Rotten Tomatoes

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Pretty in Pink

I can’t seem to shake off the 1980s. Here we go again.

er-prettyinpinkPretty in Pink

Category: Movies

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
One of those John Hughes movies about American teenagers in the 1980s (though this time he’s only the writer and Howard Deutch directs). Molly Ringwald plays Andie, artistic, smart, on the verge of graduating from high school – and in love with a “richie”: a boy with money. When they start dating, two worlds collide and this turns out more difficult than fairy tales have taught us.

How I found it:
It was on the list of those movies I meant to watch because I heard it referenced often but I never felt that interested.

Summary judgment:
I liked it more than I’d expected to.

Best things about it:
The social part of the story makes it much more grounded than your regular Cinderella-meets-Prince-Charming. Interestingly, it focuses on the repercussions of such a meeting and how nobody really approves.

Worst things about it:
Some scenes take too long, including almost all that focus on Duckie. In fact, Duckie is not nearly as endearing as the makers of the film seem to think and shouldn’t have so much screen time.

Other pluses:
✤ I appreciate Andie’s clothes, horrific as they sometimes are. They almost become a character in the story.
✤ The city (town?) where the story takes places feel very real in its ugliness and stratification and so does the high school.
✤ I liked the father character.

Other minuses:
✤ The romantic interest is somewhat underwhelming, not just physically but mostly in his passive behavior.
✤ Too bad Iona has to get normalized at the end. I liked her bohemian style.

How it enriched my life:
It didn’t particularly but at least I got to tick off another classic of the very long list of classics I never saw.

Follow-up:
Now that I’ve seen this, Sixteen Candles and Breakfast Club I feel the one thing left is Ferris Bueller, but I’m not particularly excited for this one.

Recommended for:
John Hughes’ fans who are in it for the social commentary.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Next time: Legion

Advertisements
Standard
Bookworming

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Lady Audley’s Secret

I still read books. But ever since I’ve had a kid I read less. Instead, I have found at least two ways to listen to books. One is while I exercise (and then it’s mostly bad fantasy). The other is while I work. It doesn’t make for a particularly in-depth read but it does bring up the number of books I read. But since my focus when I listen to books is not as strong as when I read them, I choose things I don’t particularly care to know in every detail. Like

er-ladyaudleyssecretLady Audley’s Secret by Mary Elizabeth Braddon

Category: Books

Find it on: LibraryThing | and here’s the LibriVox free audiobook I listened to

What it is:
A sensational novel written in 1862, and basically a worse Wilkie Collins. It tells a story of Lady Audley, who comes from nowhere, marries rich and, no duh, has a secret (it’s – spoilers, barely – bigamy; and a son; and possibly madness). The story is mostly told from a point of view of Robert Audley, a perfect (and perfectly useless) gentleman with unexpressed homosexual tendencies and includes a surprising amount of violence.

How I found it:
I searched through LibriVox for something that you can listen to during work.

Summary judgment:
It’s not good, strictly speaking, but it’s fun enough.

Best things about it:
It reads easily and keeps you mildly interested. The characters remain memorable through their quirks.

Worst things about it:
This novel has such a weird structure where the reader is constantly promised secrets and revelations but every answer is obvious pretty much from the beginning. The coincidences are quite ludicrous and sometimes you wonder why the book takes so long to unveil a secret which barely deserves the name.
No, wait! I didn’t guess George was still alive but only because in a better book he wouldn’t have been, I declare.

Other pluses:
Robert is actually, almost, it feels, accidentally, a fascinating character: in turns seductive and infuriating. He incorporates the perfect nonchalance of a gentleman (that only a danger to his beloved friend can sometimes shake). His musings on women are, on the other hand, terrible.

Other minuses:
✤ It’s not so obvious from a modern point of view because social mobility, homosexuality and undomesticated women aren’t very scary to most people any more, but this book based its attraction on stirring Victorian readers’ anxieties. I don’t approve of fear-mongering.
✤ I wish lady Audley was a more complex character. I know a modern critic may easily reinterpret her as a victim of women’s disenfranchisement but, frankly, the book doesn’t care about that. She’s barely more than a ghoul to scare people with.

How it enriched my life:
It kept me good company during many hours of work.

Fun fact:
If you don’t know LibriVox, give it a try. It’s like Project Gutenberg for audiobooks where enthusiasts devote their time to record public domain books for anyone to enjoy. It’s free, it’s uneven, I love it.

Follow-up:
Whatever I find when I’ve got the kind of work that makes it possible to listen to books. But not Braddon, probably.

Recommended for:
Fans of Victorian trash literature, villainous women and gloriously lazy gentlemen.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Next time: Pretty in Pink

Standard
Show Case

Wildly Enthusiastic Review: Riverdale After Dark

My history with podcasts is patchy. Whenever I get interested in one, the creators undergo a personal drama and I need to look for something else (maybe that comes from listening to podcasts by married couples; podcasting seems hard on relationships). I’m also not great at finding new podcasts but I lucked out recently.

Riverdale After Dark by Comic Book Club

Category: Podcasts

Find it on: iTunes

What it is:
Three comic book specialists – and, clearly, friends – discuss new episodes of Riverdale as they come out. They recap the plot, discuss red herrings and suspects, fight about ships and choose between Betty and Veronica. And they’re hilarious while doing all that.

How I found it:
As I said, I don’t have a good way of finding podcasts yet. Recently I tried typing stuff I’m watching or reading into iTunes search and that’s exactly how I found Riverdale After Dark.

Summary judgment:
This might be my new favorite.

Best things about it:
It makes me laugh so hard. The guys are as good-humoredly disrespectful of one another as only true friends can be. But at the same time you can hear them trying to be generally respectful and decent in what they say, and not in a forced way that some podcasters have, as if they had the Department of Political Correctness listening in. They seem like a cool lot to hang out with.

Worst things about it:
How it’s limited by the number of episodes of the TV show. I  wish there were more episodes to listen to.

Other pluses:
This show keeps me bursting out laughing. It has so many great moments. I also enjoy the things they have to say about the storylines and the Archie trivia I get to learn.

Other minuses:
I don’t mind at all but I can imagine the explicit language and raunchiness of some of the jokes might be discouraging to some listeners.

How it enriched my life:
It helped me through many hours of work and, a minor gain, I also learned about various elements of Riverdale that allude to Archie Comics.

Fun fact:
I listen to the podcast on my earphones while I work and whenever I laugh out loud my husband gets really irritated. But he’s been doing exactly the same thing ever since he found another podcast he likes and I was perfectly polite about it, let me just remark.

Follow-up:
Comic Book Club has a general podcast on comics and I might check it out but I’m afraid my comics knowledge is too spotty and far-from-current to really enjoy it. But I will listen to their Legion podcast and I’m even willing to give American Gods a chance (the TV show first, of course).

Recommended for:
Fans of Riverdale, who want to feel as if they’re discussing the show with funny friends.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Next time: Lady Audley’s Secret

Standard
Show Case

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Riverdale (S1)

I never read Archie Comics. I was aware of their existence but I only knew that’s where “Betty and Veronica” came from (TV Tropes is my heroin). But I saw the trailer for Riverdale and decided it looked interesting.

er-riverdale-1Riverdale (season 1)

Category: TV show

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
A CW reinvention of classic Archie characters, which tries to make the story dark. It starts with the murder of Jason Blossom (and some statutory rape, to be very strict about it) to make it sufficiently dark from the go. Archie, Betty and Veronica (and also everyone’s favorite pretentious Jughead) are all somewhat involved with the murder, and with one another. The whole other bunch of stories revolves around the parents (who include Luke Perry, so I’m all for it) and their mostly dark pasts. So you know, it’s not the classic Archie story.

How I found it:
After I saw the trailer, I watched a couple of episodes and while I liked the look of the show, I dropped it for a long time. But during our game of Monster Hearts (never mind), A was always using Riverdale for inspiration and it made me return to finish the season.

Summary judgment:
This show turns out to be a lot of fun.

Best things about it:
It looks great. The stylization, the colors, everyone’s eyebrows: it’s all to the point and makes watching the show a visual feast. I particularly like how they use colored lights, especially aqua, magenta and red, to create the mood of the whole thing. Seriously, there are no white light bulbs in the entire town – and it creates such a memorable look. Oh yeah, and the story is okay, I guess.

Worst things about it:
I couldn’t care less about Jason Blossom’s murder. This whole crime part of the show didn’t grab me at all.

Other pluses:
✤ Well, hello there, Luke Perry. I spent my late childhood in love with Dylan McKay and I’m glad to see Luke Perry mature well.
✤ Speaking of this, Mrs. Cooper looks great: she’s clearly not 30 but possibly one of the most attractive people on the show. I like that age shows on some of the parents.
✤ I like how the show is going for far-fetched rather than realistic and how it’s clearly a decision, not an accident. It (barely) saves it from just being a weird soap opera.

Other minuses:
So here are a couple of characters I hate: Mr. Blossom, Mrs. Blossom, Mrs. Grundy (ugh). Veronica straddles the line and Hermione often crosses it.

How it enriched my life:
At first it was a bit of a time-killer but then I got quite invested.

Fun fact:
It’s got nothing to do with Riverdale, just with Dylan McKay but close enough. So a couple of years ago we watched a few first episodes of Beverly Hills 90210 and wow, was Dylan a terrible boyfriend. At one point he tells Brenda that he has his “needs” and it’s not his fault that she finds him with another girl if she missed a train by which she was supposed to come see him. It ruined some of my precious childhood fantasies. Also, if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re clearly not my generation.

Follow-up:
I’m ready for season two.

Recommended for:
Fans of teen soap dramas on the dark side who don’t mind them rather theatrical. People who miss Beverly Hills 90210.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Next time: Still at it with Riverdale After Dark

Standard
Rotten Tomatoes

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Heathers

It’s the 80’s/90’s nostalgia wave and I am willing to oblige.

er-heathersHeathers (1989)

Category: Movies

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
A 1989 dark comedy / high school satire or something like that. Three Heathers and a Veronica rule a school but Veronica, played by a really young Winona Ryder, doesn’t find it as exciting as she hoped. So when she meets a charming psychopath, played by a really young Christian Slater, she joins him on a killing spree. This, however, she doesn’t find that exciting either.

How I found it:
Now that people are remaking the movie as a TV show I remembered its existence. I once saw a part of this movie on TV but I didn’t know what I was getting into and the tone of the movie put me off immediately. I decided to give it another go now that I knew what to expect.

Summary judgment:
I don’t think I’m the ideal audience for this movie and I find it really hard to judge.

Best things about it:
It’s stylish, with all the main characters and even, alright, Slater, looking great. The visual side of the movie makes it clear how it works more like a film version of a comic than a portrayal of an actual school clique.
They created a whole dialect for this movie. People say of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that Whedon wrote a teen slang that is completely invented but sounds realistic and I think Heathers‘ writers tried to do it first. The dialogs don’t really sound natural but they are full of quotable gems, “f*ck me gently with a chainsaw,” being the most memorable.

Worst things about it:
I had a problem with the tone of the movie. Of course, it’s fairly obvious what it is going for but at least now, thirty years later, it feels particularly tone-deaf. Everything is drawn with such thick lines and you can’t really care for any of the characters. It really does feel like an adaptation of some nihilistic cartoon stripe, which would be fine, but then sometimes it goes for those analyses of the condition of (then) modern teenagers and of how high school reflects society, which sound false. I’d rather have a consistent collection of cartoonish sketches.

Other pluses:
✤ I liked the joke with mineral water.
✤ The color-coding of the girls, while obvious, always earns a plus in my book.
✤ I like the emancipated (and smoked) Winona Ryder in the end. But I still have a hard time understanding her character.

Other minuses:
✤ The last part with the bombing. And boy, did this film grow old when you think of it. It’s hard to imagine a modern teen movie, even a satirical one, using the same motifs (which makes it half-interesting how they’re going to pull off the remake).
✤ I really disliked Christian Slater in this role. And “Greetings and saluuutaations” earns the movie another minus in my book.

How it enriched my life:
I discovered a source of some quotes I sometimes come across. And if I were the kind of person to send people animated gifs in emails as emotional comments, I would find a ton in this movie.

Fun fact:
I can totally see myself saying “How very” for a while now. My husband will just have to deal ’cause that’s how I roll.

Follow-up:
I’m not coming back to this one and unless I read very interesting things about the re-make, I doubt I will be watching it either.

Recommended for:
People with a very serious case of 1980’s/90’s nostalgia or curiosity who don’t mind superficiality in their portrayal of social ills. Or fans of 80’s fashion, maybe.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Next time: Riverdale

Standard
Show Case

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: True Blood (S2)

As I promised, I did revisit the second season of True Blood. The first time it aired, it had me gripped, waiting excitedly for each new episode. I was still in the haze of love for season one and expected the show to reach new heights. (Spoiler: it didn’t necessarily.)

er-trueblood-2True Blood (season 2)

Category: TV shows

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
A new serial killer seems to be prowling Bon Temps, this one with a penchant for the victims’ hearts. Tara gets increasingly involved with the cult-like household of Maryann while Jason travels to Dallas to join another cult. Meanwhile, in a mostly unrelated story, Eric asks Sookie to help him clear a mystery.

How I found it:
I didn’t even have to search.

Summary judgment:
It’s still better than any later seasons and still much more focused but it doesn’t have the sharpness of season one.

Best things about it:
Most of the show falls into two separate plotlines and the one involving Sookie I find quite exciting. I was always curious about vampire politics on the show and we get glimpses of that. I like how the creators realized the inherent attractiveness of Eric and just ran wild with it. And I find Godric such a good twist on the whole moral dilemma of the existence of vampires. Jason’s story also works and the fanatics he gets involved with shine a new light (heh, I know) on the human-vampire conflict. It is a tragedy of modern television how later seasons will do literally nothing with any of these themes.

Worst things about it:
Pretty much everything to do with the other storyline – the maenad – until the very moment when Sookie and Bill finally get involved with that. But until then the whole story had me so bored I only kept myself from fast-forwarding to Dallas scenes through my uncommon restraint. The failure of this storyline only draws attention to all the (numerous) faults of Sam and Tara.

Other pluses:
✤ Bill and Sookie surprised me with the tenderness and loyalty of their relationship and how its portrayal mostly avoids cheap soap opera tricks. (This will change so hard.)
✤ You can only appreciate it knowing future seasons but new motifs that will be picked up later are introduced quite smoothly (most of them, anyway).
✤ Widening the scope from Bon Temps to Dallas and showing more urbane (in a Texas way) vampires makes the mythology interesting.
✤ Jason gets to show off his comedic talent. His lines tend to be overwritten every now and then but that’s not Ryan Kwanten’s fault.
✤ While I don’t care for the storyline as a whole, the way the maenad reveals the brokenness of the town’s people works at times.

Other minuses:
Ugh, Daphne. I forgot about her and didn’t relish the reminder. I’m not a huge fan of Eggs either and particularly of Tara with him.

How it enriched my life:
Despite the unequal charms of this season, it still gave me a lot of pleasure and excitement.

Fun fact:
As far as I remember from the book (I read it ages ago), Godric was more complex there. Living as long as he did, he outgrew his times and his preference for children became unacceptable, which is quite a different idea from this saint we get on the show.

Follow-up:
I guess I will watch season three during some flu or a long trip.

Recommended for:
Those ready to accept that True Blood was only incredibly brilliant in season one and still want to revisit Sookie and the gang. Fans of vampire stories.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Next time: Heathers (of 1989)

Standard
Bookworming

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: The Glass Castle

Memoirs are not among my favorite genres but I read one every now and then. Like

er-theglasscastleThe Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls

Category: Books

Find it on: LibraryThing

What it is:
A memoir about growing up in a dysfunctional but exciting family. Jeannette and her three siblings are carted around by their extravagant parents: an artistic mother who refuses to make sacrifices and a charismatic drunken father. They live in several states, fiercely independent, but often with nothing to eat and nowhere to wash.

How I found it:
I saw a trailer for the movie adaptation and then heard a casual reference to the book somewhere and it was enough to get me interested.

Summary judgment:
I admire the tone of the book and it reads really well.

Best things about it:
While some facts from Walls’s childhood shock, she manages to recreate a child’s point of view that only slowly grows more judgmental of her parents, replacing perfect trust with disappointment. I read criticism of the dispassionate tone of the book but I actually find it believable and engaging: at some moments you want to shake the parents awake for the children who love them too much to do that.
And even though Walls grows in disillusionment as she matures, the underlying love for her misfit family never disappears, elevating the book from a tearjerker to a head-scratcher: despite everything, there are positive things about the Walls parents values.

Worst things about it:
A few times I found the anecdotal style of the book, with the memories mostly disjoined into separate snippets a bit mechanical. But it’s a minor complaint.

Other pluses:
✤ Walls manages to paint very vivid pictures of the different places where she lived, particularly the desert and Welch. You easily see yourself there.
✤ It bears emphasizing: it would be so easy to presents parents like these as monsters. It’s a testament to a child’s devotion, but also to the strength of human spirit, how Walls never condemns them, even when the reader has, and so makes you see positive things about them: their courage, their optimism, their free spirit.
✤ I found Lori the most interesting of the siblings but all the family members except for the youngest child make such strong characters.

Other minuses:
Of all the places, I found the description of New York least compelling.

How it enriched my life:
Despite everything it’s an enjoyable read and more than that, it makes you wonder about people who choose very different lifestyles.

Fun fact:
I can’t imagine anything less fun than having your grown-up child write a memoir of how you raised them, even if you did your best to strive for perfection. The more do I admire Mrs. Walls for her alleged support for the book.

Follow-up:
I’m interested in Walls’s other book, Half-Broke Horses, about her grandmother.

Recommended for:
People with perfectly (or at least mostly) conventional childhoods curious about different experiences. I have no idea how it might work for people who got traumatized in dysfunctional families themselves.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Next time: Back to True Blood

Standard