Is it too much to ask for a little blood-sucking?

I recently caught the latest installment of the Twilight Saga, "Eclipse." Yes, I have seen all three movies, and no, I haven't read the books. I'll admit I'm a fan of the vampire movie/television genre, but lately I've been a bit disappointed. Whatever happened to the blood-sucking, soul-less demons we all loved to hate? Vampires have gone soft. If you need proof, look no further than Twilight's hero, Edward Cullen. Instead of lusting after the blood of innocent villagers, Edward only has eyes for Bella. But wait, he doesn't even really lust after her -- he wants to wait until they're married to have relations. All arguments about the legality and practicality of a vampire-human marriage aside, come on man, don't you just kind of want to eat her? It's no wonder all the teen girls are flocking to Team Jacob, I guess werewolves are the only real men left out there these days (except of course for REAL men, but dating humans doesn't seem to be an option for young Bella.) The friendly vampire theme can be found outside of the Twilight Saga as well. Another film that's out on video now is "Daybreakers," starring Ethan Hawke. In this sci-fi thriller a virus has turned the majority of the world's population into vampires. The remaining humans are hunted and farmed for their blood, but as the human race dwindles, an alternative food source is needed. Hawke plays a vampire who is sympathetic to the human plight, survives off only animal blood, and dedicates his time to creating a synthetic blood substitute, eventually teaming up with the humans to find a peaceful solution to the problem. "Daybreakers" is by far a much more interesting and unique twist on the old vampire tale, and I actually really enjoyed the movie, but again with the non-killing. One of my favorite shows back in high school was "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," in which the character Angel was a vampire whose soul had been restored, thus making him one of the "good guys." At the time this was fresh -- now this idea seems tired. My issue is that when every movie or tv show keeps trying to come up with a new twist or a different variation on the theme, variation itself becomes cliche and redundant. Meaning the "vampire with a heart of gold" story is no longer the exception, it has become the rule. So basically, if all the excitement Edward Cullen can muster is that he's a well-mannered vampire who enjoys long walks on the beach and big hair, sounds like he's a pretty dull guy. We've been there, done that. I'm ready for some good old-fashioned neck chomping.

My "Robin Hood Trifecta" marathon

Saw the new Ridley Scott version of "Robin Hood" last night. Umm, left a little to be desired, but I was having trouble putting my finger on exactly what was missing. When I was little I was a big fan of the Disney version, and then "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" when I got a bit older. So today I embarked on a quest to review these modern classics and find out what makes the perfect Robin Hood film. (And yes, I know there are other Robin Hoods out there -- Errol Flynn, "Men in Tights," etc. -- but come on, I did need to get a couple other things accomplished today besides watching Robin Hood movies, so I had to draw the line somewhere.) I started with Disney's "Robin Hood," a cartoon featuring personified animals as the Robin Hood gang. Obviously being a children's movie, this is the most light-hearted of the three films, with jaunty musical numbers in place of violent battle scenes. I felt the biggest strength of the Disney version was that it featured the best Robin Hood. Okay, so yes, I understand he's a cartoon fox, but hear me out. Unlike the over-brooding Russell Crowe or the over-American Kevin Costner, Disney's Robin Hood seemed to hit the perfect note. Imagine if James Bond were a medieval do-gooder/archer, who knows when to be dashing and charming, when to courageously save the day, and when to provide comic relief. THAT's Robin Hood. Another great thing about this movie? It's never to early to train American children about the evils of paying taxes. But should we cut government spending or just steal from the rich to feed the poor? Ahh, the debate remains. Next I popped in my VHS copy of "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." My favorite part about this version was the "buddy comedy" relationship between Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman. After Robin saves Azeem's life by helping him escape from the Turkish prison where they were both enslaved, Azeem vows to stay at Robin's side until he can return the favor. So the dynamic duo (a pair that probably wouldn't fly in today's anti-Muslim climate, but that played quite nicely in 1991) brings their cross-cultural shenanigans from the Holy Land all the way to Sherwood Forest. Also, I loved Alan Rickman's scene-stealing performance as the Sheriff of Nottingham and the excellent archery displayed throughout. Which brings us to the latest Robin Hood variation starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. After watching the other two films, I believe I figured out what was missing here -- the fun! I did enjoy the drunken revelry of Robin Hood's band of merry men, but otherwise, this movie was definitely missing its sense of humor. The jokes were few and far between and the ones that were attempted seemed to come across as forced and awkward. Compared to Kevin Costner, I appreciated the badass quality that Russell Crowe brought to the role, but on the other hand, he fully takes himself too seriously. And okay, sure, Ridley Scott is entitled to make his gritty take on the Robin Hood legend, but don't expect me to love it. I mean, isn't swashbuckling silliness part of the essence of Robin Hood? Do we really want to see Robin debating politics and Marian sweating in the fields? I should say though, I didn't hate this film. It wasn't terrible -- it was just void. But come on Hollywood, we're still in a recession, so just lighten up and let us have a good time at the movies this summer!

Time to shake your body down to the ground

When Michael Jackson died last year I can't say it surprised me, because of all celebrities, he seemed to be the one you might expect to die unexpectedly. Shocking or no, his death was still mourned by millions -- our "King of Pop" was gone. But out of the tragedy came "Michael Jackson's This Is It." The film was not meant to be a documentary, it was just raw footage of the preparations for Jackson's upcoming "This Is It" concert tour, but in the wake of his death, it became a celebration of the performer and a small consolation to his mourning fans. What I enjoyed most about watching "This Is It" was that the rehearsal footage was a great reminder of how Michael Jackson was truly and undeniably one of the greatest performers of our time. In the past two decades, his talent and energy as an artist became so overshadowed by the controversies and quirks of his private life. It seemed in all the craziness, many people forgot that Michael Jackson was still Michael Jackson. But he was there all along, and this film is proof. Hearing him sing his greatest hits and dance like no 50-year-old man should reasonably be able to dance was inspiring, but not just that, it was fun. I found myself singing along to the songs, which included everything from "Black or White" to "Thriller" to hits from back in the Jackson 5 days. It's just nice to know that a superstar who probably knew he could easily get fans to shell out $100 plus for tickets no matter the quality of his show still wanted to work so hard to deliver perfection. Even in rehearsal, the sets and special effects were amazing, the dancing was tight, and Michael Jackson was larger than life. "This Is It" isn't a "documentary" per se, so there were no interviews with Jackson, but watching the behind-the-scenes footage of the genius at work seemed to give an even more intimate feel to the film than a typical question-answer format would have. My biggest complaint about the movie is that it was just kind of a tease. I found watching snippets of rehearsals for what looked like the greatest concert that never was to be a bit disappointing -- I want to see the full "This Is It" show! Yeah, I know it's never going to happen. Even if Michael Jackson were still alive and the show had gone on, I'm sure tickets would have been well out of my price range anyway. But at least we'll always have the movie.

A childhood favorite revisited

"I went to see 'Joe and the Volcano.' It was very funny. It had tom Hanks and meg Ryan. My mom and dad took me my sister went too. I like the part when Joe was on a raft and he started danceing. Soon he reached the Island. They had fun until the time Joe had to jump in the volcano. But when Joe and his girl friend jumped into the volcano they got Busted out agin. Joe's lugege poped out of the water and Joe out of it. Joe and his girl friend floated away." (Written by me on September 28, 1990. Please excuse spelling and grammatical errors -- I was 7.)

For the record, the movie is actually called "Joe Versus the Volcano." I saw it as a child and it has been a favorite of my family's ever since. Some films don't really stand the test of time and maturity. For example, a movie like "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" might not hold the same charm for me now as it did 20 years ago. But I recently watched "Joe Versus the Volcano" again and it was as good, nay better, than it was back when I was 7. As an adult, I can relate to the story on a whole new level -- not to mention I understood more of the jokes. Anyone who is tired of the daily grind will love the opening sequence where Tom Hanks arrives at his utterly depressing office and pours himself a cup of bad coffee under the flickering fluorescent lights. After being diagnosed with a mysterious terminal illness called a "brain cloud," Joe is asked to travel to Waponi Woo and jump into a volcano as a human sacrifice to an island god. Joe must decide between spending his remaining days punching his card at the office or having the adventure of a lifetime -- a no brainer it seems. Between then and his run-in with the volcano on Waponi Woo, Joe encounters a variety of interesting characters and sees and does things he never could have imagined. It's an example of the classic irony, he never learned how to really live until he was facing death. If you're around my age and haven't seen "Joe Versus the Volcano" in a couple decades, I highly recommend that you check it out again. If you liked it back then, you'll love it now. And if you didn't like it (which is highly possible because it's an entirely under-appreciated film), maybe you'll learn to love it. And hey, it's Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, and the most awesome set of luggage ever witnessed by mankind -- what's not to love?

The "Integration Under the Sea" dance -- only in Mississippi

In 1997, actor Morgan Freeman offered to pay for the senior prom at Charleston High School in his hometown of Charleston, Mississippi, where he still resides today. The school declined. Why? Because Freeman was only willing to foot the bill on one condition: The prom had to be integrated. Even though the school had been desegregated since 1970, every spring the seniors had two separate privately-hosted proms -- one for white students and one for black students. Ten years later, filmmaker Paul Saltzman approached Freeman and asked if the offer was still on the table. This time, the school agreed, and thus the HBO documentary "Prom Night in Mississippi" begins. When I first heard about this film about a year ago, I was still living in Greenwood, about an hour south of Charleston. If you're living in (insert name of any non-southern white-bread American suburb here) and you hear about a high school that doesn't allow white and black students to mix at the prom and it's the 21st century, you might be shocked. But if you live in the Mississippi Delta or in many other places around the South, this story is so familiar you feel like you could have written it yourself. In Greenwood, for example, having separate proms isn't an issue -- because black and white students don't even attend the same school (yes, this is still happening, in the United States, in 2010.) "Prom Night in Mississippi" focuses mainly on the students of Charleston High School, many of whom don't agree with the segregated proms and are excited about changing the tradition and making history at their school. As Saltzman learns through the school administrators and the students themselves, it's mostly the parents and the school board members who have forced this out-of-date custom. And as plans for the integrated prom are underway, the film crew learns that some parents, who refused to be interviewed, are still planning on hosting a "private" prom for the white students. This theme of passing the blame onto the older generations is replayed throughout, but the film's weakness is that it's missing the voices of these parents and school board members. We hear the students, staying true to their young ideals, calling the separate proms "stupid" and saying they "don't care about race and just accept people for who they are," but it doesn't dig much deeper than that. In fact, though the racism of the people of Charleston was discussed throughout the film, no one who actually represented these views agreed to an interview. So we never really get a taste of the bitterness at the heart of the story. So, in the end, even though the school's first integrated prom went off without a hitch, there was still a white prom, and we don't quite understand why. Perhaps for many people, just the idea of modern high school students being subjected to Jim Crow-esque segregation is a novel concept, but I was hoping for more out of "Prom Night in Mississippi." More information, more insight, and especially more honesty. I was left wondering how the students of Charleston High School and residents of the town REALLY felt about each other and about this historical event.

Fear and loathing in Connecticut

I recently read "The Feminine Mystique," mostly just so that I could say I read it, but I did really enjoy it. In addition to being a fascinating book in and of itself, I've also found that many films and television programs have become more interesting to me when viewed in the context of "The Feminine Mystique" -- most notably AMC's "Mad Men" and the 2009 film "Revolutionary Road." If you're not watching "Mad Men," you should be. It's probably one of the best shows on television right now. But, since I've chosen movies as my focus here, let's turn our attention to "Revolutionary Road." The film, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, takes place in the 1950s and tells the story of the Wheelers, a middle-class suburban couple who, despite their big dreams, have turned out to be average, no different from anyone else. The first time I saw the film, this concept drew me in instantly, because don't we all feel this way sometimes? As children, most of us have big dreams about becoming an astronaut, a movie star, a football player, etc. But then we grow up and settle for more realistic professions, get married, have kids -- we become "ordinary," just like we told ourselves we'd never be. Of course, most people never take their frustration to the extremes that the Wheelers do, they just sigh and move on with life, but that's why they aren't fictional characters. After reading "The Feminine Mystique," I saw "Revolutionary Road" a second time. This time, I got to thinking about Frank Wheeler, DiCaprio's character, and how he seemed even more trapped and confused than his wife. He was even less willing to dare to dream bigger than she was. Though "The Feminine Mystique" focused on women and was a driving force behind the feminist movement, wasn't Betty Friedan's "problem that has no name" an issue affecting men as well? Perhaps even as much as it affected women? Didn't men also feel trapped by the expectations of society during that time period? Another interesting tidbit was that "Revolutionary Road" was directed by Sam Mendes, who a decade ago brought us "American Beauty," which shows a family dealing with many of these same issues in modern-day suburbia. Again, this got me thinking about how far we've actually come in the past 50 years. Of course social progress has been made in terms of gender equality, but psychologically, aren't people still looking around and thinking, "Is this it? Wasn't there supposed to be more to life than this?" Thought-provoking issues aside, "Revolutionary Road" was a brilliant film all around, especially the performances by Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, two of my favorites. And yes, I will stop carrying on about how awesome Leonardo DiCaprio is...just as soon as he stops being awesome.

The answer to my love-hate relationship with rom-coms

So don't get me wrong, I love a good romantic comedy as much as the next gal. Problem is, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find "good" movies within this genre. Most of the rom-coms out there these days follow the same generic formula and are: A) Not funny, so can barely be classified as comedies, and B) So unrealistic that they bear little resemblance to actual relationships and make us all question our existence as imperfect people. That being said, it's hard to even consider "(500) Days of Summer" a romantic comedy because it is: A) Funny, and B) A truly realistic depiction of a relationship -- the ups and downs, the exhilaration and the depression. If you've ever fallen in love or had your heart broken, you'll be able to relate. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel play Tom Hansen, a hopeless romantic looking for the love of his life, and Summer Finn, an aloof young woman who is not, as it turns out, the love of Tom's life. Don't worry, I didn't just give away the ending. "(500) Days of Summer" begins at the point of the couple's break up and then examines the relationship in reverse through Tom's eyes, from the initial attraction to the point where things went wrong. In that sense, it reminded me of sort of a less depressing version of "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," which is a great film and one of my all-time favorites, but let's be honest, kind of a drag. (Speaking of, I can't find my DVD copy of "Eternal Sunshine." If you borrowed/stole it, please return. You can just drop it on my doorstep -- no questions will be asked.) Tom's first attempts to win Summer over and then his later efforts to cling to her as Summer becomes obviously bored with him were played with such charm that Joseph Gordon-Levitt (yes, the kid from "Third Rock from the Sun") has definitely solidified his place as one of my new favorite actors. And of course, Zooey Deschanel is always a pleasure -- Bonus: you get to hear her sing in one scene. I think what I loved so much about "(500) Days of Summer" also is that it avoided the traps that many independent films tend to fall into. It was intelligent without being pretentious, and it was off-beat without being inscrutable. I get tired of movies that try way to hard to be "artsy" and end up sacrificing anything that would have made them actually enjoyable to watch. "(500) Days of Summer" proves that a film can be witty, original, AND entertaining.