Vampires suck

Vampires, I think, are best to stick to the odd horror flick, although comedies with them can be pretty good as well. But romance? Doesn't do it for me. I gotta agree with these guys: I'm sick of the modern vampire-romance genre.

But today I saw this: Vampires suck. (Technically I wonder if they would suck, since they're more famous for biting, but I suppose they need to draw the blood out somehow. Yes, I know it's meant to be a pun, but it's a stupid pun and I just like these things to be accurate as well as, y'know, punny.)

I thought the trailer was awesome when I thought it was just a spoof, like the Minesweeper movie. But apparently it's going to be an actual movie, which will no doubt be terrible.

But I still like the trailer.

The voyage of the Dawn Treader

Liked the first movie, although I didn't like a couple of liberties they took with the plot (yeah, I'm a purist); but have been looking forward to the next one since I saw The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.

Loving the look of this. I don't go much to the movies these days, but I'll make an exception for this one!

Hairspray

I have a confession to make.

I watched Hairspray today, and while I didn't love it, I did fall a teeny bit in love with the character played by... wait for it... Zac Efron.

It's not Efron himself. I've watching all three High school musicals (come on, the movies were cheesy but they were cute), and most of 17 again, and... well, he's a cute kid.

I think it was more the situation. The main character, Tracy Turnblad (poor girl never stood a chance), is plump, and therefore something of a social outcast. She's always had a huge crush on Efron's character, Link Larkin (I want to know who made up these characters' names — Tracy's best friend is Penny Pingleton), and when one day he brushes up against her accidentally and actually looks and smiles at her, her cup is full to overflowing.

I remember so well being that girl in high school. Rather than being plump, I was all skinny and pimply and knobbly-kneed, but I can remember feeling so unattractive and when my huge crush at the time not only smiled at me but tackled me (for no particular reason) in a field... I was just so happy. So full of joy. So happy I can't describe it.

I guess watching the romance between Link and Tracy just brought me back to that feeling. I never ended up going out with my Link, but I love the character just a little bit for being that boy that gave a girl that same joyful feeling. It doesn't matter that he never knew — but he paid her attention and he smiled at her. He was kind to someone who knew she wasn't seen as attractive; he made her feel special. And for that, I fell a teeny bit in love with him.

(OK, spying on him in the men's toilets is somewhat creepy. But I like the first couple minutes of the song.)

YouTube Tuesday: The Time Traveler's Wife

For anyone who hasn't heard: The Time Traveler's Wife has been made into a movie, so I thought I'd post the trailer for YouTube Tuesday.

I know it's terrible of me to say this, but I did not like the book.

*waits for outraged screaming to subside*

I thought it was melodramatic, full of gratuitous sex scenes, and slightly disgusting at times. It was, however, written well enough and emotively enough that I cried like a baby several times during the book, and expect to do so several more during the movie. I hated the last scene of the book; I loved the last scene of the book. The book made me intensely sad.

*The 40ish-year-old man having sex with an 18-year-old? Even if she does grow up to become his wife, that's still disgusting to me, especially when he time-travels back to his wife in the present day and notices how she's older/less attractive now — it's basically like cheating on her with an 18-year-old, even if it is her at age 18.

I'm not saying it isn't well-written; I'm not saying it didn't deserve to be made into a movie. I'm saying it made me sad, and I disliked parts of it (e.g. the constant sex and disgusting factor) enough not to want to read it again.

But I think the movie actually looks better than the book, so far. It looks like it deals more with the wife's life without her husband and her anger/issues, which to me would be much more profound issues.

Plus, Eric Bana plays the husband. Mm-mmm.

Vintner's luck

Interesting new New Zealand movie coming up — a story about "love, wine and angels". Thanks to Rachael King for the link.

To be released in February 2010.

Black or white

On the news tonight they talked about how Michael Jackson had always wanted to be white, a stance he "made clear" in his song, Black or white, with the lyrics: "I'm not gonna spend my life bein' a colour."

What? What? Did you miss the rest of the song?

It don't matter if you're black or white...
If you're thinkin' about my baby, it don't matter if you're black or white
If you're thinkin' of bein' my baby, it don't matter if you're black or white
If you're thinkin' of bein' my brother, it don't matter if you're black or white.

Point being (I assumed), that it don't matter if you're black or white.

I'd always interpreted "not gonna spend my life bein' a colour" as not wanting to spend your life being defined by your colour.

As far as him turning white: vitiligo. Genuine disease. Genuinely had it. Tends to affect mainly non-Europeans. Causes loss of skin pigmentation.

My point? Get over the colour of his skin, people. It don't matter.

Prince Caspian

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was an OK movie, if somewhat vanilla. Prince Caspian was much, much better, although I don't really understand its M rating — there was no sex, no swearing and far less violence than you get in most kids' movies.

Technically, yes, this is a kids' movie, but it's much more adult than its predecessor. The actors have matured, their performances are better, and Edmund — who was always my favourite Pevensie kid in Prince Caspian — is easily the coolest Pevensie in the movie, too.

In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe I very much disliked the casting of Georgie Henley as Lucy, as she was all pouty and big-lipped and snub-nosed and generally just oozed smarminess; in Prince Caspian, she seems to have grown into her role, and I didn't mind her at all — although that could be partly because she has a smaller role.

The highlight of the characters for me, though, was (not Ben Barnes, although I guess if I were 14 I'd probably be drooling all over him) Peter Dinklage as Trumpkin. Trumpkin was one of the best characters in the book, and in the movie he's retained all his saltiness with a little cute-sad expression as well in those big ol' eyes. Reepicheep, too, was pretty cool, although not portrayed the way I'd envisioned him.

There are huge plot changes, and the original story is completely altered. Most of the changes aren't too bad, although I preferred how the Pevensies met Caspian in the book, and disliked one of the battles the movie inserted. But the ending was better; for some reason the ending in the book always confused and bored me a little bit. Having said that, it's probably ten years since I've even read any of the books, so I guess I should really go back and re-read the series before I make any more book-movie comparisons!

Becoming Jane

Pride and Prejudice is a great (if rather girly) book, and deservedly a classic; and Austen's books were unquestionably trendsetters. So when I found out there was a movie on Austen's life, I was quite excited.

Becoming Jane was a huge disappointment.

Here are the facts: Jane Austen had five brothers and a sister, Cassandra, whose fiancé died of yellow fever. At 21, Austen had a brief flirtation with Tom LeFroy. Six years later, a Mr Bigg-Wither proposed to her; she accepted him, only to change her mind and retract her acceptance the next day. In the end, she never married.

Becoming Jane is a romance. Surely, its makers say, Jane Austen must have had some spectacular romance, to write so well? And so they've set out to create a romance based on Jane's brief flirtation with Tom LeFroy.

Austen was an advocate of sense and propriety. She extolled love in marriage; but as books like Persuasion show, any woman who marries without security is a fool, and the world not well lost. But I doubt Becoming Jane's makers had read any Austen other than Pride and Prejudice.

What is shown in Becoming Jane is as follows: Cassandra's fiancé dies of yellow fever (true). Jane Austen has a passionate love affair with Tom LeFroy at the same time as she's being pursued by Mr Bigg-Wither (whose name is changed to Mr Wisley); Austen and LeFroy elope to Gretna Green; Austen changes her mind halfway through and returns home; and Bigg-Wither/Wisley kindly dumps her (untrue).

The overt sexuality in the movie is completely out of period. One scene in the library is almost laughably impossible — Austen would never have stood for such lewd talking, and LeFroy would not have attempted it. This is a modern movie putting a modern character in Georgian England; not a depiction of Jane Austen, a Georgian woman, as she really was.

The movie trailer says it wants to show Jane as a woman in love with life and all its possibilities. Instead, it diminishes the facts of Austen's life, magnifying her flirtation with LeFroy out of any reasonable proportion and bearing little comparison to Austen's real character.

It's a shame that, instead of a biography, Becoming Jane is a trite, unrealistic romance. The film-makers looked at her life, and found it dull. They've fabricated a much more Hollywood story, and told that one instead. But if you're not going to stick to the bare facts, don't pose as biographical. Jane Austen deserved a better tribute than this.

Fiddler on the Roof

That was fantastic. More enjoyable for me than the movie, which I also loved — less tragically sad, especially the ending. Topol was brilliant. I have the greatest respect for that actor, and I feel so lucky to have seen him play Tevye in person!

You can tell he's getting older, though, poor guy; when he dances, and sometimes when he sings. He's got a great voice, but he sometimes takes a slightly easier note, and when he dances (like the immortal If I were a rich man), he's not shaking his old bones around as much as he did in the movie. He's seventy-two years old this year; if it were me, I'd have retired long ago! I hope he's very rich by now; I'd say he's earned it. The movie was made in 1971, but it's such a timeless piece that it doesn't seem old at all.

I'd never realised before (not having watched the movie in years) what a complex show it is, containing commentaries on contemporary society, marital roles, religion, racism, politics, and of course traditioooon! Tradition! OK, I'd realised it had some content against racism, but not really anything further. It's such a rich show, though.

I still have a major crick in my neck from gazing in rapt silence at the stage for three hours — but we were in the third row from the front! I realise that's why I have the crick in my neck, but I don't regret it even slightly — we were so close to the stage, it was amazing. Topol especially acted so genuinely, I was sure in a couple of scenes that if I could see closer I'd see the actual tears in his eyes.

I want to say it was the best show I've ever seen, but it's a ridiculous comparison — it's not even in the same league as anything else.