Theater Review: The Three Musketeers

I have yet to be disappointed by Syracuse Stage's performances. Of the several I have seen, I have always found something to like, and even love, about them. Theater is an ephemeral and intimate art, more so than film or books. Each performance will be slightly different, building on and reacting to the mood and response of its audience. It's a symbiotic magic where the viewer gets to help shape the play as it is being acted out.

Set Magic

No less wonderful are the set designs. As theaters go, Syracuse Stage is a smallish venue, with its largest stage, Archbold Theater, comprising some 499 seats—but the scale of their plays is impressive. So it was with The Three Musketeers, adapted by Catherine Bush from the novel by Alexandre Dumas, and directed by Robert Hupp. The set is so intricate and beautiful that it is, itself, a character in the play. It features a gorgeous pair of staircases with a pavilion on top and two doors at the bottom. Rather than intensive set changes between scenes, the play relies on prop changes against this backdrop to instill a new sense of atmosphere for each scene. The beauty of a well-done set is its ability to help tell the story without anyone saying a word, and it's my favorite thing about theater. You have to see this set to believe it.

The Talent

I was pleased to see Matthew Greer (Baskerville: A Sherlock Holmes Mystery) as Athos, and he is as excellent in his role and onstage presence in "Musketeers" as he was in playing Holmes. Travis Staton-Marrero debuts at Syracuse Stage in his performance as D'Artagnan, a young Frenchman longing to join the famed Musketeers. He does a terrific job, and he bounds around the set with such gusto that my knees hurt just watching him. Don't forget to keep an eye on Claro Austria (Planchet), who very nearly stole everyone else's thunder.

A Sneak Peek

Before the play, I was privileged to hear director Robert Hupp speak about the moving parts that go into such a big production. Each actor has to be licensed in stage combat, an important consideration when one is lunging around at another person with a sharp, pointy object. The result of such training is a fight scene in which several pairs of actors whirl around the stage, battling madly, without unintentionally hurting one another. It makes for exciting action, and the only wounds are those incurred in the fictional storyline. Take a look!



The Three Musketeers runs September 20th-October 8th.Tickets are a reasonable $20.00-$53.00, depending on show features, time, and day of performance.

REVIEW: 4 of 5 stars

Movie Review: Logan

If you ever wanted to know what a superhero is like in old age, this is it.

Hubby and I had a much-needed kid-free night to see something our son was definitely not going to be allowed to see (for several years yet, at least). Being an enormous fan of Hugh Jackman and Wolverine, I've been looking forward to this one. I'd heard it gave "Deadpool" a run for its money in the ratings department, but while "Deadpool" is funny and wildly inappropriate, our favorite Canucklehead takes things in a much darker direction.

"Logan" is bitter, angry, hard-bitten, and believable. Logan has lived a very, very long time and seen a lot of horrible things. I can completely buy that he'd spend his twilight years simply existing, in a detached, brooding sort of way, until forced to interact with humanity again. His scenes with Charles Xavier were some of my favorite: two mutants eking out their elder years together simply because the world refuses to understand or accept either of them. While Charles retains his compassion, Logan has all but shut his off.

Enter Laura. A child mutant on the run, she has no one and is practically feral when Logan meets her. At first, he doesn't want to help her, either, but that hero is still in there under that thick, scarred skin, and when the chips are down, he can't resist standing up for her. Their scenes together are sad, resentful, sometimes funny, and always intriguing. While this film is not my usual cup of tea, I was not bored. Just watching a mutant at the end of his character arc, and one not yet in her prime, was fascinating. It was especially thought-provoking to see the damage that could come from a child with that sort of power, who'd never been shown any kindness or constructive guidance. If only Charles had found her a few years earlier, she might have become a new X-Man. Dafne Keen is terrific, and frankly, frightening, as a mutant "little girl lost" who's finding her feet in this dangerous world. I wouldn't want to mess with her, that's for sure.

Fans of Wolverine will appreciate this rendering of Old Man Logan, but there are still some unanswered questions. What became of the other mutants? Why did they not find a way to better manage the problems that occur when an aging mutant begins to lose some of his faculties? What if the safe haven they're looking for doesn't really exist? (Perhaps that's a question that may be answered in a future film.)

I love Hugh Jackman, and always will. There will never be another Wolverine for me...but Dafne Keen just about stole the show. Moral of the story? Don't piss off the little girl in the unicorn T-shirt.

RATING: 4 of 5 stars

Movie Review: Assassin's Creed

**SPOILER ALERT**

Happy Holidays, everyone! Last night, the boys took me out to see a movie at Movie Tavern (and if you haven't been to a Movie Tavern, you totally need to try it). Rogue One was already sold out for the two shows that evening, so we decided on Assassin's Creed.

I've never played the video game, but I've watched some cut scenes, and they're totally cool. I didn't know much of anything about the mythos of the video game, and I'm sort of glad about that, because I went into the film cold. That meant I didn't have any preconceived notions about what the film should be, and could look for a complete story.

Remember "Movies for Guys Who Like Movies?" You'd probably see this one in that lineup. The visuals in this film were really cool, and what I would expect of something based on a video game about assassins, i.e. lots of action, violence, etc. There were spots here and there where the motion capture was clearly CG, rather than a real body, and unnecessarily so, giving the film enough of a surreal look to grab my attention and draw me out of the plot. My ten-year-old had some trouble following the plot here and there, but a quick explanation was enough for him to keep up. And speaking of plot, that brings me to my real negative about the film.

Here There Be Spoilers

Sadly, the plot is rather shoestring, just enough to hang the movie on, and no more. Michael Fassbender plays Cal, a man who has grown up on the wrong side of the tracks and lands in Abstergo Industries, a company who seems to be hoarding criminals for the purposes of putting them in a machine that will somehow lead them to the film's MacGuffin, a device called the Apple of Eden. This Apple supposedly holds the key to ending free will, and the Assassins have sworn to defend it from the nefarious Knights Templar, who want it in order to bend the world to their will. The scientists at Abstergo learn that Cal is a direct descendant of the Assassin last known to have the Apple, and here is where I thought the plot fell apart.

The lead scientist, Dr. Sophia Rikkin, is the daughter of the company's bigshot. She claims to be doing research that will end mankind's propensity for violence, and she thinks the Apple is the key. This anti-violence woman is the first to greet Cal upon his traumatic arrival at Abstergo. She then proceeds to put him into the machine, an uncomfortable and frankly scary device, with zero explanation, and subject him to scary, violent images. I'm not sure how this is supposed to hang together, logically. I certainly doubted it could rid Cal of violence, and I don't know how the writers thought Sophia would think so. Plot logic is important, as is a logical motivation for your characters.

Cal's genetic memories of his ancestor, brought on by this machine, are super cool, though. I really wish they had just done a whole story in the past about Aguilar, instead of hopscotching back and forth between past and present. I know the video game spans different times, but I think they could have done much better at conveying that on film.

Everything comes to a head when the Templars learn where the Apple has hidden all these years, and it's up to the Assassins to stop them from using it. The criminals from Abstergo turn out to be other descendants of Assassins, and that left me wondering why Abstergo kept them around. You'd think they'd have these Assassin descendants killed, since they were of no use to Abstergo, not being actual leads to the Apple. Nope. Let's just hang onto those liabilities, and house and feed them and spend money on them until they turn on us. That makes sense, doesn't it?

There's so much backstory going on in this movie that the characterization suffers. We don't know much about Cal or Sophia, and nothing at all about Cal's fellow inmates of Abstergo. Frankly, in his few lines, Baptiste nearly stole the show in terms of characterization. I would have liked a little more about each of these would-be Assassins, so I could care more about them if they were in danger. Good characters make even a bad film memorable.

The good guys win, of course, and look badass doing it, but when I thought about why I didn't thoroughly love this movie, the answer was simple. In fiction, we are told that flashbacks kill pacing, and that's just what happened here, aside from lack of meaty characterization. It's really too bad. Boiled down, those of us who spent our hard-earned cash to see this movie simply sat around and watched Cal remember stuff.

Conclusion

The story is left wide open for a sequel. I'll watch followups to the film, but maybe wait for video to do so. It's a fun popcorn movie, if you're up for an afternoon of Matrix-like action. Until next time!

RATING: 3 of 5 stars

Romance: The Great Equalizer

A Lack of Balance

I've noticed a sad trend lately, and it only appears to be on the upswing. Since the Nineties, more and more popular media are jumping on the bandwagon of misandry. From sitcoms to commercials to popular films, we are given examples where the male character bumbles along beside a much wittier female lead.

I've blogged about this before, but the explosion of films where men are maligned has pushed me over the edge of tolerance for it.  I recently watched "Ghostbusters" (the new one, circa 2016) and was mortified to find that, once again, Hollywood has presented the public with a story where men are marginalized to the extent of pointlessness. The men in this film are either hopeless bad guys, irritants, or witless eye candy. The script could have done so much with Chris Hemsworth, who has scads of talent, but it left him to hobble around as a constant joke. The original "Ghostbusters" had Bill Murray portraying a womanizing layabout, but we at least had the satisfaction of seeing him step up to the plate by the end.

Instead of fostering a gender balance, Hollywood has somehow decided that in order to empower women, it must now belittle men. I was embarrassed for my gender as we watched the female characters in the film ogle his character while shaking their heads at his stupidity. Switch genders in this film. If all the leads were male, and that poor, dumb, attractive secretary was female, women everywhere would be in an uproar.

What does this kind of movie say to my nine-year-old son who watched it with me - that he is only worth what he looks like on the outside, and that it's okay not to strive for a more meaningful part in society? What does it say to women - that it's okay to drool over a man and ridicule him if he isn't brilliant? Come on, Hollywood: stop pandering and start telling a story that requires real work!

Romance to the Rescue

One of the reasons I love writing the romances I do is the equality between the sexes. Romance writers know what Hollywood seems to have forgotten: that it takes balance to build a strong relationship, and anything less is not worth fighting for. Balance between a hero and heroine is what makes a powerful story. Each brings something to the relationship, helping to form a solid whole that is greater than its parts. There is no ridicule, no "I am better than you." The hero may be strong. He may be an alpha male to the core. He may say he needs no one, but eventually he finds himself seeking out the heroine for her own strengths. The heroine can be strong in her own right, able to lead a corporation or captain a military unit, but she still comes to rely on the hero for his strengths to augment her own. A relationship that lacks such give-and-take will never last. I keep waiting for Hollywood to get this into their heads and write me a comedy where the hero and heroine stand on equal footing.

Until then, I'll do some writing of my own.

Theater Review: Baskerville: A Sherlock Holmes Mystery

Tell Me a Story

I love a good story, and when it comes to good stories, the classics are still among the best.  There's a reason Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories of Sherlock Holmes are still popular (and still being retold in new books, TV series, and films) over 130 years after the famous fictional detective made his first literary appearance.

Holmes debuted in 1886.  Doyle was paid what, today, would amount to just over $3600 for exclusive rights to the first Holmes story, A Study in Scarlet.  He wrote a total of 60 Holmes stories, even going so far as to resurrect the Holmes character after killing him off in The Final Problem, due to reader backlash.  That's pretty powerful, when you think about it: when you write such an iconic character, he no longer belongs to you, but to the readers.  Those readers were adamant that Doyle bring their fictional hero back.

Fans of mystery fiction should thank their lucky stars that Doyle listened, because he went on to pen The Hound of the Baskervilles, arguably his most popular and well-known Holmes story.  In it, Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick and chronicler John Watson investigate a murderous spectral hound who has terrorized the Baskerville family for generations.

A Fresh Take

The story of The Hound of the Baskervilles has been told and retold many times since its first appearance in 1901.  You might think there is no longer a fresh way to tell it.  That's probably because you haven't had the pleasure of seeing Baskerville: A Sherlock Holmes Mystery, a play written by Ken Ludwig and directed for Syracuse Stage by Peter Amster.

Baskerville takes the classic story and injects it with a heavy dose of comedy.  The result is a delightful and engaging dash through Victorian-era Dartmoor, England, complete with eerie ambience and laughs galore.  You don't need to be familiar with the original story to get the humor; when they crack a joke, you're going to get it.  Ludwig has made sure of that.  But that's not even the best part.

The gem of this play is that there are five actors playing a few dozen roles.  Matthew Greer (Sherlock Holmes) and Liam Craig (John Watson) play the famous crime-solving duo, while just three other actors (Gil Brady, Jonathan Spivey, and Barbra Wengerd) quite literally don multiple hats to fill in the almost forty remaining roles.  It is hilarious fun to watch, and the actors play up to that intrinsic hilarity with brilliance.  I asked my husband for tickets to this show for Christmas, and it was undeniably worth the wait.  I can't remember the last time I laughed so much.

Greer was amazing, and he lit up the stage with a wonderful and believable presence as Holmes.  Anyone who played Watson would have to be at least as brilliant, especially since Watson carries the majority of the story.  Craig was perfect.  I loved him on sight.  He not only looked the part, he played it to the hilt, every bit the staid foil to the slightly-manic Holmes.  Fans of Doyle's stories will appreciate how closely writer Ken Ludwig followed the original tale.  Theater-goers looking for something new will love the pings of tongue-in-cheek humor liberally sprinkled throughout the performance.

Baskerville is playing now through May 29th at Syracuse Stage.  Tickets range from $18-$50, depending on time and day of performance.

REVIEW: 4.5 of 5 stars

TV Series Review: Turn

Over the weekend, I finished watching Season One of TURN: Washington's Spies.  The series is adapted from a book by Alexander Rose and stars Jamie Bell.  I didn't want to review until I'd seen the entire season, because I was concerned that my initial impression wouldn't hold up.

I needn't have worried.  This show does take some historical - ahem - liberties, but does so in the name of great storytelling.  The heart of the show is its relationship between childhood friends Abraham Woodhull, a reluctant-to-fight cabbage farmer, and several patriots including Ben Talmadge, an officer in the rebel army.  No matter what he does, poor Abraham is caught between his friendships and his family, who are actively Loyalist.  Watching him navigate the push-and-pull was a train wreck in the best sense, and half the reason I binge watched half a season over the weekend.  While the story does have slow moments, I wouldn't call any part of it dull.

Complicating matters is Anna Strong, a woman once engaged to Abraham but now married to another man.  When Anna's husband is arrested and sent to a prison ship, Anna is left high and dry.  Who's there to pick up the pieces?  You guessed it: Abraham and his still-raw feelings for her.  Abraham, himself married and with a child, can't resist coming to her aid, driven not only by his latent attachment to her but by the same sense of moral outrage that eventually leads him to support the rebel cause.

What I enjoyed about this show, as opposed to other Revolution-era pieces like The Patriot, is that there is no cut-and-dry division between right and wrong.  There are sympathetic British, and there are devious Americans.  You are left to decide who's right for yourself, based on the events of the show, rather than be told who not to like.  (Granted, you're going to hate Simcoe on sight, but who doesn't love that character you love to hate?)

Overall, I look forward to Season Two, and I urge you to give Season One a try if you enjoy historical drama.  It's available now on Netflix.  In the meantime, I'll be picking up the book.

RATING: Four of five stars

TV Review: Agent Carter

AGENT CARTER. Wow, I thought this would be fun, but I was wrong. It's TERRIFIC, and terribly, terribly underrated.

This show dovetails nicely with the rest of Marvel's offerings while also managing to be a stand-alone show. "Agent Carter" features great acting, plot twists, three-dimensional characters, surprises for the Marvel faithful, and enough 40's atmosphere to charm the pants off any lover of period film.

It's nice to see a female lead who is neither too tough-as-nails nor too soft. We were teased with what little we saw of Hayley Atwell in the "Captain America" films, so it's a real pleasure to see her talent for tongue-in-cheek intrigue showcased in "Agent Carter." The original characters are more than mere sketches, and are worthy of their own crime drama. Looking forward to more of this show for as long as they want to produce it.

SCORE: 4 of 5

Disappointing Downton

Oh, Downton Abbey, how you make me sad.  Never has a show I loved so much disappointed me so greatly.

After an amazing start and some wonderful ups and downs throughout big moments in history, Downton seems to have lost momentum.  This is in no small part due to the loss of some of the key characters on the show, mainly Dan Stevens as Matthew Crawley.  Fans are still lamenting his loss, and it seems that anyone they throw under Mary (Michelle Dockery)'s nose just can't stack up.  We love having a good cry over our favorite characters, and seeing them face insurmountable odds - but yank a beloved character out from under us, and we seethe.

Fans.  We're funny like that.

Season Five sees Downton going through the motions, faced with maintaining its dignity and sense of propriety in a changing world.  The sad fact is, there's a goldmine of story possibilities here that is not being accessed.  I wondered what my trouble with the show was for a long time, and then I discovered it: there is no arc.  Writer Julian Fellowes sets a character up with a subplot that might affect his or her outlook, and then he snaps them back into their personal routine like a rubber band.  Just when I think Mary might stop being bitchy to her only remaining sister, she does something so terribly nasty that I hate her again.  Just when I think Edith might actually get a break, she's screwed again by some horrible misfortune.  (No one has luck that bad without ending up in a mental institution.)  And really, wouldn't someone just tell Mary to shut the hell up when they hear her talking to Edith like that?  Why is everyone on the show so complacent about sheer meanness?

The unfortunate result is a show that seems to go on and on without actually getting anywhere.  If we were even given a glimmer of character progression, I would be far more attached to the show than I currently am.  By the end of an episode, none of the characters seems to have moved forward on his or her personal storyline.  Because of that, they lack depth - a mere caricature of themselves.

Even my remaining favorites can't rescue the writing for me.  I love Carson and Mrs. Hughes.  I love Bates and Anna.  I love the way Isobel and Lady Grantham lock horns.  I even enjoy seeing Thomas show his human side, when he actually shows it.  I still watch, but now, it's out of habit.  That's got to be the saddest reason to keep watching a show ever. I hope, for the many, many fans of this show, that the writing improves and the characters' circumstances deepen.  For now, Fellowes is merely scratching the surface of his cast of amazing talent, and it leaves me sadly lukewarm.

Season Five Rating: 3 of 5 Stars

The Misandry of FROZEN

I'm going to have to take an unpopular stand here and say that Frozen is one of my least favorite Disney films to date.

Wait, keep reading!  You might just agree with me.

I went into this movie with a pretty open mind.  Disney has a history of finding a film the public likes and squeezing every last penny out of it in every possible way until the public can't stand it anymore.  (Start singing "Let It Go" and see how many groans you get these days.)  That said, I was prepared to ignore the marketing-a-thon and see the movie anyway, being a fan of animation in general.

I liked the fresh setting, and the relationship between the sisters was also unconventional - a move away from romance (mostly) and into new territory, showing that girls can have more on their minds than marriage.  The character action read more like a musical or stage performance than a movie, no doubt a deliberate move on Disney's part so they can translate it easily onto Broadway or to other venues.  Very prettily done, I'll admit.  (Disney also upheld their own rule of killing off a character or two in the beginning of the movie, so no disappointments there. *grin*)

Where Disney failed in their "feminist" approach to this film is that it hammered the other end of the spectrum, giving us male characters that really not need be present in the film at all. Most of the males in this movie are either prejudiced, evil, clownish, or entirely silent. I'm all for female empowerment, and I don't think a girl needs a man to feel validated.  However, this film merely perpetuates a gender prejudice I have seen in so many recent films and television shows (particularly sitcoms), where the the man is portrayed as the clueless comic relief to a savvier female.  Rather than fostering gender equality, Frozen reinforces this imbalance, even celebrates it.

As a gender, women used to bemoan the lack of strong female leads in film.  We had - what, Princess Leia?  Now, we are faced with a tipping of the scales in the other direction, an overload of films and television shows that minimize a male's meaningful contribution to story.  One does not have to devalue men in order to be a feminist.  In fact, a strong woman would not feel the need to measure her worth against another's, male or not.  She would simply BE strong, without feeling the need to call attention to the fact. If there must be romance in a movie, I would much rather watch the pair become a team, with their separate talents helping to form a stronger whole.  THAT should be the message we carry to our children: not that one gender is better than another, but that everyone has strengths, and combining them can accomplish some amazing things.

Movie Review: How To Train Your Dragon 2

 

In Hollywood, it's really, really hard to get a sequel to live up to a blockbuster first film in a series.

 

Dreamworks doesn't seem to know that.  In fact, I'd venture to say Dreamworks knows just about nothing regarding how to make a bad animated film.  They're horrible at bad films.  Really really.

 

But I digress.  Let me first say that it's rare that my migraine-prone hubby wants to see a film in 3D ... but he said we were going to see it in 3D, and he didn't care.

 

So.  Worth.  It.

 

Dragon 2 didn't throw stuff at the screen just because they could.  The 3D effects were integrated very nicely into the storyline, while adding a few cool treats for 3D viewers.  Hiccup and Toothless have grown, and Hiccup is dealing with some more grown-up issues in this film, but he's still Hiccup, and it's still a joy to watch him fly Toothless.  Toothless.  Did I mention Toothless?  I loved the dynamic between these characters in the first film, and that between Hiccup and his dragon-riding friends.  You can't have too much of a good thing, and there's more of that in this film.  I laughed out loud in several places.

 

I have only one knock on this film, and that is its length.  It's too short ... and not because I was having so much fun with it.  I did feel a little rushed from one plot point to the next, and there is a very serious, bring-your-tissues moment that needed more screen time to sink in.  While I understand that there are kids watching the film, and you don't want it to be too "heavy," I was still sniffling by the time the action went on to the next thing, and found myself thinking, "Hey, wait!  Back up!  I'm not done crying yet!"  I felt a little cheated out of that moment.

 

Otherwise, it feels like a return visit to people you love, in order to see what they're up to now.  We have the same characters, older now, and a few new faces, including a character voiced by Game of Thrones star Kit Harington.  If you liked How to Train Your Dragon, you're going to adore the sequel.  Way to go, Dreamworks.  We had a ball with this movie, and I think you will, too.

 

SCORE: 4 of 5 stars



Grab Me (Just Don't Bite)

I'm now into Season Three of the AMC series, The Walking Dead, and it occurred to me that there's a lesson to be learned here about emotional hooks.

I know this is the horror genre, but stay with me.

After being hounded by my husband (a lot) to watch this show on Netflix, I finally gave in.  I'm not a fan of horror, save a few novels (Stephen King's "Christine" comes to mind) and films (the Robert Englund version of "Phantom of the Opera" - dated but still pretty good).  Horror movies are no fun for me.  People just die.  They're cannon fodder.  I'm not terribly concerned about anybody, because it's all a giant bloodbath.  Maybe it's the sensationalism of the violence, or the fact that no one has enough characterization to get me interested in him before he buys it.  Show me a deep horror film, and I will eat my words.  Until then, I'll stick to psychological thrillers like The Sixth Sense when I need the chill factor.

 Seasons One and Two of The Walking Dead were not all that exciting: setup, intro, etc.  Lots of running and hiding and shooting zombies.  As a writer, it's hard to watch a show like this and wonder why they're wasting ammo, and what the women do when, God forbid, they have a period and become instant zombie bait for a week.  Yeah, it's hard to shut off that internal editor.  My husband hates watching a movie with me. :)
 

But then came Season Three.  The first episode of this season surprised me.  The characters started acting like a team, like a family.  When a couple of the group had to make a supply run, I worried that they'd get "home" safe.  And then it occurred to me that I had begun to be emotionally invested in the survival of these people.

Maybe the writers had a lightbulb moment, because universally - no matter what genre you're into - you're not gonna make a reader or viewer care, unless you make them care.  It's a shame it took them three seasons to learn this, but learn it, they did.  I cheated and skipped ahead to the next season to watch an episode that had aired on television, and one of the principal characters, Daryl (played by The Boondock Saints' Norman Reedus), has a breakdown after toughing it out for three seasons. It was a real rip-my-heart-out-and-squeeze moment, maybe even a little more emotional than usual because this is the horror genre.  How surprising, I thought.  And all it took was a little focus on characterization.  If Daryl dies, I will riot.

I'm still not a fan of horror, as a rule - but it was interesting to find that universal truth being applied to a genre not often associated with emotion.  Make me care.  'Cause it isn't about the zombies.  It isn't about the action.  It isn't about the shoot-em-up sensation that is survival in the post-apocolypse world.  It's still just about the characters.

I hope sincerely, for the fans of this show, that the writers continue to grow the characters and draw their viewers' emotions into the story, because that's what's working.  Time will tell.

RATING: Three of five stars

Movie Review: The Lego Movie

If you have a kid, you've heard about this.  Trailers have been all over TV, so unless you're living under a rock, you know that Lego has created a movie with virtually every recognizable Lego character ever.

 

And if you're like me, and you have a 7-year-old kid, you're gonna go see it.

 

Which is totally worth it.

 

The family had a special outing today to watch The Lego Movie, and from what we'd seen in previews, we were expecting a few laughs.  Ordinary Lego construction worker Emmet discovers that he is the "Special," destined to save all Lego-dom from permanent gluing.  There are lots of recognizable Lego figures and sets, and it's not all for the kids.  Adults will have fun with the dramatic irony and wisecracks sprinkled throughout the film.  (This one's for you, Expensive Coffee Drinker.)  Lots of laughs for adults and kids alike.

 

What really brought this movie up from a mere "OK" rating is the last fifteen minutes or so.  I don't want to spoil it for you, so what I will say is that it will make you remember what it's like to be a kid.  The adventure is fun, if typical, but there's that extra element to it that makes it so much better.  Even though the movie could be considered a giant ad for Lego, it's worth the viewing, and you're going to want to hug your children afterward.  And maybe buy a set of Lego and play with them.

 

Er, and invite your kid.

Superheroes!

So, yeah. I am a bit of a superhero geek. And it isn't all because of the influence of my husband and son. I can tell you how Wolverine got his adamantium (and why he doesn't remember), and I know Superman's real name (*and his dad's, too).

This is a good week for a superhero geek. "Man of Steel," the Superman reboot, came out on video this week, and "Thor: The Dark World" is out in theaters.

 

It's also a great week for the ladies, 'cause Henry Cavill and Chris Hemsworth are mighty nice to look at.  See photos.

 

While I love Superman, and he's my all-time favorite superhero, I don't generally approve of remakes.  I mean, Henry Cavill is gorgeous, and I enjoyed this retelling of the Superman origin story (including its lean toward a darker, angstier Superman), but I will always love Christopher Reeve in the role.  I have great affection for the old, campy Superman films, and Margot Kidder's Lois Lane was one of the first, actually gutsy heroines I can remember from my youth (the other being Princess Leia).  I could never stomach the heroine who stood in the corner screaming and cringing while the hero did all the butt-kicking.  A really good hero-heroine duo should do it together!  We'll see how Amy Adams' Lois Lane does as the series progresses with the forthcoming "Batman vs. Superman."

 

That said, "Man of Steel" is a great Saturday film if you plan to be a couch potato.  Plus, Russell Crowe as Jor-El*.  Did I mention this film has Russell Crowe?  Oh, yeah, and Russell Crowe's in it, too.  I might be a little drooly right now.  Sorry.  Ahem.

For those of you ladies who like them tall, blond, and thundery, we have Chris Hemsworth in "Thor: The Dark World," currently in theaters.  We debated a bit about bringing our six-year old son to this film, since it's PG-13, but he has seen the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies and the first "Thor," as well as "The Avengers," and he knows to steer clear of naughty language - so we took him.  He enjoyed himself thoroughly, and I'm not sure he even noticed the cussing.

This is a good, old-fashioned, really action-y superhero flick.  It has great characters and a good storyline, and lots of funny moments.  As usual in a Marvel superhero film, there's even a cameo by the great Stan Lee.  You'll find nods to other Marvel superheroes you know, too.  Don't look for deep introspection, but the shining star of this film is the relationship between Thor and Loki.  As far as I'm concerned, Tom Hiddleston is the current "it" guy of screen villains.  He's crafty, he's charismatic, and his sparring with Hemsworth's Thor has a terrific irresistible-force-immovable-mountain aspect that makes me want more, more, more.

There is a scene with Hemsworth sans shirt, too, ladies - obviously planted in for our benefit, but who can argue?  Have you seen him shirtless?  His wife is one lucky woman.  Be sure to stay through the entire run of credits, too. There are a couple of inserted clips that you may want to see.

"Thor: The Dark World" cleaned up at theaters this weekend.  It was the top-grossing film, which goes to show that the public wants more of either Hemsworth or superheroes in general.  If it's Hemsworth, I heartily concur.

I find it amazing that not only have they made individual films (and sequels) for Thor, Iron Man, The Hulk, and Captain America, but that they are tying them together via "The Avengers" and weaving the individual storylines throughout.  That's a tall order, and one I hope they continue to manage well.

Keep those superheroes coming, Hollywood!

Movie Review: "Remember Me"

 ** Spoiler Alert ... Sort Of **

 

I was on the fence about watching this one for some time.  Mind you, I've only seen Robert Pattinson in a handful of films, and those were mostly in the "Twilight" franchise.  I loved him as Cedric Diggory in "Goblet of Fire," and pretty much adamantly did not love him as Edward in the "Twilight" movies.  He always looked so uncomfortable in his own skin that it was uncomfortable just to watch him.

 

So there you go.  I spent a few years not watching this movie.  Headslap.

 

It was not what I expected, and in the best possible way.  I think the less you know about this movie before watching it, the better.  Even the trailer shows only a snippet of the basic plot: a troubled  young man, the girl he falls for, and all the family snafus involved with a "you don't understand me and you don't even want to" kind of parent-child relationship.  My friend calls this sort of dynamic "Dysfunction Junction."  It's a study in emotional damage, and how its effects ripple through family and friends.  As much as I hated him as Edward in the "Twilight" franchise, and as wrong for that part as I felt he was, he was exactly right in this movie.  I don't know if that's because of directing, or Pattinson's own comfort level on this project, or what, but whatever it was, it worked.  I was also pleased to see Emilie de Ravin, who plays Belle on ABC's "Once Upon a Time."

 

The first half or so of the movie is, I'll admit it, not exciting.  The romance is forced, first by the prodding of main character Tyler's roommate, and then just plain overall, by the speed at which the script pushes Tyler and Ally together.  If I were either of these two characters, I would have told the other to get lost ... but I decided to keep watching.

 

Then, at some point, that first layer peels away, and emotionally, the film is right where it should be: a look into the lives of two young people weighted down by family tragedy, and trying to escape it.  Not only do Tyler and Ally struggle with the fallout from their own personal crises, they are caught in the mire of how their own families have dealt with the same issues.  What works about this is that the characters are so average.  Everyone has some kind of damage, and if these two can overcome it, there might be hope for the rest of us.  The film is less about romance than about finding ways to heal.

 

There is a scene two-thirds in where Tyler has finally had enough, and confronts his estranged father over the way he seems to have abandoned his kids.  It's a bit unrealistic in its extremity, but it is powerful, and Pattinson holds his own against Pierce Brosnan in an admirable way that had me nodding, thinking, "This is good."

 

From that point, the romance is only one flavor in the messy soup of family angst, and it works, and it's riveting.  The last third of the movie made me glad I'd spent the money on the rental.  Everything boils over, and suddenly, all the Band-Aids these people have slapped over their wounds are just so much bullshit.  It's wonderful to watch how they deal when all of that is stripped away.

 

I won't spoil the last twelve minutes for you, but I will tell you, it surprised me.  I was expecting something, but not that, and it was a masterful example of misdirection on the writer's part.  Bravo to Will Fetters, the screenwriter, for planting those hints that led me down the wrong path, not only in making this a romance that's not about the romance, but for that last several minutes of the film.  Totally worth watching if you're a writer, yourself.

 

SCORE: Four of five stars

Movie Review: Pan's Labyrinth

**Plot spoiler warning**

I gave this one a day to sink in.  My husband loves movies directed by Guillermo del Toro, especially the Hellboy films, so he was curious about this one. I recalled liking both Hellboy films, and after watching the trailer (which, itself, looked pretty interesting and had some reviews by credible movie reviewers), we decided to rent it.

Pan's Labyrinth is in Spanish, with English subtitles, but don't let that put you off.  Del Toro, as usual, has created a visually striking, otherworldly, and vaguely haunting piece, and the subtitles don't detract from it.  The soundtrack is pretty terrific, too, by the way.  I enjoyed the representation of Pan - a bit creepier than the usual conception of him, but certainly fitting for the tone and style of the film.  I would call it a "dark fairytale."

My major knock against this film has to be in its lack of cohesion.  I get the sense that all the "connecting" themes were left on the cutting room floor, perhaps due to a time or budget constraint.  (Insert reiterated plot spoiler warning.)  One half of the film deals with Spain, circa 1944, and the relationships between the main character, a girl named Ofelia, her pregnant mother, and the mother's new husband, a powerful but increasingly brutal military leader.  The other half of the film deals with a completely disconnected fairytale-slash-legend that would have it that Ofelia is a princess from another realm, reborn into a human body, and that she must return to her rightful home.

These two disparate storylines never actually connected for me in any meaningful way.  I had been expecting the typical hero's journey, whereby the girl would extract some wisdom from this other realm, and bring it back to her life in Spain in some way, or perhaps vice versa.  At least, I thought somehow the storylines would converge ... but they never did, and the ending therefore left me a bit dissatisfied.  I felt as though del Toro was telling two wholly separate stories, with plenty of their own conflicts and characters to drive them, but that both had been mashed together in the same film.  I was sorry to see it had ended up that way, because if that cohesion had been present, it would have enriched both storylines and earned a much higher rating from me.

SCORE: Three of five stars

Movie Review: Life of Pi

** Spoiler Alert: This review contains specific references to the material in the film.  If you do not want the plot spoiled, don't read on! **

I was prepared to dislike this film as heartily as I disliked the book, and as I imagine every experienced writer might dislike it for the same reasons.  (I will explain.)  It's part of the reason I hadn't rented it or seen it in theaters.  Last night, I decided to give it a chance.  I still dislike the same elements of the film that I disliked in the book, which must be some sort of compliment to how faithfully they followed the story.

The book is wonderful, and lyrical, and vivid, up to a point.  I can buy nearly everything that happens, because it's presented realistically.  Some of the best stories are made up of ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances, and Pi is certainly that.  First, it is a story of soul searching, with Pi seeking answers to his life in three different religious faiths.  The story even opens with a claim that it can make you believe in God.  All right, then, I thought, it's going to be a story of finding one's faith.

Then we have the shipwreck that strands Pi in a lifeboat with a variety of zoo animals, and it's a case of "Who's going to eat whom first?"  He learns how to coexist with the tiger while stranded in this lifeboat, even when it's a tenuous sort of coexistence.  There's the danger of the hungry tiger, seas teeming with sharks, and storms that threaten to capsize the craft.  All the while, they worry about starvation and dehydration.  All right, I thought, it's going to be a story of survival that tests one's faith.

At some point during the months of aimless drifting, Pi imagines luminescent sea creatures (i.e. a neon whale that breaches the ocean surface beside the boat and nearly overturns it).  I can even put this down to seasick hallucination, and I'm able to pass that off.  BUT ...

Here is where the writer lost me.  Near the end of their strength, Pi and Richard Parker (the tiger) reach a floating, carnivorous island that is somehow safe during daytime, and whose water turns acid at night, devouring anything not up in the trees.  The island is also covered with (wait for it) hordes of meerkats.  At this point, the story whirls off into unbelievability, and it loses all the magic that it had built up.

All right, I thought, this is just too much.

This is where the author, Yann Martel, made his fatal mistake.  You can ask a reader or viewer to believe in a fantasy world, or you can ask them to believe in your reality.  Really, you can ask them to believe anything, but you need to establish the rules.  At the beginning.  He does not do this.  The story opens as a realistic retelling by an ostensibly now well-adjusted man of his experiences on this lifeboat.  There is no precedent set for the possibility that all might not be as it seems with this man.  The viewer is led through an extraordinary adventure of survival, and all the way through it, before finding that this wonderful story we have shared is all just a metaphor for the trauma that really occurred while Pi was stranded in this lifeboat.  It didn't happen.  I felt cheated.  Betrayed as a viewer.  All of it was just a lie, and there was no indication that it might be a lie before Martel sprang the ugly truth on us.  Pi even asks the man interviewing him which of the stories he prefers.  The interviewer responds that he prefers the story of the tiger.  Pi knows he has just led this man through a fabrication, so he's at least aware that the ugly truth is in there somewhere ... yet he's still willing to lead someone along with the fabricated tale.  He has learned nothing.  He has found no God.  He is still willing to lie.

Readers do not like being cheated.  Viewers do not like being cheated.  If you are going to surprise them with an alternative ending, you must establish precedent in the form of clues or rules in the beginning that will make that alternative ending make sense.  (Perfect example: The Sixth Sense, with Bruce Willis.  All of the clues to the surprise were there, sprinkled through the film.  The rules were established, and there, even if you didn't recognize them for what they were.  That movie made me scream, "WOW!" and watch it all over again as soon as it ended.)

In the end, I don't feel Pi learned anything valuable, and therefore, I as a viewer didn't take home anything valuable.  The film is beautiful, but for those jarring notes, and I will probably never watch it again for those reasons.  Points galore to Ang Lee for the gorgeous scenery, and the score is fabulous ... but the story is, forgive me for the hackneyed phrase, an epic fail.

SCORE: Three of five stars

Movie Review: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"

I made sure to give this a full day to sink in before reviewing it, because I tend to be a bit biased toward "The Lord of the Rings" (i.e. OMG-squee-this-is-so-cool-I'm-just-gonna-die!). Let's face it, (Sir) Peter Jackson has redefined the epic cinematic adventure as we know it.

He does so once again in "The Hobbit," (titled "An Unexpected Journey," though marketed as "The Hobbit"). We have all come to know and appreciate Jackson's cinematic eye, especially with the sweeping vistas of Middle Earth to which he treated us in all three LOTR installments. He does so again, and even when we see places we've been before (Rivendell and Weathertop come to mind), we see a new aspect of these familiar places, rather than the same old scenery rehashed.

On that note, we enjoy a visit with a number of characters we know from the LOTR films ... but again, it's not as if Jackson trots them out for us to view just because we already know, and have bonded, with them. They are all there for a reason - to further the story.

Anyone who's read "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" knows that Tolkien was inordinately fond of history, and there is A LOT of it in Middle Earth. While I had my doubts about why Jackson broke "The Hobbit" into three films - this being the first installment - I understand, seeing it, that it was not only possible, but necessary. And it isn't a dry dissertation, either. While there is one notable scene where several characters simply sit around talking, it's not dull - because the expo is paired with subtext, and things going on that AREN'T being talked about. At no point was I bored enough to say "Get on with it!"

While I really (really, really) missed Aragorn at the outset of the story, I was more than engaged with the story of Bilbo, and especially this film's displaced leader, Thorin Oakenshield (played very admirably by Richard Armitage). And the song "Misty Mountains" gave me goosebumps.

Make no mistake: this isn't "The Lord of the Rings" redux. It is a lighter tale, with more comedy, and even a few shades of slapstick. (Not to mention a number of unlikely escapes.) But is still a good old-fashioned adventure, complete with its complement of honor, sacrifice, and hobbitish courage. Go see it, expecting some beautiful CGI, set design, storytelling, and just plain fun.

Side note: my husband and I being the movie geeks we are, we recognized several of the names in the credits, which WEREN'T the actors. I was pleased to see Shane Rangi's name among them (he of the motion-capture and costume acting for likewise-New-Zealand-filmed "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"). We were also thrilled to see that Alan Lee, who is famous for his illustrations for "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings," was listed as a design consultant. So not only is this a terrific movie, it picked from the best available talent. Nice job, Jackson. Looking forward to the next one ... just don't make us wait too long! *grin*

Movie Review: "Breaking Dawn pt. 2"

There's been an aura of fangirl wish fulfillment hanging around the Twilight books and movies since day one. I admit freely to enjoying the first book, in spite of some stilted writing/editing, because it reminded me of the painful awkwardness of being a teenager with a hardcore crush on that ungettable get. I have read all of the books in the Twilight series, and seen all the films (I can't bring myself to call it a "saga," which brings to mind Gone With The Wind - which deserves the moniker).

That said, I went to see "Breaking Dawn pt. 2" with a friend last night, and there were some places in which I was very pleasantly surprised indeed. BD is my least favorite book of the series, because of its too-slow pacing and its fizzle at the climactic moment of the story. Without giving too much away, I'll say that they definitely changed a couple of things that had left me underwhelmed when I read the book.

BD2, the film, starts out slow, as the book did, and I found myself preparing for disappointment. It's never easy to carry the "middle" of a story, but BD was noticeable in its slow pacing. I did not, and still don't, understand why they decided to break it into two films. True, there's a lot of story that needs to be crammed in - a lot happens in this book - but the real meat of the story is spread out over pages of introspection that I felt wandered too much from the necessary plot points in the book.

Another flaw of this film is that its CGI is noticeable in its clunkiness. It's hard to translate sensory detail onto film. After all, they haven't invented a way to see-how-she-sees, hear-how-she-hears, and smell-how-she-smells (but I keep hoping). But the action is clearly CGI, too smooth, too perfect, and too smudged. When a viewer finds herself looking for the bad mechanics of artistry in a movie, trust me, it's bad for the story. Edward and Bella's baby is clearly CGI, a completely unnecessary use of the medium. It's the difference between watching something with bad 80's special effects, and watching Avatar ... where you could see pores in skin. The character spends such a short time being an infant that I wonder why it was worth the bother to CGI her. Not only that, but virtually every non-human in this film is over-CGI'd. I felt like I was watching a cartoon, rather than what should (and could, given its budget) have been a photo-real film. Part of the reason we enjoy watching films is to relate to the characters on a human level. That means they shouldn't look/act flawless, even when they are. I can name half a dozen movies where the CGI was so good, it's nearly invisible. This is NOT one of them. The CGI is so visible, it should have had its own acting credit. Story first. The flashy stuff should support it, not outshout it.

Pacing took a back seat, as well (not unexpected). There are too many pauses where the movie lingers on the young, happy, and in-love couple and all the awesome things they can now do. This, to the detriment of Bella's character growth as part of the family in her new role, and Edward's in coming to terms with her change. It's all too easy for them. Granted, I'm from the Joss Whedon school of storytelling, where no one gets to be happy for long ... 'cause what fun is that? We read books and watch movies to see the characters overcome adversity, not to sit there and watch them be happy, as if we're mashing our noses to a storefront window with a sparkly, perfect life inside.

The end of this film may well have been its saving grace. It's another of those awesome examples of revision done right. It got a "Wooooow" out of me, no question. Had the rest of the film been this cunningly written, it might have gotten a 4 or above, but given all its flaws, I can only give this film a 3 of 5. Farewell, Twilight. Let's see what books Hollywood picks next.

Series Review - "Once Upon A Time"

I tend to be a bit of a skeptic ... but I do love fairytales. I watched the pilot episode of "Once Upon A Time" when it aired last fall. I hadn't watched it since, until the last week. Through the magic of Amazon Unbox, I did my catching up on Season One of this show. It may have been less than a week's worth of viewing. Even my husband got in on it.

The major premise of the series is that the Wicked Witch has trapped all fairytale characters - most especially Snow White and her Prince Charming - in the real world, in a town called Storybrooke. None of them remember their fairytale lives, and instead are living contemporary ones, each somehow stripped of its happy ending. None of them is allowed to leave town. None realize that they're cursed ... except a boy with a book of fairytales.

The intriguing thing about this series, so far, has been its talent for taking the fairytales we all know, and turning them on their ears. Added to that is the fact that the network, ABC, is owned by Disney, so we get a Disney-eye-view of the fairytales. The characters are all interesting, most particularly Rumplestiltskin. I enjoyed watching how their contemporary lives mirror those in their fairytale world.

On the downside, some of the dialogue has been clunky. It is a family show, so it needs to appeal to a wide range of ages (your tween will enjoy it, but there is some violence), but I've seen family shows with zippier dialogue. I also got tired of being unable to watch an episode where Charming didn't have a tear sliding down his cheek. (Buck up, Charming. Crying isn't going to vanquish the Wicked Witch.) One or two shows of heartbreak worked. Episode after episode of it tended to sap some of the heroism out of him ... but still. Nice eye candy. (For the guys, there's Red. You're gonna love her.)

All in all, I look forward to Season Two. There'll be some new characters to love, and ones you'll love to hate, and hopefully they'll keep the up momentum. This is a case where Disney's penchant for recycling fairytales works.

Movie Review: Snow White and the Huntsman

So, apparently, the world needs more fairytales in its life (or perhaps more Chris Hemsworth, in which case, who can blame them?). "Snow White and the Huntsman" was the top box-office pick this past weekend, and grossed more in its first weekend than the similarly Snow-White-themed "Mirror, Mirror." (Granted, "Huntsman" had twice the budget.) Incidentally, Chris Hemsworth is also in "The Avengers," which is still at Number Three after five weeks' running (behind MIB 3). Maybe it is Chris Hemsworth.

There are some clunky moments in this film. I think I might have benefited from subtitles during the dwarves' speech, and there are some moments of dialogue/action with a forced feel. Kristen Stewart does a fine job as Snow, but I found her more believable as the sweet-but-wronged princess than the army-leading badass. Perhaps we're missing a scene or two where we see this growth and change. However, this was a return to the good old-fashioned fantasy films of my youth ("Legend," "Ladyhawke," "The Dark Crystal," "Willow," etc.). The special effects, scenery, and costuming are terrific. Fun, fun, fun!

The queen (-slash-wicked-witch) is interesting in that they went to pains to keep her from being two-dimensional. There's a reason she's wicked, instead of just "I wanna be." Charlize Theron does a nice job with this, although there are some tantrummy moments where she paces in her castle, shouting. These lines are clearly the writer's, and not Theron's. The lines ought to have been delivered in a whisper, where they would be much more sinister.

The real heart in this film is Hemsworth. He's believable as the broken-hearted widower who hides in a bottle, but can't resist helping a woman in need. There is a third wheel, in the form of Snow's childhood friend William. Both are likeable men, and both have good reason to be with her. I found myself wondering which she would choose, but I won't spoil it for you. *grin*

I give it a 3.8 of 5, for great visuals and a fun way to spend an afternoon. I might not spend the full evening price to see it, but it was certainly worth a matinee and popcorn.