songbirdn

I can't help but feel slightly disappointed with Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. I have only seen the first two episodes, and maybe there will be hope for the rest of the season, but right now I'm not too pleased.

The thing about this show is that it's actually pretty good as far as the actors go, and visually it's nice. I like the fact that everything in Wonderland looks pretty unreal, as if you've jumped into a hallucination. Sophie Lowe as Alice was a perfect choice, and her genie is very attractive. The writing is interesting, and I think it's awesome that they were able to weave in the parent show as well.

So if everything else is fabulous, what could be wrong with the show?

Well, in my opinion, it makes too much sense.

I know, that sounds weird, but think about it...Lewis Carrol's Wonderland is supposed to be a world occupied by insane, head-strong, eccentric, and often obnoxious characters. There is no madness in this story, and the characters are all quite logical and perfectly sane. It's just NOT Wonderland.

I don't think that movies/shows inspired by or based on books have to be carbon copies of the source material. That just wouldn't be realistic, of course, and I have no problem with a sequel/spin-off, just like I had no problem with Tim Burton's film. In fact, I loved his adaptation, because he captured the real essence of Wonderland, not the squeaky- clean Disney cartoon of the 1950s. And all the characters were a bit mad and rude.

But this version of Wonderland isn't really Wonderland. Again, I'm no stickler, but is it too much to ask that Wonderland is a world of madness? That's the most basic element of book, and the fact that this ABC version hasn't showcased that at all is a bit annoying.

When I first heard that Beautiful Creatures (the novel) was going to be adapted into a movie, I was hesitant to see it, due to the fact that the trailers were absolutely horrible. I'm just glad that the movie focused on a lot more than a supernatural romance, because that's only one of many interesting and complicated plot lines.

Despite the fact that the LA Times and the NY Times gave the flick great reviews, a bunch of lesser-known critics were much harsher on it. After reading some of these reviews, I was shocked to see how biased and silly some of the comments were. It was clear that these were people that walked in to the theater expecting Twilight and were too self-conscious about praising a teen movie to say that it wasn't.

Twilight is all about the romance. Beautiful Creatures has a big Romeo and Juliet thing going on, but at the same time, there's mysteries, prophesies, hypocrisy, Southern politics, Civil War history, religion, death, evil forces, and all sorts of madness making for quite an interesting story (with some very witty and sarcastic dialogue to put a cherry on top).

Other people that read the book were likewise upset, because they thought it strayed too much from the source material. The only MAJOR change made was about 3/4 of the way through the movie, and the end result was still the same as the book. The reason why the writer did this was for the sake of TIME. If he hadn't made that change, the movie would have dragged on for three hours as oppose to rapping itself up nicely at two.

I thought the acting was good as well, and Alden Ehrenreich and Alice Englert had nice chemistry as Ethan and Lena. Of course, Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson, and Viola Davis gave great performances, but that comes as no surprise. Emmy Rossum as the wicked siren, Ridley, was fabulous, and Thomas Mann was hilarious as Link.

I especially loved Thompson's twisted character-she played a crazy Republican fundamentalist named Mrs. Lincoln, who gets possessed by Sarafine Duchannes, the most powerful Dark Caster alive. As Sarafine, her performance was definitely "Dark", bridging on psychotic. Not what I was expecting, but I liked it.

However, I thought some of the other actors, like the girls that played the Barbie cheerleaders, were horrible. There is a way to portray phony people and there is a way to pull off a satire while still keeping it believable.

Besides plot and acting, I loved the costumes and set. They were very beautifully done and really captured the gorgeous yet creepy atmosphere of the story. In addition, the effects were cool-nothing to die over, but they served their purpose.

Lastly, I thought the soundtrack was awesome and very different. The mix of classical, blues, country, and alternative music worked great with the film.

Overall, I think the movie is an 8 out of 10. It's not amazing, but it is entertaining, interesting, and something I recommend seeing.

I absolutely loved this film. I just recently saw it and I am now completely obsessed. Taking place in the 1970's, this film was able to do something that most rock movies struggle to do-maintain a level of sincerity that balances out with the glamorous stories of rock stars.

The film is about a boy named William Miller that is soon to graduate high school at the age of fifteen, and dreams of becoming a music journalist. After a piece he wrote for an underground magazine catches the attention of Rolling Stone magazine, he is sent on a trip to travel with one of the next big rock bands, Stillwater (a fictional band created for the purposes of the movie). William is plunged into a world of sex, drugs, and of course, some of the best music in history.

I think the reason why this film did an incredible job of not seeming totally contrived was because this is actually based off of a true story. The film is the semi-autobiography of the writer/director, Cameron Crowe. Also, the actors were phenomenal, especially Kate Hudson as groupie Penny Layne and Patrick Fugit as William.

And of course, the soundtrack was perfection, comprised of songs by The Who, Led Zeppelin, Elton John, and other great 70's rock bands.

I thought Cameron Crowe did an excellent job with this film and I know this will remain one of my favorites.