Julie & Julia (2009)

I'd been meaning to write about this movie for a long time. With Julie Powell passing away earlier this year (sadly at age 49 of cardiac arrest), I finally have the excuse I need to finally write it.

I can't quite say that Julie is why I decided to start blogging in general. But I'd be lying if I said that I didn't imagine attaining a similiar level of success with my own blogs.
...

The movie takes a very interesting approach with its narrative. It moves between two different character arcs and draws parallels between the two. 

*1950's- The great chef and TV personality Julia Child, who found her passion for cooking later in life and collaborated on "Mastering the Art of French cooking." 

*2002- Julie Powell, who went from working at a call center for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (their mission was to help rebuild after 9/11) to writing a very successful blog cooking through the book's 524 recipes in a year

Both have various hurdles to overcome and ultimately find success in their pursuits.

The movie kicks into gear when Julie has the epiphany to start a blog. Someone in her friendship circle began one and it focuses on rather trivial things. 
While cooking for her husband that evening, she has a lightbulb moment and says:
"I could write a blog. I have thoughts..."

Every now and then, that line comes to me and I embrace it. Heck, I should have it as a T-shirt. My thoughts are scattered across so many mediums and platforms, it's even even funny.

Another part of Julie's motivation- she'd never finished anything she started so giving herself a deadline with her blog was a good way to keep the pressure on. For better and worse.

As for Julia Child, her character arc focused on how she became a chef and later became involved in the cookbook she became famous for. She attends Le Cordon Bleu (even the uninitiated know that name carries a lot of weight in the culinary world) and is perceived with a lot of skepticism by her professors. One funny scene from this sequence is when she learns the proper technique to chop onions and her husband comes home to her doing homework. (Stanley Tucci's reaction to all that onion hanging in the air was priceless).
Then she collaborates on rewriting the Art of French Cooking for the common American housewife and endures some challenges with her own. There's two other women on the project. One of them isn't pulling their weight and after much discussion, it's decided that she will get a smaller share of royalties. 

The progression of the Julie/Julie project has a lot of fun twists and turns. Like she has to cook a lobster but has a panic attack while trying to boil it. She bemoans over and over about how she heard the HVAC previous night whispering "lobster killer"... and after her husband helps her put the lobster out of its misery, he mockingly quips "lobster killer..."

But there's also some setbacks. Like when her aspic doesn't properly set on her first attempt. (According to Wikipedia, it's also called "meat jelly" and it's essentially a savory gelatin with chunks of meat, egg or vegetable inside... maybe I'm missing something, but to me, that doesn't sound appetizing).
The biggest set-back: she prepares Beef Bourguignon (she insists on pronouncing it "Boeuf Bourguignon" to maintain the French in her French cooking) and has multiple failures. First, she cooks it in the oven over several hours and sets an alarm to make sure she takes it out in time. Only problem is that she falls asleep and it winds up ruined. The second time, she ends up having a fight with her husband... all because he adds salt to his portion before tasting it. She's concerned that it's bland and things escalated from there.

We'd made Beef bourguignon several times. Once from Julia's actual recipe, but mostly from the recipes that came with our crockpot. Through the course of the movie, Julie gets gifts from her readers. Why did none of them think to get her a crockpot? Or was that not authentic to the recipe? Whatever the case, it could have saved a lot of aggravation. 

Blogging was a fairly new concept in 2002 but within a few years, everyone was doing it. Like what they say nowadays, everyone and their dog has a podcast now. 
This movie shows the good and the bad that can come out of it. The way she connected with her readers was really cool, to the point they were becoming part of her culinary journey.
For the negatives: there's one point where Julie is so overcome with grief over a failure that she calls in sick and tells her blog the reason behind it. Her boss reads it and while he's not pleased by this discovery, his one concern is that he doesn't wind up being mentioned in her writing. It's a good lesson to remember.

It's disheartening that Julia heard about the project and didn't approve of it. Particularly, the whole "project" aspect of it and Julie not talking as much about the actual cooking on her blog. 
Reading some of the reviews on the Imdb site, lots of people didn't like the Julie Powell character and wished there was more Julia in the movie. Maybe it's because I relate more to Julie, but I found her sections more enjoyable. But I also wasn't among the people who grew up with Julia Child on the TV. My one other point of reference was that she did a voiceover for "We're Back: A Dinosaur Story"- she didn't get much screen time, but her voice was nonetheless memorable.

But her husband has an interesting comment that gets her through the rest of the project. "The Julia in your head is the only one who matters."
One sad truth about life is that sometimes you're better off not meeting your heroes. Even if they don't agree with your methods or your results, what matters the most is how you view yourself and what you personally take away from the inspiration they gave you. 

Theatrical Review: Mary Poppins Returns

Date: Saturday, December 22 2018
Location: Cinemark Theater in Stroud Mall
Time: 11am
Party: 3 (my mom, sister and I)

Director: Rob Marshall (of Pirates of the Carribean and Into the Woods fame)
Writers: David Magee, Rob Marshall and John DeLuca (screenplay), P.L. Travers (for Mary Poppins book series)
Composer: Marc Shaiman

Notable Cast:
Mary Poppins- Emily Blunt
Jack the Leery- Lin-Manuel Miranda
Michael Banks- Ben Whishaw (Q in the latest Bond films and the voice of Paddington)
Jane Banks- Emily Mortimer (I know her best as the voice of the heroine in "Howl's Moving Castle)
Ellen- Julie Walters (Mrs. Weasley is back!)
Cousin Topsy- Meryl Streep
Wilkins- Colin Firth

Write-up:

Opening Remarks

This is one of those movies we'd been looking forward to all year and for me at least it was worth the wait. My sister says she really liked it, but she wasn't speaking as enthuastically about it as I did afterwards. And my mom thought it was a little too depressing and dragged in places. 
The theater was mostly empty when we got there and by the time it started, at least a dozen other people showed up. But it wasn't a terribly enthusiastic audience. The two of me (my sister and I) wanted to cheer and clap after a bunch of the musical numbers, but it was so silent in the theater we were only comfortable softly clapping to ourselves. Nobody even cheered at the end and I felt like this movie warranted that. 
Was it as good as the original? No. The original is such a classic and Julie Andrews is so adored in this role that it's hard for anyone to do it that same level of justice. But I thought it was a nice homage to the original film and will help introduce a new generation to it. Hopefully those who hadn't seen the original will do and those who hadn't seen it in years will become more inclined to revisit. I know I will have to... I think the last time I saw it was on TV a couple years ago... they tend to show it this time of year on ABC, which is one of the many apparatuses owned by Disney these days... 

Trailers: 
...and we're back to the stand-by 7 trailers...

Breakthrough- this movie brought me in immediately on the fact the mom is being played by Kate from "This is Us"- it's based on a true story where a teenage boy is playing with his friends and falls through the ice and faith alone is helping to keep him alive. Looks like a bit of a tearjerker (well, obviously) but it looks like it'll be a good movie overall

Detective Pikachu- the first time my sister is seeing the trailer and I'm not even sure what she thinks of it. I know she asked for (and got) the game for Christmas and has watched the walkthrough on YouTube a number of times already. 

A Dog's Way Home- my sister run out of the theater so she didn't have to see the trailer again... we love dogs, but we hate dog movies because they're ALWAYS tearjerkers. And the dog almost always dies at the end.

The Secret Life of Pets 2- I still hadn't seen the first one and it's been on TV a bit over the last week (let's just say we have other plans so we keep missing it). This one is another teaser, this time about the cat trying to wake up its owner and the one thing that does is her hacking up a hairball. Then after the title, she's on the sofa dealing with catnip and talking to the little white dog

Where'd You Go, Bernadette?- I'm not quite sure where this movie is even going, honestly... it's about a mom who suddenly has this urge to do something and just disappears and I guess it's about finding her... I really can't make heads or tails of it.

Dumbo- after a bunch of teasers, I think this is the first proper trailer we've gotten of this movie. I'd seen the original maybe once and it was years ago. And it's a pretty rough movie to get through... I still don't quite like the fact that this movie revolves around the people trying to take care of Dumbo and make him a star to help save the circus, when in the animated version the humans are the bad guys that took away Dumbo's mom because she was hurting people (they started it- stupid kids teasing poor Dumbo)... it looks like in this version Danny Devito is the ringmaster and there is some homage to the pink elephants scene, although I don't know if it'll be a full song and dance number... I remember Nostaglia Critic naming that scene one of his top 11 nostaglic mindf**ks cuz it's one of those things that doesn't make sense when you're a kid and there's usually drugs involved. 

The Lion King- omg, cannot wait for this one... and also can't wait to get more than just a teaser trailer of this cuz it looks like it's gonna be AMAZING. The one thing they've got right for sure is James Earl Jones as Mufasa. Nobody can top that. 

So I made a note on my phone, where I record all these trailers for these posts...there are 7 and I don't write the post for a couple days after... it'll be too easy to forget if I don't write them down... this was 17 minutes of previews... and the movie time is slated for 11... the movie itself should START at 11, not the trailers and millions of commercials... if I wanted to see commercials, I would have stayed home :sigh:

Ok, moving on...

The Main Event

One thing before the movie starts, we get a greeting from Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda to thank us for seeing the movie, to enjoy it and have a good holiday. I thought that was kind of a nice touch.
The opening is pretty nice where we see a lot of paintings of scenes from the movie as the overture plays with all the songs to come in the movie. 
It should be noted that all of the songs are brand new, no encores from the first movie, but certainly a bunch of references to the original. 

The bad news first- the movie starts with a bit of a double-whammy... the second generation of Banks children (Michael's children) lost their mom a year ago and now the bank is threatening to repossess their house unless they can play the loan in full. And for the adults, grown-up Jane and Michael (the kids from the original movie), their quest is to find the certificate that their father owned shares in the bank. And the three children, Anabel, John and Georgie want to help as well. But then Mary Poppins shows up and her job is to help them to remember how to be kids... because they'd done so much growing up after their mom passed away.

It's a Disney tradition that we've all gotten pretty sick of at this point... the moms are always dead or die in these movies... seriously, what the hell... but on the other hand, if they were going to do the widower angle, they did play it right. The big issue with the house is that Michael's wife took care of all the finances and he's not sure how to take over. Now, had they gone the other way and said it was Jane's children and her husband had passed away, it'd be more typical... the husband doing the finances and the wife not knowing what to do about them... this kinda paints the deceased Mrs. Banks in a strong female role and it certainly shows how times have changed. 

The songs weren't quite as memorable as "A Spoon Full of Sugar," "Feed the Birds" or "Let's Go Fly a Kite"... but they had that same sense of fun and feel like they come from the same songbook. A number of the scenes do harken back to the original. And of course the characters do as well.
Best place to start is the Leeries- the people in London who light the streetlamps at night and snuff them out in the morning. They fulfill the role the chimney sweeps do in the original movie. Their song about tripping the "Light Fantastic" may not be "Chim-Chim-erie" but it lends itself to the Leeries doing an outrageously fun dance number including bike tricks and parkour. 
Of course a lot of people complained back in the day about how bad a Cockney accent Dick Van Dyke did for Bert the Chimney Sweep and the accent Lin-Manuel Miranda does is sorta in line with that. Then again, I've never been to that part of London so I can't judge what is or isn't a good Cockney accent. (Being a part of "My Fair Lady" in high school certainly doesn't make me an expert.. even if I had been cast as Eliza or even had a line or two). But the man behind "Hamilton" was brilliant in every scene he was in. He made this movie fun and he always lit up the screen when he came on. Of course I know of "Hamilton" but had never seen it and I really hadn't gotten to experience him outside of him writing songs for "Moana"... but the dude is brilliant. 

Emily Blunt may not be Julie Andrews and nobody can really touch her in this role (or any she had done over the years for that matter), but the important thing in the end is that she fulfills the role these kids need in this trying time. I just thought to myself how crazy it is how far she'd come as an actress. I first saw her as Emily in "The Devil Wears Prada" and I'd since seen her in a bunch of other roles. She proved she had a flair for musicals in "Into the Woods" and this is just more of that. 

Another homage to the original, of course, is everyone being transported into an animated world. Instead of a painting on the street, it's the paint job on a priceless vase that the children cracked in a fight. The penguins make a comeback, but they're comic relief more than anything else. Among the musical scenes, they had a Vaudeville performance where Mary Poppins and Jack talk about how "The Cover Is Not the Book"... and it's kind of about not judging a book by its cover.
A message that does wind up coming back into reality... one thing I will say about this movie was how every detail is important and if you pay attention, you can see what's coming before it arrives. That's always a fun touch. 

Meryl Streep is mentioned among the cast... because she's bloody Meryl Streep. Even if she only has five minutes of screen time, she always gets billed on the first page of the cast list. Not to say she isn't great in this movie- her character is fun and memorable. (Not to mention Rob Marshall did the same trick with Johnny Depp in "Into the Woods"- putting on the first page of the cast list even though he doesn't last more than 10 minutes on screen). They take the vase to her to fix because she can fix anything, but she says she cannot because it's the second Wednesday of the month and on that day for 3 hours, the world "turns turtle"... flips upside down. To me, this felt like a homage to that scene in the movie where two men are floating on the ceiling because they're laughing so much. But then they get depresssed and manage to right themselves. They do the reverse here where she realizes that she loves "turning turtle" and it's all about looking from another perspective. 

Not sure how more I can say without giving too much away about the movie... it's definitely worth a watch, though.
I'll also say that another good homage they did to the original... the tuppence Michael wanted to give to the bird lady in the original movie do wind up going to good use... I thought that was particularly important because "Feed the Birds" was a scene Walt Disney himself REALLY wanted to stay in the movie because it was his favorite. 
For me, it was the one scene in Mary Poppins I really didn't like... it was dank and depressing and as a kid, I didn't really understand the point of it. I think because it was one time in the movie where it stopped being a kid friendly movie and became more adult. But as a kid, I also did not watch a lot of live action media whether it was on TV or in movies. I always preferred animation, which is probably why I didn't really like Mary Poppins all that much. But as I've gotten older, I'm gotten to appreciate it a lot more. I also really need to see the rest of "Saving Mr. Banks"... I really liked however much I saw of that movie and I still need to see how it all ends. 

At some point, I'll have to see both movies- Mr. Banks and the original Mary Poppins and write about both of them...

One more thing... it's a trite random comment... the Banks' use a lot of the same names as they did Peter Pan... the Darling children are Wendy, John and Michael. The Banks children are Jane and Michael... and in the sequel, they use the name John as one of the children... were there not a lot of names around back then in London? 
I would understand if Peter Pan (the J.M. Barrie story) predated Mary Poppins by a lot of years, but... I don't know if that commonality annoys me or not... 
Jane was the name of Wendy's daughter in "Return to Neverland" but that came out LONG after any of these movies (or the books they were based from) came from... 

Reading the trivia, Julie Andrews did turn down a cameo (there were some others, I'll say that much) and she also gave her blessing to Emily Blunt to succeed her... that's so great to hear, especially after Angela Lansbury said she didn't approve of them remaking "Beauty & The Beast"... it's not as good as the original, but I liked it a lot. Also Emily Blunt played the character, purposely, much closer to how she appeared in the books, so I thought that was a nice touch.

And also forgot... it was great seeing Julie Walters on screen again, it's been a while... she was so lovable as the Banks' housekeeper.

Grade: A
(not practically perfect... but it came pretty dang close, at least I thought it did... whether or not it's Best Picture material like the original, not quite... I'd rather "A Star is Born" sweep all the awards)

Book vs. Movie- The Giver

Introduction
I think this was the first book we read in school that I actually liked. Mr. Goodrich [RIP- he didn't deserve to go like he did http://6abc.com/news/son-arrested-after-fatal-stabbing-of-father-in-langhorne/903237/] taught us in 8th grade.

The movie didn't exist back then, but we watched "Fahrenheit 451" in class because it had a similar feel. Since then, even the insinuation of burning books drives me up the wall... we just can't not have books and destroying precious literature should be considered a crime.

I wouldn't quite use that distinction to describe this film adaptation, but considering how many years I'd waited for this movie to happen... well, I'll go into that later.

The Book
Spoilers
"The Giver" is about a utopian community ruled in sameness where everything is controlled. Marriages are assigned, each family unit is given two children- one boy and one girl. Jobs are chosen for people by a committee of elders. There is no pain, no feelings and no color.

Our protagonist, Jonas, is selected for a very special position in the community. From the previous person at this position (the titular character), he receives all the memories of the past. With them, he will gain the wisdom required to advise the community in situations outside of their experience.
He not only learns about snow and sunshine, but also about broken bones, war, and starvation. But it's the memories of love that start to convince him that things should be different.

Then the real breaking point: he learns that the tradition of Release in community (which extends to inadequate babies, the elderly and rule-breakers with the three transgressions) equates to murder.
And the baby that his father had been giving extra nurturing, whom he'd shared memories with to help him sleep, is going to be Released.

***
Lois Lowry wrote 3 other books that were considered to be Companion books to this one.
Gathering Blue features a more primitive dystopian society. The protagonist, Kira, was nearly cast out because her twisted deformed leg makes it impossible for her to contribute. But because she's a gifted weaver, the committee in charge tasks her with the restoration of a robe. Within its design, it tells stories of the past.
Messenger brings back Kira and Jonas [although in another capacity in a different society] but stars Kira's childhood friend Matty.
Son is not only a companion, but also serves as a sequel to "The Giver." Bringing back the previous characters, but also telling someone else's story. And she has a special connection to Gabriel, the baby Jonas took with him.

"Gathering Blue" I enjoyed as well, although not nearly as much as "The Giver." The other books... they have their ups and downs. "Son" started out really interesting, taking us back to the world of The Giver from the perspective of another character. But the middle part of the book dragged and the ultimate resolution took a little too long to... resolve.

"The Giver" was great because it introduced a lot of interesting concepts. What would you have to give up if you wanted a perfect society? Sameness had to take the place of differences. Because differences led to ugly emotions like envy and greed and these things led to conflict and war... you get the picture.
But you also give up good things like love... yeah, no matter how perfect the concept is, all utopias eventually fail.

The Movie
More Spoilers
:sigh:
First of all, I'm so glad I didn't opt to spend 7 bucks on a movie ticket.
Within the first three minutes, I already had a dozen complaints. I knew coming in that while the main story remained the same, they changed practically ALL the details.
And within the first 10 minutes we were at the Ceremony of 12... and I knew if I had a notepad in front of me, I'd probably have over 100 grievances written down by the end of the movie. Enough to write a college-level essay.
Considering how this is my favorite book ever... I still might do that... it's more likely to come to fruition than my own "Twilight" screenplay [which would be truer to the book and erase all the cringe-worthy moments in the movie].

We begin with Jonas narrating, practically, the back cover of the book. In retrospect, it could have been Jonas as he was at the end of the book narrating... but at this point, I was just thinking "he doesn't know any of this" so it felt really out of place.
At least in the Hunger Games and Divergent, everyone knew that their society was designed as they were because of something in the past. The people in Jonas's community were bred in ignorance... maybe that's what separates a utopia from a dystopia.

When I read the book, The Giver was the only person who wasn't ignorant. That knew everything about the community, but about the past before anyone remembers. The Chief Elder only knew that the Receiver of Memory had wisdom to assist the Elders in situations outside of their experience.
But apparently, in the movie, the Chief Elder knows a little more than the book led us to believe. In fact, she comes off as a freaking control freak... but unlike Jeanine and President Snow, she genuinely seems afraid of the return of conflict. It's not just an ego trip.
This doesn't mean I didn't want to punch Meryl Streep in the face through the majority of the movie... her and Katie Holmes.

Katie Holmes plays Jonas's mom, but she's involved in the Law Enforcement. She came off as a bitch with a stick up her butt. I get the "precision of language" is a big deal in the community, but she told Jonas half a dozen times throughout the movie. Those were the majority of her lines. Sure, she's a bit more strict than Jonas's father, but I didn't think the disparity between the two was that strong.

My personal nitpick- Jonas didn't have pale blue eyes. At least Jeff Bridges and Taylor Swift (who played the previous Receiver, Rosemary) had blue eyes. The capacity to see/hear beyond, in the movie, was denoted to a fucking BIRTHMARK. I mean, how difficult was it to cast an actor with pale blue eyes? Or get him contacts?

That aside... Brenton Thewlis did do the character justice in every other way possible. He was eager. He was passionate. Things that really showed in the more dramatic stages of the story.
And Jeff Bridges... he was the reason this movie got made at all. Other than the fact his beard wasn't as long as the dude on the cover of the book, he filled this role so well. I was really impressed with him... that's never happened before :P not for me.

Another nitpick... Asher seemed to get a stick up his butt halfway through the movie. After he's assigned to be a drone pilot [instead of Assistant Recreation Director], his carefree nature vanished. He became a stickler for the rules.
I get that they needed him to fill a role for later in the story, but still... in the book, he received the "precision of language" lecture so many times. Jonas was the one who chose his words more carefully [so Katie Holmes having to chastise him early in the movie really annoyed me because in the book he freaking knew better].

I like the idea that Jonas, Asher and Fiona were friends growing up. I also kinda liked what they did with Fiona's character, how they kinda pushed the love interest requirement in most YA adaptations, and how she became integral to the end of the story.

People were in an uproar about Taylor Swift being cast as Rosemary... her total movie screen time was ONLY A MINUTE... the haters need to get over it or not watch at all. You're better off reading the book anyway. [And I thought she rocked however little screen time she had- it was more than we got from the character in the book since she'd been dead for 10 years and as Katie Holmes said "we do not speak of it"].

On the one hand, I get why they showed Jonas showing Fiona and his sister Lily the things he'd been doing in the memories. But on the other, I hated that they had to create a physical antagonist in the movie. The enemy is sameness- the way the society is run because, as The Giver said in the book, "They know nothing."
But then again, I nit-picked at the fact James, Victoria and Laurent were alluded to throughout "Twilight" when they weren't in the book until they showed up at the Cullens' baseball game. A minor nitpick, but I was a little annoyed about it :shrug:

When it came to the action-packed third act of the movie, I actually thought it was well done. Once we got past the realm that was covered in the book. Once Jonas left, they were making stuff up as they went. Because we didn't know what was going on in the community after he left. And I think by that point I was letting go of taking everything apart... I was more concerned about what was going to happen to the characters... I knew Jonas and Gabriel would survive, but the others back in the community... there was no way of knowing.

I liked the twist at the end, which may or may not have been The Giver's intention in the book. Supposedly, he helped Jonas get away so he could restore the memories to the community to make it up to Rosemary and what he put her through with the training.

And seeing how all the memories returned at the end... it was worth all the cringe-worthy moments that led up to it. Meryl Streep and Katie Holmes finally saw the error of their ways... the fact that they seemed to be in cahoots throughout the movie was particularly annoying. Like she cared more for following the rules than her own family. Oh right, families don't care about each other because they're not even related through blood.

Conclusion

As an adaptation, only 15% of it was viable in my view. Everything else just had me wanting to kick ass and take names.
As a stand-alone movie, I guess it was passable. I'm not from that school of thought. Especially not with this movie because I've known this story for 15 years.

Book vs. Movie: The Devil Wear Prada

The movie, I ranked #83 among 101 favorite movies.
The book, in some areas, was more enjoyable than the movie.
Others, not so much...

A couple people had given up their copies for our yearly discount book sale at the local library. Considering how there'd been a few books I'd gotten because I loved the movies-- and wound up disappointed-- I gave myself a lot of time to think it over before I gave in.
Got it, Clay Aiken's memoir and an illustrated guide of "New Moon" all for $2.50.

In case anyone's interested, the price range was from 50 cents up to 5 bucks per book... talk about a steal.

***
I'll admit that the first chapter was a rocky start. When I was researching how to improve as a writer and how to write query letters (none of which got the positive feedback I desired and gave up 3 years ago-- the book I tried to get represented got lost in revision and has yet to revive), they say that it's preferable to begin in the middle of the action to catch the reader's interest.
The scene in question was never returned to in the confines of the book, but it gave us an idea of what it was like to work for Miranda Priestly. But for me, to start here rather than with Andy's job interview, it was disorienting. The first-person narrative felt, lack of a better word, odd. I found it a little more off-putting than engaging. Not to mention the tirade of f-bombs... there was none of that in the movie.

But after first chapter ended, everything fell into place. I got used to Lauren Weisberger's writing style soon enough. And the language, used sporadically throughout, was not only warranted, but I wish it existed in the movie.
I got so lost in the world of the book that I couldn't wait to return to it and devoured it when it was in my hands. I couldn't get enough. I almost wished I was in this world of Runway... almost.

***
DifferencesIMDb's page on the movie answers most of those questions, so I won't harp on too many of them... because there really are too many to discuss and I'd be writing this forever :P

What I will say though is that the movie is a loose adaptation and strictly an INTERPRETATION of the book and its characters.
Meaning that the director, screenwriters and so on took the source material and created their own version of its events.
Usually, I nitpick when my favorite books are massacred by movies. My review of "Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters" is proof of this. And when the book varies greatly from the movie ("The Phantom of the Opera" is an extreme case of this but nonetheless upsetting to me as a devotee to the Gerard Butler version), it's a disappointment.

This was neither of those cases. If anything, the book made me appreciate how the movie was constructed. How they took this material and this unique perspective inside the workings of a Fashion magazine and put their own spin on it.

But while I'm under this subheading, I'll go to a couple differences:

1) Miranda Priestly is scarier
I said in my review how Meryl Streep does a passive-aggressive version of the character. In the book, she's downright terrifying. She won't hesitate to verbally abuse you if you make the tiniest mistake.

2) Nigel (one of my favorite characters in the movie) is barely present and completely different
To put it bluntly, Nigel is an outrageous gay stereotype. He appears in the book twice and you know he's present by his ALL CAPS dialogue. Which is about as hilarious as the way he's dressed.
There are multiple male characters in the book who bring their own flair and flavor into Andy's life. The most memorable of them handles the gates at ground floor reception and makes her sing along to pop music with him before he opens the doors. Something that's a fun touch, but not so much when Miranda is figuratively breathing down her neck.
I don't think Nigel (the movie) is even a combination of the Runway guys Andy befriends... he's like a brand new character who shows Andy some of the inner workings, helps her get a makeover (in the book, she was more or less pressured to change her look to fit in or risk getting fired) and gives her tough love when it's warranted.
He's also a nice addition because it's important to remember that fashion magazines like Runway have influenced gay men as much as women. And it's gay men that are among the most well-known designers in the world.

3) The core dynamic between Andy, her best friend Lily (more developed/central in the book), boyfriend (teacher instead of cook) and her family is completely different
...plus you get more dramatics in the book whereas in the movie, you only see glimpses of them. Not to mention something that happens to one of them helps drive home Andy's decision to quit.

4) Paranoia and Stockholm Syndrome are responsible for the inner workings of Runway

...from a psychological point of view, I found the book kinda fascinating.
In the movie, everyone rushes around to make sure Miranda's demands are met, but you don't get the chance to really look inside their minds. Which often times makes books the superior art form. Even though it's told in the first person, you see and feel EVERYTHING that happens.
Andy explained how everyone loves and supports Miranda, but occasionally, her co-workers slip up. They begin to say something negative, but quickly retract it as if Miranda would be able to hear them.

The Stockholm Syndrome is especially present in characters like Emily who worship the ground Miranda walks on and it appears difficult for them to hear anything negative being spoken or expressed. Particularly in Andy's apathy early on within her expressions and non-verbal actions.
It reminds me a bit of "Mean Girls" where Gretchen wanted to regain Regina's forgiveness because it was better to be Plastic than not. And how she and Karen started following Cady when Regina became outcast from the Plastics... like they'd been her cronies for so long that they became conditioned to serve whatever Queen Bee was available to them.

And of course there were bits and pieces that made me think of what "The Devil Wears Prada" would have been like if it was a "50 Shades of Grey" situation. If Andy was a male character and Miranda had all of her employees be her sex slaves... the fanfiction practically writes itself. But it'd be kinda shoddy to write a fanfiction based on a fanfiction :/

***
Favorite Book Highlight

I loved Emily and Andy's camaraderie in the book. Granted they aren't BFF's. But to see how the two of them work together was enjoyable. How one picks up the slack over the other... even though Emily usually does it so she wouldn't have to train a new assistant... it's a great safety net to have.
Emily will even have moments where she consents to the faults of Miranda's "system" of operation, but they're brief... thanks to that whole Runway Paranoia complex that's in control of the place.

***
Book to Movie Adaptation

I'm almost hate to say that the movie took the source material and did the Hollywood version of it because that denotes clichés and so on... but that's exactly what they did.

They streamlined the storyline of the book, chiseled out their versions of the important cast members, and gave us a beginning, middle and end of the arc of Andy's journey.

So many people go on about when books get turned into movies and the movies ruin our favorite books... or they just don't do it quite right.
I skimmed the reviews on Goodreads before posting mine: most of the posts I came across HATED the book, found Andy to be a very selfish apathetic character, and, notably, added "the movie was better."
...which almost never happens in my world.

Considering the pros and cons, the Hollywood treatment did do this story a favor. The biggest was actually giving it a plot.
The book was mainly a series of events Andy experienced at Runway, how her being a workaholic (of Miranda's choosing, not hers) alienated her from her family and how she winds up leaving.
The movie actually gives us a progression: It shows how Andy transforms herself into one of the Runway girls, how she starts to improve in this capacity, how she winds up taking Emily's place as first assistant (opposed to the 2nd assistant who's just a gofer, basically, fetching everything from coffee to food to Hermes scarves), and she's in a prime position to really succeed in this industry-- only to give it all up when she discovers what she really wants.

The book leaves things between Andy and Miranda open... the way she leaves is actually pretty hilarious... you'd have to read the book (or if you're lazy, read spoilers on Goodreads or Wikipedia).
In the movie, Miranda still has respect for her when Andy leaves (although in the movie, Andy just walks out without saying a word, so both their dignities were intact)... and she's able to get her dream job at the New Yorker because Miranda put in a good word for her.

The sequel to the book is called "Revenge Wears Prada" and takes place 10 years later... I don't know anything except that and I'll wait to read the book to find out... and based on how this last one went, I'm looking forward to it.

Final Comments

I rewatched the movie to see if there was anything else I wanted to add...

Meryl Streep is so good in this role, I honestly wouldn't have minded if she won an Oscar for it... every time, I see the character, not the actress.

I wouldn't want to work for either version of this "horrible boss," but in the movie, I like that Miranda still has some humanity to her.
In the book, it's like she doesn't even have a soul (which is why she may have been dubbed "The Devil" who wears prada). When Andy's in Paris, Miranda asks her about a phone conversation where Andy says she plans to stick it out in Paris rather than going home for an emergency... and Miranda's response is that she made the right choice in staying.
Cold-hearted bitch...
But in the movie, it's very clear how much Miranda cares about her family and how upsetting her eventual 3rd divorce is. You actually see the chinks in her armor. You also have more moments where she addresses how Andy's doing in the confines of the job, not just screaming and raving about what she's not doing right.

And the movie brings in another interesting element not in the book...
there's a lot of backstabbing in business, whether it's intentional or not.
Miranda gives an open position to a competitor instead of the person who really earned it because it secured her position as Editor-in-Chief.
And she explains to Andy that she did something similar to Emily-- taking her place at Miranda's side in Paris instead of refusing and getting fired for doing so.

A lot of interesting issues are addressed in both versions. No matter how you slice it, it's thought-provoking either way when you really think about it...

Broadway vs. Hollywood- Mamma Mia!

Exposition

I'm all about lists, yet I never got around to making one about the best days of my life :P But if I ever did, this particular day I'm about to go into is top 3 easily...
"Mamma Mia!" is one of those musicals that's really family-oriented. It focuses on the bond between mother and daughter and as well as fathers and daughters. That particular day, my dad took my sister and I to New York to see it... that Saturday in June 2006 per that moment was probably "the best day ever"... the quintessential best day ever... we saw a musical we really enjoyed, my dad surprised us afterwards when he gave us the CD's he bought during intermission [or maybe before it started, not sure], and we went to a restaurant for one of my favorite dinners ever [Salmon Imperial... my mouth still waters thinking about it. Sadly, this restaurant closed just recently.

Whenever I listen to the soundtrack, it takes me back to that day instantly. I remember the overture and the excitement billowing in me. The musical numbers and how they were set up, I still remember really well.
There was also a time when I was in college where I almost couldn't listen to the soundtrack. Certain songs ("Lay your love on me" and "Under attack") were too poignant given what I was going through at the time... or they just made me miss home too much.

A couple years later, they adapted the movie to film, so my mom, sister and I went to the theaters to see it. We weren't quite dancing in the aisles, but enjoyed ourselves... but the movie isn't without its flaws.

At the present moment, I'm inclined to believe that Broadway wins [again] by a landslide, but I'll break my discussion into a couple categories to figure out how true that is.

Casting

First the positives...
Amanda Seyfried was the perfect Sophie. I think this was her first big role since "Mean Girls" and it was a great performance. Probably my favorite of hers still... not that I've ever been disappointed.
The duo of Christine Baranski and Julie Walters as the other Dynamos, Tanya and Rosie, rocked it... other than the "Does your mother know?" number and one particular line ("You're supposed to blow, not suck"- it was regarding an air mattress but nonetheless got a lot of laughs), Tanya wasn't memorable in the Broadway version. The same goes for Rosie and "Take a Chance on Me"... but even that number was better in the movie.
Of the three guys, Colin Firth was the best casting choice. A perfect Harry Bright.

:sigh:
I can have my nitpicks about the choice of songs, how the arrangement differed from Broadway... but my biggest grievances lie with the two leads...
For the record, I quite like Meryl Streep in "The Devil Wears Prada" and "Julie & Julia"... the issue I have in general is that she's nominated for an Oscar nearly EVERY year...

To this day, I maintain that casting her and Pierce Brosnan as Donna and Sam was NOT because they were the best people for the job...they were cast because Hollywood wanted big names for this movie... as if they weren't confident enough in the huge following this musical has...

Firstly, Meryl Streep was shy of 60 when she was cast for "Mamma Mia!"... Donna is supposed to be a middle-aged woman in her mid 40's, assuming that she met Sam, Bill and Harry when she was in college... therefore too old...
Secondly... :sigh: "The Winner Takes it All" is supposed to be this big triumphant number breaming with feminine energy. Her vocal range didn't allow for that big finishing note, so when it finally came and didn't happen... the bottom fell out of my stomach, I was so disappointed. [As for my biggest disappointment of the movie, see the soundtrack section]

Meanwhile, Pierce Brosnan... I don't care that he was freaking James Bond for 4 movies... I think I only saw "Die another day" and he was quite good... I'm even willing to give him the age thing... only 55 when "Mamma Mia!" was cast...
HE CAN'T SING!
"S.O.S." was painful, his voice was so bad. I'm sure there are dozens of actors in the right age range with a much better singing voice...

This movie also introduced me to Dominic Cooper, who I may forever associate with the character of Howard Stark (aka Tony Stark's father)... as great as he was, I fell out of love with him during his overreaction scene- where he accuses Sophie of using their wedding as an excuse to find who her dad is... that's kinda harsh... also kind of a silly nitpick considering my opposition to the above casting choices.

I also understand that they changed Bill Austin to Bill Anderson for the movie because Stellan Skarsgard wouldn't have matched with the whole "Indiana Jones travel writer" thing Bill Austin had going on... having that said, I sometimes wish they didn't change the character and cast Keith Urban instead :P even if the age range is off by quite a few years

Soundtrack

I suppose the best way to address this is going through the soundtrack song by song and saying who did the better version.

1. I have a dream (tie)
Both version are still very clear in my head

2. Honey, Honey (tie)
Both versions were memorable, but the dialogue where Sophie and her friends were reading "dot dot dot" in Donna's diary was much funnier on Broadway

3. Money, Money, Money (Broadway)
-Broadway- I still remember the set-up well... Donna is on one side of the stage and during the company interjections, they shift the spotlight to them... vocally superior and funner
-Hollywood- includes daydreams of what Donna, Tanya and Rosie would do with the extra money... vocals are good, but aesthetically I prefer the former.

4. Thank you for the music (Broadway)
-Broadway- vocals is shared by Sophie, Sam, Bill and Harry, and introduced early on
-Hollywood-song was deferred to the end credits

5. Mamma Mia! (tie)
Both versions handled it well. The staging was more hilarious in the movie, but Donna's dialogue on the Broadway soundtrack is funnier ("I'd love to stay and chat, but I have to clean out my handbag... or something")

6. Chiquita (Hollywood)
-Broadway- I don't remember this number quite as well, but it was a sentimental pep talk
-Hollywood- lots of hilarious moments that made me fall in love with Tanya and Rosie in this version

7. Dancing Queen (Hollywood)
-Broadway- great vocals
-Hollywood- great vocals, great humor,  great use of the set and company

8. Lay all your love on me (Broadway)
-Broadway- vocally superior and I personally prefer their aesthetic to the movie
-Hollywood- great humor with Sky's friends marching in their masks and fins

9. Super Trooper (tie)Both versions were great with the movie being more on the sentimental side

10. Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (Broadway)
-Both versions did it really well, but again, I prefer the vocals and the dialogue of the Broadway version to the movie

11. The name of the game (Broadway)
-vocally, Amanda Seyfried sang this really well for the movie... but the producers, for whatever reason, decided to cut this scene and include it among the DVD extras... so I had no choice but to give the point to Broadway
-personally, this number is another sentimental one for me because it makes me think of my dad... after all, this is the point in the story where Sophie confronts Bill about whether he's her father.

12. Voulez Vous (tie)
-prefer the Broadway dialogue, but both versions did this really well

-Tally so far:
Broadway (5), tie (5), Hollywood (2)

13. Under Attack (Broadway)-obviously because this number was omitted from the movie entirely... one of my favorite songs... this dream sequence was one of the most memorable moments... Sophie's in a bed that's being moved back and forth across the stage by Sky's friends wearing snorkeling gear

14. One of Us (Hollywood)-technically, this song was omitted from the movie, but they made the smart choice by limiting its involvement to dialogue... the song is so short, I completely forgot about it

15. S.O.S. (BROADWAY)
-Broadway- remember this number really well too... they had spotlights on Donna and Sam depending on who was singing
-Hollywood- bad singing aside, this number felt kinda phony because it had one singing while the other was doing some random activity without hearing them singing... as if it was something from "Glee" (and I'm a huge Gleek, btw)

16. Does your mother know? (Hollywood)
-the Hollywood version was more hilarious (thanks to Christine Baranski's performance) and memorable... don't remember much about the Broadway version

17.  Knowing me, knowing you (Broadway)
-my biggest disappointment from the movie was cutting this, my favorite song from the musical... I agree it would have been repetitive in the movie (since we already had that impressive "S.O.S." number) and Pierce Brosnan's voice would have ruined it, but I almost wanted to cry because they didn't include it
-the man who played Sam... both on the soundtrack and on stage, I loved their vocals on the final note leading to the chorus... "...Goodbye" and "...say"... one of my favorite vocal numbers in the musical

18. Our Last Summer (Broadway)
-Broadway- a duet between Donna and Harry, revisiting their "hippie summer" in Paris
-Hollywood- took the place of "Thank you for the music," much earlier in the script and instead featured Sophie with the three men... I just didn't buy into that interpretation of it :(

19. Slipping Through My Fingers (Hollywood)-Hollywood handled the sentimentality of this number really well... I don't remember it nearly as well on Broadway

20. The Winner Takes it All (Broadway)
-in the movie, this number felt very long and drawn out...
-Broadway- had this been a concert, this would have been the penultimate standing ovation number... that big note at the end is just... WOW... the movie missed a huge opportunity here

21. Take a Chance on Me (Hollywood)
-Broadway- still remember how Rosie was chasing Bill through the empty church before the wedding :P
-Hollywood- the 2nd to last song with lots of hilarious turns and we also get to see Harry's other half (they also clarified in the church scene that Donna was the first [and last] woman he ever loved... which kinda makes sense when you really think about it]

22. I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do (Hollywood)
-I don't really remember it in the Broadway version... it was kinda funny in the movie where Sam flashes the ring at Donna and she stammers through the titular lyrics :P nice touch

23. I Have a Dream (Reprise)... (tie)
-Broadway- I don't remember the scene all that well, but the ending of the song gave me chills... and made me so sad this thing was ending... that's a great feeling to have at the end of a show, hating to see it end
-Hollywood- it was a pleasant send-off and great ending... hated to see it end, but it didn't elicit an "ugly cry" response...

The great part with both versions is that they had the encore at the very end... in the Broadway musical, after being sad it was ending, the cast came out and sang a couple more songs for us.
It's great they kept this in the movie for the ending credits, including everyone wearing the  ABBA-style costumes :D

Tally-
Broadway (5), Hollywood (5), tie (1)

So by my math, the musical numbers give Broadway the upper hand...

Another difference between the two was the inclusion of two new songs in the movie...
"Waterloo" was in the ending credits, and we also getting another excellent Pierce Brosnan vocal for "When all is said and done"... which takes place before "Take a Chance on Me"..
Even if the vocal was decent, I felt like this song added absolutely nothing to the movie... painfully forgettable...

So there you have it... over the three times I've done this, Broadway has won against Hollywood... I'd do one on "Phantom of the Opera," but my memory of the Broadway show is basically nonexistent at this point...
I don't remember much about the Broadway show beyond the following...

1) the first scene where Christine and Raoul meet each other for the first time since they were kids
2) where the Phantom has the road around Raoul's neck in the catacombs and I was freaking out that he was going to kill him (even though I freaking knew the ending!!)
3) been a hot mess for a good 15 minutes after the show ending because of #2

It just wouldn't be fair to compare the two when I don't remember enough about one side of the argument. And I've grown far too fond of the 2004 movie with Gerard Butler that I probably won't accept any other version anyway :P 

Theatrical Review: Into the Woods

Date: Sunday. January 4. 2015

Time: 1:40 pm
Location: Cinemark Theater in Stroud Mall
Party: 2 (my mom & I)
Director: Rob Marshall (of "Chicago" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" fame)
Type: Stephen Sondheim Musical of Fairytale-retellings
Cast:
The Baker- James Corden
The Baker's wife- Emily Blunt
The Witch- Meryl Streep
Jack- Daniel Huttlestone
Jack's mother- Tracey Ullman
Cinderella- Anna Kendrick
Wicked Stepmother- Christine Baranski
Florinda- Tammy Blanchard
Lucinda- Lucy Punch
Red Riding Hood- Lilla Crawford
Cinderella's Prince- Chris Pine
Rapunzel's Prince- Billy Magnussen
Rapunzel- Mackenzie Munzy
The Wolf- Johnny Depp
The Giant- Frances De La Tour
Duration: 125 (+6 trailers)
Write-up:
Opening RemarksIt always seems like whenever we go to the mall to see a movie, it's a full house. Luckily we found a couple seats towards the back so we weren't in close range like we were with "The Judge" back in October.
Another great lively audience where laughs were in all the right places and there were even a few gasps. Possibly some tears (but that might have just been me 3-4 times).It feels only right to have a Broadway vs. Movie entry comparing this rendition of the show to the stage show starring Bernadette Peters as The Witch. But that's another time.

TrailersAnd like with "The Judge," we had a lot of trailers. Six to be exact.
1) The Minions (of "Despicable ME" fame) get their own spin-off... apparently their life's mission is to follow the most despicable being on the planet, with some unfortunately hilarious results... something tells me all these sheningans with the T-Rex, Napoleon and Dracula all happen within the first 10 minutes of the movie... either way, it was hilarious and may be worth seeing.

2) Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2- when I heard this was one of the movies/scripts leaked by the Sony hack, I thought they were kidding... who would be stupid enough to make a sequel out of this movie? Never saw the original and don't plan on seeing this. I'd sooner waste my money on "The Wedding Ringer," which looks conceivably funny compared to this... the trailer did it a favor, but we all kinda know how the reviews will pan out

3) The Age of Adaline- saw this trailer a few movies ago... I'm still not convinced this "eternal youth" cliché can be salvaged with Blake Lively of all people...

4) The Longest Ride- right away, I knew I smelled a Nicholas Sparks movie coming on- conceptually, it is intriguing. We have a young couple (the boy fancies bull-ridin') who comes across a car accident. They learn from the man inside about his life's story, particularly his own love story. We start to see parallels between the two, particularly where the girl breaks it off with the guy because he's taking too many risks.

5) Tomorrowland- a teaser trailer, really- a girl who just got out of Juvie gets her things but doesn't recognize a button. When she touches it, she's transported into a cornfield that the narrator explains is "another tomorrow"... considering it was Disney, I knew then it was the "Tomorrowland" movie they'd been planning for a couple years.
Not sure how much George Clooney screentime it'll have, but obviously he's there to give it some credibility :P

6) Cinderella- of course this is the perfect tie-in :P I hadn't seen "Maleficent" yet but since I'd already seen plenty of fairytale retellings in recent years, I most likely will see this one too... and begrudge all the changes and differences along the way.

Personal History:
This was the high school musical we did during my senior year. It was probably the year I begrudged the most for a number of reasons.
One of those was the fact there'd be no company in "Into the Woods." I either had to get a role or be forced to view it as an audience member.


I auditioned for Cinderella and thought I had a great audition. Yet I didn't even get a callback, something I will forever believe came down to the fact I didn't deliver "On the Steps of the Palace" with the right attitude. How was I to know without seeing it that it was meant to be sarcastic and flighty?

My mom and I went to see it on the night my friend Drew was playing The Baker.

The Story:


Once upon a time, in a far-off kingdom, there was a childless baker and his wife, Cinderella and Jack and his mother. All of these characters wished for different things. The baker and his wife wanted a baby. Cinderella wanted to go to the ball. Jack wanted adventure and his mother wanted him to sell the cow because she no longer gave milk. We also meet Little Red Riding Hood who visits the Baker's house for bread to bring her sick grandmother.

The most elaborate story comes with The Baker and his wife. The witch pays them a visit asking if they wish to reverse the curse she'd placed on their house. Supposedly, she'd done it after The Baker's father stole from her garden for his wife, and taking their 2nd child (who became Rapunzel).
The items required for this potion include:

• cow as white as milk
• cape as red as blood
• hair as yellow as corn
• slipper as pure as gold

and they ultimately get these items from our other well-known fairytale characters.

They trade the cow from Jack for some magic beans.
Red Riding Hood runs into the wolf in the woods, gets eaten by him at granny's and The Baker saves them both.
Cinderella goes to the festival each of the three nights and each time she runs away... for whatever reason, I guess because she isn't sure if she wants to be with him or stay in her current miserable life with her stepmother and stepsisters.


Meanwhile, one Prince pursues Cinderella and the other discovers Rapunzel.

Soon enough, everyone gets their happy ending, leaving the final third of the movie to explain what happens after the "happily ever after."

Casting News:
Other than some of the edits/exclusions and the fact it got a PG rating (when a PG13 would have been warranted... don't get me started on why G-rated movies are a dying breed), the biggest grievance following "Into The Woods" was casting Sophie Grace as Red Riding Hood.
Lilla Crawford (who apparently played "Annie" on Broadway) came in a week after filming because Sophie Grace's parents decided she was too young to play the role.

Really dodged bullet with that one... lots of people were threatening to boycott if she was in this movie...I doubt I would have, but this recasting is a HUGE relief... Sophie Grace and Rosie have to outgrow those princess outfits some time...Another recasting I completely forgot about involved Rapunzel's prince... originally, he was to be played by Jake Gyllenhaal as Cinderella's prince... but Jake pulled out in favor of "Nighcrawler" (might be a good thing, it got plenty of accolades).

Actors:

Tread Lightly, Spoilers Ahead

While I'm not sure if the Golden Globe nominations are completely warranted, all of the actors did a great job in this. The only singing voice I kinda took issue with was Chris Pine... but then, I take a lot of issue with his character.
Ironically, I kept casting his interviews on the talks shows :P
I should take a quick moment to address Johnny Depp. Yeah, The Wolf is a creepy character. His solo number "Hello Little Girl" had some innuendos (those that verged on pedophilia) edited out. And it's ridiculous to mention him in all the trailers when we know he gets killed early into the movie.
But I was having major "Sweeny Todd" flashbacks hearing him sing again... kinda funny his next onscreen singing gig is for another Sondheim musical.

Meryl Streep, again, I will mention was cast to give this movie credibility... and also give the Academy another excuse to nominate her (I swear, who've is behind her getting these nominated roles, they need to give RDJ some of that mojo)...
But I was much more pleased with her as The Witch than I was with her in "Mamma Mia." The vocal range fit her much better here. She played a pretty good baddie, not to mention an unhinged one when the moments called for it.


...maybe that's worth a Broadway vs. Hollywood entry as well...

I also considered that Christine Baranski was cast because of her Meryl Streep connection (they did "Mamma Mia" together). But she'd also worked with Rob Marshall before on "Chicago." Either way, she played a good wicked stepmother, however much screentime she got.
I couldn't help but wonder if Lucy Punch is suffering from the cruel Hollywood joke of typecasting. I saw her as an evil stepsister in "Ella Enchanted." Which made her comeuppance (along with her sister's) even sweeter.
And between this and "Harry Potter," you'd think Frances De La Tour was typecast as a giant (even stranger is the fact she's only 5' 7"... taller than I am, but I wouldn't think that's enough to warrant two goes as a giant).

One nitpick I had before seeing the movie was the casting of The Baker. I kept asking myself why they didn't cast someone I'd at least heard of. James Corden isn't a newbie to the acting scene, but he's not one I knew before this. I'm still not entirely convinced he stood out compared to all of the strong female presences, but I was pleased with his performance. Not a bad singing voice either.

Daniel Huttlestone is clearly gifted for musicals. This is his second role after "Les Miserables" (where he played the young boy, Gavroche). He played a great Jack.

Mackenzie Mauzy, who plays Rapunzel, has a lot of soap opera credits to her name. And she also played the former girlfriend of the protagonist in "Forever"... she has a great range, which is required of this role, but she isn't given a lot of material to work with as far as making this character three-dimensional.
But I did choked in two of her scenes. The aftermath of The Witch's solo "Stay with me" and when she reunites with her prince and her tears gave him back his sight. Especially during the latter because it was a beautiful moment.

Which just leaves the two leading ladies on the side of good.
Emily Blunt, I'd always enjoyed on screen and this is no exception. Great voice, has a lot of heart and she had great chemistry with James Corden.
During her final appearance, which was a bittersweet moment in the show (between her circumstances and the fact it was towards the very end), I got very teary-eyed.
Maybe that alone IS enough to earn her that Golden Globe nomination.

The moment Anna Kendrick was cast as Cinderella was the moment I decided I HAD to see this movie... next to the fact it was our high school musical, of course.
Her vocal range was REALLY put to the test and she passed with flying colors. She wasn't just an active Cinderella who trekked into the woods to go to the festival, but she portrays her as someone all young women can relate to... one that can talk to birds, but nonetheless... she finds a way out of her circumstances at home and even chooses her own happiness over the prince in the end.

Other highlights and lowlights

Probably the biggest lowlight for me... going back to Cinderella's Prince... I really did not like him... the reason by he cheated on Cinderella was never fully explained... he just felt like messing around with another woman in the woods... who happens to be The Baker's wife.

But to add to that, the "Agony" number between the Princes. Too bad you can't nominate scenes from movies for Razzies because that was terrible :P It looked like something out of a cheesy perfume commercial. Splashing around in a creek, ripping open their shirts as if put their raging hormones on display for us to perceive beyond their voices.
The whole theater roared with laughter, something I doubt was the intention.

The only other big negative I can derive, while keeping my feelings about the original out of the argument, is that the final act felt rushed... it got really dark really quickly (another reason why that PG13 rating would have been a good time).

Considering the vastness of the woods, this is definitely something worth seeing on the big screen. And when the giant is on the loose in the final third of the movie... you felt the tremors, making those scenes all the more intimidating and startling.

Speaking briefly about the production I'm well versed with, I was concerned that the blatant sarcasm would be lost in the translation from the stage to the screen... on most accounts, I was not disappointed. Emily Blunt could have put more effort into the line "I pulled it [it being the yellow hair for the spell] from a girl in a tower," but Lilla Crawford played Red Riding Hood with the right amount of sarcasm required for that character.Clearly, everyone in the theater had fun with this movie and periodically, that showed.
Whether you know the play or not, I'd absolutely recommend going out to theaters to see this one for the overall experience.


Grade: A

26. Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

{in this exact clip, he actually says the film's title!}

Code-name: Whackbat



Director: Wes Anderson
Writer: (book) Roald Dahl, (screenplay) Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach
Type: book-to-movie adaptation, animated, dramedy

Cast:
Mr. Fox- George Clooney
Felicity Fox- Meryl Streep
Ash- Jason Schwartzman
Kristofferson- Eric Anderson (Wes's brother)
Badger- Bill Murray
Kylie the Possum- Wally Wolodarksy
Coach Skip- Owen Wilson
Agnes- Juman Malouf
Rabbit- Mario Batali
Boggis- Robin Hurlstone
Bunce- Hugo Guinness
Bean- Michael Gambon
Rat- Williem Dafoe
Petey- Jarvis Cocker

Notable Nominations:
OSCAR- Best Animated Film
OSCAR- Best Original Score- Alexandre Desplat (another frequent collaborator of Wes Anderson's)
Golden Globe- Best Animated Film

Write-up:

INTRODUCTION

According to my other blog, I first saw this movie on Cinemax in October of 2010 and these were my first "in-a-nutshell" thoughts.

As for “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” George Clooney does not disappoint. The movie was not necessarily my cup of tea, but the edginess of it, including the animation won me over. It fascinates and captivates at the same time. The humor derives from some new jokes that haven’t been overclichéd and there are some old jokes in there that have been heard in other movies. In a word, I say its charming.

Charming and incredibly quirky.

I've come into other Wes Anderson movies expecting the same thing. So far, only "The Grand Budapest Hotel" delivered on that. As I might have stated previously, if there was any humor in "The Royal Tenenbaums," it was lost on me... and "Moonrise Kingdom" could have been better if it wasn't taken so seriously with the "Romeo & Juliet"-esque storyline.

Is it silly to expect the same thing in every movie an actor or director does?
Yes, but that's just how I roll.

When I first became aware of this movie, I didn't know what to think. It seemed so different on the animation alone, but since it got good reviews, I had to check it out.

Anyone who read my reviews for "She's out of my league" and "Easy A" knows how I saw lots of movies in 2010 and my favorites were the ones with the most unique writing.
It might have gotten to a point with me where I'd seen so many movies that I was getting sick of their predictability. Luckily, I came across gems like this one that kept me engaged in this medium.

PLOT

Back in the day, Mr. Fox was all about the danger of being a wild animal, stealing various fowl from farmers. But when he and his wife find themselves in a fox trap, he obeys her wish to give up this life for a less hazardous one.

Fast-forward 2 years (12 fox years) later:
He writes a newspaper column, she paints thunderstorm-laden landscapes for a hobby and their son Ash aspires to be an athlete.

Mr. Fox moves his family to a large oak tree at, in his view, an ideal location. It happens to have easy access to three notorious farmers, Boggis, Bunce and Bean.
Just for the heck of it, he and his new partner-in-crime Kylie break into the farms night after night to steal chickens, ducks, geese and squab ("whatever they are"). Ultimately, this gives way to some pretty dramatic consequences for the Foxes and the other animals.

The animals struggle to survive. Mr. Fox's marriage gets rocky. Ash deals with some growing pains including dealing with the arrival of his "perfect" yet humble cousin Kristofferson. And the animals give the farmers their comeuppance.

All the while, despite all the drama, hilarity ensues whenever the cracks allow. Which is pretty often ;)

CHARACTERS and ACTORS

We're talking an all-star cast here. Not surprisingly, Wes Anderson has his favorites. Bill Murray obviously. At least one Wilson brother (Owen Wilson is practically a cameo but it's a great one). Jason Schwartzman, who first worked with Wes Anderson in "Rushmore" (another film I gotta see for him and the writer/director).

Willem Dafoe played the psychotic rat that guards Mr. Bean's alcoholic "tastes like melted gold" cider, making a pretty good secondary villain. But I'm not sure anyone caught onto the fact it was him doing the voice. I certainly didn't and I was thinking during "The Grand Budapest Hotel" that it was his first time working with Wes Anderson. Plays a really good villain in that too ;)

Then there're the big guns of Clooney and Streep and Gambon.

In the right context, I love Meryl Streep. But I'm not the biggest fan when it comes to awards season and when she's cast because moviemakers believe they need a name as big as hers to give their project credibility. (Trust me, when "The Giver" comes out, I will be vocal about casting her... among several other things because it's my favorite book).

Michael Gambon plays "possibly the scariest man currently living" Mr. Bean, which is an interesting contrast to the role I will forever associate him with... Professor Dumbledore.
Sure, on looks alone, Richard Harris will always be the Dumbledore I picture when I re-read the books, but you see one actor play the same role over a decade... that stuff sticks with you :-P

Of course, last but not least is George Clooney.
I could care less that he plays the same character in every movie (particularly ones like this, "Ocean's 11" and "The Monuments Men" where he leads heist operations), he's always so pleasant to watch. He's the only actor I can confidently consider a "movie star" because he's a class act and a really nice guy.

Nobody else could play the incorrigible Mr. Fox as good as him. Not in a million years :-P

THE ATHLETE

All of these characters have their faults. Second only to the Fantastic Mr. Fox himself is his son, Ash.

My memory has faded over the years that've passed, but I'm convinced that I stuck through this movie because I'm very partial to that name. My first love, who first inspired me to write, had that name.

I don't know why I find Ash such a compelling character. Maybe it's all about Jason Schwartzman's voice, how he was so perfect as this character. This was my first encounter with him. I've been known to follow actors around like a lost puppy when I fall in love with their voices (Haley Joel Osment is the biggest example of that for me). Oddly enough, so far the movies I've found him in (Scott Pilgrim, The Grand Budapest Hotel) were purely coincidental 8-)

Either way, yeah, he's rude, but I loved his insistence of his athletic status when all but one final scene showed otherwise. (The final scene was the best pay-off this movie has, at least in my book).

Also love this set of dialogue and how he ends it.

Felicity: we all know what it's like to be... different
Ash: but I'm not different. Am I?
Felicity: we all are. Him especially (points to Mr. Fox) but there's something fantastic about that, isn't there? (leaves)
Ash: hmm, not to me, I prefer to be an athlete

(when the situation calls for it, I always love quoting that final line... yeah, I am a total nerd)

On the other hand, we have Kristofferson. He's staying with the Foxes because his father (Felicity's brother) is suffering from double pneumonia. In a short time, Ash takes a strong disliking to him. Particularly when he unassumingly captures the affections of Agnes, another fox at their school, but most notably when he shows him up in gym class;

WHACK-BAT

This is my favorite scene in this movie.
1) because it stars Owen Wilson as the school coach
2) it has great dialogue ("that's the first time that kid has ever swung a whack bat?")
3) the sport itself

Throughout our trip to Sydney, Australia, which was a couple months after I saw this movie, I couldn't help but think of "whack bat" whenever we were trying to discern the mystery of cricket. One dude we met at a pub tried to explain it to us, but his speech was unintelligible after all the drinks he had.

I still don't get whack-bat, but I find it so intriguing. This is the only dialogue we have to go on:
"Basically, there's three grabbers, three taggers, five twig runners, and a player at Whackbat. Center tagger lights a pine cone and chucks it over the basket and the whack-batter tries to hit the cedar stick off the cross rock. Then the twig runners dash back and forth until the pine cone burns out and the umpire calls hotbox. Finally, you count up however many score-downs it adds up to and divide that by nine."

OTHER HIGHLIGHTS

If it's not random quotes, its entire scenes that make me geek-out when I watch this movie because I find them oddly compelling.
The greatest example is when Mr. Fox is delegating tasks to the other animals, calling them by their Latin names. So many random answers. Like Badger says he's a demolitions' expert. And how he enthusiastically shakes weasel, rattles off his Latin name while he responds "Stop yelling!"

There are a dozen great scenes that are just full of laughs, varying from ha-ha funny to slow-burn laughs you have to think about.

Or just running gags.

Like every now and then, Kylie gets the "psycho" look in his eyes where his pupils are the shape of spirals :-P it's even funnier when Mr. Fox gets it after running away from a beagle suffering from Rabies in one of the latter scenes.
Or the ransom notes (where the letters are cut out from magazines to "hide" identities of the letter writers) where the characters break the fourth wall just to get us to laugh.
Or when Mr. Fox has his trademark click and whistle and Kylie asks about it during the final mission to rescue Kristofferson and get back at the farmers. Then later on tries to establish his own trademark and kinda fails at it, lol
Or how they use the word "cuss" whenever they're spewing profanities because it keeps the movie PG. Every now and then, I will use the word "cuss" in my writing for that reason alone. My favorite "cuss" scene is where Mr. Fox and the Badger go at it after Badger says "the cuss you are" and Mr. Fox responds "The cuss am I?"

One oddly cool moment is where Mr. Fox confronts his phobia of wolves (which he brings up a couple times before hand) when he comes across one. There's no dialogue exchanged (at least not by the wolf), but both of them raise their hands in the air out of respect for one another.

It's all about the quirky details and subtle moments with this movie. The way I see it, you either go crazy for it or you just don't get it. But if you're open to something different, this is definitely a good movie to get into.

COMING SOON

Don't know how many people read my previous entry, but forgetting my place in my countdown, I gave away I had another Downey film coming up.

Not just because this particular movie is great in its own right and not just because he actually won something for it (yep, I just gave it away right there, lol), but because the impact it had on me was pretty substantial.

All the more reason to one day aspire to do a "6 degrees of Downey" entry (take that, Kevin Bacon!) where I go into the amazing people and things that might not have been on my radar had it not been for his involvement.