The Beguiled

I’ve been a fan of director Sophia Coppola since “Lost in Translation” , as well as “Marie Antoinette” and “The Virgin Suicides.” If you take her and add one of my favorite actresses (Nicole Kidman) and mix it with Civil War-era Southern Gothic, you’ve hooked me.

Kidman plays Miss Martha, who runs a finishing school for girls in the battle-ravaged South. In its heyday before the war, it might have turned out elegantly poised and intelligent young ladies, but during the war the handful of students (ranging in age from 9-17 or so) seem more like prisoners in their crumbling mansion, and the locked gate acts as an attempt to keep out the horrors that are happening all around them. Often, the sounds of battle can be heard nearby; otherwise, the buzzing cicadas are the only sound, deepening the eerie (and menacing) sense of their isolation.

One day one of the younger girls finds a wounded soldier (Colin Farrell) outside their gate–a Union soldier. Miss Martha decides to bring him inside and tend to his wounds out of Christian charity, with the admonition that once he heals, he must leave.

The younger girls are fluttery and excited at having an “enemy” in their midst. The older ones–17 year old Alicia (Elle Fanning), and Edwina (Kirsten Dunst), Miss Martha’s former student and helper, and even Miss Martha herself– are unsettled and disturbed at having a handsome, charming man among them.

And Corporal John McBurney does charm them–making friends with the young ones, and flirting with the older. He’s certainly come to understand the great fortune of his situation: if he can convince them to let him stay on after he heals, he can escape the nightmare that is the war. An understandable motive, but this stranger’s true character remains elusive. Is he truly a good man in a bad situation, or is he merely trying to serve his own ends in whatever way he can?

Soon, the sexual tension comes to a head, and violence erupts. Miss Martha and her charges must deal with their suddenly dangerous guest on their own, with no help from the outside world.

Kidman never fails to disappoint, bringing the nuances of Miss Martha’s predicament and mixed feelings to light, and Colin Farrell’s smoldering volatility serves his character well. It’s a quiet film in which the tension mounts incrementally; the explosion that follows shocks the characters into actions they perhaps never imagined they could do. This movie beguiled me, from start to finish.

 

 

 

Thoughts on Star Wars: The Last Jedi

This isn’t any kind of formal review of the movie, just some personal reactions to what’s been happening in a galaxy far, far away.

When I was ten years old and saw The Empire Strikes Back for the first time (I was a bit too young for the first movie, and had to back-track), I never thought I’d be watching new Star Wars films with gray in my hair. Of course, I never thought I’d have gray hair, or ever be over twenty years old, for that matter.

My point is, when I was a kid, Star Wars was magical. It could do no wrong (although, at the age of thirteen, I had some trouble taking the Ewoks seriously). It had taken a permanent place in my heart as something I held very dear, and always would. Return of the Jedi’s happy ending left me feeling satisfied and that all was well with the universe.

Except it wasn’t. There are no lasting happy endings, and as someone with a little gray in her hair, I understand that now.

Prequels and stand-alone movies never mattered to me. What mattered were the original characters I came to know and love, and what happened to them. So when I heard that Episodes seven, eight and nine were being made, I paid attention.

The Force Awakens, for the most part, pleased me, but you can go here and see how I reacted to Han Solo’s death. I whined and belly-ached that it wasn’t a worthy death. Of course it wasn’t, that was the whole point. It got me engaged, it made me angry and I wanted justice. I was invested on an emotional level, which is what any good story should do.

And The Last Jedi? I don’t know. Despite numerous space battles and personal skirmishes (and believe me, I was a bit battle-weary by the end of the movie), I wasn’t wowed. I understand that part of the appeal of Star Wars is exciting space battles, but maybe we’ve seen so much of it in so many movies lately that we’ve grown numb to it. I have, anyway. In the original films, there was maybe one big battle the story line was culminating to, or it began the film and there was fallout from it. Now we’re just bombarded with explosions and violence and it’s supposed to entertain us. Maybe I’m just getting old, but I need more than that.

There were some character arcs that I found interesting. The whole Kylo Ren/Rey connection (even though orchestrated by Snoke [and where the heck did that guy come from, anyway?]) was illuminating. The internal struggle between Kylo Ren and Ben Solo has been made painfully clear, and it’s equally clear that the minimally-trained Rey is having problems controlling her emotions, namely anger, impatience, fear, and hatred. And we all know where those emotions lead, don’t we, kids? So while one still has a spark of light, and the other is vulnerable to the dark, they both still stubbornly hold to their courses. Still no clue as to who Rey’s parents might be, even though Kylo Ren asserted that they were nobody. I doubt it.

There were several new characters this time around, including Rose, a Resistance fighter who helps Finn on a mission to find a codebreaker to shut down a tracking device so….oh, never mind. I really thought they’d find Lando Calrissian in that gambling city, but they only found this weird guy played by Benicio del Toro, whose character name I don’t remember, if I ever caught it at all. A business man who doesn’t take sides, only the side of money. I’m assuming by the end of the trilogy, he’ll find his heart and do the right thing, like an erstwhile Han Solo.

In fact, I found too many echoes of the original here. I noticed them in The Force Awakens, but I was willing to forgive it in the first movie, as a means of making us feel we’re in familiar territory. Not now. The same exact themes are explored here, which in itself would not be unforgivable, but it is when it’s almost word for word. When Kylo Ren tempts Rey to turn to the dark side and join him to rule the universe, I just had this sinking feeling (I have a really bad feeling about this…). Come on, guys. You’re creative geniuses. You can do better than that.

I think my favorite secondary characters were the porgs and the crystal foxes. Way better than Ewoks. Just wanted to say that.

Of course the most important character to me in this film is Luke. Or, as I like to call him, Dark Luke. Not the Dark Side, just dark. This is not the sunny, optimistic farmboy from A New Hope, or even the newly mature and sober Luke from Return of the Jedi. This is a weathered Luke who’s given up all hope, who’s given up, well, everything. Even the Force. His failure with Ben Solo has crushed him. He is heavy with regret and despair. He’s got a bit of gray in his hair.

I like him.

Mark Hamill himself has made comments on how he was a little disappointed in the way Luke is portrayed in this film. He felt that Luke, a Jedi, would never give up, that he’d be stronger than that. I suppose. But I find that I dig Dark Luke. He’s much more interesting than he’s ever been before. He’s realistic. He’s an older, wiser Luke who’s been battered by life. Just like the rest of us. He’s not a hero, he’s real. I also loved Yoda’s little cameo. I dug Dark Luke, but he did need a bit of scolding.

But naturally, he becomes a hero in the end. I liked that little trick he played on Kylo Ren. Luke’s death was a worthy death, a good death. I’m satisfied on that point.

So, while there are certainly flaws in Episode 8, I’m still in. I want to know what will happen. I’m curious to see how Leia’s character will be dealt with considering the untimely death of Carrie Fisher. Episode 9 was supposed to be her showcase, but it wasn’t meant to be. At least we got to see her escape death in the film–even cold, dark space can’t kill our Princess!

 

Are you a fan? What did you think of The Last Jedi? Drop a line and we’ll talk about it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recent Obsessions

Here’s what I can’t get enough of lately:

TV: Stranger Things, Seasons 1 & 2.

They had me at 1983. I was 12 years old, just like the kids of Hawkins, Indiana. I wasn’t playing D&D (alas, I’m a girl), but I remember the music, the hair, that sense of being, well, a weirdo. I’d watch this show for the pure nostalgia (casting 80s icons Winona Ryder and Mathew Modine was a nice touch, and they’re great here), but it’s so much more than that.

Ryder plays Joyce Byers, whose sensitive son Will has gone missing, literally out of this world. Will’s crew of faithful, geeky friends are determined to find him; they meet a mysterious girl named Eleven who seems to have supernatural powers, and perhaps knows where Will is. Meanwhile, the town’s police chief Jim Hopper (the wonderful David Harbour), investigates, and climbs deeper into the strange happenings centering around the secretive lab nearby. Strange indeed, but addicting, replete with monsters, a parallel universe, and a surprising amount of heart.

(And because I couldn’t get enough, I watched “Beyond Stranger Things”, a series of short interviews with the cast and creators the Duffer Brothers, which was fun to watch, too).

Movies: Pride & Prejudice & Zombies.

How can I not love this? It blends two of my favorite things: Jane Austen and The Walking Dead (disclaimer: I haven’t watched the last two seasons of WD–I just couldn’t deal with the never-ending heartache). There are Austen purists who sniff at any tampering with their beloved author’s work (and I know some who dismiss any movie version outside of the Firth-Ehle pairing), but I’m not one of them. Let’s face it, adding a little blood and gore to Regency England’s genteel society is just great fun.

Lizzie Bennet’s weapon has always been her words, but here she wields a sword to add to her considerable arsenal. Austen’s story plays out with the usual, well-know scenes: the country dance where Lizzie and Darcy meet, the Netherfield ball, Mr. Collins’ unwanted proposal, the visit to Rosings, Wickham’s deception. But here England has been invaded by a terrible plague that turns people into zombies; everyone must train in the martial arts to defend themselves from the scourge. Darcy is a colonel in the army; the Bennet girls strap knives to their thighs under their dresses and carry swords and guns.

My favorite scene is Darcy’s botched proposal to Lizzie–while they verbally spar, they engage in a physical fight, throwing each other around the room and attacking with pokers and letter openers. I never knew I wanted Lizzie to kick Darcy’s ass in this scene until I saw it! The plot devolves into a weird zombie scheme involving Wickham, but rest assured, the lovers come to each other’s rescue and overcome their pride and prejudice to wed in the end.

Books: Stephen King’s The Dark Tower series.

I’ve been in a King kind of mood lately, just having read Sleeping Beauties (click here for a mini-review). With the movie The Dark Tower recently in theaters, my interest was piqued. I didn’t get around to the movie, so I thought I’d check out the first book of his epic fantasy series, The Gunslinger.

Here’s the premise: Roland, the last Gunslinger in an alternate world, pursues the Man in Black across a desert wasteland in his quest to find the Dark Tower. That’s about all we know. What’s a Gunslinger? What happened to this decaying world that has “moved on”? Who is the Man in Black? What is the significance of the Dark Tower? Answers come slowly and incompletely. King’s writing style here is different than what most of us are used to, dense and perhaps a bit pretentious, as King admits to in his forward. He came up with the idea very early on in his career, fresh out of writing seminars that dictated language over story. But he knew he wanted to combine the quest story (like Lord of the Rings) with a spaghetti western-style protagonist and landscape.

Despite some initial impatience, I kept on reading the book, and found myself drawn in. I’m well into the second book, The Drawing of the Three, which employs the King voice and style we’re all familiar with, and know I’ll continue with the other books (7 or 8 in all), though probably over time, interspersed with other books. Now that I’ve started, I have to know what happens. I have to penetrate the mystery of the Dark Tower.

 

What’s obsessing you lately? Interested in any of these entertainments? Drop me a line and we’ll talk about it!

 

 

Book and Movie Recap

Time for my periodic summary of what I’ve been reading and watching the past few months. Because I know you’re dying to know.

Books:

The Changeling, by Victor LaValle.

This is a wonderfully updated version of the changeling myth: a creature (in this case, a troll) steals an infant and leaves in its place a nearly identical facsimile. That this story is written from an African American point of view adds to its freshness. Apollo and his wife Emma have welcomed a new baby boy to their family, but soon Emma begins acting strangely, perhaps with post-partum depression. But when she commits a horrendous act and disappears, Apollo is left reeling. Soon he begins a quest to find his wife and son, but what he finds is beyond anything he had ever imagined.

My Cousin Rachel, by Daphne du Maurier.

Daphne du Maurier wrote dozens of books, and somehow I’d only read Rebecca, her most famous book. With the release of the movie version of My Cousin Rachel (which I haven’t seen yet, but will soon), my attention was brought to this wonderful book. Young Englishman Philip suspects that his cousin and guardian Ambrose has been murdered by his wife, Rachel. He hates her before he even meets her, but when she arrives at his home, he begins to fall in love with her. Will history repeat itself? The mystery behind Rachel is the driving force of this addicting novel.

Into the Water, by Paula Hawkins.

I loved Hawkin’s previous book, The Girl on the Train, and wasn’t disappointed with her latest. Into the Water takes place in a small town called Beckford, where the Drowning Pool has seen its fair share of women victims, through suicide or otherwise. Two women have drowned in the river within two months when the novel begins: Katie, a fifteen year old girl who drowned herself, and Nel, a woman who had been writing a book on the river and its victims, whose death is being investigated as a possible murder. Hawkins is deliciously good at drawing the reader in with multiple points of view, imperfect characters with secrets, and agonizing suspense. Excellent.

Natalie Goldberg: Long Quiet Highway, Thunder and Lightning, The Great Failure, The Great Spring. I’ve been on a Goldberg bender for awhile, catching up on all of her books I hadn’t yet read. Long Quiet Highway is her first memoir from way back in 1993. Thunder and Lightning is a writing book I had read years ago and wanted to read again. The Great Failure is a memoir exploring the two father figures in her life: her real father and her beloved Zen teacher, Katagiri Roshi. The Great Spring is her latest memoir, a collection of essays gathered together exploring her two great loves: writing and Zen.

Movies:

The Light Between the Oceans.

Finally watched the movie version of the book I read several months ago. Excellent performances from Michael Fassbender, Alicia Vikander, and Rachel Weisz. The script stays fairly close to the book, about a couple in 1920 Australia who finds a baby in a boat (along with a dead man) washed up on shore of their lighthouse island. After having endured several devastating miscarriages, they decide to keep the child to raise as their own. Predictably, this leads to heartbreak and anguish.

Her.

This has to be the strangest, most wonderful movie I’ve seen in a long time. The always stellar Joaquin Phoenix is Theodore, a man who falls in love with a computer program named Samantha, a kind of AI that can learn and evolve over time. It sounds weird, but Samantha has a real personality–she just doesn’t have a body. It’s a great exploration of what it means to be in love, what is real, and letting go.

Manchester by the Sea.

Holy cow. Does anyone say Holy Cow anymore? Let me reiterate: Holy cow! This movie is amazing. I didn’t even know Ben Affleck had a younger brother who acted, but here’s Casey Affleck out of nowhere (at least to me) winning an Oscar for his role of Lee Chandler, who’s been appointed guardian of his 16-year old nephew after his brother dies. But Lee is haunted by tragedy, and he struggles with his newfound role to the nephew he loves. Emotionally wrecking, but worth every two hours and fifteen minutes of it.

Have you read any of these books or seen any of these movies? What did you think? Drop me a line and we’ll talk about it!

By the way, this is also my 200th post on My Writing Journey. Go me!

 

 

Costume Drama

Once I smartened up and changed my Netflix plan from streaming to DVD, I finally got to watch a couple of movies I’ve had my eye on for awhile: Love and Friendship, and A Quit Passion.

Love and Friendship is based on early, little-known novella of Jane Austen’s, called Lady Susan. The story’s namesake is not the typical Austen heroine we’ve come to know and love–in other words, she’s not a young, unmarried woman looking for love with a suitably rich husband, a delightful, spirited woman who nonetheless conforms to her society’s norms and conventions.

Lady Susan (Kate Beckinsale) is not that woman. She’s a still-attractive older widow who schemes relentlessly to score a rich husband, for herself and also for her 17-year old daughter, Federica. She doesn’t care a fig about love, at least not when it comes to husbands. Husbands are a means to an end: financial security. She does, however, carry on an adulterous affair with the married Lord Manwing.

Unlike Lizzie, Emma, Catherine, and the Dashwood sisters, Lady Susan is not likable. Her outward charm masks a cunning ruthlessness that one nonetheless has no choice but to admire. Why? Because, despite being a woman in a staunchly patriarchal society, like any true Austen heroine she gets what she wants–not by some fairy-tale luck (having the good fortune to fall in love with and to secure a conveniently rich man). She knows intimately well the system she’s working within, and pulls all of the strings to her advantage. In the end, she scores a rich husband, who is stupid enough to believe the baby she carries is his own; her daughter fits the more typical Austen heroine in that she falls in love with a suitably rich man and blissfully marries him, but she is not the star of the show.

That Austen wrote such a scandalous main character–and have it all end well for her–is just another reason I find Jane Austen endlessly fascinating. She was a proto-feminist that knew Lady Susan could never be published in her time. It only took 200 years for this character to see the light of day, and though we may cringe at her methods, we must concede her brilliance and determination. Lady Susan forged a life on her own terms in a world that afforded her very little choice.

A Quiet Passion is a biopic of Emily Dickinson that I’ve been very eager to see. Cynthia Nixon (of Sex and the City fame) plays the enigmatic Dickinson, and she does so brilliantly here. Nixon recites her poems in a voice-over throughout the scenes of the film, and one gets a sense of Dickinson’s brilliance, her sensitivity, her spiritual struggle, her fierce intelligence.

She was extremely close to her family (her parents, brother Austin and sister Vinnie), and was content to live with them forever. She feared being parted from friends and family, either through death or marriage. She quite probably fell in love with both men and women–including a married pastor–but her loves were always fervently spiritual and intellectual in nature, and never consummated physically.

Inevitably, her parents died. Her good friend, the outspoken Vryling Buffam, married (and therefore relented to convention) and was no longer hers. Her married brother Austin commenced an affair with a married woman, and his infidelity enraged her.

“Why does life have to be so ugly?” she beseeches her sister Vinnie (Jennifer Ehle) at one point.

Near the end of her life she became embittered, and her fear of loss and death caused her to withdraw from life and society, never leaving her home, or even her room, for that matter. She pushed people away with cutting words. She continued to write, however, always struggling with the state of her soul, with the question of whether God existed, what awaited us after death. She was a brilliant, complicated woman who suffered and died from Bright’s disease at the age of 55.

I enjoyed the film, but had a problem with much of the dialogue. I expect witty banter from intelligent people, but these people talked in a way that raised it to ridiculous heights. Did people really converse in this manner? Their conversations didn’t feel at all natural; rather, they seemed artificially constructed, as if they were reading from well-thought out orations or speeches. It wasn’t believable, and actually got a little annoying. The only time it felt real was when characters lost their tempers and screamed at each other (in a very articulate manner, of course). Finally, real human beings!

Have you seen these movies? What did you think? Leave a comment and we’ll talk about it!

 

 

Dracula Untold

 

This movie has been languishing on my DVR for 5 months. I had some time on a Friday afternoon last week, and although I “should” have been writing, I grabbed some popcorn and settled in.

I’m always interested in new interpretations of the Dracula myth–I’ve read the book a couple of times, and enjoyed the 1992 movie “Bram Stoker’s Dracula.” This one combines the historical figure of Vlad the Impaler (a Romanian prince who lived in the fifteenth century, known for his cruelty and impaling of his enemies) and a few elements of Bram Stoker’s vampire novel.

In Dracula Untold, Vlad (Luke Evans, that guy from Laketown in The Hobbit) is a loving husband and father, who will do anything to protect his people. Taken hostage by the Turks as a child to ensure his father’s loyalty to the sultan, Vlad now rules his kingdom and pays tribute to the Turks to keep the peace. On a scouting trip, he and his men encounter a terrifying supernatural creature in a cave atop Broken Tooth Mountain. Vlad learns that centuries before, a man had made a terrible bargain with a demon; he got the demon’s powers but became stuck in that cave forever until someone else comes along to take up the burden.

During an Easter celebration, the Turks  barge in and demand 1000 boys for their armies. They also demand Vlad’s young son (Art Parkinson, young Rickon Stark in Game of Thrones) as a hostage, just as he had been held captive years before. At first, he feels compelled to acquiesce, but at the last moment changes his mind and slaughters the Turks sent to bring his boy back. Now he’s in big trouble, and needs a miracle to save his people.

He races toward Broken Tooth Mountain to face the demon-like creature he had encountered earlier–he wants his powers, and sees it as the only way to defeat the Turks.

He faces the vampire (Charles Dance, also from Game of Thrones), and agrees to his deal: he’ll get the powers, and if he refrains from drinking human blood for three days, he’ll go back to normal. If not, then he’ll be a monster for eternity, and agrees to help the present vampire get revenge on the demon who tricked him into his present state.

Simple enough, right? Right. It’s fun watching Vlad take on the entire Turkish army by himself (and with his millions of bats), but you just know things are going to go terribly wrong. He’s pretty much useless by day, his own people start to distrust and fear him, the thirst for human blood becomes unbearable, and personal tragedy isn’t far behind.

I thought this was a pretty entertaining movie for what it was, dark and sweeping and wrenching, and the ending promises a sequel at some point (remember that bargain with the original vampire?) I’d go see it.

 

 

 

Star Trek: Beyond

Is it me, or does it seem like the Enterprise gets destroyed in every Star Trek movie ever made? Maybe not, but I had that funny feeling of deja vu as this incarnation tumbled out of the sky to crash and burn on an alien planet, the crew scattered and confused, but up to the challenge in typical Starfleet fashion.

Despite this familiar trope, I did enjoy Star Trek Beyond for what it was: a space adventure with our favorite Federation crew. Well, okay, Picard/Riker had been my favorite captain/number one for a long time, until this hot new Kirk/Spock pairing came along. At any rate, although Beyond doesn’t have the emotional heft of Star Trek or Into Darkness, it delivered on sci-fi action and the witty character banter we’ve come to love and expect.

Having been lured to this planet on a supposed rescue mission, the Enterprise is attacked by a swarm of bee-like ships, and it crashes in spectacular fashion. Kirk (Chris Pine) realizes the resident lizard-like alien Krall (Idris Elba) is after an ancient artifact they’d been storing after a failed diplomatic mission. His crew is also being used by Krall as some kind of weird energy suck. So their mission is three-fold: keep the artifact out of Krall’s hands, rescue the crew, and find a way off the planet.

Help comes in the form of an alien named Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), who has been stuck on the planet for years ever since her own people had been lured there by Krall. She’d been living in an abandoned Starfleet ship called the Franklin, and you just know that Scotty (Simon Pegg) will get the old ship in flying mode again.

Karl Urban (Bones), Chris Pine (Kirk) and Zachary Quinto (Spock) in Beyond

There’s some personal struggles thrown in, like Kirk contemplating a desk job and Spock breaking up with Uhura to focus on rebuilding Vulcan culture. But after their adventure with Thrall, they decide to keep on and finish their “5 year” mission. This Trek fan is glad to hear it, and is looking forward to more installments of their foray into the final frontier.

 

 

Anna Karenina

Ever since I read Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina years ago, I’ve been a fan of the lavish Imperial Russian romance. In my twenties, I found Anna and Vronsky’s doomed, passionate love affair extremely romantic, and Levin’s story a bit of a bore. In my thirties, I couldn’t forgive Anna for leaving her cherished son for a mere man, and took more interest in Levin’s philosophical musings. Now, I find it a perfectly balanced view on the many forms of love that we human beings can experience; Anna is merely a woman who falls desperately in love under the wrong circumstances, while Levin seems to find the right balance between love and duty.

I’ve read the book quite a few times, and have sought out the many movie adaptations of the story over the years. I’ve seen the 1947 version with Vivien Leigh and Kieran Moore, the 1985 version with Jacqueline Bisset and Christopher Reeve, the 1997 version with Sophie Marceau and Sean Bean, and a 2000 BBC version with Helen McCrory and Kevin McKidd. It seemed about the right time for a new version, so I finally watched the 2012 film  with Keira Knightly and Aaron Johnson.

At first, the setting of the film as an ever-changing stage scene felt strange and contrived; and there was an air of quirkiness that didn’t seem right to me, considering the thematic weight of the story. But after a while I got used to it, and the story settled into familiar Anna Karenina territory.

Keira Knightly won my heart in Pride and Prejudice as Elizabeth Bennet (no easy feat), and I liked her here as Anna. Though she always seems so young to me (who doesn’t these days?), in truth she’s probably a little older than the age Anna is supposed to be in the book, and I believed in her tortured portrayal as Anna.

Keira Knightly as Anna

When I first heard of the film and cast, I thought Jude Law was playing the dashing Count Vronsky, forgetting he’s now 43 and too old for the role. Here he’s Anna’s dispassionate, regimented husband, Karenin. He does a fine job showing us Karenin’s distance, as well as his complete puzzlement at Anna’s portrayal.

Jude Law as Karenin

Aaron Taylor-Johnson is perhaps the prettiest Vronsky I’ve ever seen on film, and is probably the closest to what Vronsky is supposed to be: young, dazzling, entitled, with the world as his oyster. Alicia Vikander is luminous as the sweet, innocent Kitty; and Domhnall Gleason (fast becoming my favorite character actor) pulls off Levin’s seriousness without turning him into the utter bore I saw in him all those years ago. Knightly’s costar in P&P as Mr. Darcy, Matthew Macfadyen, plays Anna’s morally challenged brother Steva with apparent glee.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Vronsky

Domhnall Gleason as Levin

Alicia Vikander as Kitty

All in all, a young and glittering cast, gorgeous costumes (though perhaps not historically accurate), and a stirring soundtrack won me over despite my initial misgivings. If you’re a passionate fan of Anna Karenina, you owe it to yourself to watch this film and give it a chance. It might even be my new favorite, beating out the 1997 version with the Bean. Okay, let’s not get crazy!

 

 

 

Zootopia

Lilly is getting to the age where she can sit still and watch a full-length (hour and a half) movie, so I took her to the theater on Sunday to see Zootopia.

I’ve only seen a handful of the Disney/Pixar offerings, mostly since I became a mom. I’ve loved all of them, and this one is no exception.

Zootopia is a grand city of “evolved” animals, where predators no longer hunt prey, and the anthropomorphic animals live together in apparent peace and prosperity. Judy Hopps (voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin), a rabbit from Bunnyburrow, is Zootopia’s first rabbit police officer, something she’s dreamed of since she was a little bunny. She was the first rabbit to attend the police academy, worked hard, and graduated at the top of her class. She excitedly waves goodbye to her worried parents, hops on a train to Zootopia, and starts her new job with the city police department.

On her first day, she eagerly awaits her first assignment, and gets…parking duty. Disappointed but determined, Judy goes above and beyond the call of duty and gets 200 parking tickets before noon. She also meets Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), a fox who outfoxes her, and tells her to get used to being treated like a, well, like a cute little bunny no one is going to take seriously. Nick’s attitude stems from his own experience of being stereotyped, and we get the feeling that all is not completely perfect in Zootopia.

Judy and Nick eventually get involved in trying to solve a missing persons case, and begin to become friends along the way. Due to the cleverness of both, they not only find the missing otter, but discover that some predators are mysteriously reverting back to their wild ways and “going primal”. Judy ends up facing her own prejudices and assumptions before she and Nick solve the mystery and bring Zootopia back to balance again.

I think I loved this movie more than Lilly did. It’s rated PG, and so some of the humor went over her head, as well as the theme of prejudice and stereotyping. Lilly’s still at that wonderful age where she doesn’t see any differences in people. People are just people, whether they’re white or brown or purple, so I think the essential message of the movie wasn’t apparent to her.

Her biggest concern in the movie was when Judy left home for the big city. “She’ll see her parents again, won’t she?” she whispered to me in a worried tone. That, and the occasional sudden scares, when something would jump out unexpectedly, were the only things that bothered her. Otherwise, I was afraid she’d get bored and want to leave. That couldn’t happen: I had to finish watching this wonderful movie!

But she got through with minimal fidgeting, and claimed to like the movie afterward. But probably  not as much as Frozen (duh). I’m just glad I have a kid now, and have an excuse to go see these animated pieces of genius without shame.

Even if you don’t have children, go see Zootopia. You’ll be glad you did.

 

Lawless: Movie Review

Have you ever watched a movie that you wouldn’t normally gravitate to, simply because a favorite actor or actress was in it?

I’ve had my share of Hollywood crushes over the years: Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Sean Bean. And it’s not just men: there was a long stretch of time when I sought out every  movie Nicole Kidman was in. This tendency has led to some wonderful gems (Ford’s Regarding Henry), and some terrible clunkers (Kidman’s Dogville).

My latest actor adoration comes in the form of Tom Hardy. He seems to be everywhere these days, but I’ve only seen him in a handful of films (I’ve reviewed Mad Max: Fury Road and The Revenant); back in my Star Trek Next Generation phase, I watched him in Nemesis, as Picard’s younger, alternate reality clone. I didn’t know who he was at the time, but I remember thinking, Who is this guy? His intensity and acting chops impressed me, but I never followed up, and only recently became aware of him again.

I came across Lawless on my new Netflix subscription (a bit disappointing; lots of TV shows, but not enough movies, in my opinion), and though it’s not normally something I’d choose to watch, I couldn’t resist.

Lawless is the story (based on true events) of the Bondurant brothers-Forrest (Hardy), Howard (Jason Clarke), and Jack (Shia LeBeouf)-running their Prohibition-era moonshine business in Franklin, Virginia in 1931. Local law enforcement looks the other way, but when Chicago Special Deputy Rakes (Guy Pearce) shows up and Forrest refuses to pay him off, real trouble begins.

The story revolves around the dynamic between the brothers, and the love lives of middle brother Forrest and youngest brother Jack. Jack agitates for more responsibility within the family business, while enthusiastically courting the local preacher’s daughter Bertha (Mia Wasikowska). Forrest, the leader and brains of the outfit, wants to maintain control. In the meantime, he hires a former stripper named Maggie (Jessica Chastain) as a waitress in their pseudo-business. Despite being able to slice up men without compunction, the laconic Forrest gets further tongue-tied around this pretty city gal. Oldest brother Howard seems superfluous throughout most of the film, but serves as the muscle within the business.

The Bondurant brothers believe that they’re invincible: Howard survived World War I, and Forrest escaped the flu epidemic of 1918. Forrest survives a vicious throat cutting, and Jack nearly gets killed by crime boss Floyd Banner (the venerable Gary Oldman, of whom I would have loved to see more). Plenty of violence permeates the film, right up to the shoot-em-up climax when Jack confronts Rakes after the corrupt lawman kills his sweet friend Cricket (Dane DeHaan). Jack is shot, and Forrest is riddled with bullets, yet they both survive while Rakes is shot and stabbed by Jack and Howard, respectively.

The brothers eventually go on to farming and marry their women after Prohibition ends, living peaceful lives with many children. Only dumb luck kills Forrest when he later falls into a frozen pond and develops pneumonia.

So was it a gem or a clunker? Neither. I found it be over-long and meandering, yet enjoyed the performances of the stellar cast. The women’s roles were disappointing, as their characters didn’t have much to do in this violent, male-driven story except wring their hands and wait for their men to come home, though both Maggie and Bertha showed indomitable spirit. I thought their willingness to overlook their men’s outlaw status and the inherent violence and extreme danger of their profession a bit unbelievable. Never mind that their husbands are raging alcoholics by the time the good times arrive. Ah well, love conquers all.

So not my usual fare, but not a complete waste of time. Hardy plays in another crime drama called Legend, in which he depicts twin brother gansters Ron and Reggie Kray in 1950’s  London. Again, not my usual cup of tea, but a double dose of Hardy can’t be that hard to swallow.