Movie Review: Beautiful Creatures

"Beautiful Creatures"

Released February 2013

Directed by: Richard LaGravenese

I had only a vague interest in seeing this in the theater. I'd never heard of it before and it seemed like white noise in the overdone romantic fantasy genre. Finding out it was based on a popular YA novel didn't really help its cause. 

However, with a supporting cast that boasts names like Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson, Viola Davis and Emmy Rossum I thought this might be one of those "secretly good" movies. 

I was wrong. 

LaGravenese is predominantly a writer who seems to be trying to branch out into directing. Production wise, this movie is pretty standard. The effects aren't fake looking, the movie doesn't feel low budget at all. I can only assume that it's the story that is lacking. 

The concept had potential but it never really developed. The character development was rushed and unsatisfying. The mythology was a poorly explained. As usual, the romance evolved so fast that it was impossible to buy into. Add to all of this distractingly terrible southern accents from the main characters and southern stereotypes galore...

Thumbs down.

Book Review: The Sookie Stackhouse/Southern Vampires Series

**SPOILER ALERT**

I'm going to be talking about the SPECIFIC details of how this series ends and if you haven't read the final book yet or plan to read the series in the future this post will utterly ruin everything...so stop reading immediately.

"Dead Ever After"

(and the entire Sookie series)

By: Charlaine Harris

My original plan was to review the final book in the Sookie series, Dead Ever After. But then I realized that really what I wanted to talk about was the series as a whole now that it's over. I just finished the final installment so these thoughts fall squarely into the "initial feelings" category and may develop more fully over time.

I want to start by saying that I like Charlaine Harris. I enjoy her books. She lands solidly in the mystery genre but has added urban fantasy into her most recent stories (I'd still call them mysteries though). She is a commercial author and a very decent writer. If I was giving an honest review of her talents and the books place in the overall history of literature this review might be more negative, but I find a lot of value in books that are accessible to the masses and written for sheer enjoyment (satisfying, exciting, yet not dumbed down). With Ms. Harris you aren't distracted by poor writing, which is more than I can say about many urban fantasy writers that are currently popular. Compared to younger writers in her genre, I'd point out that her writing is more mature. And it should be after over four successful series, tons of work (editing, collaborating) in the field, and several decades of writing (her first commercially successful book was published in 1990). I actually think the success of the Sookie series (probably due to True Blood) has been more of curse for her than a blessing in a lot of ways (this article articulates this thought better than I can). She has lost a lot of control over her own writing due to publisher and fan expectations. The popularity of the HBO adaption trickled over into the books and that has made Sookie her most successful series to date. It's popular and I'm sure financially she's doing just fine. People reading your books is really all an author can hope for. At any rate. these books are incredibly entertaining and the characters are engaging. I am a fan of the series. I enjoyed Sookie's world and I will miss her. 

Now on to the specifics...

Although there are aspects of the series and story that I wasn't necessarily a fan of, in general the books were addictive and fun. I read the first ten installments in a three month period. Waiting for the final three books year by year was torture.

Here's a break down of what I enjoyed about this series (as a whole):

- Setting

I'm a Southern girl born and raised. These days I live in the Northeast and love it, but I often miss the unique culture of the South. These stories take me home. Harris is really great at pulling you into the "every day" and showing what small town Southern life is actually like. You even get a glimpse into how that upbringing effects your whole being since this story puts you inside Sookie's head. I really can't get into writers that leave out the details, and yet it takes a good writer to include details in a way that's not distracting or forced. I never felt that way about Sookie.

- Protagonist

Sookie is a likeable heroine. I didn't always agree with her, she wasn't always good, but you had to admit that she felt very real. She was flawed, but caring. She was strong and independent. She was a size 10, not a size 2. She was relatable but other. The details Harris includes were nostalgic and felt natural. I enjoyed the way Harris included Sookie's daily life: every day chores, southern cooking, shopping on a budget, reading etc. It added to the story and who she was (for me) without seeming unnecessary or distracting. Being in Sookie's head is different than most first person stories because Sookie is a telepath. You not only knew what was going on in Sookies head but you also knew a lot of other characters thoughts because of her special talent. Sookie is a great protagonist. That's precisely why she is so loved.

- The "Sookie-verse"

Honestly, these books were some of the first I'd read in the urban fantasy genre that really stuck (more than not) to traditional folklore (at least then it came to vampires). When you can get mythical creatures integrated into this century and it be "believable"---then you're getting somewhere. When authors off-handly change folklore to suit their needs, it annoys me. This is one of the reasons I appreciate authors like Tolkien and Rowling so much. Rowling was a mythology major so the Harry Potter universe can hold dozens, maybe hundreds, of different creatures in a believable way. Tolkien's world was so expansive that even if it differed it hardly mattered because he was so consistent. While authors are certainly allowed to create all new creatures and rules for their stories, when it comes to vampires I appreciate the effort to keep them apart of a bigger history.

I can't say that Harris succeeded one hundred percent at creating a consistent universe or that she stuck to folklore with all her characters. The non-vampire characters strike me as more "make it up as you go". Most of them seem to fit okay, with the exception of the Fae. This is one mythological creature that her version of distracted me a bit. By the time she started introducing them, however, I was already hooked on the series. Still, the story ultimately revolves around vampires.

What vampires can and can't do is really specific to the author and their version of vampires. Authors like Stephenie Meyer have gotten a lot of flack for creating vampires that don't fit tradition. Some authors I can forgive for this. Deborah Harkness, for example, has a very non-traditional day walking vampire in her trilogy but the books are so seamlessly integrated into a pretty "accurate" historical narrative that it's hard not to be impressed. The bottom line is that there's been a lot of vampire variations in the last decade or two. From two lines in the book explaining away the known facts about vampires as rumors to books that try to fit their vampires into hundreds of years of tradition. Harris is, more or less, the latter. Her vampires are burned by the sun and only come out at night for example. This is what initially appealed to me most about her stories. It was refreshing to see vampires who acted like vampires. Beyond that...the way they fit into our world, the politics, etc are really up to the author.

The universe that Harris created for her character Sookie is pretty elaborate and all the characters individual stories are interconnected. The continuity of her books is not as good as say, the Harry Potter series, but Harris has admitted that as the world grew it kind of got away from her. Not everything ties together perfectly from Book 1 to Book 13. However, she knew pretty early on how she intended to end the series and I think she starts foreshadowing the ending early on in the series. As I read Book 13  I could see where she was going with it. It just made sense. (That isn't to say that I knew how the whole "who-dun-it" mystery would end, but just how Sookie's story itself would "end."

Overall I think the books progressively get weaker, but that doesn't mean that Harris is a bad writer or that they are bad books. It's just part of a series going on for so long. It all get's a little bit out of hand over time.

Thoughts on Dead Ever After:

Honestly, I am left feeling somewhat unsatisfied with this last installment. Since I started to see the ending unfold early in the book, by the end I was okay with it. Initially I was somewhat satisfied and okay with the direction Harris took. It was logical. The book is written to give Sookie closure. When I started it I wondered how Sookie could ever live post-vampires. I wondered if Harris would kill off Sookie's character in some kind of dramatic conclusion. I'm glad she didn't, but it made for a less exciting book. There was a serious lack of vampires and vampire related drama. There was a serious lack of Bill and Eric. While there was suspense and mystery surrounding the arrest of Sookie (this books major plot line) and the return of many past characters, everything was designed to give closure, to tie up all the loose ends neatly. And that's fine.

I'm not upset with Charlaine Harris. All the harassment she's gotten over the series from fans is ridiculous. Call me a traditional, but I don't think authors should ever bend to their fans. I prefer my authors recluse and obsessed with their art over this new breed of celebrity author (that does talk shows and runs fan sites complete with playlists and contests). Sookie is Harris's character and the series is her story. She shouldn't have to change her story to appease fans. Her books shouldn't end up on a "worst of" list simply because her fans who preferred a different ending or plot direction.

"The Ending" and "The One"

The on-going debate has always been who should Sookie end up with (romantically). There are a variety of camps and they all feel very strongly about their choice. The main romantic interest debate is  Bill vs. Eric. But Alcide, Quinn, Sam and even Calvin also have their supporters.

As far as the books go, personally I was always a fan of Bill. I was a bit upset when Harris started demonizing him and shifting gears to Eric. I always wanted Sookie to come back to Bill in the end because I felt like his love was the most pure. The reason I love Bill is because I always root for the "original" love interest. Bill was first, things got messy, but I always wanted them to find their way back to each other. This isn't very realistic. I didn't marry my first love after all, and I'm glad I didn't. But there is just something about literature that makes you not want to let go of that first love. I was rooting for Bill.

I read somewhere that Harris had originally planned to kill Bill off mid series. Her publisher made her change the story. This was a smart move on the publisher's part, but I think ultimately the wrong one. While at the time I'm sure I would have been devastated and angry at her for killing Bill, in retrospect I wish she had. Killing Bill would have accomplished several things. 1.) I'd have been able to move on to a different love interest. Instead, I always held out for Bill (to the very end). Since she doesn't end up with Bill, it would have been nice to grow attached to someone else. 2.) Bill could have died with dignity. I think I'd have felt more closure about Bill's character if Sookie had forgiven him, even loved him again, and then lost him. 3.) Lastly, and this is tied to point 2, Bill's character needed that closure. Bill's character popped up every so often in the latter books and he was in the final book. However, it wasn't Bill. It was new Bill. It was friend-Bill. And it felt odd. He seemed weaker. He seemed more conventional. He went from being a main character and epic love interest---this huge part of Sookie's life to being...a neighbor. You barely see Bill in Dead Ever After and he just loses his Bill-ness.

I never hated Eric. In fact, on the show True Blood I preferred him. (Probably because I find Alex Scarsgard more attractive than Stephen Moyer). I liked that Sookie seemed to tame Eric and he was so much more mysterious than Bill. If Bill had died, I think I could have gotten on board with Eric whole heartedly. The entire time I read the book I was waiting for some kind of grand gesture or explanation for Eric's actions. Some way they could end up together or for either Eric or Sookie to die in some kind of heroic act/expression of their love. That didn't happen. Again, Eric was barely in the book at all. It was disappointing and it just felt odd that the relationship (again, epic) fell away so quickly without a much of a fight.

Both romances were these big constants and to see them both barely featured in the last book just felt wrong. Readers have been so invested in both Bill and Eric and their relationships with Sookie. The decision to basically write them out of the story left me with the feeling the story wasn't really over...like I'll be waiting purpetually for something else to happen...

Quinn was my least favorite of the love interests but I did like him and I liked Alcide for that matter. It was kind of crazy how many love interests entered Sookie's life in so short a time---it was almost hard to keep up. Any one of them could have easily ended up being "the one". But Harris chose Sam. It was the logical choice. Sookie and Sam had been as close as family for the entire series. There were hints of attraction here and there but he wasn't the exciting choice. The reason it's the best choice is because it's the only way Sookie can live on and live normally. Sookie was human and wanted to stay human. In order for Sookie to retain her family, community, and have a family of her own---she needs normalcy. She's never had that with a vampire. All of the vampire drama and politics had to sort itself out in this book in order for her to be capable of having that separate life (in order for her to "live-on" at all). Bill and Eric had to be out of the picture. Sookie had to be in a position of not being used by vampires anymore and in a place where she wouldn't be bothered in their absence. Harris pulled that off. It was the only ending that gave Sookie that closure.

And that's probably why I don't feel all that satisfied. The whole Sookie series was about vampires and the drama of it all. You half expect a dramatic ending or for the story to go on forever. After all we'd been through with Sookie...I guess it was anti-climatic. After all the tension between Bill and Eric...neither get the girl.

I'm okay with it.

The fact is...I can't think of a better ending. Even though I feel less than satisfied with this ending (and miss the feeling the older books gave me), it was probably the right one. Probably.

Closing Thoughts / Now What?

Overall, I will always be a fan of Sookie. And I don't have to let go of her just yet. I still haven't finished all the short stories that fall into the Sookie-verse and After Dead is releasing this fall with conclusions ("what happened next") for nearly all the other characters in the book. I'm looking forward to that.

I heard a rumor that Charlaine Harris's next series will have fantasy elements as well so perhaps there will be a "new Sookie" to love.

Thanks for writing, Charlaine.

TV Show Review: The Black Donnellys

I really wish Networks would stop cancelling good shows based on a poor rating or low viewer numbers during the first couple of episodes. Shows need time to warm up. Anyone who has ever watched the first season or two of Friends knows this. Friends was one of the most successful shows of all time and yet the first two seasons are kitschy and loaded with sitcom cliches. It took a few seasons to develop the characters and gain momentum but it became extremely successful and pretty hilarious.

Fox is notorious for canceling shows. I mean any network that cancels an Emmy winning comedy with a cult-like following (Arrested Development) is insane. Fox has cancelled dozens upon dozens of shows. My only inclination as to why is that if the show is not immediately a SMASH, then it's not worth keeping (I'm thinking of Glee and Family Guy, although even the wildly popular Family Guy was cancelled and brought back). It's strange to me that this would seem logical since usually, I don't start watching a show until I hear it's good from other people (often 1-2 seasons in). I'm still trying to forgive them for canceling Firefly and Tera Nova (okay, the acting in Tera Nova wasn't great, but it had potential) and any time a new show that is good comes along, I cringe if it's on Fox. I'm pretty nervous about the fate of New Girl even with the initial success.

While Fox is the most notorious, all networks are guilty. It was NBC that cancelled The Black Donnelly's after only airing two episodes. This was a genuinely good show that I'm confident would have gained popularity if given time. In fact, I have a teeny bit of data to back that up. When NBC cancelled the show they decided to stream the rest of the season online. It did well. It was second only to their already popular Heroes.

I didn't discover the show until this past year (thanks to Netflix and my husband who remembered loving the first couple of episodes when they aired). It's a great show. Just read the Wikipedia article and you get the sense that it was a great concept. The show was inspired by real world families and locations that give it a credible and true to life feeling. While the mob and organized crime have always been a popular subject matter, it's the Donnelly family that really keeps you invested in this show. I loved (and hated) the characters on this show and while the show is certainly dark, there is the comedic relief found in an unreliable narrator and the relationship between brothers. In the midst of all the violence and drama you find yourself hopeful and invested.

Luckily, the first season stands alone pretty well but I'm still disappointed there's not more.

TV Show Review: The Vampire Diaries

Twilight kind of ruined vampires. Regardless of how you feel about Twilight, the vampire 'craze' that Twilight triggered took a traditional fantasy/folklore character and made him overdone, cheesy and a little lame. Where vampire characters used to be somewhat unique and interesting, urban fantasy books are now a dime a dozen. The second you tell someone you're watching or reading something about vampires you get a groan. Which is too bad because I've always liked folklore and the twist of a vampire character.

That being said, I decided to watch a couple of episodes of The Vampire Diaries over maternity leave out of bordem. No cable, home all day, it happens. I expected it to be pretty bad (it's a CW show after all) and figured I wouldn't last more than a couple episodes. I ended up being pleasantly surprised. I'm not even listing it under guilty pleasures because I legitimately enjoyed it. I should note that the books are atrocious. I liked the show better than True Blood (and this from a Charlaine Harris fan) because it was fun and suspenseful without the excessive nudity/gore (which I honestly believe is for shock value and doesn't add to the story) and sometimes mind boggling plot choices that True Blood often employs.

CW seems to be doing a bit better with some of their shows (Gossip Girl for example) as far as quality goes but they all definitely fall into the CW style.

In general I like the writer's direction/style/layering and constant suspense. I was even pleasantly surprised by the fact that the acting in general isn't terrible. It's entertaining...which is exactly what tv is suppose to be. After a couple seasons it becomes pretty obvious that there is a formula to the episodes that makes it a bit predictable on some levels and the constant additions of new plot twists starts to get a bit ridiculous after season 3. Still...the characters sucked me in and I find myself caring, laughing, and anticipating so I'd call the show a success. Here's hoping it doesn't completely dissolve into crap like most CW shows.

Mini Series Review: Hatfields & McCoys

"Hatfields & McCoys"

Released May 2012

History Channel Mini-Series

It's been a good 6 months since I posted (and I've seen a lot of movies and read a few books in that time). I've neglected this side project because I've been utterly distracted by being pregnant. But I had to revive the project for a recent viewing that blew me away.

The Hatfields and the McCoys. A mini-series. That odd forum found somewhere between movie and tv show. TV mini-series are often mediocre, but they have the potential to be extraordinary. Mostly this is because the director has the opportunity to do more because of the time allotted. It's not constrained to a  2 hour movie timeframe so you have more time to develop characters. Yet, it's not a tv show so you don't have to stretch out a story longer than necessary for the sake of renewal and ratings.

I really enjoyed this mini-series. It aired on the history channel so I felt it had more credibility even though obviously they took some artistic liberties. I've never been a big Kevin Costner fan but I really liked him in this role and overall I thought the acting was great. As a Southerner, I am often annoyed by fake Southern accents. Yet, the dialect and accents found in this movie were quite accurate to me. The Civil War references, the late 1800s class struggle and life...all seemed pretty well researched as well. I was completely sucked into the feud and the lives of the characters and not distracted by blaring inaccuracies.

The series explored questions of justice, loyalty, family, class, faith, and general right and wrong. Neither family was really enduring. It was hard to root for a side. Both families had characters to love and characters to despise. It was truly a tumultuous battle.

I related a lot to the issue of family loyalty. In the South, family loyalty is still a big deal even today. Blood is thicker than any other tie and there's a tendency to side with family above all other relationships, including marriage. I don't know if this is healthy but I get the culture and the torn-ness that comes with choosing whats right versus what's expected.

All in all, very enjoyable.

Movie Review: The Hunger Games

"The Hunger Games"

Released March 2012

Directed by: Gary Ross

Alright, it's been months since I did a real review and I've been anticipating this movie for quite some time---so lets do this. I'm almost a little disappointed by all the hype it's gotten (3rd best opening weekend ever) because with that comes a lot of opinions and most people have a hard time being neutral. But lets get on with it... 

First, the books. I read them months ago (actually before I knew they were making movies). I do not think that Suzanne Collins is the best writer ever, but I think the concept was good and I enjoyed reading them. They were definitely addicting. I am a really big fan of anything post apocalyptic or dystopian. That's not everyone's cup of tea, so I'm actually a little surprised at how popular the movie has been (and not surprised at the people appalled at the concept). 

I like books and film equally and recognize that they are different art forms. A book cannot be translated to screen without losing some details. Otherwise it would be 6 hours long at least. A good movie will capture the spirit of the book, cut the things that can be cut and keep the things that are important all while keeping the integrity of the story intact. It's difficult, but it can be done. I've never been one to whine about the movie changing too much from the book if the movie is done well. Although there are still some who are upset about the cuts made for this film, I think they did an excellent job translating it to screen. And actually, the movie may be better than the book (gasp!) in a lot of ways. I say that because Suzanne Collins is straight out of Hollywood, not academia. This is her forte, and it shows. It's one of the best adaptions I've seen and I'm suspicious that she had a movie in mind the entire time she was penning the book.

The choices for the actors I think overall were good. The only one I was truly skeptical about going in was Cinna. I don't think they really developed his character enough for me to have strong feelings about the choice one way or another (which is too bad because he's one of my favorite characters in the book), but I didn't find the choice distracting. The only character I didn't like the choice of actor was Cato...and that's really only because he was a terrible actor. The rest of the acting was decent I thought.

I'm not really sure what I'd have thought about it had I not read the books. I've heard some people say that there wasn't enough character development or that it was predictable. I didn't feel that way, but then again I already knew what was going to happen and I knew what was going on in the heads of the characters. 

The production of the film was so much better than expected. Really great camera angles and style choices. It didn't feel cheesy to me (and it was definitely at risk), I thought they did a great job keeping the violence from being too gorey while still having the impact needed to convey the emotion and disgust of it all.

Just like with anything popular, there are going to be people obsessed with this series, and people who hate it just because people are obsessed with it. There will also be the camps who feel the whole premise is degrading and violent...and people who feel it wasn't violent enough. I've seen mostly positive reviews, and of course some "what are you people thinking, it sucked!" but that's the nature of our culture and unsurprising. 

For me, it was a success. I liked the movie. I thought they did a great job. I'm not sure the next two will be as good since I think the books/stories get weaker as they go, but for this film alone---well done. Here's hoping the hype doesn't keep people from enjoying it or draw the wrong people in to see it.

Oscar Sunday 2012

Wow, it's been months since I've posted and I've seen quite a few films in that time. Time to resurrect this blog for a recap of this years Academy Awards. Personally I love the Oscars. I adore film as an art and I enjoy awards shows. There are obviously some negative aspects about what we're celebrating and all of the excess, but I do enjoy the night each year.

First off, Billy Crystal hosting was a success. Personally I've never cared who hosted. I am watching it because I care about the films and who wins and the commentary in between is neither here nor there for me. But the average viewer doesn't not share my interest. The Oscars are notoriously one of the worst rated television nights of the year and the hosts in the last at least 5 years have been getting a lot of flack for poor ratings. Personally, I don't think they've been all that bad. I just think the average movie goer isn't interested in the films represented. But that being said, Billy Crystal reminded me that it can be done right. Entertaining, funny, and not too forced overall. He really is the best at Oscar hosting.

Overall, as usual, I'm pleased. There are always movies and actors I feel get overlooked but for the most part some of the greatest movies are recognized.

I was not at all surprised to see Octavia Spencer win Support Actress..she was the clear favorite.

I think Bryce Dallas Howard's role in The Help was phenominal. I've never been more impressed with her and I think she deserved a nomination just as much if not more than her four co-stars.

I think there were some overlooked movies this year (Martha Marcy May Marlene, Super 8, etc) that were great and I'm surprised Bridemaids got so much hype overall.

No Pixar movies nominated this year...the clear favorite in animation. The ones nominated were all mediocre to me.

I know that the Kodak Theater is not big enough to hold every star every year and that the ones there are usually connected to the films nominated in some way, but it still feels incomplete when I notice faces aren't there (Kate, Leo, Nicole, Johnny, etc) that I come to expect to see when big stars get together.

Some people were upset about Meryl Streep's win. I admit I was a little surprised (not shocked) because there were a lot of really good actresses nominated. But I really had no idea who'd take home the Oscar. That being said, though the movie overall wasn't very successful, Meryl completely nailed the part of Margaret Thatcher. When people get upset that mediocre movies win in categories like supporting actor or sound editing---it annoys me. It's not Best Picture. It's not about the film overall. It's about the individual performances and work and that is exactly how it should be judged. Both Meryl and Michelle did great jobs at capturing the person they were playing even though the films themselves were not that great. The same can be said for movies like Harry Potter and Transformers that overall might not be Oscar material, but aspects like sound editing and visual effects absolutely are.

Hugo deserved to win the visual categories. I liked the movie in general and liked the twist from Scorsese, one of my all time favorite Directors. I thought the film dragged a bit, but visually it was stunning. Those are definitely the categories it should have won in.

I generally don't understand when Makeup wins in a period film over fantasy because it just doesn't seem as hard to do makeup for Queen Elizabeth as it does to make prosthetics and fantasy characters come to life. But I think in this case it was one of those...honoring one of the oldest members of the field. Often at the Oscars I feel artists get "gipped" the year they deserved to win because it just happened to fall in the same year as an Oscar favorite (for instance, Leonardo Dicaprio has never won and I think his Howard Hughs would have taken it any year except the year he was nominated when everything went to Ray) so later on they'll throw that artist a bone and give them an award for film that wasn't their best (see Martin Scorsese winning for The Departed. A good film, but not his best. He was just long overdue for an Oscar).

John Williams never seems to win lately, but he's bound to get a lifetime achievement award at some point. He's the most famous composer for film and he's getting old. He's not going to around too much longer friends.

I love Bret McKenzie.


In closing, I haven't seen The Artist yet so I can't say whether or not I think it deserved to be the Oscar favorite and Best Picture winner this year. I do think what I've seen of Jean Dujardin's performance was great, but overall...hard to say with so many other great movies nominated.