Mama Cass Reviews a Lot

So I really like Orson Scott Card's column, "Uncle Orson Reviews Everything". I think it's a fun way to just put your thoughts out there on different books, movies, TV shows, Olive Garden entrees, whatever. So I thought I would do something like unto it.

The first thing I'd like to talk about today is the movie Twilight. I read the books, and once I got past all the gushy "he's so beautiful! My heart flutters when I see him! Bliss, bliss!" thoughts of the novels' teenage protagonist, I really enjoyed them. The plot lines were very engaging, and the thoughts of the heroine (while kind of annoying) were written in such a way that it completely reminded the reader what it feels like to love for the first time. I read all four of the books, and was really looking forward to the movie.

The movie got a lot of things very right. It was very true to the plot of the first book. All of the heroic things that Edward does are portrayed beautifully, making all the giggly females in the audience fall in love with him all over again. Nearer to the end, when the plot really picked up, the movie became extremely engrossing.

Unfortunately, until that extremely engrossing latter third or so of the movie, it was a little hard to be fully engaged. The book and movie have the necessity of establishing the romance between Bella and Edward before any of the rest of the story can happen. I completely understand that. But in the movie, it seemed to drag a lot for me, and the actors weren't terribly convincing. Eric D. Snider made the observation in his review that Edward came across as kind of high. This is a pretty accurate statement. The character is supposed to be dangerous, sexy, and brooding. While Robert Pattinson is very handsome, and a decent actor, he didn't quite pull it off. On the other hand, he was supposed to be playing a perfect, immortal, and very specific being. The whole point of Stephanie Meyer's vampires is that they are unlike any kind of human. They have an effortless seduction and perfection about them. I don't think it would have been possible to find an actor that could have played the part correctly. Even so, you can't help but hope. Robert Pattinson did his best, and it honestly wasn't bad. It just wasn't quite Edward.

Kristen Stewart wasn't bad as Bella, either, but her acting seemed a little flat. Part of Bella's charm is that she's clumsy, emotional, and a little bit absentminded. She's a normal teenage girl. But Stewart played her almost like she was a vampire herself - a little too brooding, a little too graceful (despite a few attempts to look clumsy), and way too mature. I don't think this was Stewart's intent, necessarily, I think she just didn't try as hard as she could have to really understand her character. The romance seemed forced as well, almost as though she was going through the motions (aka "this is what love looks like" rather than "this is how love feels"). Again, though, the climax at the end was incredible. She pulled out a powerful performance. I had chills.

It's definitely not the actors' fault that they struggled. They were playing very specific characters with a very specific fanbase. One fan's perfection would have been completely wrong for another person. I think they did extremely well in spite of the inherent difficulties in playing Edward and Bella. Overall, I enjoyed their performances in spite of the flaws.

The biggest beef I had with the movie was a three-parter: The soundtrack, the special effects, and the camera work. Put together, all three gave the film an almost 80's-type feel. The music involved electric guitars, and the score was always melancholy and a little dark. I think if they had used more classical instruments, and had a more romantic love theme (rather than the angsty electric guitar theme), the music would have been far more emotionally effective for the audience. Classical instruments would also have given the movie a more timeless feel, as opposed to making it feel dated.

The special effects brought the 80's to mind as well. I realize some of the effects would have been hard to have done any better, but there were some that have been done better in other places. Edward is supposed to be fast. Like a blur. Like another hunky alien character... yes friends, I'm talking about Superman. Anyone who has watched the TV show Smallville has seen this effect worked well. It's also been done on Heroes. So we all know it's possible. But rather than going with that kind of a look for Edward, they chose instead to (I'm guessing) have him run at his regular speed (and none too gracefully, considering it was through the woods and frequently uphill) and then they just sped it up. It looked awkward and lurchy. Edward is supposed to be graceful, folks. Not tripping over his feet in fast-forward.

The last part was the camera-work. It had an uncomfortable tendancy to rotate around the couple in circles, making me dizzy. It also seemed shaky a lot of the time, like the camera was being held by hand rather than by a smooth-moving machine. I realize this was probably for effect, but overall it gave me a headache.

So there were definitely some problems I had with Twilight. Some of the acting, the slowness of the plot, the music, the special effects, the camera-work... not all as good as they could have been. But in spite of all the beefs I had, overall I truly enjoyed this movie. I guess that makes it similar to my experience with the books - once you get past the little annoying things, you've got a great story on your hands.

************

Terry Pratchett is a genius. If you haven't read any of his books, you should. Now. I mean it. Go to the store, and buy a book or two.

Most of the books he writes take place in "Discworld". It's a flat world, carried on the backs of four elephants that are standing on the back of an enormous turtle that's swimming through space. I realize this sounds like some sort of nerdy sci-fi gig, but it's more like a fantasy series. There's really no science involved.

His books are usually very satirical, and they're always extremely funny. There are a few main characters that he centers his books on - a pair of witches named Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg (the latter of which is a thoroughly dirty-minded old woman, but extremely cheerful and pleasant at the same time); the Night Watchmen (policemen in the great city of Ankh-Mopork); the Wizards at the Unseen University (just don't call the Librarian a "monkey" or he'll rip off your arms); and Death (yes, that's him - tall, bony, carries a scythe, rides a huge white horse named "Binky"). Almost every book centers around one of these groups/characters, although they occasionally overlap a little, which make sense, seeing as how they all live in the same world.

While I love the books in general, today I'm specifically talking about a book that's a little ways outside of the typical Discworld universe. It is still a part of it, but it doesn't fit with one of the aforementioned characters like most of his books do. This is because it's a slightly different genre, being youth fiction rather than adult. It's called The Wee Free Men.

Now, although it's youth literature that doesn't mean it's not as good as the other books. On the contrary, I found it even more engaging than some of the others, although not all. The reason it's classified as youth fiction is, I think, because A) the protagonist is a 9-year-old girl, B) it's lacking in the innuendoes and occasional adult-ish themes (his books are always clean but there is some stuff that would go over younger people's heads) that you find in his adult fiction, and C) he omits the footnotes that add humor and a little bit of confusion to his other work (he'll put random, and usually hilarious information in those asides). Other than that, it's written just as well as any of his other work, and the story is every bit as engaging.

It's about a young future witch named Tiffany whose baby brother is kidnapped by the Queen of Fairyland. Armed with a frying pan, a book of sheep-illness remedies, and a gang of tiny Scottish pictsies (yes that's right - PICTsies, not pixies), she goes to get him back.

It's a fantastic book. Young Tiffany is wise and mature beyond her years, and sees things that adults often miss (which no doubt appeals to the children in the world that deserve our respect but rarely get it). The pictsies - or Wee Free Men, as they call themselves - are boistrous, noisy, theiving brigands. Their response to a threat is to head-butt it. Their Scottish brogue is written out, which makes it a little hard to read at times, but once you get the flow it's so much fun! I found myself reading their parts out loud to hear myself speaking with a Scottish accent.

It's a completely charming book, and while youth literature, it's not light and fluffy stuff. Tiffany goes through dangerous challenges that require her to use her brain - including a marriage proposal from basically all of the pictsies. :) It's a gripping story, but thanks to Pratchett's wit, it's peppered with humor that keeps you smiling.

Fortunately for all of us, it's book one in a series that now consists of three books. My guess is that there won't be a fourth, since sadly Pratchett has been diagnosed with the early onset of Alzheimer's. The world will be a sadder and more somber place once Pratchett's fantastic imagination is halted. Luckily the Discworld series is not a small one. There are more than 50 books to remind us over and over again of Pratchett's genius, and to make us smile.

************

I don't know how many of you have had the white chocolate molten cake at Chili's, but if you haven't, you should. Granted, if you don't like white chocolate there's a good chance you won't like this, but there are two other kinds of molten cake you could have instead (regular molten chocolate cake, or chocolate chip molten cake).

It's delicious. It's basically a little white cake mountain with melted white chocolate inside. There's a scoop of ice cream on top that's covered in white chocolate magic shell. Raspberry sauce is drizzled across the plate and there are white chocolate shavings sprinkled here and there.

The only dessert I've ever found at a restaurant that topped this one was the apple chimi-cheesecake at Applebee's, which has been discountinued. (Shame on you, Applebee's! What were you thinking???)

Where the chimi-cheesecake was light and creamy and delicious, the white chocolate molten cake is rich and smooth and (almost) equally delicious. I don't really know what more I can say than that. If you like white chocolate, you will love this dessert. And if you don't, there's something wrong with you. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. :D