(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)
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Welcome Back to Middle Earth! We Hope You Enjoy Your Stay...
A picture of Thorin is out on theonering.net! Plus, IMDb has stills from the movie! (For those of you who have been on a trip to Mars and only just returned, a two-part version of The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien's prelude to Lord of the Rings, is coming out in 2012 and 2013.)
Other pictures have come out, but the one of Richard Armitage (North & South, and that dreadful Robin Hood show) as Thorin is the one I have really looked foward to. My first reaction was a grimace. Richard Armitage is a very good-looking man, and as Thorin he looks rather, well, dwarvish. But I soon recovered and decided he looks just fine. After all, he still has his piercing eyes. And I'm thrilled that Martin Freeman (Sherlock) is playing Bilbo Baggins. He doesn't look as much like Ian Holm as I would wish, but he'll make a great Bilbo.
To expand from the pictures to the movie, I'm really excited that this project is finally becoming a reality. It took forever after ROTK came out (2003!), but real progress is being made. All I can say is: They'd better stick to the story. Some of the ideas that were apparently bandied about during the making of LOTR terrify me. (For example, sending Arwen to Helm's Deep to fight alongside Aragorn in TTT was apparently an option. Also, Aragorn was going to fight Sauron at the Black Gate in ROTK, but the Dark Lord was replaced by a troll in the final version of the film.) So, as long as they don't do anything too weird with the story (like insert a romance; romances add a lot to most stories, but there's no place for one here), I'm definitely seeing it in the theater and buying the (extended version?) DVD when it's released.
Other pictures have come out, but the one of Richard Armitage (North & South, and that dreadful Robin Hood show) as Thorin is the one I have really looked foward to. My first reaction was a grimace. Richard Armitage is a very good-looking man, and as Thorin he looks rather, well, dwarvish. But I soon recovered and decided he looks just fine. After all, he still has his piercing eyes. And I'm thrilled that Martin Freeman (Sherlock) is playing Bilbo Baggins. He doesn't look as much like Ian Holm as I would wish, but he'll make a great Bilbo.
To expand from the pictures to the movie, I'm really excited that this project is finally becoming a reality. It took forever after ROTK came out (2003!), but real progress is being made. All I can say is: They'd better stick to the story. Some of the ideas that were apparently bandied about during the making of LOTR terrify me. (For example, sending Arwen to Helm's Deep to fight alongside Aragorn in TTT was apparently an option. Also, Aragorn was going to fight Sauron at the Black Gate in ROTK, but the Dark Lord was replaced by a troll in the final version of the film.) So, as long as they don't do anything too weird with the story (like insert a romance; romances add a lot to most stories, but there's no place for one here), I'm definitely seeing it in the theater and buying the (extended version?) DVD when it's released.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Regarding This Present Darkness
(Written by Frank E. Peretti.) Satan is closing in on the little town of Ashton. His demons are lurking about, tempting people into doing horrible things. Now his lieutenant, Rafar, the Prince of Babylon, has been sent to carry out his evil plan. An angel named Captain Tal and his likewise angelic companions are preparing to do battle. But their strength can only be increased by human prayers - and there is precious little praying going on in Ashton. Only Hank Busche, a local pastor, and his wife Mary seem to be praying. Can Hank and the angels change the minds of the people in town? And what about that nosy newspaperman, Marshall Hogan? Will he be able to put his finger on what the town's most influential people are doing behind closed doors?
Hm. This book had great potential, but overly dramatic writing and shaky theology derailed it before it really got started. I mean, what could be cooler than angels and demons engaged in a spiritual battle, while human underdogs try to fight off an evil organization that is trying to take over the world? But the book just sort of fell on its face.
First, the writing in the beginning of the book nearly made me quit several times. Peretti attempted to throw the reader into the angels' urgent situation without any background. This might have worked, except he eliminated dialogue that would have been in there, in my opinion, had he not intended to keep the reader in the dark about the forces of light. (Forgive the pun.) Plus, I disliked the drama in the angels' dialogue. One of my favorite Chesterton quotes reads as follows: "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly." Instead, Peretti's angels seem to be fully aware of the drama of their situation.
Fortunately, the writing got better as the book went on. Unfortunately, the theology did not.
On the surface, this book is great. It's essentially a warning against New Age religions, which seem to be benign but are really very dangerous. In Peretti's book, people's lives are destroyed or lost because of New Age influences, and fortune telling and other dangerous practices are similarly condemned.
Below the surface, however, the theology is shaky. Hank repeatedly drives demons out of afflicted people in the town, while other lay persons "rebuke" demons. I'm not sure if a lay person could ever drive out a demon from a possessed person. What I do know is that Catholic canon law states that exorcists must be priests appointed specifically for that task by their bishops. That sounds to me as if it is impossible or nearly impossible for a lay person to drive out demons. Additionally, I have read that exorcisms are processes that can take years of repitition before they are successful. I estimate that the longest it takes Hank to drive out a demon is about ten minutes.
Also, it bothered me that the only Catholics in the book were considered "superstitious." The Catholic items around their house were considered evidence for their superstitious minds. Now, to be fair, the main character who was in that scene was not really religious and therefore wouldn't understand pictures of Mary, etc. However, there was no correction of this mistake later in the book; as far as the reader knows, it's superstitious to have crucifixes and images of Mary about the house. That is not true or fair. Catholics have such images because they lift our minds to God, both because they are reminders and because they are beautiful. Superstition does not fit into the equation.
Plagued by a melodramatic writing style and theological difficulties, This Present Darkness takes a little while just to get off the ground. In the middle, the pace speeds up enough to be bearable, but the theological problems grow at the same time. Ultimately, I would not waste my time by reading this again, and I would not recommend it to anyone else either.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, violence, frightening ideas and images)
Hm. This book had great potential, but overly dramatic writing and shaky theology derailed it before it really got started. I mean, what could be cooler than angels and demons engaged in a spiritual battle, while human underdogs try to fight off an evil organization that is trying to take over the world? But the book just sort of fell on its face.
First, the writing in the beginning of the book nearly made me quit several times. Peretti attempted to throw the reader into the angels' urgent situation without any background. This might have worked, except he eliminated dialogue that would have been in there, in my opinion, had he not intended to keep the reader in the dark about the forces of light. (Forgive the pun.) Plus, I disliked the drama in the angels' dialogue. One of my favorite Chesterton quotes reads as follows: "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly." Instead, Peretti's angels seem to be fully aware of the drama of their situation.
Fortunately, the writing got better as the book went on. Unfortunately, the theology did not.
On the surface, this book is great. It's essentially a warning against New Age religions, which seem to be benign but are really very dangerous. In Peretti's book, people's lives are destroyed or lost because of New Age influences, and fortune telling and other dangerous practices are similarly condemned.
Below the surface, however, the theology is shaky. Hank repeatedly drives demons out of afflicted people in the town, while other lay persons "rebuke" demons. I'm not sure if a lay person could ever drive out a demon from a possessed person. What I do know is that Catholic canon law states that exorcists must be priests appointed specifically for that task by their bishops. That sounds to me as if it is impossible or nearly impossible for a lay person to drive out demons. Additionally, I have read that exorcisms are processes that can take years of repitition before they are successful. I estimate that the longest it takes Hank to drive out a demon is about ten minutes.
Also, it bothered me that the only Catholics in the book were considered "superstitious." The Catholic items around their house were considered evidence for their superstitious minds. Now, to be fair, the main character who was in that scene was not really religious and therefore wouldn't understand pictures of Mary, etc. However, there was no correction of this mistake later in the book; as far as the reader knows, it's superstitious to have crucifixes and images of Mary about the house. That is not true or fair. Catholics have such images because they lift our minds to God, both because they are reminders and because they are beautiful. Superstition does not fit into the equation.
Plagued by a melodramatic writing style and theological difficulties, This Present Darkness takes a little while just to get off the ground. In the middle, the pace speeds up enough to be bearable, but the theological problems grow at the same time. Ultimately, I would not waste my time by reading this again, and I would not recommend it to anyone else either.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, violence, frightening ideas and images)
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Concerning Unplanned
(Written by Abby Johnson, with Cindy Lambert.) Abby Johnson grew up in a pro-life, Christian family. While in college, she was recruited to be a volunteer at a nearby Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was there to help women, she was told, and as a worker there she would be making a difference in the lives of women who were in need of her help. Abortion was not the primary goal of Planned Parenthood; in fact, one of Planned Parenthood's primary goals was to reduce the number of abortions. Abby rose in the ranks and finally became director of a clinic. Then something happened to change her mind and her heart.
In my humble experience and opinion, there are only three types of people in favor of legalized abortion. 1) Evil people who are perfectly aware that abortion is murder but think that some things are more important than the lives of unborn children. 2) People who have been deceived, either by others or by themselves, into thinking that abortion is just the "termination of a pregnancy" or the cleaning out of a "cluster of cells." 3) People who are ignorant and don't know/care much about abortion either way. Abby Johnson's story shows that, at least in Texas, many of the people working in Planned Parenthood clinics fall into the second category. They were deceived by others at the start, and have been deceiving themselves ever since.
This is a good lesson that should be taken to heart by pro-lifers. It's easy to hate on people involved in something as appalling as abortion. But sometimes people who are aligned with something evil are not really evil themselves; as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Plus, the pro-life movement is not just about the sanctity of life; it is about the dignity of every person, no matter how small. People who work for abortion clinics deserve to be treated with dignity because they are human persons as well.
I don't really want to say too much more because I think the impacts of stories like this one are greater when fewer details are known going into the stories. The only other thing I want to say is that this book is very fair and even-handed. Abby genuinely liked/likes pro-abortion people she worked for or with. This is not a cathartic rant about the evils of the clinic and those who participated in abortions; this is a simple story about a young woman discovering the truth.
Note: Abby's website can be found at abbyjohnson.org.
My Rating: T (mentions of abortions, thematic elements; no graphic descriptions)
In my humble experience and opinion, there are only three types of people in favor of legalized abortion. 1) Evil people who are perfectly aware that abortion is murder but think that some things are more important than the lives of unborn children. 2) People who have been deceived, either by others or by themselves, into thinking that abortion is just the "termination of a pregnancy" or the cleaning out of a "cluster of cells." 3) People who are ignorant and don't know/care much about abortion either way. Abby Johnson's story shows that, at least in Texas, many of the people working in Planned Parenthood clinics fall into the second category. They were deceived by others at the start, and have been deceiving themselves ever since.
This is a good lesson that should be taken to heart by pro-lifers. It's easy to hate on people involved in something as appalling as abortion. But sometimes people who are aligned with something evil are not really evil themselves; as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Plus, the pro-life movement is not just about the sanctity of life; it is about the dignity of every person, no matter how small. People who work for abortion clinics deserve to be treated with dignity because they are human persons as well.
I don't really want to say too much more because I think the impacts of stories like this one are greater when fewer details are known going into the stories. The only other thing I want to say is that this book is very fair and even-handed. Abby genuinely liked/likes pro-abortion people she worked for or with. This is not a cathartic rant about the evils of the clinic and those who participated in abortions; this is a simple story about a young woman discovering the truth.
Note: Abby's website can be found at abbyjohnson.org.
My Rating: T (mentions of abortions, thematic elements; no graphic descriptions)
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
In Relation To True Grit
Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is a girl to be reckoned with. When her father is shot in cold blood by the coward Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), Mattie hires U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to pursue Chaney into Indian Territory. Of course, she wants to go along. After all, it was her father who was shot down. She has the right to make certain that Chaney pays for his crime with his life.
There's not much to be said story-wise for most westerns. They follow basically the same pattern: Good guy rides into a town dominated by the bad guy, who also has some sort of hold over the girl. Shooting ensues. Bad guy ends up dead, the good guy marries the girl, and everybody lives happily ever after. There are exceptions to this storyline, of course, but most are fairly minor. The very charm of westerns lie in their old-fashioned good-vs.-evil, underdog, man-of-courage feel. True Grit deviates from those stereotypes and is the better for it.
Despite the ads and publicity, which seem to indicate otherwise, the protagonist is the fourteen-year-old girl Mattie Ross, not Rooster Cogburn. Mattie is the driving force behind the expedition into Indian Territory, Mattie is the one who introduces and ends the story, and Mattie is the glue that holds everything together. This focus on a girl - a young girl, for that matter - is unusual for a western, and brings a breath of fresh air. Of course, Mattie is not like most other fourteen-year-old girls. But, while she may get the better of her elders in bargaining and arguing, she still has her moments of vulnerability and childishness. The simple fact that she is such a big part of the story, despite being a young girl, sets True Grit apart from its fellow westerns.
(While I'm on the subject of Mattie Ross, I'd like to address a pet peeve of mine. In my opinion, it's strange that Hailee Steinfeld was nominated for "best supporting actress" and not "best actress." Her character is the star of the movie, even though she wasn't marketed as such. Furthermore, it's insulting that the best supporting actress award was given to Helena Bonham Carter of The King's Speech, who gave a performance that was fabulous, but somewhat limited in screen time. I have a friend who insists that the quaint way of talking used by Mattie in True Grit makes it difficult to determine how much of her performance was good and how much was just hidden by her speech, but I disagree. I have seen too many teenaged actresses attempt to act and fail miserably not to recognize a good performance when I see it. I suspect the real reason Bonham Carter won is either that the Oscars wanted to dump as many awards as possible on The King's Speech, or that there was some sort of bias against True Grit - which was nominated for ten awards, but didn't win a single one.)
To pick up my review where I left off, True Grit is an unusual western for another reason. The quaint speech, with few contractions, long, old-fashioned words, and sometimes exceedingly long sentences, might seem stilted to some, but at least it's unusual. As a fan of old British books and, as you may already have noticed, someone who writes with long sentences, I found the speech to be delightful. A little strange at first, but very enjoyable. I have always been bothered by the modern way of talking in westerns; it seems to me that the people who inhabited the West over a hundred years ago would have a different, more old-fashioned way of talking than we do. True Grit finally addressed this concern.
In another deviance from the usual pattern of westerns, True Grit is well done on almost every front. As I said, Hailee Steinfeld is wonderful as Mattie. Jeff Bridges is perfect as Rooster Cogburn, and Matt Damon is hilarious as mustached and side-burned Texas Ranger LaBoeuf. Writing and costumes are equally as good, to the point where Mattie's skin looks a little oily when she wakes up in the boarding house in town. I have never seen a movie - much less a western - with that great of attention to detail.
Essentially, True Grit is probably my favorite western. 3:10 to Yuma (the one with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe) similarly rejects many of the stereotypes and conventions of westerns, but is too brutal and has too much other content (however brief) for me to enjoy seeing more than once or twice a year. True Grit, on the other hand, manages to break with tradition without taking the content to a modern level. As someone who warily approaches even PG-13 movies, I appreciate that.
My Rating: T (violence, language)
*UPDATE* Rather embarrassingly, I recently discovered that Helena Bonham Carter did not win best supporting actress for The King's Speech. Melissa Leo from The Fighter actually won the award. While I stand by my statement that Hailee Steinfeld was better than Bonham Carter, I wholeheartedly endorse Leo's win.
There's not much to be said story-wise for most westerns. They follow basically the same pattern: Good guy rides into a town dominated by the bad guy, who also has some sort of hold over the girl. Shooting ensues. Bad guy ends up dead, the good guy marries the girl, and everybody lives happily ever after. There are exceptions to this storyline, of course, but most are fairly minor. The very charm of westerns lie in their old-fashioned good-vs.-evil, underdog, man-of-courage feel. True Grit deviates from those stereotypes and is the better for it.
Despite the ads and publicity, which seem to indicate otherwise, the protagonist is the fourteen-year-old girl Mattie Ross, not Rooster Cogburn. Mattie is the driving force behind the expedition into Indian Territory, Mattie is the one who introduces and ends the story, and Mattie is the glue that holds everything together. This focus on a girl - a young girl, for that matter - is unusual for a western, and brings a breath of fresh air. Of course, Mattie is not like most other fourteen-year-old girls. But, while she may get the better of her elders in bargaining and arguing, she still has her moments of vulnerability and childishness. The simple fact that she is such a big part of the story, despite being a young girl, sets True Grit apart from its fellow westerns.
(While I'm on the subject of Mattie Ross, I'd like to address a pet peeve of mine. In my opinion, it's strange that Hailee Steinfeld was nominated for "best supporting actress" and not "best actress." Her character is the star of the movie, even though she wasn't marketed as such. Furthermore, it's insulting that the best supporting actress award was given to Helena Bonham Carter of The King's Speech, who gave a performance that was fabulous, but somewhat limited in screen time. I have a friend who insists that the quaint way of talking used by Mattie in True Grit makes it difficult to determine how much of her performance was good and how much was just hidden by her speech, but I disagree. I have seen too many teenaged actresses attempt to act and fail miserably not to recognize a good performance when I see it. I suspect the real reason Bonham Carter won is either that the Oscars wanted to dump as many awards as possible on The King's Speech, or that there was some sort of bias against True Grit - which was nominated for ten awards, but didn't win a single one.)
To pick up my review where I left off, True Grit is an unusual western for another reason. The quaint speech, with few contractions, long, old-fashioned words, and sometimes exceedingly long sentences, might seem stilted to some, but at least it's unusual. As a fan of old British books and, as you may already have noticed, someone who writes with long sentences, I found the speech to be delightful. A little strange at first, but very enjoyable. I have always been bothered by the modern way of talking in westerns; it seems to me that the people who inhabited the West over a hundred years ago would have a different, more old-fashioned way of talking than we do. True Grit finally addressed this concern.
In another deviance from the usual pattern of westerns, True Grit is well done on almost every front. As I said, Hailee Steinfeld is wonderful as Mattie. Jeff Bridges is perfect as Rooster Cogburn, and Matt Damon is hilarious as mustached and side-burned Texas Ranger LaBoeuf. Writing and costumes are equally as good, to the point where Mattie's skin looks a little oily when she wakes up in the boarding house in town. I have never seen a movie - much less a western - with that great of attention to detail.
Essentially, True Grit is probably my favorite western. 3:10 to Yuma (the one with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe) similarly rejects many of the stereotypes and conventions of westerns, but is too brutal and has too much other content (however brief) for me to enjoy seeing more than once or twice a year. True Grit, on the other hand, manages to break with tradition without taking the content to a modern level. As someone who warily approaches even PG-13 movies, I appreciate that.
My Rating: T (violence, language)
*UPDATE* Rather embarrassingly, I recently discovered that Helena Bonham Carter did not win best supporting actress for The King's Speech. Melissa Leo from The Fighter actually won the award. While I stand by my statement that Hailee Steinfeld was better than Bonham Carter, I wholeheartedly endorse Leo's win.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Pertaining To Upstairs Downstairs
It's 1936, and Sir Hallam Holland (Ed Stoppard) and his lovely wife Agnes (Keeley Hawes) move to London after spending time abroad. The couple is delighted to have their own home - until Hallam's mother Maud (Eileen Atkins) shows up. Hot on Maud's heels is Agnes's younger sister Persephone (Claire Foy), an awkward young lady who is clueless about proper conduct in society. Meanwhile, the newly-acquired servants develop their own problems and friendships. Neither the upstairs nor the downstairs can avoid the chaos spreading throughout Europe as fascism attempts to take hold in England.
I wasn't too sure about this show before I hit the "play" button. Upstairs Downstairs centers on the personal lives of a small group of people living in the same house - can anyone say "soap opera?" However, I was pleasantly surprised. Somehow the filmmakers managed to make a show entirely focused on people and their relationships without descending into crazy, tangled story lines or sex.
One great thing about this show is that essentially all the characters are both likeable and human at the same time. Nearly all of them make mistakes, but most are just immature or misguided and end up all right. (I say "most" because there are one or two exceptions - but I musn't say anymore.) Sir Hallam is, of course, absolutely wonderful, and I found the butler, Mr. Pritchard (Adrian Scarborough), to be one of my favorite British costume drama characters of all time. Even Ivy (Ellie Kendrick), the young maid I found excruciatingly immature and annoying in the first episode, became more likeable as the series went on. (But could any other Americans understand what she said? Her accent was so heavy I couldn't understand her half the time.)
It was also interesting to see the historical aspects of Upstairs Downstairs. It's easy to forget that there were Nazi sympathizers in England (and, undoubtedly, in other allied countries) shortly before WWII, but the second and third episodes highlight this fact very clearly. Also, a different portrayal of King George VI (Blake Ritson) from the one in The King's Speech was rather interesting to see. In Upstairs Downstairs, King George (who was still the Duke of Kent) has no noticeable stammer at all, whereas he can sometimes barely speak in The King's Speech. I'm not sure which is more historically accurate, though I suspect it is the latter. However, the Duke has a very small part in Upstairs Downstairs, so the absence of a stammer is not too distracting.
My favorite thing about this series is that it is pro-life. First, Lady Agnes has had a miscarriage and wants nothing more than to get pregnant and deliver a live, healthy baby. This view of babies as wonderful, even miraculous little beings is counter-cultural right now. *Spoiler Warning* Second, Hallam is determined to do right by little Lotte (Alexia James) when her mother dies under his roof. He practically adopts her, despite stiff opposition from his mother and his over-wrought wife, and pursues her when she is sent away without his knowledge. Finally, Hallam's joy at the discovery that his sister is alive completely overshadows the revelation that she is pretty severely mentally challenged. Understandably angry with his mother for lying to him about the death of his sister, he clearly shows that he would rather have a mentally challenged sister than no sister at all. In spite of what society might think of her, he immediately takes her home to live with him. This is a truly lovely embrace of a person who may be considered by some to be better off dead. Taken together, the positive portrayals of babies, adoption, and those with mental challenges all add up to a definite pro-life theme. *End of Spoiler*
Without gushing too much over Sir Hallam, I must say that I absolutely loved this show. Upstairs Downstairs has likeable characters, exciting history, and even a few pro-life elements. It also avoids the bottomless pit of soap opera-like melodrama. Things like well-written humor and fine acting are just the icing on the top of this delectable cake - and there are very few shows or movies, British or otherwise, that can boast that.
My Rating: T (sexual content including two bedroom scenes between an unmarried couple (not sex scenes))
I wasn't too sure about this show before I hit the "play" button. Upstairs Downstairs centers on the personal lives of a small group of people living in the same house - can anyone say "soap opera?" However, I was pleasantly surprised. Somehow the filmmakers managed to make a show entirely focused on people and their relationships without descending into crazy, tangled story lines or sex.
One great thing about this show is that essentially all the characters are both likeable and human at the same time. Nearly all of them make mistakes, but most are just immature or misguided and end up all right. (I say "most" because there are one or two exceptions - but I musn't say anymore.) Sir Hallam is, of course, absolutely wonderful, and I found the butler, Mr. Pritchard (Adrian Scarborough), to be one of my favorite British costume drama characters of all time. Even Ivy (Ellie Kendrick), the young maid I found excruciatingly immature and annoying in the first episode, became more likeable as the series went on. (But could any other Americans understand what she said? Her accent was so heavy I couldn't understand her half the time.)
It was also interesting to see the historical aspects of Upstairs Downstairs. It's easy to forget that there were Nazi sympathizers in England (and, undoubtedly, in other allied countries) shortly before WWII, but the second and third episodes highlight this fact very clearly. Also, a different portrayal of King George VI (Blake Ritson) from the one in The King's Speech was rather interesting to see. In Upstairs Downstairs, King George (who was still the Duke of Kent) has no noticeable stammer at all, whereas he can sometimes barely speak in The King's Speech. I'm not sure which is more historically accurate, though I suspect it is the latter. However, the Duke has a very small part in Upstairs Downstairs, so the absence of a stammer is not too distracting.
My favorite thing about this series is that it is pro-life. First, Lady Agnes has had a miscarriage and wants nothing more than to get pregnant and deliver a live, healthy baby. This view of babies as wonderful, even miraculous little beings is counter-cultural right now. *Spoiler Warning* Second, Hallam is determined to do right by little Lotte (Alexia James) when her mother dies under his roof. He practically adopts her, despite stiff opposition from his mother and his over-wrought wife, and pursues her when she is sent away without his knowledge. Finally, Hallam's joy at the discovery that his sister is alive completely overshadows the revelation that she is pretty severely mentally challenged. Understandably angry with his mother for lying to him about the death of his sister, he clearly shows that he would rather have a mentally challenged sister than no sister at all. In spite of what society might think of her, he immediately takes her home to live with him. This is a truly lovely embrace of a person who may be considered by some to be better off dead. Taken together, the positive portrayals of babies, adoption, and those with mental challenges all add up to a definite pro-life theme. *End of Spoiler*
Without gushing too much over Sir Hallam, I must say that I absolutely loved this show. Upstairs Downstairs has likeable characters, exciting history, and even a few pro-life elements. It also avoids the bottomless pit of soap opera-like melodrama. Things like well-written humor and fine acting are just the icing on the top of this delectable cake - and there are very few shows or movies, British or otherwise, that can boast that.
My Rating: T (sexual content including two bedroom scenes between an unmarried couple (not sex scenes))
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
On Thor
Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is on top of the world. As the older son of Norse god Odin (Anothony Hopkins), he is destined to assume the throne of Asgard in place of his father. Unfortunately, just before his father pronounces him king, Asgard is penetrated by evil frost giants from Jotunheim. Thor makes an ill-advised attack on Jotunheim and, instead of being crowned king, is deprived of his powers and banished to Earth for his arrogance. There, he must become worthy to wield the hammer before he can once again return to his home.
The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it is a treat to look at. Asgard took my breath away when the camera first introduced me to the kingdom. The landscapes of New Mexico (New Mexico in the movie, anyway; I don't know if it was shot on location or not) are nearly as beautiful, and even icy Jutenheim, surrounded by clouds, is lovely in a stark, harsh way. The rainbow bridge was also pretty cool, although not as cool as I had heard it would be. The constellations shown during the end credits were also beautiful. The special effects were amazing as well; probably the best I have ever seen. (I've not seen Avatar, nor do I have any plans to.)
The other two great parts of the movie were the humor and the squeaky cleanness. Those two things don't often go together in a movie, even in an animated movie supposedly made for children, but Thor managed to be funny and perfectly clean at the same time. In a day and age when most live-action comedies are rated R, being able to laugh without blushing at the same time is really nice.
With beauty, great special effects, humor, and cleanness, the only things Thor is missing are, well, characters and a story. There are, technically, characters. In fact, there are a lot of characters. Unfortunately, most of them seem to be like Wendy's burgers (i.e., like cardboard cut outs). Even romantic interest Jane's (Natalie Portman) quirky assistant is the type of character that's been in a thousand movies. Granted, she's still funny, but she's not exactly original. Thor is just passable; at least his old-fashioned, gentlemanly manners toward Jane make him unusual for a modern America movie. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is the most disappointing. Just when I thought I had his character figured out, he would do something completely out of character and I would have to rearrange my opinion of him. This isn't to say that his character kept surprising me with new twists. The filmmakers tried too hard to make him evil and conflicted at the same time, the result being one of the clunkiest villains I've ever seen.
Unfortunately for Thor, characters are the driving force behind any movie. Adaptations of Jane Austen's classics, particularly A&E's masterful Pride and Prejudice, are based entirely on their characters. Even caper movies like the Ocean's trilogy wouldn't be nearly as good without characters like Linus or Reuben. At the same time, while Thor isn't exactly a classic, at least it's an action/adventure movie that's actually appropriate for young teenagers.
My Rating: T (family tensions, mild language, violence, scary images)
The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it is a treat to look at. Asgard took my breath away when the camera first introduced me to the kingdom. The landscapes of New Mexico (New Mexico in the movie, anyway; I don't know if it was shot on location or not) are nearly as beautiful, and even icy Jutenheim, surrounded by clouds, is lovely in a stark, harsh way. The rainbow bridge was also pretty cool, although not as cool as I had heard it would be. The constellations shown during the end credits were also beautiful. The special effects were amazing as well; probably the best I have ever seen. (I've not seen Avatar, nor do I have any plans to.)
The other two great parts of the movie were the humor and the squeaky cleanness. Those two things don't often go together in a movie, even in an animated movie supposedly made for children, but Thor managed to be funny and perfectly clean at the same time. In a day and age when most live-action comedies are rated R, being able to laugh without blushing at the same time is really nice.
With beauty, great special effects, humor, and cleanness, the only things Thor is missing are, well, characters and a story. There are, technically, characters. In fact, there are a lot of characters. Unfortunately, most of them seem to be like Wendy's burgers (i.e., like cardboard cut outs). Even romantic interest Jane's (Natalie Portman) quirky assistant is the type of character that's been in a thousand movies. Granted, she's still funny, but she's not exactly original. Thor is just passable; at least his old-fashioned, gentlemanly manners toward Jane make him unusual for a modern America movie. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is the most disappointing. Just when I thought I had his character figured out, he would do something completely out of character and I would have to rearrange my opinion of him. This isn't to say that his character kept surprising me with new twists. The filmmakers tried too hard to make him evil and conflicted at the same time, the result being one of the clunkiest villains I've ever seen.
Unfortunately for Thor, characters are the driving force behind any movie. Adaptations of Jane Austen's classics, particularly A&E's masterful Pride and Prejudice, are based entirely on their characters. Even caper movies like the Ocean's trilogy wouldn't be nearly as good without characters like Linus or Reuben. At the same time, while Thor isn't exactly a classic, at least it's an action/adventure movie that's actually appropriate for young teenagers.
My Rating: T (family tensions, mild language, violence, scary images)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)