Les Miserables

Hello, guys!

So... HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Through Christmas and New Years I've been busy reading like crazy, writing excessively, putting together 500 piece puzzles, playing boardgames and assembling legos.

I also kicked off the new year by going to see Les Miserables.

  Yesterday I walked into the movie theater knowing next to nothing about it. 

   I walked out of the theater like this. 

And sort of like this 

It was powerful, intense, heart-wrenching, tragic, and...AMAZING!

The plot was a story of redemption, forgiveness and bravery.
The characters each had a depth to them that went beyond a lot of movies' regular superficial portrayals. The characters were portrayed in a way that showed you the state that their souls were in.

 It made you admire and have compassion for each character, even if you didn't agree with what they were doing or saying. (Except for the Inn Keepers. They're scumbags). ;P

From an artistic standpoint, the movie was also beautifully made. The camerawork was amazing.

 Also, don't let the fact that this movie is a musical be the only reason you don't want to see it. I don't typically like musicals (although the only musicals I've seen are High School Musical, Dreamgirls, Mama Mia and the Cheetah Girls... ;) but I think the singing added a lot to the movie. It just sort of amplified the emotions the characters were feeling, and it was really moving.

^This part. D:

It's a movie that's tragically beautiful, making you sad and happy and feeling like you've just witnessed something special.

Also, Jean Valjean is a total boss.

Snow White and the Huntsman

We saw Snow White and the Huntsman on Wednesday.

Are you jealous? Well, you should be.

You probably wouldn't be jealous over the fact that we were late and missed the first 5 minutes of the movie, though. O_o We didn't miss *too* much, so I was still able to enjoy the movie without being lost from an essential piece of information.

But yes. As I said in my previous blog entry, it was cool, creepy, and kind of weird. But I still liked it.

For those of you who don't know the plot, here you go: "In the epic action-adventure Snow White and the Huntsman, Kristen Stewart 

plays the only person in the land fairer than the evil queen (Charlize Theron) 

[who is] out to destroy her. But what the wicked ruler never imagined is that the young woman threatening her reign has been training in the art of war with a huntsman (Chris Hemsworth)

 dispatched to kill her. Sam Claflin

 joins the cast as the prince long enchanted by Snow White's beauty and power." 
~Rotten Tomatoes

So here are my thoughts on the movie.

For a retelling of a fairytale, I thought the plot line was pretty creative. They were able to do a lot with it without totally straying from the traditional story.

The graphics/costume designs were also awesome.

^Costume designer Colleen Atwood, and two of the most elaborate costumes in the movie

The graphics added a lot to the movie, except I think that the forest part was a bit cheesy.

Ok, it was really cheesy. And slightly disturbing. Josh and I were laughing through the whole part. :P

I also thought the brother/sister interaction with Fin (Sam Spruell) and the Queen was a little creepy. His pixie bangs are short enough to be able to display "CREEPER" on his forehead. XP

And on a random note, I noticed that Kristen Stewart's acting was actually a little better in this movie. I mean, I still wouldn't crown her one of the best actresses of our time, but I think she's at least improving. I also noticed that she plays the "most beautiful" role a lot. I wonder if it gets to her head... :P

So yeah. I think if I were to rate this movie, I'd probably give it 3 stars. I didn't think it was awesomely spectacular, but I still liked it enough not to feel like I wasted money to see it. haha :)

And by the way... (SPOILER to those who might want to see it...) apparently Chris Hemsworth's kisses can wake the dead. ;)

Ok, ok, just kidding. XD

Book Vs. Movie: The Hunger Games

So I finally sat down and watched The Hunger Games. Let the comparisons begin (And may the odds be ever in their favor)! 

Description: "In the ruins of a place once known as North America lies the nation of Panem, a shining Capitol surrounded by twelve outlying districts. Long ago the districts waged war on the Capitol and were defeated. As part of the surrender terms, each district agreed to send one boy and one girl to appear in an annual televised event called, "The Hunger Games," a fight to the death on live TV. Sixteen-year-old Katniss Everdeen, who lives alone with her mother and younger sister, regards it as a death sentence when she is forced to represent her district in the Games. The terrain, rules, and level of audience participation may change but one thing is constant: kill or be killed." ~Amazon

Alrighty, let's take a look at the book. 

Book: 

Pros: For one thing, I blew through this book in two days. (I could've probably finished it in one, but I got it in the afternoon and had to eat/sleep at some point... ;) Although it starts out a bit slow, Suzanne Collins knows how to write. 

The character development was pretty good, too. (I had a couple problems later in the series, but that's for another time. haha) Suzanne Collins made the characters believable and the dialogue natural. 


The plot line was creative, and I think the author made it obvious who the enemies were, and that the Hunger Games were not seen in a positive light by the main characters. Suzanne Collins did a good job with portraying how corrupt the Hunger Games were, as well as the Capitol. It has the potential of being a really thought-provoking book. 


Cons: From a Christian standpoint, the one thing you might want to take note of is the obvious humanistic worldview. There is no God or religion in the post-apocalyptic world of Panem, and everyone just sort of follows their own moral code. (There was a point in the book where Gale was trying to convince Katniss that killing people in the arena shouldn't be much different than hunting game, assuming the idea that we're all animals and it's survival of the fittest). So, yeah. You just have to take the good and leave the bad. 


Although the Hunger Games are looked on with contempt, there's still a lot of violence in this book. So if you're really sensitive to things like that, you might want to steer clear.

Movie: 

Squeeeee! I was so excited I got to see the movie in the theater! I didn't get a chance to a few months ago, but I got to watch it in the rinky-dink theater by our house that plays movies a couple months after they premiere. :D  


Pros: This movie was so well-done in terms of making it exactly how the book played out in the minds of its readers. It was like I was watching my own imagination. 

Katniss was played by Jennifer Lawrence (first movie I've seen her in, but she did a great job)

Josh Hutcherson was Peeta. (Swoon). 

Gale was played by Liam Hemsworth (I don't think there's any way his name can sound more British, but he's actually Australian. haha) 

Effie Trinket was played by Elizabeth Banks. 

I could go on and on with the cast. They picked all the right people. 

Rue... :')

The movie also brought to mind things that I didn't really see in the book. Sure, it was easy to see how the Hunger Games affected the Tributes and families in most districts, but the movie also showed how they could make other Tributes (the Careers) see the Games as just that: a game. They touched on that in the book, but I guess I didn't imagine it like they had it in the movie, and it just continues to show how messed up the Capitol is. 

Cons: I found pretty much the same problems as I did in the book. 
I also noticed that they kind of made Peeta look more... stalker-ish... in the movie. "I followed you home from school every day... every day." O_O 

I wasn't *too* thrilled with the ending, but it wasn't really bad or anything. haha 


So which one wins this round of Book Vs. Movie? 

I'd say this one is a tie. 
The movie complimented the book perfectly. The book is still worth reading because there are things in the book that weren't in the movie, so I think they balanced each other out. :) 

Book VS. Movie: The Notebook

So here's my new segment: Book VS. Movie! (That's your cue to cheer in overwhelming excitement.) ;) It probably won't be a regular segment, just one I'll write on a whim when I'm wanting to compare a book to its movie.

So with that, here we go.

Basic plot: "The Notebook, a Southern-fried story of love-lost-and-found-again, revolves around a single time-honored romantic dilemma: will beautiful Allison Nelson stay with Mr. Respectability (to whom she happens to be engaged), or will she choose Noah, the romantic rascal she left so many years ago?" ~ Amazon, on the book

"Behind every great love is a great story. Two teens from the opposite sides of the tracks fall in love during one summer together, but are tragically forced apart." ~ Amazon, on the movie

So, after watching the movie and reading the book, I have a few things to say about them.

The Movie:

Pros: Ok, so first off, we have a great cast.

Rachel McAdams (Ally)

Ryan Gosling (Noah)

(Surprisingly, I really didn't think Ryan Gosling was all that cute until I watched this movie... ;)

James Marsden (Lon)

The acting was great, and the cast made the characters real.

The relationship between Noah and Ally.

There are so many scenes with them that just make you go "awwwww." They're so cute together.

The relationship seems real because it has its flaws, but you can tell that they still truly love each other.

(^This scene and the Carnival scene are my two favorites)

This movie actually made me cry. It takes a lot for a movie to do that. I didn't bawl or anything... but still. It's got to count for something.

There are a lot of other things I love about this movie, but... SPOILERS. :P

Cons: There were still a few things I didn't like.

Content. Although the relationship between Ally and Noah was really sweet, I think they got a little too serious too fast. :P So, with that said, there are a couple steamy scenes you might want to fast forward.

Lon.

It's not that I didn't like Lon. Actually, I thought he was really sweet. What I didn't like was that Ally kind of broke his heart. Normally in movies where the heroine has to choose between the guy she's with and someone else, the guy she's with is normally a jerk. This one's sort of a tough situation, because Lon and Ally really were cute together, but they just weren't meant for each other. However, there were some things I think Ally could've done to make it easier on him, and, without spoiling anything, I think she could've made wiser decisions.

The Book:

Pros: Good storyline. I mean... we wouldn't have the movie without the book, right?

Cons: So I actually watched the movie before reading the book. In watching the movie, I had high hopes and expectations from the book. Well... those hopes deflated about halfway through the book, and I never finished it. Why? It was just boring. I really, really wanted to like it, but alas, it just wasn't that good. The writing style went a little like this:

"He walked to the house. Then he went inside the house. Then he ate dinner and went to bed."

That wasn't a direct quote, but you get the picture. That's what most of the book consisted of: A boring narrative of the characters' actions. It wasn't a natural narrative, and it rarely elaborated on the thoughts, feelings and histories of the characters; it was more like an itinerary. There really wasn't much depth to the characters, they were just basically the author's puppets. There were also a bunch of cliches.

The romance between Ally and Noah wasn't very believable, either. You sat there and wondered how on earth they were in love. There was no chemistry... just physical attraction.

The sequence of events seemed a bit disorganized and confusing, too. The author was somehow able to create a flashback within a flashback. It was just sort of sloppy and, again, unnatural; but maybe it was just the fact that I saw the movie first that threw me off a little.

Unless the book was able to miraculously redeem itself in the second half of the book, it was far from being my favorite, and closer to being one of the worst books I've read so far. :P

So... one story, two renditions: Hollywood's, and Christopher Sparks'. Which one told it better?

*Drumroll please*

I'd say the Movie wins this round. Hands down.

John Carter

Yesterday I caved into peer pressure.

No, I didn't partake in the usage of illegal substances.

I didn't vandalize a train.

I didn't even take the Cinnamon Challenge.

Instead, I saw John Carter in the theater.

I don't know... I guess it was just pretty much like, the last movie I ever wanted to see in the theater. Mostly because

I hate alien movies (with maybe a couple exceptions).

I don't like movies that focus more on the CGI and special effects than on the plot line.

It just sounded lame.

There's really no summery out there that can make this movie sound appealing.

"Transplanted to Mars, a Civil War vet discovers a lush planet inhabited by 12-foot tall barbarians. Finding himself a prisoner of these creatures, he escapes, only to encounter a princess who is in desperate need of a savior." ~IMDb

"12-foot tall barbarians"? Seriously?

It didn't exactly help that all the trailers out for it practically cemented everything I had already thought about it.

But somewhere in between my dad's pleading and my friends' prodding, I finally said "FINE! Ok, I'll see John Carter." I mean... it was in 3D, and I'd never seen a movie in 3D before.

What wound up happening was that I sat in a fold-y movie theater chair, ate popcorn, and drank some soda. When I had acquired the desperate need to use the loo, I realized: I didn't want to get up, because I didn't want to miss anything. I actually wanted to know what would happen next. Having seen it, I can now say that the trailers don't do this movie justice. It's actually really good.

I don't want to reveal too much, but know that there's something for everyone in this movie.

Action and adventure

Romance

Alien dogs

The special effects are great without taking away from the plot, and the ending was awesome.

So here I am, swallowing my pride and saying, "Yes. this movie was really good."

If it was good enough for me to openly admit I was WRONG, then go ahead and check it out for yourselves. :)

Oh, also... I just had to throw this picture in for fun:

O_O

Pictures from Pinterest

What I Hate About Chick Flicks!

Behold, I give thee two scenarios.

1.

It doesn't matter that they've only known each other for 3 days-- they were made for each other! Her life was nothing but a barren wasteland of dismal, gray despair before he stepped in and swept her off her size 5 heels. She doesn't need anyone else, because she found her second half, the guy who she's been searching for forever, who's charming, good-looking and the ultimate romantic, and they're going to live happily ever after.

2.

She sees him ride up on his motorcycle, his perfectly-styled hair being tousled by the wind (who needs helmets?). His presence makes women dissolve into a puddle of sighs and daydreams. Today he's sporting a black eye and a bloodied lip from the last fight he got into. "He's so emotional," she thinks dreamily, his shiner a monument to his sensitivity. They make eye contact, and her heart skips a beat. She thinks of what he's told her in the past, "You don't want to get involved with me; I'm dangerous," and it only makes her want him more.

Did these scenarios describe movies you've seen? Did they describe several movies out there?

...That's what I thought. :P

I've seen quite a few chick flicks in my time, and a lot of things about both these scenarios have always bugged me. I'll explain in more detail.

Prince Charming:

I'm not gonna lie, every girl wants this. We basically want a guy who never puts his foot in his mouth and produces no bodily functions whatsoever. We want a guy who doesn't exist. And that's probably why you can only find them in the movies. We want someone with no flaws. It's good to make the hero in the movie act human. He needs a weak spot. Not one that makes us hate him, but one that makes him more relatable.

I'm not going to say that it's impossible to find your soulmate after knowing them for a few days/weeks (My great-grandparents were married 2 weeks after they met and had one of the best marriages I've heard of!). Also, I'm not going to say it's impossible to experience "love at first sight." (It might be rare, but I believe it's happened before...) But a lot of times in these kinds of movies, there's more lust between the two characters than love; They fall in love quickly, and for the wrong reasons.

And also, sometimes it's just so darn cliche. I mean... I'm a hopeless romantic myself. I'd be over the moon if my future guy decided to give me a dozen roses, take me on a moonlit walk on the beach, or even sing to me. :) But... I almost think it's more romantic for a guy to take the time to come up with something both romantic and creative: Something special and memorable, that would mean something to the two of you. Not only do girls like this in "real life," but I think it definitely makes movies more likable, as well.

The Rebel:

Is it just me, or are more movies playing into the "Bad Boy" stereotype lately? The poor, misunderstood, "sensitive," manipulative boy who the girl has to walk on eggshells for? You know what I'm talking about. It's especially popping up in those "forbidden teen love" movies. :P

My question is... why? Why is this so appealing? The guy is a jerk. He's not "sensitive," and if you break up with him you're not "giving up on him." :P

I think a lot of movies follow the same plot line:

Boy meets girl. Boy's a jerk. Girl doesn't give up on him. Boy is misunderstood and has a dark secret from the past that girl figures out. Girl loves him through it, boy changes, they live happily ever after.

Sadly, I think it could give a lot of girls the wrong idea: They can date any "bad boy" and have the ability to change him and live happily ever after like they do in the movies. The truth is, though, that most of the time it isn't the case. Girls wind up in a lot of bad relationships due to this supposition. Bad boys are usually "bad boys" for a reason, and they can easily take advantage of that cute, naive girl whose only desire is to help "fix" him.

Now, I believe there are *some* exceptions to the rule. In "Ten Things I Hate About You," Heath Ledger's character is deemed as somewhat of a "bad boy," but he really isn't. He's a little rough around the edges, but it was rumors that scared everyone away from him. (It was a sweet movie, but I wouldn't actually recommend it because of some of the content. lol) I don't really know any other examples of this... but there could be a few occasions where this scenario actually isn't as annoying. :P

There's also one overarching problem that both examples share equally, and probably the biggest flaw out of both of them.

He might be like Prince Charming: romantic, handsome, chivalrous, witty, and handsome (did I say that one already?) ;)

Or, he might be dangerous, moody, rebellious, and exciting...

But...

Will you still love him if one day you wake up to him looking like this?

Will you be just as excited to be one day racing with him on a Hoveround instead of a motorcycle?

The thing that bothers me the most about both movie scenarios is that they're simply too... Hollywood! They're too superficial. Normally in these kinds of movies there's no real connection between the two characters, no chemistry. They simply love each other before they really know each other.

That's why I think friendship is one of the most important parts of a romantic relationship, not to mention any relationship. How can you have your "happily ever after" with someone you can't laugh with? Who you don't feel comfortable being yourself around? Who you can't imagine sharing good and bad with until you have wrinkles, age spots and beer bellies? Movies that portray that kind of "True Love" are movies that make girls go "awwww" the most (for me, anyway), because we get to witness the characters find a love that will last beyond the physical aspects of love and attraction. <3

Ok, I'm done now. There you have the drippy sentiments and wistful sighings of a hopeless romantic. Now you may either wipe your eyes or throw up, depending on which gender you belong to... :P