Movies, TV, & Books

Last night we watched part of the Oscar Awards, mostly because we couldn't find anything else we wanted to watch.

The only movie I have seen of all the movies mentioned was Barbie. I don't go to the theater often and some of these movies simply haven't made it to HBO/MAX yet.

Most of them I'd barely heard of. I am not a connoisseur of pop culture, apparently.

As for the Oscar Awards show, I neither liked it nor disliked it. It was just something to watch.

Movies

Now, on to the most recent movie I have watched: Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom, starring Jason Momoa.

Apparently, this movie was in theaters in December. We watched it when it came on HBO last weekend.

It is not a great movie. It's not even a good movie. When I spend more time trying to see what references to other movies and books I can find in a picture than actually watching the picture itself, then it's definitely not holding my interest.

This movie had references to Star Wars, H.G. Wells books, Batman and Robin, 48 Hours, Castaway, Thor, Harry Potter, and loads of other DC Comic lore. I am sure I missed other references, too.

Frankly, I'm about comic-book charactered out with movies, and hope that Hollywood moves on to better films, preferably not remakes of old ones as that seems to be the pattern of the moment. I would like to see something original occasionally.

I'm not going into the Aquaman plot; anyone can find a rehash of it on Wikipedia and all I wanted to note was I saw it, Momoa was fun to look at, and it was definitely a "B" rated flick.

TV

This brings me to the most recent binge of TV. I watched all six episodes of HBO's True Detectives: Night Country, staring Jody Foster. Mostly I watched it because I have always liked Jody Foster.

This show was weird and creepy. My husband said it gave me nightmares, although if it did, I don't remember them. But it was a different sort of show and I'm not sure I would have watched it had it not been for Foster.

Foster's character was a true hard-assed bitch named Liz Danvers. (The name made me think of Super Girl, whose last name was Danvers when she wasn't saving the world, so I wish they'd used another name, unless the inference was intentional.) Danvers was trying to solve two murders along with another police officer, Evangaline Navarro, played by Kali Reis.

Actually, it was more than two murders, as the initial murder was of six different men, all found naked out in the frozen Alaska tundra, their faces contorted in fear and their bodies molded together with ice. The officers called it a "corpsicle," which should tell you a lot about the humor of this show. It was very dark humor. Somehow this murder tied in with an older unsolved murder case. 

Most everything that seemed supernatural in the show could be explained, but it was one seriously delusional piece of work. Masterfully done, well-acted, and a bit crazy. I am glad I watched it, but like Game of Thrones, it's not something I intend to ever watch again.

Books

I've mentioned recently that I finished Heather Cox Richardson's book, Democracy Awakening. It's a very important book for these times and one that I encourage everyone, regardless of political persuasion, to read. The historical aspect that leads us to today is incredible and I guarantee that there are things in this book that one did not learn in the public schools, and maybe not even in college.

Another book I recently finished that was quite eye-opening was Educated, by Tara Westover. This memoir of a young woman who was "homeschooled" and a member of the Mormon faith is incredibly eye-opening and concerning. The story opens with an admonishment that the book is not meant to deny or endorse any religion, but it doesn't make religion of any kind look good. I think it reflects the evangelical religiosity that has taken hold of some folks and made them a bit crazy, regardless of brand of faith. I have never been one to live my life on emotion and have tried to be rational in my thought processes, although being human I am sure I've failed. But people who are living only on faith and belief are people I cannot understand. They do not step back and self-examine themselves or their actions and cannot or do not see reality in a way that I understand.

It is difficult to be the person who is different in any family; I imagine it must be nearly impossible in an evangelical one. Westover's memoir showed how difficult it was, and how hard it can be to overcome backwards thinking. 

It's definitely a book to read (or listen to, as I did), and think about.

I Did Not Go Fishing

Yesterday, I went to see the Barbie movie with a friend.

The movie is a tremendous statement about women, their role in society, and how things could be changed - if we only wanted to change it.

This is not a movie for children. This movie was made for women like me - and men with open minds - to throw back upon us the world as it is and as it could be. The political statements in this film are awesome and many.

It is no wonder I see women noting they've seen the movie multiple times at the theater. It is one I will watch again myself when it comes around to the small screen.

I may even buy the DVD. (They do still make DVDs, right?)

There is one monologue in the movie that I wish every woman could read. In fact, I found it online so I will put it here. The monologue is spoken by Gloria, a grown-ass woman who works for Mattel.

She says:

It is literally impossible to be a woman. You are so beautiful, and so smart, and it kills me that you don’t think you’re good enough. Like, we have to always be extraordinary, but somehow we’re always doing it wrong.

You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin. You have to have money, but you can’t ask for money because that’s crass. You have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean.

You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas. You’re supposed to love being a mother, but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman, but also always be looking out for other people. You have to answer for men’s bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you’re accused of complaining.

You’re supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you’re supposed to be a part of the sisterhood. But always stand out and always be grateful. But never forget that the system is rigged. So find a way to acknowledge that but also always be grateful.

You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line. It’s too hard! It’s too contradictory and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you! And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.

I’m just so tired of watching myself and every single other woman tie herself into knots so that people will like us. And if all of that is also true for a doll just representing women, then I don’t even know.

As you can see, this is not a movie for children. This is a movie that can move you to tears and make you laugh at the same time. It's definitely a movie that intelligent and empathetic women will love and enjoy.

Women who love being boy toys may not like it so much, but that's their problem. I never have made a good boy toy.

Anyway, if you are one of my faithful readers, then I suspect you will find a lot to like about Barbie. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here.

And yay for me for taking some time to go do something fun for a change.

Olivia Newton-John (1948 - 2022)

Word came this afternoon that singer Olivia Newton-John passed away at the age of 73.

I have been an Olivia Newton-John fan for a long time. I listened to her songs like Please, Mister, Please, saw her in Grease, and I was probably one of the 15 people who saw the movie Xanadu. I was only 17 when I saw that last movie but even I knew it was a flop. I might like it better if I revisited it, but I don't know that I've ever seen the movie listed on a cable movie channel.

I'll have to look for it now and see if somebody shows it.

It was the song Hopelessly Devoted to You from Grease that I loved the most. She sang it with so much angst and feeling that I don't know how anyone could not stop and listen to that song when it comes on the radio (which of course is seldom these days, though we may hear it more for a while).

Grease was also the first movie I saw without my parents. My brother and I went saw it together; I was 13, he was 10. I don't know how much my brother liked the movie, but I loved it, even if I didn't get the risqué lyrics in some of the songs at the time.

Olivia was, in spite of the cigarette and leather clothes at the end of Grease, the girl next door. If Olivia could do it, anyone could do it. She was spunky, she came across as fun, and I enjoyed watching her perform.

There aren't many people in this world that I truly admire, but Olivia Newton-John was one of them.

Her struggle with breast cancer was legendary; I remember feeling saddened when I learned she had it, and happy when I realized it hadn't killed her. She never regained the fame she'd had after the song Physical, but that didn't matter.

She'll always be Sandy Dee.

Thirteen Lives

Last night we watched Thirteen Lives, a movie by Ron Howard, on Prime Video. Fortunately the buffering was not bad.

The movie was incredibly good. It starred Viggo Mortenson (aka Aragorn in Lord of the Rings), Colin Ferrell and other people whose names I did not recognize.

It was the story of the rescue of 12 boys and their young coach, who were trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand.

Even though I knew how things turned out, having read much about the 2018 event, I cried at the end.

But watching it with my husband made me happy.

*I'm participating in the August Happiness Challenge this month!*

TV and Movie Thoughts

The HBO series My Brilliant Friend upsets me with every episode. Yet, I can't not watch it. I am breathless in my vigil to see what happens next, even though we're talking fairly routine life stuff here - marriage, having children, almost having an affair. And at the heart of it, a childhood friendship between two similar yet very different young women.

Today I am quite grumpy, as I didn't sleep well. We watched My Brilliant Friend last night and I think it carried over into my night and this day. The show reminds me, quite vividly and pointedly, of the relatively small shelf women and women's rights stand upon. Actually, it's more like we and those rights stand upon the head of pin, much like thousands of invisible and unreal angels.

Because the truth of the matter is, women are, every day, thrown around, mistreated, and married to be a man's sex partner, maid, cook, and baby carrier. All over the world. Even here. 

In the current climate, and with the Republicans doing their best to make the vetting of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson look like a roadside circus while she, being a woman, can't burst into tears and sobs like her predecessor in the process, Bret Kavanaugh. That's because if she did, she'd be called out for it in multiple ways and a single tear would disqualify her, while Kavanaugh's whiny ass histrionics were simply a reflection of a poor man who'd been unfairly raked over the coals because of his purported abuse of women.

And My Brilliant Friend shows how poorly women have been and continue to be mistreated. It also shows how to kill a spirit in someone who needs only a wee bit of support to become outstanding. Elena wants to be a writer, but no one supports her efforts.

It makes me sad.

The Gilded Age ended its season Monday night. That show is no Downton Abby, in spite of being written by Julian Fellowes, who also wrote the latter. The Gilded Age is American greed and capitalism in full display, complete with backstabbing, bitterness, lies, deceit, and merciless racism and again, gender inequality. It was a train wreck from the get-go, but again, one I watched because looking away didn't seem to be an option.

I don't know if I was waiting for Mrs. Russell to find her place amongst the old guard in high society, a position she coveted to the point of insanity, or if I was waiting for the old guard in high society to fall on its face, or for the servants and lower-class labor workers to rise up and proclaim the world belonged to them.

The characters were not likeable, except for Marian, the poor relative who came to live with the rich aunts in New York, and Ms. Scott, the Black woman who went to work for Marian's aunt and who wanted badly to be a writer. She also has a much more complicated life than one may have thought from the first few episodes.

(I note both of these TV shows have women who want to write in them. Perhaps that is the draw for me . . . watching these women who love what I love try to overcome.)

And then there's Spielberg's West Side Story. I may have seen the original at some point, but if I have, I don't remember it.

I disliked this version. I disliked it a lot. There wasn't a character to feel anything for, or time to feel anything for one, anyway. The dancing was fun to watch, some of the songs familiar, and it was certainly well done and spiffy, but I did not like it.

The character I most liked was the girlfriend of the Bernado. Anita (yep, that is her name) is all common sense and she understands the world. She also was a great dancer. I liked her best of all and not simply because she had my name.

This has been nominated for 7 Oscars and a bunch of other awards. I follow a few screenwriters on Facebook and they loved it, although from the comments I could see that not all of their followers liked it. I thought it was an incredibly shallow movie, however skillful the dancing. I felt nothing for the lead characters.

I knew the movie was based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, so I had an idea of how it would end. It seemed more like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, if you ask me.

Even though this version did nothing for me, I would like to see the original in order to make a comparison. There must be something there I am missing, yes?

Revisiting Wonder Woman 1984

When Wonder Woman 1984 debuted at Christmas, I watched it on HBO Max. 

My review is here. I gave it three stars and had multiple complaints about the film.

All of those complaints are valid, but we watched the movie again Saturday night, when it came out on HBO.

And I liked it.

It wasn't as good as the 2017 Wonder Woman, but the movie was better than I remembered it being. Perhaps this was because I'd already seen it and had lower expectations.

Or perhaps this time I watched for the nuances that made the movie better, and found them.

All I know is, I like this movie much better than I thought I did. I still give it 3 stars, but as movies go, I have seen much, much worse.

I have read that the director, Patty Jenkins, is no longer on the writing team for the third film. I suspect this is a good thing. She may be a great director, but she's not an action film writer.

Justice League - the Director's Cut

When I first heard that there was a new version of the 2017 Justice League movie coming out, this time completely under the director's vision of Zack Snydor, I wasn't sure what the fuss was about.

I saw the movie in 2017. I watched it specifically to see more of Wonder Woman, who wowed me when I saw the movie by the same name.

The 2017 Justice League was underwhelming. It's not a movie I've watched more than once.

The movie version that came out in 2017 was "finished up" under Joss Whedon, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame, because original director Zack Snydor has personal issues come up (I believe he lost a child), and Whedon finished the film.

If the new version of this movie showed me one thing, it is how much a director actually impacts a film. I mean, I have the extended director's cuts of The Lord of The Rings trilogies, and they add depth and interest (and length) to the films, but they did not change the meaning of the entire movie (although The Two Towers is helped tremendously by the additions to the extended version). After all, Peter Jackson did the theatrical release and the director's cut, so it was his vision in all releases.

The Snydor version of Justice League, just released on HBO Max (and maybe in theaters, I am not sure) is magnificent. It's a completely different movie with just a few scenes that I recognized from the original.

It more than made up for the lukewarm Wonder Woman: 1984 film that came out at Christmas.

The Snydor cut has Wonder Woman all over the place, along with back stories for the other superheroes. The stories actually made sense.

This version was dark and deeply intense. No cartoonish clowning around, no off the wall jokes. This was how this movie should have been from the get-go.

The villain was an actual character, not a caricature as in the first release. He had motive and his actions made sense.

Whedon messed up, and I didn't even know it until I saw what this movie should have been - and now is.

This new version gave truthful homage to the hope of Superman and his rebirth after he died in Batman v. Superman, Dawn of Justice (2016). 

The new version filled plot holes that were in the 2017 Justice League film and the whole thing made more sense.

Of course, it is also nearly two hours longer than the original film. We watched it over two nights, two hours on Saturday night and two hours on Sunday night.

I sat on the edge of my chair most of the time, and I don't do that often when I am watching a movie.

It's been a few years since I watched the theatrical release of Justice League, so maybe I am forgetting parts of what was a ho-hum movie. I believe it was a box-office bust and not the money-maker Warner Brothers had hoped.

If Snydor had been able to do this particular movie, they'd have had a hit on their hands.

I know many people do not watch movies or TV shows based on comic book characters. That's fine. I don't watch sports.

Comic books and I parted ways a very long time ago, so there are many changes in the way things are now in DC and Marvel that I haven't kept up with. The multi-verses, for one thing, where there may be two or three heroes of the same incarnation acting in different ways. Plus there are new superheroes, gender changes, etc.

But when I was a young girl, I spent hours devouring Captain America, The Fantastic Four, Spiderman, Wonder Woman, Justice League of America, the Black Widow, Daredevil (he was my favorite, along with the Black Widow and Sue, the Invisible Girl in the Fantastic Four). Wonder Woman in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when I was reading these comics, was given short shrift and often left behind as clerk girl, especially in the Justice League comics, so I never warmed to her as much as I did the Marvel comic women. I didn't read much Supergirl, either. In part this was because I pooled my coins with my brother and my two uncles when we walked up to the Orange Market to buy comics, and they generally went for the more male-oriented comics, with an occasional bow to my desire to read the female superhero ones.

The pull of superheroes is a desire to see justice done, I think. It's also touches on a secret desire that everyone has, i.e., to be special, different, and important enough to make a difference. I think deep down, many people have that urge, to be more than just the grocery clerk, or even the nameless face of some corporation.

Perhaps we all see that the world is dark and terrible, and we secretly want it to be better.

We can't all be superheroes, but we can, obviously, leave a mark and/or make a change. This new version of this movie shows that nothing is static, and the visions of certain people make for better entertainment than the visions of others.

That doesn't mean, though, that we're not all superheroes.

In somebody's eyes, I hope we are all superheroes, if only for a short time.

Anyway, if you like superhero flicks, check out the Snydor cut of Justice League. It's a great remake.

Once Upon A Time in La La Land

Recently we watched two movies, La La Land, and Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood.

I heard rave reviews about both.

I disliked both movies. My husband didn't like them either. There was nothing of substance in either one.  We kept looking at each other and then asking, "What are we missing?"

Sometimes the question was, "Do you have any idea what is going on in this movie?"

Movies are not of great interest to me, so I do not consider myself a movie critic. But honestly, shouldn't there be a plot? Character development? A message? Something to make me not want back the 2.75 hours I spent watching the show?

Sometimes I see a bad movie or read a bad book, and wonder what on earth were they thinking?

Beats me.

If you liked these movies and care to explain why, have at it. I'm always up for learning something.

Sunday Stealing: Movies

Sunday Stealing

1. Last movie you watched: Green Book

2. Last movie you watched in a theater: Wonder Woman

3. Film you’ve always wanted to watch, but haven’t: Crazy Rich Asians

4. Favorite movie soundtrack: Forrest Gump

5. Your favorite movie duo: Aragorn and Legolas from The Lord of the Rings. (What, you thought I'd say Batman and Robin?)

6. Movie you like because of its story: Under the Tuscan Sun

7. A film that disappointed you: The Hobbit. It was nowhere near as good as The Lord of the Rings.

8. Favorite scene from a movie: The ending of The Lord of the Rings, Return of the King, when Aragorn, now king of Gondor, tells the Hobbits, "My friends, you bow to no one," and he bows down to them, as does the rest of the people there. I always cry at that scene, even though I've seen it at least 20 times.

9. Your guilty pleasure movie: Dirty Dancing.

10. A movie you keep going back to: Steel Magnolias.

11. A quote you admire from your favorite movie: "It is the small things, everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keeps the darkness at bay. Simple acts of love and kindness." - Gandalf, The Lord of the Rings.

12. A movie based on a true story: Green Book.

13. Your favorite actor/actress: I don't really have one.

14. A sequel you’re not a fan of: I thought the last Shrek movie was poorly done.

15. A film you know by heart: The Lord of the Rings (all 12+ hours of it).

16. Your favorite opening scene: I can't think of one.

17. A film that was based on a book and was executed well: The Lord of the Rings.

18. A comedy film: Monty Python and The Holy Grail.

19. TV series you’re binging on now: Stargirl.

20. A TV series you think is underrated: Supergirl. Up until this last season, when it became a bit convoluted, it has had very good writing.

________________
I encourage you to visit other participants in Sunday Stealing posts and leave a comment. Cheers to all us thieves who love memes, however we come by them. 

Movie Nights

We recently watched the Downton Abby movie and Tolkien.

I liked them both, but I think I liked Downton Abby best.

The Downton movie was rather plotless - basically the entire plot revolved around a visit from the king and queen - but it was fun to revisit the characters. The coup by the staff to keep the royal staff from taking over Downton was cute and clever. But good theater? Not really. Just entertaining.

The Tolkien movie, from what I understand, was not sanctioned by the family of the famous writer. This movie delves into Tolkien's early years and uses metaphors from his writings to imply that the legends of Middle Earth were, at least in part, Tolkien's way of getting World War I and his early orphaned state out of his system. I have no problem with this; I do not believe a writer can be entirely separated from his or her work, no matter the subject. I have seen this argued both ways in many different forums.

Since I have read a biography or two or three about Tolkien, I knew what to expect. I think the theatric choices were reasonable.

For some reason, the Tolkien movie reminded me of the Dead Poet's Society. I think it was the young men's grouping that brought that about. I wonder if there are young men today who sit around and talk about the classics, look into literature, and discuss the values of Henry James or D. H. Lawrence. I rather doubt it; we're all too busy looking at our phones now to have much discussion.

At any rate, these movies were both set in England, which was about they only thing the two had in common.

We enjoyed them and they certainly were better than watching another round of Bitchin' Rides. (If I never see another car show I will be fine with that.)

Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Here there be spoilers, so if you are one of the last people to see this movie, and you don't want to be "spoiled," you've been warned!

**********

We went to see Star Wars: The Last Jedi a week ago. We went to the Valley View theater, and the sound was LOUD. Deafening, even. That in and of itself was enough to spoil the movie for us, as we both came out of the theater with a massive headache.

Otherwise, the accommodations were fine. But I do hope my next movie IS NOT SO LOUD.

Star Wars is one of those things that I have mixed feelings about. I loved the original first three movies (now called movies IV, V, and VI). I saw them in the theater and was fascinated by the CGI, the story line, and the world. What was there not to like, aside from the minor role of women in the thing. At least there was Princess Leia, who was not a Disney princess by any stretch of the imagination.

I did not see the next three (now I, II, and III) in the movie theater. I eventually saw them on TV and agreed with critics that they were not on par with the original movies. It is hard to mess with perfection, after all.

Star Wars returned two years ago with Star Wars: The Force Awakens. We saw that and I enjoyed it. I liked the addition of the new characters and was particularly glad that the newest Jedi was a young woman. Girl power! I did not like the new Darth Vader or his parentage, and the fact that he could kill off his father was too pat (and too circular, since the original Vader was Luke Skywalker's dad). The character was not Darth Vader material, in my opinion. (He still isn't.)

With Carrie Fisher's death, this last Star Wars took on a poignancy that the film wasn't meant to have. We knew that this was Fisher's last appearance in the films, so I was keen to see how her character developed and what they did with her. I was pleased that she didn't die in the film, but the changing of the guard was apparent. Princess Leia is old and while still fighting the good fight, it is time for younger faces to take over.

I was terribly unimpressed with the writing regarding Luke Skywalker. I was not pleased that he was portrayed as a madman, more or less. I do not believe that he would have done what the film said he did and ultimately "create" the new Darth Vader by sending Solo's son over the dark side. His refusal to deal with Rey upon her arrival was frustrating and went on too long.

In the end, he died a hero's death, though a long distance one. Still, it was a good death and he remained on the side of the light.

The Resistance lives on to fight the fight as evidenced in the last scene, when a young boy looks to the sky and then at a ring on his finger that has the Resistance logo. (Do they hand those out in Cracker Jacks throughout the galaxy or something?) As long as there are underdogs, there will be a Resistance.

Now the story passes to a new generation. I will not go see any more Star Wars movies in the theater, no matter how much I may like Rey. She was unimpressive in this last film, for one thing, and for another, I feel like the series has become nothing more than a cash cow for Disney. They will milk it for all it's worth but it was obvious that the mythology and lore is not being embraced in these new films. I am sure I will watch them when they are on the small screen, but that's it.

I went to this last film mostly to see how the writers ended the lives of the main characters. It is fitting that Leia be the last one of the original group still standing (along with Chewbacca - but maybe Wookies live forever), but I did not find the movie inspiring and thought it fell short of a goal of good storytelling as well as movie canon. But it is what it is and no one consulted me.

Doesn't mean I can't have an opinion, though.

Seeing Wonder Woman and the Meaning of Superhero

I do not go to the movies often. The last movie my husband and I saw at the theater was Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which showed in 2015. The last movie I saw alone was Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 which showed in 2004.

But I really wanted to see Wonder Woman. Like I said yesterday in my Thursday Thirteen post, I have always had a thing for strong female heroines. And by "strong" I mean a female character that embodies womanly strength (which I consider to be more pacifistic, circular, and loving instincts) and who is still able to take care of herself without needing intervention from the patriarchy.

In my little band of friends, I seem to be the only fantasy aficionado. If there are others, they haven't spoken up. My brother shares my proclivity for the genre, but we can barely get together for a phone call, much less a movie. My husband watches these movies with me and I think he enjoys them but he doesn't watch them on his own. For example, he can repeat lines from Lord of the Rings because he's walked in to find me watching it 100 times, but it is not a movie he seeks out himself.

Going out by myself has become difficult for me, as a few  of my close friends (and my physical therapist) know. Other people may not realize it, but trying to climb stairs and walk up hills or go any distance on the slightest bit of uneven ground is painful and trying. The movie theater has stairs and no elevator if you want to sit in the middle or up high and not right on top of the screen.

Despite this, I gathered my courage and went alone to the theater. My husband had to work at the fire station today. He has hay down that he will need to work on tomorrow, and another large field that needs to be cut. We are weaning calves. He has a septic tank to install. I have no idea when he might have a free hour, much less time to go to a movie. 

Anyway, I made it to the theater early so I would have plenty of time to settle in. I slowly and carefully walked up 30 stairs to get to where I wanted to sit, which was just above the midpoint of the theater seats. I am paying for it now with a lot of pain but that is okay.

Truly, the stairs were difficult and I ended up asking someone at the theater to help me because I couldn't carry popcorn, a drink, a back support I need because the chairs at the theater are absolutely terrible if you have back problems, and use a cane. I was grateful a theater person helped me. Thumbs up to the theater for having someone available to do that.

After I settled in, I found myself cringing a bit because at the early matinee there were more men there than I anticipated. Just men, in singles and in pairs, and more of them than women. I saw a few fathers with daughters, a few couples, and one or two other people there by themselves. The theater was by no means full; it was maybe one-third filled which apparently is typical for that time of day. Anyway, the abundance of men unsettled me. I wasn't expecting that.

I forgot some of my anxiety when the movie started. It was an amazing film. The picture was better than Star Wars: The Force Awakens by the length of a Death Star ray and then some.

Wonder Woman was full of fun, mischief, and heart. It was cinematic in scope with beautiful scenery and an attention to detail I haven't seen in a movie in a while. Gal Gadot is a good actress and she made a beautiful, enthralling, adorable, and entirely believable character come to life. Chris Pine portrayed a credible Steve Trevor, and I liked the little cadre of assistance Trevor put together to help Diana Prince and himself infiltrate the place where the queen of poison and Ares in the guise of someone else was hiding. I won't spoil anything else; all of that information is available in the movie trailers.

I do urge you to see this movie if you have any interest in coming of age stories, in stories about overcoming the dearth of bad in the hearts of mankind, and in seeing something that offers lessons about humanity, goodness overcoming darkness, and love (not romantic love, but love of humanity).

But truly the most amazing thing, for me personally, happened after the movie. I sat while most everyone left, because I knew it was going to take me a while to get back down the stairs. I tried to catch the eye of the clean-up guy so he could carry my trash for me, but to no avail. So finally I stood and then eased myself carefully down the steps, one at a time - slowly, slowly. I reached the bottom, where a trash can had been placed, and tossed my trash.

I turned toward the door and there, with the light behind him creating a silhouette as he strode down the dark hallway towards me, was my husband in his firefighter's uniform, looking for all the world like a slightly portly superhero in a movie, heading toward a damsel in distress to rescue her.

He had come in with no ticket near the end, to be sure I was okay and able to get out to the car. My hero.

It was extra-special to have him make that small effort because today was his birthday and he was at work. I had thought I might drive to the firehouse to surprise him but instead he surprised me. He helped me to the restroom (the movie is 2.5 hours so don't drink during it), and then out to the car.

We had a long kiss goodbye and he sent me on my way. I shall have to find a superhero name for him, my man with the special power of love.

The Influence of Mary Poppins

Saturday night we watched Mary Poppins on TV, mostly because I did not recall ever having seen it before. I probably did when I was young, but I had no memory of it.

The first thing that came to mind was Harry Potter. Here we had wizards (Mary Poppin and the chimney sweep dude) and muggles (the parental units and the hired help).

The next thing that came to mind was Nanny McPhee. Obviously both of those stories were influence to some extent by Mary Poppins.

I could write a good paper comparing those two items with Mary Poppins, I suspect. Throw in the history of witches and warlocks, good and bad, parenting versus actually raising a child, and one could write an entire book about this movie with comparison to today's literature.

Not sure I could manage to match it with Tolkien, though. I would have to give that one some thought.

Mary Poppins, in case like me you were not aware, sat amongst the clouds waiting for the winds to blow. She magically appeared to become a nanny to two mischievous children (though their mischief was mild compared to today) and to retrain the family. Doesn't that sound like Nanny McPhee?

The chimney sweep, Bert, played by Dick Van Dyke, performed all kinds of feats and was rather a jack-of-all-trades sort of fellow, for he also was a one-man band and served as a sort of narrator to the audience.

Later in the film there was something about laughing and how it kept your feet from the floor, which seemed a rather good lesson for these trying times.

I knew most of the songs but I think that came from having the album or perhaps a toy jukebox I once had that played many Disney tunes. And then there was that wonderful word: supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. It means "exceptional" or "wonderful" but also, according to Wikipedia, "Atoning for educability through delicate beauty."

That in and of itself probably requires explaining, and looking at that particular definition gives me a headache! Dum diddle diddle!

Julie Andrews did not look at all like Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music, for Mary Poppins (she goes by her entire name all the time) has black hair and the change in features is magical, truly. I had no idea Dick Van Dyke was so talented, either.

The film was produced in 1964 and is loosely based on a book series, Mary Poppins, by P.L. Travers (something I shall have to add to my reading list, I suppose).

Movie Talk

Do you like movies about:

time travel? I enjoyed Planet of the Apes movies when I was young (time travel in those - the Earth in future times, governed by apes with man as captive and slave). I also liked all of the Back to the Future movies, so I suppose I do like them, if they are well done and not overly graphic.

the 80's? Not about the '80s, really, but made then: Raiders of the Lost Ark and Ghostbusters, for example. Not really a fan of the brat pack movies.

drugs? Not particularly.

crazy people? Not particularly.

hallucinations? Not particularly.

airplanes? Not particularly.

death? Not particularly.

life? Aren't most of them about life, in some fashion or another?

the meaning of life? That can be derived from many movies and genres. Too vague a question.

fate? Also vague.

I like fantasy movies that end well, or at least, satisfactorily. I like movies with magic in them, movies that are well acted, and movies that make me feel something. Some of my favorites are The Lord of the Rings (all three of them, and no surprise to anyone who has read this blog much), The Harry Potter movies (a few more than others, but they need to be taken as a whole), an older movie called LadyHawke (features Michelle Pfiefer and Matthew Broderick); and of course, The Wizard of Oz.

And Star Wars. We cannot forget Star Wars. Or E.T.

Other movies that may not be considered fantasy but actually are include Monty Python and the Holy Grail, The Little Mermaid, Shrek, and Beauty and the Beast. Many Disney movies are fantasies - Sleeping Beauty, anyone?

Chick flicks (I think that's what they call them) also appeal to me. I like Dirty Dancing, Under the Tuscan Sun, Romancing the Stone, The Rose, etc. I also enjoyed Secretariat and the Sherlock Holmes movies with Rob Lowe in them.

My movie education is pretty bereft, actually. I need to watch old movies and catch up, but I have never been one to watch movies. For one thing, my husband is a terrible "flipper" with the remote and if I don't catch something from its very beginning, I refuse to start in the middle and try to catch up.
This would be a better question for my husband, I expect, who does watch more TV than I and enjoys watching movies (regardless of whether he sees the beginning or the end).

Wild - The Movie

Wild, a movie based on a 2012 book by the same name by Cheryl Strayed, was released in 2014. It played on HBO recently.

My book club read the book in 2013 (review at the link). I was ambivalent about the book, and when I heard that it would become a movie, I wondered how the filmmakers would manage that. The book was heavy and portrayed the heroine, such as she was, as rather ignorant. Nor was she someone to admire, even if she did hike the Pacific Crest Trail. Just because somebody takes a long walk doesn't mean they deserve admiration.

Reese Witherspoon starred as Cheryl. She did a nice job of portraying the character, though I confess when I looked the movie up I was surprised to learn she received an Academy Award nomination for the role. Laura Dern, who played Cheryl's mother, also received a nomination. I don't watch a lot of movies so maybe the standards are different now.

During this long hike, Cheryl reflects upon her mother's death. Her mother loved her, but her father was an alcoholic and mean, which can take a toll on a sensitive child. The reflective parts in the movie showed how this tortured past lead Cheryl astray (pun intended), probably better than the book did. The book spent a lot of time reflecting on her mother's death instead of earlier childhood demons. I was glad the movie reversed that.

It is hard to write a book that is reflective and which focuses on a single character to the exclusion of all else. It is hard to do a movie like that, too. The only one I can recall seeing that was successful in recent years is Castaway, with Tom Hanks. And even he had to invent a character with a volley ball to make some dialogue happen.

This is not a movie I would watch again. The acting was fine and the story didn't drag, but I guess I like my heroines to be a bit more, I don't know, loveable.

The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies

You may not want to read this if you've not see the movie, though I will try not to give away anything. This is mostly my impression of the movie and the series as a whole.

*
*
*
*
*
*

Yesterday we ventured out to see the final movie in Peter Jackson's vision of Tolien's tale, The Hobbit. The Hobbit is a prequel to Lord of the Rings, and as prequels frequently do, the movies raised a lot of questions, including the main one: if the elves and Gandalf knew 60 years prior to Lord of the Rings that Sauron had returned, why did it take so long for them to do something about it?

That question is not answered in its entirety in the theater release, so don't expect resolution. I have been buying the extended versions of The Hobbit, which includes more film footage and a story line not even included in the theatrical release, so perhaps the query will be better answered there. But I will have to wait until next fall sometime to learn it.

In my opinion, this last movie was the weakest of the six movies, which is a pity. One should not end something so wonderful as this series of movies on the lowest note. I never thought stretching The Hobbit out into three movies was a good idea because there simply wasn't enough material there. I liked Jackson's additions, as far as they went, but he either needed to veer away more from the book or simply have two movies.

Do not think I was disappointed in the movie. I was not. But  As movies go it was better than most, but I would rate it last of the six. I rank the movies (as movies) like this: The Return of the King, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Two Towers, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies. They should be watched in order, though, and taken as a whole.

One of the things that bothered me was the change in CGI and computer effects. They are better in The Hobbit, of course, than they were in Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings was filmed 12 years ago, and the technology has changed. That being said, I would have preferred The Hobbit to have been filmed in the older technology. I think that certain CGI characters should have looked like they did in the older films. The nine ring wraiths, for example, should have looked the same as they did in Lord of the Rings. And the Eye should have looked as it did in the first movies, except perhaps less. If the Eye was at full strength in Lord of the Rings, then it should have been weaker-looking, not stronger-looking, in The Hobbit.

These are, of course, picky little things, things that a geek like myself would notice. I doubt most of the theater-going public pay that much attention. I daresay they don't watch The Lord of the Rings movies two or three times a year, as I do.

The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies was a weak movie because of lack of character development. There was precious little of it, even though the movie moved along very quickly for 2.5 hours. Aside from Thorin and Galadriel, character development was minimal. Blood, at least, was kept to a minimum even though there are a lot of deaths. There wasn't even much plot, to be honest. It was just a big battle, so it was aptly named.

This is not a stand-alone movie. Anyone who sees this movie who has never seen the others will be completely lost. They will wonder what the draw is and why people love the story as a whole.

As with books, I am not much on stories that depend on things that preceded them to make them whole. A story that depends solely upon familiarity with preceding books or movies to move it along seems to me to be poorly told.

I cried at the end of this movie as I bid farewell to these much-loved characters and this series of movies. The Lord of the Rings has touched me in a way nothing else I've watched ever has. Though the books as a whole are irritating to me because of the lack of women in the stories, as allegory and commentary on humanity and society, they are difficult to beat. And Jackson, to his credit, did add some women into the stories to help offset the total maleness of Tolkien's books.

So I bid my farewell to Gandalf and Bilbo, to Frodo and Sam. I kiss the cheeks of Galadriel, Arwen, and Eowyn. I will revisit you on the small screen in my annual forays, and I will see you all in my dreams.

In Baby's Corner

Though I have lived in this area all of my life, I had never once been to Mountain Lake in Giles County. This is the spot where parts of the iconic movie, Dirty Dancing, was filmed. It's one of my favorite movies.

Sunday we went for a little drive and this is where we ended up:

 

This little building is a museum dedicated to the movie.

 

 

It was mostly photos on the wall, but I loved every one of them.

 

 

Everybody knows what that means!

 

 

 

Jennifer Grey was very good in this movie.

 

 

There was a lot of glare in the museum, so it was hard to get good photos.

 

 

I liked this wall about the cast.

 

 

 

Jennifer Grey, aka "Baby"

 

 

I think this was my favorite.

 

 

That dance scene on the log was a classic!

 

 

We made a donation. Regular readers will remember my mother died of pancreatic cancer, too, as did my husband's aunt. The Patrick Swayze Pancreas Research Fund has been established at Stanford University. You can make a donation online if you're so inclined. Or mail one in. Pancreatic cancer is one of the leading types of cancer deaths, yet is it among the least funded as far as research. Thousands die each year from this particularly grueling disease.

 

 

This movie will always have a special place in my heart. It makes me smile and it lifts my heart with the song and dance.

 

Nobody, but nobody, puts Baby in the corner!

Dark Shadows

In the early 1970s, I watched a soap opera called Dark Shadows. It featured Barnabas Collins as a vampire who watched over his manor. He was in love with the governess, Victoria Winters.

The show also had werewolves, witches, and other supernatural creatures. It ran for five years on ABC, which was the only station we could receive at the time. It originally aired from 1966 to 1971, but I recall watching it when I was older. Maybe it had a reruns.

The show was campy and it didn't hesitate to cross cultures, history, and anything else. Some of the story lines borrowed heavily from classic books, such as Jane Eyre.

The show has a cult following even today. In 2012, Tim Burton made a movie based on the show.

We watched the movie the other night on TV. It starred Johnny Depp as Barnabas Collins.

The movie received mixed reviews. The dark comedy, which was set in 1972, showed the characters I remembered best and stuck to the "why is Barnabas a vampire" storyline for the most part, summing up 5 years worth of soap opera in two hours.

The movie featured some nice lines, one big explosion, some blood, a few ghosts, and a werewolf. There were a few flashbacks but they were nicely done.

I did not care for the actress who played Victoria Winters. She played the part very much like a mannequin, and that was not the portrayal I expected since the entire show revolved around that character and Barnabas.

Victoria Winters was played by several different actresses on the TV show, and I am not sure which one I remember.

Dark Shadows falls into the genre of Gothic Romance. I have always liked that type of show and/or book. These stories have a little horror and a little romance; True Blood could be considered a Gothic of sorts, I suppose, based on those elements. Generally Gothics feature an orphaned young woman who is a governess or housekeeper or something in a mysterious old mansion. Someone - or something - is out to get her.

I used to love the Gothic Romances by Victoria Holt, Phyllis Whitney, and Barbara Michaels. At one time I thought I might like to write these types of books. The genre has fallen out of favor, though. It would be an interesting exercise to see what I might do with it now that I am older (and hopefully a wiser and better writer).

It is interesting that the genre has long held an appeal for me, and I wonder if it all started with Dark Shadows. Did I watch it when I was three years old, when the show first came on? I don't know. Maybe I did, and it stuck.

The Hobbit

My husband and I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey on the big screen Monday afternoon.

We saw the "regular" version of the film. There is also a 3D version and a fast film version (in 3D) but I have problems with migraines and early report indicated those films upset folks with those tendencies.

I am not a big fan of 3D anyway.

The film does not follow the book, as best I remember. I am currently re-reading The Hobbit, but am not very far into the book. However, I am fairly certain that a story thread that involves the Dwarf King and an orc is completely made up.

The basic premise is a hobbit goes on an adventure: he sets off with 12 dwarfs and a wizard to reclaim the home of the dwarfs from a dragon.

I don't want to spoil the film for anyone who has not seen it, so I will not say more about plot. I thought the characters were well done, though I would have liked a little more in-depth characterization of the many dwarfs.

Even in 2D, I could tell the film was shot with 3D in mind. There were many dizzying tumbles down into holes and things, and wild shots that I am sure look quite interesting in 3D. Even in 2D, though, the swoops of camera left me feeling a little ill.

I also found the film a little slow in places; I looked at my watch at least twice during the movie, something I never do during Lord of the Rings (even now on my 100th time or so watching of those films).

Still, if you are a fan of fantasy, or of Tolkien, or of Peter Jackson (film director), then this is definitely must-see. I will watch it again as soon as I can, but on the small screen, where the camera swoops perhaps won't make my tummy turn over.

One Thousand Words

Saturday night we watched a movie called One Thousand Words. It stars Eddie Murphy and if you haven't heard of it, don't worry. Most people haven't, I think.

Rotten Tomatoes heaped lots of bad reviews upon it. However, I liked it.

It's an enlightenment fantasy. Jack McCall (Murphy) is a fast-talking literary agent. He attempts to grab the book of the latest hot mystic, but he gets pricked by a special tree. The tree then appears at his house. Every time McCall says a word, a leaf falls from the tree. He soon realizes that he must choose his words carefully and that when the last leaf leaves the tree, both will die.

As a writer and a communicator, I enjoyed the story. In the end, the most important words - the ones that saved - were "I love you" and "I forgive you," with the last three being key. Forgiveness is hard to come by these days, and it is good to have a reminder of how important that truly is.

A thousand words is not very many. It's about four typed pages, single spaced. While that may seem like a lot if you're 13 and doing a Social Studies report (do they even still have Social Studies?), in a lifetime - in a day's time, really - it is nothing at all.

Words are sacred. That was the moral of the movie, something which seems to have slipped by many of the reviewers. This is the kind of movie we need more of, something with a strong message that points out right from wrong. Wrong: being a glib talker who cares only about money. Right: being a good father who is involved in his child's life.

Wrong: taking advantage of people. Right: taking care of your elderly mother.

Wrong: pretending to be what you're not. Right: forgiving someone who has wronged you.

Wrong: telling your wife/friend/lover that you love them all the time, but not backing it up with action. Right: saying I love you and meaning it, with thought and deed behind the words.

I loved seeing these good, strong messages on the screen. I loved being reminded that words are sacred, that our day-to-day use of them has power that should not be taken lightly.

"When words are scarce, they are seldom spent in vain," said William Shakespeare, the greatest playwright ever. Now there was a guy who knew what he was talking about. It is why stories need editors, why articles have word limits, why some of the best writing is "short" writing.

"Words may show a man's wit, but actions his meaning," said Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest spokesmen to ever come out of the United States.

In today's word of texting and telephone talking, when everyone is connected to their favorite device, scared to miss a word, are the things you're afraid of missing really worth that time and effort?

Doesn't that give you pause?

If you only had one thousand words, what do you think you'd say?