Equilibrium

Saw the film Equilibrium this past weekend - has Christian Bale and Taye Diggs in it. Pretty good movie. NO spoilers below

Takes place after the 3rd World War, which destroys nearly everyone and everything. It was so horrible that the remaining government decided to do away with human emotions, since it was human emotions that led to the fighting and the wars - and humanity cannot withstand another world war.

So they invented this serum stuff that everyone injects three times daily or so that inhibits emotion. The city they all live in is pretty high-tech, surrounded by the skeleton buildings of the bombed out old city from the war. Everything is colorless, everyone wears blacks and greys - there's no uniqueness. Things are done for efficiency's sake. Our main character, Mr.Preston (Bale) is a Cleric - the highest order of the police/military force. Clerics are like super-assasins. Think "gunfighting martial arts" remeniscent of "The Matrix" except it's all down to a science, not gut-luck. Preston is THE best Cleric there is.

The job of the Cleric is to hunt down sense offenders -- humans who refuse to take the emotion inhibitor and who feel emotion. Some of these humans try to fake their way along with everyone else in the main city, and others live out in the 'wilds' of the dead city, collecting art and pretty things and generally trying to be human but having to always hide.

The movie follows Preston as he discovers his partner Cleric (played by Sean Bean) is himself a sense offender and must kill him himself. But not before his partner says some things that stick with Preston. Distracted, the next day Preston accidentally breaks his last remaining dose of the inhibitor. Rather than getting his dosage renewed, he for some reason decides to see what happens without it. And slowly begins to feel emotion. Is it good or bad?

You can guess where this goes.
The message is both underplayed and overplayed to a degree - kind of like "V for Vendetta" but futuristic post-apocalyptic and darker. The two films go well together, I think, both being about what happens when governments go too far in controling what makes us human, what makes us free. So the story is good, the action is good (the gunfights, once they explain why they work the way they do, are good) and definetly attention-keeping. Christian Bale did a good job with his character - particularly the subtleties of feeling emotions for the very first time. Taye Diggs, on the other hand, pissed me off - I didn't like him in this film at all. Diggs plays Preston's new Cleric partner. He seemed to show emotion when Clerics are not supposed to - although its possible the inhibitor doesn't perfectly inhibit EVERYTHING and that Digg's character was feeling anger without knowing it. *shrugs*

Anyway. Good film - two thumbs up from me. :)

Transformers [film]

Today we went into Anchorage, spent entirely too much money (kind of) hitting every store we normally go to, and ended with seeing Transformers. The film in short (no spoilers):
• Best effects/CGI I've seen in a film, ever.
• Lots of nods to the original series - this film is geared toward adults who runneth over with nostalgia.
• Simple plot with obligatory action movie elements that always piss me off: computers and hackers not being at ALL realistic, the government and soldiers not being realistic, and humans always able to outrun EVERYTHING.
• Lots of humour - it was a lot smarter than I thought it was going to be and not at ALL "for kids".
• The film slowed down noticeably when the main human characters (Sam, Michaela) or the Transformers weren't on-screen.

All in all, I was pleasantly suprised. I only really go to the theatre to see things that a) I may never find on DVD and b) things that are fun to see really, really big and loudly, the second of which often can conflict with my low tolerance for lower-brow films. I tend to like my films to have brains. I wasn't expecting much but the film was a lot better than I thought it was going to be. And it's probably way better if you were a Transformers fan as a kid (which I definetly was - I can still sing the theme song and name half the Autobots and Decepticons). My inner child squiggled with glee when Optimus Prime rolled in to fight Megatron - I honestly felt relieved for the good guys, heh. :)

So yes. Definetly worth seeing in the theatre.

The Fountain [film]

My sister and I watched The Fountain last night.

I won't say what it's about exactly because that ruins the mystique and kind of sounds cheap when its described when in fact it is a deeply multilayered, beautiful film. The symbolism is present in every frame - the lighting, the colors, the composition of each frame, the storyline itself. It unfolds and unfolds. Oh, and I really liked the music - though if I had the soundtrack, I'd probably cry every time I heard it. ;)

Hugh Jackman was fantastic in this film - his emotions were not over the top at all, they were subtle, deep, heartfelt, and real.

The effects were fantastic - if you watch the DVD extras you find out that there's hardly *any* CGI in the film! All the cool outer space nebula textures and things were actually all macro-photography of chemical reactions in petri dishes - so all looks and moves in a natural, organic way. The flower sprouting part was mostly done with physical props and effects - the tree-climb was actually done. It all just made everything that much more realistic so that you could sink into the film.

I warn you that it is a very very sad film - make sure you have tissues on hand. At the same time, though, it's kind of positive and just so beautiful that I didn't come away too overwhelmed or sad. "Beautiful" is the key word.

So yay! I don't know if I'd watch it over and over again - probably preferable to watch it with a partner, if you have one. But definetly worth watching, IMHO.

What the Bleep Do We Know?

I tried watching this once before but it's such a deep documentary/movie you really have to concentrate on it - if you're not into it, you'll fall asleep. And this time I was able to and I think I got a lot out of it.

The beginning is a bit too broad, I think, so it takes a little while before it starts to get specific enough to pull you in. It starts on the universal level, talking about quantum physics and how matter works and then eventually gets to how that relates to us as humans and how quantum physics shows how we as ENERGY and MATTER can affect everything around us, even with thoughts. And very importantly, how we affect OURSELVES with our thoughts. Very heavy stuff but it really hit home there at the end with all this re-wiring of my brain I've been going through and gave me new ways of doing that.

"Down the Rabbit Hole" is the extended version (not sure what they added) and it comes on 3 or 4 DVD's, double sided so that you can watch the whole thing as-is, you can watch JUST the scientific interviews, JUST the story elements that paralell what the scientists are talking about, etc. You can also watch it in a random order each time if you like. Kind of cool. Also fun for me is that nearly the entire thing is filmed in Portland, Oregon: tons of shots on or near the MAX, the zoo tunnel, Goose Hollow, Pioneer Square, and just various points throughout the city that I don't know the streets to but recognize it all and have been there. :D Fun!

Since I watched this, I've been finding books and talks and podcasts galore that all connect over the same things - the quantum physics of how everything is energy and anything is thus possible... It has all helped to change my thoughts toward positive thinking for the better. Amazing.

Pan's Labyrinth

We saw Pan's Labyrinth this weekend. In short, with no spoilers:
• DARK and very violent. Had to cover my eyes for many many parts.
• In Spanish (which enriches the film so much) so subtitle-haters beware
• Ofelia's fantasy plot may seem unconnected to the violent Spanish war setting but when the two are combined at the end create a much larger metaphor for innocence and war. Watch it and think about it.

In conclusion, though I hate violence and bugs, the textures and mood were very well done - I didn't know much of ANYTHING before going into this film so it was very exciting. Kind of a positive-sad movie in some ways. I really liked the fantasy side of it a LOT and the larger metaphor has really stuck with me. A very heavy film, I don't know if I'll rewatch it anytime soon but definetly worth a watch.

Dancer in the Dark [film]

Have you ever seen Dancer in the Dark? "The one starring Björk," is how a lot of people describe it. :D

(no spoilers)
It's the story of a woman, Selma, who dreams of being a dancer in a musical. She is from Czechloslovakia and is a single mother of a 12 year old boy. She works two jobs, one at a factory making ?sinks? and an at-home job putting pins into cards, one crate at a time. She's a dreamer but well loved by everyone. Thing is, she's going blind and won't tell anyone for fear of losing her job and place in a local production of "The Sound of Music". A LOT more happens but it'll spoil the film. The signature of it, though, is because Selma's so preoccupied with musicals, periodically, the sounds of things around her - the factory, a passing train, office scribbling - turn into a Bjorkish industrial musical piece, and everyone breaks into choreographed dance and sometimes help in the singing. Sounds weird but it actually works.

It was a compelling blend of documentary-feel camerawork, a story of humanity, a glimpse into a person's psyche and their view of the world as a musical (hence the musical moments)... Just... At first I thought it was kind of strange (the opening music bit with the never ending frames of random art splatters was wayy too long for me, but very much what musicals used to do), but the characters lives grabbed me. It was shot so intimmately with the hand-held camera work and the grainy film put it firmly in its era, making you really feel like you were back in the day (50's or so) - but still every shot was composed so beautifully... You knew when a musical bit was going to start because the camera became stock-still steady and the framing was super-composed, every single shot could be framed and hung on a wall. Colors and focus became sharper, too.

Be warned, though, as it is an extremely moving film toward the end. There is a violent scene (I dunno how bad - I didn't look) and a super sad segment. But just so artistically well done I am glad I saw it. :D

I thought the acting was very good - I liked Bjork's acting a lot, too. Not something I'd sit down and watch any day or often but if you're a film buff or want to see something new and different, then here you go. :)

The Devil Wears Prada [film]

In short:
• good acting
• 3-D characters
• story that could of been ultra cliché was not cliché at all.


First off, Meryl Streep was awesome. Her character is such a bitch but Streep manages to bring humanity to her character. Even though this woman is a complete devil, she's got emotions and she has motivations for the way she acts and you do see it slip out here and there, but not in a cheesy way, either. Very subtle. Streep is amazing to watch anyhow; she can convey so much with just the twitch of an eye, for goodness sakes.

The gal who plays the main character did a good job as well. I had seen her in The Princess Diaries and was afraid she might bring a bubblegum cliché performance to the film but she did not. She was human and she does evolve but while staying true to herself.

Which is what the film is about - staying true to oneself. So many films are about some girl starting out frumpy, heading for sucess, and along the way they're taught how to be fashionable and how to get the cool guy or whatever -- like in films like She's All That or even in the Princess Diaries - and dozens of others. And our main character, Andy, *does* start out frumpy and heading for sucess, and she does learn how to dress fashionably and gets to be cunning at her job. And in the end when she realises that there are limits to what she'll do before she's no longer being herself, it's a realistic realization. There's no huge change -- she keeps what she likes about what she learned, like keeping some of the nicer clothes for instance, but it's toned down. Just... more "normal". And she gets the kind of job she wanted in the first place - she doesn't settle, but she's equally not going out there for some hot-shot position for the status or money of it.

And the romance in the film is treated the same. It's just all very human, with humour, style, and then some. It may not be blockbuster-stuff, but it is a smart film, intelligent, with little trace of bubble-gum, if any. I found myself on the edge of my seat, rooting for Andy. And if a movie can do that, if it can make me really care, then I give it a thumbs up. :D

X-Men 3

In spoilerless short: I liked it, definetly worth seeing in the theatre. I didn't like the switch in directors and it did seem like they tried to cram in too much but as this is an ongoing movie series, each movie does have to set up more stuff for later so in that respect it does feel like part of a greater story.

If you haven't seen it yet, stay til after the credits, too.
Like I said, it did feel crammed.


SPOILERS FOR THE REST OF THE FILM BELOW!

Jean & the Phoenix Saga
Obviously with Jean disappearing in the last film, the Phoenix Saga had to be addressed. The comic book version is way too sci-fi for the X-men world that the movies take place, in, which tries to make everything more realistic, so in that respect I like how they worked in this whole Jean backstory of her powers and worked it into the Phoenix just being part of her. I thought that was well done. It kind of felt like it was sort of taking too much of a back seat to the Magneto plot, though, with the Brotherhood on the one hand... On the other hand, with the Phoenix being a part of Jean (rather than a giant space opera thing) it would of been a weak film had everything centered SOLEY on Jean.

I thought her powers could of been emphasized a bit more but that could be because I'm an X-Men fan already and I'm used to the REAL Phoenix. I'd like to hear opinions from people wh haven't had much to do with the comic version of the story on this one.

Jean and Wolverine
OMG! Now, I'm a huge Wolverine fan, of course, and I have always been a fan of the relationship between Logan and Jean. I thought they've done a great job with the short span of time in the film (as opposed to the relationshpi taking a little longer in the comics). In the comics, Jean does have an element of reserve toward her own powers - and she loves Scott (Cyclops) because HE is safe and represents control and order. Logan on the other hand is wild and free - he calls to Jeans dark side.

In the film, I love how they did the paralell with Logan's memory blocks to Jean's memory blocks (something that doesn't exist in the comics). It was a fantastic way of further making their relationship a bit more believeable with the short time span. Just - the whole thing was showcased so well without being over the top, particularly with Logan having to be the one to take down Jean in the end - because he's the only one who could survive it with his healing factor compensating.

Wolverine
Speaking of the healing factor -- this film did a great job of showcasing his healing factor more. I'm used to the Wolverine of hte comics constantly being shredded to bits to where no normal person or mutant could survive. And it isn't uncommon for his flesh to give way and expose his bones (with or without adamantium). Also, Logan still feels pain despite his healing ability - and I thought Hugh Jackman did a good job of portraying that, particularly in the scene where he's fighting the dude in the woods who is pulling bone spikes from his body and impaling Logan with them. The whole thing was much more ... realistic in terms of how Wolverine is than, say, the fight between Logan and Yuriko at the end of X-Men 2.

And again, awesome acting on Hugh's part - particularly his body language. Wolverine is strong and confident but moves in an animalistic way. And they did a little bit more to showcase his animal-like senses, though they could of done more.

(For a second, I thought they were going to jump the gun on a Wolverine story when Magneto grabbed Logan by his skeleton. I thought Magneto was going to rip out Logan's adamantium right then and there, giving us a lead into a Wolverine spin-off film.)


Storm
They did a great job incorporating more Storm into this film. The character writing and the acting was awesome for the character this time around - much better than the previous films. I like how they incorporated Storm's leadership ability into this film, particularly since she WAS a team leader of the X-Men (dunno if she still is or not). Liked the hair, too.

Other X-Men
I liked the progression in Bobby/Iceman's powers. I like how his abilities finally manifested fully due to his life or death fighting situation with Pyro - that was a great way of working it out.

Angel's plot was only weakly worked in. The first scene of him as a child made me think it was going to link in more with everything else, since it was shown right next to the scene of Jean as a child. There were just SO many mutants in this film that they were showcasing it was *almost* jumbled but not quite. Like Beast being in there - I mean, he was there because he was working with the government and they hint at the fact he used to be an X-man way back in the day. And Angel's father was the one who made the cure, and he made the cure to help his son, not hurt mutants, giving the whole film less of a black-and-white feel, but it was so loosely woven I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Shadowcat/Kitty Pride -- she was awesome! Though she's a teen in the film, I like how they emphasized that she's not a fighter - she has to use her intelligence to defeat the enemy. That's how she was in the comics, too. She probably had my favorite fight/flight scenes of the whole film, too. Heh. Really stole the show from the returing characters.

Magneto and Xavier. I love the backstory on this being brought in and I loved the line, "Charles Xavier did more for mutant kind than you can even imagine". No matter their differences in approach for mutantkind nowadays, they have a healthy respect for eachother - again a great example of the shades of gray rather than black/white.

Mystique - she's an underestimated character, I think. She is very intelligent and mysterious. Kais and I discussed that part of that mystery is aided by the fact she rarely speaks in the film. It isn't because she's the "female bombshell" token character - that's how she is in the comics. With what little she did have to work with, I thought Rebecca Romijn did a good job - particularly after she was shot with the 'cure' and reverted to her original form in front of Magneto. Half of her shock was also in the fact that she's shapeshifted so much she doesn't recall what she used to look like, her past being lost to even herself.

Another point about there being so many characters -- this film has LOTS of them, it's not as isolated as the first two were. Though I'm not sure how it worked out for the movie, this IS how the comics are. A lot of the X comics are SO full of mutants it can be hard to keep track of what is going on. It really is epic - it isn't one hero isolated to one town, like Batman to Gotham. It's a whole planet of mutants struggling to find a place in the world. The first two movies do well to introduce us to the idea of mutants to begin with, and this movie acts to widen the scope.

I think that scope could of been more powerful, though. In the 2nd film, they really brought it home what it's like to find out you are a mutant by paralelling it to coming out as a gay person (the scene where Bobby tells his parents he's a mutant). That was more personal and I thought carried more weight. And when Jean was speaking to the ?senate? in the first film. This film was a bit more... cartoony feeling in that respect.

(oh, I also did like there being more mutants, if to show their teamwork better - like in the danger room scene, particularly with Rogue borrowing Colossus' powers to avoid getting hurt).


Set up for the next film?
I stayed til after the credits and it shows Moira McTaggert working in a hospital when suddenly a patient speaks out to her. It's a whiskered Charles Xavier calling her by name and she gasps and says, "Charles?" So it looks like the disintegrated characters will return (as I thought they might). I'm just not sure how that's going to work out. Did something Charles do save them? Or did part of Jean with her super abilities do something to save everyone she loved right before she died? That is definetly within her powers using the Phoenix force, for sure.

And we know that mutants who were 'cured' are regaining their powers. Before I saw the bit with Xavier at the end, I kind of thought that perhaps when his powers returned, Magneto might return to help lead the X-men like has happened in the comics. In particular it would of been a great homage to the "Age of Apocalypse" alternate timeline in the comics where history is altered because Xavier dies. The world becomes a much darker place and Magneto leads the Xmen in Charles' memory.

And Rogue... Is she going to cross paths with Mystique, the woman who raised her in other versions of things? Rogue is a hugely popular X-Character and I just KNOW fans are dying for her to obtain her invincibility and flying ability. I'm thinking they might work in a storyline where Rogue isn't aware she's got her powers back and accidentally absorbs Carol Danvers' (Miss Marvel)'s powers of invincibility and flight permanently, as happened in the comics.

But as for a greater storyline, I'm not too sure where they're going to go with it. I mean, the Phoenix Saga we all knew had to happen as it's one of the greatest Marvel stories ever told - it's quintessential X-Men. But where are they going next?

Conclusion
So, I loved all the little bits and pieces a LOT. There were lots of great moments. But that's what it felt like overall - little moments losely strung together. The whole thing wasn't as solid as the previous two films and yet it still works. It somehow feels wrong and yet ... not. Weird how that works.

The Adolescence of Utena [movie]

I definetly have to agree with all those Utena pros out there that this movie makes WAY more sense if you've seen the series first. Which I had - I saw the series first - the only reason I was able to understand a lot of the symbolism was because I'd seen the series. Technically, and according to the creators, the movie is not in any way related to the series. Which is true as far as the plot goes. The characters have the same basic essences for the most part but their lives as we glimpse them are only distantly related to their incarnations of the series.

The first thing I noticed about the movie is how beautiful it is. I know Japanese animation quality goes from (in order of lesser to greater) series, to OVA (Original Video Animation), to movie. And for the most part I've just been watching serials. Utena is a "liney" anime - it has lots of thin, flowing lines to it. And to see it animated in a high quality with just... MORE... it was gorgeous! The designs for the entire thing are just astonishing - I adore the architectural complexity of their world. And each shot was framed so nicely; nothing was ever wasted.

The music improved, as far as my tastes go. I'd already downloaded the "love theme" Toki Ni Ai Wa (At Times Love Is…) and it was used so gorgeously in the nighttime dueling platform dance scene between Utena and Anthy.

Where the series ran way too long, the movie ran too short for me in terms of character development, particularly as far as Anthy goes. Although I think they tried to balance this by making the characters overal WAY more emotional than they were in the series. Where in the series we can only guess at Anthy's emotions, in the movie we get to see right away that Utena's princely behavior resonates with Anthy in Utena's first fight with Saionji.

Speaking of Anthy and Utena.... The tension between the two of them was at a low but usually consistant level in the series, though often rendered into subtext for season 2 and of course obliterated in season 3 with the whole Akio thing. The movie had it ramped way up which I both liked and almost disliked. I could of DIED, the tension was so delicious in the scene between Utena and Anthy in Utena's room after the duel with Saionji -- and on the dueling platform before their dance together. And the drawing class bit was good -- but I felt like we lost any motivation for Anthy after she was "won" from Saionji.

Spoiler warning here
I dunno... I only saw the movie all the way through once and a half now, so I'm forgetting things. I guess the car ending was what really threw things off. Neither the series or the movie gives an absolute end, and though we are more certain of Anthy and Utena's destiny together at the end of the movie, I felt like the drive for the two of them to WANT to be together was much lower than it was in the series by the last episode.

The ending... I understand the car thing completely, but only because of watching the series. I HATED the damn car metaphor in the series. Watching several episodes in a row with so many reused scenes really drove that one into the ground, ugh. I thought the car chase was a bit drawn out and predictable in the movie. I'm not a big car chase fan, so that doesn't help. Heh, I actually was TOTALLY lost as to why the hell Shiori was the one chasing Anthy in the Utena car because I didn't understand at first that Shiori was the girl who Touga tried to save.

So, oddly, that combines some elements from the series, though I'm confused as to how this all works. It seems that Utena was dating Touga. Juri wanted Shiori, Shiori had some pissy moment with Juri or something and to get back at her, tried to get Touga to go out with her? And then Shiori ended up in the river and Touga died trying to save her.... uh... I forgot why Shiori was pissed off at Utena for that, though. Grr. Remind me? END OF SPOILERS

Anyway. All in all, I like it a lot. It's a completely different feel from the series, different story, so if I want to relive the series, the only real way to do that is to actually WATCH the series, which is a hefty chore. :\ I'm going to have to find myself an episode guide and figure out what the highlights are and just watch those. :D

Edit to add: The manga version of the movie is a good way to summarize some of the story elements in a non-surreal way, though it has a slightly different story from the film as far as a few key relationships go.

Ultraviolet [film]

No spoilers.

Saw Ultraviolet with Morgan and Cassandra on Monday. I only wanted to see it because Milla Jovovich is in it. I knew ahead of time what kind of film it was -- a kind of action adventure based on a non-existing comic book. It felt like a comic book; it even had the same plot holes that made you go..."what? why is that happening? why are their teeth like that? why...?" Some of the CGI settings were REALLY fake, but in a stylized way, so you know they did it on purpose, but not to WHAT purpose. It felt comic-booky but it was almost like they couldn't make up their minds. The rest of the special digital effects were way cool, though -- the costume/hair color changing thing was very cool. The fight scenes had decent choreography (and I should know, I was sitting there with a black belt and a brown belt in GoJu Ryu Karate), lol - the fight scenes had a lot of creativity -- particularly the one with the sunglasses (that's not a spoiler; if you see it, you'll know what I mean. Very cool shots for that). The story was okay, nothing to squee about.

Milla's acting was so-so. I think she could of had better directing; there were places where she totally could of pushed it, but at least she never felt like a re-run of any parts she's played before. I was particularly watching to see if she'd use elements from her portrayal of Alice from Resident Evil, but she didn't at all. She even did the "cool-hero snarky one-liners" in an original way.

Oh, and the boy who played child-Orlin from Stargate SG1 was in the film.

Overall not that great of a film. Disappointing story and characters, not one for rewatching.

Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith

Spoilers for Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith"

To be rather brief: I thought this film was much better than I and II, but still not as good as the original trilogy, which I grew up with.

What I did like: I liked that the digital effects got better. I liked that they started to make the ships look used; they had texture to them, made them look more real. Still looked digital but it's progress, I guess. I also liked that the ships were degenerating into the ships of the original trilogy -- it was cool to see the predecessors to the Star Destroyer class ships, and the ships that will eventually evolve into Tie Fighters and X-Wings. It was so cool to see the familiar ship of Bail Organa - and what a shock when we suddenly got to go INSIDE. One of the last ships we see inside of is the FIRST ship we see inside of in Star Wars IV: A New Hope. What a blast from the past that was.

The only planet I really liked was the Wookie homeworld - that place was cool; I'd actually like to go there. It was cool to see the Storm Trooper forest uniforms - to see how ALL storm trooper uniforms evolved. Really shows how the Empire in the future makes everything uniform and sterile. Corouscant was impressive but too much to look at when you get up close. The shots of it from space are astounding, to see an entire planet made of city... scary.

What I did not like: The digital stuff was just still too shiny for me. Yoda was still too shiny, the ships were still too shiny, the worlds were still too shiny... Much better than the last two films, yes, but still not as good as if they'd built sets, ships, and puppets. I don't know if thats just because I grew up with the look of the originals, but I'm sticking to my opinion.

The dialoge was some of the most trite, cheesy, and ridiculous stuff I've heard in a long time, barring the last two Star Wars films. The scenes between Padme and Anakin were some of the MOST painful, particularly because I KNOW these people can act and I've seen them do so but to see them hobbled by such terrible dialogue and direction literally made me cringe and shift in my seat.

The story itself: I liked how they showed Anakins evolution; it just felt too rushed in a lot of ways. The entire storyline felt like it was on the right track but just didn't go the whole mile. Kaisa informed me that Anakins shift to the Dark Side WAS quick once Palpatine got to him after Anakin killed Mace Windu - that once you start down the Dark Path, the change is pretty swift. So I guess this all would of felt more natural if you KNEW that ahead of time, but most folks don't and it still felt rushed to me. It really sucks that this film suffered so badly because George Lucas was so hell bent on covering his ass with his pulp story obsession - it didnt feel like a pulp at ALL to me; so why couldn't he let the creation be what it was supposed to BE? It could of been a really strong film with a powerful story, but instead it was laughable. Watching it, I didn't know whether to take pity on the poor film or laugh at it and turn it away.

In a morbid way I did like when Anakin finally fell - when Obi Wan cut off his legs and arm and left him to burn and die. When you see everything Anakin went through in this film, you almost wish the original trilogy had showed more of Vader's side of things to further help with his vindication at the end to be more powerful. It really goes to show that he was doing the wrong things for the sort of right reasons and that really he wasn't an evil guy, just twisted. We see so many stories of good people going bad and somehow they seem so irredeemable becuase of that. We forget that equally, you can take utterly evil people and turn them to good, too. You have to forget about 'tainting'; that's seeing things from only a 'good' standpoint.

One other thing that bugged me: there also seemed to be two kinds of shots - full shots and tight medium shots. Especially during the light sabre fights - you were so close you couldn't see what they were doing. It didn't serve to pull me into the fights at ALL - it felt cramped and the entire time I kept wishing they'd pull out so I could see what was going on.

Did you catch...
The Millenium Falcon in the lower right corner near the beginning, showing some kind of spaceport on some well-lit planet?

The guy who played that one "storm trooper" with the dark hair, whom Palpatine contacted and had attack Obi Wan? The guy played Jengo Fett in the last two films.

At the very end, Vader and Palpatine were on the bridge of a star Destroyer looking at the construction of the first Death Star. They were accompanied by General Tarkin (who would become Grand Moff Tarkin in the original Star Wars IV: A New Hope). Here, however, he was played by Wayne Pygram, the guy who played Scorpius in "Farscape". (I missed that part - Kaisa caught it).

Films with Queer Characters in Them

Films that have gay characters in lead positions but the film isn't a "gay" film or where it's a gay situation comedy type thing but not totally exploitive... Minor reviews.

"Antonia's Line" - Dutch with English subtitles. "Chronicles the lives of four generations of a family of women, all strong and independent because of the matriarch, Antonia. Her daughter Danielle's lesbianism is treated very normally. Danielle's daughter Therese later has Sarah, who is the narrator of the story." Great film overall - very pro-womyn. :D

"Best in Show" - US. This film is so cool just for the fact that every single line of dialogue in it is improvised. A film without a script - that's frikkin' awesome acting. Follows several groups of dog owners at a dog show, where two unlikely women fall in love. Hilarious.

"Boys On the Side" - Three girls (Drew Barrymore, Whoopi Goldberg, and Mary Louise Parker) do a kind of running away road trip. Whoopi's character is gay, ML Parker has AIDS, and the Indigo Girls make a cameo apperance. There's a little bit between Whoopi and ML near the end but not much.

"The Closet" - French, subtitled. A quiet man who works at a condom factory is completely walked all over by his ex wife, his son, and his co-workers. Everyone thinks he's completely boring and dull until one day it "slips" that he's gay and suddenly he's the life of the party. Though the only gay character is the main character's gay neighbor who coaches him through being "gay", I love this film. Very pro-gay.

"The Color Purple" - I've only seen most of the film once. It's a very visceral and important film for black Americans but the book pushes the envelope much further. The film is famous for basically ignoring Celie and Shug's relationship, which is very important to Celie's growth in the book. Great acting though, still a powerful film.

"The Hours" - I don't consider this a queer film, really. I've not read the book, either. About three women in three different eras, one of whom IS a lesbian, dealing with depression. Not bad, but I have no desire to watch it again.

"The Object of My Affection" - Jennifer Aniston, Paul Rudd. This girl falls for her best friend, who is gay. Maybe a bit cliche in parts but it does go to show that you cannot change a persons orientation no matter how much you love eachother.

"Three to Tango" - Matthew Perry, Oliver Platt, and Neve Campbell. Peter (Platt) and Oscar (Perry) are partners in an architecht firm. Peter is gay, Oscar is not. This powerful guy is holding a competition for which architect firm is going to get the job designing a new building - due to a mix up, the boss thinks Oscar is gay and thus entrusts him with chaperoning his mistress, Amy (Campbell). Oscar has to keep up the pretense though he falls in love with Amy. I really like this film; while it does use 'gayness' as a humour factor, it has some poignant bits where Oscar finally "gets" what his friend Peter goes through some days, being gay. That and I love Neve Campbell.

Gay & Transgender Films

Gay and Transgender films I've seen - list with brief reviews.

"Bent" - in English; WWII. Clive Owen is a gay guy in France when the Nazis take over. Having to leave his partying lifestyle, he and his lover flee to the forests where they are eventually captured. It's worse to wear the pink triangle than the yellow star; this film gives the viewer a feeling of vertigo, a feeling of insanity and lost time, very much like what the main character goes through in order to survive as long as he can. Very visceral film. I liked it though I dont know how often I could watch it. Not a happy film.

"Big Eden" - US. 2000. White writer gay guy (Arye Gross) escapes to fictional Montana small town where he falls for the big, silent Native gay guy (Eric Schweig), whom everyone knows is gay but he doesn't talk about it. really sweet film; I wish more small towns were this open. I'd love to see it again. Kind of movie that makes you go "awwwww...".

"Boys Don't Cry" - US. The film that made Hillary Swank famous - and she does an awesome job playing Brandon Teena. Also not a happy film; I like to watch it to be amazed at how believeable Swank is as a young man.

"Cruising" - US. "A serial killer brutally slays and dismembers several gay men in New York's S&M and leather districts." Al Pacino plays the cop who goes undercover as a gay guy in the S&M scene to find the killer. Didn't do anything for me except make me view Pacino a little differently.

"Hedwig & the Angry Inch" - the film version. I'd never seen the show, and I was a tad bit shocked the first time I saw this, as I'm not into the camp scene. But the soundtrack grabbed me and now I likes it all a lot. :)

"Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" - Australia. Drag queens travel Australia in a bright pink school bus. I don't remember the plot. The ping pong ball scene obliterated anything valuable I would of remembered.

"The Wedding Banquet" [This] One was about this gay couple where one was Asian American and the other is white. The Asian guy ends up marrying a woman to keep her from being deported as well as to please his family, whom he is in the closet from. This comedic situation also puts stress on the men's relationship until it finally boils over.

Another was about two young boys who find love at the beach... Don't remember much else.

Another was an 80's film about a young skinny guy who slowly figures out he's gay but is totally taken advantage by every guy he turns to... I think Culture Club did like half the soundtrack - what was this one?

"Burnt Money" Really boring South American film about two robbers who are in love but on the run and can't expose their love for fear of being killed... There was a huge standoff with the police at the end? *shrugs*

Lesbian Film List

Films with L/B Female lead characters that I've seen - very brief reviews.

"Aimee & Jaguar" - German, subtitled. Possibly my very favorite of all - I have a thing for WWII, and what makes this one bettter is it is based on a true story - based on the book of the same name, which I also have.

"Bar Girls" - US. Indy. Cheese to the max. Possibly as unbearable as "Girls Can't Swim". Low budget, NO acting ability, boring plot, stereotypes, and LACK of representation of real butch lesbians, though they try to fit in everything else. HATE THIS FILM.

"Better than Chocolate" - in English. This seems to be a favorite, but I just didn't care for it. It falls into the 6-minutes til sex category - in that apparently, lesbians will sleep with eachother after knowing eachother for only 6 minutes. :P

"Bound" - U.S. I can't help it; I love this film, despite the swearing and violence. The hot-shot style of it is just like half the other straight mob films out there, with characters that always know what to say and are ultra suave when hitting on people. Noted sexpert Susie Bright advised all elements of the film regarding lesbian sex and culture for this film, too. And what hot characters we have in Corky and Violet! *purrs*

"But I'm a Cheerleader" - U.S. I wish I'd caught this in the theatre - the mixed reviews caught me off guard. I like the humour, how it makes fun of not only the anti-gay crowd but also makes fun of the LGBT community, too. I like that it can tackle serious and heavy issues without a heavy hand.

"Claire of the Moon" - 1992. At a women's writer workshop getaway in the northwest US, Claire struggles with her sexual identity after discovering her roomate is a lesbian. Bad acting, bad everything. Don't make me watch this again.

"D.E.B.S." - 2005ish. Indy spygirl spoof. You can definetly tell it's an ind film but as far as indy films go, it's very well done and very silly. The romance was good - creative and fresh; didn't feel like I was watching the same old lesbian film in new clothes at all. Also impressive is the mostly-female crew that MADE the whole film. Very light hearted and happy and edited so that the lesbian relationship is incidental, but not in a totally non-chalant/blazé way. Only thing that REALLY bothered me was that of all the characters, only Lucy seemed to know how to hold a handgun properly. Grr.

"Everything Relative" - U.S. Basically a lesbian "Big Chill", which I haven't seen. Old college lesbian pals reunite, opening old wounds and making new connections. Definetly for the generation before mine; I didn't care much for this film at all.

"Fingersmith" - U.K. 2005. 3-part mini series based on the Sarah Waters novel of the same name. I read the book first - - DEFINETLY read the book first! The film stays very true to the book and handles the plot twists quite well. The moments between the two female characters are really intense in their subtlety, but not near as good as in the book. This isn't to say the film isn't good - just that the book is SO good that no matter HOW good the film was it couldn't keep up with the book. It's about a theif, Susan, who teams with another theif, Gentleman, to insinuate themselves into a well-to-do household in order to get the rich man's niece, Maude, to fall in love with Gentleman so he can swindle her of her inheritance. But that's not quite what happens...

"French Twist" (Gazon Maudit) - French, subtitled. I almost forgot I'd even seen this film. Not very memorable. Soft butch falls for married "straight" woman. The husband isn't too keen on this... the wife wants both and tries to balance her life with a husband AND a girlfriend, including through a pregnancy. Come to think of it, I wouldnt mind watching this again as a refresher... I remember the struggles were poignant but sometimes painful to watch. And it was supposed to be humerous.

"Fried Green Tomatoes" - U.S. This really isn't categorized as a gay film, and there is no obvious gayness in it. But if you have any kind of gaydar at all, you KNOW that Ruth and Idgie are more than just "transcendant best friends". And if you have read the book, "Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Cafe" by Fannie Flagg, you know this for certain. If you get this on DVD, be sure to watch the Making Of and watch the film with the directors commentary for further proof these women are in a relationship. Luckily, because the book isn't explicit and the way the director filmed it, you don't feel like the film DIDNT go far enough with showing their relationship because it treats them like anyone else. One of my very favorite films/books.

"Fire" - India, in English. A rebellious young bride finds difficulty assimilating into her new, more traditional Indian family. Her husband gone often, distant, and philandering, she finds comfort in the company of her sister-in-law, an older woman in a sexless marriage. The young girl is kind of annoying but the story is good and it's interesting to see gay themes in other cultures. This film was banned in India. Overall, it's okay, but I do like it more than I dislike it.

"Gia" - U.S., HBO. Angelina Jolie plays Gia Marie Carangi in this film that losely follows the true and tragic story of the worlds first and most famous supermodel.... Who happens to be a lesbian.

"The Girl" - French, subtitled. Saw this once in the theatre. Noir ish type film. Almost too artsy; sex scenes were ultra close up and blurred, the dialogue was very stiffly given (it's noir...)... I liked the dyke character and hated the femme. Interesting story but I'm not sure how often I could stand to watch it.

"Girl Play" - US, 200?. It's meh.

"A Girl Thing" - US. I think this was made for TV. Stockard Channing is a psychologist who goes over the relationship woes of four different women (one of whom is a lesbian) while facing her own personal struggles. Don't remember much about it. Was okay, I guess.

"Girls Can't Swim" ("Les Filles ne savent pas nager") - French, subtitled. I don't think this is even IS a queer film at all. I don't remember - but for some reason we thought it was. Instead, it was THE worst film I'd ever seen. Two girls. One sleeps around with all these local boys while her best friend sleeps with her father. AWFUL.

"Girls In Prison" - U.S. I'm *pretty* sure I've seen this. Campy, stereotyped, guilty-pleasure type film. Anne Heche is in it.

"Go Fish" - US, indy. Some of the same characters from "Watermelon Woman" are in this. Our queer indy film culture is important but I didn't really care for this film.

"Heavenly Creatures" - NZ. Melanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet. Based on a true story. Two girls become obsessively best friends, lost in the make-believe world of their making. Warped and psycho is what this is. Nothing explicit, doesn't really give a good name necessarily to same sex love, but Kate Winslet is hilarious. I catch this on TV when I can. "Oh! MArio LANza!"

"High Art" - US. Very depressing, good story. Ally Sheedy like you've never seen her before. I've only seen it once and would like to watch it again. Journalist falls for strung out, once famous photographer (Sheedy).

"If These Walls Could Talk 2" - U.S., Showtime. Series of interconnected short stories that happen in different eras in the same house. Bring a box of Kleenex and someone to hold. Shows a great shift in social standing for lesbians though the different stories, from two elderly women who cannot say they're anything other than roomates, to Ellen and Sharon Stone trying to get pregnant via artificial insemination.

"Incredibly True Adventures of 2 Girls in Love" - US, indy. I don't know if this IS a true story or not - I think it's losely based on the lives of the writers, or something like that. VERY losely. About a highschool tomboy, white lesbian who lives with her lesbian aunt and works at a gas station/mechanics and her unlikely friendship and eventual relationship with a non-white girl of "proper" and high standing. Lighthearted. Pretty good for an indy film; I liked it. :"D BTW, "The L Word"'s Laurel Holloman plays the tomboy, Randy.

"It's In the Water" - U.S. This says it all: "In Azalea Springs, the country club still sets the rules. Here, being a member of "The League" is a must and only hair dressers and interior designers are supposed to be gay. A frenzy breaks out when a tipsy comment starts a rumor that the local drinking water turns you gay. This spark adds fuel to smoldering fires as the religious and socially righteous begin to join forces. The combination becomes the catalyst for residents who must now face or deny their own realities in this outrageous comedy with a queer little twist." - Cheesy. Don't care to see it again, but glad to of seen it at least once. Meh.

"Kissing Jessica Stein" - US. At first I didn't know what to think of this film. Some accuse it of straight people "trying out" being gay. It's not. Interestingly, what Jessica goes through in becoming more comfortable with being with a woman is VERY similar to what I went through. The film is ultimately about being comfortable with your sexuality and ignoring labels.

"Late Bloomers" - US. Two middle aged mom/teachers/coaches unexpectedly fall in love. I'm *pretty* sure I've seen this and wasn't impressed - I just don't relate.

"Lost and Delerious" - Canada (English). Tragic film. Folks either love or hate this and I'm kind of in between. It's very dramatic and tragic. Some days it's good, others, I just want to smack Paulie.

"Mulholland Drive" - US. "A sexy thriller as two beautiful women are caught up in a lethally twisted mystery – and ensnared in an equally dangerous web of erotic passion..." This is easily the most fucked up movie I've ever seen. It makes absolutely NO sense but I love it anyway. Each time I watch it, it traps my brain and I sit trying to figure it out... was the first half what happened or is it the blonde chick's memory of happier times? Better watch this with friends, especially if you like brain busters.

"Oranges Aren't the Only Fruit" - U.K., BBC. I've never read the book, but this was a good story in a disturbing sort of way. A lot of it hits you in the gut, so it's not one I like to watch a lot, but definetly one to see.

"Salmonberries" - US. This was filmed in AK! That's about the only good thing. K.d. Lang is Kotzebue, a very disturbed orphan girl trying to find meaning in existance when she meets a much older, lonely German librarian in the local library. The two form a kind of bond - it doesn't go very far. I almost didn't get through the whole thing. It wasn't all that great; but for some reason it sticks in my head. The story is weird but at least the acting is good.

"Saving Face" - U.S. 2004 film. From Wikipedia, "tells the story of Wilhemina, a young Chinese-American surgeon, her pregnant mother, and her dancer girlfriend. While Wil struggles with allocating her time between her mother, who, shunned by the Chinese-American community, has come to live with her, and her girlfriend, Vivian, whom she presents to her mother as only a friend, her mother must decide whether the demands of her father's reputations, or the demands of her own heart, are more important." Great film.

"Serving in Silence" - U.S. 1995 TV movie. Starring Glenn Close as Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer, "The true story of a decorated officer's legal challenge to her involuntary discharge when she admitted she was homosexual." Any scenes between Glenn Close and her character's love interest are pretty chaste, but this is an important story about acceptance in the workplace. Definetly a safe film to watch with your straight friends and family, and especially a must for Stargate slash writers, as it's a true story - the one that sparked the whole "Don't ask, don't tell".

"Set Me Free" (Emporte-Moi) - Canada. I barely remember this one. This school girl falls for her teacher, can't understand why the affection isn't returned, then some kind of strange three way relationship goes on with the girl, her brother, and a girl friend of theirs. I need to see this one again.

"Show Me Love" (Fucking Åmål) - Swedish, subtitled. This movie is kind of corny, but the characters are all perfectly flawed. It's hard to like any of the characters at first but that is part of its charm. And it's in SWEDISH! Heh. I like it.

"Therese & Isabelle" - German, dubbed in French, dubbed in English, black and white. You CAN get this subtitled, apparently. And unless you've seen this 60's film in the theatre, you're missing out on all the juicy scenes. This film is SO pulp and so corny - the sort of thing you watch with friends to make fun of.

"Tipping the Velvet" - U.K., BBC. Read the book before you see this. Might come off as corny if you don't. It's got some flaws but just the fact this AIRED on tv is astounding. The songs, the era (1880's), the costumes, Nan's struggles - all brought to life. I kind of think of it as seperate from the novel, but I love this miniseries. Definetly a must-have.

"Treading Water" - US.2001. I am pretty sure I've seen this, too. Don't remember anything about it except there was water and the girl lived on a boat and was the black sheep of the family.

"The Watermelon Woman" - US, indy. I even had to watch this for a film class in college. It's got some good info to think about but it's not something I'd watch a lot. VERY indy.

"When Night is Falling" - CAN (English). Not to be confused with the gay film "Before Night Falls". This movie I've only seen once. It's got some highly unlikely plot points and some very unusual characters, but it wasnt' the most horrible thing I've seen and I wouldnt' mind watching it again.

Fallout [short film]

This has nothing to do with the game "Fallout", though I found this article and series of links on the No Mutants Allowed Fallout site:

Fallout, a PA movie short
Posted by Kharn - at 2:12

Here's something we missed; in 2003, William Joines did a short entitled "Fallout" for his junior thesis project. After watching it, I can only conclude that the 15-minute $650 dollar short is an excellent piece of work, with some really impressive acting and set-building.

The basic premise is that of a little girl waking up in an empty and damaged fallout shelter with her memory gone and we watch her as she tries to survive and regain her memories, locked in the shelter. The short was shown on the Riverrun Film Festival and was a Student Academy Award Nominee.

Be sure to check it out as you can see the whole thing on Will Joines' website

Link: Fallout page on Will Joines' website

Link: in case any of you ever want to build a bunker set, here's how to do it; John Steckley set-building page

After checking with the director, we can verify that there's no relation the the Fallout game. Spotted on Fallout.ru

..................................

If you're into short films, post-apocalyptic/sci-fi/survival stories, or just want to see a neat and well done story about a little girl with lost memories, check it out. Very very cool - I wish I'd put more time into the film projects I had to do as electives at my college. ;) Very atmospheric.

Files are .mov format, the large file took me around an hour to download on DSL.

Tipping the Velvet [film]

So these are just my impressions of the mini-series version of "Tipping the Velvet" and my comparison between it and the original novel. Spoilers Abound for the film and the novel!


First Impression
At first I wasn't too sure about the score choice - but I hadn't seen what the tone of the series was yet. The music seems typical of what I've seen of other BBC series', but I just assumed since TtV is a period story that it would have period music. But by the end of the show, the music had grown on me and I kinda like it now. Heh.

Another first impression: Nan's hair. I don't know what it is with me, but in most books I read, I always somehow miss the part where the author says what color the protagonist's hair is. When I read TtV, I pictured Nan's hair as blonde. Off the top of anyone's head, do you know what color it was in the book?

Series style versus the book mood
At first I wasn't sure how to feel about the fact that the series is SO much lighter than the book. The novel is so dark, brooding, and erotic whereas the series shows these dark things but makes dark humour out of it with the music and Nan's narrative and expressions. (Ok, it's not as dark and erotic as Kushiel's Dart or either of Sarah Waters' other two books, but I just mean in comparision to the series...)After seeing the whole thing I realised that if they HAD done the series with the same mood as the book, with the same drama, it probably would never of made it to television - at least not with more cut out and an NC-17 rating. And this was more or less referred to by Sarah Waters as well, at least in her suprise that TtV was going to be made into a series on the BBC.

Characters
Nan
I liked the gal who played Nan (I'm bad with names, I don't remember who it was). I thought she had good body language and was into the role - maybe I'm just jaded by American TV mini series' and the crappy acting they can have, but I was warmly suprised. She also had a good voice to play Nan - she could convincingly lower it to sound more masculine. Combined with the way she carried herself, she made a good pair with Kitty like in the book... How Nan looked TOO convincing as a male, way better than Kitty, so they had to tone her down.

My only small gripe with Nan was that she was still too feminine - her arched eyebrows, her very feminine eyes and shapely lips. I don't think they could of done a WHOLE ton to change that to make her like the Nan in the book, who was NOT distinctly female. I know women who look like boys and she was not it. The only thing that really saved it from totally pissing me off is the fact that the way a lot of things were portrayed in the film were symbolic - the cartoonish special effects, the obviously plastic roses, the music.

One thing they had NO excuse for, though, was putting Nan back in a dress at the end! In the book, she decides what is comfortable for HER. This time it's not her boss's decision, it's not her empty stomach demanding, and it's not her mistress's command -- it's Nan's decision to wear men's clothes. I found this element of the book significant because it represents Nan's coming to terms with herself and her past and how she represents herself thus in the real world. And there was no reason at all that they'd NOT do that in the series at all - I mean, they were halfway there when Nan narrates the part where she gets mens clothes in which to do housework and she gets her hair trimmed. After that I fully expected her to stay in men's clothes from then on like in the book.

Kitty
This is just me, I always pictured Kitty as a bit less feminine in apperance, but I thought she was striking in the role, particularly when she would prepare for the tossing of her rose. And combined with Nan in their double act... wow.

Diana
Perfect. Although I don't remember Diana ever saying anything about love in the novel - it was all about control and power, not about love. I think they changed it up a little in the series for two reasons - one, to lighten the doom/gloomness of how it really was living with Diana Lethaby. Secondly, to make Nan's leaving more of a triumph rather than the skidding of a street sex junkie hitting bottom like it was in the book. Because in the series, the story was more about Nan's eventual and gradual triumph over life's shit. More on that later.

Walter
whoops, forgot him. Of course, his role was really minimized, but he was too old! Eeeewww! Although, Kitty was older in the series, too, so it wasn't so bad. ;) he was good, though - just the right parts of nice and a bit sleazy.

Florence
Florence was the only person I really had a problem with, but it has to do with the way they totally flipped her part around in order to highlight Nan's triumph in the series. In the book, Flo was much more standoffish and rigid toward Nan. In the film she came off as inexperienced - which she was. But in the book, she knew MORE than Nan did about the REAL world. Nan had only ever experienced life through the fantasy worlds of the stage, of the underbelly of the street, and of the slavery of living under Diana Lethaby's thumb. None of these places were like the real world and none of them had REAL people in them either. In the book, it is almost a shock when the reader and Nan hit this straight stretch of normality. Housework. Politics. Regular social activities. Family life. Nan had forgotten how to behave in that kind of world, and she especially had never been queer in the real world, either, which was the biggest change, I think.

I think they changed Flo because of what the series was going for. If they had totally copied the book, it wouldn't of worked. Novels can get away with things, with the lengthy descriptions and emotions that just don't work with the limited time frame of television. So the pacing was changed considerably - it picks up the pace, which also picks up the mood. And so the end result of the story had to hit a higher note than the novel.

The pacing, the plot changes
In the novel, Nan is rarely an instigator; she's a follower. She didn't really have big dreams. She had a boyfriend because that's what you're supposed to do. Then she saw Kitty and the obsession began - and she followed Kitty to London. She followed Kitty's advice and the instruction of Walter in becoming Nan King, the performer, and when her heart was broken, Nan ran chaotically to the streets. Without any guidance, she simply roamed until, once again, upon the 'invitation' of another person, she was persuaded into a new occupation, a sex worker. Then she was basically kidnapped by Diana, held hostage by her desire to BE desired, to run away from the memory of Kitty by spending all her time in another woman's arms. And when Nan finally stands up for herself she's thrown out in the street where she wretchedly hits absolute bottom until she finds Florence. Struggle after struggle...

It's funny how she ended up staying with Florence - kind of the same way she ended up with Kitty, by constantly being around until the other person simply can't do without you, and KNOWING this is what you're doing.

and then the final big responsibility of choosing where to be, where to live, who to be friends with and then confronting the people from her past who changed her the most. Confronting and triumphing in spirit and destiny. This is how the novel works.

And it would of been rather boring as a mini series, if you think about it.

So in the series, Nan is a bit more proactive in her destiny. Nan wasn't bitter about being kicked out by Diana - not like in the book. And it's Nan who is wise about the world in the end, not Flo. And the end - the end was perfect. With the single toss of a rose, Nan cuts off her past completely to start life anew.

Conclusion
I'm always a larger fan of the book than of the film as far as these things go, because it seems no matter how they do it, the characters in the books, the emotions, are much more personal and intimate. But they did a really good job with TtV. It usually seems there are three possible results with tv movies made from books. They either come out EXACTLY like it, and thus dull; they come out SO different that there's not much relation between the two and thus the book-fans are completely alienated; or it just comes out cheesy. And luckily, TtV is none of those.

The stage performances
Oh! I forgot to say - another great thing I liked about the series, another thing Sarah Waters mentioned in the interview. The singing and dancing! I'm normally not a musical fan, but it's like Sarah said - in the book, the performances are spoken of, but you don't get to see it, to hear it, to see the reaction of the crowd. Its a totally different experience that was great to be able to see. I got a much better idea of what that kind of performance would of been to an audience back then.

I also loved how the WAY the songs were performed changed to kind of fit the story and mood... In the beginning we have the lone Kitty Butler, and she's good. Light, sleek and charming. A strong first impression. Then we get the duo of Kitty and Nan, the teamwork, the connection, the DANCE, the lighthearted joy. Next we get the utter bottom-feeder performance between Kitty and Walter with Kitty portraying Walter's son. It was just WRONG in the book and it was just wrong in the series. In both formats, you could feel Nan cringe upon seeing it and I did, too. Ugh - where is life going to?

And finally, we have Nan's comeback performance. She was SO timid in the beginning and every single ounce of strength she'd gained through all she'd been through came out in that performance. Compare it to the first performance by Kitty and Nan just blows it out of the water. She's far more confident and bold. I'm not sure if this was intentional, if they toned down the past performances, or if the gal who played Nan was seriously just better than the gal who played Kitty, but I think it really clinched the ending.

The sex
I was pleasantly suprised by the quality of the sex scenes. I'm so tired of halfhearted lesbian performances that come off like straight male fantasies. I'm tired of over-the-top "oooh, I'm so into you" acting that just ruins the humanity of what is going on between the characters. Yay for sex! :D

The flashbacks
I also really liked the useage of the flashbacks Nan would have of Kitty. It really helped highlight Nan's perpetual heartache and keep it emotionally true, like in the book. I could relate to that. So that when we got to the end and Nan makes her choice between Kitty and Flo, the choice is that much more dramatic. I actually found myself wondering over who she'd choose, though I knew damn well that Nan chooses Flo in the novel. ;) So that's a mark of good storytelling in my book. :D

The Aviator [film]

No spoilers.

We saw the Aviator in the theatre yesterday. I love aviation and aviation history, so yay! Of course, you should know ahead of time that it's not simply about Howard Huges, but also about his OCD and other mental problems he suffered from, which I think are a testiment to what he went through to still create the things he did. Not to condone any of the iffier things he did, but you gotta feel for the guy in some way. The whole film makes you squirm because of that, but soar whenever Huges gets into a plane - which I'm sure is how HE felt, as well.

And I couldn't wipe the grin off my face at the Spruce Goose parts - I've seen the real Goose all rebuilt down in McMinville and it is something to see at 5 stories high with the widest wingspan of any aircraft EVER built - you could use ONE of the wings as an airstrip for a Piper Cub.

And Cate Blanchette as Katherine Hepburn? Wow, she was fantastic - what a remarkable actress.

So, not necessarily a film you HAVE to see in the theatre, although it looked like it was filmed in cinemascope (the widest ratio they generally film at). Any part showing flying aircraft was much better on the big screen, I'm sure - especially parts with the HK-1 (alternately H-4 or Spruce Goose) because of it's size - it was meant for the big screen.

The House of Sand and Fog [film]

The House of Sand and Fog starrs Jennifer Connelly and Sir Ben Kingsley ("Gandhi"), primarily. I've always kind of tip-toed around Jenniffer Connelly films due to the whole stigma she carries from earlier 80's films. But she was very good in this movie. The entire cast of the five main characters are just phenominal in their acting. The cinematography alone makes it one of the top three most beautifully filmed movies I've seen lately, and the story...

The imagery, the story, the characters are all so filled and entwined in symbolism, nothing is left un-thought of but it feels so natural. Apparently they filmed the whole thing without storyboards and just went with the flow, which is amazing because you'd think just the opposite - but it does feel very natural and organic.

Without giving anything away, it is a drama that kind of rips you open, stomps on you, but doesn't come off as trite at all, definetly not a rehash of anything I've seen before. And after, you don't necessarily feel DOWN. It's definetly more... "down" than, say, Eternal Sunshine... but I felt better about life after watching this film than I did ES. Strange.

And just to give a hint of how good the cinematography was, I've never been so compelled to rip a DVD out of the player and immediately go cap it. ;) Go watch it!

Underworld [film]

First, I went into this film with a LOT of apprehension.
1) Sony got their asses sued by White Wolf who created the "Werewolf: the Apocalypse" and "Vampire: the Masquerade" World of Darkness, a world that was HEAVILY stolen from in the making of this film. I'm not sure what the outcome of the lawsuit was, but there were 40 some instances of legal infringement on the films part. I, being a fan of the "Werewolf..." collectable card game (CCG) "Rage", was thus wary of the film and its treatment of the subject of the vampires and werewolves.

2) I have always been a werewolf fan and have always really disliked vampires. Don't know why, it's been like that since I was a kid. It didnt' help that when I became a fan of the Werewolves from White Wolf's World of Darkness that it turns out the werewolves and vampires hate eachother. I don't know the vampire's reasons for hating werewolves, but I know the werewolves' reasons and totally agree. ;P

There ARE differences, however. In the film...
...The reason the werewolves and vampires don't get along is different.
...The historical relationship between the two is different.
...Werewolves are called "lichens" instead of "garou".
...There appear to be no active female werewolves
...one can become a werewolf simply by being bitten by one (don't know about the vampires)
...werewolves are compelled to change during a full moon
...both werewolves and vampires are such due to complex viruses.

In the World of Darkness...
...there are TONS of active female werewolves
...you are born a werewolf and cannot make a human into one
...werewolves can easily change forms at will
... memories are not transferred in a bite

Things that are the same:
• werewolves are allergic to silver
• both species regenerate
• vampires don't deal well with light
• the two species hate eachother and often war
• a werewolf doesn't know she's a werewolf until her first change, which is often painful and uncontrolled
• werewolves often won't use as much technology but do, and often are seen as brutal and primitive, something some strive to change and some revel in.

As this relates to the film
There were enough differences to delinneate the two worlds in my mind, though I cringed at a few things. These things didnt' affect the overal strength or weakness of the film, though.

I liked the world of the film. The mood was perfect - the decadence of the vampires and the slums of the werewolves. The night time of it all. The mood was consistant and believeable -- the way that the gothic punk world of "the Matrix" worked and the way the gothic world of "Van Helsing" didn't work. ;) And it wasn't a rehash of this world, either. The shots were creative and composed well. Visually, it was a treat to look at and very real.

Effects wize, the werewolves could of been better. They weren't very graceful and moved in a hulky way. There's no way they ever could of been the equals to vampires or survived this long with this many all out confrontations if they were seriously that physically impaired. Of course, I may be drawing too much from the World of Darkness on this one, where many werewolves ARE these berzerkers, but many more are graceful hunters and martial artists. *shrugs* They weren't THAT bad - the part that bothered me most about them was when they were running on the walls. If you really concentrated on them, it looked really WRONG. Even if you'd used the same animation for them on the floor it would of looked WRONG.

Characters and plot. Compared to Van Helsing, I actually CARED about the characters. I cared what happened with Michael and Selene [sp?]. I even cared about what went on with Viktor, between he and Selene. The plot was a bit TOO confusing in the beginning. Personally, I'm pretty tenacious when it comes to sticking it out to see what happens, even if I'm not sure it's going to come together well in the end in a coherent plot. So on one hand, it made a mess of the beginning and I had no clue what they were talking about, but on the other, it made it a bit more realistic in that the viewers are just thrown into the middle of this thing that's been going on forever.

Compare that to some of the other films that have been out lately - like Van Helsing or DareDevil - where there is a history to the characters. In Van Helsing makes it out to be mysterious but that we'll find out more. And we never do, and by the time we find out that we will never know, we really don't care. With DareDevil, we care, and it's very humanistic, but it's packaged *so* nicely and neatly, almost like they're brainwashing us to like this character, in a way. ;) Though, in DareDevil it works because it's a movie of a comic book and is supposed to FEEL like a comic book and suceedes well at this.
[/TANGENT]

So I liked that this is a slice of a much larger story and I like that we may be in for a sequel. Or not. It would work fine the way it is, leaving us to imagine what happens, since the beginning was so open, the ending can be that way, too. We just happened to observe that two hours of their lives or whatever.

I've lost my train of thought. Anyhow. I was pleasantly suprised by this film. I went into it thinking I'd get angry at a negative portrayal of werewolves. I went in expecting to have no compassion for any of the vampire characters. But it was a good story with interesting characters and I actually want to know what happens with them in their lives.

Van Helsing

Van Helsing could of been a really great story but the plot was kind of loose. There was nothing really driving us to care about the characters, especially the main character. I almost didn't care that they had to kill Dracula, either. Some things were too obvious, and other things were too obscure and it didn't really lead you along very well, so I felt like I was just drifting through the film in a very unattatched way. The effects were very cool for the most part - I especially enjoyed the werewolves (I'm a werewolf fan and picky and thought they did a neat job). The acting was okay - some people needed to choose an accent and KEEP it. And those female vampire sidekicks were just weird. They reminded me of the Furies from Xena or something - their clawed hands and movements were the same for every emotion.

All in all I totally didn't care about the film and having watched it, leaves me with nothing. *shrugs* I've definetly seen more entertaining films.