It just didn’t make sense.

Now, I know it’s been awhile since I read the books, and I read them quickly and close together so what happened when has blurred a bit in my mind.  So, I thought while watching it that maybe I had just mixed things up too much, or left too many pieces out.  But my dh, who never read beyond the first couple books, and my son, who has re-read the series several times, also agreed that the movie was like watching several delightful mini-stories (almost trailers) nested together with very little to get them on the same string.

Not Ms. Rowling’s fault, of course, and probably not really the fault of the directors, either.  It’s just difficult to take a book of that size and content and slice it down to even a two and a half hour movie.

So here’s what I’d like to know:  What did Ms. Rowling think of it?  Did she resign herself to watching her books become mutilated shadows of themselves upon being made into movies?  I’ve heard that’s the aproach many authors adhere to.  Is she highly pragmatic and grateful that the core sense of the book was retained in some small way?  That would be sensible, but how many of us are really all that sensible?  Or did she simply take the money and run the other way?  This might be the wisest course, but I think might prove the most difficult.  After all, she doesn’t live in a vacuum and would hear at least some tidbits of how the movie had done.

I’ll probably never have my curiousity satisfied as I haven’t any first-name friends of Ms. Rowlings at my disposal, but perhaps someday I’ll bump into her and all-unknowing (because I doubt I’d recognize her on the street) ask her what she thinks of the latest Harry Potter movie.

I’m afraid my only gratitude on leaving the theater after the movie Twilight was that I’d only lost two hours, and that the movie was so bad it crossed over from dull into laughable.  There were lots of little problems with the flick, such as the tangent story lines which only made sense if you’d read the book, the ridiculous ‘flying’ moments when you could almost hear the gears whirring, and the cuts from the mc’s life which left her much less likeable.

But the great strength of the book was the intense if a bit dangerous attraction between Bella and Edward.  Likewise the great flop of the movie was the total lack of chemistry between the actors playing Bella and Edward.  If there was one truth absolutely essential to the book it was the crackling energy of these two and the spiraling possibilities around them as their relationship developed.  In the movie, you’d find more sexual tension in a pair of poseable dolls.  It was sad, really, because if the movie had gotten that right, I might have forgiven it everything else.

First, the music, by Klaus Badelt, which was really lovely.  I wasn’t surprised to find he’s had a hand in some other scores I like, too.  The overall effects were pretty good, though once in awhile the impression of watching something computer generated bled through.  The futuristic world of a space-faring Manhatten was a bit cardboard, but Alex doesn’t stay there long.  The culture of the Eloi is quite a departure from the book, but was well done, and had some rich scenes with good use of creative images.  The Morlocks are nasty looking and suitably impressive in their abilities.  Still, I had to keep my suspension of disbelief carefully intact to avoid wondering how exactly the mechanics of their society worked, such as the sudden opening of pits in the ground which were then closed off with no sign of having existed.  It also seemed a bit far-fetched that they could have evolved so far, while at the same time keeping the precarious balance of their existence intact.  In short, their development seemed entirely to linear, and without any bumps or branches giving it an evolutionary spin.

The film’s climax is reasonably satisfying, though once again, not remotely similar to the book.  One does wonder about those other Morlock colonies out there, and I won’t get into the complexities or potential time paradox of Alex going into the future, seeing what is there, then going into the past to change the future he’s just seen.  I’ll leave that potential puzzle to steadier heads than mine and rate the film as watchable, even enjoyable, so long as you’re not planning to turn in a book report based on what you’ve seen.

Some of it is the difference in times, or generation(s) gap, but some of it is just societal expectations.  That you will dress so, go to these schools, marry just such a man, and live out a life of strict protocol written out in a secret book only read by those who ‘belong’.

Proof positive that one doesn’t have to search through National Geographic or get lost in the Amazon to uncover a wholly different culture of alien inspiration.

But setting all of that aside, I’ll get down to the review.

The movie was fairly fast-paced for a literary flick, and they did a fairly good job of showing both sides of the woman-at-home choice while remaining true to the ideals of the lead character.  There was some content that would suggest you take the PG-13 rating to heart, or be prepared to answer plenty of questions.  Nothing graphic, just societal issues usually kept to the adult crowd.

The acting was quite good.  I especially enjoyed the performance turned in by Kirsten Dunst.  It was the first time I’ve seen her in a spiteful role, and she carried it off well.  Another strength of the movie were all the interesting supporting characters, including Ginnifer Goodwin.  The only flaw in her character was that supposedly the girl that Goodwin played wasn’t pretty and couldn’t get a date, which wasn’t terribly believable.  However, given the family-based, power playing girls around her, it could have been something as simple as her wearing the wrong socks.

It was enjoyable enough that I felt my time was not wasted, and that coupled with the insights into the ivy-inspired 50′s made the show one I’m glad I’ve seen.  It was not, however, a show I could recomend to all and sundry, as it would not be to the pallette of many and had the occasional irksome inconsistency or plot transparency.  Still, not a bad show.

Next, starring Nicolas Cage, Julianne Moore, and Jessica Biel,is the story of a man cursed with the ability to see two minutes into his own future, and the national security crisis that hinges on his ability to use his gift effectively.

I found it fascinating, provocative, riveting.  The ‘sappy’ lines were delivered well, the action sequences made good use of timing to keep the tension up, the creative concept (by Philip Dick) was well thought out and well executed.  Some will protest the twist ending, but it worked for me.

A thoroughly enjoyable show–I give it two thumbs up.

I personally would rather watch Firefly (I have the complete set) over Star Wars, but I might choose Star Wars over Serenity.

Of course, I refer only to the original three Star Wars shows.  I will watch the later prequels only when belted into an airline seat or waiting for long hours in a hospital.

I know, more brave than brainy.

The movie features a penguin who can’t (really really can’t) sing.  But he’s got great foot work and a sweet personality . . . which is getting him nowhere in life.  Mumble (aka Happy Feet) is a bit of a maverick throughout his school days, and takes off on his own in what would correspond to his teen years.  He makes some friends, has adventures, etc., and finally attains the acceptance (and girl) he craves.

Pros:  The penguins manage to be graceful, sassy, and cute all at once.  The music is upbeat and catchy–we had kids dancing in the isles–and the idea of a heart song is lovely.  It’s got some funny lines the older crowd will appreciate, and the eco message stops just short of ruining the show.  The plucky personality of Mumble is enjoyable, and parents everywhere will relate to the penguin parents’ consternation at finding their son not picking up the school curriculum.

Cons:  It ran about a half hour too long for the kids.  The writers also seem to have shoved together two story lines without achieving a great merge.  The first story is that of Mumble, the misfit penguin and his desire to win the heart of Gloria.  The second story is an older-audience theme of exploration, where Mumble goes in search of ‘aliens’ in hope of finding out where the fish have gone.  The second story doesn’t get going until well into the movie, and the explanation that the penguins are starving doesn’t jive given that they seem carefree and content.  The solution to the fish problem is a little trite, but not too heavy-handed for the movie to work.

Overall:  A good film, maybe even a great film (with the right company) for its category.  Toy Story 2 is a favorite of mine, but even it’s got a slow scene in the middle.  Certainly Happy Feet is worth watching, and the kids will fall in love with Mumble.  Make sure your theater has good seating, and be prepared to come home toe-tapping. 

Pros: The screen adaptation remains true to the principal characters’ personalities (dual for Zaph) and has the essential elements of Deep Thought, the hideous Vogons, the Babel fish, Slartibartfast and Marvin, complete with a “Genuine People Personality.”  It also includes a cute goodbye in singing style from the dolphins.  It’s been a while since I read all the books, but I think they’ve combined elements from some of the other books, and I know they’ve given it a more upbeat and punchy plot by cutting out the more ironic bits.  They kept a lot of funny lines, many of which have been included in this list of memorable quotes, over at IMDb.

Cons:  It’s not nearly as funny as the books.  They just had to skim and jump around so much that pieces got lost in the shuffle.  Some are just small things, like Ford and Arthur’s attempt to talk the young Vogon of the “resistance is useless” line into seeing their point of view, and the bit about how the Babel fish’s interpretive power *causing* so many wars (because people knew exactly what each other were really saying), and the whole bit about why the bowl of flowers which had formerly been a missile thought ‘oh no, not again!’ upon meeting its death.  But the small but quirky bits of the book is what makes it so funny, and it just didn’t all adapt to screen.

Overall:  It’s still pretty funny, and it’s clean enough the kids can watch it too.  Ours loved it, although they were puzzled and kept piping up with questions most the way through.  I’d give it three and a half, maybe four stars, and recommend it as a good show for the family to watch when the holidays need to slow down. 

Pros:  The mother is creative in her search and uses her expertise in plane layout to good advantage.  Thanks to good writing and a skilled actress, she comes across as both gutsy and emotionally fragile.  Sean Bean, who played the pilot, also turned in a good performance, and many of the other supporting roles were performed quite well.

There’s a twist on the identity of the ‘bad guy’ that I was not expecting and enjoyed.

Cons: Some of the emotional buildup was over written.  The tricks of the trade employed by the writers were too obvious, so the audience was likely to notice the emotional manipulation.

While well-executed, the plot was not deep or terribly original.

Overall:  I give it three and a half stars.  A nice action and suspense show that was worth seeing, although better as a rental than in the full-price theaters.

First, just to be fair, the pros:

I found the the portrayel of early 20th century fears insightful, especially the anti-technology and negative view of machines.  Some of the acting — that of the girl, Maria, and the inventor — was pretty good.  The transformation which gave the machine man Maria’s face was creatively executed, given the time period in which it was written.  I am aware that the film was influential in the genre, and many later films and science fiction stories drew upon it, so it must be given credit for breaking new ground.

I’m sure a film history buff could list many more pros, but I watched the film from the perspective of a modern sci fi writer and one who enjoys a good story.

The cons–and no, I’m not being unkind.

First of all, it’s a black and white silent movie.  That narrows down the number who will really enjoy this to a niche audience.  In addition, most of the acting, especially that of the son, Freder, is terrible to put it mildly.  Absolutely laugh-out-loud bad. 

The setting, I am sure, was very ingeneous at the time it was produced, but looks ridiculous when viewed with the expectation of enjoyment. 

The ’provocative’ dance of the machine-Maria is more likely to promote eternal vows of celibacy than arouse viewers.

The idea that a people would be so stupid as to leave their children underground and then knowingly flood that same city is only couped in absurdity by the fact that the man who stood in their way did not remind them of that minor detail until after they flooded the city.

But in spite of all these detractions, the movie may work for you.  In fact, if you’re the kind who can’t get the point or understand the message in a story unless it’s repeatedly thundered in bold letters on the screen, this is just the flick for you.  I’m sure you’ll love it.