Twilight

I should say first off that I haven't read the Stephanie Meyer series that begins with the book Twilight, although I may in the future. I was not one of the wide-eyed fangirls standing hours in line at the theatre to be one of the first to see the movie. In fact, I broke a little personal rule of mine about not going to a movie on the opening day by going to see Twilight last night. However, there were extenuating circumstances, and see it I did.

I did enjoy the movie. I did have some quibbles with it. They were, however, not really story quibbles as much as movie quibbles. I found some of the vampire makeup not terribly well done (too stark), and I think the movie didn't need to be as long as it was. (No doubt die-hard Twilight fans will think it was exactly the right length, and since they're the target market, I won't fault the moviemakers for that.) The main character, Bella, who is also the story's narrator, didn't come across as a very sympathetic character in some ways. I think, though, that as is usually the case, her motivations are probably very well-explained in the book and glossed over in the movie. So anyone who has read the book(s) will be able to fill in the gaps.

This is not a movie for horror-movie fans. It's a movie for romance fans, and particularly teen-romance fans. So be warned.

I find some of the discussion around this aspect of the movie (and the books) sort of amusing. The protests that the vampires in the Twilight series are not "real" vampires--in essence, that Meyer has not followed the vampire "rules." I think it's funny that some people think writers should be constrained in their original treatments of imaginary creatures, because they're not doing it "right." I think there's always room for a fresh take on an old idea, and writers have every right to go ahead and explore those new ideas.

The real question for me in going to see Twilight was whether I would find it a difficult movie to watch because of my...you know...thing about vampires. The thing that started when I read Stephen King's Salem's Lot. It's not that I can't stand vampires--I've watched movies like Blade and Underworld--but I'm always a little worried that I'll get too creeped out.

Not a problem in Twilight, really. Much of the violence happens off-screen and what blood-sucking there is, isn't very horrific.

Which is not to say that I didn't hurry in from the car when we got home. There might have been something lurking in the shadows.

Quantum of Solace

Last night we went to take in the latest James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace. It's actually been a while since I saw a new Bond movie. I loved them at one time, but the past few Bonds haven't really piqued my interest. I felt that the movies had perhaps devolved too far into fantasy and too far away from Fleming's original vision. In fact, I didn't even see Casino Royale.

However, I plan to correct that little oversight since seeing Quantum of Solace. I like Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond--more serious (in fact rather tortured in Q of S) and actually involved in a plot with some meaning. Craig's personification hearks back to Sean Connelly's Bond, although without Connelly's sardonic amusement with the world at large. I also enjoyed Judi Dench as M. She brought a new dimension to the character, which I appreciated.

The movie is fast-paced with tons of action, as a Bond film demands. My only slight quibble is that I realized upon leaving that I still didn't really know what the title meant. I believe it was mentioned in passing, but I might have been distracted by something else because, although I have the impression that it refers to a geographical place, I'm really not sure. I think with a title this intriguing, it could have been emphasized just a bit more.

All in all, I think fans of the early Bond films, or of Fleming's books, should enjoy this newest incarnation.

Four Things

Hurrah! My sister Krista has finally started her blog, and now I have a new place to snag memes. Well, she actually tagged me with this one (she's tagging anyone who reads it, and I qualified). I shall have to put my thinking cap on for some of these...

Four Jobs I've Had:
1. Writer
2. Lawyer
3. Community Recreation Coordinator
4. Preschool Teacher

Four Movies I Can Watch Over And Over:
1. Mystery Men
2. Alex and Emma
3. Raiders of the Lost Ark
4. Galaxy Quest

Four Places I've Lived:
1. Sydney Mines, NS
2. Halifax, NS
3. North Sydney, NS
4. There is no #4!

Four TV Shows I Love:
1. Firefly
2. Battlestar Galactica
3. Wonderfalls
4. The Dresden Files

Four Places I've Vacationed:
1. Nassau, Bahamas
2. Milwaukee, WI
3. Ingonish Beach, NS
4. Prince Edward Island

Four Of My Favourite Dishes:
1. Lasagne
2. Steak...on the barbecue...mmmmm
3. Fish & Chips
4. Birthday cake

Four Sites I Visit Daily:
1. www.scribbletalk.com
2. www.cbc.ca
3. http://com4.runboard.com/bthewritersblock
4. www.helenparocha.com

Four Places I Would Rather Be Right Now:
1. On a writing retreat
2. At the library
3. Anywhere warm with a beach
4. Actually, it's quite nice right here...

Four Bloggers I'm Tagging:
(Let's see, who's commented on my blog lately...)
1. Helen
2. Karen
3. Alan
4. Let's just say, anyone else who happens to read this.

Okay, now that I've finished, I'm wondering, where is the section for: "Four Books I've Read Lately"?? I mean, it really should be there, shouldn't it? So I'm adding it.

Four Books I've Read Lately:
1. Forty Signs Of Rain by Kim Stanley Robinson
2. Storm Front by Jim Butcher
3. Size 12 Is Not Fat by Meg Cabot
4. Work Work by Bruce Holland Rogers

There, NOW it feels finished.

Bridge to Misrepresentation

(Warning: Contains partial spoilers.)

I'll admit up front that I have neither seen this movie nor read the book myself. My comments are based on what I've read about it.

My children saw the trailer for Bridge to Terabithia and asked if we could see it--it looked interesting to me, too. When I mentioned it to my husband he said that the daughter of one of his co-workers was reading it in school this year (6th or 7th grade). Hmmm, I thought. School boards don't generally cozy up to pure fantasy works. So I did a little research.

Ah, the book is a "beloved children's classic" (written by Katherine Paterson, published in 1977, and also made into a previous film for tv in 1985). I was immediately suspicious. I've found that "beloved children's classics" are often real downers. After reading up on the plot of the book and investigating some reviews I knew it was not the movie that the trailers had lead us to believe. The fantasy elements are apparently incidental to the story, which revolves more around being an outsider, dealing with unexpected tragedy, and finding inner strength.

Now, there is nothing wrong with those themes at all. But be up front about them in the movie trailer. The trailer presents this story 100% as a fantasy about a magical land. I don't necessarily have to know beforehand that a main character is going to die, but there should be an indication that the story deals with real-world events, themes and problems.

Maybe one could argue that I should be doing my research on any film so that I'll know what to expect. Possibly that's true. But when the target audience is children and young adults, I think that there should be some effort to present a truer representation of what the film is about, and not just pull out the elements that will sell tickets. And if fantasy sells tickets, then make more good fantasy movies.

I also found out that this book is number 9 on the American Library Association list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000. Mostly for what I consider ridiculous reasons, by the way. Ah, the wonders of Wikipedi.