on women finding "fulfillment" by having careers nowadays. Women are built to give. When we lose sight of that, we start down the dark path of modern feminism, which sacrifices everything for "self-fulfillment." This is not to say that men are not built to give as well. But women have become so intent on becoming "fulfilled" whatever the cost to men, children, or even themselves that they have forgotten the most important thing in life is not to satiate every desire, be it sexual, social, political, or business, but to give. Laura discovered this before it was too late. Perhaps our society will one day do the same.

Pertaining To Flawless

Laura (Demi Moore), a female employee in the all-male world of the 1960s London Diamond Corporation, is just about at the end of her rope. Then the jolly night janitor, Hobbs (Michael Caine), comes to her with a proposal: Help him steal enough diamonds from the London Diamond's vault to fill a thermos. Laura refuses at first. Then she discovers she is about to be fired - and decides to wreak some revenge on the ungrateful corporation that wants to toss her aside.

This movie is, admittedly, a bit slow in the beginning. Laura struggles a long time with what she wants to do, and with the question of whether she is happy or not. This is all rather boring because anyone can see that 1) she wants to rob London Diamond and 2) she is not happy at all.

But once the heist begins, the action really picks up - or should I say the questions become more interesting? Something completely takes Laura by surprise, and suddenly she has to walk a delicate line between Hobbs and a detective named Finch (Lambert Wilson).

Speaking of Finch, I rather liked his character. There aren't many likeable characters, since most of them are rather too rich and inconsiderate of others (there's a line describing a character that goes something like this: "He paid for the bullets and the coffins"). But Finch seems to take his job seriously enough, and he's a bit sharper than Laura gives him credit for.

However, my favorite part of the movie was Laura. In the first place, Demi Moore played her very well. Her American/British accent was a bit annoying at first, but then it was revealed that she is an American who has lived in Britain for the last fifteen years or so, making her funny little accent a lot more believable. Secondly, I really like her idea of feminism. More on that in a spoiler post.

My Rating: T (language (including one F word), very mild sexual content)