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.

In Relation To The Phantom of the Opera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews of similar books or movies:

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

Untitled Blog Post

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

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

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

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

In Relation To Jane Eyre (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Jane Eyre reviews:

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

Are We Dancing?

Question:
Why doesn't anyone dance like this anymore?

a) because there's nobody like Gene Kelly.
b) because true dancing is très passé
c) because "dancing" is just a code word for "flaunt your stuff"
d) all of the above




Answer: d) all of the above

Clip from It's Always Fair Weather.

On Dear Frankie

Frankie (Jack McElhone), a nine-year-old deaf boy, has been writing letters to his absent father for years. Except that his father hasn't received any of the letters, much less written any replies. Actually, Frankie's mother Lizzie has been the one corresponding with him under the guise of his father's name. Lizzie has told her son that his father is a sailor on board the Accra. But when the ship, which Lizzie thought existed only in her imagination, comes to town, Lizzie finds herself in a tight spot. She does what any mother would do - she hires a total stranger to play her husband for a day.

Putting aside some moral issues, Dear Frankie uses wonderful acting, a stream-lined script, and lovely Scottish accents to make a sweet little tale. Slow-paced, relaxed, and gentle, it paints a beautiful picture of a woman and her son struggling with their troubles. Frankie doesn't seem too bothered by his deafness, but he won't even speak to his mother, much less anyone else. Lizzie is struggling with single motherhood and the tragedies that have befallen her and her loved ones, and at times it seems like her mother's feistiness and her son's fragility are the only things that keep her afloat.

At the same time, Dear Frankie doesn't resort to too much drama. There are several scenes that are entirely without dialogue, and many others where the dialogue is very simple. That isn't to say the filmmakers wrote a boring or amateurish script. In fact, the script uses impressively few words to convey major parts of the story. Instead, it just means that the movie is about simple people with complicated problems.

One of the simplest characters in the movie is the man Lizzie hires to play her husband. The credits identify him merely as "The Stranger" (Gerard Butler). He has "no past, no present, and no future," but he has a very good heart. All it takes to talk him into helping Lizzie protect her son from the truth is a picture of Frankie taken just before his father disappeared. As the movie goes on, it becomes increasingly clear that he will do almost anything to make Frankie feel like his father truly loves him.

When tragedy hits, many people are prompted to ask "why?" Dear Frankie shows that it is not only possible to survive tragedy, it is possible that tragedy can lead directly to things that are more wonderful than anything that happened before tragedy struck.

My Rating: MT (language, sexual references - two made by children)

Regarding Sense & Sensibility

Two sisters, two entirely different personalities. Elinor Dashwood (Hattie Morahan) is "sense" to her very core. She allows her head to lead her heart, no matter what befalls her or her family. Her younger sister Marianne (Charity Wakefield) is "sensibility." She allows her emotions to dictate her actions every minute of the day, regardless of how it affects those around her. When tragedy strikes, the two sisters try to muddle through as best they can, hoping to pick up the pieces of their lives and find some measure of happiness.

I greatly prefer this adaptation to the one by Emma Thompson. For one thing, the characters are much nearer their proper ages. (While this might seem like I'm nitpicking, it's very distracting to watch a movie with a heroine who is supposed to be teenaged but looks like she's nearly forty.) For another, this one is closer to the book, although perhaps a bit more exaggerated. But then, that's what Jane Austen did best. If there was ever an exaggerated character, it was Mrs. Bennet from Pride and Prejudice.

While this adaptation is very close to the book, there are a couple difference. The biggest one is probably Edward Ferrars (Dan Stevens), who seems more handsome and less awkward than in the book. I was exceedingly disappointed in John Willoughby (Dominic Cooper), though. While his character is very close to my recollection of it in the book, the actor was a bad choice. He's not nearly as handsome as he should be, and his acting skills are perhaps not quite up to par. I much prefer Greg Wise in Emma Thompson's version.

The differences from the book notwithstanding, I love this movie. The scenery is absolutely beautiful, Hattie Morahan is perfect as Elinor (one of my favorite heroines of all time), and the writing is very good. While it doesn't come close to touching The Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, Sense & Sensibility is definitely one of my favorite Jane Austen adaptations.

Note: Based on the book by Jane Austen

My Rating: T (sexual content and references (all in the first scene, which I have never seen; it might deserve an MT rating), thematic elements)

Concerning Persuasion

Anne Elliot (Amanda Root) was persuaded to reject Captain Wentworth's (Ciaran Hinds) offer of marriage when she was merely nineteen. He had no money and no connections, and it was deemed wise for young Anne to wait for someone who would be more worthy of her. Eight years later, Captain Wentworth suddenly reappears in Anne's life. They are both still single, but Captain Wentworth appears to have quite gotten over his love for her. Anne suffers in silence as she watches him shower his attentions on a distant relative of hers. But then she meets a new man. Mr. Elliot (Samuel West), her estranged cousin, enters her life and is immediately attracted to her quiet prettiness and gentle heart. Anne quietly accepts his attentions, but somehow she can't quite cut the ties that bind her heart to the navy man she once rejected.

Pros: It's a wonderful love story. It's also funny, with many, many lines straight out of the book. Amanda Root is my ideal Anne Elliot. Samuel West is absolutely perfect as Mr. Elliot. They could have picked a handsomer Captain Wentworth than Ciaran Hinds, but otherwise he's great.

Cons: Lady Russell (Susan Fleetwood) and Mrs. Clay (Felicity Dean) are both horrible. Lady Russell looks like she has short hair (short hair! In a Regency period story!) and Mrs. Clay is not nearly pretty enough.

My Rating: AGC

Regarding Jane Eyre (1983)

Jane Eyre (Zelah Clarke) is a poor, penniless orphan who lives off the dubious charity of her aunt. She is sent to a rather cheerless boarding school, where she spends eight years before leaving to become a governess to a little French girl named Adele (Blance Youinou). Adele is a sweet little thing, but her guardian, Mr. Rochester (Timothy Dalton) is moody and mysterious. As Jane becomes more and more comfortable in her new home, she also becomes more and more attracted to its master. But Mr. Rochester is not moody and mysterious for nothing - his past holds a deep, dark secret that could destroy Jane's happiness altogether.

Pros: Lots and lots of lines are straight out of the book. Timothy Dalton doesn't look the part of Mr. Rochester, but he acts him pretty well. And someone finally got St. John Rivers (Andrew Bicknell) right! Also, this one had a lot more time to develop as a story than the other versions I've seen, as it is nearly four hours long.

Cons: It's definitely a 1980s British movie. The sets, costumes, lighting, etc. aren't particularly well done. Zelah Clarke was far too old to play Jane. She was almost thirty; Jane is supposed to be eighteen! Plus, I know the fidelity to St. John's character was one of my pros, but I can't stand him!

Note: Based on the book by Charlotte Bronte.

My Rating: T (thematic elements)

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)

Pertaining To I Will Repay

(Written by Baroness Orczy. Fourth book in the Scarlet Pimpernel series.) A decade before the French Revolution, Paul Deroulede killed the young Vicomte de Marny. It was an accident that happened during a fair fight; anyway, de Marny was asking for it. But the Vicomte's deranged father forces his daughter Juliette to swear an oath to God that she will repay Deroulede for his deed. Ten years later, now a beautiful young woman, Juliette receives a chance to fulfill her oath and avenge her brother's death. But should she really do it? Or does vengeance belong to God alone?

Pros: I'm a huge Scarlet Pimpernel fan, and a fan of Baroness Orczy's style of writing. Paul is really sweet (although a bit dim-witted at times), and Juliette tries her best to muddle her way through her problems. Sir Percy is, of course, perfect.

Cons: There's a misguided idea that Juliette's Catholic faith is somehow partly responsible for her feeling that she has to fulfill her oath at all costs. Now, I find that idea offensive. Juliette swore her oath at the prodding of her father when she was only fourteen and had virtually no idea what her oath would entail; the Catholic Church would not hold her to it. On the contrary! I'm quite certain the Church would wish her to give it up, particularly becaue what she swore to do was wrong. Very annoying. Also, Sir Percy wasn't in the book nearly enough.

My Rating: T (crimes commited by republicans, some anti-Catholic themes that almost border on anti-Christian themes; in fact, if I hadn't known of Sir Percy's faith in God, I would have said the book was anti-Christian)

Picture from Bookapex.com.

Regarding The Lake House

Dr. Kate Forster (Sandra Bullock) is a lonely youngish woman who has just moved out of a lake house. That is, a house built on a lake - with stilts that hold it above the water. Dr. Forster leaves a note in the mailbox, asking the next occupant of the house to forward any letters that may slip through the post office. Meanwhile, Alex Wyler (Keanu Reeves) is an architect. He moves into the lake house and finds Kate's letter. Only problem is, he moved in two years before Kate did. Which means any relationship they build will be extremely long-distance.

Pros: Alex is such a gentleman! I typically like Sandra Bullock's characters, and Kate was no different (she was an idiot in some ways, but very sweet). The side characters were good. Christopher Plummer is great as Alex's dad.

Cons: Admittedly, Keanu Reeves is not a very good actor. But he's cute and Alex is sweet, so that makes up for it! The time-travel thing is cool, but very shallow.

My Rating: T (language, thematic elements)

On The Magic of Ordinary Days

It's World War II, but Livy Dunne (Keri Russell) is a young lady with her own problems. She's not married, and she's pregnant. Her father arranges for her to marry Ray Singleton (Skeet Ulrich), a farmer from a backwoods part of Colorado. Though she's never met the man, Livy reluctantly agrees. While Ray soon falls in love with her, Livy's heart still belongs to the father of her child.

Pros: This is really a beautifully pro-life story. In one scene, Livy tells a doctor that she made a "mistake" that resulted in her baby's conception. The doctor replies that she won't think of it as a mistake when she sees her baby. Plus, Ray doesn't care that the baby isn't his - he's going to love him or her like a real daddy. Which brings me to another subject - Ray! He is so sweet to Livy, he would melt any woman's heart. There are also no flashbacks, which, in movies with storylines like this one, can often be crude. The acting is surprisingly good for a Hallmark movie.

Cons: Um, the "Japanese-American" women that Livy befriends are Asian, but they don't really look Japanese. The actresses are from Singapore and Indonesia. I have no idea whether that part of the story is at all accurate, either. Also, the clothing is really laughable. Like any woman would sleep in a no-sleeved nightgown in an old farmhouse in Colorado in the winter!

My Rating: T (thematic elements)

Picture from movieberry.com

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

Regarding The Russell Girl

Sarah Russell (Amber Tamblyn) has leukemia. Terrified at the prospect of dying, she goes back home to visit her parents, but, at the last moment, decides not to tell them about her disease. While on her visit, she runs into people she fondly remembers and people she'd rather forget - namely, her high school boyfriend Evan Carroll (Paul Wesley), and her next-door-neighbor Lorainne Morrissey (Jennifer Ehle). While Evan is delighted to see her, Sarah's reappearance stirs up tragic memories for Lorainne, who starts down a slippery slope of bitterness and a refusal to let go of the past.

Pros: There's nothing I like better than an awful Hallmark movie. Quite honestly, I love watching them with my friends and laughing the whole way through. But the only laughs I got out of this movie were the intentionally funny lines, and other parts made me cry. Evan is really very adorable, and all three dads in the movie (Sarah's father, Evan's father (even though he's only in one scene), and Lorainne's husband) are awesome. That's really why I like this movie so much. When is a father ever portrayed as anything other than an idiot nowadays? Jennifer Ehle was fabulous as Lorainne, and Amber Tamblyn did a great job with some not-so-easy lines and facial expressions as Sarah.

Cons: To be honest, tragedy and faith go hand-in-hand. If you're going through a tough time, lean on the Lord. Unfortunately, there is barely (if any) mention of God in this movie. But I don't allow that to overshadow the rest. I must admit, too, that the kissing scenes were weird. Neither Evan nor Sarah do anything wrong; the kisses are just weird.

My Rating: OK (tragedy, lack of trust in parents and family)

Picture from movieberry.com

Regarding The Love Letter

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

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

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

My Rating: AGC

In Relation To Alex O'Donnell and the 40 Cyberthieves

In Alex O'Donnell and the 40 Cyberthieves, the latest installment in Regina Doman's Fairy Tale Novel series, Alex O'Donnell's relationship with Kateri Kovach is at a stand-still. Kateri is determined to break up, but for some reason she never gets around to talking about it. Meanwhile, Alex's father is a hacker. He doesn't use his talent for stealing identities or other illegal and immoral purposes; he just follows people around the internet. But when he hacks into a mysterious website - and gets a check in the mail for over a million dollars just a few days later - he begins to think he may be in over his head.

Pros: I absolutely love Alex! Also, I didn't know how Regina Doman was going to translate Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves into a halfway-realistic modern American story, but somehow she pulled it off. The "barbarians" were awfully funny, too.

Cons: I'll come right out and say it: I don't like Kateri. I love her name. I liked her in Waking Rose. But, as a heroine, she doesn't cut it for me. She's way too uptight. But, thankfully, everything else in the book more than makes up for her character!

My Rating: T (mild sexual references)

Picture from fairytalenovels.com

Regarding Bright Star

Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) is a fashionable young lady who loves witty remarks. John Keats (Ben Whishaw) is a shy poet who likes jokes, but doesn't care to dance. They're hardly an ideal pair. Yet, Fanny is attracted to Mr. Keats the very first time she meets him - despite his need for a new coat. She determinedly pursues a friendship with him, ignoring the discouragement she recieves from his obnoxious friend, Mr. Brown (Paul Schneider).

Pros: This movie is absolutely gorgeous. I caught my breath both times I saw the scene in the field with the blue/purple flowers. Fanny and Mr. Keats's love story is beautiful and almost entirely chaste (chastity runs deeper than simple abstinence). Mr. Brown's Scottish accent is awesome! The acting is almost impossibly good. Fanny's younger sister Toots (Edie Martin) is very cute and sweet.

Cons: "A poem needs understanding through the senses. The point of diving into a lake is not immediately to swim to the shore, but to be in the lake, to luxuriate in the sensation of water. You do not work the lake out, it is an experience beyond thought." -Mr. Keats, in a conversation with Fanny. Replace "a poem" with "this movie" and you have what I think of Bright Star. The first time I watched it, I didn't like it. I wanted it to pull me in, to capture my imagination and my emotions. It didn't. The second time I watched it, I was determined to become immersed in it. While even then it didn't affect me like many other movies I've seen, it was a lot better.

My Rating: T (thematic elements)

Picture from movieberry.com

Pertaining To When Calls the Heart

Janette Oke's When Calls the Heart is the first installment in her Canadian West series. When the book begins, Elizabeth is a schoolteacher in civilized Toronto. Then her half-brother Jonathon asks her to come all the way to Calgary to teach. Elizabeth reluctantly agrees, but puts her foot down when Jonathon teases about finding her a husband. She is determined never to marry a rough frontier man! Then she meets Wynn - and falls for his deep blue eyes at first sight. But love is never easy on the frontier, as Elizabeth soon discovers.

Pros: This is a pro-life book! Little Andy, the darling mentally challenged boy in Elizabeth's school, is a beautiful example of how special needs people touch everyone around them. I'm also a big fan of Wynn. Elizabeth's animal experiences are hilarious!

Cons: Elizabeth is eerily similar to Marty in Love Comes Softly. I don't really like Janette Oke's style of writing. There's one scene where someone says there's no such thing as a "big" or a "little" sin. The Catholic Church teaches that this idea is wrong - while God died for all of our sins (not just the big ones) and all sins can be forgiven, a white lie only corrodes a person's relationship with God. Something drastic (like a murder) empties the person of God's grace.

My Rating: OK (thematic elements)

Pertaining To The Shadow of the Bear

Once upon a time in New York City... Written by Regina Doman and based on the fairy tale Snow White and Rose Red, The Shadow of the Bear (Book One of the Fairy Tale Novels) is about Blanche and Rose Brier, two sisters who are as different as they can be. Eighteen-year-old Blanche is quiet and fearful, while sixteen-year-old Rose is flamboyant and brave. One night, they meet a mysterious young man who calls himself Bear. Blanche is sure that he's a drug dealer, but Rose and Mrs. Brier invite him to visit them as often as he pleases. As he spends more time with the family, Bear slowly earns Blanche's trust. However, the mysteries that surround him eventually begin to take shape - and threaten to engulf both him and the Briers.

Pros: I could go on and on and on and on. Instead, I'll just say that Bear is pretty much my favorite hero of all time, Rose is an awesome character, Blanche is even better, the whole fairy tale retold aspect of the book is right up my alley, and the chastity, faith, trust, and other Catholic elements in the story are great.

Cons: There are none.

My Rating: T (sexual and drug references)

Picture from fairytalenovels.com