Movie Review

I went to see Twilight with my sister-in-law.  As I have said previously regarding the Twilight Saga, the story is captivating, the writing not spectacular.  I liked Twilight.  I did not like New Moon at all.  I was lukewarm on Eclipse.  Breaking Dawn gets a so-so from me.  I've read the portion of Midnight Sun that Stephanie Meyer posted on her website, and I do like that.  Too bad she's shelved the project for now.

Even though they aren't great literature, I've read each of the novels more than once, but I am not as rabid as the fanpiers (who would be called fangirls in any other fandom).  My expectations for the movie weren't particularly high, because the movie is never better than the book.  When Hollywood gets its hands on something, they inevitably screw it up.  That said, I thought that the actors selected to play Bella and Edward were pretty spot-on, when I saw that information in the gossip rags.  

The movie met my expectations.  So incredibly much was left out.  The storyline was altered.  I HATE it when they do that!!!  

The "bad" vampires, James, Victoria, and Laurent, played a much larger role in the movie than they do in the book.  That's crappy, because who the hell cares about them?  The price of admission was to see BELLA and EDWARD, ffs.  The guy who played Jasper always looked like he was in pain, although after reading Midnight Sun, that makes sense.  

Some of the choices for characters puzzled me, though.  Laurent is played by an African-American actor with long, black dreads.  He had the French accent down, but page after page after page in the book talks about how all vampires are pale, unnaturally so.  Pure white skin, like marble or granite.  While there is not a single mention of ethnicity or race anywhere in the books, that refrain of pale, pale, pale is constant for the vampires.  Forgive me for saying this so bluntly, but it is difficult to make someone with mocha-colored skin look pale.  They did get the eyes right, at least.

You're left to draw your own conclusions about what Bella's fellow high-school students Eric Yorkie, Angela Webber, Jessica Stanley, and Tyler Crowley look like, because other than describing Jessica as having dark, curly hair, there ain't much to go on for the humans in the books.  The novel specifically says that Mike Newton is a blonde, baby-faced guy, and he was in the movie.  He came off as fairly annoying, as he does in the books.  Well done, there.  

The school isn't a collection of buildings as the book describes, and Bella meets Mike and Jessica in gym rather than separately.

They leave out all of the information about Bella doing the cooking, they added a cafe/restaurant that doesn't exist, altered the girl's choice dance to prom, Tyler and Eric never ask her out (or if they did, I missed it), huge chunks of all kinds of things were missing.  

Dialog lifted straight from the book was altered, a word or two here or there, which is all right, but when there's so little of it, why not keep what was there to begin with?  Edward and Bella's first kiss is nothing at all like it is in the book, they never talk about her sleep-talking, and worst of all is the Cullen family house.

It is amazing, the house they used.  It looks NOTHING like the description in the books of a three-story WHITE wooden structure, with a back wall of glass.  The movie house was a cedar and glass confection, beautiful beyond imagining, but....not the same. 

The bit about the artwork, Carlise's story, the 300 year old wooden cross, Bella, Jasper & Alice spending three days in a Phoenix hotel, all left out.  

What was good?  The chemistry between Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson.  I liked the way Pattinson played Edward, brooding, intense, and lest we forget, oh-so-pretty.  Stewart showcases Bella's shy and awkward persona well.  Nikki Reed plays Rosalie's icy beauty flawlessly.  The location was great, Port Angeles and Forks displayed well.  Cinematography was excellent.

The scene in the dance studio was done well, although they left out the explanation of Alice's origins.  Wonder how they'll cover for that in the sequels.

Will I watch it again?  Yeah, probably.  If I were grading, though, I'd give it about a C.

Nuts

The following is an e-mail that I received, copied and pasted word for word. The only thing I've edited is removing the people's names and e-mail addresses, and I've italicized the text so that you know where the lunacy ends and my snarky commentary begins after it.

The woman who sent it to me....well, honestly, I have no idea who she is, or why or how she got my e-mail address. This showed up in the e-mail box that I use for work, and has my real name in it, so obviously she's someone I've given my e-mail address to in the past. Scanning the list of recipients, there are names that I recognize as being locals, although I don't know them personally, so apparently she lives in town.

I want to shoot off an angry response, something along the lines of "Don't assume I share your prejudices," and, "don't EVER send me shit like this again" but there is no point. Whoever she is, she'd probably respond by telling me that she would pray for me. Sigh.



Please forward this to everyone you know, especially those with children. I believe whole heartedly in free speech and people's right to make decisions but I don't believe that movie /publishing companies should be supported on such a venture. What are we telling them as a society IF we SUPPORT this? The movie industry and theaters make a lot of money. Please encourage those you know NOT to SUPPORT any THEATRE that would show this trash.

This was sent to me by a friend who received it from a church staff member. You can read about the movie on the following site:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I encourage you not to support this movie and to share this with as many as possible. I encourage you to choose to fill your mind and those of the children in your life with the things of God instead of what the world would have you see and read.

Warning about "The Golden Compass"
Yesterday, I was handed a children's book by a staff member who said, "I think you need to see this." The book is published by Scholastic and is part of a collection of books. The book I was given is called The Golden Compass. This children's book is one of the most alarming things I have ever read. What makes it worse is that a movie based on the book premieres in December. Both the book and the movie introduce atheism to children. The story ends with Adam and Eve killing God.

The movie has been described as "atheism for kids" and is based on the first book of a trilogy entitled "His Dark Materials" written by Phillip Pullman. Pullman is a militant atheist and secular humanist who despises C. S. Lewis and the "Chronicles of Narnia." His motivation for writing this trilogy was specifically to counteract Lewis' symbolisms of Christ portrayed in the Narnia series.

Clearly, Pullman's main objective is to bash Christianity and promote atheism. Pullman left little doubt about his intentions when he said in a 2003 interview, "my books are about killing God." He has even stated that he wants "to kill God in the minds of children." It has been said of Pullman that he is "the writer the atheists would be praying for, if atheists prayed."

While "The Golden Compass" movie itself may seem mild and innocent, the books are a much different story. In the trilogy, a young streetwise girl becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle to ultimately defeat the oppressive forces of a senile God. Another character, an ex- nun, describes Christianity as "a very powerful and convincing mistake." In the final book, characters representing Adam and Eve eventually kill God, who at times is called YAHWEH. Each book in the trilogy gets progressively worse regarding Pullman's hatred of Jesus Christ.
"The Golden Compass" is set to premier December 7, during the Christmas season and will probably be heavily advertised. Promoters hope that unsuspecting parents will take their children to see the movie, that they will enjoy the movie, and that the children will want the books for Christmas. Please boycott the movie and the books. Also, pass this information along to everyone you know. This will help to educate parents, so that they will know the agenda of the movie.

Other valuable information about the movie:


Having problems viewing this e-mail message? Click here.



If you are a parent or grandparent, you need to be aware of the movie The Golden Compass
Movie to be released December 7
Dear Perry,
There is a new movie coming to theaters December 7. You should be forewarned about The Golden Compass. The target audience for the movie is children, and it is being promoted in some schools. The Golden Compass is based on a book trilogy that promotes atheistic views, likely to be reflected in the movie.
For more information on The Golden Compass, click here to read the column by AFA's Rebecca Grace. You might also want to read an article from Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship. Click here for the article.
Forward this to friends and family. Encourage them to sign up for AFA's Action Alerts to stay informed on this issue and other issues of importance. They can sign up by clicking here

Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution? Click here to make a donation.

Sincerely,



Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman American Family Association
Donate with confidence to AFA

(gifts are tax-deductible)

Question #1:

Have any of these fools actually read the book?

Just like the hysteria over Harry Potter, where fanatics and nutballs were claiming that Harry promotes witchcraft, I'd be willing to bet my entire retirement saving that the folks that are most up in arms about this have not ever cracked the book.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I haven't read it either. On my travels today, I'm going to pick up a copy.

Question #2:
If you "support freedom of speech" then you can't support it conditionally. Supporting freedom of speech means that you support that which you DON'T agree with as much as supporting that which you do agree with. So you support freedom of speech only when it applies to stuff you agree with?

Question #3:
Don't you want to teach your kids to think for themselves? Allowing them to be exposed to things you disagree with, and explaining your reasons for disagreeing, rational discussion about the topic....hey, isn't that called "learning"?



I met someone the other day who is a practicing Wiccan. She was incredibly serene, and supremely non-judgmental. What a contrast with these crisis-mongers.


Freedom of speech means to me that I support people's rights to write and distribute their horrified missives about a movie that is apparently going to bring about the collapse of Western civilization. (*eye roll*) Just as it is my right to vehemently disagree.

Listening to: Xavier Rudd, the "Good Spirit" album

Earshot

DH and I went to see a movie on Friday night. (Stardust, if you're interested; I loved it, he did not, more pop culture later this weekend on MySpace.) As we waited for the previews to start, we listened to the in-theater radio station, and I turned to him and said, "Should have brought the ear plugs from your work kit." He works in heavy industry and always has a pair or two in the car of dB reducing earplugs.

The radio station was so loud that I could feel more of my hearing deteriorating even before the opening credits even started. Then when the previews came on, it got louder, and when the movie FINALLY came on, nearly 15 minutes late (seriously, don't get me started) it got louder still.

O_o

My ears are still ringing.

I think about this usually only during summer concert season and then forget about it the rest of the year, but wow, do we live in a loud world. I have a significant hearing loss. I don't need any help in losing more hearing, thankyouverymuch. When I go to concerts, I wear earplugs. Decibel reducing earplugs. Yep, looks weird. Nope, don't care. I started doing it about 4 years ago, and guess what. Even with earplugs that reduce noise by as many as 30 decibels, you can still hear the music just fine.

And I'm not at all kidding about starting to wear them in movie theaters, either. Do they need to be blasting us out of our seats when showing movies? I mean, really. I would have still enjoyed the flick at half the volume.

I feel like the curmudgeonly aunt, complaining about the neighbor's loud bass, but truth is that I'm headed for hearing aids if I don't stem the hearing loss. I'm probably headed for hearing aids regardless, my mother wears them and her dad did too. But I'd like to avoid needing them before 55.

You'd think I'd quit using the iPod, or at least limit the volume on it, this being the case. Nope. Can't work out without my music, and don't want to listen to the conversations of people around me, so up, up, up goes the volume. And down, down, down goes my ability to hear. Good thing I already know a bunch of sign language.

A Movie Review

What's next? It may be a sign of end times, first I write a sort-of review about an episode of Supernatural, and now I'm going to post a movie review? Well, all politics and no silliness makes for a dull Lucy, so why not?

DH and I went to see Redline on Friday night. My recommendation to you is to wait until it comes out on DVD and get it from Netflix. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't fantastic either. Here's a quick summation of the plot. Super-rich assholes stage completely illegal car races, betting inordinate sums of money on the outcome of said races. The races take place either in the desert, at abandoned airports, or at the end, in the middle of what you are supposed to think is Red Rocks. Or near Red Rocks. I think all they said about the location was "at Red Rocks." Anyway. By a fairly twisted and contrived storyline, the characters are drawn into the final race for one last showdown. The races, while completely illegal, have a huge following of the types of entourages you assume that actors and music moguls have. It is a bit tough to keep all the rich assholes straight, let alone trying to keep track of who is in which entourage.

Cops only show up once, at an illegal street race. There were some horrific car crash scenes, any of which would have been serious enough to have fatalities, and the racers not only could care less about loss of life that doesn't include the drivers, they seem to revel in the destruction.

The best reason to go see it would be for Nadia Bjorlin, a Swede, who is so incredibly beautiful that she shines from the screen. She's got these huge, huge expressive blue eyes that draw your gaze to her no matter who else is on screen with her. Supporting cast includes Eddie Griffin, Angus Macfadyen, Nathan Phillips (who I am compelled to note is very good looking, and an Aussie by birth, so mmmmm, accent), and Tim Matheson. They each were believable as the characters they played, Macfadyen doing a fantastic scary psycho, Phillips doing the heartthrob/hero/all around good guy, Griffin and Matheson doing stereotypical Hollywood archetypes, Matheson as a film/TV producer and Griffin as a music producer. Now that I know that Phillips is an Aussie (I didn't while watching the film) I have to say that he did a great job on the Yankee accent.

But whoever was in charge of costuming for this film had Bjorlin in clothing that her boobs were hanging out of, in almost everything she had on. It was distracting for me, and I'm not attracted to girls. If I was into girls, I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't have heard a word she said through the entire film. As it was, all I could think about was something Demain wrote on TWoP....which had me imagining that the boobs were talking, saying things like "Dude, we're really squashed here. Get us something more comfy, will ya? Would it kill you to wear a bra that wasn't killing us?" But then, cruising through paparazzi pics of her, looks like she wears that sort of thing all the time, so flaunt it if ya got it, I guess. Jealous, moi?

I could also rant and rave about the exploitation of women, because she was the female lead, and all other women in the film were also dressed as tramps, but I can't muster up the energy to care.

There were some awesome cars in the movie, oh, and a very cute boy who I thought at first was James Van Der Beek, but he turns out to be Jesse Johnson, son of Don Johnson of Miami Vice fame. Did I mention that Jesse's adorable? Young, but very pretty. They kept talking about how young his character was, but in reality he's about 25. I think we were supposed to think the character was 18 or so. They kept him dressed in layers upon layers of preppy boy clothes, and he had some of the coolest James Bond-esqe gadgets. But I digress. Let's keep the distractions of the male variety to a minimum today, shall we? OK.

Back to the car thing. I've always been a car girl, thanks to my dad, who is the original gear-head. So I thought it was really awesome that Nadia's character was the driving maniac and uber-gear head that she was. It wasn't that believable, but hey, what's a blockbuster movie for, anyway?

The theater where we watched the movie was playing Hillary Duff's "With Love" when we walked it, at such a volume that I could feel the pulses in the song in my chest. I was hopeful that the volume would go down when the movie started, but such was not the case. The movie was loud enough to blow your socks off. I take earplugs to the concerts that I go to in the summertime, hoping to forestall more hearing loss. Guess I'll need to start doing that for the movies as well, my ears were ringing when it was over. There were all of 4 people in the theater including DH and I, so I suppose I could have gone and asked the management to turn it down, but I did not.

We haven't been to see a movie for a good long time...I was surprised that tickets were $8.50 a pop. Certainly not worth the price, for this film.