The Brothers Grimm

I originally had thought for my DVD re-watch project, I would go in alphabetical order. But, then Friday the 13th came around and I thought a scary movie was in order. Now, a couple of things. One, 13 is a lucky number for my family. My sister and I were both born on a 13th - I even turned 13 on Friday the 13th which I have always loved. In fact, last Friday was my sister's 25th birthday. So, I don't really have the same superstition about 13 as many have. Two, I don't actually do "scary" movies. I am a wimp and have no qualms about it. I like  dark action movie or one that is creepy but I draw the lines at movies that try every five minutes to scare you out of your skin. Not my thing. Honestly, Tim Burton is about as scary as I get. I still have nightmares about a certain Supernatural episode for the love of Pete and even my beloved Doctor Who gave me a complex about stone statues. So yeah, a wimp may be too kind a word.

However, if a creepy movie has a good enough hook, I'll watch and just bury my head in a pillow frequently. Hence why, a long time ago, I shelled out for a copy of The Brothers Grimm. Starring two of my favorites, Heath Ledger and Matt Damon, it had a promising premise. Jake and Will Grimm are con artists who go throughout the French-occupied German countryside, taking advantage of local folklore to act as 18th century ghost hunters. That all goes awry when they end up in a real enchanted village where young girls are mysteriously disappearing and they are charged by the French occupiers to discover what is happening and to stop it.

From IMDB

Sigh, this movie is sort of scary? For Friday the 13th, it fell flat. I should have gone with The Mummy. Even for me, Grimm is on the weak side. It had been a long time since I watched this and honestly, I remembered it being better. It has great potential - the idea should be great but the execution is lacking. The story meanders a lot and takes too long to get to its climax. It has good characters - I particularly enjoy Heath Ledger as Jacob Grimm, the reluctant former scholar who follows Will from one con to the next. His willingness to believe in the fairy tale is endearing and what one would expect from a Grimm. Peter Stormare also deserves a thumbs up for his creepy yet delightful Cavaldi who is constantly trying to torment or kill someone via over the top means. At one point he has the Grimm brothers dressed in aprons and bonnets scrubbing the floor a la Cinderella. It's weird and yet makes me laugh. The Brothers Grimm does have its moments, including one of its best quotes (TRUST THE TOAD!), but overall, it falls flat. One for the Goodwill pile to start out my rewatching.

Well, that's summer then...

I will admit, the fact that it is September literally shocked me. Summer went so fast! It helped that I was very busy for most of it and had lots of fun times but that also meant I apparently didn't have time to blog. I have reasons.

Up a tree. Photo credit to my awesome cousin Jodi

One, summer was, as I said, busy! I got to go home when the temperature was above 40 degrees which means dinner at the Loop, races in Oswego, ice cream at Byrne Dairy and especially an awesome, no holds barred feast up at Grandma and Grandpa's camp. It was awesome! And then I went to Orlando to hang with a super awesome family which meant actually having children with me at the Disney parks. This was novel and so much fun and slightly nerve wracking because at times, in case you've never visited a theme park of any kind in the summer months, it was CROWDED. The amount of people required capital letters. But, we had a blast and rode lots of rides and ate lots of food and just had a fantastic time at Disney. I then turned right around and left for New Orleans for a conference but I did get to see some of the city but it's on my "really need to go back and spend days exploring" list because I really only had a day to see the highlights and that wasn't doing it justice. I did get beignets and coffee at Cafe du Monde though and it is as tasty as they say. I always like when things live up to their praise.

Two, work. I love my job, I really do but we were very busy this summer. Hopefully, sometime this fall people will start to see the fruit of all our work when our new digital library site goes live but until then, I don't have much to show for everything we've done but know that we worked hard this summer on lots of stuff and hopefully this fall we'll get some awesome things to show for it. One of the downsides of my job though is a lot of hours in front of the computer screen meaning the last thing I often want to touch when I get home at night is my laptop.

Three, I think I am officially in a bit of a reading slump. I haven't been reading very fast or very much. Nor have I been that interested in what I've been reading. I am hoping to get back on track this fall and into a reading routine again. That always helps me stay on track with books even if they aren't holding my attention very well. 

Four, something about summer just means I go out for an hour and then spend four in front of the TV. Not good. I was hoping to get rid of cable (and temptation) but a frustrating couple of phone calls meant it would cost me more to pay for just internet instead of my current bundle (how twisted is that?!) so cable stays. However, a reading routine and books I actually want to finish will help me kick the cable habit I have developed! Also, the start of the fall TV schedule will help as when I know there is a show I want to watch at 10, I make the effort to read from 8 until 10.

Sigh, so good. Beignets and coffee at Cafe du Monde

I also am debating a movie re-watch of all my movies and blogging about it. This is both an effort to do some cleaning of my DVD collection (would I want to watch this ever again?) and also an effort to blog more about movies AND books again. We'll see if this fall works out for that or if that becomes a winter project (or at least as wintry as it gets in the South - autumn is just depressing because I really miss all the colors)

And recipes too should be making a reappearance here! I actually think I have a recipe to share that I just never did this summer so I will try to dig that up and share ASAP. I did just try a new dish last week but it was kind of blah so not sharing that one. Again, I am hoping to get back into a routine this fall and cooking is on the list to make a priority!

Happy Fall everyone!

84, Charing Cross Road

There is something delicious with books about books. Forget the metaness of it for the moment. It's like reading a book by the one person in the world who gets you. A person who understands the mystery and romance and adventure that can be held between covers and 300 pages. I have always loved books that explore the reader, that gives the reader the sense that they are enjoying a story written by someone who should be their new best friend. I love all books of course; however a book that loves books as much as I do gets its own category. Literally. I have an entire shelf on Goodreads entitled books-about-books. It ranges from the scholarly explorations of reader response and histories of books and readers to fiction that lives and breathes book culture. There is nothing more disappointing than finding a book in that category that mislead you. That was supposed to revel in books and then just doesn't (I am looking at you Time Traveler's Wife. I tossed you against a wall and hurried to donate you for lots of reasons but your lack of book love when one of your main characters is a librarian was nothing sort of despicable to my mind). If you can find a book that stars a bookstore on top of readers and their books, you have hit the jackpot and that book must be savored. 84, Charing Cross Road is one of these gems.

From Goodreads

Helene Hanff is a struggling writer in 1950 New York City and laments the lack of easy to get English Literature. She finds her way to writing to a bookstore at 84, Charing Cross Road in London and so begins this epistolary novel in which Helene and Frank Doehl, the worker at the bookstore who responds to her orders, develop a close relationship over several decades. The novel is a quick read; I believe I read it in one evening but not because I was not savoring it. Helene and I might not share the love of the same kinds of literature but our love of books as a thing, of reading as an activity and of London as a place made me feel like I'd found a soul mate. This is a book that celebrates so many "endangered" communication methods - mail by post, packages literally tied with string, and books of the leather bound, beautiful paper variety. While I think books as objects aren't quite as close to obsolescence as some people lament, they are a form of communication at a moment of crisis and I can't help but wonder what Helene or Frank would think of where we are in the ebook debate.

After I had enjoyed the book one rainy evening, I discovered there had been a movie made starring Anne Bancroft and Anthony Hopkins. While the fact an epistolary novel was turned into a movie gave me pause, I was curious enough about how they did it to check the film out through Netflix. I am glad I did. Bancroft and Hopkins perfectly portray how I imagined the rather abrupt and ornery Helene and the very proper and upright, yet with that sneaking British sense of humor, Frank would be. I especially loved that the script very much used the letters in the book for the dialogue. Bancroft is especially strong when addressing her letters directly to the camera, as if she was speaking directly to Frank. Post-war London was depicted as both resilient and yet still recovering form the long years of war and deprivation which post war New York is both quaint and yet bustling - showing the major metropolis it would become so quickly in the 1950s and 1960s. It was a New York I think I would like better than the modern version.

I would recommend the book, it's such an approachable read, but if you must, at least watch the film. It is a charming romance between people and books an ocean apart.

Ah, the Classics

It is my tradition that when I have a Disney trip coming up, I watch all my Disney movies before I go. I also get all the Disney movies from the library, and this time Netflix even got into the mix. To me, that is like another countdown as I save my very favorites until right before I go (meaning on the docket this week is Beauty and the Beast, The Princess and the Frog, The Rocketeer and Wall-E). One thing I wanted to do this time was revisit some of the classic Disney films, ones I hadn't watched since I was a child.

From Listal

I started with Dumbo. I have only vague memories of ever watching this film as a kid. Re-watching it, I was touched by the drama of the animation. The storm when they are pitching the circus tent, the fire in Dumbo's clown stunt, the very odd almost Heffalumps and Woozles sequence after Dumbo gets (gasp!) accidentally drunk. The artistry of the film struck me as I know this was not one of Walt Disney's favorite films because of what he saw as a lack of artistry in it (it was essentially only made to make money and that was never something Walt was interested in doing really). This could be because hand drawn animation is becoming more and more a lost art that I just revel in it when I watch it. So that struck me. What also struck me was how...well...politically incorrect it is. The animal cruelty it displays is a bit appalling at times especially in the treatment of Mrs. Jumbo, Dumbo's mother. And I won't touch the singing crows with a ten foot pole. That said, I liked Dumbo. It's a fabulous little movie with a lovely story and great music. The crows that sing it might be questionable but "If I See an Elephant Fly" has to be one of my all-time favorite Disney songs. It's so catchy and bouncy and, English nerd alert, the word play is just plain fun!

From Amazon

I next tackled Bambi, and I do mean tackled. I have memories of sobbing watching this film as a kid because remember, it's me and this is a film where animals will be in peril ergo there will most likely be tears. However, I actually made it through without crying and I think that was because I spent the whole movie waiting for the other shoe to drop if that makes sense. I knew what was coming so I was on pins and needles, steeling myself for it the entire film. The first basically has the two major disasters and the plot works around both of them. It's almost episodic, more along the lines of a Fantasia with the same characters reappearing in each section. Now, in Bambi, hand drawn animation is shown at its finest. It was one of the film they used the multiplane camera on and you can tell they had fun playing and continuing to learn how to best use that camera. The depth of the camera shots is astounding and reminds me a lot of one of my favorite scenes in Beauty and the Beast - the opening shot of the Prince's castle through the forest and over the waterfall - the depth of that scene never fails to capture my imagination and all of Bambi basically had that sort of depth. The story is perhaps not my favorite - it's portrayal of family dynamics was fascinating but very 1940s and I won't even go into the ridiculousness of Bambi's love interest Faline. I didn't think it was possible to want to smack a deer...it is. That said, I am in love with Flower - he has officially entered Krystal's Favorite Disney Character Annuals.

From Listal

I finished up with Pinocchio. I distinctly remember not liking this film when I was a kid. I think Pinocchio annoyed me. I was very much a goody-two shoes (still am, let's face it) and Pinocchio's failure to do what he was told at every turn was just irksome, even to my eight year old self. Particularly when he had Jiminy Cricket there telling him that what he was doing was a bad idea (I am very much a fan of Jiminy's - I associate him more with the Disney environmental movement and as the voice of Wishes than I do with his own movie though). I also remember being scared by this film, a lot more than any others we watched when I was young. Not even the evil queen in Snow White could scare me as much as the scenes at Pleasure Island when the boys are all turning into donkeys. However, I am happy to report I liked it on my recent viewing. It will never be my favorite Disney movie - I doubt I'd ever even shell out the money to add it to my movie collection but I appreciated it much more as an adult than as a kid. The storytelling is really quite good - it flows well and it is plausible for Pinocchio to end up where he does at all times. Again, the animation was impressive, particularly the Monstro scenes. A belated kudos to the special effects animation team because those scenes were awesome as were the appearances of the Blue Fairy.

Overall, I was glad I took the time to re-watch these classics and revisit them as I truly don't think I'd watched any of these films since I was 8 or 9 years old. I grew up in the second golden age of animation - I was much more into Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King but as I get older, I can appreciate more the legacy those films fit into. I particularly wanted to watch these films again as these were Walt's films and as I get to (FINALLY) visit the park that Walt built later this year, I wanted to make sure to fit the classics of the first golden age into my schedule. 

The Happiest Millionaire

I grew up on a healthy dose of the classic live-action Disney films. I can quote The Apple Dumpling Gang verbatim and still prefer the original Escape to Witch Mountain than any remake they've done since. I was, however, not a big fan of the Love Bug movies - weird I know. I somehow missed The Happiest Millionaire until now. My sister should be pleased - she would have hated it. Me, on the other hand, I would have dug up the soundtrack and driven my parents crazy singing "Fortuosity" continuously while wishing I could have a pet alligator.

The Happiest Millionaire tells the story of the eccentric Biddle family, millionaires in 1916 Philadelphia. As the story opens, a new butler, John Lawless joins the family and Cordy, their teenaged daughter is having trouble growing up when her Father won't let her. So, Cordy goes off to a girls' school, falls in love with a car happy young man from New York and then chaos ensues as the wedding approaches when their two very different families clash.

The look of this film was so familiar - it's a musical in the best of traditions. The sets look like a cross between My Fair Lady and Hello, Dolly! In fact, the opening number "Fortuosity" has a dance routine to it that was a cross between Kelly's "Singin' in the Rain" number and a little bit of "Elegance" from Hello, Dolly! The songs, written by the Sherman Brothers, are fun and engaging and I really enjoyed the casting. Fred MacMurray is perfect as the irate yet loveable Father, a much more huggable Rex Harrison-type. Lesley Ann Warren made her screen debut in this film; while I loved her as Cordy, I just kept seeing her as Miss Scarlett.

The length of the film was daunting; I was impressed by the attention spans of kids in the 60s. The film even includes an overture, intermission and entr'acte - its set-up was a lot like The Great Race which is also marathon length (but so worth it if only for the characters Jack Lemmon plays and an epic food fight). However, at no point does the film drag which, at almost 3 hours, is impressive. However, it's worth the commitment. The last 30 minutes of the film are the best part, including a dancing sequence in a small, crowded bar, that as a choreographed scene, is extremely well done. I know I sound like a dance geek and a musical nerd, which I am, but I think anyone could enjoy this film. So don't be intimidated with the length, make a batch of popcorn and resign yourself to humming "Fortuosity" for the next week.   

Neverland Calls

From IMDB

This may sound odd but I had to grown into liking Peter Pan. Like Alice in Wonderland for me, it was just not one I understood when I was a kid. Why wouldn't you want to grow up? Of course, it's only once you're grown up that you understand how utterly awful it is to be grown up. Peter Pan knows what's up. So, it's only over the last few years that I've really come to appreciate the Peter Pan myth. I finally read the original story, got hooked on the Peter and the Starcatchers series (which is now a play coming to Broadway that I'll miss...bother) and re-watched Hook after all these years and understood that as a kid, I didn't get half the jokes! So, how I made it until now without seeing Finding Neverland, especially when it has some of my favorite actors and actresses, is puzzling.

The film tells the story of how J.M. Barrie, on the heels of a giant flop of a play, is inspired to write one of the most beloved children's stories of all time. Barrie, played quite endearing by Johnny Depp, meets a widow and her four children in the park one day, a family which is badly in need of some imagination since the loss of their husband and father. Barrie, in an unhappy marriage, brings laughter and fun into their lives forever changing them and him. It's an unconventional relationship that society predictably condemned them for but results in a play about the possibilities of childhood and the power of the imagination.

I really enjoyed this film. The acting was wonderful from both Depp and Kate Winslet who plays the widow Sylvia Llewelyn Davies and I had forgotten how talented Freddie Highmore is. His portrayal of Peter Pan's namesake steals the film in my opinion. The kid even brought tears to my eyes and there were no animals in peril anywhere - impressive indeed! I can usually care less about humans dying in films (animals though? I am a blubbering mess).

Of course with a film like this I spend a lot of time rolling my eyes and thinking, "Sure, I bet that's exactly how that happened. Yeah right." And I did do that a little at first with this film until the first, what I suppose would be best called, magical realist scene where Barrie dances with his dog in the park which he is pretending is a bear at the time. The scene then alternates between the real scene and a magical scene where Barrie is dressed as a ringmaster of a circus who actually is dancing with a bear. These surreal scenes, sprinkled throughout the film, broke the pretend/real barrier and convinced me that keeping to the facts which inspired the film was not the primary goal of the story. Once the filmmakers got that across to me, I was willing to not wonder so much about the facts.

It is those scenes of pretend, scenes that exist only in the minds of the characters themselves, that are the most fun in the film. However, my favorite scenes of the film were those of Peter Pan's opening night. Between the audience, the actors, and the set design, it was really a wonderful sequence of the story. Watch the film for these scenes at least - the illustration of what kids know that grown-ups have forgotten was quite brilliantly presented and reminds you that Peter Pan is not simply a story for children - it has something fundamentally important to teach adults as well.

Curiouser and Curiouser

From Children's Book Wiki

I grew up on the 1951 Disney version of Alice in Wonderland. I never much cared for it to be honest. It was confusing, lost its own train of thought often and seemed to have no real point. Sadly, it took my wise old self to realize that was sort of the point. I am afraid as a child, I didn't much care for nonsense. I only learned to appreciate it with age. I also think I never quite forgave it for not being the same Alice in Wonderland I watched on the Disney Channel each morning which was just...friendlier. My sister and I even used to pretend that one was the Queen and one the Duchess from that version (I liked being the Duchess -Teri Garr rules).

Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass though have been on my to-read list for a long time and I thought perhaps I was in the mood for some nonsense. Which is exactly what Lewis Carroll wrote. Lots and lots of confusing, non-linear nonsense about the adventures of a small child in a world called Wonderland where nothing was as it was supposed to be. All the characters one loves is there: Alice herself, the Cheshire Cat, the Mad Hatter and the March Hare, the Red Queen, the White Rabbit and the hookah-smoking caterpillar. There are even more ridiculous poems (hmmm, might be why I've never rushed to read it) and changes in scene that one can shake a stick at and yet I liked reading it once I embraced the fact that it would never make sense, no matter how many times I read a sentence.

From trailershut.com

After finishing the book, I took another look at Tim Burton's re-imaging of the story with Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter (along with a killer supporting cast) and found it to be even more clever than I had originally thought. Where Carroll gives a reader loose vignettes in chapter form, in order to create a sequel, Linda Woolverton (let's face it, I was going to love it if she wrote it), had to use Carroll's snippets to create a past for the now 19 year old Alice who has returned to Underland to save her old friends, even if she can't quite remember them anymore. Alice, who in the original story is sort of annoying at times, becomes a kick-ass heroine who slays the Jobberwocky and then sails off into the sunset on her own, off to see the world after turning down a rather unfortunate marriage prospect (you go girl!). The movie is full of references to the original story but also builds on what happened between the time Alice was first in Wonderland to the moment she returns. The Red and White Queens have fallen out and Underland is torn apart by their argument so now Alice must save the day. I definitely appreciate the story more now than before.

However, I fear the Walrus and the Carpenter scene in the 1951 version will still creep me out.

Reading and Watching a Time Machine

So, by now, you may have gathered I am a bit of a Doctor Who fan. He clearly has the coolest time machine, hands down. Nothing can top the TARDIS. Still, the original is kind of cool. For my summer reading challenge, I chose to kill two birds with one stone and read The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, a book that was also on my year-long reading list of books I should have read by now. I also, just to cover all my bases, watched the 2002 movie version of Wells' novel last night starring Guy Pearce. Let's just say, the Doc still reigns supreme as the premier Time Traveller in my book.

From Goodreads

Not to say I didn't enjoy this other time traveler. We'll start with the book. It was the first book I had read by Wells and I liked his style. Although he included considerably more science jargon in his work than his counterpart, Jules Verne, I was still able to easily follow the logic of his story. I liked the set up of the book, or novella as it is more rightly classified. It's divided into three main parts. The first section is a dinner party with the Time Traveler (no other name given) and several of his friends where they debate time travel and then the Time Traveler successfully tests a small scale model of his time machine. This section is heavy on the science, with not a lot of plot but it sets the stage for the second, longest section which is when the Time Traveler goes to the year 800,000 AD and successfully comes back and tells his tale to his dinner companions. This sort of retrospective story technique seems to be popular with both Wells and Verne. In a sense, it makes me more comfortable as a reader; if he's telling the story, he obviously survives the peril of the story. That said, it clearly kills the suspense aspect of the plot. The third, quite short, section is simply the narrator saying that the Time Traveler has been missing, along with his great machine, for the past three years and speculates on whether he will ever return.

The main gist of the story is brilliant; remember, Wells was long before Doc Brown strapped a flux capacitor to a DeLorean and even long before the Doctor started traveling the universe in a Police Box. I love reading the root stories of our great mythologies. The Time Traveler is likable enough if a little bland and he certainly travels to a fantastical place far, far, far into our future. At this point apparently, humans have split into two races. The Eloi, simple childlike creatures, live above ground and the menacing Morlocks inhabit caves miles beneath the surface and only come out at night. The Eloi are likened to sheep for good reason; the Morlocks are meat eaters and the only creatures around to eat apparently are the Eloi. So, the element of cannibalism is a major plot point even if Wells never comes right out and states it as such. Pretty gruesome (and the movie takes it a bit further than I needed to see). Also, the Eloi, childlike to the extreme, makes the Time Traveler's relationship with Weena somewhat problematic. I don't think Wells means for the story to have the undertones I was picking up on that relationship but then again, maybe he did. Either way, it was a bit much at times in my opinion. That said, the adventure of the story holds up. The Time Traveler's war with the Morlocks to get his time machine back is fun to follow and well paced. The novella is definitely plot driven; the characters are rather under developed but again, I've noticed this about the early science fiction novels. They are so focused on getting the story out and explaining all the ways it was plausible that the characters sort of fell by the wayside of the bigger agenda of the author.  

From Moviegoods

Now, we move on to the 2002 film. Setting aside the rather cheesy special effects (I was shocked to see the film was made in 2002 when I looked - the budget must have been rather low key), I liked this movie. It in no way resembles the novella it is based on other then there is a time traveler who goes to the year 800,000 where humans have divided into hunters and hunted. However, this didn't bug me and I'll tell you why. If they'd filmed a straight version of Wells' story, most of the time you'd be bored. There are pages of explanation; pages when the Time Traveler is just wandering around aimlessly trying to decide how to act next. The sort of style doesn't make for the most riveting film. However, and feel free to cry foul on me, how they characterized the Time Traveler, or Alex Hartdegen as he's now called, seemed a bit much to me.

In the novella, the Time Traveler builds his machine because he can; he is a scientist and he wants to explore new frontiers and break boundaries. This fits the time, the spirit, of the age Wells was writing in and trying to embody through his story. The pursuit of scientific discovery itself was a big enough motivator for his character. In 2002, we had to give Alex Hartdegen some melodramatic loss to make him so obsessed in going back in time to fix a mistake that he builds the time machine. People, in one word, lame. I was not a fan of this new plot point. Other ones they added were necessary I think to make the other characters flesh out enough so you cared about them. The Eloi become a fully developed people with their own culture and society (in the book, they just sort of lazed around all day). The Morlocks have a supreme leader who, kind of Borg-like, controls the rest of the pack via mind control. Rule number 1 in action film, we must have a single bad guy controlling all the minions. I also liked the inclusion of the hologram librarian who follows Alex through time; it was a clever way to get information to the audience without going overboard with monologues from the other characters. Also, we need to give props to the Props department - the Time Machine was awesome and, according to IMDB, the biggest and most expensive prop built for a film at that time. I see where the budget went now.

It was interesting to be able to compare the two works, novella from 1895 and film from 2002. I think in many ways, they are reflections of their time; of the expectations of an ever-changing audience and both are worth checking out if you're in between seasons of Doctor Who.

The Story of the Little Company that Could

From Upcoming Pixar

Now, after Super Size Me, I realized I should probably steer clear of food movies for the duration of this illness, whatever it is (My first migraine or a really weird sinus infection...the jury is still out on that), so I looked through my instant watch list after I was becoming bored out of my mind from just lying around and found I still had The Pixar Story in queue. Nothing can make you happier than a bunch of people who clearly love what they do producing some of your favorite movies - you even hate that you have to stop watching to run yourself to the emergency room because your body is rejecting pain medication that is supposed to help you.

However, after you've gotten that taken care of and are at least back to where you were before the experiment with Vicodin, you come back and settle down and watch John Lasseter's contagious enthusiasm fill your screen and you're bummed you gave up on that dream to become an animator on that dark day in 4th grade when you realized you had no drawing ability whatsoever. Because, basically, The Pixar Story is the story of this one little computer animation company that could. That wasn't willing to say something couldn't be done and that was willing to sacrifice everything for a good story. It is a movie of triumphs, of these rebel computer scientists and artists proving to the world that 3D animation could be done and done well. It is clearly a movie of a company that knew they shouldn't have succeeded so quickly once they got their name out there but they did so they ran with it and just kept beating the odds. Completely re-working Toy Story 2 over a weekend when they realized the story just wasn't working. Making up the rules as they went when it came to new techniques needed for Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles. If nothing else, The Pixar Story is a testament that if you pay attention to the story and the craftsmanship of the film, the bottom line takes care of itself. A lesson animation studios are still learning years after Pixar has proved it time and again.

The films wraps after the success of The Incredibles so there are no mentions of the Pixar successes since such as Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3,  perhaps the best of the Toy Story trilogy. I wonder also how it would handle Cars 2, arguably the weakest film to ever be released by the whiz kids up in Emeryville. A film that is still heads above the competition but does present a little worrying fission through Pixar devotees. Until one watches the trailer for Brave and you realize every studio gets its one off. Even when that one off is still wildly successful, fun, engaging and leaves you wanting more.

Not a movie to watch while ill...or if you like McDonald's French Fries

Sigh, I am sick of being sick with some mysterious illness. My new plan is to ignore my headache and carry on as if it doesn't exist. I'll either succeed in ignoring it into nonexistence or ticking it off enough that it sticks around for my sister's visit. I always pick the most inopportune times to be sick. I mean, this couldn't happen during a month when I have nothing going on? I have reams of those around, time to kill but no, I get sick as I have someone actually coming to see me! Whatever body, you're not getting out of the planned outdoor movie, trail ride or outdoor musical complete with pitchfork fondue before hand.

From The Political Film Blog

That said, when one is suffering from nausea brought on by medicine that you have no business taking, Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me is not the movie to watch when you can't seem to fall asleep. But, it was going to go off Netflix Instant soon and I didn't think it could be that bad so I watched. And progressively got more green as the movie continued. Honestly, it's really two scenes that seem a bit much. When you eat a super sized Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal in less than 30 minutes, you can imagine what your body does with that much processed sugar and fried foods. It doesn't take a genius. And then also, the scene where they show a gastric bypass surgery in all its wonderful glory. No thanks.

That said, this movie was quite eye opening. Granted, I try to keep my McDonald's intake down (but I do love their fries) so I might get it once a month? Even that is probably more than I get on average. I always get a medium (who would need more?) and I figure that isn't sending me to an early grave. Spurlock goes all out - seems to often get the largest size he can and the amount of soda the man consumes is alarming in itself. Soda is one thing I noticed I drank too much of in college so I took that out of my diet early. Now it's more of a treat I buy on special occasions or get when I eat out if iced tea isn't a valid option. Overall, it's disturbing to watch a healthy, normal male live on McDonald's for a month and basically destroy the health he's acquired over the first 30ish years of his life. Because he does manage to destroy it. Notes given after the movie say it takes his vegan girlfriend 8 weeks to get his blood work back to normal and it takes him months to return to his normal weight. Months when it only took him a single month to put on 25 pounds.

Now, this is an extreme experiment and like I said, Spurlock does seem to make matters worse on himself by his menu choices but that's sort of the point so I let that slide. I found the reason he came up with the idea fascinating as well. Two teenage girls were suing McDonald's for their obesity and subsequent health problems. Now, I guess I see this as sad. McDonald's is a part of the American problem; I'll be the first to admit it. But is anyone forcing you to eat there? Spurlock does a good job of presenting both sides of the argument and looking at the American food lifestyle in general and how those two young girls could perhaps come to see McDonald's as the source of their problems (I have to wonder though what their parents were doing when all this was occurring though).

So, interesting film, really, and it made sure I won't be subsisting on McDonald's anytime soon though I'm still baffled as to who would want to do that. However, not a documentary to watch while you're feeling ill. Or on a full stomach. Or if you plan on eating at any time during or after the film. Give yourself some recovery time because he eats a lot of Mickey D's in front of you and I think some of the processed sugar leeches out into the audience.

A Cranky Founding Father

From Amazon

For my history movie, I decided to finally watch the entirety of John Adams. I'd caught one or two episodes back when I was in DC in the summer of 2008 but had never seen the entire miniseries. I started it on July 4th after I'd watched all the other "patriotic" movies I own (namely Independence Day and Live Free or Die Hard - I figured start with the explosions and move on to the diplomats). The story of our nation and its origins never ceases to impress me. It never should have worked; we were the ultimate underdogs and yet somehow, we pulled out of it victorious (thanks in no small part to a heaping dose of help from France). I was glad the miniseries kept the cerebral side of our independence, it is the side I find infinitely more interesting.

America, the Great Experiment, comes out ahead in this particular re-telling though they do not shy from the politics and underhanded dealings that resulted in her. I was sad the series skipped over the disaster of the Articles of the Confederation but as Adams was abroad at the time, it made sense in terms of plot though I find it fascinating that the first try didn't take and we were still stubborn enough to try again. If nothing else, the miniseries makes you think on parts of history that were lines on a study guide once upon a time. The years Adams is president make much ado about the Alien and Sedition Acts. I had a vague memory learning a definition for them before my AP American History exam in 11th grade but it was fascinating to watch the consequences of signing versus not signing be argued out by Adams, his wife and his cabinet. They are mostly scorned in American history class if I recall correctly - acts that reduced civil liberties and put a gag on the American people and yet within the context of their creation, I understood why they seemed like a good idea at the time. If nothing else, the miniseries always portrays America as young, impulsive, and still testing her limits in the new world she created. While I can not condone the Acts themselves, I can better appreciate the reason Adams signed them.

However, John Adams is not only a history lesson; it is a series which portrays some of the most remarkable partnerships our country has ever known. Adams and his wife, Abigail. Adams and Thomas Jefferson, exact opposites in every sense whose friendship spans decades. You see the brashness of Alexander Hamilton (and come to understand why they wrote the Constitution specifically so he couldn't become president) and the sage quietness of General George Washington. The kookiness of Benjamin Franklin is especially well portrayed by Tom Wilkinson. If nothing else, the miniseries made characters of names I had read in my history books a thousand times but have never connected them to anything other than their proper place on my timeline. And make me wish to see men and women of their ilk among us again. I feel we had need of them more than ever as we enter our 235th year, a birthday perhaps they could not fathom when they signed a declaration of independence so many years ago.

To Be or Not To Be

From Written Images

I'm not sure I've talked about Shakespeare too much yet on the blog except in passing. I have a rocky relationship with the Bard. On one hand, I adore his comedies. Give me Much Ado About Nothing or A Midsummer's Night Dream and I am a happy girl. His tragedies on the other hand...we've never gotten along. I did talk about Romeo and Juliet before. I try to forget Othello (or am I trying to forget the awful film version we watched?). The Scottish Play wasn't much of a fave either though Lady Macbeth is kind of awesome in her evilness. Hamlet, on the other hand, is one I've always had a complicated relationship with. I read it on my own in high school (yes, I was a nerd. I was trying to convince myself I liked Shakespearean tragedy. It didn't go well). Then, I read it as part of my Shakespeare course while in England. We even went to see it performed at Great Malvern with Ed Stoppard in the title role. I had loathed Hamlet in high school; in college, I could appreciate what was happening. Seeing it performed though was a revelation. Suddenly certain aspects of the play clicked; certain scenes became funny that weren't when you just read the words. Even though that particular production went off the rails in the end, there were scenes that I found to be favorites. I could, at that point, grudgingly admire Hamlet if nothing else.

Fast forward to now and my summer film challenge. There was a version of Hamlet starring David Tennant and Patrick Stewart performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company that fans petitioned for, and got, a recorded version of which was released by the BBC. Tennant, at the top of my list for his Doctor, was going to finally make me appreciate Hamlet the way I should. And people, I think he succeeded. His Hamlet is, as a friend says, the closest we'll get to a feminist one. Suddenly, that ridiculous "Get thee to a nunnery" speech made sense! He's warning her away, trying to get her out of a situation that he knows is going to destroy more than just his uncle. He's also a sympathetic Hamlet, a Hamlet I can actually understand is struggling between his duty to his dead father and his own conscience. I see a Hamlet that actually had a relationship with his mother before, who is hurt because he no longer knows how to relate to her after what she did in the aftermath of his father's death. Also, I found a Hamlet who is funny, ironic, and who is no more mad than I am. This is a Hamlet who is playing a part, perhaps to protect himself from what he knows he must do eventually.

In fact, if I took nothing away from this version other than one thing, it is that a production of Hamlet with a sense of fun is ten times more interesting than one who takes itself seriously. Because, honestly, I have never noticed how witty, how funny, Hamlet is before this production. Perhaps it is Tennant's delivery of Hamlet, his expressions as he delivers his lines that help convey that sense to the production (it doesn't hurt that certain facial expressions or delivery of certain words had me wondering if it was Tennant as Hamlet or Tennant as the Doc that I was watching). But I found it made me like Hamlet the character and also Hamlet the play much more.

I also really enjoyed Patrick Stewart as Claudius and the Ghost. It was obvious why he earned an Olivier Award for his work with the production. I always found Claudius a hard character both to read and watch. He is on one hand, presented as a loving husband and worried new father to Hamlet when underneath he is scheming, cunning, ruthless and willing to remove any obstacle in his path. The ruthless side is, I think, often downplayed but here you catch the glimpses of it when necessary to believe this is a man who murdered his brother and married his brother's wife. Stewart is a master at suppressed rage and once he does let it out for a moment, it is that much more powerful. He is a charming murderer; always the diplomat as he strokes Laertes' anger at Hamlet to lead him to murder. You can never quite not like Stewart's Claudius which makes him that much more effective as a villain.

Someday, somewhere, I will find a version of Ophelia I can get behind. This was not it. Kate Winslet remains my favorite though even Kate struggles with a character who doesn't seem to have a true place in the play. If you remove her, what would be lost? A speech that usually gets bungled and a few mad scenes that wouldn't be missed. The other players were decent and interesting in their roles. I did love the portrayal of Horotio though; for the first time, you really saw that Hamlet and Horatio are friends, that in a castle where Hamlet has no allies and is increasingly fighting himself, Horatio is there to lean on. 

I also really loved the staging of the play. For this recorded version, the play was filmed on location rather than on the stage, allowing more movement by the characters and also adding a great mood over the play. I loved the use of security cameras, and also a hand-held camera at one point, to give the viewer a different perspective on the scene, things you cannot do when an audience is in an auditorium with one view point with which to watch. It was a unique blend of stage set and film set which I think added something to the experience of watching the play.     

So, I think I'm finally square with Hamlet. The question becomes which tragedy should I tackle next to try and at least get over my dislike. Any suggestions?

I'll Be Back

It's funny don't you think, the amount of movies you always mean to get around to and don't? You know the plots, the famous lines, and the reasons people adore them years after they are made but you just never seem to fit them in to your viewing schedule. The Terminator is one of those movies for me. It came out a year before I was born and I've even seen other movies in the series - Judgment Day, the weird 3rd one with Claire Danes that I didn't think worked all that well. I even recall a 3D movie based on the film at Universal Studios - I've only been there twice though so that might have been awhile ago that attraction existed. I always thought I should watch the original though; always good to know where all the jokes start.

So, we all know the story right? The Terminator is a cyborg sent from the future to kill Sarah Connor because her unborn son will someday lead the resistance against Skynet, the evil computer that controls the cyborgs. In return, John Connor sends one of his fighters, Kyle Reece, back in time as well to protect his mother. Lots of running, death and explosions follow along with some nifty storytelling that only works in a world where time travel is a possibility.

By today's special effects standards, the movie is pretty old-school. The robotic Terminator that appears in the end of the movie is quite laughable in terms of believability. But that's not why I kept watching - the film was well written and, and this is a key for a good action film, well paced. Cameron and his fellow writers clearly understood how to use explosions as needed, not as it seems in today's movies at times, just for the hell of it. Each murder, each explosion, and each ridiculous chase scene has a purpose and moves the story forward. Actually, for such sparse dialogue, the story didn't leave me with any major questions. In the end, you understand the logic of the story of this segment of the trilogy (well, I guess it's beyond that now huh? Didn't they try to reboot this not too long ago?). But I mean, we understand why they wanted Sarah Connor dead, we know why her son sent Kyle Reece to protect her, and we know, without a doubt, that it's not over yet. The movie gives glimpses to the future - is that still the future now that Sarah Connor lives or has that altered as well?

As I live in a world where the next two movies have been made, I know the answer. I need to see that latest one to see what they've added to the mythology. But I liked it, the original Terminator. It's always fun to see what the famous lines were actually in there for and to laugh at the bad special effects. But the story holds up so I would recommend a watch if you're like and managed to miss out on it this long.

(PS - I just couldn't post a movie poster for the film here - Arnold in all his 1980s glory was just a bit too much for me...LOL)

Oceans

From Moviegoods.com

I have a life-long fascination with the ocean. I honestly can't tell you why. I didn't grow up near one, and have never spent much time near one either. I can remember the handful of times when I've stood on the Atlantic's shores. And I think that the trip-that-shall-not-be-named brought me to the Pacific's shores for the first and last time when I was eighteen months old. Marine ecosystems though continue to enthrall me. Its animals even more so. I can watch sea otters by the hour at zoos, marvel at the colors of tropical fish and literally remain spellbound in the grace of dolphins when I get a chance to see them at an aquarium.

The library's summer reading and film challenge has started for this year and I am sadly lagging in getting a move on my list. So tonight I sat down to watch Disneynature's Oceans for the science category. Disneynature films usually come to Netflix streaming just in time for its latest release and Oceans was no different, streaming a little before African Cats came into theaters. I am usually a year behind, living in a place that doesn't get Disneynature films into the local theaters. I have to say I liked Oceans even better than its first outing, Earth. Oceans had less peril to it and more of the story of why we need the oceans and its creatures. Plus, the ocean just has fun creatures to watch: dolphins, sea otters, leopard seals, humpback whales and really awesome fish I didn't even know existed like the Stone Fish or the sheep-domed something or other that is one of the oldest species alive on Earth today. So cool!

I had to laugh at one point though as I tried not to cry over an activity that made me cry over 20 years ago when I first saw it. They showed, what I am coming to think must be an obligatory sequence in ocean-based documentaries, orcas feasting on baby sea lions on the South African coast. People, I want it on the record that I DID NOT cry. I feel I am making progress. It is one thing to understand the whole Circle of Life thing, quite another to watch it.  I do have to give props to the orcas, their way of hunting is pretty awesome to see.

The one thing that I always have after watching a good nature documentary though is guilt. Disneynature takes it pretty light on the whole humans effecting the planet aspect of things (though it is definitely touched on more in Oceans than it was in Earth), and still I have guilt that I am a human and have at some point in my life polluted the ocean. It is, sadly, inevitable that I have done so in some way, shape or form. I like to think I am aware, more so than a lot of people, that how I live even miles away from the oceans effects them in some way. I blame my first research report back in 8th grade for that (my topic was "Why ocean pollution should be addressed on a national and international level" - I was such a nerd...still am....). While we have put so much effort into exploring the skies and stars above us, I feel that the oceans often get the short end of the stick which is just wrong when you think about it. Our continued survival as a species depends on the oceans. One thinks we would have a greater respect for it instead of seeing it as a convenient dumping ground for our trash or as an obstacle in our path of retrieving the almighty Oil. I know I will be seeing the Atlantic in September from the deck of a cruise ship (that hopefully is as Green as can be) and I will be sure to show it a bit more respect than last time we met.

Anchors Aweigh indeed

From Wikipedia

Many years back, I remember my dad hollering from the family room. I was engrossed in some book or other but must have wanted a break because I wandered out. Dad looked up and said that Singin' in the Rain was coming onto TCM in a moment and he'd thought I'd like it. I'd only been tapping for a year but I'd been in some form of dance since second grade and Dad often called me down when musicals were coming onto one of the movie channels. He thought Gene Kelly would impress me. Impress me might be a bit of an understatement. All these years later, Singin' in the Rain remains one of my all-time favorite movies and I still marvel at the talented duo of Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor every time I watch it on my beat up old DVD.

Sadly though, I've never watched many of Kelly's other films. I blame An American in Paris. I watched it right after Singin' and was primed to be in love with it but just didn't like it as much. I didn't like the lead actress and the ballet at the end seemed excessive and over long. True, there are many unnecessary dance sequences in Singin' (a trait I realize Kelly musicals just seem to have) but they always held my attention. An American in Paris just kind of bored me.

Because of that, I never got around to Kelly's other films really. At least ones he starred in. Hello, Dolly remains one of my favorite movies as well and his choreography is a major part of my love (Imagine my squeals the first time I saw the Wall-E trailer. They were fan-girlish). But his other major musicals? Never got around to them.

So a few weeks back, I was watching Singin' for the first time in a long time and thought maybe it was time to try out a new Kelly picture. Anchors Aweigh is the other seminal one that came to mind so I added it to my Netflix list, moved it up towards the top and then promptly forgot about it. In the middle of a Doctor Who craze, Anchors Aweigh showed up in my mailbox. In mourning for one companion and not ready to start the next season to get used to a new one, I thought it might be a good time to finally sit down and watch.

In many ways, it's not so different from Singin' in the Rain. A man about town and his sidekick in Hollywood get tangled up with an aspiring actress and hi-jinks follow. Include several unnecessary dance sequences and a few more songs then really fit the plot and there you go. I enjoyed the film overall; the dancing was superb and the dance sequence with Jerry that is so famous did not disappoint (Seriously though, Disney made a miscalculation there - Mickey would have made a much better dance partner). I particularly found the use of children in the film to be fun and interesting. The dance scene with Kelly and the young girl in front of the Mexican restaurant was one of my favorite scenes of the whole film, perhaps one of my favorite Kelly dances ever. However, I found Frank Sinatra a lackluster partner for Kelly. I missed the comic character and superior dancing of Donald O'Connor who made a much better foil for Kelly. Sinatra seemed to just be there to look handsome and croon some love songs.

Also, I found Kathryn Grayson to be rather dull and couldn't quite figure out why everyone loved her character so much. I like a more spunky heroine and she was just sort of pretty to look at with a great voice. But then again, that is really all the character called for so I guess I should blame the writers more than the actress. The film is entertaining but it wasn't fun if that makes any sense. I never laughed with glee at any line or moment or felt a real connection with any of the characters.

So apparently Singin' in the Rain will remain my favorite Kelly musical, and my favorite movie musical period. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Up in the Air

From News Blaze

I wasn't sure if there was enough to make this its own blog entry but I find, a day after watching this film, I have enough to say I think to make it worthwhile. This wasn't a movie I was particularly excited to see. It was more one of those films that ends up in my Netflix queue because I think it's one I should see. It was critically acclaimed when it came out last year and Clooney earned yet another Academy Award nomination from it.

The story follows Clooney's character, Ryan Bingham, as he travels the country, firing people from their jobs. A new college graduate comes in and tries to change his business so he teaches her the ropes, showing her a lifestyle where attachments are a liability and loneliness a deal you make in trying to reach 10 million miles. However, through the course of the film, Ryan starts to realize that perhaps the relationships he'd always avoided might just be worth the trouble.

Honestly, the story was predictable. The great twist of the movie isn't a surprise if you are at all paying attention and the film dragged a bit in the middle it seemed to me. I liked the actors' portrayals of their characters and though you don't exactly want to, you like Ryan and feel for him as his world starts to turn upside down. I particularly enjoyed Anna Kendricks' portrayal of Natalie, the idealistic college grad who becomes Ryan's sidekick on the road as she learns the business. She ends up in his business because she followed a boy and gave up a job offer to do so. Her life hasn't turned out the way she thought it would and it falls apart steadily over the course of the film. She gets a happy ending; Ryan is not quite so lucky though there is hope on the horizon for him as the movie closes. 

I think what intrigued me the most in this film is it is a microcosm of the country at the time it is made. Ryan's business is firing people in one of the hardest economic climates our country has ever known. The reactions of these people and how Ryan handles it is fascinating to watch. Far more interesting than the personal lives of Ryan and Natalie. Ryan notes he never thinks to follow up after the firing, that his job is done. At one point though, the film goes back and check in with people we saw in the beginning. They aren't good but they aren't bad either; some note that it was a good thing in the end, that they landed on their feet. Others were not so lucky but know they will be in time.

Our infernal American optimism is hard to kill and I think that was what I took from this film. We get knocked down but we always seem to get back up. Even the crisis in the end, which happens off screen, doesn't dampen that feeling. In a climate that hasn't seemed to improve since this film as made, it remains a relevant watch and a thought-provoking one.

Nothing like an inspiring sports tale...

From AOL

I am not the most athletic person you'll ever meet. I always enjoyed gym class because it was time with my friends. We had fun with archery, cross-country skiing and a game we called off-the-wall ball. I didn't need to be athletic, I just had to be willing to play and to laugh at myself. And that is one talent I have always been proud of. In fact, my favorite award from all of my years at school is from 7th grade home economics, Most Likely to Laugh at Herself. It's a talent that has served me well.

That doesn't mean I don't love and appreciate athletic talent when I see it. I grew up watching football, basketball and hockey. Tennis was always on in the summer; bowling, the one sport I did participate in outside of dance, something I didn't mind having on in the background as I did my math homework on a Saturday afternoon. The Olympics are major events that I look forward to all year. I come from Syracuse, New York. Winters were spent climbing the hill to the Dome for an SU basketball game, or heading to the War Memorial to see the AHL hockey team, the Syracuse Crunch. My cousins played soccer, basketball and baseball; my sister rode horses competitively. I have a healthy appreciate for sports and the talent they require.

I also love a good story, if you hadn't figured that out. Which means I am prime for adoring any sports movie that crosses my path. Like any good American, I love watching the underdogs win the day, a person raise themselves up over adversity and get to prove to themselves, and the world, just how good they are.

Luckily, Hollywood loves these stories too and for my part, I haven't come across one yet I haven't enjoyed: Remember the Titans, Glory Road, Miracle, Seabiscuit, Cool Runnings, Secretariat, The Blind Side. I love them all.

What brings this on is I finally saw The Blind Side this past weekend. I enjoyed every minute of the inspiring tale of a talented athlete who just needed someone to believe in him. Sandra Bullock was delightful as the tough as nails woman who pushes everyone around her to be better. She definitely impressed me and deserved that Oscar she earned for the role. I especially loved the real-life photos of Michael Oher included in the credits. As much as I enjoy the drama and fun of the fictional account, I always love learning what happened after Hollywood is done with the story. It reminds me after a good movie that what I just saw, some version of it actually happened! Real people lived the story and proved to themselves and the world that they could do it. Sports is a great illustration of triumph over adversity. An athlete faces very real and concrete obstacles: defenders, bad breaks, their own bodies, families or location. It is the ultimate metaphor for life. Very cool.

So, have you watched your inspirational sports story for today? If not, may I suggest The Blind Side?

Third time is not the charm...

From birthstory.net

Sigh, I am calling it. My first book to defeat me in my 2011 reading challenge. I guess me and Virginia Woolf are just not meant to be.

I first tried to read To The Lighthouse back in high school one summer and was so confused about three pages in, I decided I have plenty of time to return to it. I tried it again one summer during college and made it a little further before deciding maybe I needed to know a little more before I could appreciate what Woolf was trying to do. Sadly, my third time over this past week has not gone any better. I gave it 50 pages, my self-imposed cut-off for books that just aren't taking, and I still couldn't tell you what is happening or what the characters are actually talking about. The English major in me is not taking the defeat well.

However, one thing I learned on my last reading challenge was there are too many books, too little time and I won't like all of them...and that is OK. I am sad about Woolf though. I loved A Room of One's Own. I first read that book the summer after I graduated from college and was upset I'd made it through my Women's Studies minor without any of my professors making me read that essay. It was brilliant and simple; the idea of a woman's independence and ability to make it in the world on her own. To a girl who was looking towards graduate school and really being on her own for the first time, the essay was an inspiration. But it was also an analytical voice, logical and comforting, that spoke throughout the essay. To The Lighthouse was a different creature entirely.

I realize, and can even appreciate, the technical aspects of the novel. The stream of consciousness narrative is unique and intriguing. However, not exactly approachable or even likable. I would lose the train of thought easily and often was confused over what character I was currently hearing from. They are unlikable, at least the first fifty pages, and unapproachable. With Gatsby and crew, you loathe them but you get them. You understand, no matter how the vague the story, the purpose of the story. Woolf gives you no such hint or clue as to where her story is leading, or if it is even leading anywhere.

This is one novel I missed having a class to structure my reading for it. Perhaps with a teacher's guidance and helpful interpretation, I might have made it through. But,  as it is, I must accept that Woolf and I were just not meant to be and I am OK with that, I think. I can't love every book that comes across my list after all. I am not sure what is next for this challenge. I am treating myself to Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol next since that has also been on my list forever and if nothing else, Brown knows how to entertain. I believe I also am giving Georgette Heyer a second chance here soon. She left me underwhelmed on my first meeting with her so I am trying her most famous novel next to see if that goes any better.

From Cinematic Intelligence Agency

Also, I watched the movie Driving Lessons this evening. I recommend it if you are looking for a quirky British comedy/drama. Rupert Grint is delightful as the shy son of an overbearing mother (Laura Linney) and summer assistant to an eccentric retired actress (Julie Waters). It was just what I needed to make me feel cheerful again after the horrible news of today. The tragedy in Arizona sadly reminded me that I live in a country where things like that can still happen. I like to pretend we've evolved beyond using tactics like that to get our point across. Then something like this happens and I am forced to remember we're not quite as enlightened as I like to imagine.  Perhaps it is a reality check we all sadly need from time to time. Here is hoping for a brighter tomorrow.

sigh, for the disney channel movies of my youth

I  watched Avalon High through Netflix last night and while it was enjoyable, it just didn't have the fun creativity of the old Disney Channel original movies. Does anyone even remember those anymore? I don't think the Disney Channel even shows them anymore. Which is sad because they were awesome though missing dance numbers (the one thing that I do kind of like about most of the newer movies)...

From I Was a '90s Kid

Let us start at Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century. Now the two sequels, they were just sad to see, but the original Zenon rocked. Kirsten Storms as Zenon Kar, a girl living on a space station in AD 2049 who gets grounded, literally when she is sent to Earth once she breaks one too many rules on the space station. Add in one neurotic aunt, the popular guy (who is a requirement for movies like this), his delusional "girlfriend," and their favorite rocker who is supposed to give his first concert in space just as a major crisis hits the space day. Sigh, I watched it whenever it was on and still to this day dance around like an idiot to Supernova Girl (yes, back in the days of Napster, I downloaded it and have managed to hang onto it this long.)

From Wikipedia

Next is Stepsister from Planet Weird. To this day I quote from my favorite scene in this movie so if I ever turn to you with a scared look in my eyes and say "I fear the wind," just go with it. Stepsister from Planet Weird tells the story of Megan Larson who is thinking this year will finally be her year until Ariel Cola shows up and the whole school suddenly thinks she is the coolest kid around. And to make matters worse, Megan's mother just fell in love with Ariel's dad (Bonus, Ariel's Dad is The Last Starfighter which is awesome). Oh, and the Colas also happen to be aliens...I to this day think Tamara Hope's portrayal of the ethereal and bizarre Ariel is delightful, this generation is missing out on a quirky original movie.

I got this from here, I'm not sure where it is...

Sigh, Erik von Detten, you broke my heart when you played the douchy spotlight seeker in The Princess Diaries. Because, you were first one of the twins in a delightful TV version of Escape to Witch Mountain and then you were Brink, a blader who dreams of the X-Games (or the non-trademarked version of them created for this movie) but almost lost sight of his friends and family in his pursuit of them in the Disney Channel original movie appropriately named Brink! I think I may have just enjoyed this movie because of von Detten because I don't actually remember much of the movie other than bits and pieces....Also, I kind of love that Sam Horrigan pops up in Brink! too after being in Escape to Witch Mountain also. I love when actors keep popping up in the same movies together. I am weird like that.

From Wikipedia

 Last one, and this movie made me want to promptly run off to Hawaii and learn how to surf. Rip Girls was about a girl who learns about her dead mother by learning about her life in Hawaii and how much she loved to surf. Seriously, this movie was like an advertisement for Hawaii. I wanted to move to a delightful bungalow near the beach and try to learn how to surf. Luckily for all of us, I realized that was more a fun daydream than a reality I could handle. Still Rip Girls was a lot of fun, always liked it better than Johnny Tsunami (about a surfer who gets moved to the north and learns how to snowboard). 

Sigh, I feel the need for a marathon of classic Disney Channel original movies. I know I am forgetting some I enjoyed but these are my favorites; original, clever movies about kids facing challenges and coming out on top. But I always liked how these kids had a great hobby or were in a unique situation. They were always people I wanted to be friends with. I miss those movies. Or maybe I've just outgrown what kids like these days...wow, now I feel old for admitting to that...