A Wrinkle In Time (1962)

(Written by Madeleine L'Engle. First book in the Time Quintet.) Meg Murry is not like other girls. In fact, she's not like other people, period. In the first place, her scientist father disappeared several years ago while working for the government. Second, her teachers - and the whole village - think she's an idiot. Well, moron, actually. Her little brother Charles Wallace is supposed to be the idiot. Meg is really a very intelligent girl, but she's a bit of a late bloomer. Charles Wallace is almost unbelievably intelligent, but he developed the reputation of an idiot as a baby, and reputations are hard to shake. Into this little nest of idiots and morons comes three strange old ladies. Their names are Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which, and they are not exactly human. Also, they have the ability to use the fifth dimension to travel around the universe fighting evil. And they know where Meg and Charles Wallace's father is.

One of my pet peeves is that there are too few really acceptable children's books written nowadays. Kids graduate to teen books long before they are really ready. But that just means that they graduate from innuendo to more explicit sexual content. Looking back on some books I read when I was about eleven, I'm very glad that I was... shall I say not exactly up to speed on innuendo and other semi-sexual content? At the time, I knew somehow that there was something wrong, but I couldn't put my finger on what. About the only safe harbors were Nancy Drew, The Hardy Boys, and Redwall.

A Wrinkle in Time, however, is completely appropriate for children - and challenging as well. Its story is easy enough to follow, but there are parts where kids need to stretch their imaginations. The universe can be stretched in and out of shape by anyone, given the proper training and experience, and there are fanstastic things like centaurs - with wings! - and brains separated from bodies. Mind control makes an appearance as well. But this sort of imaginational stretch should be pretty easy for anyone weaned on Disney movies or the Narnia books.

Finally, L'Engle makes it a point that kids don't all grow up and/or learn at the same rates. Everyone has their own schedule, she seems to say. Just because some kid is "behind," don't assume that kid is a moron. Even those who might very well have some sort of learning disability also have a special talent. This is a great message that kids need to hear: God has a plan in mind for you, and you're not going to be left behind.

My Rating: Borderline AGC/OK (frightening ideas (e.g. the brain), slight parent/child conflict)

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?!!

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.

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.

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

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

Deleted Scenes Rock!!

In my original review of Thor, I spent a lot of time griping about the empty characters. After seeing the movie again, I stand by my complaints. (Though I would soften them a little by saying that all the characters are likeable and well-acted, if not original.) However, I have a new complaint to add: Why was the pre-coronation scene deleted from the movie?

On the DVD special features I have, there are four deleted scenes. Three of them are more or less dispensable (although I'm pretty darn sure the one between Odin and Frigga was in the theatrical version), but the first one should have been in the movie. In this scene, Thor and Loki have a fairly short conversation prior to Thor's ill-fated coronation. Loki insists that he's proud of his brother, but his bitter character comes through a little bit better than it does in the other early scenes of the movie. He teases Thor about the "feathers" on his helmet (metal wings), turns the wine Thor ordered into snakes, laughs when the servant carrying the wine becomes frightened, and admits that he is sometimes envious of his brother. When Loki says he has waited for this coronation as long as his brother has, Thor calls his sincerity into question and implies that Loki is rarely sincere. All this serves to build a little foundation of doubt about Loki's moral character.

Unfortunately, he's still a little lame. First he seems good, then he seems evil, then he seems merely conflicted and confused, then he's back to evil... you get the picture. Also, there is really no basis for his inferiority complex. In the only scene where Thor and Loki are children, Thor is the one who is reprimanded by their father. Where did Loki get the impression that Odin thinks Thor is a better son? The audience has no idea. However, the deleted scene partly makes up for this obvious deficiency and gives just a glimpse into Loki's twisted mind. Even through his brotherly banter, a little hint of jealousy and a sick sense of humor comes through. Also, the ominous symbolism of the snakes that slither out of the wine cup help establish Loki's character. With this scene in the original movie, Loki's character and motivations would have been a little more believable and consistent.

In Relation To Nanny McPhee

Cedric Brown (Colin Firth) has a problem. Seven of them, actually. They're his children, who have gotten rid of seventeen consecutive nannies. He loves them very much but, well, the best, toughest nanny in the land just ran away from them screaming her head off. Meanwhile, the scullery maid Evangeline (Kelly Macdonald) pines away, knowing that a self-respecting man - possibly like Mr. Brown, although Evangeline would never say so - couldn't fall in love with an illiterate servant like her. Enter Nanny McPhee (Emma Thompson), who claims to be a "government nanny." The kids know better, of course. She's a witch. That's the only explanation for her dreadful face and unusual abilities.

There are dozens of reasons why I love this movie, including but not limited to: Colin Firth, Emma Thompson, seven adorable children, Evangeline, a food fight, and a breathtakingly beautiful dress. Colin Firth is a wonderful actor, and poor Mr. Brown only tries to do his best for his children. Plus, the way he talks to his deceased wife is very sweet. Emma Thompson is fabulous as Nanny McPhee, which is to be expected since she wrote the screenplay. The kids are so cute, especially little Sebastion (Samuel Honywood), known to my circle of friends as "the secret toast one." Evangeline is a sweetheart, although I wish she was in a few more scenes. The food fight and the dress... well, you'll have to watch the movie to find out more about those.

The other thing in this movie that I would like to touch on is the idea of personal responsibility for one's actions. At one point in the movie, Nanny McPhee asks one of the children, "Are you prepared to accept the consequences?" This line neatly wraps up the whole idea of Nanny McPhee. Throughout nearly the entire movie, she gives the children a taste of exactly what would happen if they did what they said. The results are, of course, catastrophic from the children's point of view, and they eventually get the idea that well-behaved children have a better time than ill-behaved scoundrels. This sort of laissez-faire approach wouldn't work with real-life parenting, but it works for Nanny McPhee because she has a magical stick that helps accelerate and accentuate the consequences of the children's actions.

Personal responsibility, wonderful acting, a hilarious script, and adorable kids. What more could one want in a movie?

My Rating: OK (mild rude humor, mild sexual content and references)


Reviews of Similiar Books or Movies:

• In Relation To Howl's Moving Castle
• Concerning Inkheart

Pertaining To Incarceron

(Written by Catherine Fisher.) Finn was born Outside. He knows it. He has memories that come back to him during seizures. People don't believe him. Even Gildas the Sapient thinks Finn is the creation of Incarceron. To Gildas, and to most of the Comitatus, Finn was created by the prison out of recycled bits of matter - a cellborn. But Finn knows better. He knows there is somewhere outside the prison, that he came from that somewhere, and that one day he will remember.

This is a really creepy and really cool idea. In fact, it reminds me a bit of the Matrix. Incarceron is a living, self-sustaining, and speaking prison that keeps its inhabitants trapped inside. Of course, one of the notable differences between the Matrix and Incarceron is that, in the Matrix, one fights the Agents, but in Incarceron, one fights the prison itself. That makes it a bit tough to make any headway. Also, in the Matrix, the prison holds minds, but Incarceron is a physical prison as well as a mental prison of sorts.

However good the idea, an idea can't keep a book afloat all by its lonesome. I've read books that were good ideas, but failed because the main characters were unlikable. That especially seems to happen when the main character is a girl. No offense, but I think most girls in books are idiots. Unfortunately, one of the main characters in Incarceron is an annoying young lady named Claudia - with more emphasis on the "young" than the "lady." She's betrothed to the Heir, a particularly spoiled and weak-minded fellow. But she's willing to do anything to avoid marrying him, etc., etc., etc. Oh, and she can't stand having to wear the starched skirts and other things that Protocol requires of her. A new character trait, that is not. But at least she has an excuse; Protocol (which is basically a rule that says everyone has to live like it's about 1750 or so) has been imposed on them by the rulers, who are somewhat implausibly convinced that they can avoid another bloody uprising like the one that happened decades ago by forcing people to live in the past. Hm. Not the most realistic backstory, but it serves its purpose. Putting all that aside, Claudia is still annoying.

Luckily, Finn is not annoying in the least. He's a good-hearted young man who tries his best. He makes the wrong choice once or twice (notably in the beginning), but these wrong choices only drive him to be better. His friend Attia is a great character as well, and his oathbrother Keiro... well, he's a whole 'nother story.

Incarceron also had just enough twists to show that the authoress knew something more than an interesting concept was needed to keep the story afloat. I guessed most of the developments before the characters knew, but there were one or two good surprises. And really, one can't expect too much from a young adult science fiction book.

All in all, it certainly kept my attention, right up until the end. When I read the last page, I wanted it to go on; what kind of an ending did Ms. Fisher think she was writing? That's not an ending, that's a teaser for Book 2, which, incidentally, I'm getting from my local library today. I can't bear to go much longer without finding out what happens next.

My Rating: T (disturbing concepts about a prison (including that the prison "makes" people), people referred to as "halfmen" or "dog-slaves" as if they were less than human, violence, family problems, mild sexual references)

In Relation To Howl's Moving Castle

(Written by Diana Wynne Jones.) Life isn't fair. Sophie certainly knows the truth in that statement. After all, she's eldest of three sisters in her family, and, as simply everyone knows, the eldest never succeeds in life. Sure enough, when her father dies, her sisters get placed into good jobs that put them in the way of happy lives, while Sophie is stuck making hats in the back of her family's hat shop. To top it all off, the Witch of the Waste shows up in the shop one day and turns Sophie into an old woman! Sophie simply can't stay in her old life looking like an old woman. She goes to seek her fortune, and happens to stumble across the moving castle that belongs to the wicked Wizard Howl. It is said that no young woman is safe with Howl, who either collects their souls or eats their hearts (it depends on who is telling the story). But then, that isn't a problem for Sophie - she isn't a young woman any longer.

I absolutely love this book! The characters, dialogue, narration, and imagination are just delightful. Best of all, the authoress has managed to write a hopeful book in which the heroine and especially the hero are flawed and almost nothing is as it seems. I could detail the many ways in which things are not as they seem, but that would take a long time and give away much of the book. Instead, I'll focus a bit on the book's personality.

Howl's Moving Castle naturally takes on the personality of Sophie. After all, she is the main character, and books often display the same characteristics as their main characters. With Sophie, what you see is what you get. She is an unpretentious determined young lady who puts her mind to whatever task she has at hand, whether she knows exactly where she's going or not. For example, when the Wicked Witch of the Waste turns her into an old woman, Sophie makes up her mind to leave and does so. However, she likes to resort to secrecy and even tricks now and again when honesty fails.

This trait, the trait of resorting to secrecy and tricks when honesty fails, is the predominant trait in Howl's Moving Castle. In other words, deceptive appearances abound. I won't detail all of them here, but there is more than one red herring dragged across the trail throughout the course of the book. Honesty is used by the authoress until it is no longer useful, and then the secrecy and tricks come into play. The real challenge for the reader is the ability to discern which are the honest parts and which are the tricks. The two are mixed together rather liberally, and are only really separated at the end.

My Rating: OK (violence, scary ideas)

Welcome Back to Middle Earth! We Hope You Enjoy Your Stay...

A picture of Thorin is out on theonering.net! Plus, IMDb has stills from the movie! (For those of you who have been on a trip to Mars and only just returned, a two-part version of The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien's prelude to Lord of the Rings, is coming out in 2012 and 2013.)

Other pictures have come out, but the one of Richard Armitage (North & South, and that dreadful Robin Hood show) as Thorin is the one I have really looked foward to. My first reaction was a grimace. Richard Armitage is a very good-looking man, and as Thorin he looks rather, well, dwarvish. But I soon recovered and decided he looks just fine. After all, he still has his piercing eyes. And I'm thrilled that Martin Freeman (Sherlock) is playing Bilbo Baggins. He doesn't look as much like Ian Holm as I would wish, but he'll make a great Bilbo.

To expand from the pictures to the movie, I'm really excited that this project is finally becoming a reality. It took forever after ROTK came out (2003!), but real progress is being made. All I can say is: They'd better stick to the story. Some of the ideas that were apparently bandied about during the making of LOTR terrify me. (For example, sending Arwen to Helm's Deep to fight alongside Aragorn in TTT was apparently an option. Also, Aragorn was going to fight Sauron at the Black Gate in ROTK, but the Dark Lord was replaced by a troll in the final version of the film.) So, as long as they don't do anything too weird with the story (like insert a romance; romances add a lot to most stories, but there's no place for one here), I'm definitely seeing it in the theater and buying the (extended version?) DVD when it's released.

On Thor

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is on top of the world. As the older son of Norse god Odin (Anothony Hopkins), he is destined to assume the throne of Asgard in place of his father. Unfortunately, just before his father pronounces him king, Asgard is penetrated by evil frost giants from Jotunheim. Thor makes an ill-advised attack on Jotunheim and, instead of being crowned king, is deprived of his powers and banished to Earth for his arrogance. There, he must become worthy to wield the hammer before he can once again return to his home.

The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it is a treat to look at. Asgard took my breath away when the camera first introduced me to the kingdom. The landscapes of New Mexico (New Mexico in the movie, anyway; I don't know if it was shot on location or not) are nearly as beautiful, and even icy Jutenheim, surrounded by clouds, is lovely in a stark, harsh way. The rainbow bridge was also pretty cool, although not as cool as I had heard it would be. The constellations shown during the end credits were also beautiful. The special effects were amazing as well; probably the best I have ever seen. (I've not seen Avatar, nor do I have any plans to.)

The other two great parts of the movie were the humor and the squeaky cleanness. Those two things don't often go together in a movie, even in an animated movie supposedly made for children, but Thor managed to be funny and perfectly clean at the same time. In a day and age when most live-action comedies are rated R, being able to laugh without blushing at the same time is really nice.

With beauty, great special effects, humor, and cleanness, the only things Thor is missing are, well, characters and a story. There are, technically, characters. In fact, there are a lot of characters. Unfortunately, most of them seem to be like Wendy's burgers (i.e., like cardboard cut outs). Even romantic interest Jane's (Natalie Portman) quirky assistant is the type of character that's been in a thousand movies. Granted, she's still funny, but she's not exactly original. Thor is just passable; at least his old-fashioned, gentlemanly manners toward Jane make him unusual for a modern America movie. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is the most disappointing. Just when I thought I had his character figured out, he would do something completely out of character and I would have to rearrange my opinion of him. This isn't to say that his character kept surprising me with new twists. The filmmakers tried too hard to make him evil and conflicted at the same time, the result being one of the clunkiest villains I've ever seen.

Unfortunately for Thor, characters are the driving force behind any movie. Adaptations of Jane Austen's classics, particularly A&E's masterful Pride and Prejudice, are based entirely on their characters. Even caper movies like the Ocean's trilogy wouldn't be nearly as good without characters like Linus or Reuben. At the same time, while Thor isn't exactly a classic, at least it's an action/adventure movie that's actually appropriate for young teenagers.

My Rating: T (family tensions, mild language, violence, scary images)

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

Concerning Spider-Man 3

Life is good. At least, that's what Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire) thinks. Sure, the door to his one-room apartment sticks. But he's at the top of his class, he gets to go around saving people with his superhero powers, his popularity in New York has never been so high, and he's about to propose to Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), the girl he's loved for as long as he can remember. Unfortunately, things never run smoothly for long. Peter's best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco), knows that Peter is Spider-Man. He also knows that Spider-Man was responsible for his father's death. Add that to a strange robber nicknamed the Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) terrorizing New York, Mary Jane's career troubles, and a weird black substance from outer space and you get a lot of trouble.

Spider-Man 3 is not my favorite Spider-Man movie, but it's probably the best one. The themes, visual symbolism, and graphics are superior to the first and second movies. The reason why it's not my favorite is very simple: The first two feel much more like superhero stories. Slow-motion action scenes, spidey-sense, and basic good vs. evil storylines all contributed to the good ol' action-figure hero feel. Spider-Man 3, on the other hand, is much more complicated.

This more complex twist to the movie is partly owed to the sheer number of "bad guys" in the movie. Harry, the Sandman, the black goop, and even Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), the rival photographer, are all bad characters that Peter or his alter-ego must fight. In the first two movies, it was just Spider-Man vs. the Green Goblin or Spider-Man vs. Doc Ock. Spider-Man 3 has Peter/Spidey fighting evil on all fronts - his personal life, his professional life, and his life as a superhero.

Besides the large number of bad guys, another reason for the complexity of this movie is the question that is posed and answered: Can people who lead bad lives be good, or are we responsible for the lives we lead? I'm quite pleased with the answer given by Spider-Man 3.

As well as asking what a "good person" is, this movie also contains a lot of religious symbolism. *Spoilers from here to the end* The most obvious symbolism is when Eddie goes to the church and prays for Jesus to kill Peter Parker. First he speaks about being humbled and humiliated, which is followed immediately by a shot of a crucifix on the wall. Eddie's humility is being compared to Jesus' humility in not only giving up His life, but in everything He suffered leading up to that point. Then the comparison ends and the contrast begins - Eddie pleads for Jesus to kill his enemy. Jesus' ultimate victory over death was not achieved by killing His enemies, but by sacrificing His own life. A quick glance at a crucifix would show how twisted Eddie's approach to justice is.

Soon after Eddie's prayer, Peter decides to free himself of the awful black goop that took hold of him in the form of a new Spidey suit through the hatred in his heart. He soon discovers that he can't pull it off. His black suit, which has almost taken on a life of its own, has attached itself to him so strongly that nothing he can do will loosen it. Until he accidently strikes the church bell. The rich sound of the bell ringing sends the black suit into contortions, and Peter is freed. His lack of clothing while he lies gasping in the shadows is most likely a reference to being born again.

After Peter rids himself of the suit with the aid of the church bell, the black goop finds another victim in Eddie, whose hatred for Peter consumes him. When Spider-Man tries to free Eddie from the villainous goop, he uses steel bars in a construction zone to make a bell-like sound. Eddie is freed from the goop, but almost immediately throws himself at it again - straight into an explosion. Peter was freed by a church bell. Eddie was, sadly, not entirely freed by steel bars.

My Rating: T (frightening images, mild sexual content)

Picture from coverbrowser.com

On Spider-Man 2

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is having trouble. As Spider-Man, he's an awesome superhero who goes around saving people. But as Peter Parker, he's never on time, neglects his homework, and is far behind on his rent. Into the mess that he calls life comes Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), a brilliant scientist who has learned how to harness the power of fusion. Peter instantly makes friends with the personable scientist, but is a little concerned about the stability of the doctor's work. His fears are confirmed when a demonstration goes awry and the artificially intelligent mechanical arms connected to Octavius's spine take over the doctor's mind. Spider-Man must dig deep and find a way to stop the madman before he destroys New York City.

Spider-Man 2 is not as good as the first movie, but it's pretty good as far as sequels go. I'm not exactly a connoisseur of superhero movies, but based on the ones I've seen (and what I've heard about the ones I haven't seen), I would have to say that Spider-Man is my favorite superhero. For one thing, he actually has super powers. This criteria eliminates characters like Batman and Ironman. For another, he has morals that basically match up with my own in every area. This, again, rules out some "heroes" like Superman. Finally, he's such a real kind of character. He's handsome, to be sure, but he can look pretty silly sometimes. He stumbles and falls (a lot), but he gets back up again and keeps going.

Spider-Man isn't the only one who deals with struggles in this movie. His Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) is dealing with the death of her husband and her financial troubles. But the whole message of this movie is that there's always hope, no matter what you're going through. Whether it's sorrow, financial problems, matters of the heart, or a heavy responsibility, there's always a bright light shining to help you through. People are stronger than a lot of movies give them credit for. Instead of giving in to despair or temptation, a lot of people find strength - a superhuman strength, if you will - to get through the dark night. Though Spider-Man 2 makes no mention that God is the source of this strength, the movie certainly elevates humans above the instinctual animals that many secularists think we are.

My Rating: T (terrifying scenes (ugh!), mild language)

Picture from impawards.com

Concerning Inception

Are you living in reality? Or are you in a dream? Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a master of extraction - entering into a shared dream with a corporate giant in order to extract information from the corporate giant's subconscious. When he tries (and fails) to extract information from a man named Saito (Ken Watanabe), Cobb is surprised when Saito turns around and offers him a job. If Cobb can plant an idea in the mind of Saito's rival, then Saito will fix it so Cobb can return home. Unwilling to pass up this chance to see his two children again, Cobb agrees. Even he is completely unprepared for what he and his team will encounter.

The story in this movie is absolutely incredible. It's complicated, but not so much that you feel completely lost during the movie. It's only after the movie when you start thinking about it later that it becomes confusing. Luckily, I had the chance to watch this three times in two days, so I think I have the story straightened out. (Except for the ending - I don't think Christopher Nolan wanted people to understand that.)

The story may be confusing, but it's also a really cool idea. It's completely impossible, of course, but the very ideas of layered dreams and being able to change your dream however you want in the middle of it are just plain cool. Another cool thing is the graphics. The only time they don't look one hundred percent realistic is when your mind is telling you that what's going on is impossible. Your eyes believe everything, but your brain isn't as credulous.

Inception is extremely well done in more ways than just the story and graphics. The acting and characters are superb. At first, I wasn't very impressed. Dom seemed like a boring character, and I wasn't too impressed with Leonardo DiCaprio's acting. But as the movie went on, Dom's character began to have all sorts of little twists and turns, and suddenly I realized that DiCaprio is a very good actor indeed. All the little things about Dom that I took as DiCaprio trying to make a character out of nothing were revealed as being intentional parts of Dom's character. To stay on the acting, everyone else was really good as well; Ellen Page as Ariadne and Cillian Murphy as Robert Fischer in particular.

My Rating: T (violence, language)

Picture from impawards.com

Pertaining To Brightly Woven

(Written by Alexandra Bracken.) Sydelle Mirabil is not special. She's a talented weaver, yes, but otherwise is a perfectly normal girl growing up in an arid little town. So when a wizard named Wayland North singles her out as his companion to go on a dangerous journey, Sydelle is surprised and more than a little angry at being taken away from her family. She's isn't prepared to deal with all of North's mysteries and problems - and she's especially not prepared to face an evil wizard like Reuel Dorwan.

Pros: At last, a mainstream teen fiction book with real love! Sydelle and North really care for each other and want the best for each other - their love is not entirely romance. The characters seemed pretty real to me, with enough faults to make them human, but not annoying and childish like a lot of characters in books I've read.

Cons: Well, anytime a fantasy book has "goddesses," it makes me a little nervous. (Not that I see anything wrong with the goddesses in this book per se, after all, who's to say God didn't create many universes, some with guardian spirits?) It's just that the term "goddess" makes me squeamish. *Spoiler Warning* Then there's the part about the prophecy that says an evil goddess will come down in human form and crush the enemies of her followers. Sydelle is mistaken for this goddess - in other words, the goddess didn't come down. Now, this could be read as an insult to Christianity, both because it's an evil goddess who's supposed to come down, and because a not-so-ordinary human was mistaken for this goddess. However, any insult there might be is not blatant enough for me to label this book as "anti-Christian," particularly because the book is actually pretty good.

My Rating: T (sexual references and content)

Picture from alexandrabracken.com

On Fairest

(Written by Gail Carson Levine.) Aza is ugly. No, seriously. Dull black hair, sickly pale skin, big bones, garish red lips, and puffy cheeks all combine to make her quite an ugly young lady. But Aza can sing like a lark - and throw her voice to any spot within a reasonable distance, a talent she calls illusing. Unfortunately, her special talent gets her into trouble when the queen finds out about it. Aza is coerced into projecting her singing voice onto the queen's lips during public events - and finds herself increasingly out of her depth, particularly where Prince Ijori is concerned.

Pros: This is a fun adaptation of Snow White. It's set in the same world as one of Levine's other books, Ella Enchanted. The irrepressible, irresponsible fairy Lucinda is back, although she's not in it very much. I really like Prince Ijori, who's a really nice guy, but pretty normal.

Cons: The constant singing is a bit much. (Although I don't really mind their idea that singing can help a sick person heal, because singing is a way of praying.) *Spoiler Warning* Apparently people who spend time in the magic mirror end up in a different place than normal people when they move on to the "afterlife" (so to speak). Which, of course, is utterly ridiculous. But that's only one line in the book.

My Rating: AGC

Picture from gailcarsonlevine.com