Seen: Snow White and the Huntsman

When you're a stay-at-home-mom to a toddler, the prospect of a night at the movies with your girlfriends is enough to get you through the longest of days. The moment you wake up, you think, "I'm going to the movies tonight!" When he strategically chucks his spaghetti lunch on the floor (walls, kitchen, or you), you think, "I'm going to the movies in seven hours!" When 5:45 rolls around and you find yourself counting the minutes (seconds) until relief comes in the form of whoever will watch your Gremlin/Troll/Toad/Whatever-your-child-turns-into-at-the-end-of-the-day, you think, "I'm going to the movies in one hour!" The most you can hope for is that the movie you've agreed to see with your similarly-situated friends is going to be amazing. The least you can hope for is sitting quietly in the dark for two hours. So it's already a winning situation. 

When we decided to see Snow White & the Huntsman we figured that, at the very least, we would get to see Chris Hemsworth flex his particular brand of awesome and behold Charlize Theron's outrageous costumes. The movie poster kind of sets us up for just that: see how The Huntsman looks totally kickass wielding that axe, while the Evil Queen's collar explodes into crows. What about Snow White? If you've seen Kristen Stewart in anything other than Twilight, you know that she actually can act. In this ad, however, she almost seems to be a non-character. She has a certain reluctance about her (a skill she honed during the press tours for her tween-driven franchise that she still seems sort of uncomfortable with); I was prepared to have to tolerate her (similar to the feeling I had about Scarlett Johansson in The Avengers) but not particularly care for her. And, while I can't say that I completely understand what that white horse-deer creature saw in her, I was pleasantly surprised by her performance.

 

At least the pale skin can be attributed to
being locked in a tower, rather than being undead.
And no sparkles.

In other news of random casting, I think the biggest disappointment was William. Not because I hated the actor. But the character was such a throw-away. Sure, it seems like he is supposed to fill the traditional role of "Prince Charming." He's got the pedigree to back it up. But there is very little that is actually charming about him. 

Hollywood's newest obsession?
The bow-and-arrow.
And the medieval mullet.

It seems like everyone is in love with Snow White - something with which anyone who has seen any version of the story is familiar. I appreciated the twist on the Evil Queen, whose sociopathic desire to stay young and beautiful leads her to consume the young beauty out of everyone. Charlize Theron's over-the-top  Ravenna offered something that previous Evil Queens have lacked - being actually crazy. Like, delusional. But at least she looked amazing while being completely bat-shit crazy.

You don't bathe in a mixture that is equal parts
porcelain, white-out and unicorn tears? More for me.

One of the best parts of the movie was the co-headlining Huntsman. And not just because Chris Hemsworth managed to balance the almost-palpable booze-soaked-grief with the ability to bring some much-needed levity to an otherwise serious and dramatic movie. Without him (and the dwarves), the movie seemed to take itself too seriously. 

Of all the people Snow White could have hunting her,
this seems like a pretty good option.

Aside from the characters themselves (and the creepy and seemingly Targaryen-inspired sibling relationship), the movie itself was pretty entertaining. Kristen Stewart's reluctant heroine was almost believable - but where did she learn to wield a sword and ride a horse bareback while she was locked in a tower for twelve years? Is riding a horse like riding a bike? The outcome of her resurrection (I don't want to completely spoil it, but you already knew that she was going to live because I'm assuming you've seen/read at least one version of the story) was actually satisfying. I appreciated that she ran headlong into her situation once she was literally given a second chance at life. I hope that in the sequel they don't try to turn the movie into another Twilight-triangle. We've been there and done that with K-Stew, and that's where she flounders. I felt like that who-will-she-choose moment at the end was one of the most forced moments of the movie, because it was pretty clear who she wanted to be with, and why he was the right choice for her (spoiler alert: the title of the movie isn't Snow White & Her Long-Lost Childhood Friend Who Is Now An Archer). 

Ultimately, I found the movie completely watchable. I didn't even want to get up to go to the bathroom, because I was worried I'd miss something. And, I would gladly see it again.  For this, if nothing else:

After all, the most reliable way to grade a movie is to decide if you would see it again, and what you would be willing to pay to see it at all. There are some movies that should be relegated to the $2 theater, and others that might get a matinee for $6 or $7. But I'd see this movie again in the evening - at $12, that's saying something. 

Snow White & the Huntsman wasn't necessarily the best movie of the summer (that would, so far, be The Avengers. Your move, Dark Knight Rises). But it was a pretty close second. And it was one of the better princess movies I can remember seeing in recent years. Your move, Brave.

Seen: The Avengers (a huge helping of awesomesauce)

A couple girlfriends and I had been itching to see The Avengers since well before it came out - we talked about it for what seemed like ages. We decided to take advantage of our built-in babysitters (our husbands) and head out to the movies and welcome in summer as it was meant to be welcomed. The Avengers was one of the most highly anticipated movies of the summer - with a huge budget and a huge cast, the stakes could not have been higher for this movie. Joss Whedon had to balance the existing franchises of Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and The Incredible Hulk, as well as incorporating the rest of the cast and adding in a believable (to whatever extent comic-book movies are believable) AND all the while making a kick-ass summer movie. I've seen all of these movies. I loved them all. Even though the bar was set pretty high for me, I would probably like the movie regardless. I even liked Eric Bana's Hulk (though I preferred Edward Norton's by far). At the end of the day, did The Avengers usher in the summer movie season with the power of Thor's hammer and Hulk's smash in a giant serving of awesome with a side of kick-ass?

In a word: YES.

In more than a word, it was possibly the best comic-book movie I've seen; it was definitely the most entertaining movie of the year and one that I was happy to see twice.  This movie had everything that I could have wanted in it: action. banter. and this:

That's one powerful hammer

The movie had plenty of chances to stumble. The Incredible Hulk has a spotted history (at best), and I was apprehensive about Mark Ruffalo taking the job. I really liked Edward Norton as Bruce Banner and didn't really get why he didn't translate into The Avengers. And I enjoy Mark Ruffalo, but didn't know if he had the ability to Smash.

My secret? I'm always angry

He did a fantastic job, of course. And I don't think that I could even see Edward Norton alongside the rest of the cast; Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner fit in so well with the rest of the cast that I thought he might change his name to Bruce Banter. 

The only thing that I didn't get about the movie was the standard tease of the next movie during the credits. I had to consult one of my comic-book aficionado friends to figure out who it was. Now that I know who this "cosmic warlord Thanos" is, I'm pretty pumped for The Avengers II.

And not just because of this:

Though more Thor is definitely worth looking forward to.

Or this:

Poor Captain America has the reputation of such a
goody-two-shoes. 

But, actually, because of this:

The Avengers worked because all of those things that could've gone wrong (but probably wouldn't and definitely didn't) went absolutely right. Ultimately, if the writing and acting didn't work, the movie wouldn't have worked. I was just glad to see that all of the characters and actors meshed so well. Even ScarJo. 

Firsts & Lasts

We went to our first movie without Liam over the weekend. We - I - chose to see "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt.2" because I've been waiting to see this movie since November.
It was glorious. The movie was the perfect ending to the series, which might very well be the best film franchise in recent history. I will miss Harry, Hermione, Ron and the rest of them but am comforted by the fact that my child will also be able to enjoy the books and the films, and we will enjoy them together. I hope that he asks me to read Harry Potter to him; I think it will be a really fun experience for both of us.

Many people posted this quote on Facebook over the weekend. While I enjoy both series, I have to throw my hat in with the Boy Who Lived.

Harry Potter is all about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity... Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.

Agreed.

Oscar night!

It's Oscar night, and I'm completely ready for it:

I've seen all ten of the Best Picture nominees:

Avatar: great visuals and graphics, but it's just like Dances With Wolves, only blue.

The Blind Side: an inspiring true story, told with heart.

District 9: interesting concept, and a different story from most. But weird.

An Education: coming-of-age story, which is usually predictable, but this has something to say.

The Hurt Locker: a socially-relevant, honest portrait of a difficult situation. Very intense.

Inglourious Basterds: a very Tarantino interpretation of history - magari! 

Precious: socially relevant, and full of heart. 

A Serious Man: very Coen-esque depiction of a realistic family story.

Up: heartwarming and lovely Pixar film. 

Up in the Air: an honest, poignant look at a man and a commentary on life.

When I heard that there were going to be 10 nominees, I was a bit confused - were there that many exceptional movies last year? No. There were a lot of good movies, but exceptional? Come on! Last year I would've believed it (hello, Academy, way to snub Gran Torino, which was the best film last year), but this year's nominees left me underwhelmed. But I watched them all, and here are my overall impressions.

District 9: really? I heard an interview on NPR, and they said that they chose to nominate 10 films because people are more likely to watch the Oscars if they've seen the films nominated, but why not nominate The Hangover - it was hilarious, easily one of the most entertaining movies of the year, and most people saw it. It's easy to suppose that more people saw The Hangover than saw District 9; I thought that the underlying apartheid commentary was interesting, but the movie was just kind of lacking overall.

Up: now, I loved Up. I thought it was a great movie. But it was also nominated for Best Animated Feature, and it just seems like it shouldn't be nominated twice. Maybe that's just me, but I didn't think that it was one of the best films of the year. I actually liked The Fantastic Mr. Fox a bit better, and I thought that Wes Anderson's use of the stop-animation was more inventive, but I don't think that it has a chance to beat Up, especially with two nominations. I saw four of the five Best Animated feature nominees, and it really is just a race between these two (though I really liked Coraline and thought The Princess and the Frog was a charming throwback to old-school Disney princesses).

A Serious Man: this was the last of the ten films that I saw (I finished it the morning of the Oscars). The Academy loves the Coen brothers, and I usually really enjoy their films, but I didn't think that this one was  one of the best pictures of the year. 

Okay, so in conclusion, I'm rooting for The Hurt Locker and Precious - I don't think that Avatar was one of the best films of the years, but it seems that the bells and whistles of all the special effects are allowing people to overlook the fact that the story wasn't original.  Yes, it was good, and yes the effects were awesome, but it wasn't the best picture of the year. I would also be really happy if An Education won, but that isn't likely, since it's been mostly a race between Bigelow and Cameron.  But what about Invictus? Clint Eastwood's two principal actors are nominated, but he loses out again? 

I'm still really looking forward to the Oscars. I love watching the red carpet. I think that Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin are going to be hilarious as hosts. They celebrate the films that were the best this year, for the most part; the Academy always gets some things wrong (The Reader was terrible, but they all loved it), but it still makes for an excellent and entertaining night.

Seriously, Chris Columbus?

I was really excited about seeing The Lightning Thief (I did, after all, start reading the books because I thought the movie could be fun).  So we went to see it on Saturday afternoon.  Young children filled the theater, and I found out that a lot of kids are reading the book in school! Riordan did his research, and at least the book would be something that the children would like. The little girls sitting next to me seemed really excited as the movie started.

Did the people in charge of adapting the book into a movie even read the book? I wanted to throw Percy's watery trident at whoever decided that they should take out some of the major plot points - especially since they were IMPORTANT to the development of the story.

"It's getting worse." What, Percy? The movie? "The dyslexia. The ADHD." That was actually a line from the movie. Because we wouldn't figure out that he was dyslexic when the letters started moving around in the museum? And, honestly, what was with the whole sitting-underwater-for-seven-minutes-thing? Didn't he think that was weird? "I just like being in the water." Unbelievable.

I was most disappointed by three things: 1 - the movie overall (sadly); 2 - the elimination of the entire claiming part of the gods; 3 - the development of the Percy-Luke plotline, as the way it unfolds in the book just flows naturally into the second book, and the movie just destroyed that whole dynamic. Ugh. Annabeth came off as a much less bright version of her book persona, and what was with Pierce Brosnan's Chiron?

I leaned over to my husband Sean when the credits started and said, "Now you have to read the book, if only so you know that it was good when it started."

The difference between the book cover and the movie poster says it all. 

In the book, Percy is a regular kid who is thrust into an atypical situation; 

in the movie, he's something completely different.

 

Spoiler alert: the movie was not good.

Redeemer alert: the book is still good.