Miranda Phipps

So a couple days after Twilight I abandoned hubby with the kiddos and took off the necessary three hours to go see this puppy. I loves me some Baz Luhrmann, so I had faith despite the bad reviews.

There was a lot in the film I liked, but I just have to get Nicole Kidman’s immobile face off my chest before I go there. The critics are right. It doesn’t move properly. I feel bad for her having to decide between facial wrinkles and the ability to engage fully in her craft. (How can you act if you can’t move your face?) It’s too bad the knife and botox won out in the end.

Jackman was great, and I have to admit to being sucked into the grandiosity of it all. The Wizard of Oz, Cattle drives and WW II? You had me at hello, Baz. I even had a good cry, too.

So I have this theory that superheroes will be the next big thing in romance. In a way, we already see this with all of the paranormals. I can’t help but believe, though, that the success of the Batman series won’t spill over into romance in the same way we see it in the popularity of Heroes on TV. Time will tell.

I had a number of friends recommend IronMan to me because they liked Robert Downey Jr.’s performance. His performance definitely salvaged that film for me, but in the end the romance-lover in me had a hard time with his near total lack of self-knowledge related to his love for Penny. Maybe he feels that he can’t love her and he has to sleep with all of these hot women who she literally cleans up after for a reason, but I never learned what that reason was aside from guessing that it fulfills some kind of adolescent male fantasy in the same way that the excessive gadgetry of the film did. The other problem being of course that Penny is a total doormat.

Despite having felt a little burned by IronMan, I went ahead and rented The Hulk. (It’s such a nice thing to have total control of the remote while Hubby is out of town.) I had pretty low expectations of the movie given the reviews, but I’m a sucker for all things Ed Norton, so I thought I would give it a try. I also happen to like Liv Tyler. She’s not an acting powerhouse, but her dark-haired femininity appeals to me.

Now after the IronMan experience, I was delighted to learn that The Hulk is really superhero candy for romance lovers (putting aside the whole lack of a perfect HEA, which I was prepared for). I loved how the Hulk’s love for Betty is what allowed us to see the humanity of the monster and the fact that the relationship drove a lot of the action in the film.

The villains, though, they weren’t so great. Why again did Tim Roth want to become a monster? Because he wanted to have a fight with the Hulk who never actually did anything to the Tim Roth character except kick him after that guy went over and demanded of Mr. Green, “Is that all you’ve got”? Come on guys, is that all you’ve got–a villain with no motivation other than a big old chip on his shoulder?

I’m also not going to go into Betty’s whole daddy thing, either. The man’s an idiot on too many levels to merit time on this posting.

I’ve got 8 hours left on my rental–I think I’m going to squeeze in some extra laundry folding this afternoon so I can watch it again.

So it turns out Philip Pullman wrote a series of Victorian-set YA detective novels featuring one Miss Sally Lockhart. Romance, intrigue, the London underworld–this is all right up Miranda’s alley. And how did I find out about this? Well, my DH left town and I finally had access to the remote and all those goodies I store up in the DVR for such opportunities. Earlier this week I got to watch a Masterpiece Mystery adaptation (introduced by the incomparable, yet vampirically pale, Alan Cummings) of the first book in the Lockhart series — The Ruby in the Smoke. It totally sucked me in, particularly the romantic subplot with Frederick Garland–a charming, young photographer.

The next day, I started watching The Shadow in the North, the second installment in the series only to discover at a mere 11 minutes into the episode that SOMEONE had switched off the DVR in order to watch some other program and the rest of the episode was lost. Lost forever! The remote control suffered the consequences of this terrible wrong because the true villain was at a conference in Naples, Florida.

My book budget is feeling a bit constrained right now, not to mention that my TBR pile is already too full, so the Sally Lockhart series is waiting in my Amazon basket until I’m bit more flush on the financial and time fronts.

To be continued . . .

I find I have the greatest success in wresting control of the remote control away from my husband when he is physically out of town. (My viewing of Penelope the other night occurred under such circumstances.)

Earlier tonight I managed to find my DVD copy of the The Illusionst, which had been hiding on the top shelf of my closet next to all seven seasons of Buffy. Man, do I ever love this film. Even on the first viewing it had me at “hello.” My favorite bits: the sepia tones, Edward Norton’s mane of black hair, that little locket with the hidden mechanism, the simultaneous allusion and foreshadowing in Eisenheim’s offer to make his lady love disappear, the subtlety of the dialogue and the acting, and–*sigh*–the happy ending.

It isn’t often I see a movie and conclude I must own it. Nor is it often I see a movie with a new male actor who really intrigues me. Unlike in the case of Johnny Depp or Edward Norton, my newfound affection for James McEvoy falls a little bit in the cradle-robbing category, but now that I’ve hit my mid-thirties, I need to accept that this occurence is only going to become more likely. James McEvoy is a fine intitiation into the ways of the cougar.

Here’s a quick overview of what worked well for me in this film:
–The aesthetic of the Penelope character appealed to me totally. I need to find the source of those fabulous pea-green maryjanes. In thinking about my own work, I’m reminded of the need to have characteristics of the heroine appeal to the reader so that she can identify with her.
–I loved how Penelope broke her own curse.
–It isn’t often a movie can surprise me with a plot twist like the one involving Max’s character. It worked well and accounted for Max’s actions in a completely credible way.
–They handled the attraction between Penelope and Max very well.
–GREAT kiss at the end.

So I’ve been waiting for the new Batman movie for ages. Like a lot of people.

Today was a good day for hookey, so I took advantage of the lull in lawyerly e-mails to indulge myself.

It was a good movie, but not the movie I wanted to see. Heath Ledger was great. Christian Bale’s Batman remains to die for. I’d been so looking forward to seeing Batman evolve and especially to watching the layers of complexity woven into his relationship with Rachel Dawes (who THANK GOD is now played by Maggie Gyllenhall). But there we have the big letdown. The are spoilers ahead, so stop reading here if you don’t want to know.

You see, Rachel Dawes dies at the Joker’s hands. Batman doesn’t save her. And even worse, Rachel Dawes doesn’t want Batman, she wants Harvey Dent. The worst sin of all, though, is that Batman doesn’t even mourn her.

I struggle to understand why these choices were made. Why can’t Batman’s love for Rachel and the wholly valid reasons which keep them apart be used as a way to develop Batman’s divided personality? I’ve been thinking about this all day. If I figure it out, I’ll let you know.