(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)
Showing posts with label ok. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ok. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Pertaining To The More the Merrier
Mr. Dingle (Charles Coburn) is an amiable older gentleman who shows up in Washington D.C. to help with the housing problem. WWII is well underway, and the capitol city is literally over-flowing with people trying to do their patriotic duty. One such person is young, unmarried Constance Milligan (Jean Arthur). To help with the housing shortage, she advertizes to sublet half her apartment - and Mr. Dingle finagles his way in. Soon he decides that she needs a "high-type, clean-cut, nice young fellow." So he finagles his way further into her life by renting half of his half of the apartment to a young man named Sgt. Joe Carter (Joel McCrea). Who happens to be a high-type, clean-cut, nice young fellow. And very much available.
This is very definitely a "screwball" comedy. The storyline verges on the ridiculous, and everything is very much accelerated. (Though that seems to be the case in most romantic comedies; how do people fall in love that fast?) At the same time, a suspicious-minded person would call it "propaganda." Connie repeatedly says that subletting half her apartment is her "patriotic duty" - the implication being thus: Who knows what wonderful things could happen to you if you did your patriotic duty?
Ultimately, there were three things that sold me on this movie. First, it's one of those hilarious romantic comedies that very much follows the formula: One has an idiot significant other, but is thrown together with a different person due to unforeseen and unescapable circumstances. In just a few short days, the one and the different other find that they're in love, but neither wants to ruin anything by striking up a real relationship. And the list of the other romcom elements goes on. However, this movie is cleaner than most modern romantic comedies, though it has no fewer funny scenes. Second, I've seen the lead actor in another movie and really liked him. He's not a great actor, but I like the characters he portrays. Third, the characters are lovable. Connie is the sweetest thing. Joe is not quite as "high-type" as Mr. Dingle thinks, but he's still a good man. And Mr. Dingle is the perfect picture of a meddlesome older man who thinks he knows best for everyone - and really does.
My Rating: OK (thematic elements, very mild sexual content and references)
This is very definitely a "screwball" comedy. The storyline verges on the ridiculous, and everything is very much accelerated. (Though that seems to be the case in most romantic comedies; how do people fall in love that fast?) At the same time, a suspicious-minded person would call it "propaganda." Connie repeatedly says that subletting half her apartment is her "patriotic duty" - the implication being thus: Who knows what wonderful things could happen to you if you did your patriotic duty?
Ultimately, there were three things that sold me on this movie. First, it's one of those hilarious romantic comedies that very much follows the formula: One has an idiot significant other, but is thrown together with a different person due to unforeseen and unescapable circumstances. In just a few short days, the one and the different other find that they're in love, but neither wants to ruin anything by striking up a real relationship. And the list of the other romcom elements goes on. However, this movie is cleaner than most modern romantic comedies, though it has no fewer funny scenes. Second, I've seen the lead actor in another movie and really liked him. He's not a great actor, but I like the characters he portrays. Third, the characters are lovable. Connie is the sweetest thing. Joe is not quite as "high-type" as Mr. Dingle thinks, but he's still a good man. And Mr. Dingle is the perfect picture of a meddlesome older man who thinks he knows best for everyone - and really does.
My Rating: OK (thematic elements, very mild sexual content and references)
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
On A Smile as Big as the Moon
Mike Kersjes (John Corbett) teaches a special ed class at a high school. He has a special group of kids with disabilities ranging from Down syndrome to the "alphabet" kind like ADHD. One day, the kids go on a field trip to a museum - and come back with pamphlets advertising Space Camp. A place for "gifted" students, Space Camp sounds like the coolest thing ever to more than one of the kids. So Mike decides to make it happen. Unfortunately, he has to 1) get his superiors to okay the trip, 2) get Space Camp to agree, 3) raise enough money, and 4) get the kids into the proper physical and especially mental state. It ain't gonna be easy.
All right, I'll just start off by saying this is a Hallmark movie. But it's so much better than one of their typical movies that I forgot it was even Hallmark. Or I would have forgotten if there weren't so many Hallmark card commercials.
Back to my review. The acting, writing, and story are amazing for a TV movie. A Smile as Big as the Moon wouldn't win any Academy Awards if it was a theater release, but it's really more than just passable. At least one of the kids is played by someone with the real disability, and the others seem to be pretty darn good actors. John Corbett is good as Mike. And that's pretty much everybody who has a big part.
So the production is good - and the story is better. People so often forget that disabilities don't define people. Yes, psychologists, I'm looking at you. Special ed kids are so often marginalized just because they happen to have difficulty reading, concentrating, remembering, or even just comprehending. They get labeled so that everyone sees them as "Down syndromes with people" (so to speak) instead of "people with Down syndrome." Then the kids' development is stunted because they're told they "can't do that" because their brains or other parts of them work differently. The only words to describe that viewpoint are ones that I prefer not to use. A Smile as Big as the Moon tears down that horrible inversion by showing just how much kids are capable of achieving if they're only given the chance and a helping hand.
My Rating: OK (mild language)
All right, I'll just start off by saying this is a Hallmark movie. But it's so much better than one of their typical movies that I forgot it was even Hallmark. Or I would have forgotten if there weren't so many Hallmark card commercials.
Back to my review. The acting, writing, and story are amazing for a TV movie. A Smile as Big as the Moon wouldn't win any Academy Awards if it was a theater release, but it's really more than just passable. At least one of the kids is played by someone with the real disability, and the others seem to be pretty darn good actors. John Corbett is good as Mike. And that's pretty much everybody who has a big part.
So the production is good - and the story is better. People so often forget that disabilities don't define people. Yes, psychologists, I'm looking at you. Special ed kids are so often marginalized just because they happen to have difficulty reading, concentrating, remembering, or even just comprehending. They get labeled so that everyone sees them as "Down syndromes with people" (so to speak) instead of "people with Down syndrome." Then the kids' development is stunted because they're told they "can't do that" because their brains or other parts of them work differently. The only words to describe that viewpoint are ones that I prefer not to use. A Smile as Big as the Moon tears down that horrible inversion by showing just how much kids are capable of achieving if they're only given the chance and a helping hand.
My Rating: OK (mild language)
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
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:
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:
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
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:
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:
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
On The Homelander Series
(Books: The Last Thing I Remember, The Long Way Home, The Truth of the Matter, and The Final Hour. Written by Andrew Klavan.) Charlie West is an ordinary high school kid. He has an older sister he tolerates, parents he loves but takes a little for granted, and he's in love with a beautiful girl named Beth. Oh, he also has a black belt in karate and a strong desire to enter the Air Force. Yep, Charlie is somewhere between skinny little Steve Rogers and hulking strongman Captain America. A good kid who loves his country and tries to do the right thing. But if all that's true, how did he get strapped to a chair and tortured by terrorists? Why are the police after him? And why can't he remember the last year of his life?
Finally, a series written for young adults that's actually appropriate for young adults! Better yet, it's a modern action/spy thriller. Best of all, the author is a conservative who has his head on straight about the goings-on in the world today. If someone else wrote this series, the terrorists would be funded by some greedy jerk in the CIA, oil industry, or _____ (fill in the blank with some other government organization or large corporation). Klavan takes a different, more realistic approach, and doesn't blame capitalism for all the ills that plague our country.
Is this the most realistic series I've ever read? Aside from the proper portrayal of terrorism, etc., probably not. I'm not sure if all the things in the books are possible, but they require only a slight suspension of belief. Charlie seems to be extraordinarily resiliant, but I've never been on the run before. Maybe some special grace or strength kicks in when one's life is on the line. Or maybe this is just a fictional series that shouldn't be taken too seriously. Either way, the unrealistic elements don't really take away from the series.
Finally, I love Klavan's sense of humor and his writing style. If you want a taste, just watch this video: Barack the Magic Suit, A Political Fairy Tale. No, his books are not quite this blatantly conservative. Although you should pay close attention to the last name of the President of the United States at the end of The Final Hour. It sure made me laugh.
This review is long enough already, so I'll try to keep my other gushing down to a bare minimum. Charlie and all the "good guy" (or girl) characters are all awesome, particularly Mike. And Klavan did a very good job of letting the reader figure out what was going on just before Charlie found out. The line between telling too soon and blatantly misleading readers is a delicate tight rope. Klavan walked it perfectly.
In short, I highly recommend this to anyone looking for a good, clean, conservative read.
My Rating: OK (violence, mention of torture (none actually in the books), terrorism)
Finally, a series written for young adults that's actually appropriate for young adults! Better yet, it's a modern action/spy thriller. Best of all, the author is a conservative who has his head on straight about the goings-on in the world today. If someone else wrote this series, the terrorists would be funded by some greedy jerk in the CIA, oil industry, or _____ (fill in the blank with some other government organization or large corporation). Klavan takes a different, more realistic approach, and doesn't blame capitalism for all the ills that plague our country.
Is this the most realistic series I've ever read? Aside from the proper portrayal of terrorism, etc., probably not. I'm not sure if all the things in the books are possible, but they require only a slight suspension of belief. Charlie seems to be extraordinarily resiliant, but I've never been on the run before. Maybe some special grace or strength kicks in when one's life is on the line. Or maybe this is just a fictional series that shouldn't be taken too seriously. Either way, the unrealistic elements don't really take away from the series.
Finally, I love Klavan's sense of humor and his writing style. If you want a taste, just watch this video: Barack the Magic Suit, A Political Fairy Tale. No, his books are not quite this blatantly conservative. Although you should pay close attention to the last name of the President of the United States at the end of The Final Hour. It sure made me laugh.
This review is long enough already, so I'll try to keep my other gushing down to a bare minimum. Charlie and all the "good guy" (or girl) characters are all awesome, particularly Mike. And Klavan did a very good job of letting the reader figure out what was going on just before Charlie found out. The line between telling too soon and blatantly misleading readers is a delicate tight rope. Klavan walked it perfectly.
In short, I highly recommend this to anyone looking for a good, clean, conservative read.
My Rating: OK (violence, mention of torture (none actually in the books), terrorism)
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
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)
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)
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
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)
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)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
On The Searchers
Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) has just returned from an extended absence that began with the Civil War, but continued for some time under mysterious circumstances. His brother, sister-in-law, and the couple's children welcome him back with open arms, but Ethan seems to have a little trouble settling in. When Indians attack while Ethan and his adopted nephew Martin (Jeffrey Hunter) are elsewhere, the whole family is murdered except for Ethan's two young nieces. Ethan and Martin leave to search for their two family members, but it isn't long before Martin fears Ethan's hatred of Indians may cause him to do something drastic.
Generally speaking, I don't like John Wayne movies. I think he was a dreadful actor, and, to be honest, he played exactly the same character in all his later movies that I've seen. In this one, he's a particularly bad actor. He has this one line that he keeps repeating at different points in the movie that is just laughable. However, I enjoyed watching The Searchers because it isn't so much about him as it is about his nephew Martin.
Martin is an enjoyable character. He's only a decent actor, but his character is surprisingly well formed for a Hollywood movie. He has his own little quirks without seeming like an overly exaggerated character, and some of the situations he gets himself into are pretty funny. Best of all, he's young, inexperienced, and rather foolish, but he's still a brave hero. He puts the safety of his adopted sister above his own comfort, even though his girlfriend is furious with him for being gone for so long.
Although I really enjoyed Martin, I must say that the portrayal of Indians made me cringe a little. It's a typical Hollywood stereotype (for crying out loud, the bad guy's name is Scar, a sinister name if I've ever heard one), and Ethan's overblown hatred and disgust for Indians (though partly justifiable because of the Indians' raid on his family's home) is a bit over the top. Although, in defense of the movie, there are a few peaceful Indians as well, and the U.S. soldiers are sometimes portrayed as cruel toward Indians.
Note: John Wayne's son Patrick plays a young soldier in this movie. A little fun is poked at their relationship; Patrick plays the son of an officer, and the men keep giving him a hard time because of his father.
My Rating: OK (frightening situations, mild sexual content)
Generally speaking, I don't like John Wayne movies. I think he was a dreadful actor, and, to be honest, he played exactly the same character in all his later movies that I've seen. In this one, he's a particularly bad actor. He has this one line that he keeps repeating at different points in the movie that is just laughable. However, I enjoyed watching The Searchers because it isn't so much about him as it is about his nephew Martin.
Martin is an enjoyable character. He's only a decent actor, but his character is surprisingly well formed for a Hollywood movie. He has his own little quirks without seeming like an overly exaggerated character, and some of the situations he gets himself into are pretty funny. Best of all, he's young, inexperienced, and rather foolish, but he's still a brave hero. He puts the safety of his adopted sister above his own comfort, even though his girlfriend is furious with him for being gone for so long.
Although I really enjoyed Martin, I must say that the portrayal of Indians made me cringe a little. It's a typical Hollywood stereotype (for crying out loud, the bad guy's name is Scar, a sinister name if I've ever heard one), and Ethan's overblown hatred and disgust for Indians (though partly justifiable because of the Indians' raid on his family's home) is a bit over the top. Although, in defense of the movie, there are a few peaceful Indians as well, and the U.S. soldiers are sometimes portrayed as cruel toward Indians.
Note: John Wayne's son Patrick plays a young soldier in this movie. A little fun is poked at their relationship; Patrick plays the son of an officer, and the men keep giving him a hard time because of his father.
My Rating: OK (frightening situations, mild sexual content)
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
In Relation To National Treasure: Book of Secrets
It's been awhile since Ben Gates (Nicolas Cage) and his friends and family discovered the famous Knights Templar treasure. Things aren't going so well anymore. Riley Poole (Justin Bartha) has the IRS hounding him, and Ben is living with his father after getting kicked out by his now-ex-girlfriend Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger). Then suddenly, a man named Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris) comes forward with a piece of paper he claims proves that Ben's great-great-grandfather was a traitor who plotted to kill president Abraham Lincoln. Ben, his father, and their friends know that isn't true. The great-great-grandfather was killed by men plotting to assassinate Lincoln and discover a fabulous city of gold in order to help the Confederate cause. The only way the Gateses can prove their ancestor's innocence is by finding the city themselves using the clues left behind on that damning piece of paper.This is a light-hearted, lightweight movie that's enjoyable enough with a big bowl of popcorn and a cozy blanket on a winter's night. It's better still with some friends who don't mind talking and laughing about a movie through the whole thing. As far as serious movie-watching goes, National Treasure: Book of Secrets can't stand on its own two feet.
There are significant holes in the plot line, including the idea that Ben and his father can clear their ancestor's name by proving the existence of a city of gold. I see almost no correlation between the two things. That's plot hole number one. There are a whole lot more secondary plot line holes throughout the movie, coupled with completely unbelievable things like Abigail and Ben breaking into Buckingham Palace and stealing something out of a hidden compartment in Queen Elizabeth II's desk. Even if the queen wasn't at Buckingham Palace at the time, the idea that someone could break into the palace that easily is absurd.
But if one can overlook the improbability (and occasional impossibility) of a lot of things, National Treasure: Book of Secrets can be very enjoyable. Ben's estranged mother Emily (Helen Mirren) was a welcome addition to the group, and the humor was simultaneously ramped up and cleaned up from the first movie's standards. Nicolas Cage is not a very good actor, but he's a good comedian, and the best two lines in the movie belong to him. Riley's character isn't quite as weird as he was in the first movie, getting a little smarter and even more likable.
Finally, even though most of the characters were enjoyable, Wilkinson was extremely dull and uninteresting compared to Ian Howe (Sean Bean) from the previous movie. Of course, Sean Bean is an exceptional actor, but I think he enjoyed far more interesting lines than Ed Harris did. Wilkinson simply had virtually no character. He was shallow, with the lamest motivation I have ever heard. Most men who want their names to go down in history are nuts and end up shooting someone or blowing up a building. Though I must say I like Wilkinson's end far more than Howe's.
My Rating: OK (some crude humor, mild violence)
Picture from impawards.com
Monday, December 13, 2010
On The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) is in trouble. His aunt has just had a baby boy, and his uncle Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), who has been king in all but title since Caspian's father died, now has no use for Caspian. Where Miraz is concerned, that means there's no need for Caspian to remain alive. On the advice of his old tutor, Caspian flees into the woods, taking something called "Queen Susan's Horn" with him. When he is attacked by strange creatures, Caspian blows the horn, calling for the old kings and queens of Narnia - the Pevensie children from England - to return.Pros: This is a really cool movie. The special effects are awesome, and it's really exciting. Despite what nearly everyone I know says, I really like Peter (William Moseley). Lucy (Georgie Henley) is very sweet, as always. Oh, and Reepicheep (Eddie Izzard) and Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage) are hilarious. Also, the book, though filled with deeper meanings and stuff, is very much written for little kids - at least, as far as the style goes. This movie was definitely made to appeal to teenagers as well as kids. Finally, I believe the point of the book, which is faith, remained in the movie despite how much they changed things. (As a side note, Prince Caspian is downright gorgeous.)
Cons: The top of this list is definitely Susan (Anna Popplewell) and Caspian falling in love. I really can't stand Susan, so I can't stand that part of the story. Next comes the tweaking of a couple of Aslan's lines. Changing those took away from him as an image of Christ. Also, although Reepicheep and Trumpkin are funny, they're not really how they're supposed to be. Trumpkin doesn't believe in Aslan, and he's a glass half empty kind of guy, but he's not sullen, and Reepicheep is supposed to be ridiculously puffed up with dignity, not really sarcastic.
Note: Based on the book by C.S. Lewis.
My Rating: OK (frightening images, non-graphic battle scenes)
Picture from impawards.com
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Pertaining To Sir Percy Hits Back
(Written by Baroness Orczy. Eleventh book in the Scarlet Pimpernel series.) Fleurette has long been sheltered from the world outside by her doting father. But her perfect little world is shattered when her sweetheart, Amede, is arrested for treason against the French Republic. Desperate for his safety, Fleurette leaves her home to find her father, who is a man of some influence. Little does she know there's someone far more powerful already looking out for her - the Englishman known as Sir Percy Blakeney, alias the Scarlet Pimpernel.Cons: Sir Percy isn't in it nearly enough. The climax scene is rather predictable, particularly if you've read other Scarlet Pimpernel novels.
My Rating: OK (violence)
Picture from paperbackswap.com.
Monday, November 29, 2010
On The Most Wonderful Time of the Year
Uncle Ralph (Henry Winkler) is the ultimate gift getter. For his little great-nephew Brian (Connor Christopher Levins), that is. Unfortunately, old Uncle Ralph hates shopping for girls. He finds a Christmas present for Brian's mom Jen (Brooke Burns), but when he meets a handsome stranger on his way to visit Jen and Brian, he can't resist a little match-making. So he talks Jen into letting this handsome stranger, named Morgan Derbie (Warren Christie), stay in her house for a night while Morgan's waiting for his plane. But Jen isn't too pleased about it. And neither is her boyfriend.
Pros: This was surprisingly well acted. Both the lead parts are pretty good, which is more than I can say for most Hallmark movies. It was also really funny. Uncle Ralph in particular has some great lines, while Morgan's facial expressions are hilarious.
Cons: Okay, so the story is a little unbelievable. Believe it or not, the romance isn't particularly well done. I don't mean that it's lame (although it kind of is); I mean there are pretty much zero romantic scenes, and there seems to be almost no chemistry between Morgan and Jen. Very strange for a Hallmark movie.
My Rating: OK (sexual references)
Pros: This was surprisingly well acted. Both the lead parts are pretty good, which is more than I can say for most Hallmark movies. It was also really funny. Uncle Ralph in particular has some great lines, while Morgan's facial expressions are hilarious.
Cons: Okay, so the story is a little unbelievable. Believe it or not, the romance isn't particularly well done. I don't mean that it's lame (although it kind of is); I mean there are pretty much zero romantic scenes, and there seems to be almost no chemistry between Morgan and Jen. Very strange for a Hallmark movie.
My Rating: OK (sexual references)
Monday, November 22, 2010
In Relation To Eldorado
(Written by Baroness Orczy. Eighth book in the Scarlet Pimpernel series.) Louis XVI and his lovely wife Marie Antoinette have been murdered by the French Republicans. The only hope for those who wish to see the monarchy in France restored lies in the young Dauphin - a prisoner of the cruel and bloodthirsty revolutionaries. Sir Percy Blakeney, known as the Scarlet Pimpernel to most of the world, is determined to rescue the boy. But matters get rather complicated when one of Sir Percy's league - his brother-in-law Armand St. Just - falls in love with an opera singer and places her safety above that of his fellow league members and the French prince.
Pros: Very well written. Armand drives me crazy at times, but his character is fairly likable. Sir Percy is awesome, of course, as he always is. The ending was completely unexpected. I absolutely love Marguerite!
Cons: Okay, the ending was a little confusing. I must admit I had to read it more than once - and I'm still not sure I understand it.
My Rating: OK (violence)
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Regarding Ivanhoe
Ivanhoe (Anthony Andrews) has just returned from the Crusades. The son of a Saxon lord, he defeats Brian de-Bois Guilbert (Sam Neill), Front de Boef (John Rhys-Davies), and De Bracy (Stuart Wilson), the three best Norman knights in England, in a tournament. Unfortunately, he is injured in the process. When a wealthy Jewish merchant named Isaac of York (James Mason) and his beautiful daughter Rebecca (Olivia Hussey) decide to take him to their home in York in order to heal, the three become attached to the party of Ivanhoe's estranged father - and his childhood sweetheart, Rowena (Lysette Anthony). The little group is captured as they travel past the castle of Front de Boef, and find themselves in the clutches of three knights with less than honorable intentions.
Pros: Rebecca is an awesome character, and Olivia Hussey played her very well. A lot better than Elizabeth Taylor did in an older version of this movie. I also like Rowena, although she's kind of boring compared to Rebecca (partly for reasons discussed in my "Cons" section). *Spoiler Warning* I think Brian de Bois-Guilbert is probably my favorite villain of all time - although villain isn't the right word to describe him - he's a hero. Even though he acts like an unfeeling jerk through nearly all of the story, he gives his life to save Rebecca in the end and redeems himself.
Cons: Christians, and the Catholic Church in particular, don't come off very well in this story. But then, the story is a good deal about prejudice - about how Normans and Saxons hated each other, and about how both groups hated Jews, who hated them in return. But the main characters - Ivanhoe, Rebecca, Rowena, and King Richard - aren't prejudiced at all. Also, Ivanhoe might be the title character, and might be the one character that really ties everyone together, but he's not much more than a prop. Talk about a boring character! Oh, and I really like Rowena's character, but the actress was not very pretty, and she couldn't act at all.
Note: Based on the book by Sir Walter Scott.
My Rating: OK (violence, mild sexual references)
Pros: Rebecca is an awesome character, and Olivia Hussey played her very well. A lot better than Elizabeth Taylor did in an older version of this movie. I also like Rowena, although she's kind of boring compared to Rebecca (partly for reasons discussed in my "Cons" section). *Spoiler Warning* I think Brian de Bois-Guilbert is probably my favorite villain of all time - although villain isn't the right word to describe him - he's a hero. Even though he acts like an unfeeling jerk through nearly all of the story, he gives his life to save Rebecca in the end and redeems himself.
Cons: Christians, and the Catholic Church in particular, don't come off very well in this story. But then, the story is a good deal about prejudice - about how Normans and Saxons hated each other, and about how both groups hated Jews, who hated them in return. But the main characters - Ivanhoe, Rebecca, Rowena, and King Richard - aren't prejudiced at all. Also, Ivanhoe might be the title character, and might be the one character that really ties everyone together, but he's not much more than a prop. Talk about a boring character! Oh, and I really like Rowena's character, but the actress was not very pretty, and she couldn't act at all.
Note: Based on the book by Sir Walter Scott.
My Rating: OK (violence, mild sexual references)
Friday, November 5, 2010
On Awakening
(A Crossroads in Time book; written by Claudia Cangilla McAdam.) Nothing is worth dying for. That's what Ronni thinks, anyway. She should know. Her dad and brother were killed a year ago. But when Ronni gets feverish and loses consciousness, she is awakened by Jesus - who will die in two days. Can she stop his death? Does she really want to?Pros: It was pretty cool to see how most of the things fit into the bible stories really well, from Mark to Longinus. I really liked Mark, the guy Ronni has a crush on. It wasn't too cheesy for a religious book.
Cons: I had two problems with this book. First, the crucifixion scene was in fast-forward or something. Everything happened so fast! But the biggest beef I had was with the Last Supper scene. *Spoiler warning* I mean, I know Ronni is an altar girl (which I don't really approve of, btw), but the Last Supper wasn't just the institution of the Eucharist; it was the institution of the priesthood! And women cannot be priests. I know Ronni was just a server at the Last Supper... but what the heck was she doing there?!
My Rating: OK (the crucifixion)
Picture from claudiamcadam.com
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
On His Girl Friday
Pros: The snappy dialogue is kind of cool. People talk really quickly, and the action hardly ever stops. There are a few funny scenes (after all, it is a Cary Grant movie). There's a surprising plot twist or two.
Cons: It wasn't all that funny. *Spoiler Warning* Throughout the movie, Hildy insists that she wants to be a stay-at-home mom. But in the end, she seems to put those aspirations in the back seat. While there's nothing wrong with a working mom per se, I don't like the inference that working is better than staying at home to raise a family. Also, the movie ends with a hint that Hildy and Walter's life together will be much like it was before - with Walter treating Hildy like a colleague instead of a wife.
My Rating: OK (thematic elements including a murder)
Picture from movieberry.com
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
In Relation To The Winslow Boy
Young Ronnie Winslow (Guy Edwards) has been accused of stealing and, in consequence, thrown out of the royal naval academy. Convinced of his young son's innocence, Arthur Winslow (Nigel Hawthorne) enlists the help of Sir Robert Morton (Jeremy Northam), a famed attorney. As Sir Robert does everything in his power to win the Winslow Boy case, the Winslow family begins to realize it will take many sacrifices to clear Ronnie's name.Pros: I love Sir Robert Morton! He's a really cool guy who cares more about the Winslows (and one particularly attractive one, I might add. Don't look at her in the picture; she's really a lot prettier than that) than about his career or reputation. The ending rather surprised me.
Cons: This movie was based on a play, which is quite obvious. Too many of the lines are repeated (how many times do they have to say everything?!).
My Rating: OK (Ronnie's older brother Dickie is rather a dissolute character)
Picture from impawards.com
Friday, October 8, 2010
Regarding The Inheritance
Edith Adelon (Cari Shayne) has lived with the Hamiltons since she was a tiny baby. But now things are changing. A cousin of the Hamiltons, one miss Ida Glenshaw (Brigid Brannagh), is coming for a visit. Ida is on a husband-hunt, and her prey is James Percy (Thomas Gibson), a very rich man who is also coming to visit the Hamiltons. But James falls for Edith. Then Ida turns her eye to Frederick Arlington (Paul Anthony Stewart), someone who lives near the Hamiltons. When he, too, is attracted by Edith, Ida becomes wildly jealous.Pros: There are two great things about this movie. The first is Mr. Hamilton (Tom Conti). He is absolutely hilarious if you like sarcastic humor. The second one is James. He's not that great of an actor, but he's so darn handsome. Normally the hero's looks don't play into my liking or disliking of a movie that much (like in Bleak House or Little Dorrit or Wives and Daughters). Good looks are just a bonus if the hero is likeable. But the guy in this movie is really, really handsome.
Cons: I should have seen the ending coming. Plus, the stupid horse riding by Edith is such a cliche and totally unrealistic! A friend told me that part of the story isn't even in the book, which only makes the movie that much worse!
Note: Based on the book by Louisa May Alcott. Oh, and the little stone house in this movie is the same one Missie lives in during the later Love Comes Softly movies.
My Rating: OK (mild language, very mild sexual content)
Picture from dvdnear.com
Monday, October 4, 2010
In Relation To East
In East, a book by Edith Pattou, Rose is a farm girl who has always been a wanderer. She thought nothing of climbing over a stone wall and falling down a waterfall when she was two. Now her family is in financial ruin, and her sister Sara is dying. Then a visit from a mysterious white bear changes everything. The bear offers to heal Sara and secure the family's fortunes - if Rose will go away with him. Rose agrees, and is carried off by him to his castle. After a few months, Rose begins to wonder about her host and the castle he lives in. Is the bear more animal than human or more human than animal? And who - or what - crawls into the far side of her bed every night when the lights go out?
Pros: I know I say this about everything, but I really like the hero and the heroine. The story is very unusual too, and takes place in Norway (at least, I think "Nordjen" is Norway). The first time I read this book, I was glued to the pages for hours; it was a very unusual and pretty suspenseful Beauty and the Beast tale! Also, there are quite a few places where the authoress could have made the book sleazy, but it's perfectly clean.
Cons: Okay, the superstitions about birth direction and everything were a little annoying. Also, the parts of the story written by the white bear were exceedingly worthless. At least, the parts at the beginning of the book...
My Rating: OK (someone sleeping in Rose's bed at night)
Pros: I know I say this about everything, but I really like the hero and the heroine. The story is very unusual too, and takes place in Norway (at least, I think "Nordjen" is Norway). The first time I read this book, I was glued to the pages for hours; it was a very unusual and pretty suspenseful Beauty and the Beast tale! Also, there are quite a few places where the authoress could have made the book sleazy, but it's perfectly clean.
Cons: Okay, the superstitions about birth direction and everything were a little annoying. Also, the parts of the story written by the white bear were exceedingly worthless. At least, the parts at the beginning of the book...
My Rating: OK (someone sleeping in Rose's bed at night)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)