Fireworks and Flappers and Gatsby, Oh My!

So the whole entertainment industry was a twitter (literally) yesterday about “The Great Gatsby” trailer. As a big Carey Mulligan fan, I was excited to see the first shots of her as Daisy Buchanan. But now that the trailer’s out, I feel conflicted. Take a look for yourself:

Obviously, Baz Luhrmann as director is going to split opinions. I’ve seen “Romeo + Juliet” and “Moulin Rouge!” and while I appreciate their cinematic style, it’s not my favorite cup of tea. But I understood that the glitz and glamour would be the main attraction of “The Great Gatsby,” especially given that the film will be shown in 3D. (Don’t worry, keep reading, because I’ll address that nonsense, too!)

This burlesque angle will attract a bigger audience, incorporating non-readers. The trailer was flashy and sexy, and I admit that the costumes and sets looked amazing. But the purist inside me is groaning.

I think this YouTube comment by user Evanm3 summed it up: “‘New York, 1922…’ [cue music by Kanye] Fail.” I mean, seriously? I can’t stand historical films with modern soundtracks (I’m looking at you, “A Knight’s Tale”). Even if the movie is excellent, the cognitive dissonance is hard to ignore.

I just feel that the last major adaptation of this novel, the 1974 version starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, suffered from excessive melodrama, and now this 2012 remake is making the same mistake. It seems like neither film has much acting cred, and I’m afraid the film will come off campy. Leo and Carey are capable of so much more, and I wasn’t feeling their empty, emotionless lines.

And let’s discuss this obsession with 3D, shall we? I’m a huge opponent of this Hollywood movement, because it prioritizes explosions and flinging food-stuffs over quality storylines and characters. But since 3D’s something that’s not going away, it needs to stay in crappy action movies like “Wrath of the Titans.” Step away from the book adaptations! Does “The Great Gatsby” need 3D? Absolutely not!  For once, why can’t 1922 be 1922, without all the added pomp and circumstance?

Of course, I still want to see this movie–I wouldn’t be a good book blogger if I didn’t! But I’m a bit warier now, and will be approaching the remake with more skepticism.

What do you guys think? Did the trailer turn you on or off? Share your thoughts!

Masterpiece Monday: Howl’s Moving Castle

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Today I’m bending the rules, because it’s the birthday of one of my best friends, Lily. Years ago, I recommended Diana Wynne Jones’ fantasy novel Howl’s Moving Castle to her, and now it’s one of her favorite stories. Although she currently lives in Tokyo and spends her free time reading in Japanese, I thought I would celebrate the book we shared together. I wouldn’t say it qualifies as a “masterpiece,” but it’s certainly an outstanding read.

Jones published her novel in 1986, and it tells the tale of Sophie Hatter, a young hat-maker who is cursed by the Witch of the Waste. After becoming displeased with Sophie’s hats, the witch turns her into an old woman.

Determined to break the curse, Sophie becomes the maid for the wizard Howl, a 28-year-old, self-centered, narcissistic man rumored to eat pretty girls’ hearts. Howl lives in his moving castle with his 15-year-old apprentice Michael and the fire demon Calcifer, who powers the place.

What makes Howl’s castle able to “move” is its magical entry, with a doorknob which has four dabs of paint to represent   its different locations. Howl’s mysterious past and many psuedonyms allow him to travel through this fantastical world relatively unnoticed, that is until he must face his own cowardice and help Sophie destroy the Witch of the Waste.

This is a unique love story as well, given that although Howl is aware of Sophie’s curse, she lives with him as an old woman. Howl even initially courts Sophie’s sister Lettie. Not to mention, it takes a while for Sophie to look past Howl’s vanity and messiness and find the good within. But while I won’t give away the whole plot, don’t worry, there’s a happily ever after!

L-R: Sophie, Howl, and Calcifer

Once you’ve read Howl’s Moving Castle, you should watch Hayao Miyazaki’s 2004 anime feature film of the same name. I’ve mentioned the movie before when I discussed my favorite literary vacation destinations, and it is really worth the watch.

There are vast differences between the book and film, the biggest being Miyazaki’s inclusion of supernatural creatures. The film also added the element of war, with Howl refusing to fight for pacifist reasons. And although Sophie is cursed in the movie, the witch devolves into a humorous, harmless character rather than the powerful sorceress she is in the book.

According to interviews, Miyazaki did not consult Jones, but allowed her a private viewing, after which she called the film “fantastic.” However, do not mistake Jones’ sequel to Howl’s Moving Castle, called Castle in the Air, for another Miyazaki movie called “Castle in the Sky.” The two are entirely unrelated.

So if you’re interested in experiencing a fun, magical tale of love and friendship, I highly recommend Howl’s Moving Castle. It’s a story that brings close friends even closer–so happy birthday, Lily!!!

Movie Review: The Hunger Games

Image via Wikipedia

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Yes, I’m a bit shocked myself to be writing that high of a rating, but I was pleasantly surprised with this adaptation. After waiting in a relatively long line for a 10:30 a.m. showing, my dad and I watched the much-anticipated “The Hunger Games.” Clocking in at almost 2.5 hours, it certainly didn’t feel that long, since I was enthralled every second.

The cast did brilliantly, not overdoing their acting, but not behaving like robots either. Sure, Jennifer Lawrence has been criticized for her feminine curves, and while I was concerned when learning of the cast that their looks wouldn’t be realistic, I understand that it’s unethical to actually starve actors for their roles. Plus, don’t people realize she’s been nominated for an Oscar for “Winter’s Bone?” She does a great job as Katniss, and just because she’s got boobs and a butt doesn’t mean she’s too sexy for the role. So, I’d like to tell The New York Times to politely shut their face.

As for the setting, Panem looked fantastic. I loved the contrast between the ultra-modern Capitol and the rural districts. Those who haven’t read the books might find the flamboyant Capitol citizens a bit cheesy in their crazy outfits and makeup, but I’d also like to tell them to politely shut their faces. The movie was not made for you.

While the first scenes were great, from the heartbreaking Reaping to the tributes’ training, we all waited in suspense for the Games to begin. I found it very meta that we were just as excited as the Capitol to watch these kids kill each other. We are part of the problem, and Suzanne Collins is making an excellent point that our society is disturbingly obsessed with violence. Our reality TV culture has made us the least common denominator, and that need for voyeurism made me uncomfortable.

That being said, I still feel that the actual gore was diluted down too much, especially with Cato’s death. I kept thinking to myself as I read the scene, How are they going to show a boy get reduced to a skinless, meaty pulp? Well, they didn’t, of course. Should they have? I can understand that the producers did not want to lose most of their demographic with an “R” rating, but I feel pretty jipped as an adult. If I made the decisions, there would be two DVD versions–the theatrical version and an adult-only one that maintains the book’s level of brutality.

Overall, I was very pleased with the film, and I recommend it to any fan of the series. Perhaps if the filmmakers keep this up, I won’t be as upset watching “Mockingjay” as I was reading it. Well, one can hope, right? And as President Snow said, “Hope, it is the only thing stronger than fear.”

Movie Review: The Secret World of Arrietty

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Last night I celebrated the progress I made on my paper by watching the latest Studio Ghibli film “The Secret World of Arrietty.” Based on Mary Norton’s 1952 novel The Borrowers, it originally debuted in Japan in July 2010. My review will be on the English version, but will make references to the Japanese version.

The story stars Arrietty (voiced by Bridgit Mendler), a spunky, teenage Borrower who lives with her mother and father (voiced by the hilarious comedy duo Amy Poehler and Will Arnett). Borrowers are tiny people who reside in human homes and secretly take things that won’t be missed, such as sugar cubes and tissues.

Arrietty is excited for her first Borrowing expedition with her dad, but fails miserably when human boy Shawn (voiced by David Henrie) spots her. Shawn recently moved into the house to live with his great aunt Jessica and her maid Hara, because he suffers from a heart condition and his own parents are too busy with work to take care of him before his upcoming operation.

Shawn just wants to befriend Arrietty, but due to the danger of human sightings, she has to find a new home with her family. Danger indeed befalls them when Hara captures Arriety’s mother, and Shawn and Arrietty team up to save her. But will the Borrowers still have to move? Are there other Borrowers out there? And what will happen to Shawn’s declining health?

All these questions are answered in this visual wonderland. Studio Ghibi never disappoints, and the setting of the backyard is even more beautiful from the Borrowers’ perspective. The details are so crisp you can practically feel the leaves and taste the drops of dew. I also enjoy the relaxed pace of these movies; notice that Studio Ghibli never has to pander to attention-deficit kids with a bunch of high-speed chases and fart jokes.

I believe that any Studio Ghibli creation absolutely blows American animated films out of the water–which is why Disney wishes to profit from the company, often at the expense of cultural accuracy. I won’t go into my loathing for Disney’s treatment of Studio Ghibli, especially with Academy Award-winning “Spirited Away,” but feel free to look up their conniving tactics.

That being said, I appreciate Disney for allowing English speakers the opportunity to witness Studio Ghibli’s beauty time and time again. However, once the DVD is released, I’ll be watching with subtitles because oftentimes the English voice actors’ dialogue doesn’t quite translate. At one point, Hara (voiced by Carol Burnett) noticing that Arrietty’s mother has escaped her clutches, yells, “Where is my LADY?!!” much to awkward laughs of the audience. But who knows? Maybe she screams that exact sentence in Japanese too, but I hope not.

Also, Disney, answer me this: Why must you change all the Japanese names? Do you think the U.S. is too stupid to understand cultural differences? Naming Sho as Shawn, Haru as Hara, and Sadako as Jessica may seem harmless, but for true fans it’s just unnecessary and insulting to the Japanese filmmakers.

It’s no surprise that Rotten Tomatoes gave this film a 93% rating. It’s an excellent tale of friendship and courage told in magnificent animated detail. If it’s playing at a theater near you, do yourself a favor and go see it. I haven’t read the novel it adapted, but let’s face it: If a picture’s worth a thousand words, then this Studio Ghibli piece of art speaks volumes.

Movie Review: What’s Your Number?

Image via ComingSoon.net

Rating: 3 out of 5

Over the weekend, I saw “What’s Your Number?,” a movie based on Karyn Bosnak’s 2006 novel 20 Times a Lady. It stars Anna Faris (“The House Bunny,” the “Scary Movie” franchise) as Ally Darling, who reads in a magazine that the national average of sex partners for a woman is 10.5–almost half of her own record of 19.

The magazine also claims that women with over 20 partners usually never marry, so Ally’s determined to not sleep with anybody else until she’s found ‘The One.’ She decides the best way to do this is to revisit her 19 exes and see whether they’ve become husband material.

She enlists the help of Colin, played by Chris Evans (“Fantastic 4,” “Captain America”). Colin is her commitment-phobe neighbor who hides in her apartment whenever he needs to escape the morning after his one-night-stands. Using his father’s detective skills, he helps Ally track down her exes–of course, falling in love with her in the process.

Unsurprisingly, this movie was cliched, predictable, and often unrealistic. I knew that going in, so I can’t complain. This movie was definitely better than Faris’ “The House Bunny” and “Scary Movies,” but I understand that’s not saying much. I still find Faris funny, because even though the situations she gets into are downright embarrassing, she comes off witty and relatable.

Of course, the gratuitous shots of Chris Evan’s pecs and biceps make it easier to excuse this chick flick’s faults!

But what I liked most about this film is the conversation it sparks regarding society’s views on sex and the double standard between men and women who play the field. From what I’ve heard, the book it’s based on is partly autobiographical, and Bosnak was turned down many times for writing about a single woman with an above average number of notches on her bedpost.

Many publishers wanted the author to round the number down to 10 ‘boyfriends,’ as if the score was bad enough, but how she got there was even worse. I laughed at this trivial worrying, since the gals on “Sex and the City” easily rank into the dozens–and in Samantha’s case, hundreds. And they still manage to be role models to millions of female fans.

But I also cringed, because no one would even bat an eye over a man with 19 lovers. This notion that promiscuous men are ‘studs’ and women are ‘sluts’ needs to stop. As long as you’re being safe and are happy with your decisions, no one should shame you for your number.

Overall, the movie was funny yet forgetable, but the message was worth it: Be proud of who you are, and don’t waste your time with people who can’t be proud of you too.

Movie Review: Jane Eyre (2011)

Image via Matttrailer.com

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

I reviewed Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre for Masterpiece Monday last week, and today I watched this year’s adaptation, directed by fellow UCSC alum Cary Joji Fukunaga.

The movie stars Mia Wasikowska (“Alice in Wonderland”) as Jane, Michael Fassbender (“300,” “X-Men: First Class”) as Mr. Rochester, and Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax (I’m not even going to list her other films, because if you don’t know Judi Dench, then get out from under your rock!).

I loved these actors in these roles, as well as appreciated appearances by Sally Hawkins from “Never Let Me Go” as Mrs. Reed and Tamzin Merchant from “The Tudors” show as Mary Rivers.

Mia played an excellent Jane, simultaneously strong-willed and vulnerable. She wasn’t made up to look gorgeous, which Jane sure wasn’t, so instead her personality shined. Michael also achieved as Rochester: handsome, but not excessively so, and nicely varied between loving and untrustworthy.

As a lover of Victorian literature and cinema, I enjoyed the rural settings and the costumes. Fukunaga’s transitions between past and present might confuse those unfamiliar with the story, but they work just fine for fans.

There’s just something about adapting the novel that doesn’t work. The character-driven, coming-to-age story is perfect in print, because you want to digest it slowly; however, on screen the pacing is often too slow–a complaint more on the part of impatient viewers like myself and less on the director’s faults.

You also can’t see the major themes as deeply, including social hierarchy, gender differences and equality, and the role of religion. It’s these themes which make the novel more than a love story and instead an insightful critique of social norms regarding patriarchy, marriage, education, and mental health.

Lastly, influential people in Jane’s life, like Helen and St. John Rivers, are just minor characters in the film. And Bertha Mason, a character so intriguing that novels have been written to expand on her perspective, is reduced to a Helena Bonham Carter-lookalike, a madwoman with little more than a name, let alone a history. Bronte herself did not focus too much on Bertha (hence the spin-offs), but I felt like I understood her more in the book.

I would recommend this movie to Jane Eyre fans, so they can form their own opinions, but if you haven’t read the book yet and are just looking for some romance, I’d pass on this film and watch something more conventionally ‘Hollywood.’

2011 “Wuthering Heights” Trailer!

For “Masterpiece Monday” I reviewed Emily Bronte’s novel Wuthering Heights, and now the trailer has been released for a UK adaptation coming this November.

The movie, directed by Andrea Arnold, will star Kaya Scodelario as Catherine (whom I loved as Effy in the original British version of “Skins”) and James Howson as the first African-American Heathcliff.

It’s already getting a bunch of award-winning buzz. It was nominated for a Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival. But Howson’s race is also drawing much attention and criticism.

I was looking forward to a “Wuthering Heights” film in the works starring the oh-so-sexy Ed Westwick (aka Chuck Bass in “Gossip Girl”), but since that project has been dropped, I’m anxious to see Arnold’s version. I also don’t mind a black Heathcliff, because his character’s race was described ambiguously by Bronte herself.

She writes that Heathcliff “is a dark-skinned gipsy in aspect,” and Nelly tells him as a child, “if you were a regular black; and a bad one will turn the bonniest into something worse than ugly…Who knows but your father was Emperor of China, and your mother an Indian queen.” Thus, Heathcliff is not supposed to be traditionally English, but rather an ethnically-mixed outsider.

The trailer portrays the setting of Wuthering Heights perfectly: dark, gloomy, and very windy. The nature dominates the scene, with shots of insects and plants throughout. The only line of dialogue in this minute-long video is Catherine saying, “You broke my heart. You killed me.” Interesting that they chose to lead with that, since I always felt Heathcliff was more the victim, heartbroken and abandoned by Catherine.

Overall, I really hope they release this film in the US, because it looks very intriguing and unique! What do you think?

 

Movie Review: The Help

Still of Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, and Emma Stone in "The Help" (Image via Moviefone)

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Since it’s Labor Day, I thought I would swap Masterpiece Monday for a movie review to celebrate all workers, past and present. I just saw “The Help” with one of my best friends today, and although I haven’t read the 2009 novel by Kathryn Stockett, I really enjoyed the movie.

Both book and film are wrapped in controversy due to their subject matter: Actress Emma Stone plays Skeeter, a young aspiring journalist/novelist in Jackson, Mississippi, during the 1960s. She decides to write a book from the perspective of the African-American maids in her community, in spite of definite alienation and possible imprisonment.

Stockett writes what she knows, since she also lived in Jackson and was raised by a maid instead of a mother. Unfortunately, though she was faced with a lawsuit by her sibling’s former maid Ablene Cooper, who claims the character Aibileen Clark was based off her (the lawsuit has since been dismissed due to Cooper suing after the one-year statute of limitations).

Regardless of Stockett’s legal troubles, “The Help” was a wonderful film which highlighted a group of amazing people under-appreciated by society. Some will find issue with a white woman speaking for black women, or the happily-ever-after portrayal of race issues in America, but I don’t think anyone would claim that racism is not alive and well even today. Instead, we should see the movie as a learning experience, a reminder of both how far we’ve come and how far we still need to go in combating racism.

Story-wise, the dialogue was witty, the characters endearing, and the acting down-to-earth and heartfelt. It’ll make you laugh, cry, and rethink what you believe about more than just race: I also appreciated the movie’s discussion of sexism. A woman’s struggle to be the ‘perfect’ wife and mother (despite miscarriages, social isolation, and the desire for a career) is of course not just a 1960′s phenomenon.

My only issue with this film is its demonization of the irreligious. When Aibileen (played by the exquisite Viola Davis) confronts racist housewife Hilly Holbrook (played by “Twilight’s” Bryce Dallas Howard), she declares, “You are a godless woman!” For someone secular like myself, it’s like a slap in the face. So I’d just like to say that you don’t need faith to be good-hearted, just like religion doesn’t automatically make you a saint. The godless (or god-free as I would rename) are people too, and although America was much more religious back in the ’60s, I would hate atheist discrimination to continue in the 21st century, as much I would hate racism or homophobia.

Overall, it was a great way to celebrate Labor Day. I myself grew up in a family with a maid, since my grandfather employed a Chilean woman until he died, so I can understand how you can love the help like your own family. She was one of the nicest people I ever met, and I just want to tell her and everyone in her profession, regardless of age or race: thank you.

Movie Review: One Day

Image via I-MovieChannel.com

Rating: 4 out of 5

Well, it turns out that I saw the movie sooner than expected! My friend and I just came back from seeing the film adaptation of David Nicholls’ 2009 novel One Day, which the author also screen-wrote. It was directed by Lone Scherfig and starred Anne Hathaway and Jim Sturgess.

For those of you who liked the book, don’t fear. It was a great adaptation, as is expected when the author is in charge of his own screenplay. And for those of you who aren’t familiar with the story (and didn’t read my book review), it’s about Emma and Dexter, two Brits who awkwardly kinda-hooked up after their graduation on July 15, 1988. And on that day, for twenty years, the movie follows their relationship and all its ups-and-downs.

Let me just say that their lives are mostly downs. I knew going in that I was going to cry, and I was not disappointed. You want the characters to be together so badly, but they’re often separated by physical or emotional distance. And just when you think destiny has finally matched them up, tragedy strikes (the nature of which I won’t spoil!).

If you can get over Hathaway’s horrendous attempt of a British accent, she’s so lovable and endearing. Dexter is mostly obnoxious, but you forgive him since he’s struggling with his mom dying of cancer and his plummeting television career. And he’s easier to stomach on-screen, since Sturgess brings his swoon-worthy sexiness. I believed their chemistry from start to finish.

As for other reviews, it’s a mixed bag. Rotten Tomatoes listed 26% of critics liking the movie, yet 77% of audience viewers enjoyed it. Some felt it was average, lackluster, perhaps even sexist. It’s certainly not one of the greatest romantic films, but it’s worth the money. I found it down-to-earth and genuine, but I’m glad I saw it with a girl friend than my boyfriend, because the sadness might kill the mood on date night.

Movie Review: Harry Potter 7.2

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

I started reading the HP series when I was 11, so in some ways I grew up with Harry and friends. While I’ve always been an avid reader, J.K. Rowling was one of the first authors that instilled my desire to write. She was the perfect rags-to-riches story that inspired me to want to reach millions of people with my words.

Of course, this review is not about me. After waiting five hours in line, the midnight premiere did not disappoint. The film wasted no time explaining what had happened in Part 1, quickly whisking us away to Gringotts. I felt that the tone and emotion of the characters were exact, and I believed every second of the suspense.

My only complaints were that because Part 1 covered so much ground, Part 2 was on the short side. I also felt disconnected from the Order, as most of the screen time was occupied (mostly rightfully so) by Harry. The deaths that were so traumatic in the book felt quite underwhelming. Sometimes the shots were so quick that if I wasn’t a reader of the books, I would not have known who died at all. The epilogue could also have used some clarification in regards to the newest generation of wizards. Just another 30 minutes or so could have improved these weaknesses.

However, overall, I loved it and could only ask for more. I admit I cried a lot, not only over the deaths of my favorite characters (Snape and Lupin, especially), but also because as the credits rolled, I felt like my childhood had officially ended. It’s been a magical ten years, and whether Rowling gives us more Potter or not, this movie was an excellent finale.