The Social Network vs. The King's Speech: Some Thoughts

They're two well-made, well-written, well-acted films.  And if you haven't been paying attention, they're the films said to be the top contenders for the Best Picture Oscar on February 27th.

The Social Network released in October when we were too busy with life to make it out to the theater.  We saw The King's Speech on Christmas Day with both of our families.

It's funny, because they're two extraordinarily different films.  The King's Speech has the feel of a comforting British Melodrama in the style of Merchant and Ivory; told in a linear fashion, cast with beloved English actors.

The Social Network is told in flashbacks from multiple perspectives.  The dialogue is rapid-fire, the actors young up-and-comers and former boy-band members.  For instance, Rooney Mara, who plays the fictional girl who inadvertently instigated Facebook, will appear as computer hacker Lisbeth Salander in the American film adaptation of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (and if you're familiar with the material, you know that calling Lisbeth a "computer hacker" doesn't even begin to cover it).  British Actor Andrew Garfield, who plays Mark Zuckerberg's former friend, will star as Peter Parker in the Spiderman reboot releasing next Summer (I will be very, very surprised if Garfield, who's also appeared in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Never Let Me Go, and Doctor Who, doesn't become a Big Deal).  There's also Justin Timberlake, who pleasantly surprised the critics by not being terrible.

The world of The Social Network is populated with anti-heroes and people we're overall indifferent to.  Zuckerberg crashes the Harvard servers with a site that allows visitors to compare female students to each other on the basis of their online Harvard Face Book photos.  Twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss (you just can't make this stuff up), who fulfill every child-of-privilege cliché available - they're tall, blond, and row crew - approach Zuckerberg to help them with their "Harvard Connect" website.

Zuckerberg agrees, takes the nugget of their concept - a Harvard-only social networking site - and builds "The Facebook."  In his mind, he's done nothing wrong at all; after all, he didn't use any of their programming code.  He points out later that a guy who makes a nice chair doesn't own owe money to everyone else who built a chair. In truth, intellectual property has become increasingly murky ground with the commonality of the internet.

The money for the servers is fronted by Zuckerberg's best and only friend, Eduardo Saverin.  As the popularity of The Facebook grows - and spreads to colleges across the country, two things happen.  First, it enrages the twins, who feel it was their idea and, as gentlemen, that such a thing should not have happened.  Secondly, it garners the attention of Napster founder Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake.  The twins try to go through school channels to stop Zuckerberg and are dismissed out of hand.

Zuckerberg shrugs them off, chalking it up to angst over not getting their way, pointing out that their idea wasn't nearly as good as his.

Three-hundred years ago, they would have challenged him to a duel.  It probably wouldn't have worked then, either.  That Zuckerberg is much, much smarter than Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss is obvious.  Not that they're dull, but Zuckerberg is of genius-level intelligence when it comes to the logical analysis of computer programming and human nature.  He could see the nugget of their idea and envision what it had the potential to be; Roger Ebert compared him to chess prodigy Bobby Fisher in this respect.

This does not translate to interpersonal skills; Zuckerberg comes across as having a touch of Asperger's.  Social cues and niceties don't register for him.  Is it because of Asperger's or simply because social niceties don't interest him intellectually?  It's difficult to say.  You can see his boredom when it comes to dealing with ordinary people.  The irony of the film is that the creator of the social networking phenomenon that Facebook became was, in many ways, isolated by his own intelligence.

Zuckerberg managed to isolate himself from his best friend, Saverin, in a series of unfortunate events.  Sean Parker, for not-wholly altruistic reasons, who helped Zuckerberg's The Facebook go global.  He advised dropping the "the," a relocation to the heart of Silicon Valley, lined up big-money investors, and helped Facebook to cross the pond.  Meanwhile, Zuckerberg and Saverin argued about advertising.  Zuckerberg was reluctant, and Parker agreed - while Facebook grew and took hold, maintaining its cool factor was the number one priority.  In fact, the cool factor was probably Parker's most important contribution, and I think Zuckerberg intuitively knew it.

Parker also tried to introduce Zuckerberg to his partying, VIP lifestyle.  But Zuckerberg?  Not interested.  He's all about the coding, all about work.  It's as if he spent his young life searching for a project to let his mind really, truly work, and when he's found it, that's all he needs.

There are lawsuits.  The Winklevoss twins have not given up.  Saverin is forced out of his CFO position largely by Parker, and by no apparent reason other than he can.  Zuckerberg answers the attorney's questions for the depositions, but only because he must.  He'd rather be coding, and the legal proceedings are a waste of his time.  The film circles back around to Erica (Rooney Mara's character) in a very Rosebud, Citizen Kane kind of way.

Text at the end tells us what became of the legal proceedings.  But what does it all mean, in the larger scope of things? We don't yet know how the Mark Zuckerberg story plays out; only this 2003-2011 window.  It is recent history, without the benefit of contextual hindsight.

The King's Speech, in so many ways, couldn't be more different.  Interpersonal relationships take center stage.  We are given the man - and the character - of Bertie, the second son of an elderly king.  The eldest son, Edward, inherited the impressive cheekbones and regal stature, but he's delighted to play footman to a married American socialite.

Bertie, as played by Colin Firth, is a man who would prefer to live in the shadows.  He's had a stammer since childhood, has been the subject of ridicule and disappointment his entire life.  He's reminded of how he doesn't measure up to the royal expectations at every turn.  He loves his wife; she loves him.  They have two young daughters.

It is a difficult thing for a wife to try to help a husband whose spirit has been crushed.  The pedigreed speech therapists only frustrate and shame Bertie more.  Elizabeth, played by a very dialed-down Helena Bonham Carter, seeks out a progressive speech therapist from Australia.  The man is Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush, who looks very different when he's not dressed as a pirate.  Lionel agrees to take on Bertie, but only if he meets with him at his own offices, and not at the castle.

From there we have the rest of the movie - a wife doing what she can to give her husband his dignity back, a therapist who needs to earn his patient's trust, friendship between men in two very different stations in life...but maybe aren't so very different.

The politics of the time add drama.  King George V dies; Edward abdicates the throne soon after in favor of marrying the  now-divorced Wallis Simpson.  Bertie inherits the throne - as well as the expectation to be a well-spoken King in the face of troubles on the continent.

It's a lovely film about marriage, about masculinity, about responsibility, about friendship.  It's a character film about character.

So far, The King's Speech has walked away with guild awards from the Producer's Guild, Screen Actor's guild, and Director's Guild.  Tom Hooper won the Best Director DGA award, which essentially guarantees him the Best Director statuette on Oscar night.  Critics have pointed out the historical inaccuracies, but it's a shame to let the truth get in the way of a good story - it wasn't meant to be a documentary, after all.

My favorite of the two? Clearly The King's Speech.  I think it will best The Social Network at the Oscars as well.  There's some speculation that True Grit could edge them both out...but I don't think so.

We want to believe in marriage, in friendship.  We want to believe that the good guys win.  Those are the stories that feed our souls.

Why You Should Go See Dawn Treader

1.) It's far, far, far, far, far and away the best of the Narnia adaptations. Now firmly in the hands of Brit Michael Apted, it's breathtakingly beautiful and...

2.) ...well translated to film. I was worried when I read that they'd made plot changes, and part of me wonders if that bit of press didn't hurt the release. But you know what? The changes were subtle and they worked.

3.) More than that, they set things up nicely for The Silver Chair.

4.) Will Poulter makes the best Eustace Scrubb EVER. Which I knew he would, because he was fantastically wonderful as Lee Carter in Son of Rambow. That was a bit of casting I was excited about when it released, and it was just as good as I expected.

5.) Dawn Treader had a lousy opening weekend. Lousy to the point that it's the end of the franchise if people don't head out to the theater and bring the numbers up.

5.) It would be really sad if the franchise ended here, because The Silver Chair is probably the most filmable of all of the books, with the exception of The Horse and His Boy, which is my absolute favorite. I really, reeeeeaaally want to see The Horse and His Boy. And I want to see Michael Apted do Silver Chair (which he will if the franchise continues).

6.) So bundle up your children, sweet-talk your husband (not that mine needed any), coerce a friend, do what you have to do, just go see the movie. You'll like it. It's lovely, and it shouldn't be the last.

Note: See it in 2D. We saw it in 3D, and it really wasn't worth it. The colors will be brighter, the image sharper in 2D.

My Favorite Movie This Year

Friday night, Danny and I decided we wanted to go see a movie, something light and silly. After watching Liam Neeson pronounce the releasing of the Kraken for several weeks during TV commercials, we decided to give Louis Leterrier's Clash of the Titans remake a go.

Oh. My. Goodness.

It's tricky, pulling off a decent, silly popcorn flick. There's a fine line between silly and stupid. Many start strong and get snoozy in the second act.

I am thrilled to tell you that Clash of the Titans has it all, except I don't think the Titans ever make much of an appearance. Whatever. We've got a Demigod who'd rather be fishing, an assortment of scarred, well-meaning military men, hunters who can kill anything - anything! There's a princess who's about to be sacrificed to a hideous monster (an age old tradition), an a mysterious cloaked woman. Oh, and kindly people with a short lifespan. And a Kraken. And jinn.

Yeah, Jinn. Because it's important to be multi-cultural in movies about Greek Mythology. Nothing says white bread like many men in mini-skirts.

Yes, mini-skirts. Before William Wallace, there was Perseus. And Perseus wasn't afraid to show more leg.

Where was I? Oh, yeah - the fact that Clash has everything. I saved the best for last.

It's Liam Neeson. And he's glowing.

So. The Plot. We've got Perseus (Sam Worthington, of Avatar fame), who was found as a baby by a friendly fisherman. Raised a fisherman, he leads an idyllic life on a boat with his foster family until...well...

Let's just say the idyllic existence ends. Through a series of unfortunate events. Perseus makes it into Argos, barefoot, and is trotted into the palace. This is a palace of depravity, but we know it won't stay that way! We meet the princess, who's the original rebellious child, annoying her parents by feeding starving children and giving water to strangers.

She's a real pill, the princess.

Anyway, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) comes in, spoils the party, and figures out that Perseus is no just a fisherman, but a Demigod. Wow! But Perseus is told to lay low for the time being by Io, The Mysterious Hooded Woman (Gemma Arterton, Quantum of Solace, Prince of Persia)...

...who has pretty good advice. Next thing he knows, Perseus is shipped off with the remaining troops to perform a series of tasks designed to save the Princess from being sacrificed to the Kraken.

Perseus learns to fight like a man from Draco (Mads Mikkelson, the top-notch Danish actor from Casino Royale and After the Wedding) in a sequence that may remind you of the "Be a Man" song from Mulan. It might not. But if it does, you'll enjoy it that much more.

Nicholas Hoult (About a Boy, A Single Man) also has a role, with the Band of Courageous Soldiers, and a bunch of other people who are tricky to place because, you know, they've all got names like "Eusebios" and "Kepheus."

We also see Danny Huston (Marie Antoinette, The Constant Gardener) briefly as Poseidon.

The adventure takes us across deserts, up mountainous crags, and into the underworld (and when the ferryman pulls up, don't you half expect it to be Johnny Depp? At least a little?). It doesn't mean much, but it's great fun. There are lengthy battles with very large mythical creatures. The plot progresses, and it's Time to Release the Kraken (believe me, this is so not a spoiler, at least not if you own a TV). Liam Neeson is so good at what he does, that we can watch him say the line in an edited snippet for weeks, and it doesn't take away from the moment.

Maybe even made it better. Who knows. Neeson is also able to make Zeus (did I mention he plays Zeus? No? Sorry.) likable, which if you're familiar with the character, is really something. He is able to release the Kraken with an impressive amount of dignity, considering that Krakens (or Kraki?) don't actually exist in Greek Mythology (read about it here), but neither do jinn, and it doesn't matter, because we're in this for a good time.

And it is. It's a good time, guided by fresh young newcomers in Sam Worthington and Gemma Arterton, and a supporting cast of actor's actors. Everyone is dead serious about their work, and their stiff upper lips pay off. The movie looks great, the effects are top notch.

Who's the audience for the movie? People who like taking their adventure films with a grain of salt. Adults who enjoyed the animated Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. Movie goers wanting to see Liam Neeson looking more radiant than ever.

Did I mention there's a happy ending? All's well that ends well. And starts with a Kraken.

Avatar: Paint With all the Colors of the Wind, Marine

I had my doubts about this movie. I'm not a Titanic fan, although I've never seen it. Never felt the need. And the trailers were pretty clear that that there were some fairly strong political undertones. People said the plot was kind of like Dances With Wolves, and if anything sounded like a film disaster, it was Dances with Blue Aliens. Really.

We saw it on Saturday, and I was frankly a bit cranky about it. I was still tired from our whirlwind Portland trip and wanted to spend a day being agoraphobic. We debated over seeing the 2D version over the 3D; I thought better to see it in 2D first to see if we wanted to shell out the extra for 3D. Danny agreed.

But when the film started, things changed.

I don't impress easily. Really, I don't. I was impressed by Avatar. This was how I wanted to feel about Star Trek and couldn't, not quite. A few notes:

1.) Cameron may have intended certain political messages, but they're not wholly successful. Better still, it's his own fault. He's so effective at creating this world that it's more difficult for parallels to be made.

2.) The plot shows resemblances to not only Dances With Wolves, but also Disney's Pocahontas (bear with me) as well as The Matrix. Obviously, the Matrix similarities lie in the whole plugged-in-Avatar concept. Pocahontas? Stay with me on this. There are seriously spots where you're half expecting Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) to turn to Jake (Sam Worthington) and say, "You need to learn to paint with all the colors of the wind, moron!" Also times when she looks at Tsu'tey and thinks to herself, "should I marry Kocoum?" Somehow, though, it all works. Probably because there are no cute little animal sidekicks.

3.) Disney references aside, there are certain brilliances to the plot. First, that the Jake Sully character is paraplegic. His disability is part of what makes his character work. Secondly, unlike Dances With Wolves, not only is Jake vulnerable because of his attachment to the people he was supposed to spy on and influence, but he's also got it rough because either his actual body or avatar body is unconscious at any given time. When the bad guys are out to get you, this is not advantageous.

Now, understand the plot doesn't take you anywhere unforeseen, but that's partly because Cameron loves his set-up/pay-off's. Just about everything that happens has been set up earlier, so the plot has a very organic flow.

On the subject of the film's appearance:

1.) It's breathtaking. Cameron creates a complete and inhabited world you want to be in the middle of, with incredible detail. The night scenes were my favorite. I was totally ready to move there.

2.) All that motion-capture stuff? Totally works. It's funny - we've seen a fair amount of Zoe Saldana's films - she does this thing with her eyes, looking downward while flitting her eyelashes. Well, so does her animated Na'vi character.

3.) What's also striking are scenes where the military-esque vehicles are invading on the Pandora landscape. There's a very interesting juxtaposition on the harsh, dusty colorations of the military equipment in comparison to the jewel-toned Pandora jungle.

4.) A bunch of critics have criticized the Na'vi ears. Sure, they twitch. It didn't bother me. I think there's just disappointed they couldn't laugh and point at the film as much as they wanted to. You'd think they'd have it out of their system since this summer's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra.

5.) Let us hope that nerdy teen boys will not try to learn the Na'vi language. Please. No. That's what Swahili is for.

Overall:

1.) See it. See it on the big screen, and honestly I'd spring for the 3D. I really would.

2.) It is a long movie. Good, but long. Keep your theater fluids low, if you catch my meaning.

3.) The main part I thought was dippy was the sitting together, swaying and chanting while connected to the earth parts. But it's such a fraction of the movie (truly, since it's about three hours), I suggest you shake it off and think of the pretty glowing flowers.

Because they're just that cool.

P.S. Danny read in his Popular Mechanics magazine that James Cameron is the product of an artist mother and engineer father. We now know what our children will turn out to be like, and that we will be well supported in our old age.

Brothers Bloom: Belated Thoughts

I didn't write a lot about films this summer. I wrote about Up. We saw a lot of movies - Harry Potter, The Proposal, Cheri, The Time Traveler's Wife...a lot of movies, but for some reason, I didn't feel the need to write about them.

Except for The Brothers Bloom. I sat in the theater and heard myself preparing the review even as Danny and I watched.

It's not a great film. It won't be nominated for anything come February. But of all the films we saw during the summer, I think I enjoyed this one the most. For all of its faults, it's ambitious; while it doesn't fully succeed, it's a joy to watch it try.

The film stars Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody. I've liked Ruffalo since The Last Castle and, honestly, since 13 Going on 30 (I just love when he looks at Jennifer Garner and says, believably, "We're not friends anymore, Jenna," like he's revisiting his high school days all over again). Brody was superb in The Pianist, with his huge sad eyes. They work well for him here.

They are two brothers. One named Stephen, the other, Bloom. That they're called "The Brothers Bloom" is a bit of a mystery, but whatever. We meet them as children, drifting from foster home to foster home in a decidedly Tom and Huck sort of existence. There, Stephen discovers his knack for conning, with Bloom wishing that, maybe, it were real.

Their adult lives proceed in the same fashion. Stephen (as described in the best line of the movie) "writes his cons they way dead Russians write novels, with thematic arcs and embedded symbolism..." He scripts Bloom as the brooding anti-hero. The more elaborate the con, the happier Stephen is.

Stephen is dating Bang Bang, whom he describes as their fifth Beetle. Bang Bang doesn't speak much. Her non-speech is so effective that when she does talk, it's a bit of a disappointment. There's a Marx Brothers sensibility to a lot of the film - Bang Bang is a more elegant version of Harpo. She carries a blowtorch instead of a horn, and she's not afraid to use it.

The other female character is Penelope. Rachel Weisz plays her somewhere between eccentric and certifiable. A wealthy recluse, she is a collector of hobbies. Stephen writes her as Bloom's love interest. Whether or not Bloom is interested is besides the point.

Rian Johnson also directed Brick, a noir-esque whodunit set in a high school with characters who'd watched a lot of Humphrey Bogart and Gene Tierney movies. It was an homage to the genre.

Likewise, The Brothers Bloom is an homage to the caper film, as loving if not as successful as The Sting, which Johnson lists as an inspiration.

Brothers drips with literary references. Stephen and Bloom walk around a somewhat modern world dressed like characters in mid-nineteenth century novel, and not just because they're based on characters from James Joyce's Ulysses. Their approach to the con is all about style.

The weakest part of the film is probably Weisz's Penelope, who seems the sort of person who really should not be allowed to cross the street without adult supervision. There is also a sequence on the train which makes no logical sense.

Like I said, it's not a great movie, but it tries hard. Johnson is good at creating films with familiar parts made fresh. I'm looking to his next film - even if the journey doesn't reach the intended destination, at least it's a fun ride.

First review and my promises to you, the blog reader

On Monday the 19th, I received an email from Dave Bartlett at Harvest House, congratulating me on my review in Publishers Weekly. He attached a PDF of the review.

Dear reader, I nearly had a heart attack. By the grace of God I did not pass out, but it was a a close one.

I really wanted the chance for Plain Jayne to be reviewed by PW, but I didn't know if it would happen (they don't review everyone) or it they would say nice things (they eat CBA releases for breakfast).

So it was with literal fear and trembling that I opened the PDF and took a look...

"Plain Jayne Hillary Manton Lodge. Harvest House, $13.99 paper (300p) ISBN 978-0-7369-2698-0

Debut fiction author Lodge, a freelance photographer with a background in journalism, enters the popular arena of “plain people” fiction with a surprisingly funny, refreshing and strong story line. Lodge creates the lovable and always acerbic protagonist Jayne Tate, reporter for Portland's Oregonian. Forced by her employer to take time off to regain her edge, Jayne goes hunting for a feature in Oregon's Amish country. What this independent and thoroughly modern journalist finds is an alternative lifestyle that keeps her slightly off-balance even while, in good reporter form, Jayne tries to remain coolly objective. Enter Levi Burkholder, formerly Amish, presently a carpenter, and Jayne's heart goes off kilter as well. Jayne joins the household of Levi's estranged parents for some real Amish experiences, learning to respect the hardworking family. Smart, fast-paced and chock-full of endearing characters, Lodge's entry into inspirational fiction is a keeper, plain and simple. (Jan.)"

The next several hours provided several reactions:

1.) Someone in New York (or maybe not, maybe they contract out their reviewers, but either way, someone somewhere else) read my book. SERIOUSLY????

2.) That someone liked my book, despite the fact that they probably hold to a very, very different belief system.

3.) The reviewer found it "fast-paced," which means all the times when I was freaking out over how BORING this book was was apparently all in my head. PW does not lie. (Or my editors, for that matter, or my husband, or any of my other compatriots in editing...fine. Writers are insecure creatures.)

Honestly, knowing other people are reading your book is a weird, weird experience. My PR person told me she was going to read my book, and for a moment I kind of froze. Then I remembered that, truly, the book was going to be released in a few months and even more people were going to read it. And have their own opinions about why Jayne did what she did, or why Levi responded like that, or why Spencer turned out the way he did (which is a bit of a mystery to me, but hey.)

So there you go. My first book, and I got a good review. This will not always be the case. I'm sure some day I'll get raked over the coals; bad reviews happen to good people.

Crazy Season is approaching. The publicity campaign is locking and loading. Things are going to get weird for this writer, but here's what I wanted to tell you:

1. When I share good news about Plain Jayne or whatever book we're talking about, I want to make sure I'm sharing out of happiness. I do not want to smack you over the head with internet-brags; they make for dull copy.

2. Therefore, this is the last time the happy review will be mentioned on this blog, unless something concerning it comes up.

3. In all likelihood, something resembling a blog tour will probably be launched at some point. It would be unfair to the launcher for me not to tell you about where I'm blogging, but I'm not going to super-hype it here. The point of the blog tour is to introduce me to people outside my readership. Y'all already know who I am and what I'm about, so the blog tour is really not meant for you. I'll tell you what's posted where, but that's the end of it.

4. I really enjoy connecting with beginning writers and answering questions about writing and fiction. If you have a question you'd like to see addressed in the blog, leave a comment or send me an email at hillary (at) hillarymantonlodge (dot) com (I'm not sure why everyone's being cryptic about email addresses these days, but I felt like following the trend this morning).

In other news...

1. Norah Jones is coming out with a new album in November! I'm curious to see how her sound changes...I got to catch a the last bit of her song on DWTS last night. Was not a fan of her Not Too Late album, but loved the first two. Either way, always happy to hear about new music.

2. The basil is circling the drain. Danny thinks it's getting too cold.

3. The Superhero Symposium is this weekend! My throat's a bit scratchy, but I'm really going to push the fluids to make it work!

4. Speaking of the scratchy throat...I've been really sore lately (back, neck, jaw), and really worked yesterday to make sure that I'd actually get a good night's sleep. We took a walk, I did my PT exercises, and I went to be with Advil, Tylenol PM, and a cough drop. And I'm sleeping fine (for the first time in several nights) until I'm awakened by the CRACKLING OF VERY VERY LOUD THUNDER at five in the morning! I woke up and was like, "Seriously, God? You knew I haven't been sleeping well and you couldn't hold off the crazy loud thunder for a couple hours??" I'm over it (mostly). I'll try to get another walk in today...can't have two nights with crazy thunder, right?

Way on Up

If you haven't yet, go see Pixar's Up. Whatever you're doing now can wait. Seriously.

To be honest, I was a little worried from the trailer. Pixar trailers do that to me. The one for Up makes you believe that it's a film about a cranky old man, a precocious boy scout, and their aimless journey through jungles via floating house.

Would you think from the trailer that it's a film about a man who's fighting to give his dead wife the one thing he thought she wanted? About a boy desperate for his father's affection? About the simple adventure of life? And yet it's all that and more, and I haven't gotten to the talking dogs.

I love the talking dogs.

The film opens with a newsreel, and the introduction of Carl and his future wife, Ellie. Ellie as a girl is all static hair, spunk, imagination, and adventure. She's Anne of Green Gables, the next generation. The characterization is so strong that when the movie proceeds through a silent sequence chronicling Carl and Ellie's adult life together, we have a firm sense of who this woman is and how completely she loves Carl.

Even after she passes away, she's still very much a part of the film's essence.

Carl is getting old. He has no interest in Shady Oaks retirement home. So little interest that the male aids who come to pick him up (one with an excellently animated mullet and scrub tag sticking up) get a little surprise from the AARP member whom they underestimated.

Thing is, Carl's got a stowaway in the form of a "Junior Wilderness Explorer" who's missing his Assisting the Elderly badge. Together, they make their way to Venezuela to fulfill what Carl believes to be Ellie's lifelong wish.

In the jungle Carl and Russel discover Charles Muntz, Carl and Ellie's childhood hero. Think of a mix of Indiana Jones, Charles Lindbergh, and Captain Ahab - that's Charles, floating around in his dirigible, hunting his very own white whale.

Charles keeps company with the talking dogs. Did I mention that? Yeah, I know it's the collars that talk, but whatever. The dogs are communicating in English (although there is potential for Japanese). And sure they can cook and perform tasks that would conflict the average family canine, but under it all, they're still dogs. Ever wonder what a joke would be like if a dog told it? You'll find out.

What goes down in that jungle is the meat of the movie. Two old men, fighting for their pasts, one of them ready to make the sacrifices to have a future. Loss. Destruction. Change. Hope.

And squirrels. Seriously, what more could you ask for in a movie?

Twilight and the Evils of Voice-Over

I know this review has been a long time coming; all I can say is that I got sick after Thanksgiving weekend, and when I began to improve, Danny caught it.

Now I'm healthy (with just the tiniest cough), I'm 90% done with the Christmas shopping (although in denial about the need to wrap), I finished a chapter two days ago, and life is back on track.

So. Twilight.

The initial hype and fervor has passed, but impressive while it lasted. Before the film opened, all of the conversation fluttered around whether or not the movie would gross enough to warrant the sequels. I had a hunch it would - after all, this was a movie for the same demographic who made Titanic successful (weepy, squealy teen and preteen girls).

When we went, the theater was full of, yea verily, many weepy, squealy girls. How squealy? The scene: high school in Forks, Washington. Bella, sitting, minding her own business when who should enter (in slow motion, so you get all that good hair bounce) but the Cullens? There's Rosalie, Emmett, Jasper, Alice (perhaps not in that order, but there isn't a poem for them like the reindeer) and...wait for it...wait for it...



It was like sitting in a theater full of happy shrieking eels. A bit overdramatic if you consider this particular vampire borrowed his hair from Elvis.

Back to the movie, except, if I'm going to talk about the movie, I need to talk about the book.

Twilight and its successors, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn, are prime examples of how good storytelling sells. Stephenie Meyer was extremely successful is writing books with a compelling enough story to launch the reader through a 2" thick book in 48 hours. The forbidden love story is classic in its archetypal roots and for that reason strikes a chord. The books are really less about Vampires than they are about a Romeo and Juliet story in which Romeo has impressive incisors and the ability to climb a pine with his bare hands.

The supporting characters are strong, particularly Edward's "siblings," and there's enough romantic confusion and romance to keep things entertaining. This is not to say that the writing didn't need a few more passes through the editing department. But we believe Bella as a serious, thoughtful teen who has completely fallen in love with a man who wants to eat her.

I know some people became frustrated with Bella as the series progressed; I thought it was unfair. She's 17 and dealing with International vampire culture. That she doesn't collapse into a paroxysm of trepidation is really to her credit.

The movie is so wrapped up in the thing which Twilight has become that it has difficulty really exploring its space, settling in, and becoming its own entity rather than a book adaptation. No one looks comfortable in their movie skin, with the exception of Elizabeth Reaser's Esme Cullen. For the Twilight fan, the film is a chance to see the book come to life. For the outsider, a lot of the plot developments and character motives would remain a little too mysterious.

The first half takes too much time trying to develop, but speeds up well during the second half. Funny, because the book did the same thing. Difference is that the book managed to entertain when nothing much was going on but Bella's reflections on Edward's physical perfection.

I would see it again, and enjoy it (unlike Bond, which I did see a second time and zoned out through the last half), and I'm genuinely looking forward to New Moon.

I was looking forward to it even before the directorship was handed off to Chris Weitz. As the director of Golden Compass and About a Boy (one of my favorite movies), I think he'll help bring the production values up a notch. Or ten. Because there's nothing wrong with making the movie not look like it was made for the Sci-Fi channel. I think the hand-held camera is great and looked terrific for the Bourne movies, but for films with a fantastical element I think the camera needs to be grounded more often, to aid with the suspension of disbelief.

Haven't heard anything yet about the script, IMDB still lists it with Melissa Rosenberg, but if they hand that one off, I think that's great. The film opens with a lot of voice-over which should have been cut IN THE FIRST DRAFT PEOPLE, DID WE LEARN NOTHING FROM FILM SCHOOL????? If you're going to use first-person narration, you had better be writing the great American film, and there had better not be vampires involved. Or werewolves. I'm sure this was all covered in class. In a perfect world, I would have the producers court Steve Kloves (of Harry Potter fame) or Jan Sardi (The Notebook), with a co-writing credit for Delia Ephron (Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants), a writer who has no issues getting into the heads of teen girls (She used voice-over in the form of letters, yes, but it worked).

This is really less of a review than a discussion. I'm okay with that. If you want to know what the movie's about, read the book. It'll take about 48 hours.

If you don't know his name by now, you've clearly been living in a cellar.

Look at those faces. No one's having any fun. The 22nd Bond flick is the Bond-without-funny-business Bond. How little funny business? The villain's name is Dominic Greene. The Bond-Girl's name is Camille. See a pattern? Any time now, Bond's going to announce his resignation from MI6 and decision to become a real estate agent rather than a secret agent.

Seriously, though. Quantum of Solace (and I repeat my previously stated opinion on the title and the lack of revision it should experienced) is continuing the pattern of stripped-down Bond that Casino Royale started. The stupid dialogue is gone. This Bond is a bit less interested in sex and more capable of killing someone with his bare hands or a box of paperclips.

Roger Ebert lamented the lack of colorful villain, colorful Bond-Girl name, and the traditional "Bond, James Bond" line. How many times does a line have to be repeated? If you don't know his name after 22 films, then perhaps it's necessary to have your hand held as you walk across a parking lot. We know his name, but we'd like to move onto the action.

What does this movie have? Quite a lot of action, a female lead who doesn't sleep with dear James (shocker!), a fantastic sequence involving many martinis and a bartender saving us all from cliche, a CIA agent who wants so badly to be Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson's War but can't come near Phillip's brilliance, and an interesting closing sequence that brings up questions about Canadian Intelligence (??).

It's a bit lacking in story, but for the second time, a Bond film has distanced itself from the tired cliches that have dragged it down for the last several years. Some people, such as Ebert, mourn that loss, but I celebrate it. I think if the Bond franchise is going to survived the next decade, it needs to shed some of the expected turns and surprise us with its originality.

Sadly, evil villains with henchmen in matching jumpsuits isn't particularly original anymore. Breaks my heart, but I suppose I'll live with an environmentalist gone bad.

Let's hope the 23rd Bond film gives Bond a reason to smile on the poster.

Dancing Queens

Be kind. Leave the men at home. I've heard reports of men volunteering to watch Phyllida Lloyd's Mamma Mia!, and truthfully, these aren't men I'm related to. This movie is an estrogen-fest. Singing, dancing, sighing, and unless the man in your life always wondered if Pierce Brosnan could sing, just say no. Protect the mental health of the males in your life.

The movie starts off with sweet Amanda Seyfried as Sophie, on the eve of her wedding in Greece. While she is young and has the rest of her life ahead of her, getting married now is top priority, because she has a very important guest list.

The list includes three possible fathers - three because her single mother Donna (Meryl Streep) had an active social life twenty years ago, which leaves young Sophie's paternity in question.

All three possibilities show up and the movie continues from there, with a lot of choreography in between. Words don't do the musical scenes justice; I recommend a youtube search. The "Dancing Queen" sequence was my favorite, with Greek women around the town dropping their work to join in. Women of all sizes and ages, real women, all having a grand old time waving their arms and singing.

Their are several intersecting plotlines, involving the fathers, the past, and Donna's feelings about her daughter's marriage, but let's face it. The plot is a vehicle for the musical sequence to follow.

If you like Abba, singing, dancing, platform shoes, sequined jumpsuits, Greece, cheese, and have a large tolerance for estrogen - induced silliness, then this movie is for you. If you prefer for things to blow up (and I'm not talking arguments, I'm thinking pyrotechnics and destruction), try The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, which includes not only explosions but yetis.

Trust me. I really wasn't kidding about the jumpsuits.

Guillermo vs. George

In 1977, George Lucas's Star Wars: A New Hope introduced us to a galaxy far, far away. This galaxy contained strange beings, exotic planets, a rebellion, a princess, a farmboy...

Take out the "exotic planets" bit, and George includes all the elements of a fairy tale, one of the oldest genres of story. In fact, most story experts will tell you (and excuse them for being snotty, it's their nature) that Star Wars itself is based on the archetypal Hero's Journey structure outlined by Joseph Campbell and originating in the ancient mythology fairy tales were based on.

But aside from George's storytelling aptitude in 1977, his ability to bring the story to life with incredible visuals made an overnight hit out of a Space Opera.

Fast forward thirty years. George became overwhelmed with the visual nature of his stories and forgot to love his characters.

(Writers note: forget to love your characters, and they'll bite you back every time.)

Gone are the fresh takes on familiar structures. We were stuck with Anakin's inability to save the universe from...policy reform. Also gone were the familiar character constructs; Anakin wasn't a farmboy, or a cowboy...just an overgrown punk with a light saber.

But I digress. Sad, sad times, but plenty of room for someone else with a love for fable to step in.

Enter Guillermo.

Mr. Del Toro first attracted American attention with Cronos, and has since gone on to Hollywood set pieces such as Blade II and Hellboy, followed by the amazing Pan's Labyrinth. The latter served as a showcase for Guillermo's love for myth and fairy tales, especially when combined with elements of the grotesque, the gothic, and the macabre.

He and Poe would have gotten along great.

And now we have Hellboy II: The Golden Army. In this installment, the non-human world (consisting of elves, trolls, etc.) feels that the human world has encroached on their forest territory, and the less-than-peaceful Prince Nuada plans to raise the Golden Army to conquer the humans and retrieve their terf. But to raise the army, he requires certain objects...and the plot rolls on.

Hellboy, naturally, is assigned (as much as he ever is) to stop him with the aid of his flame, Liz Sherman (pun intended), and C-3PO-esque buddy Abe Sapien (played by Doug Jones, but we'll get to him later). They meet Nuada's peaceful twin sister, Nuala, who bears a resemblance to the Tim Burton's Corpse Bride, but in a nice way.

And so on and so forth...really, it's all secondary to the fabulous visuals. Doug Jones, who played the Faun and the Pale Man in Pan's Labyrinth, also provides the bodies for the Chamberlain and the terrific Angel of Death. Jones has found his niche in Hollywood as "the person inside the suit." Not surprisingly, he got his start as his university's mascot...

Fairy tales have been a beloved and much-used springboard for a lot of modern literature and film. C.S. Lewis, for instance, used fairy tale constructs in his Chronicles of Narnia. My current theory is that the idea of the fairy tale has aged with us into the comic book saga; supernatural characters and events out to save the kingdom, if not the world.

Hellboy II is the ultimate popcorn flick, made above-average by Guillermo Del Toro's attention to visual detail. Del Toro's next project is The Hobbit I & II, which I'm that much more excited about after seeing Hellboy II. I would love to see Del Toro take a stab at one of the Narnia installments, particularly The Magician's Nephew.

And let us hope we'll never find ourselves with a prequel explaining how Hellboy's parents found themselves in Hell...

Dark, Dark Knight

I'm having trouble beginning this blog. We just returned from Dark Knight, the follow-up to 2005's Batman Begins. If you don't know it's the follow up, and haven't heard any of the insane buzz around Heath Ledger's last full performance, then this blog really isn't for you. Just skip on down to one of the posts about birds.

To answer the questions,

1. Heath Ledger's performance really is that good. I didn't care for Jack Nicholson's take; Ledger's is different. There's an unrehearsed, anarchic quality, as if The Joker showed up on the set one day and director Christopher Nolan decided to keep rolling. It's brilliant, it's terrifying. And while none of the gore may show up on the screen (with an MPAA rating of PG-13), much is implied.

2. The film really is that dark. I really loved Batman Begins. Dark Knight takes us to a part of the Batman legend where the "Batcave" is a secure cellar; stark, and easy to clean. There is no Wayne Mansion - it's still in the rebuilding stages, and Nolan decided against giving us an idea of when they're planning on breaking ground. There is some repartee between Bruce, Alfred, and Lucius at turns, but on the whole, a lot of the fun of the previous installment has been sucked out.

Instead, it's been replaced by an airtight story about what happens when the lines between protector and villain blur. A film that stands among the ranks of American Gangster or Kingdom of Heaven (Two very different but somewhat similar Ridley Scott films, each dealing in their own way with definitions of heroes and anti-heroes). Perhaps not what moviegoers expect when attending a movie about characters owned by DC Comics. If you are squeamish at all about knives, this is not the movie for you. If you cringe at children being placed in horrific situations, this is also not the movie for you. If a dented Lamborghini brings tears to your eyes...I really don't know what to tell you. Nice cars have short lifespans on film. But I digress.

The Gotham City of Batman Begins had its elements of comic-book stylization - the broken down elevated train, for example. This Gotham is Chicago. There are no stylized creations to buffer the perception of reality. Dark Knight is that much more disturbing because it feels so much more real. Nolan took off the kid gloves for this one, and settled down to tell a raw story about pain and how people react to it. About hope, how to create it and how to stifle it. About what to do when, maybe, the whole truth isn't the best option.

I can appreciate this film. I don't think I liked it. I don't think I would choose to see it again, although I suspect I would cringe less.

There are highlights. Morgan Freeman, as Lucius, poses a question to a Wayne Enterprises employee that brings down the house. And the bike (pictured above) that the bat-mobile produces when it becomes indisposed is frankly pretty rad. Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckert as Harvey Dent and the wonderful Gary Oldman as Lt. Gordon; all top notch.

Rachel Dawes, I think, is the weakest point of the film. She crosses a line that comic book girls don't get to cross, and for a good set of reasons. I won't write about them here; if you really want to know, shoot me an email. But she deserved better. She deserved, at least, to be likeable. The casting shift of Maggie Gyllenhaal taking over for Katie Holmes is part of it. While I never believed Katie as a DA's Assistant (I mean, really), she projects a kind of sweet likeability. I don't believe that sweet likeability are two words that will ever, truly, be used to describe Maggie Gyllenhaal. We believe this Rachel survived law school, but we have no reason to feel affection for her when she clearly appears to hold the world in contempt.

I can't unilaterally recommend this film. It is brilliantly casted, acted, and directed.

But it wasn't fun. If you want fun, see Hellboy II. You don't even need to see the first (we didn't; it's fairly self-explanatory). And I'll write that blog review soon, but I had to get this one off my chest.

We may pull Winnie the Pooh off the shelf tonight, if only to get Ledger's "Why so serious?" out of my head.

He just wanted to hold her hand

I need to see WALL-E again. I'm torn between delight over the characterizations of WALL-E and his gal-pal EVE (or as WALL-E says, "Eeevaa!") and the political implications I wasn't expecting.

So maybe if I see it and expect them, I'll feel differently. I hope so.

There's a lot I liked about this film. WALL-E is perhaps the most lovable Disney creation since Bambi. Considering WALL-E is essentially a trash compactor, that's saying a lot for director Andrew Stanton's abilities. WALL-E tools around on Earth, picking up junk and using the compactor installed in his chest cavity to create bricks. Some items are held out; a spork, a shoe, and his favorite movie, Hello, Dolly! His collection reminded me of Ariel's in The Little Mermaid; artifacts from a world he has never been a part of, and yet longs for.

Yes, WALL-E has longings. He's lonely. He would like someone to hold someone's hand. And a someone lands a few days later, in a manner that will remind you of the last time you made a cat chase a laser pointer. It is not love at first sight, but WALL-E is nothing if not committed.

Every moment with WALL-E is precious. The moments without him are less so.

Where are the people, you ask? Hard to say. The Americans, at least (the ones pictured appear to have all been gathered from somewhere in the Midwest) are floating in a spaceship, eating and floating around on hoverchairs. Should they become unseated...the term "beached whale" comes to mind.

Despite the fact that they've been in space for several hundred years, the message is clear; these people are responsible for the desert waste that WALL-E's been working on for so long.

Frankly, I resent the implication that the destruction of the Earth is the fault of the U.S., although blaming it on the Midwest isn't as bad. But consider that even at the height of America's pollution output, we were nowhere near China on a so-so day. Global polution is a global problem, but still those darn Midwesterners are floating around in space.

By the time the term "stay the course" is uttered by Corrupt Corporate Man I was poli-ticked-off. WALL-E deserves better.

The film does get back to he and EVE, and there's a fantastic sequence involving flying and a fire extinguisher. Putting any of the scenes into words is tough; the visuals are so rich, so layered, that writing about them seems silly. In fact, the rest of the movie was so completely enjoyable that it seems shallow to be poli-ticked-off by Corrupt Corporate Man when there are moments like WALL-E seeing space for the first time.

Which is why I need to see it again.

P.S. The film short, "Presto," is completely wonderful beyond words. Possibly one of my favorites, although I did love "Boundin'". There is a possibility that the wonderfulness of the film short contributes to my need to see WALL-E again.

"Get Smart" Did

If you check rottentomatoes.com, you'll find this movie hits a 53% on the T-Meter. For reasons unknown to mankind, The Incredible Hulk and Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay ranked higher.

I ask you; WHAT WERE THEY THINKING???

Clearly, the critics of this country are stressed. Clearly, they could use a good muffin.

Muffins play a key role in the movie, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Get Smart is sharp and clever, brilliantly casted, acted, and produced. The action sequences are just as good as any you'd see in a Bond flick; no bad green-screen here.

I've never seen the TV show. I wasn't around when it aired the first time, I didn't grow up with cable to see the reruns. I knew going in that shoe-phones were used, that Maxwell Smart maybe wasn't, well, smart, and that Agent 99 was the token girl. But I've been giggling over the previews since they first appeared - something about the falling beads just kills me. Probably my British heritage, which isn't strong enough to be amused by Mr. Bean but still finds sequences like this to be funny:

Siegfried: How do I know you're not from CONTROL?

Maxwell Smart: If I were from CONTROL, you'd already be dead.

Siegfried: If you were from CONTROL, YOU'D already be dead.

Maxwell Smart: Neither of us is dead, so I'm obviously not from CONTROL.

Shtarker: That actually makes sense.

Very tricky. And that's not even one of the best parts.

So the movie goes like this - Steve Carell is Maxwell Smart, an analyst who aspires to the ranks of agent-hood. As an analyst, he listens to hundreds of hours of Russian wiretaps (there's something so comforting about Russian villains). His superior, Alan Arkin, respects his abilities but won't promote him until there is a sudden, unexplained shortage of agents.

Smart is partnered with Agent 99, recently returned to CONTROL with a new face. The new face looks a lot like Anne Hathaway, which isn't a bad way to go. I've liked Anne Hathaway since the Princess Diaries, although Becoming Jane tested my loyalty. Her Agent 99 is pitch-perfect - smart, sexy, but is also in posession of a soul.

Together, they infiltrate the Russian organization set to nuke L.A. The KAOS tactics are perhaps a little...complicated...involving the Walt Disney Concert Hall, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, and the President (James Caan, how great is that).

(Side note: After the completion of the Concert Hall, people noticed that perhaps convex mirrors in L.A. was not the best idea. People were blinded by the glare of the reflection, and the residents in the apartment complex across the street found their homes reaching an interior temperature of 120 degrees. Engineers had to go back and put a non-reflective coating on the trouble spots.)

I haven't even mentioned Dwayne Johnson, as Agent 23, or Terrence Stamp as the caluculating Siegfried, or Nate Torrence and Masa Oka as the CONTROL engineers and keepers of the gadgetry. All top-notch.

Steve Carell is quickly shaping into one of Hollywood's top funnymen. Most people know him through The Office, but he demonstrated a surprising range roles such as Dan in Real Life. He brings that range to Maxwell, saving him from being a characature. Sure, he frequently misses it by "that much!", but there are times when he saves the day with style.

(Gilmore Girls note: if Shtarker the sidekick looks familiar to you, it's because he's Jesus, Miss Patty's date from the "Take the Deviled Eggs" episode. Somehow, I don't think Miss Patty would be much deterred by his Russian-terrorist past.)

Indiana Jones and the Extraordinary Frigidaire

In an age when many built fallout shelters in backyards, I'm sure the general population would have been heartened to find that their friendly family Frigidaire could function as a one-man shelter.

In fact, this particular Frigidaire can be tossed about by a nuclear blast and that latch will hold firm, even when it's impersonating a tumbleweed. Hey, it worked for Indiana Jones.

In Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the world has shifted since the last installment. The Nazis, what is left of them, are hiding out in Argentina. The war in Europe is over, but the Cold War rages on. The government is testing BOUSs (bombs of unusual size) in the desert. The fear of communism hangs in the air; not even Indy is exempt from suspicion. I mean, come on, nothing says pinko like a bullwhip, right? The fact that dear Dr. Jones is kidnapped by Colonel Doctor Irina Spalko does not help.

Let us pause in a moment of appreciation for Cate Blanchett's turn as Colonel Doctor Irina Spalko. The woman played Bob Dylan, after all, and now she's got Catherine Zeta-Jones's Chicago haircut, wubbled wubble-u's, and a desperate desire "to know!"

The quest for knowledge lays at the center of this installment; this is Indiana Jones meets post-modernism. The quest has less to do with religious relics than with the beyond, and the knowledge the beyond can offer.

Nobody asks how the beyond and the truth of items such as the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail affect each other. Apparently, it's possible to have a beyond (at least in Peru) and an Ark designed by the most high God coexisting. And let's not forget the Sankara stones in Temple of Doom's India. In the Jones universe, truth may be a regional sort of thing - but this is pulp fiction, and we smile and go along.

Karen Allen reprises her role as Marion Ravenwood, now Marion Williams. She's older now, but believable as a real woman - her lips aren't jet puffed and she's earned her smile lines. Her main responsibility is her son Mutt (Shia LaBeouf), a charmer of a boy who enjoys leather, his switchblade, and perfecting his ducktail.

I wrote earlier about Harrison Ford and his advancing age. All men should hope to take a punch so well at 65. Indy doesn't shy away from the fact that he's not as spry as he used to be, but he wears it well. There are times when he reminded me of James Garner in Murphy's Romance; older, but wiser for it.

I haven't said much about the plot, not that there's a need. The plot provides opportunities for swordfights on Amphibious Assault Vehicles, trips down perilous waterfalls of death, scantily-clad living dead, ants of unusual size, large snakes, not-quite-quicksand, firefights, caves, spider webs, double-crossings, hidden doors...

Everything we've come to expect from Indiana Jones. So sit back, enjoy, and pass the popcorn.

Prince Caspian and Queen Susan the Babe

Summer movies are upon us, thank goodness. I didn't know how many months of Drillbit Taylor-type offerings I could take.

We went to Caspian on Friday, very curious to see how the Narnia franchise fared. Danny and I read through the books last fall; Prince Caspian, though, has always been one of my favorites. Something about the kids tramping around the ruins and scavenging their own past always appealed to me.

This version of Prince Caspian kicks off with the birth of Caspian's cousin. Some cousins have lovely relationships, but Caspian's uncle, King Miraz, decides to off his nephew and the rest of the plot skitters on.

Some events are reworked from the original material. Susan's horn is blown much sooner than the book, bringing the Pevensie children back to Narnia a little sooner. This works, though. At the end of the day, we care more (or should care more) about the Pevensie children than we do about Caspian, so seeing them sooner is good. Delaying the introduction of the main characters usually backfires (original Superman being an example).

When we pick up with the Pevensies, we learn that Peter is having trouble adjusting to civilian life. Edmund is a changed kid, Susan needs to learn to deter unwelcome suitors, and Lucy is adorable, as always. All of the children are a bit older than in the book, but it still works.

Peter Dinklage is a most welcome Trumpkin; it is a credit to his acting abilities that he can act through that much rubber. Eddie Izzard (Nagel from Ocean's 12 and 13) voices Reepacheep perfectly.

There are quite a few battle scenes, some veering from the original material; all you needed was some fluff in the air and it looked rather Ridley Scott-ish at times.

All in all, the whole thing was delightful BUT for one little teensy development: Caspian and Susan have a "thing."

This "thing" mainly consists of a lot of eye contact between the two and a parting kiss, but as a Lewis purist, I'm rather against it. Danny and I argued over it on the drive home. On one hand, I can say, "yeah, if you're going to have Fetching Teen Susan and Hunky Teen Caspian, some flirting and whatnot is to be expected." BUT, there's a kind of beautiful innocence in Lewis's books. Danny pointed out that, in the books, the kids noted that once back in Narnia, the air made them change. They weren't British kids, they were Narnian kings and queens. Their old skills came back, enabling them to maneuver a battle better than your average 12-year-old. Susan, having been matured by the air quality, wouldn't have thought to have a "thing" with Caspian.

But I came back with the fact that Susan, even as an adult, is really kind of silly (I'm thinking Horse and His Boy) and it's her boy-crazy nature that contributes to events in The Last Battle.

Those are my feelings, but I strongly urge everyone to see this film; just beware the mushy parts.

Iron Man and a Shift of Focus

Until now this blog has been pretty focused on writing and whatnot. Well, writing is the slowest business on the planet. And when it's not slow, it's dragging you through Dante's sixth or seventh level because things aren't going the way you wanted them to.

I have a hard time writing riffs on the subject. Unless there's really something going on, it's not a lot of fun. I find little joy writing about editing.

I do find great joy in writing things like my opinion on Iron Man and my personal trepidation for the upcoming Indiana Jones and the Golden Wheelchair. And because it's my blog, I make the rules.

So, back to Iron Man. Director Jon Favreau set out to make "a kind of independent film-espionage thriller crossbreed; a Robert Altman-directed Superman (1978), with shades of Tom Clancy novels, James Bond films, RoboCop (1987), and Batman Begins (2005)." (Thank you imDb). And after watching, I can say, "yeah, pretty much." Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark knows how to take a shot, scotch in particular. He's a self-depricating, boozing, womanizing genius.

Of course he's a genuis, there aren't that many good-guy dummies in the stable of superheroes. Peter Parker is brilliant and fueled with a spider-bite, Bruce Wayne with money and anger. Clark Kent's motivations lay somewhere in another galaxy, which may be why the latest installment didn't go so well.

You get the feeling Tony Stark and Lex Luther could hit it off discussing single malts, which may be why his character feels so fresh. He starts out as more of an anti-hero, smacked between the eyes with a sudden realization of personal responsibility for the world.

Working at his side is the efficient Pepper Potts. Now, let's face it. Comic books have not been kind to women. We have the scrappy girl reporter (hello Lois Lane), who really should look before she leaps. We have the girl-next-door (Mary Jane), whose primary goal is to bug Peter about their relationship before finding something really tall to be dangling from. Rachel Dawes, I think, is in the same category as Lois Lane; same attitude, different job description.

Then there's Pepper Potts. Pepper is the Girl Friday, and she can get it done. Remove paramours? Check. Steal files? Check. Insert Arc Reactor into Tony's chest? Double check, and all in stilleto heals. Mary Jane, eat your heart out.

Characters aside, the plot works as well as a comic book movie plot needs to. Tony introduces "ultimate war weapon" and is captured by terrorists shortly after. Tough luck. They tell him to replicate aforementioned weapon for them (thus enabling world domination); Tony agrees and begins work on a different project. Because of the language barrier and possibly too much vodka, the terrorists do not catch on until Tony has finished his wearable bat-mobile.

Tony's feet barely touch ground on the US of A before he makes it clear that he's had a change of heart in the realm of his business practices. Events unfold; his business partner, Obadiah Stane, does not entirely approve of Tony's decisions, Tony makes a shinier Iron Man suit, flies, saves the world, and occasionally utters some Transformers-esque dialogue. All in a few day's work, all enjoyable. And who knew Jeff Bridges had such a good looking head?

In other news, Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Holy Compression Stockings looms ever nearer. I mean, look at this guy.

Poor Indy. He's saved the world and it's best antiques so many times - and he looks exhausted. Yet here they're trotting out the latest installment of the Jones series. And there aren't even any Nazis!

To give credit, though, the supporting roles are packed with great names. When is Cate Blanchett not pitch-perfect? And Marion is back, presumably to find out why Indy hasn't returned her calls for a while.

Yes, I'll probably see it. Just never said I wasn't going to mock it.