The Amazing Amazing Spider-Man

Yesterday, to escape the heat and boredom, Kriss and I went to see "The Amazing Spider-Man", along with many, many other people. In fact, I think the matinee we attended was completely sold out. I'm very thankful for online ticketed seating at the Megaplex. One day I should write up a comparison of various local theaters' pros and cons. The Megaplex has many good things going for it, but I was disappointed once again, to have ads pop up after the coming-soon trailers. Oh well.

I went into this movie with pretty high expectations. My three teenage sons saw it the day before and came home raving about it, so I knew it would at least be good, if not great. I also read a couple of reviews online that prepared me for a very enjoyable afternoon at the movies. I was not disappointed.

Andrew Garfield is Spiderman. He's so good, I feel sorry for Toby McGuire. The inevitable comparisons won't come out in Toby's favor, and I'm sure he gave it his all, but Garfield is just better. Maybe some of that has to do with the writing, as well as directing, but Garfield has a more accurate look, more believable emotion, and at 29, he may be too old to be playing a teenager, but he is built small enough to pull it off, especially since he seems to remember very well what it feels like to be the sulky, moody, funny, goofy teenage boy. There were moments in the movie when he reminded me so much of my two older sons, who are close to the age Peter Parker is in this movie. He's cute, he's funny, he's brave and stupid and emotional and angry and resistant to anyone's help or comfort-- just like a teenage boy. It was very believable. I forgot I was watching Andrew Garfield, which is the hallmark of great acting. I loved seeing Spidey in full costume, talking on his cell phone and carrying a backpack-- excellent, subtle visual tidbits that enhance the realism of the story.

Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey does a fine job, she has an onscreen radiance, and she's cute in a normal girl kind of way. I think, though, that they overdid the short skirt and long socks look, personally. Whoever designed her costumes must have thought she was a very fashionable nerd-girl, which was a tad distracting. I doubt she could wear something bearing any of her legs in the laboratory atmosphere of Oscorp (where the character works) in the real world-- even with the lab coat. She is very good, though, and their chemistry works. And she's much better than Kirsten Dunst was as Mary Jane in the first three movies. (I apologize for continually bringing those up, but it's hard not to...)

I loved Dennis Leary as Gwen's father and the police captain, too. He's always solid. And The Lizard is a great "first" nemesis for Spidey, and I appreciated that the bulk of the film was spent with Peter's story, and the fights and drama with The Lizard neither took too long nor took over the movie.

The best scene stealing moment had to be Stan Lee's cameo-- easily the best one he's ever done. I laughed aloud, and normally I roll my eyes a bit when he does his thing. Hilarious and underplayed. I would be remiss if I didn't mention how perfect Martin Sheen was as Uncle Ben and Sally Field is always good, and her Aunt Mae was loving, stern and spot-on. I enjoyed C. Thomas Howell in a bit part, as well.

The special effects are truly AMAZING! I got lost in the movie as much because of the seamless CGI as for the story and acting. It really is nothing short of astounding that movies have come this far in just 10 years since the release of the first "Spider-Man"

It's a very clean film, which is great-- it makes it so much more accessible to people with standards. There's some kissing, and Garfield has his shirt off here and there, but it isn't gratuitous or sexual. There's no language and even the violence is comic-book style and at a level such that I think even my 10-year-old daughter could see the movie. (Not that that should set the standard for other parents, but in my mind, it's all good, clean fun.) It may feel too soon for this "reboot", but I'm glad the filmmakers didn't listen to detractors, and went ahead with the project. It's well worth your summer spending money to go check it out.

For some really fantastic photos from both the set and the film, as well as some of the publicity stuff, click this link to go to a blog with a whole bunch all in one place. Enjoy!

Dan Wells Book Signing

As I get closer to 40, I'm trying to come out of my little cocoon of social anxiety and start doing things I don't normally do. This morning in a meeting with my boss, I asked him if he'd ever been to a book signing and in the ensuing conversation (he hadn't) mentioned that there was one tonight that I really wanted to go to celebrating the release of Dan Wells' new book, but because lately time off has become a rarity (the library is a circus from June-August) I hadn't asked. Also, because there was this little part of me that thought it might just chicken out and not go. He said, "Oh you should go. You can get off early, how does 6:30 sound?" Um... well... oookayy... I agreed, excited and trepedatious (5 point word, kids) and scrambling to find someone to go with me. (And by the way, I think I have the coolest boss EVER... just sayin'.)


First, I called my dad (the formerly famous film critic) and asked him what a book signing was like, since he's attended them on both sides of the table. He gave me the basics and said he would have gone with me had he known sooner. Dang. Then I called my sister, who is also a Dan Wells fan, but she also couldn't go. Husband? Meh... he would have gone, but I would have had to a. find a sitter for youngest child because her brothers would be at a service project and b. make him miss said service project, which he was supposed to attend. So I let him off the hook and figured I could count on my second son-- he's a reader, I thought, and he'd probably rather go with me for a couple of hours than move dirt with a shovel. No go. Stinker. I asked my friend Dannie. Nope. I called my friend Becky, with just minutes until I would be leaving, and though she's normally game for spontaneous fun (especially social time), she couldn't come either. 


What's a social-anxiety-prone girl to do?


So I ran out to my car, changed my clothes (yep, in the minivan. I'm tricky like that) and raced to Trolley Square. Every light from Tooele to Lakepoint was out. Super. Still, I made pretty good time and got there only about 15 minutes late.


Something you may or may not know about me: I loathe being late. It makes me so tense I can't stand it. So of course, I parked, left my van and went the wrong way, looking for Weller Book Works. It took me about 5 minutes to find a map and face the right direction and find the shop. Thankfully, Dan hadn't started his bit. In fact, I don't think I missed anything all that important. I'm so glad they had a guest from Wasatch Paranormal presenting first. Though, since Wells' new book isn't about ghosts, I'm not sure what the relationship was... maybe I missed that in the introduction portion of the evening, but I was happy to have not missed Dan's book reading. And while the guy was talking, my stomach flipped as I looked across the room and saw another of my very favorite authors, Brandon Sanderson, walk in! I knew he was going to be there, but it was so cool to see him in person. I'm not a crazy-stalker-fangirl, I just really like his writing. 


I took a seat (at the back, of course, luckily next to a display of the new book: "The Hollow City"), snatched one and settled in to listen. Once the paranormal guy was through, Dan took the floor, told us about the book, setting up the scene he would be reading. Only he didn't just read, he and a pair of actors (I assume) did sort of a readers theater of the scene. The scene was entertaining and interesting and did its job: made me want to read the book! These are my not-very-good pictures of Dan and Mary (?) during the reading:

After some Q&A, Dan invited us to have a treat and then line up to have our books signed (I so should have taken a picture of the goodies table... dangit.) They had donuts with bacon on top, peach rings (a reference to something in the book) and little cups with candy "pills" in them (the book is partly about mental illness). The bookstore man stood up and told us to purchase our books up front, then line up for autographs. I cheated a little. I took my un-paid-for book and zipped straight to the signatures line, shimmying in behind a rather large man. I've always been very good at getting to the front of the line fast-- partly because I'm not patient, and though socially anxious, I know how to be assertive (or aggressive) when called for. I was third in line. THIRD!! Yahoo! 


Being close to the front made me feel better about bringing all 4 of Dan's books I already owned, as well as the not-yet-paid-for new one to the table. I asked him to personalize them to Stephanie and he asked if I was the Tooele blogger. Gah! So cool that he's able to remember stuff like that! I was tickled, and we chatted a little as he signed my books- his notes are all funny (I know, he probably does the same phrases in all the books, but I love what he wrote), see the pictures. Then I shook his hand and walked away. Unlike the first guy in line who tried to have a long-ish conversation with him. Authors must both look forward to and dread book signings. :)

I made a beeline for the registers, paid for my book and turned around to see Brandon Sanderson behind me talking with some lady. I waited, trying not to hover, for them to wrap it up so I could meet him quickly before I left, but it was taking too long, so I turned and looked straight at him so he would know I was waiting to chat with him. He stopped talking and glanced at me, like, "yes?" so I said I just needed to shake his hand before I left and that I was a fan and would he be doing a big thing at Weller's for the last WOT book? He said probably, but even sooner, this fall, he'll be releasing a novella and would likely have an event. Yesss!! So excited about that... so I walked away and they resumed their conversation. I felt kind of bad about interrupting, but I like to get in, get done and get out, so I didn't really want to linger. 


I really wanted to have a photo of myself with both of the authors, but I chickened out. Maybe next time. :)


To wrap up this very long blog entry (thanks for sticking with me):

1. I faced my social anxiety and my habitual homebodiness and did something I've never done before tonight. Alone. Yes. I feel good about that.
2. I met and shook hands with two of my top 5 favorite authors. Not sure when I will have that chance again. I do wish I had gone to the Utah Writers conference with my friend Laura earlier this year, as both guys did workshops there, but this is almost as good. :)
3. I made it home before dark, and had such a good time, I think I would do something like this again. 

Now, it's time to settle in and start "The Hollow City". If you're interested, here is my book review to the first Dan Wells book I ever read, which I randomly chose off the library shelf, about a year ago. If you haven't heard of him or read his stuff, I highly recommend you start  there. Or with "The Hollow City", which is unrelated to his other books and stands alone.

Oh, and one more thing. If you happen to be interested, here's Dan Wells' schedule for the remainder of his book tour. He's very nice and personable and you'd better meet him while you can, because he's moving to Germany when the tour is over. 

Book Review: Partials by Dan Wells

Dystopian fiction for teens has become so popular, it seems like everything now that doesn't have vampires or werewolves in it is set in a dystopian future. Dystopia is defined here as:

 DYSTOPIA (dystopic): An imagined universe (usually the future of our own world) in which a worst-case scenario is explored; the opposite of utopia. Dystopic stories have been especially influential on postmodernism, as writers and film-makers imagine the effects of various aspects of our current postmodern condition, for example, the world's take-over by machines (The Matrix); the social effects of the hyperreal (Neuromancer); a society completely run by media commercialism (The Running Man); the triumph of late capitalism (Blade Runner); bureaucratic control run amok (Brazil, 1984); and so on. 

Obvious examples include Suzanne Collins' wildly popular "Hunger Games" and the first dystopian series I remember reading, "The Shadow Children" by Margaret Peterson Haddix. Set in a future world where people are only allowed to have two children, the books are the story of secret third children. Other notable titles are "House of the Scorpion" by Nancy Farmer (a superb book, I don't want to tell you about it-- it's one you should just discover as you go. and "The Giver" by Lois Lowry, a disturbing story of a future where people are given community assignments and one young boy is assigned to apprentice with the community's Giver, who alone feels all the pain and joy of life. I'm sure there are many more.

Tonight I finished first in a new dystopian series cryptically titled "Partials"by Dan Wells. Wells is a genius at taking something popular and putting his unique stamp on it, twisting familiar themes (murder, mystery, etc.) into something completely unique. I'm a huge fan of his John Cleaver books, "I am Not a Serial Killer", "I Don't Want to Kill You" and "Mr. Monster", which are about a 14-year old boy who assists his mother in her morgue and is obsessed with serial killers. Recognizing his own sociopathic personality traits, he creates a rigid set of rules for himself to avoid ever actually becoming a killer. When people in town start dying, naturally he can't stop himself from investigating. There's mystery, science fiction and genuine characterization in these books that drew me in immediately. I like them better every time I go back and read them again. They have been compared to the "Dexter" series, but are so much better executed and unique that they stand out on their own.

Not sure what to expect from a Dan Wells YA title, though the cover is compelling and the title gives away very little (like a good movie trailer), I picked up "Partials" and started out. I admit, I was a little nervous. I don't like to read a lot of what's trendy, and since dystopian fiction is everywhere, I hesitated with this one. Also, I haven't read a lot of crossover authors and enjoyed both their adult and YA books. I really wanted to like it, and I was afraid I might not. Silly librarian. 

I haven't been doing as much reading lately as I used to (a serious repercussion of working at a library-- go figure) so I took a little time getting into the story, but once it gets going it is compelling and exciting and the characters are each unique and likeable. I don't want to spoil anything here, so I don't dare say too much. There was one twist-type-thing that I guessed right away (surprisingly-- usually I'm way off), and I was glad to see that Dan isn't afraid to kill off characters (that's not a spoiler, is it?); the death of characters (like my beloved Agent Colson in The Avengers- boo hoo!! Oh... if you haven't seen that movie, sorry for the spoiler AND what-- are you living in a cave? Get out more, people!!) can lend a feeling of authenticity to a story, where everyone always surviving becomes increasingly unrealistic as a story progresses. The  book is also intelligent-- methinks Dan's a smarty-pants. Sometimes I had to go back and skim over a previously read paragraph to make sure I was getting all the medical and sciency stuff. 

I did like the book, I will read the next in the series when it comes out, but I have to say it's not as good as the John Cleaver stuff. Though it really isn't fair to compare them, one being blood-and-guts-for-grownups and one being dystopian-future-for-teens. 

On a related note, I am heartbroken that I won't be going to Dan's big huzzah-huzzah book signing tomorrow night at Sam Weller's books in SLC for the release of his new novel, "The Hollow City", which sounds like a psychological thrill ride, and I can't wait to get my hands on it. I will be working. Yep. The evening before the 4th of July, I will be at my post at the library, a mere 25 minutes away, probably bored out of my mind and frustrated that I won't get to met Dan (and maybe Brandon Sanderson, be still my WOT-fan heart) and get my books signed (or as Dan cleverly puts it, "defaced"). 

If I can finagle it, I will go down to Orem for the signing at Barnes & Noble on July 23rd, but it isn't looking good. For one thing, crowds make me nervous; new experiences make me nervous (and I've never been to a book signing. As my sister eloquently put it-- "will it be full of weirdos?" And what about the book? Do I pre-order it? Do I buy one and bring it with me? Will he think I'm a crazy fan-middle-aged-girl if I bring my sack of already purchased Dan Wells books? Will there be a massive line?? Should I go early?); driving to Utah County makes me nervous (I've lived in Tooele County for 15 years-- I'm spoiled on roads that don't feel like I'm playing the live-action version of Burnout With Road Construction); parking in crowded places makes me nervous; but I digress. 

If you're already a fan of dystopian fiction at all, and even if you're not, you will probably like "Partials". The story is compelling and the end is very satisfying, while leaving the reader intrigued about where the characters will go next. Check it out!

Wasting Time on DVD Duds

Last night was a DVD Double Feature for my hubby and me as we took a look at "The Woman in Black" and "This Means War", both new releases on loan from the library. 

"The Woman in Black" is a supposedly scary movie starring Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) as a widower and father of a young boy who is sent by his law firm to a creepy old mansion on a piece of land that is inaccessible when the tide is in (but could be by boat? Not sure... they didn't really use that piece of the story like they could have). The grounds around the place are marshy, damp, foggy and very eerie. The town is haunted by a ghost (a woman in black, no less) who kills their children. Yet they all still live there. Knowing their children could die at any time, they all still live there. Go figure.


I got a little mixed up with the story of the ghost and her motivation, probably because I don't really "do" scary movies and I was busying myself with other things while watching. (A little peek into my psyche: normally I put on a scary movie and don't make it through the first half-hour. Or I put it on for other people to watch and then I leave after the first little bit, later asking them to tell me what happened. This time I stuck it out, but since my son and husband kept commenting throughout, it wasn't as intense as it could have been.)


I did figure it out, though, later, when I sat down to scream every time something appeared where it shouldn't. I screamed quite a few times. It's what I do. My son kept saying "Mother!" in an exasperated voice. Which made me laugh. I tried to hold it in, but I startle easily. Even my husband startles me regularly without trying, so this movie? Yep. Brought out the screams.


It's not really as creepy, spooky or scary a movie as it tries to be, but it does have a lot of startle moments. By the end, though, at the climactic scene where Radcliffe is trying to help the ghost leave and she freaks out and flies at him a couple of times screaming (oh, sorry, was that a spoiler?), I wasn't screaming anymore. I was just curious about him and why he looked more like Kristen Stewart than a man who was being attacked by a ghost! 

Radcliffe is only an okay actor. I never really felt sold on him as Harry Potter, though by the last two of those films I felt he was improving. However, in this movie he just looks serious. And tiny. The man is very small, and unfortunately his facial expressions aren't very convincing. When he has any. We kept saying how this man must not have any fear! He was in this house, alone, all night, and scary things kept happening and he kept seeing things (a hand on a window pane, a rocking chair moving by itself, etc.) and he would go investigate and then just go on with looking through the owners' papers. It was odd. He hardly said a word. Maybe that was done in an effort to create a certain atmosphere. It didn't work. 


Oh, but the creepy dolls? Totally freaky. especially the clown one. *shudder* 

The second movie, "This Means War" is a completely different story. It's the story of two lifelong best friends who just happen to be business partners. Their business? Assasins. Yep. Just like that we've entered a fantasy land. They both just happen to meet and fall for the same girl, played by Reese Witherspoon. She shines, as always, onscreen. She's funny, adorable and authentic, mostly. Her one bad bad bad character choice? Having Chelsea Handler as her best friend. Really. A girl this cute and likeable has a best friend who is trashy, rude, crude, vulgar and... wait. I'm just describing Chelsea Handler. She was (obviously) typecast as a version of herself, and she is just plain awful. She can't act, and her character was so over the top as to be completely unbelievable. Again, why Witherspoon's character would even spend time with her is beyond me. 


Chris Pine is fine as FDR (stupid choice of name, though) and Tom Hardy is okay as the other guy vying for her interest, Tuck. I had high hopes for this movie, as I like Pine a lot (Star Trek, anyone?) and I thought it could be funny. It wasn't. I did laugh about 4 times at various things, but overall it was just stupid. The side story about a Russian spy coming to kill the boys? Utterly predictable. For that matter, the entire last 40 minutes was utterly predictable. Every single thing. Annoyingly, utterly predictable. No surprises and the end wasn't even fulfilling, because by then, who cares? 


I also was disappointed that there was so much sexuality-- I mean, not that it was unexpected, but I really hoped they wouldn't go there-- especially after the guys promised each other not to. So, no one's word means anything anymore? Yep. 


The real question is why I sat through it and didn't walk away. I don't have a good answer. We all make bad decisions, sometimes. Watching "This Means War" was one of mine.

Monday with the Men in Black

Most summer blockbuster hopefuls are what we call "popcorn" movies-- fun, action-filled, witty and just entertaining. You can't think too much about the plots; generally the scripts aren't Oscar-worthy. The stories are simple, the action and special effects are incredible and if you're lucky, you get Will Smith in the bargain! 


This summer has delivered one of the best movies ever: "The Avengers", followed by the lackluster-reviewed "Dark Shadows" (which I've opted to wait to see until the DVD release), and "Battleship", which I won't probably see... uh... ever. There are others, and will be even more in the next few weeks, including the much-anticipated (at my house) "The Amazing Spiderman" and "The Dark Knight Rises". 

Tonight, my husband and I braved the local theater on a Monday night to see "Men in Black 3". As usual, we sat on the back row, half of which was occupied by a group of teenagers, which made me nervous. Until the trailers began and a group of four adults and about ten kids under the age of 10 walked in and sat in the row right in front of us. This would have been fine, except that there was the constant stream of children needing the bathroom and whose booster seats kept clattering to the floor and who talked and giggled and gasped loudly throughout the movie. The experience wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but it was interesting how the kids (and the teenagers, one of whom, unfortunately, pulled out her cell phone during the movie) just acted like they were at home on their sofa. Sigh. But that's a whole 'nuther blog topic...


As for the movie itself, I really enjoyed it. Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith are still a funny team; the aliens are entertaining and surprising, though as my husband pointed out once before, everything to do with outer space and aliens is always coated in drippy, gloppy slime, which is kind of nasty... The story involves time travel, which never quite makes sense, but is still fun to watch, and a spot-on Tommy Lee Jones impression by the much younger Josh Brolin. He's great-- I don't know that I've ever seen him in anything, though I've heard his name a lot, so it was fun to see him doing something so entertaining.

Smith's quips and one-liners are funny, as expected, and the story takes a sweet turn, while the filmmakers obviously had a great time creating a very colorful 1969, including the launching of the Appollo 11 rocket and other fast-paced historical scenery. It's creative, funny, and I would recommend it to most teen and adult audiences. There are a few s-words dropped here and there, and of course, lots of violence and a scattering of scantily-clad women (this is the new standard for PG-13, right?). I liked it. My husband liked it-- he even managed to stay awake the whole time. That's saying something...

Update: I totally forgot to mention my favorite line from the movie. Will Smith: "I put on my pants!" LOL! I laughed louder than any of the other 20 people in the theater. And not just because I inherited my dad's loud laugh. 

Oh. My. Awesome. I am Sherlocked.

My sons and I finished the second series of BBC's amazing "Sherlock" tonight and the final episode was, in a word, brilliant!! So good. I can't find words to describe the awesomeness. Except... awesome.

Moriarty returns as Sherlock's nemesis and taunting villain, with new tricks up his sleeve, oozing smarmy superiority and intelligence and wickedness-- he's one we love to hate. Oooh and we do despise him.

This series (season) continues the subtle, very effective character development, as Sherlock begins to recognize and act on the value of his few real relationships, in his own way. He has moments where he's almost human, but he is still very much the same old Sherlock, deducing, assessing, noticing and comprehending things beyond we simple thinkers, taking jabs and insulting people without thinking. He seems to be learning to follow John's good instincts, though, sometimes. Now and then...

As with the first season, I love the various usage of modern technology, especially the texting. It's rather amusing that Moriarty (along with other characters) sends Holmes text messages, and that Watson's blog is so much more popular than Holmes' is also funny. I don't know what Sherlock Holmes purists think of this show, I'm not one, but I love that it's modern while still staying true to the essence of the characters, and the spirit of the mysteries.

Also, as with the first season, my favorite character is John Watson. I love Mrs. Hudson (sometimes she threatens to steal scenes-- wonderful stuff) and I get a kick out of Mycroft and LeStrade and Molly-- her interactions with Sherlock are surprising in how insensitive and even cruel he can be, but quite funny at the same time. And of course, Benedict Cumberbatch (whose name is just fun to say) is also perfectly cast, and incredibly fun to watch. But my favorite is Watson, who (as I think I said in this blog before) is played perfectly by Martin Freeman. His long-suffering, bemused, frustrated, and sometimes deeply emotional expressions are so good that I forget completely that I'm watching an actor. He is very, very good, and I can't wait for "The Hobbit" later this year.

My favorite scene, I think, was Sherlock wearing nothing but a sheet as he's called to Buckingham Palace. He and John are shown sitting on a sofa and they both burst out laughing, demonstrating that they've developed a true friendship, in spite of Holmes' biting comments and prickly nature. I love the chemistry of the two leads-- not romantic chemistry, though, which is good. It's continually humorous that the "public" thinks the two are a couple, but I like that the writing and the acting very effectively demonstrates how a good business partnership/friendship and brotherly affection is possible without the requirement of a romantic relationship. It's very good stuff.

Sometimes the dialogue goes so fast I miss things- the accents don't help, but I don't care. It's just a good reason to go back in the future and watch them again. And I will. I will also bemoan the fact that Series 3 will probably not be available to watch for about a year. Especially with the doozy of a cliffhanger at the end of the third episode.

Book Review: Dick and Jane and Vampires

I really find "Dick and Jane and Vampires!" by Laura Marchesani, a surprisingly entertaining little book.


It's hard to explain why I like this book. Every time I check it in or out for someone at the library, it makes me smile. When I flip through it and see the vampire pop up in various poses with the classic early reader characters of "Dick and Jane" it just makes me chuckle. Maybe I have a morbid sense of humor. Maybe it's the author's treatment of the scenes of the children and the parents and the vampire. I just know I get a real kick out of this book and its simple, amusing, tongue-in-cheek humor. I love how gentle it feels, just like the original books, but the sly satire is perfect.

It probably helps that I actually DID read Dick and Jane books when I was learning to read. I must have gone to some ancient elementary schools, because I think I'm too young to really have "grown up" on Dick and Jane, but maybe I was learning to read during the waning years of these classic Basal Readers, because I do remember reading them.


And, like many of you, I've had about enough of the shelf-filling teenage-girl vampire "romance" books. I have very little interest in reading most of the current ocean of vampire and werewolf and ghost books. I don't even really care to read things like "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". I like books about such things, but I feel like if it's been overdone, it's probably not being done well.


"Dick and Jane and Vampires", though, is done well. It's definitely a funny take on the vampire infestation in our public libraries. If it's available in yours, then you have a pretty cool library. Go check it out.

Avengers Awesomeness!

Oh, you have to read this. You just have to! Probably the best celebrity-involved story I've read in ages! Thanks to Jen at epbot for posting this or I wouldn't have seen it! I teared up a little reading it. I only wish I could have been there... instead of the kid... but still-- so very awesome. I'll pretend I'm not green-as-Hulk with envy!

Here's the link to the article. For the record: Chris Evans and Tom Hiddleston are AWESOME!!!

Les Miserables, Hollywood Style

When I was in High School, I discovered two amazing Broadway musicals: "Phantom of the Opera" and "Les Miserables". Of the two, my hands-down favorite was "Les Miserables", and I alternated listening to the Broadway and London versions over the years, enjoying the slight differences, feeling moved by the amazing score, and emotionally connecting, first with Eponine and Cosette and later with Fantine and ValJean. 


I even went to see the touring show when I was a senior in HS, and though our seats were terrible I remember a few tidbits from the show clearly, and it has always been one of my most loved, most favorite Broadway productions to listen to or watch. I blogged here about the amazing concert version, which I LOVED. 

In that link (in the last paragraph), I think I communicated my complete and utter loathing of the filmed "Phantom of the Opera" featuring Gerard Butler in the title role. I found it atrocious and dull and offensively poorly sung and acted and I didn't get it at all. I had never seen the show onstage, so I'm not sure if it's just that the show is a bit campy and over-the-top, but I had always loved the music, so this adaptation was frustrating to me. I wish that when they make movie versions of Broadway shows that they would seriously consider casting stars of the stage instead of only using big(ish) named Hollywood types. 


I have to say, though, my loathing of Butler's performance is second only to the mockery of modern theater that is the filmed version of "Jekyll and Hyde" starring... it's bad... you sure you want to know? Okay... David Hasselhoff. Yep. I warned you. It was uncomfortable to watch... and that's putting it mildly. I understand he did play the part on the stage, but that doesn't make him a Broadway-caliber singer. It just makes him a gimmick.

SO, when I heard they were making a full-on movie-film version of "Les Miserables", I was a bit nervous, to say the least. It's only the best, most popular, most beloved musical of all time. Let's not muck it up, okay? I decided to reserve judgment... to wait before I decided it would be awful... Then I heard about the casting. Here's the list of principals from IMDB (don't ask me why they are in this order):

	Sacha Baron Cohen	...	Thénardier
	Helena Bonham Carter	...	Madame Thénardier
	Anne Hathaway	...	Fantine
	Amanda Seyfried	...	Cosette
	Hugh Jackman	...	Jean Valjean
	Russell Crowe	...	Javert

Hugh Jackman? Okay. He's pretty enough to at least make watching pleasant, and he's a dang good actor and he's done a large handful of Broadway shows, so I assume he really can sing. And I liked Amanda Seyfried in "Mamma Mia", so there's promise there. But Anne Hathaway? Hmm... Russell Crowe? Hmm... I don't know. Plus, would the filmmakers give the story the grit and truth it deserves, without overdoing the drama-- bleeding into melodrama? I was nervous, but still mildly interested. Until I saw this: 

First of all, Anne Hathaway manages to inject such pure, raw emotion into the song, that I pretty much stopped thinking and was sucked into the story immediately. Probably because I know the story so well... it might not have that effect on you if you aren't familiar with it. That also might mean you've grown up under a rock and it's time to come out into the sunshine and get to know your world... 

My only complaint (and I know, I complain too much) is that she is feigning that British accent again. These are French characters being played by Americans, Australians and Brits (and probably other nationalities, too). Would it matter much for her to just use her own American accent? Maybe. Anyway, I've not been impressed by her accent in the past ("Becoming Jane"), but maybe it's improved and won't be distracting this time.

Secondly, Jackman looks great--as usual, even in "I've been imprisoned for 19 years" beard and makeup, he looks perfect. Crowe looks great, and the scenery, costumes and even the grime looks authentic and "period-accurate". 


Mostly, though, I am comforted in my expectations after hearing Hathaway sing most of the first act's show stopping song, and carrying it off well. 


I do hope that Helena Bonham Carter has had some voice lessons, though, because as Mrs. Lovett in "Sweeney Todd", she was all breathy wimpyness. Cohen, however, was quite good in "Todd", so casting him as Thenardier might just be genius. Fingers crossed...

At the Movies

Out here in small-town Utah, we have no giant megaplex-style movie houses. We do, however, have a drive-in, an old two-screen theater and the slightly more modern (I think it was built in the 90's), recently upgraded Cinema 6. Here's what's showing this weekend. I wonder if the movie in theater 6 is a local production...